Patterns of error?

In my writing i tend to screw up on punctuation but only slightly. It's not as bad as someone in college not knowing the difference between You're and Your but it's pretty annoying. It takes away from how serious the reader can take me because of the thoughts that arise which in a nutshell can be described as " LOL THIS KIDS COMMA SPLICING AND FRAGMENTS ARE UNBEARABLE" I can fix this by taking the time to see a tutor for some assistance and practice. A second error i make in my papers is appearantly some kind of lacking of detail, but that doesn't really phase me too much because it's not something that I'd need to change my entire way of thinking as a writer to correct, just some self reminding here and there. A means by which i can fix this is by not rushing my papers and stopping to actually take into account whether or not the info I gave was sufficient or not. A third error I seem to take part in is bad organization because of the way I spread my subjects. If I were a stranger reading my papers i'd probly think something along the lines of "LOL this kid sucks at writing, i'd better make sure to send a virus to his computer which would corrupt microsoft word" If i were to correct this error i'd most likely get my paper reviewed by a peer and then a tutor or something. It's kind of hard describing how to correct your own errors when you know that if you did know how to correct them they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Peer Review

From what i've seen in this class, peer review is the cornerstone of all group work that takes place and is very effective in not only shedding light onto people's writing process and improving them but also letting classmates actually become peers/friends as opposed to "that kid i have class with". I'd be lying if i said i was entirely content with the effectiveness of peer review, if it were up to me to alter the process i'd make the group pairings or brackets if you will have a little more strategy with how they're grouped. What i'd do would be to group the stronger speakers and writers with other strong speakers and writers so to bring out the best in them and then halfway through class spread them about the class amongst the weaker writers so to pass on the skill that they would have most likely been flaunting 20 minutes before amongst their fellow writers.  To me, that would be the ideal process of peer review so to get an efficient blend of writing knowledge flowing about the class. If anyting i'd prefer large group peer review or even some sort of competition amongst groups so to really stir things up and get those intellectual thoughts flowing. Smaller groups to me always seem to leave that one strong fellow controlling all of the dialogue, and leaves others at a loss. With our amount of class time, peer review is at a perfect standing between 'too long' and 'too short'. I hope this blog post helps others with their opinions on peer review.

Oh, writing i such sweet sorrow. I come to you fine readers today with the topic of originality in social writing and what it means to me and should mean to you. Mind you that originality is not based on how provocative or against the grain your writing is, but more on the innovation and creativity incorporated into it. The idea for this topic stems from the emergence of the Kony2012 movement and its rapid growth via social networking. If you didn't know, the Kony2012 video is an astonishing piece of emotional porn who's goal is to expose Joseph Kony, a warlord in Uganda who's crimes should'nt go unpunished. Now, at first glance one would watch the video and think to themselves "Good lord, this man must be stopped" and they'd be right to think that, but the real culprit for the topic of this essay are the skeptics and provocative agitators of facebook/twitter/youtube/tumblr who subconsciously try to flaunt what they take as their own originality by pointing out what they feel is the obvious, in this case the notion that all Kony2012 supporters are a bunch of bandwagon riding idiots who fall for emotional garbage like Kony's story. Who are these people to point out who's kindness and compassion is genuine when the very characters they arbitrarily portray (the agitators) are a dime a dozen? The have yet to realize that the kindness of human beings needs no background check and that maybe their 'originality' only comes from their own vanity in attempt to reach a degree of self assurance. I'm not saying that there should be no opposition or an opposing opinions should be snuffed out, i'm saying that those who feel the nee to oppose the movement shouldn't refer to the numbers of supporters as a means to justify their opposition which is a juvenile attempt at staying original and nothing more. These folk should express their disdain for the movement with physical/literary evidence that they can site and refer to as a means of strengthening their point of view. I'm tired of writing, good evening.
 -Ferrrrnando

summarizing

Alright so i chose my ad mainly because it was the only thing out there that actualy appealed to me, i mean there were alot of good ads out there but quite frankly they were incredibly boring to me. I'm arguing that the ad is effective and in no way offensive or demeaning to the consumer in any way. I delve into the visuals and the important facts in the first few paragraphs including the introductory paragraph, my thesis statement was that Nike has very decent advertisement methods and this ad will justify that claim. After the visuals i check the philosophical meanings and everything else about it and then wrap it up in the conclusion
 I really digged the parts where i analyzed the aesthetic values of the ad and delved into what their figurative meanings were. I can't see myself writing about another article as well as i wrote about this one, it's just preferential. I actually thought to myself for a little while before i chose this ad, and it was in no way my choice because i didn't read any further. My argument didnt really appeal to emotion it was just common sense and facts.