Pacser, the malevolent ghost, wandered around the house where he lived in his former life, before he was killed in cold blood. Now Pacser haunts the halls, lookin for the one that ended his life prematurley. He remembers the police investigation, almost 1 year ago. Officer McClaine headed up the investigation, and the only clue that turned up was a bronze AA coin, celebrating 2 weeks of sobriety. The coin was splashed with Pacser's Blood

Pacser knew that McClaine was in the program, but did not suspect he was the murderer until now. McClain came back for the first time since the investigation. Pacser followed him to the basement where Pacser used to get high with his friends. McClaine then opened the secret bookcase door to see Pacser's stash of Peruvian cocaine and heroin. As McClaine tied off, Pacser saw his chance for payback.

Pacser entered the syringem causing a little pocket of air to form at the tip of the needle after McClaine had checked. Pacser was then injected into McClaine's blood, and, as a tiny bubble of air, found his way intothe dirty cop's heart. Once there, Pacser expanded, killinghim almost instantly. Content with the revenge he had exacted, Pacser passed on, leaving McClaine where he lay.

Titan and related excuses

Apparantly I am not allowed to paste my rough draft concerning the book Titan onto the blog. how strange and extremley annoying. rather than retype all of it, I hope it is satisfactory that I bring 2 copies of the draft to class in lieu of the online copy. Maybe 3.

Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind" response

Many of the points that Kenneth tries to make in this article are very self evident. On page 636, he draws on "ten years or research" of select medical students, and learns that people learn better when they are in a small group. Essentially, that two heads are better than one. He then goes into a more elaborate line of reasoning, saying that human beings are defined by conversation. Rational thought, by his standard, are conversations with yourself, and how you converse with your peers dictates how you think when you are by yourself.

I have an issue with that. I think that the way one thinks privatley would, more often than not, determine the medium to which they hold a conversation with their peers.

He finally begins coming to a conclusion around page 641, where he begins to tie his previous thoughts back into the implication on Education. He thinks that writing is "internalized conversation re-externalized". Pretty much, what you think, you write. I would hope that you wouldn't write something without thinking about it first, but that's just me. He then goes on to say that the way that we talk "determines...the way they will write"

Here I have another issue. He is assuming that Articulate speakers are great writers and thinkers. One can be a great public speaker and have nothing at all to contribute to the literary world.