*Apologies, but I have searched some previous posts regarding this but none seem to match my symptoms.
53M - Tylenol/Aleve/Advil as needed (daily, due to exercise soreness), Fluoxetine, and Trimix (as needed), *The latter two about 2-4 wks now.
Yesterday while jogging, I got a low, dull cramp, on my right side (6-8 out of 10 on the pain scale), just below the lowest point on my ribcage. I almost had to stop but eventually, became manageable and went away. Today, while just sitting at my desk, the cramp feeling is returning (1 out of 10 on the pain scale > just noticeable, like I feel a cramp is about to occur).
I've always been active; but, in the last month, more so than usual. I've played softball more (I do warm up, especially doing midrange, rotational stretches to counter pulling anything while swinging). I've also been pushing myself harder aerobically. I haven't gotten this cramp in location when exercising (until yesterday's jog). Usually my major leg muscles cramp when I over do it.
Went to WebMD(oom) and Googled symptoms. Appendix related issues seem to be described as a stomach ache on the lower right quadrant. But, as stated, this is more of a cramp feeling than a stomach ache feel. They cite a typical age range much younger than me (tho I realize this can occur at any age).
Also, if it is an appendix issue, would it be more constant? Or will the cramp/pain become more frequent because that is the natural procession of an appendix going bad?
Thank you in advance!

GoToppr Best PhD Services recognises that the sequence and structure of a dissertation can vary based on the academic institution, department(Engineering subject, Management subject), and specific program requirements. In general, a dissertation adheres to a standard structure, encompassing key sections such as the title page, abstract, acknowledgements, table of contents, list of figures and tables, list of abbreviations or symbols, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices. Our expert phd services ensure that your dissertation aligns with the appropriate guidelines, providing comprehensive support tailored to your academic needs.
Here is a common sequence of sections in a dissertation:
🧿 Title Page
🧿 Abstract
🧿 Acknowledgements
🧿 Table of Contents
🧿 List of Figures and Tables
🧿 List of Abbreviations or Symbols
🧿 Introduction
🧿 Literature Review
🧿 Methodology
🧿 Results
🧿 Discussion
🧿 Conclusion
🧿 References
🧿 Appendices
⏳ Title Page:
Title(Research Topic Selection) of the dissertation
Your name
Institutional affiliation
Date
⏳ Abstract:
A concise summary of the Dissertation Writing, including research questions, methods, results, and conclusions.
⏳ Acknowledgements:
Optional section where you express gratitude to those who supported you during the research and thesis writing process.
⏳ Table of Contents:
An organised list of chapters, sections, and subsections with corresponding page numbers.
⏳ List of Figures and Tables:
If applicable, a list of all figures and tables with their corresponding page numbers.
⏳ List of Abbreviations or Symbols:
If you've used abbreviations or symbols extensively in your dissertation, provide a list and their meanings.
⏳ Introduction:
Background and context of the study
Problem statement
Research questions or hypotheses
Objectives of the study
Significance of the research Proposal Writing/Synopsis Writing
⏳ Literature Review:
Review of relevant literature to establish the context for your research and demonstrate the gap your study aims to fill.
⏳ Methodology:
Description of the research design and methods employed
Justification for chosen methods
Data collection and analysis procedures
⏳ Results:
Presentation of the findings from your research
⏳ Discussion:
Interpretation of results
Comparison with existing literature
Implications of the findings
⏳ Conclusion:
Summary of the key findings
Contributions to the field(Engineering field, Management field)
Recommendations for future research
⏳ References:
A comprehensive list of all sources cited in the dissertation, following a specific citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
⏳ Appendices:
Supplementary materials, such as raw data, questionnaires, or additional details that support the main content.
We(gotoppr phd services) are expertise for publishing articles in international scientific journals, SCI-indexed journals, Scopus indexed journals, IEEExplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, ACM library, etc., Thesis/Dissertation preparation & proofreading, technical and non-technical proof-reading for all kind of research drafts, etc.
We also provide Ph.D. Assistance, Ph.D. Consultancy,Ph.D. Guidance,Ph.D Coaching,Ph.D. Admission,Ph.D. Course, etc

Hey everyone,
I often see questions here about how to improve essay and academic paper writing skills, so I thought I’d share some tips that have helped me over the years. Whether you’re a high school student or working on your PhD, these pointers should come in handy.
1. Understand the Assignment:

• Before you start writing, make sure you fully understand the assignment. What is the prompt asking? What are the requirements in terms of length, format, and style?

2. Research Thoroughly:

• Spend adequate time on research. Use reliable sources such as academic journals, books, and reputable websites. Take detailed notes and keep track of your sources for citations.

3. Create an Outline:

• An outline helps organize your thoughts and ensures your paper has a logical flow. Include sections for introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, with bullet points for key arguments and evidence.

4. Craft a Strong Thesis Statement:

• Your thesis statement should clearly state your main argument or point. It guides the direction of your paper and should be specific and debatable.

5. Write Clear and Concise Introductions:

• The introduction should provide background information and lead up to your thesis statement. Avoid vague statements and get to the point quickly.

6. Develop Each Paragraph:

• Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that introduces the main idea. Follow with evidence and analysis. Ensure each paragraph transitions smoothly to the next.

7. Use Evidence Effectively:

• Support your arguments with evidence from your research. Use quotes, statistics, and examples, but make sure to explain how they support your point.

8. Cite Your Sources:

• Avoid plagiarism by properly citing all your sources. Use the citation style required by your instructor (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).

9. Write a Compelling Conclusion:

• Summarize your main points and restate your thesis in a new light. A good conclusion should provide a sense of closure and might also suggest implications or further research areas.

10. Revise and Edit:

• Don’t skip the revision process. Check for clarity, coherence, and consistency. Look out for grammar and spelling errors. Reading your paper out loud can help catch mistakes.

11. Seek Feedback:

• If possible, have someone else read your paper and provide feedback. A fresh set of eyes can catch issues you might have missed.

12. Practice Regularly:

• Like any skill, writing improves with practice. Take every writing assignment as an opportunity to refine your skills.

Bonus Tip: Manage Your Time:

• Avoid last-minute writing. Start early, plan your time, and break the work into manageable chunks. This reduces stress and results in a better paper.

Feel free to add your own tips or ask questions in the comments. Happy writing!

Scott Johnsson What the Dems/Biden admin are STILL doing:

• OCC refuses to enact Brian Brooks' "fair access" banking rule to prohibit federally chartered banks from denying financial services such as lending to would-be clients on political or ideological grounds.
• Enforcement actions against Coinbase, Binance and Kraken based on an unimaginably expansive definition of security and without clear guidance
• SEC refuses Coinbase petition for rulemaking
• SEC Wells Notice to Consensys
• SEC Wells Notice to Uniswap Labs
• SEC Wells Notice to Paxos for issuing the BUSD stablecoin; forcing wind down.
• SEC incorporates DeFi into expansive "dealer rule" w/o faithfully applying the requirements of the administrative procedures act (APA)
• SEC incorporates crypto trading systems, including DeFi, into exchange amendment, requiring registration as exchanges / compliance with Reg ATS -- and explicitly doubts the ability for a system to be decentralized
• Treasury inserts "broker" language in the dead of night into "must-pass" legislation w/o debate. Assures Congress it only intends to apply the rule to traditional brokers. IRS then promulgates rule that contemplates expansive requirements violating 1st and 4th amendments, and risks de facto banning DeFi in the US -- ie, not traditional brokers;
• FBI issues a warning to crypto wallet users suggesting that they may lose their funds due to criminal seizures and investigations if they don’t move them to a regulated entity;
• DOJ violates 5 years of FinCen guidance to shut down Tornado Cash/Samurai Wallet and allege its founders engaged in money transmission, subjecting to the threat of an extensive prison sentence;
• Biden maintains veto threat on SAB 121, a guidance that GAO has said was improperly promulgated and should have been subject to notice and comment rulemaking;
• Biden admin proposes a bill that singles out crypto miners for onerous tax treatment;
• OCC let crypto bank Protego’s application for a national trust charter expire without approval;
• FHLB refuses to come clean as to whether they had refused to roll Silvergate’s loan facility (the loans were month to month), causing their collapse;
• FDIC verbally messages 15 percent thresholds for crypto deposits;
• FDIC requires banks to individually run all new crypto business by them before they do any onboardings;
• Federal Reserve continues to deny crypto bank Custodia’s application to become a member of the Federal Reserve system, citing “safety and soundness” risks;
• Kansas City Fed branch denies Custodia’s application for a master account;
• Federal Reserve promulgates policy statement discouraging banks from holding cryptoassets or issuing stablecoins, and broadens authority to cover non-FDIC insured state-chartered banks (a reaction to Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institutions (SPDIs) like Custodia, which can hold crypto alongside fiat for its banking customers);
• Federal Reserve, FDIC, and the OCC release a joint statement on the risks to banks engaging with crypto;
• National Economic Council releases a policy statement not explicitly banning banks from serving crypto clients, but strongly discouraging banks from transacting with cryptoassets directly or maintaining exposure to crypto depositors;
• 103 Dems + 2 Reps sign Warren letter falsely exaggerating terrorist financing crypto sources, no retraction;
• Warren still pushing DAAMLA, effectively a complete crypto ban;
• Blocking stablecoin legislation;
• Blocking CBDC ban; and
• Maintaining ALL of the personnel that allowed the above to occur (save maybe 2 junior SEC attorneys that became falls guys in the Debt Box fiasco; and Marty ain't out yet)

This is not an exhaustive list, nor inclusive of "water under the bridge" acts that clearly cant be rectified (eg, killing Signature/Signet). But walking back on nearly all of these issues/items would JUST get us back to neutral and close to where the Trump admin left us. At that point, the apologists can go off about how Trump/Biden admins are both 'pro-crypto' or whatever adjective they're using to equivocate. Biden is still threatening devs with prison sentences and still willing to destroy any bank or business that gets in the way.
What they've done so far:

• SAB 121 - Just ~10% of House Dem caucus votes to overturn a clearly improper SEC staff accounting bulletin; little more than 20% of Senate Dem caucus. (vs 95% of Reps). Biden still maintaining veto threat. House minority leader votes against. Senate majority leader votes for.
• FIT21 - ~1/3 of House Dem caucus votes for (flawed but symbolic) market structure bill (vs 95% of Reps); House minority leader votes against.
• ETH spot ETF - approval (good, but this shouldn't have even been close -- and by all accounts, Gensler was about ready to bring ETH behind the shed and he's still running the show)
• "Reaching out" (lol, ignore our current positions... we can be the good guys)

There's a LOONG way left to go before anyone in this space trusts that Dems are actually turning the corner, at least to a meaningful degree...

So, I was doing some research on the authorship of the Gospels and the New Testament, trying to find what scholars think. It turns out, the majority opinion (with very few fringe exceptions) rejects the traditional authorship and conclude that the Gospels are anonymous. Now, what do they mean by anonymous? They mean that not only are the authors name not internally in the text, but the author gives no sign on who they are. Typically, Christian apologists say that other authors leave out their names in their works but scholars have internal evidence to believe that it was written by that author.
Also, another approach that Christians apologist say is that the Church Fathers and the Church tradition on these all agree that in the traditional authorship,. For example, scholars have many issues with some writings on the Church Fathers regarding the authorship’s of the text:

There's a tendency to forget that multiple attestation only works if our sources are independent. I can, for example, find multiple sources telling me Obama was not born in the US, but how are they useful in deciding the question?
Consider Papias, for example, We have his claims about Matthew and Mark suggesting he is referring to our gospels, but this is debatable since his descriptions don't seem to match our gospels. Did he know something about our Matthew and Mark? Was he ill informed about these works or was he referring to different texts? It's particularly difficult to see how the idea that Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language bears any relation to our Matthew. Further, acording to Carlson the citation from Papias has even bigger problems
The length and detail of this passage make it virtually irresistible for critics to bypass the layers of embedded discourse and treat this comment about the Gospels of Mark and Mathew as if they were a self-contained block of a tradition. It is not. The elder’s comment about Mark was presumably uttered not out of the blue but within some larger discourse context. This context is lost to us. Indeed, what the elder said is not by any means intact, but extracted, edited, and embedded by Papias into a different context of his own creation. Furthermore, Papias’s presentation of these remarks also does not come down to us intact, but only as preserved by Eusebius—and Eusebius’s agenda is different from Papias’s. Eusebius too extracted, edited, and embedded this statement into a context of his own making. We have to be cautious in interpreting it. As one scholar put it, “Papias says only what Eusebius wants him to say.” As a result, the most famous statement in antiquity about the origins of Mark and Matthew is a joint production of three different people, living at three different times, with three different purposes: the elder, Papias, and Eusebius. All of them have contributed to this passage in their different ways, and all of them had different purposes for discussing their writings. If we are to make sense of this, we will have do what scholars of fragmentary works have long known. We must deal with the fundamental issue of context.
So even if Papias got his information from a reliable source, his attestation has its problems.

We also have issues where Luke(?) is often referred to as the “Gospel of Our Lord,” by Marcion (and I believe it is dated much earlier). So, it is not as Universals as apologist make it out to be and there seems to be a strong rejection of the traditional authorships in scholarship:

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them provide the name of the author within their text. While the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle, most scholars today consider this passage to be a later addition (see below). The idea of the Gospels being anonymous isn't a new idea. Justin Martyr in his book named "1 apology" explicitly states that the disciples were illiterate. This means that John couldn't have written John, Matthew couldn't have written Matthew and so on and so forth. There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.

Mark

According to tradition and early church fathers, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

Matthew

Early Christian tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, held that the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, had written a Gospel in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea). Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus. However, Papias's description does not correspond well with the Gospel of Matthew: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew; it depends on the Greek Gospel of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document; it is not a collection of sayings; and it is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. Although the identity of the author of our Gospel of Matthew is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.

Luke and Acts

There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus. This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world. According to tradition, first attested by Irenaeus, the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.

John

John 21:24 identifies the source of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century tradition, first attested by Irenaeus, this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee. Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31. However, there is considerable debate about how and when the appendix was added, and by whom. For example, several scholars argue it was added after "the beloved disciple" had died. The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95, and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.

That being said, for my document what should I do? I want to have a scholarly approach but scholars (including many Christians) reject the traditional authorship?

So, I was doing some research on the authorship of the Gospels and the New Testament, trying to find what scholars think. It turns out, the majority opinion (with very few fringe exceptions) rejects the traditional authorship and conclude that the Gospels are anonymous. Now, what do they mean by anonymous? They mean that not only are the authors name not internally in the text, but the author gives no sign on who they are. Typically, Christian apologists say that other authors leave out their names in their works but scholars have internal evidence to believe that it was written by that author.
Also, another approach that Christians apologist say is that the Church Fathers and the Church tradition on these all agree that in the traditional authorship,. For example, scholars have many issues with some writings on the Church Fathers regarding the authorship’s of the text:

There's a tendency to forget that multiple attestation only works if our sources are independent. I can, for example, find multiple sources telling me Obama was not born in the US, but how are they useful in deciding the question?
Consider Papias, for example, We have his claims about Matthew and Mark suggesting he is referring to our gospels, but this is debatable since his descriptions don't seem to match our gospels. Did he know something about our Matthew and Mark? Was he ill informed about these works or was he referring to different texts? It's particularly difficult to see how the idea that Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language bears any relation to our Matthew. Further, acording to Carlson the citation from Papias has even bigger problems
The length and detail of this passage make it virtually irresistible for critics to bypass the layers of embedded discourse and treat this comment about the Gospels of Mark and Mathew as if they were a self-contained block of a tradition. It is not. The elder’s comment about Mark was presumably uttered not out of the blue but within some larger discourse context. This context is lost to us. Indeed, what the elder said is not by any means intact, but extracted, edited, and embedded by Papias into a different context of his own creation. Furthermore, Papias’s presentation of these remarks also does not come down to us intact, but only as preserved by Eusebius—and Eusebius’s agenda is different from Papias’s. Eusebius too extracted, edited, and embedded this statement into a context of his own making. We have to be cautious in interpreting it. As one scholar put it, “Papias says only what Eusebius wants him to say.” As a result, the most famous statement in antiquity about the origins of Mark and Matthew is a joint production of three different people, living at three different times, with three different purposes: the elder, Papias, and Eusebius. All of them have contributed to this passage in their different ways, and all of them had different purposes for discussing their writings. If we are to make sense of this, we will have do what scholars of fragmentary works have long known. We must deal with the fundamental issue of context.
So even if Papias got his information from a reliable source, his attestation has its problems.

We also have issues where Luke(?) is often referred to as the “Gospel of Our Lord,” by Marcion (and I believe it is dated much earlier). So, it is not as Universals as apologist make it out to be and there seems to be a strong rejection of the traditional authorships in scholarship:

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them provide the name of the author within their text. While the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle, most scholars today consider this passage to be a later addition (see below). The idea of the Gospels being anonymous isn't a new idea. Justin Martyr in his book named "1 apology" explicitly states that the disciples were illiterate. This means that John couldn't have written John, Matthew couldn't have written Matthew and so on and so forth. There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.

Mark

According to tradition and early church fathers, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

Matthew

Early Christian tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, held that the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, had written a Gospel in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea). Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus. However, Papias's description does not correspond well with the Gospel of Matthew: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew; it depends on the Greek Gospel of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document; it is not a collection of sayings; and it is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. Although the identity of the author of our Gospel of Matthew is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.

Luke and Acts

There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus. This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world. According to tradition, first attested by Irenaeus, the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.

John

John 21:24 identifies the source of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century tradition, first attested by Irenaeus, this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee. Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31. However, there is considerable debate about how and when the appendix was added, and by whom. For example, several scholars argue it was added after "the beloved disciple" had died. The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95, and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.

That being said, for my document what should I do? I want to have a scholarly approach but scholars (including many Christians) reject the traditional authorship?

Hello everyone,
Writing a literature review can seem daunting, but with the right approach, it can become a manageable and even enjoyable task. A literature review is not just a summary of existing research; it's a critical analysis of the literature related to your topic. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you craft a perfect literature review.
First, start by defining your research question. A well-defined question will guide your search for relevant literature. Spend some time narrowing down your topic to ensure it’s specific and manageable. Once you have your research question, begin your literature search using academic databases like PubMed, JSTOR, and Google Scholar. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and reputable sources that are directly related to your topic. It's important to use a variety of sources to get a comprehensive view of the existing research.
As you gather your sources, take detailed notes. Organize your notes by theme or topic, rather than by individual articles. This will help you see patterns and connections between the different pieces of literature. Make sure to include all necessary citation information to make the referencing process easier later on. Creating a matrix or chart can be a helpful way to organize your notes and track key information from each source.
Next, critically evaluate your sources. Look for any gaps in the research, areas of controversy, or emerging trends. Assess the methodologies used in the studies and consider their strengths and weaknesses. This critical analysis will form the backbone of your literature review. It’s not enough to simply describe what each study found; you need to analyze and synthesize the information, highlighting how it fits into the larger context of your research question.
When you’re ready to start writing, begin with an introduction that provides an overview of your topic and explains the purpose of the literature review. Clearly state your research question and provide a brief explanation of how you conducted your literature search. This sets the stage for the reader and gives them an understanding of the scope of your review.
The body of your literature review should be organized thematically or chronologically, depending on what makes the most sense for your topic. Each section should discuss a different theme or trend you’ve identified in the literature. Use subheadings to help guide the reader through your review. As you write, make sure to synthesize the information from your sources, rather than simply summarizing each one. Show how the studies relate to each other and to your research question.
In your conclusion, summarize the key findings from your review and discuss their implications. Highlight any gaps in the literature and suggest areas for future research. This demonstrates your critical engagement with the topic and shows that you have a deep understanding of the existing research.
Finally, meticulously check your citations and references. Use a consistent citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, as required by your academic institution or publication. Ensure that all sources cited in your literature review are included in your reference list.
Writing a literature review is a complex task, but by following these steps, you can create a thorough and insightful review that will contribute significantly to your field of study. Good luck, and happy writing!

Look if you aren’t using this as a citation generator any more, I feel bad for you. Since the free model can now access the internet, if you just tell it to cite apa and paste the URL, it will. It finds the authors, date, publication and everything.
Also if you struggle with articulating your thoughts in a good flowing way. Write a paragraph and use chat gpt to make it sound better. It’s still your own thoughts and ideas. Some of us grew up in areas that spoke terrible English and it really hinders our writing. With tools like GPT we can now say the same thing while sounding more professional.
Also college is really a practice for work. It’s really good to get an understanding of the tools you’ll need in your career. Don’t use Chat GPT to do all the work for you but use it in a manner that having a parent proofread your work would.
Some people will be butt hurt by the idea. Just remember when they don’t understand the essential technology, you’ll have the advantage. You both will have the same education experience.

I've been researching different stock trading platforms and came across some interesting features that make a platform stand out. For instance, user-friendly interfaces, comprehensive research tools, and low fees are often cited as key advantages.
I recently read an article that breaks down the top features of one of the leading platforms for 2024. If you're curious about what to look for in a trading platform, this might be worth a read: Top Stock Trading Platform of 2024: Key Features.
What features do you find most important in a stock trading platform? Let's discuss!

The Age of the World Picture
In metaphysics reflection is accomplished concerning the essence of what is and a decision takes place regarding the essence of truth*1. Metaphysics grounds an age, in that through a specific interpretation of what is and through a specific comprehension of truth it gives to that age the basis upon which it is essentially formed*2. This basis holds complete dominion over all the phenomena that distinguish the age. Conversely, in order that there may be an adequate reflection upon these phenomena themselves, the metaphysical basis for them must let itself be apprehended in them. Reflection is the courage to make the troth of our own presuppositions and the realm of our own goals into the things that most deserve to be called in question Appendix 1).
One of the essential phenomena of the modern age is its science. A phenomenon of no less importance is machine technology. We must not, however, misinterpret that technology as the mere application of modern mathematical physical science to praxis. Machine technology is itself an autonomous transformation of praxis, a type of transformation wherein praxis first demands the employment of mathematical physical science. Machine technology remains up to now the most visible outgrowth of the essence of modern technology, which is identical with the essence of modern metaphysics.
A third equally essential phenomenon of the modern period lies in the event of art's moving into the purview of aesthetics. That means that the art work becomes the object of mere subjective experience, and that consequently art is considered to be an expression of human life*4.
A fourth modern phenomenon manifests itself in the fact that human activity is conceived and consummated as culture. Thus culture is the realization of the highest values, through the nurture and cultivation of the highest goods of man. It lies in the essence of culture, as such nurturing, to nurture itself in its turn and thus to become the politics of culture.
A fifth phenomenon of the modern age is the loss of the gods*5. This expression does not mean the mere doing away with the gods, gross atheism. The loss of the gods is a twofold process. On the one hand, the world picture is Christianized inasmuch as the cause of the world is posited as infinite, unconditional, absolute. On the other hand, Christendom transforms Christian doctrine into a world view (the Christian world view), and in that way makes itself modern and up to date. The loss of the gods is the situation of indecision regarding God and the gods. Christendom has the greatest share in bringing it about. But the loss of the gods is so far from excluding religiosity that rather only through that loss is the relation to the gods changed into mere experience." When this occurs, then the gods have fled. The resultant void is compensated for by means of historiographical and psychological investigation of myth.
What understanding of what is, what interpretation of truth, lies at the foundation of these phenomena?
We shall limit the question to the phenomenon mentioned first, to science [Wissenschaft].
In what does the essence of modern science lie?
What understanding of what is and of truth provides the basis for that essence? If we succeed in reaching the metaphysical ground that provides the foundation for science as a modern phenomenon, then the entire essence of the modern age will have to let itself be apprehended from out of that ground.
When we use the word "science" today, it means something essentially different from the doctrina and scientia of the Middle Ages, and also from the Greek episteme. Greek science was never exact, precisely because, in keeping with its essence, it could not be exact and did not need to be exact. Hence it makes no sense whatever to suppose that modern science is more exact than that of antiquity. Neither can we say that the Galilean doctrine of freely falling bodies is true and that Aristotle's teaching, that light bodies strive upward, is false; for the Greek understanding of the essence of body and place and of the relation between the two rests upon a different interpretation of beings and hence conditions a correspondingly different kind of seeing and questioning of natural events. No one would presume to maintain that Shakespeare's poetry is more advanced than that of Aeschylus. It is still more impossible to say that the modern understanding of whatever is, is more correct than that of the Greeks. Therefore, if we want to grasp the essence of modern science, we must first free ourselves from the habit of comparing the new science with the old solely in terms of degree, from the point of view of progress.
The essence of what we today call science is research. In what does the essence of research consist?
In the fact that knowing [das Erkennen] establishes itself as a procedure within some realm of what is, in nature or in history. Procedure does not mean here merely method or methodology. For every procedure already requires an open sphere in which it moves. And it is precisely the opening up of such a sphere that is the fundamental event in research. This is accomplished through the projection within some realm of what is-in nature, for example-of a fixed ground plan*6 of natural events. The projection sketches out in advance the manner in which the knowing procedure must bind itself and adhere to the sphere opened up. This binding adherence is the rigor of research*7. Through the projecting of the ground plan and the prescribing of rigor, procedure makes secure for itself its sphere of objects within the realm of Being . A look at that earliest science, which is at the same time the normative one in the modern age, namely, mathematical physics, will make clear what we mean. Inasmuch as modern atomic physics still remains physics, what is essential - and only the essential is aimed at here- will hold for it also.
Modern physics is called mathematical because, in a remarkable way, it makes use of a quite specific mathematics. But it can proceed mathematically in this way only because, in a deeper sense, it is already itself mathematical. Ta mathemata means for the Greeks that which man knows in advance in his observation of whatever is and in his intercourse with things ; the corporeality of bodies, the vegetable character of plants, the animality of animals, the humanness of man. Alongside these, belonging also to that which is already-known, i.e., to the mathematical, are numbers. If we come upon three apples on the table, we recognize that there are three of them. But the number three, threeness, we already know. This means that number is something mathematical. Only because numbers represent, as it were, the most striking of always-already-knowns, and thus offer the most familiar instance of the mathematical, is "mathematical" promptly reserved as a name for the numerical. In no way, however, is the essence of the mathematical defined by numberness, Physics is, in general, the knowledge of nature, and, in particular, the knowledge of material corporeality in its motion; for that corporeality manifests itself immediately and universally in everything natural, even if in a variety of ways, If physics takes shape explicitly, then, as something mathematical, this means that, in an especially pronounced way, through it and for it something is stipulated in advance as what is already-known. That stipulating has to do with nothing less than the plan or projection of that which must henceforth, for the knowing of nature that is sought after, be nature: the self-contained system of motion of units of mass related spatiotemporally. Into this ground plan of nature, as supplied in keeping with its prior stipulation, the following definitions among others have been incorporated: Motion means change of place. No motion or direction of motion is superior to any other. Every place is equal to every other. No point in time has preference over any other. Every force is defined according to - i.e., is only - its consequences in motion, and that means in magnitude of change of place in the unity of time. Every event must be seen so as to be fitted into this ground plan of nature. Only within the perspective of this ground plan does an event in nature become visible as such an event. This projected plan of nature finds its guarantee in the fact that physical research, in every one of its questioning steps, is bound in advance to adhere to it. This binding adherence, the rigor of research, has its own character at any given time in keeping with the projected plan. The rigor of mathematical physical science is exactitude. Here all events, if they are to enter at all into representation as events of nature, must be defined beforehand as spatiotemporal magnitudes of motion. Such defining is accomplished through measuring, with the help of number and calculation. But mathematical research into nature is not exact because it calculates with precision; rather it must calculate in this way because its adherence to its object-sphere has the character of exactitude. The humanistic sciences, in contrast, indeed all the sciences concerned with life, must necessarily be inexact just in order to remain rigorous. A living thing can indeed also be grasped as spatiotemporal magnitude of motion, but then it is no longer apprehended as living. The inexactitude of the historical humanistic sciences is not a deficiency, but is only the fulfillment of a demand essential to this type of research. It is true, also, that the projecting and securing of the object-sphere of the historical sciences is not only of another kind, but is much more difficult of execution than is the achieving of rigor in the exact sciences.
Science becomes research through the projected plan and through the securing of that plan in the rigor of procedure. Projection and rigor, however, first develop into what they are in methodology. The latter constitutes the second essential characteristic of research. If the sphere that is projected is to become objective, then it is a matter of bringing it to encounter us in the complete diversity of its levels and interweavings. Therefore procedure must be free to view the changeableness in whatever encounters it. Only within the horizon of the incessant-otherness of change does the plenitude of particularity - of facts - show itself. -But the facts must become objective [gegenstiindlich]. Hence procedure must represent [vorstellen] the changeable in its changing, must bring it to a stand and let the motion be a motion nevertheless. The fixedness of facts and the constantness of their change as such is "rule." The constancy of change in the necessity of its course is "law." It is only within the purview of rule and law that facts become clear as the facts that they are. Research into facts in the realm of nature is intrinsically the establishing and verifying of rule and law. Methodology, through which a sphere of objects comes into representation, has the character of clarifying on the basis of what is clear - of explanation. Explanation is always twofold. It accounts for an unknown by means of a known, and at the same time it verifies that known by means of that unknown. Explanation takes place in investigation. In the physical sciences investigation takes place by means of experiment, always according to the kind of field of investigation and according to the type of explanation aimed at. But physical science does not first become research through experiment; rather, on the contrary, experiment first becomes possible where and only where the knowledge of nature has been transformed into research. Only because modern physics is a physics that is essentially mathematical can it be experimental. Because neither medieval doctrina nor Greek episteme is science in the sense of research, for these it is never a question of experiment. To be sure, it was Aristotle who first understood what empeiria (experientia) means; the observation of things themselves, their qualities and modifications under changing conditions, and consequently the knowledge of the way in which things as a rule behave. But an observation that aims at such knowledge, the experimentum, remains essentially different from the observation that belongs to science as research, from the research experiment; it remains essentially different even when ancient and medieval observation also works with number and measure, and even when that observation makes use of specific apparatus and instruments. For in all this, that which is decisive about the experiment is completely missing. Experiment begins with the laying down of a law as a basis. To set up an experiment means to represent or conceive [vorstellen] the conditions under which a specific series of motions can be made susceptible of being followed in its necessary progression, i.e., of being controlled in advance by calculation. But the establishing of a law is accomplished with reference to the ground plan of the object-sphere. That ground plan furnishes a criterion and constrains the anticipatory representing of the conditions. Such representing in and through which the experiment begins is no random imagining. that is why Newton said, hypothesis non fingo, “the bases that are laid down are not arbitrarily invented.” They are developed out of the ground plan of nature and are sketched into it. Experiment is that methodology which, in its planning and execution, is supported and guided on the basis of the fundamental law laid down, in order to adduce the facts that either verify and confirm the law or deny it confirmation. The more exactly the ground plan of nature is projected, the more exact becomes the possibility of experiment. Hence the much cited medieval Schoolman Roger Bacon can never be the forerunner of the modern experimental research scientist; rather he remains merely a successor of Aristotle. For in the meantime, the real locus of truth has been transferred by Christendom to faith - to the infallibility of the written word and to the doctrine of the Church. The highest knowledge and teaching is theology as the interpretation of the divine word of revelation, which is set down in Scripture and proclaimed by the Church. Here, to know is not to search out; rather it is to understand rightly the authoritative Word and the authorities proclaiming it. Therefore, the discussion of the words and doctrinal opinions of the various authorities take precedence in the acquiring of knowledge in the Middle Ages. The componere scripta et sermones, the argumentum ex verbo, is decisive and at the same time is the reason why the accepted Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy that had been taken over had to be transformed into scholastic dialectic. If, now, Roger Bacon demands the experimentum - and he does demand it - he does not mean the experiment of science as research; rather he wants the argumentum ex re instead of the argumentum ex verbo, the careful observing of things themselves, i.e., Aristotelian empeiria, instead of the discussion of doctrines.
The modern research experiment, however, is not only an observation more precise in degree and scope, but is a methodology essentially different in kind, related to the verification of law in the framework, and at the service, of an exact plan of nature. Source criticism in the historical humanistic sciences corresponds to experiment in physical research. Here the name “source criticism” designates the whole gamut of the discovery, examination, verification, evaluation, preservation, and interpretation of sources. Historiographical explanation, which is based on source criticism, does not, it is true, trace facts back to laws and rules. But neither does it confine itself to the mere reporting of facts. In the historical sciences, just as in the natural sciences, the methodology aims at representing what is fixed and stable and at making history an object. History can become objective openly when it is past. What is stable in what is past, that on the basis of which historiographical explanation reckons up the solitary and the diverse in history, is the always-has-been-once-already, the comparable. Through the constant comparing of everything with everything, what is intelligible is found by calculation and is certified and established as the ground plan of history. The sphere of histriographical research extends only so far as historiographical explanation reaches. The unique, the rare, the simple - in short, the great - in history is never self-evident and hence remains inexplicable. It is not that historical research denies what is great in history; rather it explains it as the exception. In this explaining, the great is measured against the ordinary and the average. And there is no other historiographical explanation so long as explaining means reduction to what is intelligible and so long as historiographical explanation so long as explaining means reduction to what is intelligible and so long as historiography remains research, i.e., an explaining. Because historiography as research projects and objectifies the past in the sense of an explicable and surveyable nexus of actions and consequences, it requires source criticism as its instrument of objectification. The standards of this criticism alter to the degree that historiography approaches journalism.
Every science is, as research, grounded upon the projection of a circumscribed object-sphere and is therefore necessarily a science of individualized character. Every individualized science must, moreover, in the development of its projected plan by means of its methodology, particularize itself into specific fields of investigation. This particularizing (specialization) is, however, by no means simply an irksome concomitant of the increasing unsurveyability of the results of research. It is not a necessary evil, but is rather an essential necessity of science as research. Specialization is not the consequence but the foundation of the progress of all research. Research does not, through its methodology, become dispersed into random investigations, so as to lose itself in them; for modern science is determined by a third fundamental event: ongoing activity (Appendix 2).*10
By this is to be understood first of all the phenomenon that a science today, whether physical or humanistic, attains to the respect due a science only when it has become capable of being institutionalized. However, research is not ongoing activity because its work is accomplished in institutions, but rather institutions are necessary because science, intrinsically as research, has the character of ongoing activity. The methodology through which individual object-spheres are conquered does not simply amass results. Rather, with the help of its results it adapts [richtet sich ... ein] itself for a new procedure. Within the complex of machinery that is necessary to physics in order to carry out the smashing of the atom lies hidden the whole of physics up to now. Correspondingly, in historiographical research, funds of source materials become usable for explanation only if those sources are themselves guaranteed on the basis of historiographical explanation. In the course of these processes, the methodology of the science becomes circumscribed by means of its results. More and more the methodology adapts itself to the possibilities of procedure opened up through itself. This having-to-adapt-itself to its own results as the ways and means of an advancing methodology is the essence of research's character as ongoing activity. And it is that character that is the intrinsic basis for the necessity of the institutional nature of research. In ongoing activity the plan of an object-sphere is, for the first time, built into whatever is. All adjustments that facilitate a plannable conjoining of types of methodology, that further the reciprocal checking and communication of results, and that regulate the exchange of talents are measures that are by no means only the external consequences of the fact that research work is expanding and proliferating. Rather, research work becomes the distant sign, still far from being understood, that modern science is beginning to enter upon the decisive phase of its history. Only now is it beginning to take possession of its own complete essence.
What is taking place in this extending and consolidating of the institutional character of the sciences? Nothing less than the making secure of the precedence of methodology over whatever is (nature and history), which at any given time becomes objective in research. On the foundation of their character as ongoing activity, the sciences are creating for themselves the solidarity and unity appropriate to them. Therefore historiographical or archeological research that is carried forward in an institutionalized way is essentially closer to research in physics that is similarly organized than it is to a discipline belonging to its own faculty in the humanistic sciences that still remains mired in mere erudition. Hence the decisive development of the modern character of science as ongoing activity also forms men of a different stamp. The scholar disappears. He is succeeded by the research man who is engaged in research projects. These, rather than the cultivating of erudition, lend to his work its atmosphere of incisiveness. The research man no longer needs a library at home. Moreover, he is constantly on the move. He negotiates at meetings and collects information at congresses. He contracts for commissions with publishers. The latter now determines along with him which books must be written (Appendix 3).
The research worker necessarily presses forward of himself into the sphere characteristic of the technologist in the essential sense. Only in this way is he capable of acting effectively, and only thus, after the manner of his age, is he real. Alongside him, the increasingly thin and empty Romanticism of scholarship and the university will still be able to persist for some time in a few places. However, the effective unity characteristic of the university, and hence the latter's reality, does not lie in some intellectual power belonging to an original unification of the sciences and emanating from the university because nourished by it and preserved in it. The university is real as an orderly establishment that, in a form still unique because it is administratively self-contained, makes possible and visible the striving apart of the sciences into the particularization and peculiar unity that belong to ongoing activity. Because the forces intrinsic to the essence of modern science come immediately and unequivocally to effective working in ongoing activity, therefore, also, it is only the spontaneous ongoing activities of research that can sketch out and establish the internal unity with other like activities that is commensurate with themselves.
The real system of science consists in a solidarity of procedure and attitude with respect to the objectification of whatever is - a solidarity that is brought about appropriately at any given time on the basis of planning. The excellence demanded of this system is not some contrived and rigid unity of the relationships among object-spheres, having to do with content, but is rather the greatest possible free, though regulated, flexibility in the shifting about and introducing of research apropos of the leading tasks at any given time. The more exclusively science individualizes itself with a view to the total carrying on and mastering of its work process, and the more realistically these ongoing activities are shifted into separate research institutes and professional schools, the more irresistibly do the sciences achieve the consummation of their modern essence. But the more unconditionally science and the man of research take seriously the modern form of their essence, the more unequivocally and the more immediately will they be able to offer themselves for the common good, and the more unreservedly too will they have to return to the public anonymity of all work useful to society.
Modern science simultaneously establishes itself and differentiates itself in its projections of specific object-spheres. These projection-plans are developed by means of a corresponding methodology, which is made secure through rigor. Methodology adapts and establishes itself at any given time in ongoing activity. Projection and rigor, methodology and ongoing activity, mutually requiring one another, constitute the essence of modern science, transform science into research.
We are reflecting on the essence of modern science in order that we may apprehend in it its metaphysical ground What understanding of what is and what concept of truth provide the basis for the fact that science is being transformed into research?
Knowing, as research, calls whatever is to account with regard to the way in which and the extent to which it lets itself be put at the disposal of representation. Research has disposal over anything that is when it can either calculate it in its future course in advance or verify a calculation about it as past. Nature, in being calculated in advance, and history, in being historiographically verified as past, become, as it were, "set in place" [gestellt]. Nature and history become the objects of a representing that explains. Such representing counts on nature and takes account of history. Only that which becomes object in this way is - is considered to be in being. We first arrive at science as research when the Being of whatever is, is sought in such objectiveness.
This objectifying of whatever is, is accomplished in a setting-before, a representing, that aims at bringing each particular being before it in such a way that man who calculates can be sure, and that means be certain, of that being. We first arrive at science as research when and only when truth has been transformed into the certainty of representation. What it is to be is for the first time defined as the objectiveness of representing, and truth is first defined as the certainty of representing, in the metaphysics of Descartes. The title of Descartes's principal work reads: Meditationes de prima philosophia [Meditations on First Philosophy]. Prote philosophia is the designation coined by Aristotle for what is later called metaphysics. The whole of modern metaphysics taken together, Nietzsche included, maintains itself within the interpretation of what it is to be and of truth that was prepared by Descartes (Appendix 4).
Now if science as research is an essential phenomenon of the modern age, it must be that that which constitutes the metaphysical ground of research determines first and long beforehand the essence of that age generally. The essence of the modern age can be seen in the fact that man frees himself from the bonds of the Middle Ages in freeing himself to himself. But this correct characterization remains, nevertheless, superficial. It leads to those errors that prevent us from comprehending the essential foundation of the modern age and, from there, judging the scope of the age's essence. Certainly the modern age has, as a consequence of the liberation of man, introduced subjectivism and individualism. But it remains just as certain that no age before this one has produced a comparable objectivism and that in no age before this has the non-individual, in the form of the collective, come to acceptance as having worth. Essential here is the necessary interplay between subjectivism and objectivism. It is precisely this reciprocal conditioning of one by the other that points back to events more profound.
[*1. "Reflection" translates Besinnung. On the meaning of the latter, see SR 155 n. 1. "'Essence" will be the translation of the noun Wesen in most instances of its occurrence in this essay. Occasionally the translation "coming to presence" will be used. Wesen must always be understood to allude, for Heidegger, not to any mere "whatness," but to the manner in which anything, as what it is, takes its course and "holds sway" in its ongoing presence, i.e., the manner in which it endures in its presencing. See QT 30, 3 n. 1. "What is" renders the present participle seiend used as a noun, das Seiende. On the translation of the latter, see T 40 n. 6.
*2. der Grund seines Wesensgestalt. Heidegger exemplifies the statement that he makes here in his discussion of the metaphysics of Descartes as providing the necessary interpretive ground for the manner in which, in the subjectness of man as self-conscious subject, Being and all that is and man - in their immediate and indissoluble relation - come to presence in the modern age. See Appendix 9, pp. 150 ff.
*4. Erlebnis, translated here as "subjective experience" and later as "life-experience," is a term much used by life philosophers such as Dilthey and generally connotes adventure and event. It is employed somewhat pejoratively here. The term Erfahrung, which is regularly translated in this volume as "experience," connotes discovery and learning, and also suffering and undergoing. Here and subsequently (i.e., "mere religious experience"), "mere" is inserted to maintain the distinction between Erlebnis and Erfahrung.
*5. Entgotterung, here inadequately rendered as "loss of the gods," actually means something more like "degodization".
*6. Grundriss. The verb reissen means to tear, to rend, to sketch, to design, and the noun Riss means tear, gap, outline. Hence the noun Grundiss, first sketch, ground plan, design, connotes a fundamental sketching out that is an opening up as well.
*7. "Binding adherence" here translates the noun Bindung. The noun could also be rendered "obligation." It could thus be said that rigor is the obligation to remain within the realm opened up.
*10. “Ongoing activity” is the rendering of Betrieb, which is difficult to translate adequately. It means the act of driving on, or industry, activity, as well as undertaking, pursuit, business. It can also mean management, or workshop or factory.]
To be continued...

Christianity & the Roman Empire vs Homosexuality.
Understanding the Term "Arsenokoitai" in Biblical Context
‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
The term "arsenokoitai," (Greek origin) often translated in modern Bibles as "homosexuals" or "men who bed men," appears in the New Testament, specifically in the letters of Paul, written during the first century AD. Understanding its historical and cultural context can shed light on its meaning and implications.
Summary of Linguistics and Paul's Use of "Arsenokoitai" ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Paul’s Use of "Arsenokoitai":

• Broad Application:

The term was likely intended to cover a broad range of sexually immoral activities, particularly those involving exploitation and abuse, rather than consensual same-sex relationships. Paul could have used more precise words in Greek to describe the roles of male on male sexual contact which are highlighted below:
Alternative Greek Terms:

• Cinaedus:

Used to describe effeminate men or those who took on a passive role in sexual relationships, often derogatory.

• Pathicus:

Another term for men in passive sexual roles, also used pejoratively.

• Catamitus:

Referred to boys in pederastic relationships with older men.

• Erastes and Eromenos:

Terms describing the active (older) and passive (younger) partners in pederastic relationships.
Reasons for Using "Arsenokoitai":
Paul wrote in Greek to reach a broad audience across the Roman Empire, including both Jews and Gentiles. The Greek language allowed him to communicate effectively with diverse communities.

• Jewish Ethical Background:

Paul’s teachings were influenced by Jewish law and ethics, which condemned exploitative sexual behaviors. The term "arsenokoitai" may have been derived from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) to address behaviors seen as immoral.

• Broad Ethical Guidelines:

By coining a new term, Paul could address various forms of sexual immorality without getting entangled in the specific cultural nuances and roles emphasized by existing terms. This allowed him to focus on ethical behavior broadly, aligning with Christian values of justice and protection of the vulnerable.
Time Frame and Historical Context ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• New Testament Writings**:

The term "arsenokoitai" appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. These letters are generally dated to around 53-54 AD for 1 Corinthians and the late first century AD for 1 Timothy.

• Roman Empire:

This period falls within the early Roman Empire, which began in 27 BC and continued through the first few centuries AD. The Roman Empire was characterized by its vast influence over the Mediterranean region and beyond.
Roman Practices and Power Dynamics ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• Roman Society:
  Roman culture included various sexual practices, some of which were socially accepted but involved significant power imbalances. Relationships between freeborn males and slaves, for example, were common and often non-consensual due to the inherent power dynamics.
  
• Public Bathhouses:
  

Bathhouses were social spaces where various interactions, including sexual encounters, took place. These settings often saw exploitative and coercive behaviors, especially involving slaves and lower-status individuals.
Exploitation and Violence ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• Slavery and Prostitution:

Many slaves and prostitutes in Roman society faced sexual exploitation and violence. Slaves, having little to no autonomy, were particularly vulnerable to abuse from their masters.

• Lack of Consent: The concept of consent as understood today was largely absent in many of these relationships, making them inherently exploitative.

Early Christian and Jewish Ethics ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• Protecting the Vulnerable:

Early Christian and Jewish teachings emphasized the protection of vulnerable individuals. This ethical stance contrasted sharply with many practices in Roman society.

• Biblical Condemnation:

The condemnation of "arsenokoitai" in the New Testament can be seen as a critique of exploitative sexual practices rather than a blanket condemnation of consensual same-sex relationships. Early Christian ethics sought to promote justice and protect those who were marginalized and exploited.
Translation Challenges and Modern Psychology ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Modern Interpretations:
Translating "arsenokoitai" as "homosexuals" in modern Bibles can be misleading. The term originally addressed specific exploitative behaviors prevalent in the Roman context.
Cultural Misunderstandings:
Modern readers often project contemporary understandings of sexuality onto ancient texts, which can distort the original meanings and intentions. The ancient concern was more about justice and protecting the vulnerable than about regulating consensual sexual relationships.
Influence of Modern Psychology ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• 1946 Bible Translation:

The term "homosexual" first appeared in an English Bible translation in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1946. This change was part of an effort to modernize and clarify the language of the Bible.

• Social Conservatism:

The mid-20th century was a period of heightened social conservatism, especially in the United States. This cultural backdrop influenced how sexual behaviors were viewed and classified.
Homosexuality as a Mental Disorder ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
In 1946 and 1947, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). This classification reflected contemporary psychological theories and societal attitudes, viewing homosexuality as a deviation from the norm.
Different Types of Relationships ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
While the term "arsenokoitai" focuses on specific sexual acts, it does not address the broader and more nuanced aspects of relationships. Understanding the different facets of relationships is crucial to recognizing the limitations of this term.

• Loving Relationships:

Emotional Bonds: Many relationships are built on deep emotional connections, mutual respect, and love. These aspects are not explicitly addressed in the term "arsenokoitai."

• Support and Companionship:

Relationships often involve support, companionship, and shared experiences, which are fundamental to human connection and go beyond mere physical interactions.

• Romance and Affection:

Romantic relationships involve expressions of love, care, and affection. These elements contribute significantly to the depth and richness of the relationship.

• Commitment:

Many romantic relationships are characterized by commitment and a shared vision for the future, aspects not considered in the term "arsenokoitai."

• Consensual Same-Sex Relationships:
  Modern understandings of same-sex relationships recognize that they encompass much more than just sexual acts. They include emotional, romantic, and supportive dimensions that are integral to the relationship.
  
• Lack of Biblical Coverage:
  

The Bible does not provide detailed accounts of consensual same-sex relationships that reflect the complexities and multifaceted nature of these bonds. The focus on specific sexual acts, like those implied by "arsenokoitai," fails to capture the entirety of such relationships.
Intimacy ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Intimacy in relationships goes far beyond physical acts; it encompasses emotional closeness, trust, and deep personal connection. The biblical texts, particularly those using terms like "arsenokoitai," often fail to address this broader understanding of intimacy. In healthy relationships, intimacy is about sharing one's innermost thoughts, fears, and dreams with another person, creating a bond that is both profound and nurturing. This kind of intimacy fosters mutual respect and understanding, essential components of any loving relationship.
One crucial aspect of intimacy that is often overlooked and overshadowed by the focus on "arsenokoitai" is emotional intimacy—the deep sense of acceptance and validation one receives from being truly known and loved. This emotional intimacy is weaponized when biblical texts are used to condemn and marginalize individuals based on their sexuality. Instead of fostering acceptance and emotional closeness, these interpretations create barriers and promote exclusion. True intimacy, rooted in emotional acceptance, is about affirming each other's worth and creating a safe space for vulnerability and genuine connection. When this form of intimacy is ignored or denied, it undermines the foundational principles of love and compassion that should guide our relationships.
Love ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Love is the cornerstone of all meaningful relationships and a central theme in Christian teachings. Jesus emphasized love above all else, teaching us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to show compassion and kindness to everyone. In the context of relationships, love manifests as unwavering support, care, and dedication to the well-being of the other person. The term "arsenokoitai" and its traditional interpretations often miss this crucial aspect of relationships. Love is not just about physical attraction or acts; it is about forming a deep, abiding connection that transcends superficial differences and challenges societal norms. True love, as taught by Jesus, is inclusive and unconditional, celebrating the uniqueness of each individual and their right to love and be loved authentically.
Judgment ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Judgment is a significant theme in both religious teachings and societal interactions, often influencing how individuals are perceived and treated. In the context of biblical texts, particularly those like "arsenokoitai," judgment is frequently wielded as a tool for exclusion and condemnation. Jesus taught us to refrain from judging others, emphasizing that judgment is reserved for God alone. In Matthew 7:1-2, He clearly states, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
When interpretations of terms like "arsenokoitai" are used to judge and condemn individuals based on their sexuality, they stray from the core message of love and acceptance that Jesus preached. This kind of judgment creates divisions and fosters a culture of exclusion, where people are marginalized and denied the dignity and respect they deserve. True Christian teachings call us to embrace others with compassion, understanding, and an open heart.
Judgment, when misused, can be a powerful weapon that inflicts deep emotional and psychological harm. It stands in stark contrast to the values of love, intimacy, and acceptance that form the foundation of healthy, meaningful relationships. By moving away from judgment and towards a more inclusive, compassionate approach, we honor the true spirit of Jesus's teachings and create a more loving and just world for everyone.
Historical Misinterpretations and Their Consequences ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

1. The Crusades (11th to 13th Centuries)

Initiated by Pope Urban II in 1095, the Crusades were a series of religious wars aimed at reclaiming the Holy Land from Muslim control.
Impact: Led to widespread violence, loss of life, and long-lasting animosity between Christians and Muslims. The Crusades also had significant impacts on Jewish communities, which were often targeted by crusaders.

1. The Inquisition (12th to 19th Centuries)

Established by the Catholic Church to root out heresy and enforce orthodoxy. The most famous was the Spanish Inquisition, beginning in 1478.
Resulted in the persecution, torture, and execution of thousands of people accused of heresy, witchcraft, and other religious crimes. Jewish and Muslim converts to Christianity (conversos and Moriscos) were particularly targeted.

1. The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)

A complex and destructive conflict involving many European powers, rooted in religious disputes between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire.
Impact: Caused immense suffering and loss of life, with significant political and territorial changes in Europe. The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia, which established principles of religious tolerance in Europe.

1. Salem Witch Trials (1692-1693)

A series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts, driven by Puritan religious beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.
Impact: Led to the execution of 20 people and the imprisonment of many others, creating an atmosphere of fear and hysteria.

1. Colonialism and Missionary Activity

European colonial powers often justified their expansion and domination of indigenous peoples through a religious mandate to spread Christianity.
Impact: Led to the suppression of indigenous cultures, forced conversions, and significant social disruption. Examples include the Spanish colonization of the Americas and the British colonial activities in Africa and Asia.

1. Anti-Semitism

Biblical interpretations and teachings have historically contributed to anti-Semitic attitudes and policies. Notably, Jews were often blamed for the death of Jesus and portrayed negatively in Christian teachings.
Impact: Led to widespread persecution of Jewish communities, including pogroms, expulsions from various European countries, and ultimately contributing to the Holocaust.

1. Slavery and Racism

Certain interpretations of the Bible were used to justify the enslavement of African people, particularly in the United States. Verses from the Old and New Testaments were cited to argue that slavery was a divinely sanctioned institution.
Impact: Justified the transatlantic slave trade and the systemic exploitation and oppression of African Americans, leading to deep social and racial divides that persist to this day.

1. Wars of Religion in France (1562-1598)

A series of conflicts between Catholics and Huguenots (French Protestants) in France, rooted in religious and political disputes.
Impact: Resulted in significant violence and upheaval, including massacres such as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572, and ended with the Edict of Nantes, which granted limited tolerance to Protestants.

1. Northern Ireland Conflict (The Troubles) (Late 20th Century)

A violent conflict between primarily Protestant unionists who wanted Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom and Catholic nationalists who wanted it to join the Republic of Ireland.
Impact: Led to decades of violence, terrorism, and social division, resulting in significant loss of life and lasting political tension.
These examples illustrate how interpretations of the Bible and religious authority have been used to justify conflicts, persecutions, and social disharmony throughout history. Understanding these events highlights the importance of careful and compassionate interpretation of religious texts to prevent their misuse and promote peace and understanding.
Conclusion ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Understanding the term "arsenokoitai" requires a deep dive into the historical and cultural context of the Roman Empire and early Christian teachings. This term likely referred to exploitative sexual behaviors common in Roman society, characterized by significant power imbalances and a lack of genuine consent.
Early Christian ethics, rooted in Jewish traditions, emphasized protecting the vulnerable and promoting justice, which helps explain the biblical condemnation of such practices.
The translation of "arsenokoitai" to "homosexuals" in the mid-20th century was influenced by the social and psychological context of that time, including the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
This historical perspective highlights the importance of considering cultural and temporal contexts when interpreting ancient texts.Moreover, the biblical texts focus primarily on specific sexual acts rather than the broader aspects of relationships, such as emotional bonds, romantic love, and mutual support. Recognizing these dimensions is crucial for a more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of relationships.

Getting organized to sit down and write a major term paper is such a daunting task for us folks with ADHD. As a student I would have vague ideas of what I want to write, but lacked the executive function to get to the job done. I would stare at a blank Word doc, type a sentence, delete a sentence, repeat. Unexpected for a writing major, I know. Are you looking for a way to break out of this cycle?
May I present: the Index Card Method.
As a high school student in the 1990s, I was forced to use this method to write a ten page senior thesis. Nearly all senior level English classes in my school used this method. Prior to that year, I had seen students carrying around fat stacks of index cards, protecting them like their ability to graduate depended on them. It did. I begrudgingly followed this methodical approach even though it wasn't "the way I write." Ironically, I found it so helpful I continued using this method throughout college, and admittedly even in grad school 25 years later.
What is it?
It's a low-tech system of organizing your sources, topics, details, citations, and anything else that goes into your paper.
Why low-tech?
It is a hands-on process loaded with sensory actions. Physically handling and arranging the index cards helps me focus on a task. Filling out an index card and setting it aside and then picking up another FEELS productive. Seeing a growing pile of index cards as you move through the project LOOKS like productivity. These sensory activities boost my momentum.
The best part of this method is how it breaks down a mountain of a project into smaller tasks without requiring me to create a big plan before I can start working on it. The size of each task is literally the size of an index card. Plus, it is an opportunity to use those cool pens you bought the last time you said you would start journaling.
The Index Card Method cannot be done the night before a paper is due, at least I wouldn't try it anyway. If you don't like writing outlines or drafts, give this method a try - but if you're cramming, do give yourself a week to get it done.
How does it work?

Step 1: Cards

Get some 3x5 index cards. For a 10-page, double spaced paper, you will need around 300 cards.
Do not get 150 4x6 cards. They must be 3x5.
For this post, I will assume anyone following this method is using lined index cards. It does not matter if the cards are lined, but know that when I say "On the top line write..." I mean where the actual top line of the card would be. This also means you will be writing across width of the cards in landscape orientation, meaning a full line of text on a 3x5 card runs 5 inches, not 3 inches.
There are two simple, but vital rules to remember when creating cards.

1. Only write on one side of the card. Leave the other side blank. You will need to see all of a card's contents at a quick glance.
   
2. If you make a mistake on a card, immediately tear it in half so it doesn't get mixed up with the ones you want to keep.
   

Step 2: Thesis card

You will only have a thesis card if you are writing a thesis (argument) paper.
In the center of the top line of your thesis card, write "Thesis Statement."
Now write your thesis statement below that.

Step 3: Topic cards

In the center of the top line write "Topic." Below that, write the name of a topic related to your thesis statement.
Topics should be broad, written as one or two words. Create as many topic cards as you think you will need. You can always create more later, so don't get stuck on this part.
Example: topics related to a thesis on the healthcare industry may include: Insurance, Costs, Medicare, Medicaid, Prevention, Prescription Drugs, Hospitals, etc.

Step 4: First Layout

Spread out your topic cards on a table. Select the broadest topics and line them up in a row in the order in which you would like them in your paper. Now arrange the narrower topics in columns below the broad topics in the order that makes sense to you. Using the example of the healthcare industry in the previous step, "Costs" may be a broad topic with "Insurance" and "Prescription Drugs" listed beneath it.
Split a topic if you need to. "Costs" could also be split into "Consumer Costs" and "National Costs", then "Insurance" and "Prescription Drugs".
Don't expect to have a lot of topic cards at this point. You may only have one or two subtopics for each broad topic. This is fine. You can always add more as you go along.
Take a picture of your topic cards in this arrangement.
Congratulations, you just made an outline!
Now type it out. Title it "Preliminary Outline."

Step 5: Sources

Go find sources you would like to use for your paper. When you find a source you would like to use, create a bibliography card.

Step 6: Bibliography cards

In the center of the top line write "Bibliography".
In the upper left hand corner of the card on the top line, write the number "1", as it is your first Bibliography card. This is your source ID.
Now write the complete and proper reference of your source, formatted according to your citation style. Include doi links, if applicable. Where italic font is used in a citation, underline it on your card.
Open a new document file. Title it "References", "Works Cited", etc., depending on your citation style. Type out your bibliography cards in the order appropriate to your citation style. Most likely they will be alphabetical by author. As you find more sources and write out bibliography cards, add them to this document.
About citation styles:
A citation style is a way to reference your sources, specifically how you list them out and how you identify where you found a fact or quote.
If you are in highschool, your teacher will tell you how to write write and format sources and citations. If they don't, ask.
If you are an undergrad, most professors don't care which style you choose, but they want it consistent. If this is the case, I recommend using APA or MLA because they use simple, in-line citations.
If you are a graduate student, use the appropriate style for your field. If your reference style uses foot notes or end notes, please be aware you may need to create citation IDs later to help you stay organized.

Step 7: Read and Highlight

As you read through your sources, highlight anything that stands out to you that you may want to use in your paper.
This is where I would normally say it does not matter if your sources are printed or digital, but for many of us it does matter. Stepping away from technology is one the reasons I find this method so effective. I encourage you to print articles or photocopy sources when possible.
Your school likely has access to full-text articles online that can be downloaded as PDFs and printed later.
If your source is text from a website, right click on in the body of the text and select Print. When the print window pops up, select PDF (or Adobe PDF) as your printer. In the next pop up, select where you would like to store your file. Your source is now saved as a PDF. By the way, printing to a PDF is the easiest way to save a file while maintaining its formatting. Try it from any program. Now when you print it to paper, it will look like the PDF.

STEP 8: Detail cards

In the center of the top line write the topic related to the highlighted text. If you do not have a related topic card, make one.
In the upper left corner on the top line, write the source ID that matches the one on its respective bibliography card.
In the upper right corner on the top line of each card write the page number(s) from your source as "p 87" or "pp 87-88". If your source does not have page numbers, write your source's equivalent as it applies (act/scene numbers, time stamp, etc.). Look up a style reference guide for requirements.
Now in your own words, write about an area you highlighted. If you want to directly quote the article, make sure you use quotation marks. Otherwise, simply paraphrase it. Use complete sentences.
If you are copying a long quote and run out of room on a card, write the topic, source ID, and page number on another new card and continue writing your quote. In the bottom right corners write "1 of 2" and "2 of 2" respectively.
Create bibliography and detail cards for all your sources. Find more sources as needed. For a 10-page double spaced paper, expect to have around 150-200 detail cards.

Step 9: Second Layout

Lay out all of your topic cards in the same order as your preliminary outline, only this time line them all up in one row.
By this time you may also want to combine or eliminate topics because your project took a different direction from when you first wrote them. This is fine.
When you think you have enough detail cards, sort them into piles by topic. Now arrange your detail cards in columns under their topics in a way that makes sense to you.
Take a picture of all your cards in this arrangement.
Congratulations, you just layed out your final outline!

Step 10: Type Your Outline

Save a copy of your preliminary outline and title it "Final Outline." Fill in the text from the detail cards. Each detail card should be a separate bullet point on your outline. After typing out a detail card, add the citation at the end. You already know the source because you wrote the source number in the upper left hand corner of each card.
You should not have anything in your final outline that is not written down on an index card.

Step 11: First Draft

Save a copy of your final outline and name it "First Draft." Now arrange your bullet points into paragraphs. This is your draft.
Now print it . Proofread it. Ask a friend to proofread it. Mark it up and make any necessary changes on paper. Don't change any quoted text because quotes are ...well ...quotes.

Step 12: Final Copy

Save a copy of your First draft and name the file "Final Copy." Type the edits you handwrote on paper. I realize with today's technology a lot of proofreading and peer editing is done electronically. This is fine. If you're using Google Docs, be sure to use Suggestion Mode. If using Word, turn on Track Changes.
Your paper is done.
High school students, if your teacher doesn't think you've made enough changes between your draft and your final copy, hand over your stack of index cards, both outlines, and your highlighted sources. They will know you didn't use ChatGPT or copy someone else's work because you can't fake what you've just handed to them.
Edit: See my other post for a technique that harnesses your ADHD to help you organize a project or to present new ideas to a group.
https://www.reddit.com/TwoXADHD/s/Y4pUfQR0R3

I hope this letter finds you well. To begin, I was drawn to this topic through social media posts that shared dozens of records detailing the abuse and deaths of hundreds of children in these therapy programs. I have often wondered, how can these programs be allowed to cause this amount of trauma to teens and children? This inspired me to look deeper into the troubled teen industry and understand why paid “caregivers” have put so many in danger. If we want to protect the wellbeing of these teens, we must find a solution to regulating these industries. Without increased laws and regulations we continue to place America’s children into potential death traps. Now what is a wilderness therapy program? Wilderness therapy programs, on the surface, seem like a promising solution for troubled teens, offering a blend of nature immersion and psychiatric support. However, the roots of the troubled teen industry date back to the 1970s, with reports of abuse surfacing early on. Shockingly, despite decades of outcry and documentation of fatalities, political inertia persists, and federal oversight remains lacking. It is understandable that parents want their children to be happy, respectful, and well-mannered. However, in an attempt to do what is right for their struggling child, parents may turn to the troubled teen industry. Currently, according to the American Bar Association, there are thousands of teenagers in these programs within the U.S, programs that often induce trauma and abuse, even causing the deaths of their children. So, why do parents continue to put their children into these programs? Is the fear of losing the “perfect” family leading parents to enrolling their children into these troubled teens’ wilderness programs? So why do parents enroll their children in these awful facilities? Simple answer: manipulation. The troubled teen industry (TTI) often manipulates parents through a series of insidious tactics. For instance, leveraging fear by exaggerating the risks associated with a child's behavior and creating a sense of imminent danger. Isolation tactics further reinforce this urgency, convincing parents that the facility is their sole recourse. These industries hire workers framed as “education consultants” that utilize high-pressure sales strategies to exploit parental anxiety, and present their TTI program as the only viable option. In an article by USAtoday, reporters held interviews of parents and teens who experienced a TTI program at Evoke, a Utah facility. "I was just an anxious mom. I loved (Katelyn) to death," Tessie, Katelyn’s mom, says, "I was so desperate and desperately wanting to save my child from herself" (USAtoday). Programs offer promises of rapid transformation and they prey on parental desperation for quick, easy fixes. Emotional manipulation adds another layer, playing on a parents guilt and insecurity. By showcasing selective success stories and controlling information flow, they obscure potential risks and alternatives. Stigmatizing the child's behavior further pressures parents into compliance, painting their facility as the sole refuge from societal judgment. "’[Evoke] just made it seem like (she was) such a rotten kid and that she couldn't come home after the wilderness program,’ Tessie says, instead [Evoke suggested] Katelyn go to an aftercare program” (USAtoday). In this web of manipulation, parents often find themselves coerced into decisions they later regret, unaware of the nuanced realities obscured by these tactics. In an article from the “Cafemoms” blog titled My Daughter Was a Victim of the 'Troubled Teen' Industry & It Haunts Me to This Day, a mother recounts her perspective of the tactics used by Island View (IV) treatment center to send her sixteen year old daughter to their facilities. “We trusted the [education consultant] when he said IV was the best program in the country and the best fit for Colleen. What the [education consultant] didn’t tell us was that the reason so many IV grads did so well after graduation is because nearly all of them went straight from IV to another residential treatment”(Cafemoms). Despite this, there is still hope for change. Imprint News wrote an article that focused on recent protests and youth advocates who were pushing congress to introduce new laws. Specifically, they discussed the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act. A main advocacy group aiming at these lawmakers is Breaking Code Silence, a group dedicated to advocating for young people who had experienced harm in a youth treatment center (Imprint News). Their main goal is to pass a Bill of Rights for all children in youth treatment centers (Imprint News). The article also mentions that Breaking Code Silence wants children to have guaranteed protection from physical restraint and monitored phone calls. They further require that children are provided with all the basic necessities (Imprint News). Paris Hilton, a well-known celebrity, discussed in a Washington post article when she was 16 years old when she was taken from her home by two men. This was a result of her parents signing her up for a teen wilderness program (Hilton). Hilton describes that she was beaten and malnourished throughout her time at a Utah Facility. In October 2021, she partnered with Breaking Code Silence and pushed for a reform that was signed into law last April (Hilton). In Utah, it is now mandatory for treatment centers to document any time that staff used physical restraint (Hilton). Immediately following they have to submit these reports to the Utah Office of Licensing (Hilton). It also prohibits programs from sedating residents or using mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs and chains (Hilton). Therefore, this proves that reforms can be implemented and that it is important to continue the fight for more. Without regulations these programs can run rampant and place hundreds of children in danger. Continuing to protest, collaborate with government officials, and raise awareness can, and will, eventually stop the persistence of these programs. Enforcing reports and proper care through the law is the only way to give teens struggling with mental illnesses in these programs a fighting chance to recover. On the other hand, supporters of the troubled teen industry have used studies and research to prove the effectiveness of these programs, one example being RedCliff Ascent. RedCliff Ascent is a wilderness therapy program that claims the effectiveness of wilderness therapy. In 2005, this company hired a researcher to study families and adolescents 2 years after the program. The results found that over 90% of adolescents found wilderness therapy as effective and 83% of adolescents were doing better. In another study by Dr. Steve Aldana, it was found that 91.4% of children experienced clinically significant improvement six months post program. The counter argument presented by RedCliff Ascent is not only biased as the research was initiated from a wilderness therapy company, but they do not provide a sample size. This is important because when making conclusive statements such as “Over 90% of adolescents contacted perceived wilderness therapy as effective” they could be talking about six out of seven children or two hundred out of two hundred twenty (RedCliff Ascent). Through further research, the same results can be presented without the use of wilderness therapy. An article by the American Psychology Association (APA) titled “Better options for troubled teens” presents a series of studies and programs that was created to help adolescents. These programs focus on community-based activities, activities to help connect teenagers with their parents, and activities that align with the teens interests. This includes computer labs, dance studios, and machine shops. These programs have found significant success in decreasing the amount of juvenile offenders from 50% to 4% in an area of Connecticut (APA). It did this by helping teens take accountability and understand their actions. It utilized role play, writing assignments, and guided discussions between the teens. Overall, the troubled teen industry has caused abuse, trauma, and death to many children across the United States. It is a trap for children and a trick for desperate parents. Through the personal stories from teens and parents, reports of mistreatment, and protests it can easily be seen the impact and the importance of preventing this industry from expanding, instead increasing regulations and transparency to protect America’s children. To keep these children safe it is imperative that everyone works together to enact legislation. Your support matters to keep America’s children protected.
Sincerely, A high school student trying to make positive change
Works Cited Brennan, Caleb, et al. “Youth Advocates Again Push Congress to Crack Down on ‘Troubled Teen’ Industry.” The Imprint, 19 Aug. 2022, Date Accessed Mar. 2 imprintnews.org/top-stories/youth-advocates-congress-troubled-teen-industry/67243.
DeAngelis, Tori. “Better Options for Troubled Teens.” https://www.apa.org, www.apa.org/monito2011/12/troubled-teens. Accessed Feb. 19
Hilton, Paris. “America’s ‘Troubled Teen Industry’ Needs Reform so Kids Can Avoid the Abuse I Endured.” Washington Post, 22 Oct. 2021, Date Accessed Feb. 5 www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/18/paris-hilton-child-care-facilities-a Buse-reform.
Krebs, Catherine E. Five Facts About the Troubled Teen Industry. 22 Oct. 2021 Date Accessed Apr. 23 www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/childrens-rights/five-facts-about-troubled-teen-industry.
Moniuszko, Sara M. “Wilderness therapy was supposed to help these ‘troubled teens.’ It traumatized them instead.” UsaToday, 8 Dec. 2022, Date Accessed Apr. 15 www.usatoday.com/in-depth/life/health-wellness/2022/12/08/wilderness-therapy-troubled-teen-industry/9890694002.
Parenting, baby names, celebrities, and royal news CafeMom.com. 14 Oct. 2022, Date Accessed Apr. 19 https://cafemom.com/parenting/troubled-teen-industry-island-view
RedCliff Ascent. “Does Wilderness Therapy Work?” Wilderness Therapy for Teens Needing Mental Health Treatment RedCliff Ascent, 10 Jan. 2023, Date Acessed Feb. 21 www.redcliffascent.com/wilderness-therapy-program/does-wilderness-therapy-work

Coding a killer program is one thing, but crafting an A-worthy IT assignment? That's a whole different quest. Here's the student scoop on acing those IT papers:
Problem-Solving Prose: Professors love clear explanations. Break down complex concepts into bite-sized chunks for readers. Use diagrams, flowcharts, or screenshots to visually represent your technical points.
Code Cred: Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk (or write the code!). Include relevant code snippets, but remember proper formatting and clear annotations. Explain how the code functions within your argument.
Cite Your Sources: Plagiarism is a major bug in any IT paper. Cite research papers, online resources, and even code snippets from reputable sources. Use a consistent citation style (APA, MLA, etc.) to avoid errors.
Bonus Level: Think outside the text box! Consider creating a short demo video showcasing your program or concept in action. This can add a unique touch to your assignment and impress your professor.

I am a technical writing student at Columbia Basin College. I am writing a Career Investigation Report for English 235 Technical Writing, which is one of my required courses. The career I'm investigating is blockchain developer. For this assignment, I must interview an employee working in this career.
I can interview through zoom or discord. I will come with five prepared interview questions and take notes during the interview, and the results will be incorporated into my report, cited as "personal communication" in the APA formatting style.
If you are interested in letting me interview you, please send me a dm!

I am a technical writing student at Columbia Basin College. I am writing a Career Investigation Report for English 235 Technical Writing, which is one of my required courses. The career I'm investigating is blockchain developer. For this assignment, I must interview an employee working in this career.
I can interview through zoom or discord. I will come with five prepared interview questions and take notes during the interview, and the results will be incorporated into my report, cited as "personal communication" in the APA formatting style.
If you are interested in letting me interview you, please send me a dm!

TLDR version: Am I the AH for telling a cohort that they spend a LOT of time worrying about unimportant details and that I prefer not to reinvent the wheel?
Background: For my career, I decided to get yet another degree. I have an MD but did not keep my license because I work mainly in research. Now, I am getting a Master's in Nursing to get my RN and take DNP exams.
I have NEVER, nor do I ever plan to tell my cohorts I have an MD. I have also been a professor at MANY schools, including nursing schools and medical schools, but I don't tell this to my cohorts. A few of my professors so know; I have mentioned I have a PhD and that I studied "hippie medicine," but I never elaborate. I mean I am a medical director, so DUH, I HAVE to have an MD, but I never told them. It may come up at some point, but I really don't plan to tell them.
Ok, so I had to repeat some classes because they were done at medical school and were pass-fail, but this school needs a letter grade. Those classes were with undergrads, so I just ignored the absolute brain-numbing stupidity. But one example is a fellow student who used MY PRESENTATION as their own and did not even take my name off of it, and they still passed.
We are now in the graduate part of the program. All my cohorts must have at least a master's degree. We all have to have had a minimum GPA of a 3.5. We all cannot have failed a healthcare class, we all had to take an entrance exam and get at least 70% (I got 80% and had schools BEGGING me to apply and to give me scholarships).
We also have to get a minimum of 70% on any assignment and 80% or higher overall for every class. And we have periodic competency exams.
So this semester we have a CRAZY course load. 6 courses, all slamming us. The professors asked me to counsel students and do a peer support group thing, as credit for one of my courses, as I have been a professor previously.
So one woman is gung ho. Has no job, like online 24/7 constantly engaging in the group. NO biggie, let her. I interject and guide, but basically this is a group of adults, and I do not need to be seen as the leader.
the professors have basically daily, maybe more than once a day zoom calls. these are not mandatory; they give tips but are not mandatory. These people are FREAKING out when they miss one. I tell them that if they think it will help, watch, but really, there is no new info in them.
They all will pass info back and forth that they THINK they gleaned from the calls, but 90% of the time, they did not listen. They are FREAKING out about how we are graded, even though the score used is listed in the assignment. For example, one uses a DLC score and an SPI score. We get graded on the DCL. The SPI score will never be 100% because it is a competency score of graduates ready for boards, and we are not even close to that level yet.
I tell them, they tell me I must be wrong. I show them proof, and they argue, they email the professor, who asks, "Did you ask "Stange"?" they then tell me they don't think I am correct and ask other professors.
They complain that unit review questions are "wrong," which is not gonna lie. They often are. But 100% of every one they post, they are wrong. they get mad when I point out why they are incorrect.
They are all complaining about their grades on their papers this past week, but NOT A DAMN ONE used a reference. Of course, you will not get a good grade if you are not using references, citing them etc,
Then they were obsessed with Ref Works, which is quite useless. I suggested maybe using PERRLA, which is $75 a year, but it does the same thing and more. They tried to make me look crazy, as they claimed they had never needed anything like that. One said, " I have a PhD and NEVER had a problem with being told I plagiarized." and "What a waste of money"
This is hilarious for 2 reasons: APA formatting and archiving references are not ONLY about plagiarism, but they are all buying $200 note-taking templates and books we are not using for classes that are really expensive. But whatever, I have 100% in all the classes right now; they are all close to 80% and struggling.
THE NEXT DAY, the school started getting worried about this group and cheating because they were in the group that I was mentoring and gloating about cheating. The professor also told her she needed to use scholarly references, not random websites. And Ms. "I have a PhD," says she was dinged for a 99% plagiarism score. HOW? You claim you have a PhD but never learned how to find references.
So I taught them about the library, what to look for, how to cite, etc. They then asked what my score was; it was 1%, thank you very freakin much.
MEANWHILE, we have 6 courses, each one has close to 20 HOURS each of reading and work. They are so overfocused on unnecessary things. We are graded on the completion of certain tasks, NOT mastery. Stop making lists of assignments if you can't do them correctly. Stop telling me what you think I need to study. Obviously, you and I are on the same course. If you have not taken it before, and even if you have, you can't tell me what the test is about.
So in my cohort, I have the highest grade. Not that I am smarter, but more because I don't waste time doing what is not important, I follow directions, and I do master-level work, probably higher. A LOT of the next few weeks, the courses are designed to be next to impossible to complete if you don't follow steps, pay attention, and work smarter, not harder.
And really, when you use the TOOLS in our canvas and do things that they are told for you to complete and do them, then there really is not as much work as it seems.
I keep trying to point this out to my cohorts, they keep trying to reinvent the wheel and focusing on things that are not going to give them a return on their time worth the effort.
And back to the one lady without a job, barely passing the 70% requirement for assignments. She wants to lead, again I could care less. However, beware who you choose to follow peopel.
But now she is making a "weekly study guide" with her $200 good notes Skin. People are asking her what the extra assignments she is adding are and where she is getting dates and assignments from, and she's all over the place.
So I posted, "How about we all work smarter, not harder, and use the tools we already have?" and I posted a tutorial, AGAIN, on how to use the tools we have, how we are graded, where to find sources, again suggested PERRLA, etc.
She then started blasting me for not appriciateing her leading the group. and I said "Beware who you choose to follow".
AITAH? I mean, these people need help, and you are not a great student, nor are you good at your guides. Why reinvent the wheel when you can just get better grades if you follow the instructions already provided?