Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Paragraphs' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Paragraphs'

TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE VERBS

phoebinku — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:51:02 GMT

Hello,
What's the best way to explain the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs when you're the person doing the explaining. I know what the differences are, but try as I might every time I set pen to paper -- all I need is a paragraph or two -- I end up going to my local pub instead.
Here's what I've got in a nut shell:
transitive take a direct object:
intransitive take an indirect object/prepositional phrase
Most verbs are ambitransitive.
Some are strictly one or the other.
Am I confused?
P.

how does hitchcock create suspense and shock?

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:41:52 GMT

HELLO! CAN YOU PLEASE CHECK MY ESSAY ACCORDING TO SEA PARAGRAPHS (sTATEMENT, eVIDENCE, aNALYSE)?

âHow does Hitchcock create Suspense and shock?â

Alfred Hitchcock is known as the âmaster of suspenseâ and a great innovator. He has three films in the Top Ten of the American Film Instituteâs top thrilling films. âPsychoâ, made in the year 1960, was number one. Hitchcock always uses suspense and tension to shock his audience. He does this by using cinematography very well by the way he uses the camera position, angles, movement and shots. He also uses scary music and lighting when he wants to shock his audience or create suspense.

Hitchcock misleads his audience to create shock in âPsychoâ. At the beginning of the film, we see Marion Crane and Sam Loomis in the bedroom together. By seeing this, we think this is a love and romance story. After Marion steals the money from her boss, we then believe the genre of the film is about crime. However, the genre of this film is not about romance or even crime. In fact, this movie is a thriller and the main character, Marion, dies a third way through the film. This is unexpected because she is the main character of the film and not a bad person. Another shock is when we discover that Norman Bates dresses like his âmotherâ in womenâs clothing, which the audience finds strange and weird.

False suspense makes shocks more shocking because we never know what will happen. Hitchcock creates false suspense in a number of ways. When Marion has been sleeping in the side of the road in her car, a cop comes and wakes her up. The audience feels tense and wonders if she is going to get caught with the $40,000. Marion is very nervous and we are afraid if the cop is going to search her bag. Her uneasy behaviour adds to the tension. The copâs sunglasses also add to the tension because he is staring right at Marionâs face, and Marion feels guilty and anxious.

Another moment of tension is when the cop follows Marion. We think that he realises that Marion is up to something. There is a slight low angle close up of the copâs car in the rear-view mirror of Marionâs car where she nervously watches him following her. The eyelevel medium shot of the car in the rear-view mirror, allows you to see him following, which is a reflection of the copâs car. Hitchcock builds tension by cutting between Marion and the cop.

Hitchcock also creates false suspense when Marion goes to a second-hand car dealer. The cop has an eye on Marion, but she does not know that he is there. We do see the cop so there is a moment of tension. She is doing things that you will not usually expect, such as being panicky and in a rush, which all builds to tension. While the mechanic pulls her car in to inspect it before selling her a different car, she is shocked when she spots the suspicious cop. Although she is aware that the new car she will be buying could be identified, Marion quickly and foolishly decides to buy it. Her nervous behaviour makes the surprised, car dealer wonder why she is forcing him to sell the car to her. She nearly leaves her bag behind, which is a false shock. We expect that Marion is going to be stopped by the cop, but luckily, she does not get caught with the cash.

Another false shock is when, Lila, Marionâs sister, screams when she sees her own reflection in the mirror in âmotherâsâ bedroom. She screams when she sees herself in many reflections in an opposite long mirror, but is relieved that the frightening image is only of herself.

You can only have a limited number of shocking moments to shock people because the few shocks give more impact. If there are too many shocks, then the audience gets used to it.

There are only three shocks in âPsychoâ: when Marion is killed in the shower; Milton Arbogast, the detective is stabbed by âmotherâ; and the discovery of âmotherâ by Lila. Hitchcock creates suspense and shock when Arbogast tries to interview âmotherâ. He quietly enters the front door of the house, takes off his hat, and then stands for a moment in the hallway. He begins to climb up the long steep staircase to the second floor. We feel a bit tense and afraid that something may happen to Arbogast because he is inside a sinister-looking house on top of a hill. Using a tracking shot, the camera follows him from behind to a tracking, high-angled shot in front of him as he climbs up the stairs so he looks vulnerable and small. A cut to the top landing, using an eyelevel close up shot to show a crack of light appear on the floor through the slowly opening door of a bedroom, creates tension as if âmotherâ is behind the door who will see Arbogast and attack him. When he reaches the top step, Hitchcock cuts to a birds-eye-view shot and the high-pitched, screeching music starts to create a shock when Arbogast is attacked at the top of the stairs, in a bird's-eye-view shot, by âmotherâ coming from the bedroom. He is stabbed to death in the face and blood flows out of his face when Arbogast falls backwards down the stairs to the floor. âMotherâ chases after him and gets on top of him; the knife goes up into the air for another strike before the scene fades to black. However, this is not the first shock of the film.

In the shower scene, we experience the first big shock in âPsychoâ. At the start of the shower scene the audience follows Marion into the bathroom. We see her undressing to have a shower. It is very quiet and we can just hear her taking off her gown. The shot is an eyelevel medium close up which makes us feel uncomfortable because we are close behind a naked woman and following her, which seems like we are intruding into this private space. We are looking straight at Marionâs bare back and upper body which makes us feel like Norman, when he was watching her undress through a hole in the wall. Like Norman, we are voyeurs and are intruding into this private space. Hitchcock then cuts to an eyelevel medium close up of Marion in the shower and we watch her cleansing and washing herself, like she is washing away her sins and guilt. We notice that Marion is very relaxed and happy because she is going back to Phoenix to pay back the money she has stolen. Hitchcock cuts to a low angle close up from Marionâs point of view of the water which looks like it is coming down at us, straight and sharp from the shower head which creates a moment of tension because, at the moment we cannot hear anything except for the running water, and this may distract us and Marion if someone is nearby. However, Hitchcock then cuts to an eyelevel medium close up in which we see Marion rinsing herself. This is a realistic shot because the camera is on the bathroom floor on the side of the shower watching Marion and we can see her calm facial expression, so we relax as well as Marion. We think nothing bad is going to happen to her because no one else is in her room and the bathroom and everything seems quiet except for the running water. This is also a private hotel.

Hitchcock then creates suspense by using dramatic irony. He uses an eyelevel medium long shot in which there is a dark shadow on the left, or dominant, side of the screen. Marion is in a completely private place, but in this shot we know that there is someone behind her, while Marion does not. The camera is in front of her, placed inside the wall, and Hitchcock makes us feel uncomfortable and tight as if we are trapped in the shower with Marion. As she is showering, through the translucent shower curtain, we see the door open. With her back to the shower curtain, we can spot a shadowy figure coming from behind. Marion does not hear the killer because of the water falling on her and her hair is soaked by the water so she appears to be small and vulnerable on the right side of the screen with her back to the shower curtain. We see the bathroom door open and we spot a shadowy figure coming from behind. We feel tense because the figure may harm Marion. The shock comes when the dark figure suddenly tears the shower curtain and shrill high-pitched music begins from sharp shrieking, violin strings. The shrill music plays a large part in creating absolute terror as does the silhouette of the figure that is revealed because the face is shadowed and we cannot see it. The killer is on the left or dominant side of the shot and is very dark; light can only be seen on the right side. The killer is holding a knife towards the right bottom corner of the frame where we last saw Marion, so we feel tense and terrified for her.

The shock continues with a close up of Marion screaming. The blurring of the image by the water makes Marion appear less human and everything happens fast. The close up shows her first reaction to the murderer and to intensify this Hitchcock cuts to an extreme close up of Marionâs mouth as she is screaming loudly. Next, Hitchcock uses a low angle medium shot of the killer who is dominating the centre of the screen. Hitchcock uses shadow to make the killer appear dark and horrific. The killer then starts to attack and we hear sound effects of stabbing. In reality, the sound was made by stabbing a melon. Hitchcock then cuts to a high angle medium shot of Marion to make her look weak and vulnerable. She is in one corner of the frame and the knife is in the space. The knife is blurry because it is moving very fast and Marion is in the corner backing away. The tile wall is trapping her behind and she is very exposed. The attack goes on and on and we keep hearing stabbing sounds of the knife. Hitchcock then uses a high angle close up of Marionâs feet so we can see the blood being washed away from Marionâs body, which creates the impression that Marion is dying because she is losing large amounts of blood and looking very weak. The killer leaves and Marion slowly dies. Hitchcock uses an eyelevel close up of Marionâs hand trying to hold on to the tile wall. She is trying to hold on to her life. This is the aftermath of the shock but there is still tension because there is nothing we can do and slow and low-pitched music starts to create a sad atmosphere.

Marion slowly slides down with her back against the wet, slippery shower wall, while looking up and the camera follows her slow fall. We feel guilty because we are unable to help. We then see Marion stretch her hand out to grab the shower curtain but it comes across as if she is stretching her arms towards us, for help. We want to help Marion but it is impossible so we must just watch her fall so we feel powerless. Then Hitchcock cuts to a birdâs-eye-shot where the shower pole divides the screen in half, which seems like we are directly watching what is happening down in the bathroom. Marion holds onto the shower curtain and pulls it down from its hooks one by one onto herself, which is a diegetic sound and now the slow and low music stops. Then we can just hear the water running from the shower, which tells us that the attack is over and Marion falls to the floor, dead. After that, Hitchcock cuts to a high angle extreme close up of the dark plughole, which is sucking up the water and Marionâs blood which suggests that Marion's life has gone down the drain. The shot dissolves to an extreme close up of Marionâs eye where we can see drops of water which seem like she is crying, which creates an atmosphere of sadness. There is great difference between Norman's 'peeping tom' eye and Marion's dead eye because Marionâs eye looks completely innocent, but Norman was using his peeping eye to watch her undress. Then the camera zooms out to her upper body which becomes a tracking shot where the camera turns and tilts as if we are standing up. We feel sorry and very guilty for Marionâs death as we were unable to stop this terrible attack, so when we leave the bathroom we are basically leaving Marion.

In comparison, in âThe Birdsâ, Hitchcock uses several shocks, perhaps maybe ten or more. Some of them are shocks with no suspense such as when the gull pecks Melanieâs head; the attack by the birds at the childrenâs party; and when the sparrows come down the chimney and attack Mitchâs house. There are also shocks with suspense: the school attack; when Annie is dead; the gulls peck the farmerâs eyes; the petrol station scene; the attack on Melanie in the attic and the huge number of still birds at the end of the film. He does this to shock his audience again and again.

Hitchcock also creates dramatic irony and tension in âPsychoâ when we see the shadow of âmotherâ in the shower scene. Hitchcock also creates dramatic irony in âThe Birdsâ in the climbing frame scene. Here, we see Melanie smoking outside the school, sitting on a bench in a medium long shot. She is calm. There is a long shot of the school and an establishing shot of birds in the sky. We can hear children singing, which sounds normal. There is then a cut to a medium long shot left of the climbing frame behind Melanieâs head (in the right corner of the frame) that dominates the shot to show it is empty. We see one bird land, and Hitchcock builds suspense as he cuts between Melanie looking relaxed and a shot of the climbing frame with four to five birds. Then he cuts back to Melanie before cutting to the climbing frame with fifty birds. Then again he cuts to Melanie still smoking and watching the birds. A cut to the climbing frame which is now full of birds creates shock which Hitchcock develops shock when Melanie looks behind her and sees them. Hitchcock cuts to a high angle long shot as she rushes to the school, which makes her seem vulnerable because then there is a cut to a low angle as the birds start to attack. Both of these attacks are extended and constant.

Hitchcock also uses slow suspense such as when Arbogast and Melanie climb up the stairs in âPsychoâ and âThe Birdsâ respectively. He also uses the stillness of the birds as a collective and then shock. There is the shock of sharp objects in a close up, for example, the knife in âPsychoâ and the beaks in âThe Birdsâ.

In âPsychoâ, Hitchcock creates tension by mainly using music which sounds unnatural, and also shock with the exception of the diegetic sounds in the shower scene. In contrast, he only uses diagetic sounds in âThe Birdsâ such as when the birds are squawking and making noise for tension, Hitchcock also uses silence (the absence of sound) to make the audience feel uncomfortable, for example when we see the broken cups in the farmerâs house. The sounds during the attacks in both films are sharp, harsh, strange and disturbing which build shock because they make the audienceâs heart beat.

At the end of âPsychoâ, there is a resolution. The killer, Norman, is in prison and is punished. However in âThe Birdsâ, there is a cliffhanger as the birds win and the humans flee. The film is unresolved, so it creates tension among the viewers. âPsychoâ is in black and white, which makes it more sinister and frightening for example, the blood in the shower scene looks realistic, even if it was chocolate syrup. Also lighting is used to create shock. For example, in the fruit cellar, the body of 'âmotherâ is brought to life, revealed by the dead bodyâs crazily laughing face, with its eyes moving, lively and brought back to life by the light. The eyes of the corpse that stare at Lilaâs direction appear realistic but they are indeed dead. This can only happen in black and white, as it involves shadow. In contrast, âThe Birdsâ is mostly in colour so it seems less scary and happier at first. However, the blood looks artificial to us because it is bright red. A better use of how Hitchcock used colour was the fire which looks extremely terrifying and dangerous because it is bright orange and yellow, which would not have the same effect in black and white. However, there is a change of the use of colour at the end of the film when it is mainly black and white because of the colour of the birds and also because it is night which creates tension and a sinister atmosphere.

The killers in both films were realistic but strange and unexpected. The story starts in the city, but mostly set in a small rural town where the character is unfamiliar so the audience has sympathy for them. Also the small town is supposed to be safer, but is surprisingly dangerous. The main characters in both films are blond, stylish beautiful women, both motivated by a love interest. Hitchcock uses experts for both films. In âPsychoâ, there is a psychologist who comes at the end and explains Normanâs condition, which is the resolution. The car is pulled out. There is no more tension. In âThe Birdsâ, an ornithologist woman gives information about birds and their behaviour. In âPsychoâ, Norman's hobby is stuffing dead birds and other animals. The birds are, of course, a constant image in âThe Birdsâ.

At the beginning of âThe Birdsâ, we think this is a romantic comedy, when Mitch flirts with Melanie and the lovebirds move side to side in the car, while Melanie is driving in her car. This seems funny as birds do not normally do that. âPsychoâ, however has nothing to do with comedy. In âPsychoâ Marion is serious and poor whereas Melanie is cheerful, spoilt and rich. Both films are misleading because it starts as a romance. In âPsychoâ, Sam has left his ex-wife and now wants to stay with Marion, but he cannot afford to support her economically, so they are both unhappy. In âThe Birdsâ, Mitch too had a previous lover, Annie but now lives with his mum, Lydia and younger sister, Cathy. Both films are a thriller and become dark and sinister. Hitchcock misleads us to make the shocks more shocking.

Hitchcock creates suspense and shock in the way he uses cinematography: camera position, angles, shots, colour, lighting, sound and music. For example, in âNorth by Northwestâ, Hitchcock creates a scene of suspense and shock in the plane scene. There is an extreme long shot of the sky and cornfield and Cary Grant who looks small and helpless, stands waiting. Then a plane tries to attack him. There is a long silence, and he looks for the plane engine. A truck approaches and Hitchcock uses the camera from Caryâs point-of-view of the truck coming closer until it is an extreme close up of the grill of the truck. This creates shock as the grill is coming towards Grantâs face and ours. There is a point-of-view shot of the plane. A close up of Grant shows us he is shocked and a cut to a long shot of the plane coming towards him builds tension. Grant dives under the truck and then there is a great big shock, when the plane crashes into the truck which is leaking petrol and there is a terrific explosion.

In my opinion, I believe Alfred Hitchcock was outstandingly excellent at creating suspense and shock in a number of ways especially in the shower scene, as we know âmotherâ is coming from behind, but Marion doesnât since her back is facing the shower curtain. I preferred the film âPsychoâ as it was more successful in creating suspense and shock, since the film was made in black and white. This made it seem darker, scarier and creepy.

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:53:28 GMT

It is unwise to rely on the etymology of a word to discern its meaning, or, if it has a range of meanings, to insist that the "original" meaning is somehow "more correct" . Words mean what they mean. In any discussion of the meaning of a word it is often instructive to look at its etymology as a starting point, but once you have done that you have to move on.

The problem with defining a consonant as a sound that cannot stand on its own is that you then need to go on and ask: "If it cannot stand on its own what does it have to go with?" and the answer to that will be "a vowel". So you then ask: "What is a vowel?" If your answer to that is "any sound that is not a consonant" we end up with consonant being defined in terms of vowels and vowels in terms of consonants, which is not very helpful. That means you need to define one or the other in its own terms and without reference to the other.

If we decide we shall start with defining a vowel, a reasonable enough definition is one that says it is a sound that is made without any obstruction of the vocal tract. When we have done that we have to decide what sounds in the language we are looking at are vowels. When it comes to the sound /w/ we may have some difficulty in deciding. The tricky bit is (because at school we were taught that the vowels are a e i o u) that at the back of our mind is the idea that /w/ ought to be a consonant and it is difficult to overcome it. This partly arises out the failure to distinguish between the sound /w/ and the symbol <w>. If the difficulties can be overcome, it is not totally unreasonable to come to the conclusion that /w/ is nothing but a short /u/. The articulation of /w/ does not seem to involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. If we move on and look at the contexts in which /w/ is found it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is never articulated on its own, or, as you put it "you cannot pronounce W without attaching a vowel to it." However (forgetting for a moment that we have not yet defined consonant) that does not justify us calling /w/ a consonant if we agree that its articulation does not involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. It is perhaps more apt to call /w/ a non-syllabic vowel - our definition of vowel does not imply that it must be capable of forming a syllable.

If we decide to start with defining a consonant as a sound that involves some obstruction of the vocal tract, I think we are going to come to the same difficulty when we get to /w/. [It would be tedious to set the process out as in the previous paragraph.]

The fact that in the IPA there are separate symbols /u/ and /w/ says something. I am not quite sure what it says, but the possibilities are:

1. There is a qualitative difference between the two

2. There is a quantitative difference between the two and it is useful to be able to indicate when the sound is syllabic and when it is not

3. The whole thing is confusion

It may be noted that any two phoneticians may disagree about whether a particular utterance should be transcribed using /u/ or /w/. To an extent the convention for a particular language may depend on whether that language has a separate symbol for /w/.

The fact that many languages have the sound /w/ but have no symbol <w> to represent it (instead using <u>) also says something. It says that the way that any language is written (if written with an alphabet) involves a prior analysis of its sounds. When we come to look at the language afresh we must not be unduly influenced by that prior analysis.

The questions raised by this thread arise partly because written English employs an alphabet. Apart from the fact that that leads to a confusion between sound and symbol, in an alphabetic system language is analysed into phonemes. That is fine as it means that only a relatively few symbols need to be employed and the success of alphabetic systems throughout the world speaks for itself. However, the analysis of speech into phonemes is artificial (though it does not seem so because of the way we write!) and the natural division of continuous speech is the syllable.

Re: hot day

Clive — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:58:06 GMT

Hi,

I have two questions. If it is too much, just focus on the second question:

1. What's the difference between maybe and perhaps? As far as I know they are interchangable 'Perhaps' sounds better here. I would say it is more commonly used in writing.

2. I can accept will but why would is wrong the last sentence?I asked myself if your whole paragraph was hypothetical, or not.

eg hypothetical If it were a hot day, as a passenger would you want to . .

eg not hypothetical It's a hot day and you as a passenger want to . . .

Your first sentence seemed to mix the two, so I opted for 'not hypothetical'.

To me, the 'would' indicates preference. Would you like to dance? 'Would' here indicates politeness/distancing'. It's less forceful/direct than 'Do you want to dance?'

Would you drive or cycle to work? This just suggests 'hypothetical'. I might answer 'What do you mean? If there is a bus strike next week?'

Clive

help for re-organize paragraph

kinhong — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:19:11 GMT

Hello all, I am writing a review, but found that it is poor organized, could you please re-arrange the paragraph for me? thanks.

The focus on ``feeling'' in design text is a distinctive turn from the prior focus in design research on understanding design text, which has heretofore emphasized semantic meaning. Semantic meaning has been a principle concern of research in understanding design documents . Semantic meaning is the subject matter of design text. Broadly speaking the subject matter of design text is about product, process or people. Ascertaining the subject matter of design text and the purpose of understanding the subject matter has been approached in different ways. For instance, Hill examined design teams' share understanding by adopting latent semantic analysis(LSA), a matrix computational method, to reveal design documents' document similarity. In LSA, documents are represented by a word frequency-document matrix. The semantic meaning of a given word is represented in the matrix by labeling its appearing frequency in the corresponding documents. By applying a series of computations on the matrix, similarity of two documents is measured by the cosine of their document vectors in high-dimension space sense. Dong used the LSA approach to study the cohesiveness of design team communication and mapped the results over time to provide an intuitive way for understanding. Dong explored the relationship between designers' individual mind and design concept formation with the use of a computational linguistic method (lexical chain analysis, LCA). The authors adopted LCA to reveal language's role in forming and representing knowledge in design, examine the grammatical structures associated with representing knowledge and knowledge accumulation. The principle of LCA is revealing nouns/concepts' semantic connections between two utterances within a utterance window. The difference between latent semantic analysis (LSA) and lexical chain analysis (LCA) is the way they express semantic meaning. In latent semantic analysis, semantic meaning is carried in individual words themselves. Semantic meaning is expressed by statistical co-occurrence of word across large body in lexical chain analysis. Segers created WordGraphs to stimulate architects thinking about related concepts using semantically similar words. Initially, the system selected single words as input for two existing words. The system searched the semantic relationship between them and inserted a new word which can connect them to compose WordGraphs. The researchers selected only those WordGraphs which can interest designers for further observation, and found that the designers prefer to use those intermediary words in the following design activities.

Re: Editing of paragraph/1

Mister Micawber — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:30:53 GMT

An Anonymous thread on the subject of "the difference between 'can' and 'able' " contains a post (#354509 ) in which Mister Micawber says that

'can' and ' be able to' have the same meaning and instructs the initial poster to use 'I can't read' and ' I am not able to read'.

2-- Yes, it is just a matter of viewpoint; the thread has been written and now it is finished.

(And I hope I offered the right guidance there.)

Editing of paragraph/1

bhikkhu1991 — Thu, 01 May 2008 08:49:08 GMT

An Anonymous' s post on the subject of the ' difference between 'can' and ' able ' contains a post thread (#354509 ) in which Mister Micawber says that

'can' and ' be able to ' have the same meaning and instructs the main poster to use ' I can't read. ' and ' I am not able to read .'

Hello Grammar Teacher/Teachers,

1. Could you help me to edit the paragraph, please ?

2. Is it possible to replace all the underlined words with the past tenses even though the post and the thread are existing in the record of the English forums now ?

Re: about argumentative writing

Doll — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:45:48 GMT

You can compare something with another thing or contrast something with another thing (this can be person or object too) or you can both compare and contrast in your essay. There are two patterns for this kind of essay; block by block and point by point.

Block by block: You compare or contrast the things in single paragraphs. For example, in your first paragraph you focused on the colour of lemon. You told everything about its colour. You told us that it is yellow. In your second paragraph you say to us that though lemon and orange belongs to the same family, orange has a different colour and you go on like this.

Point by point: In this type of style, you compare or contrast things in sentences subsequently. For example, Ali is a good boy, he can help you. On the other hand, AyÅe is not as a good person as Ali, she may refuse to help.

I don't sugges you to write a compare and contrast essay. It will be long and complicated and I don't know the style of this kind of essay.

Don't forget one thing: if you compare something don't write any difference between the things or if you contrast something, don't write any similarities in your sentences or paragraphs.

Re: [QUOTE]To his right was the Californian, the Honorable Finn Yarber, age

Belly — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:13:37 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:
Belly wrote:

1) So what does rallying point mean here?

It says that the Republican governor rallied the voters to recall Yaber by pointing out Yaberâs opposition to the death penalty.

2)According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/high-handedness, high handedness means arrogance

I shared with you what I feel about the difference between the two words. You can certainly stick with what you found in the dictionary.

Belly wrote:

3)
he floundered for a while until the IRS began asking question
. That's what I imagine: They called for a recall. But if a recall was only a vote, how come it became to a frenzy, and they "pitched him onto the street"? "Folks wanted blood, Yarber prevented it, the Republicans whipped up a frenzy." That is why.

He floudered for a while until the IRS asked. I see the continuity of action here: a)They pitched him onto the ground b) He floudered c) the IRS asked. IF the IRS doesn't belong to the Republicians or vice versa, so how come the IRS appeared? Or perhaps the IRS took part in the frenzy in a underhand way?

"for awhile until the IRS asked" = "for awhile until the IRS came for him, asking about income tax evasion." (Read the first sentence of your quoted paragraph again for one of the reasons why he was in jail).

Every citizen has to pay tax. If the IRS find out you evaded tax, they will come after you regardless. You could be respected by everybody or you are a crook; that's irrelevant. Isn't that the same in your country?

Hi,

on the third question, he floundered on the pavement/ street, so the IRS came to him while he still did. it looks like American movies where the crooks are often subdued when the policmen come to "ask him question" ( I don't know what we say in English this term), so I think it happened the same way as in The Brethren, the IRS should belongs to the polic?

Re: [QUOTE]To his right was the Californian, the Honorable Finn Yarber, age

Hoa Thai — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:52:31 GMT

Belly wrote:
1) So what does rallying point mean here?
It says that the Republican governor rallied the voters to recall Yaber by pointing out Yaberâs opposition to the death penalty.

2)According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/high-handedness, high handedness means arrogance
I shared with you what I feel about the difference between the two words. You can certainly stick with what you found in the dictionary.

Belly wrote:

3)
he floundered for a while until the IRS began asking question
. That's what I imagine: They called for a recall. But if a recall was only a vote, how come it became to a frenzy, and they "pitched him onto the street"? "Folks wanted blood, Yarber prevented it, the Republicans whipped up a frenzy." That is why.

He floudered for a while until the IRS asked. I see the continuity of action here: a)They pitched him onto the ground b) He floudered c) the IRS asked. IF the IRS doesn't belong to the Republicians or vice versa, so how come the IRS appeared? Or perhaps the IRS took part in the frenzy in a underhand way?

"for awhile until the IRS asked" = "for awhile until the IRS came for him, asking about income tax evasion." (Read the first sentence of your quoted paragraph again for one of the reasons why he was in jail).

Every citizen has to pay tax. If the IRS find out you evaded tax, they will come after you regardless. You could be respected by everybody or you are a crook; that's irrelevant. Isn't that the same in your country?