National park's & real estate

National park's are taking up valuable real estate and should be cleared for development.

national park's are a beautiful piece of un disturbed nature in basically all countries, BUT, some people are saying that they should be cut down to make room for real estate development.

I think that all national park's should be left as they are because they are some of the only untouched nature reserves in the world. I think that, instead of clearing national park's the real estate developers should try and find different places that they can build there houses, such as stopping people from  being able to buy land and then not do anything with it.

Another reason to leave national parks the way they are is because if we were to go cut down even just two or three national parks in New Zealand there would be a lot of downsides to that. Some of these being native plants and trees are being cleared which for obvious reasons that is bad, and probably the worst thing would be that all of the native animals will be forced out of the natural living environments so that could lead to some of these animals not surviving,if they dont die during the process of the national park's being cut down.

so basically if you would rather have more houses for people to live in then go ahead cut down the forests BUT, just remember , with every tree you cut, every log truck you fill, that YOU are deflating the lungs of our planet, and what happens when our lungs cant get air ?, they COLLAPSE. So if you want to keep our planets lungs pumping for longer. Then PLEASE, dont be that person that everyone remembers for for being rich and cutting down forests. be the person who says no be that person  was rich. Not with money but LOVE,love for our planet and for future generations.

my English teacher

THIS IS MY ENGLISH TEACH, SCOTT AITKEN (HE HAS A MASTER'S OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION) HE'S A BIT OF A GOD IN THE TEACHING GAME 

New York-time square billboards

the time square billboards be turned off at night

For:

*I think there would be no positives to turning of f the lights in time square.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against:

*New York could lose tourism income because  some people might want to go there to experience the night life in New York.

*people that have payed for there brand/company to be advertised on a billboard could be losing money because, people that go to time square at night wont see their billboard and therefor the people advertising could lose money.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Tourism, advertisements, and the billboards all influenced how time square developed. What if we didn't have these 3 elements though? What if the billboards were shut off. New York City is known for their billboards - especially at night time - which is why they should be kept on.

What attracts tourists? The iconic symbols of a city does. In this case, the billboards, the casinos, nightclubs, etc. To get to the casinos and nightclubs, you pass the gazing bright billboards. If they're not there, what's the excitement? Your just driving past those blunt street lights. Or another case, even walking. You'll walk under a patch of light occasionally, and then back into the dark street, maybe bump into an odd traffic light. Tourists want to be fascinated by all of the ideas and colours in every direction. Without them there's no uniqueness to the city, just plain like everywhere else. No billboards, no tourists, less money.

Yeah billboards may cost a lot to turn on, but what's displaying on them? Ads. Ads to your left, ads to your right. It's not just a random slideshow playing, or a movie. Companies pay to get their advertisements put on there, and tourists pay to see the advertisements, it's a win/win right? Everyone profits. What would you profit if you turn them off? Nothing. Picture yourself walking through time square, trying to get around huge crowds at night, except the crowd probably isn't huge anymore. There's no adrenalizing lights glossing in the corner of your eye. It's just not special without them.

When people talk about going places, some people say "well i want to go to New York City to see time square". Immediately you capture a picture in your head of all the exhilarating, appealing billboards. If they were turned off, what are you going to picture? "well i want to go to New York City to see.." to see what? What is going to be as motivating or thrilling as time square lighten up at night. Now when people are talking about going places, New York isn't going to be the place the pops up in their mind. Maybe it'll be Paris for the eiffel tower, or maybe Arizona for the grand canyon. Time Square billboards is what makes it so distinctive.

The billboards should not be turned off. What's the commotion or excitement going to be about? What will motivate people to go there? Night time at time square will be the same as night time in any other place. Keeping them on will continuously benefit everyone.
by:pearl hughes 

my art that was sabotaged by my teacher(special guest writer (Vincent vang gogh)

this is my work and btw vincent van gogh wanyed me to show the world that his death wasnt as simple as it seemed so here u go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrsdntds9kM

Write That Essay sentences

Walt: identify WTE(write that essay) sentences to improve out writing 

simple sentence:
Hornby high school will be moving into new buildings soon.

very short sentence:
Help the turtles dont litter.

the power sentence: 
Don't litter stop global warming, and let the turtles live.

Red,White and Blue:
Kim jong un is fat,short, and ugly.

The adverb start:
Interestingly, Kim jong un doesn't feed his people but can afford to spend thousands on luxury food and drink for him self.

Begin with a preposition: 
In North Korea people are lead to believe that Kim ill sung single-handedly ended the Korean war.

The -ING start:
hoping to start a better life, many north Korean people try to defect (move) to surrounding countries, mainly south Korea.

The -ED start 
committed to becoming as fat as possible, Kim jong un doesn't give any food to the starving people in his country.

The semi-colon
Kim jong un is fat; he looks like a potato.

The EM dash 
Kim jong un -the fat potato- is a overweight spud

The W-start sentence
when Kim jong un was born, north Korea's average weight went up by 20%

Explore the subject 
Kim jong un, who is extremely overweight, likes to play with nuclear bombs.(because he is to scared to throw hands with other world leaders)

my art work that inspired banksy to paint the girl with the balloon

ok so i dont have a photo but banksy hit me up a while ago and said that he was keen to paint one of my pristine crayon drawing on a wall in London.(btw if you are wondering who banksy is he is not hat guy from a band he is actually just a local guy that smokes heaps of weed.
and because he smokes heaps of weed he has very strong thoughts on our society so he just paints things on walls everywhere.
OH and he is a god at pranking the world, yea h remember when he made that photo frame that cut up a painting? yeah he is a GOD
thanks guys bye

Should drugs be aloud in sport?

Should Drugs Should be Allowed in Sport 

For:

*athletes could be able to stay at the top of their game for longer if they wished to(without sustaining a lot of injury's) .

*people wouldn't be able to return from injury faster because they will be able to use different medicines to help their bodies recover.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against:

*some athletes that choose not to take ped's will have a huge disadvantage even if they are more skilled than the other people.
*certain sports could lose some of the competitive feel due to people using ped's
_____________________________________________________
i think that drugs use in sports is a very interesting topic and it has a lot of sides to it. For example one thing you might hear a lot of people saying is "drugs in sports are bad because they give an unfair advantage to the people using them". But sometimes its not that simple see a person could be taking a PED (performance enhancing drug) of other banned substances because they have suffered a bad injury during their training or in their last competitive event.

the first and most backed reason for drugs being allowed in sport is so that athletes would be able to compete at the highest level of their chosen sport for longer. see i compete in MMA(mixed martial arts) and i have heard from a lot of people that have been around the sport for many years that they wish that drugs were aloud, but they don't say this because they want an advantage against their opponents in the cage, they say this because they are only human and they have been competing in a very physically demanding sport for years. So their bodies are starting to wear out and get injured more frequently. So drugs should be aloud in sport because then our favourite fighter or other sport player would be able to stay in their chosen sport for longer and in better health, without as many injuries.

But in sport we all want a to watch a game that is fair, exciting, and competitive, which leads me to my next point which is the leading reason that many sport's brought in drug testing agencies, and this reason is, people that are not on drugs will have a huge disadvantage in their chosen sport because obviously they will not because the people that are using ped's usually have higher testosterone levels which is obviously unfair for men's sport but the people that get caught using TRT (testosterone replacement therapy) the most are female athletes. Some people even use drugs that make their bodies muscle movements more explosive which for a person in a sport like sprinting or mma that is probably the biggest advantage you can have. So if we look at the argument from this point then drugs should not be aloud in sport because people that could otherwise be the best in the world at their sport will just be overshadowed be people that are using drugs, so if you want to know who the real top athletes are? well then join the majority of people and say no to drugs in sport

So now after seeing reasoning for both sides of the story what do you think? do you think that drugs should be aloud in sport, or do you think that they should not be aloud. I think that drugs should not be aloud in sport (at a high level) because as stated above they are just to unfair and even with the current testing in place for athletes many still slip past that and gain that unfair advantage.Do you want to watch fair, and  competitive sport then say NO to drugs