Hello guys, sorry, haven't been here for a long time.

Hiii, sorri I haven't been here for a long time, but I've got school and much exams. I followed back all the peoples who followed me when I wasn't here. So now you can talk with me, I'm online!

(Really not in any need of corrections. Perfect for an online message, and I'm sure you missed "time"by accident :) )

Je cherche aussi :(

(你好Zoe :D 我事帮一忙)

Why there are more  ("more" implies direct comparison, like "比") images of disasters and violence in the media?

Nowadays, disastrous and violent images couldan ("could" is hypothetical, "can" is better in this case since it says it's already possible) be seen frequently in the media. This trend is, radically, an outcome of the audience's psychology and directors' trick.

It is obvious that these images have become popular because people before the small screen (an unusual phrase... you might want to say "on the internet" instead maybe) search for them. When the audience undergo (this word feels strange here) get the visual impact, they feel frightened at first. But in no time, this feeling will be remplaced by excitement and curiosity which keep their eyes on the sceen. Another reason why visual shock is frequent in videos is that TV directors film them deliberatly in order to have a competitive advantage. They insist that without exciting images, it would be too difficult to raise TV ratings.

However, explosure to violence has a significant effect on children and adults who do not have a high mental quality maturity. There are two ways to solve this problem. First of all, authorities should enhance their censorship on TV, films and other visual media by standarising picture quality and eliminating some illegal images. Also, the time of broadcasting of some stimulating ("objectionable", "controversial", "inappropriate"?) work should be fixed in the late of night to avoid children beeing explosed to it children. (a fixed phrase)

To sum up, that thrilling images may be a form of entertainment for part of adult audience, but they should be controlled or improved before the broadcast.

(Hi Steph, great work. Doing well :D I've deliberately been harsh to give more feedback.)

A BOOK

I'm reading a book in english and i can understand it enough easily enough (when using 'enough' with adverbs or adjectives, remember to put it after. e.g. strong enough, good enough, well enough, etc. It only goes before when used with a noun e.g. enough sugar, enough wood, enough goodness :/ ). But when i want to speak, it's very difficult for me. This book is a thriller of Connelly ("by Connelly" if he/she is the author). It's the story of a detective who searches for the murderer of a girl killed twenty years ago. But he also investigates also on a drop the fall (it's just usually called a fall rather than a drop) of a man to find if it's a suicide or if someone pushed him. It's a good book and i recommend it.