text:
An Interview With:
THE MODERATOR: We've been joined by Coach Charlie Strong from the University of Louisville, and we'll be joined by Teddy Bridgewater, Calvin Pryor, and Preston Brown.
We'll start with brief comment from Coach.
COACH STRONG: I'm so proud of our football team, and I look at this performance tonight, and I sometimes wonder why didn't we do this the whole season.
But this performance, it's just attributed to our offense, our defense, kicking game. All three phases played well. We said this at the beginning: We just take care of our job and do what we're supposed to do, don't worry about who we're playing, it's going to be a 60minute game, win every play, and that's what we had to do this season.
Our quarterback we've seen all season long, what an unbelievable performance he had. We weren't able to run the ball in them again and couldn't move them off the line of scrimmage, but some of the throws he made and just how he managed our offense, that's why I continue to say he's one of the best in the country.
And our defense, you look at Calvin Pryor and the whole defense, just how well they played and we had to go get key stops. If you look at this game, just look at this game, we physically just matched up and we were just we were able to just overpower a team, the No. 3 team in the country.
We left a lot of points out there on the field. Had a couple of field goals blocked, missed one or two throws. But still, though, our whole team just loved their performance. And you have to love our fans. We traveled so strong to this game.
And I told our players: Why do you want to win this game? You want to win this game for those 25,000 fans that traveled down here, was behind you the whole time. You can't get in the hotel. You cannot get in the hotel. I haven't been in that hotel lobby yet because you just get bombarded. But that's what you want.
And in order to change the culture of a program, our fans are going to have to change it. And this evening they took that step, just like we took a step where we go and beat the No. 3 team in the country and go and win it and make a statement for next season.
I know this: We have a lot of seniors that are leaving this program, but we need to enjoy this moment right now. Our players really need to cherish and enjoy this moment.
I don't know if it's one of the biggest wins ever in the history. I had to look at that Fiesta bowl where we beat Alabama as one of the biggest.
THE MODERATOR: Questions?
Q. Charlie, before the game you kind of talked about this being a measuring stick and you'd be able to see where you are. Where is the program now?
COACH STRONG: We know we still have a long ways to go. You look at the team that we beat this season. We played well, but we had to play well like that all season. We were not a consistent team this season. We struggled, had to come from behind seven games.
But we played had played the way we played this evening for four quarters, then we would never have been in a position, because now we'd probably be looking who knows, I don't want to say where we would be, but we could continue to get better.
Q. Can you just talk about how much this means for you personally, considering everything that's happened in the last month with you and other jobs and staying at Louisville and all that?
COACH STRONG: It's not so much me, I just know I told our players I love them so much and I respect them so much and the reason why I did not go take that job, because I know I have a football team that is behind me 100 percent.
A football team that I really love and I cherish. And I liked how hard they worked. I'm in the position I'm in right now because of what they did. And I told them that. I said: Guys, people are calling me just because of what you've done. Nothing I've done.
And it means a lot. It just means a lot for me for this to see it happen for them.
Q. Coach, could you just talk about the very first play of the game, that pick six, how did that set the momentum for the rest of the night?
COACH STRONG: What happened, they threw a curl route and the ball was tipped and T. Floyd made an unbelievable play on the ball and he goes and scores, and then right the momentum we felt like if we could get a lead that we could maintain that lead, because they weren't a team to produce a lot of points. We felt like that, hey, the points they do produce is going to be when they get into their wildcat formation or razzledazzle, which they got us on the goal line play where we thought they were going to kick a field goal and they handed the ball off on the dive play and then the kickoff return.
We knew we had to make them drive the ball down the field. If we had our opportunities to go score, which we did, we'll be able to score.
Q. Calvin, you in that force fumble or later in the game, just talk about the mindset of the defense all night and how you guys were so confident against Florida?
CALVIN PRYOR: I mean, we had more than a week to prepare for this team, man. We know they did everything based on formation. And Coach got one of the best coaching staffs in the nation. Prepared us well.
We knew going into this game we just have to play lights out as a defense, because you know we have to get the ball back to our quarterback because Teddy's going to do what he do.
But just coming up to this point, we had the right attitude, had the right mindset that we would go out and beat this team. That's what we did tonight.
Q. You went through so many adversities this season. Are there commonalities to what happened through that season? And during this game when you began to do so well, was this sort of a surreal moment for you, for all the different things, including having coached at Florida, seeing the way these guys grew up and all the adversities you faced?
COACH STRONG: I just know this: This is a team that can handle adversity. We've been through a lot. We've been able to grow, and once you grow from adversity, it just makes you stronger. That's what this football team has done. It's grown so much.
You know, you look at us last year, Fred was 2 and 4 and we were able to come back, win 5 out of 6. And we hit a streak this year we were 90 and no one gave us respect. And it's funny to watch, people get to the Big East, they say don't talk about the Big East, they don't play anybody.
I hope tonight they opened up their eyes, because on any given night, if you prepare well, if you focus in and if the preparation's there for your team, you can go beat anybody.
That just shows tonight it doesn't matter. There's so much parity in college football right now, who is to say who is the best team out there.
Q. Coach, I know you're the consummate team guy, Teddy's the consummate team quarterback, but how much will you embrace a Heisman campaign with this kid now?
COACH STRONG: Well, I've said it. And he is one of the best quarterbacks. He's one of the best players in the country. If you look out there on that field tonight, you look at what Florida has, you look at what we have, he's the best probably. Not probably, he was the best player on the field.
TEDDY BRIDGEWATER: I wouldn't be in this situation right now and this predicament without my teammates. Right now I'm just enjoying this moment. The Heisman campaign may start, but right now I'm just enjoying this moment.
CALVIN PRYOR: I've been saying it all year: He's one of the best quarterbacks and best player in the nation. They look at Louisville, don't give us any credit, but he's one of the best quarterbacks in the nation. I think he deserve that.
PRESTON BROWN: I'm going along with Calvin: Teddy's the best quarterback I've ever seen personally and played with. I think he should be in the Heisman race.
Q. Teddy, what was it going into the week that you thought that you might be able to do well against Florida? Was there corners playing up kind of tight on you, did you think you could exploit that? What worked for you, I guess, is the question.
TEDDY BRIDGEWATER: I looked at what did and didn't work for quarterbacks during the regular season. They faced guys forcing throws and things like that, trying to force plays, trying to play with an S on their chest. And Coach Ross tells me: No capes on your back. No S on your chest. Just take what the defense give you.
That's what I took. Film study was vital, played a vital role in tonight's game.
Q. Twopart question. How motivated were you guys to play an SEC team like this? And how important what's the significance of beating a team, not only SEC team, but a quality of Florida?
COACH STRONG: It was very big for us. We knew we had the stage tonight and the stage was set for us. We had a national audience. Then you have the No. 3 team in the country. We're very motivated.
Before we even came here to New Orleans, when we were in Louisville practicing, it was all about Florida, and our players are so focused. They were locked in. They knew they had to go play well because you had to be at your best tonight to go win this football game.
We knew we couldn't make the mistakes because there was a team that could cash in on the mistakes. But if you watch this and they way we took the field, just how we warmed up, at first I thought the stage was too big for us and I kept looking at our team, and I said to Teddy: Listen, take the team. You need to talk to them because I don't want them to get out there and just get stage fright all of a sudden. Let's go out there and let's prepare, let's go play this game.
We have been on a stage before. We had to go to Rutgers and beat Rutgers. We had North Carolina at our place and we beat them.
So this should not be anything new to us. Let's just go play. Let's focus and let's lock in.
Q. This stage, though, you had been on this stage before. But maybe not one this big. The guys from "Game Day" were on the sidelines. To win in front of those guys, to know that Louisville football earned a lot of respect tonight, what does it mean moving forward moving into next year? Those guys are saying you're a legitimate top 5 team to start the season next year.
COACH STRONG: We don't want to go that far. Don't let them put us there. No, we knew the stage was set. If you look at it, we're in a Bowl game that has so much tradition. We're in a Bowl game that if you look at last year the national championship came out of this Bowl game. And then you had a national audience.
And the Sugar Bowl committee was unbelievable in what they did. And they provided that. The matchup that they provided this season gave us a chance, because now they pick a Louisville team against a No. 3 Florida team. So they set the stage for us. That was all about us getting the preparation.
Q. Teddy, your first play of the game. You took a big shot. I'm not sure where your helmet rolled, but how did you feel after that? How much did opening the game with that pick lift everybody up even though that was a rough start?
TEDDY BRIDGEWATER: It was a wakeup call. Whenever you take a shot like that, it wakes you up, lets you know they're here. And Bostic, he's a great player, he's a great athlete, and I take my hat off to that guy for delivering the blow at me.
That interception, it jump started our offense, actually, because they had got the ball first. And on offense I personally would like to get the ball first, but Coach Strong opts to kick.
But for the defense to come out and score right away, it was pretty much like an offensive touchdown for us. It was like Florida giving us seven points.
Q. Coach, what will the party be like tonight, and do you enjoy Hurricanes?
COACH STRONG: I told them they cannot go down on Bourbon Street and consume all those Hurricanes, they have to get up tomorrow, we have to leave. I want them to enjoy this moment, have a heck of a time. We probably won't be able to get into that hotel tonight. I know they're packed in there.
Q. Do you have a sense of what this win means both to the program and to the city? And just in your words, what do you think that is?
TEDDY BRIDGEWATER: It means a lot. For one, our fans have been with us since day one. And it's not just about the University of Louisville, it's about the city of Louisville.
Coach Strong always talks about giving back, and tonight we felt like we gave the city something back to cheer about.
They were talking about making the L, the Louisville logo, back on the market, pretty much playing for your brand. Tonight we did a great job of doing that.
CALVIN PRYOR: I think it's a big win for us. And going into next season it will give us a confidence builder we can play with anybody in the nation. Like Teddy said, this is the reason we came here, this is the reason we came to play for Coach Strong, to play in big moments like this.
I think it's a big win for the program and for the city of Louisville.
PRESTON BROWN: It just shows that we're 20 in BCS games now, so we showed the country when we get on the big stage we know what to do with it.
Q. Charlie, could you talk about the fans showing up, not only showing up, but just I know Florida got a false start. Seemed like the fans kind of the noise might have affected them. Could you talk about not only the way they showed up, but just as much noise they were making and the impact they had on that game?
COACH STRONG: The fans were unbelievable. And you always talk about and I told them I was telling our players, I said a lot of times people talk about conferences and they talk about teams and conferences. But the fans are really the ones who set the atmosphere, the game day atmosphere.
You go into some of these stadiums, especially the Southeastern Conference, you can be as good as a lot of those teams, but the fans are the ones who disrupt the game like they did this evening.
For them to come down from Louisville where they came from, all across the state of Kentucky to support us the way they did our players felt so good. Each day when you walked out of that hotel going to practice, they were lining up with the Car cheer and you felt it so much, you felt like I told them before, why do you want to win? You want to win because all these fans are here to support you. And they all showed up for you.
And that's what it's all about. When you know that you have the back end that we know we have now, it's unbelievable where this program can go. We keep saying: We're just scratching the surface. We can take it to another level.
Q. What do you think the feeling is going to be like when you arrive back in Louisville you bring the trophy back to the fans and the city of Louisville and the whole state of Kentucky for that matter?
COACH STRONG: Our fans, I know that city tonight, they probably won't sleep tonight, they're like us because they're so happy. They have supported this program from the day we took this job. They've been every fan there in the city, everyone in the city has all been supportive of what we've done and what we've been trying to accomplish.
And you get so many texts. You get them from friends. I can remember just the last couple of days everyone said: You're going to do it. Just believe you're going to do it. You're going to do it. The Titanic sunk. Nobody gave it a chance.
You look at we're a 15point underdog, but our players, that was not going to happen this evening.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you.


text:
The audio conferencing market is changing and buyers are starting to move from traditional audio conference providers to integrated audio and web conferencing solutions. This white paper discusses new audio trends in the workplace, as well as the criteria that companies should consider before selecting an audio conference provider, including:
-How to reduce your audio budget with unlimited, "all you can use" audio conferencing
-How to choose a solution that works with your workflow
-Why you should put toll-free audio on hold
They want your e-mail address to get a copy of the white paper.
Actually, they want your name, phone and address too... along with job title, etc.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Overview: Hide your privacy pic/videos.
Requirements: Android OS 1.6 +
Privacy protecting application that hides individual photo/video with password!
* Gallery Lock Pro Feature
- Manage photo by folder.
- Supports photos and videos.
- Easy link to existing gallery application
- Delicate design
- pincode,pattern password supports.
* After checking that the Lite version to work correctly is recommended to purchase.
* Be care to remove lite version without unhiding all pics/video. If you do that, you will lost pics/video.
* After purchase, please leave a comment(expect 5star)
* If app is crashing, so you can't open it, follow below steps to recover it.
- Uninstall Gallery Lock
- Download Gallery Lock from the market and install it.
- Go Setting in the application, Click "Find/Recover Missing files"
- missing files will be recovered to /mnt/sdcard/DCIM/recover
- run Gallery Lock.
Gallery Lock Pro hides individual photo video with password
What's in this version:
v2.2 : support Multi Select(2011.11.22)
v1.6.5 : picture Rotate feature added(2011.6.29)
v1.6 : "Stealth Mode" feature added.(see Setting) (2011.05.10)
v1.5 : following features was added(2011.05.6)
support to "Slideshow".
"Viewer" upgraded
"Share" feature added.
v1.3 : following features was added (2011.4.11)
"Grid Folder Listing Mode"!
v1.2 : following features is added (2011.2.27)
Photo SlideShow!
Unhide all files
v1.0 : initial release (2011.2.24)
Download Gallery Lock Pro v2.4 CyberAndroid


text:
How to Get the Labour & Wait Vintage British Kitchen Look
Ever since Faith posted about the London-based housewares store Labour and Wait, I've been craving a nice set of enamelware ladles. But even if I could blink away the cost of international postage (not to mention the exchange rate), it turns out that Labour and Wait doesn't ship outside of Great Britain. So I did a little digging and came up with some substitutes that are available on this side of the pond.
One source for British household style is Toast, a London-based company that will ship internationally. Their selection is close to Labour and Wait in style and simplicity. Kiosk, a funky importer of all things interesting, carries a few of the same items that Labour and Wait does, namely the lovely sinuous coffee pot pictured above. Etsy is another good source for vintage enamelware, hand-knit cosies, and wooden cutting boards.
• 1 Cream enamel ladle set, by Nigella Lawson. $32 at Amazon
• 2 Vintage enamelware pots at Etsy, various prices
• 3 Wooden ladle, $13.95 at Greenfeet
• 4 Coffee pot, $60.00 at Kiosk
• 5 Aprons in assorted colors, $48.00 at Utility Canvas
• 6 Bread box, $49.99 at Bed, Bath and Beyond
• 7 White enamel bucket, $4.48 at Peak 62
• 8 Red dust pan and brush, $52.00 at Kiosk
• 9 Brown Betty-style tea pot, $13.99 at Amazon
• 10 Tea pot cosy, $6.99 at Etsy
Do you have any favorite sources for vintage and old-fashioned kitchenware?


text:
Schedule an appointment online
Ways to Contact Us
- Member Services and General Information
- Phone
Our main line is an interactive phone system. Use it for general communications.
- Toll-free: 1-800-492-5909
- Local: 410-625-5555
For division-specific communication, see our phone directory.
- Fax
- Member Services: 410-468-1707
- Disability Applicants: 410-468-1659
- Address
Maryland State Retirement Agency
120 East Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21202 Directions, maps, and parking information…
Public Records
To request a public record from the Agency, contact the Agency's designated representative, Michael D. Golden at email@example.com or by letter addressed to Michael D. Golden, Director of External Affairs, Maryland State Retirement Agency, 120 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21202. Mr. Golden can also be reached at 410-625-5603.
Report broken pages, technical or accessibility issues, or feedback about the website to our Webmaster.


text:
This past weekend, my local group, Montclair Vegans, held a bake sale to raise money for Vegan Outreach, one of my favorite groups. My only regret is that I didn't take a photo of the tables and tables of amazing looking baked goods, everything from spinach pockets to personal pizzas to carrot cake cupcakes to chocolate strawbrery thumbprints. I made chocolate chip cookies (photo here) and gluten free muffins (below).
This is an incredibly easy recipe for gluten free applesauce raisin muffins, using Arrowhead Mills gluten-free pancake and baking mix.
Gluten-Free Applesauce Raisin Muffins
2 cups gluten-free baking mix, such as Arrowhead Mills
1/2 cup sugar
1 tbsp baking powder
1/2 tsp xanthan gum
1/2 tsp salt
1/3 cup canola oil
1 1/2 cups rice milk
3/4 cup applesauce
1/2 cup soft raisins
Preheat oven to 375°F. Line a 12-cup muffin tin with foil baking cups or well-oil-sprayed paper ones (boy do these stick to paper ones without oil spray!). Combine the dry ingredients in a large bowl. Whisk in the rice milk and oil until smooth and well combined. Stir in applesauce and raisins. Spoon equally into the baking cups. Bake on the center rack until lightly browned and a cake tester inserted in the center of a muffin tests clean, about 25 minutes. Turn out onto a rack to cool.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Hooray for vegan bake sales
2 comments:
- TRISTA said...
Glad you're back! VeganMOFO is happening this month, and I visited your blog to see if you were taking part. Now I'm eager to get to TJ's and find the edamame hummus.
- October 15, 2011 at 2:59 PM
- TRISTA said...
Glad you're back! VeganMOFO is happenig this month, and I visited your blog to see if you're taking part. Now I'm eager to visit TJ's and try the edamame hummus!
- October 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Customer Reviews
All reviews are from people who have redeemed deals with this merchant.
What You'll Get
The Deal
- $75 for $100 worth of wholesale groceries, household items, and personal-care products delivered from Boxed. Shipping is free with Groupon voucher.
The Fine Print
Promotional value expires 90 days after purchase. Amount paid never expires. Limit 1 per person. Limit 1 per visit. New customers only. Valid online only. Free shipping with Groupon voucher. Not valid with other promos/coupons. Merchant is solely responsible to purchasers for the care and quality of the advertised goods and services.
About Boxed
Boxed sells big sizes of everyday essentials at low prices with no membership fees, helping you avoid the headaches of in-store shopping altogether by placing an entire store's worth of inventory right at your fingertips.
Simply browse the company's wide range of categories while selecting items to add to your cart via the Boxed site or mobile app, ideal for busy parents and offices. After your order is placed, Boxed ships it directly to your door, making hauling heavy groceries from the car or spaceship into the house a thing of the past. Most of the time, shipping fees are waived, too. This easy shopping process has been highlighted by the likes of Forbes, Fast Company, and the Today show, even inspiring hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb to proclaim it a "genius" idea.


text: Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - College Grading Help Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today! Job Discussion Forums"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!" FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in College Grading Help Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> China (Job-related Posts Only) View previous topic :: View next topic Author Message chinatimesJoined: 27 May 2012Posts: 478 Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:03 am Post subject: College Grading Help I have neglected doing "necessary" paperwork ever since I was a teenage camp counselor. We were supposed to write reports, and at language/public schools I have never had to give grades until now. I am at a college. I have 2 senior classes in college. Class 1 is independent, makes decisions fast, and moves on. Class 2 likes to spend 20 minutes discussing yes and no questions. Then one student will add something to the class to extend the conversation 10 more minutes. They are taking an eight week class (7 because of the holiday). I must give them a final next week. The problem is that 1 student cannot come, 2 students are doing internships, 3 students haven't come to class but agree to do extra work on Monday, and 1 student already agreed to do extra work but she didn't even come to class today to give her presentation. So, I was kinda upset about this. If I let her do extra work later, then the other students could do the same and the class would never end. So, I simply told the class today, "If you see her, you can tell her she doesn't need to come to class anymore." A couple people's mouths opened in surprise, and then we moved on (class 1). I didn't feel content failing her without talking with the school first. I explained the situation and was told, "Oh, well she can take a make up test next year when the semester starts." SAY WHAT???? Why would people want to do anything if they can extend a make up test 2-4 months? It was a completely bizarre notion. Then, it was explained that the highest score the student would get would be 60%. Also, it was mentioned it was my responsibility to give this make up test. I still find this ludicrous, but the 60% penalty gives it enough merit I guess. Underachievers will still win though. Oh well. So, right now, I am faced with a decision. Should I let this person take the final or should I make her take the final later? There is another student who can't come next week and I will give her a completely different final exam. I am thinking I can give that also to this student who I already gave a chance to. I just don't know if she will show up for class next week thinking she can take the final. Should I forget it and just let her take the final? Back to top MisterButtkinsJoined: 03 Oct 2009Posts: 1221 Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: You do understand that Chinese unis are degree mills, right? No one ever really fails a class or has to retake anything. So of course if you try to fail a student, you're going to have to give them a makeup test. Back to top kungfumanJoined: 31 May 2012Posts: 1749Location: In My Own Private Idaho Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:40 am Post subject: I used to be really strict about attending classes and grading. if a student didn't come to class or missed too many classes chances are they would fail. passing was 60 in my last uni. I gave one student a grade of 59.9 on his midterm. he got laughed at by the rest of the class. ( he pissed me off a few times.) At the current school here was a recent conversation with the DOS of my program: KFM please change these 2 students grades from fail to pass. Me- umm ok boss. Also please increase these two students grades by 10 points. Me - umm ok boss. Anything else to discuss boss? No? Ok see you later. Why buck the system????? Just roll with it. Back to top johntparteeJoined: 02 Mar 2010Posts: 3258 Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:32 pm Post subject: Quote: No one ever really fails a class or has to retake anything Exactly. The students know this, too. I booted a student from a class and gave him a final grade of zero. English Major. He got his diploma. Back to top choudoufuJoined: 25 May 2010Posts: 3325Location: Mao-berry, PRC Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:19 am Post subject: many colleges advertise a 99% graduation rate. there's a reason for this. last year i failed a student twice. fall semester he showed up to two classes, spring semester once. i was surprised to see him at the class graduation party, happy and smiling. the other students told me he paid the head teacher one year's tuition in order to graduate. (how do i get in on the action?) Back to top MisterButtkinsJoined: 03 Oct 2009Posts: 1221 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: Quote: the other students told me he paid the head teacher one year's tuition in order to graduate. Yep. This is why the department leaders and other assorted bureaucrats all have nice cars. Back to top kungfumanJoined: 31 May 2012Posts: 1749Location: In My Own Private Idaho Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: ^ I have a nice Cutish e bike and a nice Giant bike Back to top Non SequiturJoined: 23 May 2010Posts: 4725Location: China Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:17 pm Post subject: The point OP makes about record keeping is a good one. BUT it's worthwhile, if, at the end of semester you've got grades to award, and you have something to go on. I have found this particularly so when teaching oral English which is so transitory and subjective. I have developed a student record slip which I print 3-up on an A4 page. Gets me through say 6xin-class listenings plus say 2xformal assessments - one being final. Happy to let anyone have it for use. PM me Back to top LarssonCrewJoined: 06 Jun 2009Posts: 1308 Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:52 am Post subject: My general rule is, if I don't recognize the student, they can't take my final exam. It works. I had about 10 students turn up for the final exam [wow, I really had 60 students in my class, but normally only about 50 turn up], and I just didn't know they were even my student's, so refused to allow them to take part. They then had to explain why they didn't have a signed piece of paper with a score to the English department boss, but I'm sure they found excuses, plus perhaps handed some envelopes over. Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> China (Job-related Posts Only) All times are GMT Page 1 of 1 Jump to: Select a forum Where to Begin----------------General DiscussionNewbie ForumCurrent Events ForumTechnology ForumOnline Teaching Forum Africa Forums----------------General Africa Forum Asia Forums----------------CambodiaChina (Job-related Posts Only)China (Off-Topic)Hong KongIndiaIndonesiaJapanMalaysiaPhilippinesSingaporeTaiwanThailandGeneral Asia ForumVietnam Caribbean Forums----------------General Caribbean Forum Europe Forums----------------Czech RepublicFranceGermanyGreeceItalyMacedonia and the BalkansPolandRomaniaRussia & C.I.S.SpainTurkeyUkraineUnited KingdomGeneral Europe Forum Latin America Forums----------------ArgentinaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaMexicoMexico (off-topic)PeruGeneral Latin America Forum The Middle East Forums----------------BahrainEgyptIsraelKuwaitOmanQatarSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab EmiratesGeneral Middle East Forum North America Forums----------------General North America Forum Oceania----------------Australia/New Zealand You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group Teaching Jobs in China


text:
Follow RFF News on your cell phone. Text follow rff to 40404 you will receive txt messages with RFF News
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is a sad sad day.
Quote from: racer on September 17, 2013, 07:42:53 AMThis is a sad sad day.Yes. But it was a really good finale but Show contentThe Tims winning was the worst outcome for me. Wasn't really fans of there's .Apparently there was a reunion show. Can anyone get the link for it? If you can PM me.
The TIMS won!!!!! I think I'm the only Tims fan here. They really deserved that win, IMO.
Quote from: eragon on September 17, 2013, 11:30:05 AMThe TIMS won!!!!! I think I'm the only Tims fan here. They really deserved that win, IMO.I was a bit of a fan until they u-turned bodybreak.
Also, Nothing against the Tims. Even if Celina & Vanessa or the brothers had won.My problem with the way the show ended was the fact that to get to the final pitstop depended on a scheduled ferry ride.What if either the brothers or sisters had gotten to the docks say 3 minutes after that 1st ferry left. If it was me, I'd be fuming.To me it's basically saying: OK, 3 teams, first one to jump two times wins. But wait there's a catch, whoever jumps 1st has a 30min head start. The ferry leaves 30 minutes apart & takes what? 15 minutes to get over.The Tims could have gotten off the ferry, ran on over to the start of the finish line, sat down watched a 22min episode of a program, then just leisurely strolled onto the map & still would have won. With time to spare.I've never seen a finale like that before. I've seen teams use taxis, cars, bicycles, kayaks (I believe) & from Norway 1 that zip line down the ski hill. But none of those ways to the final pit stop were on a timed schedule.
Vanessa having a Flo moment: WILL THIS BREAK <3Velina not winning :sadtorchTims winning Horrid final placements, should be in reverse. Also WHY DID VANESSA DO THE HIGHTS TASK WHEN SHE HAS AN EIDETIC MEMORY WHICH WOULD MAKE IT PERFECT FOR HER TO DO THE MEMORY TASK
Page created in 0.097 seconds with 34 queries.


text:
The Texas A&M International University Small Business Development Center (TAMIU-SBDC) will be sponsoring a marketing plan workshop Friday, Oct. 24, 2008.
The "Think like a Marketing Guru Workshop" will be offered from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the TAMIU Western Hemispheric Trade Center, room 103. Workshop fee is $20.
What is a marketing plan and why is it so essential to the success of your business?
Richard Pérez, director of the TAMIU-SBDC, explains that the marketing plan defines all of the components of a marketing strategy.
"When you write your marketing plan, you will address the details of your market analysis, sales, advertising, and public relations campaigns. The right product or service at the right price is only the beginning. You must identify your audience, promote your product and find the best distribution method," Pérez explained.
He added that the essence of marketing is to understand your customers' needs and develop a plan that surrounds those needs.
"Let's face it; anyone that has a business has a desire to grow their business. The most effective way to grow and expand your business is by focusing on the marketing plan," Pérez concluded.
To register for the workshop, call the TAMIU SBDC office at 956.326.2827, or e-mail email@example.com.
Register online at sbdc.tamiu.edu
Journalists who need additional information or help with media requests
and interviews should contact the Office of Public Relations, Marketing and Information
Services at firstname.lastname@example.com
Texas A&M International University
5201 University Boulevard
Laredo, TX 78041
© 2019


text:
Contact us
If you have any queries, simply fill out this form to contact our Customer Services.
Alternatively, We are open between 9am and 11pm GMT on weekdays and between 9am and 6pm GMT (excluding some Bank Holidays):
UK customers: 0344 984 0261 (calls charged at national rate)
Republic of Ireland customers: +44 870 606 9666 (calls charged at national rate)
United States customers: 1866 296 6672 (toll free)
Australian customers: +44 344 984 0261 (calls charged at local rate)
New Zealand customers: +44 344 984 0261 (calls charged at local rate)
European customers: (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, & Switzerland only)+44 344 984 0261 (calls charged at local rate)
All other international customers, click here to email us.
Store queries
If your query is regarding a store (UK and Republic of Ireland only) then please contact Retail Customer Services on 0845 121 4516. The opening hours are:
Monday - Friday: 9 am - 6.30pm (Wed 9.30am opening)
Saturday: 9am - 5.30pm
Sunday and Bank Holidays: 10am - 4pm
Alternatively, click here to email us.
Dorothy Perkins account card
If your query is regarding your Dorothy Perkins account card (UK only) then please contact Dorothy Perkins Customer Services on 0871 522 5057. Calls may be recorded and monitored for quality and security purposes. Calls cost 10p per minute plus network extras. For security reasons we are unable to deal with Account card queries via email. The opening hours are:
Monday/Tuesday: 8am - 8pm
Wednesday: 8am - 9pm
Thursday/Friday: 8am - 9pm
Saturday: 8am - 7pm
Sunday: 9am - 6pm
Calls are charged at the National Rate.


text:
T-Men of the Treasury (Dec, 1936)
T-Men of the Treasury
OLD Tom Quisenberry, desperado and smuggler, a law unto himself in a remote section of the Virginia coast, unwittingly started the existence of the government "T"-men, sometimes called Trigger men, a new law-enforcement agency of the Treasury department that now bids fair to rival the famous G-men of the Department of Justice.
Old Tom violated a smuggling law in 1934. He then shot and killed Corp. Clarence McClary, Virginia policeman who sought to apprehend him, and wounded George C. Fitzpatrick, treasury enforcement agent.
This last act made Uncle Sam mad. His unwritten law is that nobody can shoot one of his officers and get away with it. So the Treasury department went after Old Tom with a vengeance. It called out the coast guard, armed them with an airplane and machine gun, marshalled a formidable army of other law-enforcement officers' and rushed them after
Tom who had a hideout in an out-of-the-way part of the shore. Old Tom finally was nabbed. This man hunt, seemingly insignificant in itself, revealed to treasury officials the tremendous advantages to be realized from effective coordination of their various law-enforcement agencies. Why not weld them all into a single compact unit, reasoned the treasury secretary?
For years all branches of the federal police under the direction of the treasury department had gone their own various ways in the matter of firearms training. There hadn't been much attempt at standardization. Men owned their own guns, bought their own ammunition and did their shooting in accordance with their own ideas. Today's situation is entirely different. All the treasury undercover agents have been grouped into the "T-men," or Trigger men, a cohesive organization under the direct thumb of Secretary Morgenthau. Every one of them is a marksman, if not an expert, with revolver, pistol, rifle and machine gun. In inaugurating his new organization, the treasury head first decided upon a more efficient method of training his men in the use of firearms than previously was in existence, so that henceforth there would be less danger of death at the hands of those who take the law in their own hands. And if there were not enough men to do the job in the particular division concerned, there should be a reserve corps that could be called in cases of special emergency.
Thus arose the T-men. They compose the personnel of eight different units of the treasury department; secret service, White House police, customs, alcohol tax unit, guards of the mints and assay offices, treasury guards and bureau of engraving and printing guards. And to this list may be added the guards of the federal deposit insurance corporation. All in all there are more than 5,700 T-men. They range the country over, some in one city, some in another. They go by districts throughout the United States, wherever there exists a branch of one of the above agencies.
The splendid course of firearms training accorded these men is under the direction of the coast guard. Chief supervisor is Commander J. E. Stika, with headquarters in Washington. The nation's capital city has perhaps the largest single group of this far-flung personnel. Here is located the treasury department, with its millions in gold, silver and currency; here is the President's residence and office quarters. Here, too, a branch of the alcohol tax unit.
The firearms training given the members of the treasury personnel in Washington is representative of the training given members scattered throughout the United States. In Washington are three target ranges for small arms. These ranges are fifteen yards each with a brick wall for a backstop. In front of this brick wall is a steel plate set at an angle of forty-five degrees, top out. This deflects the bullets fired into a bed of sand three feet deep at the base of the target.
Before the trainees are permitted to start firing they receive instruction in the use of a gun from coast guard experts. The principal things touched upon in these preliminary lectures are safety in the use of a revolver and pistol, sighting, aiming, position and trigger squeeze. The term, "trigger squeeze," may confuse the novice. The T-men never pull a trigger. What they do is "squeeze" it. The revolver or pistol is gripped firmly in the hand at the moment of fire and "squeezed" with pressure applied to the trigger. This makes for steadiness and accuracy. The natural movement of a revolver held at arm's length is one of wavering indecision. First it is on the target, then it is off. It points above or it points down. But at some time or other during this wavering the weapon is directly on the target. The main idea is to hold the revolver there steadily for that fraction of a second while the trigger is being released. With the gun held firmly in the hand, the side braced by the thumb, and the trigger squeezed instead of pulled, accuracy of fire is at its highest point of efficiency. Aiming, position, sighting, may all be important, and the trainee be well nigh perfect in their application. But unless he knows how to release the trigger, he may never qualify as a marksman.
Training is first given with .22 caliber revolvers and pistols. The men stand at ten yards and fire ten shots, slow fire. The size of the whole target is eight and three-fourths inches. It is divided into seven circles, starting with the black "eye" in the center. This eye, one and one-eighth inches across, has a value of ten points when pierced. The others range down from nine, eight, seven, six, five, four.
To qualify at slow fire the trainee must make a score or seventy per cent or better, 140 points out of a possible score of 200. As soon as the trainee becomes proficient at slow fire, he is given the problem of time fire. This requires two strings of five shots per string, twenty seconds being allowed for each string. This means the trainee must fire a shot every four seconds. Qualifying in this is the same as slow fire. Then the target is moved back five yards and the whole procedure is gone through again. The trainee must pick up his .22 and repeat his ability to place his shots with accuracy in the target for a qualifying score. In the meantime the score has been pushed up. Instead of having to make seventy per cent of the total, he must make eighty per cent.
Next the trainee is furnished with the silhouette target of the body of a man. This type of shooting is called "quick fire" and he must "get his man," and with the same accuracy of fire as he registered in target practice. Such firing is far more difficult. The silhouette target is on a bobber and the firer must lift his gun from a forty-five degree angle from his body to a straight arm position and fire. In this practice the silhouette target of the man turns for three seconds only toward the firer. In that time he must lift his gun and shoot. To qualify for silhouette or quick fire the same high score for time and slow fire at fifteen yards is required—eighty per cent, or 240 hits out of a possible 300.
Next the trainee is advanced to the .38 and .45 caliber class. Here the going is tougher than ever. For the guns are kickers. They must show the same proficiency with these heavier guns as with the lighter types. In the end the men qualify as marksmen, sharpshooters or experts. These degrees are based on scores made. To qualify as a marksman a trainee must be able to score 210 out of a possible 300 points. To become a sharpshooter he must score 270 or better out of a possible 300.
Although a marksman is the lowest rating given a trainee, he can hit a man at fifty yards. However, scores of 290 are not uncommon among the T-men personnel. This rates with the best shots in the nation. These deadly shots of Uncle Sam do not stop with revolver training. The T-men receive training also in the use of Thompson sub-machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, gas grenades, and tear-gas billies. The trigger men are instructed how to hold the grenades and how to throw them with accuracy, so they will "gas" the enemy instead of themselves. The gas accessories, incidentally, can be thrown through the windows of a house without danger of burning down the structure.
Today the T-men throughout the nation are burning up ammunition to the tune of 4,000,000 rounds annually of .22 caliber— and 500,000 rounds of .38 and .45 caliber and the nation's treasury and its borders are being guarded as never before.


text:
The Goodacre Debate
Justin was an excellent host, and we both mused over the irony of the fact that he had an American in England debating an Englishman in America. I had stopped by the studio in person while I was in London; Goodacre was kind enough to phone in from his office at Duke University, North Carolina, where he's an Associate Professor of the New Testament. So we were both at a disadvantage, he by being on the phone (having been there myself, I can testify to how difficult it is to carry on a conversation that way), and me by having almost literally just landed after a twelve hour flight from Los Angeles, which had immediately followed a six hour drive by car, and after which we had just enough time to get our bags and drive to the city and drop me off at a tube station en route to Premiere. Fortunately, I'm pretty resistant to jet lag. But it definitely felt weird. I had that "wired" feeling one gets after being awake for far too long.
If you want to listen to the show, it's available online (for just this week it's the featured show but after that it will be in their archives; and if that link doesn't work properly try this) and via iTunes. I will comment on the show here. So if you're keen to hear my thoughts on it, read on.
Goodacre as GoodscholarMark Goodacre is one of my favorite scholars in the field. He is one of the world's leading experts on the intertextuality of the Gospels, and is most famous for being, like me, an ardent advocate of a "fringe" theory: that there was no Q source behind what the Gospels of Luke and Matthew added to Mark, that Luke just copied and redacted Matthew (and Mark). He is also a strong critic of the same "method of criteria" now used in Jesus studies that I took down in my book Proving History, citing Goodacre's work several times (especially his critiques of the criteria of embarrassment and multiple attestation).
But on that point, everyone relevant agrees with him (i.e., everyone who has published studies on the validity of those methods). It's on the other point that he and I share a more pertinent bond: we have both faced astonishing irrationality and stubbornness from our peers, who cling to "consensus" rather than sound argument. Indeed, I really don't understand why Goodacre's conclusion about Q is fringe. When I finally did read his Case against Q (given to me by a fan, who wanted me to read it–thank you!) I found his evidence more than sufficient and his argument thoroughly persuasive. Arguments for Q, by contrast, uniformly suck, in respect to both logic and evidence.
I have since read more on the subject (both his work and that of others who agree with him; especially his website on Q which is an excellent resource; and then what critics of his arguments I could find), and I have concluded that the evidence is fairly conclusive from any objective standpoint: Luke very certainly used Matthew as a source. Yet Goodacre's arguments and evidence are flippantly dismissed, without valid rebuttal, even by such luminaries as Bart Ehrman–who couldn't even be bothered to present a single valid argument against him in his latest book, where he just casts him aside as "lively" and "spirited" (and buries even that in an endnote), and goes on to base his arguments on the existence of Q, as if it were not even in doubt. I wonder if Ehrman really even knows what Goodacre's arguments are.
The point here is that this is the same stonewalling I face when I advance the hypothesis that (like Q), Jesus didn't exist, either. I face the same stubbornness, irrationality, erroneous and distorted treatments of the evidence, and fallacious appeals to the nebulous "consensus" (a consensus of people who actually haven't examined the case and thus can't possibly have formed a consensus in any responsible sense). I've extensively documented examples of this appalling behavior from Bart Ehrman and James McGrath (see my Ehrman on Historicity Recap). So Goodacre definitely knows how that feels. He's been there.
This, plus his solid expertise in the field, makes him a good candidate for objectively reviewing the case I have to make. I trust his critique of my book (On the Historicity of Jesus Christ, which will be out next year) will be among the best and most important. I'm looking forward to it.
Forty Minutes on the AirJust forty minutes of informal conversation on the radio won't be of much use in that regard (our participation in the show clocked in at about an hour, but that's after adding commercials and intros and lead-ins and close-outs and such). We were only able to present our respective positions in the shallowest and least explored terms, barely touching the tip of the iceberg. Our actual collective speaking time was probably around twenty minutes each–especially after subtracting the time taken to discuss our respective backstories and thoughts about the role of bias on both sides of the debate and other such topics. Our exchange was also informal and unstructured, and largely led by the host as moderator, who kept the conversation interesting to listeners by changing the subject from time to time. I was also a bit wired (as I noted earlier; perhaps I should have asked Justin for a whiskey instead of tea before the show…and that's kidding on the square).
But for all those faults, this has been the best debate on the subject I know so far. Goodacre wasn't flippant or dismissive but took the possibility seriously, and he agreed with me on several things, such as that the only evidence really worth debating are the letters of Paul, which became the main occupation of the show, so we zeroed in on that issue more than usually happens. Yet that is exactly what should happen.
It was refreshing that he got that. We thus bypassed most of the tedium of the usual red herring exchanges on other evidence that is always, in the end, a waste of time (being so conclusively inconclusive). So if you are wondering why my following comments are almost solely about that (with nothing about the more usual nonsense like Josephus or Nazareth or Aramaicisms in the Gospels), it's because we ended up talking almost solely about that. Which, to my view, is properly cutting right to the heart of the matter.
Itemized Commentary1. What theory are you defending? Some might prefer I start by suggesting you watch (either before or after listening to the show or finishing this commentary) my thirty minute talk, "So…if Jesus Didn't Exist, Where Did He Come from Then?" which provides a brief précis of my book's argument that Jesus didn't exist. This, too, just touches the tip of the iceberg, but if you want a more coherent picture of what I was defending on the radio, that's the best way to get up to speed (Goodacre might not have seen that video yet; at least I don't assume he has–he knows my work, we've been exchanging information for over a year, but not as much on this subject).
2. What was the main objection to it? Paul's epistles. I was actually surprised to find that Goodacre has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by "the consensus" that he actually thinks all sorts of things are in Paul's Epistles that in fact are not there. In general he argued "Paul is really very good evidence, very good evidence, for the existence of a historical Jesus" because "it's very clear from his epistles that [Paul is] talking about a real human being," but as I said in the show, no, that isn't clear at all. Just read them all through (the authentic ones, not the forgeries), without the assumption that Paul means anything other than a celestial being who underwent an incarnation, death, and resurrection in outer space like some taught Osiris had done. You'll then find, for example, Goodacre's claim that "[Paul] refers on several occasions to different things in [Jesus'] ministry" is conspicuously false. Paul does not refer to even a single thing in Jesus' ministry. Ever.
3. No evidence at all? One can imagine only two possible exceptions, Jesus having sayings and a passion. But even when Paul says he "has a saying" from Jesus, he never links it to a ministry, but only (if anything) to private revelation. Likewise all he knew of Christ's passion. Paul uses the exact same phrases and vocabulary in Galatians 1:11-16 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (a point Goodacre, like many scholars, was not aware of). Even the last supper (the only passage anywhere in Paul that references anything like a narrative for Jesus): Paul says he learned that directly from Jesus, which means, by revelation–and accordingly, Paul does not mention anyone being present at that event, but instead quotes Jesus as speaking (as if from heaven) to future generations of Christians. Accordingly, even Gerd Lüdemann concludes this does not derive from any historical tradition (see his chapter on the evidence of Paul's epistles in Sources of the Jesus Tradition, which I reviewed last year).
4. What about those two passages about his birth? I didn't have time to address (beyond generally) two other facts Goodacre mentioned, that Paul does indeed say Jesus' flesh was "descended from the seed of David" (actually Paul says "born/made," not "descended") and "talks about [Jesus] being born of a woman." I remarked that these claims are also explicable on mythicism, but didn't elaborate. In the second case (Gal. 4:3-5) Paul is speaking allegorically (Gal. 4:23-26); and in the first, prophetically (the Christ must have been Davidic, so that was simply assumed–hence Paul does not mention how he knows Jesus was Davidic, like mentioning who his father was; yet to effect an incarnation God can make any seed he wants, including a seed from David: 1 Cor. 15:36-38). See Thomas Verenna's chapter on this (and other evidence in Paul) in Is This Not the Carpenter? (which I reviewed in July). I don't agree with Verenna's every point, but he adequately illustrates how ambiguous these references are when understood in context.
5. What about the people Paul knew who knew Jesus? Goodacre said "Paul knows loads of people from that early Christian movement, people like Peter, people like James, the brothers of Jesus, the twelve" and so on, but the question is whether these people knew a living Jesus, or were merely claimed to have generations later in the Gospels–which they did not write. Paul never mentions them knowing Jesus in life. Never. Not once. As far as Paul seems to know, Peter and James learned of Jesus by the same revelatory pathway Paul did (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). And as far as we can tell, "brothers of the Lord" (whether James, Gal. 1:18-19, or generically, 1 Cor. 9:5) was just Paul's way of saying "Christian" (perhaps of a specific rank), since otherwise all baptized Christians were "brothers of the Lord," and the status of James or anyone as peculiarly the "biological" brother of "the Lord" is never claimed or implied by Paul (see my previous summary of this point, which answers our host's worry that having a brother of the Lord "wouldn't make any sense if you didn't have a historical person to tie that to," since, in fact, being a fictive brother of the Lord routinely made sense to Paul). It's therefore not clear what Paul means in these two passages. It is certainly not "very" clear. And when considered against the backdrop of the complete absence in Paul's letters of any clear reference placing Jesus in earth history, a "historicist" interpretation of such a grandiose title as "brother of the Lord" starts to look less likely.
6. What was all that about Paul mentioning Judeans? We were briefly talking over each other (a common problem with dial-in conversations; and a big reason why I don't like dialing in myself), so I misheard Dr. Goodacre's reference to "the Judeans in 1 Thessalonians 2" and went on assuming we were still talking about Galatians 1-2 (where the Judean churches come up) and we moved on. The audience will be confused because neither of us explained what his remark was about. I am certain on listening back that he meant the famous passage that most experts deem an interpolation: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, where Paul says the Jews have finally been punished once and for all for killing Jesus. As that is plainly a reference to the Jewish War, which hadn't happened when Paul was alive, it's plainly an interpolation. He never wrote it. For the arguments and scholarship on this point see my past blog on Pauline Interpolations.
7. Why was Goodacre so convinced? Goodacre's overall argument was that, for him, "it's very difficult to see lot's of this stuff in Paul's epistles as being/talking about some kind of figure that began life as a sort of cosmic, mythological being," but it's not difficult when you read passages like Philippians 2:5-8 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, where we see clear hallmarks of Paul talking about a cosmological Jesus (this is even clearer in the early pseudo-Paulines: see Hebrews 1:1-4 and 8-9 and Colossians 1:12-20), yet we never get anything comparably clear from Paul talking about an earthly Jesus. Allegories and metaphysical fulfillments of prophecy were normal then, and thus should not be difficult to see for someone who immerses themself in how the ancients saw and thought about the world. And once we realize that, the passages in the Epistles usually touted as evincing an earthly Jesus instead look very strange. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, it's conspicuously odd that no mention is made of Jesus ever "appearing" to anyone before he died, only after. It's as if Jesus had no ministry, and the only way he was known to have died is through "scripture."
8. What did you mean by his objections often being in error? I've mentioned some examples already (where he thinks things are said in the Epistles that are not), but there were two very pronounced examples of this. The first of these is when Goodacre said of Paul:
He didn't meet Jesus himself in the flesh, and that was a cause of great anxiety to Paul. I mean, if Jesus had never appeared in the flesh, then Paul wouldn't have to have any of that sort of great stress that he has, that he never actually met Jesus, and his big battle in early Christianity is with people who knew Jesus in the flesh, and so Paul has to say, 'Hey, look, you know, I'm not in the least inferior to you lot, you know, you superapostles, I'm still, you know, important in my own right'."Here he gives Paul an argument that I then pointed out is found nowhere in the Epistles. I wish we had Paul saying anything like that! But he doesn't. This is a modern Christian apologetic interpretation of Paul (which has been internalized even by secular scholars), and is both ad hoc (modern Christians just made it up to explain away oddities in the Epistles) and strains badly against the evidence, where in fact we have Paul declaring the exact opposite attitude throughout Galatians 1-2, as I explained on the show. Goodacre is thus reading into the Epistles what isn't there, and worse, something that actually comes from modern apologetic attempts to explain away the deeply odd features of the Epistles that mythicists have been pointing out for over a century. He has even internalized that apologetic to the point that he thinks it's based on evidence (that it is a "fact," and not a contrived interpretation), and he assumes that that evidence is in the Epistles. As I once did. But when I looked for it, I was shocked not to find it.
9. Why is that important? Because when you realize that, it turns everything upside down, leading to a paradigm shift in how you look at the Epistles. It is precisely because Paul doesn't ever say anything like "I'm not inferior to you, even though you knew Jesus," nor even hints at anything like it, that historicity looks dubious. Not the other way around. Paul is therefore good evidence against historicity, not for it. Goodacre's immense certainly that Paul made such an argument proves my point: he is so sure Paul would have, that the fact that he actually didn't is very bizarre. This is evident again in the passages where Paul uses the phrase Goodacre uses ("super-apostles," hyper lian apostoloi, lit. "apostles beyond exceedingly"). Paul never says this relates to their having known Jesus, but only to their being much better speakers than him (2 Cor. 11:1-7 and 12:7-13, which in context I suspect indicates that the "thorn in his side" he is talking about is a stutter or speech impediment; remember that "apostle" means "messenger," so being a "super great messenger" has a more obvious meaning in the Greek). Paul might also have been concerned about the fact that they were apostles first (as that could be a problem for him even if Jesus didn't exist), but he never says that, and he doesn't mean that when he calls them "apostles super exceedingly." He means they are spectacularly good at selling the gospel, while he is but a poor speaker with a humble heart. So when he asserts that he's as good as them, he refers to his ability to receive "revelations of the Lord" like they did (2 Cor. 12:1-7) and perform miracles (2 Cor. 12:12) and demonstrate spiritual knowledge (gnôsis: 2 Cor. 11:6); his only failing compared to them, Paul says, is not being a good speaker (cf. 1 Cor. 2:3-4). Conspicuously absent is any argument that his revelations ought to be reckoned as good as their knowing the man personally. To the contrary, he always assumes his access to Jesus was identical to theirs (see 1 Cor. 15:5-8 and 9:1). This is, to put it mildly, weird.
10. What was the second big error? Goodacre actually thought that in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul wrote that he got the gospel he summarizes there "from those who were in Christ before him." This was even a key part of Goodacre's argument that Paul knew the people who knew Jesus, and that he got his gospel from them. In fact, Paul insists up and down exactly the opposite (in Galatians 1-2; the extent to which Paul may be lying there is not relevant to the present point). And in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul nowhere says the gospel he summarizes there came "from those who were in Christ before him." But that Goodacre was so certain it said that gave me a surreal experience–I couldn't believe he could make such a mistake, leading me to doubt my own memory, so I looked the verse up on my iPad during the show (and read it out), just to make sure that phrase really wasn't there. It's not. Yet Goodacre was so certain it was. This exemplifies the stranglehold dogma has even on so skilled and experienced a scholar as him, to the point that he again confused apologetic with fact. Goodacre can only have been thinking of either Romans 16:7, where Paul only asks the Romans to salute the apostles Andronicus and Junias who were "in Christ before me," or Galatians 1:17, where Paul says exactly the opposite of what Goodacre was claiming (Paul there says "I did not go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me" to learn the gospel).
11. Why is that important? Because historicists have this idea in their head that Paul talks all the time about receiving traditions from the "disciples" of Jesus who traveled with Jesus and to whom Jesus taught the gospel before he died. Why? I don't know. Paul never mentions disciples (the word never appears in his letters), nor does he ever mention traditions. Goodacre went on to say that Paul is talking about a received "tradition" in 1 Corinthians 15, but that is not there, either–Paul never uses the word "tradition" in this sense (as something he heard from another, except Jewish traditions, Gal. 1:14), and never refers to the gospel as such anywhere. Instead he uses the same words in Galatians 1:11-12 that he uses in 1 Corinthians 15:1,3 to refer to receiving (and transmitting) a revelation, not a tradition. So when Paul assumes everywhere that he saw Jesus the same way Peter and everyone else did (as I noted above), we should sooner conclude they saw Jesus in visions, not in "real life." There is no evidence of the latter anywhere in Paul's letters. Which is, again, weird.
12. Are the epistles really that lacking in Jesus tradition? Yes. And this is where perception was trumping reality in our debate. Goodacre kept saying things like "1 Corinthians 15 especially is pretty rich in Jesus tradition," which is odd, because it's really not–very conspicuously not. Almost nothing about Jesus is mentioned there, beyond that he died, was buried, and rose (no details being given for any of those points), and then appeared (still no details–and no mention of his appearing or having been known to anyone before any of that). The rest is about a celestial Jesus Lord ruling at the right hand of God. Nothing about a ministry, miracles, biography, family, travels–no historical details whatever. And no sayings or teachings, either. In other words, almost nothing we would call "Jesus tradition," much less a "rich" one.
13. But surely Paul tells us lots of things about Jesus? Yes, lots…but only the cosmic Jesus, the one he prays to in heaven. Hence when Goodacre said at one point "it's amazing how much stuff [Paul] tells you about Jesus," I found that ironic, considering that nothing Paul ever tells us about Jesus places him on earth or relates even a single story about him being on earth or having been personally known to anyone before the resurrection epiphanies. That is what is amazing. Otherwise, it simply isn't true that Paul tells us loads of stuff about Jesus. Apart from a cosmic Jesus, Paul tells us next to nothing about Jesus. Lüdemann himself was surprised to discover this was true in his survey of references to a historical Jesus in Paul (in Sources of the Jesus Tradition). Even Mogens Müller had to concede the same point when trying to argue Paul attests to a historical Jesus (in Is This Not the Carpenter?).
14. Okay, Paul never uses the word "tradition" like that, but can't we assume that's what he means? No. That would be making a circular argument. You can't assume an explanation is true in order to argue that it's true. You have to ask what the relative consequent probability is of the same evidence on either explanation, not just the explanation you prefer (as I explain in Proving History). Thus, for example, when Goodacre argued that the "traditions" Paul and Peter shared "only really make sense" if they were about a historical Jesus on earth, his only examples are "that he died" (which Paul certainly says a lot), and that Paul talks about knowing some moral teachings of Jesus (for example, 1 Cor. 7:10), and that Paul "mentions [Jesus'] family on several occasions" and "talks about his other disciples." But Paul never identifies anyone as a disciple (or as ever having known Jesus in any comparable sense), and never clearly refers to the "family" of Jesus (as I noted above, his few vague references are as easily explained on mythicism–we find no discussion of who his mother or father were, for example, and he does not say anyone was biologically related to him, or that he was from Nazareth or Galilee), and Paul says teachings of Jesus came to him by revelation (so that he would know some of them is no argument against mythicism: Jesus teaches from heaven), and "that he died" (in outer space, like Osiris did, and as the Ascension of Isaiah originally said) is the mythicist theory–it cannot be evidence against it!
15. What about all the other stuff Paul says happened to Jesus? What stuff would that be? I was surprised to find Paul doesn't say much at all–and what little he does say is entirely compatible with mythicism. For example the notion of Jesus' suffering and being tempted: the mythicist theory is that Paul believed all that did indeed happen–in outer space. Hence, notably, it's happening "on earth" is precisely what is never said or implied anywhere in Paul. Similarly, in Philippians 2, Goodacre notes, Jesus "takes the form of a slave" and "that's the whole point of a crucifixion, it's a slave's punishment." But he cannot mean this literally, as Jesus was not by any account an actual slave (so Philippians is obviously speaking metaphorically, leaving us to debate what the metaphor is), nor is crucifixion specifically a "slave's" punishment (all subjects who lacked Roman citizenship or a state-recognized status as an honestior were subject to crucifixion for capital offenses). Philippians is only saying Jesus became as obedient as a slave, to the point of allowing himself to be crucified–which, on mythicism, occurred in the sky at the hands of Satan and his demons, exactly as the Ascension of Isaiah once said it did. So there is nothing in Philippians 2 that contradicts the basic mythicist theory. Indeed, any historical details that would rule that interpretation out are conspicuously absent from this passage. Again Goodacre keeps saying this is taking place "on earth," but that word or concept is again not in this passage. Or anywhere in Paul. And that's the problem.
16. What about his argument that Christians would never come up with an idea of a crucified messiah unless there really was one? I already answered that well enough on the show. Goodacre argues Paul had a hard time explaining the idea of a crucified savior to people. But that would have been just as true of a crucified celestial messiah as an earthly one. So that argument is a wash. One is as much a stumbling block as the other. Both are equally weird–so anything that would inspire the idea in the one case, would inspire it just as easily in the other. That was my point in mentioning the seductive logic of Hebrews 8-9: that explains the idea behind a crucified messiah and why they needed one (to replace the corrupt temple cult). A celestial crucified messiah would accomplish that goal just as well–and indeed, the author of Hebrews appears to know of no other kind. The host's claim that it "wouldn't make any sense" to compare a Christian's own dying and rising with that of a cosmic Jesus (as Paul often did) is similarly mistaken: that was the whole reason Jesus assumed a body of flesh to die in, so he and his new brethren would share in the same process. That can happen in outer space as easily as on earth.
17. Why did Paul persecute the Christians then? Goodacre argued that Paul persecuted the Christians (before his own conversion) "presumably because of this idea that the messiah was going to be crucified." I am aware of no actual evidence to support that. It's a common Christian apologetic today. But it has no basis in any evidence. Jews actually had no demonstrable problem with dying messiahs: the Talmud shows it even became an orthodox notion, and no one there shows any idea that it was ever blasphemous or criminal, and it clearly was not inconceivable, since the Talmudic Jews readily conceived of it. So did the author of Daniel. And possibly the author of 11Q13. (On all these points see my Dying Messiah Redux.) In contrast, there is not only no evidence, but there isn't even any logical reason why preaching a crucified messiah would be a persecuting offense to the Jewish authorities. Why would they care? It violates no law in Torah or Mishnah. If I had to guess, a more likely reason Paul persecuted the early church is the fact that its gospel replaced the temple cult (and thus Levitical law: Hebrews 8-9), but we don't really know, because Paul never says. Of course, even apart from the legal question, if the idea of a crucified messiah was preposterous, it would be just as preposterous (in fact more so) for a celestial messiah to be crucified, so again this argument is a wash. One stumbling block is as stumbly as the other.
18. But why come up with a stumbling block at all? All religions do. There are bizarre, shocking, counter-cultural doctrines at the heart of Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology–and for antiquity, I mentioned Attis cult on the show as a prime example. Why invent a castrated Attis? They had some reason. So did Christians. I could have said more on that point–in particular, that this is how you separate insiders from outsiders: you invent a shocking doctrine, to be the Kool-Aid that prospective members must drink to prove their loyalty, and their separation from the "orthodoxy" they are abandoning. Only people who "buy it" can be trusted to have shifted their loyalty from one system to the other. This is why the church later committed mass murder and went to war over bizarrely trivial differences in arcane creedal statements. Who cares whether God is a trinity or a unity? Those who want a test of loyalty care. Who wants a crucified messiah? The same people. We can add to that the fact that the whole notion was already widely popular: every other national cult had adopted a suffering cosmic savior son of god, many even a dying-and-rising one; we should actually have expected the Jews to jump on the same bandwagon eventually. And on top of all that, the whole notion of a crucified messiah was a brilliant way to eliminate dependence on the temple cult, exactly as Hebrews explains (and as I explained on the show).
19. So the first Christians just made it all up? A couple times it was suggested that the mythicist theory I am defending entails that the first Christians (Peter, Paul, etc.) were "colluding together" to invent a mythical Jesus (as our host said around timestamp 18:50; later Goodacre similarly objects that the crucifixion "is not something they were manufacturing"). Though that's possible (see chapter ten of Not the Impossible Faith), it's not necessary. When Paul says he and others "saw" Jesus in revelations (and thereby "learned," from that or scripture or both, that this Jesus had recently undergone an atoning sacrifice), he could well have been telling the truth as he knew it. That does not require a historical Jesus. Nor does it require them to have "manufactured" anything (beyond subconsciously).
20. However, the Gospels are another story. Our host said he was "having trouble buying [the idea] that" the authors of the Gospels are making it all up, but that's more a sentiment one expects from a layman or a Christian apologist. Because objectively, you won't have as much trouble buying it once you see that the authors of the Gospels are making things up. Once you admit that they have done that at least a few times, it no longer becomes so hard to imagine they did the same thing in every other part of their narrative. And the fact is, most mainstream scholars admit every Gospel author has made stories up at least a few times (and many agree they made up almost everything: see my review of the latest books by Crossan and MacDonald). The construction of the nativity accounts is a prime example–Goodacre himself agrees (though he didn't have time to mention it on the show) that Luke invented his version of the Nativity by changing-up the version he inherited from Matthew. If Luke felt free to do that, what would stop him doing the same in every other chapter of his Gospel? Look at what we're learning about how fabricated his book of Acts is, for example (see Pervo's The Mystery of Acts for starters).
21. Did Goodacre also cite the Gospels as evidence? Sort of. He made no specific argument from the Gospels to historicity, other than the fact that they tried to explain the theological point behind a crucified messiah (which, contrary to his assumed logic, is not any less expected on mythicism, as I noted above), and the argument that the Gospel authors "are thoroughly persuaded that Jesus is a figure in history." That may be true (and is not a problem for mythicism: Plutarch was thoroughly persuaded Romulus was a figure in history, and so wrote a whole biography about him, a man who in fact never existed; and if Plutarch could do that, so could the authors of the Gospels). But I think he may be confusing what they were selling with what they believed…
22. Why does that distinction matter? It is demonstrable (and I will prove this in my next book) that all the Gospel authors are extensively fabricating the stories they tell. Which means they cannot have believed those stories were true–they were the ones making them up. If they were "thoroughly persuaded that Jesus is a figure in history," why did they make up stories about him, instead of tell the stories that "thoroughly persuaded" them? It's hard (not impossible, but hard) to maintain that they really believed what they were saying. They almost certainly did not believe most of it actually happened. And if they were comfortable selling things as having happened that they knew didn't, it's not far to go to conclude they were comfortable selling the whole thing as having happened when they knew it didn't (or had no idea whether it did). We cannot get into the mind of the Gospel authors so as to know why they made up so much and felt free to do so, and even to shamelessly pass it off as known history. But that is what they did. Whatever their motives. So a case for historicity cannot be made on the premise that the Gospel authors were "thoroughly persuaded that Jesus is a figure in history." We actually don't know that they were, and even if they were, we have no idea what persuaded them of that. Because it certainly wasn't the stories they tell–those they were making up themselves.
23. Was there really a pre-Christian idea of a celestial Jesus? Yes, Philo does write about a Jewish belief in a pre-existent celestial firstborn son of God named Jesus, which Christians appear to have simply converted into a dying-and-rising demigod, as we see in Philippians 2:6-11. Philo was writing from Egypt between the 20s and 40s A.D. It's very unlikely he would "coincidentally" invent the exact same celestial figure as Christians imagined Jesus to be; this therefore is far more likely to have been an earlier belief that Philo is describing.
I discuss this evidence in Not the Impossible Faith (pp. 150-51). But in short, Philo quotes Zechariah 6:11-12, which speaks of a man named Jesus [which is simply Greek for "Joshua," hence the actual name is "Jesus" in the Greek of Philo and the Septuagint] being crowned in heaven and given the name "Rises" (anatolê in Philo's Greek, as also in the Septuagint), which Philo says is not an earthly man but God's celestial high priest and "firstborn son," a preexistent being, God's agent of creation, and his Logos ("Word" or "Reason"), all the same things the Christians believed of Jesus (see image to the right; click to enlarge). Zechariah, of course, meant the first high priest of the second temple, a historical (or at least legendary) man, Jesus ben Jehozadak, though that, when translated, means "Jesus son of Jehovah the Righteous," so anyone reading this text like a pesher (as many Jews were then doing with the scriptures) could easily take this as a veiled reference to something else. And that is exactly what Philo does, and most likely others had before him. Christianity almost certainly derived from a cult that did so.
24. And that's why things are very much the other way around. Goodacre says "the evidence we would expect to find is exactly what we do find, which is Jesus surviving in the memories of those who were closest to him." That is indeed the kind of evidence we should expect to find. Yet it is precisely the evidence we don't find. Not a single document from anyone who knew a living Jesus exists, nor a single document that we can demonstrate derived anything from any such person (no Gospels even claim to do so, except John, and his claim, that he had an anonymous witness absent from all other accounts, is demonstrably bogus, as many scholars have pointed out before, as I'll show in my next book). All we have from Paul are references to people like Peter and James who had revelations of Jesus after his passion–no references to anyone knowing him before that, much less to their memories of it.
25. Thus what Goodacre ultimately said of mythicism is actually the case for historicity. As I see it, it is defending historicity that "becomes tortuous after a while" because "there are so many difficult moments in the argument it just becomes terribly strained," whereas instead we should go "for the simplest hypothesis." Quite so. I have found that, indeed, the simplest hypothesis, the one that requires the fewest ad hoc assumptions to explain all the oddities in the evidence (and none against the grain of demonstrable background evidence), is mythicism, not historicity. One step toward realizing that will be realizing that everything Dr. Goodacre thinks is in the Epistles isn't there at all. Step two will be grasping the relevance of the background evidence I drew attention to (such as, but not only, my points in the show about the Ascension of Isaiah and the celestial Jesus in Philo). But my next book is needed to frame that all up in the proper way. I do not believe this debate or my Madison video are at all sufficient to convince anyone. For that, you'll have to await my book. It's first complete draft is just ten or twenty pages from being finished, after which I have a load of double checking and revising to do, peer review, contract negotiation, and production pipeline. I estimate six months from now to publication.
P.S. Dr. Goodacre also posted the show on his blog and a lot of discussion ensued in the comments there. I unfortunately didn't have time to read all of it. But it looked mostly constructive, even when critical (except I saw one instance of me being called dishonest by a commentator, a claim Steven Carr quickly refuted, which I appreciate).
SOURCE: http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2839


text:
With the win that just wrapped up in Hershey, the baby Pens have clinched a playoff spot.
Good job, boys!
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
narcolept wrote:^^^ What he said.
Also, 31 wins on the season for Curry breaks Sabu's franchise mark set in 05-06. Also good for a tie for most wins in the league. Would AHL Goaltender of the year honors make everyone feel better about him backing up Fleury next year?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


text:
N.J. -- Michael Matz, the trainer
of Union Rags, confirmed that the road to the 3-year-old championship goes through
the Grade 1 $1 million Haskell Invitational, to be renewed this year for the 45th
Matz, who
was at Monmouth Park
on Saturday to saddle Somali Lemonade in the Grade 3 $100,000 Boiling Springs
Stakes for 3-year-old fillies, said that at this stage he has two options for
Belmont Stakes-winning Union Rags, the Grade 2 Jim Dandy at Saratoga on Sat., July 28 or the Haskell here
on Sun., July 29.
"I will
have to make a decision," said Matz. "I would imagine, though, that if you are
trying to be the 3-year-old champion, you have to run in the grade one races
and that would be the Haskell."
Union Rags,
a son of 2000 Haskell winner Dixie Union, has won five of eight career
starts. His only off the board finish
came in the Kentucky Derby, where he checked in seventh after a troubled
trip. He has banked nearly $1.8 million
for owner Chadds Ford Stable.
committed to a start in the mile and an eighth Haskell are the ultra-speedy
Bodemeister, runner-up in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, and Dullahan,
winner of the Blue Grass Stakes and third in the Kentucky Derby.
reserved seats remain for the Haskell, ranging in price from $10 to $17. Fans can purchase tickets at the track on any
live race day, or by calling 732-571-5563 or visiting www.ticketmaster.com.


text:
|Orange, CT
|High School:
2007: Appeared in 18 games, making 17 starts...Led the team with 7 goals...Completed a hat trick at Long Island October 28...Notched 3 game winning goals...Named Brine/NEC Player of the Week for the week of October 29...Second on the team in points with 14. 2006: Played in and started all 18 games for the second straight year...Tied for the team lead in scoring with 14 points...Was second on the team with five goals and had a team leading four assists. 2005: Played in all 18 games for the Pioneers as a rookie, starting 15...Led the team in scoring with 8 goals and one assist for 17 points...Led all conference rookies in scoring...Scored three game winning goals...Named to All-NEC second team. High School: Played varsity soccer and ran track at Amity High School...Served as soccer captain as a junior and senior...Named to All League team as a sophomore, junior and senior... Named All State team as a junior and senior...Member of Honor Roll. Personal: Jason Tessitore. Born: 6/19/87. Parents: Geraldine and Tony Tessitore. Siblings: Joe Tessitore. Hobbies: Basketball, playing cards, hanging out. Favorite Teams: Metrostars. Favorite Athelete: Cobi Jones. Favorite Movie: Wedding Crashers. Favorite TV Show: Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Favorite Food: Chicken


text:
- World rankings
Mickelson hints at major changes
After finishing the final round of his 2013 PGA Tour season opener on Sunday, Phil Mickelson suggested there were big off-the-course changes coming for the four-time major winner.
When asked if he thought the past few months were an unsettling time in regards to the political situation in the United States, Mickelson was a bit cryptic in his answer.
"Well, it's been an interesting off-season," Mickelson said after finishing tied for 37th at the Humana Challenge in La Quinta, California. "And I'm going to have to make some drastic changes. I'm not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes."
When pressed about what those changes might be, he deferred to next week, when he expects to be talking to the media prior to playing in the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines. But he did add that his situation might, in part, have to do with his tax situation.
"There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn't work for me right now," Mickelson said. "So I'm going to have to make some changes."
Mickelson did get more specific about his own financial situation, though.
"But if you add up ... all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 per cent," he said. "So I've got to make some decisions on what I'm going to do."
Mickelson's failure to challenge deep into the tournament at La Quinta saw him drop out of the world's top 20, while Justin Rose is up to No. 4 following his near miss in Abu Dhabi.
World rankings: 1. Rory McIlroy (NIR), 2. Tiger Woods (USA), 3. Luke Donald (ENG), 4. Justin Rose (ENG), 5. Louis Oosthuizen (RSA), 6. Adam Scott (AUS), 7. Lee Westwood (ENG), 8. Brandt Snedeker (USA), 9. Bubba Watson (USA), 10. Steve Stricker (USA), 11. Jason Dufner (USA), 12. Keegan Bradley (USA), 13. Ian Poulter (ENG), 14. Dustin Johnson (USA), 15. Webb Simpson (USA), 16. Charl Schwartzel (RSA), 17. Graeme McDowell (NIR), 18. Peter Hanson (SWE). 19. Sergio Garcia (ESP), 20. Matt Kuchar (USA)
This article first appeared on ESPN.com


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Can you recommend any online guides/handbooks/manuals for Eastern Rite Orthodox altar servers, please?
Just listen to what more experienced tell you.
Quote from: Michał Kalina on October 02, 2010, 10:58:07 AMJust listen to what more experienced tell you.This is how I was doing it for a year. But still - I would like to read some kind of manual to feel more confident. I already know how the "Polish" practise look like, so I will notice the "American" peculiarities.
The GOA produced a Altar manual some 30 years ago for a workshop that became popular for a time. But it is of limited value because each Priest does things their own way. It is rather comedic because they all insist they do it the "one and only" correct way not realizing that their liturgy is unique. New Priest = New Book
We didn't really have any altar servers back home, besides the sacristan and he didn't wear any sticharion, just regular clothes. Altar servers are very rare in the Romanian churches.
Quote from: Michał on October 02, 2010, 10:55:58 AMCan you recommend any online guides/handbooks/manuals for Eastern Rite Orthodox altar servers, please?Funny you should mention it. We are working a an Alter Servers guide. It's been slow going and it's true that somethings are done very differently in different Jurisdiction. However, we are trying to put something together... Wont be done any time soon. If anyone here has suggestions, please post them or send me a PM.For now, assist anyone more experienced than you are and remember what they do and when. Then let someone less experienced than you, help you.
Page created in 0.08 seconds with 25 queries.


text:
Thoughts toward becoming a better lover of God and of people.
Labels: journal
posted by Bradley at
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
After indulging myself in what pop culture deemed as the highest pleasures (money, power, sex, drugs, party-life, etc.), and watching my life crumble under the grip of these pleasures (betrayed by close friends, hurt by my closest lover, accumulating a criminal record, living in fear, loosing all motivation, stricken with depression/loneliness/confusion), God rolled up his sleeves to reach down from heaven and scoop me up from the pit, made his love and power clear to me, gave me new life in Christ, and set me on a new path. I only wish my life were a better tribute to this great redeemer.
View my complete profile
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]


text:
You are hereHome ›
Narrow Search
Now showing results 1-4 of 4
This activity is about the discovery of water ice on Mars. Learners will record and graph temperature data and use a model of an ice-rich and ice-free surface on Mars to examine how ice content in the martian soil would impact the temperature of a... (View More) Mars microbe after impact. A student information sheet introducing the subject of ice and the search for water on Mars is provided. The activity requires access to a freezer the night before the activity. Note: Find the latest information and updates on Mars missions at the NASA Mars Exploration website (see Related & Supplemental Resources to the right). (View Less)
Materials Cost: $1 - $5 per group of students
This is a lesson about the path meteorites take to get from the asteroid belt to Earth and how rare it is for the Earth to be hit by a large asteroid. Three activities comprise the lesson. Learners will draw circles and ellipses to illustrate basic... (View More) shapes of orbits in the solar system (Activity A); construct a scale-model of the inner solar system, observe relative distances and sizes, plot paths meteoroids might take and manipulate models to demonstrate the ecliptic plane (Activity B); and graph the locations of Earth and a near-earth asteroid, observe the significance of time and space, and estimate when the asteroid might cross the orbit of Earth (Activity C). Activities, vocabulary words, and experimental extensions are included. This is Lesson 4 of 19 in Exploring Meteorite Mysteries. (View Less)
This is a lesson about impact craters; the relationships between crater size, projectile size and projectile velocity; and the transfer of energy in the cratering process. Learners will create plaster of Paris or layered dry impact craters and... (View More) conduct controlled experiments using mass and velocity as the independent variables. Energy calculations for advanced classes, and vocabulary words are included. This is lesson 6 of 19 in Exploring Meteorite Mysteries. (View Less)
Materials Cost: $1 - $5 per group of students
Learners will conduct an investigation, observe and record the physical characteristics of an unknown rock (meteorite), determine the mass of the unknown rock using math skills, determine the density of the rock, describe and classify a meteorite,... (View More) apply observations and knowledge to the process of a scientific investigation, present evidence to verify classification decisions, and explore concepts of spatial relationships. Completion of all parts of the lesson is necessary to identify the unknown. Advanced preparation and procedural tips are included. This is lesson 13 of 19 in Exploring Meteorite Mysteries. (View Less)


text:
The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved the FY12 agricultural appropriations bill.
Overall discretionary spending for the Agriculture Subcommittee for FY12 totals $19.780 billion, which includes $1.750 billion in security spending and $18.030 in non-security spending.
This represents a net security/non-security decrease of $138 million below the FY11 continuing resolution. However, non-security spending alone is reduced by $192 million below the FY11 continuing resolution.
The bill also includes $266 million to respond to floods, storms and other natural disasters.
The bill reflects reductions below the FY11 funding level in many programs. In making these funding decisions, programs directly related to public health and safety and domestic and international nutrition assistance programs were prioritized.
Summaries of the funding decisions follow:
Food and Drug Administration:
The FY12 bill provides $2.497 billion for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as compared to $2.447 billion in FY11, not including funding collected through user fees.
The FDA is the only non-security Agency to receive increased funding in this bill. This funding level takes into consideration the federal government's responsibilities to protect public health and safety, especially in the areas of food, drugs, medical devices and biologics.
An increase is provided the FDA to begin implementation of the recently passed Food Safety Modernization Act.
Food Safety and Inspection Service:
The FY12 bill provides the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) $1.007 billion, the same level as FY11. This includes the full funding requested in the budget for federal, state and international inspection activities, and will allow the FSIS to continue modernizing its workforce and improving food safety systems.
Domestic Nutrition:
The FY12 provides $6.582 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, as compared to $6.734 billion in FY11. This level will fully fund participation in the program.
The decrease from FY11 is due to lower program participation rates than originally estimated.
This level also provides $60 million for breastfeeding peer counselors.
For other domestic nutrition programs, the FY12 bill provides $382 million, as compared to $393 million in FY11. This includes funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program of $176 million, which fully funds participation.
Foreign Food Assistance:
The FY12 bill provides $1.562 billion for PL 480 Title II, as compared to $1.5 billion in FY11. The PL 480 Title II program provides emergency food assistance to the most vulnerable areas in the world.
The bill provides an increase for PL 480 Title II to reflect the increased demand for humanitarian food assistance especially with the unprecedented famine in the Horn of Africa.
The McGovern-Dole Program, which provides school meals to the world's poorest children, is funded at $188 million, as compared to $199 million in FY11.
Research: The FY12 bill provides $2.309 billion for the National Institute on Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Agricultural Research Service, as compared to $2.348 billion in FY11.
Specifically within NIFA, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative is funded at $266 million, the Hatch Act is funded at $236 million, the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry program is funded at $33 million, and Smith-Lever Sections 3(b) and 3(c) is funded at $296 million.
Rural Development:
The FY12 bill provides $654 million for Rural Development Salaries and Expenses, as compared to $688 million in FY11.
Most programs were reduced from FY11 levels. For Housing and Community Programs, the bill provides $1.09 billion in budget authority while $1.224 billion was available in FY11.
For Business Programs, the bill provides $119 million, as compared to $128 million in FY11. Under Rural Utilities Programs, the bill provides $557 million as compared to $597 million in FY11.
Farm Service Agency:
The FY12 bill provides $404 million for farm loan programs, as compared to $461 million in FY11. The bill provides $1.182 billion for salaries and expenses, as compared to $1.208 billion in FY11.
The FY12 bill provides $828 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, as compared to $871 million in FY11. The bill does not include funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.


text:
Wash Bay Waste Water Treatment Specialists
Eco Technical Services Limited specialise in modular wash bay services, waste water treatment and wash water recycling systems.
We are the inventors and sole suppliers of the Mobay Mobile Wash Bay to Industry, hire companies, garages, large fleet operators and independent carwash operators.
Our (MoBay)wash bay meets all the latest environmental requirements as they are completely self-contained in terms of drainage and waste water disposal. The wash bays can be designed to form closed loop wash systems. Modular construction and with adjustable feet they allow the washbay systems to be set up quickly and easily at almost any site.
In order to achieve stringent targets for wash bay waste water discharges maximising recovery of water and the separation of oil and greases, Eco Technical Services Limited also acts as the Sole UK Agent for Freylit Wash Water Recycling Equipment and Oil separators along with offering unique wash bays systems to remove emulsified oil and glycol from waste wash water.
Existing wash bay facilities can be adapted or we can offer new wash bay equipment for permanent or concrete wash bays or modular steel systems. All waste wash water can be environmentally treated to save you disposal costs if required.