text:
Talk:Responses to OCA autocephaly
Does this mean the OCA is not legitimate in the eyes of the Ecumenical Patriarch?
If I belong to the OCA, and the OCA is not autocephalous, whose jurisdiction would they consider me to be under? Am I "noncanonical" then??? Rakovsky 02:56, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
- I don't know for certain, but ISTM that because the OCA and Moscow are in good communion with each other, the Ecumenical Patriarch would, in liturgic settings, consider the OCA to be a metropolis of Moscow. No one in MCB Orthodoxy considers the OCA to be uncanonical - hierarchs and priests of the OCA and of the Ecumenical Patriarch can - and do - concelebrate. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:51, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
- Yep, though it's not just the EP, but any of the churches which don't recognize the OCA's autocephaly. As far as I know (and my knowledge may well be out of date), only Russia, Bulgaria, Poland, Georgia, and the Czech/Slovak churches recognize it (essentially the churches in former Soviet republics which are now independent of the MP). The other nine autocephalous churches do not. When there are international "pan-Orthodox" conferences, the order set by the presiding church (the EP) is used. (See: List of autocephalous and autonomous Churches.) Generally speaking, the OCA does not participate in such conferences, anyhow (possibly because the MP does not invite them as part of its delegation, the only way they'd be universally accepted). —Dcn. Andrew talk contribs 14:39, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
Re: "If I belong to the OCA, and the OCA is not autocephalous, whose jurisdiction would they consider me to be under? Am I "noncanonical" then???" Good question. We started out in a mess at St. Mary of Egypt in Kansas City (David Altschull-Father Paisius). We were with one group in California (Russian), then another in New York (Greek) and it seemed that at every turn we were non-canonical. We eventually ended up in the Serbian Church and we established communion with the other jurisdictions. I was re-Chrismated actually. Through it all, our Orthodoxy was intact but our Church was on the fringe. There have been worse messes, Bulgaria and Ukraine and Georgia come to mind. Meantime, the question most important is, are you in communion with the other jurisdictions. Evidently you are. The rest will be worked out in time. Thomas Simmons 01:51 11 March 2007 (EPT)
Title of Article
It seems to me that this article is wrongly titled. Since this is a modern issue, none of the subjects of this article belong in any way to the Byzantine Empire (any more, that is, than the election of Sarkozy is an event belonging to the Roman Empire). On the other hand, the subjects in question identify themselves (and this is surely what is most important for the title of an encyclopedic article) as Greek Orthodox. On this basis, does anyone have any objections to the retitling of the article 'Greek Orthodox responses ...'? Seminarist 15:29, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. --Fr Lev 15:32, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with Greek Orthodox as a term is that it is too easily identified with Greekness as an ethnicity. It is true that the Orthodox of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem do use the term Greek Orthodox in some contexts (though Rum Orthodox, i.e. "Roman" Orthodox, is the term in Arabic), but their faithful are mostly not ethnic Greeks and Greek Orthodox is not the term used in the English speaking world for many of them.
- Byzantine makes the most sense to me since it is what at least liturgically and culturally groups these churches together, i.e., their having been part of the Byzantine commonwealth. They are the churches of the Byzantine world, despite that world no longer having any political existence. Unfortunately, there really is no one term that would seem to define all these groups together adequately. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 19:01, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
- The other part is that, in the eyes of many, 'Greek Orthodox' is analogous to 'Roman Catholic' - i.e. that 'Greek Orthodox' means 'all Orthodox Churches', which connotes itself to meaning that Orthodoxy in general is opposed to OCA autocephaly - which is not the case (since 5 of 14 support it). — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 21:28, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
How about "Objections to OCA Autocephaly"? --Fr Lev 21:38, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bit better in terms of a neutral approach, but it doesn't make it clear that the article is about a historical response rather than simply listing objections. It also doesn't make it clear that there really is something all those objecting had in common, that they are from the generally Byzantine "pole" of Orthodoxy (as it's currently institutionalized) rather than the Muscovite one. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 22:44, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I'm very uncomfortable with some of the lines of reasoning above, which seem very far from straightforward neutrality:
Of course the Patriarchate of Antioch uses the term 'Rum' in Arabic. But in English, it calls itself the 'Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch' - just as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem calls itself the 'Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem'. In fact, all of the Churches characterised in this article as 'Byzantine' in fact call themselves 'Greek Orthodox' in English. None of them, however, call themselves 'Byzantine'.
Against suggestions to the contrary, within Orthodoxy, the expression 'Greek Orthodox' simply does not denote an ethnicity, but rather an ecclesio-liturgical heritage. The Churches which call themselves 'Greek Orthodox' are all territorial not ethnic Churches, and they have many members which are not ethnically Greek - the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, indeed, are predominately non-Hellenic in ethnicity. As such, there's no sense that 'Greek Orthodox' is in its proper sense an ethnic designation. (Of course, one of the things which sometimes creates the false impression that 'Greek Orthodox' is an ethnic characterisation are Orthodox people who refuse to allow the expression to be used in anything other than an ethnic sense.)
Moreover, there is in reality no such thing as an 'institutionalized' 'Byzantine "pole" of Orthodoxy'. There are different Churches, none of which call themselves 'Byzantine'. Byzantium is a past historical phenomenon, whereas these Churches are living realities in the present, and it does them a great disservice to characterise these Churches primarily as 'Byzantine', as to do so makes them look like relics of a bygone empire. (Indeed, what these Churches have in common is not especially Byzantine - none of their members have been Byzantines since for the last 500 years; many of their saints - e.g. St John of Damascus - were never Byzantines; their liturgical books are in several respects further removed in content from Byzantine liturgy than are, e.g. Slavic liturgical books; and their liturgical music is for the most part to be dated to the Turkokrateia, not to Byzantium.) Accordingly, to call these Churches 'Byzantine' seems rather disingenuous.
So, since all of the Churches which are being grouped in this article are 'Byzantine' in fact call themselves 'Greek Orthodox', and since none of them call themselves 'Byzantine', shall we not call them what they call themselves - 'Greek Orthodox'? Really, there is no good and neutral reason for denying them their own self-chosen name. Seminarist 02:20, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
How about "Greek Objections to OCA Autocephaly"? --Fr Lev 02:33, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
- Would work if it didn't include the Patriarch of Antioch (as Patr. Elias was an Arab) - since 'Greek' can't be interpreted as anything other than ethnicity.
- Perhaps 'Inter-Orthodox reactions to OCA autocephaly' would do the trick? Reactions does mean something fairly immediate, after all. Or 'repercussions'. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 02:46, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
- It is true that the Church of Antioch is known as "Greek Orthodox" in its official documents, but the vast majority of the English-speaking world refers to it as "Antiochian," which is reflected in the official names of Antioch's dioceses among Anglophones. It's not a question of "denying" official names but of using the term most familiar to English-speaking Orthodox which leads them immediately to understand what's being referred to. I firmly believe that Greek Orthodox response to OCA autocephaly would be interpreted by most English-speaking Orthodox to refer solely to a response from the Church of Greece (many aren't even aware that the Greek Orthodox of the diaspora are under Constantinople!).
- How about Ancient patriarchates' response to OCA autocephaly? That doesn't precisely include the Church of Greece, though it might be a good compromise name. My concern with Pistevo's wording is that it would require the article to be expanded considerably to include the "other side" of the question, which isn't adequately covered in the sources (Anyone have some other sources? Was there even a response from all the churches?). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:12, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with "Ancient patriarchates'", particularly if some of the others were created as redirect pages (for Google's benefit or whatnot). — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 01:20, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think 'Ancient Patriarchates' will do, since one of the subjects of the article is the Church of Greece, which is neither ancient nor a patriarchate. As such, the title is positively inaccurate and really won't do.
- I do understand the comment about 'Antiochian' being a normal adjectival designation of the Church of Antioch in the US. And were the article primarily about the American Antiochian Archdiocese, I would agree that 'Greek Orthodox' would not be the best description. However, the article is not primarily concerned with the American Antiochians, but with the Patriarchate of Antioch in Damascus - which does call itself 'Greek Orthodox' rather than 'Antiochian'.
- It's very clear that the subjects of this article all identify themselves as 'Greek Orthodox', and that the meaning of the expression 'Greek Orthodox' within worldwide Orthodoxy is not to denote an ethnic group but to denote the ecclesio-liturgical tradition of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Sinai. And whilst the expression 'Greek Orthodox' does specifically identify the Churches which are the subject of this article, I can't think of any other suitable expressions which do so - nor do any others seem forthcoming.
- As for the issue about people misunderstanding the meaning of 'Greek Orthodox', I simply don't agree that the title 'Greek Orthodox' is misleading. Within worldwide Orthodoxy, there's no difficulty with recognising the unity of the Greek Orthodox Churches as 'Greek Orthodox'. Maybe there are a few people who don't know what the expression means, and maybe there are even a few who would like to suppress the expression 'Greek Orthodox'. But neither consideration justifies not allowing the expression 'Greek Orthodox' to be used in its proper Orthodox sense in an Orthodox wiki (particularly when there are no obvious alternatives).
- I think that there is a general principle that when an expression has a proper sense within Orthodoxy, Orthodoxwiki should not avoid using it (particularly where there seem to be no suitable alternatives) 'just in case' someone doesn't understand it.
- (In fact, it seems to me that the argument against using the expression 'Greek Orthodox' is this: We suspect that some people will incorrectly understand the expression 'Greek Orthodox' to mean an ethnic group; therefore we should not use the expression 'Greek Orthodox' in its normal ecclesio-liturgical sense [implying that the only sense in which we should allow the expression to be used is in the incorrect ethnic sense]. I really don't find such reasoning convincing.)
- So I say again: these Churches all call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'; there are no alternative locutions forthcoming; so let's describe these Churches by the description with which they describe themselves - 'Greek Orthodox'. Seminarist 02:46, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
- The standard differentiation that I've seen between the two predominant liturgic traditions in Orthodoxy is 'Byzantine' and 'Slavic'. Clothe it in as much theological callisthenics as you like, the two overwhelmingly predominant usages of the term 'Greek Orthodox' is either for 'belonging to the Churches of either Constantinople or Greece' and/or 'the Eastern Orthodox Church under a different name', and OrthodoxWiki is not the place to initiate a change in meaning for terminology, simply where accepted terminology is used in the way that it is commonly understood.
- Even if we accept that, the Churches of Cyprus and Albania (not sure on which side Romania stands) did not respond to the proclamation of autocephaly, so it has equal or lesser justification than 'Ancient Patriarchates'. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 05:52, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to be sharp here, but it's simply not true to say that those are the two 'overwhelmingly predominant uses' of the term. The fact is that the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, etc. all call themselves Greek Orthodox, and everywhere these Churches are to be found you find this use of the term 'Greek Orthodox'. Since this usage not only widespread but also (and more importantly) the chosen self-designation of these Churches, it is not only a common usage, but also a proper and normative usage, and in this sense is far more appropriate than the non-normative and inaccurate description of 'ancient patriarchates'.
- I'm sure you'd agree that it should be a principle of an encyclopedic article that it should use terms in their proper senses, and that it should call Churches by the names which they themselves call themselves. I think to refuse to do so is really to impose a personal POV onto the article.
- I suspect that if your linguistic observations hold anywhere, they hold within elements the Antiochian Archdiocese in America and within some non-Arab converts who belong to Antiochian Churches in Britain or former British territories. But these are very particular cases motivated by desire to distinguish Antiochian Churches and Antiochian non-ethnic ecclesiality from Constantinoplitan Churches and 'Greek ethnicism'. But such usage is particular and certainly not normal across worldwide Orthodoxy. I think there's a danger here of projecting non-standard anglophone-convert linguistic usages onto Orthodoxy as a whole.
- BTW, if in fact the Church of Cyprus did not make a declaration re OCA autocephaly, that does not invalidate entitling this article 'Greek Orthodox responses', since the scope of the article is to cover all Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly, and the non-response of Cyprus does not mean that the other responses are not collectively 'the Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly' (i.e. all the Greek Orthodox responses which in fact exist). However, since the Church of Greece did respond and since it is not an 'ancient patriarchate' it is positively wrong to title the article 'responses of Ancient Patriarchates'. Seminarist 16:53, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to liturgical usages, I've always heard "Byzantine" and "Greek" used interchangably, and the same with "Slavic" and "Russian", so I don't think an appeal to liturgical usages should be dispositive. In which tradition does the Church of Georgia stand? It began under the influence of the Byzantine Empire and was then under the jurisdiction of the Church of Antioch, although it was politically a part of the Soviet Union. I think "Byzantine" is at least as misleading as "Greek." The least misleading solution would be to call the article "Responses to ..." without any qualifier for "responses." The article should then also feature the Churches that have recognized the OCA's autocephaly. There should also be a change to the folowing sentence in the article: "The Muscovite-Metropolia arguments (made on canonical, historical and practical grounds) being refuted by the Byzantine Orthodox world may essentially be summarized ...." The primary meaning of "refute" is "to prove wrong", and I assume that this isn't NPOV. --Fr Lev 11:42, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that 'Byzantine' is at least as misleading as 'Greek'. But I would like to push it a little further. Talking about 'Byzantine' liturgy, etc. etc. is a distinctively modern usage, belonging to a movement in Greece which is centred in Thessaloniki, and which dates from the end of the first half of the twentieth century, and which sought to go 'back to Byzantium'. It is a contentious matter within the Greek world. To give one example, in Cyprus there is a hostility towards the elimination of local Cypriot traditions (e.g. in liturgy or in the style of Church architecture) by people (often priests trained in Thessaloniki) who import this non-Cypriot 'Byzantine' style into Cyprus. And, it is a fact that in many respects the contemporary Greek liturgy (the liturgy which gets called 'Byzantine') contains developments which are considerably less than 500 years old, and which are not contained in the Slavic liturgies (which are translations of older, and genuinely Byzantine, forms of Greek liturgy), so that in these respects, the Slavic liturgies are more 'Byzantine' than the ones which are called 'Byzantine'.
- I agree with your point re the Church of Georgia. I think a similar point can be made with the Romanian Church. In such cases you have Churches which historically have been Byzantine, but which have subsequently undergone a degree of separate liturgical sufficient to make it problematic to speak of them as 'Greek Orthodox' Churches. I certainly would not want to call either 'Greek Orthodox', but think that they are rather distinctive traditions, which combine Greek, Russian and indigenous elements.
- I also agree with your observations on the POV sentence. Seminarist 16:53, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
In hopes that this may provide a bit of focus in this discussion:
- Remember that article titles are not to make some sort of statement or represent anyone's official position.
- Article titles should use the most common term in English-speaking Orthodoxy (with some allowance made for extremely common usages outside Orthodoxy in certain cases).
- The point in titling articles is to help the reader find what he's looking for. An article with an obscure but "technically correct" title is less likely even to be read.
All that being said, I honestly don't think there's a single term which groups the churches in question in this article (EP, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem & Greece) all together in a way which is technically correct and yet also meaningful in terms of what they have in common (something which Fr. John Romanides terms Romanity, which is a lovely term but meaningless to most readers). Byzantine is the best I can come up with, but I acknowledge that it's not accurate in all possible ways. Just how does one describe with a single term those multi-ethnic, multi-national churches which share a heritage arising from a shared history in the Eastern Roman Empire and the strong liturgical influence of the typikon of the Great Church? "Mediterranean Orthodox" might work, but it's altogether a bit too fanciful and not remotely clear in what it refers to.
What does seem to be clear is that there was a united front which opposed the OCA's autocephaly when it was declared and that that front has a great deal in common. How one describes what it is they have in common in a single term which is recognizable to the non-specialist (i.e., 99% of encyclopedia readers) is the question for the titling of this article.
Please, folks, make sure you read the Style Manual, because it addresses most (though not all) of the arguments put forward here thus far, and it does represent official OrthodoxWiki policy. Policy is of course always negotiable, but you'll have a lot of convincing to do of the entire administration.
Anyway, I'd be willing to settle for Response to OCA autocephaly with redirects from Byzantine response to... and Greek Orthodox response to... I don't think it's the best option—since it leaves out entirely the very something ("Romanity?") which these churches share, and it also then necessitates a major reworking of the article to include the positive responses, as well—but if it's the consensus favorite, I'd be willing to run with it.
And, by the way, refute can mean "to prove wrong by argument or evidence," but it also can mean "to deny the truth or accuracy of." Just because one offers a refutation does not necessarily mean one is correct. Rebut may well be better, though. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 01:26, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Really ... proving one has the biggest dictionary ... boys will be boys ... Seminarist 06:21, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
Church Formal Position
No matter how much you all discuss these matters, you MUST follow the churches formal terminologies otherwise (a) You DO NOT represent the Chalcedonean Church (as your core objectives state) and (b) you are in breach of the formal approach of the church - and who are all of you to change what the church has as official? Be carefull that you all do not end up creating your OWN religion without the approvals of the church ... Vasiliki 05:00, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
- With all respect, Vasiliki, what are you talking about? Do you really believe that trying to come up with useful titles for encyclopedia articles which may happen to differ from official nomenclature is a betrayal of Orthodoxy? A different religion? (Not to mention that the official names of various churches have changed over the centuries!)
- In any event, I cannot see how it would be even remotely useful to have an article entitled Response of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, New Rome; the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa; the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East; the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine; and the Orthodox Church of Greece to the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America (sic). Heck, why stop there? Shouldn't we be giving those titles in Katherevousa and Arabic, if we want to be really accurate? Forgive my somewhat exaggerated and incredulous language here, but it seems to be the only appropriate way to answer a near-accusation of heresy being tossed out for the heinous sin of titling articles!
- All that aside, it is explicitly against OrthodoxWiki policy for editorial control of the wiki to be placed in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities, mainly because they sometimes differ from one another or even from the truth itself! Please, Vasiliki, let us use common sense. Full ecclesiastical titles are too unwieldy to use as article titles in many cases, and this is one of them. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 01:08, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
Dont jump down my throat and assume that I am asking for you to use the term Greek Orthodox or to use LONG extensive titles but cant you all keep it simple and perhaps rephrase the entire sentence to keep the conflict out of the article and the endless pages of discussions which end up being confusing in themselves? Byzantine is not a correct term to use (full stop) and the OCA is now within the church so why you guys have endless pages of discussion is beyond my understanding ... perpaps give it a date? Something like "Response to the OCA 1200-1500" (I dont know what the period of time that you guys are referring to ... and I am more than happy for you to call me an idiot one more time! Foolishness is a great quality! Vasiliki 01:37, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
You are also wrong in assuming that I have asked you to give control to an Ecclesiastical body. However, since this site is representing the church I am suggesting that we should still observe the formalities of the church. Vasiliki
I also want to point out that I am not a political person who has certain 'bias' towards any particular church and even though I am Greek please do not go assuming everytime I post an opinion that I am a pro-Nationalist Greek and respond in a manner that clearly shows that that is what you think I am thinking. I dont have agendas I am not smart enough for that ... I just am interested in reminding people of humility and humility includes not going overboard on certain topics that are not within our right to 'define'. Vasiliki 02:03, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- And here, I thought it was my own throat which had your boot-tread firmly planted within it, what with that near-accusation of heresy! :)
- Anyway, I don't make any of those assumptions. I assume that you are editing in good faith and trying to do what you believe is best for the wiki. Me, too! I try my best not to let my own ecclesiastical loyalties dominate my editing. I do have a fierce loyalty to the English language, though, which I think is probably a useful thing in writing an encyclopedia in English. In the case of an encyclopedia in English about Orthodoxy, one of English's most useful traits (IMO) is its longstanding tradition of assimilating terms from multiple languages. This makes finding the best terminology a somewhat more complicated task, though, especially since Orthodoxy hasn't been in English (in the modern era) for very long.
- Anyway, please try not to be disturbed by the lengthy wrangling over terminology. Writing an encyclopedia is much like writing a dictionary—figuring out the best terminology is going to be one of its main occupations. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:49, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
Hi Father, I do not accuse you of heresy ... no way, it is common in christian history for good christian's to have different points of view without either party actually being heretical ... I dont feel you are heretical and I know I am not heretical ... My point was not against you personally, all I did was post a long article to remind everyone in this forum that though it is a good thing to be creating an Encyclopedia ... we should be careful when adopting or changing terminology that is not approved by the formal church. The internet has the power to over-ride reality and each Wiki Editor must take care to remind themselves that once something is documented it becomes a pseudo-reality to the people who read the information ... we therefore must be loyal to what our paternal fathers have passed down in tradition. I therefore agree with Seminarist in the sence that the orthodox church has been referred to for centuries as Greek Orthodox but that not as a reference to the Nation of Greece (although, what is wrong with Greek people? I am one of them and I am a lovely and warm person!). LOL.
However, though I say that, I do not agree that this article should portray either the name Byzantine nor should it have Greek Orthodox because basically (as editors) we should be smarter than that and adapt a more neutral choice (see my vote below). Vasiliki 23:00, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
Common Sense, or Anti-Greek Madness??
Fr Andrew, I can't accept this POV hostility towards Greek Orthodoxy.
Let's look at the issue: these Churches are all Greek Orthodox Churches - they all call themselves "Greek Orthodox". Even the Patriarchate of Antioch is the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. This is really simple - I can't believe that that you're wriggling to avoid this with bogus objections.
Let's be clear on the facts:
- It is not 'obscure' to call a Church by its own name.
- The title 'Greek Orthodox' is not a 'specialist' title - it is the title these Churches put on press-releases, and it is the title they are routinely accorded in the media.
Look at the rationality of the position you're maintaining: you are saying that these Churches should not be called 'Greek Orthodox Churches' - even though (a) they call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'; and even though (b) the media calls them 'Greek Orthodox'. You're saying that, whilst the title 'Greek Orthodox' is good enough for the Churches themselves, and whilst it's good enough for the media, it's not good enough for Orthodoxwiki!
Tell me you've not got a POV agenda!
I don't agree with changing the scope of the article. The article just needs to be given a proper name, not rewritten. It's obvious that the article is about Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly; it's obvious that there is no more suitable collective title for these Churches than 'Greek Orthodox'; and therefore it's obvious that the title should be 'Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly'... Surely we can finally agree on that?? Seminarist 06:21, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- I've not got a POV agenda! :)
- The irony of being accused of "Anti-Greek Madness" here is that while at seminary, I was accused of being a Hellenophile! I even recall my strident campaign in favor of Orthros here on OW over Matins (which I lost). I can't seem to win. :)
- All I'm really after is a term which makes the most sense in terms of referential resonance (i.e., what is the first thing a searcher is likely to look up?) and accuracy (i.e., what is the best term to represent what we're talking about?). If the consensus is for Greek Orthodox, then I'm honestly fine with that. As you know, my vote is for Byzantine (I researched, wrote and titled this article originally).
- I've repeated this a few times, but I'll at least say that my main objection to the term Greek Orthodox for this article is that at least for a major segment of those being represented (i.e., the Antiochians, represented by their patriarch, but not limited to him), this is not the term that most English speakers would use. My other objection to the use of this term for this article is that in the minds of most English speakers, it is more limited than the scope of the article itself (i.e., it mainly conjures up images of Greece). In both cases, there are major parties to the content of this article which are not, in my opinion, best represented by the term.
- BTW, while I will gladly admit to "madness," I would hope that you would refrain from throwing such terms around too freely. The standard on OrthodoxWiki is to assume that all editors are acting in good faith (until they prove otherwise, which they sometimes do), which I protest that I am! I was one of the founding editors of OrthodoxWiki and have been editing on it since December of 2004, beginning and significantly contributing to hundreds of articles. (In fact, about 1/6th of all edits on the wiki have been mine.) I hope that my commitment is clear.
- Anyway, I will gladly submit to the will of the consensus if Greek Orthodox is the term preferred by most editors interested in this article. As a sysop, I wouldn't consider it (in this case) a "tyranny of the majority" if the vote went that way. Let's do a straw poll. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Well, to take the last point first, I don't for a second think that you are mad! However, I do think it is madness not to recognise that these different Patriarchates are 'Greek Orthodox' patriarchates, for the reasons I have already given. I also think it betrays a POV agenda, which only wants to allow the use of the title 'Greek Orthodox' to describe 'ethnically-Greek Orthodoxy'.
- In the minds of most people, all of the Churches which are the subject of this article are "Greek Orthodox". This is because the Churches themselves call themselves "Greek Orthodox", and because the media calls them "Greek Orthodox". So you really cannot assert that 'in the minds of most English speakers' "Greek Orthodox" just means Greece.
- I appreciate you coming clean that what you really mean is that you don't want the Patriarch of Antioch to be called 'Greek Orthodox', essentially because the converts in the American Antiochian Archdiocese don't think of themselves or the Patriarch as 'Greek Orthodox'. But really, that is reflective of a deeper internal problem within the Antiochian Archdiocese - how does it maintain the historic identity of the Antiochian Patriarchate (which is Greek Orthodox) when it has such a large number of culturally Protestant converts who, for various reasons, don't want to be thought of as 'Greek Orthodox'?
- I don't doubt for a second your commitment to Orthodoxwiki. But you have given me cause to wonder about the nature of that commitment. You do seem to have a blind-spot to the peculiarities of your own Antiochian-convert position, which you rather glibly project onto 'the minds of most English speakers'. In this discussion, you have been promoting the views of one minority group in Orthodoxy as if it were the default-position of speakers of the English language. This has led you to repeatedly avoid using the title by which your own Patriarch calls himself. That should surely alert you to the fact that there is something in your position which is not above board. Seminarist 19:27, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Alas, this is neither the first or last time in which I have been accused of having a hidden agenda. I must admit to some amusement at surveying such accusations with regard to their own diametric opposition when taken together! I have described myself variously as "Greek Orthodox," "Eastern Orthodox," "Orthodox Christian, "Russian Orthodox," "Antiochian Orthodox," "Orthodox Catholic," "traditional Christian," etc. I raise eyebrows just as much when I chant Eti kai eti as much as I do with AiDan wa aiDan, Paki i paki or Iara si iara (and occasionally even "Again and again"!). I've also been called a lot of things: Hellenophile, Russophile, Hellenophobe, Russophobe, anti-cradle, anti-convert, modernist, traditionalist, fascist, liberal, etc., etc. They're all quite silly. One might also wonder perhaps whether you have the Hellenophilia of the sort which identifies Orthodoxy with Hellenism. In either case, one would be off the mark with regard to OrthodoxWiki. Ad hominem is always pointless here. Let's avoid it altogether, shall we?
- Anyway, it's not a question of "converts" in the Antiochian Archdiocese. Greek isn't in the official archdiocesan title, and I think we can safely say that the title wasn't dreamt up by converts! It doesn't matter who came up with it, anyway. (Ad hominem once again!) What matters is what the most common and useful reference term is.
- As I said, I'd be willing to accept Greek Orthodox if that's what the consensus is. I'll even fight against my "Anti-Greek Madness" and make the change myself! (And, by the way, you haven't yet put your mark below. Please do so!) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 21:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- A sense of humour!!!
- I must admit though that I'm not so sure you should be looking at people's eyebrows when you say eti kai eti...
- In any case, you are still dodging the issues...
- The Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as well as the Church of Greece, all call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'. The media also routinely calls them 'Greek Orthodox'. This is a normal, neutral, non-misleading usage.
- Against this, you have not provided any good reasons for your claim that calling these Churches 'Greek Orthodox', the title they call themselves, is 'misleading'.
- In fact, it seems you just expect me to take your word for it!
- But I'm not going to do that - since that would be ad hominem!! Seminarist 06:30, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
- I've given my reasons and the arguments behind them in several different ways above. I understand that you're not convinced by them (i.e., they are not "good reasons"). I don't really have anything further to add. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 12:36, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
- Well, actually you've not given any arguments. You made an unsupported assertion that it is misleading to use 'Greek Orthodox' to mean something other than 'ethnically or nationally Greek'. I have explained repeatedly why that cannot be true (namely that it is normal in the media to call certain Churches which are not ethnically or nationally Greek 'Greek Orthodox', and that these Churches call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'). You clearly hold that your unargued opinion and assertion carries more weight than either the authority of these Churches themselves, or established use in the English-language media. That is rather self-inflated. But more importantly, it is a rejection of the λόγος (since it says that you don't need to give reasons for your views, as the fact that you hold them is all that matters). This has always been a fundamental difference between Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism: Orthodoxy is the religion of the λόγος, whereas Protestantism is the religion of personal conviction. Seminarist 23:10, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
- I do not assert and do not believe that "it is misleading to use 'Greek Orthodox' to mean something other than 'ethnically or nationally Greek'." As for the rest, as I said, I'm done. I won't be goaded into a continuing back-and-forth rehashing the same stuff. Let us suffice it to say that I've said my piece and you think it's rubbish. I'm okay with that.
- I must say, though, that it is a bit nasty to claim that I'm rejecting Jesus Christ (the Logos) by asserting such a thing (despite the irony that I do not assert it)! It really is inappropriate to claim that those with whom you disagree have some sort of hidden agenda, that they're gripped by "madness," or (worst yet) that they are apostates. I strongly suggest that you cut it out. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 02:19, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you've changed your mind re the title 'Greek Orthodoxy'. (Previously you said that it would be misleading to use the title, because it made people think of Greekness in some ethnic or national sense.)
- You repeatedly say that I have accused you of a "hidden agenda". I have at no point made that accusation, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't impugn motives at the same time as crying foul over being (supposedly) accused of having a "hidden agenda". Neither did I at any point accuse you of being an apostate. In future, get your facts straight before you start issuing imperatives. For the record, I think you're confused on the issue of what it is to be 'Greek Orthodox'. I think you've quite openly promoted a perspective which is distinctive to converts of the American Antiochian Archdiocese. I think you've acted in a haughty and non-rational manner, by repeatedly avoiding giving reasons for your claims and by speaking as if your word should by itself entail acceptance of your position. You can twist what I said about the logos into an accusation about personal conviction if you want, but that would only confirm the point I made.
- In any case, this is going nowhere. It's clear from what is below there is now a consensus, and in light of that I've made a new and constructive suggestion below, and I hope the discussion can proceed appropriately. As far as I'm concerned this segment of the discussion with you has run its course. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Seminarist 02:53, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll on title
The following is a straw poll on the proposed renaming of this article. Since there has been disagreement over it, its results may be analyzed by the administration to determine what the best course of action may be. (It is ONLY considered as a recommendation, not as legislation.) You may place your vote beneath your preferred term. You may wish to note first, second, third, fourth preferences, etc. (Feel free to change your vote if you change your mind or if new choices are presented.)
- Byzantine response to... (the current name)
- First choice. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Third choice. -- Andrew 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Greek Orthodox response to...
- Fourth choice. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Second choice. --Fr Lev 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Third Choice. Frjohnwhiteford 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- Response to...
- Third choice. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- First choice. --Fr Lev 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- First choice. -- Andrew 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- This is now my Second choice. -- Vasiliki 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- First and only choice. -- Peter 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- First choice. (I'd enjoy seeing 'Responses to', but since I'm not willing to put in the time to enormously expand the article, myself...) — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 06:41, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- Second Choice. Frjohnwhiteford 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- Ancient patriarchates' response to...
- Second choice. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Non-Slavic Churches' response to...
- Second choice. -- Andrew 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Ecumenical Patriarchate's response to...
- Seems like this would be the more precise title. Frjohnwhiteford 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- If it is only the Ecumenical Patriarch's response(s) that this article is reviewing. Would it be better to use the title Inistea proposed (below) since that would allow the flexibility to take into consideration 'other' responses not limited to the EP alone? Vasiliki 23:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- If push came to shove, this would be my Third choice - although I get the impression its NOT JUST his response this article infers. Vasiliki 23:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America
Hi all. I do think this is an interesting conversation, and I wonder if some of the differences here result from a different sense about the ways these terms are used in different parts of the world.
I am in substantial agreement with Fr. Andrew's reasoning. I find either "Byzantine..." or "Responses to" acceptable. If the article is titled "Responses...", I think Fr. Andrew's points should be made early on in the article for the sake of clarity. The other options feel wrong to me. It seems "Responses to..." would be the way to go here, although something like "Critiques of...", "Opposition to" or "Arguments against..." would be even better and more precise.
Vasiliki and Seminarist -- please tone down the rhetoric a bit. I don't think it's necessary...
Yours in Christ, — FrJohn (talk) 02:11, May 21, 2008 (UTC) (a priest of the OCA)
If we change this to "Responses to...", I'll be happy to add a small section at the top of the article that simply tells which autocephalous Churches have recognized the autocephaly of the OCA. --Fr Lev 14:11, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: Arguments for and against OCA autocephaly
Since the article includes not only various responses to OCA autocephaly, but also the canonical arguments which underlay the grant of autocephaly in the first place - and since the consensus seems to be grativating towards broadening the explicit scope of the article beyond simply the Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly - perhaps it would be good to call the article Arguments for and against OCA autocephaly? That would reflect both the contents of the article as it stands, whilst being inclusive enough to cover the broadened scope being suggested. Seminarist 23:13, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- Though I am more inclined to agree with your thinking regarding the various issues surrounding the terminology of "Greek Orthodox" I would not have to agree with you on your choice of name for the article because the word "Argument" in itself is a word that in the psychology of the brain will incite people into an editing war :-) I personally would steer away from using words that are not in their essence "Thetikes" (positive or neutral). Thoughts? - Vasiliki 23:29, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the bulk of the article seems to consist of arguments people have given for and against OCA autocephaly. To use your metaphor, the whole issue is, as it were, an 'edit war' over the 'editing' of the status of the OCA by the Moscow patriarchate - with some Churches and theologians giving arguments why they think the edit was correct, and others giving the reasons why the edit was wrong. And I don't think that "argument" is primarily a psychological matter; unlike eristic and rhetoric (which are psychological), argument is logical - it's to do with providing (dialectical) reasons for a position. Seminarist 01:02, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I too took some offence to the use of the word "rhetoric" although, I dont take offence by the person who used it because he is a very gentle and peaceable peace ... I quite like him from my experience of being on OW but the word "rhetoric" was strong and it felt almost one sided when it is quite easy to "debate" that "rhetorics" exist on both sides ... its just some people conclude there "rhetorics" with a single sentence and others use paragraphs. LOL. Vasiliki 01:16, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Can I suggest then that we take out the reasons for the granting of OCA autocephaly, and put them in the full OCA article, so that this article contains only responses to the grant of autocephaly, rather than the reasons for its being granted in the first place? Seminarist 04:23, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, these reasons are relevant here, even if some need working on. Perhaps they could be moved to a place after the "Arguments against..." as a kind of response to these criticisms. A couple other things occur to me related to this article: If I remember correctly, the name "Orthodox Church in America" was taken rather than "Orthodox Church of America" precisely as a recognition of the other Orthodox bodies in the U.S. Also, while Russian jurisdiction over the U.S. was pretty commonly assumed before the Russian Revolution, I don't think there was any claim from 1920-1970, as the article seems to indicate. Finally, while the part about lack of unity between three separate bodies related to the Russian church is true today, the Patriarchal church in NY functioned more as an "Embassy" church for some time, along with the limited number of parishes which desired to stay directly under Moscow. ROCOR was only restored to communion more recently. I think some charity must be granted on all sides with the realization that these schisms are directly a result of Communism... one hopes that, in time, they will be healed (as we are seeing now with the Serbs, Romanians, etc.). — FrJohn (talk) 23:08, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is one of the reasons given for OCA autocephaly the fact that the Metropolitan is "humble?" That may be true, but it's a far cry from a canonical argument...


text:
Happy puzzle day to all! Here's today's rompecabeza:
That's all I'm giving you for now, but check back here periodically, as I may post hints if needed. And remember, the correct solution and the correct methodology must be submitted to receive full credit. Solutions arrived at through luck or trial & error - even if correct - receive participation credit only (credit towards what, you ask? Credit towards this.)
Please comment freely, but if you think you have the solution, please don't give away the answer to everyone in the comments section. Instead, do the following:
- Email us your solution explanation (and please include your screen name somewhere in the email), and
- Post a comment simply saying you have emailed your solution attempt so I know to check our email.
Please be patient if I'm unable to respond right away. Solutions accepted until 6am PT tomorrow, July 25. Thanks, and good luck to all!
Update: Please note that due to my schedule, the submission deadline has moved from 10am PT tomorrow to 6am PT tomorrow. Thanks.
Hint #1 (1:59pm): Baseball-reference.com might be helpful, but not for stats.
Hint #2 (3:24pm): I could not include either Mike Scioscia nor Jackie Robinson, as neither worked within the puzzle's methodology.
Hint #3 (4:37pm): Hmmm, let's see. Think about the path of each of the players' careers. If this were a Laker blog, I wouldn't be able to include Kobe Bryant. But Shaq I could, a few different ways.
Hint #4 (5:17pm): ...Kareem I could include, Magic no...Wilt yes, West no...Byron Scott yes, Worthy no...
Final Hint (5:30pm): Fred, Dan, or Kevin should be able to solve this one immediately.
Solution: Click here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Press Keyboard right side: Alt+Enter keys to switch to full screen game play, and Alt+Enter keys to return.
How to play Archery
Each game uses different controls, most DOS games use the keyboard arrows. Some will use the mouse.
Archery Description
Archery for DOS by Brian Blankenship
Cheats/Hints/Walkthroughs for Archery
No posted cheats for this game yet.


text:
In the depths of winter, adults, as well as children, exert themselves to engage in enjoyable outdoor activities that will keep them warm and provide both excitement and entertainment. Cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, sledding, ice hockey, figure skating, and speed skating all have their enthusiasts.
Many people are proficient in multiple winter sports. Others have no discernible degree of skill, yet persist owing to the exhilaration and good feelings that are obtained by asserting oneself in the face of freezing temperatures. Even in Southern California, where the winter temperatures are laughably warm compared to those registered in places where it gets authentically cold, residents feel the bite of winter. Even in warmer areas, children and anyone young at heart can visit ice rinks in neighborhoods malls and get a sense of what it's like to skate on frozen water.
Importantly, participation in winter sports may often lead to injury, owing in large part to the physical momentum involved in skating, skiing, and sledding. Although injuries are often random and result from unfortunate circumstances, we can take many protective measures to help prevent an injury, despite having sustained a hard fall on the ice or a rough tumble downhill.
Proper preparation for any winter outdoor activity includes making sure that your body is up to the task. We get ourselves ready for sports-type engagement by participating in regular physical exercise. When we do aerobic exercises, we're training our heart, lungs, and circulatory system to increase their efficiency. Over time, we become better able to breathe more deeply, providing increased amounts of oxygen to power our muscles and other metabolic processes.
When we do strength-training exercises, we're developing the ability of our muscles and bones to support and maneuver with increased mechanical loads — abilities needed for skiing and skating and other winter sports. Additionally, cardiovascular and strength-training exercises enhance the capabilities of our proprioceptive system, a network of nerve endings that help our bodies make instantaneous decisions regarding balance and position in three-dimensional space, subconscious skills that are critical to the successful enjoyment of winter activities.
Regular chiropractic care is a key component of our winter sports planning. Regular chiropractic care detects and corrects sources of nerve interference and restores and supports optimal mechanical function of the spinal column, our body's mechanical center. By making sure we are getting regular chiropractic care, we help ourselves get the most out of our exercise programs. In this way, regular chiropractic care helps us stay healthy, avoid injury, and have outdoor fun all winter long.


text:
(574) 264-4354
53894 County Road 9 Elkhart, IN 46514
About carpet
Browse carpet
Carpet tile
About carpet tile
Browse carpet tile
About hardwood
Solid plank flooring
Engineered wood flooring
Browse hardwood
About laminate
Laminate flooring
Browse laminate
About tile
Browse tile
Luxury vinyl
About luxury vinyl
Browse luxury vinyl
Waterproof Flooring
About waterproof flooring
Browse waterproof
Natural stone
Glass tile
About glass tile
Browse glass tile
Metal tile
Area rugs
About area rugs
Area rug styles
Modern contemporary rugs
See all products
About us
Shop at home
Our work
Who we are
What are you looking for?
Engineered wood flooring
Engineered wood flooring has been one of the more remarkable innovations to hit the market in flooring. Engineered wood flooring is not made from solid hardwood but may be your best substitute to solid hardwood floor. It consists of several layers, with only the top layer being the actual hardwood that gives it a beautiful appearance. The layers below are explicitly designed to give you the greatest protection and the most functional flooring for just about any room of the house.
Engineered wood flooring has many advantages over solid hardwood that make it very appealing. For one thing, engineered wood flooring is not as expensive as solid hardwood flooring. Engineered is actually produced with three to five layers of wood with the top layer being the genuine hardwood. Each layer is stacked in a cross-grain configuration and bonded together under heat and pressure in a factory setting. As a result, engineered wood flooring is less prone to be affected by changes in humidity and can be installed on all levels of the home. The other layers of the engineered wood flooring are usually plywood or high density fiberboard. Engineered wood floors will not contract or expand with changes in temperature and humidity as solid hardwood does.
Engineered wood flooring can be installed over just about any type of existing floor and is very adaptable to a number of diverse applications. For example, an engineered wood floor can be installed on a concrete sub-floor and below grade, either as a floating floor or a direct glue-down. Engineered wood flooring is also an exceptional choice for geographical locations with higher moisture and humidity levels. Nevertheless, engineered wood does not perform well in rooms of the home where there is an abundance of moisture and humidity, such as in mudrooms and bathrooms. Engineered plank flooring can also be installed over a radiant heat source. Veteran installers vigorously discouraged radiant heating when using solid hardwood, but it is not a problem under engineered plank floors.
One of the foremost reasons that many homeowners choose engineered plank flooring is its incredible price. You have the same texture and look of hardwood, but it seems as if you are getting the hardwood at a bargain price. Engineered plank floors are easy to install, do-it-yourself flooring option with the instructions clearly printed inside each carton. Even so, you do have to make sure that the sub-floor is clean of dirt and dust before you begin so that any small pieces of debris won't work their way up through the flooring.
Engineered plank flooring comes in various types of wood, finishes and stains. You can also choose unfinished or pre-finished hardwood, but if you are looking for an trouble-free project, then it is best to go with pre-finished. This way after you have the engineered wood floor installed, you don't have to hassle applying any finish or stain. You can just sit back and take pleasure in your engineered wood flooring.
53894 County Road 9 Elkhart, IN 46514 |
(574) 264-4354
Copyright © 2024 Taylor Floor Covering |
Flooring accounting
& websites


text:
We've been hearing it would happen for quite a while, so keep that in mind when you read this scoop. The Wall Street Journal says:
"Facebook Inc. could file papers for an initial public offering as early as next week and is currently looking at a deal that would value the social network between $75 billion to $100 billion, said people familiar with the matter."
The Journal adds that "a Facebook spokesman declined to comment." Also not talking: a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, the company the Journal says is likely to be the lead underwriter of the IPO.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
The NFL has determined that it will switch the focus of its international business strategy to presenting the NFL to the widest possible global audience, including broader media visibility and the staging of international regular-season games, and will discontinue NFL Europa.
"The time is right to re-focus the NFL's strategy on initiatives with global impact, including worldwide media coverage of our sport and the staging of live regular-season NFL games," commented Mark Waller, senior vice president of NFL International.
"We will continue to build our international fan base by taking advantage of technology and customized digital media that make the NFL more accessible on a global scale than ever before and through the regular-season game experience. NFL Europa has created thousands of passionate fans who have supported that league and our sport for many years and we look forward to building on this foundation as we begin this new phase of our international development."
Last October, NFL owners passed a resolution to stage up to two international regular-season games per season. The new international series will launch on Sunday, October 28 when the Miami Dolphins host the New York Giants at London's Wembley Stadium.
In addition to the 2007 game in the United Kingdom, the NFL is preparing to stage regular-season games in future seasons in Germany, Mexico and Canada, with Germany being a strong candidate to host a regular-season NFL game in 2008.
NFL Europa began in 1991 as the World League of American Football, with 10 teams competing in the United States and Europe. After a two-year hiatus (1993-94) following the 1992 season, the league returned in 1995 as a six-team, all-European venture, with five teams in Germany since 2005, and has existed in that format through its final season in 2007.


text:
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Kids These Days
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
I bet she doesn't look a day over seven, Michelle S.
- Related Wreckage: Gee, Thanks, "Kids"
UPDATE: No, she wasn't a leap year baby. They just forgot the zero. ;)
116 comments | Post a Comment
- Suzanne :-) said...
I bet Mom got a smile out of that one. Hilarious!
- January 5, 2010 at 9:37 AM
- Unknown said...
This would only work if "Mom" was a leap year baby and this were actually her 32nd birthday! (Eight leap years x 4.) I could see my nine-year-old daughter telling daddy to get a cake like this . . . !
WV: tersa. No, it's not her tersa birthda, it's her 8th birthday! - January 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM
- Becky said...
I think I like the posts the best that you don't even have to put any commentary. Not that I don't LOVE your commentary...but it's totally awesome when the cake can speak for itself...
- January 5, 2010 at 9:41 AM
- DailyAcid said...
Why would you name your child "mom"... that is the only legit reason I can think of for this cake.
This cake fails like this ice jumper - January 5, 2010 at 9:43 AM
- Eternal Lizdom said...
Hahahahahah!!!!! That is classic!!
- January 5, 2010 at 9:43 AM
- kathryn said...
They grow so fast! ;)
- January 5, 2010 at 9:44 AM
- Dinah Tate said...
Perhaps she was born on February 29th and is now 32 years old...
- January 5, 2010 at 9:50 AM
- Heather said...
Hmm, perhaps the 8 year old gets her mom a cake each year as a thank you for going through that whole labor thing? ;-)
- January 5, 2010 at 9:51 AM
- Taylor@MyOlderBrothers said...
I try to give the cake decorators the benefit of the doubt on most of these. They can't all be artistically gifted and all that. And spelling is a skill not all people have. But if the decorator speaks English or anyone in the bakery speaks English, this is ridiculous.
- January 5, 2010 at 9:51 AM
- RobynR said...
I'm wondering if that's for a leap year baby. She'd be what, 32? Young to have a cake purchased solely by her children but you never know.
- January 5, 2010 at 9:52 AM
I can not wait to hear the "stories" that COULD be why this wreckerator sits in the dock.
[I can not think of ANY]but there MUST be at least one.
Latin for liferaft? - January 5, 2010 at 10:00 AM
- Mrs. S Coconut said...
Maybe she's a Feb. 29 baby and she's really 32?
- January 5, 2010 at 10:01 AM
- Richard said...
I'll be honest - my first thought, other than "80th?" was that she was born on February 29th. I know a couple of folks who were, and they almost always receive stuff like this. One likes it, one doesn't :)
- January 5, 2010 at 10:03 AM
- Tom said...
Babies having babies. Too bad she can't have any Champagne with that cake.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Maybe it was supposed to say, "Happy 8th, Birthday Mom!" for her eighth baby, born on her birthday?
WV: evest; not quite the opposite of invest - as in "I would like to evest in these bakeries, please." - January 5, 2010 at 10:07 AM
- SuSuseriffic said...
HE he, that is amazing!
- January 5, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Maybe she was born on Leap Year... -L.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Well, coming from Baltimore, this could be very accurate...
- January 5, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Maybe she was born on Feb 29th?
- January 5, 2010 at 10:13 AM
- Dianne said...
No worries, Jen. You've still got the funny. :)
- January 5, 2010 at 10:13 AM
- Malisa Twelves said...
If she was born on leap year, she would have her 8th birthday in her 32nd year... take it from me, I know, I am 25 but I have only had 6 real birthdays!
if not tho... that is pretty sad...
~Malisa T. - January 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM
- skyxie said...
She could have a February 29th birthday, in which case she would have turned 32 in 2008.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM
- Frank Alejano said...
Maybe they just named their daughter "Mom." It could happen.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:20 AM
- Half Assed Kitchen said...
Hee! I think maybe they forgot a zero.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:22 AM
How lucky are they! My mom is totally old, she's 9!
-Cris - January 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM
A bit young for motherhood...
- January 5, 2010 at 10:30 AM
- Ms Avery said...
- January 5, 2010 at 10:31 AM
maybe mom's a 36-year-old leap year baby?
- January 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM
- Derek@AudibleUnderwear said...
Mom must have been a leap year baby. Hey, does this mean that movie has to pay you now?
- January 5, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Maybe she was born on Leap Day, and she's actually around 32 years, but has only celebrated it 8 times.
What? It could happen! - January 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM
- Margaret said...
Maybe she was a leap year baby born on Feb. 29.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM
- Etiquette Bitch said...
Man, I wonder what the intention was. "Happy 80th Birthday, Mom"? "Hapy 8th Birthday, LOVE, Mom"? Hmm...
- January 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM
- Sabrina said...
And just look, Look how smooth her skin is! LOL
- January 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM
- Carol said...
So many options.....is she a leap year baby? Is it supposed to be 80th? How will we ever know?!?! :D Made me grin this morning, though, so that's all that matters!!! ;)
- January 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM
- Christel said...
My mom turned 15 a couple of years ago.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM
- Terry Lee said...
my, my, but don't they start young these days?!
and to think, i was still playing with barbies when i was 8.
lovely cake with lovely pink script though! - January 5, 2010 at 10:41 AM
- Joshua.Akins said...
Omg! I was just reading today's Cakewrecks at my desk and I laughed and farted.
Guess the bean, chorizo and egg taco didn't help. - January 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM
- Debbi said...
Let's hope "Mom" is a leap year baby and she is really 32 ...
- January 5, 2010 at 10:53 AM
- Damon said...
In some cursive writing styles "n" and "m" have an extra "bump" at the beginning, meaning it says "Mon".
Although, I think we've had more than 8 mondays...
(Unless it's short for Monique or something, but, nah.) - January 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM
- Sparky said...
I had to hide my eyes before I could stop laughing. Just wow.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM
- mn_me said...
I knew kids were having babies younger and younger these days, but this is a little ridiculous....
- January 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Could this have been a leap year birthday? Or perhaps one of those situations where someone overcomes a health issue, and considers the day they recovered their "new birthday"?
- January 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM
- Unknown said...
Leap year birthday? My father-in-law has only had 17 birthdays.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Leap year baby?
- January 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM
- Little Fish said...
They're starting younger and younger these days. Babies having babies... it's a shame. ;)
- January 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM
- M M said...
Well, if her mom is Tootie from Drawn together, it would be a possibility.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Vanna, I'd like to buy an O??
WV: repologi : these decorators definitely owe them a repologi - January 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM
- Jessa Kennedy said...
Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but maybe Mom's birthday is leap day?
Word Verification: crocke. syn to "malarky" describing something that is a total load of bull. - January 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM
- VeggieT said...
nice.... biological possibilities asside, I wonder if this really was an error, or just an inside joke of the families, the way way my grandpa would turn the digits around, when he was 80, he would go around sayin' he was 8...
- January 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM
That either really funny or sort of adorable :)
Funny because what wreckerator thought this was an accurate number.
Adorable cause well lets be honest kids have no idea about age. Can't you just imagine a little kid going to order the cake? "And how old is your Mom?" "Really old...like 8" - January 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM
OK, I can see, if I were a cake decorator, accidentally piping that on there. That I can understand. However, how could ANYONE not read what they just wrote, and then actually SELL the cake without realizing how rediculous it is? How?
- January 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM
- Debra She Who Seeks said...
Betcha Mom is a Leap Year baby.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM
- Bri said...
*snickers* Hahahahaha...a sure winner!
- January 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM
- Squirrel said...
Maybe someone already submitted this possibility but...could she have been born on leap day and this is a running gag?
If not, I want that place to make my next birthday cake. Although, knowing my luck they'll error the other way, Happy 80th!
VW kyriest - Kyriest, you look good for 80! Hmmm, maybe that works after all.... - January 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
- -- Pam said...
My mom's cakes always had fewer candles than mine, too. She was born on February 29th!
-- Pam - January 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM
- MiniKat said...
You know there's actually only one way that could really work as a non-wreck... if "Mom" was born on February 29th and that happened to be the 8th time she actually had a cake on her real birthday.
But that's probably just me putting waaaay to much thought into it. ;-)
Wreck on! - January 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM
- Bluefunk said...
Maybe Mom is an Oocampa?
- January 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM
- Brooke said...
The only thought that comes to mind is that maybe she was born on Feb. 29th. I at least hope that is the case. Eight is kinda young to start a family.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM
- marybindc said...
I'm guessing that's not a wreck, but for someone whose birthday is on February 29.
Okay, I feel like a spoilsport. - January 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM
- MetalNoir said...
I said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm sometimes shocked at the young age at which girls become mothers these days.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM
- Lalis said...
This post seriously made me spit my OJ! HAHAHA!!!! I don't know if I should keep laughing or cry!
Laura - January 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM
- Julia said...
Leap day birthday? My mom always used to send my twin uncles cards for their "seventh" or "eighth" birthday, etc. :)
- January 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM
- Jess said...
sure it seems silly, but not if Mom was born on leap year! Then she'd have 32 years under her belt, but still have only 8 birthdays.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Maybe Mom was born on Feb. 29? I had a friend in grade school whose mom celebrated her "10th birthday" when she was actually 40 years old. That would make this Mom 32, which is reasonable.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I looked at the cake. Everything's spelled right, script is well-done, flowers look good, spacing is nice... what's wrong with this cake? Why is it a wreck?
Duh. *facepalm* I'm going back to bed. - January 5, 2010 at 11:55 AM
- Victoria said...
That's just a little scary. I mean, surely they meant 8th anniversary? Or 28th birthday? I don't know what to think about that.
wv: sancip. Do you have your sancip drive with you, I left my flash drive at home. - January 5, 2010 at 11:55 AM
- The Rainbow Jen said...
To be fair, she could be a Leap Year baby - I had a roommate born on leap year, and we celebrated her sixth birthday in much the same fashion, as it were :)
- January 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM
- Melissa said...
Wow. I'm trying to find good explanations for that - maybe she started counting backwards after 40? Maybe someone missed the eight-ty-eth over the phone? I'm going to stop thinking about it before my brain short circuits.
- January 5, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Ohh I don't really think this is a wreck. Is it possible "Mom" is a leap year baby and is actually 32...but 8 only because her birthday comes once every 4 years?
- January 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM
- Unknown said...
Is her birthday on February 29, by chance?
- January 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM
- Breccia said...
Well, she COULD be one of those 'Feb 29' people, who enjoy celebrating weird numbered birthdays.
- January 5, 2010 at 12:04 PM
- blessedmommy said...
Babies having babies. *shakes head*
- January 5, 2010 at 12:07 PM
- Kristen said...
I wonder if she was born on a leap year....
~ Kristen - January 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Talk about teen pregnancy...
- January 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Oh my goodness. Does NO one read any comments at all before they post??
- January 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM
- catchat105 said...
This can be fixed- just insert "Love," before Mom!
Oh, but there isn't really space to put it on the cake... - January 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM
This is true wreck!
Im guessing it was supposed to be 80th!
I will bet it made the 80 year old smile!!! - January 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM
- Caroline B said...
Oh dear, what confusion one missed comma can cause....
'Happy 8th Birthday,
I'm going to go and lie down now...... - January 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Definitely a case of babies having babies...
haha! - January 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM
aside from a leap year birth although uncommon its not entirely impossible for a mother to be 8.
look at lina medina who was pregnant and had a baby at 5 years old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina - January 5, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Ha! READ THE COMMENTS BEFORE YOU POST!
That out of my system, I do so love a cake that comes with a riddle. I like the interpretation by Anony 11:10, but even so, please don't ever think it's too early to have "The Talk" with your kids! :D - January 5, 2010 at 1:36 PM
- The Wrecksistant said...
Hey All!
It's my fault that there are so many repeated comments this morning - I usually get to them by 10 am, but didn't today until 12:30! By then, 80+ people had left comments for me to look at!
Sorry for the confusion! :(
Anne-Marie - January 5, 2010 at 1:44 PM
@ Anne-Marie-- And it's not even Leap Year! I guess that's what happens when you try to take a coffee break. I couldn't believe these were the same people who were trying to get CW to take time off every week! :P - January 5, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Hey, my Mum's birthday's the 29th of February too! My brother and I used to think it was hilarious to get her cards saying 'Happy 9th Birthday' and so on. Interestingly, her 10th birthday was in the same year as my little brother's 10th birthday... We grew out of it for a little while, but last leap year it was her 13th birthday and we couldn't resist getting her really cheesy 'Now you're a teenager!' cards. It's a shame I never thought of getting a cake that said that, it could have made a pretty good wreck.
- January 5, 2010 at 1:54 PM
- mb. said...
maybe the problem is a missing comma & this belongs with bad punctuation: Happy 8th Birthday, Mom
maybe that is giving someone too much credit. - January 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM
- Miranda said...
lol the story could be that the family has an in-joke of some sort. I mean...the writing is nice, what we can see of the decoration is great.
When I worked in a mall kiosk decorating gift items, one woman asked me to decorate a piggy bank simply with the word "Large." I double checked as I wrote out the ticket: "You want it to say Large." As in, size Large." "Yes," she says. No explanation. So I did it. *shakes head* - January 5, 2010 at 2:50 PM
- Steve the Pocket said...
"Kids these days"
... Babies Having Babies? - January 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM
A previous commenter suggests that the cake is missing a comma--that somehow "Happy 8th Birthday, Mom" would make it better.
It wouldn't.
Adding a comma before "Mom" simply sets "Mom" aside as the person being addressed.
If you wanted to indicate that the cake was from Mom, you'd have to write something like "Happy 8th Birthday! Love, Mom" - January 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM
- Mary Connealy said...
Baby-Mama preserved forever in cake.
Or at least preserved forever...until the cake gets eaten. :) - January 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM
- DMackendrick said...
Whether you're eight or eighty, you always have a right to a happy birthday! Not necessarily the right to an exciting or properly spelled birthday cake, but....
- January 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Maybe it's for a dog who just had puppies...
wv: shiss. the sound made by a dog blowing out eight candles. - January 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM
- Unknown said...
Maybe it's just a misplaced comma.
"Happy 8th birthday, Mom (as in love, mom)??? - January 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM
- Herouth said...
Oh, I know this mom. She is a Martian.
- January 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM
It's like a mensa puzzle and b-day cake all in ONE! Gee, what else could a birthday mom ask for; does she want to have her cake and eat it, too?! :) Great post!
- January 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM
- Angelica Bays, TygrLilies.blogspot.com said...
Gaawd, I luv this site!
::wiping tear:: - January 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM
- Sarah said...
Well, the youngest mother on record WAS only five years old at the time *shudder*
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp - January 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM
- Fanboy Wife said...
Did they miss a number or get the name wrong?
- January 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM
Thank you to Anonymous for pointing out that inserting a comma would not correct the mistake.
"Happy 8th Birthday Mom" and "Happy 8th Birthday, Mom" are the same thing. - January 5, 2010 at 7:17 PM
- Tina said...
i am a leap baby and i didn't even think of it that way! although i will turn 8 the same year as my daughter and 9 a day after my son who is feb 28! now how many moms can claim that!?!
- January 5, 2010 at 8:14 PM
- shikishinobi said...
Well, at least 'Mom' can take heart that her kids think she is young and pretty.
But methinks that something beyond dislexia is responsible for this one. Just a sheer lack of logic. - January 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM
- Diana said...
For your Sunday Sweets:
She sells at my local farmer's market, and her cakes taste BETTER than they look. - January 5, 2010 at 9:03 PM
- Rhonda said...
Your blog makes me laugh out loud. Your comments on these cakes are absolutely hilarious. Totally makes my day! Thanks!
http://rhonda-snaphappy.blogspot.com - January 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM
- akgreentea said...
Some women like to start counting backwards after 30 or 40. She could be 52 or 72 and likes using that technique, so her kids are playing with it.
- January 5, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Hey, it's probably for someone born on a leap year! in Epcot!
Except that it's not a leap year. Neither was last year. Really think Jen has been holding onto this cake since 2008? Methinks not. - January 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM
heh. They could have at least put a 1 in front of the 8 lol.
- January 6, 2010 at 6:45 AM
- Christinarae said...
Lame. Clearly someone ordered this as a gag/inside joke. How does this count as a wreck?
- January 6, 2010 at 8:47 AM
Clearly! I mean it's so obvious. It's like Jen doesn't even check her sources or put notes on the posts or anything! Cheesy. Lame-a-doodle-do.
john - January 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM
- widogmom said...
Am I the only one who immediately thought, "Oh, she must be a dog mom, and those are dog years, so she's 56!" Uh...yeah, I guess I was the only one. Sorry...
Love, absolutely love your blog, Jen and John! - January 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM
I'm actually surprised no one thought of the fact that it might be their mom's 8th year on the wagon.
When my ex's mom "turned" 10, we all sent her a card with "Happy 10th Birthday" on it.
That was the first thing I thought of when I saw it - January 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM
- Casey Smith said...
When I was 13 or so I got a beautiful and poetic card from my great-grandmother that ended with the words, "Happy Birthday Grandmother." Later on my brother got a "My little boy is turning 3!" card on his 17th birthday. Grandma isn't around to send those cards anymore but I'd love to have one of these cakes :D
- January 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Happy 8th! Wanna start over again? I wouldn't!
I hope this cake didn't bring on the story my own grandmother would've told had it been her cake, about how it was the Depression and how no one wanted to waste money or even flour and eggs just over a little girl's birthday cake, plus sugar was a luxury...
I would've insisted they fix it before accepting it, and I'm kind of starting to sweat at the thought of the whole scenario. "Depression" is the most appropriate name they could've given the era, that's for sure.
p.s. She would save the box it came in, too, "just in case." Ack!!! - January 6, 2010 at 4:39 PM
- simpleimposter said...
If it hasn't been said already..."Babies havin' babies!"
- January 6, 2010 at 9:15 PM
- angela dixie said...
This is the third time I have scrolled down to this post and...I don't know why, but it's made me laugh each time. Yep, even saying it in my head is funny. Hee!!
- January 6, 2010 at 11:19 PM
- Samantha Shireman said...
It could be her 8th anniversary of sobriety as well... Those are usually referred to as "birthdays." But it was probably just a mistake...
- January 7, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Pedobear approves!
- January 7, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Well, she got into trouble early in life!
- January 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Search This Blog
Wreck the Halls
NEW! Pre-Order Today!
Barnes & Noble
Borders |
Buy the Book
Buy the NYT Bestseller
What's a Wreck?
What's a Wreck?
A Cake Wreck is any cake that is unintentionally sad, silly, creepy, inappropriate - you name it. A Wreck is not necessarily a poorly-made cake; it's simply one I find funny, for any of a number of reasons. Anyone who has ever smeared frosting on a baked good has made a Wreck at one time or another, so I'm not here to vilify decorators: Cake Wrecks is just about finding the funny in unexpected, sugar-filled places.
Now, don't you have a photo you want to send me? ;)
- Fan Faves
- The Classics
The Classics
Praise for the Book
- "Will have you laughing so hard you'll forget to eat!"— Washington Post
- "a hilarious winner" — The Oregonian
- "a fantastically gut-busting book"— NPR
- "It's all here, each wreck a disaster of hilarity." — BookPage.com
- "Hysterically funny!"— Epinions.com
- "laugh-out-loud funny"— The Times
- "Yates' sharp humor makes the funny even funnier." — The Dallas Morning News
- "an amazing laugh-out-loud book"— The Book Triblog
What the fans are saying
- "I was laughing so hard, I couldn't catch my breath."
- "As funny as the blog that started it."
- "WAY better than I expected!"
- "Cake Wreckery at its best!"
- "Wrecktastic!"
- American Mensa:Top 50 Websites of 2010
- Amazon: Top 10 gift books of 2009
- The Orlando Sentinal "Orbbies": Winner Humor
- 2009 BlogLuxe Awards: Funniest Blog
- 2009 Bloggies: Best Writing of a Weblog, Best New Weblog, Best Food Blog
- The 2008 Weblog Awards: Best Food Blog
- Blogger's Choice 2008 Awards: Best Humor Blog
Where's the book?
We don't have any copies of Cake Wrecks for sale here, autographed or otherwise. We decided the shipping and handling costs would be too high to make it worth your while. So instead, buy your copies locally or online and then order personalized bookplates: it's cheaper, easier, and I think even looks a bit nicer.
Ordering Info
Payments must be made through Paypal, which accepts all major credit cards. Sorry, but that means no checks or MOs or barter-based chickens.
We ship everything first class USPS, and will do our best to have your package in the mail within 2 days of your order.
Popular This Month
Popular This Month
- Sunday Sweets: Cute-Tastic!
- As We Fumble Along
- Unexcepted Seamen
- A Teaching Moment
- Look Out, Germany
- Bakeries From Beyond
- Sunday Sweets: When Mario Marries
- RSS Feed Update
- Isn't It Ironic? Don't Ya Think?
- New Year's Diet Aid
- I Eat Terror For Breakfast
- She's Got Leeeegs...
- Better Late Than Never: Happy New Year!
- Sunday Sweets: Baby Showers
- Today's "Feature"
- The #2 Way to Ruin a Cake
- Ever Feel Like ----Thing's Missing?
- Help For Haiti
- The Labor of Love
- Show Offs
- My Cake Wreck Is Greater Than Yours
- Sunday Sweets: When Gamers Marry
- Funny Business
- Signs of Trouble
- "Special" Deliveries
- Kids These Days
- Curbing Their Enthusiasm
- Spring Sweets
- Ch...Ch...Ch...Changes
- The Elephant In The Room


text:
MIDLAND CITY, Ala. (AP) — As an Alabama standoff and hostage drama marked a sixth day Sunday, more details emerged about the suspect at the center, with neighbors and officials painting a picture of an isolated man estranged from his family.
Authorities say Jim Lee Dykes, 65 — a decorated Vietnam-era veteran known as Jimmy to neighbors — gunned down a school bus driver and abducted a 5-year-old boy from the bus, taking him to an underground bunker on his rural property. The driver, 66-year-old Charles Albert Poland Jr., was buried
Dykes, described as a loner who railed against the government, lives up a dirt road outside this tiny hamlet north of Dothan in the southeastern corner of the state. His home is just off the main road north to the state capital of Montgomery, about 80 miles away.
The FBI said in a statement Sunday that authorities continue to have an open line of communication with Dykes. The little boy requested Cheez-Its and a red Hot Wheels car, both of which were delivered to the bunker, a separate statement said. Authorities had said they also were delivering medicine and other comfort items, and that Dykes was making the child as comfortable as possible.
In the nearby community of Ozark on Sunday, more than 500 people filed into the Civic Center to pay a final tribute to Poland, who was being hailed as a hero for protecting the other children on the school bus before he was shot Tuesday.
Poland is now "an angel who is watching over" the little boy, said Dale County School Superintendent Donny Bynum, who read letters written by three students who had ridden on Poland's bus. "You didn't deserve to die but you died knowing you kept everyone safe," one child wrote.
Outside the funeral, school buses from several counties lined the funeral procession route. The buses had black ribbons tied to their side mirrors.
Dykes grew up in the Dothan area. Mel Adams, a Midland City Council member who owns the lot where reporters are gathered, said he has known Dykes since they were ages 3 and 4.
He said Dykes has a sister and a brother, but that he is estranged from his family.
Adams said he didn't know what caused the falling-out, but that he knew Dykes "had told part of his family to go to hell."
Midland City Mayor Virgil Skipper said Dykes' sister is in a nursing home. Adams said that law enforcement officers have talked to Dykes' family members and advised them not to speak with reporters, and that officers told his sister there was nothing she could do to help the child in the bunker.
Government records and interviews with neighbors indicate that Dykes joined the Navy in Midland City, serving on active duty from 1964 to 1969. His record shows several awards, including the Vietnam Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. Dykes was trained in aviation maintenance and at one point was based in Japan. It was unclear if he saw combat in Vietnam.
Adams said that he, too, is a Vietnam veteran but that he never was close with Dykes. Adams said he recalls last seeing Dykes in the 1980s, when he drove a truck for a company that laundered uniforms.
At some point after his time in the Navy, Dykes lived in Florida, where he worked as a surveyor and a long-haul truck driver. It's unclear how long he stayed there.
He had some scrapes with the law in Florida, including a 1995 arrest for improper exhibition of a weapon. The misdemeanor was dismissed. He also was arrested for marijuana possession in 2000.
He returned to Alabama about two years ago, moving onto the rural tract about 100 yards from his nearest neighbors, Michael Creel and his father, Greg.
Neighbors described Dykes as a man who once beat a dog to death with a lead pipe, threatened to shoot children for setting foot on his property, and patrolled his yard at night with a flashlight and a firearm. Michael Creel said Dykes had an adult daughter, but the two lost touch years ago.
His property has a white trailer that, according to Creel, Dykes said he bought from FEMA after it was used to house evacuees from Hurricane Katrina. The property also has a steel shipping container — like those on container ships — in which Dykes stores tools and supplies.
Next to the container is the underground bunker where authorities say Dykes is holed up with the 5-year-old. Neighbors say the bunker has a pipe so Dykes could hear people coming near his driveway. Authorities have been using the ventilation pipe to communicate with him.
The younger Creel, who said he helped Dykes with supplies to build the bunker and has been in it twice, said Dykes wanted protection from hurricanes.
"He said he lived in Florida and had hurricanes hit. He wanted someplace he could go down in and be safe," Creel said. Authorities say the bunker is about 6 feet by 8 feet, and the only entrance is a trap door at the top.
Such bunkers are not uncommon in rural Alabama because of the threat of tornadoes.
Greg Creel was a friend of Dykes', but he said he would not comment for The Associated Press. "I will only talk to the police and the FBI," he said.
Michael Creel said Dykes kept to himself and listened to a lot of conservative talk radio.
"He was very into what's going on with the nation and the politics and all the laws being made. The things he didn't agree with, he would ventilate," he said.
James Arrington, police chief of the neighboring town of Pinckard, put it differently.
"He's against the government, starting with Obama on down," he said.
Morris Dees of Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, a group that tracks hate crimes, said Dykes was not on the group's radar.
Although the fatal shootings in December at a school in Newtown, Conn., are still on everyone's mind, Dees said he doesn't think Dykes was trying to be a copycat.
"Probably not. He had a whole bus load full of kids, and he could have walked up there and shot the whole crowd of them," he said.
"I think he's just a really angry and bitter guy with some anger management issues," Dees said. "He is just against everything – the government and his neighbors."


text:
(1) Global warming due to human production of greenhouse gases will significantly change the climate of the planet by the end of this century.
(2) Mankind is doing very little to stop this from happening. Efforts so far to reduce the growth of greenhouse gases have been ineffective and we are about to conduct a profound experiment--but in this case it won't be in a laboratory, it will be in the environment we are dependent on for our survival.
The Science
The basic science between greenhouse-induced global warming is solid and been known for over a century. If you put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere you are going to warm the planet. Just like pulling more blankets over you at night will make your warmer. Both basic physics and our most sophisticated models are in agreement.
If you think using more blankets will not warm you up, then you are ready to be a global warming denier! |
Unfortunately, this global warming business has become politicized. Sometimes I think Al Gore did far more harm than good; if he had never injected the issue into the political arena, might we be in a better place now? Hard to know. And too many people have confused what HAS happened to what WILL happen. Global warming up to now has been relatively subtle and roughly of the same magnitude as natural climate variations. The big action is YET to come, particularly in the later half of this century. Politicians and a few activist scientists that exaggerated the effects of greenhouse-induced warming on recent climate/weather events have often done far more harm than good by reducing the credibility of the real threat later in this century.
Not Doing Much to Stop It
Virtually every measure of greenhouse gas concentrations shows an uninterrupted, if not accelerating, rise. Here is the plot for CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observator--just a steady increase--no hint we are doing much to slow it down.
The use of fossil fuels is steadily increasing, with renewables (wind, solar, geo) in the noise level (see plot). China is rapidly adding coal-fired power plants, and production of oil and gas is surging as new technologies (e.g., fracking for oil and gas, horizontal and deep sea drilling, tar sands) are allowing us to get at previously inaccessible carbon fuels). Huge countries like China and India want to join the first world and live the good life as we do. We have no ethical platform or right to suggest they don't deserve a similar quality of life. But the energy implications are huge.
Worldwide Carbon Usage: It is Rapidly Rising |
And the recent nuclear disaster at Fukashima has crippled the nuclear industry, with many nations turning away from nuclear power--the only real hope for producing massive amounts of energy without causing greenhouse warming.
Finally, to make a real difference in pulling back from major warming, we cannot simply stop increasing our rate of burning fossil fuels, but we need to bring it down to roughly 10% of CURRENT levels. This is not happening.
Bottom line: a wish I could say otherwise, but I think we are committed to major global warming and that nothing is going to stop it, unless we develop revolutionary technical advances or apply absolutely draconian steps to reduce carbon use? Has mankind ever committed themselves to costly and disruptive restrictions based on a forecast?
What Should We Do?
First, we need to find technological fixes that will allow us to deal with the problems without unpleasant sacrifices. Number one would be large investments in science and technology to produce less expensive, competitively price, renewable energy; to better store energy; to produce energy from fusion or to greatly improve fission reactors; or to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere in a cost effective way. We got ourselves into this mess with technology...I think we need technology to get us out. I repeat, technology that will not demand sacrifices. Don't get me wrong--we need to push wind and solar energy, energy efficiency, etc for many reasons (including health and national security)--but they are not going to solve the problem by themselves, particularly if they are not economically advantageous.
Second, we must prepare ourselves to adapt to a significantly different climate and planet. To do so, we first need to improve our understanding of the climate system to get a better idea of what will occur (good for my business!). Then we must progressively make the changes that will allow mankind to tolerate the new climatic regime. Some examples:
Here in the Pacific Northwest, where precipitation will be similar to (or even a bit greater than) today but snowpack will decline from warming, we will need to build more reservoirs to hold the winter rainfall. Perhaps these can be built in eastern Washington using Columbia River Water. Drought-resistant crops should be developed for large areas
Proposed Dam Sites in Eastern WA |
Third, we may need to consider geoengineering as a last resort. For example, injecting small particles into the stratosphere could produce a global haze similar to what occurs after major volcanic eruptions. The result: substantial cooling. This appears to be technically possible and not excessively expensive (tens of billions of dollars per year...less than one of our current wars). But messing with solar radiation would influence rainfall
and this would do nothing about ocean acidification, a major problem. And once we started such an injection program, we would not be able to stop, since temperatures would rise rapidly, with potentially catastrophic results.
In summary, we are about to embark on the greatest scientific experiment in our species history, and our response to it will have a large impact on the quality of life...or the existence of life...of billions. We must begin massive technological and scientific investments in solutions and should prepare our infrastructure and civilization for a very different climate.


text:
Export 5 results:
Author Title Type [ Year] Filters: Author is Jose Emilio Vila-Forcén [Clear All Filters]
"Quantization-Based Methods: Additive Attacks Performance Analysis", Transactions on Data Hiding and Multimedia Security III, vol. 4920, pp. 70-90, 2008.
, "Robustness Improvement of Known-Host-State Watermarking Using Host Statistics", Signal Processing, vol. 86, pp. 1076-1088, 2006.
, "On reversibility of random binning techniques: multimedia perspectives", in Conference on Communications and Multimedia Security (CMS), Salzburg, Austria, 2005. cms05.pdf (267.92 KB)
, "Worst case additive attack against quantization-based data-hiding methods", in Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents, San Jose, California, USA, 2005, vol. 5306, pp. 592-601.
, "Worst case additive attack against quantization-based watermarking techniques", in IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, Siena, Italy, 2004, pp. 135-138.