Des gens pour bosser des sujets d'anglais ensemble???

[PetiteWendy]

Hello!

I have just some questions to ask you (for the ones who have worked the seventh text)!

The jury should ask you these questions:

Is it an english or an american text? Why?

Do you often take airplanes? Why? Where did you go?

Which kind of transport are you used to take (usually)?

Which one do you prefer? Why?

Are you afraid of any kind of transport? Develop!

So there it is! You can answer, if you want to practise your english, to these questions and I will try to correct you!

Some people of the jury can also open the discuss/debate on security at school...

See ya!

[titou017017]

merci Emma, c'est vraiment gentil de ta part

[titou017017]

Hello, this my text number 8:

This article is extracted from BBC, written on january, 8 2006.

The main topic is the commercial space by industries.

This journalist explains that space tourism is a real trade. US Federal Aviation Administration have written a report to explain their step (démarche). Indeed, if terrorists are in the spacecraft, they can destroy it or using it as a weapon. They have made attemps (essais) to regulate the commercial space. They pretend that space compagnies must be in the US’s list, in this way, they can check theim to the tourist’s safety .

The report precises that privates compagnies can carry tourists in the space, and it become an important trade.

Meanwhile, tourist’s safety isn’t enough precised. In 2004, Burt Rutan has flyed a hundred kilometers of the earth. The journalist pretends that in ten years, Virgin Entreprise will create a spaceport in New Mexico.

In my mind, space’tourism isn’t enough exploit , we must wait for years again before going in the space.

I think that travelling by a plane is already dangerous, because the plane can crash, or can be hijack (détourné) by terrorists. I suppose that travelling in the space, would be more dangerous again, and I pretend that the launches haven’t got enough experiencies for flying whith humans passengers today.

Indeed, a lot of space rockets have exploded in the sky . Laïka and other animals were in spoutnick when it has exploded , in the space.

So, according to me, we can travell in the space in hundred years.

To conclude, this industries tryed to create spacecrafts to receive humans passengers. But they must make a lot of experiences before it.

[titou017017]

Hello, this my text number 8:

This article is extracted from BBC, written on january, 8 2006.

The main topic is the commercial space by industries.

This journalist explains that space tourism is a real trade. US Federal Aviation Administration have written a report to explain their step (démarche). Indeed, if terrorists are in the spacecraft, they can destroy it or using it as a weapon. They have made attemps (essais) to regulate the commercial space. They pretend that space compagnies must be in the US’s list, in this way, they can check theim to the tourist’s safety .

The report precises that privates compagnies can carry tourists in the space, and it become an important trade.

Meanwhile, tourist’s safety isn’t enough precised. In 2004, Burt Rutan has flyed a hundred kilometers of the earth. The journalist pretends that in ten years, Virgin Entreprise will create a spaceport in New Mexico.

In my mind, space’tourism isn’t enough exploit , we must wait for years again before going in the space.

I think that travelling by a plane is already dangerous, because the plane can crash, or can be hijack (détourné) by terrorists. I suppose that travelling in the space, would be more dangerous again, and I pretend that the launches haven’t got enough experiencies for flying whith humans passengers today.

Indeed, a lot of space rockets have exploded in the sky . Laïka and other animals were in spoutnick when it has exploded , in the space.

So, according to me, we can travell in the space in hundred years.

To conclude, this industries tryed to create spacecrafts to receive humans passengers. But they must make a lot of experiences before it.

[PetiteWendy]

Titou et Emma, désolée, j'ai repris vos écrits!!!

This text is extracted from a british magazine entitled « the economist », written on january the 4 th of 2003. The main topic is the ban on smoking in New York city

In this extract, the journalist explains that NY (city ? mayor ?) had decided to create an anti-smoking law. This law was written by Mike Blomberg. It mentionned that : People can’t smoke in bars and restaurants.

According to him, young people smoke because they think that it’s sophisticated. That’s why they begin to smoke younger and younger.

If the smokers don’t accept this law, they must pay £200-£400, but for (pour éviter la répétition) the journalist, this fine is not strong enough as a lot of people keep on smoking. According to me the fine is for the bar and not for the smokers. The journalist is surprised because the majority of people agree/ do agree (pas d’auxiliaire be devant “agree”) with this law.

For our health, we should not smoke. The problem of smoking is that it is becoming a social issue because children are smoking younger and younger. It’s a real problem, indeed, to smoke a lot , as it can provok/cause cancers or pulmonary disease.

But I understand the smokers: in fact it is difficult to stop smoking and the laws are severe. I think that they should have the right to smoke in private places. I understood in the article that they could !Meanwhile, I don’t accept that someone smokes near others without asking the permission, particulary, when children or babies are near them! (à reformuler...)

Perhaps, we would create the private’s places who will be expensives, like this, the child won’t pay. (I don't understand what you want to say)

A lot of solutions are created in diverse countries, for example/such as the use of the patche which is paid sometimes by the states’ governments . Preventions against tobacco in schools are more present nowadays and some people are creating (in some countries) shocking advertising in order to discourage smokers.

After having read this extract, we get the impression that the country of GB (?) [/colordoesn’t seem to think about other solutions to resolve this problem. Indeed, a tax and a law can’t be sufficient to incite people to stop smoking, and to discourage children.

Voilà...j'espère vous avoir aidé!

[titou017017]

thanks.

I have made the text number 8,up.

It was so difficult to understand it, no?

[maude54]

oula qd je lis tout ca, ca me fout encore plus les boules!!!!!

Vous êtes tous bilingues ou quoi???!!!!!

Ahhhh je vais vraiment avoir l'air ridicule le jour J....j'ai peurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Manouche54]

oula qd je lis tout ca, ca me fout encore plus les boules!!!!!

Vous êtes tous bilingues ou quoi???!!!!!

Ahhhh je vais vraiment avoir l'air ridicule le jour J....j'ai peurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

:P si j'étais passé avant toi tu aurais eu l'air moins ridicule, je te rassure! :P

Apprends surtout le vocabulaire nécessaire à la présentation d'un texte, pour l'entretien, tu combles les vides avec des "well...welll..."

[titou017017]

Maud54: je te rassure , je suis complètement nulle. J'ai appris des intro et conclusions par coeur et je fais des phrases courtes sinon c'est pas la peine. Je lis des trucs sympas en anglais depuis quelques temps: genre people, ou aufeminin.com en anglais.

Manouche54: je lis tes résultats , c'est du délire!!!! éliminée pour le français alors que tu cartonnes ailleurs, accroche toi, la synthèse c'est pas difficile, tu apprends le squelette d'un devoir tout fait, tu sors 2 idées dans le dossier (ou 3 mais c plus dur), tu dis un tel dit que alors que truc muche pense que, phrase de transition , tu recommences parties 2 et conclusion, basta!

Pour le devoir 8: personne ne l'a fait? personne ne peut me corriger (up)? Merci quand même pour votre aide, c'est très gentil.

[nunu]

Pour Maude54, courage, le tout c'est de se jeter à l'eau.

Pour ma part, depuis les résultats des écrits, j'essaie de faire un résumé de texte par jour et figure toi que çà rentre !!!! You must practice, so let's go !!

Wendy, I will try to answer theses questions, and thank you to propose them, it is a good training !!:

Is it an english or an american text? why?

Well it is a british text because daily mail is a british magazine

Do you often take airplanes? Why?

I don't often take airplanes because it is still expensive despite the development of many lows-cost companies.

Where did you go?

When I was in Rouen, I use the airport of Beauvais where the irish low cost companie Ryan Air was set up. So I went by this way to Venise in Italy last year. And two years ago, I went to Lisboa in Portugal for a week.

Which kind of transport are you used to take (usually)? Which one do you prefer? Why?

Usually, I use my car like most of people. As I have three childrens I do not often take the train because it is not enough practical for a family with some lugages. Moreover my childrens are very excited in the train, or in the bus because they love this kind of transport considering them like a new adventure. But, as to me, it is very tired and stressful because I have to keep on them among passengers and to try not to disturb driver. Last time I took the bus, my second son did a huge anger and everyone was looking at me, it is not a happy memory : I was very ashamed !

That's why I do prefer taking my car where every child is secured in his seat.

However, I love cycling but I don't consider it like a way of transport. When we use cycles with my family it is a hobby, it is only to go somewhere and to have fun !

Are you afraid of any kind of transport? Develop!

Well, at the opposite of much people, I love airplanes and I am not afraid at all, because I know it is a very safe. Indeed, I am afraid taking my car by night where I could meet drunk drivers who can have very dangerous way of drive.

Thanks to have a look,

Emma

[titou017017]

Here is my summary for the text 9 gave this day

http://edp.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=attac...st&id=34492

This text is extracted from Cape Times, written for december, 23, 2005 ; is entitled « Investigation into Lance Amstrong’salleged doping “won’t go away”.

It deals with dopage in sport, particullary, in cyclism.

My report can divide en two parts: firstly, I’m going to make a summary of this text, secondly I will explain my opinion about dopage in sport.

From the biginning, the journalist explains that Lance Amstrong was doped at the seventh Tour de France. But, Dick Pound (who is world Anti doping Agency President) pretends to have spin out (faire trainer une affaire) for helping the investingation to progress.

So, last July, the Equipe’s newspaper, published an article , who explains, that the champion has taken drugs in 1999. The journalist insists on the fact that Amstrong doesn’t admit this and on the fact, that Pound has criticized the International cycling Union. Indeed, he pretends that the ICU doesn’t want to revelate positives tests concerning others cycles.

L’Equipe’s daily declares that their investigations have realised in the laboraty and they have remarked that six of Amstrong ‘urine collected in 1999 Tour, had traces of EPO.

Amstrong had been affraid a few, but in an interview, he has showed a real self confidence.

Because this scandal has been evocate in a lot of newspapers and at the televison, it creats a real debate in sport.

According to me, Amstrong isn’t atletic alone to take drugs; indeed, making incredible perfomance when we have been so ill, it’s very wonderfull!

We know that others atletics are taking drugs for being the best.

Indeed, the newspapers make often articles on the young atletic’s death. For example, a russian ‘s skater is dead making a competition, and a young footballer too, they were so young that it’s impossible that they were dead without taking drugs.

In east Germany, gymnasts might be pregnants, afterwards might be abort, for having homones and impoving their performance.I think that, when maked tour de France, we must be tired, and making as much performance , it can’t make this without drugs.

As a conclusion, dopage in sport gives a bad image for children. They think that for being the best, we must take drugs, because it seems impossible to pratic a sport without this.

[nenette85]

Dis donc Titou t'es à fond!!!!

Here my summary about the 9th text...

This text is an extract published in the news paper Cpae Time. It dates from December 23, 2005. It's entitled "Investigation into Lance Amstrong's alleged doping won't go away".

The main topic of this article is the accusation against Lance Amstrong who would have taken EPO for the Tour of France.

The french dayli, "l'Equipe", published an article in which Amstrong is blamed for have taken EPO in 1999, when he won this race.

A World Anti Doping Association wanted to do an investigation but they said taht it's not hurry, because it was the last race of Amstrong. He was retired after his seventh win but he has always denied to have taken drugs in order to win. The author asserts that l'Equipe has found in labotary a lots of positves test with EPO. But Amstrong has always denied this allegatuon. Afetr this story, he was a few frightened to return in France and to do another race...

I think that EPO is a real problem in all sports. We can wonder that if there is one sport without doping...Athletics have so much pressions that they're taking drugs in order to be the best. I think too Tour of France is a very hard race. Cyclists have to do mor 200 kms each day and their organism can't recover between race... so that they have to take drugs to feel well...

But drugs aren't only in the high level sport. Some amateurs athletics have to take drugs, not inevitably EPO, but there are a lots of substance which ca, ameliorate the performance... but it will be a risk for them and their health.

Voilà... Pas facile!!!!