Kw-logo-smaller

Comments

Shakespearean Glossary (pg. 2)

Let's face it Shakespeare is hard to read. Check out this cheat sheet that will interpret those baffling words into modern lingo! - Page 2 Back to Article

Please login or register to add comments

palmtree5454
palmtree5454 wrote:
2013-10-14 12:51:13 -0700

The only reason why this is half helpful is because I have a homework and all the words I need are right here. But if you like him. Good for you.

report
MiaThermopolis
MiaThermopolis wrote:
2013-10-02 08:05:52 -0700

i hate shakespeare!!!!!!!!!!

report
JennyD
JennyD wrote:
2013-10-02 07:08:14 -0700

Julius anyone

report
kaylena
kaylena wrote:
2013-02-21 12:41:02 -0800

i love shakespeare

report
palmtree5454
palmtree5454 wrote:
2013-02-05 10:23:22 -0800

ohhh-Shakespeare

report
back to story
F1069868095015

Julia Stiles' Shakespearean Flicks?

  • Julia Stiles has been in the movie version of Othello, Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew.
  • Julia Stiles was in MacBeth and Romeo and Juliet.
  • She was in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
  • Julia Stiles has never been in a Shakespearean movie.

related stories

Micro_romeo-and-juliet-micro
Kidzworld reviews the latest version of the most famous romance of all time. Romeo and Juliet is ...
Micro_hailee-micro
Kidzworld got to know friendly “Romeo and Juliet” teen actress Hailee Steinfeld and we talked rom...
Let's face it Shakespeare is hard to read. Check out this cheat sheet that will interpret those b...
William Shakespeare has been dead for almost 400 years but he's still as famous as ever. He has w...

Random in the forums

Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"Taidoku" wrote:it's wrong because society made it wrong how authoritarian  
reply 11 minutes
Boysrock50
Boysrock50 posted in General:
the junior mods and other debaters/regular forum posters
reply 11 minutes
Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"kingofdisaster_" wrote:I think they do. I feel like if I say they don't, they'll attack me. Well. They haven't attacked me yet.  
reply 12 minutes
Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: "AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: Ghosts require more explanation than they provide answers Elaborate? Are you saying that they require more effort than they can give back, or that they hold more mystery than knowledge? There's some phenomena that goes unexplained. But that's the important part, we don't have an explanation. By using ghosts as a solution, we are making unexplained assumptions, you're just displacing your lack of explanation onto the ghost, rather than the event itself. And that's the other part, I haven't heard any physics based woo-free explanation for a disembodied intelligence that lacks a physical body but manages to interact with the physical world. So, for me it's basic Occam's razor. The more complicated answer could be true, but until we have evidence to support the assumptions made it's best to go with the simpler hypotheses that operate within the framework we already have.      First off, I do not believe in ghosts. But, why does this entity have to be intelligent? Why can't be some type of unknown energetic remnant of a past life that's being harbored in a given location? Also, how is nothing simpler than a hypothesis? Admitting to not having an explanation is not a bad thing, especially when you don't have one. There's nothing wrong with saying you haven't been convinced of any particular hypothesis so far, and therefore it remains unexplained to you. You aren't saying it was nothing, you're saying you don't know what it was.  How would we measure this remnant energy of a past life? How many joules should we expect to see? The reason we presume cognizance is because people asserting hypotheses about ghosts often assume that these spirits interact with the world and possess some understanding of cause and effect. 
reply 13 minutes
ChickenGoPowPow
Both. :3
reply 15 minutes