Free Activity

Post any activity from paper 2 in the Documents folder of the 4th. period.

A bad character, Lestrade

                                                                       September 24th, 2011

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

One of the books that I like the most in the world, is your book called “Sherlock Holmes”. Holmes is one of the literary characters I most admire because of his capacity to discover the truth in the most complicate cases is a fact that made me admire this character. It seems unbelievable to me that he has so much knowledge in so many subjects which makes Holmes a genius according to Watson´s examination. Then, Mr. Arthur Conan Doyle, the motive of this letter isn´t to talk about qualities of Sherlock Holmes, but to tell you that there is a character in your novel that I very much dislike, and he is the inspector G. Lestrade, the Scotland Yard detective, because he is a bad detective, and he is ungrateful.

All the titles and awards of the inspector Lestrade aren’t more than a lie. That I remember, he never solved a case without Sherlock Holmes´s help or intervention. That is the reason why I think that inspector Lestrade is a bad detective; he never decoded a case, or at least helped Holmes and Watson to resolve the mystery. All the time he appeared when the case was closed, or to bring the villain to jail, as “The Adventure of the Second Stain” or “The Adventure of the Empty House”. Probably the incapacity of Lestrade to resolve crimes gives more points to Sherlock Holmes, but I dislike people that apparent things that they are not like inspector Lestrade.

The ingratitude is reflected in a person who does not admit the favors that another person makes for him. This is the action that inspector Lestrade makes with Holmes, and with Watson. I cannot remember in any chapter or adventure Lestrade giving his gratitude for solving the mystery to the team of 221B Baker Street (Holmes and Watson). Inclusive the official Prizefighter gives in many times his gratitude to Holmes for helping the police to complete the case. I dislike the ingratitude of the inspector to the detective Sherlock Holmes.

In conclusion Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I dislike your character the inspector G. Lestrade because he is a bad detective that takes advantage of the awards of others, like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson who resolve the crime and Lestrade only appears to takes the criminal to jail. Lestrade is ungrateful with Holmes because he is jealousy of the detective by the facility of Holmes to resolve crimes. So there are the reasons that I dislike this character. But, this doesn´t cause me to stop reading your books.

From a fan,

Carlos Vega.

Review

                                                                       September 24th, 2011

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

One of the books that I like more(the most) in (the world)word(,) is your book called “Sherlock Holmes”(,)(.) besides Holmes is one of the literary characters I most admire(,) (because of his) the capacity of(to) discover the true(truth) in the more(most) complicate case(cases) is a fact that made me admire this character. (It) Seems(seems) unbelievable to me(,) that only knowledgeable(he has so much knowledge) in some(so many) subjects (which makes)do everything Holmes a genius(,) according to Watson´s exam(examination). Then(,) Mr. Arthur Conan Doyle, the motive of this letter isn´t to talk about qualities of Sherlock Holmes, but to tell (you) that exist(there is) a character in your novel that I very (much) dislike, and (he) is the inspector G. Lestrade, the Scotland Yard detective, because (he) is a bad detective, and (he) is ungrateful.

All the titles and awards of the inspector Lestrade isn´t(aren’t) more than a lie(,)(.) that(That) I´m(I) remember, he never resolves(solved) a case without Sherlock Holmes´s help or intervention. There(That) is the reason why I think that inspector Lestrade is a bad detective(,)(;) because he never decode(decoded) a case, or at least helps(helped) Holmes and Watson to resolve the mystery. All (the) time (he) appears(appeared) when the case is(was) close(closed), or for(to) brings(bring) the villain to jail, as “The Adventure of the Second Stain” or “The Adventure of the Empty House”(,)(.) probably(Probably the) incapacity to resolve crimes  of Lestrade (to resolve crimes) give(gives) more points to Sherlock Holmes, but I dislike people that apparent things that (they) are not(,) like inspector Lestrade.

The ingratitude is reflected in a person who (does) not admits(admit) the favors that makes another person (makes for him)(,)(.) this(This) is the action that realize inspector Lestrade (makes) with Holmes, inclusive(and) with Watson. Then I (cannot) remember in any chapter or adventure Lestrade never gives(giving) her(his) gratitude for decodes(solving) the mystery to the team of 221B Baker Street (Holmes and Watson). Inclusive the official Prizefighter gives in many times her(his) gratitude to Holmes for help(helping) the police to complete the case. (I dislike) The(the) ingratitude of the inspector to the detective Sherlock Holmes dislikes me.

In conclusion Sir Arthur Conan Doyle(, I dislike) your character the inspector G. Lestrade dislikes me(,) because (he) is a bad detective that takes advantage of the awards of others, like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson that(who) they resolve the crime and Lestrade only appears to takes the criminal to jail. And because Lestrade is ungrateful with Holmes(,) because (he) is jealousy to(of) the detective(,) by the facility of Holmes to resolve crimes. So there are the reasons that I dislike this character. But(,) this doesn´t cause (me to)that stop to reading your books.

From a fan,

Carlos Vega.

A bad character, Lestrade

                                                                                                                           September 24th, 2011

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

One of the books that I like more in word, is your book called “Sherlock Holmes”, besides Holmes is one of the literary characters I most admire, the capacity of discover the true in the more complicate case is a fact that made me admire this character. Seems unbelievable to me, that only knowledgeable in some subjects do everything Holmes a genius, according to Watson´s exam. Then Mr. Arthur Conan Doyle, the motive of this letter isn´t to talk about qualities of Sherlock Holmes, but to tell that exist a character in your novel that I very dislike, and is the inspector G. Lestrade, the Scotland Yard detective, because is a bad detective, and is ungrateful.

All the titles and awards of the inspector Lestrade isn´t more than a lie, that I´m remember, he never resolves a case without Sherlock Holmes´s help or intervention. There is the reason why I think that inspector Lestrade is a bad detective, because he never decode a case, or at least helps Holmes and Watson to resolve the mystery. All time appears when the case is close, or for brings the villain to jail, as “The Adventure of the Second Stain” or “The Adventure of the Empty House”, probably incapacity to resolve crimes  of Lestrade give more points to Sherlock Holmes, but I dislike people that apparent things that are not, like inspector Lestrade.

The ingratitude is reflected in a person who not admits the favors that makes another person, this is the action that realize inspector Lestrade with Holmes, inclusive with Watson. Then I remember in any chapter or adventure Lestrade never gives her gratitude for decodes the mystery to the team of 221B Baker Street (Holmes and Watson). Inclusive the official Prizefighter gives in many times her gratitude to Holmes for help the police to complete the case. The ingratitude of the inspector to the detective Sherlock Holmes dislikes me.

In conclusion Sir Arthur Conan Doyle your character the inspector G. Lestrade dislikes me, because is a bad detective that takes advantage of the awards of others, like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson that they resolve the crime and Lestrade only appears to takes the criminal to jail. And because Lestrade is ungrateful with Holmes, because is jealousy to the detective, by the facility of Holmes to resolve crimes. So there are the reasons that I dislike this character. But this doesn´t cause that stop to reading your books.

From a fan, Carlos Vega.

Paper 2 Activity 6

Post Paper 2 Activity 6

Money is not happiness

Money is a concrete medium that represents the work a person has made. With this medium people can obtain material elements, changing the money for the thing. Making this change, people can have many pluses like solving their necessities (food, water, home, transport, light), have a good social status (because he will take best things that others), get pleasure and more things than others (like travels to other countries, go to deluxe hotels, buy marc things, etc.), have more health (because he can pay a medicine, doctor, hospital). In summary, the money can buy many material things, but not happiness because happiness is not material. Material things do not give happiness, and happiness is personal.

Happiness is a fact only present in the nature of human, not in animals, not in insects, and less in unanimated elements, like rocks, cars, earth, etc. Happiness isn´t a thing that scientists can examine because it is proper of humans, and if they examine humans, the experts can´t define what part of the brain produces happiness; they can understand that happiness is immaterial, that it isn´t matter. Then the money can´t buy the happiness because the verb "buy" is only applied to tangible things, for this reason as happiness is immaterial, it can´t be bought with money.

The material things can be bought with money, but they do not give happiness because they are not forever. What is the maximum life time for the material things? A car can last from 5 to 15 years, a T-shirt 3 to 10 years, soccer shoes 1 to 2 years, a new cell phone 3 to 6 months, a super hamburger of Pecos Bill 30 to 60 minutes. This is the reason why material things do not give happiness, they are not durable like a friendship, a family, a son, God. These things produce happiness, and the money can´t buy them. All persons have a personal and individual happiness because it is immaterial and depends on each person. For example to help the affirmation is, that persona "A" can be happy with a family, and person "B" will be happy dedicating his/her life to God. The happiness depends on each person, and he will search for it accordingly. Then happiness can´t be bought since this is personal.

In conclusion money can´t buy happiness because happiness is immaterial, happiness isn’t a thing with a limited lifetime; and because happiness is personal of each human, so money can´t buy it.

Review

The money(Money) (is) not is happiness

The money(Money) is a concrete medium that represents the work a person has made. With this medium people can obtain material elements, changing the money for the thing. Making this change, people can have many pluses like solving their necessities (food, water, home, transport, light), have a good social status (because he will take best things that others), can get pleasure and more things than others (like travels to other countries, go to deluxe hotels, buy marc things, etc.), have more health (because he can pay a medicine, doctor, hospital). In summary, the money can buy many material things, but not happiness because happiness is not material(,)(.) material(Material) things do not give the happiness, and happiness is personal.

Happiness is a fact only present in the nature of human, not in animals, not in insects, and less in unanimated elements, like rocks, cars, earth, etc. Happiness isn´t a thing that scientists can examine because (it) is proper of humans, and if they examine humans, the experts can´t defined(define) in what part of the brain produce(produces) the happiness; then(they) can understand that happiness is immaterial, that it isn´t matter. Then the money can´t buy the happiness because the verb "buy" is only applicate(applied) to tangible things, for this reason as happiness is immaterial(,) it can´t be bought with money.

The material things can be bought by(with) the money, but it(they) does(do) not give happiness because is(they are not) momentarily(forever)(,)(.) what(What) is the maximum (life) time that(for) the material things? a(A) car (can last from) 5 to 15 years, a T-shirt 3 to 10 years, soccer shoes 1 to 2 years, a new cell phone 3 to 6 mouths(months), a super hamburger of Pecos Bill 30 to 60 minutes. This is the reason why material things do not gives(give) happiness(,) it(they) is(are) not durable like a friendship, a family, a son, God. These things produce happiness, and the money can´t buy (them). All persons have a personal and individual happiness because it is immaterial and depends of(on) each person. For example to help the affirmation is, that persona "A" can be happy with a family, and person "B" will be happy dedicating his/her life to God. The happiness depends of(on) each person, (and) he will search (for it accordingly). Then (happiness) can´t (be) buy(bought) it, if(since) this is personal.

In conclusion money can´t buy happiness because happiness is immaterial, (happiness isn’t a thing with a limited lifetime)then can´t buy a thing that isn´t durably; and because happiness is personal of each human,(so) money can´t buy it.

The money not is happiness

The money is a concrete medium that represents the work a person has made. With this medium people can obtain material elements, changing the money for the thing. Making this change, people can have many pluses like solving their necessities (food, water, home, transport, light), have a good social status (because he will take best things that others), can get pleasure and more things than others (like travels to other countries, go to deluxe hotels, buy marc things, etc.), have more health (because he can pay a medicine, doctor, hospital). In summary, the money can buy many material things, but not happiness because happiness is not material, material things do not give the happiness, and happiness is personal.

Happiness is a fact only present in the nature of human, not in animals, not in insects, and less in unanimated elements, like rocks, cars, earth, etc. Happiness isn´t a thing that scientists can examine because is proper of humans, and if they examine humans, the experts can´t defined in what part of the brain produce the happiness; then can understand that happiness is immaterial, that it isn´t matter. Then the money can´t buy the happiness because the verb "buy" is only applicate to tangible things, for this reason as happiness is immaterial it can´t be bought with money.

The material things can be bought by the money, but it does not give happiness because is momentarily, what is the maximum time that the material things? a car 5 to 15 years, a T-shirt 3 to 10 years, soccer shoes 1 to 2 years, a new cell phone 3 to 6 mouths, a super hamburger of Pecos Bill 30 to 60 minutes. This is the reason why material things do not gives happiness it is not durable like a friendship, a family, a son, God. These things produce happiness, and the money can´t buy then.

All persons have a personal and individual happiness because it is immaterial and depends of each person. For example to help the affirmation is, that persona "A" can be happy with a family, and person "B" will be happy dedicating his/her life to God. The happiness depends of each person, he will search. Then can´t buy it, if this is personal.

In conclusion money can´t buy happiness because happiness is immaterial, then can´t buy a thing that isn´t durably; and because happiness is personal of each human, money can´t buy it.

Paper 2 Activity 5

Post Paper 2 Activity 5

No to banning the fast food to youngsters

Actually one of the most consumed things, especially in young people, is the fast food. The fact that makes food, fast food is the quickly form that food is serviced. The problem of this type of food is the health dangers, and then many people look these food like death itself. There is the reason why many people don´t like that young people eat fast food. But a bad idea continues that banning the fast food to youngsters is not the solution because fast food isn´t a big danger. Banning the fast food would be banning the freedom of youngsters, and it would be unjust banning the fast food only to people under the age of 18.

The danger of fast food is the calories that it has which produces fat in the body. The excess of this element causes health damage. Taking for example the famous restaurant McDonald´s, there fries have 400 calories per 100 grams; a BigMac hamburger has 540 calories, while the bacon cheeseburger Angus weighs 790. Calories for other dining options are Chicken McNuggets which contain 190 to 460, Filet-O-Fish at 380, McRib sandwich 500, and McFlurry 630 calories. But this only affects if the person consumes more than he needs, the excess is the real problem, that is the reason why fast food isn´t a big danger. Banning the fast food will be banning the freedom of young people because they have the right to eat what we have seen does not cause any damage. Fast food is not bad provided we do not overeat, as I had been talking before. The advantages of fast food is the price, service, and taste, these are the reasons why the young people like this food. Then if they do not go down into the excess, youngsters are free to eat fast food when wished.

It is unjust banning the fast food to youngsters and not to adults. If fast food is bad, it should be banned to both youth and adults. Young people are humans like adults; both take the same likes and the same healthy problems. It is obvious that there are differences and one has more life experience than the other, but they deserve the same treatment because both are humans.

In conclusion banning the fast food to people under the age of 18 is incorrect because fast food isn´t a big danger if you don´t eat it in excess; it is a form of banning the freedom of young people because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any danger; and it is unjust, for both youngsters and adults since they deserve the same treatment regarding eating fast food.

Review

No to banning the fast food to youngers(youngsters)

Actually one of the most consumed things, especially in young people, is the fast food. The facts(fact) that made(makes) an aliment(food) to a fast food is the quickly form that food is serviced. The problem of this type of food is the health dangers, and then many people look these aliments(food) like the same Dead(death itself). There is the reason by(why) many people don´t like that young people eat fast food. But is continue a bad idea (continues) that banned(banning) the fast food to the youngers(youngsters is not the solution)(,) because fast food isn´t a big danger(,)(.) banning(Banning) the fast food will(would) be banned(banning) the freedom of youngers(youngsters), and (it would be)is unjust banning the fast food only to people under the age of 18.

The danger of fast food is the calories that (it) have(has)(,) that(which) produce(produces) fat in the body(. The) excess of this element causes health damage(,)(.) taken(Taking) for example the famous restaurant McDonald´s(,) there Fries(fries) have 400 calories per 100 grams; (a) BigMac hamburger has 540 calories, while the bacon cheeseburger Angus weighs 790. Calories for other dining options are Chicken McNuggets (which) contains(contain) 190 to 460, Filet-O-Fish at 380, McRib sandwich 500, and McFlurry 630 calories. But this only effect(affects) if the person consume(consumes) more than he needs, the excess is the real problem, then(that) is the reason that(why) fast food isn´t a big danger. Banning the fast food will be banning the freedom of young people(,) because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any damage(,)(.) such as fast (Fast) food(,) (is not bad) provided they(we) do not overeat, as (I) had been talking before. The advantages of fast food is the price, service, and taste, these are the reason(reasons) because(why) the young people likes(like) this aliments(food). Then if they (do) not (go) down into the excess, youngers(youngsters) are freedom(free) to eat fast food when wished.

(It) Is(is) unjust banning the fast food to youngers(youngsters) and (not) to adults not(,)(.) if(If) fast food is bad(,) (it) should not be banned to both youth and adults. Young people are humans like adults; both take the same likes as(and the) same healthy problems. It is obvious that there are differences and one have(has) more life experience than the other, but (they) deserves(deserve) the same treatment(,) because both are humans.

In conclusion banned(banning) the fast food to people under the age of 18 is incorrect(,) because fast food isn´t a big danger(,) if (you) don´t be(eat it) an(in) excess; (it) is a form of banning the freedom of young people(,) because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any danger; and (it) is unjust, for both youngers(youngsters) and adults (since they) deserves(deserve) the same treatment of(regarding eating) eat fast food.

No to banning the fast food to youngers

Actually one of the most consumed things, especially in young people, is the fast food. The facts that made an aliment to a fast food is the quickly form that food is serviced. The problem of this type of food is the health dangers, and then many people look these aliments like the same Dead. There is the reason by many people don´t like that young people eat fast food. But is continue a bad idea that banned the fast food to the youngers, because fast food isn´t a big danger, banning the fast food will be banned the freedom of youngers, and is unjust banning the fast food only to people under the age of 18.

The danger of fast food is the calories that have, that produce fat in the body excess of this element causes health damage, taken for example the famous restaurant McDonald´s there Fries have 400 calories per 100 grams; BigMac hamburger has 540 calories, while the bacon cheeseburger Angus weighs 790. Calories for other dining options are Chicken McNuggets contains 190 to 460, Filet-O-Fish at 380, McRib sandwich 500, and McFlurry 630 calories. But this only effect if the person consume more than he needs, the excess is the real problem, then is the reason that fast food isn´t a big danger.

Banning the fast food will be banning the freedom of young people, because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any damage, such as fast food, provided they do not overeat, as had been talking before. The advantages of fast food is the price, service, and taste, these are the reason because the young people likes this aliments. Then if they not down into the excess, youngers are freedom to eat fast food when wished.

Is unjust banning the fast food to youngers and to adults not, if fast food is bad should not be banned to both youth and adults. Young people are humans like adults; both take the same likes as same healthy problems. It is obvious that there are differences and one have more life experience than the other, but deserves the same treatment, because both are humans.

In conclusion banned the fast food to people under the age of 18 is incorrect, because fast food isn´t a big danger, if don´t be an excess; is a form of banning the freedom of young people, because they have the right to eat what we have seen that does not cause any danger; and is unjust, for both youngers and adults deserves the same treatment of eat fast food.