Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
England's Next Exam Results an Almost Certain Success
by Alfred Wells
London, UK - Test results in the UK could show huge progress for the first time in decades, according to the encouraging reaction of students after their A-levels this summer.
Exam results are not published for almost two months, but the early evidence is promising; almost every student has failed.
A large number of the unintelligent students left the exam disorientated. Later turning indignant, they then logged onto Facebook, creating a group to discuss their collective failure at not being able to understand words.
One comment left says: “I spent every day reading literally dozens of sources learning how the Nazis were tyrants. But nowhere did it mention how the Nazis were specifically ‘despotic’ tyrants. Alarmed and antagonised by this completely unexpected phrase, I then wept into my paper for the rest of the ninety minutes.”
Subsequently, leading universities have been quick to praise the tougher, more intuitive testing.
Admissions officer for Christ Church at Oxford University spoke earlier: "No longer will we have to so rigorously weed out any uncultured morons that manage to slip through into our interview process. This is fantastic news."
The students who performed well were also content. According to one: “I didn’t exactly know what ‘despot’ meant, but I inferred it from the context. That’s why I’m not a complete dunce and why I’m studying law at Kings College London next year. Thank God the examiners will be marking on a bell curve!”
Satire
You have tagged this as satire. Sorry, but is satire not supposed to be funny?
Satires are not strictly just funny
Satires are not strictly just funny (although mine always are). Sometimes satire has the extra benefit of fooling morons into thinking it's actually a proper news article. Like all of the idiots who failed the history test and read this one.
A brief say from me about
A brief say from me about this. I'd say that Hitler and the Nazi's were more of a defensive group. In the sciences, genetics really stood out - the destructive and positive attributes that a person could gain if they bred with certain others, and the ability to progress quicker if the useless people were disposed of. Hitler was simply protecting his culture in my view. He used guns and soldiers against another weapon that would've eventually destroyed their lifestyles over there - The jewish ideology. For the rest of the war, it seemed like America and Russia came in with a more despotic approach. I however can't really classify what oppressive or defensive is anymore though. Most peacekeeping or humanitarian fools will say protect everyone, yet at the same time, there's always going to be that less powerful underground side rising in number, wanting to gain power over the main oppressors - The government. If Hitler himself didn't feel like the german lifestyle was being attacked by the jews, he wouldn't have killed them.... And there is alot of evidence to say they were interrupting. Most people just don't understand history that goes so deep beyond human compassion. Fags just want a paragraph to read, and a dictionary to understand it. Unfortunately, such deep things can't be explained in short to people who are not practiced in the arts of philosophy, politics, or psychology. They'll always take on some subjective or abstract view of what something means if it's written in short.
Evidence? (No Conspiracy Websiyes, please)
"And there is alot of evidence to say they were interrupting."
And what is that evidence? Link? Please, no walls of text about some deep Jewish conspiracy.
"Fags just want a paragraph to read, and a dictionary to understand it. Unfortunately, such deep things can't be explained in short to people who are not practiced in the arts of philosophy, politics, or psychology"
I'm glad our Internet-educated philosopher-academics can back up their statements with evidence.
.....
Genetically they were, and religiously they were... It was not the philosophers, nor the musicians or politicians, nor psychologists who killed god. It was the past. The darwinian realization that swept through accepted science fact killed god - The doctrines accepted in modern (since 1800) academic circle. Science killed the jews and their ideology. The germans just got rid of hungry people to feed, mainly the jews. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe a predator or murderer is needed in society to fix many problems up. I'd murder a lot of priests, politicians, bankers, etc. But unfortunately, I can't get away with that... Shove that evidence up yo ass.
Like I thought
"Genetically they were, and religiously they were..."
Genetically: True, there are differences, but at the time the Germans couldn't really prove them. Hereditary analysis through DNA was unknown. In addition, the Ashkenazi Jews intermarried heavily with Central Europeans over the centuries, so trying to differentiate between a European Jew and a German was not that simple, especially since nearly all European Jews in Germany spoke German.
Religiously: Accepted, but really, what threat did they really pose? Jews don't proselytize at all, so numbers couldn't really prove a threat. Judaism and Christianity share basically the same morality. Why didn't Hitler send all Christians to the gas chambers?
"It was not the philosophers, nor the musicians or politicians, nor psychologists who killed god. It was the past. The darwinian realization that swept through accepted science fact killed god - The doctrines accepted in modern (since 1800) academic circle."
And....? Darwin did most of his work in the late 19th century, by the way.
"Science killed the jews and their ideology."
....and the Christians, and the Muslims, and the Hindus, and the pagans, and the
Wiccans....
"The germans just got rid of hungry people to feed, mainly the jews. There's nothing wrong with that."
Just because God is dead does not mean you should throw all morality out of the window. Hitler abused Nietzsche's thoughts for his own populist power struggle. Hitler did not have a philosophical hammer.
"I believe a predator or murderer is needed in society to fix many problems up. I'd murder a lot of priests, politicians, bankers, etc. But unfortunately, I can't get away with that... "
No one cares about you and your stupid ideology. You would get shot by the same priests, bankers and politicians before you could get your ass off a computer chair.
"Shove that evidence up yo ass."
So wait, you support Hitler's ideology AND you're African American? Lol.
Lol. 19th century is 1800's
Lol. 19th century is 1800's fago. hahaha :D
Mr. Anonymous above me said
Mr. Anonymous above me said "since 1800" when referring to Darwin. Darwin was not even born in 1800. I suggest you learn to read instead of throwing insults towards fellow anonymous posters. :)
Freedom from education.
That's a bit worrying with the kind of 'biased' education we have, i'm going to college soon and like i've already been looking at the a level courses online, they like to throw around labels like 'destructive' alot especially on nationalism.
like this revision site:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Revision:%22Nationalism_is_inherent...
"Nationalism is inherently expansionist and destructive"
"Unlike Socialism or Liberalism, which focus on what’s best for people generally (be it collectivism and co-operation or equality of opportunity and freedom), " - LOL okay.
What happend to unfettered creativity? \=
Britain is anemic, we need some iron no matter how 'destructive' that is to our failing education system, no matter how much that expands over other peoples decadent freedom.