Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Writer's Corner: Free Essay Grading by PastaInhaler


PastaInhaler

Recommended Posts

NEW RULES. Read before posting your prompt and essay:

 

Although the offer to have your essay graded is "free," it will remain free insofar as you don't have to give any money. However, there is considerable interest in my services, and members have wanted to thank me and show their gratitude for my time and effort. I have decided to accept. You must show your appreciation for my services by helping other people. In order to have your essay graded, you must go to the Ripple website (http://www.ripple.org) and click on any of the icons/'give panels' to give water, food, education, or money to where it is needed. Beyond this, you may personally donate to other charities, hold the door open for people, smile at someone who is down, or pay it forward with any other kind and genuine deed. Yet, for the minimum requirements of this thread:

 

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LEFT-CLICK ON THE ICONS AND THE SUBSEQUENT AD. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY. Ripple.org is NOT A COMMERCIAL WEBSITE. There are no viruses, no malware -this is not a scam of any sort! This has been approved by the site administrator, however, it is not endorsed by him in anyway. I, PastaInhaler, am not in anyway affiliated with Ripple.org or any of the advertisers. I merely believe in the good works of this charity, and admire its ingenuity in gathering resources to give to those in need. I freely choose to help Ripple.org just as I freely choose to give of my time to help this community with the Writing Sample.

 

Ripple is a charitable organization, and it was discussed in one of the classes I took in undergrad. It is legit as far as I am concerned, and it doesn't cost you anything to click on an icon. All you have to do is 'left-click' and you can potentially save a life, or many lives for that matter. You can click as many times as you wish, or you can use ripple's search engine. Either way, it generates revenue through sponsorship from organizations, and this will help others in need, just as I am helping you by grading your essays. You do not have to give any money out of your pocket; clicking will take care of everything because when you click you are given an ad to view. Once you view an ad, the sponsoring organization will donate money. 100% of the revenue goes to charity. 100%. This is verified by other charities.

 

In order to have your essay graded, you must go to the Ripple website (http://www.ripple.org) and click on one of the icons for water, food, etc..., then click on the subsequent ad by the sponsor which will open up a new window. You can close the new window after it loads. Then, when you go to post your essay you must first put:

 

-clicked-

 

in your post before you even paste the essay prompt or your essay. By doing so, you are indicating to me and anyone else viewing the thread that you have gone to the Ripple website and clicked on an icon/'give panel' and the subsequent ad by the sponsor. If you do not do so, your essay will not be graded. I have no way of validating whether or not you have clicked, so please do so on your honour. Each essay will cost one ad-click. On a related note, essays will no longer be graded through PM. Even if you are viewing this thread and you don't have an essay to post to be graded, please go to the Ripple website and click anyway. It's good to do good. It's nice to be nice.

 

If you don't get feedback on your essay, don't fret, I'm probably really busy since I am working and studying. But, I will get to you as soon as I can. I sincerely and wholeheartedly wish you success in your MCAT goals, and may you all become competent and caring physicians.

 

http://www.ripple.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_%28charitable_organisation%29

 

----

I have been receiving a lot of requests for essay grading and thought I would devote a thread for others who require feedback. In this thread, I will read your essays and post up a grade and some comments on your writing.

 

You can find sample prompts on the AAMC website:

 

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/85192/preparing_writingsampleitems.html

 

I certainly hope that this does not turn out to be a case of the blind leading the blind, but I have scored either a Q, R, S, or T on a live test administered by the AAMC, and hope that I have some idea of how to grade an essay. You don't really know how well you are preparing for the writing sample when you can't get it marked like you can a multiple choice practice test. Such is the basis for this thread; to provide feedback that, hopefully, will help give you an idea of where you stand before you take the MCAT, or where you can improve.

 

Prep101 had offered this service last year, and will be offering a similar service again soon. So, this thread will be available for those who are taking the MCAT in the coming weeks and needed some feedback on their writing. Or, it can be ongoing if you need further practice. I am not affiliated with Prep101, and Prep101 does not endorse my services in any way.

 

To have your essay graded, post the prompt from the AAMC website on which the essay is based, followed by your essay. You should allow yourself 30 minutes to complete the essay. See notes above regarding New Rules and http://www.ripple.org

 

And please, only one prompt and essay per post.

 

caveat emptor: I have scored either a Q, R, S, or T on a live MCAT sitting, it does not mean that I am a writing expert. I base my grading off of assessing how well the writer responds to the tasks, and a holistic feel of the writing quality as it pertains to clarity, coherence, integration, thoroughness, and organization. These are ideas taken from the AAMC grading categories. This is based on my interpretation of their requirements and my interpretation may be correct, or totally incorrect. I am not affiliated with the AAMC, nor endorsed by them, nor am I a certified or qualified grader. Take my grading and comments with a grain of salt. I could be way off in my scoring, and your actual score could be higher or lower. If I assign a lower grade, do not take it personally as it just means that in my view, you have to do some more practice and preparation. It's better that you mess up here than on the real deal, so only accept the low grade as motivation to improve and get accepted to med school, not as an insult to your skills or abilities.

 

Someone had asked why I am helping people so much with the Writing Sample.

 

It's possible that I could be deceitful in my grading or trying to lead you astray somehow with my exercises and drills. However, although it may prove advantageous to me in a competitive sense, if you are passionate about Medicine, no matter what I do to try to ruin your writing skills, you will find a way to do well. Therefore, if I am trying to be deceitful, it will turn out to be a waste of my time, and trying to trick you will be bad for me because of this. So don't think I am trying to trip you up because it is simply not the case. And if I wanted to do a disservice, I would inflate the scores I give out for your essays making you think that you are more ready for the Writing Sample than you actually are. I've had to give out K's, L's and M's even though I didn't want to.

 

But, you should also consider that I don't just give out high grades for no reason. I won't just give out a high grade to be nice, though I am nice, but because I don't want anyone to think that they should get a higher score than they would get on a live MCAT. Because if they think this, they may not put work into improving, and will end up scoring poorly on a live MCAT. I don't give out a lot of R's, S's, or T's because I haven't seen a lot of essays that deserve these scores. However, I won't be aversed to giving out super-high grades if it is warranted. There were two or three really good essays that I have graded so far, and they deserve the scores I gave. I will point out mistakes in logic, or issues with responding to tasks, and will give tips and pointers at making better arguments and better essays. You can see by this that my actions are meant only to help you score better on the MCAT Writing Sample. I provide constructive criticisms and pointers that will help you write essays that correspond with what is required of higher-scoring essays. If you think carefully for a minute about my tips and pointers, they actually do make logical sense, so I am not just giving out bad advice to weaken your writing skills.

 

I am sincere about it because I like to help people. It is good to be good and nice to be nice. That's just the type of person I am. I like to help and it makes me feel useful and needed, and it's why I am going into Medicine -to help other people. It's important to help others because sometimes people need help and may not be able to help themselves. Maybe some people have financial problems and they can't afford to take an official course to get their essays graded. I was in this situation myself, and could not afford an official course. The Prep101 guys came on here and gave free essay grading to help me out, and other members. My services are a nod to their good work and their sacrifice of time and energy to help others. Helping people here is a way for me to pay it forward because other people have helped me out in the past even outside of the Writing Sample. In addition, through my actions (and yours), I can make a positive change, such as by raising money for charity through ripple.org. Thanks again to all of you who continue to click. It's a reminder of how truly blessed we are in North America with all the niceties that we take for granted.

 

Another reason that I am helping this community out is that by grading essays, and starting the Guild of the Quill course, I am distracted from my other tasks and duties; it gives me a break from other things. It does take time out of my busy schedule, but it helps me to be refreshed for other things going on in my life, and it makes my days and weeks a little less boring. It's not always easy to grade essays honestly and properly, nor to create exercises aimed at developing and honing particular writing skills needed to do well on the MCAT Writing Sample. Sometimes, it really wears me out and it can take up a lot of time. But, it is worth it in the end because we may end up colleagues one day, and maybe since you are being helped, you could pay it forward to someone else who needs help.

 

It is good to do good and nice to be nice.

-PastaInhaler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasta, thank you for doing this.

 

I will definitely be looking towards you for WS guidance...something that I shouldn't be slacking on unfortunately but I am.

 

Sure, glad to help. Most people wait until close to their test date before doing prep work for the Writing Sample. But fee free to post essays whenever, either in this thread or through PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks in advance for looking at this.

 

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

 

The success of a business is measured in terms of profit. A more profitable business is more successful than a less profitable business. In order for businesses to make profit, they must sell some sort of product or service to consumers. Consumers will be more inclined to purchase the product if the product is necessary to their lifestyle. Businesses are aware of this fact and try to make consumers think that they need whatever their product is through advertising. By making consumers think that certain items are necessary, businesses are taking advantage of a major consumer weakness, the inability to categorize items as a want or a need.

 

During the Y2K virus crisis, companies released software that would save computers from being corrupted. At the end of the year 1999, businesses and consumers alike were worried about losing all of their information and data to the Y2K virus. Thus when the potential solution became available, many purchased the software and made the companies rich. However, the Y2K virus did not exist and people who payed for software wasted their money while the software companies made profit. The reason people purchased the software was because they were afraid at what could happen. The software companies took advantage of the situation to make profit.

 

Businesses are not always able to take advantage of consumers in this way. For items well known to the public, consumers are able to tell the difference between what is necessary. When Pokemon cards were first released, it became the goal of the majority of child to make their parents buy them. Parents, caught up in the hysteria of the Pokemon craze, purchased them faster then they could be supplied because according to their child they were necessary. However, shortly after, Digimon cards were released. Although there was a demand for them, parents grew from the past Pokemon experience to realize that this was a phase. Digimon cards were significantly less popular and less profitable for this reason. Digimon cards essentially became a wanted item because Pokemon cards, although initially were seen as a need, were also a want of children.

 

Thus although businesses try to advertise all items being sold as necessary to take advantage of the public, consumers have shown that they can identify the difference between the two if a past example exists. Businesses are able to take advantage of consumers by turning wants into needs only in new and unknown products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Task#1 was well-done. Yet, the crisis was not in fact a virus, just the computers being created to account for years up until 1999, and it was feared that when Y2K arrived, the computers would roll back to year 0000, causing system crashes, and other inevitable disasters as computers ran major systems, including air traffic control systems, water purification and treatment, traffic lights, etc.

 

Task#2 was not properly addressed:

Describe a specific situation in which businesses succeed without taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses.

 

For this task, you must show where there is a consumer weakness, and you must show how a business can turn profit without exploiting this weakness. It may be argued that parents want to do anything to give their children a good life including tending to their children's needs and wants. Their children want toys, so the parents being weak to the notion of giving their kids everything they need, will go out and buy toys for their children. In effect, you have provided another example for task#1.

 

The Digimon example was used to describe another consumer weakness, that was thwarted by the consumer, and later became nonprofitable. However, Digimon is actually very profitable, generating six seasons of shows, millions of dollars in merchandise sales, contracted for 11 motion pictures, and it was even made into various video games through Namco Bandai.

 

Task#3 could use more work:

Discuss what you think determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumers' weaknesses in order to succeed.

 

The writing mechanics are otherwise good, and the points are clear, but slightly unfocussed, and deviate from the required tasks.

 

I feel this essay will score an:

JKLMNOPQRST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for doing this! I have been having a lot of trouble with this section, so I really appreciate you taking the time to go over it for me!

 

A government has not only the right, but also the responsibility, to regulate what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a government might not be justified in regulating what is broadcast over the public airwaves. Discuss what you think determines when a government is justified in regulating what is broadcast over the public airwaves and when it is not.

 

In a democratic society, the government represents the views of the people. It is with both rights and responsibilities that these democratic governments run the nation in an orderly fashion. By voting for a representative, the people give the government the rights to make decisions, however, with those rights comes responsibilities that they must uphold. Public broadcasting is a way in which the nation can relay information to its people. The government has both a right and a responsibility to the nation to regulate what is said over this form of public communication.

 

For example, during World War II many German propaganda films were made, glorifying Fascist Germany. Immediately after the war, these films were destroyed as to not get into the wrong hands. In this case, the English government acted to protect its people from seeing these films and potentially threatening the recorded history of the war. With the pain and suffering of the second world war, these films were not appropriate to be circulated and the government made sure this would not happen.

 

However, how far should the government go in regulating what is publically broadcasted, when the people have their own rights to view what they see fit. In a recent scandal, a 1980's pop band called Dire Straits had their song Money For Nothing banned from Canadian radios because it had a derogatory word in it that the government felt inappropriate for the nation to hear. Much uproar ensued due to this ban because people felt they were losing their right to choose what they wanted to listen to. In this case, it is not the responsibility of the government to choose what songs its people can and cannot listen to, but instead the responsibility of the people.

 

A democratic government is supposed to represent the people, so in order to do so, it must be responsible for the information that is presented to us. This is to ensure the people are not pursued by false claims or innaccurate information. However, when this right is taken advantage of, the government loses this privelege. It is with important issues that reflect our nation, as well as the history of our nation that the government has the right to regulate. However, when it comes to personal broadcasting, such as songs or television programs, the right belongs in the hands of the people and with that right comes the responsibility of choosing what is appropriate for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for doing this! I have been having a lot of trouble with this section, so I really appreciate you taking the time to go over it for me!

 

A government has not only the right, but also the responsibility, to regulate what is broadcast over the public airwaves.

 

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a government might not be justified in regulating what is broadcast over the public airwaves. Discuss what you think determines when a government is justified in regulating what is broadcast over the public airwaves and when it is not.

 

In a democratic society, the government represents the views of the people. It is with both rights and responsibilities that these democratic governments run the nation in an orderly fashion. By voting for a representative, the people give the government the rights to make decisions, however, with those rights comes responsibilities that they must uphold. Public broadcasting is a way in which the nation can relay information to its people. The government has both a right and a responsibility to the nation to regulate what is said over this form of public communication.

 

For example, during World War II many German propaganda films were made, glorifying Fascist Germany. Immediately after the war, these films were destroyed as to not get into the wrong hands. In this case, the English government acted to protect its people from seeing these films and potentially threatening the recorded history of the war. With the pain and suffering of the second world war, these films were not appropriate to be circulated and the government made sure this would not happen.

 

However, how far should the government go in regulating what is publically broadcasted, when the people have their own rights to view what they see fit. In a recent scandal, a 1980's pop band called Dire Straits had their song Money For Nothing banned from Canadian radios because it had a derogatory word in it that the government felt inappropriate for the nation to hear. Much uproar ensued due to this ban because people felt they were losing their right to choose what they wanted to listen to. In this case, it is not the responsibility of the government to choose what songs its people can and cannot listen to, but instead the responsibility of the people.

 

A democratic government is supposed to represent the people, so in order to do so, it must be responsible for the information that is presented to us. This is to ensure the people are not pursued by false claims or innaccurate information. However, when this right is taken advantage of, the government loses this privelege. It is with important issues that reflect our nation, as well as the history of our nation that the government has the right to regulate. However, when it comes to personal broadcasting, such as songs or television programs, the right belongs in the hands of the people and with that right comes the responsibility of choosing what is appropriate for them.

 

The essay addresses Task#1 adequately and demonstrates an understanding of the prompt by a relevant example. However task#2 and task#3 require more work. Dire Straits released a song that had a phrase that was repeated over and over, and it was not derogatory, but was offensive to a large demographic in Canada. There is hate and prejudice associated with that word, and radio listeners took issue with that song. Further, the song was not banned from airplay, just that an edited version deleting that offensive term was allowed to be aired in place of the original. Moreover, task#2 was not sufficiently addressed by this example because the organization responsible for regulating this area is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council which is a non-governmental organization.

Task#3 was somewhat acceptable, but a broader criteria could yield a higher score rather than just the government taking advantage of its office and power. You are on the right track.

 

Aside from this, the writing mechanics are good, as is writing quality, word choice, and language use.

 

I feel this essay will score an:

JKLMNOPQRST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PastaInhaler, thank you so much for doing this!

 

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

Describe a specific situation in which television might not have the strongest influence on public opinion. Discuss what you think determines whether or not television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

 

---Essay follows---

 

Media is a vital part of modern culture, as it is what connects humanity to each other, and represents our social culture. Over time, we have developed and accepted more and more forms of new media, which today include primarily television, radio, print, and online content, which includes social media. Each of these forms of media is akin to a stream or river feeding into a vast pool of human consciousness, competing for the attention of the public. However, in a number of cases, in modern society, the online media and print media have yet to become universal, and so their audience is limited. However, on the other hand, television is one of the most ubiquitous forms of modern media, with almost everyone in modern society having some sort of access to a television. This makes the audience of television almost global. That is, programmes on television, when they carry a specific message, can greatly affect public sentiment about an issue. For example, during times of election (especially during the recent Canadian federal election), television is one of the most watched forms of media for people attempting to keep pace with the news of the election, and it is during the "prime time" hours (when the most people are watching) that the political parties air attack advertisements, in order to change public sentiment about other parties. It is in this way that television can affect public sentiment, and manipulate the feelings of the public to the advantage of a person in a position of power.

 

However, there are times when it may not affect public sentiment as well, as for a television message to truly impact public sentiment, the programme or channel on television must be popular enough to have more than a small minority watching it. In fact, with more and more channels to choose from, it may be that messages through television media, are being diluted just because there are more streams of input feeding the same output pool of people. In fact, there are cases when television may not have the largest impact on public opinion. Specifically, in the recent FIFA Soccer World Cup 2010, like any major sporting event in a nation such as South Africa, there were controversies, such as the fates of the local slum-dwellers, and the massive expense of the games. These controversies and many others were broadcast by the news on a daily basis in the weeks leading to the games, but this message was drowned out by an upbeat FIFA theme song co-sung by artists K'Naan and Shakira. That is, the theme song, played endlessly on the radio, an upbeat song that was extremely popular, drowned out messages of controversies of the games, and public opinion reflected this. That is, the public either was not aware, or underestimated the extent of the controversies that were present in South Africa due to the games. Thus, we see that in this scenario, the message of controversy at the games, broadcast primarily on television, was completely drowned out by the message playing on the radio, an upbeat theme song.

 

Thus, it has become evident through analysis of the situation that took place over the 2010 World Cup, that the forms of media really do almost form an ocean surrounding everyone. It is up to each individual as to what part of the ocean they wish to consume, but the general public will consume a little bit of everything. Therefore, in order for a message to affect public sentiment about an issue, the message must be clear and not become diluted by "noise" in the background, through other forms of media. Thus, whether or not television may or may not have the strongest influence on public opinion is dependent entirely on whether or not other forms of media are broadcasting about the same issue, and how loud. Thus, in simple terms, for a televised message to be heard and affect public sentiment more than other forms of media, the message must be clear, and not affected by contradictory messages in other forms of media, and must be through a trusted source on television. This rule explains why in times of election, televisions are often the primary source of information, since the public wants to know the opinion of the senior political correspondents, as well as to physically "see" the people they are voting for. Thus, it is dependent on the clarity, loudness, and quality of the message, whether or not it is heard and understood by the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses.

 

Most business analysts and economists would not argue that the success of a business is determined by the profits produced by the business organization. For many businesses, taking consumer’s weaknesses is often inevitable in profit generation. High-end designer brands, such as Chanel, Gucci, or Louis Vuitton target consumers’ admiration towards wealthy lifestyles of celebrity and desire to have such sophisticated and luxurious image. Advertisements of these designer brands often include celebrities with their products enjoying wealthy, affluent lifestyle. The advertisements send out the message to potential consumers that they could be equipped with affluent and gorgeous images as presented in the advertisements. Clearly, these high-end designer brands produce profits by targeting consumers’ weakness, the desire to have the lifestyles of wealthy people and celebrities.

 

On the other hand, there are non-profit business organizations whose success does not rely on its profits, but its capacity to help people in need. Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a non-profit organization, well-known for providing medical attention and necessary medical supplies to people in parts of the world without adequate medical care. For more than forty years, MSF has been successful in providing various humanitarian, medical and non-medical, aids in war-torn regions and various countries facing endemic diseases. The success of MSF was also recognized with Nobel Peace Prize for its pioneering humanitarian work on several continents.

 

Whether or not a business succeeds by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses depend on the measure of its success. For most businesses, their success is measured by the amount of profits produced. High-end fashion brands, such as Chanel, generate profits by targeting consumers’ desire to have wealthy lifestyles. However, in the case of non-profit business organizations, such as MSF, their success is measured by the positive impact they deliver on people in need. Since the measure of success depends on the type of business organizations, it would be improper to conclude that all businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses.

 

 

Thank you in advance! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PastaInhaler, thank you so much for doing this!

 

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

Describe a specific situation in which television might not have the strongest influence on public opinion. Discuss what you think determines whether or not television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

 

---Essay follows---

 

Media is a vital part of modern culture, as it is what connects humanity to each other, and represents our social culture. Over time, we have developed and accepted more and more forms of new media, which today include primarily television, radio, print, and online content, which includes social media. Each of these forms of media is akin to a stream or river feeding into a vast pool of human consciousness, competing for the attention of the public. However, in a number of cases, in modern society, the online media and print media have yet to become universal, and so their audience is limited. However, on the other hand, television is one of the most ubiquitous forms of modern media, with almost everyone in modern society having some sort of access to a television. This makes the audience of television almost global. That is, programmes on television, when they carry a specific message, can greatly affect public sentiment about an issue. For example, during times of election (especially during the recent Canadian federal election), television is one of the most watched forms of media for people attempting to keep pace with the news of the election, and it is during the "prime time" hours (when the most people are watching) that the political parties air attack advertisements, in order to change public sentiment about other parties. It is in this way that television can affect public sentiment, and manipulate the feelings of the public to the advantage of a person in a position of power.

 

However, there are times when it may not affect public sentiment as well, as for a television message to truly impact public sentiment, the programme or channel on television must be popular enough to have more than a small minority watching it. In fact, with more and more channels to choose from, it may be that messages through television media, are being diluted just because there are more streams of input feeding the same output pool of people. In fact, there are cases when television may not have the largest impact on public opinion. Specifically, in the recent FIFA Soccer World Cup 2010, like any major sporting event in a nation such as South Africa, there were controversies, such as the fates of the local slum-dwellers, and the massive expense of the games. These controversies and many others were broadcast by the news on a daily basis in the weeks leading to the games, but this message was drowned out by an upbeat FIFA theme song co-sung by artists K'Naan and Shakira. That is, the theme song, played endlessly on the radio, an upbeat song that was extremely popular, drowned out messages of controversies of the games, and public opinion reflected this. That is, the public either was not aware, or underestimated the extent of the controversies that were present in South Africa due to the games. Thus, we see that in this scenario, the message of controversy at the games, broadcast primarily on television, was completely drowned out by the message playing on the radio, an upbeat theme song.

 

Thus, it has become evident through analysis of the situation that took place over the 2010 World Cup, that the forms of media really do almost form an ocean surrounding everyone. It is up to each individual as to what part of the ocean they wish to consume, but the general public will consume a little bit of everything. Therefore, in order for a message to affect public sentiment about an issue, the message must be clear and not become diluted by "noise" in the background, through other forms of media. Thus, whether or not television may or may not have the strongest influence on public opinion is dependent entirely on whether or not other forms of media are broadcasting about the same issue, and how loud. Thus, in simple terms, for a televised message to be heard and affect public sentiment more than other forms of media, the message must be clear, and not affected by contradictory messages in other forms of media, and must be through a trusted source on television. This rule explains why in times of election, televisions are often the primary source of information, since the public wants to know the opinion of the senior political correspondents, as well as to physically "see" the people they are voting for. Thus, it is dependent on the clarity, loudness, and quality of the message, whether or not it is heard and understood by the general public.

 

Some good points, ideas were well developed.

Mechanics are good, though some transition word are duplicated, and double transitions were used, but a small issue only.

I feel this essay will score a:

JKLMNOPQ/RST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses.

 

Most business analysts and economists would not argue that the success of a business is determined by the profits produced by the business organization. For many businesses, taking consumer’s weaknesses is often inevitable in profit generation. High-end designer brands, such as Chanel, Gucci, or Louis Vuitton target consumers’ admiration towards wealthy lifestyles of celebrity and desire to have such sophisticated and luxurious image. Advertisements of these designer brands often include celebrities with their products enjoying wealthy, affluent lifestyle. The advertisements send out the message to potential consumers that they could be equipped with affluent and gorgeous images as presented in the advertisements. Clearly, these high-end designer brands produce profits by targeting consumers’ weakness, the desire to have the lifestyles of wealthy people and celebrities.

 

On the other hand, there are non-profit business organizations whose success does not rely on its profits, but its capacity to help people in need. Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a non-profit organization, well-known for providing medical attention and necessary medical supplies to people in parts of the world without adequate medical care. For more than forty years, MSF has been successful in providing various humanitarian, medical and non-medical, aids in war-torn regions and various countries facing endemic diseases. The success of MSF was also recognized with Nobel Peace Prize for its pioneering humanitarian work on several continents.

 

Whether or not a business succeeds by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses depend on the measure of its success. For most businesses, their success is measured by the amount of profits produced. High-end fashion brands, such as Chanel, generate profits by targeting consumers’ desire to have wealthy lifestyles. However, in the case of non-profit business organizations, such as MSF, their success is measured by the positive impact they deliver on people in need. Since the measure of success depends on the type of business organizations, it would be improper to conclude that all businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses.

 

 

Thank you in advance! :)

 

There were some grammatical mistakes that detracted from your intended message. These mistakes created ambiguity and made some parts of the essay harder to follow. The first task could be developed more. The second task was not adequately addressed. Medicins sans Frontiers is not a business. It is a special case of a non-profit called a charitable organization. Despite this, even if it were a for profit business, it is unclear how this example would tie into the theme of a consumer weakness that was exploited/not exploited. The third task is adequately addressed, but the essay displays logical inconsistency as the criteria seems to go against the original definition of a successful business that is "determined by the profits produced by the business organization."

 

I feel this essay will score an:

JKL/MNOPQRST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a ton in advance for taking a look at this - I'm writing in two days and I've got everything but the WS down, but as you'll see, I'm having a bit of trouble achieving clarity in my writing, so any and all criticism (hopefully with advice on how to improve :D) is welcome.

 

Prompt: Successful politicians are more motivated by practical concerns than by moral values.

 

A politician's success is defined by their ability to gain office, and this ability in turn hinges on their ability to win the votes of their constituents. As such, when a politician's moral values are in conflict with the values of the majority of his voters, his the success of his campaign often relies on promoting an opinion in disagreement with his own in the practical pursuit of votes. Such practical pandering to voter preferences at the expense of one's own moral compass is exemplified in the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on serving in the military as an openly gay individual. In recent years public opinion had swayed increasingly in favor of such a repeal, to the point where many voters gave their support to politicians based singly on their stance towards the ban. Though many Republicans had been in staunch opposition to repealing the ban for many years, those who were willing to put aside their personal moral objections to the ban and advocate for the side more in keeping with the majority consensus of repealment earned the support of more voters, and in turn greater electability in future elections.

 

However, a limit exists to the success a candidate can gain by changing their platforms in response to practical populist opinions. Politicians who are seen as willing to openly bend their ethical bounds in response to public pressure are judged to have no moral backbone, and lose votes even from those who agree with their changed views. The response to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign exemplifies this aversion to politicians who too often espouse practical opinions at the expense of their moral values. Romney has, in the past, been in support of universal health care even as the majority of his fellow Republicans opposed it. He recently changed his platform to oppose universal health care, in keeping with the reviews of the majority of the members of the Republican party he hopes to be elected by; however, his decision was seen as blatant pandering and has led to public questioning of his moral character. In this case, it seems, he would have been more successful in preserving his electability as a politician by remaining true to his own personal moral values rather than attempting to take the side of the majority.

 

In order to be successful as a politician, one must often place one's own personal beliefs aside in order to strike an accord with one's political platform and the views of the constituent voting population. A failure to do so due to moral objections will inevitably result in failure to become an elected official. However, a politician must not engage in such public pandering to the point where his moral compass becomes, in the eyes of the public, excessively subject to the whims of the people; such seemingly practical motivations will earn a politician a label of “wishy-washy” and result in less success obtaining voter support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a ton in advance for taking a look at this - I'm writing in two days and I've got everything but the WS down, but as you'll see, I'm having a bit of trouble achieving clarity in my writing, so any and all criticism (hopefully with advice on how to improve :D) is welcome.

 

Prompt: Successful politicians are more motivated by practical concerns than by moral values.

 

A politician's success is defined by their ability to gain office, and this ability in turn hinges on their ability to win the votes of their constituents. As such, when a politician's moral values are in conflict with the values of the majority of his voters, his the success of his campaign often relies on promoting an opinion in disagreement with his own in the practical pursuit of votes. Such practical pandering to voter preferences at the expense of one's own moral compass is exemplified in the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on serving in the military as an openly gay individual. In recent years public opinion had swayed increasingly in favor of such a repeal, to the point where many voters gave their support to politicians based singly on their stance towards the ban. Though many Republicans had been in staunch opposition to repealing the ban for many years, those who were willing to put aside their personal moral objections to the ban and advocate for the side more in keeping with the majority consensus of repealment earned the support of more voters, and in turn greater electability in future elections.

 

However, a limit exists to the success a candidate can gain by changing their platforms in response to practical populist opinions. Politicians who are seen as willing to openly bend their ethical bounds in response to public pressure are judged to have no moral backbone, and lose votes even from those who agree with their changed views. The response to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign exemplifies this aversion to politicians who too often espouse practical opinions at the expense of their moral values. Romney has, in the past, been in support of universal health care even as the majority of his fellow Republicans opposed it. He recently changed his platform to oppose universal health care, in keeping with the reviews of the majority of the members of the Republican party he hopes to be elected by; however, his decision was seen as blatant pandering and has led to public questioning of his moral character. In this case, it seems, he would have been more successful in preserving his electability as a politician by remaining true to his own personal moral values rather than attempting to take the side of the majority.

 

In order to be successful as a politician, one must often place one's own personal beliefs aside in order to strike an accord with one's political platform and the views of the constituent voting population. A failure to do so due to moral objections will inevitably result in failure to become an elected official. However, a politician must not engage in such public pandering to the point where his moral compass becomes, in the eyes of the public, excessively subject to the whims of the people; such seemingly practical motivations will earn a politician a label of “wishy-washy” and result in less success obtaining voter support.

 

Task#1 was adequately addressed. However, task#2 and task#3 were not properly addressed.

 

In task#2, you are to express/argue how politicians should be motivated by moral values, and secondly, how this makes the politician successful. You desribed how being "wishy-washy" is a bad thing-leading to an unsuccessful politiciaian, but didn't address the real issue: "When can you have politician focus on moral values, and from this be successful in politics?"

 

This may come off as nitpicky, but in the final paragraph, be cautious of balance. Try not to unbalance the essay with a word such as "often." I could be way off on this, but this word stood out like a sore thumb as I was reading the essay. From this word's placement and use in the last paragraph, it may seem that 75%-80% of politicians rely on practical concerns to win votes, as opposed to moral values, but the essay should be 50/50 on this. Further, the question of "What determines when practical concerns are more important than moral values in a successful politician?" (and vice versa) was not addressed (task#3)

 

 

I feel this essay will score an:

JKL/MNOPQRST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response! I worked on a couple things you mentioned and changed my focus a little bit to try to get some more clarity and efficiency. Here's the result:

 

The primary goal of a business should be to maximize profits.

 

For any institution which charges customers a fee in return for goods or service, its success will be intrinsically related to its bottom line. If a business does not succeed in generating more revenue than it spends on costs, thereby turning a profit, it is doomed to a fate of bankruptcy and will cease to be able to do business. However, remaining financially solvent is different from maximizing profits at all costs, and businesses have responsibilities to their customers and to society which must also be taken into consideration in addition to profit margins when determining the goals of a business. Whether maximizing profits should be the primary goal of a given institution depends on the nature of the business in question.

 

Certain businesses are publicly owned; any individual can purchase an ownership stake in the business and thereby become a partial owner, even without being involved in the daily operations and decision-making within its corporate structure. Microsoft is a prime example of such a business. Although it is run by a select few executives, its shares are owned by thousands of individuals who rely on these executives to make decisions on their behalf. Shareholders make these investments in Microsoft with the implicit understanding that its executives will act in their best interests, running the company so as to maximize the value of shareholders' investments. They assume that Microsoft's executives will make maximizing profits the primary goal of the company; therefore, to do otherwise would be tantamount to deception of shareholders. Therefore, in publicly owned businesses such as Microsoft, maximizing profits is an ethical necessity and should indeed be the primary goal of the company.

 

However, not all companies are beholden to the almighty shareholder in such a way. Other businesses are subjugate to the state, and exist primarily not as a means of making a profit but instead to provide some essential service. The Toronto Transit Commission, for instance, is run by the city of Toronto and exists to provide a public means of transportation for the city's citizens. Although the TTC could theoretically increase its fares to a higher level than necessary in an attempt to maximize profits, such an increase would make its service unaffordable to certain members of society, and would therefore not serve its primary mandate of providing a service to as wide a range of individuals as possible. In the case of the TTC and other state-owned institutions, therefore, primarily pursuing maximum profit levels at the expense of accessibility of its services would be counterproductive to its stated objective of provision of service to the public.

 

No business can altogether ignore the pursuit of profits; to do so would surely result in a swift failure of its business model and its doors would quickly become shuttered. However, whether such a pursuit of the almighty dollar should be a company's primary goal depends on the nature of its primary responsibilities. If its stated mandate is to act in the best financial interests of its consituent ownership than the pursuit of profit is a legitimate primary goal. However, if its responsibilities lie in the provision of a necessary service to the public, other factors should be taken into consideration even at the expense of the bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response! I worked on a couple things you mentioned and changed my focus a little bit to try to get some more clarity and efficiency. Here's the result:

 

The primary goal of a business should be to maximize profits.

 

For any institution which charges customers a fee in return for goods or service, its success will be intrinsically related to its bottom line. If a business does not succeed in generating more revenue than it spends on costs, thereby turning a profit, it is doomed to a fate of bankruptcy and will cease to be able to do business. However, remaining financially solvent is different from maximizing profits at all costs, and businesses have responsibilities to their customers and to society which must also be taken into consideration in addition to profit margins when determining the goals of a business. Whether maximizing profits should be the primary goal of a given institution depends on the nature of the business in question.

 

Certain businesses are publicly owned; any individual can purchase an ownership stake in the business and thereby become a partial owner, even without being involved in the daily operations and decision-making within its corporate structure. Microsoft is a prime example of such a business. Although it is run by a select few executives, its shares are owned by thousands of individuals who rely on these executives to make decisions on their behalf. Shareholders make these investments in Microsoft with the implicit understanding that its executives will act in their best interests, running the company so as to maximize the value of shareholders' investments. They assume that Microsoft's executives will make maximizing profits the primary goal of the company; therefore, to do otherwise would be tantamount to deception of shareholders. Therefore, in publicly owned businesses such as Microsoft, maximizing profits is an ethical necessity and should indeed be the primary goal of the company.

 

However, not all companies are beholden to the almighty shareholder in such a way. Other businesses are subjugate to the state, and exist primarily not as a means of making a profit but instead to provide some essential service. The Toronto Transit Commission, for instance, is run by the city of Toronto and exists to provide a public means of transportation for the city's citizens. Although the TTC could theoretically increase its fares to a higher level than necessary in an attempt to maximize profits, such an increase would make its service unaffordable to certain members of society, and would therefore not serve its primary mandate of providing a service to as wide a range of individuals as possible. In the case of the TTC and other state-owned institutions, therefore, primarily pursuing maximum profit levels at the expense of accessibility of its services would be counterproductive to its stated objective of provision of service to the public.

 

No business can altogether ignore the pursuit of profits; to do so would surely result in a swift failure of its business model and its doors would quickly become shuttered. However, whether such a pursuit of the almighty dollar should be a company's primary goal depends on the nature of its primary responsibilities. If its stated mandate is to act in the best financial interests of its consituent ownership than the pursuit of profit is a legitimate primary goal. However, if its responsibilities lie in the provision of a necessary service to the public, other factors should be taken into consideration even at the expense of the bottom line.

 

Thank-you for posting this R essay. Goodluck tomorrow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Attaining financial security is certainly the main priority of billions of people across the world as they progress through their lives. A priority is something which takes importance over other things in one’s life. Financial security is the financial state of an individual in which they can live their life at a decent standard of living should a financial crisis occur later on in their life. Therefore, when one’s first priority in life is financial security, that individual’s main goal in life is to ensure that they can live their life at a decent standard of living should they face a financial crisis in the future. For instance, in India, where there is a large majority of Indians living in widespread poverty, with the social security systems in place unable to provide a decent standard of living for Indians living in poverty, the main goal of most Indians in life is to work hard to get a good education and excel in school, enter a rewarding profession such as engineering or medicine, and earn a decent wage, forgoing fun and entertainment at times in order to secure a stable financial future.

 

However, financial security is not the first priority in life for some people. For instance, in Canada, many Canadians’ main priority in life is not financial security but rather enjoying life itself and pursuing the things which truly interest them. The majority of Canadians are simply not concerned with entering professional careers such as medicine, and have other interests, such as art and music, a career in which does not ensure a prosperous financial future, since many aspiring musicians fail to reach their goal of becoming a successful and famous musician. This is due to the strong social security program in place in Canada, which allows Canadians receiving monetary aid from the program to live their lives at a decent standard of living.

 

Therefore, whether or not a person’s first priority in life should be financial security is highly circumstantial. If the country in which they live will provide them with financial aid allowing them to live at a decent standard of living during times of financial distress, such as in Canada, it should not be expected that a person’s first priority in life who lives in that country, should not be financial security. However, if the country in which an individual lives is unable to provide them with sufficient financial aid to allow them to live at a decent standard of living, such as in India, it should be expected that the first priority of individuals residing within that nation should be to attain financial security.

 

Thanks for doing this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Displaying intelligence can sometimes be a politician's downfall.

 

Displaying intelligence beyond that which the citizen expects from a political may lead the politician’s downfall. Intelligence is the ability to form thoughts which deviate from the conventional wisdom of a population. Downfall can be thought of as a politician losing his political position by some means. Therefore, the displaying of thoughts which deviate from the conventional wisdom of a population can sometimes lead to the politician losing their political position. For example, the previous leader of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, had once said that the Islamic world is currently living in the dark ages, and that they are the most backward in the entire human race. He went on to say that Islamic nations should begin to improve the education provided in their countries, and focus more on science, technology, and mathematics being taught in classrooms. This statement was received with widespread disagreement and anger throughout the Islamic world, especially in Pakistan, as Musharraf was seen to be insulting his own citizens. As a result, Musharraf’s approval ratings went down significantly, and ultimately resulted in him losing his position in office. This examples illustrates that sometimes, when a public official such as Musharraf displays intelligence, such as when he said that Islamic nations should improve the education within their countries, the politician may be causing their own downfall.

 

However, not all politicians are met with political downfall when they display intelligence. For example, Dubai’s ruler Sheikh Al Maktoum, has largely deviated from the conservative and anti-Western ethos of Arab nations, by severely Westernizing his city. This has included the introduction of five-star hotels, bars, nightclubs, etc. in Dubai. However, Sheikh Al-Maktoum continues to hold his political position to this day, largely because his followers approve of this deviation from the Arab norm.

 

Therefore, whether the displaying of intelligence by a politician leads to the politician’s downfall is highly circumstantial. If the politician’s intelligent thoughts go against those of his citizens, such as in the case of Musharraf, the politician will very likely lose their political position. However, if the citizens approve of the intelligent thoughts of the politician, as was in the case of Sheikh Al Maktoum, the politician may very well continue to hold onto their political position. In conclusion, whether displaying intelligence by a politician leads to the politician’s downfall depends on whether the citizens approve of the thoughts of the politician. If the citizens approve, the politician will very likely continue to hold their position. If the citizens disapprove, it is very likely that the politician will lose their political position.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm back again. Thanks in advance.

 

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen.

 

In a democracy, politicians are voted into office by the society that they will govern. The success of a politician is measured by the amount of votes they obtain and if they win the election. Politicians who relate well to the people of society are generally successful. That is to say, a politician who resembles the ordinary citizen is more likely to win an election then someone who is very different than the society. An ordinary citizen can be defined as an individual who represents the majority of their own society. For example, an ordinary individual at a university is a student in their early twenties, even though there are situations where people fall out of this range.

 

An example of this is the 2011 Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union (WLUSU) presidential election. Among the four candidates, two stood out as front runners for different reasons. Matt Park was the most qualified student as he had the most background in university policy. However, Park was older then most students. Nick Gibson, on the other hand, had relatively little experience in terms of policy, but he was heavily involved and very popular among the student body. In the end Nick Gibson was successful over Matt Park. In this situation, the person who best resembled the mass population was the successful person.

 

However, popularity does not always equal success in politics. In the recent Canadian election, the leader of the Bloq Quebecois party lost his seat in parliament. The Bloq Quebecois have had a history of winning the majority of seats in Quebec solely because they had Quebec priorities in mind. The downfall of the Bloq Quebecois was that they depended on the people of Quebec voting for the party who was most relatable. The New Democratic Party were able to promote themselves as leaders of Canada, and clearly demonstrated that their party would do a better job then the Bloq Quebecois. In the end, the more qualified of the two parties was successful. Bloq Quebecois may have resembled the citizens of Quebec better, but they did not show that they could do a better job in power than the NDP.

 

The importance of the roles in the two examples differs greatly. The WLUSU president governs over one university of fifteen thousand people while the Prime Minister governs over three million people. When voters decide who they will vote for, they take into account the amount of power the position holds. As the power of a position increases, the voter's priorities shift from the candidate that most resembles the ordinary citizen to the candidate who is most qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be effective, government officials must have completely crime-free pasts. Write a unified essay in which you accomplish the following tasks. Explain what you think the aboce statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a government official who once committed a crime could still perform effectively. Discuss what you believe determines when a criminal past would not interfere with a government official’s effectiveness.

 

Government officials are responsible not only for enforcing the law, it is also essential that they lead by example and abide strictly to the rules they expect their people to follow. It would not be effective if the politicians used their status to take advantage of the legal system and be the exception to their implemented rules. If government officials had pasts full of violent crimes, theft, and fraud, it would be a blatant indication of their inability to distinguish what is right and wrong. Former mayor of Ottawa, Larry O’Brien, faced allegations of paying off competition to guarantee his candidacy. Following his trial, he is no longer considered a political player due to his dishonest and criminal background. When past crimes are translated to the political stage, the potential for repercussions is enormous.

 

Although a crime-free past is preferred for our government officials, it is important to consider the degree of the crime committed and the definition of a true crime. The minor mistakes committed by a young, rebellious teenager is not completely indicative of a matured, adults’ stance in the political world. President Barack Obama admitted to smoking marijuana recreationally as a teenager, which of course he acknowledges as illegal. Nevertheless, he has had several successes during his current presidency by killing Osama Bin Laden and attempting to implement a new health care plan. It is unfair to expect anyone to live their lives devoid of trouble, especially if their mistakes are insignificant and would not influence how they would perform in the office.

 

Government officials impose laws to guarantee a safer place for their citizens, and they should be the main upholders of them. However, though ideal, a crime-free past cannot be a standard for which we expect from politicians because mistakes can be made and second chances should be given. It is important to acknowledge the extent of the crime when determining if the government officials would be most effective if their pasts were crime free. Unthinkably violent crimes are not tolerated in this regards; hence, is it important that politicians are not guilty of crimes of the highest degree. Minor crimes should not be a label for an ineffective official. It is up to the electing citizens to ultimately determine if the crimes committed by government officials are representative of an unfit leader, or simply a misguided young person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was my first time doing WS on a diagnostic so it's really ****ty. I pulled examples out of my rear end....haha.. But I want to know how to improve :( Ahh. WS is so much harder than I expected! Anyways, here goes.

 

The public's right to information should override the government's need for security.

 

In a democratic society, a government operates on the basis of the desires of its citizens. As such, governments are consistently seeking the approval of citizens. Given that the government is chosen by a nation's citizens, they have the responsibility of being as transparent as possible in their actions. This is often done by making as much information accessible so that citizens can choose to be informed. However, a government also has the responsibility to defend the safety of its citizens through security. It is only when citizens are safe that they can exercise choice. A public's right to information entails the responsibility of a government in being as upfront and open about their actions, particularly actions that directly involve interests of citizens. The need for security by governments is in relation to the responsibility they have in protecting the safety of their citizens.

 

In 2008, rumors circulated that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government in Canada had redirected tax dollars from public social service programs to invest in military fighter jets, when there was no threat of war or violent political instability in the country. Outrage from citizens led to the conduction of a financial audit and it was concluded that the Conservative government had redirected 2.1 billion dollars to the latter initiative. This circumstance directly involved the interests of citizens - their tax dollars - and their anger stemmed from the lack of transparency by governments in providing accurate information about where their money was going. The public's right to information was breached in a circumstance where they could have weighed in on the matter and there was no security threat in the nation.

 

On the other hand, there may be circumstances in which the government must primarily consider breaching the public's right to information in defense of their safety. This is applicable in politically unstable circumstances, where providing more accessible information to citizens is in fact contributing to chaos and instability and increasing the risk of citizen safety. For instance, the Japanese government was was not able to reveal the planned attack on Pearl Harbor at the slightest risk of triggering massive military action response from the US in retaliation. The government had to consider the overall safety of their citizens over their responsibility to keep the public aware.

 

Thus, the public's right to information should override the government's need for security when there is no war or political instability in the nation at hand, and if it directly involves personal interests of the citizens. Government security overrides the transparency of government actions when the safety of citizens are at threat in revealing information, especially when the country is politically unstable and at war.

 

Today's mobile society often loses in family and community ties what it gains in individual freedom.

 

Globalization is increasing the interconnectedness of our world through many different avenues, including communication, trade, and technology. A most notable symptom of globalization, however, is migration. A mobile society can be attributed to globalization as individuals choose to relocate to a substantially distant location from their origin. Family and community ties refers to the people and loved ones they leave behind in their original location, while individual freedom entails the personal satisfaction that results from the choice they made to migrate.

 

Zambia is an African country that is strongly defined by the emphasis placed on family and community bonds. Everyone greets each other when they pass by in the community, and to put it simply "everyone is in everyone else's business." On the level of a Zambian individual, this is a very important part of day-to-day life. However, when considering a Zambian individual who is a health professional, their desire to be more personally satisfied in their job may override the comfort they receive in this community atmosphere. It has been widely recognized in the literature that retention of health professionals in African countries is a problem as their working conditions, their benefits, and their salary is not at the same level as other developed nations or urban areas. A health professional in a developing country such as Zambia that chooses to migrate, either to an urban area or another country, may lose their family and community ties given that they cannot greet them in person on a daily basis. However, they gain the satsifaction that they feel they deserve in their health care profession role.

 

In similar circumstances, a health care professional from a developing country who migrates and moves to a farther distance does not have to completely sacrifice their family and community ties for a gain in their work satisfaction. As mentioned above, globalization is also increasing the advance of technology so that people can remain connected wherever they are in the world. Cell phone companies often advertise special promotional plans dedicated to "keeping in touch with loved ones" because they recognize the paramount impact of these technologies in today's mobile society, in the lives of those who are living apart from those they are closest with.

 

As such, when one (e.g. a health care professional) chooses to migrate for personal satisfaction, this may result in a loss of family and community ties as greeting, being together in person is a very significant part of day-to-day life in that society. However, the advance of technologies in midst of increased migration in the world does not mean that these family and community ties have to be completely sacrified for individual freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...