Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 01:58:16 am

Author Topic: [English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis  (Read 1262 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HERculina

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
  • To ∞ and beyond
  • Respect: +11
  • School: St. Trinians
  • School Grad Year: 2012
0
Texts: The Kite Runner
SS Aim: Unknown. yet.
More focused on improving sentence structure and in depth language analysis tho  :)


__________________________________________________________________________________

** you will be required to provide internal hyperlinks to your essays on this post - see my thread to see what I mean **

January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Language analysis - this will need to be hyperlinked

SOME ONE TEACH ME HOW TO HYPERLINK :(


« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 10:38:55 pm by ninwa »
------------------------------------------------------> :D <-----------------------------------------------------

HERculina

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
  • To ∞ and beyond
  • Respect: +11
  • School: St. Trinians
  • School Grad Year: 2012
Re: PhilDunphy's thread
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2011, 08:22:34 pm »
0
Week 3: Language analysis:
Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard

The recent Christmas Island tragedy has raised many questions amongst the Australian public on whether the Labor Government is fully responsible for the deaths of several Middle Eastern, aspiring asylum seekers. Herald Sun writer, Andrew Bolt, in his December 17th article, “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard”, claims that the newly elected Government is indeed to blame, their “softer treatment” an invitation for boat people to risk their lives to come to the Southern Land.  Siding with anyone but the Government, the tactical writer maintains an accusatory tone throughout his piece. Bolt ridicules Prime Minister Gillard on her reckless politics, emphasizing to the audience, namely concerned citizens, the media and politicians, that this manipulative Government has passed on laws that from the very beginning has and will not control the amount of people arriving on Australia’s shores.

As Andrew Bolt highlights to the audience the countless mistakes Labor has made towards the boat people, he ensures that the correct unsympathetic terms are used to describe the party and their rash actions.  Provoking the audience to feel disturbed and alarmed, Bolt utilizes emotive language with attacking connotations, revealing  the “odd” and “disgraceful” way the Gillard “Government cries” and “lie” in attempt to cover their mistakes and ridiculously “fling” the blame on other people such as “you, me, the Navy...” He refers to Labor’s laws as “sugar...promises”, ones that have “caused such suffering” and “lured people onto sinking boats”. Bolt creates a negative picture of Gillard, a lady who “deceitfully....pretended to be horrified”. He intentionally quotes hurtful words such as “vile slur” and “despicable” the present leader once said herself in reference to fellow peer, Warren Truss, in order to further support his negative build up of Julia Gillard. Bolt also gives the audience a wider picture of her workmates, linking the Leftists to “conspiracy”, “casting mud”, “blames”, “screams” and “preposterous things”.

Bolt continues to “blame Julia Gillard’ throughout the article in a mocking and scathing manner. He repetitively employs the sarcastic phrase “It’s never been the right time” to enforce that the Gillard Government has moved from excuse to excuse, not being able to except the fact that they have realistically failed. The audience are moved to feel ashamed of their Government; “odd that,” it was definitely not “too soon” for them to accept that they were responsible for the sunken ships. Bolt effectively slips in his irony, mimicking Gillard’s soft attitude towards a disastrous event; “O, what sugar it was”. Furthermore, the writer attempts to persuade the audience to understand that everything is the opposite of the pretentious words purposely enclosed in quotation marks; the “‘compassionate’ politics” are not compassionate at all, these “‘reforms’” in fact, leading to catastrophic demise along the borders.  Bolt emphasizes to the public that the boats which had “conveniently drowned” were purely victims of a Government encouraging them to hop “on board” in order to “get a good welcome”.

Moreover, the writer maintains a reinforcing voice from the onset, calling for everyone to agree with his subjective but hopefully reasonable arguments against the Australian Government. Bolt accuses the Labor party several times, that “they lie” “they lie” “they lie” with their “sugar” “sugar” “sugar”.  Making his arguments seem more credible, Bolt provides evidence and statistics which immediately point the blame to Julia Gillard and her followers. The audience are sparked with frustration and shock when they read that the number of boats floating to Australia had significantly rose “from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone”.  The unprecedented increase displays that Gillard, whom finally managed to speak “more than 26 hours after this latest boat smashed”, and her weak policies have influenced such a large number of people to perilously travel at sea. Bolt lists other events demonstrating more of the Government’s reckless errors, how “November last year...more boats sunk...carrying 19 Afghans”. He quotes innocent Afghans who declare that “It’s good for refugees there (Australia)”, swaying the audience to shake their heads at the way the Government has hypnotized the Afghans into danger. He also quotes the Labor supporters, a protective Gillard protesting that “these conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts", reporter Dennis Atkins choosing not to blame Gillard but instead, “We are all responsible for this event...” and MP Rob Oakeshott stating “rumours...worst being that Government authorities allowed this to happen”. Bolt ultimately seizes every opportunity to give the audience a reason to detest the Lefts for avoiding responsibility.

Throughout the article, Bolt motions the audience to recognise the right and the wrong, and that the deaths had been an example of the Government’s wrong. Introducing the article with “But why?” rhetorically questions the audience to really look into the issue with feelings of sympathy for the boat people, “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” reinforcing that this is not the end of the “grim consequences” triggered by Labor’s policies.  The colloquial approach in Bolt’s writing style, “Yes, you read that rightly”, “we can see” or “I found, on checking further” gives the audience an appreciative sense that he is attempting to directly contemplate with them, and that they too should agree with his views on the Christmas Island tragedy.  Complementing the piece, the visual image of the struck refugee boat harbouring on Christmas Island shores, urges the audience to feel heartbroken and empathetic towards the “men, women and - God rest them – children“. The close-up of the lonely boat reveals that nobody is on it, that nobody has survived. It’s diagonal upward position, with huge waves hindering the back of the boat, stresses the severity of the damaged boat. The borderline of the island lining the photograph indicating that it was a difficult shot to take as the motionless boat continues to drift.  This image is a painting of Labor’s careless passing of ridiculous policies, Bolt exposing the audience of the unjust nature of Gillard’s “soft” laws.

In an aggressive and distressful piece, Andrew Bolt openly criticizes the Labor Government on their laws and policies he believes guided the Christmas Island deaths. Bolt highlights their faults, specifically Julia Gillard’s unmoving approach towards the news of the deaths. Bolt’s work collects ideas and proof opposing the Labor Party, although, appealing for justice and sympathy for the victims. He positions the audience to doubt Labor’s facade, their work towards asylum and refuge evidently unsuccessful, but still unwilling to admit it.





« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 08:27:21 pm by PhilDunphy »
------------------------------------------------------> :D <-----------------------------------------------------

brightsky

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3136
  • Respect: +200
Re: PhilDunphy's thread - January Week 3 Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2011, 09:18:14 pm »
0
The recent Christmas Island tragedy has raised many questions amongst the Australian public on whether the Labor Government is fully responsible for the deaths of several Middle Eastern, aspiring asylum seekers. Herald Sun writer, Andrew Bolt, in his December 17th article, “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard”, claims that the newly elected Government is indeed to blame, their “softer treatment” an invitation for boat people to risk their lives to come to the Southern Land.  Siding with anyone but the Government, the tactical writer maintains an accusatory tone Best if you add another 'tone word'. One tone word might not be able to show the sophistication in your understanding of the article.throughout his piece. Bolt ridicules Prime Minister Gillard on her reckless politics, emphasizing to the audience, namely concerned citizens, the media and politicians, that this manipulative Government has passed on laws that from the very beginning has and will not control the amount of people arriving on Australia’s shores.Beautiful, controlled writing. But unless I've missed something, you only mentioned one side of the author's contention. He wants something done.

As Andrew Bolt highlights to the audience the countless mistakes Labor has made towards the boat people, he ensures that the correct unsympathetic terms are used to describe the party and their rash actions.  Provoking the audience to feel disturbed and alarmed, Bolt utilizes emotive language with attacking connotations, revealing  the “odd” and “disgraceful” way the Gillard “Government cries” and “lie” in attempt to cover their mistakes and ridiculously “fling” the blame on other people such as “you, me, the Navy...” He refers to Labor’s laws as “sugar...promises”, ones that have “caused such suffering” and “lured people onto sinking boats”. Don't throw quotes around without properly explaining them.Bolt creates a negative picture of Gillard, a lady who “deceitfully....pretended to be horrified”. He intentionally quotes hurtful words such as “vile slur” and “despicable” the present leader once said herself in reference to fellow peer, Warren Truss, in order to further support his negative build up of Julia Gillard. Bolt also gives the audience a wider picture of her workmates, linking the Leftists to “conspiracy”, “casting mud”, “blames”, “screams” and “preposterous things”.So what? What is his broader aim? Also, you fail to explore how and why these words invoke negativity within the reader. Explore it from the reader's perspective.

Bolt continues to “blame Julia Gillard’ throughout the article in a mocking and scathing mannerThis is good.. He repetitively employs the sarcastic phrase “It’s never been the right time” to enforce that the Gillard Government has moved from excuse to excuse, not being able to except the fact that they have realistically failed. The audience are moved to feel ashamed of their Government; “odd that,” it was definitely not “too soon” for them to accept that they were responsible for the sunken ships.Bit confusing, but still good. Bolt effectively slips in his irony, mimicking Gillard’s soft attitude towards a disastrous event; “O, what sugar it was”. Furthermore, the writer attempts to persuade the audience to understand that everything is the opposite of the pretentious words purposely enclosed in quotation marks; the “‘compassionate’ politics” are not compassionate at all, these “‘reforms’” in fact, leading to catastrophic demise along the borders. This is not the effect of irony/sarcasm. Bolt emphasizes to the public that the boats which had “conveniently drowned” were purely victims of a Government encouraging them to hop “on board” in order to “get a good welcome”.Good.

Moreover, the writer maintains a reinforcing voice from the onset, calling for everyone to agree with his subjective but hopefully reasonable argumentsI don't understand how this reinforces your analysis. against the Australian Government. Bolt accuses the Labor party several times, that “they lie” “they lie” “they lie” with their “sugar” “sugar” “sugar”.Hmm?  Making his arguments Wrong wording. Try something like "In order to make his arguments..."seem more credible, Bolt provides evidence and statistics which immediately point the blame to Julia Gillard and her followers. The audience are sparked with frustration and shock when they read that the number of boats floating to Australia had significantly rose “from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone”.  WHY? This is very basic analysing.The unprecedented increase displays that Gillard, whom finally managed to speak “more than 26 hours after this latest boat smashed”, and her weak policies have influenced such a large number of people to perilously travel at sea. Bolt lists other events demonstrating more of the Government’s reckless errors, how “November last year...more boats sunk...carrying 19 Afghans”. He quotes innocent Afghans who declare that “It’s good for refugees there (Australia)”, Starting to overquote here. Also, I get a feel as though you're reducing yourself to listing now.swaying the audience to shake their heads at the way the Government has hypnotized the Afghans into danger. He also quotes the Labor supporters, a protective Gillard protesting that “these conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts", reporter Dennis Atkins choosing not to blame Gillard but instead, “We are all responsible for this event...” and MP Rob Oakeshott stating “rumours...worst being that Government authorities allowed this to happen”. Bolt ultimately seizes every opportunity to give the audience a reason to detest the Lefts for avoiding responsibility.Good ending line, although the problem of overquoting is definitely clear here.

Throughout the article, Bolt motions the audience to recognise the right and the wrongI love the way you do this., and that the deaths had been an example of the Government’s wrong. Introducing the article with “But why?” rhetorically questions the audience to really look into the issue with feelings of sympathy for the boat people, “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” reinforcing that this is not the end of the “grim consequences” triggered by Labor’s policies.  The colloquial approach in Bolt’s writing style, “Yes, you read that rightly”, “we can see” or “I found, on checking further” gives the audience an appreciative sense that he is attempting to directly contemplate with themExpand on this in the reader's perspective. How might the reader be swayed if the author presents this image?, and that they too should agree with his views on the Christmas Island tragedy.  Complementing the piece, the visual image of the struck refugee boat harbouring on Christmas Island shores, urges the audience to feel heartbroken and empatheticYou get the direct effects right, but fail to explore them deeper. towards the “men, women and - God rest them – children“. The close-up of the lonely boat reveals that nobody is on it, that nobody has survived. It’s diagonal upward position, with huge waves hindering the back of the boat, stresses the severity of the damaged boat. The borderline of the island lining the photograph indicating that it was a difficult shot to take as the motionless boat continues to drift.  This image is a painting of Labor’s careless passing of ridiculous policies, Bolt exposing the audience of the unjust nature of Gillard’s “soft” laws.I think the image deserves a separate paragraph.

In an aggressive and distressful piece, Andrew Bolt openly criticizes the Labor Government on their laws and policies he believes guided the Christmas Island deaths. Bolt highlights their faults, specifically Julia Gillard’s unmoving approach towards the news of the deaths. Bolt’s work collects ideas and proof opposing the Labor Party, although, appealing for justice and sympathy for the victims. He positions the audience to doubt Labor’s facade, their work towards asylum and refuge evidently unsuccessful, but still unwilling to admit it.Beautiful conclusion.

Beautiful writing overall. Sometimes, I felt as though you were getting into something, but then stopped at a very superficial analysis of a technique's effects on the reader, e.g. invokes anger. Don't stop there, delve deeper. Also, the tendency to overquote, although relatively speaking not a thing of great significance, can potentially lose you some marks. Try to pick out the most important quotes, and revolve your analysis around these specific quotes. But seriously, very fluid writing. I'd say around 8.5/10, probably a bit higher.
2020 - 2021: Master of Public Health, The University of Sydney
2017 - 2020: Doctor of Medicine, The University of Melbourne
2014 - 2016: Bachelor of Biomedicine, The University of Melbourne
2013 ATAR: 99.95

Currently selling copies of the VCE Chinese Exam Revision Book and UMEP Maths Exam Revision Book, and accepting students for Maths Methods and Specialist Maths Tutoring in 2020!

Water

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +116
Re: PhilDunphy's thread - January Week 3 Language Analysis
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2011, 09:26:52 pm »
0
The recent Christmas Island tragedy has raised many questions amongst the Australian public on whether the Labor Government is fully responsible for the deaths of several Middle Eastern, aspiring asylum seekers Herald Sun writer, Andrew Bolt, in his December 17th article, “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard”, claims that the newly elected Government is to blame, The transition is awkward, from blame to, their soft treatment, maybe just insert "and"? their “softer treatment” an invitation for boat people to risk their lives to come to the Southern Land.  Siding with anyone Totally unneccessary. Is he also siding to those who  have ambivalent feelings on the issue? surely not. but the Government, the tactical writer maintains an accusatory tone throughout his piece. Bolt ridicules Prime Minister Gillard on her reckless politics, emphasizing to the audience, namely concerned citizens Generic, who are concerned? Rubbish people can also be citizens and concerned, BE SPECIFIC!, the media and politicians GOOD! Specific like that, that this manipulative Government has passed on laws that from the very beginning has has? huh? Your looking " have not?" wording issue. and will not control the amount of people arriving on Australia’s shores.

As Andrew Bolt highlights to the audience the countless mistakes Labor Is it mistakes? If this issue has been since last year? or just negligence and slack has made towards the boat people,New sentence he ensures that the correct unsympathetic terms are used to describe the party and their rash actions.  You should put this afterwards you state your technique., By "provoking etc" you limit your will to express its effect because of length of sentence. Otherwise the reader would be "feel disturbed and alarmed. " To what degree? Provoking the audience to feel disturbed and alarmed, Bolt utilizes emotive language with attacking connotations, revealing  the “odd” and “disgraceful” way the Gillard “Government cries” and “lie” in attempt to cover their mistakes Better word than mistake? Word choice and ridiculously “fling” the blame on other people such as “you, me, the Navy...” He refers to Labor’s laws as “sugar...promises”, ones that have “caused such suffering” and “lured people onto sinking boats” GREAT STUFF!. Bolt creates a negative picture of Gillard, a lady who “deceitfully....pretended to be horrified”. He intentionally quotes hurtful words such as “vile slur” and “despicable” the present leader once said herself in reference to fellow peer, Warren Truss, in order to further support his negative build up of Julia Gillard. Bolt also gives the audience a wider picture of her workmates, linking the Leftists to “conspiracy”, “casting mud”, “blames”, “screams” and “preposterous things”. How does this affect his article? By offering a wider picture? How is the effect achieved onto the reader?

Bolt continues to “blame Julia Gillard’ throughout the article in a mocking and scathing manner Isn't tone similar too similar to maner? Is the author in a mocking and scathing tone? or accusatory tone? or all three? If you want to discuss it, then you can seperate your tone from introduction and do it in detail. He repetitively employs the sarcastic phrase “It’s never been the right time” to enforce that the Gillard Government has moved from excuse to excuse, not being able to except the fact that they have realistically failed. The audience are moved to feel ashamed of their Government; “odd that,” it was definitely not “too soon” for them to accept that they were responsible for the sunken ships. Bolt effectively slips in his irony, mimicking Gillard’s soft attitude Bit awkward, I didn't notice the technique, your technique is too subtle. Outline it! towards a disastrous event; “O, what sugar it was”. Furthermore, the writer attempts to persuade Too generic... authors always want to persuade their reader the audience to understand that everything is the opposite of the pretentious words purposely enclosed in quotation marks; the “‘compassionate’ politics” are not compassionate at all, these “‘reforms’” in fact, leading to catastrophic demise along the borders.  Bolt emphasizes to the public that the boats which had “conveniently drowned” were purely victims of a Government encouraging them to hop “on board” in order to “get a good welcome”. This sentence seems out of place with your entire paragraph?
 
Moreover, the writer maintains a reinforcing voice from the onset, calling for everyone to agree with his subjective but hopefully reasonable arguments against the Australian Government. Bolt accuses the Labor party several times, that “they lie” “they lie” “they lie” with their “sugar” “sugar” “sugar” For these two sentences, I could not identify the technique. it left me confused..  Making his arguments seem more credible, Bolt provides evidence and statistics FINALLY. TECHNIQUES! THATS WHAT IM TALKING BOUT! which immediately point the blame to Julia Gillard and her followers. The audience are sparked with frustration and shock when they read that the number of boats floating to Australia had significantly rose “from three a year over the previous six years, to almost 200 this year alone”.  The unprecedented increase displays that Gillard, whom finally managed to speak So what? “more than 26 hours after this latest boat smashed”,  How does speaking relate to weaker policies? and her weak policies have influenced such a large number of people to perilously travel at sea. Bolt lists other events demonstrating more of Unneccessary the Government’s reckless errors, how “November last year...more boats sunk...carrying 19 Afghans”. He quotes innocent Afghans who declare that “It’s good for refugees there (Australia)”, swaying the Better wording for the effect? Lazy and slack audience to shake their heads at the way the Government has hypnotized Mislead? You mean? the Afghans into danger . He also quotes the Labor supporters, a protective Gillard protesting that “these conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts", reporter Dennis Atkins choosing not to blame Gillard but instead, “We are all responsible for this event...” and MP Rob Oakeshott stating “rumours...worst being that Government authorities allowed this to happen”. The previous and last sentence does not link. Because of "ultimately" it appears that you have made a general ending sentence to your paragraph. I know what your trying to mean, but it is way too vague. The reader of this essay will be left to question? Huhh? Why are inserting Labor support quotes or whatever? I just read enormous amounts of quotes for no reason! Its effect, how does it position the author. How does it affect the reader? Bolt ultimately seizes every opportunity to give the audience a reason to detest the Lefts for avoiding responsibility.

Throughout the article, Bolt motions the audience to recognise the right and the wrong, and that the deaths had been an example of the Government’s wrong Too General, and wheres the technique. Unless recognizing the right and wrong is a technique in itself? . Introducing the article with “But why?” rhetorically questions TECHNIQUE, BUT YOU NEED TO PUT IT IN YOUR TOPIC SENTENCE. WHy is it in your SECOND SENTENCE!! the audience to really look into the issue with feelings of sympathy for the boat people, “Before the next boat sinks, or after?” reinforcing that this is not the end of the “grim consequences” triggered by Labor’s policies. You shifted to a new technique too quickly? I feel bombarded    The colloquial approach in Bolt’s writing style, “Yes, you read that rightly”, “we can see” or “I found, on checking further” gives the audience an appreciative sense that he is attempting to directly contemplate with them, and that they too should agree with his views on the Christmas Island tragedy One sentence for an entire techniue again?.  Complementing the piece, the visual image of the struck refugee boat harbouring on Christmas Island shores, urges the audience to feel heartbroken and empathetic towards the “men, women and - God rest them – children“. The close-up of the lonely boat reveals that nobody is on it, that nobody has survived. It’s diagonal upward position, with huge waves hindering the back of the boat, stresses the severity of the damaged boat. The borderline of the island lining the photograph indicating that it was a difficult shot to take as the motionless boat continues to drift  Does it matter if it was a difficult shot or a hard shot? Go in more detail if you want to keep it. Analayze what it conveys etc etc..  This image is a painting of Labor’s careless passing of ridiculous policies, Bolt exposing the audience of the unjust nature of Gillard’s “soft” laws Awkward from policies to Bolt.

In an aggressive and distressful piece, Andrew Bolt openly criticizes the Labor Government on their laws and policies he believes guided the Christmas Island deaths. Bolt highlights their faults, specifically Julia Gillard’s unmoving approach towards the news of the deaths. Bolt’s work collects ideas and proof opposing the Labor Party, although, appealing for justice and sympathy for the victims. He positions the audience to doubt Labor’s facade, their work towards asylum and refuge, evidently unsuccessful, but still unwilling to admit it.  EXCELLENT!




Overall Comment: Your essay was wordy and confusing. I found a hard time to identity exact techniques and when it was stated, it was not in your topic sentence. When you wrote your paragraphs and attempted to state your techniques, the techniques were too general. You need to be specific with your techniques. To recognize the right and wrong? Not sure if this is a technique? Other reviewers can correct with me. Similiarly, "highlighting countless mistakes" is far too broad. The examiner is looking for the writer to go in depth, in detail of the techniques and how it effects the reader and the author. I know that your in year 11 this year, so i congratulate your effort. Your expression, vocabulory and fluency is well ahead of what i would expect of some people in a new year 11. Because of this, I strongly suggest you look at techniques specifically rather than incorporating many techniques. Like reptition, appeal to justice? perhaps? or just stating your techniques much more clearly so that the reader doesn't have to put in the effort to find it. Good job as a new year 11 writing a language analysis. As you have just vaguely been taught this in school as a year 10, and in yr 11 , you will be going into more depth, I will still be marking it as a year 12 student :)


Overall Score  7.



PS: sorry Brightsky, I thought this was excellent writing as well, but till I had to dissect it into parts, it got confusing to me ): Other reviews, the reader might think otherwise to the mark and analysis that I have given.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 10:02:30 pm by Water »
About Philosophy

When I see a youth thus engaged,—the study appears to me to be in character, and becoming a man of liberal education, and him who neglects philosophy I regard as an inferior man, who will never aspire to anything great or noble. But if I see him continuing the study in later life, and not leaving off, I should like to beat him - Callicle

HERculina

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
  • To ∞ and beyond
  • Respect: +11
  • School: St. Trinians
  • School Grad Year: 2012
Re: PhilDunphy's thread - January Week 3 Language Analysis
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2011, 10:44:10 pm »
0
THANKS GUYS! Woah you marked my work so quickly   :)

Yea, people always complain about how confusing my writing is. That was the first time I've ever written an essay with more than 3 body paragraphs :D
Ill work on explaining the effects more thoroughly in the future and ill definitely be more specific. Funny how the intro took me the longest and the conclusion took me the shortest to write it, and the conclusion turned out better than the intro.  However, I guess if this had been an actual exam type thingy, I wouldnt have finished it - i never finish my essays on time  :'(

But your marking and comments shall be very helpful for me  :smitten:
THANKYOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUYou guys marked my work more thoroughly than my English teacher did last yr  :o
------------------------------------------------------> :D <-----------------------------------------------------