Basket.

Ok, bit of shameless plugging here. Please take a look at my new history blog.

A Wrong Turn.

Thank you!

This is a follow-up to the previous post. I have been reading opinions at the ST website regarding the subject, and have unsurprisingly unearthed a number of gems. How is your entitlement complex today, Singapore?

Comment A

Personally, I think those who has no children and does not have any kids taken PSLE before should avoid posting comments on this area. The callous comments by some here is not needed here as you have not been through this road recently or before. My kids have been through the USA education system as well as the singapore school system and of course the recent PSLE too. Although the USA maths are laid back and not as fast paced as us, but for sure, the kids are much more confident and happier than those educated here. They are not rushed through higher and higher standards every year in our local system with so much homework especially from P4 onwards. All these talk about teach less learn more ? Yet , they test more and more on problems that are not been learnt by them before. One thing for sure, PSLE may be creaming the Ace students , so go review these Ace students through another separate exam, like the GEP kind. Don't dampen the spirits of all children who have worked diligently hard for their PSLE maths and yet feel as if they have not finished well......

Ok, let's see...

Personally, I think those who has no children and does not have any kids taken PSLE before should avoid posting comments on this area.

SHUT UP YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT'S LIKE. Great argument, Madam. It's wonderful to see that the people of this fair nation still believe in democracy and free speech.

The callous comments by some here is not needed here as you have not been through this road recently or before.

Aww, did someone hurt your feelings? Guess what, no one gives a fuck. Maybe you could have a look at some of those comments and reflect upon your own beliefs and/or parenting (or lack thereof).

Although the USA maths are laid back and not as fast paced as us, but for sure, the kids are much more confident and happier than those educated here. They are not rushed through higher and higher standards every year in our local system with so much homework especially from P4 onwards.

Yes, and guess what, the Americans are now thinking that this maybe isn't the best way to bring up the next generation. It's a tough world and you need a tough education system - and the Singaporean one is already much improved from even when I was in it. There are so many choices these days and all that talk about niche areas. What are you complaining about?

Yet , they test more and more on problems that are not been learnt by them before.

I assume you have proof for such allegations? Nah, that's probably too much to hope for.

One thing for sure, PSLE may be creaming the Ace students , so go review these Ace students through another separate exam, like the GEP kind.

Due to her shitty English, it took me a while to figure out what exactly she was trying to say over here. Not that it's much of value, because she is apparently advocating the dumbing down of the education system and perhaps grade inflation.

Don't dampen the spirits of all children who have worked diligently hard for their PSLE maths and yet feel as if they have not finished well......

So we should teach students that hard work always results in success? That's setting them up for a harder fall later in life, when it'll hurt a lot more, too. Effort doesn't always pay off; virtually anybody can tell you that. Sometimes we fail even though we tried our hardest. Life has a nasty habit of not giving us what we want. We should not hide this from our younger generation, because it is just setting them up for a far more traumatic fall.

Conclusion: Writer believes that education system should be dumbed down so kids will be happier; consequences of this later in life are not of concern.


Comment B

To those who disparage the parents who wrote in to say that the PSLE Maths paper was tough and MOE's approach is right:

Have you seen any of the the questions or has anyone one of your child related to you some of the questions which are said to be difficult?

I understand that there was a question involving the arrangement of chairs which could be solved by the model method but results in fraction of a chair if solved by algebra.

If that is so, the one who set the question and those who validate the question should apologise, as a Maths problem cannot result in different answer using different methods of solving, at least at PSLE level.

Point 2:

For all that Singapore is well known for the teaching of Maths, HOW MANY of those who were eventually admitted to RI/RGS/Hwa Chong, say 20 to 25 years ago, have made a name of themselves in the field of Maths in the international business/scientific/maths arena as compared to other countries with different approaches to the TESTING of school children in maths?

Perhaps you could start with your own achievement, if any.

Right.

I understand that there was a question involving the arrangement of chairs which could be solved by the model method but results in fraction of a chair if solved by algebra.

If that is so, the one who set the question and those who validate the question should apologise, as a Maths problem cannot result in different answer using different methods of solving, at least at PSLE level.

This example is so vague that I have no way whatsoever of verifying its authencity. He could well be talking out of his ass. In fact, he most probably is. Even if true, well, what can I say? Setters, those in charge of vetting and final approval are all human. Mistakes happen, inevitably, from time to time. Is this a reason to condemn MOE for all eternity?

For all that Singapore is well known for the teaching of Maths, HOW MANY of those who were eventually admitted to RI/RGS/Hwa Chong, say 20 to 25 years ago, have made a name of themselves in the field of Maths in the international business/scientific/maths arena as compared to other countries with different approaches to the TESTING of school children in maths?

Yes, logic dictates that every single person who was ever good in maths at school MUST become a mathematician and prove an arcane new theorem. The success of an education system is measure by the success of entire cohorts of students, not individual successes. This is an extremely poor argument he is making here; since Singapore has not produced world renowned mathematicians, our education system has failed. What utter claptrap.


Comment C

People thinks that difficult question is ok, is missing the point. They missed the point because PSLE is not suppose to be a gift education programme exams. It should be structured to cater to the average student. They should not lift the bar to cater to the top schools because it would be too easy for them.

Let me give you an exaggerated example. How do you think the average students would fair, if 2/3 of the exams ask uni level questions. Only those who are very bright can answer it. Is this a good test for PSLE? Is that the minimum standards one has to acheive before leaving primary school?

Those who have taken the test and said it is easy are either from top primary school or have tuition teacher coach them on papers from those top schools.
In a sense those difficult questions are nothing new to them. It cannot be said the same for the average school.

This PSLE just highlight a great disparity between standards of the school. The PSLE examiners should not peg the PSLE to the top school but to the standard school with maybe 10%-15% given to difficult question.

If the test is too difficult, even if they are t scores adjusted it would look really weird because it is not a normal distribution. First the people from the top schools would probably be very much off the mean. secondly, there is very little discrimatory power between the average and poor students because those questions are beyond them. In fact you got to play around with more than just using t scores.

I think MOE in their pursuit of producing math prodigy has lost their sight on the real purpose of PSLE.

For those who think it is good to give difficult questoin go try some of the difficult questions before you comment.

I think this one is the best yet.

People thinks that difficult question is ok, is missing the point. They missed the point because PSLE is not suppose to be a gift education programme exams. It should be structured to cater to the average student. They should not lift the bar to cater to the top schools because it would be too easy for them.

It is not possible that the PSLE consists of only difficult questions. In fact, most of the questions highlighted usually carry something like 2 or 3 marks. They can easily be skipped over because they are of such low weightage. Anyone who has been taught proper time management would know not to fuss over such questions, but to skip and go on with the rest of the paper. Unless their teacher is a gibbering idiot, practically all Singaporean students should have been taught this. Personally, I stressed it to my tutee. There is no point obsessing over 2 or 3 marks in a 100-mark paper. There is even less point obsessing over a 2-3 mark question after the paper in question.

As for catering to average students, the paper itself might not always: but MOE's grading policies, I'm quite sure, do. Letters like this miss the point: with a difficult paper, the marks needed for a distinction, for instance, will be lower than for an easy paper. It evens out in the end.

For that last sentence there, again I have no doubts whatsoever that he has inconvertible proof of this occurring.

This PSLE just highlight a great disparity between standards of the school. The PSLE examiners should not peg the PSLE to the top school but to the standard school with maybe 10%-15% given to difficult question.

Apparently this person is convinced that PSLE Maths papers are chock-full of difficult questions, and that there is some sort of conspiracy between MOE and "the top schools". Makes plenty of sense, I suppose.

If the test is too difficult, even if they are t scores adjusted it would look really weird because it is not a normal distribution. First the people from the top schools would probably be very much off the mean. secondly, there is very little discrimatory power between the average and poor students because those questions are beyond them. In fact you got to play around with more than just using t scores.

This part is barely coherent. I think he's just rambling about his kid getting shafted while trying to appear not to be rambling about his kid getting shafted.

I think MOE in their pursuit of producing math prodigy has lost their sight on the real purpose of PSLE.

This man has discovered the secret of creating Maths prodigies. Apparently, all that is needed is to take an ordinary student, lock him in a windowless steel room and make him do really difficult maths questions all day long, everyday, for years. Never mind that the very definition of a prodigy is someone born with an affinity for the subject!

His English is just that shitty, anyway.


To conclude, all these letters miss the point. Examinations are more than just about marks. They are about mark bands as well. Mark bands are determined by the performance of the entire batch; so that in a difficult paper, the grade needed for a distinction would be lower, and so on and so forth. All these people who complain just can't bloody understand that. They seem only able to comprehend and propagate the ridiculously simple (and erroneous) equation that difficult paper=poor marks=poor grade. That is not how it works at all.

This is not even touching upon the fact that the vast majority are making a mountain out of a molehill. Most really difficult questions highlighted (such as the infamous 1+2+3+...+97+98+99+100) are 2-3 marks, maximum. They can be easily left aside with little loss. I am very sure that the vast majority of students have been told not to obsess over questions they do not know how to do, but to move on first and come back later if there is time. It's not like 50% of the paper is one very huge, complex problem sum - but they're behaving like that is exactly the case.

Additionally of note is the fact that the percentages of As, Bs, Cs et al has hardly changed over the years. But complaining parents (conveniently?) overlook this fact.

In short, stop bitching about something you don't at all understand.

Annual PSLE Post

Yes, it's that time of year again, and my august countrymen have not failed me. In fact, this year they've gone one better. You'll see.

It's a slightly different story this time, or so I interpreted it. No one explicitly said the paper was too hard; the complaints this time was about teachers only focusing on Sections A and B, and not C, of the Maths paper. As such, some parents felt that their children had been disadvantaged. They were also really concerned that their children had failed their preliminary examinations really badly.

The first query I have is, of course, why did you only begin panicking when your child failed his prelims? It's not like this is the only exam all year. One does not pass all year and then simply fail dismally overnight. There must have been warning signs. Apparently, you ignored them and then decided to blame the teacher, instead of yourself for, oh, I don't know, not being concerned about your child's education until it was far too fucking late?

But let's leave that aside first and consider how the school replied.

"Section C is an extension of both sections A and B. The first two sections will help weaker students apply the basic skills when tackling the more challenging sums in section C."

I think this is perfectly reasonable. What too many parents cannot understand is that learning is a step-by-step process, particularly if the student has no aptitude for the subject. You build from the basics up. You can't just zoom right to the hardest parts, drill students over and over in those parts and voila, come up with good results. Education is not magic, and teachers are not wizards. If your kid can't even do well in sections A and B of the PSLE (multiple choice and short answer questions, respectively), you cannot expect him to do well in problem sums. If he can't handle short answer questions, of course he will be "intimidated" (quote) by problem sums.

And if the kid could not handle multiple choice and short answer questions at the eleventh hour, the question arises again: what the fuck was he doing all year?

Or maybe: what the fuck were you doing all year?

A child's education is as much the responsibility of his parents as it is of his teachers, especially at the young age of twelve. If they want their children to do well, parents have to play their part; pay attention to their own children's education, make sure they do their homework, things like that. This is, of course, a long-term process. You don't just start becoming concerned with your child's grades after his prelims. That's ridiculously late - and then when you child can't perform well you look for someone else to blame beside your own shitty parenting. Teachers are, unfortunately, the most convenient scapegoat by some distance.

That isn't to say there aren't poor teachers around. I've been taught by plenty, personally. I don't rule out the possibility that this teacher wasn't too good. But I see it as unlikely, given Singaporean parents' track record of senseless complaints and the fact that the teacher had organised a considerable number of last-ditch revision lessons just before the PSLE paper itself. I take this as a sign of dedication. I also fully support what the teacher did: concentrating on the basic sections, and the fact that these parents only seemed to become concerned at the very last minute is proof to me that they were doing fuck-all the whole year round while their kids were getting crap grades.

When one is getting 40% or so for prelims, it's a pretty desperate situation. I know what the teacher was doing: he/she was simply trying to rescue as many marks as possible for the kid, because sections A and B are easier to score in. For this, the teacher gets unfairly blamed. It's really a thankless job. I'm glad the school is backing their teachers, at least publicly.

Ok, so that's not quite out of the ordinary. So how have they gone one better this time? Well, some parents have suggested that they have a right to dictate what is taught in the classroom.

That is the most completely, patently ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I can assure you that in 21 years on this island of broken systems, I've heard plenty many ridiculous things.

Why do people here not seem to think before they speak? Let us consider what is being suggested here: untrained, blinkered, overly-demanding, sanctimonious folk without formal training in the field of education wish to tell professionals how to do their jobs. Let us then apply it to any other profession - as such, I can tommorrow walk right into this 48-year-old real estate agent's office (one of those who expressed the above opinion) and imperiously dictate to him which properties to purchase and sell. Because I know just about as much about real estate as he does about teaching - ie, nothing. Would he like that? Is he going to pay me any attention? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he isn't. And nor should teachers pay any attention when he tries to tell them what to teach his child.

When a child does not do well in school, it is always a cause for concern. But this should not lead to kneejerk reactions. There could be any number of reasons why a student is not doing well. Stress, personal problems, phobia(s)... it's quite a comprehensive list. It isn't always such a black-and-white situation - do this and the problem is solved. Blame the teacher, get him fired. No.

Additionally, children themselves must be willing to be educated, and parents must play their role in ensuring this. It's very difficult for a teacher to force a kid to learn. Parents have to look out for their own children, not hold wholly unrealistic expectations of educators and then blame them when their offspring suffer failures. Of course parenting is difficult, but that's the way it is. No one held a gun to your head and force you to have that kid. Even if someone did, your child's teachers have nothing to do with that.

In the same paper today, Santokh Singh proceeded to comment on how Singaporean parents and children must learn to cope with examinations, particularly the former. It was a good article and it made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, things that make a lot of sense are routinely ignored here.

So, parents, please be responsible for your kids. Don't expect someone else to do it for you.

"People do things to annoy dogs too", collected from The New Paper, 9 October 2007.

I read the report, "Dog rips part of her ear (The New Paper, 5 Oct), where 3-year-old Matilda was attacked by a siberian husky.

I found it unusual that a dog of such gentle nature was capable of causing such harm if unprovoked.

I am a dog owner and tend to play with dogs that I meet when I am out.

I have never been attacked or bitten by a dog because my parents have instilled in me the correct way to apprach and socialise with dogs.

In the article, the father of the victim claimed that the dog suddenly ran up to the victim and knocked her down before biting her.

Although I was not there, I wonder why the dog acted that way.

When I take my dog out for a walk, people sometimes make barking or meowing sounds at the dog or do other things that are sure to annoy any one of us.

When this happens to my dog, I usually tell the person (usually a child) off. If parents don't teach their children how to behave around dogs, who is going to?

The article also said that after the incident, the victim's father picked up a stick to hit the dog.

He also admitted to wanting to have it killed.

I understand he was shocked that the dog bit his daughter, but that is no way to react.

I think the victim's father owes the dog owner and apology if he did strike the dog.


Right. First of all, this is the worst letter I've ever seen published in any national newspaper in a long, long time. Granted, The New Paper hardly has much of a reputation to maintain, but I find it difficult to believe that any editor at all can find this kind of crap suitable for publication.

The incident in question was an attack on a 3-year-old girl at Sentosa by a Siberian Husky, which ripped off part of her ear. It was undoubtedly a vicious and savage attack, and reportedly unprovoked - and of course, the dog had not been leashed.

Now, I certainly feel that the victim's father overreacted by assaulting the dog and demanding that it be put down. However, his anger is perfectly understandable. I mean, look, his 3-year-old daughter was attacked and wounded by the animal, and not wounded lightly at that. Any parent who cares deeply about their children would be bound towards such a reaction. It's perfectly natural.

What is not perfectly natural is what our writer here is suggesting - that the dog ought to be absolved of blame because it was provoked. Perhaps it was. We do not know. But let me ask: what about the little girl? She is three. She is perfectly innocent. I highly doubt that she did anything intentionally to provoke the dog. I also highly doubt that it takes high intelligence to realise that a large dog is a threat to a small child, and thus should be properly handled around children, including leashing and perhaps even muzzling.

So what we have here is a writer completely blinded by her devotion towards canines, in that nowhere does she fault the dog's owner(s) for not leashing their pet. Animals might be acknowledged to be calm and of peaceable temperament. However, how can anyone be sure that they always are? People have their bad days too - I think, so do dogs. Perhaps the husky was having one. Either way, the chances of such a traumatic attack on the little girls could have been considerably lessened if the husky had been leashed, at least.

It wouldn't be that bad if our writer stopped with just absolving the dog of all blame. That's still somewhat reasonable. But she goes a step further: she tries to pin the blame on the victims of the incident. And that is what gets me going. It's disgraceful. I quote:

When this happens to my dog, I usually tell the person (usually a child) off. If parents don't teach their children how to behave around dogs, who is going to?

I read the implication here loud and clear: It was the victim's father's fault; he did not teach his child how to behave around dogs, and she must have provoked the dog (see the bold part). Only then did it attack her. Therefore they were both to blame.

This is an incredibly stupid and blinkered statement to make. Look, the kid is three. How do you teach a three-year-old to behave around dogs and then watch her like an eagle to make sure she does? But you should not even have to, because the onus is on the dog owners to make sure their pets do not attack people! Does this make sense? Are you a responsible pet owner if you undertake the thoroughly reckless action of allowing your large, potentially dangerous breed of dog to run around unleashed on the beach where there are many children playing and many potential sources of provocation, intentional or no?

The answer is very obvious to me: NO. YOU BLOODY FUCKING AREN'T.

And out reader better know that. She better be aware that owning a pet is a responsibility and that this responsibility extends to ensuring her pet does not attack people. You can't expect people to defer to you just because you have a dog. You have to try your best to ensure that your pet is not dangerous to those around you.

Even after this astonishing self-rationalisation, our writer is not quite done. She goes on to describe the victim's father as "shocked" that the husky "bit" his daughter, which is an amazing understatement. I mean, fuck, that husky ripped off part of his daughter's ear. It did not just bite her. That, I think, would be a very traumatic experience for both the child and any reasonable parent. But here she is trying to play it down. Disgusting.

She then has the temerity to end her letter by suggesting that the victim's father should apologise instead. I have no idea what cloud-cuckoo land she is living in, but in the one I exist within, those who are in the wrong apologise to those whom they have harmed, directly or indirectly, by their actions. And the dog's owners here have harmed a little girl, badly, by their irresponsible behaviour. They should not just apologise to the victim's father but compensate the family. That would be admitting their culpability. It would be something a decent person would do.

I am not for animal cruelty by any means. But I feel that people are increasingly losing sight of the fact that animals are, well, animals. We don't understand them fully, not even such common domestic creatures like dogs and cats. There is always an element of unpredictability. People who wish to keep such animals have the social responsibility to ensuring that their animals do not harm other people. The world should not revolve around pet owners - and our writer should be the very first person to understand that fact.

Singapore and Burma

Well, unless you've been living under a slimy rock the past month, you would probably know about the large-scale protests in Myanmar and the resultant brutal crackdown in which ten supposedly died. The world's attention has been focused like never before on this country and this region, mainly because there is fairly little else new occurring. Of course, sooner or later someone was going to do an "expose" of Singapore's close links with the junta - which, by the way, isn't a secret and hasn't been one... ever, I think.

Don't get me wrong: the article is almost certainly very accurate in the information it portrays. Singapore invests heavily in Myanmar, sells the junta weapons and definitely has a vested interest in keeping the brutal military dictators afloat. But the question I must pose is: what, exactly, is wrong with that?

Bleeding hearts will give me all the standard answers about propping up savage dictatorships, human rights violations, political legitimacy etc etc etc. Any informed reader will know all these arguments, so I will not rehash them. But think about it: what is so wrong about Singapore behaving in its own national self-interest? Do you mean to tell me that no present day state has ever done that? Do you mean to tell me that countries should throw away very real opportunities for very real gains to serve dated ideals of dubious workability?

Get real. Every country in this world looks out for itself. The article blames Singapore for undermining the effectiveness of Western sanctions on Burma.Well, let's look at the West's record in this regard, then. The USA backed bloody coups all over the Third World during the Cold War, including the overthrow of Chile's democratically-elected left-wing government in 1973 and Mossadeq's removal in 1955. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is only the most recent example. Britain spent most of the latter half of the 20th century ensuring its former colonies ultimately served its interests. France was not adverse to selling weapons to Saddam (neither, by the way, was the USA) in the 1980s. Germany has only done relatively little because of a timid foreign policy, a holdover from World War Two. Australia itself once aided in propping up South Vietnam - talk about supporting corrupt dictators, eh? Whose hands are soiled now? Singapore's, yes - but the West's too.

I would go into more detail, but that would require a lot more research. Remember though, it was an American who uttered the famous line: "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard." Get off your high horses. What the Singapore government is doing is reprehensible, but it isn't anything out of the ordinary. It isn't a big deal. The West refuses to trade with Myanmar, so Singapore sees the opportunity and fills the void. So what if we're doing business with dictators? It's the politics of self-interest, and politics is dirty - and if you, as a journalist, can't understand that, then you don't deserve to hold on to your job.

Also it is really cute the way the author begins - they still can't wrap their heads around the idea that if you break the laws of a country on its own soil, you pay the penalties set by that country. Come on, extraterritoriality ended decades ago.

It seems like the Straits Times isn't the only newspaper in the region that can pump out shitty articles.

Well, traditional annual post. Happy birthday to me, and my thanks to everyone who has expressed a similar sentiment and/or given me any presents. I really appreciate all your gestures of goodwill.

There are a few constants on this day:

1. It's never commemorated by anyone on a large scale - and this is fine by me.
2. I'm either at work or at school or preparing for an exam of some sort. Some years (like this), both.
3. Cake. Somewhere, someone, with the occasional cake-face. Probably not this year though.
4. Winston calls me OLD.
5. I cheerily remind Winston that's he's less than a month younger so Winston please READ THIS PART and wipe that smug look off your face.

On point number 1, I've never thrown a birthday celebration of my own - planned it, sent out invitations and executed said plan. This could be because I am convinced that events I plan almost invariably take an absurdly disastrous turn at some juncture, but it's actually due to the fact that I lack the energy for strategisation of this sort, and that I have an instinctual dislike for large-scale events anyway. I am really awkward at introducing people to each other.

On point number two, the track record of this day going right back to the first truly important exam - PSLE, of course - is:

1998: Either preparing for PSLE, or one of the papers
1999: Third Language German Paper
2000: Preparing for exams
2001: Preparing for exams, desperately trying not to fail Add Maths
2002: Preparing for O-Levels
2003: Preparing for Promos, desperately trying not to fail C Maths, failing anyway
2004: Preparing for A-Levels
2005: In the office, serving the CO
2006: In the office, serving the CO; in the Orderly Room, serving the Centralised Leave System
2007: Projection of the day ahead includes work in morning, lessons in afternoon and midterm in evening. Going to be a great birthday ahead, I can see. At least good dinner to be had at night.

I believe we can then predict the future:

2008: Mired in academic hell.
2009: "
2010: "
2011: "
2012: "
2013-?: ", but as a job this time.

Look how optimistic I am.

Point number 3: CAKE. Self-explanatory.

Point number 4: YOU ARE NOT YOUNG WINSTON SO THERE.

Well, here's to a good day ahead for me. And for everybody else too, of course.

Well, it's officially October. Again. Always my favourite month. Maybe not this year though, because it promises to be a microcosm of academic hell.

Turning 21 in 3 days, got a midterm that very day (it's like they bloody planned it, I'm telling you) which is 25% of the module so no fucking around like for History and HY2229. Yes, that's my glorious luck working its magic again. Never failed me, I would say, unfortunately.

For this reason and for the better reason that the past 2 months have had an intensity of my own making, I'm not going to do anything much at all. Most gifts have been cash, as usual, but in some way that's for the best. Because Thursday is awkward, and because October is awkward in general with so many of the people I know already on foreign shores or really into university, celebrations are largely over already. It'll be a normal day for me, like my birthday usually is - work/school/both. I have neither the energy nor inclination for large-scale events, anyway, because I am really not very good at introducing people to each other.

I am also realising that I'm not a very good student at all, because just like I used to do, I procrastinate and then only manage to get stuff done in time because I proceed to work with demonic efficiency in the little time left. The other reason why I won't be a good role model is because I have the attention span of the proverbial gnat, which is something I have really discovered about myself this year, particularly teaching 4 subjects at Whitley. I could never, can never, work on something for long. The maximum amount of time I can actually concentrate hard on something is half-an-hour, and that's if things are desperate. Otherwise I get distracted within 10 minutes. I'm very guilty of losing attention if anyone talks to me for more than 5 minutes at a stretch, and will tend to make agreeable noises with the occasional "Really?" thrown in to give the impression that I'm still there. It has resulted in some pretty hilarious faux pas, and I'm very sorry about this admission, but I just can't focus. I need to have conversation in short, sharp bursts where I can reply and make my own points. Do not condemn me to a lack of conversation just because of this. I promise to try!

School again tommorrow. That break was too damned short.