text:
Is Roger Ebert in heaven? Is Pope John Paul II?
Deacon Greg Kandra points to the funeral mass held today at Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral for film critic and cultural omnivore Roger Ebert, and takes issue with celebrant Fr. Michael Pfleger for suggesting to the mourners that Ebert could be in heaven. It's not that Ebert had a somewhat unconventional view on theology, but Greg says that eulogists should never go there:
Maybe Im being picky, but a guiding principle for Catholic funeral oratory is: dont tell people that the deceased is in heaven. You dont know. And no matter how deserving the person might seem to be, there are doubtless some who will argue otherwise ... Funeral preachers: offer reassurance and hope and consolation. But do not promise canonization. Pfleger seems to have disregarded that concept.
Now Michael Pfleger is justifiably controversial for all sorts of reasons, but I'm not so sure that he deserves this criticism. For one thing, this is what Pfleger said:
The Rev. Michael Pfleger gave the last blessing over Ebert's casket. "May the angels lead you to paradise," he said.Then he spoke directly to Ebert's wife. "I know as Roger ascends into heaven, the balconies of heaven are filled with angels saying, 'Thumbs up,' " Pfleger said.
That seemed fairly conditional, at least at the start, and fairly standard as far as consolation goes. That sort of thing is said all the time at the funeral of hierarchs, like Pope John Paul II, for example, by none other than Cardinal Joseph Raztinger, soon to be Benedict XVI:
We entrust your dear soul to the Mother of God, your Mother, who guided you each day and who will guide you now to the eternal glory of her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yet I don't recall critics highlighting that as a major problem.Is it in fact a problem? I think overlong eulogies are a bigger issue as far a funerals go, and Ebert's seems to have been a pretty well-run service. Kudos to Cardinal George for giving it a thumbs up.
About the Author
David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.
64 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
God desires to bring all back to himself. Those who have been baptized in Christ, will rise in Christ. I don't recall all kinds of caveats and provisos.And you are bang on concerning Benedict's eulogy for John Paul II.I think he is being picky and not quite correct. I DO agree that eulogies should not be in the context of a funeral mass (or as I prefer the mass of the resurrection). Up here, eulogies are given before the mass begins. The homily focuses on the paschal mystery and how the person's life figures in that. It was that way for my dad and the priest and he were friends but it still was not a eulogy!That said, when I go I could use all the prayers to cheer me on as I can get! But that need not be downer nor tacitly suggest that God's justice exceeds His mercy. The opposite is true as Jesus clearly shows. And, yesterday was Divine Mercy Sunday notwithstanding the weeping and nashing of teeth over it. It is here and we can learn something from it.As the funeral liturgy clearly states, "life has not ended, it's changed" my dad so loved that line that it is his epithet.
Nice ending, David. Perfect.
I've taken a particular interest in this. Ebert is a favorite writer of mine, and so I know that the closing chapters of his autobiography talk about how he did not abandon the Church--he just abandoned the notion that there is anything divine in it. (See that blog posting linked above for more proof, too.) He described himself proudly as a secular humanist. So his funeral today puzzled me, (a) that he wanted it and (b) that the Cardinal permitted it. It delighted me inexpressibly. But it puzzled me. A friend back home in Chicago suggests that Ebert, who was widely known to be opposed to abortion (though pro-choice in the politics), may have bought a pass from the archdiocese because of his public statements on that issue. That seems cynical to me, especially since that position would not put him too far away from Ted Kennedy whose Christian burial did raise some hackles. But I can't dismiss it as a possibility. There is the chance that there was a deathbed change of heart we'll hear about. I rather hope that's true.I won't take a position on who goes to heaven and who doesn't. I think a funeral is a great place to hope and pray that a particular person gets there. In general, for all kinds of reasons, I hope Ebert is there. But I will say that I've heard too few good eulogies, few enough to agree that the Mass generally is the wrong place for them. A prayer for admission to the Kingdom is one thing, and that's really all +Ratzinger did. It wasn't in the context of a eulogy. What Pfleger did was more treacly, and the sort of expression that gives a kind of insincere, false comfort, I think. Where +Ratzinger entrusted John Paul to the intercession of Mary, Pfleger gave a kind of gold-sealed guarantee. As I say, I like to think Pfleger was right on the facts. But on aesthetic grounds, it's grating.
Who's entitled to a Catholic funeral Mass? Can a funeral without Mass be held in a Catholic church and officiated by a priest?
Mr. Gibson - would suggest that this criticism says more about Kendra and his *beef* with Pfleger than anything to do with Ebert. How sad.And agree, can't believe George allowed Pfleger to do this; guess he is already in his *retirement phase*.
Pfleger was quoting the hymn that was sung (in days of yore) "When the corpse is carried out for burial." One of the most beautiful chants of the Church, imho.In paradisum deducant te Angeli: in tuo adventu suscipiant te Martyres,et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Jerusalem. Chorus Angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere Aeternam habeas requiem.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7F-N-Yd8dE
The English paraphrases of the beautiful chant, "In paradisum," all pale in comparison. I especially like the adverb "quondam" and the way the chant brings us peacefully to "requiem."
Joe, appreciate your sentiment with regard to In Paradisum, however, the PIPs are uplifted and quite happy when they sing or hear "may the angels lead you into paradise, may the martyrs come to welcome you.......where Lazarus is poor no longer, may you have eternal rest." I presided at a funeral this morning.
Jean Raber:Re: Who can have a funeral MassI remember that his issue came up when Teddy Kennedy died. Apparently any baptized Catholic, as Ebert's bio says he was, can have a funeral mass. Canon Law 1184 does stipulate who can be denied an ecclesiastical funeral. "Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed. We assume then that Cardinal George gave his consent after all it's his cathedral. Maybe he is a movie buff. (joke)According to the Chicago Trib, Ebert did have a funeral Mass.For those who have concerns about having a funeral Mass for those who are, for example, pro-choice or pro gay marriage, I say to them: not to worry, the deceased won't be taking Holy Communion.
In high school, a classmate of mine died. At the funeral, in the presence of parents, siblings, and classmates, the officiating priest departed a little from his purpose of consoling survivors by mispronouncing the name of the deceased. I was told afterwards, rightly or wrongly I don't know, that priests were not supposed to eulogize lay persons, precisely because they often do not know them well enough. That seemed sensible.Still, if anyone is going to speak at those rites, consolation for the living should be the main purpose. They will probably know well enough the departed's faults. They want to hear good things. At the same time, there is no reason for speakers to pronounce as certain what they are not called to judge at all. That is why our languages have a subjunctive mood as well as an indicative.
I just think that the Judgment is an article of our faith, and to unilaterally assert anyone's floating up to the Balcony without being subject to the judgment of the Judge is to fail to do full justice to the content of our faith Cf CCC 1022: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation. At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love." Personally, I wouldn't say at a funeral what Fr. Pfleger said here. At the same time, at the funeral of a baptized Christian who lived a life of faith, sustained by sacramental grace, we can be filled with a confident hope that the life marked by faith will be rewarded. Whether this is an accurate description of Roger Ebert's life, I don't know. I do believe, though, that God is very merciful.I don't think that Cardinal Ratzinger said quite the same thing as Fr. Pfleger. Cardinal Ratzinger didn't speak with certainty; he prayed that Mary, who is Queen of Heaven, would guide John Paul to paradise. That path may be, for all we know, a harrowing one. This is not too different from the In Paradisum that a couple of commenters have mentioned. Or the dialogue, "Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord / and let perpetual light shine upon him."
Father Komonchak recently said
Aquinass comment: Abrahams soul is not Abraham. To have Abraham, a human person, you need both body and soul.
I presume that goes for Roger Ebert, too. So regardless of whether Ebert is saved or not, how can he be in heaven?Also, is it heaven for Roger Ebert of Gene Siskel is already there?
David makes one excellent point and one that requires some clarification. First, I agree that our discussions of going to heaven usually overlook our bodily participation in the Resurrection: its a bit soon to make a judgment about Caesar, much less Ebert. We've not reached the Last Day quite yet. All hopes are best expressed as prayer for eventual resurrection, not assurances that a particular decedent has reached the end zone. Second. Ebert described his relationship to Siskel as "best enemies." They loved to fight, but loved each other. Thus heaven for Ebert, I assume, is a place where he will meet Gene and where Gene always will be wrong.
Aquinas thought that there wouldn't be a bodily resurrection until the Last Day, but Jesus told the thief on the cross next to him that that day he'd be in paradise.
"Also, is it heaven for Roger Ebert if Gene Siskel is already there?"That assumes we have to schlep our memories of this life to heaven. As I understand it, there is some debate about that.
Jim P, I cited Cdl Ratzinger's homily as just one example of the many statements of assurance that were made about John Paul's heavenly repose. There are many many others, such as Cdl Sandri's statement to the crowd the night of JP2's death that "Our most beloved Holy Father has returned to the house of the Father."Bottom line is that Pfleger said nothing more or less than top church leaders said about John Paul (and what they say about many of their colleagues when they die). So one question is why someone like Pfleger should be criticized for doing something that is considered perfectly acceptable when powerful church leaders do it? And two, should pastors give such reassurances of eternal reward for a departed person? If it is good enough for popes, why is it not a consolation that can be given to, say, the mother who child has died? Or do we cite Augustine to the grief-stricken?
Here's a question I've never seen addressed and wasn't discussed in RCIA to my knowledge:What's a funeral for in the Catholic tradition? Prayers to help speed the soul's journey? Or a comfort for the survivors? A reminder to all of us that there is hope in the resurrection? An act of mercy that gets us jewels in our heavenly crown? All of the above?Are Catholics obligated to do their utmost to ensure some sort of funeral for their non-believing departed? What if they request things you're uncomfortable with? There was no service for my dad at his insistence. My mother has quite an elaborate secular send-off planned for herself, something she enjoys tweaking and changing, and most of which I find in horrendous taste, even as a Bad Catholic.
David G - my view is that we shouldn't offer statements of certain knowledge to grieving family members and friends when in fact we don't possess that certain knowledge. We can offer hope, and statements of faith, and prayers. And comfort. In my opinion, Fr. Pfleger said more than should be said. I would say the same about what Cardinal Sandri said as you've quoted it here. Popes aren't exceptions to the rule. I assume that John Paul's journey to his death was accompanied by a battalion of priests and bishops to anoint him, hear his final confession, give him viaticum, bless him with an apostolic blessing, and basically pull out all the stops that can be pulled out to assure that he goes to meet our Lord. Most of us can't count on that level of pastoral aid. Yet for any of us, the grace of baptism and the other sacraments are reasons to have real hope. It may even approach certainty.Still, I see a big difference between saying, "I know for a fact Gene is in heaven", and "Dear God, please send your angels, or your Mother, to help guide Gene to heaven." It is hard being a pastoral minister, because our instinct is to address people in pain by telling them things or doing things that we think will instantly alleviate their pain. But this is not always the right thing to do; pastoral ministers must be constrained by the truth. It's not difficult to think of instances: lay, religious and deacon ministers of care may not anoint those who are seriously ill, even though the patient may request it and laypersons in other denominations do this. Bishops must pull charming and persuasive sex abusers out of public ministry even when the abuser does his utmost to stay in ministry. We may not help bring about the death of a patient who wants to die simply because she wants to die. We may not promise a pending wedding date to an engaged couple if there is a need for an annulment that hasn't been addressed yet. We may not baptize an infant if there is no reason to hope or expect that the parents will raise her as a Christian. Etc.In the face of the death of a loved one, we don't know with certainty whether she is in heaven or not. We do have hope and faith, and we shouldn't hesitate to articulate them.
A bit of humor:A New Yorker cartoon with someone arriving at the pearly gate with Peter looking down from the judge's bench.A man with briefcase standing next to the decedent hands Peter a business card, saying, "Attorney Robinson, for the defense..."
When someone dies, it is very important in the Catholic tradition to make it clear to those who loved the deceased that he or she may be roasting in the flames of hell.
Whats a funeral for in the Catholic tradition?A Funeral Mass "holds first place" among the Masses for the Dead. It is FOR the dead. The liturgy makes that clear, and the bishops' rule 385 makes clear the importance of "pastoral considerations." http://old.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter8.shtmlII. Masses for the Dead379.The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ's Passover for the dead so that, since all the members of Christ's body are in communion with each other, the petition for spiritual help on behalf of some may bring comforting hope to others.380.Among the Masses for the Dead, the Funeral Mass holds first place. It may be celebrated on any day except for Solemnities that are holy days of obligation, Holy Thursday, the Easter Triduum, and the Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter, with due regard also for all the other requirements of the norm of the law.146381.A Mass for the Dead may be celebrated on receiving the news of a death, for the final burial, or the first anniversary, even on days within the Octave of Christmas, on obligatory Memorials, and on weekdays, except for Ash Wednesday or weekdays during Holy Week.Other Masses for the Dead, that is, "daily" Masses, may be celebrated on weekdays in Ordinary Time on which optional memorials occur or when the Office is of the weekday, provided such Masses are actually applied for the dead.382.At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.383.The faithful, and especially the family of the deceased, should be urged to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice offered for the deceased person also by receiving Holy Communion.384.If the Funeral Mass is directly joined to the burial rite, once the prayer after Communion has been said and omitting the concluding rite, the rite of final commendation or farewell takes place. This rite is celebrated only if the body is present.385.In the arranging and choosing of the variable parts of the Mass for the Dead, especially the Funeral Mass (e.g., orations, readings, Prayer of the Faithful), pastoral considerations bearing upon the deceased, the family, and those attending should rightly be taken into account.Pastors should, moreover, take into special account those who are present at a liturgical celebration or who hear the Gospel on the occasion of the funeral and who may be non-Catholics or Catholics who never or rarely participate in the Eucharist or who seem even to have lost the faith. For priests are ministers of Christ's Gospel for all.
David Nickol, that's not the Catholic tradition at all.
David and David --It seems that the influence of the Jansenists/pessimists has been stronger in some places than in others. I've been quite surprised by some of the pessimism expressed here regarding those who have died. The Church here didn't preach such a pessimistic message. Yes, people seem to be more or less bad, and we were taught that they will spend more or less time in Purgatory respectively. And, yes, probably some go to Hell. But an expectation that apparently decent-if-not-perfect people have a good possibility of being condemned to hellfire would be considered unjust here,What were you all taught?
In fifteen years of Hospice chaplaincy, I attended scores or hundreds of funerals and and officiated at about he same. I've heard about every expression in a wide variety of "traditons" - especially those who have had no formal religous tradtion. The most frequent imagery others employ is quite anthprpocentric and a kind of neo -Elysian fields/Vahalla aspect. The popular imagination has long left the tradtional Christian expresion and eulogies abound with images out of the movies. When I attempt to balance those or am les than exuberant in priase of the deceased or more "commendational" than describing the joys of the kingdom, I know I disappoint the popular sensibility....It's an intersting time as the "spiritual but not religious" crowd still wants some old fashioned reassurances, for the most part, about "life beyond the veil."
"We may not baptize an infant if there is no reason to hope or expect that the parents will raise her as a Christian"Is that a church policy? Surely we wouldn't promote the 19th century idea of the Catholic nanny secretly baptizing Jewish children, but would we refuse baptizing a child whose nominally Catholic but non-practicing parents requested it? I remember reading this about Pope Francis:"In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who dont baptize the children of single mothers because they werent conceived in the sanctity of marriage, Bergoglio told his priests. These are todays hypocrites. Those who clericalize the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation.
This thread is getting to be a downer for me. I am reading Dante's "Divine Comedy with Scott D. Moringiello and I am 16 cantos away from getting out of Hell.
John Hayes: here is the text of Canon 868:"Can. 868 1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:"1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;"2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason."2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents."The minister is supposed to exercise judgment as to whether there is a "founded hope" that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. Personally, I err on the side of baptizing the baby, although I've heard of pastors who set the bar fairly high on this matter (overly restrictive policies about who can be baptized make me very angry).I've had to deal with questioning whether there is a "founded hope" one time: when two parents, both of whom were of European origin (one from Italy, the other from Norway), and neither of whom had been baptized or went to church, asked to have their children baptized. This request had been at the behest of the mother's cousin, bless her, who told the mother how important it is to have children baptized. My solution was to invite the parents to be initiated via RCIA, and then their children could also be baptized. The mother accepted and was excited that in this way she would be able to receive the Eucharist as her cousins did; the dad said, "Not now, maybe later." We did end up baptizing the children shortly after the mom was initiated.
My apologies if I'm being a downer. I'm really not pessimistic. When I preach at funerals, I try to preach hope and faith.
Making an issue of Pfleger's words at Ebert's funeral reveals more about the faultfinder, imho, than about Pfleger or Ebert.
Some of the most conservative and even rightwing members of the Catholic clergy are deacons - like Deacon Greg Kandra who want to sit in judgement of everyone - disobeying the cmmand of Jesus not to judge, but to love.
Personally, I err on the side of baptizing the baby, although Ive heard of pastors who set the bar fairly high on this matter (overly restrictive policies about who can be baptized make me very angry)Good man! I go to Mass at a church which is not my geographical parish partly because I was told a story about the pastor back then. He had to be away for an extended time so a temporary priest was sent by the diocese. When he returned. He found that the priest had refused to marry a couple because they were living together. He married them himself and had a permanent sign painted and installed on the front lawn of the church saying that whatever you had done or were doing, you were welcome in this church. It seemed to me he had the right attitude. Gather people in rather than turning them away.A couple of years ago, RTE, the Irish TV netword did a several-part documentary on the Church in Ireland. Several interviews with priests were on the issue of baptizing children whose parents didn't attend church or remember much of what they had probably been taught at one time, but who felt strongly about having tneir children baptised because it was part of what everyone traditionally did. Priests struggled with what to do but my recollection is that they usually baptized the child.
The reality of heaven has been known to us for some time:ttp://www.gametrailers.com/videos/lbvcm1/simpsons-protestant-vs--catholic-heEven Dante described it thusly in the little known "lost canto" of the Paradiso.
In defense of Dcn. Greg, I think what he meant is the same thing that often bothers me and that is this. We have a tendency to make our loved ones saints upon death. The reality is more likely, that very few get to heaven without a cleansing in Purgaotry, as nothing defiled can enter heaven, or would we even want to enter unprepared (we all see God immediately upon death and in light of total Truth, make our own judgment). Consequently, what our loved ones need most is PRAYER, as no more merit can be gained once a soul dies, except by those of us left on the other side. If we were really all great Catholics, we would pray for all of the departed as if they are in the bottom of Purgatory. Sister (Saint) Faustina was shown Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. This is fascinating read for anyone who has never read her diary:http://www.divinemercysharjah.org/dm/heaven_hell_purgatory.aspAs for Roger Ebert hope to never 2nd guess God, but I'd pleace a pretty good bet that he worked off a lot of his purgatorial stay by the cross he accepted and carried here on earth, with all the world to see. Heck it's a big deal for me to go out of the house sans makeup; Ebert was on the world stage with only half of a face! It's never too late to pray for any soul, as God is outside of time. Our loved ones can merit our prayers that we haven't even yet prayed, as God know already knows what we will do with our free will, consequently, those "yet to be prayed prayers" are with our loved ones upon their death. Let's hope we all get heaven and experience a "Happy Death," most certainly R Ebert.
"It seemed to me he had the right attitude. Gather people in rather than turning them away."John - I couldn't agree more. Good for your pastor. As for that visiting priest - don't get me started.
Gerelyn, thanks, but I could have looked that up myself. HOW is the mass for the dead helpful TO the dead? What obligations are Catholics under to a) ensure that their families hold funeral masses for them and b) not carry out the wishes of family members who have requested no or made up "services."Our priest told me I could not scatter some of my dad's ashes on his grandparents' graves b/c the body has to be kept intact, even if it is cremated. I settled for collecting dirt from their graves and throwing it in when his urn was interred. The priest said that was OK as long as no body parts were mixed, but that it was merely a sentimental gesture of no spiritual efficacy.
David Nickol: "When someone dies, it is very important in the Catholic tradition to make it clear to those who loved the deceased that he or she may be roasting in the flames of hell."To be fair and accurate, our tradition has been more insistent on focusing on the deceased roasting in the flames of Purgatory. The bereaved could either spend a fortune (literally, if they had it) on prayers and indulgences to try to mitigate the horror that placed in their minds, or comfort themselves with the thought that at least their beloved's torment would one day end, then drink up and try not to think about it at all. I don't think that's overstating the case. Modern concepts of Purgatory have moved away from the temporary hellfire model, but they still have to deal with purgatorial "fire" as defined doctrine. Little wonder most officiating at Catholic funerals today shy away from tradition when trying to comfort the bereaved.
"the body has to be kept intact, even if it is cremated."@6:03 pmWould that be an example of a Christian koan?And would "relics" be an adequate one-word reply?
Jean Raber: I have also heard that the body has to remain intact, even if it is cremated. But if this is true, why are so many of the saints's bodies "parted out" to different places; a relic here, a relic there? I know of several instances in which part of someone's ashes were placed in a columbarium, and part were buried on a grandparent's grave. I don't think the family asked anyone, they just did it; perhaps they felt that it was easier to get forgiveness than permission.I think it is a loving gesture and completely appropriate to pray for the dead and have Masses said. It is a way of sending our love forward. If the person is indeed in a state of purgation, it seems to me that it would be encouraging for them to know that their loved ones were praying for them. Having said that, however, I think it is important to remember that we are not responsible for saving them, Jesus has already done that. We say prayers and have Masses said because it is a caring thing to do, not because we are under pressure to get them into heaven. It is also comforting to remember that the angels and saints in heaven are praying for them. Beverley Bailey said, " Modern concepts of Purgatory have moved away from the temporary hellfire model, but they still have to deal with purgatorial fire as defined doctrine." I have always understood the "fire" to be metaphorical, that it was more a state of learning and facing up to the ways one fell short of the mark in life. It can be understood as a merciful doctrine, particularly if someone died unprepared or unexpectedly.I hope David Nickol's comment was ironic. It is hard enough to lose a loved one, particularly after much suffering, without imagining them suffering further torments. We can confidently entrust them to the arms of God, who loves them far more than we are able. The joyful hope expressed in the "In Paridisum" (either in Latin or English) seems more appropriate toChristians, who were admonished by St. Paul not to grieve "as those who have no hope".
Find this whole train of comments to be disappointing. Here is what is important rather than trying to criticize or parse every minute detail:"In "What, Then, Is Liturgy?" Anscar Chupungco OSB reminds us that in the midst of the current, often fierce, debates about the nature of the liturgy: "At the end of the day what matters are not personal opinions but what truly contributes to making the prayer of the Church an encounter with the person of Christ." "Encounter with the person of Christ" is the heart and soul of our contemporary understanding of sacrament. Jesus, the primordial sacrament is not only an "outward sign" of the divinity, he is God. And the Church, as sacrament, is not just a society or an international organization which points the way to God, the Church is the Body of Christ. "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me." The Eucharist, the source and summit of the Church's life is not just an outward sign of God's love, it embodies God's Love; it is Christ's Body. And we who have been baptized are not merely followers or imitators of Christ, we are his body, we who eat and drink the one bread and one cup become, by the Holy Spirit, one Body, one Spirit in Christ. Sacraments are not merely something that we "receive"; sacraments are something that we are! And like the first sacrament, Jesus, we too are destined to pass through death and rise to a life absorbed into Trinitarian love -- theosis!"Suggest that Deacon appears to have forgotten this!
So one question is why someone like Pfleger should be criticized for doing something that is considered perfectly acceptable when powerful church leaders do it?And two, should pastors give such reassurances of eternal reward for a departed person? If it is good enough for popes, why is it not a consolation that can be given to, say, the mother who child has died?
Religion is many more things than the tightly reasoned article it often is here. Let a billion flowers bloom.
Crystal Watson 04/09/2013 - 2:01 amAquinas thought that there wouldnt be a bodily resurrection until the Last Day, but Jesus told the thief on the cross next to him that that day hed be in paradise.
Time is a human notion. Presumably, God's not constrained by considerations of sequence.
If our deceased love one is already in heaven, then there is no reason to pray for him.Of course, if we are wrong in being so presumptuous, then that is a pretty lousy deal for the deceased, who then has no one praying for him.The sin of presumption is one of the most UNcharitable things a person can do. (Engaging in obnoxious snark about Pope John Paul II is rather uncharitable as well, even if typical.)When Monica died, although widely considered a living saint in her time, Augustine did not dare to presume upon God's mercies. He understood that the decent thing was to pray for her and at least ask God if she could be with Him.
Bender actually if we pray for a person already in heaven, the soul will benefit from what St. Thomas Aquinas described as "accidential glory."http://therosarytrail.com/souls-in-purgatory-2/Also, no prayer is ever wasted, it will go somewhere needed.In regards to the the' body' separation stuff, I'm pretty sure that only applies to cremation (as in can't scatter ashes), not non creamated dead bodies. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of anything in Catholicism against sharing "body parts." If that were the case, organ donation would be wrong, and I know Pope Benedict carries an organ donor card.
Bender said: "... if we are wrong in being so presumptuous, then that is a pretty lousy deal for the deceased, who then has no one praying for him. The sin of presumption is one of the most UNcharitable things a person can do."As I said above, there is no one who has no one to pray for them; the saints and angels are constantly praying for us all. It is a work of mercy to pray for the living and the dead, but it is not as though God is holding our deceased for ransom until we put forth enough prayers to get them out.I had understood the sin of presumption to be referring to oneself; that we are not to causually remain in a state of sin because "God loves us anyway".
Katherine you are correct in that the angels and saints are always praying for us, but the one thing they can't do that we can is to offer a mass for thei sould, the most powerful pray of all. St. Padre Pio (who had a gift to read souls and was often visited by the deceased suffering in purgatory), used to have souls come back to him from purgatory asking for "just one more mass." He would say it, and the soul would latger let him know that he/she was released and now in heaven.On a personal level, I've known several people who swear they have "ghosts" in their homes. When they tell me about, and the name of the person, I always offer a mass for that soul and guess what, they never see the "ghost" again. God often allows the souls to come back and ask for help. I recently worked at a Medical Center where about every 3 person had seen the "dead pathologist" walking the halls at night. I had a mass said for him too, and he "never was seen again," at least to my knowledge. I've done extensive study on purgatory from strong Catholic sources. Trust me that these souls suffer greatly, because they have seen God (upon death) and are now separated (imagine being separated from the love of your life, a trillion-fold). They can't pray for themselves, but they can pray for us (via Jesus). Never under estimate the power of the souls in purgatory praying for you. All you have to do is ask! And of course, it would be nice to return the favor.Consequently, to keep back more on topic, when we make saints of our loved ones, few if any pray for them. In reality, they are most likely suffering a very painful purgatory and need prayers despertly.
Yikes, sorry about the typos!
When I was a senior in high school back in 1956, a wise priest, Fr. Speight, who taught our religion class once a week, (we had the good Dominicans the other days of the week) said to us all, "if you have never doubted your Faith, you have never really thought about your Faith." These words have been the north star of my exploration of faith as an adult. No one who has read the postings of Roger Ebert can question his sincere thought about his religion and his belief in God. Faith implies that we don't know-----we need that leap of faith to reach our commitment. Does a good God punish those who, after pondering His existence, can not make that leap of faith?
Isn't it funny that, if we do have faith, then we must thank God for that grace, because everything good comes from Him, but if we do not, then we are the ones to be blamed, because we must not have accepted it?
Mr. Nickol: I know the Dies Irae and other pessimistic passages used to be part of the Requiem Mass, but I have difficulty believing that there was ever a time where the family of the deceased was told right to their face that their loved one might be in Hell. I thought the ideal was neutrality - no canonization, no damnation, just hope. Can anyone else comment from a position of knowledge?
"Our priest told me I could not scatter some of my dads ashes on his grandparents graves b/c the body has to be kept intact, even if it is cremated. I settled for collecting dirt from their graves and throwing it in when his urn was interred. The priest said that was OK as long as no body parts were mixed, but that it was merely a sentimental gesture of no spiritual efficacy."Hi, Jean, this site has some guidelines for Catholic cremation: http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/cremation/c... is a passage from that document that states what the priest may have had in mind:"The cremated remains of a body should be treated with the same respect given to the human body from which they come. This includes the use of a worthy vessel to contain the ashes, the manner in which they are carried, and the care and attention to appropriate placement and transport, and the final disposition. The cremated remains should be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium. The practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains on the home of a relative or friend of the deceased are not the reverent disposition that the Church requires. (no. 417)"Why would the church feel this way about scattering cremated remains? This passage from another document may suggest some of its thinking: "The Church has always held a preference for corporeal body [sic]. The body of a deceased loved one forcefully brings to mind the mystery of life and death and our belief that our human bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and destined for future glory at the resurrection of the dead. In addition, the body which lies in death recalls the personal story of faith, the past relationships, and the continued spiritual presence of the deceased person."This is the body once washed in baptism, anointed with the oil of salvation, and fed with the bread of life. This is the body whose hands clothed the poor and embraced the sorrowing. The human body is so inextricably associated with the human person that it is hard to think of a human person apart from his or her body. Thus, the Church's reverence and care for the body grows out of a reverence and concern for the person whom the Church now commends to the care of God."http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/cremation/c...
James Kabala,I was being ironic, or perhaps sardonic. But I keep remembering an incident from when I was in high school, or perhaps the year after I graduated. One of the Christian Brothers who taught at the school had become a good friend of my family and me. There was a car crash in whichif I remember correctlythree students died. He knew the mother of one of the students, and he told me he was speaking with her and she said, almost breaking down, "It's not possible, is it, that he is in hell?" Now, he was a good and compassionate man, but he said, "You have to accept that it's a possibility." I personally would never have said that. Of course, I personally find the concept of hell barbaric and primitive. I don't see how a loving God could send a person to eternal torment. (I don't buy the argument people choose hell and God just let's them make that choice.) I must say that I have no sense of the continued existence of anyone that I have known who has died. I am not saying I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm just saying that I have no sense, no feeling, that, say, my mother continues to exist somewhere. I don't say it's impossible. But if I did have that sense, or even had a strong belief in the afterlife, I really wouldn't want to go through the rest of my life wondering if my mother is in hell.
"I was told afterwards, rightly or wrongly I dont know, that priests were not supposed to eulogize lay persons, precisely because they often do not know them well enough."I recently attended the funeral of my sister which was held in my small, hometown Midwestern parish in which none of my family had resided nor attended since 1977. My surviving sister and I met with the parish priest and spent an hour talking with him about our deceased sister. He asked lots of questions. When he gave the funeral eulogy it was like he had known him all of his life. We commented to some of the parishioners who attended the funeral and who had known my sister and they indicated that he is a truly pastoral priest who makes a great deal of effort to know about those whom he eulogizes.It is up to the survivors to ensure that a priest who is not familiar with the deceased knows enough to be able to say something intelligent and meaningful. If the priest won't take the time to listen and learn, find another priest.
Ebert was taught by the Sinsinawa Dominicans, including one of whom happened to also be my 8th grade teacher (at a different school and at a different time). No wonder he was an intelligent thinker rather than a parroter of the catechism!
My Liturgical Theology professor and dear friend Fr. Richard Rutherford, CSC, taught us that leave-taking rituals across the religious and spiritual landscape have in common three fundamental components, rather like a symphony in three movements: 1-mourners acknowledge that someone they know and love has died; 2-they remember and celebrate the deceased's life within the context of her or his ultimate commitments; 3-they commend the deceased to the next dimension of existence. As a hospice Chaplain, I have prepared and presided at hundreds of funerals of all kinds, using as my guideline these three principles. I have found that survivors uniformly appreciate a structure that honors not only the deceased person, but also provides a context in which to place the deceased's life and legacy in a larger context and gives survivors a sense of hope. As a Christian clergy person, I don't believe that my role is to tell people what God will do with this or that individual; at the same time, I take as my starting point the One who prayed that his murderers might be forgiven. That gives me comfort as well as I ponder my own shortcomings and infidelities.
The cremated remains should be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium. In the Los Angeles Cathedral there is a complete floor below the church which is a very highly finished mausoleum. In addition to casket burials it has 5,000 niches for containers of cremated remains. See: http://olacathedral.org/cathedral/mausoleum/docs/Mausoleum_floor_Plan1.p... is now very much accepted by tne Church
James and David, about hell. Hell is real, trust me but it really is by the free will of God that it has to exist. If God gives us all freewill, how could he possibly make anyone who hated him spend eternal life with him. Quite a few saints have seen hell and wrote about it, the most famous St. Faustina of Divine Mercy. I provided this link earlier on her visit to heaven, hell, and purgatory. http://www.divinemercysharjah.org/dm/heaven_hell_purgatory.aspRecently I saw a story about this priest in FL who had a NDE and also saw hell (unlike the best sellers which all mostly go to heaven). It isn't church approved, but he is a Parish Catholic Priest and not selling anything. http://www.frmaniyangathealingministry.com/As for hope, their is hope for all of us until our last breath. One of the many things Sister (Saint) Faustina also taught was that before we take our last breath, Jesus comes to ALL of us for that last chance at acceptance. I forget which saint it was, but she prayed and prayed for a relative for conversion who ended up jumping off of a bridge. She was so mad at God she told asked him how all of her years of prayers were ignored. His answer: Don't you trust in me that I was bewteen the bridge and the water?I highly recommend St. Faustina's Diary.
At last I understand. Condemning someone to everlasting torment is an act of mercy.
It is said that the angelic host plays Bach when performing music for God. Mozart, a la compagne! [among themselves - spelling?]Roger Ebert is certainly included in the company!
Thanks re the Catholic view of cremation and disposition of the ashes FOR THE BODIES OF CATHOLICS. Does the Church care what we do with non-Catholics? Or, as a Catholic, will I go to hell for following my mother's weird funeral instructions. Quick answers are appreciated. Offline if you'd rather, but only if you have helpful info.
See: http://www.catholic-cemeteries.org/cremation.aspxLife changes and so do the practical applications when life ends.
Are we really so unhopeful that we think the majority of those who have died are not in heaven? Do we not want to celebrate their lives and examples of loving service? Is this body in a casket merely another cadaver to be sprinkled and incensed, but not remembered and loved? The prohibitions by so many celebrants and liturgists against eulogy approaches and inclusion in the homily for either the Vigil service or Mass of Chrisitan Burial seems to deny the very humanness of the deceased and the meaning of their life to those who remain. To prate on with pious reminders of disembodied theology simply means the preacher must not have prepared well or actually has nothing relevant to say. The mourners and guests of the family need to hear hope, love, faith and positive views from the preacher and the church. We are not talking canonization, but we are talking belief that God has a plan that includes bringing all of us safely home. Else why pray the Song of Farewell at the final blessing?
Agree, Mike. The teachings of Jesus seem to have been forgotten. God is like a woman who, when she discovers a coin has been lost, lights a lamp and sweeps until she finds it. And God is like a mother who, when her child asks for bread, does not give the child a stone, and when the child asks for a fish, does not give the child a serpent. Etc. Reliable information about God the Parent is found in the gospels, not in theology/philosophy/astrology/private revelations/etc.
What seems to us complex and paradoxical may be simple in God's sight. Lacking divine knowledge, however, we can either accept complexity and uncertainty or insist on a sham simplicity. And the complexity seems pretty intractable, as indicated by the numerous comments others have posted. Though I can't pretend to add anything new, a few points seem worth emphasizing:The hymn "Dies Irae" may sound like a downer, but it is firmly in the Biblical tradition. Amos 5:18 and Rev. 6:16-17 (with its wonderful image of a wrathful lamb) are just two of many passages attesting to that. Emphasis on stern punishment, assuring divine justice, is part of offering consolation to the oppressed, dispossessed, and cruelly treated, whose experience tells them that there is no justice. And in the end, that entails insisting on the reality of hell. But what does that mean, and in which way is that part of the faith?Whatever the merits of visions reported by saints like Faustina, such private revelations are not part of the depositum fidei. Anyway, we have enough to do just dealing with the Bible and official teaching.We are cautioned against pretending to know with certainty that any given person has been damned eternally. But must we not believe that at least some of the worst among our fellow mortals are in hell? At least one very respected theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, was a firm agnostic in that regard. He was clear that being damned is a real and dreadful possibility for everyone. But he assessed the content of relevant Scripture and Tradition, and he concluded this: We may actually hope that everyone is saved, though we cannot know it. The distinctions already made between knowing and hoping, and the wording of the hymn In Paradisum, are very much in line with that.


text:
Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.
| Poorkar, H. , Tasnee, Jubail, Saudi Arabia; Shbrain, H. , Tasnee, Jubail, Saudi Arabia; Al-Harbi, S. , Tasnee, Jubail, Saudi Arabia; Al-Saeed, A. , Tasnee, Jubail, Saudi Arabia
To realize full activity from polymerization catalysts, feed streams need to be as clean as possible from all contaminants and catalyst poisons. A very low level of even a single catalyst poison can reduce catalyst activity drastically.
[ Ziegler-Natta]
[CO removal]
[poison ]
Ziegler-Natta catalysts are primarily used in polypropylene
(PP) production. These catalysts are very sensitive to various
poisons and their activity varies according to the nature and
level of catalyst poisons. Among others, typical propylene
polymerization catalyst poisons include acetonitrile, arsine,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), carbonyl sulfide, cyclopentadiene,
ethylene oxide, oxygen, palladium, phosphine, moisture, methanol and propylene oxide.
Catalyst poisons usually are present as impurities within
feedstreams like propylene, ethylene and hydrogen. Each of the
poisons has a varying degree of influence on the catalyst
activity. Though their general behavior is known, it is always
difficult to quantify the losses due to individual poisons
within commercial-size plants. Among the difficulties, accurate
measurement of trace impurities in ppb levels remains the
biggest challenge. Experience shows that there are great
difficulties in offline sampling as well as online sampling.
Changes in process conditions during polymerization is also
another factor. It is not always possible to normalize catalyst
productivities against changing process parameters.
CO is one of the strongest poisons for Ziegler-Natta
catalysts. If not treated properly at the source unit, CO is
present with the propylene feed as a contaminant and it can
reduce catalyst activity drastically (Fig. 1
and Fig. 2). As per the published literature,
a concentration of about 6 ppb (wt%) CO reduces catalyst
activity by approximately 5%.
This study from a commercially operating unit shows the
importance of using a proper guard against possible feed
contaminants acting as catalyst poisons. The unit has two
different primary sources of propylene supply. Source A has CO
treatment beds (typically, a sulfur removal bed followed by a
CO removal bed) while Source B doesnt have any guard beds
to protect against CO (Fig. 3). Normally both
sources feed propylene to a PP unit. In this case, one of the
sources is under a shutdown and an alternative Source C is used
to meet the propylene demand.
Fig. 4 reveals that catalyst activity is
approximately 25% lower when untreated propylene feed Source A
is online. This translates into an additional cost of
approximately $5 million/yr due to excessive catalyst
Fig. 5 illustrates the effect that varying CO
levels in propylene feed Source A have on catalyst activity for
a period of nine days on a real-time basis. The figure shows
that the CO level is increasing while catalyst activity is
dropping. A loss of approximately 45% catalyst activity is seen
when CO levels go up from approximately 90 ppb to approximately
250 ppb.
Fig. 6 portrays a relationship in a commercial
reactor between levels of CO in a propylene feed vs. catalyst
activity when other process parameters are kept constant. A
simple extrapolation yields a further activity rise by 10% to
13% if there is no CO contamination in the propylene
Since the source of the CO contamination was known and the
average CO level was confirmed by the online CO analyzer, it
was easier to calculate lost revenue. Various options were
evaluated against the cost and feasibility of carrying out the
In Fig. 7, it was proposed to partially
fill the existing dryer on Source B with CO-removal catalysts.
This proposal would save on potential capital and construction costs associated with
installing a new bed, associated piping and required plot
space. All operational aspects and regeneration were carefully
evaluated and documented accordingly.
As shown in Fig. 8, CO at the outlet of the
bed decreased from approximately 120 ppb to below 20 ppb. A
quick analysis based on the two month operation revealed a
possible return on investment in less than a year.
To realize full activity from polymerization catalysts, feed
streams need to be as clean as possible from all contaminants
and catalyst poisons. A very low level of even a single
catalyst poison can reduce catalyst activity drastically. In
line with the keep it clean philosophy, the feed
treatment unit must be carefully selected to treat all possible
contaminants. The money invested can give a quick return and
the payback period can be completed in as little as six to nine
months. HP
All comments are subject to editorial review.
All fields are compulsory.
Interesting article.
Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!
A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry
Engineers and designers are highly skilled individuals. Forcing them to enter design changes using tables, forms and spreadsheets is unproductive and uneconomical, and it increases the likelihood of human error—this is the way that most instrumentation software systems currently work. For too long, software vendors have denied engineers and designers the simple practicality of a graphical visual engineering interface with "drag and drop" capability and inbuilt intelligence, ensuring changes are automatically replicated into all the associated data and databases.
Is 2016 the peak for US gasoline demand?
Too soon to tell
July 2016

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The sound, action and experience of salad dressing--or other such fluids--blurching forth from its container, when squeezed.
The salad dressing blurched forth from the bottle all over my plate.
by John Walford August 11, 2008
Trending Now
Top Definition
A belch that brings a small amount of stomach acid into the throat, stopping just short of becoming vomit.
"I can't eat Taco Bell food; it makes me blurch."
by Rev. Ayatollah Mulla Fakir January 25, 2008


text:
The striker has signed a three-and-a-half-year deal at the Stadium of Light, just days after he was booed by some of the Black Cats fans when he appeared against them for the Swans.
"As soon as I heard about the interest from Sunderland I didn't even have to consider any of the other options that were on the table," the 27-year-old told safc.com.
"I was born and brought up in the north east so I know first-hand the intense passion that people have for their football in this part of the world - it's special and there's nowhere else like it."
Graham has been manager Martin O'Neill's top transfer target this month and the Ulsterman has had to remain patient with his club's bid on the table for some time before Swansea eventually decided to accept it.
However, they had been confident all along that Graham was keen to move to the Stadium of Light and have held their nerve to get their man. His initial task will be to persuade those supporters who jeered his introduction during the second half of Tuesday night's 0-0 draw at the Stadium of Light that his Newcastle roots and affections will be no bar to success on Wearside.
Graham said: "Of course, I totally understand that some fans might need convincing about my commitment to Sunderland because of my roots, but I've always given 100 per cent no matter what team I play for and no matter who I play against.
"It's up to me to show people I deserve to wear the Sunderland shirt, and I'm excited about playing for a club as big as this. I'm really excited about the future - this is a new phase of my career and I can't wait to get started."
The reaction on Tuesday night prompted former club Middlesbrough to make their own enquiry about Graham, although it soon emerged that he was intent on remaining in the Barclays Premier League with Sunderland.
Graham will provide much-needed back-up to 10-goal leading scorer Steven Fletcher following the departures of Fraizer Campbell and Louis Saha and Ji Dong-won's loan move to German club Augsburg. Connor Wickham is the only other senior striker on the books, although James McFadden could win an extended stay after showing signs of rediscovering his form during an initial three-month stay.
- Soccer
- Sports & Recreation
- Sunderland


text:
Chandra Levy is the intern whose 2001 disappearance in Washington, D.C., became a major story and ended the political career of Congressman Gary Condit. Chandra Levy was a former intern at the Federal Bureau of Prisons when she disappeared from Washington D.C. on 1 May 2001. Levy was due to return to her home in California for college graduation ceremonies; when she failed to do so, her parents contacted authorities. Police searched Levy's apartment and found money, credit cards, her packed luggage and no signs of a struggle. Police discovered that Chandra Levy had had some sort of relationship with California Rep. Gary Condit; Condit at first called Levy a "good friend," but police found Condit's DNA on clothes in Levy's apartment, and in July of 2001 he admitted to police that he and Levy had had a deeper relationship. (Chandra Levy's status as an intern drew extra attention to the case, thanks in part to intern Monica Lewinsky's infamous affair with former president Bill Clinton, which Condit had publicly condemned.) On 22 May 2002, Chandra Levy's remains were discovered in Washington's Rock Creek Park. One week later the D.C. medical examiner ruled that Levy's death was a homicide, although the exact details of her death remained unknown. In March of 2009, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador named Ingmar A. Guandique was charged with Levy's murder. Guandique was by then already in prison for other assaults on female joggers at the same park. His trial began in October of 2010, and on November 22nd of that year the jury found Guandique guilty of murdering Chandra Levy. He was later sentenced to 60 years in prison for the murder.
Copyright © 1998-2016 by Who2?, LLC. All rights reserved.


text:
Share < br />this article:
Ariel Winter's Best Red Carpet Looks Ever
Peggy Truong
| January 24, 2013 - 4:05 pm
Share < br />this article:
View Full Size
Return to Story
Ariel Winter
Recommended for you
Ariel Winter in Short Shorts Leads Today's Star Sightings
It Appears Ariel Winter Has a New Man in Her Life — Find Out Who!
A Makeup-Free Ariel Winter Leads Today's Star Sightings
Ariel Winter Showed Off Brand-New Tiger Tattoo During Night Out
Breaking Hair News: Ariel Winter Returns to Her Roots
Ariel Winter's 'Office' Looks a Lot Better Than Ours
Around The Web
This Is Why Rob Kardashian Wasn't with Blac Chyna at Grandmother MJ's…
Did Ed Sheeran Secretly Get Married?
This Video of North West Shouting 'I Love Lady Gaga' Is Everything
Blac Chyna Attends Kardashian Family Function with Ring, Without Rob
WATCH: Cara Delevingne Destroys Dave Franco and James Corden in Rap…
Sign Up For The Latest Celebuzz News
Thank you for signing up for our newsletter. You will receive a confirmation shortly.
Sign Up
Top Photos
All »
What Convention? Malia Obama Skipped the DNC to Attend Lollapalooza
Tori Spelling Looks a Wee Bit Messy Leaving an L.A. Club… See Pics!
Kendall Jenner Shows Some Leg During Night Out at The Nice Guy
Rihanna Scores 26th No. 1 Hit on Dance Club Charts with 'Kiss It Better'
Gigi Hadid Flaunts Her Picture-Perfect Figure on Set
Lindsay Lohan Spotted Drinking and Smoking Amid Pregnancy Rumors
You'll Love
Beyoncé, Blue Ivy Wear Matching Dresses
Lady Gaga Covers The Beatles
'Scream Queens' Season 2 Sneak Peek


text:
7 Great Men in History (And Why You Should Hate Them)
Historical Figure: J. Edgar Hoover
What He's Remembered For
Hoover headed the FBI through eight presidential administrations, helped out during the Depression and World War II and received several awards including an honorary knighthood from King George VI.
Why You Should Hate Him
Most people already hate J. Edgar, so perhaps it would be more important to explain why else you should hate him: He told Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself.
Hoover once asked to meet with Dr. King for lunch, and King refused. Apparently, Hoover was so furious that he made it his mission to destroy his career and life. He sent a package to Dr. King's house in which he politely requested that, in 34 days, he kill himself or else. King, just as politely, declined.
Once King was assassinated, Hoover and his cronies started rumors that the shooter was the husband of one of King's many, many mistresses. To add insult to injury, Hoover presumably did all of this while wearing a sundress.
The country was so disgusted with his behavior that President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to let Hoover continue serving in his incredibly influential and well-paid position as head of the FBI, despite having reached the mandatory retirement age.
Honorable Mention: Lyndon B. Johnson (see above)
Historical Figure: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
What He's Remembered For
F.D.R is the only president to serve more than two terms and continues to rank in the top five greatest presidents of all time. He is almost universally accepted as one of, if not the, greatest president in American history. Roosevelt steered us through the Depression and a war while developing a strong rapport with his public through his intimate Fireside Chats.
Why You Should Hate Him
Most people don't know this, but F.D.R couldn't fucking walk. We'll let that sink in. Seriously, go ahead and do a Google Image search of F.D.R; that's not a chair he's sitting on. It's a chair with wheels. A wheelchair. Oh, also, he was married to his cousin and cheated on her with his secretary. But, back on task: a fucking wheelchair? It's a good thing the American people have wised up since then.
Historical Figure: Thomas Edison
What He's Remembered For
Invented radio, microwaves, primitive radar systems, the lightbulb and electricity
Why You Should Hate Him
He did not invent the light bulb. Edison was not the smartest scientist around-not by a long shot. He did, however, hire a brilliant man named Nikola Tesla, who luckily was.
Tesla is responsible for radio, microwaves, primitive radar systems and the electricity we use today, which Edison gets credit for. The truth is that Edison hired Tesla to redesign his electrical generators. Tesla did, but when he asked for the $50,000 he was promised, Edison replied, and this is a direct quote, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor," and paid him only in middle fingers.
Tesla quit and tried to strengthen his electrical discoveries in an effort to provide free energy for the entire world, but Edison and his thugs at General Electric devoted time not spent on stealing patents to making sure that the rest of the scientific community thought Tesla was crazy and dangerous. Tesla died alone and in serious amounts of debt. Edison died on a pile of money in a "Suck it, Tesla" T-shirt that he did not design.


text:
WKU honored 89 students from five Bowling Green and Warren County high schools for their academic achievements.
This year's group has an average ACT composite score of 29.11 and grade-point average of 3.89 and included 21 Kentucky Governor's Scholars and 11 National Merit Semifinalists.
The following students were honored at a luncheon Nov. 16 at the WKU's Knicely Conference Center:
Bowling Green High School: Mitchell Adamic, Sarah Alford, Erin Bardin, Mary Grayson Batts, Elizabeth Brooks, Jalen Brown, Morgan Cleary, David "Drew" Crocker, Rachel Daniel, Victoria Dillard, Lindsay Gay, Owen Hanna, Meredith Harbison, Shelby Higginbotham, Denis Hodzic, Ethan Holaday, Han Hong, Kelsey Lopez, Kristen Lyons, Diamond Marshall, Benjamin Morrison,Drew Norman, Sarah Parks, Selena Quintanilla, Spencer Renfro, Elise "Ellie" Shoulders, Savannah Snyder, Logan West, Margaret "Maggie" Wohltjen.
Greenwood High School: Jessica Agro, Brenna Derby, Ernestina Gaspar, Sara Halcomb, Christopher Hardin, Henry Harrison, Amanda Kieffer, Megan Lee, Dakota Madison, Kenton Mobley, Brian Oulay, Steven Owens, Shelley Owens, Shivanni Patel, Joshua Propst, Catherine Rice, Blake Schreiner, Kristina Shaffer, Joseph Stuckey, Isaiah Thomas-Turner, Alexander Young.
Warren Central High School: Elijah Gottke, Alci Holmes, Dzenana Kadric, Joshua Lincoln, Matthew Pate, Terione Patrick, Tianna Poole, Melina Ramic, Keiti Rueter, Zachary Steward, Jared Suggs, Bradley Thomison.
Warren East High School: Cinnamon Caldwell, Hannah Conner, Nanci Escobar, Zachary Ryne, Hannah Wagoner, Kayla Wint, Allie Young.
South Warren High School: Kristina Abel, Hayleigh Banks, Joseph Bentley, Jonathan Boustani, Samuel Brown, Brandon Carter, Megan Chandler, Lauren Colby, Amy Cummings, Jonas Gant, Tyler Griffith, Nickolas Harris, Shelby Newton, Tyler Owens, Michael Schrader, Cody Snazelle, Jordan Upton, James Vanthournout, Mallory Vaughn, Abigail Watkins, Kenny Wilson.
Schedule of upcoming luncheons
Nov. 27: Glasgow Scholars Luncheon at 11:30 a.m. at the South Central Bank Operations Center in Glasgow.
Nov. 29: Lexington Scholars Luncheon at 11:30 a.m. (Eastern time) at Lexington Signature Club.


text:
Is there a cohomology theory for algebraic groups which captures the variety structure and restricts to the ordinary group cohomology under certain conditions.
For a full treatment of the foundations it's best to consult Part I of the book Representations of Algebraic Groups by J.C. Jantzen (2nd ed., AMS, 2003) even though it's not easily available online. Rational (or Hochschild) cohomology has been well developed, including the broader scheme framework (Demazure-Gabriel book and Jantzen). What CPS and van der Kallen do in their important paper here is to relate indirectly the algebraic group cohomology with finite group cohomology for related finite groups of Lie type. This theme has been much further developed in many later papers, but is subtle.
For the algebraic groups themselves, this kind of cohomology theory has also been studied in many papers; but relating it to abstract group cohomology for the algebraic (rather than finite) groups such as the special linear group is not at all obvious.
By the way, the Inventiones paper and some others by CPS et al. are freely available online through http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de (just do a quick search for Parshall).
ADDED: Maybe I can answer the original question in more detail and respond to Ralph's further question. For an affine group scheme $G$ over a field $k$, rational (Hochschild) cohomology is defined as usual in terms of derived functors of the fixed point functor. But everything is done in the category of rational $G$-modules; for an affine algebraic group over an algebraically closed field and finite dimensional modules this means that representing matrices have coordinate functions in $k[G]$.
Hochschild realized that for groups with added structure, one must use injective resolutions (there are usually not enough projectives). in any case, rational cohomology tends to diverge a lot from the usual group cohomology. In characteristic 0, you are essentially getting Lie algebra cohomology. Studying rational $G$-modules is equivalent to studying modules for the Hopf dual of $k[G]$ (hyperalgebra, or algebra of distributions). So the answer to Ralph's question is yes: the notions of cohomology agree.
Jantzen's main focus is on prime characteristic and reductive algebraic groups, where powers of the Frobenius map yield kernels which are finite group schemes. Roughly speaking, injectives for $G$ are direct limits of injectives for finite dimensional hyperalgebras, starting with the restricted enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra of $G$ (whose cohomology usually differs from the ordinary Lie algebra cohomology). Relating rational cohomology of $G$ to ordinary cohomology of finite subgroups gets even more subtle, as discussed above. By now there is a lot of literature on these matters but many unanswered questions.
This is largely redundant with Jim Humphrey's answer, but I thought I'd add the following remarks. Ordinary group cohomology is defined via derived functors, but can be described using cocycles -- this amounts to taking an explicit free resolution of the trivial module. In the setting of an algebraic group, you can also describe cohomology via cocycles; here the cocycles you should take are regular functions.
More precisely: If $G$ is a (linear) algebraic group over a field $k$, and if $V$ is a finite dimensional linear representation of $G$ as $k$-algebraic group ("rational repr"), one can consider the group $C^i(G,V)$ of all regular functions $$\prod^iG=G \times \cdots \times G \to V;$$ using the "usual" boundary mappings for group cohomology, $C^\bullet(G,V)$ can be viewed as a complex. The key feature is that the cohomology of the complex $C^\bullet(G,V)$ coincides with the derived functor cohomology of $V$ in the category of rational representations of $G$. (I'm suppressing here the correct definition of $C^\bullet(G,V)$ for infinite dimensional rational representations $V$ of $G$).
This point of view makes (more?) clear how this "algebraic" cohomology can diverge from "ordinary" cohomology. Consider e.g. the additive group $G = \mathbf{G}_a$ over $k$, and consider the trivial repr. $V = k$. The algebraic cohomology $H^1(\mathbf{G}_a,k)$ identifies with the set of additive regular functions $\mathbf{G}_a \to k$; this is 1-dimensional if $k$ has char. 0, while if $k$ has char. $p>0$ this cohomology has a $k$-basis of the form {$T^{p^i} \mid i \ge 0$ } (for a suitable regular function $T:\mathbf{G}_a \to k$). On the other hand, the "ordinary" first cohomology for the group $k = \mathbf{G}_a(k)$ is just the set of all "abstract" group homomorphisms $k \to k$. In general, there are many such homomorphisms which are not regular functions (e.g. take $p$th-roots of the function $T$ in positive characteristic).
Yes, it's called "rational cohomology" -- not to be confused with cohomology with rational coefficients... see eg "Rational and Generic cohomology" by Cline, Parshall, Scott and van der Kallen, Inventiones.
By using google I have even found a link, make sure it is legal for you to download this file:
This post came up on my RSS feed, and I didn't see that it had been answered in 2011, but since I've now written the following, you may as well have it ...
One other point, which I think is relevant to your question. If you take $G$ over $k=\bar k$, char $k=p$ with a Frobenius map $F$ whose fixed points $G^F$ is a split Chevalley group $G^F=G(q)$ with $q=p^r$, then CPSvdK in their 1977 Inventiones paper explain a strong connection between the rational cohomology $H^i(G,M)$ and $H^i(G(q),M)$ for $M$ a finite-dimensional rational $G$-module. As other posters have pointed out, there is divergence between the two, even for $q$ sufficiently large. One has to perform sufficiently many Frobenius twists to $M$ to make the two sides agree. The first example is for $G=SL_2$ and $k$ has characteristic $2$. Then if the natural module is $V=L(1)$, this has $H^1(SL_2,V)=0$ in the rational setting but for all $r>1$, $H^1(SL_2(2^r),V)$ is $1$-dimensional. The 'generic cohomology' is achieved as the stable limit $H^i(G(q),M)$ for $q=p^r$ as $r\to \infty$. So $H_\mathrm{gen}^1(SL_2,V)\cong k$.
What's the difference between $H^i$ and $H^i_\mathrm{gen}$? Well, with a little computation you can see that in order to get the non-trivial cocycles of $H^1_\mathrm{gen}(SL_2,V)$ in $H^1(SL_2,V)$ you would have to be able to take square roots. Well, of course, you can't do this in the category of algebraic morphisms.
But there is also another cohomology coming from forgetting all variety structure and allowing maps to be non-morphisms. So we're just looking at $G$ as a(n infinite) group. We could denote this $H^i_{\mathrm{abs}}(G,M)$ (where the 'abs' is for abstract). In the category of abstract $G$-modules, of course you can take any set theoretic map you like, so square roots are fine. And in fact one has an isomorphism $H^i(G_\mathrm{abs},M)\cong H^i(G_\mathrm{gen},M)$. I am led to believe that there is an article by Brian Parshall, [EDIT: with thanks to Wilberd van der Kallen] 'Cohomology of algebraic groups' in [The Arcata conference on Representations of Finite Groups, Proc Symp Pure Math 47 Part 1] which gives a proof of this for finite-dimensional rational modules $M$ using an argument he attributes to van der Kallen.


text:
7 Wonders of the Modern World
6 of 8
Netherlands North Sea Protection Works
Because the Netherlands is below sea level, a series of dams, floodgates, and surge barriers have been built to keep the sea from flooding the country during storms. The biggest part of the Netherlands North Sea Protection Works was a two-mile-long moveable surge barrier across an estuary finished in 1986. It is made of 65 concrete piers each weighing 18,000 tons. It has been said that the project is nearly equal in scale to the Great Wall of China.
Next: Golden Gate Bridge


text:
Dillon's, the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Harvesters and the Kansas Food Bank are teaming up for a state-wide food drive called: Neighbor to Neighbor.
The food drive kicked off Monday and will run through Ag Day, March 19. Dillon's customers will have the opportunity to purchase non-perishable food items to place in donation bins and they will also be able to donate either $1 or $5 at the register.
As partner agencies with the Kansas Food Bank, Twelve Baskets, the Salvation Army and First Christian Church food pantries will benefit from the food and funds collected during the drive from the El Dorado Dillon's store.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Today in Tweet Beat, celebs like Simon Pegg and Neil Patrick Harris loved the finale of Lost, while David Spade and Mark Ronson didn't. Meanwhile, Nick Cannon is wondering if any black people watched it.
Loved #Lost finale. Thought it was moving & audacious. @katypegg did not and rode off in a funk. Two opinions, one light, one dark. G'nght.
I haven't read the reviews, don't know the consensus. But I watched the @LOST finale last night, and I loved it! Bravo cast/crew/creators!
watched lost finale.. i think. i rewinded it on tivo and it made slightly more sense. i get they were on an island, other than that ...?
when they were on the cliff about to kiss kate said 'my hair looks better dry! seriously. ill wear make up in the last scene, hang in there!
The Lost finale: a mashup of Defending Your LIfe & Valentines Day. so unsatisfying, I could cry. LindelofCuse, i want 140hrs of my life bk
Random question. Do black people watch Lost???? Oops We missed the #lostfinale because we was watching the Monique Show!!
ok. so im on season 3: yes or no: LOST fans, are you SATISFIED? no spoilers, just YES or NO.
i didn't get to watch the LOST finale, so i can't read tweets today, cuz i know someone will blow it for me.
Is it sad that I'm trying to move my schedule around today so that I can watch the 2 1/2 hour finale of Lost at some point? I think not.
Please don't tell me how "Lost" ended last night. I'm up to the part where they discover a hatch.
LOST finale!!! Oh Sawyer, you hotass. Ok, so was Ben in purgatory or is that just me projecting my fallen Catholic upbringing?
I don't know what's going to happen tonight, but I'm sure going to miss watching Michael Emerson get the crap beat out of him.
What's lost?


text:
Meeting Notes 2011 04 26
(→Banning discussion)
(→Banning discussion)
|Line 178:
|Line 178:
- We should actually be willing to look in public at what people did in kicking this person out and discuss whether it was actually OK or not. These decisions had a huge effect in determining the direction of things.
- We should actually be willing to look in public at what people did in kicking this person out and discuss whether it was actually OK or not. These decisions had a huge effect in determining the direction of things.
- There are distinct Noisebridge cultures, e.g. between the IRC channel or the general meeting. The IRC channel is more caustic and confrontational and they had previously decided that this person ought to be banned. This culture seemed to leak over into the general community over time.
- There are distinct Noisebridge cultures, e.g. between the IRC channel or the general meeting. The IRC channel is more caustic and confrontational and they had previously decided that this person ought to be banned. This culture seemed to leak over into the general community over time
=== End of Meeting ===
=== End of Meeting ===
Revision as of 21:38, 26 April 2011
The 158th Meeting of Noisebridge
Note-taker: Seth
Moderator: Danny
Introduction and Names
- What Noisebridge is about: "Noisebridge is a 501c3 nonprofit that provides a space for creation, collaboration, and learning about technology and creative projects. Noisebridge provides space, power tools, and infrastructure to help the public learn new skills and create cool things. Noisebridge continues to exist through and depends entirely on membership fees and donations. Our code of conduct is 'Be excellent to each other'."
- Round of introductions: What's your name, what do you do, and if you are new, how did you hear about Noisebridge? Start with the moderator and go left.
- A brief primer on consensus process: We agree and so should you! Only paid-up members can block consensus.
- BAHA - will be hosting Dan Kaminsky for a talk about something or other. Stay tuned for your opportunity to hear this talk.
- BayCon - Noisebridge is the official charity beneficiary for BayCon, a 2000-attendee science fiction convention that happens in Santa Clara every year. We need some things to donate for the charity auction and could use at least one volunteer and maybe two to help us staff our Noisebridge booth there. We have less space at BayCon than we do at our Maker Faire booth. Dr. Jesus is coordinating our participation in BayCon, so please talk to him.
Q. What items should we donate for the charity auction?
A. Hilarious and/or shiny ones.
Q. Like items on the hack shelf?
A. More hilarious and shiny than those, if possible.
Q. When?
A. May 27-30.
Q. Maybe Dan Kaminsky could donate something? Like a signed item?
A. People at BayCon may not know who Dan Kaminsky is.
A. Or they might!
OpenAMD is doing RFID tracking of attendees at CCC. Talk to aestetix or visit openamd.org.
Financial Report
Funds in bank: $1,000 in corporate donations have come in recently! They will get deposited.
We have $13,080.16 in the bank after paying rent and before depositing the corporate donations. Pay your dues.
If possible, set up a regular recurring donation.
Q. Can we donate Bitcoins to Noisebridge?
Membership Binder
- Read off any names from the binder for the past month.
- Anyone up for join this week should introduce themselves then leave the area in search of gifts (traditionally beer and a lime) for the rest of the group. The rest of the meeting should consense on whether they may join.
What's Going On at Noisebridge
Vegan pierogi and Snickers bars are being made in the kitchen right now!
Project Updates
Moving hack shelves away so that all shelving in the member shelving corner is member shelving. This requires about $300-$400 for new, additional shelves. Talk to Miloh. We might get more members if we had some member shelving space open for new members to enjoy!
Q. Have you mailed the list?
A. Please write to Miloh about this.
Q. We previously proposed using Noisebridge funds to pay for this. Shouldn't this become a consensus item? Wasn't it supposed to be a consensus item already?
A. The problem was that nobody who was a member attended except Kelly during the meeting where the consensus item should have been consensed upon. So it got dropped as a consensus item.
- Shannon was reluctant to use Noisebridge money for capital improvements rather than required expenses. However, people could realize a tax benefit if they donated money to Noisebridge for this purpose.
- However, you can realize a tax benefit for in-kind donations. If you donate something of value to Noisebridge, you can receive a receipt from Noisebridge for this item, by contacting the treasurer. Then, if applicable to your situation, you can claim this as a donation on your tax return.
- We will propose a consensus item for next week for appropriating a proportion of the money needed for this.
Consensus items
For next week: Noisebridge to pay Miloh for shelves in an amount to cover whatever part of the expenditure that Shannon does not raise via his fundraising efforts (somewhere between $0 and $300).
Discussion Items
Events list
Isn't it somewhat difficult to determine what's going on here?
E.g., some meetups don't actually occur but they are still listed on the web site.
When people create meetups and events, they list them, but when they stop doing them, they don't remove them.
If you show up to something that doesn't happen, maybe you should remove it from the list on the web site.
Someone was trying to make the wiki automatically incorporate the items from the homepage into the meeting template so the events discussed in the meeting would actually be current (according to the website). However, maybe we also need a mechanism for people to actually try to attend an event to see if it's going on.
Maybe events should have contact names associated with them so that there is a way to contact someone to find out about the status of the event.
Cool, the wiki does pull the current item list from the home page. So one mechanism is that if nobody ever comes to a meeting with personal knowledge that something is still going on, we can remove it.
Instead of a name, we should perhaps have a contact e-mail address. And every group that meets here should have a wiki page on our wiki and an e-mail address that's listed on it.
However, maybe some people who host groups don't know how to edit the wiki. But some people think this is very easy and they should probably learn.
A particular change that we can try to make is to have a more detailed dialogue with people who come to weekly meetings wanting to use the space for an event. In particular, we can try to start enforcing a norm that when you come to a meeting wanting to use the space, you should actually take responsibility for documenting your event via a wiki page! There is sentiment in favor of this norm. It doesn't seem very hard and it seems like we could easily institute this norm and get benefits from it.
We can also print the events page out on paper.
If people want to use the space to host events, they should try to be in touch with the community to a sufficient extent that their events can be documented on our wiki accurately.
One idea is that the secretary should actively maintain the event list. People like this idea.
Is there a joke here?
I'm a frayed knot.
Banning discussion
Some time ago, we banned someone for the first time. We didn't have a formal process or precedent in place for this. This was a difficult process to go through. At the meeting where the ban was consensed upon, it was tense and it would have been difficult for someone to stand up in defense of the person being banned.
Perhaps we should talk about how we should do this in the future if it should seem necessary, to have a better process available for it.
At that time, Kelly had volunteered to lead a meeting or discussion about this issue. She talked to various people who had qualms with what happened and some of them were interested in talking about how to handle it in the future.
Q. What were people's qualms about what happened?
A. By the end of the process, there was only one person with major qualms, who refused to read the evidence. The other people who had major qualms read the evidence and then felt agreement with the consensus. There were many people who felt that it was poorly managed but was ultimately the correct decision; however, this could still be described as having major qualms with the process even though they came to agree with the decision.
- Indeed, many people were concerned with the process even though they agreed with the eventual decision. Some of these people felt that it was uncomfortable because they were strongly criticized for raising process concerns. They would like to be able to raise process concerns and other concerns without being attacked because they felt that these concerns were legitimate and should have been able to be aired.
- There is a recognized group phenomenon of "mobbing" where a group turns against a particular person in various ways. This group dynamic has been studied and Noisebridge's actions can be interpreted as meeting criteria for this dynamic. That doesn't mean that our decision was wrong but some people would like to see a means of avoiding relying on or repeating this social dynamic.
- Perhaps we should talk about what we would like to see in a process to use in the future.
- In fact, there have been four cases before this one where there were attempts to ban or exclude people from Noisebridge and in all four of those prior cases, someone stood up in defense of that person and the person was not banned.
- We make a point of being radically inclusive, so we generally feel quite reluctant to ban or exclude people.
- Maybe one concern is that there was nobody speaking on behalf of the person who was going to be banned. We already have an idea that if there's someone who wants to remain anonymous, someone can represent them at a meeting. Should we say that we should seek to have someone represent the person who might be banned?
- We should also have a way that people who may feel threatened to be able to see what the process is or how to bring something to the community's attention. Some people who felt threatened in the most recent incident didn't really know what they were supposed to do or how they were supposed to bring it to the attention of the community.
Q. If a group is already engaged in "mobbing", is there some way to mitigate or defuse that particular dynamic?
A. We don't know. In legal systems, that's part of what legal process is for. One of the reasons that we have process in court systems is to prevent people from being lynched.
Q. Is there a way to break the cycle or break the dynamic?
A. We're not experts on this.
- In the most recent incident we attempted to have a mediation led by a neutral moderator. It wasn't possible to have a neutral or moderate person representing the interests of the person who was going to be banned because he wasn't interested in participating in that way. The idea of setting up some of these kinds of process assumes that a person who is being considered for banning actually wants to participate, for example for appointing someone to represent them.
- It would have been difficult for someone to have stood up to represent him in that case.
- No, it would have been possible if he had wanted it.
- We shouldn't have to oscillate between "nobody says anything" and "we have to convene a tribunal". If we choose to adjust the culture, almost anything that we do makes it slightly more confrontational by encouraging people to confront people about their behavior, like encouraging people to say "I think what you're doing is abusive and you should leave the space now". In the status quo we seem to accept that a doocracy can eject someone and that we can ratify their actions on a case-by-case basis, because that's what happened most recently.
- The "problem" in this case was specifically that some people decided to do the doocratic banning thing and nobody said that this was unacceptable.
- But maybe what went wrong was that it went on too long before anyone actually did anything. And then it had escalated too much.
- No, we did it as fast as we could. It was a very quick timeline.
- There was a general perception that we were incapable of banning someone because it couldn't be achieved as a consensus-based organization. So we spent a lot of time talking about what we could do without consensus, which took a long time. It was assumed that consensus couldn't work. It was a surprise when consensus was achieved because people expected that this would not be possible. This is a harmful kind of group powerlessness.
- Maybe doocracy can be interpreted as people's right to define their personal boundaries in asking people to leave, and then the political problem is how to interpret these requests and exactly what their weight is. Clearly people can ask other people to leave already.
- There is already disagreement about the nature of the difference between people defining their personal boundaries and the actions of the organization of the whole. But we could hypothetically just assume that kicking someone out of the space or asking them to leave is potentially considered as an unexcellent action that could get the ejector banned -- or not -- then we already have something equivalent to a "process", because kicking someone out is unexcellent and then the general meeting can later decide on a consensus about whether it was necessary or whether it was on balance unexcellent, etc. In that sense people can already take action when necessary or urgent, realizing that they are taking a risk and that the outcome is not foregone. This can be interpreted as a process and a mechanism for banning people: you can act at any time and then you can let the slower consensus process decide whether it agrees with your judgment and ratifies it.
- There seems to be disagreement about whether we did it too quickly or too slowly, or whether particular parts of the process were too quick or too slow.
- Could we have more discussion about what's going on so that situations don't develop in secret and then appear to get "sprung" on the community in a way that appears sudden to people who weren't involved?
- Suppose that someone presents evidence that someone is making the space a hostile environment for other people. If it takes a week or two to ban that person, this seems glacially slow because it's not OK for it to take weeks to change the situation so that the space is no longer a hostile environment. Ejecting someone from the space should not require consensus ahead of time. The consensus process can evaluate whether the people who did eject someone have done something wrong by ejecting that person. It can do this after the fact.
- This last process seems to have developed very slowly but then come a head very quickly.
- This is not actually the first time that we have thrown someone out of Noisebridge. In the past it has happened because someone who appeared authoritative, such as a long-time, early member, responded by personally asking someone to leave the space. This works because we have a distinction between people who are members of the community, members of Noisebridge, etc. People who have been thrown out have been not members of the community. In the most recent case the difficulty was that the person who was banned was actually a member of the community. So it was difficult because we were ejecting someone who was "one of us" rather than just having a stranger or non-community member acting badly.
- We should actually be willing to look in public at what people did in kicking this person out and discuss whether it was actually OK or not. These decisions had a huge effect in determining the direction of things.
- There are distinct Noisebridge cultures, e.g. between the IRC channel or the general meeting. The IRC channel is more caustic and confrontational and they had previously decided that this person ought to be banned. This culture seemed to leak over into the general community over time. In this case things built up over time with generalized sentiment against him until we felt that we had created enough evidence.
- At the doocratic meeting, there was a proxy for someone who felt very personally threatened. After that, more evidence was brought to light. So the evidence came to light in that conversation in response to people choosing to describe or reveal their own experiences which they had not previously shared with the community.
End of Meeting
- PGP Key Signing could happen now, check the list to see who wants in on the action.
- Put back the membership binder by the Shrine.
- Save the meeting notes to the wiki.
- Send a copy of the meeting notes to the discussion list.
- Copy the Meeting Notes Template for next week's agenda and update the main wiki page's link to it.
- Enjoy a cocktail with your fellow hacker or robot.


text:
Gluten-Free Goodness From Around the WorldTM
Gluten-Free Trading Company Your Celiac-Owned Source for Gluten-Free Food Products
Use the box below to search our product catalog.
Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods produces more than 400 products, including a full line of certified gluten free products and an extensive line of certified organic products.
After delivery flax meal should be refrigerated to protect freshness and nutrients.
Ingredient: Brown flaxseeds.
All natural, no preservatives.


text:
I am using Win 7 Ultimate edition and i have installed Load Runner 9.10. I have added an exception to the firewall in order to allow vUser Generator. The problem is whenever I try to record a script (by clicking on start recording ) IE8 in not launched and recorder shows 0 events recording. Here are few more details:
- Performing load testing on : HP tours (inbuilt sample site)
- Have I started the server for HP tours : Yes.
- Program (browser used for recording) : IE.
- Using default recording settings.
Your help will be appreciated. Thanks.


text:
Share Photo
Doolittle Raider Lt. Col. Dick Cole, stands in front of a B-25 at the Destin Airport in Destin, Fla. on Tuesday April 16, 2013 before a flight as part of the Doolittle Raider 71st Anniversary Reunion. Cole was Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle's co-pilot during the raid. The Doolittle Tokyo Raid was a notable attack on the Japanese during World War II using B-25's. The B-25 pilots trained to take off from an aircraft carrier, which the plane was not designed to do. (AP Photo/Northwest Florida Daily News


text:
July 2
David Cunningham, Weirton, pleaded guilty to domestic battery. Sentenced to 30 days in jail, with credit for nine days served and the remaining 21 days suspended. Placed on unsupervised probation with a probation fee of $5 a month. Ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on a weekly basis. Ordered to pay $100 to a victim's assistance fund. Assessed court costs.
Maureen O'Connell, Weirton, pleaded no contest to speeding and was found guilty. Fined $5 and assessed court costs.
July 9
William Pipes Jr., East Liverpool, pleaded no contest to failure to obtain a West Virginia license and was found guilty. Fined $75 and assessed court costs.
James Shields Jr., Colliers, charge of littering dismissed at prosecutor's request.
Justin Brown, Weirton, charged with driving on a suspended license (third offense/administrative), defendant pleaded guilty to lesser-included offense of driving on a suspended license (second offense/administrative). Fined $100 and assessed court costs.
Darlene Carson, Chester, charge of obstructing an officer dismissed without prejudice at prosecutor's request.
Samuel Brown, Lisbon, charge of worthless check dismissed at defense counsel's request and with no objection from the state.
Daniel Truax, Weirton, pleaded guilty to resisting arrest. Sentence of 60 days in jail suspended. Placed on six months' unsupervised probation with SCRAM bracelet. Fined and assessed court costs and a $30 probation fee. Pleaded guilty to fleeing (no vehicle). Sentenced to one day in jail, with credit for time served. Fined $50 and assessed court costs. Pleaded guilty to destruction of property. Sentenced to one day in jail, with credit for time served. Ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $450.24 to the court by Sept. 9. Charges of public intoxication and disorderly conduct dismissed.
July 10
Nicholas Farone, Steubenville, charged with driving under the influence (aggravated), defendant pleaded guilty to DUI (non-aggravated). Sentence of 30 days in jail suspended. Placed on six months' unsupervised probation with a $30 probation fee. Fined $500 and assessed court costs. Charge of domestic battery dismissed.
July 11
Troy Mieczkowski, Weirton, charges of grand larceny and petit larceny dismissed.


text:
Alternative Colours
- Description
Dolce & Gabbana DD5103 1130
- Frame Details
Additional Information
Colour Code 1130 Bridge Size mm Lens Size mm Frame Shape Rectangle Frame Type Full Rim Frame Colour Matte Black and Gun Our sku 43699
- Delivery & Returns
Worldwide Free Shipping!
In the UK? Shipping & Returns are Free
We offer Free Delivery on all products anywhere in the UK. We use Royal Mail Tracked delivery which means you'll get your product within 48 hours for products under £100, or within 24 hours for products over £100. You can also get your eyewear delivered using DPD or Royal Mail Special Delivery for a guaranteed next day service for a small fee. All this ensures you get your eyewear on time and in perfect condition.
Outside the UK?
We offer free worldwide delivery on all products over £100 using Royal Mail. We also offer a premium shipping service from FedEx if you require your frames more quickly.
Find out more on our Shipping Page
We accept returns within 14 days of receiving your items. Our returns address is: Pretavoir, 153 Howard St, Glasgow, G1 4HF, UK. All we ask is that you email us so we know you're returning within 14 days of receiving your item.
Find out more on our Returns Page.


text:
Well, I like to spend my time by listening to music, reading, sleeping, chatting with a friend etc. Just curious to know, how you all spend your leisure.
How do you prefer to spend your leisure?
i like to read, eat, sleep sometimes playing games..
Used to be Playing games and now its just surfing net
i like to spend my spare time watching movies,downloading torrents, going to the gym,