Funny Pic Thread VII - No swearing. No sex. No complaining. (READ FIRST POST)

[Denur]

The teacher's response is funny indeed, but I had to Google for Freedom of Excellence and still don't get it. Maybe someone with a Christian background can explain.

 

[Jet Badger]

That's probably one of those questions where you have to be a doctor in philosophy to answer and then still get no points. All that in 10th grade exam.

 

[Talon]

^

You have no idea how funny that is to me with the english teacher I had last year.

 

[Daniel]

I should show that to my teacher: He'll laugh, then fail me

 

[SohnVonStig]

Something teachers don't understand, authors are people too. They aren't usually geniuses who overthink every word they write.

On a separate note, my mom (a HS english teacher) got a good laugh out of it

 

[thesrdic]

Engineer: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

The amount of glass used to make the glass may not actually be twice that which is needed, as the top will likely be removed, if the glass is, as depicted wider at the brim than the base then it would depend on the slant and thickness of the glass as to whether the glass is exactly twice as big as needs be. If the base of the glass is wider than the top, then less than half the glass is unnecessary, and if the radius of the glass is equal from top to bottom then it would depend on the height of the glass would have to be known to ascertain whether half of the glass is unneeded. /Nerd. Sorry I just watched series 1 and 2 of big bang theory

Aaaaaaaannyyyway...

Cleva Gurl!

mod edit: no swastika's, thanks.

 

[Jedi2016]

I think a "Oh, SNAP!" would fit here.

 

[Racedude]

 

[PureAwesomeness]

Here's one I just made...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm actually an English teacher myself. The first thing I teach my students is that all they have to do is show me the meaning they get out of the text, and how they get it. What I think about the text doesn't come into the equation - so long as they can argue their point effectively, there is no reason why they cannot do well. For example, in setting an assessment task on Romeo and Iuliet, I might ask the following question: "Are Romeo and Juliet experiencing genuine romantic love, or are they simply going through a teenage phase? In your answer, consider both sides of the argument, drawing on evidence from the text to support both cases before coming to a definitive conclusion."

So, in answering, they may say that Romeo and Juliet experience genuine romantic love because their deaths are not some grand gesture intended to make a statement to their families, but the end result of a series of unfortuante twists of fate that lead to Romeo never receiving a critical messge. On the other hand, Romeo is compeltely infatuated by another girl, Rosalie, before encountering Juliet; upon meeting her, her falls for Juliet and forgets that Rosalie ever existed. So there's the evidence for both cases, and at the end, the student has to decide which case is stronger (clever students will deliberately pick out weak arguments for the case they do not support). So they've shown both a) the meaning they get from the text, and b) how they get it. Any essay that does that is pretty much guaranteed a high mark.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not about the difference between what the author meant and the teacher thinks. Any teacher who teaches that way is pretty poor at their job.

 

[=Splat=]

Some of these actually made me chuckle.

 

[Steeda]

Some of these actually made me chuckle.

The troll Pikachu made me laugh pretty good, after playing Pokemon Yellow when i was a kid.

 

[poolhaas]

 

[zedextreme8177]

 

[uMadson?]

Classic pictures are classic.

 

[Pupik]

Here's one I just made...

...ain't nothing to schuck with?

 

[slims]

I'm actually an English teacher myself. The first thing I teach my students is that all they have to do is show me the meaning they get out of the text, and how they get it. What I think about the text doesn't come into the equation - so long as they can argue their point effectively, there is no reason why they cannot do well. For example, in setting an assessment task on Romeo and Iuliet, I might ask the following question: "Are Romeo and Juliet experiencing genuine romantic love, or are they simply going through a teenage phase? In your answer, consider both sides of the argument, drawing on evidence from the text to support both cases before coming to a definitive conclusion."

So, in answering, they may say that Romeo and Juliet experience genuine romantic love because their deaths are not some grand gesture intended to make a statement to their families, but the end result of a series of unfortuante twists of fate that lead to Romeo never receiving a critical messge. On the other hand, Romeo is compeltely infatuated by another girl, Rosalie, before encountering Juliet; upon meeting her, her falls for Juliet and forgets that Rosalie ever existed. So there's the evidence for both cases, and at the end, the student has to decide which case is stronger (clever students will deliberately pick out weak arguments for the case they do not support). So they've shown both a) the meaning they get from the text, and b) how they get it. Any essay that does that is pretty much guaranteed a high mark.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not about the difference between what the author meant and the teacher thinks. Any teacher who teaches that way is pretty poor at their job.

 

[Alex.]

Good afternoon, Buzz.

 

[MadMike'86]

^ HA!

Btw Interludes:

"For example, in setting an assessment task on Romeo and Iuliet,"

Sorry, had too!

 

[Alex.]

 

[poolhaas]

^

Battery looks flooded.

 

[Coxis]

👍

 

[Machate-man]

Is that real?
or is that some really good photoshop?

 

[Minty]

^ True. Tacos are not even fried (nor stuffed with cheese) over here. Flautas are.

"A big country that needs a whole bunch of stuff"👍
Had me on the floor.
I remember that line, it was the reason behind one of my favorite episodes of the Colbert Report.

And those car ads were hilarious too.

 

[MercilessOne]

 

[thesrdic]

*Should read stegOsaurus. This may be a funny picture thread, but I find palaeontological lackadaisicality most grievous.

 

[nick09]

 

[TommyWizard]

Why would you do that though? I mean, I would laugh at that and keep doing it out of badness.

Whats better than bass? MORE BASS YEOOOO

 

[Coxis]

Awesome pic.

 

[thesrdic]