in lit again

http://www.absoluteshakespeare.com/guides/twelfth_night/summary/twelfth_night_summary.htm

it's another site, better lah. the addy is here because im too lazy to mail it to myself since i'll probab want to look at it mor thoroughly at home.

anyway, it was english just now and my teacher [here's to you Suzanna Lee!] realy miffed me. my classmate was saying the word fanatical used to describe the Japanese during WW2 can be replaced by 'patriotism' since they WERE fighting for their country. well, she disagreed- which in a way i agreed cause the japs were INVADING, not defending.

but that's not the point here.

in her self-righteous way, she told him,
"your content cannot be according to your own way [ie.opinion]. it must be according to the majority, the world majority."

other than being grammatically dodgy, the comment really leaves much to the supposed desire to encourage creative thinking.

a few moments later she said as we were writing down our answers, "you must not just write down what i say. you musn't copy blindly, you must think."

oh yes, of course suzie. it doesnt matter i suppose if we think only opinions that are actually YOURS but when it contradicts with you, duh, it's WRONG. i get it suzie.

i understand life now.

bugger it. then we were going through definitions of words and the word 'self-effacing' came up. she said it meant humble. hah. just to prove her wrong, i checked the dict; it meant inconspicuos [-i cant spell-]. so i told her and she insisited it meant the same thing. helloo? it's so not.
humble does not equal inconspicuos. it's different you complete self-righteous arse!! argh. she just irritates me.
___________________________

oh yes. i volunteered for the Raffles Mock UN Conference thing. erm, it just occured to me what i got myself into. dumdeedeedum. --''