One Concept

This may sound cheesy or irrelevant but I felt the one concept that even the text did not mention specifically that much on was advertisements on the internet or even in magazines and how the techniques they use can really be deceiving. This pertains to that ad blog we did earlier in this class. I really enjoyed that assignment because it was an eye opener however I felt the text briefly discussed it because maybe the author felt it was a common knowledge topic and most of our critical thinking skills(all the terms and topics we learned) can be applied to advertisements and all the media out there. I just wished the text had more information specifically how the media reflects on individuals when they advertise something and use celebrities to endorse that product. Just because that "famous" person is advertising a shoe or acne wash and on tv say its a great product does not mean in reality they use that product and want everyone else to. They are being paid for that commercial and they are just given a script and to look pretty.

Overall, I felt all the topics covered throughout this class were all discussed in detail, some more than others but it is like that in pretty much every class taught out there.

Thank you all for making my first blogging experience a smooth and good one.
Enjoy the rest of your summer!

-little miss daisy

The Overall Picture plus Likes vs Dislikes

Overall, what I have learned throughout this class is a few things. One, I realized blogging is kind of like a journal-it does not really matter if it has a thesis, or completely flows together. What matters most in a blog is that it makes sense and is cohesive enough for someone else to read it and that they get the message across from what the author of that blog was trying to show and reflect on.
I also learned which is one of my favorite things from this class, how to be able to analyze messages each different individual or groups are stating or representing. Before I took this class, I did not realize how important or the relevance it was when an organization such as the NRA or the ASPCA used "appeal to emotion, pity,"etc to hook the audience in and get them to buy their product.
I really liked how each of our blog posts had to be 12 hours apart because it gave us time to think what we were going to say. I thought the requirement of commenting on 3 of our classmates blogs each week was a great idea as well because it gave us a chance to see what another individual thought of that topic and that definitely helped when someone explained something, that I had not thought of.
There were no dislikes for this course because I really enjoyed this course and every individual in it and our instructor as well. Anyone who has not taken this GE area yet, I will be sure to tell them or suggest this course.

What I've learned In This Class

I have to say, I am really glad that I chose to take this course over this summer and online. It was my second online class that I took over the summer and my third total in online classes. This was my first time creating a blog however, and I felt having to do 3 blog posts and leaving 3 comments on blogs was a great learning experience.

What I have learned in this class over the summer was "netiquette" besides the handout given in the beginning of this course and I learned how to work with different people in a way I have not been used to during my school days; online interaction in an educational setting. I have learned how to properly analyze and critique different organizations using different reasoning(inductive, deductive). I am also now more aware that there are terms used when someone makes an accusation or an argument and can tell if it is a valid or weak argument. Overall, what I have learned from this class over the summer is how to be a critical thinker and what "critical thinking" really means.

Group Activity

I had my family look at the second assignment. They all agreed that our main flaw in our reasoning and arguments was that it seemed we were looking at our chosen organization in a negative perspective, such as our tone of voice shown in our writing. It looked like we were trying too hard to find anything to use against them that was stated on their website. One of my family members mentioned, if we were lawyers and we were arguing against this group, we could of won our case or a debate because of how informative we were and all the facts we found and mentioned. Basically, for a good cause, we were a little harsh on them in our reasoning.

I showed them our assignment sheet and the criteria we were supposed to meet and they said overall we met all the requirements and everything else in our paper was good, informative, and specific. So our only flaw was the negative connotation and tone used. Other than that, they agreed with our reasoning for appeal to emotion and pity being used and the celebrity endorsement/advertisement mentioned in the paper and the other sections as well.

Mission Critical website

For starters, I have to say I found the Table of Contents of the website to be helpful and interesting because it tells you everything that will be on the site. I have not come across that on mostly any website actually. So I thought that was a pretty useful too.
However, what I found really helpful and resourceful about and on this website was the break down and in depth reasoning and explanations and exercises given on the "analysis of arguments." It shows and introduces the principles of deductive and inductive reasoning and gets into casual arguments, and explains conditional arguments and a more in depth analysis on example for those type of arguments and syllogisms are also a part of that section. We have learned this from our text however this I felt explained it in a condensed form one way and in another way, the exercises helped and showed how the reasoning takes place. Overall, I found this website in general to be extremely helpful especially when it comes to critical thinking. It is a valuable tool to have and be aware of.

Cause and Effect website

Being able to distinguish from what a cause and a effect is not only imperative in reading however in reality as well. What caused that to happen was because of (the effect).

What I found helpful through the cause and effect website reading and exercises was the discussion on the strengths of a casual argument and the exercises. For example on the three strengths mentioned, I found the most appealing to me was that, "how likely the case for causation seems to be." The example they came up with was "do we think that a bicycle swerving into an car's lane can cause an accident?" This is something that doesn't really cross our mind unless it has happened to us but is good to keep in mind.

I found the exercises to be helpful and useful because they helped show how the cause and effect of something are two different things but when they are in sync with each other, they put help piece two things together to equal the main event.
So the examples were based off of people at a company picnic and how the people who ate the potato salad and became sick from it andit looked at different cases if what could have caused it and how the difference in the individuals could have made a difference or not. I found that helful and interesting.

Averages: Mean, Median, and Mode

Being able to utilize and be aware of averages can come in handy especially in heated topics such as tests, quizzes scores, etc that we may deal with on a daily basis. According to Epstein’s text, “the average is not the maximum or most likely depth. The average or mean of a collection of numbers is obtained by adding the numbers and then dividing by the number of items” (273).

For example,to retrieve the average or mean of a collection of numbers,
the average of 3,7,10,15,33 is calculated:
Add 3 + 7 + 10 + 15 + 33 = 68
Divide 68 by 5 = 13.6, the average

The median according to our text "is the midway mark: the same number of items above as below" (274). The median is the number in the middle.

For example, a graph could be helpful to show this, however let's just say
there are the numbers 5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40 that are in a line, when I took Algebra, one method we learned was by counting and crossing out the numbers until we got to the center. We would start w the far left and far right at the same time and cross them out. Then work our way until we got to the center. If there were two numbers left next to each other, we would add them and divide them by two.
However, based off our text, it states that "the distribution of marks should be a bell-shape, clustered around the median" (274).

The mode is "the number most often obtained" (274). So the mode is the number that appears the most.

For example,
5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 15, 20,30
The mode in this case would be 10 because it is shown 3 times when the other numbers were shown twice or once.

Second Assignment

I felt both assignments gave me a more clear and concise understanding on different techniques that can be used to evaluate arguments and claims used in articles, advertisements, social organizations.
However, for me personally it was the second assignment that really went into depth on different aspects used in critical thinking. It showed that there are different ways we can evaluate and analyze a group based on what we have learned throughout this course. For example, after completing this assignment, I am now more fully aware of how organizations use fallacies and concealed claims and especially appeal to emotion, pity to really capture the audience's attention. It never really occured to me prior to this assignment what the term was called when a social organization used certain terms and pictures to make the people watching and looking through their site to feel bad/pity for their cause;thus leading to the individuals giving in to what they see (what they are shown). Now I know that can be appeal to emotion,pity, spite, etc. Now and for the future, when I am watching commercials or see ads or sites for organizations that help give back to the community, I will be able to identify what concealed claim they used, or what their fallacies were, or how appeal to emotion, and/or pity was shown.

Misleading Claims with Numbers

Numbers in general can be tricky, especially when using them in describing a claim, fact, or opinion. In different math subjects, I personally have found it to be easier using numbers alone and not with words (word problems were always a challenge for me) because handling numbers alone was enough as a challenge already however when words were added, I felt the questions and story proposed in that problem became misleading. There were times I felt there was a "numerical comparison" that nothing being compared made sense; in accordance to Epstein's text means "comparing apples and oranges" (268).

Some other "numerical comparison" I have seen, is for example:

Attendance at San Jose Sharks games have increased by 45 % over the past two years.
That is great for the San Jose Sharks, that means on one hand, they must be winning a lot more(which these past two years is a fact; based on their statistics) and/or the popularity of the sport has increased. However, this claim exemplifies what the text also mentions, "two times zero is still zero when someone gives a numerical comparison that makes something look impressive but the base of the comparison is not stated" (268). The claim does not mention what the attendance was for each year, and how about for each month? Were there a total 5,000, or 10,000 people for a total of at least 3 games that caused the increase by 45% or was it the whole season overall?

Judging Analogies

I found section C: Judging Analogies in Chapter 12, very interesting and fascinating because whenever analogies are discussed or mentioned in an argument, they may not always be stated in a clear and cohesive matter. In order to show the analogy makes sense and that it can be used as the premise, as Epstein's text states, "We have to survey the simliarities and guess the important ones in order to find a general principle that applies to both sides. Then we have to survey the differences to see if there isn't some reason that the general principle might not apply to one side" (257). In other words, we have to test and look at both sides of the analogy and see which one relates (is most relevant) to the topic being discussed at hand. As well as making sure the main "principle" would apply to both sides and not just one.

For example,
Manny Ramirez (LA Dodgers) was caught with taking steroids, and although he dealt with the penalty of being suspended from playing, after the suspension he was able to play again with no other penalties. So high school and college baseball players who take steroids should just get the average suspension and not deal with any other penalties.

This can be somewhat convincing because although a player no matter what rank they are, all are aware of the rules and regulations when playing on their team. However, in college and high school, these players are also students and there are seperate rules they have to deal with if the individual chooses to take steroids. In MLB baseball, if the player gets caught and admits to taking steroids, they get the minimal penalty.

Objective 3: Appeal to Fear

The media uses the "appeal to fear" all the time. Appealing to fear, according to Epstein's text is "a way politicians and advertisers manipulate people" (192).
An example I found that was completely relevant to this was drinking while driving and what the consequences of that are.


In this advertisement, I found this image that shows when an individual drinks any type of alcohol such as beer or wine, then operate a vehicle right or soon after consuming those beverages, the risk factor or "danger" of choosing that sort of action. The caution sign that had "Danger" clearly showed and proved that this advirtisement made a good argument because alcohol(any type) reduces the attention span and slows down our speed to reaction. Just imagine, if alcohol even having one drink of any type, can have that type of reaction on an individual, depending on their body tolerance factor or BAC (Blood Alcohol Content, then getting behind the wheel will definitely pose a factor of possible accidents, which can lead to death(s). This advertisement was meant in a way to mainpulate people however not in a deceiving way rather more to inform people; if you choose to drink then drive, you can be at risk of various types of danger.

Appeals to Emotion

Whenever we make decisions, our reasoning usually(most often) are based off of our emotions. Emotions play a big role in general during our daily lives.Whether it is to make a decision on when to get going on homework, studying for exams, getting to work on time, handling relationships, or even when shopping. Most often, those decisions includes us using the idea according to Epstein's text that, "you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way"(191).

For example, there are many beer commercials out there especially in between baseball and football and basketball games. They are used to help hype up the individuals watching the games, to make people feel it will give them a better experience or enjoyment if they drink that certain beer. There's this one commerical on t.v. advertising the beer "Cereva Dos Equis" that I see often while watching the Giants game. The main guy advertising it says he doesn't drink beer much, but when he does, he chooses this beer. He chooses this beer because he "feels like it and it tastes good to him." Appeal to emotion was appealing to me because it made me think of watching those beer commercials and how if an individual chooses that beer, they won't be sorry, that is also including the fact of drinking responsibly and not drinking while driving.

Vague generalities

Oftentimes when we are discussing a part or all of something we tend not to specify the precise number of that subject being discussed. Most vague generalities don’t tend to fit in good arguments nor do most not even “belong in claims” according to Epstein’s text. However, using a few of the words (which stated below) show to make and can be used in strong arguments.

A few brief examples:

All kids like candy.
Almost all kids like candy.
Most SJSU students are commuters.
Some SJSU students are commuters.

Although when using the words “all” and “some” can be interpreted with different meanings, however at the same time using these words can also help show if an argument is valid.
There are two vague generalities that can be used in strong arguments:

Almost all basketball players are over 5’11.
So the basketball players of the LA Lakers are over 5’11.

Very few athletes are not fit.
Adrian is an athlete.
So Adrian is fit.

Truth-Tables~Representing Claims

Before I get into the subject on representing claims, I want to briefly mention the symbols used to describe words that are shown and used in arguments being made in compound claims.
These are shown on page 360 in our text by Epstein:

-and= ^
-or= v
-not= backwards L
-if…then…= -->

In order for us to utilize truth-tables we have to be able to show ordinary claims and arguments.

For example,

Ice cream can be found at Cold Stone Creamery or Frozen Yogurt can be found at Pinkberry.
When analyzing this, we can represent this using the “exclusive” or.
(Ice cream can be found at Cold Stone Creamery v Frozen yogurt can be found at Pinkberry) ^ backwards L (Ice cream can be found at Cold Stone Creamery ^ Frozen Yogurt can be found at Pinkberry

An example of using a conditional (“ --> - claim is false if the antecedent=true and consequent=false. Otherwise it is true” (361) would be:
(in baseball): Strike me out and I’ll strike you out.
This is an example of a conditional and it can represent as:
You strike me out --> I strike you out

General Claims and their Contradictories

Being able to distinguish, understand, and recognize general claims as well as their contradictories is not only imperative but helpful on a daily basis. We hear and see them all the time, whether it being stated aloud or in writings such as newspapers, online, magazines.

Our text by Epstein in Chapter 8, defines a general claim as "a claim that asserts something in a general way about all or a part of a collection" (159).
The text also defines and exemplifies what all and some mean when making a general claim and contradicting it. "All means 'every single one, no exceptions.' Sometimes all is meant as 'Every single one, and there is at least one."
"Some means 'At least one.' Sometimes some is meant as 'At least one, but not all" (160).

For example, when using all and some in a general claim then their contradictory:
Claim: Contradictory:
All Giants fans hate Dodgers fans Some Giants fans like Dodgers fans
Some Giants fans hate Dodgers fans No Giants fans hate Dodgers fans
No Californian can handle the Some Californians can handle the East Coast
East Coast weather weather

The contradictory of a claim

Often times whether it occurs daily or time to time to time, I have heard family, friends, acquaintances, strangers, doctors, even myself state a claim and then contradict it. So what I found interesting in Chapter 6 in Epstein's text was the contradictory of a claim which "is one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim" (114). So what makes the claim contradictory is based on it having the opposite of true or false value.

For example,

When I was a freshman in college, I lived with seven other girls on campus. Every single day literally I would hear a contradictory of a claim.

*(following names used are not the actual individual's names)

Claim: Contradictory:

"Lexi is being loud" "Lexi isn't being loud"
"Rose backstabbed Jane" "Rose didn't backstab Jane"
"Sarah will go to the football "Sarah won't go to the football
game or she will go to a party." game and she won't go to a party."
"Jessica or Angela will go with "Neither Jessica or Angela will go with Eric to his friend's house." Eric to his friend's house."

Raising Objections

On a daily basis, as part of being human, we deal with raising objections. We deal with “arguments, counterarguments, counter-counterarguments.” According to Epstein’s text, “raising objections is a standard way to show an argument is bad. In doing so, we are making another argument that either calls into question one of the premises, or shows that an unstated premise is dubious, or illustrates why the argument is weak” (147). In other words, raising an objection or objections shows how someone is objecting to the argument being stated because it lacks either cohesiveness, or its premises are weak.

For example, let’s take Sean and Jill. A happy young married couple (for 2 years now) and Jill wants to have a baby. Sean begs to differ. Jill says “Sean, all children are miracles and are so precious.” Sean then chimes in, “But Jill, at first when they are babies, they are not so pleasant and wonderful as you may think.” Jill then argues, “Sean! How can you say that about babies? Yes when they are newborns they require a lot of attention however, then through all that tender, love, and care they grow up to be wonderful human beings.” “They also bring more joy and happiness to you as the parents than if you had no children whatsoever.”

As the text mentioned rather than evaluating this argument, you raise objections.

Sean raises some good points when stating, “Not all couples are meant to have kids, and that is including us.” “Once we have kids, that means we won’t be able to provide attention to our work as much or we’ll have to divide work and the kids (our family). Is that something we both really want and need?”

Jill’s initial argument on all children being miracles and are so precious can absolutely be questioned because children can be precious however they require a lot of work, attention, love, etc.

Reasoning from hypotheses

Reasoning from hypotheses reminds me of when I hear people talking about actors and fame. I've heard individuals say (also known for word of mouth) that when you become an actor/actress you lose your privacy as a "normal", average person and you end up losing yourself and forgetting the life you once used to have.
According to Chapter 6 in Epstein's text, reasoning from hypotheses is, "if you start with an assumption or hypothesis A that you don't know to be true and make a good statement for B, then what you have established is If A, then B" (134).
So if Vanessa tells her mom she wants to be an actress and her mom replies "Vanessa if you choose that lifestyle, you will no longer be the same you because you will get caught up in the "Hollywood" scene." Then when Vanessa states, "Mom, I will change of course, but I'll still be the same Vanessa just different." Her mom adds to that by stating, "But Vanessa, your not getting that when you become an actress, that means sacrifice of your schedule, of things and people that matter to you, your own perception will change because of your surroundings. What if some Hollywood starlet befriends you, you will definitely not be the same Vanessa I know unless you have your shoulder on right."

Vanessa's mom has not shown or proven Vanessa will not be the same girl if she becomes an actress, rather like our text says, she is showing the "assumption(hypothesis)" that Vanessa becoming an actress means she will get caught up in the "Hollywood scene" and in the moment.

The Principle of Rational Discussion

Whenever I go to a new doctor, I always hope they are well educated, have decent experience in their field of work, are patient, and care about their patients. This ties into the Principle of Rational Discussion and according to Chapter 4 in Epstein’s text, under this principle, “we assume that the other person who is discussing with us or whose arguments we are reading:
-knows about the subject under discussion
-is able and willing to reason well
-is not lying.” (60).
Like the text mentioned, “the Principle of Rational Discussion is not telling us to give other people the benefit of the doubt.” Rather, it shows us how to be able to “reason with someone.”
An example of this, (going back to when I see a new doctor or ask for a second opinion). When I was younger, close to a decade ago, I went to see a doctor on a condition and he said that surgery was my only option, and if I didn’t then this condition would always be there. He explained how this procedure would fix my problem however when I asked him questions on what is the success rate of this procedure working or if I wait in a few years, can I do it then? The reason why I asked him these questions was because truth of the matter was what I had/have CAN be fixed by surgery but it is not mandatory. What I had could indeed be fixed other ways. Both did not guarantee the issue to go away forever. The doctor also told me since I denied his request to proceed with the surgery, then do not come back unless you want the surgery. This doctor’s diagnosis was based on a quick and easy fix and did not want to discuss other options. To him the surgical procedure was simple, to me it was not. He also laid out the plan for the cost the first time I went to him. In the end, I felt we could not have a rational discussion because he was not willing to reason with me, and cared more about the quick fix. I received a second opinion, and they said that surgery could have complicated things for me more in the future and there were other ways to help get rid of the condition.

Advertisement on the Internet

WWE’s John Cena, NFL Running Back Reggie Bush, NY Yankees Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods, and Nascar driver Denny Hamlin

The advertisement I chose was the Gillette Champions for the launch of their new product (razor) Fusion Power Gamer. These five men are at their top of their game of their sport and Gillette is using them to advertise their new product. This shows how the media and public figures coinciding equals revenue increasing because just like in how Chapter 5, sections A and B in the Epstein text state on evaluating premises and the criteria for accepting or rejecting claims;
~ “We can accept a claim made by someone we know and trust who is an authority on this kind of claim
~we can accept a claim made by a reputable authority whom we can trust as an expert on this kind of claim and who has no motive to mislead
~we can accept a claim in a media outlet that’s usually reliable
~we can reject a claim that contradicts other claims we know to be true.”
These individuals are the perfect candidates to make people feel Gillette’s new razor is the way to go, to get a nice and smooth after shave because if it is good enough and works for them, it could be another individual’s new favorite razor. It may not work for everyone however Gillette is the most well known razor brand, these males especially Derek Jeter and Tiger Woods have been in other various commercials which are reliable sources, and therefore I should accept their claim.

Content Fallacies

There are many bad arguments out there in which they may contain a fallacy or fallacies.
A fallacy is when in an argument the statement is false. Getting into “content fallacies” there are different fallacies in claims that can lead to bad arguments. In accordance to our text by Epstein, one of the fallacies that I often see is the “bad appeal to common belief (or practice)” (201). This premise of this fallacy is the belief if everyone believes the statement, then it must be true, because not everyone could be wrong.

A real life example, would be how a lot of people believe that if you file your tax return on extension (past the April 15th due date), they will not be audited. This is a fallacy because people do get audited. Many years ago, however it was the common belief that if an individual files their return on extension, they were less likely to be audited. However, due to sophisticated computer systems and electronic filing, this is no longer true however many people still believe it is true

Types of Leadership

Something I found quite fascinating in the Small Group Communication book by Dan O’Hair and Mary O. Wiemann was the different types of leadership. There are four types of leadership and they include, “authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire” (33). An authoritarian leader is someone who is in control of the group; they are the head and make the decisions and relay it back to the rest of the individuals. No one else in most cases are able to have their input in a decision or choice made. For example, one of the organizations I was a part of, we had a leader who was an authoritarian type because she was always in charge of everything our group would do and would be in charge of everything going on. However, they did ask for our opinion however in most cases, they would just relay every decision they made to the rest of us and we would just go from there.
A consultative leader is someone who values feedback and is open for comments and suggestions from other group members and then after the individuals had their input the leader makes their final decision.
A participative leader is someone who works “with other group members to achieve a desired goal. This leadership is used by leaders who work together with a group in solving a problem or performing a task” (34).
Last, but not least there’s the laissez-faire leader who is someone that “involves little or no direct leadership. The group simply proceeds with no task” (34).
I have heard of these types of leadership but never knew them in detail until now so I found the concept a helpful tool especially since it relates to small group communication.

Strong Arguments versus Valid Arguments

A strong argument according to our class textbook “Critical Thinking” by Richard L. Epstein, is defined as, “if there is some way, some possibility, for its premises to be true and its conclusion false (at the same time)…” (40). In other words a strong argument is not based on the premises of being true or false, however of how the individual presents it with facts.
An example of a strong argument would be, lets take the famous societal norm that the top schools in California are Stanford and Cal Berkeley. It is known that Stanford and Cal Berkeley are known for having the top graduates out of any college in California because not only do both schools offer the top notch of an education but they promise their high standards and expectations they have for each student, will help each individual to exceed in society and have the type of education other colleges cannot compete with nor have the capability of offering.

A valid argument according to Epstein is, “an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time)”(399). In other words, what makes an argument valid is that the premises of the argument and conclusion must both be true or accurate.
An example of a valid argument would be, in reference to the top schools in California being Stanford and Berkeley because of their high standards, and top education, that makes them to be one of the highest ranked colleges in this state. In which a lot of their graduates may become the next CEO’s of the most well known corporations in this generation and future ones to come.

Subjective and Objective Claims

A subjective claim is based in an individual’s or group’s feeling, or opinion and is not used as a basis from factual information. An example of a subjective claim would be, when I usually hear Giants fans that I know, also including myself saying how Giants are the best. That is solely based on how we feel and think, because truth of the matter is, statistically wise, Giants are not the best. There many other teams in the Major Leagues who are better than us. We just say that because we are fans of the team and feel it is necessary to say our team is the best.

An objective claim is opposite of a subjective claim. Unlike a subjective claim, an objective claim is based on facts (the truth, not a fallacy). An example of a objective claim would be the other day when my mom had told me I had left something out in our living room, and I thought I had put it away. However, actually it was still there.

Introductory Post

Happy Tuesday!

Hello there everyone! My name is Mary Lazar and I will be entering my junior(third year) at SJSU. I am a Communication Studies major with a minor in Sociology however I am new to to the Communication Studies Major.For my first close to two years in college at San Jose State, I was a business major with a concentration in Marketing, then a few months before the Spring semester ended, I decided business was not for me. I just took Comm 40 and that was what inspired me to be a Communication Studies major.
I love to talk whether it is via texting, by phone, in person, or on the internet. I also love listening too.
Since my freshman year at SJSU I have been involved in a program through our Student Health Center and Health and Wellness Promotion, PHE (Peer Health Educators) program. Through this program we educate the students and raise awareness on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Violence Prevention, Stress, Body Image, Chronic Diseases, and Sexual Health and put on programs, presentations all for different organizations around campus as well as in classrooms. So being in this program has helped me to become a more affective speech giver, however I am still learning and hope being in this course will help me more as well.
One thing about me; I am a big San Francisco Giants fan. I have grown up around the Giants since I was a child, and my family and I, especially my dad and brother love collecting baseball memorabilia, going to signings of the players, and we love going to the games as well as watching them on T.V.
I am looking forward to this course and getting to know everyone as well.

~little miss daisy