text:
This is the website/blog of Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, and editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK. He has published several books (see sidebar). For school talks and media email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org
Friday, September 3, 2010
Chapter of book - for comments
Suppose Mike is involved in a debate about the truth of his own particular New Age belief system. Things are not going well for him. His arguments are being picked apart, and, worse still, his opponents have come up with several devastating objections that he cannot deal with. How might he get himself out of this bind?
One possibility is to adopt the intellectually dishonest strategy I call Going Nuclear. Going Nuclear involves playing a general skeptical card. In philosophy, a "skeptic" is someone who raises doubts about our claims to knowledge in a given area. Here is an example of a skeptical argument:
Whenever we argue about the truth or falsity of a belief, we apply our powers of reason. But why suppose that reason is itself a reliable route to the truth? You might attempt to justify our use of reason, of course. But any justification of reason that you offer will itself rely on reason. Relying on reason to justify our reliance on reason is a bit like taking a second-hand car salesman's word for it that he is trustworthy – it's an entirely circular justification, and so no justification at all! So it turns out that our reliance on reason is entirely unjustified. It's a leap of faith!
From the claim that our reliance on reason is unjustified, it is then but a short step to the conclusion that no belief is justified:
But if reliance on reason cannot be justified, then, because every rational justification relies on reason, so no belief can be justified. But if no belief is justified, then, ultimately, everything is a faith position! But then your belief is no more reasonable than mine. Get out of that!
Whether or not this is actually a good argument for the conclusion that no belief is justified is not a question we'll address here. The point is, at first sight, it does look pretty persuasive. It's not easy to spot precisely where the argument goes wrong, if, indeed, it goes wrong at all. This means that if Mike's belief system is taking a beating, rationally speaking, a last-ditch tactic Mike might adopt is simply to throw this skeptical argument at his opponent. Mike can admit that his belief might not be justified. But he can insist that his opponent's belief system cannot be justified either. The skeptical argument offers Mike wonderful "Get out of jail". It allows him to walk away with his head held high, saying, "So you see? In the last analysis, both our positions are equally (ir)rational! They are both 'faith positions'!"
You can see why I call this strategy "Going Nuclear". Once Mike plays the skeptical card, all his opponent's hard work in constructing arguments against his position counts for nothing. Kaboom! At one stroke, Mike demolishes them all. He lays waste to every rational argument, bringing every belief down to the same level.
In order for Mike's opponent to deal with Going Nuclear, they will now have to refute his philosophical argument. That is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, thing to do. They are certainly going to struggle. In which case, any audience will be struck not only by Mike's sophistication in employing such a devastating philosophical objection, but also by his opponent's mounting frustration as they wrestle with the thorny philosophical conundrum that Mike has set them. It's quite likely that Mike will now appear to be the intellectual victor in this exchange.
So what, exactly, is wrong with Going Nuclear? After, it might be that the skeptical argument Mike has employed really is a good argument. Perhaps every belief system really is as rational as every other. So, if Mike finds himself argued into a corner, why not employ such a skeptical argument? Why is Going Nuclear typically an intellectually dishonest ruse?
Because Mike almost certainly does not press the nuclear button in good faith. Bear in mind that, in such discussions, playing the skeptical card really is the nuclear option. By Going Nuclear, Mike avoids defeat, but only by utterly annihilating the rationality of every belief. All positions, no matter how sensible or nuts, come out as equally (ir)rational.
If Mike is to be consistent, he must now accept that that the Earth is flat, that the Earth is round, that milk makes people fly, that it doesn't, that astrology is true, that is isn't – that all these beliefs are equally (un)reasonable. Now of course, Mike almost certainly doesn't really believe any of this. The fact is, he does think reason provides us with a fairly reliable tool for establishing what is true and what isn't. Indeed, we all rely on reason in our day-to-day lives. In fact, Mike constantly trusts his life to reason, whenever, for example, he trusts that the brakes on his car will work, that a bridge will support his weight, that a medicine will save his life, and so on.
In fact those who Go Nuclear are usually quite content to rely on reason to make their case just so long as they are not losing the argument. It is only when the tide of rationality turns against them that they reach for the red button. And of course, once their opponent has left the room, they will start using reason again to try to prop up their belief.
So Going Nuclear is, in truth, almost always a mere a ploy. Those who use it don't usually believe what they're saying about reason. They say it only to raise enough dust and confusion to make quick their escape.
Going Nuclear can be employed in defence of a wide variety of beliefs. Believe that there's a family of fairies living in your biscuit barrel or that that you are visited by ghosts? In each case, if you find yourself on the losing side of the argument, you can always employ Going Nuclear as a last ditch, face-saving strategy. It crops up particularly in religious circles. For example, responding to rational arguments raised against his beliefs, one Orthodox Jew writes:
The belief in reason seems no less a dogma than any other.
Perhaps belief in reason is, ultimately, a dogma. But that's really beside the point. This person almost certainly relies on reason in every other aspect of their life, and will no doubt appeal to reason whenever reason appears to support their religious belief. Their skepticism about reason is not genuine; it's merely a ruse they employ selectively to avoid having to admit that what they believe has been revealed, by standards that they accept and employ in every other aspect of their life, to be false.
Trusting our senses
Here's an interesting variant of Going Nuclear that is sometimes employed by the religious when confronted with intellectual challenges to what they believe. They admit that believing in God involves a "leap of faith". But they then add that atheists have to make a "leap of faith" when it comes to trusting their senses.
Atheists, after all, believe they inhabit a physical world filled with mountains, oceans, trees, houses and people. But they believe this only because that is the kind of world their senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell and so on appear to reveal. How can they know their senses are a reliable guide to the truth? How can they know that their experiences are produced by a real world, rather than, say, a supercomputer generating a sophisticated virtual reality, as in the film The Matrix? After all, everything would seem exactly the same, either way, wouldn't it? So, it seems atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world. But if atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world, then they don't know that such a world exists. Their belief that there is such a world must involve a huge leap of faith.
Having set up this sceptical argument, a theist may then add that they happen to enjoy, not only sensory experiences, but also a God experience. God, they suppose, reveals himself to them. But then, precisely because they place their faith in their God experience – they suppose that it is not a delusion but genuinely reveals God - they don't then have to place any additional faith in the reliability of their other senses. For such a good God wouldn't allow us to be systematically deceived by our senses. We can be sure that, if there's a God, then our senses are trustworthy. So, for such a theist, trusting their senses does not require any further leap of faith.
In which case, our theist may conclude, for someone who has such religious experiences, belief in God need be no more a "faith position" than the atheist's belief in the external world. The two beliefs are actually intellectually on par.
This is an interesting argument that may contain an element of truth. Perhaps it is true that atheism is a faith position because any belief about how things stand outside of your their mind is ultimately be a faith position. However, even if any belief about how things stand outside your own mind requires a leap of faith, it doesn't follow that it's as reasonable for a theists to place their trust in their God experiences as it is for atheists to trust their senses.
Even if there weren't very good grounds for supposing that religious experiences, unlike our other senses, are highly untrustworthy (see "I Just Know!"), the fact is that, while the theist's assumption that they really are experiencing God might lead them to trust the deliverances of their other senses, those other senses then appear to furnish them with ample evidence that there is no such benevolent being (I'm now referring, of course, to the evidential problem of evil outlined in the introduction – surely we observe far too much suffering for this to be creation of an all-powerful and supremely benevolent deity). So, unlike the assumption that our senses are reliable, the theistic assumption ends up undermining itself.
Variants of Going Nuclear: (1) "What is truth?"
We have looked at two skeptical versions of Going Nuclear, one based on skepticism regarding reason, the other on skepticism about the external world. However, there is also a range of non-skeptical versions of Going Nuclear.
For example, rather than raising philosophical doubts our knowledge of what is true, Mike could instead try raising a philosophical question mark over the idea of truth itself. Truth is a philosophically thorny notion, and it's by no means clear how to define it. So, if Mike finds his New Age belief system taking a pasting, intellectually speaking, he could try saying to his critics:
Ah, you claim these things are true. You think you can show they are true. But let me ask you a more fundamental question - what is truth?
Mike's opponents will no doubt be disorientated by this sudden change of direction in the conversation and baffled by the thorny philosophical question they have been set, giving Mike at least enough time to head out the door.
Just this tactic seems to have been employed by Pontius Pilate. When Pilate interrogated Jesus prior to the crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed, "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (John 18:37). Pilate replied, "What is truth?" and left. As the philosopher Francis Bacon put it in his essay "On Truth":
"What is truth?" said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.
This kind of use of the question "What is truth?" is the intellectual equivalent of throwing dust in your opponent's face to make quick your escape. When arguments are going our way, we are generally quite happy to say that we have good grounds for supposing that what we believe is true. It's only when things start going badly for us that it suddenly occurs to us to ask, "Yes, but what is truth?!"
Variants of Going Nuclear: (2) "It's true for me"
Another variant of Going Nuclear involves, not asking what truth is, but simply proclaiming or implying that truth is relative.
To explain: relativism is the philosophical view that what is true is relative to believers. There's no objective Truth with a capital "T" out there to be discovered. Rather, truth is a construction – our construction. Thus there are many truths. There's your truth, my truth, his truth, her truth.
In its simplest form, this sort of relativism says that what is true is what the individual believes to be true. Suppose I believe levitation by the power of the mind is possible. Then, says such a relativist, for me it is true that it is possible. If you believe it is impossible, then for you it's true that it is impossible. There's no fact of the matter as to which of us is actually correct.
Another form of relativism about truth makes truth relative not to individuals, but to communities. Most scientifically-minded Westerners believe that the stars and planets have no astrological influence on our lives. But in other cultures, it is supposed that the stars and planets do have such an influence, and that astrologers can use star charts to accurately predict the future. According to this kind of relativist, that the stars and planets have such an influence is false for such Westerners, but true for other communities. Truth is a social construct. Scientific truth is just one truth among many truths, all of which are equally "valid".
This sort of relativism about truth is popular in certain circles, and it might provide Mike with another get-out-of-jail card. He might say:
Well, that astral plane therapy cures disease may not be true for you, but it's true for me!
The implication being that what's true about astral plane therapy is simply a matter of what certain individuals or communities believe about astral plane therapy. Mike's opponents now not only have to figure out precisely what Mike means by this cryptic remark, they will then have to refute the relativist theory of truth to which Mike has, in effect, signed up – complicated tasks that will require some time and patience to achieve. In the meantime, just like Pontius Pilate, Mike's out the door, leaving his opponent bogged down in the philosophical mire he has created.
The absurdity of relativism
It's worth making a detour at this point to indicate just why this kind of relativism is absurd. One reason why relativism can seem attractive is that there are a few beliefs for which it might, actually, be true. Consider wichitee grubs, for example – the large larvae eaten live by some aboriginal Australians. Some aboriginals consider the grubs a delicacy. Most Westerners, on the other hand, consider them revolting (when Jordan, the British glamour model, was challenged to eat several large squirming grubs on a TV programme, she said the experience was "worse than childbirth"). So what's the truth about wichitee grubs? Are they delicious, or aren't they? The truth, perhaps, is that there is no Truth-with-a-capital-T about their deliciousness. For those who enjoy wichitee grubs, it's true that they're delicious. For those they don't it's false. That is because the property of being delicious is ultimately rooted, not objectively in the grubs themselves, but rather in our subjective reaction to them.
So, yes, some truths may be relative. But not all (for then, as the philosopher Plato pointed out, the truth that all truths is relative would itself be relative, which entails that, if I believe it's false that all truths are relative, then I am right!). One or two people might believe that individuals create their own reality – that reality is whatever the individual takes it to be. The actress Shirley MacLaine, for example, writes
I have learned one deep and meaningful lesson: LIFE, LIVES and REALITY are only what we each perceive them to be. Life doesn't happen to us. We make it happen.
One of the oddest and most disturbing examples of someone apparently quite sincerely embracing a MacLaine-type view of reality is provided by George W. Bush's senior advisor Karl Rove, who seems to have learned the same deep and meaningful lesson. Rove once told journalist Ron Suskind that Suskind was a member of what Rove called the
"reality-based community", which [Rove] defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]
Rove's view seems to be that there is no need to observe and study reality in order to try to figure what is and is not true, or what is and is not likely to work, policy-wise. For there is no such independent reality. Bush's leadership team create reality. Just like Shirley MacLaine.
Clearly, the Shirley MacLaine view of reality cannot be correct. I cannot make it true that I can fly just by believing or imagining that I can. No matter how convinced I may be that if I jump off this tall building, I'll soar gracefully into the air, the fact is, if I jump I'll die. Even if I jump off holding hands with my community, every member of which is convinced we'll fly, we will still all plummet to our deaths. Before Copernicus, was it true that the Sun really went round the Earth, because that's what everyone believed? If Neil Armstrong, and enough others, had believed the Moon was made of cheese, would the Eagle have landed on a sea of Camembert?
Obviously not. When it comes to whether or not we can fly, whether or not the Sun goes round the Earth, or whether the Moon is made of cheese, what we believe, and how things really are, can, and do, come apart.
The selective appeal to relativism
According to the academic Harold Bloom,
[t]here is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.
Actually, I rather doubt that almost every student really believes this. But many students have learned that relativism offers a very useful get-out-of-jail card when they cornered in an argument. They have learned that, by saying "Hmm, well, that may be true for you, but it's not true for me" they create enough intellectual confusion to make quick their escape.
This is precisely what Mike does above, of course. Like most people who play the relativist card when cornered, Mike doesn't really suppose that truth is whatever we suppose it to be. If pressed, it would almost certainly turn out that Mike doesn't really accept the absurd view that if he really believes he can fly, then he can. Nor will Mike play the relativist card while the argument seems to be going his way. Mike's relativism is merely a convenient guise that he selectively adopts whenever he's on the losing end of an argument.
22 comments:
- The Atheist Missionary said...
Great work. I'll remember to use your "going nuclear" objection when my next debating opponent tries to pull one of these all too common manoeuvres.
For those interested in the supposed relativity of truth, I recommend listening to an entertaining talk by Simon Blackburn who discussed his book Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed at the University of Toronto in 2005. It's available for free on iTunes on the most recently released podcast from TVO's Big Ideas. Best, TAM.
- September 3, 2010 at 12:15 PM
- stevec said...
I know someone who launched a variant of going nuclear that went like this:
"Rational thought does not apply to God."
I don't think she could get out the logic tight box she's locked herself inside even if she wanted to.
- September 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM
- NAL said...
Relying on reason to justify our reliance on reason ... it's an entirely circular justification, and so no justification at all!
Doesn't Mike's critiques rely on reason to show that relying on reason is unjustifiable? Therefore, his own critique is self-defeating.
- September 3, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Another excellent article. I've found your previous blog post on this subject useful in a couple of online debates.
Is this from the same book as the Tapescrew Letters? Sounds like I might need to buy it...
- September 3, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Brilliant. Do you think it's worth mentioning though, that the 'going nuclear' strategy undermines itself before it can get off the ground? ie - It employs the very thing (reason) that it claims is an unreliable route to the truth. Sorry if you've mentioned that and I've some how missed it.
- September 3, 2010 at 8:34 PM
- jeremy said...
Another outstanding installment - I'm definitely buying this one when it comes out!
My only recommendations would be to:
1. Be clearer on what "Going Nuclear" in general means. You initially say that "[g]oing Nuclear involves playing a general skeptical card" but then end up identifying two non-skeptical examples. I would have found it better if you'd spent more time on what Going Nuclear means, and why it isn't an honest tactic before going into specifics.
2. Be clearer on how many (common?) variants there are. One is part of your general introduction, then another one is clearly dealt with, but then you next introduce "variant 1", which you have to read on to find is only the first of the non-skeptical variants.
In general, though, all the arguments have your characteristic clarity and vivaciousness, and it's a pleasure to read.
- September 4, 2010 at 7:15 AM
Perhaps elaborating on Jeremy's comment #1 it might be worth alluding to the old Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction as a bit of background. I would think that some of the younger readership might not be familiar with it.
- September 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Hi NAL, Anon,
Actually, I think it is logically valid (in principle) to use logic to disprove logic. The form would be:
(1) Assumption: logic is valid
(2) Show that (1) leads logically to a contradiction
(3) Therefore either (1) is wrong or (2) is wrong - either way, logic is wrong.
It's a reductio ad absurdam. You assume what you want to disprove and show that it leads to an impossbible conclusion.
- September 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM
- Tony Lloyd said...
Hi Stephen
In reverse order of pedantry:
1. I think it's John 18:38
2.You've spelled "sceptic" as "sceptic" and "skeptic" (personally , I prefer "sceptic" rather than submit to imperialist Yankee hegemony and use their spelling)
3. I don't think the Shirley MacLaine example is a good one, or adds much given the Karl Rove example. I'd read Shirley MacLaine's statement as a piece of positive thinking "fluff" and perfectly harmless if not taken too seriously. The Karl Rove example is utterly chilling and doesn't need backing up to make the point.
4. Dishonesty. As soon as I read you saying that going nuclear was fundamentally dishonest I thought "Eureka! He's spot on! That's exactly what's wrong with it!". It certainly explains a large amount of Sye. I think you could do more with this, in terms of making the concept of "going nuclear" clearer (per Jeremy's request), diagnosing what's wrong with it and, perhaps, making suggestions as to how to counter it.
On the latter two, Moore's "Proof of an External World" sprang to mind. For those who haven't come across the argument Moore's proof is prefixed with lots of discussion about Kant (to the extent of specifying the edition of the Critique of Pure Reason being referred to!) that seeks to establish that if objects exist then an external world exists. Hands are objects. So if hands exist then an external world exists. Moore then showed his audience his hands:
1. Here is a hand
2. Here is another hand
3. The external world exists
The argument is not sceptic-proof in the sense that the sceptic cannot raise arguments about why it might be false. But it is honest-sceptic-proof, the sceptic believes that he has seen hands, and that hands only exist if an external world exists so the sceptic must believe that an external world exists.
This links into:
"Clearly, the [Karl Rove] view of reality cannot be correct." It could be correct. Isn't the real point that not even Karl Rove believes it's correct? Karl Rove is just lying. As is Mike, who is resorting to "going nuclear" because he accepts the evidence and arguments you have been putting to him, is thus rationally obliged to accept the conclusion and so his only way out is to deny rationality.
- September 4, 2010 at 1:14 PM
- Nate O said...
Stephen, are you familiar with W.W. Bartley's work on the 'tu quoque' defense ('you too')? It's eerily similar to your 'nuclear option'.
You might want to check out the second edition of his "The Retreat to Commitment". It covers the problem of justification is great detail.
If you want a free introductory collection of Bartley's writings, I suggest checking out Rafe Champion's page on Bartley here.
- September 4, 2010 at 5:41 PM
- NAL said...
The reliability of our perceptions is limited. Our perceptions are easily fooled. Injury and disease can alter our perceptions.
We rely on the perceptions of others to help determine the reliability of our own. This tends to objectify the reality that we perceive. Science plays an important role, too.
The first axiom should be: reality exists.
- September 5, 2010 at 3:47 AM
How about the "this argument will go on forever" tactic?
- September 5, 2010 at 5:21 PM
- cedgray said...
To paraphrase Hugh Laurie: "If we could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be religious people."
Even if we present them with exactly why and how they are wrong, as you've outlined here, it makes not the slightest difference to them. They live in a world of selective denial, and they can even be in denial about that.
- September 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM
- NAL said...
I've been thinking along the same lines concerning reductio ad absurdum.
However, the contradiction that is sought has to be a logical contradiction. Even the contradiction assumes the validity of what is trying to be disproved. Is this enough to make the disproof unsound?
- September 6, 2010 at 7:20 PM
- Vagon said...
Nice chapter. You cover the key points well: the unavoidable retortion of using reason to attack reason, the logic absurdity that follows. I would also suggest an invocation of occam's razor at the axiomatic level.
An axiom should be self-evident, by trying to add a god to this axiomatic level you are complicating things, adding things that are unnecessary to the epistemological foundation.
RE:Trusting our senses.
There is something that lies deeper than sense and that is conciousness. You could pluck out my eye, cauterize my nostrils, cut out my tongue etc removing the senses and yet I could still formulate concepts. So then the key to the faith argument here is validating conciousness.
The problem that follows is that this section of the chapter assumes the primacy of conciousness. In doing so it unwittingly allows "faith position" to smuggle its way into philosophy.
It is more correct to assume the primacy of existence and to cut the argument off at the first point. If there is conciousness then there is something-existing-which-is-concious that comes first.
This existence is concious of itself and so conciousness and identity are also implicit. Therefore any statement (or action at all), whether rational, faith-based or even absurd, is built off these undeniable and irreducible primacies.
Questioning rationality as in "Going nuclear" or invoking Agrippa's trilemma is making a fallacy of stolen concept.
There is no need to heed the theist's call to "justify" how you relate to an external world and there is no need for extreme examples like jumping off buildings. To suggest the mind and reality are seperate is to beg the question. How can an idea exist without a brain? The external world needs no such justification, is justified by any action implicitly.
- September 7, 2010 at 5:25 AM
- Vagon said...
You're correct in that its 'valid', but it is not 'sound' in that step (2) will have a premise that incorrectly assumes conciousness requires logic, rather than logic requiring conciousness.
- September 7, 2010 at 5:27 AM
- mat roberts said...
Your criticism of the going nuclear option is it's dishonesty....its a good read, and certainly makes decent rhetoric.
But I was left with the desire for you to tackle the problem head on.
Is it really the case that "The belief in reason seems no less a dogma than any other."? If this is a philosophically sound position - admit it. It doesn't diminish the argument that it's dishonest too.
- September 7, 2010 at 5:32 PM
I think you've completely misunderstood Rove. He's not talking about relativism at all. Look at this, from your quote of him : "And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too". This is not compatible with epistemological relativism, according to which people perceive different realities.
Rove is talking about the power to change things in a major way and saying that those in the "reality-based community" do not take into account that things can be changed, that they assume that because things are a certain way now means they will always be that way.
- September 9, 2010 at 9:19 AM
- Tony Lloyd said...
On the "basis of reason" there's an interesting, accessible (and short) article "On the Idea of Logical Presuppositions of Rational Criticism" by Jonas Nilson in volume 2 of "Karl Popper: A Centenary Celebration" (which can be read free on Google books http://bit.ly/aEvJFt )
Popper took the route of "faith in reason". Bartley said that "faith" was when you declined criticism of an idea, you refused to even consider giving it up. So long as you are prepared to criticise an idea you aren't accepting it on faith. But what about logic, that's your tool of criticism. "Ok" said Bartley, "er…logic is pre-supposed in any discussion".)
But it's a huge topic, and there's no consensus on it, and it's unnecessary for Stephen's point. We might not be able to establish that Mike must follow reason. But we ought to be able to convince him that he shouldn't lie. Mike thinks he should follow reason and to deny reason on his part is just dishonest.
On the Rove point: the idea that we treat as objective reality things that are changeable is quite sensible (and was the starting point of the "Social Construction of Reality"). But give it a little bit of hubris or sloppy thinking (something the neo-cons had in plentiful supply) and it becomes thoroughly relativist. The step from "some aspects of reality are shaped by the actions we will" to "reality is reducible to our will" is pretty small.
- September 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM
- bettybravebitch said...
Isn't it necessary to further specify when (and how) one would counter "this is true for me" and when it is inappropriate, i.e. how should one determine the appropriateness of the opponent using the "this is true for me", since as you've stated, sometimes relative truth makes sense.
- September 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM
Most debates in less formal settings fail to create a starting point or agree on a set of accepted axioms. In a debate where no limits have been set with any ground rules it is not "dishonest" to go nuclear. It seems disingenuous to stop in the middle of the debate and accuse the other side of a foul because you don't like the problem they have given you. If on the other hand from the outset you make it clear that certain arguments make the entire debate pointless or at least sidetrack so much that it is no longer relevant to the initial debate.
I also would avoid the term "Going nuclear". I think the term "scorched earth" might be more applicable. Going nuclear could imply blowing someone else up while scorched earth implies that once employed neither side will be using the ground. It also seems to follow the use of the tactic slightly better. As one retreats under pressure the land is ruined preventing either side from using it.
- September 11, 2010 at 8:43 AM
- Lucinda DeFranco said...
I just wanted to comment that this sentence is not clear:
"Perhaps it is true that atheism is a faith position because any belief about how things stand outside of your their mind is ultimately be a faith position."
- November 13, 2015 at 12:21 AM


text:
Community Choice Aggregation – Massachussets| Written by ILSR Admin | No Comments | Updated on Jan 27, 2009 The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at https://ilsr.org/rule/community-choice-aggregation/2593-2/
Massachusetts was the first deregulated state to decide that the town or city should be the default supplier in the event that customers do not choose a new electric supplier. Individual customers are always free to opt out and choose their own supplier, but if they do nothing their community represents them. "It's democracy in action," said Rob O'Leary, a Barnstable, Mass. County Commissioner, because such a system is voluntary, favors local control over absentee control, and links authority and responsibility.
The language below is the first "Community Access" provision to become law in the United States. The bill was passed by Legislature on November 19, 1997 and signed by Acting Governor Paul Cellucci on November 25, 1997.
- More details on electric industry restructuring in Massachusetts are available from the State of Massachusetts' The Power is Yours web site.
- Full Text of Massachusetts 1997 Electric Restructuring Law
Other Resources:
- Community Aggregation News by American Local Power Project

subset: commoncrawl


text: Find this wine Find this wine Plungerhead Zinfandel Lodi 2008 Ehhh... Too much oak, dry and lacking that Zin berry blast I love. Not worth the $17 price point. Pin It Tweet 5 years ago by Brett F. More posts Plungerhead Zinfandel Omg lodi zinfandel 5 years ago by jetset WISDOM Plungerhead Zinfandel 2009 Very nice Lodi zin. 5 years ago by Christopher O. Plungerhead Old Vine Zinfandel Lodi 2008 Very good! 6 years ago by Roddy1369 Plungerhead Old Vine Zinfandel Lodi 2008 Nose: jam, playdoh, paint, bad broccoli. Taste: sugar, oak, strong flavor. Good mouthfeel, but short flavor. 7 years ago by Karinodeland


text:
- Home
- Jewelry
- Jewelry Findings
- Bracelet Making Supplies: Forms & Bases
- Craft Bracelet Chain with Toggle Clasp - Nickel
Craft Bracelet Chain with Toggle Clasp - Nickel
Product ID: 1921-97
This Darice® nickel chain bracelet with toggle clasp is the perfect base for charms, beads, and other bracelet designs. Use this bracelet chain as the base for your next unique jewelry making project.
Color: Silver
Material: Other
Product Type: Other
Shape: Other
Our Price: $1.17
1 craft bracelet chain per package.


text:
Hospitality Asset and Service SolutionsAt PHD Hospitality, we provide the hotel property management experience that gets results. From beginning to end; focused to full service asset management, design and development - we have the expertise to maximize the return on your investment. Our solutions include:
• Hotel Property Management
• Human Resources/Risk Management
• Asset Management/Development
• Revenue Generation
• Cost Containment/Operational Efficiencies
• Interior Design/Procurement - New Build and Renovations
• Sales and Marketing/Business Planning
• Social Media and Online Marketing
Our team consists of a community of hospitality industry leaders with diverse and proven experience, a solid reputation for delivering results that consistently exceed customer expectations, as well as brand, owner, and hotel industry standards overall. PHD Hospitality is an organization built on a foundation of respect, honesty and integrity.
"The person who is a master in the art of living makes little
distinction between their work and their play, their labor and their
leisure, their mind and their body, their education and their recreation,
their love and their religion. They hardly know which is which.
They simply pursue their vision of excellence and grace in whatever they do,
leaving others to decide whether they are working or playing.
To them, they are always doing both."
- Lawrence Pearsall Jacks


text:
Under a legal principal called "sovereign immunity," the state may be sued only when it has consented to be sued. North Carolina courts have held since the 1970s that the state waives its sovereign immunity when it enters into a contract authorized by law. A recent case before the N.C. Court of Appeals shows, however, that it is at times unclear exactly when the state exactly waives immunity. This is especially true when it enters into a partnership agreement with a private business.
Brier Creek Associates Limited Partnership owned a large piece of land in Wake County that it wanted to develop. In 1999, the company and the N.C. Department of Transportation entered into an agreement to build a four-lane divided highway on the property that would connect Aviation Parkway and U.S. 70. Under the deal, the state would obtain the right-of-way before construction, pay half the cost of the road, and approve of the company's choice of contractors. The road would be turned over to the state upon completion.
Rifenburg Construction won the contract to build the highway. Work was complete by spring 2001. The company was still owed more than $1 million, which Brier Creek refused to pay. Rifenburg then sued Brier Creek and the N.C. DOT.
The DOT argued that sovereign immunity protected it from the lawsuit. Superior Court Judge Leon Stanback disagreed, but his ruling was overturned by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals.
The DOT can either contract directly to have a road built under provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.1 or participate in private engineering and construction agreements with private developers. Such private engineering and construction agreements are covered in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.6. In a construction agreement, the developer provides the right-of-way for roadway, awards the contract, and manages the project. The N.C. DOT shares in construction costs and approves the awarding of the construction contract.
Judge John Tyson, writing for a majority of the appeals court, wrote, "We will not imply a contract in law in derogation of sovereign immunity… We emphasized, however, that "[t]he State is liable only upon contracts authorized by law. When it enters into a contract it does so voluntarily and authorizes its liability.
"Consistent with the reasoning of Smith, we will not first imply a contract in law where none exists in fact, then use that implication to support the further implication that the State has intentionally waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be sued for damages for breach of the contract it never entered in fact. Only when the State has implicitly waived sovereign immunity by expressly entering into a valid contract… may a plaintiff proceed with a claim against the State upon the State's breach."
Judge James A Wynn, Jr. dissented strongly from the majority holding. "In conclusion, the majority opinion allows NCDOT to make a contract with a developer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.6 and reap the benefits that it could have under a contract with a road contractor under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.1 with complete immunity from liability for any breach of the construction contract," he wrote.
"Thus, while NCDOT controls the developer, oversees the project, attains land for a new road free of cost, benefits from the developers contribution of costs, tailors the project to meet its desires, and reaps substantial benefits from the construction, the majority nonetheless holds that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, NCDOT should be completely absolved from any liability for a breach of the construction contract that arises under its G.S. 136-28.6 contract with the developer, Brier Creek. In short, the majority allows NCDOT to use sovereign immunity as a 'shield' to escape contractual duties and responsibilities while it enjoys at half the cost, the benefits it would gain by contracting directly with the road contractor under G.S. 136-28.1. Since I do not believe this to have been the legislative intent, I respectfully, dissent."
The divided ruling by the appeals court requires the N.C. Supreme Court to hear the case if Rifenburg challenges the ruling.
The case is Rifenburg Constr, Inc. v. Brier Creek Assocs., Limited P'ship, (02-1391).
Michael Lowrey is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.


text:
Briefs: OA Block Party May 22, 2009
Block party planned for downtown Fruita May 23
With music, entertainment for the kids and a beer garden, the Fruita Area Chamber of Commerce and a number of Fruita businesses will host the second Downtown Block Party in Fruita.
The party will run from 5–10 p.m. Saturday, May 23, between Peach and Mulberry streets.
Funky music will be performed by the Demon Funkies from Denver, and the beer garden is sponsored by Fruita Rotary.
Willy Wanna Jump will provide entertainment for kids with a bouncer, cotton candy and balloon animals.
Businesses will have extended hours and provide goodie bags and give-aways.
The third block party is set for June 6.
Take your lawn chair. Leave pets at home.
Call 858-3894 for information.


text:
Comments: 1
Views: 200
Views: 200
Different dimensions!
I was in my giant apartment building ( i dont live in one of those lol ) and i went down to the entrance of it. no idea how. And then my friend jude had this tiny little house, half the size of an average classroom. I then went in, and he pushed me out. But he came too. Then i saw my brother trying to break my giant purple rubix cube...? I then said " Harley stop! You like pie! ". Then he was all like " Oh yeah " and stopped. Then me and Jude went through a portal to a different dimension. We weRead More...


text:
- {{matchup.date.fullday}}{{matchup.date.month + ' ' + matchup.date.day}}
Falcons Down Eastern Michigan 58-7 - Match Report
Travis Greene scampered through the Eastern Michigan defense for 126 yards as Bowling Green handed the Eagles a 58-7 defeat on Saturday at Rynearson Stadium.
Bettors who backed the Falcons were also rewarded, as they covered the closing number as a favorite of 26 at sportsbooks. Over-Under bettors saw the total score go OVER the closing total of 54.5.
Matt Johnson completed 13 of 23 pass attempts for 264 yards for the Falcons in the win. He was picked off 1 time by the Eagles defense.
Ryan Brumfield rushed for 29 yards for Eastern Michigan, while Javonti Greene added 23 yards. Brogan Roback threw for 4 yards for the Eagles, while receiver Quincy Jones had 4 yards.
Bowling Green outgained Eastern Michigan 560-65 yards in the game, while the battle of first downs was won 24-4 by the Falcons.
Eastern Michigan lost the time of possession battle 39:23/20:37, leaving their defense on the field more than they wanted.
Bowling Green heads into a Week 14 battle against Buffalo. Eastern Michigan, meanwhile, will have their next action against Central Michigan.


text:
Robert Reynolds of the Mavericks has praised the "beautiful voice and talented songwriting" of Dave Hardin, who has a new album out called Miles Of Nowhere.
His voice is distinctive, gruff and gravely yet sweet, and works effectively on Take Her Away. Hardin's guitar playing is rich - and percussive - and although none of the album is original, the slower songs, like the impressive Red Dirt Bird, convince more than rockier songs such as Macon County Jail. In any case, it's hard not to like an ex-Navy musician who looks like 'Steve The Pirate' out of Dodgeball.
The best of the 10 songs is Pieces, which blends his voice, lyrics and guitar work effectively.
Dave Hardin: Miles Of Nowhere (Ride Records)


text:
Health and medical expert, Dr. Marla Shapiro, presents live on a variety of bone health topics including bone structure and osteoporosis, osteoporosis treatment options, Osteoporosis Canada's guidelines and Fracture Liaison Services and tips for maintaining healthy bones. Dr. Shapiro also answers viewer submitted questions followed by closing remarks from Dr. Famida Jiwa, President and CEO of Osteoporosis Canada.
Dr. Shapiro is a prominent medical contributor, consultant and specialist and is renowned for her expertise in Toronto, Canada and across North America.
Thank you to everyone who signed on to the Bone Matters with Dr. Marla Shapiro webinar on Tuesday, June 17, 2014. The response was overwhelming, as were the number of questions. Because there were so many questions, we are unable to provide individual answers. Many questions covered the same issues, so we have grouped them to provide general answers. If your question is not answered, please call 1-800-463-6842 to speak with an information counsellor or email firstname.lastname@example.com. In some cases, the questions were very specific to an individual's circumstances. We are unable to provide specific individual medical advice. Please do speak with your healthcare professional. In all cases, the information provided in the webinar or in the questions and answers is not intended to replace medical advice. You are advised to discuss your individual circumstances with your physician.


text:
In celebration of California Wine Month, enjoy half-off select bottles of California wine at Four Seasons Hotel Westlake Village this Wednesday and next, on Sept. 24.
Reduced prices range from $20 to $130.
The offer is available throughout the hotel's food and beverage outlets, including the Lobby Lounge, The Lookout and Bar, and Onyx Restaurant. Find the Four Seasons Hotel at 2 Dole Drive, Westlake Village. Visit www.fourseasons.com/westlakevillage or call 818-575-3000 for more information.


text:
Have a Tax Question? Ask a Tax Expert
Welcome. My name is XXXXX XXXXX it will be my pleasure to assist you with your tax question today.
You are free to amend your 2007 tax return, but you would be doing so for informational purposes only since the statute of limitations of 3 years has expired. You will not receive a refund or credit for any refund to which you may be entitled.
It is your choice as to whether you want your 2007 tax return to reflect correct information or not.
Please let me know if you require further information or clarification on this. Thank you.
Please let me know if you were able to view my responses. At my end it shows you are "standing by."
The agent who told me to go ahead and file the amendment was very detailed with her advice, stating that no check would be issued, but a credit to my account for future tax liabilities would be given. The language I read in the tax code regarding amendments states "from the date the return was filed" not "from the date the return was due". I'm not being argumentative, just looking for clarification. I certainly don't want to waste my time filing the amendment, unless it would prove beneficial.
What does it mean when the language in the IRS statute code for amendments refers to "credit" vs."refunds"?
Give me a moment. I apologize, but I initially did not read that you filed your 2007 return in 2011. My apologies.
It would seem to me that if the statute runs for the IRS beginning from the date the return was filed, the same should hold true for the taxpayer.
The following is specific language as to the timing of filing an amended return:
File Form 1040X only after you have filed your original return. Generally, for a credit or refund, you must file Form 1040X within 3 years (including extensions) after the date you filed your original return or within 2 years after the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. If you filed your original return early (for example, March 1 for a calendar year return), your return is considered filed on the due date (generally April 15). However, if you had an extension to file (for example, until October 15) but you filed earlier and we received it July 1, your return is considered filed on July 1.
Yes, that is the section I was referring to which states "from the date you filed your original return", so back to my original question....I filed my 2007 return on October 15, 2011. Can I still receive a credit/refund if I file an extension now? Thanks.
I didn't mean extension. I meant amendment. Sorry!
My opinion is that you are within the 3 years of the date of filing your return, and I would amend your return. If you are simply adding extensive medical expenses, it should not be difficult to amend your return, and it may be well worth your while to do so. Please note that the amended return will have to be mailed in and the processing time is usually 3-6 months, but will most likely be longer due to the recent government shutdown when the IRS was closed as well.
Of course, I should have mentioned that every time you call the IRS and speak to a different representative, you will receive different answers each time.
Thanks, XXXXX XXXXX am prepared to wait for the processing of the amendment. I don't have the refund/credit at this time, anyway. And yes, it won't be much trouble to gather the medical info to get this amendment done. My confusion stems from getting contradictory answers from two different IRS agents. The first one volunteered the information to go ahead and amend during a conversation in which I mentioned not capturing the medical for 2007 and even for 2008. Another agent later told me the statute had run. I will amend both and hope for positive results.
I would amend your returns and see what happens. The effort you put forth to do so may benefit you in the long run, and I wish you the best of luck. Please come back to me here if you have any questions when you are actually preparing the amended returns. Just put for "bkb1956 or Barb" in the subject line, and I will be happy to assist you.
If you are satisfied with my answers to you, please take a moment to rate my answer since that is an important part of being an expert on JustAnswer, and I strive for excellence. Best regards, Barb
Thank you for your time this morning. I will keep your i.d. on hand and contact you when I need assistance. Also, I will leave you an excellent rating today.
Thank you so much and have a great day!
Ditto to you!
Thank you.


text:
Reads: 2212 | Likes: 0 | Shelves: 0 | Comments: 3
Book by: MosstalonWoodAdrian
Chapter 19 (v.1)
The next few hours were a blur. I think the power came on about thirty minutes after Paul... left, and I must have called 911, because the paramedics got there at lightening
speed. I didn't sleep at all. In fact, I think I just paced around the lobby until everyone else got there.
My memory is even worse after that. I remember holding a sobbing Annie, and Kumar trying to comfort the both of us without much success, but other then that it just jumps right to the funeral, which was held the day after.
The bulk of the storm had long since past, but a light rain still fell persistently on the white flowers and black umbrellas clutched tightly in the hands of mourners. The grass was as green as it had been at the picnic, though when I observed this I felt a pang of sadness. How happy Paul had been, how delighted his audience as he addressed his thanks. Now, I was beginning to believe it was us who should have been thanking him.
I could see the long black box in front of the crowd. I couldn't count the number of people, but it didn't matter. Paul was a legend; of course he was going to have more then a few visitors. What concerned me the most was that I hadn't shed a single tear. Not one. Was I some kind of emotionless dick head? This thought only made me feel worse, and still my eyes yielded nothing.
Annie was standing off to the right of me, Dawson holding her in much the same way I had. I was glad. If anyone deserved to feel better, it was Annie. She was looking at the ground and shivering slightly. Her hair had grown much longer since I'd first met her, and though it was soaked it still added that extra touch of plain, sad beauty.
I was wearing a black tux, one I had bought with money I'd saved from The Lab's 'paychecks', and there were dark circles under my eyes. My hair desperately needed a trim, and I hadn't shaved. More than a few people casted me a second glance, either because of my appearance or my status. I didn't care. They could think what they wanted.
A woman was speaking at the front, but their words fell empty upon my ears. Someone else had set up a memorial table behind me, one with pictures of a younger Paul and vases with flowers that made it even more depressing. I couldn't look at those pictures for more than a few seconds without feeling sick. Why the hell did he have to look so much like me?
"Thank you, ladies and gentlemen." The person speaking said solemnly before stepping back as they prepared to lower the coffin. Tears mixed with rain among the spectators. I remembered looking into it when it was open, how much like a wax doll Moore had looked, how unreal.
Someone was screaming. I frowned in annoyance. Who the hell screams at a funeral?
Then the vase beside me exploded. Someone was yelling "he's got a gun!" and someone else was speaking bible verses. The bible sayer was in the crowd ahead of me. I hadn't even noticed him before, and I barely registered the pistol he was aiming at me. I couldn't quite catch what he was saying, but I'm pretty sure he'd associated me with Satan.
"Die, heathen!" Was the last word he got out before being tackled by several other people, including, oddly enough, Dawson.
"That's enough outta you." Annie's fiance spat before dealing the man a blow to the face much like the one he had given me.
The man was dragged off before he could do much else, his gun laying discarded in the grass. I stood there, stareing at the gun like I couldn't believe what had just happened. Someone, Annie, was talking to me, her hand on my shoulder, but I was no longer there.
I was in space again. Floating, floating, floating.
Wake up. Paul's gone, nothing you can do about it. Stop acting like a zombie and get back in there. You almost got yourself killed.
You changed it, didn't you? You made the bullet miss. Why shouldn't I have just stood there? You probably would have dropped a safe on his head if that's what it took.
Sure, fine. But don't get so cocky my friend. I can move the bullet, but I sure as hell can't stop the pain. Now, how about you get the fuck over your little depression there and say something? People are stareing.
Then I was back again. People were stareing indeed. Now Annie, Dawson and Kumar were all talking to me, trying to get a response.
"I'm alright." I said at last, my words slurred as if I were drunk. There were a few sighs of relief, and the crowd slowly began to direct their attention to the hole in the ground that was now slowly being filled in.
"Are you sure? You looked like you blanked out there for a second." Kumar frowned.
I shook my head. "Really, I'm fine. Just a little shaken, that's all." I attempted to smile, though my efforts were wasted on Annie.
"Come on." She said with a grimace. "We're taking you home before something else happens." Dawson scoffed but didn't argue. Neither did I.
"Hold it." We were stopped, however, by none other than Robert Harrington. His face held the same, stern look it always did, with little pity and certainly no sympathy. "Can't leave just yet."
"And why not?" Annie, defiant and annoyed, returned his gaze.
"That man wasn't just anyone. Bob Lane. He used to work for us. Lost his mind awhile back and disappeared. This is the first time anyone's seen him in years." He looked back at me. "You look terrible." Harrington turned away from us, either not noticing or not caring about Annie mocking him by mouthing his words behind his back.
"I can't stand him. No humor whatsoever!" She snorted. Kumar raised his eyebrow and said nothing.
I couldn't stop thinking about what he'd said as we climbed into Dawson's black mustang. Annie, sitting shotgun, went on to talk about all the reasons she disliked Harrington while her fiance nodded his head occasionally. Kumar fell asleep within a few seconds. Figuratively, I was alone.
A man who used to work for The Lab had tried to kill me. Mr. H. said he was crazy, and that was probably true, but I couldn't shake the bad feeling that there was much more to it. Thinking about Bob Lane also began to make me see that I was almost a completely different person back at the funeral. Sure, I'd just lost someone close to me, but when Bob had shown up and a person screamed I was annoyed rather than concerned. I hadn't even cared that I was within a few feet from death. I'd already known the Megaleioths was at play, and not even that fazed me.
I shivered quietly. I was beginning to sound like one of those stone-cold cops from movies that didn't give a fish and killed anyone in their way. The fact that we'd left the funeral early didn't help much either. I sighed, already feeling a headache forming above my eyes, and looked out the window.
Apparently, I picked a lot of the right moments to look out windows, because this time, instead of Dawson smashing a perfectly good phone, I saw Gary. He was walking fast, looking over his shoulder and wearing clothes that were more like rags. He looked worried, as well as paranoid. What could have been chasing him? This question remained floating in my pounding head as we passed him.
I had a dream about him. The thought was as casual as if it had been 'I want a cheeseburger'. Sure, I remembered the dream, but it had seemed so unimportant compared to, oh, I don't know, Paul dieing.
Now, however, I wondered whether it was trying to tell me something. It was probably just a dumb dream, I mean, I'd never actually seen my sister die, but lately nothing really made that much sense.
We pulled up next to The Lab, and I got out with a yawning Kumar. Annie stepped out too, but only to tell us she and Dawson had 'things to do'. The brown haired man was on his phone (a new one, I assumed), and he didn't look pleased. They drove away and left the two of us in the freezing rain.
"You stayin'?" I asked my friend as he swayed a little on his feet.
"Nah. Sorry but, I think I drank a little too much." He yawned again.
"There was beer?"
"Well, why didn't you ask Annie and her pal to take you home?"
"Didn't want to inconvenience them."
I sighed. "Well, you're not leaving unless you plan on taking a cab."
"I'm tired." He complained.
"Then you can sleep in one of the rooms for all I care." I didn't want to sound mean, but I'd been hoping for some time alone. I got that time, however, after Kumar went ahead and fell asleep on my couch.
I looked down at him, a little annoyed. I shook my head, scattering tiny rain drops across the room, and, suddenly, I realized I wanted to go to Paul's office. This wasn't actually my idea of course; the Megaleioths was playing with me again.
"Fine." I said aloud. "Have it your way."
You know I will.
The elevator music had returned, but it did little to lift my spirits. For the love of god, Paul was [i]dead[/i]! This is what my thoughts were always coming back to, and what they would be coming back to for the next week or so. My skin crawled with dread as I walked down the hall and through the door of Paul's, I mean, [i]my[/i] office.
The lamp had been replaced, but it was off, and the shadows of the room seemed to stretch towards me. I looked towards the chair the old man used to occupy, and decided to have it thrown out before I even considered taking over the wooden desk. I sat instead in the chair I usually did, the one that wasn't all that comfortable, but not too bad either.
"Alright, what is it? What do you want?" I couldn't hide the anger in my voice. Moore had been sick and his fate all too obvious in general, but the moment I'd appeared, the Megaleioths had sped it up.
To talk. And to clear some things up. First of all, Paul's death is as much my fault as it is yours. Second, try not to be an idiot all the time. It's not good for business. And third, you better listen to every word I say. Because I will make you pay, and you will regret it.
"I don't care if you make me stab myself in the eye! If I don't give a shit about what you have to say, I won't listen." I could feel the air in my lungs thicken, and tension felt as abundant as helium. The red walls of the room appeared to almost glow, the colors popping out at me at strange intensities. Either it was playing with me again, or I'd touched the right nerve, because the Megaleioths seemed to be getting more pissed by the second.
Then, everything quieted again, and I could feel an invisible sneer watching me. Okay tough guy. You can find out the hard way. It paused, as if deep in thought. You know, Paul never really tried to defy me. Maybe you guys aren't that alike after all.
"Will you stop talking about Paul?" I muttered, glaring at nothing.
Sure. Let's talk about you. I groaned. You get a little angry sometimes, don't you? A little pissed every now and then?
"What's it to you?"
Everything. Because, Toddy, we're going to be spending the rest of your life together. Kinda like marriage, but with only a few benefits towards you. Sorry about that.
"I think I want a divorce."
Nice try. Anyways, you don't seem like a very social guy, but you get along just fine with Annie and whoever that other guy is. Why is that?
"His name is Kumar, and I like them. Not much else to it."
Same way you liked Gary? Oh wait, I forgot.
"Shut up."
Nope. Do you like video games? I like video games. You should play some. I wanna watch.
"You sound like a kid."
You sound like your mom. Hey Toddles, we should go check out the Animal Research section. There's glowing kittens down there.
I raised an eyebrow. "Uh… You sure you're the spirit thing Paul's been talking about?"
Yeah. Why wouldn't I be?
"I'd have thought you'd be more… threatening."
What are you talking about?! I'm plenty threatening! I could kill you right now if I really wanted to.
I stood up. "Then what's all this crap about kittens and video games?"
I happen to like kittens and video games. Kittens are fuzzy. And sometimes they glow. How can you not like them?
The situation had changed drastically. One minute, both the Megaleioths and I were angry, then, we were talking about baby cats. I wasn't entirely sure how to handle the conversation at that point.
"If that's all you called me up here for, then I'm leaving."
Wait! ...um… Oh! I know! We should do some business-y stuff.
I highly doubted the Megaleioths would know what it was doing when it came to whatever 'business' it was talking about, but it turned out it was smarter than I thought. A lot smarter. It drove me down to one of the laptops on a lower floor and, before I knew it, I was paying off some of The Lab's dept and ordering materials for some project labeled #2487368H. Whatever it was, it sure needed a lot of carrots.
I had absolutely no clue how to do any of the things I did, and it felt almost relieving to know I was being guided by a spirit that had probably been doing this since before cars were even thought of. When I was done doing those things, I called up a man apparently named Ralph Ruiz and told him I needed 600 pounds of bees wax. He agreed to have it sent over by Monday (I couldn't even remember what day it was) and said he'd pray for Paul's spirit. I thanked him and hung up.
The last 'business' thing I did was give a woman named Carla Greene a raise. She was one of the engineers, and looked like she'd lived with the dinosaurs.
"What for?" I asked, curious.
She's been working her ass off all week.
"Didn't know you had a heart."
I just don't want her to retire yet. That, and if she gets injured hopefully she wont sue us.
"That's what I thought."
I got up, and my body realized I'd been sitting in the same position for about two hours or so. My back and knees popped like firecrackers. My hands felt like dead weights, and I almost couldn't turn my head all the way. Damn, it'd only felt like a few minutes!
Let's go walk in the park. I like the park.
So I went to the park. And I walked. And we talked.
© Copyright 2017 MosstalonWoodAdrian. All rights reserved.
Add Your Comments:
More Horror Books
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Short Story / Horror
Short Story / Non-Fiction
Book / Non-Fiction
Essay / Non-Fiction
Booksie Popular Content
Other Content by MosstalonWoodAdrian
Book / Horror
Book / Horror
Book / Other


text:
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
LCMS President Matthew C. Harrison recently translated the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther's "A Simple Way to Pray," a brief, practical guide on prayer written for his barber and friend, Peter Beskendorf, in 1535. "Because there are so many unbiblical things said and written about prayer all about us, every Lutheran should have 'A Simple Way to Pray' and read it," Harrison noted. "Luther's little book on prayer will revolutionize your prayer life." Download an accompanying Bible study for this resource.
Download PDF
Related resources
Stay Connected! Join the LCMS Network:
Contact us online
• Church Info Center: 888-843-5267 • Staff Switchboard: 800-248-1930 • Donor Care Line: 888-930-4438
1333 S. Kirkwood Road St. Louis, MO 63122-7226 Directions
Subscribe to the digital edition of The Lutheran Witness
© 2003 – 2010The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.All Rights Reserved. The LCMS is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity. Our Tax Identification Number is: 43-0658188


text:
SHERIDAN — The National Junior High Finals Rodeo wrapped up over the weekend in Gallup, N.M.
One highlight for Sheridan County was team roping heeler Wheaton Williams (Big Horn), with a fifth place go in his second-round run. He and teammate Jerren Johnson (Casper) recorded an 8.157-second time. They finished 27th in the two-run average.
Wyarno's Saije Pollard had a good finish as well, making the short-go in goat tying and finishing 13th in the average.
The NJHFR has been held since 2004 and this year brought 940 athletes from the U.S., Canada and Australia.
2nd Round Results: Sheridan County
Average position in parentheses
Barrel Racing
44. Kade Koltiska, Big Horn, 16.491 (35th in average 33.08); 109. Shyanna Cahoy, Sheridan, 17.722 (133rd in average, 41.677)
Girls Breakaway
43. Kenna Balkenbush, Sheridan, 10.615 (66th in average)
Girls Goat Tying
17. Saije Pollard, Wyarno, 9.821 (13th in average 30.557)
Pole bending
19. Saije Pollard, Wyarno, Wyo., 21.111 (101st in average, 52.003); 104. Kenna Balkenbush, Sheridan, 26.556; 138. Shyanna Cahoy, Sheridan, 32.134 (112th in average 54.646)
Team Roping
5. Jerren Johnson, Casper, Wheaton Williams, Big Horn, 8.157;
Ribbon Roping Average
5. Owen Wahlert, Grover, Colo., Saije Pollard, Wyarno, 16.042;
Girls Goat Tying Short Round
13. Saije Pollard, Wyarno, 10.165;
Girls State Team Placing
18. Wyoming 1950
Boys State Team Placing
21. Wyoming 1220


text:
While she was attending Lamar University in Texas, Meeghan Falls sent countless nude photographs to her boyfriend. Two months after their two-year relationship ended, Falls found out that her ex-boyfriend had posted many of the images, along with identifying information, on the Internet. "My stomach dropped," Falls said. "I started shaking. I started crying immediately. I felt like the whole world had seen me naked."
Falls was the target of "revenge porn" — the distribution of naked or sexual images of other people online without their consent, generally by ex-romantic partners. Revenge porn can be emotionally devastating to the victims, as Falls' story shows. It can have serious other consequences as well. Teachers who have had nude pictures posted online have lost their jobs. Revenge porn can affect custody disputes. In some cases it can damage relationships with families or spouses. Kayla Laws, for example, sent a topless image to a friend considering plastic surgery. When her email was hacked, the picture was stolen and placed on a revenge porn site. Soon after receiving harassing emails at work, someone sent the photo to her sister. She was afraid she would be fired from her job as a real estate agent.
Revenge porn is obviously cruel and unethical, whether the images in question are actually stolen or posted by an ex in a betrayal of trust. But addressing it legally is difficult. The main barrier is the First Amendment, which protects free speech even in extreme cases. In addition, in 1996 Congress passed the Federal Communications Decency Act, which protected websites from prosecution for user-submitted content. This means that YouTube or Facebook can't be prosecuted if someone posts pornography to those sights. But it also means revenge porn sites aren't responsible when a guy posts a nude image of his ex.
There are some legal remedies. Victims of revenge porn can bring lawsuits, forcing websites to disclose the users who posted the images, and then sue those users. Such lawsuits can be difficult, since those who bring suit may have to make their names public, possibly resulting in further harassment and embarrassment. Nonetheless, some victims have publicly sued revenge porn site Texxxan.com and its host GoDaddy for violation of privacy, though it's unclear whether they can win.
More hopefully, California recently became the first state to pass a law specifically targeting revenge porn by making it a misdemeanor for an individual to take and circulate sexual images online with the intent to harass or annoy. Even this law, however, has serious limitations. Since it only outlaws images taken by others, it does not address "selfies," images snapped by an individual her or himself and sent to a significant other. It also doesn't address images placed on revenge porn sites for money or gain, rather than with an intention to harass.
Because revenge porn has so far proven difficult to regulate legally, it is important to think about non-legislative ways to address the problem. Educating people about the dangers of sending nude photos is a logical step. But how much effect such education will have is uncertain. A study at the University of Rhode Island found that 56 percent of college students have received sexually suggestive images, and more than two-thirds have sent sexually suggestive messages. In short, sexting and sending sexual selfies have become an established part of college life for many. Perhaps education could encourage people to be more careful when engaging in such practices, but eliminating the sharing of compromising pictures seems unlikely.
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic approaches the issue from another perspective. Friedersdorf doesn't address revenge porn sites in particular, but he talks about a number of related phenomena. Specifically, he points to an incident in Tennessee in which several high school boys pretended to be romantically interested in female classmates and convinced them to send naked pictures of themselves. The boys then threatened to distribute the photographs to parents and friends if the girls did not continue to send nude pictures.
Friedersdorf argues that this kind of blackmail could be substantially reduced if we did not have such a stigma against nudity. That stigma, he argues, is both pervasive and nonsensical. "In so many instances of nude photo blackmail, there's no sex, just a grainy nude image. And nudity alone, without even a provocative pose, is enough for stigma and blackmail." If nudity were as acceptable as it is in Continental Europe, Friedersdorf suggests, it would be much more difficult to shame and harass people simply by putting a nude picture online.
There's obviously something to this. If people saw nude images as moderately embarrassing rather than catastrophically evil, revenge porn victims wouldn't have to worry about losing their jobs. They might feel less emotional distress as well. Perhaps, in some cases, this change is already underway. Writer Nikki Yeager, for example, wrote a cheerful post about how she really didn't care that her ex had placed a picture of her vagina on a revenge porn site. Admittedly, the image was not identifiable as hers — but, on the other hand, she did tell the whole Internet it was out there. Her blasé reaction, more amused than traumatized, seems like something we might hope for more of in Friedersdorf's imagined future of unstigmatized nudity.
Even in such a future, though, revenge porn would still be a problem. That's because revenge porn isn't really about nudity, or even necessarily about sex. Instead, as Jill Filopovic argues, "The purpose of revenge porn [is] to shame, humiliate and destroy the lives and reputations of young women." Men, as Filopovic's comment suggests, are rarely targeted. Filopovic describes her own experience in law school, when she was constantly harassed through a site called AutoAdmit. No one had naked pictures of Filopovic to post — so people just posted descriptions of her clothing or repeated what she said in class that day, juxtaposed with crude sexual commentary. According to Filopovic:
It's hard to explain the psychological impact these kind of anonymous posts have, when these people know your name, face and exactly where you are during the day. You can't walk down the hall at school without wondering if that guy who just made eye contact with you is going to go home and write something disgusting about you on the internet, or if anything you say in class is going to be quoted on a message board as evidence that you are a stupid cow, or if any one of these anonymous commenters is going to take their sexually violent urges offline and onto your body.
Along the same lines, Caitlin Seida recently wrote about how her picture was posted online without her consent. The image wasn't nude or sexual; it just showed Seida in a Laura Croft costume for Halloween. Hundreds of strangers then took the opportunity to comment on her weight (she has a thyroid condition) and abuse her for, basically, not looking sexy enough in their opinion.
Revenge porn, then, isn't an isolated phenomenon. Rather, it's part of a general Internet milieu in which women, especially, are viewed, targeted, policed and "punished" for breaking up with someone, or for being too naked, or too sexual, or too outspoken, or too heavy or really for just being women. The web has made it possible to crowdsource misogyny. Revenge porn in which women are identified has even made it possible to crowdsource stalking.
Since revenge porn is an outgrowth of misogyny, and since that misogyny takes a number of forms online, reducing the stigma of nudity seems unlikely to be helpful. For that matter, teaching women and girls not to send nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriends seems like it would have a limited effect. Again, Seida and Filopovic didn't take or send nude pictures of themselves, but they were still targets of humiliation and harassment.
Instead, if there needs to be education, it seems like it should be focused on guys. Obviously not all men harass women, online or off, but a certain number do, and they need to be told to stop. Schools and parents should teach boys (and girls too) that harassment like this is unacceptable. And society needs to tell people it's unacceptable too — which involves passing laws. The measure in California is a good start. Hopefully other states will pass more effective legislation soon.
Noah Berlatsky edits the comics and culture website the Hooded Utilitarian and is a correspondent for the Atlantic. He is working on a book about the original Wonder Woman comics.


text:
Sorry, this job was closed 5 years ago. See all open Business Analyst Jobs in Houston, TX
Business Analyst - Deregulated Energy 1430
iSphere in Houston, TX 77002 USA
Our Houston client is looking to add a Business Analyst to their team. If you are a Business Analyst with deregulated energy experience, please apply today for this contract to hire opportunity!
Skills and Competencies:
• Able to problem solve and perform data analysis and data entry
• Able to build communicate effectively with both business and technical resources.
• Able to meet aggressive project deadlines.
Education and Experience:
• Bachelor's degree from accredited college or university required.
• Minimum 2 year work experience in professional environment required; experience in energy industry preferred.
Benefits Are Offered!
About iSphere:
Find all our positions at www.iSphere.net
iSphere is a Texas-based IT services firm that partners with clients to provide the necessary resources to meet critical IT and business goals. We started over 10 years ago on a foundation of trust and have built our client relationships directly with the hiring managers. iSphere is committed in satisfying their clients with the best possible candidates and just as important we want to satisfy our engaged consultants with the respect and care they deserve.
The reason why iSphere is successful is because we help the strongest candidates make their step to a successful career sooner.
If you are looking to advance your career with a notable client, there has been no better time than now to submit your resume and connect to iSphere!
Stay up to date with iSphere at our LinkedIn group at www.isphere.net/linkedin
Do you know someone who you can recommend to do this job?
Posted date: 5 years ago
Browse Business Analyst jobs in Houston, Texas:
By clicking the button above, I agree to the ZipRecruiter Terms of Use and acknowledge I have read the Privacy Policy, and agree to receive email job alerts.
ETRM Business Analyst
WG Consulting in Houston, TX
Posted 7 days ago on ZipRecruiter
Business Analyst II - JOB-10001866
G.A.S. Global in Houston, TX
Posted 4 days ago on ZipRecruiter
Business Analyst
Entrust Energy in Houston, TX
Posted 2 days ago on ZipRecruiter


text:
One person shot in Durham
Posted January 29, 2015
Durham, N.C. — One person was shot twice after an argument in a parking lot Thursday night, Durham police said.
The shooting happened at 3014 East Weaver Street at about 7:35 p.m. after the victim argued with two men, said police, who added that the man's injuries appeared to be non-life threatening.
No further details were immediately available.


text:
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Google (GOOG) has lost a case before the European Court of Justice and must now "forget" facts when courts tell it to, deleting links from its search engine.
The ruling is being hailed by privacy advocates, but it is the worst possible outcome for investors in all search engines. As the case approached the bench last year, Google's blog called it a key test on "freedom of expression."
Google's operations across Europe may now be saddled with a massive, ongoing cost. People will make requests, Google will have to decide whether to respond, and if it chooses not to delete information, it will have to defend that decision in a local court.
If it decides not to defend itself, the reliability of its search results will go down. The accuracy of information is not a defense.
The specific case involves a foreclosure proceeding that finally ended in the complainant's favor and his demand that people not find the original proceeding. There are already 200 other cases like this from Spain alone in the pipeline.
Lots of us -- companies included -- have done things or said things we'd love to have forgotten. Now there is a process, within Europe, through which we can make Google forget them.
The problem is that process does not scale. It's filled with human intervention and potential for delays.
Google is not being told to erase pages created by third parties, nor is it being told it must comply with all requests. Instead "a fair balance should be sought" between the public's need to know something and the privacy of the person complaining, the court ruled.


text:
Recently, I had a conversation at work with a co-worker of mine about getting out of debt. He introduced me to Dave Ramsey. I never heard somebody who made so much sense before when it came to personal finance. I have to say that listening to the audio book "The Total Money Makeover" has literally changed my life. The first time I listened to it, I was just sitting there kicking myself as he was calling out all the stupid financial blunders I'd committed like everyone else out there without even thinking about it.
I listened to it once. Then, I decided to listen to it a couple more times. Each time I listened, I seemed to not feel as much regret as I had used to feel. This is when I started the "baby steps" and completed my emergency fund within one month. Not only that, but I will have five credit cards paid off next month. They don't have very large balances, but I feel excited about this impending accomplishment. I really grasp the concept of what the debt snowball really does in changing a person's behavior when it comes to managing money.
Family and Finances
My family was never educated in the area of personal finance. I now find myself in regular debates with family members about some of the foolish expenditures that we have made over the years. I argued with my brother over what a rip-off and scam payday/car title loan businesses are. My favorite debate is on rent-to-own businesses. Those take the cake with their 1800-percent interest or whatever it is.
I never actually went as far as to get payday loans or buy stuff from rent-to-own places. My main problem was credit cards. The kid inside me always said, "I want it now!". The kid usually won and I ended up getting a bunch of junk that I really didn't need for 27-percent interest. After doing this for awhile, I ended up with around $10,000 of credit card debt. I had to stop and look around. It sure didn't look like I had $10,000 worth of stuff. Eating out, gambling, and just spending money vicariously didn't help the situation. I tried looking for solutions to this problem. I went to my bank for a debt consolidation loan to get lower interest. Well, it turns out that you can't get a debt consolidation loan if you're in debt. Your credit score won't be high enough if you have a high debt-to-income-ratio. I felt lost until I discovered Dave Ramsey.
I actually have a plan now and I don't have a feeling of hopelessness anymore. All of my debt will be paid off in 13 months and I can't wait for that day. It gets me excited just thinking about it. My advice to anyone looking at starting Dave's program or something similar to it is to ignore the opinions of those around you. Odds are if you are like me, then all of those around you are engaging in negligent behavior with their money. They have that feeling of hopelessness that I had not too long ago. Get focused! Start a budget and stick to it.
I think that it's essential that people start becoming more financially responsible and start teaching their children how to manage money from an early age. There is growing trend of people just buying a bunch of stuff for their kids just so they'll leave them alone. Well, this is why we have so many people in debt nowadays. We were taught as children that it is okay to just go out and buy as much stuff as you can right now. I think if people stopped and realized what they are doing with money as well as how their kids are emulating that behavior, that they would change their habits. Well, I know I have and even though I'm just getting started, I feel pretty good right now.
This article was written by CPF reader Jason Brow.


text:
Denali Will Play a Reunion Show
By: Spacelab Research Staff
Denali have been getting together for rehearsals in Richmond, Virginia. They're planning a reunion show for July 5th at the National in Richmond.
Denali is a spacey kind of band doing pop songs. They were lucky enough to have Sparklehorse's Mark Linkous work with them on their self-titled debut back in 2002 before an eventual break up is 2004.
Music News
Tour Dates NEW!
Music Reviews
Music Tech News
Music Festival News
Streaming Music Guide
Music Festivals USA
Music Festivals Canada
Music Festivals Europe
Music Festivals Australia
Music Festivals Asia
Film Festival Guide NEW!


text:
Found a deal today? Here's the place to share it.
Have a question that doesn't fit into any of the other threads? Here's the place to ask it.
I hope you have a fabulously frugal day! As I always say, It's your money, spend it wisely!
Published: 2015-08-26 00:02:00
Updated: 2015-08-26 00:02:00
Found a deal today? Here's the place to share it.
Have a question that doesn't fit into any of the other threads? Here's the place to ask it.
I hope you have a fabulously frugal day! As I always say, It's your money, spend it wisely!
Please sign in with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.
Thanks TWINREDHEADS !
Dr. D- I typically buy my almond butter at HT. Their name brand is $6.99 for 16 oz. My Aldi's carries it but it is a small jar for $4.99 I think. I'm due to go to Trader Joe's this week (lucky enough to work .5 miles from the Cary store) and I'll try to check the price for you.
Thanks, STRAITLOVER1965, I'll keep watching for the almond butter to appear at my Aldi. But I'm in big trouble if they also start offering cashew butter - that sounds TOO yummy! Meanwhile, I might need to visit TJ's, because it's been awhile, plus I'm thinking $5.99/16 oz beats the other supermarket prices.
TJs does have almond butter. If I recall, it was like 4.99 or 5.99 for a 16 oz jar. I'm pretty sure I saw it at the Aldi in Garner (it was either almond or cashew). It's with the peanut butter, not where the coconut oil and stuff is. The label is green and white like they are using for some of their organic type items. Can't remember how much it was though.
I promise this will be my last comment on how to redeem the Food Lion Rule the School visa card codes :)
This post explains it:
And has a link to where on the Food Lion site to add them:
Thanks Faye. My Aldi hasn't yet carried almond butter, but they now stock coconut oil, and have been increasing their offerings of organic products, so I'll keep watching! The nearest Trader Joe's is 15 minutes in a direction that is not on my way to anywhere I normally travel, although I do enjoy shopping at TJ's when I am near one, and I'd bet you are correct that they carry almond butter.
Faye - last week I got filet mignon half price but that will probably be the only time. The butcher told me they would only cut those on weekends now to avoid markdowns. I was sure looking yesterday hoping!
LAXMom12 - nice score on the marked down meat. Maybe that is why there were many meat markdowns at my local FL store yesterday as well. Either way, I was happy to get the sirloin steaks at a good markdown price. :-)
jdouglas13 - I got 100 pts for it yesterday so it must just be your lucky day!
Rasemom -- thanks - will post about the recall.
Dr D - although I have never bought it, I am guessing they carry it at Trader Joe's. You may want to try there. And if Aldi carries it, it is probably a decent every day price.
I just entered the code posted yesterday at KFR and got 400 points! Not quite sure how that happened, but I was happy! :)
Turkey Bacon recall


text:
Fab Read: Glamour's Big Book of Dos and Don'ts
Fab Read: Glamour's Big Book of Dos and Don'ts
For years, Glamour magazine's regular Dos and Don'ts feature—with its candid black-bar photos of fashion victims—has been one of my favorite guilty pleasures. Now, the magazine is releasing Glamour's Big Book of Dos and Don'ts: Fashion Help for Every Woman, which hits shelves tomorrow and sells for $16.50 here.
With the book, Glamour's editors have compiled more than 750 photos of celebrity and on-the-street fashion—both stunning successes and embarrassing foibles—plus plenty of advice on how to dress your best. It's sure to provide hours worth of instructive entertainment, and it makes a great gift for any fashionista on your list.


text:
Last Friday, we had a group of 10th graders from the The Young Women's Leadership Schools (TWYLS) hang out at Chartbeat Studios. TYWLS is a network of schools focused on bringing high-quality single-sex education to predominantly low-income students between 6th and 12th grade, usually first generation college students in their families. Their ultimate mission strives to make higher education achievable and leadership opportunities accessible to aspiring young women across the country.We're pretty big believers in their mission and for the last three years we've had the pleasure of spending the day with these bright young minds to give them a glimpse into the tech startup space and world of entrepreneurship. Something not enough young women have the chance to see let alone be encouraged to pursue as a future career path.The day was filled with equal parts snacks, puppies, and guided brainstorms aimed at solving a problem they cared about. After tons of ideas and voting, the girls settled on building a solution for deciding how to dress depending on the day's weather. (Hear that, friends at Poncho?).
Our goal was to educate them on the possibilities. Mission accomplished.


text:
Designed for all skin types to help restore healthy looking skin, Serum 15 neutralizes free radicals, defends against environmental damage, and helps prevent premature signs of aging. Now formulated with AOX+ advanced antioxidant technology, this lightweight, fast-absorbing serum combines ferulic acid with 15% pure vitamin C to enhance antioxidant performance.
- AOX+ advanced antioxidant technology — combines ferulic acid with L-ascorbic acid to enhance antioxidant performance.
- Reduces the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, neutralizes free radicals, defends against environmental damage, and stimulates collagen synthesis.
- Using Duke-patented vitamin C technology, delivers 15% L-ascorbic acid to the skin.
- Once absorbed, can't be washed or rubbed off, remaining protective for up to four days — an excellent addition to sunscreens.
- Ideal for normal or oily skin.
**Winner! Best Skincare Brand and Best Longstanding Brand 2017 as voted for by SkinStore customers.**


text:
After a sensational three-month spurt President Roosevelt's recovery program was slowing down last week. Farm prices had sagged from July highs, leveled out flat. September business was lagging behind August. NRA had yet to produce its miracle of re-employment. Public works made more headlines than new jobs. Banks were still tight-fisted on credit. Labor troubles pocked the land. Price rises due to NRA tended to cancel out A. A. A. gains in farm purchasing power. President Roosevelt was being bombarded with redoubled demands to turn to direct currency inflation as the one quick,...
National Affairs: What Next?
Subscriber content preview. or Log-In
To continue reading: or Log-In


text:
Member since 6/4/2012
- 1 total post
- 1 comment
Recent comments from immy77
Hey there amaxy.. i experienced the same problem as you.. only that i had botox injected into my masseter, and it had caused drooping of my right cheeck. it has been a nightmare trying to smile as it looks so assymetrical. everyone... READ COMMENT


text:
PRZOOM - /newswire/ -
Bucharest, Romania, 2016/02/09 - Bitdefender has announced the release of Bitdefender Security for LabTech, as well as participation in ConnectWises official vendor program, Invent, to extend the reach and depth of its world-leading security solutions for MSPs - ConnectWise.com.
Bitdefender, a leading Internet security technology company protecting 500 million users worldwide, has announced the release of Bitdefender Security for LabTech, as well as participation in ConnectWises official vendor program, Invent, to extend the reach and depth of its world-leading security solutions for MSPs.
Bitdefender Security for LabTech is fully integrated with ConnectWises RMM solution LabTech. The integration is designed so that that all antivirus and antimalware security tasks, including deployment, policy setting and security monitoring are managed directly from the LabTech console. This integration effort eliminates the need for a security server and the time and effort of using a separate security console.
Were very excited to have Bitdefender join our robust library of integrators, said Jeannine Edwards, Director, ConnectWise Platform. Were particularly thrilled about their commitment to their integration via the official ConnectWise vendor program, Invent. Bitdefender joins an elite group of ConnectWise integrators whove made an investment into collaborating on the best integration experience for mutual partners.
Bitdefender Security for MSPs outperforms all other security solutions, as proven by testing results from the leading independent international security analysts. In 2015 and 2014, Bitdefenders business protection ranked first for performance in independent testing by AV-TEST and won best zero-day detection by AV-Comparatives, leading the IT security industry for detection of new threats.
Brian Kingsley, Director of Technical Services at Marathon Consulting said,When we switched to Bitdefender, we immediately found hundreds of infections that our previous antivirus software had not detected. Because we manage over 80 customers with 1,700 endpoints, we needed a stronger antivirus/antimalware that could handle Cryptolocker and other advanced threats. It also had to be tightly integrated with LabTech, light on the network and easy to manage. Bitdefenders Security Plug-in for LabTech does it all and is a great fit for our MSP operations
The ConnectWise integration intiative further expands Bitdefenders industry leading commitment to integration with MSP technology partners including Kaseya, N-Able, Naverisk and MaxFocus.
In recent years, Bitdefender has pushed heavily into the MSP market and has picked up strong momentum due to its expansive offering and extremely high quality security said Jose Lopez, Bitdefender Director of Sales for Service Providers. Now, users of LabTech can take advantage of Bitdefenders industry leading security, ease of use and versatility.
The announcement comes after Bitdefender has expanded its award-winning partner program, to provide their MSPs with world class support including MSP webinars, sales and technical training, dynamic monthly licensing and more.
About Bitdefender
Bitdefender (bitdefender.com) is a global security technology company that delivers solutions in more than 100 countries through a network of value-added alliances, distributors and reseller partners. Since 2001, Bitdefender has consistently produced award-winning business and consumer security technology, and is a leading security provider in virtualization and cloud technologies. Through R&D, alliances and partnership teams, Bitdefender has elevated the highest standards of security excellence in both its number-one-ranked technology and its strategic alliances with the worlds leading virtualization and cloud technology providers.
About ConnectWise
ConnectWise® (ConnectWise.com) transforms how technology solution providers successfully build, manage and grow their businesses. Through the ConnectWise® Business Suite a comprehensive set of award-winning solutions that deliver a seamless, simple user experience ConnectWise gives its partners the ability to increase productivity, efficiency and profitability. Just as importantly, ConnectWises relentless commitment to innovation and unparalleled passion for partner success assures its partners have comprehensive business support through every step of their journey. Today, more than 100,000 users in over 50 countries take advantage of the competitive edge that comes from ConnectWise solutions and its powerful network of ideas and experts. For more information call 800-671-6898.
Agency / Source: Bitdefender
Availability: All Regions (Including Int'l)
Traffic Booster: [/] Quick PRZOOM - Press & Newswire Visibility Checker
Distribution / Indexing: [+] / [Company listed above is a registered member of our network. Content made possible by PRZOOM / PRTODAY indexing services]


text:
Edible flowers, weeds and other random growing things
I have way too many things in my garden that I didn't plant. Although I try to pull the weeds, I have a hard time pulling all the volunteer plants, like this amaranth that reseeds itself every year.
It's such a cool-looking plant...
It's also an edible plant. I'm not too crazy about it raw in salads and it tends to be very grass-flavored in smoothies. Not that I graze often, but it just makes my morning smoothies taste like what I think breakfast would be like if I were a cow.
Amaranth leaves are sturdy, however, like kale, so I decided to experiment last weekend and try roasting them. We were having company for dinner and I thought I'd better make a few experimental ones for me to test before I served them to our friends.
I used a little too much olive oil and lemon pepper seasoning on these. When I roasted them later for dinner, I restrained myself on the seasonings and discovered they are as good as roasted kale.
Hmm... Maybe I'll try eating bindweed next...


text: By MARC KOVACStaff WriterWOOSTER John Cardina led a group of legislative aides and lawmakers through part of Secrest Arboretum last week, stopping at a tall patch of native plants.Research under way at Ohio State University's Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster is identifying mixes of flowers, grasses and plants that could be used as landscaping in urban and suburban settings. Such varieties would be less expensive to maintain, creating a more environmentally friendly option for homeowners, businesses and others.Cardina and others at OARDC gave presentations on the center's research activities during a general assembly tour last week. The bus load of participants included legislative aides, representatives of the Ohio Farm Bureau and a few lawmakers, including Republican state Rep. Jim Carmichael, who represents the Wooster area.The Wooster stop included a welcome and overview of OARDC by Director Steve Slack and a tour of laboratory facilities at the Food Animal Health Research Program.The Secrest portion of the tour included opening comments by Assistant Director Bill Ravlin, along with presentations by Cardina, Roger Downer and Dan Herms.Following a lunch at Fisher Auditorium, participants toured the Arden Shisler Conference Center, then planned stops at OARDC's Molecular and Cellular Imaging Center, greenhouses and the Krauss Dairy Farm.County reporter/Farm Editor Marc Kovac can be reached at (330) 287-1645 or e-mail at email@example.com.