Physical Emotions
Thirsty
Hungry
Drugged
In pain
Exhaustion
sleepy
Sick
Nervous
Hot
Cold
Restless
Internal/Mental/Expressive/Emotional/Psychological
Sad
Happy
Depressed
Sorry/apologetic
Worried
Anxious
Concerned
Surprised
Shocked
Mournful
Guilty
Scared
In doubt
Empty
Sorrowful
Sleepy
Smart
Eccentric
Confident
Betrayed
Angry
Confused
Frustrated
Tired
Talkative
Pitiful
Out of it
High
Hyper
Shy
Embarrassed
Drugged
Pain
Caring
Compassionate
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Monday, 1 February 2010
Reason
Read through the article ‘Camel Wash’, Do you believe this article? Why? Why not?
No, I do not believe the article. I'm not very gullible, and with topics that don't concern religion, it takes evidence and proof to convince me. The article seems very biased, it is not written formally, and seems to take a sarcastic and playful tone. Aside from that, I don't consider the source reliable as I googled the writer "Ahmet Farouq" and there weren't any results except for one other article written by an "Ahmet Farouq" that had the word "alien" in the title. Overall, the source isn't believable and the article doesn't seem serious. A camel wash doesn't seem completely out of the question but the article doesn't talk about the event in a convincing way. Believing the article would make Yemen seem a bit weird to the outside world and also raise confusion about Al Qaeda.
Look at the second article ‘Loch Ness Monster’ and ask yourselves the same questions.
No, I do not believe this article. Firstly, there is no evidence except for an eye witness account who saw the loch from the "corner" of his eye. He admits himself that he did not see the creature clearly, so it could have been anything. He also didn't have a camera with him or any way of recording the incident. Another reason I don't believe it is from experience. I have thought to see things freom "the corner of my eye" before. But when I looked at the thing in question or focused on it, I realized that I hadn't seen what I thought I saw. The eye witness is Gary Campbell. The source isn't believable. The topic of the alleged Loch Ness Monster has been around for a while and the myth has been debunked. Overall, without evidence, I wouldn't believe the story, and even if 'a monster' was found, it would probably simply be classified as an animal species. What makes a monster a monster? The name is associated with a scary creature, but at the end of the day, any discovery of such a creature would make is classified as some sort of animal. Believing the article would make the person gullible, but not necessary alienated since there are many conspiracy theorists out there, and firm believers in the existence of the 'Loch Ness Monster'.
No, I do not believe the article. I'm not very gullible, and with topics that don't concern religion, it takes evidence and proof to convince me. The article seems very biased, it is not written formally, and seems to take a sarcastic and playful tone. Aside from that, I don't consider the source reliable as I googled the writer "Ahmet Farouq" and there weren't any results except for one other article written by an "Ahmet Farouq" that had the word "alien" in the title. Overall, the source isn't believable and the article doesn't seem serious. A camel wash doesn't seem completely out of the question but the article doesn't talk about the event in a convincing way. Believing the article would make Yemen seem a bit weird to the outside world and also raise confusion about Al Qaeda.
Look at the second article ‘Loch Ness Monster’ and ask yourselves the same questions.
No, I do not believe this article. Firstly, there is no evidence except for an eye witness account who saw the loch from the "corner" of his eye. He admits himself that he did not see the creature clearly, so it could have been anything. He also didn't have a camera with him or any way of recording the incident. Another reason I don't believe it is from experience. I have thought to see things freom "the corner of my eye" before. But when I looked at the thing in question or focused on it, I realized that I hadn't seen what I thought I saw. The eye witness is Gary Campbell. The source isn't believable. The topic of the alleged Loch Ness Monster has been around for a while and the myth has been debunked. Overall, without evidence, I wouldn't believe the story, and even if 'a monster' was found, it would probably simply be classified as an animal species. What makes a monster a monster? The name is associated with a scary creature, but at the end of the day, any discovery of such a creature would make is classified as some sort of animal. Believing the article would make the person gullible, but not necessary alienated since there are many conspiracy theorists out there, and firm believers in the existence of the 'Loch Ness Monster'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)