Home | Away

Renard News:  nous rapportons, vous décidez

Over the weekend I came across an essay posted on Campus Watch’s website.  You all remember Campus Watch: long before there was “Discover the Network,” there was Campus Watch’s “Solidarity with Apologists” page (the page has since been taken down, but you can learn about it here).  “Solidarity with Apologists” featured the names of over one hundred professors (myself included) who had written to protest Campus Watch’s targeting of individuals, programs, and entire universities they deemed insufficiently patriotic or pro-Israel.  But it didn’t have pictures and it didn’t have Katie Couric or Roger Ebert, so it just wasn’t as much fun as the Discover the Network.

The essay, “Confronting Anti-Israel Attitudes on Contemporary College Campuses,” wasn’t originally written for Campus Watch– it had appeared late last year in Midstream, a monthly Jewish review, and was picked up by “Campus Watch in the Media,” a kind of clipping service for CW fans.  But the concluding paragraphs of the essay leave no doubt that it fits quite well in the Campus Watch repertoire:

[S]tudents, whether working through groups such as Students for Academic Freedom or contributing to websites such as No Indoctrination or Campus Watch, can have enormous influence, by exposing in-class bias that otherwise never would see the light of day. Faculty members, in turn, need to support students in these efforts. Finally, academic administrators should add intellectual diversity– an especially needed element in Middle East Studies programs– to the panoply of diversity-related measures that they regularly support.

Faculty and administrators need to support students in these efforts, no question.  On some campuses, faculty and administrators should help students distribute red stars for the office doors of anti-American professors; on other campuses, they should institute intellectual diversity programs so that conservative students will feel more comfortable in class and have higher self-esteem.  And how can you help at home?  Why, with constant, vigorous oversight, particularly with regard to commencement speakers whose remarks about George Bush or Iraq suggest that they are contributing to anti-Israel attitudes on campus:

[T]his issue will require constant, vigorous oversight, as events at Hofstra University’s 2004 commencement suggested. The commencement speaker, author E. L. Doctorow, bitterly condemned the war in Iraq and effectively called President George Bush a liar, drawing vigorous boos from the crowd and many students. In a stark illustration, however, of the ideological gap between today’s professoriate and the undergraduates that they teach, most of the faculty gave Doctorow a standing ovation. As Alan Dershowitz cautioned, as long as many professors see Israel as a proxy for their opposition to U.S. foreign policy, faculty members like those who applauded Doctorow are likely to contribute to rather than resolve the problem of anti-Israel attitudes on contemporary college campuses.

By this point, I imagine, some of you are saying, “all right already with all the Horowitz Hackwork, Michael– get off the case, it’s been a month or more now, and really, everything that can possibly be said about the man and his organization has been said.” But this isn’t David Horowitz, folks.  It’s Robert David (KC) Johnson, professor of history at Brooklyn College, and one of the most outspoken and (sometimes) thoughtful conservatives in the business.  (He’s currently a visiting professor at Harvard.) And the reason his essay came to my attention is that it popped up in the course of a Technorati search.  Because somewhere in the middle of the essay, there’s a very strange passage that has nothing to do with Middle East Studies:

In most social sciences and humanities departments, registered Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber registered Republicans; in an extreme example, Duke’s History Department contains 32 Democrats and zero Republicans.

An almost comical hostility to perceived conservatives heightens the impact of this imbalance. To cite a few examples from the 2003-2004 academic year alone, the nation’s leading academic journal, the Chronicle of Higher Education, published an essay by Penn State English professor Michael Bérubé advising professors to treat conservative students as they would students with learning disabilities or who exhibited aberrant behavior.

Some of you might remember that essay and the short-term shitstorm it provoked over in Wingnut Alley in late 2003, but you might not remember that I advised professors to treat conservative students as they would students with learning disabilities or who exhibited aberrant behavior.  And that’s because . . . amazing but true . . . I said no such thing!

But back in 2003 before I had a proper blog and my very own nightly one-hour show on the Renard News Channel, if I wanted to reply to mischief like this, I would have to write an actual e-mail to the author or to Midstream or to Campus Watch, explaining that my essay’s only reference to “disability” comes in the final paragraph:

Over twenty years I’ve had many conservatives in my classes.  I think I’ve even had a few Stalinists, too.  I’ve had many intelligent, articulate students who behaved as if they had a right to speak more often and at greater length than anyone else in the room; I’ve had versions of Reese Witherspoon in Election and Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series, who knew the answers to every question ever asked; I’ve had my share of blurters with very little sense of social boundaries, a few of whom may genuinely have had some degree of Asperger’s Syndrome, with various autistic or antisocial symptoms.  To all such students– indeed, to all students, those with disabilities and those without– I try to apply the standard of disability law: I make reasonable accommodation for them.  The challenge, though, lies in making reasonable accommodations for students whose standards of “reasonableness” are significantly different from yours.  Few aspects of teaching are so difficult– and, I think, so rarely acknowledged by people who don’t teach for a living.

You know what, though?  That Old Media method of responding to unscrupulous critics sucked.  Now, however, I can simply utilize the famously self-correcting features of the blogosphere– noting, for instance, that Professor KC Johnson does his very own blogging at the widely-respected Cliopatria and the somewhat less widely-respected National Association of Scholars Online Forum– in order to call attention to the fact that Professor Johnson did something here that real professors, or at least honest ones, really shouldn’t do.

So welcome to The Bérubé Factor, KC!  Glad you could make it.  Here at the Renard News Channel, we know you’re a busy guy, so to save you time and trouble, we’ve prepared for you some possible answers to our first two questions:

Q.  Why did you try to claim that my Chronicle essay advised professors to treat conservative students as if they were people with disabilities?

__ Actually, Michael, sometimes I’m not a very careful reader.  I completely missed the bit about making reasonable accommodations for all students, and I didn’t realize that you weren’t “advising” anyone to do anything.  It won’t happen again– I’ll be sure to slow down and read every word in the future.

__ Listen, Michael, I’m sorry I tried to get away with this nonsense.  Please forgive me.  I’m really not always unethical– only when I’m writing for journals where I don’t expect to run into anyone who’ll call me on stuff like this.  It will happen again, but only when I need to tell a few stretchers in order to smear liberal academics.  Always business, never personal, you know!

__ Golly, Michael, I just don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote this.  I’d completely forgotten that you have (a) a widely-read blog, (b) a nationally-televised talk show on a fictional network, and (c) a well-known tendency to visit the offices of conservative academics, fly into violent frothing frenzies, and nail people’s heads to the floor.  Please don’t nail my head to the floor, Michael!  If you promise to keep my head one hundred percent nail-free, I’ll promise to use it more wisely in the future!

Q.  Thank you for your candor.  But still, Professor Johnson, how can we institute programs of constant, vigorous oversight to keep track of faculty members who applaud E. L. Doctorow?

__ That is an unfair question, Michael.  Applauding E. L. Doctorow is not the problem.  The problem is that E. L. Doctorow criticized George Bush and the war in Iraq.  This form of leftist indoctrination on college campuses must be stopped.

__ Michael, that is precisely the kind of slanted, perverse interpretation of my work that I’d expect from the Renard News Network.  My essay made it quite clear that applauding Doctorow is just a “gateway” phenomenon:  faculty members who applaud Doctorow, as I carefully pointed out, are associated– indeed, in my very next sentence, which makes the connection extremely logical– with professors who “see Israel as a proxy for their opposition to U.S. foreign policy,” and these professors are “likely to contribute to rather than resolve the problem of anti-Israel attitudes on contemporary college campuses.” Moreover, I explicitly said that we need to focus on “faculty members like those who applauded Doctorow.” The chain of inference is clear; you just need to follow the steps.

__ You’re kidding me, right, Michael?  We already have those programs. 

Reader/viewer poll: which answers do you think Professor Johnson will choose?  Vote as often as you like, or make up entirely new replies!

Posted by on 03/14 at 08:25 AM
  1. Professor Berube,

    I composed what I thought was a witty comment on the fact that you were made “famous” by frontpagemag today, but your blog ate it.

    So, please excuse my poor/crude paraphrase:


    Thank you, I feel much better now.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  10:51 AM
  2. PS

    and why is horowitz getting away with claiming that this whole “discover the network” thing is such a great/new advance for right-wing kooks?

    They have been creating similar “networks” based upon their delusions since the old “brown web” and “red web” days of the 1930s to the end of the Cold War.

    Back in the day, the nut jobs collected and collated names/organizations that were “subversive” on note cards and cross-referenced them to come up with diagrams of the fascists or commie “conspiracies.”

    These cards were maintained by various McCarthy types, private individuals, and even special corporations made up of ex-FBI agents that would vet names for employers and state and local governments--since the actual FBI data base could not be used by the public.

    You could use these card catalogs to play a giant game of six degrees of kevin bacon and find that just about anyone liberal was “associated” with some other poor sap that managed to land on an attorney general’s list ‘cause she went to a march with REAL communists during the Depression…

    Horowitz has merely replaced those old fashioned note cards with webpages and data base software.

    THese people never change, and I don’t think they have had an original idea since @1929.

    His “original” website is just more of the same. 

    I still cannot for the life of me figure out how these people get away with this nonsense.

    When was the last time ANYBODY saw/met/knew a real “communist”???

    But to hear these neanderthals tell it, every professor in the liberal arts building is “objectively” pro-terrorist.

    Yeah, those professors are real raging leftists, just ask any grad students trying to form a union about how down with the proletariat those professors are…

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  11:04 AM
  3. Yeah, props on the prominent mention in Frontpage! I think that gives you a lock on the plenary speaker position at the next moonbat conference.

    Between that and Horowitz claiming last week the be a true liberal, I think we’re suppplied with new matrial for the next few days.

    In any event, I would think that you of all people would be more tolerant of Johnson, and of his interpretation of your mention of Asperger’s in the shitstorm essay. People who can adequately comprehend the written word are far overrepresented in the tenured professor track, and I for one support Johnson 100 percent in his attempt to maintain an academic career without being fully able to read for content. You’re the last person I’d think would be in thrall to the White Man’s “literacy” mystique.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  03/14  at  11:17 AM
  4. Option 3 in both cases, of course!

    I mean, if it weren’t for violence, the left wouldn’t control the media and the government and the corruption of values, right? So it’s got to be the hammers.

    And of course, Johnson must have an extensive monitoring network in place already. Otherwise he would be committing an academic faux pas in publishing an unsupported claim.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  11:28 AM
  5. Q.  Why did you try to claim that my Chronicle essay advised professors to treat conservative students as if they were people with disabilities?

    A.  Because I get so cross-eyed when I’m sucking on the teats of Raw Power that I don’t read so very well anymore.

    Q.  Thank you for your candor.  But still, Professor Johnson, how can we institute programs of constant, vigorous oversight to keep track of faculty members who applaud E. L. Doctorow?

    A.  That’s what the “Total Insurgency Awareness” Poindexter nanobot program is all about.  Oh wait, I wasn’t supposed to mention that.  Damn.

    Posted by corndog  on  03/14  at  11:29 AM
  6. Q.  Why did you try to claim that my Chronicle essay advised professors to treat conservative students as if they were people with disabilities?

    ___Perceived conservatives, Michael.  Actually I’m raising a subtle philosophomological questiums about the ability of conservatives to exist and not exist in the PSU classroom at the same time.  Percipio est mississippi, or something.  These comments better support the html for italics!  I have enough trouble coding the accents in your name. 

    ___Michael, I don’t think you see the big picture.  It’s the humor that galls us.  Your hostility is so damn almost comical it’s close to clumpy.  Almost.  Is the “clumpy” thing done yet?  I’m working with old material.

    ___As if!  Speaking of gravy, and stretchers, does the RNC have any extra promo photos of you to spare?  We’re building a better network over here. It’s all very sexy, very “ET"/"Insider" - if possible, send a topless photo from a yacht outing at your summer retreat in the Hamptons.  We’d like to photoshop in a couple pics of Doctorow and Churchill, just a little package-showcase thing for the left-lovin’ ladies.  Or gents.  Cojo’s doing hot/not commentary, so make sure you’ve waxed.  Wink!

    Posted by Jason  on  03/14  at  11:43 AM
  7. anyone interested in finding the REAL network should go here:

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  12:42 PM
  8. I believe you left out two possibilities to each question…

    d.) all of the above
    e.) ‘Cause I can fucking get away with it.

    d.) all of the above
    e.) by instituting a simple usenet list where students can subscribe and label a teacher as a liberal...then we can simply use the tried and true method of tying rocks to them and tossing them in a river...if they float, they’re liberals. If they sink they, sadly, die but prove they’re not liberals. But they die with their good name restored. Good enough for Salem, good enough for us.

    Posted by Rik  on  03/14  at  12:52 PM
  9. I’m giddy with excitement.

    My guess is his answer will consist of him claiming that he would surely misquote Conservative Anti-Israel professors too, but that they simply can’t exist under our current Left groupthink, and he prayers for the day when he can.

    What the hell is going on in the Philosophy department at Penn?  They aren’t accepting any graduate school applications?!

    Posted by Anthony Smith  on  03/14  at  12:55 PM
  10. steveeboy,

    You’re giving them too much credit for originality.  The “Discover the Network” format goes back to at least the 1920s, not the 1930s. 

    The ‘20s brought us the infamous ”Spider Web Chart,” which claimed to link supposed subversives on the left, especially radical women.  Originally compiled by Lucia Maxwell, the Librarian of the War Department’s Chemical Warfare Service, the chart claimed, in capital letters at the top, that “THE SOCIALIST-PACIFIST MOVEMENT IN AMERICA IS AN ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL AND INTEGRAL PART OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.” A year later, the Chart became widely circulated when Henry Ford published it in The Dearborn Independent.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  01:03 PM
  11. Dude: 

    Nailing people’s heads to the ground will make them handicapped.

    And that’s not right.

    What is David’s number?

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  01:23 PM
  12. "The reason an indicted terrorist can get such invitations (and conservatives usually cannot) is that law school faculties are dominated by leftist professors like Michael Berube who are linked by one or two degrees of separation to long-standing radicals like Lynne Stewart – and thus no more than three degrees – to terrorists like Omar Abdul Rachman and his Islamic Group.” - David Horowitz

    Why Michael, I didn’t know you’ve been named to PSU Dickinson’s faculty! Does this make you Penn State’s Stanley Fish ("I don’t have a law degree. I teach the law")? If so, who will be your Dinesh D’Souza?

    By the way, what are your “one or two degrees of separation” to Lynne Stewart? Did you both read something by Chomsky a long time ago? (ooh, the trifecta!)

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  01:44 PM
  13. Actually, Michael, I think KC’s misquotation of your reference to handling obstreperous students isn’t the most egregious thing in that article.

    The argument itself wins that prize. KC’s thesis is garbled, verging on paranoid:

    “While not the chief explanation for this problem, anti-Semitism—to the extent that it involves demands to treat Israel distinctly from all other nations in a way that harms Jews—does play some role.”

    This statement is is heavily over-qualified (and not in the job applicant sense). It also seems essentially circular: the particular kind of exceptionalist treatment of Israel that harms Jews is a form of anti-Semitism that contributes to the problem of campus groupthink.

    If I were grading it, I would circle out the whole sentence and write, “Thesis does not make sense.”

    Posted by Amardeep  on  03/14  at  02:13 PM
  14. I’ve had my share of blurters with very little sense of social boundaries…

    Say, if that spot’s still open at Renard News, I’m definitely your guy.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  02:23 PM
  15. Always nice to see people read my work! I have responded to this “analysis” at Cliopatria:

    Posted by KC Johnson  on  03/14  at  03:01 PM
  16. uh...looks like it’s on, eh? grin

    (Ben--i want a wall-size poster of that Spider Web Chart for my “When Librarians Go Bad” presentation for the next crop of Reference Interns! kind of the MLS version of “Reefer Madness”.)


    Posted by  on  03/14  at  03:52 PM
  17. Looks like you hit a nerve, Michael. A little research would have shown Johnson that you can in fact tolerate a great deal of criticism, especially if it’s prefaced with making fun of your jacket. And what a disingenuous reply to the “misreading” issue!

    I’m always amused when writers are criticized for including autobiographical info in their work. Perhaps that’s because I can’t write a paragraph without including the first person singular pronoun. (QED.) The obvious insinuation is one of egotism, which is patently false to anyone who’s actually read your work and seen the self-deprecation you wield. I think that’s the main thing that makes your writing so accessible to those of us in the lay world.

    (And with that, my week’s supply of sucking up is depleted. It’s gonna be a rough next few days at work.)

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  03/14  at  04:19 PM
  18. Yes, indeed, let the games begin!

    KC Johnson, if you’re still reading, congratulations on a complete side-stepping of the real issue by focusing upon Michael’s approach, read through someone else’s critique. 

    The attempt to mask epistemological position is a classic conservative strategy, as well as one of historical methodology.  That’s right, you have the “facts” on your side, don’t you?  You just get the shivers whenever the pronoun “I” is used.  “The personal is political” just makes you want to gag.  We understand. 

    So, now, instead of offering your fake apology here, why don’t you address the fact that you deliberately misquoted Michael’s article? 

    I am posting this here because I have no interest in registering on the Cliopatria blog.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  04:29 PM
  19. Totally out of context.  It isn’t only that the referenced passage mentioned a long list of repeat discussion-group offenders before saying a word about disability.  The first group Berube compares arch-conservative students to is...far-left students.  “Over twenty years I’ve had many conservatives in my classes.  I think I’ve even had a few Stalinists, too.”

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  04:38 PM
  20. KC Johnson continues to deliberately misread what Berube wrote.  And here I thought historians were supposed to put things into, and not out of, context. My bad.

    The non-apology apology by KC Johnson on his own group blog was classless. Here’s hoping Ralph Luker (Johnson’s fellow blogger) calls him on it.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  04:45 PM
  21. ...Actually, I’d be offended on behalf of the disabled students.  I think I understand your reasoning--namely, in part, that the ADA model provides a valuable frame for focusing on the potential valuable contributions of the individual, on their right to participate, and on the obligation of the facilitator to make participation possible--but it needed a bit more fleshing out.  Students with ADHD, or dyslexia, or Asperger’s, or Tourette’s, or any of the other problems that might require accomodation...deserve accomodation.  Students with differing viewpoints deserve respect.  Students who haven’t yet learned to absorb and evaluate differing viewpoints deserve instruction on that front, as do students who haven’t yet learned to differentiate between “criticism” and “silencing.” But students who think that nothing’s being said if they’re not talking--and I say this with love, because I certainly was one myself--don’t necessarily deserve to be handled “gently.” IIRC, the student you described in the article wasn’t merely a conservative whose opinions differed from yours and those of the rest of the class.  He was kind of a jerk.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  05:18 PM
  22. Damn, I see that Ralph Luker actually agrees with KC Johnson’s misinterpretation (in the comments of another thread).  I’m pretty stunned by that.  Glad to see Caleb McDaniel (yet another blogger at their group cite) pointed out the misreading.  I am truly disappointed in my man Ralph, though.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  05:29 PM
  23. I am too, but Dr. Luker has always been his own man and he tends to try and side for the guy most down and out.  That, and he and Dr. Berube have also had disagreements over at our blog.

    Posted by Anthony Smith  on  03/14  at  05:39 PM
  24. Ralph Luker has always been exceptionally generous about opening discussions on Cliopatria to persons of very different viewpoints.  For just that reason, I think I can say that Professor Johnson does not represent Cliopatria anymore than any of its members do.  It is a group blog whose members hold widely divergent views about a variety of matters.  Regular readers know, for instance, that Professor Johnson and Professor Timothy Burke have regularly disagreed, but I have always admired the collegial form that those disagreements that taken.

    Therefore, I certainly hope that this argument will not be construed as a smack-down between Cliopatria and Michael Berube, and I’m a bit distressed that it must be construed as a smack-down at all.  And I’m even more distressed, Professor Berube, that you dared to compare conservative students with that insufferable Hermione Granger.  What does Harry see in her, anyway?

    Posted by Caleb  on  03/14  at  06:07 PM
  25. What’s wrong with a good old smackdown once in awhile?  I loved the hyper-snarkiness of Michael’s comments.  Confrontation was in order here, in my view.  If Johnson wanted dialogue, perhaps he could have made his comments here instead of simply posting a link to the Cliopatria blog.

    My reason for not wanting to register with Cliopatria was not because Johnson is associated with it; perhaps I should have clarified that in my previous comment.  I’m just not interested in participating in that particular blog.  Sorry, Ralph.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  06:40 PM
  26. Harry doesn’t like Hermione that way, Caleb. He’s mostly friends with her because she helps him with homework and comes up with evil and dangerous plans against people he doesn’t like.

    Ahem. I agree that the snark was totally justified. This guy is way too intellectually dishonest to seriously argue with.

    I’m a college student and I’ve seen quite a few Disgruntled Conservatives who seem determined to believe that the professors are dead set against them. Many of them “argue” through shouting and flatly asserting beliefs rather than actually, you know, making an argument. It must be incredibly annoying to be a professor dealing with a student like that. For students like me, it’s easier. Snarking is always an option for us.

    Also, I’ve seen some “pile-ons” of conservative students, but I’ve also seen some truly sickening situations wherein the conservative loudly and belligerent says what he thinks and the liberals respond by saying something like “Well, thank you for sharing your opinion, and of course you have an absolute right to think that, and I really, totally, completely respect your viewpoint, which is of course just as valid as mine...”

    Q1: Silly Michael, I’m completely uninterested in what you actually said. I just want to have a nice little Liberal Bias Horror Story to tell all the other conservative bitchers and whiners. What’s so wrong about that?

    Q2: I recommend we tag them with electronic listening devices, Michael. That way, if they ever inappropriately voice their opinions in class, or mention Bush’s name without prefacing it with “Our Dear Leader,” we’ll know about it right away and can fire them and replace them with Sean Hannity.

    Posted by Linnet  on  03/14  at  07:00 PM
  27. "Ralph Luker has always been exceptionally generous about opening discussions on Cliopatria to persons of very different viewpoints.”

    Of course.  But misreading a quote is not merely a “different viewpoint.” The most generous, if dubious, explanation is that Johnson was mistaken about what Berube wrote.  But now that Berube ("I’ve said no such thing!") has totally disowned Johnson’s account of Berube’s essay, why doesn’t Johnson admit his mistake and move on? It is for that reason that I’m surprised Luker has defended Johnson. (For that matter, I’m surprised in Johnson, too.) I don’t read Cliopatra to agree with every post (I don’t), but I usually respect the intellectual honesty of each post.  That’s not the case here.

    While it’s not a smackdown between Cliopatra and Berube, it most certainly is a smackdown between Johnson and Berube.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  07:02 PM
  28. salt, salt, lots of salt---
    As someone who was responsibles of the administration of IEP’s for much of the last two decades, i observed what i would describe as the Big Bang expansion of documented learning disability “issues"(syndromes, diseases, diagnoses, etc.).  Under IDEA and then the ADA, a vast array of accomodations and modifications have been created to account for all manner of problems.  It is not entirely unreasonable to conceive of a new learning disability--one that is predicated on a individual’s faith- based belief system’s interference with cognitive processing when confronted with rational intellectual discussion.  Just scanning the postings above, we could begin to identify the signs and symptoms, formulate some appropriate strategies, and offer an accomodation cocktail.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  07:17 PM
  29. Jim E. et al., my comments at Cliopatria should leave no doubt that I don’t agree with Johnson’s reading of the essay, and I believe his reply post was a classic case of misdirection.

    So by saying I was distressed by the smackdown, I wasn’t saying that there is not a legitimate conflict here.  I’m just distressed by smackdowns in general.  My point about Ralph and Cliopatria was also intended only to discourage readers not familiar with the blog to assume that Professor Johnson’s views are representative of all of its members.  I apologize if I misread you, SneakySnu.

    Posted by Caleb  on  03/14  at  08:01 PM
  30. Caleb,

    If there’s no smackdown it’s because the opponent refused to show up.

    No apologies necessary.  I addressed my comment about Cliopatria primarily because Ralph Luker e-mailed me to invite me to register.

    Posted by  on  03/14  at  08:12 PM
  31. Hi everyone. There is still a difference between something and nothing, but it is purely geometrical and there is nothing behind the geometry.
    I am from Jamaica and too bad know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Now, this is where the games begin and where many of.”

    Thank you so much for your future answers :-D.  Joseph.

    Posted by Joseph  on  04/04  at  07:02 AM
  32. Your site and you will reach the big successes, thank, it was interesting.
    I am from Panama and now study English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Note - even if you are not required to present a receipt, you must detail each item of expense on the travel.”

    :o Thanks in advance. Tanith.

    Posted by Tanith  on  04/04  at  07:05 AM





Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

Next entry: KC and me, round two

Previous entry: In a just world

<< Back to main