76 Tracy, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Your last part did not address any of the posed questions well. It was more of a rant about Singlaub. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. 97 Kelley, Although a bit long, you turned in a terrific first assignment. Yours was one of the best ones in the class. Excellent analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need. Don't overstep the confines of the assignment. 80 Brock, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Part 2 seemed to fall apart though, due to awkward/confusing writing (lepers, nirvana, taboo) and what eventually came across as "rambling". 92 Daniel, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Excellent analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. In Part 2, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 0 Marcus, 89 Jeremy, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. In part 2, your analysis was not as good as in part 1. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. 50 Jason, Your paper was too brief to constitute a week's worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. 0 Brian, 68 Sheila, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. At one point, your paper reads as a personal promotional piece for Ho Chi Minh, revealing a very poor understanding of the class information to this point. 68 Marla, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. Nice personal story in part 1 (which took away some words and space needed for the rest of the assignment) but the weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Your last part did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book or class. 75 Donald, Your personal story was too long and actually contradicted your credibility point. You don't remember the specifics of how you got through the evening at work, but Donlon *can* remember the details of his. In part 2, you failed to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt. Instead, you asked numerous hypothetical questions of your own. Your last part did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book or class. 80 Tony, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? 84 Colin, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Overall the paper was okay, but the depth of analysis in part 2 was a problem. ("Offering Ho a better alternative to communism") Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 76 David, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Part 2 was missing story specifics necessary to make your point. Your last part did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book or class. 0 Alexander, - Pam, 62 Jairus, Your first paragraph started off on the wrong foot. You wrote what question you would rather have been asked, instead of the one I did ask you to write about. It also sounded as if you've only read two stories of the many stories that all students have been assigned to read in parts 1 and 2. In part 1, your paper lacks ANY story detail. Part 2 is vague again, with no story specifics, but an overview of what lessons we should have learned. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. While you did complete the assignment on time, you failed to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt. Be careful when reading the instructions in this online class and address everything asked. 0 Juan, 92 Molly, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1, although your "grain of salt" and "accepting most of it" were contradictory comments. (The same could go for stating "horrible crimes of humanity" during wartime.) That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. 58 Jared, Your paper was too brief to constitute a week's worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. 95 Ellen, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Very well written. Parts 1 and 2 were not given equal time. The 4 stories used in part 2 kept you from answering the questions more deeply/analytically. Avoid the cliches… "they might have kept their mouth shut". Strange conclusion. 80 Kyle, Your part 1 was mostly a narrative, rather than focusing on reliability and trustworthiness of the speaker. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 should have only included stories from part 2, a more difficult task than using the stories in part 1. I decided to be a bit lenient here and not cut 25% of your grade. In the future, be careful to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt. 10 Rhonda, Your paper was too brief to constitute a week's worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. 78 Raina, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. In your Brown story, you seem to have confused the VC with ARVN… a very big mistake. Your last paragraph did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview. 0 Ray, 68 Spencer, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. The points you were trying to make in Part 2 were very awkward and unclear to me. 80 Jesse, Part 1 was okay although a bit brief. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you seemed to give an overview of the war. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. Your last part did not address any of the posed questions at at all. 65 Kate, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Your last paragraph did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book or class. 97 Todd, Terrific first assignment. Yours was one of the best ones in the class. Nice analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Avoid the hypothetical questions raised in your second paragraph, which we off topic. 68 Kristin, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 72 Joe, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. While you did complete the assignment on time, you failed to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt. You asked "what if it was me?"… that's not my question to you. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a brief narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you included no "positive" story. 96 Jinny, Terrific first assignment. Yours was one of the best ones in the class. Well written and nice attention to detail. Good, if brief, analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. 90 Samantha, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Part 2 was good, but your paragraph on the "positive" story was weak/brief. 76 Deanna, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a vague narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 0 Kejuan, 69 Jessica, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? I'm not sure you read the directions for part 2. You failed to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt for part 2. Your main problem was that the story was too short??? That is not the "negative" I was after. 50 Shellea, Your paper was too brief to constitute a week's worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. 50 Thomas, Your paper was too brief to constitute a week's worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. 78 Stephanie, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was not done well at all. Your last paragraph did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book. 0 Hector, 0 Taylor, 67 Powell Justin, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. ("As u can see") While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. You made some unsubstantiated claims ("worst blood bath") in part 2. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. 86 Jolene, Be sure to check your paper before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Ron on sentences seem to be your main grammar weakness. Overall, nice job on this first assignment. I do sincerely thank you for your backstory, but one negative part about where I think you are coming from is this. To me, it read a bit like an "excuse". (I realize this is a sensitive family subject, so I'm trying to be careful with my written word choices here.) Using your family history as a reason for why you cannot judge others is basically *not allowed* in this course. Of course we have to be careful about judging historical figures by our 2010 standards (presentism), but we certainly get to take an analytical look back at this troubling chapter of our country's history. And the more facts and data we have at our disposal, the better we can support our points of view. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 0 Melissa, 62 rathbun Thomas, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? You also misunderstood the story you used in part 2. Prunier certainly didn't have any remorse about training the Viet Minh. His concern was with the misinterpretation and misapplication of the facts he gave to U.S. officials. You might want to check the dates of his time in Vietnam. 50 David, Your paper was too brief to constitute a week's worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. 65 Dylan, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. While you did complete the assignment on time, you failed to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt. Be careful when reading the instructions in this online class and address everything asked. Your entire paper was vague. I didn't even know your part 1 story choice until the 3rd paragraph. And even them, you used "he" to refer to a "she", which confused me even more. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you seemed to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. 80 David, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. Use of the phrase "what really got me" was cliche and overused. My questions did not ask for a gut-level reaction to the text. 95 Nicholas, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Excellent analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Part 2 was mostly narrative in nature, rather than a focus on my questions. 67 Jaymie, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. The academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing, and your paper contained many serious errors that hurt not only the readability, but my understanding as well. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 94 Smith Spencer, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. In part 2, cite the Herring text in the Prunier story. 68 Benjamin, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? In part 2, you failed to address the numerous questions that I posed in the prompt. Be careful when reading the instructions in this online class and address everything asked. 68 Verner David, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, your last part did not address any of the posed questions at at all. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book or class. Also, I encourage your writing to be academic, rather than familiar, in nature. 0 Paul, 84 Justin, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Facts from the Herring book were missed in your second part of part 2 such as equating OSS and the USA government as equivalent. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. 70 Tikoya, As gently as I can, I want to remind you to check your grammar and spelling/typos before you turn in your assignments in this fully online class. Whereas the internet allows for communication filled with slang, abbreviations, lack of capitalization or punctuation (and I'm not saying your assignment suffered from ALL of these faults), the academic nature of this class requires a more formal form of writing. Since we have no other basis to "know" each other, I can only "know" you from your written work and assign scores and grades accordingly. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, some of what you presented was contradictory. Your last (positive) part did not address any of the posed questions. It was as if you decided to write some sort of overview of the book or the entire war. 60 Jennifer, Your paper was much too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments, and avoid inflating your word count by including my questions in the the text of your paper. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts. 68 Dustin, The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. The Lincoln and FDR analogies would only have worked if the story had been about Diem, instead of Ngo Vinh Long. As a matter of fact, I am also very unclear why you chose to write about the positive lesson in the Olsen story. 0 Josiah, 62 Allie, While your paper was "on topic", it was a bit too brief to constitute a weeks worth of work, addressing the reading and posed questions in an in-depth manner. Be sure to ponder and elaborate in more detail on future assignments. The weakest part of the assignment for you (it was for a majority of the other students as well) was the part on reliability and trustworthiness of the speakers. While "they were there", in some cases, this makes them "too close" to the conflict. As a result, they can only speak to a VERY small part of the larger war. Was their small part the "exception" or the "norm"? Finally, they can't all be equally believable. For instance, the Vietnamese perspective comes from individuals who have been chosen by the communist government of Vietnam and "allowed" to speak with this Western writer named Appy. In a country without freedom of speech, is the account we read accurate? And for that matter, just because we live in a country WITH freedom of speech, does it make an account truthful? Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you seemed to misunderstand the stories and confuse some facts (Browne witnessing slayings by the VC against their own people, and in the final paragraph, the fact that the VC did, in fact, "win" the war.) 82 Heidi, Overall, nice job on this first assignment. Good analysis of the credibility of the speaker you chose in Part 1. That was the most difficult part of this assignment, and your paper made a worthy attempt to deal with this complex subject, just as the one you are dealing with in Forum 1. Be careful not to use a single story to "come to a conclusion" for the U.S. failure in the Vietnam War. At this point, you definitely do not have all the facts, a single account from someone who was there cannot provide you with all of the evidence you need, and it reveals wild speculation and/or dubious analysis on your part. Part 2 was simply a narrative, failing to address the depth of the positive and negative story questions. As a matter of fact, you used the same story for both positive and negative, which is a difficult thing to do properly. I would suggest choosing different accounts.