Peer Review 3

The review for the narrative was helpful. I had trouble writing about my 3rd reference point but my peer reviewer gave me some good advice on how to improve it. She said the other 2 reference points were good because she could connect to it and understood what it meant to go to college. This complement was helpful because my audience was for first year college students and I was glad I could make a connection with them.

Dinner

For dinner yesterday I went to eat at In A Pickle. Standing In line, I could smell the various aromas coming from the spices. I ordered a hoagie on a fluffy white roll slightly smeared with mayo. I choose to add fresh roast beef and ham to the hoagie; I was hungry and had not eaten all day because I had been studying for an Econ test and trying to finish my English paper. For the toppings, I added shredded green lettuce, freshly cut tomatoes, and diced onions all over 4 thin slices of provolone cheese. For my drink, I choose Sobe strawberry dragonfruit. The drink was cold and tasted like a combination of strawberry and blueberry. With my first bite, I immediately tasted the the roast beef, ham and cheese. Then came the strong taste of mayo and onion which was balanced out by the tomatoes and lettuce.  The hoagie was filling; dinner was great.

Freewriting

Sorry was on vacation over the weekend with my family.

1.) When was the last time you can think of where you got really upset or really happy. Why? What was it over?
The last time I got really upset was when I seriously injured myself playing football. I went to the doctors and they told me that it was unlikely I would play the game again. The thought of never playing made me very upset. The good times I spent practicing and playing with some of my closest friends were taken away from me. Football teaches comradery; my friends and I were very close because of football. Not playing football made me think about the sport even more. At home, I would think of all the fun I had and what I could have done better to make the most out of the time I had left playing the sport.

2.) What do you spend the most time doing, what do you love doing most, or what things are most interested in? What do these mean to you? Why are you interested in them?

I love to hang out with my friends. For me, it is a time where the stress dealing with school, work, problems go away. With my group of friends, I always have a good time filled with laughs and memorable moments. We are all very different compared to each other, but we get along very well. For free time we play sports together, eat together, watch movies together, go to church together and most importantly have fun together. We make fun of each other for laughs, but nobody takes it seriously. We stand up for one another and we are truly like brothers.


3.) List experiences that you've had in the past, starting as young as possible. Don't worry if they were small or significant--most likely if you remember them then they were significant for you.

My first experience falling on rollerblades
Riding my bike without training wheels
Breaking my arm
Injuring my back
Going back to church
Getting shots
Playing sports

Narrative response

1.) The 3 essays I read differ from my writings. Throughout high school, most of my essays were about someone/something else. The topics seen in the three essays are personal and are about the writer. The essays go more in depth and share the writers perspective on a certain point in his/her life.

2.) The audience for the gaming addiction article is for gamers. The purpose of the article is that gaming addiction can ruin your life. In the article, the author provides examples to why he believe gaming addiction is bad. Ex.) He lost his job, girlfriend, social time with friends, money

Peer Review 2

The peer reviews were more helpful than last time. I learned how I should edit others' papers and applied it to this recent peer review. The review also pointed out the parts in my essay that needed to be stronger. Overall the peer review went better than last time because people are getting used to it.

Vanity, Thy Name Is Metrosexual

1.) Metrosexual = is a straight man who styles his hair using three different products, loves clothes and the very act of shopping for them, and describes himeself as sensitive and romantic. .

2.) The perception of the average male is at stake here. The author makes it clear by stating how men are becoming more sensitive and romantic than the strong and silent types seen in the past.

3.) The author is a woman with a lot of dating experience. Men will tend to believe women when they state what she is looking for in a guy.

Peer Review

Sorry totally forgot about peer reviews.


Peer reviews were extremely helpful and it helped catch some mistakes that I could not see in my own writing. The peer reviews helped clarify specific examples and the direction in which my argument was headed toward. One negative aspect of the peer review was that some people, including me, just specifically followed the teachers directions how to review someone's article. We should be able to edit and criticize papers without the help of the teacher. After the peer review session I now know how in depth my criticisms should be.

Drexler - Smalley Response

• The main point of contention between Drexler and Smalley:
• Drexler envisions a world transformed by molecular assemblers
• Smalley views molecular assemblers as a waste of time 
• What is at stake?
• Nanotechnology
• Reputation
• Strategies they use to refute the other side.
• Drexler believes Smalley is misrepresenting his work. Drexler thinks Smalley's argument against molecular assemblers are wrong. Drexler tries to clarify some information.
• Smalley responds by questioning Drexler's research and information. He there are still unanswered problems in his work.
• How does both Smalley and Drexler develop their ethos?
• They both mention research done and books written about the topic.
• "This proposal has been defended successfully again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis [the basis of "Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation."
• Point to atleast one logical fallacy used on both sides and explain why it is a fallacy?
• Smalley: Slippery slope "If the nanobot is restricted to be a water-based life-form, since this is the only way its molecular assembly tools will work, then there is a long list of vulnerabilities and limitations to what it can do."
• Drexler: Straw man "The impossibility of Smalley fingers has raised no concern in the research community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work. For this I should, perhaps, thank you."

• Who was more convincing?
• Drexler because he provides more research. Smalley just questions Drexlers work.