text:
Deposition of Ariel Roth - Page 2
you have been researching?
A. You say has the Bible suggested possible
Q. Yes.
That is, would you say that your reading of the
Bible has ever suggested to you that the answer to some
problem that you were working on might be X or whatever?
A. I don't think one can divorce what he reads
from explanations he tries to arrive at entirely, but
in science, explanations can be of a variety of sources,
What I am trying to do is say the scientific
explanation need not be related to what I get from the
Bible or anthropology but it can influence one's
scientific explanation.
Q. Are you able to explain the way in which the
Bible might influence your scientific explanation in
any particular instance?
A. It could suggest some ideas to be tested.
Q. Do you recall any specific occasion that has
been the case?
A. Well, I'll get back to -- it can suggest a
catastrophism, but other sources can suggest the same
I will add to that comment that many geologists
are suggesting catastrophism, and they have gotten
their ideas from the data, science or their experiments
or from concepts that they have imagined.
In science we are concerned about whether the data
fits the concept, not especially where the concept comes
Archimides got his concept of buoyancy from a
Q. Dr. Roth, have you done any research in
A. Not directly.
Q. Have you done any indirectly?
A. I've analyzed some structures in terms of
whether or not they might be deposited rapidly or slowly.
Q. Have you had any geology training or any
training related to catastrophism other than what you
mentioned earlier, your geology study at U.C. Riverside?
A. Not formal training.
Of course, most geologists have not had training
in this direction because this is a new trend in
Q. Have you had any geology training at all
other than what we discussed earlier about your work at
U.C. Riverside?
A. Not formal training.
Q. Have you had any informal training?
A. Well, whenever one goes out in the field and
field conferences, he learns quite a bit. When one
goes to scientific meetings, he learns quite a bit.
Q. Are there any other bases than the geology
training you had at U.C. Riverside and these references
that you have made to scientific conferences and field
trips for your knowledge or views in catastrophism?
A. Geological literature.
Q. What geological literature in this area have
you read?
A. Well, I get all these journals of which I am
a member of the society. I don't read every journal.
I wish I had time to. But that's part of it.
And, of course, there are reference books.
Q. Could you tell me the primary reference books
and journals in this area that you read?
A. Geological Society of America bulletin,
The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists
bulletin, The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists bulletin, books of one type and another.
Q. Do you recall any titles?
A. The Nature of the Stratographical Record by
Q. Do you recall by whom that is published,
A. No.
It is in England. It is British.
Q. Any others?
A. Not right offhand.
Q. Sir, would you regard yourself as an expert
in geology or catastrophism?
A. No.
If I can amplify on that, I am an expert in no
area. The more you study, the more you realize how
little you know.
Q. Would you say then that you regard your
command of geology and catastrophism as the equivalent
of your command of marine biology?
A. No, not as good.
Q. And is it correct then that you would not
regard yourself as an expert in marine biology, either?
A. Well --
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say for the record,
obviously, who is an expert has a legal connotation.
MR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: And Dr. Roth, despite his own
modesty, we would consider him legally to be an expert.
MR. WOLFE: My inquiry is not based on who may
or may not be legally qualified but, rather, Dr. Roth's
own appraisal of his interest in his work, and that's
what I am making inquiry about.
THE WITNESS: To the extent that you call a person
who has published a number of papers in this area an
expert, I would qualify.
MR. WOLFE: Q. That is, in marine biology?
A. Marine biology.
Q. Would you say that you qualify as an expert
in geology or catastrophism by the same criteria?
A. By the same criteria, I would say no.
MR. WILLIAMS: Can we break now?
[Recess taken.]
Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any contact with the
defendants in this action about the case?
A. No.
MR. WILLIAMS: You are talking now about the
defendants, the named defendants?
MR. WOLFE: The named defendants in the action.
THE WITNESS: You mean the persons whose names are
at --
MR. WOLFE: Q. They are approximately the
Arkansas State Board of Education and its members.
A. No.
Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation
Science groups or institutions about this case?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the statute that
is at issue in this action?
A. This?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. When did you obtain a copy of the statute?
A. Two or three weeks ago.
Q. From whom?
A. The Attorney General's office.
Q. Had you ever seen it prior to that time?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen a model Creation Science
bill drafted by any Creation Science group in the past?
A. I have seen some drafted. As models, no.
Q. Have you ever seen bills which were submitted
in other state legislatures than Arkansas?
A. The one that was submitted in Oregon.
Q. When was that, sir?
A. Last spring.
Q. What was the occasion for your seeing that
A. When they asked me to come up there and speak
on behalf of that bill.
Q. Who asked you do that?
A. Congressman Davis.
Q. Was he the Oregon congressman?
A. He was one of the sponsors of the bill.
Q. Sir, do you know a man named -- I will with-
draw that. I take it back. I do not withdraw it. You
mentioned Mr. Bird earlier, but do you know Mr. Wendell
A. I have heard of him. I have never met him.
Q. Have you ever had any correspondence or
telephone conversation with Mr. Bird?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had a phone or letter
communication with John Whitehead?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell me when and on what subjects?
Were there copies of correspondence with Mr. Whitehead
among those that you offered to me earlier today?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the subject on which you
corresponded with Mr. Whitehead?
A. It was about a debate, a written debate in
Liberty Magazine over the issue of whether or not
creation should be taught in the public schools, and I
was debating Bill Mayer. I wanted some constitutional
advice from a constitutional lawyer.
Q. And Mr. Whitehead offered some advice on that
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever had any contact with Mr.
Whitehead about this case?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any contact with Mr.
Whitehead about the Arkansas statute?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever communicated with Mr. Whitehead
about the Oregon statute or any model statute?
A. No. You still have my publications. I can't
look it up.
Q. They are still being copied.
Sir. have you ever given testimony in the past in
a court action or before any legislative or administrative
A. Yes.
Q. On what occasions?
A. State Board of California.
Q. And what was the subject?
A. Whether or not creation should be included
in the public schools.
Q. Have you ever given testimony to any other
school board or board of education?
A. Oregon.
Q. And when was that, sir?
A. Last spring.
Q. Was that before the Oregon Legislature?
A. That was before the Education Committee of the
Oregon Legislature.
Q. Have you ever given testimony before in any
court action?
A. Not related to this subject?
Q. Would you tell me what subjects?
A. Well, I will have to change. I don't think
in court. I don't think I have given testimony in court
on any subject. I made a deposition before but not
testimony in court.
Q. What was the subject of the action in which
you previously gave a deposition?
A. It was about a road near my house which has
a dangerous curve on it, and I was asked to testify
regarding the accidents that occur there near my house.
Q. Sir, have you ever been paid for any of the
appearances that you have just mentioned before the
California Board of Education, the Education Committee
of the Oregon Legislature?
A. Unfortunately, no.
Q. Do you ever recall having given other
prior testimony on any subject before a legislative body
or administrative government body?
A. I can't think of any.
Q. Have you ever made speeches or taken part in
debates about Creation Science or evolution in the past?
A. Yes.
Q. On what occasions, sir?
A. The written debate that you have in Liberty
Magazine was orally presented between Dr. Bill Mayer who
was the proponent for excluding creation from the public
schools and myself suggesting that it ought to be
I have talked at the University of California at
Riverside on the subject of creation to the Geology
Department at a seminar.
Then at the San Diego State University I put on a
series of seminars there once.
I taught a course at DeAnza College on the subject,
West Valley College also. I will correct that last
statement. I have given -- no, that was a course also.
Correction. Back to where we were. DeAnza College and
West Valley College.
Then, of course, on numerous occasions lectures to
classes, Seventh-Day Adventist Church groups.
Q. When you say "lectures to classes" do you
mean college courses or --
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever been paid for any of the
appearances for the written debate that you mentioned
just now?
A. Yes.
Q. For which ones?
A. What is that?
Q. For which ones?
A. The Liberty. They gave me an honorarium for
that for both the oral and the written.
Q. Do you recall how much that was, sir?
A. Roughly it was around a little less than
500 for the written one and somewhere around 200 for the
Q. Did the documents that you gave me earlier
include the copies of or the transcript of any of these
classes or debates that you have mentioned?
A. Yes, the Liberty debate is among those
documents as one of my publications.
Q. Do you have transcripts of any of these
debates or classes that were not included among those that
you gave to me this morning?
A. Well, let's put it this way: The oral
debate was essentially the written. However, I probably
did not read it per se; I talked. No transcripts.
Q. Sir, have you ever heard the opinion
expresses that Creation Science is really just a ploy or
a device of propagating Christian faith?
A. Yes.
Q. On what occasions have you heard that?
A. I cannot tell you exactly. I don't want to
implicate somebody when I'm not sure they said it, but I
think Bill Mayer says it in the debate. I'm not sure.
I would have to read it to tell you.
Q. Do you recall any other instance?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever heard that Creation Scientists
state that position?
A. Creation Scientists what?
Q. Have you ever heard a Creation Scientist
state a position that Creation Science is a device or
ploy for spreading the Christian faith?
A. No.
Q. Sir, have you ever had any criminal arrests or
A. Traffic tickets.
Q. Other than that?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Roth, when did you first hear about this
court case brought in federal court in the District of
A. About the ACLU case?
Q. Yes, sir, this suit.
A. About three or four weeks ago.
Q. And from whom did you hear it?
A. Tim Humphries.
Q. And have you had contact with anyone at the
Arkansas Attorney General's office aside from
Mr. Humphries and Mr. Williams about this suit?
A. Except the secretaries who deal with travel
arrangements, that's all.
Q. Sir, are you being paid for your appearances
in this action?
A. No.
Q. Are you receiving expenses or any fee for
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me what expenses you receive?
A. Actual cost.
Q. By whom are they being reimbursed to you?
A. By the Attorney General's Office, I guess,
or the State of Arkansas. I don't know which one.
The State.
Q. Have you spoken to anyone other than persons
with the Arkansas Attorney General about testifying in
this case?
A. No.
I might correct that.
My wife, secretaries in my office. That's all.
[Luncheon recess.]
- - -
- - -
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, have you discussed the
testimony that you expect to give at trial with anyone
at the Attorney General's office?
A. I didn't know I was going to give testimony.
Q. Your testimony at trial.
A. Well, I will answer questions.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. That is my understanding, that this is what
it would be.
Q. Have you discussed with the Attorney General
the subject matter of the questions that you will be
asked and the responses that you will give?
A. No.
Q. Have you discussed generally the subject
matter in which the questions might be put to you?
A. Well, certainly it will revolve around this
statement here to the extent he asks me which area I
was a specialist in.
Q. Have you discussed any other subject matters
with the Attorney General?
A. No.
Just for information, Tim Humphries is not the
Attorney General, is he?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, he is not the Attorney General.
He is a law clerk within our office.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you discussed the subject
matter about which you might testify with anyone in the
Attorney General's office?
Did you discuss it with Mr. Humphries over the phone?
A. No, not at the office.
Q. Have you discussed with Mr. Williams or
anyone else the deposition that is being taken here
A. We discussed it last night in terms of what
it would be like.
Q. Did you during that time discuss the areas
on which you might give testimony or answer questions at
A. No.
Q. Have you described to anyone from the
Attorney General's office the areas of which you would be
willing to speak at trial?
[Discussion off the record.]
THE WITNESS: Please word your question again.
MR. WOLFE: Will you read back the question,
[Record read.]
THE WITNESS: I have talked to Mr. Williams here
about the catastrophism.
MR. WOLFE: Q. About any other areas?
A. These right here, just those, my specialty.
Q. About coral reefs?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Roth, have you discussed with anyone else
outside the Attorney General's office the possible
areas of your testimony at trial?
A. No.
Dr. Coffin. I have discussed with Dr. Coffin the
areas that I might cover.
Q. And when was that, sir?
A. Last week.
Q. What was the occasion of your discussion with
Dr. Coffin?
A. I was in his office and we were discussing
what areas we felt more competent in.
Q. Do you recall the substance of your discussion
with Dr. Coffin about the areas in which you might
A. It was very brief.
I said, "I will discuss the nature of the
scientific method," and he would work on the fossil
That was as far as it went, a very brief
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, could you define Creation
Science as you understand it.
A. It's the study of that evidence from science
that suggests maybe some intelligent design in the
nature about us.
Q. Do you consider yourself a Creation
A. It depends on how you want to define
"science," as to what is involved here. If you define
"science" as limited to naturalistic explanations, then
you would get a conflict of terminology here, and the
answer to your question rests on your definition of
Q. Does Creation Science, as you defined it just
a moment ago, confine itself to naturalistic
A. It could if you assumed that design occurred
by naturalistic means.
Q. Do you yourself assume in your work that
Creation Science is confined to naturalistic means?
A. In my work -- you mean research?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't touch on that subject hardly in my
You question was, do I consider in my work that
Creation Science occurred by naturalistic means.
Q. Do you assume that Creation Science is
limited to naturalistic explanations?
A. I don't have an answer to that because I
don't know how creation could have occurred.
Q. And I take it then that you don't make
assumptions about the matter, either?
A. Whether or not it's naturalistic?
Q. Yes.
A. I wonder about it.
Do I make an assumption? I can make assumptions,
but they are revisable.
Q. What assumptions do you make currently about
Creation Science and whether or not it includes only
naturalistic means?
A. Well, if you assume that design was by
naturalistic means, then you could say yes, sure, it's
all naturalistic. If you assume no, that this involved
what we want to call something beyond naturalistic,
then the answer is no.
Q. Do you yourself make any assumptions, either
of those assumptions, about whether or not naturalistic
means are within Creation Science or whether it's
limited to them?
A. I am more comfortable with the possibility I
don't understand what is going on here and that
naturalistic answers may not answer all the reality, but
I cannot say this as a scientist. I cannot say this is
the way it was, because I don't have the evidence for
Q. Is your understanding of Creation Science as
a general discipline that it does or does not confine
itself to naturalistic means?
A. It could go either way.
Q. Do you have any understanding about what is
the current -- let me say it another way.
Do you think there is an identifiable assumption
either that naturalistic means are the only ones to be
considered or that extranaturalistic means will be
considered made by most Creation Scientists today?
A. In terms of some of the scientific data, it
is hard for us to fit what we see into our present
understanding of the naturalistic means; but our
knowledge is so limited that I think one needs to be
- - -
Q. Sir, once again, given what you said about
Creation Science, do you consider yourself a Creation
A. Again, I will come back to your definition
of science. If you say science is purely naturalistic,
then I can't say that, but if you say this science does
allow for other aspects, then I can live with Creation
Q. Do you consider yourself that science only
allows for naturalistic explanations?
A. Historically it has not. There is a tendency
in modern science to move in that direction, but when the
foundations of our science were laid these were very much
in a non-naturalistic mode.
Q. I take it you have said that science at one
time or its origins did allow for non-natural explanations,
but that the current tendency is not to do so?
A. Right.
Q. Do you subscribe to that current tendency to
embrace only naturalistic explanations?
A. Well, again I have to come back to this
unknown. I don't know if it's naturalistic or not.
You are asking me to commit myself on something that I
don't have detailed knowledge of how it could have
happened. I don't have that. It could have been by
naturalistic means. It could not have been by naturalistic
means, but some of the founders, to bet back to the other
point I mentioned, some of the founders of science were
definitely creationists, for example, Newton and Agassiz,
Q. Dr. Roth, do you have a belief about whether
creation proceeded only by or whether the origin of the
earth and life on earth proceeded only by naturalistic
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking the witness his
professional opinion as a scientist?
MR. WOLFE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: On the basis of scientific data that
I have right now, I cannot answer that question.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you have a belief, a personal
belief, about the question apart from science?
A. Well, I certainly have certain personal
beliefs, yes, very definitely.
Q. And what are they?
A. On the basis of what I see about me it seems
to me that design of some kind seems to be implied in the
nature I see about me.
Q. Sir, then if we define Creation Science as a
science of origins and one which allows for origination
of the earth and life on earth by naturalistic or non-
naturalistic means, would you define yourself as a creation-
A. No, because science has to be open to other
ideas as well. You have to evaluate other ideas. You
are moving into an area of dogma and away from science in
that particular suggestion you make.
Q. Sir, have you read various books and
publications about Creation Science or Scientific Creation-
A. Yes.
Q. And have you ever attended any lectures or
seminars in the area?
A. Some.
Q. Do you regard Creation Science or Scientific
Creationism based on your experience with it as a science?
A. If you want to define "science" as
testable, predictable, I would say no. This narrows
science down to a very narrow spear of operation. I
would say then you don't have Creation Science, but if
you define it the way it's usually defined as a search
for explanations about nature, then very definitely there
is Creation Science.
MR. WOLFE: Will you read the last answer back,
[Read record]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, would you define marine
biology as a science under one or both of those
A. There is no question it fits very conveniently
under the second one and pretty well under the first.
Q. Would you regard Evolution Science as a
science under either of those two definitions?
A. I would say perhaps the same as I did for
creation. If you are going to limit your definition of
science to the testable and the predictable, then you
would have to say evolution does not fit into science.
If you are speaking of the common definition, a
search for explanations about nature, then I think
evolution can fit under science.
Q. Sir, would you regard Evolution Science as
a religion?
A. You will have to define religion for me.
Q. Let me begin by asking you to define religion.
MR. WILLIAMS: I will have to object. I don't think
he is qualified nor has he been offered as an expert to
define what religion is. We will have other witnesses
on that point, I think, on both sides.
MR. WOLFE: I expect that is right, but we have
been already discussing several areas in which it's not
clear whether Dr. Roth will ever be qualified as a
witness, so I don't know that we could distinguish whether
or not he is able to answer that question on that ground.
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't mind him answering as long as
he is obviously giving a layman's understanding of what he
might consider to be religion.
MR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know that I want to tell
Dr. Roth that he is no more than a layman, but I agree
with you that he has not as yet been qualified as an
expert on religion and may in fact never be. I simply
want to ask him now for the purposes of our discussion
if he could define religion as he understands it.
THE WITNESS: There are different definitions of
religion. Under some of them evolution is a religion;
under others it is not.
MR. WOLFE: Q. Could you explain to me the
definitions of religion that you are thinking of?
A. Some consider religion as involving some type
of deity. Others understand that, of course, you would
say evolution probably does not qualify as a religion.
Sometimes religion is defined as a nondeistic
belief. It's a system of belief and does not involve
deism, and I would say evolution qualifies as a religion
under that definition.
Q. Would you say that Creation Science is religion
under either of those two definitions?
A. Yes, you could put it under both of those.
[Discussion off the record]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, could you turn your attention
to the Arkansas statute. I believe you have a copy of it
Looking at Section 4 of the Act which is headed
Definitions, could you read the Section A, the definition
of Creation Science and Section B, the definition of
Evolution Science?
A. All right.
Q. Sir, would you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist given the definition of Creation Science in
this Act?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider yourself an Evolution
Scientist given the definition of Evolution Science?
A. I am closer to the creation than the
Q. Well, are you able to give a yes or no answer
as to whether or not you regard yourself as an Evolution
A. I need to define evolution.
Q. The definition that we are using is the one
in the Act.
MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that question may assume
a fact not in evidence that the definition of the Act is
an all-inclusive definition.
MR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know whether the definition
purports to be all-inclusive or not, but I'm simply asking
does Dr. Roth consider himself an Evolution Scientist given
this definition in the Act.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I think technically the
definition is the first sentence of Section A and B.
That is the definition.
THE WITNESS: Again, I will state I fit better with
A than with B. I did not write these definitions.
MR. WOLFE: Q. I understand that.
Would you say that it is possible to be both a
Creation Scientist and an Evolution Scientist?
A. It is possible to believe in parts of both of
these, very definitely.
Q. Looking at the definition of Evolution
Science and within that subsection after the listing of
six items that Evolution Science is stated as including,
do you agree with or believe in all or any of those six?
A. Under B?
Q. Yes.
A. The one that I have some -- I am able to
relate to No. 3.
Q. You are saying that you do not agree with item
3 under B?
A. It would depend on how you define some of the
terms there. I can relate to the fact that we do have
variation in nature at present.
Q. Are you able to agree or accept the other
Items 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 and 6?
A. They seem less likely than the counterparts
in Section A above.
Q. As between Item 3 and Section A and Item 3
and Section B which as you suggest I think appear to be
counterparts, do you regard one of them as more likely than
the other?
A. Yes, I would say A is more likely, but the way
3 is worded under B, I'm not satisfied that this is a
good counterpart to 3 under A.
Q. Sir, talking about the items under Creation
Science in the Act and taking them in reverse order, No.
6 says that "Creation Science includes scientific evidences
and related inferences that indicate a relatively recent
inception of the earth and living kinds. The Evolution
Science counterpart is listed as the scientific evidences
and related inferences that indicate an inception several
billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."
A. Yes.
Q. Do you yourself have a view as to the scientific
evidence as to the age of inception of the earth and
living kinds?
A. You are distinguishing here the difference
between the matter of the earth and the living organisms
on it, is that right?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir, it appears to me the Act makes that
decision. In terms of my personal beliefs I guess I would
not fit under either definition there in that my personal
beliefs are that I think maybe the matter of the earth
has been here for a long time but not the living kinds on
Q. Could you restate or are you able to state
what your belief would be about these questions?
A. Well, take No. 6 under B. I would say an
inception of several billion years ago the earth and much
later of life instead of somewhat.
Q. Can you be more specific about the time of the
inception of life?
A. I would say maybe only a few thousand years.
Q. Are you able to explain briefly what
scientific evidences you would point to for the inception
of matter of earth several billion years ago?
MR. WILLIAMS: As I understood the question before
you are talking of personal belief which may or may not
be the same as his professional belief based on scientific
THE WITNESS: Which do you want? You asked my
personal belief in the previous question.
MR. WOLFE: Then please let me be clear that I
understood your testimony.
Your testimony was that your personal belief would
be that the inception of matter of the earth might have
been several billion years ago and that the inception of
life would have been much later, perhaps only a few
thousand years ago.
A. Right.
Q. Would your scientific opinion be any different?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Can you tell me on what you would base your
opinion that the inception of the earth or at least the
matter of the earth is likely to have been several billion
years ago?
A. One of the strongest arguments is radiometric
dating, potassium argon dating, uranium dating, robidium
strontium dating.
Q. And what evidence causes you to place the
inception of life much later than that?
A. Those layers of earth that have evidences of
past life in them should have disappeared long ago if the
earth is as old as ordinary evolutionary interpretation
Q. Sir, I'm not certain that I understood that.
A. In the geologic column we have many layers.
These are being eroded at present and it is on the basis
of the amount of sediment in the rivers. One can
calculate how long it would take to erode these layers of
the geological column.
The figures usually given for eroding our present
continent down to a flat level are about ten to twenty
million years. How come we have this whole geologic
column for 600 million years. I am suggesting a much
shorter time than the age of the matter of earth.
[Discussion off the record]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, did I understand then that
you regard radiometric dating as important evidence for
a great age for the earth?
A. It seems to me that it suggests this.
Q. Do you regard efforts to date fossil-bearing
geologic strata with radiometric techniques that indicate
ages of a million years for, say, Hominid, H-o-m-i-n-i-d
fossils in East Africa or mammals in the Cretaceous
in North America as tending to indicate that life was in
fact on earth say a million or two million years ago in the
case of East Africa fossils or much longer in the case of
mammals in North America?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think he may have understood that
question. I'm not sure I did. I understood the facts you
gave. I'm not sure I know what the question was though.
MR. WOLFE: I understood Dr. Roth to say that he
regarded radiometric dating as some evidence for an old
inception of the matter of the earth itself but that he
regarded the inception of life as likely to have come
much later, and I wondered if that means that you do not
accept efforts to date fossil life forms with radiometric
dating that give dates of more than a few thousand years
THE WITNESS: One cannot be as sure with the
techniques you are suggesting as with the ones that I
referred to earlier because in the techniques you are
suggesting we are dating not the fossils themselves but
layers in which you find the fossils, and the problem of
inherited age from reworked older material makes that
system less secure than one where you don't have that
Q. Are you aware of any efforts to date fossil
horizons with radiometric techniques that you regard as
more persuasive or more strongly made than others or do
you regard them as simply inherently unreliable because of
this indirect dating method?
A. I'm not a specialist in this area. I do not
have the knowledge to evaluate it that carefully.
Q. But would it be correct to say that if you
were satisfied about the connection between the fossil
occurrence and the radiometric date or the geologic
stratum, then you would be willing to accept the date as
being a date for the fossil?
A. No. We have to base our evidence on a lot of
things. This will not alleviate at all the erosion picture
that I mentioned to you earlier. To build one's view of
truth on one narrow bit of evidence is not sound.
Q. Dr. Roth, the list of witnesses that was
submitted states that you will discuss "findings from
his research on coral reefs past and present which
indicates support for the Creation Science model."
Could you describe the findings from your research
that are referred to in that description?
A. One of the findings of my research is that
ultraviolet lights inhibits coral reef growth near the
We have analyzed the effect of different wavelengths
of light on coral growth, and we find that ultraviolet
does inhibit while the others tended to enhance it.
Ultraviolet light is absorbed more readily as
light penetrates the ocean than visible light.
This suggests that coral reefs may not grow as
rapidly at the surface where the ultraviolet light is
more abundant than further down on the reef.
This in turn raises questions regarding evaluating
the rate of growth at the surface compared to further
down where there is greater potential, where there is
less ultraviolet light.
A second factor would be temperature, where we have
found that raising the temperature increases the rate
of growth of coral.
Since the paleontological record suggests warmer
temperatures in the past, reefs may have grown faster
in the past. Adding calcium ion in the sea appears to
increase the rate of coral growth.
If there was a greater concentration of calcium
ion present, then one might expect faster coral growth.
These factors may explain why one sees -- back up
-- may explain why in the literature fairly rapid
growth has been reported, much faster than is normally
noted at the surface.
Q. Sir, how does the work that you have just
described bear on the question of origins of life and
Creation Science?
A. It suggests that events in the past may have
occurred more rapidly than is generally assumed.
Q. And what is the importance to Creation
Science of evidence which suggests events in the past
could have taken place more rapidly than they are found
to at the present?
A. Well, one of the problems that evolution
faces, if I can answer it from the other side, is that
by all our best estimates there is not enough time for
evolution to have taken place.
When you look at the data that suggests that the
earth may be younger than generally assumed, this
also fits into that picture and hence supports the
idea that purely naturalist explanations may not be as
correct as other models.
Q. Sir, I am not certain that I understood the
last couple of things that you said.
I take it that you would regard your research on
reefs as supporting the Creation Science explanation as
opposed to an Evolution Science explanation for the
origin of life; is that right?
A. You have to define "support."
Are we working in a disprove mode here or are we
working in a mode of science where we say, "Well, it
looks like this supports this"?
This is where I think we are having difficulty.
Q. In which mode would you regard as your working
relevant to the question of origins?
A. In the disprove mode, the work that I would
think would eliminate the disprove for the Creation Science
has been able to occur rapidly. It favors more rapid
action, is what it does.
Q. So that I take it that you mean one argument
against Creation Science is that it doesn't generally
allow enough time for certain observed things to have
A. There is some data in that direction, yes.
Q. And the fact that your work suggests coral
reefs might have grown faster in the past than is
usually reported at present would tend to support the
notion that presently observed --
A. This is not a strong argument against Creation
Q. Can you summarize for me your understanding
of the argument against Creation Science, that it does
not allow enough time for the presently observed coral
reefs or whatever to have come about.
A. The argument is along the line that some of
our coral reefs are fairly large and it would take a long
time for them to grow.
Q. Have you published any material on
specifically this question of whether or not coral reefs
have had enough time to grow as they presently are seen
to under the Creation Science model?
A. Not specifically on that subject.
I touched on it in the manuscript which was
Q. And when was that, sir?
A. Last year.
Q. To whom, or to what journal was the manuscript
A. I believe it was the Journal of Marine
Q. Were you given any understanding as to why
it was rejected?
A. In general, it was felt the article was too
long, the manuscript was too long.
Q. Were there any other reasons given?
A. The reason given, another reason that was
given was that they felt the data was -- did not support
the conclusions.
I must clarify this point by stating my comments
about the rates of reef growth were incidental to the
research; they were in the discussion of the paper;
let's put it that way.
If you are familiar with scientific papers, they
were not a part of the data.
I can further state, the article has been accepted
for publication, although in much reduced form that
does not include the question of the rate of growth of
coral reefs.
Q. And it was accepted by the Journal of Marine
A. No. I did not resubmit it.
Q. By what journal?
A. Pacific Science has accepted it.
Q. Pass to the last entry on your publications
A. Yes. It is not published yet, but it is in
Q. Sir, is the Journal of Marine Science what is
known as a referreed process in the journals?
A. Well, it is usually sent to two individuals
who are considered competent in the area, and they
anonymously criticise the manuscript and evaluate it.
Q. And then the manuscript is either accepted
or not for publication based upon these comments?
A. These comments.
Q. Sir, is Pacific Science a referreed journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the journal that you edit, Origins, a
referreed journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Marine Biology a referreed journal?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Journal of Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, as you recognize, I am asking you about
names that I find in your publications list.
Could you tell me about the Journal of the
Association of Adventists Behavioral Scientists; is that
a referreed journal?
A. I do not know.
It is a small publication. The only issue I've seen
is the one in which I happen to have an article that was
reprinted from Origins.
Their policy, their editorial policies I'm not
familiar with.
Q. Sir, could you explain to me what it means that
an article is published as an abstract or in abstract
A. It is only an abstract when it states that.
When you go to a scientific meeting, before your
paper is accepted for presentation, you have to submit
an abstract that is evaluated, and that abstract is
published as part of the proceedings of that meeting.
Q. Are the papers themselves then published, as
a rule?
A. You can publish, and people often do publish
an extensive paper beyond that.
Other times, sometimes the abstract is sufficient
to make the point. You don't bother to produce a more
lengthy presentation.
Q. How long are the abstracts of papers,
A. 300, 500 words. They are brief.
Q. Sir, have you had any other articles which
you submitted for publication which were rejected?
A. I cannot recall of any others except this
last one that I have had trouble with.
Q. Did you include, among the publications that
you gave me this morning, a copy of this article which
is in the press but not yet printed?
A. No.
Q. Did you include a list of the manuscript which
you submitted to Journal of Marine Science but which was
A. No.
Q. I would request, if possible, that you make
available to us copies of each of those, both the
paper in Pacific Science and the earlier manuscript that
you submitted to the Journal of Marine Science.
Sir, were the comments of the reviewers of your
piece submitted to the Journal of Marine Science made
available to you or only described to you?
A. I would have to look back to find out how
they were presented to me.
At times the comments are made, and at other times
the editor writes you a letter telling you what the
reviewers state.
I don't know which way it was.
Q. I would also request, if you have the letter
or copies of those comments, that you produce them, as
Can you recall for me in any more detail the comments
you mentioned before about the submission to the Journal
of Marine Science, a comment by reviewer that the data
was felt not to support the conclusion?
A. As I recall, the statement was not supported.
Q. And I take it that you do not know the
identity of the reviewer who made the comment.
A. No.
MR. WOLFE: I'll ask the reporter to mark as
Roth Deposition No. 2 an excerpt from the journal,
Origins, Volume 6, No. 2, 1979, including pages 57, 58
and 88 through 95.
[Excerpt from Origins, Volume 6,
No. 2, 1979, pages 57, 58 and 88
through 95 was marked Exhibit No.
2 for identification.]
MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, before we turn to Exhibit
No. 2, do I understand it to be your opinion that the work
you have done suggests that a relatively short period of
time would have been enough for coral reefs to grow to
the extent that they are known to have reached in the
world today?
A. It favors a shorter time period.
I have not demonstrated that they grew that fast.
I have shown some factors that show that they grow faster
than was thought.
Q. Do you have a view as to the length of time
which is necessary or which is sufficient to account
for the present extent of coral reefs?
A. Well, if you take a figure such as those that
have been obtained by soundings, where I believe we get
40 centimeters per year, it would only take two or
3000 years to grow our deepest reef.
Q. Sir, what are the deepest known reefs?
A. Eniwetok Atoll is the deepest known reef.
It has a depth of 4,610 feet.
Q. And you are not aware of any deeper reefs in
any other areas?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what is regarded as the deepest
known reef in these United States, in Florida or the
A. I can't give you figures.
They are considered very shallow compared to
- - -
Q. Do you regard the figure you mentioned just
a moment ago of 40 centimeters per year as growth rate,
which I believe you said was derived from soundings,
as a reliable estimate or approximation of coral reef
A. There was another estimate that wasn't quite
different from that. Some coral are known to go 26
centimeters, which is not all that far off.
So it is not just a single study that I'm referring
Q. Would the rate of coral reef growth vary from
one geographic location to another?
A. Very definitely.
Q, What factors would cause that variation?
A. Temperature is probably the dominant factor,
and coral reefs grow faster in tropical regions than in
subtropical ones.
Q. Do you know where these soundings were taken
from which the growth rate that you mentioned were
A. They were in the western Pacific.
Q. Do you know if it is mentioned in your
article in origins, the one that was marked as Exhibit
No. 2?
A. In this issue I believe the references are
Q. Sir, on page 90 in the article there is a
reference to soundings of reefs in the last full paragraph
at the bottom of the page.
A. You have two papers there, Sewell and
Q. Are they the instances that you were thinking
A. Right.
Q. Would you expect that growth rate in the
Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal are comparable to
those that would be found at Eniwetok Atoll?
A. About. They are both close to the equator and
Eniwetok is 11 degrees north of the equator.
Q. Do you know the latitude of the Andaman
Islands offhand?
A. No, I'm sorry.
Q. Do you know the location of the other instance
mentioned there in the Celebes?
A. It is right near there where it's awful hot.
Q. Do you know if that's close or further from
the equator than Eniwetok?
A. Than 11 degrees? I would have to look at an
Q. Can you tell me, is there any rule of thumb,
or are you aware of any way of assessing the different
growth rates that would exist from a position on the
equator compared to the one 11 degrees north?
A. Actually the position on the equator is not
a very good index of how rapid a reef grows, nor is it a
good index of temperature of the water, it is your ocean
currents that determine this. But it so happens in the
western parts of our oceans, whether it be the Atlantic or
the Pacific, we have our warmest temperatures.
Q. Do you know offhand whether the Celebes and
Eniwetok would be essentially comparable in water
A. Eniwetok might be a little bit cooler at
Q. Do you know if that would make any significant
difference in coral growth rates?
A. It probably would affect it.
Q. I guess that would make the growth rate
somewhat slower than Eniwetok?
A. If we assume that our previous statements
are correct.
Q. Sir, have there been other efforts to estimate
coral reef growth rates other than these that are based on
A. Quite a number.
Q. What other methods are used?
A. Measurement of reef growth rate at the
surface, measuring the result of the coral organisms
themselves, measuring the rate of absorption calcium
carbonate by the reef, and combinations of other
factors. Putting together all that you can gather --
Q. Do you know if these other methods that you
have just mentioned generally give rates greater or
lesser than this one derived from, or that we have seen
derived from soundings?
A. Well, some methods of reef, of actual measure-
ment of coral give what you might call comparable figures,
like the paper by Lewis, I mentioned.
On the other hand, it is generally assumed coral
reef growth is very much slower than in sub-centimeter
to centimeter level per year.
Q. When you say generally assumed, you mean by --
A. Well, on the basis of certain assumptions, on
the basis of the fact that some coral grows slowly and
some grows fast.
The general conclusion is that coral reefs grow
very slowly.
These measurements, however, are at the surface of
the ocean where there is probably some interference from
ultraviolet light.
Q. Are you aware of other people working in your
field who would support your opinion, that is, of these
relatively rapid coral growth rates?
A. Certainly some of them support the idea that
some coral grow very rapidly or they wouldn't have
published the results.
Q. Are you aware of any who support the notion
that corals generally, or that reefs have grown more
rapidly than these slower rates you've mentioned?
A. Just those papers that deal with soundings
and those that deal with the actual growth rates on coral,
not reefs as a whole, no.
Q. Sir, do you know what method was used to
derive these growth rates based on soundings?
A. They used soundings.
Q. Probably now I'm about to reveal how little
I know about the area.
Is this a matter of going out and taking a sounding
and coming back three years later and taking another
A. Right.
Q. I see. The dates that are mentioned in these
two papers in your article, 1935 and 1932, do you know
when those soundings were taken?
A. I could not give you that offhand.
Q. They were sometime prior to the dates of these
A. Obviously.
Q. Do you know approximately when?
A. I suspect scores of years between the two
Q. Do you know if these soundings were taken by
physical means, actually lowering a wire or rope or
A. Yes.
Q. Could they have been done by sonar at that
A. I don't think so.
Q. Have you read these papers?
A. I've read those papers but I would not, I
don't recall exactly which techniques they used there.
Q. Do you know what effort they make, or what
means they use to make certain that they come back to the
same place to make the sounding the second time?
A. I am not that familiar with the technique.
Q. Are these rates derived from soundings
generally regarded as reliable?
A. Highly reliable. They guide shipping, they
have to be reliable, otherwise you would lose boats.
Q. Are they regarded by marine biologists, or
coral researchers, as a reliable way to estimate growth
A. They have not addressed themselves to soundings.
The techniques they use and the techniques I use are
Q. I see. I didn't understand in your last
answer, you said the techniques they used and the
techniques I use. Who did you mean by "they"?
A. You were talking about marine biologists?
Q. Yes.
A. The techniques that marine biologists use,
including myself, are different than soundings.
Q. Why is that, sir?
A. Well, I presume that under the pressure of
publication, and so on, to take a sounding at one time
and then go back forty years later to take another
sounding is not very productive of getting papers out
under the pressure of publishing.
So, I think more rapid techniques are favored.
Q. Do you know if the authors of the two papers
on soundings that are mentioned here actually performed
both sets of soundings themselves?
A. No.
I would have to go back to the papers and check
Q. Would you regard it as essential to accuracy
in the soundings that they have been taken by the same
investigator on both occasions?
A. I suppose it would help.
I don't think the technique is that vague.
Q. I take it you have never used soundings
A. No.
Q. And you are not aware of any papers published
based on soundings since these two that you have cited?
A. The one mentioned in the Introduction there
just suggested by Ladd, that an error was made or that
coral reefs grew very rapidly because of a ship that
got trapped.
That's the only other reference I can refer to here,
Ladd of the U.S.G.S., but he was just suggesting maybe
these things grew faster than is generally assumed,
and that's why this ship foundered.
Q. You say that he made that suggestion.
Did he offer -- had he done any research or any
study that suggested that?
A. Based strictly on the fact that boat was
Q. Did he suggest any other possible explanation?
A. I don't recall.
He just cautiously suggested maybe these things
grow faster than is generally assumed.
It is just a suggestion on his part.
Q. Sir, who would you regard as the most
knowledgeable researchers in the area of coral reef
growth rates?
A. Keith Chave, Steve Smith. I would not
exclude myself from the group.
Q. Any others?
A. Not that I can think of right now.
Q. Is there any journal that's more important
than others in this area, that is, coral reef growth
A. I don't think so.
As the literature reveals, it is pretty well spread
out over quite a number of marine biology type of
Q. Are there any books in the area that you are
aware of that are particularly useful or important?
A. Not especially.
There have been some technique books put out.
One technique book I can think of that has been
put out, but I know of no books that have really
addressed themselves to this particular issue.
Q. Sir, what was the technique book that you
refer to?
A. I cannot give you the reference right offhand.
It was edited by Johaness, Johaness and another
editor, Stoddart.
Stoddart may be the senior editor on -- I don't know,
one or the other.
Q. Sir, are you familiar with the International
Coral Reefs Symposia that are held from time to time?
Have you ever attended one of those symposia?
A. No, I have not attended one.
Q. Do you know how many have been held?
A. Not offhand.
I think I have missed several. I suspect it is
around every four years.
Q. Would you regard them as important gatherings
of people in your field?
A. Yes.
Q. Are papers presented at these symposia?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they generally by the important
investigators in the area?
A. Right.
Q. Are proceedings or a journal or a text of the
thing published?
A. Proceedings are published.
Q. Are they published each time one is held?
A. As far as I know.
Q. Have you ever read any of these proceedings
A. Sure.
Q. Do you have those volumes yourself?
A. Not personally.
Q. Does the Geoscience Research have them in its
A. I cannot answer that. I do not know the list
of all the holdings of the library.
Q. I think you said a moment ago that you had
read some of these proceedings volumes.
Do you recall where you obtained them?
A. Probably University of California Riverside,
if not at Loma Linda University Library or if not,
University of California at Los Angeles.
I go to a number of libraries and I don't remember
which ones I happened to pick up a certain volume.
Q. Sir, are you aware of any papers that have
been presented at any of the symposia that agree with
your views about more rapid rates of growth for coral
than for reefs?
A. No.
I think the last one that was held in Australia,
my name was mentioned several times, and my research
was mentioned several times in connection with the fact
of light, but not in connection with reef growth.
Q. Sir, returning for a moment to the methods of
measuring reef growth, as you mentioned earlier, you
referred to measurement of reef growth at the surface.


text:
Man dies after struggle with Kern County deputies, CHP officers
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) A man has died following a reported struggle with authorities.
Kern County Sheriff's Office spokesman Ray Pruitt said they got a call late Tuesday night about a man intoxicated and lying in a grassy area near Kern Medical Center. The first-responding officer was a deputy from a K-9 unit.
"As the deputy was contacting the individual, the person became uncooperative and a confrontation ensued between the deputy and the suspect," Pruitt said. "At one point the deputy deployed the K9, and a fight ensued between the deputy, the suspect and the K9."
The suspect was later identified by the Kern County Coroner's department as 33-year-old David Sal Silva. Their report states he was involved in an incident with law enforcement, became unresponsive, was taken to KMC where he later died at 12:44 a.m.
Several people told Eyewitness News they were about a block away, and saw the incident at the corner of Flower Street and Palm Drive.
"I watched a man deliberately murdered in my face," one man said. He didn't want to be identified. "I see an officer and the K9 dog, with a man detained on the ground, and the man was screaming for help."
A man who only wanted to give his first name, said he lives near the corner where the incident happened, and he also saw it. "There were at least two of them using their batons on him," Danny told Eyewitness News. "They were just sitting on him. And the guys. they were holding him down and punching him, too."
Pruitt said when the first officer couldn't restrain Silva, four more deputies arrived to assist. But, the suspect continued to resist the officers.
"He wasn't resisting," the one witness told Eyewitness News. "He was begging for help, and begging for his life -- if you asked me."
That witness and friends with him, say they saw officers hitting the suspect all over his body. The friend says he heard the blows from the first deputy on the scene. "He just started hitting him with his baton hard," the other man said. "I can hear it as it hits the street, because it echos down the street."
One family said they were just leaving Kern Medical Center across the street from the confrontation, and they got cell phone video of the incident. However, by mid-morning sheriff deputies were at their home to seize the video.
The family called attorney John Tello, and he told Eyewitness News one cell phone was seized after officers got a search warrant. But, Tello says one family member gave up his cell phone before that, because he had to go to work.
Tello said the family told officers what they had seen. He said deputies on the scene had spotted the family getting the cell phone video. The attorney advised the family not to make any statements.
The family told Eyewitness News their nine-year-old son was traumatized by seeing the confrontation, and he didn't want to go to school on Wednesday.
Pruitt said seizing video is "standard" in a situation like this.
The other men who saw the incident reported the woman with them was also very upset, and crying as it happened.
One of these men said he's heard some people in the neighborhood think they know the suspect. "They say he's a cool person," the witness said. "He walks around, goes to the store to get a beer in the morning."
A check of the Kern County Court website shows two cases that appear to be for Silva. One in 2008 includes alcohol-related charges, as well as battery and assault. Those charges were dismissed, and he plead no contest to disturbing the peace.
A case from 2010 is a charge of drunk and disorderly, which was dismissed.
Sheriff officers say two California Highway Patrol officers also responded, and officers were eventually able to restrain Silva. Pruitt told Eyewitness News the confrontation lasted eight minutes.
Pruitt said an ambulance was called, and at some point Silva seemed to have trouble breathing.
Danny said it appeared the ambulance crew immediately started trying to resuscitate the suspect. He agreed the entire confrontation was probably only a few minutes long.
"Toward the beginning, (the suspect) was screaming a lot, fighting, yelling back and such," Danny said. "But toward the end, he kind of got a little bit quieter."
Pruitt said the deputies involved in the incident will stay on duty during an investigation, and those officers were being interviewed. The spokesman said deputies used only batons during the confrontation.
"We're still trying to obtain information as to exactly how the suspect was taken into custody," Pruitt said. "But we do know that the suspect resisted the initial deputy, that K9 deputy who attempted to contact him and take him into custody, and continued to resist."
"From what we saw, I would have to say that it did seem like it was a bit (of) excessive force used." Danny said. The neighbor says he was about 30 feet away, and saw the position of the suspect on the ground, the use of batons, and the number of officers.
"It just seemed unlikely he was much of a threat," he said.
The Coroner's Department reports an autopsy is planned for Thursday to determine the cause and manner of death.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The EVO port is actually rectangular. The 82MM Expodisc completely covers the lens opening in the port. So it should work fine. See the photo Wagsy provided or the one in my previous post.
To SJSPECK: Seems like the EVO port is an oval one, then?
It will be interesting to see what kind of results you get.
Edited by sjspeck, 04 February 2007 - 12:22 AM.


text:
Runners for the Hallway and Entranceway
Besides choosing an eye-catching paint color or hanging art on the wall, nothing ties a hallway or an entranceway to the rest of your abode quite like a runner. We've rounded up a few unique rugs that we think would make any hallway feel less like a passageway between rooms, and more like a truly treasured part of your home.
1. Festival Rug from Anthropologie, $248
2. Sahara Frame Indoor/Outdoor Rug from Crate and Barrel, $50
3. Layered Faux Bois Sequoia 2 ft. 3 In. x 8 ft. Wool Runner from Martha Stewart Living for Home Depot, $90
4. Lahti Striped Rug from Missoni Home, $410
5. Hand-Tufted Genesis Collection Wool Rug via overstock.com, $110
6. Bailey Rug from target.com, $90
7. Babushka Runner by Emma Gardner, $2,025
8. Stainmaster Wide Ruins Southwestern Rug for Target, $130


text:
What's a healthful food and what's a healing food? Is there a difference? At least since the mid-19th century, when the Battle Creek Sanitarium opened its doors and people flocked there to follow John Harvey Kellogg's regime of whole grains, nuts and frequent enemas, many Americans have sought food as medicine.
I have a shelf of books with titles such as "Food — Your Miracle Medicine" and "The Food Pharmacy," and my smartphone is filled with snapshots of the "super foods" on display at a trade show: acai and goldenberry, chia, coconut and flax, goji berries and hemp, maca root and other berries, nuts, seaweeds and roots I've never heard of (yacon, lucuma, camu, maqui).
Many of these often are accompanied by health claims that, according to Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and a professor at Harvard Medical School, "go light-years beyond the [scientific] evidence."
I've never really tried to cook with this ever-changing selection of "super foods." As a cookbook author and columnist well-known for delicious food with a health focus, I've always wanted to put pleasure and health together on the plate, drawing from lusty cuisines that have produce at their core and are inherently good for you, such as those of the Mediterranean. But the main reason these super foods aren't part of my repertoire is probably the same reason why they haven't become mainstream: most of them aren't very appetizing. Have you ever tasted wheat grass juice? Food companies understand this, so they transform the latest super foods into products that the American palate will accept. But in so doing, they often create items that are not healing at all, and may not even be healthful.


text:
Dec. 1, 2007
Courtesy Tufts Sports Information
MEDFORD, Mass. - Down by 12 to MIT in the first half, the Tufts men's basketball team rallied to tie the score at halftime and surged past the Engineers in the second half for an 83-67 victory on Saturday afternoon at Cousens Gym. Junior Jon Pierce led the Jumbos with 18 points as all five starters scored in double figures.
The Jumbo win snapped a five-game winning streak for MIT (5-2) and evened the host's season record at 2-2, while the victory also served as the 10th straight for Tufts in the series between the neighboring rivals.
MIT used a 14-4 run in the middle of the first half to turn a two-point lead into a 32-20 advantage with 7:37 left in the period. Junior Billy Johnson scored seven points during the stretch, including two three-pointers to get it going.
MIT's Jimmy Bartolotta and Hamidou Soumare found themselves plagued by foul trouble after building the large, early lead. With two of MIT's top players on the bench, Tufts turned it around from there with its own 14-4 run to pull within 36-34 at 2:47 on a lay-up by Pierce. Senior guard Jeremy Black had two three-pointers during the stretch. MIT got the lead back up to five entering the final minute of the half, but the Jumbos scored five late and it was 39-39 at the break.
Tufts opened the half with back-to-back lay-ups by junior Aaron Gallant to lead 43-39. Three-pointers by Pierce and Black put the margin at eight (49-41), but MIT scored nine of the next 10 points to tie it up at 50-50 with 12:25 remaining. Bartolotta, who finished the game playing a season-low 19 minutes, scored seven of the points.
The teams went back and forth for the next four minutes, but then Black hit a big three at the eight-minute mark for a 60-56 Tufts lead. That was part of a 17-2 Jumbo stretch led by Black and Pierce that gave them control of the game. With a three by Pierce at 3:50 Tufts was ahead 72-58. A three-pointer by Johnson and a lay-up by Soumare brought MIT within nine (72-63), but a Gallant lay-up put the Tufts lead back in double-digits and that's where it stayed.
Pierce added eight rebounds to his 18 points for Tufts. Black hit five of Tufts' 10 three's in the game and finished with 16 points, nine assists and four steals. Gallant struck for a career-high 15 points and senior tri-captain Ryan O'Keefe was hot early and totaled 13 points and six rebounds.
Bartolotta entered the game averaging 27.3 points, but an early injury and the foul trouble never enabled the junior star to get into a groove. He still managed to finish with a game-tying high of 18 points. Soumare chipped in 17 and Johnson had the game's only double-double with 12 points and 12 rebounds.
After scoring 32 points in the first 12+ minutes, the Engineers were held to 35 points over the final 28 minutes. Their 54.5 percent shooting in the first half slipped to 35.5 in the second half. The rebounds and free throws were even, but the Engineers committed 23 turnovers compared to 14 by the Jumbos.


text:
The Warriors were back to business as usual Wednesday, having clinched a playoff spot. And nothing says focused like … a rookie prank??
The Warriors, ever the loose and fun-loving bunch, continued their bonding by filling rookie Kent Bazemore's car with popcorn. Buttered popcorn.
While Bazemore was doing his post-practice work on the treadmill, his veteran teammates were pouring huge bags of popcorn into his white Audi and posing for pictures.
Apparently, the Warriors are not uptight about this playoff race.
Read Marcus Thompson II's Inside the Warriors blog at www.ibabuzz.com/warriors.


text:
Throwback DVD Clip Of The Week: Benzino Speaking On His Group Made Men Stabbing Paul Pierce (Of The Boston Celtics) Incident & The Breakdown Of His Beef Withh Eminem!
Off Benzino's ArchNemesis DVD
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Click below to download : Lamia. Part 2 (Format : PDF)
Lamia. Part 2PART II.
Love in a hut, with water and a crust,
Is--Love, forgive us!--cinders, ashes, dust;
Love in a palace is perhaps at last
More grievous torment than a hermit's fast:--
That is a doubtful tale from faery land,
Hard for the non-elect to understand.
Had Lycius liv'd to hand his story down,
He might have given the moral a fresh frown,
Or clench'd it quite: but too short was their bliss
To breed distrust and hate, that make the soft voice hiss. 10
Besides, there, nightly, with terrific glare
Love, jealous grown of so complete a pair,
Hover'd and buzz'd his wings, with fearful roar,
Above the lintel of their chamber door,
And down the passage cast a glow upon the floor.
For all this came a ruin: side by side
They were enthroned, in the even tide,
Upon a couch, near to a curtaining
Whose airy texture, from a golden string,
Floated into the room, and let appear 20
Unveil'd the summer heaven, blue and clear,
Betwixt two marble shafts:--there they reposed,
Where use had made it sweet, with eyelids closed,
Saving a tythe which love still open kept,
That they might see each other while they almost slept;
When from the slope side of a suburb hill,
Deafening the swallow's twitter, came a thrill
Of trumpets--Lycius started--the sounds fled,
But left a thought, a buzzing in his head.
For the first time, since first he harbour'd in 30
That purple-lined palace of sweet sin,
His spirit pass'd beyond its golden bourn
Into the noisy world almost forsworn.
The lady, ever watchful, penetrant,
Saw this with pain, so arguing a want
Of something more, more than her empery
Of joys; and she began to moan and sigh
Because he mused beyond her, knowing well
That but a moment's thought is passion's passing bell.
"Why do you sigh, fair creature?" whisper'd he: 40
"Why do you think?" return'd she tenderly:
"You have deserted me;--where am I now?
Not in your heart while care weighs on your brow:
No, no, you have dismiss'd me; and I go
From your breast houseless: ay, it must be so."
He answer'd, bending to her open eyes,
Where he was mirror'd small in paradise,
"My silver planet, both of eve and morn!
Why will you plead yourself so sad forlorn,
While I am striving how to fill my heart 50
With deeper crimson, and a double smart?
How to entangle, trammel up and snare
Your soul in mine, and labyrinth you there
Like the hid scent in an unbudded rose?
Ay, a sweet kiss--you see your mighty woes.
My thoughts! shall I unveil them? Listen then!
What mortal hath a prize, that other men
May be confounded and abash'd withal,
But lets it sometimes pace abroad majestical,
And triumph, as in thee I should rejoice 60
Amid the hoarse alarm of Corinth's voice.
Let my foes choke, and my friends shout afar,
While through the thronged streets your bridal car
Wheels round its dazzling spokes."--The lady's cheek
Trembled; she nothing said, but, pale and meek,
Arose and knelt before him, wept a rain
Of sorrows at his words; at last with pain
Beseeching him, the while his hand she wrung,
To change his purpose. He thereat was stung,
Perverse, with stronger fancy to reclaim 70
Her wild and timid nature to his aim:
Besides, for all his love, in self despite,
Against his better self, he took delight
Luxurious in her sorrows, soft and new.
His passion, cruel grown, took on a hue
Fierce and sanguineous as 'twas possible
In one whose brow had no dark veins to swell.
Fine was the mitigated fury, like
Apollo's presence when in act to strike
The serpent--Ha, the serpent! certes, she 80
Was none. She burnt, she lov'd the tyranny,
And, all subdued, consented to the hour
When to the bridal he should lead his paramour.
Whispering in midnight silence, said the youth,
"Sure some sweet name thou hast, though, by my truth,
I have not ask'd it, ever thinking thee
Not mortal, but of heavenly progeny,
As still I do. Hast any mortal name,
Fit appellation for this dazzling frame?
Or friends or kinsfolk on the citied earth, 90
To share our marriage feast and nuptial mirth?"
"I have no friends," said Lamia, "no, not one;
My presence in wide Corinth hardly known:
My parents' bones are in their dusty urns
Sepulchred, where no kindled incense burns,
Seeing all their luckless race are dead, save me,
And I neglect the holy rite for thee.
Even as you list invite your many guests;
But if, as now it seems, your vision rests
With any pleasure on me, do not bid 100
Old Apollonius--from him keep me hid."
Lycius, perplex'd at words so blind and blank,
Made close inquiry; from whose touch she shrank,
Feigning a sleep; and he to the dull shade
Of deep sleep in a moment was betray'd.
It was the custom then to bring away
The bride from home at blushing shut of day,
Veil'd, in a chariot, heralded along
By strewn flowers, torches, and a marriage song,
With other pageants: but this fair unknown 110
Had not a friend. So being left alone,
(Lycius was gone to summon all his kin)
And knowing surely she could never win
His foolish heart from its mad pompousness,
She set herself, high-thoughted, how to dress
The misery in fit magnificence.
She did so, but 'tis doubtful how and whence
Came, and who were her subtle servitors.
About the halls, and to and from the doors,
There was a noise of wings, till in short space 120
The glowing banquet-room shone with wide-arched grace.
A haunting music, sole perhaps and lone
Supportress of the faery-roof, made moan
Throughout, as fearful the whole charm might fade.
Fresh carved cedar, mimicking a glade
Of palm and plantain, met from either side,
High in the midst, in honour of the bride:
Two palms and then two plantains, and so on,
From either side their stems branch'd one to one
All down the aisled place; and beneath all 130
There ran a stream of lamps straight on from wall to wall.
So canopied, lay an untasted feast
Teeming with odours. Lamia, regal drest,
Silently paced about, and as she went,
In pale contented sort of discontent,
Mission'd her viewless servants to enrich
The fretted splendour of each nook and niche.
Between the tree-stems, marbled plain at first,
Came jasper pannels; then, anon, there burst
Forth creeping imagery of slighter trees, 140
And with the larger wove in small intricacies.
Approving all, she faded at self-will,
And shut the chamber up, close, hush'd and still,
Complete and ready for the revels rude,
When dreadful guests would come to spoil her solitude.
The day appear'd, and all the gossip rout.
O senseless Lycius! Madman! wherefore flout
The silent-blessing fate, warm cloister'd hours,
And show to common eyes these secret bowers?
The herd approach'd; each guest, with busy brain, 150
Arriving at the portal, gaz'd amain,
And enter'd marveling: for they knew the street,
Remember'd it from childhood all complete
Without a gap, yet ne'er before had seen
That royal porch, that high-built fair demesne;
So in they hurried all, maz'd, curious and keen:
Save one, who look'd thereon with eye severe,
And with calm-planted steps walk'd in austere;
'Twas Apollonius: something too he laugh'd,
As though some knotty problem, that had daft 160
His patient thought, had now begun to thaw,
And solve and melt:--'twas just as he foresaw.
He met within the murmurous vestibule
His young disciple. "'Tis no common rule,
Lycius," said he, "for uninvited guest
To force himself upon you, and infest
With an unbidden presence the bright throng
Of younger friends; yet must I do this wrong,
And you forgive me." Lycius blush'd, and led
The old man through the inner doors broad-spread; 170
With reconciling words and courteous mien
Turning into sweet milk the sophist's spleen.
Of wealthy lustre was the banquet-room,
Fill'd with pervading brilliance and perfume:
Before each lucid pannel fuming stood
A censer fed with myrrh and spiced wood,
Each by a sacred tripod held aloft,
Whose slender feet wide-swerv'd upon the soft
Wool-woofed carpets: fifty wreaths of smoke
From fifty censers their light voyage took 180
To the high roof, still mimick'd as they rose
Along the mirror'd walls by twin-clouds odorous.
Twelve sphered tables, by silk seats insphered,
High as the level of a man's breast rear'd
On libbard's paws, upheld the heavy gold
Of cups and goblets, and the store thrice told
Of Ceres' horn, and, in huge vessels, wine
Come from the gloomy tun with merry shine.
Thus loaded with a feast the tables stood,
Each shrining in the midst the image of a God. 190
When in an antichamber every guest
Had felt the cold full sponge to pleasure press'd,
By minist'ring slaves, upon his hands and feet,
And fragrant oils with ceremony meet
Pour'd on his hair, they all mov'd to the feast
In white robes, and themselves in order placed
Around the silken couches, wondering
Whence all this mighty cost and blaze of wealth could spring.
Soft went the music the soft air along,
While fluent Greek a vowel'd undersong 200
Kept up among the guests, discoursing low
At first, for scarcely was the wine at flow;
But when the happy vintage touch'd their brains,
Louder they talk, and louder come the strains
Of powerful instruments:--the gorgeous dyes,
The space, the splendour of the draperies,
The roof of awful richness, nectarous cheer,
Beautiful slaves, and Lamia's self, appear,
Now, when the wine has done its rosy deed,
And every soul from human trammels freed, 210
No more so strange; for merry wine, sweet wine,
Will make Elysian shades not too fair, too divine.
Soon was God Bacchus at meridian height;
Flush'd were their cheeks, and bright eyes double bright:
Garlands of every green, and every scent
From vales deflower'd, or forest-trees branch-rent,
In baskets of bright osier'd gold were brought
High as the handles heap'd, to suit the thought
Of every guest; that each, as he did please,
Might fancy-fit his brows, silk-pillow'd at his ease. 220
What wreath for Lamia? What for Lycius?
What for the sage, old Apollonius?
Upon her aching forehead be there hung
The leaves of willow and of adder's tongue;
And for the youth, quick, let us strip for him
The thyrsus, that his watching eyes may swim
Into forgetfulness; and, for the sage,
Let spear-grass and the spiteful thistle wage
War on his temples. Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy? 230
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine--
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.
By her glad Lycius sitting, in chief place,
Scarce saw in all the room another face, 240
Till, checking his love trance, a cup he took
Full brimm'd, and opposite sent forth a look
'Cross the broad table, to beseech a glance
From his old teacher's wrinkled countenance,
And pledge him. The bald-head philosopher
Had fix'd his eye, without a twinkle or stir
Full on the alarmed beauty of the bride,
Brow-beating her fair form, and troubling her sweet pride.
Lycius then press'd her hand, with devout touch,
As pale it lay upon the rosy couch: 250
'Twas icy, and the cold ran through his veins;
Then sudden it grew hot, and all the pains
Of an unnatural heat shot to his heart.
"Lamia, what means this? Wherefore dost thou start?
Know'st thou that man?" Poor Lamia answer'd not.
He gaz'd into her eyes, and not a jot
Own'd they the lovelorn piteous appeal:
More, more he gaz'd: his human senses reel:
Some hungry spell that loveliness absorbs;
There was no recognition in those orbs. 260
"Lamia!" he cried--and no soft-toned reply.
The many heard, and the loud revelry
Grew hush; the stately music no more breathes;
The myrtle sicken'd in a thousand wreaths.
By faint degrees, voice, lute, and pleasure ceased;
A deadly silence step by step increased,
Until it seem'd a horrid presence there,
And not a man but felt the terror in his hair.
"Lamia!" he shriek'd; and nothing but the shriek
With its sad echo did the silence break. 270
"Begone, foul dream!" he cried, gazing again
In the bride's face, where now no azure vein
Wander'd on fair-spaced temples; no soft bloom
Misted the cheek; no passion to illume
The deep-recessed vision:--all was blight;
Lamia, no longer fair, there sat a deadly white.
"Shut, shut those juggling eyes, thou ruthless man!
Turn them aside, wretch! or the righteous ban
Of all the Gods, whose dreadful images
Here represent their shadowy presences, 280
May pierce them on the sudden with the thorn
Of painful blindness; leaving thee forlorn,
In trembling dotage to the feeblest fright
Of conscience, for their long offended might,
For all thine impious proud-heart sophistries,
Unlawful magic, and enticing lies.
Corinthians! look upon that gray-beard wretch!
Mark how, possess'd, his lashless eyelids stretch
Around his demon eyes! Corinthians, see!
My sweet bride withers at their potency." 290
"Fool!" said the sophist, in an under-tone
Gruff with contempt; which a death-nighing moan
From Lycius answer'd, as heart-struck and lost,
He sank supine beside the aching ghost.
"Fool! Fool!" repeated he, while his eyes still
Relented not, nor mov'd; "from every ill
Of life have I preserv'd thee to this day,
And shall I see thee made a serpent's prey?"
Then Lamia breath'd death breath; the sophist's eye,
Like a sharp spear, went through her utterly, 300
Keen, cruel, perceant, stinging: she, as well
As her weak hand could any meaning tell,
Motion'd him to be silent; vainly so,
He look'd and look'd again a level--No!
"A Serpent!" echoed he; no sooner said,
Than with a frightful scream she vanished:
And Lycius' arms were empty of delight,
As were his limbs of life, from that same night.
On the high couch he lay!--his friends came round--
Supported him--no pulse, or breath they found, 310
And, in its marriage robe, the heavy body wound.(A)
(A) "Philostratus, in his fourth book _de Vita Apollonii_, hath a memorable instance in this kind, which I may not omit, of one Menippus Lycius, a young man twenty-five years of age, that going betwixt Cenchreas and Corinth, met such a phantasm in the habit of a fair gentlewoman, which taking him by the hand, carried him home to her house, in the suburbs of Corinth, and told him she was a Phoenician by birth, and if he would tarry with her, he should hear her sing and play, and drink such wine as never any drank, and no man should molest him; but she, being fair and lovely, would live and die with him, that was fair and lovely to behold. The young man, a philosopher, otherwise staid and discreet, able to moderate his passions, though not this of love, tarried with her a while to his great content, and at last married her, to whose wedding, amongst other guests, came Apollonius; who, by some probable conjectures, found her out to be a serpent, a lamia; and that all her furniture was, like Tantalus' gold, described by Homer, no substance but mere illusions. When she saw herself descried, she wept, and desired Apollonius to be silent, but he would not be moved, and thereupon she, plate, house, and all that was in it, vanished in an instant: many thousands took notice of this fact, for it was done in the midst of Greece."
Burton's 'Anatomy of Melancholy.' _Part_ 3. _Sect._ 2 _Memb._ 1. _Subs._ 1.
(The end)
John Keats's poem: Lamia. Part 2


text:
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 06:38 AM
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande said they would consider measures to spur economic growth in Greece as long as voters there committed to the austerity demanded to stay in the euro.
Requests for measures to bolster growth will be "considered" and the European Union may also "approach Greece with proposals," Merkel said late yesterday at a joint press conference with Hollande during his first official visit to Berlin. "Greece can stay in the euro area," and "Greek citizens will be voting on exactly that."
Their encounter, the first meeting between the chiefs of Europe's two biggest economies, came after Greece announced a return to the ballot box following the collapse of talks on forming a government. The euro and stocks fell as investors speculated that Greece may drop out of the single currency more than two years after its budget-deficit blowout triggered a financial crisis across Europe that continues to rage.
Hollande saw Merkel less than 12 hours after being sworn in as president and an arrival that was delayed by a lighting strike on his plane from Paris. With Greece in its fifth year of recession, the French Socialist returned to a theme he pressed throughout his election campaign, saying policy makers must offer the prospect of something more than austerity.
"I'll respect the vote of the Greeks whatever it is," Hollande said. "Yet my responsibility is to give Greece a signal. I see the suffering and challenges that the Greeks feel. The Greeks need to know we'll come with growth measures that will allow them to stay in the euro zone."
Shift in Focus
With the debt crisis now in a third year, the leaders made a show of German-French unity after months of trading barbs on crisis policy. Merkel publicly backed Nicolas Sarkozy for a second term, while Hollande criticized her exclusive focus on deficit cutting.
They found common cause after the collapse of talks in Athens on forming a government stirred speculation that anti- bailout parties would make further gains and tear up the terms of Greece's 240 billion euros ($305 billion) of aid.
Banks dragged the Stoxx Europe 600 Index to its lowest level since December. The euro fell 0.3 percent to 1.2686 at 8:28 a.m. in Frankfurt, the lowest level since January, as the prospect of new Greek elections prompted renewed speculation of a euro exit and potential contagion that would wreak untold damage to Europe's financial system.
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index tumbled 2.5 percent at 3:02 p.m. in Tokyo as Asian stocks fell for a sixth day. Gold tumbled into a bear market and oil declined.
Greek 'Challenges'
Merkel said there was an agreed bailout program between Greece and its creditors that "has to be adhered to." At the same time, she said she had called New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras, who won the May 6 vote, and caretaker Prime Minister Lucas Papademos to say "that we are prepared to help Greece overcome its structural challenges, to help with growth."
She said that there were differences in emphasis on growth with Hollande. Growth will feature in talks among euro leaders on May 23 and again at a summit at the end of June, she said.
The French president, who has called for Europe's German- inspired budget treaty to be renegotiated, said that he wanted "growth aspects to be real and translatable into reality." At the June summit, "everything needs to be put on the table," including investment spending and joint euro-area bonds, he said. Merkel rejects euro bonds.
'Tentative' Relations
Greece may trigger a crisis "where you're really going to find differences that matter" between Merkel and Hollande, Irwin Collier, a political scientist at the Free University in Berlin, said on Bloomberg TV's "The Pulse" with Francine Lacqua. "The next couple of months are going to be very tentative for the relationship."
Hollande's arrival in Berlin came at the second attempt after his plane was struck by lightning, forcing him to turn back and board a second aircraft.
Merkel said she was "very glad" that Hollande came to Germany the day of his inauguration. "We are even more glad because he did this despite the lightning strike. Maybe this is good omen for cooperation."
Bild, Germany's most-read newspaper, underscored the domestic challenges Merkel faces over Greece, saying in an editorial today that the inability to form a government "makes it clear once and for all: the Greeks are saying good-bye to the euro."
Europe requires "clear rules" on debt limits and economic data, Bild said. "Whoever swears allegiance to those rules is allowed in. Everyone has to observe a euro stop sign. Not just the Greeks. When that's clear to everyone after this crisis, Europe will be fit for the future again."
--With assistance from Brian Parkin in Berlin and James G. Neuger in Brussels. Editors: Alan Crawford, Leon Mangasarian.
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Deen in Berlin at firstname.lastname@example.com; Tony Czuczka in Berlin at firstname.lastname@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Hertling at email@example.com
© Copyright 2019 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
Newsmax Comment Policy
Keep discussions on topic, avoid personal attacks and threats of any kind. Links will not be permitted.
Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.


text:
Drmartinsmiles needed a new stationery design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 97 designs submitted by 23 freelance designers.
Martin Orthodontics
I am a young, fun loving orthodontist who is also a perfectionist. I remember my patients' names. I pride myself on the quality of my work, and really enjoy giving my patients beautiful smiles. My company is very focused on the customer. We are efficient, friendly, and try to make the process of getting braces enjoyable and easy for the kids and their parents. We are located in a relatively wealthy suburb of Sacramento. My customers are smart, well-off, and willing to pay for quality. They are also very family oriented.
Suburban mothers, ages 28-45
Suburban children, ages 7-17
My business cards are a major marketing tool for my practice. I place them in dental offices where hundreds of potential patients will see them with a stack of other orthodontist cards. I want the patients to pick MY card out of the bunch and have a positive vibe from my card. I also hand out my business cards to random people I meet around town, and have my staff do the same. My cards need to stand out, but still be readable and accessible.
I would also like to incorporate my logo onto the business card. I am still tweaking my logo, but it will likely look a lot like the attached file. I'd like my business cards to be built around my logo (colors, font, etc.)
I also am open to the idea of die-cut business cards, letter press, colored paper, etc. Anything to make them stand out.
As far as stationary goes, basic is okay, but I'd like to incorporate my logo as well.
Thank you!
The full name of the Doctor is
Dr. Brandon D. Martin
Brandon D. Martin DDS, MS
The office website will be:


text:
A huge crocus
Added Jan 6, 2013
Riga, Latvia
Wool tulip-shape coat from Burda Style magazine 9/2007 model 107.
I made it a season ago. Just fell in love with some furry wool blend fabric during my run through fabric stores and had to take it home. Well – the colour is quite BOLD (let's call it so), but … why not.
It was really complicated to make decision regarding right pattern for such fabric, because of it's furry structure a lot of patterns were not suitable. I knew, that I want something quite short, not bulky and finally chose # 107 from September 2007 issue.
I changed the collar (used mock collar instead of the traditional one), omitted the back slit, actually had some issues with the fitting of sleeves and bodice, that I had to fix. But the most painful topic was ironing as despite the gentle regime and use of ironing cloth (even from inside), the fabric lost it's wonderful shine and smoothness after seam pressing.
For closure I used snap buttons, added some piping to the lining for contrast.
P.S. Now, when I'm looking at the back of my coat in the picture, it looks that I have to make it more fitted, although that means no chance to wear a jacket under it. Well – beauty requires sacrifice.
Material Notes
Wool blend, lining – rayon, interlining, snap buttons.
11 Comments Sign in to add a post
Sep 23, 2014, 05.28 PMby Susana Carrasco
What a lovely colour! I was trying to find thissue of Burda magazine for months and I still havent found it . Please I am very interested in buy this issue or 107 A pattern. Could you please sell it to me? My email is email@example.com
Thanks Regards,
Susana Carrasco
Jan 13, 2013, 09.12 PMby oinochoe
Wonderful Coat you created! This fabric combined with the nice Pattern and this georgous Color is absolutely perfect.
Jan 10, 2013, 03.48 AMby nouvellegamine
love it!
Jan 6, 2013, 10.29 PMby barmaglot
Lovely coat! Love the colour – it doesn't look bold on the picture, it looks bright but gentle, just like a spring flower indeed.. Beautiful!
Jan 6, 2013, 09.20 PMby rita61
Wonderful! It looks great on you! This color is one of my favorites! Very stylish!
Jan 6, 2013, 07.51 PMby Cristina Staicu
I love everything about this coat: the pattern, thr details, not to mention the colour!
Jan 6, 2013, 06.59 PMby agarog
I fell in love with your fab coat. Just amazing…:)
Jan 6, 2013, 06.25 PMby Inga 888
krasa ir super, izskatas silts un miligs metelitis! :)
Jan 6, 2013, 03.56 PMby tessi
This is lovely! The color is wonderful on you – we ALL need a splash of color, especially in the dark, dreary days of winter! Kudos!
Jan 6, 2013, 03.52 PMby katensew
This is so cozy looking and I like the" water marked" lining
Jan 6, 2013, 03.35 PMby Mary Athey
Gorgeous coat!! I love.the colour and the style.on you. You did.a great job x
Add to Favorites 10 people added it


text: Find this wine Find this wine Sonoma Zinfandel Sonoma County 2009 Seghesio Zinfandel 2009 Sonoma County Pin It Tweet 6 years ago by Christopher W. More posts Disneyland - California Advinture - Kenwood Vineyard Jack London - Zinfandel, Sonoma County Kenwood - - 2 years ago by Ben&Cindy Valravn Sonoma County Old Vine Zinfandel 2014 Quite Good! SB50 2 years ago by ThomG 2012 Dry Creek Vineyard Heritage Vines Zinfandel Sonoma County 2012 very good with Italian food 3 years ago by ohwineyone Temptation Zinfandel 2012 Sonoma County Spice 3 years ago by Jbagley12 Amphora Zinfandel 2009 Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma County. This was delicious. Great balance between dry and fruit. Thanks Dave Le Clair. 3 years ago by Mrrds1


text:
I just love it when Muppets make talk show appearances. Especially Muppets that I love (even though that's all of them)--even more especially when Muppets that I love appear on talk shows that I love. This was very much the case last night when Elmo appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Mr. Fallon is not afraid to showcase his immense Muppet love, and that was certainly apparent last night when he and Elmo basically just goofed around.
Check out the AWESOME appearance for yourself in the two video clips below from the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon website:
Also on the show last night was perennial Muppet favorite Whoopi Goldberg, who got to see her old friend Elmo again backstage. So... to conclude this post, I present this awesome picture:
The Muppet Mindset by Ryan Dosier
May 4, 2011
Elmo Stays Up Late with Jimmy Fallon
5 comments:
- Casey DaronWednesday, May 4, 2011 at 10:40:00 AM CDT
SOOO FUNNY!ReplyDelete
- Casey DaronWednesday, May 4, 2011 at 10:45:00 AM CDT
I couldn't stop laughing! :-DReplyDelete
Funniest thing since Elmo appeared on Rove - classic stuff! =DReplyDelete
funniest muppet appearance ever? maybe?ReplyDelete
LOVE IT!! THIS IS SO FUNNY!! NO MORE SESAME STREET FOR FALLON!! LOL!ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
The Artemis Fowl Fan Forums, bringing Fowl Fans and Eoin Colfer Fans together!
Skip to content
In order to login you must be registered. Registering takes only a few moments but gives you increased capabilities. The board administrator may also grant additional permissions to registered users. Before you register please ensure you are familiar with our terms of use and related policies. Please ensure you read any forum rules as you navigate around the board.
Terms of use | Privacy policy
The views and comments posted in these fora are personal and do not necessarily represent the those of the Management of Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum.The Management of Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum does not, under any circumstances whatsoever, accept any responsibility for any advice, or recommentations, made by, or implied by, any member or guest vistor of Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum that results in any loss whatsoever in any manner to a member of Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum, or to any other person.Furthermore, the Management of Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum is not, and cannot be, responsible for the content of any other Internet site(s) that have been linked to from Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum.


text:
The holidays, and therefore traveling season, are coming upon us. Quickly.
For myself, I will be going home to DC for Thanksgiving a week late so my sister and niece can spend it with her husband and in-laws, and also to avoid holiday traffic since they either drive or take the train from Manhattan generally. This also means that I can avoid holiday travel, and if you read this post and this one too, you'll see why that's a good thing for me, my blood pressure and all those unsuspecting and innocent bystanders that are my fellow travelers in the airport.
Though I loathe doing so, I will be driving out to DC on 12/16 after my internship at OCLC ends, spending a few days with my boyfriend who lives there, spending the Christmas holiday with my family, and then driving back to Columbus the day after Christmas with my boyfriend; he will then spend a whole week with me in Columbus all the way through New Year's and fly back to DC the day after. It couldn't have worked out more perfectly, even with the 6.5 hour drive taken into consideration. I consider myself lucky. I have a colleague who is considering driving back to South Dakota for Christmas and that is a 13 hour drive at the least, not even factoring in inclement weather. Best of luck to you, Eric!
But what about all of our international friends whose homes and family are far far away? Thinking about the holiday travel made me revisit some of the holiday plans that my international colleagues made and were kind enough to invite me to. Like I said before, their homes are far away and traveling back to Asia or Turkey or wherever else can be difficult considering the short amount of time they have and the prohibitive costs. When my family goes to Taiwan, we try and stay at least a week, preferably 10 days, and the plane tickets cost at least $1000. Not exactly grad student friendly, is it?
So last year, I know that a bunch of the international students went to or considered some domestic destinations during our winter and spring breaks. These destinations included:
Orlando – flights starting at $190
NYC – flights starting at $333
DC – flights starting at $199
Chicago – flights starting at $148 (on Southwest, flying to Midway. Midway is less congested than O'Hare); Round trip bus fare on Megabus starting at $50
I've listed the current prices from Travelocity, Southwest and Megabus.
If you haven't heard of Megabus, it is a double decker luxury bus with wi-fi, comfortable seats and one stop in Indianapolis. Picks you up in Downtown Columbus, drops you off in Downtown Chicago. Great deal and I've done it a couple of times! It also doesn't take much longer than a normal drive to Chicago, even with the stop.
The flights are priced assuming departure on Friday 12/9 and a return on Tuesday 12/13. Flights tend to be cheaper with a weekday stay. And if I've learned anything from the Traveling Gnome, Tim Gunn and the woman who looks like Milla Jovovich but isn't, it's that you save money by booking your flight and hotel together.
So even if you aren't an international student, you can still use this as a guide to kick off your winter break excursion. Enjoy and safe travels!