<span>I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die among you all.
This shows that she feels she is part of England and is willing to live and die with it. Being such a strong part of something shows that you have the country's best interest in mind because they directly tie to your own best interests.</span>
The correct option is A. even though she had the flu is a sentence fragment.
Answer:
(Answering to the best of my ability, not quite sure on how to answer this though)
Actions speak louder than words, everybody's heard this, but how does it apply to real situations? Do our thoughts and feelings truly have more impact on people? To be frank, yes, and no.
Let's start by talking about Action and intention. Something i always tell myself is that we judge others by their behavior and not their intent, as it's the opposite for us, in order to properly discuss this my must remove any action-based bias. In order to do that let's look over a situation. A well known and respected social media influencer has recently been targeted by a small content creator on the same platform, he sends threatening messages to her in comments at any chance, her fans attack the small creator for this, but what they didn't know was that she abused her children by gaslighting them. See how the situation changes just by seeing his intention? Let that serve as our lesson on action and intention.
Now we can get into the meat and bones of this essay, the contrast of actions and words. there are several instances where actions are more effective, as well as words. The general idea of Actions over words is focusing on saying and not doing, in other words saying you'll do something and doing nothing is pointless while you should just get up and do something. The idea of words over actions stems from the idea that action (mostly violent) won't win over anyone and calm words are more persuasive. There is no real way to say which is better as there are so many possible scenarios that in the end they balance out. what side your on is your choice, or would you rather just be in the middle?
Our forests are 'kept in check' by using controlled fires. When our wild areas can be destroyed. Native plants and animals are pushed out of their homes to not go back for years. Certain aspects of the forest can take up to sixty-five years to regenerate. While this may not seem long to the universe, this can be a life time for us. Yes our forests need fire, but they can do it themselves. Before people came along our wilderness was keeping itself in control for millions of years. But now humans step in and believe that they need to take over everything. We are already cutting down forests for trees and unnecessary housing. So why do we need to get rid of it more? Fires can handle themselves. Forests know what they are doing. But do we?
