Opposite Parallels
what does King Charles, Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution have in common?
they make whoever who reads about them have a craving for coffee.
having a time out at the moment.
it isnt the text that is hard to read despite the fact its written by english historians from the 18th-19th century, its not the excessive amount of reading you have to do prior to classes and assignements, its certainly not the boring, monotonous lecturer who tries VERY (very) hard to convince the students they have made a right choice of enrolling into HTA 101 (History)...
then what is it that makes this subject quite a pain?
i really feel like throwing in the towel for History from time to time,namely when i have to write the references for each idea ive harvested from another person who wrote the idea before me (bummer).
the havard in-text system was a pain enough, but its complexity is vastly dwarfed by the likes of this....weird...footnote....system which has become the convention for all history based subjects. "since 200 years ago", claimed my tutor. that only shows historians do not learn from the past but rather, they dwell in it.
now make a brief comparison between the two words...even the names and the accoustics show immense value of preference.
Havard = cool
footnote = uncool
foot-note? sounds like some kinda gum-stained McDonalds phamphlet that you obviously didnt want, stuck under the soles of your shoe. which is what this whole system is about actually.
at the bottom of the page where you wrote something, supposedly from someone else, you gotta stick this very irritating line, with the little "to the power of..." number at the back of the sentence.
personally i think referencing someone else's idea is compulsory, but there MUST be a simpler way of doing it.
okayokay enough ranting...back to work....work
they make whoever who reads about them have a craving for coffee.
having a time out at the moment.
it isnt the text that is hard to read despite the fact its written by english historians from the 18th-19th century, its not the excessive amount of reading you have to do prior to classes and assignements, its certainly not the boring, monotonous lecturer who tries VERY (very) hard to convince the students they have made a right choice of enrolling into HTA 101 (History)...
then what is it that makes this subject quite a pain?
i really feel like throwing in the towel for History from time to time,namely when i have to write the references for each idea ive harvested from another person who wrote the idea before me (bummer).
the havard in-text system was a pain enough, but its complexity is vastly dwarfed by the likes of this....weird...footnote....system which has become the convention for all history based subjects. "since 200 years ago", claimed my tutor. that only shows historians do not learn from the past but rather, they dwell in it.
now make a brief comparison between the two words...even the names and the accoustics show immense value of preference.
Havard = cool
footnote = uncool
foot-note? sounds like some kinda gum-stained McDonalds phamphlet that you obviously didnt want, stuck under the soles of your shoe. which is what this whole system is about actually.
at the bottom of the page where you wrote something, supposedly from someone else, you gotta stick this very irritating line, with the little "to the power of..." number at the back of the sentence.
personally i think referencing someone else's idea is compulsory, but there MUST be a simpler way of doing it.
okayokay enough ranting...back to work....work
posted by Killl_Roy at 3:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home