what the dog saw

in this essay there is a relationship between dogs and humans. this is a special relationship that exist only between dogs and humans, it does not work with humans as well. when training a dog Cesar was successful because he was stern. a dog is effected by the actions and emotions of the human. the slant of a persons body can influence the interpretation of the attitude of the person.
"If you exaggerate this by tightening the leash, as many owners do, you can actually cause the dogs to attack each other. Think of it: the dogs are in a tense social encounter, surrounded by support from their own pack, with the humans forming a tense, staring, breathless circle around them. I don't know how many times I've seen dogs shift their eyes toward their owner's frozen faces, and then launch growling at the other dog"
what this is saying is that the emotion of the humans influences the dogs. if the owner would have stayed calm and just let the dogs sized each other up with out worrying, it is believed that the dogs would stay well behaved. it is because most owners get tense about the dogs meeting that the dog become aggressive. cesar was such a successful dog trainer because he knew how the dogs react to different signals. he shows his dominance and shows the dog who is the boss.

stalking

the puropose of the stalking exercise was to stalk people. professor lay had us do this to see who is a natural creeper and who is not creepy at all. just kidding, the purpose of this activity was to strenghten out observational skills. when we stalked the person we watched them for a long time. this gave everone time to notice behaviors of the person, physical dicriptions, and what they were wearing. by observing a subject for a certain amount of time we can notice things that we probally wouldn't of noticed at just a glance. it also helps us conclude some kind of knowledge about the stalked.

incompitence of some sports analzist on sny

did the mets have a horrible year? yes they did, for the first time in the last 3 or 4 years the mets where a team that played below .500. but what else could be expected when half the team's major players get injured. it started out with the loss of oliver perez. but that is a totally acceptable loss, he is probally the worst starter that the mets currently have on their staff. he is overpaid, with major problems but he has gotten to this point because of his glimmers of excellence. but the problem is that he has issues that need to be worked out in the minors, but because of the high wages that are paid to major league players teams don't want to do that. the injuries that hurt them the most were the injuries to jose reyes, who sparked most of the teams offense from the leadoff position. when he inatially left he was gonna miss a day or 2 because of a pain behind his knee, then the next thing you know he was gone the entire year. carlos delgado's injury was also significant. without him the mets lacked their power bat and after he was gone the mets as a team hit less homeruns. but all of the injuries at that point did not eliminate the mets from the hunt to get to the playoffs. it was the injury to carlos beltron that finally put the nail in the coffin. with beltron gone the offense failed to score runs. when this happened the pitching staff got stressed and started giving up more runs. but despite this horrible season there were a few good things. somehow the mets lead the national league for batting average, and carlos beltron and luis castillo had amazing years, each hitting above .300. now that it is the off season all the sports people are talking out their ass on what the mets need to fix their problems to be able to win next year. they want to replace castillo. but what they don't realize becasue they are so imcompitant is that luis doen't need to be replaced. he was the most consistant player last year and still has years left on his contract. it really pisses me off when the mets have some many needs, (left fielder, catcher, firstbasemen, starting pitcher, and a power bat) an yet they are talking about trading prospects to obtain something that doesn't need to be replaced. i do agree with them on one point, that the mets need a starting pitcher. sure they still have santana, but maine just came back from surgery, pelfrey didn't have the best year and perez was just aweful. the mets currently have 4 out of 5 rotation pitchers and they want to aquire a pitch that could be a number 2 like john lackey, which i like. but the mets do not need to fill their 5th spot, i think that one of their 3 good rookie pitchers should take the spot in a compitition and they should either send perez to the minors or the bullpen. as for first base, the mets still have daniel murphey, they have criticized him for not being a good fielder, but come on. he was put at first base around halfway throught the season and it isn't his regular position. it will take time for him to develop his defense, as for his offense, i think he will do go. he has proven this year, especially at the end that he has the talent to be a .300 hitter and have a good onbase percentage. the main issue however is the fact that the sport people need to take their head out of their ass and only talk about things that are needed!

response to chelsea'd stitch bitch questions

1) What does Jackson mean when she says, "Hypertext leaves you naked with yourself in every leap...?"
what she means by this is that when you are using hypertext, every aspect of that writing is viewable. it can be entered into at any point and have any meaning that is within the text ripped out. it leaves you naked with every leap because all hypertext can be exposed the same way. there is no way to controy the order that a reader readsa a hypertext. thet can start at one point, get bored, just jump somewhere else. it leaves you naked because the writer has no control over the hypertext. once it is written and published it can't be controlled.

stitch bitch

1. why do you think of yourself as multiple people?
2. why does each section need its own title
3. if the human body is made of piece stitched together, and those piece can't be considered human, what are they then to you?
4. when you say "to interrupt, unhinge, disable the processes by which the mind, glorying in its own firm grip on what it wishes to include in reality, gradually shuts out more and more of it, and substitutes an effigy for that complicated machine for inclusion and effusion that is the self." do you mean that people need to let go of their narrow minded and maybe even jaded views of the world?
5. what do you mean that hyper text doesn't know where it is going
6. what do you mean by "Hypertext is schizophrenic: you can't tell what's the original and what's the reference."

after reading stitch bitch i can honestly say i am the most confused i have ever been in my life. i feel that i know just about as much as i did about this reading as when i started it. the entire thing was riddled with two many metaphors. i am now going to do something i never do, use a metaphor to further state my point. now this metaphor is inspired by what i was just doing before i started this post, messing with the mob wars application on facebook. now the use of metaphors in stitch bitch was like bullet wounds in a guy who pissed off the mob. they were everywhere, now a man could survive a bullet wound if it doesn't hit any fatal organs. But after reading stitch bitch i would have to say that the guy was shot early and often and it ocassionally hit a major organ, and yes i thought it was that painful to read. another thing that really annoyed me in stitch bitch that really annoyed me was the fact that every section had its own title. i mean really, does every section need to be titled, i understand that you want to make it clear that there is a different section but, if the entire thing is going to be read don't you think that the reader would be intelligent enough to notice the change in subject. although after reading it i find it hard to even find any clear pattern of thought in this work, maybe a point is made in the first couple of sentences, but then it goes on to the point where i would have stopped reading if i didn't have to do an assignment on it. now when it comes to hypertexts, i agree that they can be used as an easy way to comine texts to influence a reader. but that text needs to be put together in a way in which the reader is captivated to keep reading and not bored to death and left wondering why that many metaphors were needed!

Billy Collins

1. who is he writing the poem for?
2. why does he start talking about himself?
3. why isn't she the things he said she wasn't?
4. is this really supposed to be a love poem?
5. what type fo theft is this poem?
6. how is rewriting a poem for another artist a curtsy?

2. he starts talking about himself because in his poem, he is making fun of the typical love poem. it has been since ancient times that when a poem is written about a woman, it compliments her by comparing her to majestic things. he does the opposite of this however. he told her of the things that she wasn't. he then continued on to mention himself and how amazing he is. saying that "i am the sound of rain on the roof, a shooting star, the evening paper blowing down an alley, and ther basket of chestnuts on the kitchen table." by doing this he is taking the typical flatering aspect of the love poem and turning it on himself instead of flattering the woman.

Jonathan Lethem's "The ecstasy of influence" 2

i feel that lethem is so obsessed with writer's being influenced is because he is afraid of the destruction of creativity. as a writer becomes more dependent on other people's works, they create less and less until all of their work is someone elses. if this where to happen writing as we know it would be gone an all that would be left of shreds of different artist's materials

In Jonathan Lethem's "The Ecstasy of Influence', he is saying that not all plagerism is bad. by this he means that it is ok to use information from someone else as long as it is not the exact same thing. if the works are toyed with alittle then it is ok. john donne said "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated. . . . "
what this is saying is that without plagerism certain things could be forgotten. by writers using stuff that has already been used, the writers are forced to "reinvent" the previous' writers work. for me the use of other people's works gives me almost no feeling. this is not true for all writers though, for instance Burroughs described his writing process as, "the hairs on my neck stood up, so palpable was the excitement." now burrough's was an author who was descovered to have used works of other authors in his own work. so it is quite clear that this bit of plagerism has given him excitement. some students on the otherhand might be made uncomfortable shameful of their use of plagerized material.

response to mark twain's views on writing

Mark Twain said "We write frankly and fearlessly but then we "modify" before we print." What he is saying in this statement is that as writers, we begin by writing exactly what we feel and not what is socially acceptable. However before the work is published the writer goes back to their work and changes the writing so it is more acceptable by society. This applies to blogging as well. Most people really worry about what people think of them. Because of this they take their orginal writing that is filled with emotion, and change it to something that is less "offensive" to people who might not agree with the writer. Now although several writers do this, I do not. I speak my mind and say everything with all the orginal emotion and though that I put into it. I honestly would hate myself if I didn't. It is fine for people to alter what they express but it is just not for me. For example if the purpose of my post was to make a point, i want my post to be as effective as possible, even if it is not popular. I mean why would i want to conform to the norm when I can state my mind, and in this statement, even if is not well liked, convice atleast one person to think the same way as I do on a topic.