Search results for 'tag:Interviews tag:Marriage' matching tags 'Interviews' and 'Marriage'

plsssssss

safeer — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:01:22 GMT

I want a girl is cooking good and her knowledge. I will engage to be married to her. Shanti helps me to get the job good. I have already applied my Resume to her enable India office with disability. If I will get a job then my one month will pay salary to her. I will get it after 2 months. I want a new SIM card for message free. Do you know which SIM card is the best of message free? I will donate for you. Do you want anything specialist? Donât disturb you to call to vibrate my mobile. I sent a message to Sajeer for no reply. Thank you very much for helping my English improved. I am always writing the sentence English to send website at English forums to correct it. I need to practice to be learned. I couldnât read the bible but I have hidden it. I received railway recruitment cell by post but I didnât like to go to Mumbai for an interview. I got my passport. I could my shake hand to other people but I donât talk sign language to them. I am boring to look nothing in the marriage. Tank is dirty. I will brush it to be cleaned with water. I want to marry in age is 30. My passport will send to me by post. I will write sign and take it and pay Rs 20 to postman. You improved good your English than me. I am in the bus to sit to have dream nothing. I want to chat to you from Google talk. I think you donât like to chat with me.

pl check my eng to correct

safeer — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:21:45 GMT

pls checkkkkk to correct it

safeer — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:07:20 GMT

PLsss check my eng

safeer — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:10:54 GMT

I resigned to work as a Data Entry Operator but I don't like from shift night. I need to work from shift morning only without shift night. The weather here is very cold. Sue'll inform me to come to Bangalore for an interview. I'm boring to watch tv. I want to make new friend with you. I'm touching to your cheek and kiss me by my hand. When'll you mary? I need to see your marriage. How do I stay in Bangalore? I don't accept to pay some money in lodge. Internet is failed to connect to remote on my computer.

Can someone give some comment or correct my essay?

Bowie_74 — Tue, 08 May 2007 05:27:22 GMT

It is a compare and contrast essay about heterosexual cohabitation. I would like you guys leave some comments about it and correct some of the gramma errors.

     Nowadays, heterosexual cohabitation is very common and a new trend of the world. Many couples choose cohabitating with each other before they get married or living together before they get married. Some people consider that living together can not only maintain their own privacy, but also can enjoy the time they spend with each other. The problems that arise due to cohabitation are no less than those caused by marriage. On the other hand, I believe that there are many reasons that may lead people to think about cohabitation and people of different ages would have varied opinions on it. Therefore, I did an interview with people of different age with different opinions on living together to have a certain understanding and analyze the problems about it. I interviewed two people who are Thomas and Amanda. Thomas is a 23 year old university graduate student in Australia and he is working in one of the Hong Kong universities as an assistant professor now. He adopted a serious and cautious attitude towards cohabitation. Amanda is a 15 year old Asian girl who studies in the States and began her school life in one of the community colleges in Florida. She has a positive attitude towards living together. Thomas and Amanda both have different point of views towards living together regarding age, attitude, and responsibility.

     First, Thomas and Amanda have similar comments on age. I asked them about the suitable age to live together and the two interviewees said there is no specific age. Thomas claimed that as long as a couple is mature enough to live on their own and can work independently, they can cohabitate with each other. However, Amanda said that a couple only needs to love each other deep from their heart and support each other. From what we observe, Thomas is more mature and Amanda does not consider living together as much as Thomas did.
     About their attitudes towards cohabitation, Thomas and Amanda have different standpoints. Thomas believed that living together could help them to have a better understanding with each other; however, he thought that cohabitation is all based on trust which couple should consider clearly about their goals before they make the choices. In comparison, Amanda thought that a couple can live together if they love each other. Before, they get married; living together could help them know more about their life styles and personalities she said. As we can see, Thomas adopted a cautious attitude towards cohabitation; however, Amanda did not consider living together in its entirety.

     In addition, Thomas and Amanda have similar standpoints on the responsibility. Living together may cause serious issues, such as financial problems and pregnancy which may affect their future. Both of the interviewees agreed that it is both parties fault if those problems are involved. Therefore, they cannot blame anyone because they agreed to live together. On the other hand, financial issues are always a problem for couple either living together or married. Thomas and Amanda mentioned that a couple should not live together unless they have adequate financial support.

     In conclusion, Thomas and Amandaâs interview results are mostly different but they also share some similarities on the topic of heterosexual cohabitation. Living together can be a step further towards marriage because both parties can accomplish their goals. On the other hand, it is an experience on dating as they may not continue their relationship. However, it is not the only way which leads to marriage or the only way to understand each other better. Moreover, we can always achieve different kinds of goals by living together and it is all decided by the couple.

can someone please give me some comments or correct my essay?

Anonymous — Thu, 03 May 2007 01:50:20 GMT

     It is a compare and contrast essay by interview two people on thie views about living together.
please feel welcome to leave comments or help me correct some of the mistakes.Thanks!

     Nowadays, heterosexual cohabitation is very common and a new trend of the world. Many couples choose cohabitating with each other before they get married or living together before they get married. Some people consider that living together can not only maintain their own privacy, but also can enjoy the time they spend with each other. The problems that arise due to cohabitation are no less than those caused by marriage. On the other hand, I believe that there are many reasons may lead people to think about cohabitation and people of different ages would have varied opinions on it. Therefore, I did an interview of people of different ageâs opinions on living together to have a certain understanding and analyze the problems about it. I interviewed two people and they are Thomas and Amanda. Thomas is a 23 year old university graduate student in Australia and he is working in one of the Hong Kong universities as an assistant professor now. He adopted a serious and cautious attitude towards cohabitation. Amanda is a 15 year old Asian girl who studies in the States and began her school life in one of the community colleges in Florida. She has a positive attitude towards living together. Thomas and Amanda both have different point of views towards living together regarding on age, attitude, and responsibility.

     First, Thomas and Amanda have a comparison comments on age. I asked them about the suitable age to live together; two interviewees said there is no specific age. Thomas claimed that as long as a couple is mature enough to live on their own and can work independently, they can cohabitate with each other. However, Amanda said that a couple only needs to love each other deep from their heart and support each other. From what we observe, Thomas is more mature and Amanda did not aware of the importance of living together.

     About their attitudes towards cohabitation, Thomas and Amanda have contrary standpoints. Thomas believed that living together could help them to have a better understanding on each other; however, he conceived that cohabitation is all based on trust which couple should consider clearly about their goals before they make the choices. In comparison, Amanda thought that a couple can live together if they love each other. Before, they get married; living together could help them know more about their life styles and personalities she said. As we can see, Thomas adopted a cautious attitude towards cohabitation; however, Amanda did not consider living together in its entirety.

     In addition, Thomas and Amanda have similar standpoints on the responsibility. Living together may cause serious issues, such as financial problems and pregnancy which may affect their future. Both of the interviewees agreed that it is both parties fault if those problems are involved. Therefore, they cannot blame anyone because they agreed to live together. On the other hand, financial issues are always a problem for couple either living together or married. Thomas and Amanda mentioned that a couple should not live together unless they have adequate financial support.

     In conclusion, Thomas and Amandaâs interview results are mostly different but they also share some similarities on the topic of heterosexual cohabitation. Living together can be a step further towards marriage because both parties can accomplish their goals. On the other hand, it is an experience on dating as they may not continue their relationship. However, it is not the only way which leads to marriage or the only way to understand each other better. Moreover, we can always achieve different kinds of goals by living together and it is all decided by the couple.

Re: Howard's dramatic monologue!

Anonymous — Mon, 15 May 2006 17:40:05 GMT

hey,

well il show you some of the stuff i have but it is all over the place i haven't edited it yet, but there's so much i want to write and so little time to do it in, but i would really like some guidance please.

I have also read Browning's poem, but have yet to really talk on the comparison between the two.

p.s my writing is quite bad at the moment, been writing whilst ill with the flu so please point out any major contradictions or plain nonsense that you see within the text.

thank you

A dramatic monologue has âseven definite characteristics: âspeaker, audience, occasion, revelation of character, interplay between speaker and audience, dramatic action, and action which takes place in the present.â (pg 8)

âThe dramatic monologue is a hybrid form. It has relations with lyric, because it is an expression of thought and feeling; but it is like a speech from a play, in that the character whose speech is represented is speaking out of a specific situation, and usually a problematic one. A dramatic monologue is like a speech from a play taken out of context. Its speaker is a figure other than the poet â in other words it dramatises the speaking subject â and the speaker generally speaks out of a situation that involves or leads towards action, a situation that is problematic or conflicted. It is a monologue because there is only one voice, and that voice is usually presented as speaking.â

Richard Howard has written a brilliant sequel to the Browning poem, My Last Duchess. His "speaker" is the envoy to whom Browning's duke has recently spoken to, and who is now reporting on that interview to his principal, the Count of Tyrol. However, Richard Howard has decided not to write it in the same form as Browning's but has used a letter form instead. The poem does not appear to have a particular rhyme scheme or a specific metre. It does, however, have a rather syllabic stanza form with mainly monosyllabic words, which is different compared to Browningâs rhyming iambic pentameter couplets.

Nikolaus Mardruz is the speaker of the poem. He is a representative of a government, a messenger: âMy Lordship's service, I remain his Envoyâ. It is clear to see that the poet is not the speaker of the poem, thus it abides with the rules of a dramatic monologue. The speakerâs voice is quite individualised. Nikolaus appears to be very loyal and faithful to the count; he travels to Ferrara and patiently waits hours before the Duke attends to him: âseveral hours were to elapseâ¦ before the Envoy.. Be seen to by His Grace.â The messenger tries his best to assure the Count that all will be well if his daughter were to marry the Duke, and also comes up with a proposal so that the Countess need not suffer from the âmurderous temperâ of the Duke. The sentence describing the Dukeâs temper is a clue from Browningâs poem that the Duke murdered his wife. It is a plausible to suggest the poem has the quality of a dramatic monologue. There is a speaker speaking to the Count of Tyrol. The situation described can be considered, to a certain extent, as problematic. Clearly, the Count has certain anxieties regarding the marriage of his daughter to a Duke who has experienced such a complex past.

The speaker does reveal certain thoughts and opinions about his encounter with the Duke. These are more apparent in the side comments separated with brackets. An example of this is when the messenger first arrives on the Dukeâs grounds, and is surprised to see the place âclose to a ruinâ. Nikolaus comments on the fact that âeven my Lordâs most unstinting dowry may not restore this wasted precincts to what their deteriorating state demands.â This shows us that he personally believes that no amount of money can restore the palace to a reasonable standard. It is almost as if the messenger is really picking on the weaknesses of the Duke, and maybe hoping to flatter the Count and appeal to his better nature. The speaker also observes the fact that the Duke is getting very old, âhe is no longer a young manâ. These small revelations of character show that he does have concerns regarding the Dukeâs age. It is not necessarily the case that he does not approve of the Duke being much older than the Countess, but rather that it works in their favour. The Duke will obviously pass away within a few years, therefore leaving the new Duchess with freedom and wealth. The speaker is very cunning; he is able to devise an alternate pre-nuptial agreement so that the Countess has the upper hand. Thus, the Duke will receive the intended dowry in installments instead of a lump sum; therefore the Count will have a guarantee that his daughter will be treated fairly and remain in good health. The speaker is generally hoping that the Duke will pass on as soon as possible, so that the plan goes ahead as planned, âthe long devotion (so long as he lasts)â.

The poem has many attributes which may lead an audience to believe it is a dramatic monologue. However, as a point of definition, âbecause the sense of an individual voice, and often of speech, is fundamental to the form, it is not correct to use the term of a poem written in the form of a letter.â The poem, therefore, can be more appropriately called a dramatic epistle.

The language in âMy Last Duchessâ is calm. It is a drawn out, one sided conversational boast yet the Dukeâs speech is sophisticated and eloquent.
The style contains a gradual build up to the whole story, and the drama takes place slowly with obvious mystery surrounding the fate of the Duchess. The language and actions of the Duke relay his jealous and controlling nature and yet his mannerisms and speech make him affable and admirable to such an extent the reader refrains from casting a moral judgment on him. In both poems Browning demonstrates the ability to detach himself completely and in the former, even offers the insight to a killers psyche using the monologue narrative.

The speakerâs attitude is revealed in his intonation. Upon his arrival in Ferrara, the messenger is quite disappointed by what he sees; he has a high expectation of the quality and extravagance of the palace grounds, but is taken aback when all is not as he had anticipated. This can be seen in lines such as âsuch mirroring was my first dismayâ and âqueasy it made meâ. His first impressions of the palace do not impress him at all as he cannot understand why the Duke would let his âlife in fallen stoneâ remain in such a state,

âin the dingy water that somehow

held them up as if for our surveillance-

ours?â

The speaker refers to this meeting as an âopportunityâ and also emphasises that it is also his âobligationâ. In the second stanza, this opportunity does not change his perception of what he has seen, but instead, the meeting with the Duke enhances his disappointment as he is delayed for hours assessing âa set of cameos just brought from Cairoâ. He sees the Duke caught up in a dull and gloomy state, his âtenebrosityâ. They discuss plans of the pre-nuptial agreement, from the speakerâs point of view, he feels that their negotiations look âpromisingâ. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome is, he realises the Countâs daughter will remain âamong Ferraraâs treasuresâ and refers to her as a âtrophyâ. However, there is a downside to this as a lot of the Dukeâs prized possessions do not appear to be in perfect condition or looked after, so it can be said that the speaker is not too keen on this idea as at the end of this stanza he says that if this is the Countâs wish then âso be itâ.

The speaker feels humiliated when he is confronted with the painting of the Dukeâs late wife. He calls it a âpainted deceitâ and his âembarrassment afforded a cue for audible laughterâ. The speaker is not impressed by the portrait and just sees it as another âchicaneâ or a form of trickery. The speaker himself has a more inferior role to play in society compared to the Duke, yet the speaker has formulated many opinions against the Duke based on appearance and plausibility of the Dukeâs encounters and experiences. In his letter, the speaker talks of the Dukeâs ârodomontadeâ meaning pretentious boasting. The Duke is proud to talk about his âbronze Neptuneâ which was cast in bronze especially for him, however, the messenger states how he must have seen âat least six of them cluttering the summer palace at Innsbruckâ. This is also in relation to Browningâs poem, whereby in the last few lines the Duke draw attention to the same prized possession, âNotice Neptune, though,
Taming a sea-horse, thought a rarity,
Which Claus of Innsbruck cast in bronze for me .â * From the messengerâs point of view, it was all ânonsenseâ. In spite of this, the speaker chooses to give the Duke the benefit of the doubt and proceeds to guarantee the future of the Countess, be it with the Duke, or if he passes on, the âyoung lordlingâ the Countess has had her eye on.

The mood of the poem is quite mischievous and unsupportive towards the Duke. The speaker talks about his encounter with the Duke from a negative perspective. He is not overly impressed with the Dukeâs presence and boastful personality. The speaker comes up with ways in which the Count will have the upper hand on his new relation.

There vocabulary used throughout the poem which bring out and places emphasis on the tone of the poem. Words such as âchicaneâ, ârodomontadeâ and âgloboseâ are all very uncommon and complex terms used for words with a simple meaning behind them. Howardâs purpose for sprinkling words like these throughout the poem is to show that it is a complex situation that that the messenger is involved in.

that's it so far, i have yet to reference my work but they should all be in quoatation marks.

thank you again for all your help

Re: None

MsLovely — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:12:31 GMT

      As I sit in this luxurious living room belonging to Marie Vilgrain, I see pain stirring in her eyes as
she recalls the dreadful incident in which her husband, Marc Vilgrain beat her and threatened to take their
second daughters life. She recalls the circumstances that led to this incident, her befriending three homosexuals.
She Recalls missed opportunities to fulfill her life. She recalls how he had treated her family before the incident. With
much cruelty. Perhaps her most painful recollection was that she could have changed things, on so many
occasions.
    After having one child with Marc, she fled to St. Louis, Mo where she found that she was pregnant with their
second child, she was unfortunately found by Marc no more that a week before she was to abort the child
without his consent.
    She jerks a little as she comes back to reality. Looks at me with slight impatience and says "Well, I suppose we should get started huh..?" I reply with a single nod.

Natasha: Marie, tell me how you two met.
Marie: [Marc and I] met through a friend of ours, he brought him to help my sister move into her new house,
I really didn't like him at first, but he was very persistent. He never could take no for an answer.

Natasha: How did your family react to him..?
Marie: They all hated him! My family saw him for who he was, and when he and I got married, they divorced me,
not legally of course. I guess they couldn't see what he meant to me at the time.

Natasha: Wow, that must have been hard on you when they "Divorced" you, How did he help you cope with
that?
Marie: He didn't. He wasn't very supportive of anything I did, now that I think of it. I did what I could for him and the kids.

Natasha: What exactly happened that night?
Marie: [Marc] had been gone for two days, and I had arranged to go to the movies with my friends, it didn't phase
me at that point that he didn't approve of them, he had done many things that I blatantly disapproved of. Anyway,
I got home that night to find him waiting for me in the driveway, as soon as [My friend] drove away he punched
me, he had never hit me before. I went inside and asked my daughter, Natasha to stay as calm as she could
because she always hit [Marc] back when he hit her brother, imagine what she would do to him for hitting
her mother! As hard as I tried though I couldn't stop her, they ended up fighting, just throwing their fists aimlessly
at each other, than her brother went and got into it and [Marc] probably would have seriously hurt him. I had
to break them up, and I did. I asked [Natasha and Marcos] to remain in Natasha's room. They couldn't stand it.
They called the police and he was arrested that night. The next week I filed for divorce.

Natasha: How do you think he feels about this?
Marie: Angry. [I think he feels] like he did nothing wrong, and I should give him another chance or
overlooked his many wrong doings.

Natasha: How has your life changed since then?
Marie: I feel much happier, and a hell of a lot freer. It's as if a dark cloud has been lifted from this family. We now
all live and speak freely. I also feel that my children are happier and feel safer. It's
not so easy to be on defense for such a long period of time.

Natasha: How did you cope with how he treated your family, yourself included, for all those years?
Marie: I usually just shut down and told myself it would get better or would end soon. At times I pretended
that what he did didn't affect me or bothered me.

Natasha: If you could have divorced [Marc] sooner would you have?
Marie: Probably, I also think that I got caught up in what we owned together and was afraid I would lose mostly
everything. Once I [accepted] losing certain investments the decision was easier.

Natasha: What do you think your life would have been like if you had gone through with the abortion and left
him?
Marie: Less hectic. Maybe a little less, or a little more troubled. Definitely less crying [on my part.]
Maybe I would have come to terms with what I wanted in life sooner.

Natasha: Was it all worth it? Keeping the baby and staying int he marriage?
Marie: All in all I have to say yes. Because if it weren't for what I went through with him, I would not be who I am today,
and I love my family. I like the woman I have become and the family I have.

Natasha: Thank you so so so much for the interview.

Re: None

MsLovely — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:11:48 GMT

Natasha: How do you think he feels about this?
Marie: Angry. [I think he feels] like he did nothing wrong, and I should give him another chance or
overlooked his many wrong doings.

Natasha: What do you think your life would have been like if you had gone through with the abortion and left
him?
Marie: Less hectic. Maybe a little less, or a little more troubled. Definitely less crying [on my part.]
Maybe would have come to terms with what I wanted in life sooner.

Natasha: Thank you so so so much for the interview.

Re: Antonym/employ

Wwwdotcom — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:56:12 GMT

C. gather together - This is like "interview", you gather potential employees together before hiring one.
â You don't "gather potential employees together", during an interview. You keep them apart.

You sure don't invite the whole town. You do select viable candidates for a job, and yes you can interview them as a group. I understand the JET program in Japan does this. I have never gone through their interview process, but I did do one similar where we were selected based on a private 1 to 1 discussion as well as a 1 to 10 discussion.

D. disregard - This is like "bias", disregarding a potential employee based on race, sex, or possibly beliefs.
â "to be biassed towards" is not "to disregard": to have bias, you must first "regard" them (i.e. take notice of them). Otherwise you wouldn't know what their sex, etc. was.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disregard+that+last+comment

E. dissolve - This is like "fire", dissolving them from the company.
â You don't dissolve something "from" something. When you dissolve a partnership, or a marriage, you dissolve the whole. You are then left with separated components.

Yep, the empoyer stays as one part. The ex-employee goes off and finds another job, the second part.

A. leave idle - This is like "reapply". The potential employee is not wishing to work doing another job or with another company. So, instead of applying to other companies, they "idle" until the next time they can apply.
â With "leave idle", the potential employee is the object of the verb. With "idle", the p.e. is the subject. You have switched from one to the other. (You can't leave yourself idle.)

So, is this person going to illegally enter the company's premises and force a job be granted? Are they going to do this through some union?

B. deny access - Well, I think this is like "not employ". You are not forcing/allowing a potential employee to wait, you are simply denying access to your company or the company you represent. These potential employees you deny access can apply to other companies, and assuming they all get jobs elsewhere, they won't be idle. Even if they don't get a job, I don't feel they are in idle as they are doing something to get a job.
â Now you're discussing one possible antonym (deny access) in terms of another (leave idle). Your task is to demonstrate that "deny access" is an antonym of "employ". But in fact you've demonstrated that those who are denied access may in fact get jobs elsewhere. In other words, they may be employed.

They will never be employed by the same company unless there is some reapplication or change in the previous decision to NOT EMPLOY them (which is the best thing to an antonym as I can see). The task is not to demonstrate that "deny access" is the antonym of "employ", the task is to choose the best answer that best fits. That doesn't mean it will correspond 100% to our perception of the antonym of "employ".

In order for the answer to be A, I would think of a person who has lost all hope. They aren't going to apply to another company, and they aren't going to reapply to the same company. They are just going to sit there in idle misery.
â So...umm...that would mean they were unemployed, no?

Yes, but many people don't do that. They look for another job and get employed elsewhere (people got to eat). They don't just sit there idle (and starve to death).