Consistent with my objective this week I will like to highlight an important aspect for us all.

It is the presence of evidence of research. As you are all aware this is a post-graduate programme so students are expected to demonstrate evidence of research in their assignments. The sources of this research are many articles, books, conference papers, online sources etc. These sources some of which you would be referred to in your Reading materials should be read and brought to bear on your work. Try to add your own voice to whatever you read or find. It is not enough to day X said this It is very important to say what you think about what was said. You should reference your sources by using footnotes as you rightly did. In law students are not expected to embed references in the text (e.g. (Oppong, 2007: 300)) as it is done in other disciplines. As you may all be aware, Microsoft Word can number your footnote chronologically for you. What you have to do are these. 1. Place your cursor at the point where you want the footnote to be. 2. Look on the toolbar at the top of your paper and click on References 3. Then click on Insert Footnote a number will appear at the bottom of the paper 4. Type the text of the footnote at where the number appeared. 5. Then you are done! Continue writing and repeat the process when you want to create another footnote. Effective use of an introduction and conclusion is important. A good introduction needs to be strong; grab the reader's attention and encourage the reader to read more. This is important in academic writing. Of course with the word limits that we have you should try to avoid introductions which are too long or excessive. Conclusion needs to be equally strong. Do not leave your reader wondering 'has it ended'? Conclusions are important in academic writing. You should try to capture the essence of your work or arguments in the conclusion. These two aspects of writing are very important.

Orbby/Class, Thank you for your response to my intial response to Sheryl' s post. In the first place l would like to point out that l totaly held the views Sheryl pointed out, but as you know well we as postgraduate students need to keep the discussion active with a critical analysis and contribute to the topic. Regarding Sheryl's post l added to the discussion new ideas which either way, the ideas covered the impact technological devices and software has affected the global community positively or negatively. It is worthy to mention here that despite Sheryl not emphasing the positive and negative aspects of the technological trend in the manner l did, a good critical analysis would clearly show that l agreed with her school of thought but l added more views to the topic. The essence of the discussion in the discussion board is not merely to agree with the principal author but also to agree to disagree and give reasons for the divegiant views. However, even if

certain experiences will allow authors to agree they need to ellaborate further with unique ideas because people do not think alike through out. Bearing this point in mind, that is exactly what l did, l expressed my views from a different perspective and brought in new ideas to make a post discussable but agreeing with the principal author. I should advise that we as students need to take great precaution to guard against the temptation of rushing through to criticise a post without critically analysing it and to copmprehend the logic behind it. Sometimes we may criticise an author who agrees with our point of view except his or her information has been written to include more experiences that may not be held by the principal author, and information need not to be the same between two authors throughout or else that would not be a substantive post because it will not encourage meaningful dialogue. Therefore it is sginificant to understand the line of arguemnet the author has taken to rely information and this is absolutely necessary for us students of law when we take into consideration the judicial precendents. The point lam trying to drive at here is, if a person thinks the principal author meant to say computers are human beings which actually the information does not say so, that leads to misinformation or mispresentation of facts. As students of law it is cardinal to interpret information the way it is presented not to infer or think outside the legal framework. You are welcome to add your views to my observation.