Zonorhc

Unmodded Oblivion was only barely challenging when I had little cash and low-end gear. Money making is ridiculously easy with alchemy and knowing what loot to pick up.

How is Shakespeare's English irrelevant to modern English? The bastard practically turned the wad of crap that was Middle English into something resembling the modern language.

The real reason is that, then, as now, the cow is viewed as far more valuable for its milk than its meat.

English is compulsory because frankly, the disciplines you learn as part of the subject are virtually essentially in everything else. Also, because we are, first and foremost, a Western nation, and thus should have at least a basic understanding of the ideas and discourses that characterise Western culture. Avoiding the subject is akin to having, say, the Chinese or the Germans not teaching their children about their nation's values and the ideas that have shaped their culture. You do have choice in senior English as to supplementary texts that you study in tandem with the compulsory ones set by your school. Maths is not compulsory because some wise person in the DET understands that while everyone can get something out of English, whether they know it or not, not everyone can get something out of Prelim. and HSC maths. I know I wouldn't have found any value whatsoever in learning integration and imaginary numbers.

So basically, you're blaming the system because of your own laziness and unwillingness to apply yourself. English isn't about learning about poetry or literature - sure, those are incidentals of the curriculum, but what the subject is really about is teaching students to be independent, critical thinkers who don't just take everything they see in the Real World at face value. Ideally, a student learns to question the ideas and motivations of others, and develop their own perspectives on issues. The Preliminary and HSC Advanced English courses, for example, give you a decent grounding in the ideas behind the great social experiments of our time, such as Darwinism, socialism, totalitarianism and democracy. The very fact that you equate English solely with the texts you study rather than the ideas and concepts behind them is indicative of the shallow approach you take to the subject. Willful ignorance is one of those things you should try to avoid. And what's wrong with having a bit of sociocultural awareness that stretches beyond the rubbish you see in pop culture? I can very well think of a career where mathematics is far less important than the things I learned and am learning in English courses - I'm studying to become an English teacher. For other examples, see: journalism, politics, and virtually every other field which requires communicative skills. It's not the subject's fault that you have an absurdly negative approach to it. Maybe if you stopped acting like it's beneath you, you might actually be able to find something to interest you in it, or god forbid, at least not fail high school English, which, by the way, is one of the simplest subjects the DET offers to senior students. And if you're managing to screw up year 10 English, the issue is not with the subject, but with your own attitude as a student, and the potentially epic amounts of fail you possess. Don't blame our system, because it's one of the best in the world. Also, Romeo and Juliet is written in English, and if you didn't pick that up, then maybe you should pay more attention in class instead of failing so hard.

Whoever came up with that DUI stunt needs to be publicly flogged and hanged. Those who carried it out and later defended it receive floggings and will not be allowed to teach again. The students who willingly helped perpetrate the hoax will receive half the lashes of the adults. Not only does that sort of experience psychologically scar students, it also undermines legitimate efforts to educate children against irresponsible use of substances, as well as damaging the credibility of teachers in the eyes of the community. The mere fact that people were defending it as a teaching method is nothing short of criminal. It's an offence against both the students and the profession. Educators should never use such underhanded tactics as this, nor should they exaggerate or lie to students for the sake of curbing substance abuse or sexual activity. Students should be taught concepts of moderation with regard to legal substances, the possible consequences of abusing said substances, as well as the very real consequences of using illegal substances. Sex should not be a taboo subject - children should be taught the dangers of STDs and teen pregnancy, but they should also be taught how to avoid these while still being able to engage in intercourse provided they are above the age of consent. This means teaching them about condoms and contraception in general. Anyone who objects to teaching children how to proactively defend themselves against STDs and unwanted pregnancy in this day and age should be flogged. Abstinence is an archaic doctrine that should not even be considered to be a primary defence by rational thinkers. Like it or not, teenage children will be having sex, and you cannot stop them short of keeping them at home at all times.

Meat is delicious. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying and should be beaten.

A well-typed post shows that the author actually gives a damn about what they're trying to say, thus giving the reader some incentive to actually bother to slog through what might otherwise be yet another abortion of logic. Also, semantics can play a significant part in some arguments.

Redbacks. Comfort and asskicking, all in one pair of sturdy boots.

Manowar will lift your spirits.

Who taught you how to click the submit button? I want to have them taken out back and shot.

I barely managed to get through the first couple of paragraphs before the sheer amount of cliché and game references destroyed my expectations. Then I read the rest of it, and fell into a couple of plot holes.

Yes it is.

DragonForce - Ultra Beatdown All of it.

I lol'd.

I would use my mad skillz to kill other poor and homeless people and loot their corpses. I'd make enough money off vendor trash for a gear upgrade, then find a new spawn to camp before repeating the cycle.

Coke. Anyone who says otherwise is lying through their teeth.

All these naysayers must repent their heresies.

And I can't be bothered to upload them twice. Grand Canyon photos: [1] [2] Las Vegas: [1] Washington, DC: [1] [2] Then I got me a new Nikon D40 while I was in Maryland, and took some more photos! New York City: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Antique steam engine museum, San Diego, CA: [1] [2] [3] That's about it. Comment here or on the dA pages. Until next time!

You know all that means is that the people who aren't obese are more likely to come back to the airline at a later date because their experience with them would be more comfortable than it could have been had they been seated beside someone who took up all that space, right? An obese person's patronage isn't worth any more than anyone else's to them.

Engines don't care about whether the weight they're lifting is inanimate material or flesh. Weight is weight. In much the same vein, space on an aircraft doesn't care what's taking it up - something is taking up space. When an unreasonably fat person takes up enough space to cause discomfort to other passengers, they are taking up more space than they paid for. The cost of a ticket is not simply for the flight. There are costs that airlines pass on to their customers to cover beyond the simple service charge: maintenance, fuel, catering, etc. Essentially, when you buy a ticket, you are paying for the fuel, food and space that you take up on the company's aircraft. When you take more than what is reasonable, given what you paid for - and there are allowances there already, given that there are fat people who can fit in their seats without discomforting others - then perhaps you should be paying extra. The additional 40kg or so that you could really do without is essentially 40kg of dead weight that you haven't paid the airline to lift for you. Furthermore, airlines would much prefer it if their passengers had a minimum of negative experiences on their flights, for obvious business reasons.

An increase of 30 tonnes (20 if we're using average weights) isn't much for a 747-8, which as a maximum takeoff weight of just under 440 tonnes. However, the fact is that an obese person will still be adding more stress to the engines than they are entitled to by the ticket they paid for, as well as possibly contributing to the discomfort of other passengers. Paying for the extra weight and volume of the passenger is akin to paying for the extra weight and volume of any oversized or overweight luggage you may have. Neither is unreasonable.

It's also a question of physics. A person who weighs twice as much as another passenger will take a proportionally larger amount of fuel to move. It's only fair to make them pay more, not only for the space, but also for the extra fuel used.

Protip: WWII also had economic grounds for justification, not just the social Darwinist aspect. In fact, it had a lot of root causes beyond the social Darwinist aspect. Picking that out as the major - in fact, even as a major reason for WWII is to blatantly ignore everything that happened in the two decades before it.

Quite possibly. Then again, it's only a suggestion at the moment. People are still rounding up experts to help them yell about how exemption for petrol would make everyone pay XBAWKS HUEG prices on everything else.