op kei

8

We are live! Want to win?

1)Watch the video

2)reblog & Love

3)Follow http://twitch.tv/moneymatches @MinitrueTV @Bobbyham702

follow our twitter! https://twitter.com/theMoneyMatches

7

 Commissions!

Hello! Because of life being a butt head, I have decided to offer some commissions to try and help with my money problems. So I’m offering to make felted creatures of whatever you’re looking for. Even if I’ve never made anything like it, I will work at it until I figure it out. The price would vary with size, starting around $5 for a really small one and going up from there.If you are interested in getting something made, you can send me a message here on Tumblr, or you can email me at lipahmckenzie@gmail.com and let me know what you would like. I will give you a quote of what it will end up costing. That way you can decided before I make anything! =)


Even if you aren’t interested, if you could reblog this just to get it around that would be super helpful! If you’d like to donate to help out, my paypal is the same email lipahmckenzie@gmail.com.


Thank you!!!

3

Last week’s key concepts (January 18-22):

audience:

The pervasiveness of electronic communication, particularly on the internet, means that we encounter new (and old) challenges in making arguments and having dialogues. Some have suggested that all arguments on the internet are fated to end up in flame wars: vicious bouts of name-calling and mudslinging. I don’t think that’s the case, and I’m not even sure that flame wars don’t serve some purpose in our culture. But it is the case that many people are worried about how we talk to each other and how we argue with each other online.

As authors, we must consider both our real and intended audiences. Op-eds usually make it onto the internet in some form. When examining texts published on the web, it’s tempting to identify an audience as “everyone with an internet connection.” But not all texts are viewed by everyone everywhere, and access to texts is decided not just on the basis of physical access to the material. Everyone with an internet connection could read the text, but not everyone will.

As you draft your op-ed, practice identifying your real and intended audiences, and be conscious of your logic of deduction in how you write and stylize the article.

ethos:

Speakers and authors need to consider who they are in a particular situation and be aware that their identity may vary from situation to situation. How you would express frustrations about your curfew to a friend would likely be different than how you’d express them to your parents themselves, for example–especially if you are forming an argument against the restriction.

We have multiple identities/multiple roles, and new rhetorical situations change us and add new roles to our repertoire. Speakers create ethos partly through integrity–a measure of consistency that they take from situation to situation instead of putting on a completely new mask to suit the needs of every new audience and situation, but they also need the ability to adapt to new situations and not rigidly play the same role in every one.

thesis:

Your thesis statement is your answer to the leading question of the paper–in this case, “Why is the U.S. culturally obsessed with apocalypse?” Your thesis should be arguable, and narrow enough that you can make accurate claims and reason convincingly.

As you’re drafting, you may want to try writing several different thesis statements. Even if they are motivated by similar ideas, how you articulate them can suggest different styles of ethos and new angles from which to come at your argument. During conferences, I drafted a number of thesis statements. They’re not strong as they are now, but they present me with possibilities.

My statements: The U.S. is obsessed with the apocalypse because…

  • we experience our lives as narratives, and apocalypse is the ultimate climactic ending.
  • survival distills our life’s purpose–it grants clarity, despite the chaos.
  • it is the antidote to the American Dream.
  • we have inherited the mythos of Abrahamic religions.
  • we long for an end to our collective dread.

alphaa26 asked:

Fox x His Right Hand.

Anonymously or not, tell me who you ship my muse with

“Right. Because between paperwork, field ops, and keying in the code to lock you back in your holding cell, I absolutely have time for that.”

anonymous asked:

Weet dat ik super trots op je ben echt altijd. Ik ben er voor je en ik hou van je ❤

Dankjewel!!!! Ik ben ook kei trots op jou! Ik hou van je❤

cptndorito asked:

unpop op: I am low key loving the ot3 tony/steve/bucky like i read one soulmate fic and now I am rethinking my life (and yeah my icon is pretty swell! compliments to creator <333)

strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree

send me unpopular opinions!!

3

Last week’s key concepts (January 18-22):

audience:

The pervasiveness of electronic communication, particularly on the internet, means that we encounter new (and old) challenges in making arguments and having dialogues. Some have suggested that all arguments on the internet are fated to end up in flame wars: vicious bouts of name-calling and mudslinging. I don’t think that’s the case, and I’m not even sure that flame wars don’t serve some purpose in our culture. But it is the case that many people are worried about how we talk to each other and how we argue with each other online.

As authors, we must consider both our real and intended audiences. Op-eds usually make it onto the internet in some form. When examining texts published on the web, it’s tempting to identify an audience as “everyone with an internet connection.” But not all texts are viewed by everyone everywhere, and access to texts is decided not just on the basis of physical access to the material. Everyone with an internet connection could read the text, but not everyone will.

As you draft your op-ed, practice identifying your real and intended audiences, and be conscious of your logic of deduction in how you write and stylize the article.

ethos:

Speakers and authors need to consider who they are in a particular situation and be aware that their identity may vary from situation to situation. How you would express frustrations about your curfew to a friend would likely be different than how you’d express them to your parents themselves, for example–especially if you are forming an argument against the restriction.

We have multiple identities/multiple roles, and new rhetorical situations change us and add new roles to our repertoire. Speakers create ethos partly through integrity–a measure of consistency that they take from situation to situation instead of putting on a completely new mask to suit the needs of every new audience and situation, but they also need the ability to adapt to new situations and not rigidly play the same role in every one.

thesis:

Your thesis statement is your answer to the leading question of the paper–in this case, “Why is the U.S. culturally obsessed with apocalypse?” Your thesis should be arguable, and narrow enough that you can make accurate claims and reason convincingly.

As you’re drafting, you may want to try writing several different thesis statements. Even if they are motivated by similar ideas, how you articulate them can suggest different styles of ethos and new angles from which to come at your argument. During conferences, I drafted a number of thesis statements. They’re not strong as they are now, but they present me with possibilities.

My statements: The U.S. is obsessed with the apocalypse because…

  • we experience our lives as narratives, and apocalypse is the ultimate climactic ending.
  • survival distills our life’s purpose–it grants clarity, despite the chaos.
  • it is the antidote to the American Dream.
  • we have inherited the mythos of Abrahamic religions.
  • we long for an end to our collective dread.