text:
Posted By: RayelansMailbag
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 8:05 a.m.
I met John Byrd, Admiral Byrd's grandson, in the early 80's and this was his life's passion.
Subject: Inner Earth
My Secret Diary - Admiral Richard E. Byrd - Arctic Flight on February 1947...
There comes a time when the rationality of men must fade into insignificance and one must accept the inevitability of the Truth! I am not at liberty to disclose the following documentation at this writing ....perhaps it shall never see the light of public scrutiny, but I must do my duty and record here for all to read one day. In a world of greed and exploitation of certain of mankind can no longer suppress that which is truth.
* 0600 Hours - All preparations are complete for our flight north ward and we are airborne with full fuel tanks at 0610 Hours.
* 0620 Hours - fuel mixture on starboard engine seems too rich, adjustment made and Pratt Whittneys are running smoothly.
* 0730 Hours - Radio Check with base camp. All is well and radio reception is normal.
* 0740 Hours - Note slight oil leak in starboard engine, oil pres sure indicator seems normal, however.
* 0800 Hours - Slight turbulence noted from easterly direction at altitude of 2321 feet, correction to 1700 feet, no further turbulence, but tail wind increases, slight adjustment in throttle controls, aircraft performing very well now.
* 0815 Hours - Radio Check with base camp, situation normal.
* 0830 Hours - Turbulence encountered again, increase altitude to 2900 feet,smooth flight conditions again.
* 0910 Hours - Vast Ice and snow below, note coloration of yellowish nature,and disperse in a linear pattern. Altering course for a better examination of this color pattern below, note reddish or purple color also. Circle this area two full turns and return to assigned compass heading. Position check made again to base camp, and relay information concerning colorations in the Ice and snow below.
* 0910 Hours - Both Magnetic and Gyro compasses beginning to gyrate and wobble, we are unable to hold our heading by instrumentation. Take bearing with Sun compass, yet all seems well. The controls are seemingly slow to respond and have sluggish quality, but there is no indication of Icing!
* 0915 Hours - In the distance is what appears to be mountains.
* 0949 Hours - 29 minutes elapsed flight time from the first sighting of the mountains, it is no illusion. They are mountains and consisting of a small range that I have never seen before!
* 0955 Hours - Altitude change to 2950 feet, encountering strong turbulence again.
* 1000 Hours - We are crossing over the small mountain range and still proceeding northward as best as can be ascertained. Beyond the mountain range is what appears to be a valley with a small river or stream running through the center portion. There should be no green valley below! Something is definitely wrong and abnormal here! We should be over Ice and Snow! To the port side are great forests growing on the mountain slopes. Our navigation Instruments are still spinning, the gyroscope is oscillating back and forth!
* 1005 Hours - I alter altitude to 1400 feet and execute a sharp left turn to better examine the valley below. It is green with either moss or a type of tight knit grass. The Light here seems different. I cannot see the Sun anymore.We make another left turn and we spot what seems to be a large animal of some kind below us. It appears to be an elephant! NO!!! It looks more like a mammoth! This is incredible! Yet, there it is! Decrease altitude to 1000 feet and take binoculars to better examine the animal. It is confirmed - it is definitely a mammoth-like animal! Report this to base camp.
* 1030 Hours - Encountering more rolling green hills now. The external temperature indicator reads 74 degrees Fahrenheit! Continuing on our heading now. Navigation instruments seem normal now. I am puzzled over their actions.Attempt to contact base camp. Radio is not functioning!
* 1130 Hours - Countryside below is more level and normal (if I may use that word). Ahead we spot what seems to be a city!!!! This is impossible! Air craft seems light and oddly buoyant. The controls refuse to respond!! My GOD!!! Off our port and star board wings are a strange type of aircraft. They are closing rapidly along side! They are disc-shaped and have a radiant quality to them.They are close enough now to see the markings on them. It is a type of Swastika!!! This is fantastic. Where are we! What has happened. I tug at the controls again. They will not respond!!!! We are caught in an invisible vice grip of some type!
* 1135 Hours - Our radio crackles and a voice comes through in English with what perhaps is a slight Nordic or Germanic accent! The message is:
'Welcome,Admiral, to our domain. We shall land you in exactly seven minutes! Relax ,Admiral, you are in good hands.' I note the engines of our plane have stopped running! The aircraft is under some strange control and is now turning itself. The controls are useless.
* 1140 Hours - Another radio message received. We begin the landing process now, and in moments the plane shudders slightly, and begins a descent as though caught in some great unseen elevator! The downward motion is negligible, and we touch down with only a slight jolt!
* 1145 Hours - I am making a hasty last entry in the flight log. Several men are approaching on foot toward our aircraft. They are tall with blond hair. In the distance is a large shimmering city pulsating with rainbow hues of color. I do not know what is going to happen now, but I see no signs of weapons on those approaching. I hear now a voice ordering me by name to open the cargo door. I comply. END LOG
From this point I write all the following events here from memory. It defies the imagination and would seem all but madness if it had not happened.
The radio man and I are taken from the aircraft and we are received in a most cordial manner. We were then boarded on a small platform-like conveyance with no wheels!
It moves us toward the glowing city with great swiftness. As we approach, the city seems to be made of a crystal material.
Soon we arrive at a large building that is a type I have never seen before. It appears to be right out of the design board of Frank Lloyd Wright, or perhaps more correctly, out of a Buck Rogers setting!!
We are given some type of warm beverage which tasted like nothing I have ever savored before. It is delicious.
After about ten minutes, two of our wondrous appearing hosts come to our quarters and announce that I am to accompany them. I have no choice but to comply. I leave my radio man behind and we walk a short distance and enter into what seems to be an elevator.
We descend downward for some moments, the machine stops, and the door lifts silently upward! We then proceed down a long hallway that is lit by arose-colored light that seems to be emanating from the very walls themselves!
One of the beings motions for us to stop before a great door. Over the door is an inscription that I cannot read. The great door slides noiselessly open and I am beckoned to enter. One of my hosts speaks. 'Have no fear, Admiral, you are to have an audience with the Master...'
I step inside and my eyes adjust to the beautiful coloration that seems to be filling the room completely. Then I begin to see my surroundings. What greeted my eyes is the most beautiful sight of my entire existence. It is in fact too beautiful and wondrous to describe. It is exquisite and delicate. I do not think there exists a human term that can describe it in any detail with justice!
My thoughts are interrupted in a cordial manner by a warm rich voice of melodious quality, 'I bid you welcome to our domain, Admiral.' I see a man with delicate features and with the etching of years upon his face. He is seated at a long table. He motions me to sit down in one of the chairs.
After I am seated, he places his finger tips together and smiles. He speaks softly again, and conveys the following: 'We have let you enter here because you are of noble character and well-known on the Surface World, Admiral.'
Surface World, I half-gasp under my breath!
'Yes," the Master replies with a smile, 'you are in the domain of the Arianni, the Inner World of the Earth. We shall not long delay your mission, and you will be safely escorted back to the surface and for a distance beyond. But now, Admiral, I shall tell you why you have been summoned here.
Our interest rightly begins just after your race exploded the first atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. It was at that alarming time we sent our flying machines, the "Flugelrads", to your surface world to investigate what your race had done. That is, of course, past history now, my dear Admiral, but I must continue on.
You see, we have never interfered before in your race's wars, and barbarity, but now we must, for you have learned to tamper with a certain power that is not for man, namely, that of atomic energy. Our emissaries have already delivered messages to the powers of your world, and yet they do not heed.
Now you have been chosen to be witness here that our world does exist. You see, our Culture and Science is many thousands of years beyond your race, Admiral.' I interrupted, 'But what does this have to do with me, Sir?'
The Master's eyes seemed to penetrate deeply into my mind, and after studying me for a few moments he replied, 'Your race has now reached the point of no return, for there are those among you who would destroy your very world rather than relinquish their power as they know it...' I nodded, and the Master continued,
'In 1945 and afterward, we tried to contact your race, but our efforts were met with hostility, our Flugelrads were fired upon. Yes, even pursued with malice and animosity by your fighter planes. So, now, I say to you, my son, there is a great storm gathering in your world, a black fury that will not spend itself for many years.
There will be no answer in your arms, there will be no safety in your science. It may rage on until every flower of your culture is trampled, and all human things are leveled in vast chaos. Your recent war was only a prelude of what is yet to come for your race. We here see it more clearly with each hour.. do you say I am mistaken?'
'No,' I answer, 'it happened once before, the dark ages came and they lasted for more than five hundred years.'
'Yes, my son,' replied the Master, 'the dark ages that will come now for your race will cover the Earth like a pall, but I believe that some of your race will live through the storm, beyond that, I cannot say. We see at a great distance a new world stirring from the ruins of your race, seeking its lost and legendary treasures, and they will be here, my son, safe in our keeping.
When that time arrives, we shall come forward again to help revive your culture and your race. Perhaps, by then, you will have learned the futility of war and its strife...and after that time, certain of your culture and science will be returned for your race to begin anew. You, my son, are to return to the Surface World with this message.....'
With these closing words, our meeting seemed at an end. I stood for a moment as in a dream....but, yet, I knew this was reality, and for some strange reason I bowed slightly, either out of respect or humility, I do not know which.
Suddenly, I was again aware that the two beautiful hosts who had brought me here were again at my side. 'This way, Admiral,' motioned one. I turned once more before leaving and looked back toward the Master. A gentle smile was etched on his delicate and ancient face. 'Farewell, my son,' he spoke, then he gestured with a lovely, slender hand a motion of peace and our meeting was truly ended.
Quickly, we walked back through the great door of the Master's chamber and once again entered into the elevator. The door slid silently downward and we were at once going upward. One of my hosts spoke again, 'We must now make haste, Admiral, as the Master desires to delay you no longer on your scheduled time table and you must return with his message to your race.'
I said nothing. All of this was almost beyond belief, and once again my thoughts were interrupted as we stopped. I entered the room and was again with my radio man. He had an anxious expression on his face. As I approached, I said,' It is all right, Howie, it is all right.'
The two beings motioned us toward the awaiting conveyance, we boarded, and soon arrived back at the aircraft. The engines were idling and we boarded immediately. The whole atmosphere seemed charged now with a certain air of urgency. After the cargo door was closed the aircraft was immediately lifted by that unseen force until we reached an altitude of 2700 feet. Two of the aircraft were alongside for some distance guiding us on our return way. I must state here, the airspeed indicator registered no reading, yet we were moving along at a very rapid rate.
* 215 Hours - A radio message comes through. 'We are leaving you now, Admiral,your controls are free. Auf Wiedersehen!!!!' We watched for a moment as the flugelrads disappeared into the pale blue sky.
* The aircraft suddenly felt as though caught in a sharp downdraft for amoment. We quickly recovered her control. We do not speak for some time, each man has his thoughts....
* 220 Hours - We are again over vast areas of ice and snow, and approximately 27 minutes from base camp. We radio them, they respond. We report all conditions normal....normal. Base camp expresses relief at our re-established contact.
* 300 Hours - We land smoothly at base camp. I have a mission.....
March 11, 1947. I have just attended a staff meeting at the Pentagon. I have stated fully my discovery and the message from the Master. All is duly recorded. The President has been advised. I am now detained for several hours(six hours, thirty- nine minutes, to be exact.) I am interviewed intently by Top Security Forces and a medical team. It was an ordeal!!!! I am placed under strict control via the national security provisions of this United States of America. I am ORDERED TO REMAIN SILENT IN REGARD TO ALL THAT I HAVE LEARNED, ON THE BEHALF OF HUMANITY!!!! Incredible! I am reminded that I am a military man and I must obey orders.
* These last few years elapsed since 1947 have not been kind...I now make my final entry in this singular diary. In closing, I must state that I have faithfully kept this matter secret as directed all these years. It has been completely against my values of moral right. Now, I seem to sense the long night coming on and this secret will not die with me, but as all truth shall, it will triumph and so it shall. This can be the only hope for man kind. I have seen the truth and it has quickened my spirit and has set me free! I have done my duty toward the monstrous military industrial complex. Now, the long night begins to approach,but there shall be no end. Just as the long night of the Arctic ends, the brilliant sunshine of Truth shall come again....and those who are of darkness shall fall in it's Light... FOR I HAVE SEEN THAT LAND BEYOND THE POLE, THAT CENTER OF THE GREAT UNKNOWN.
Admiral Richard E. Byrd
United States Navy
24 December 1956
Magic is alive and well .... remember we are the magi....so let us conjour consciously
Views: 350
As a child, I used to stand outside and look up at the night sky, and wonder where, in the starry heavens above, was my home. In 1990, when I was listening to music of the Moody Blues and heard their song "I Know You're Out There Somewhere," it suddenly flooded me with memories and I instantly knew there was a whole other world out there, just waiting to communicate with me. I began a process of meditation that reawakened me to the remembrance that I am a telepathic receiver and transmitter for the Inner-Earth terrestrials, Cetaceans, Crystal Kingdom, Tree People and Nature Kingdoms. I also awakened to my divine mission and role for this lifetime.
I tapped into the cosmos and connected to the Cetaceans (Whales and Dolphins), Adama in the Subterranean City of Telos, Mikos in the Hollow Earth, the Ascended Masters, the Ashtar Command of the Confederation of Planets, Nature Spirits and Trees. I no longer felt alone, but suddenly connected to Beings everywhere through the telepathic phone lines that exist throughout the cosmos. My communication with Mikos has reconnected me to who I am, and why I am here, and I discovered that I am connected to all life - everywhere - not just on Earth but all life throughout our Milky Way Galaxy.
With this new sense of purpose, I have dedicated my life to receiving and publishing my telepathic transmissions from Beings residing in Higher Realms of consciousness. My goal is to spread these messages around the globe in hopes of awakening surface humans to the existence of those that inhabit the Oceans, Subterranean Realms, Hollow Earth and Surface Nature Kingdoms through the publication of my books.
The earliest messages came from the Cetaceans and are in my first book: The Call Goes Out from the Cetacean Nation. My second book is: Telos. My third book is: Messages from the Hollow Earth. My fourth book is: Tree Talk.
Much of my inspiration comes from communing with Nature through long walks in the woods, sitting under my favorite tree in my backyard, walking along the ocean when I'm in Florida, and being on the Mountain among the Trees on Mt. Shasta, California, my home.
I Am All of Creation, and so are you ~
Dianne Robbins
P.O. Box 844
Mt. Shasta, CA 96067, USA
Email: email@example.com
I feel I am at the opposite end of the spectrum. I have never received a message, or vision, or anything that would have driven me to realize so many others were so close. As you must find it difficult to understand why you were given a message at such an early age, I wonder why I've been kept out of the loop. It isn't an emptiness, exactly, but more like a missing piece that keeps the rest of me from resonating properly.
Just out of curiosity, are you allowed to disclose what your message was? I feel like I'm piecing everything together from scratch while blindfolded, muzzled. At least I have music.
PBS biography on Robert E Byrd
© 2014 Created by Kerrie/Zoolithe ~site creator ♥. Powered by


text:
[Editor's Note: This article was adapted from a 5-part series originally published on Evolution News & Views. The original 5 parts can be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.]
"The Darwinist claim that 'theory' is always and exclusively used by scientists to mean a verified and well-established explanation is a fiction invented by Darwinists seeking grounds to scold as ignorant those Darwin-skeptics who call evolution 'just a theory.'"
Many members of the general public who are skeptics of Darwinian evolution are intelligent people with a decent understanding of some of the scientific weaknesses with neo-Darwinian evolution. In fact, a recent article in The Scientist suggests that, "public discontent with classical evolution as an inclusive theory stems partly from an intuitive appreciation of its limits." (Eric Smith, "Before Darwin," The Scientist, June 2008:32-38.) But in this highly nuanced debate, such Darwin-skeptics must avoid semantic land mines if they are to accurately, clearly, and effectively communicate their views. Some people who oppose neo-Darwinian evolution are fond of calling evolution "only a theory" or "just a theory, but not a fact." After using such a phrase, they are immediately scolded by Darwinists, who tell them that "a theory" is a "well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and that evolution should be considered "both fact and theory."
Ken Miller just wrote a book titled, "Only a theory," basically opposing people who use such an argument. Similarly, an opinion article recently condescended:
One of the greatest misconceptions about evolution is embedded in the misuse of the word 'theory' in its application to science. The common antecedents that result in this misuse of the word are manifested in either genuine ignorance, or disguised ignorance. People are either genuinely mistaken of the word's intent, or they are well aware of the word's scientific definition, but still use the nonscientific definition in an effort to spawn doubt. … Evolution, because it's a theory, is a higher form of knowledge than a fact.
Additionally, earlier this year the NCSE's Glenn Branch co-wrote an article in an evolution-education journal taking the condescending approach: it labeled those who use the "evolution is 'just a theory' line as being "pejorative" and favorably cited a Darwinist who scolded, "To claim that evolution is 'just a theory' is to reveal both a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science."
Upon receiving such a scolding, the Darwin-skeptic who said that evolution is "just a theory, but not a fact" may feel quite bad. She innocently had no intent to violate any rules of semantics or misuse any terms; she merely wanted to communicate her skepticism of neo-Darwinism. In this tangled web of ambiguously defined terms, the Darwin-skeptic is then confronted by a number of confusing questions of rhetoric and semantics:
Question 1. Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"? Question 2. Under such a strong definition of "theory," does evolution qualify as a "theory"? Question 3. Is it correct to call evolution a "fact"? Question 4. Is it best for Darwin skeptics to call evolution "just a theory, not a fact"? Question 5. All I wanted to convey is that I'm a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. How can I communicate such skepticism without stepping on a semantic land mine and getting scolded by Darwinists?
These are all good questions. In the sections below, I will attempt to answer all five questions, exploring the argument that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact" and providing criticism of people on both sides of this debate, as well as some friendly communications advice for Darwin-skeptics. And from the outset, I should state that I have always opposed using the "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" line to communicate one's skepticism regarding neo-Darwinian evolution.
According to the 1998 edition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses." In 2008, the NAS released a new edition, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, stating that a theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." Darwinists routinely invoke these and other similar definitions of "theory" when scolding Darwin-skeptics for calling evolution "just a theory, not a fact." Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" in this fashion? The answer to this question is both yes and no.
"Theory" can have multiple definitions. When I look up "theory" in my 1996 edition of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (WEUDEL), the word "theory" has 7 or 8 different entries: Question 1: Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"?
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Math. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
According to entry #2, "theory" can mean "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Similarly, entries #6 and #7 define "theory" as "contemplation or speculation" or "guess or conjecture." We'll say these comprise the soft definition of theory and represent the definitions that the average person has in mind when they say, "evolution is just a theory, not fact."
The upshot of the soft definition of theory is that Darwinists who imply that the term "theory" can never mean that "conjecture or guess" are in fact wrong, because "theory" can in fact mean conjecture or guess. On the other hand, if you're a Darwin-skeptic who thinks that "theory" necessarily means "conjecture" or a "guess" and can never mean a verified scientific explanation, then you are wrong: After listing these entries, my 1996 edition of WEUDEL elaborates on proper usage of the word "theory" within the scientific community:
1. THEORY, HYPOTHESIS are used in non-technical contexts to mean untested idea or opinion. The THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serve as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
Within technical scientific discussions, the term "theory" typically is understood to mean "a more or less verified or established explanation." We'll call this the hard definition of theory. But is this hard definition of theory the only way that scientists use the word "theory"?
When a Darwin-skeptic says "evolution is a theory, not a fact," Darwinists often pounce and assert that the colloquial or "pejorative" (Glenn Branch's label) usage of "theory" can mean "conjecture" or "guess," but scientists never use the word "theory" to mean conjecture or guess. For example, Branch favorably quotes Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook Biology, implying that there is a united front and complete conformity within the scientific community regarding proper usage of the word "theory": "In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations." Such Darwinist claims of unanimity within the scientific community are also questionable.
While scientists do typically imply the "hard" definition when using the word "theory," they don't always use it in that sense. If scientists always meant the "hard" definition of "theory," then scientists would virtually never use the phrase "new theory" because an idea does not attain the status of a theory until it becomes well-established and verified, withstanding many tests until it is no longer "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural." Yet a quick search of PubMed for the phrase "new theory" reveals dozens and dozens of hits from the technical scientific literature where scientists offered "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" but called that explanation a theory.
Three recent examples of such usage of "new theory," where theory represented an unverified idea, will suffice.
In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. The meaning implied by the term "theory" in this case was a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. As Charlton observes:
An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important -- but we knew it all along. ... Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim.
(Bruce G. Charlton, "False, trivial, obvious: Why new and revolutionary theories are typically disrespected," Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71:1-3 (2008).)
Charlton goes on to say, "When a new theory is revolutionary, then it is perceived as an observation which is incompatible with the old theory. From this perspective either the new theory must be rejected, or else the old theory abandoned." Clearly Charlton uses the word "theory" as if it can, in some circumstances, mean a new idea that has not yet undergone widespread testing and verification, and may not have experienced widespread acceptance.
As a second example, a recent sociology paper from Archives of Suicide Research states, "Although the study has offered some support for the new theory, future research with more rigorous quantitative data needs to be conducted to further test the theory on a more comprehensive level." (J. Zhang, D. Lester, "Psychological Tensions Found in Suicide Notes: A Test for the Strain Theory of Suicide," Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 12(1):67-73 (2008).) Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.
Finally, even within the context of evolutionary biology, theory can mean a new idea that does not yet have widespread verification or universal acceptance. A recent article in Current Biology entitled "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts, "New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity." Yet the article goes on to describe a vigorous scientific debate between evolutionary biologists about whether kin selection is a genetically viable explanation to account for the evolutionary origin of altruism and cooperation. According to the article, a new study concludes that "there is relatively poor empirical support for this mechanism in nature" because "[a] new theoretical study of genetic kin recognition … reveals that, left to its own evolutionary devices, this mechanism will drive itself to ruin." But other leaders in that field disagree, implying that this "new theory" is not "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
There are many other examples from the technical literature where theory is used in a similar sense, and it does not mean "a more or less verified or established explanation." It should be clear that scientists sometimes DO use the term "theory" to refer to a new idea that has not yet undergone extensive testing and is simply "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural."
We must return to the question, Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"? The answer is yes, but they are not entitled to claim that such a hard definition is the exclusively acceptable usage of theory both for scientists and non-scientists. Darwinists are wrong to imply that scientists always necessarily use the hard definition of theory, because even scientists occasionally use theory as if it means new idea, or a "proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural." The Darwinist claim that "theory" is always and exclusively used by scientists to mean a verified and well-established explanation is a fiction invented by Darwinists seeking grounds to scold as ignorant those Darwin-skeptics who call evolution "just a theory."
The problem underlying debates over the proper usage of theory is that the term can have multiple definitions, even among scientists, ranging from "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions" to "a more or less verified or established explanation." But the upshot is this: Because the term "theory" can mean "a more or less verified or established explanation," it is inappropriate for a Darwin skeptic who is trying to communicate doubts about Darwin to use the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" line, because it ignores the truth that in many venues, theory does indeed mean, as WEUDEL explains, "a more or less verified or established explanation."
It seems clear that scientists can use the word "theory" to mean "conjecture," but it is also fair to say that typical circumstances, when scientists say "theory," they mean the hard usage of the term: "a more or less verified or established explanation." This thus leads to the question, under such a strong definition of the term, does evolution qualify as a theory?
Assuming that we are using the hard definition of theory, different people will give different answers to that question. Under such an understanding of the term, if we define theory as "a more or less verified or established explanation," then theory is in the eye of the beholder. Darwin-skeptics will not agree that neo-Darwinian evolution is "a more or less verified or established explanation." But Darwinists will agree. So the question over whether neo-Darwinian evolution should be called a "theory" is not the core question of this debate. A better question would be: "Is neo-Darwinian evolution 'a more or less verified or established explanation'?"
Darwinists have the right to believe that neo-Darwinian is a verified and established explanation--i.e. that it meets the hard definition of theory. But they do not have the right to insist that Darwin-skeptics must call evolution a "theory," so defined. While Darwinists are correct that the technical definition of "theory" means a well-established and verified explanation, they should not insist that evolution can never be called "just a theory." When they do this, they are actually imposing onto the debate their conclusion that evolution must be considered by all to be a verified and established explanation. Were they to tolerantly allow Darwin-skeptics to dissent from the orthodox neo-Darwinian position, Darwinists would not insist that Darwin-skeptics entirely abandon the phrase "evolution is just a theory."
However, given that the technical, scientific, hard definition of theory does typically mean a well-established and verified explanation, then it is best if Darwin-skeptics take the high road and avoid calling neo-Darwinian evolution "just a theory." And as we shall see in the next section, the question "is evolution a 'more or less verified or established explanation'?" is also a complex question, for it can also depend on the definition of "evolution."
A new article in Current Biology about Darwin Day celebrations quoted Johnjoe McFadden from the University of Surrey stating that "evolution is no longer just a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion. Scientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms." The leading 20th century evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr quite dogmatically (and wrongly) claimed that, "No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." Similarly, according to the ardently pro-Darwin U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), evolution is a "fact":
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, pg. 11 (National Academy Press, 2008).)
What these Darwinist authors miss is that the legitimacy of calling evolution a "fact" depends on the meaning of the word "evolution."
The debate over evolution can be confusing because equivocation has crept into the discussion. Some people use evolution to refer to something as simple as small changes in the sizes of birds' beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching. Used the first way, the term "evolution" isn't controversial at all; used the latter way, it's hotly debated. Used equivocally, evolution is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion. Darwin's theory is not a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments:***
So is evolution a fact? If by "evolution" one simply means "evolution #1," i.e. small-scale change over time within a species, then evolution is indeed a fact. No one disputes this kind of "evolution." Thus when Johnjoe McFadden states that "[s]cientists have measured evolutionary changes in scores of organisms" and therefore evolution "is as much a fact as gravity or erosion," he is stating the obvious because he is simply referring to evolution #1.
But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact.
A Closer Look at the NAS' Mistake
Finally, consider how the NAS defines evolution as a fact:
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, pg. 11 (National Academy Press, 2008).)
I won't dispute the NAS's definition of fact, but it's clear that unless by "evolution" they mean evolution #1, then there are many scientists who will disagree with their claim that evolution is a fact. However, the NAS DID define evolution as evolution #3, i.e. being driven by natural selection acting upon mutation-caused variation:
In the century and a half since Darwin, scientists have uncovered exquisite details about many of the mechanisms that underlie biological variation, inheritance, and natural selection, and they have shown how these mechanisms lead to biological change over time. Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts. … The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated.
(U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, pg. xiii, 12 (National Academy Press, 2008).)
The NAS is wrong. Since the NAS defines "evolution" as full-blown neo-Darwinian evolution, there are many scientists who will not agree that it is a fact.
Question 4. Is it best for Darwin skeptics to call evolution "just a theory, not a fact"?
In short, no. Having taken over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I'm a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. But I've long opposed using such a rhetorical line of "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" to oppose evolution because it gets you caught up in a semantic debate over the proper definition of fact and theory, and communicates very little about the most important component of this debate -- the scientific evidence. (For an early example of my writings on this topic, see my "Response to the ACLU ID FAQ.") I'll start with criticism of people on my own side of this debate by offering four reasons why I oppose using the "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" line:
1. The statement "evolution is just a theory, not a fact," hopes to convey some kind of skepticism regarding evolution, but it fails to adequately define the term. As we learned in Question 3, no one doubts evolution when it is defined as "populations of living organisms change over time." Evolution so-defined is an unquestionable fact. But when evolution is defined as "natural selection acting on random mutation serves as the primary driving force that built the complexity of life" or even "all species share a universal common ancestor" (collectively called "neo-Darwinian evolution") then you've traipsed into more controversial definitions of evolution.
2. The "evolution is just a theory" line is simply not a good way of expressing skepticism about neo-Darwinian evolution because it assumes that a theory is something which necessarily lacks evidentiary support. As we learned in Question 1, the problem with this phrase is that the word "theory" can indeed mean a scientific idea that is well-backed by large amounts of scientific evidence.
3. When someone says "evolution is just a theory," it sounds like the speaker cannot cite actual scientific evidence against evolution, and that the only objection the speaker can muster is based upon appealing to postmodern rhetoric which asserts that we really can't know if anything is true. The truth is that science is capable of studying the validity of historical scientific theories such as neo-Darwinism, but the "evolution is just a theory" line makes it sound like the speaker is not interested in studying or discussing that evidence. In the debate over evolution, discussions of evidence are what matter most. As stated previously, calling something a theory doesn't necessarily tell you about the state of the evidence. The best way to express dissent from evolution is to actually discuss its failure to explain the scientific evidence.
4. The "evolution is just a theory" line can come off as if the speaker really thinks "evolution is just a guess so I don't have to believe it if I don't want to." In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution as a whole is not merely a guess, and most Darwinian scientists will provide reasons why they think it is the best explanation for the diversification of life. If you're like me, and you think that neo-Darwinian evolution has scientific problems, then you should be able to provide reasons why you're a skeptic beyond stating "it's just a theory." As noted above, the best strategy is for you to be prepared to give a few specific scientific reasons why you question Darwinian evolution.
So if we shouldn't call evolution "just a theory, not a fact" then how should us Darwin-skeptics refer to evolution? Theory? Fact? Hypothesis? Something else? I'll explore this question in the final section of this article.
Question 5. All I wanted to convey is that I'm a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. How can I communicate such skepticism without stepping on a semantic land mine and getting scolded by Darwinists?
Great scientific claims must be backed by great scientific evidence. When most people claim that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact," what they really mean is that there is not convincing scientific evidence to justify the great claim that all life is related through universal common ancestry and that it evolved via an process of unguided natural selection acting upon random mutation. Doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution might stem from:
When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. According to the technical definitions of "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis," such neo-Darwinian evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's just a hypothesis."Closing Thoughts

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The problem of prosecutorial misconduct has not received nearly enough attention, even in the wake of Supreme Court decisions such as the one that nullified John Thompson's damages for wrongful imprisonment after his conviction was overturned.
Mr. Thompson was convicted of murder and spent 14 years on death row before private investigators learned that prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that would have cleared him at his robbery trial. Prosecutors also destroyed clothing that would have shown that his blood type did not match the blood on the scene.
His conviction overturned, Mr. Thompson was awarded $14 million by a jury for the wrongful imprisonment, but the US Supreme Court overturned it in what some called "one of the most cruel Supreme Court decisions ever," with Justice Clarence Thomas ruling that the district attorney can't be responsible for the single act of a lone prosecutor.
The New York Times argued his ruling protects prosecutors, giving them "nearly absolute immunity over civil suits."
However, despite the criminal prosecution of the prosecutor in the Michael Morton case, too often prosecutors are given immunity for misconduct that costs years of freedom to defendants and takes additional lives when the guilty go free, and there has been little focus on prosecutorial misconduct.
However, a dissent by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from a decision not to rehear U.S. v. Olsen, may change that.
In his dissent, he wrote, "There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it."
Writes Phil Locke, "Kozinski's statement is interesting, because it is recognizing that there is nothing in the law that punishes (sanctions) prosecutors for this unethical behavior. They are supposedly subject to sanction from their bar association, but guess what – this just about never happens."
He also notes that there has been some meager legislative progress; for instance the Michael Morton Act will go into effect on Wednesday and "goes farther than 'Brady' in that it requires disclosure of all police reports and witness statements, regardless of whether the evidence is material to guilt or punishment."
This weekend that case was given a huge boost by the New York Times in their editorial, "Rampant Prosecutorial Misconduct."
The Times writes, "In the justice system, prosecutors have the power to decide what criminal charges to bring, and since 97 percent of cases are resolved without a trial, those decisions are almost always the most important factor in the outcome. That is why it is so important for prosecutors to play fair, not just to win. This obligation is embodied in the Supreme Court's 1963 holding in Brady v. Maryland, which required prosecutors to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence that could materially affect a verdict or sentence."
"Yet far too often, state and federal prosecutors fail to fulfill that constitutional duty, and far too rarely do courts hold them accountable," the Editorial Board writes.
Last month, Alex Kozinski, as stated, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued the most stinging indictment of this systemic failure in recent memory. "There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land," Judge Kozinski wrote in his dissent from a ruling against a man who argued that prosecutors had withheld crucial evidence in his case. "Only judges can put a stop to it."
The Times notes, "The defendant, Kenneth Olsen, was convicted of producing ricin, a toxic poison, for use as a weapon. Federal prosecutors knew — but did not tell his lawyers or the court — that an investigation of the government's forensic scientist, whose lab tests were critical to the case, had revealed multiple instances of sloppy work that had led to wrongful convictions in earlier cases."
A state court found the scientist was "incompetent and committed gross misconduct."
However, "Yet the majority of the federal appeals court panel ruled that the overall evidence of Mr. Olsen's guilt — including websites he visited and books he bought — was so overwhelming that the failure to disclose the scientist's firing would not have changed the outcome."
"This is the all-too-common response by courts confronted with Brady violations," the Times continues.
They argue, "Judge Kozinski was right to castigate the majority for letting the prosecution refuse to turn over evidence 'so long as it's possible the defendant would've been convicted anyway,' as the judge wrote. This creates a 'serious moral hazard,' he added, particularly since prosecutors are virtually never punished for misconduct. According to the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, multiple studies over the past 50 years show that courts punished prosecutorial misconduct in less than 2 percent of cases where it occurred. And that rarely amounted to more than a slap on the wrist, such as making the prosecutor pay for the cost of the disciplinary hearing."
They continue: "Brady violations are, by their nature, hard to detect, but Judge Kozinski had no trouble coming up with more than two dozen examples from federal and state courts just in the last few years, and those are surely the tip of the iceberg. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 43 percent of wrongful convictions are the result of official misconduct."
"The Brady problem is in many ways structural," they write. "Prosecutors have the task of deciding when a piece of evidence would be helpful to the defense. But since it is their job to believe in the defendant's guilt, they have little incentive to turn over, say, a single piece of exculpatory evidence when they are sitting on what they see as a mountain of evidence proving guilt."
The key is: "The lack of professional consequences for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence only makes the breach of duty more likely."
As Judge Kozinski wrote, "Some prosecutors don't care about Brady because courts don't make them care."
The Times concludes: "Courts should heed Judge Kozinski's call, but it will take more than judges to fix the problem. Prosecutors' offices should adopt a standard 'open file' policy, which would involve turning over all exculpatory evidence as a rule, thus reducing the potential for error."
"Fighting prosecutorial misconduct is not only about protecting the innocent. It is, as Judge Kozinski wrote, about preserving 'the public's trust in our justice system,' and the foundation of the rule of law."
—David M. Greenwald reporting


text:
Contact: Karen England, 916-212-5607SACRAMENTO, Calif., Jan. 8, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ -- The coalition working to qualify a referendum to the ballot that would overturn a law forcing boys and girls in California's public schools to share school bathrooms, showers and locker rooms said it was pleased that the State has ordered a full check of signatures submitted based on results of random samples from the 58 counties.
Privacy For All Students predicted that a full check would result in many more signatures being validated than were projected in the sampling, and lead to qualification of the referendum for the ballot. Many critics had predicted that PFAS would not be able to collect sufficient signatures in the short period allowed to qualify a referendum, and that not enough of the signatures presented in November would be validated to allow for a full count.
"The people of California are entitled to have every valid signature on this referendum counted by elections officials," said Gina Gleason, the referendum proponent and a member of the PFAS Executive Committee. "We're pleased that the sampling of signatures conducted thus far has triggered a full count of every signature and we believe this full check will show we have enough signatures to qualify the referendum to the ballot."
Bowen said that a sampling of signatures in California's 58 counties projected that the referendum collected 482,582 signatures, enough to trigger a check of all the signatures submitted. Ultimately, 504,760 signatures are needed to qualify the referendum to the ballot.
PFAS noted that the sampling process utilized by the state has a high error rate and results in an excessive number of signatures being projected to be invalid.
"Unfortunately, the state changed the sampling process a few years ago to save money, resulting in many more signatures being improperly invalidated," said Karen England, a member of the PFAS Executive Committee. "With a full check, every signature is verified by elections officials and we expect that process will result in thousands of more signatures being found to be valid. When all the signatures are examined, we believe that we will have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot."
PFAS noted that they successfully sued Secretary Bowen over her refusal to count signatures from two counties and they would carefully monitor the signatures verification process to its conclusion. "We want to make sure that every signature is properly examined and that no signature is invalidated for trivial or bureaucratic reasons," Gleason said. "We will continue to carefully monitor the process."
PFAS also noted that many proponents of the new law are acting as if the law has gone into effect. The law was suspended with the submission of signatures by PFAS in November.
Paid for byPrivacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266660 J Street, Ste., 250Sacramento, CA 95814ID# 1359959


text:
This is from Universal Studios Orlando and outside of my range, but I couldn't resist sharing this photo of Gloria Estefan at the Florida park.
Estefan visited the East Coast edition of Halloween Horror Nights on Saturday with her husband Emileo, daughter Emily and friends, according to the press release attached to the image.
She submitted herself to a monster makeover from Universal's makeup staff and then terrorized park guests in a scare zone, according to the press release.
"The rhythm finally got me," she said when seeing herself made up as a vampire.
Here's another account of the evening from a blog called Behind the Thrills.
Even without Gloria, the rhythm will get you at Universal Studios Hollywood. The 2012 edition of "Bill & Ted's Excellent Halloween Adventure" is pulsating with dance music. Marking Universal's 100th anniversary, the opening number features a cast of scantily clad monsters from the studio's horror classics, including the Bride of Frankenstein, the Phantom of the Opera and even Quasimodo from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."
Click below to access our interactive map of Southern California Halloween events


text:
|You Are Here:
Description600 Denier Poly Canvas. Front slip pocket, zippered main compartment, pen and business card pockets, mesh water bottle pocket, side cell phone pocket, and shoulder length handles.
Product dimensions: 17"W x 14"H x 5"D.
Imprint area: 7"W x 5"H.
Price includes one color, one location Silk Screen imprint.
Item Colors
Blue, Light
Blue, Royal
Green, Apple
*Stock item colors shown on website are for reference only and may not match actual item color. Please request a sample for exact colors.
Additional Information
|Standard Production Time
|5 days. (Rush production may be available. Learn More)
|10.24 oz
|Multi Color Imprint
|Full Color Available
|Free Rush Production
|FREE 24 Hour Rush
|Company Picnic
|Family Reunion
|Poly Canvas
Question & AnswerAsk Question Live Chat
General FAQ
- Can I order this item blank/unimprinted?
- Can I request a sample of this item?
- How are shipping costs calculated?
- Can I order less than the minimum quantity listed on the website?
Knowledge Base FAQ
- What is jute?
- Do you have any recyclable custom tote bags?
- Do you have rush production available for custom tote bags?
- Can imprint my logo on both sides of my custom tote bags?
- Do you have any full-color custom tote bags?
- Can I have a second color imprinted on my tote bags?
Knowledge Base Articles
This product has not been reviewed. Be the first to review this product and share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
Create your own review
How to order


text:
im excited about this wiiware and i think itll cost 1500 wii ptsSquare Enixs latest upcoming Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles title is easily one of the most eagerly awaited titles for Nintendos new WiiWare service and with good reason; the game is looking particularly special as these latest screens and trailer will attest.
It is understood that the game takes place after the GameCube title that the gameplay revolves around creating a city. The player has to engage in quests in order to gain the materials needed to expand and develop.
The has also been given the official subtitle The Little King, which is a bit more manageable than The Little King and the Promised Land, which was the previously accepted translation of the Japanese title Chiisa na Ōsama to Yakusoku no Kuni Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles
source: http://www.vc-reviews.com/news/2008/..._media_blowout
in the site there is also a video about the jobs in the game


text:
ATLANTA (AP) - Georgia Tech forward Jason Morris is expected to miss three to six weeks following surgery to repair a stress fracture in his left foot.
Coach Brian Gregory says Morris, a senior, "had a great summer and fall" before needing Monday's surgery.
Morris averaged 3.7 points and 2.2 rebounds last season, when he missed 10 games due to plantar fasciitis in the same foot. He also had an injury to his left foot in his sophomore season.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
WTTG FOX 5 & myfoxdc5151 Wisconsin Ave. NWWashington, DC 20016Main Number: (202) 244-5151Newsroom: (202) firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Bo Derek Movies and Career Information
Nov 20, 1956
Long Beach
Bo Derek (born November 20, 1956) is an American film actress and model. Derek was born Mary Cathleen Collins in Long Beach, California. She is of Irish, French, Dutch and Welsh descent. Her father, Paul Collins, was a Hobie Cat executive, and her mother, Norma Bass, was a make-up artist and hairdresser to Ann-Margret. Derek's parents divorced, and her mother married American stunt performer Bobby Bass. Derek attended Narbonne High School in Harbor City, California. She then attended George S. Patton Continuation School, which is adjacent to Narbonne. Derek started modeling to pay for a new surfboard, and after a few shoots and a deodorant advertisement, she found she had a knack for performance. She secured a Hollywood agent, and on the audition trail met director John Derek, 30 years her senior. John filed for divorce from his wife, actress Linda Evans, and John and Bo moved to Germany to avoid John being charged with statutory rape under U.S. law due to Bo's being only 16. The couple returned to America soon after Bo's 18th birthday, and they married in 1976. They remained married until his death in 1998. Her first on screen performance was in Fantasies (1973). She made her
- Bo Derek Movies before 2013
- Boom 2003
- Malibu's Most Wanted 2003
- Master of Disguise 2002
- Shattered Image 1998
- Tommy Boy 1995
- 10 1979
- Orca


text:
Age 21
SignUp to Gain Full Access
Age when first shot: 19
Eye color: brown
Hair color: brown
Height: 5'3"
Weight: 97 lbs
Breasts: small
Shaved: shaved
Measurements: 35/24/35
Country: Russian Federation
Ethnicity: Caucasian
Email Your Comments
Get our newsletter and receive up to the minute show information and free content!
Spam is for jerks, and jerks we are not. We will never sell, share, or disclose your personal data.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. All models were at least 18 years of age when photographed.
Warning - This site contains adult material of a sexual nature - you must be of legal age in your area to view this material. All materials are copyright © 2014 SexArt.com.Owned and operated by Hydentra HLP Int Limited, Karpenisiou, 9, Strovolos, 2021, Nicosia, Cyprus


text:
We're SorryClose
Bow-Meow-Ween Pet Costume Contest
The Force is with her
- Contest Photo by: jliberatore44
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Category: Horror-ific Hounds
Brief Description:
I am an avid Star Wars fan. So when I saw this Yoda costume for my dog, I had to pick it up. I don't think she was as excited about it as I was though!
Contest Photo Tips and Guidelines:
- Avoid clutter. Keep the background simple -- your gingerbread house or holiday cookie is the star!
- Daytime, natural light is best. If your area is bright enough, try taking the photo without the flash.
- Upload a horizontal photo. If you crop the image on your computer, make sure you keep a landscape 4:3 aspect ratio.
- For best results, make your image 1200x900 (or "save for web").
- With a digital camera, you can take as many photos as possible and choose the best one. Have fun!


text:
We went to our friend's house this evening to change moods. Hubby went to play with his friend while I enjoyed my time with my girl friends. And here's Julia enjoying her time filling up this gallon with milk, leaving her bottle half empty! LOL! I thought she was just playing around with the gallon but then I found her unusually quiet so when I came to look at her, instead of scolding her, I took my phone and took a photo of her. LOL!
Look at that look? As if she bites!
"Don't mess around with me now, I'm focusing on filing up this gallon with my milk. Planning to have it delivered to Haiti babies."


text:
Home > Post > Post 13 > Post 13 News Release > 2011 News Releases > News Release
News Release
Trooper Jody Sims
Public Affairs Officer
Kentucky State Police
Post 13, Hazard
(606) 435-6069
Click here to e-mail Trooper Jody Sims
Letcher County pursuit
Date of News Release: 02/28/2011
(Hazard, Ky.) -- A 47 year old Letcher County woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a pursuit which happened along Highway 931 North in the Sandlick Community of Letcher County. The Kentucky State Police in Hazard received a call at 11:51 A.M. on February, 27, 2011 reporting Creeda M. Stallard came to a local church where she caused a disturbance before allegedly driving away intoxicated from the church in a 2008 Nissan Versa. Trooper Brandon Thomas along with Letcher County Sheriff's Deputy Crystal Davis who was patrolling the area located the vehicle. However, the driver would not stop and attempt to flee. After a pursuit covering more than 3 miles the driver of the vehicle Creeda M. Stallard was taking into custody charged with Wanton Endangerment of a Police Officer 1st Degree, Resisting Arrest, Disorderly Conduct, Operating a Motor Vehicle Under The Influence of Drugs, Fleeing or Evading Police 1st Degree in a Motor Vehicle, Reckless Driving along with several other traffic Charges. Stallard is lodged in the Letcher County Jail.


text:
A blogger from Bruins Nation responds to a sports writer from Yahoo! in defense of the freshmen in UCLA's basketball program.
Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N Ok, it's been 2 days. I think I'm ready to get back at it... Reading Nestor's post today inspired this, but blame me if you disagree. Leadership is a tough thing to...
Bruin Nation urges patience following UCLA's basketball loss against Michigan.
What is the good, the bad and the ugly of UCLA's exhibition game versus the Biola Eagles?
From the OC Register's UCLA blog: Basketball coach Ben Howland said he expects forward James Keefe to lead the Bruins in rebounding this season. Howland was excited about the fact Keefe had...
As we wait impatiently for the start of the "Neu Era," we also contemplate the impact of the new Ben Ball Warriors as the 2008-2009 roster becomes clearer. Yes, we will miss Russell Westbrook and...
Bumped. Wanted to make sure more folks got to read this excellent take that went up over the long weekend. GO BRUINS. -N Really quick update here: I just read more closely, and realized that there...
As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.
Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.
Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.
As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.
Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.
We'll email you a reset link.
If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.
You must be a member of Bruins Nation to participate.
We have our own Community Guidelines at Bruins Nation. You should read them.
You must be a member of Bruins Nation to participate.
We have our own Community Guidelines at Bruins Nation. You should read them.
Choose an available username to complete sign up.
In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.


text:
The Sermonator quietly walks into the center of all the bustling TST activity, places his wooden crate on the floor, steps on top, clears his throat and speaks with a noticeable level of confidence. He's not always right, but he's not short on opinions.
1) The Rams are not going to trade up: I don't think Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are dummies. I don't think they are gullible. I don't think "draft hype" would influence them to change their minds about who to select in this draft. Just because they like T Rich and they like to run the ball doesn't mean they're willing to trade away valuable draft picks to move back up when they just moved down. T Rich didn't get faster or more elusive just because some "experts" have been projecting where he's going in the draft, and adding him to our current roster isn't going to fix anything in and of itself. And picking him and releasing SJax would make as much sense as selecting RGIII and getting rid of Sam Bradford. One could argue that either would be an upgrade; you may be getting a slightly better player, but you're essentially wasting a high draft pick on something you already have. We have four first round picks over the next two years to replace Jackson… if we don't find the future replacement in the 2nd or 3rd round this year.
2) Blackmon is without question a #1 receiver: Being a #1 receiver is not determined by a player's size or his speed. And it's certainly not determined by his ability to run all the routes on the "tree"… really? I can run all the routes on the tree! I may never be open and I may require oxygen, but I can "go down there and turn left". That's something goofy analysts created to have something else to talk about. In reality, there's only one way to determine a #1 receiver: Production – Period!
Calvin Johnson is the epitome of #1 no doubt about it… but Wes Welker is a #1 just the same. So are Andre Johnson, Stevie Johnson, Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings (two #1s on GB, 1a and 1b), AJ Green, Roddy White, Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, Brandon Marshall, Kenny Britt, among others.
Technically, every team has a #1, but obviously some are #1s by default. (The Rams had Amendola in 2010 and Lloyd in 2011)
You can debate all you want to, but there's only one fool-proof way to determine if a receiver is a #1 or not… look at the players who occupy WR1 or maybe WR2 on a Fantasy Football team. The only requirement to occupy those spots is production. Blackmon may not be a WR1 in every league this year, but he probably will be a WR2 at least.
Coming out of college, Blackmon has a better pedigree than almost anyone in history. Way better than Julio Jones and AJ Green last year and even better than Megatron. Clavin Johnson had 130 catches his final two years of college, for 2090 yards and 21 TDs. Blackmon had 232 catches for 3304 yards and an astonishing 38 TDs. If you watch video on Blackmon all you see is major production. You cannot say that Blackmon won't be very good in the NFL any more than you could say Megatron wouldn't be good. Blackmon was a man among boys. He won two consecutive Biletnikoff awards. That means he was the best!
He may not ultimately turn out to be the best pro coming out in this draft, but he's going to be a #1 and he's going to be really GOOD!
3) The Rams might be good this year: I posted a week or so ago that we need to just accept the fact that the Rams aren't going to be good this year. They're rebuilding. Let's get a few pieces in place this year and then maybe next year we can make our move… but I'm such a homer that I'm willing to also believe the opposite… that the Rams might actually be good now!
With the right draft picks, with good health, and with a brand new attitude from the top down, anything is possible. Frisco should be very good, but I don't think that either Seattle or Arizona were out of reach last year and they haven't done anything significant to distance themselves this year. When it's all said and done, the Rams will have probably improved more than they have. So, it's possible.
We need a couple of really good offensive linemen from this draft, and we need at least one young gun at WR (if healthy, Steve Smith should make up for the loss of Lloyd and Amendola is back.) Blackmon, Floyd, Randle, or Jeffrey could get it the job done.
Then spend the rest of the draft on the defense and who knows? We might just have some postseason fun this year. It's going to be great no matter what happens… but winning makes it taste a lot sweeter.


text:
Please visit the State of Delaware's Bid Solicitation Directory at bids.delaware.gov to view all open RFPs.
- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE DELAWARE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND EXCELON CORPORATION FOR PERMISSION TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 26 DEL. C. SECTIONS 215 and 1016 - PSC DOCKET NO. 14-193. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE DELAWARE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND EXCELON CORPORATION. Please see the invitation to bid for more information.
Responses to Questions Received From Prospective Bidders Regarding PHI-Exelon Merger:
Q. Will there be an extension of the statutory 120 day deadline for a Commission decision on the merger?
- A. Staff will request an extension in their opening order once the application has been filed. We expect to request an additional three months.
Q. Does the Commission charge the company for the cost of the Commission merger approval process?
- A. Yes, but through the budget process the Commission has a limit on its spending authority no matter what the source of the funding.
Q. Does the RFP request include a request for outside counsel?
- A. No, this RFP only seeks consulting assistance. Any request for outside counsel would be a separate RFP process.
Q. Can an electronic copy of the proposal be substituted for one or more hard copies?
- A. No, we cannot waive our hard copy rule.
Q. What is the budget for consulting assistance?
- A. We have no specified budget for this project.
Q. Do you accept bids on a subset of the items in Task 1 and 2?
- A. Partial bids are accepted.


text:
While he repeatedly attempted to hide his condition from the company, Jerry Lawler was sent to the hospital from Monday Night Raw to be checked on. His son, Brian Christopher, was the one that alerted management, who then forced the commentator to leave.
Apparently, Eva Marie has been hospitalized for some undisclosed injury. The WWE diva posted a message on Twitter from her hospital room during Monday Night Raw. She also noted that the E! network sent her some flowers as well.
Jillian Hall has been hospitalized with head trauma. The former WWE diva stated that she had fallen down the stairs at her boyfriend's house, but it's uncertain if that reasoning was a serious tweet or just a joke.
While many are under the impression that the bridge has been burnt between the two sides, Jay Lethal recently revealed on Twitter that he was very much willing to return to TNA if the money and the situation was right. No word yet on whether or not the company is interested.
Despite being just 28 years of age and being viewed as one of the better performers on the independent wrestling circuit, there has been very little interest in WWE of bringing former TNA star Jay Lethal on board. He will more than likely stick with ROH for the time being.


text:
While [[Performer~P99346~Umberto Lenzi~umbertolenzi]] began the Italian-made cycle of brutal Amazonian cannibal horrors with [[Feature~V31138~Il Paese del Sesso Selvaggio~themanfromdeepriver]] and effectively ended it with the nauseating [[Feature~V127251~Cannibal Ferox~cannibalferox]], it was [[Performer~P87514~Ruggero Deodato~ruggerodeodato]] who directed the subgenre's most enduring film. This popular bloodbath features a fetus ripped from a woman's body, people impaled on spikes, a genuine tortoise-flaying, and numerous other indignities, both real and simulated. The plot concerns the efforts of a group of American explorers to discover the fate of a missing documentary film crew. They receive a scratchy film-reel containing the bloody truth from a tribe of tree-dwelling natives, and the reel's contents make up the bulk of the film. Advertisements claimed that "the crew who filmed it were actually devoured alive by cannibals," yet most of them were spotted alive in future unsavory gore films. While the film is undoubtedly gruesome enough to satisfy fans, its mixture of nauseating mondo animal slaughter, repulsive sexual violence, and pie-faced attempts at socially conscious moralizing make it rather distasteful morally as well. The fact that the film's sole spokesperson for the anti-exploitation perspective is played by porno star [[Performer~P7140~Richard Bolla~richardbolla]] should give an indication of where its sympathies lie. ~ Robert Firsching, Rovi
Movies.com, the ultimate source for everything movies, is your destination for new movie trailers, reviews, photos, times, tickets + more! Stay in the know with the latest movie news and cast interviews at Movies.com.


text:
FABBS Twitter Feed is Now Live: Follow Us!
We are pleased to announce that FABBS now has a Twitter feed, and we hope you will follow us. We will post news that we think will be of interest to our community as it occurs. We will post announcements about special funding opportunities, our sciences in the news, and opportunities to join discussions of important matters affecting our sciences.
Two Twitter fans, Morton Ann Gernsbacher (FABBS Foundation President) and James Pomerantz (past-Past President of the FABBS Foundation), will be very involved in helping us get the messages to you.
To sign up for a Twitter account (needed to follow us), follow a few simple steps. If you are already a Twitterer, please follow us too! Please let us know if you have any questions. We are happy to get you started.


text:
- Address:
580 Geary St.
San Francisco, CA 94102Neighborhood:
Downtown / Union Square
- Cuisine:
Vegetarian / VeganPrice: $30 and under
- Dining Style: Fine Dining
- Website: http://www.millenniumrestaurant.com/
- Phone: 4153453900
- Hours of Operation:
Dinner: Sunday - Thursday 5:30pm - 9:30pm; Friday - Saturday 5:30pm - 10:30pm
- Payment Options: AMEX,Diners Club,MasterCard,Visa
- Cuisine: Vegetarian / Vegan
- Executive Chef: Eric Tucker
- Dress Code: Casual Dress
- Accepts Walk-Ins: Yes
- Additional Details: Bar Dining, Bar/Lounge, Beer, Farm to Table, Gluten-free Menu, Personal wines welcome, Personal wines welcome (corkage fee applies), Private Room, Takeout, Wheelchair Access, Wine
- Private Party Facilities: Millennium can accommodate groups of up to 120 people. Our private room seats up to 30 for sit down dinners and can accommodate 60 for a cocktail party/standing event.
- Private Party Contact: Alison Bagby 4153453900x13
A word from Millennium
Millennium, San Francisco's premier vegan restaurant, is proud to be regarded as one of the few places to get truly creative food. *LOCATED IN THE HOTEL CALIFORNIA*Continued
Foodspotting photosSee all photos
Millennium reviews from OpenTable diners
348 reviews since April 25, 2014
- Food4.6Service4.3
- Ambiance4.3Noise LevelModerate
fit for foodies (258)special occasion (247)romantic (182)notable wine list (90)neighborhood gem (87)good for groups (59)hot spot (40)vibrant bar scene (24)late-night find (21)great for lunch (12)kid-friendly (11)great for brunch (9)scenic view (2)great for outdoor dining (1)Show More
- Always a Great MealOpenTable Diner Since 2007Dined on 8/20/2014Amazing Vegan meal of intricate preparation and flavors. In previous visits I spent a lot of time reading through the detailed descriptions of the different menu items, often not fully appreciating what my meal was going to be. This time we did the prix fixe menu and had the simple choice of picking one of 2 entrees. All courses were a delightful adventure in taste and satiety. Compared to a few years ago, this meal still seemed hearty and filling but noticeably lower in fat and oil than previous visits - I think that is an improvement, very impressive meal in a class by itself. I could not make these dishes at home and have not found any other restaurant that even comes close.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- It's vegan,but ...OpenTable Diner Since 2011Dined on 8/19/2014... It's great. We would never have thought that "thoroughly gourmet quality" and "vegan cooking" could go together, but they do at Millennium. The dinner (for four) was excellent. The staff is young and friendly--typical of California, but not smarmy or over-ingratiating as we've sometimes experienced. Desserts weren't quite up to the level of the dinner, so you might consider skipping them (or just getting ice cream or sorbet), but they certainly weren't bad. The entrees were really excellent, though.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- SpectacularOpenTable Diner Since 2000Dined on 8/18/2014We did the Millenium Tasting Menu, which was 6 courses plus wine pairings for $100 each. Not only was the food absolutely exquisite, the wine pairings were perfection.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Outstanding!!OpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 8/18/2014This is more of a treat because of the high prices, but it was such a fantastic experience. I had the Taste of Millennium (the chef gives you 5 surprise courses) and every single dish was more than incredible. Our servers were charismatic and charming. Oh, and did I mention the food was delicious? As a vegan, it's difficult to find much variety in my restaurant options. But this place is wonderful for vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores alike!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- OpenTable Diner Since 2012Dined on 8/17/2014Millenium is wonderful! Great food, wine, cocktails & desserts! Service is warm & professional!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Good, not great.JessicaDined on 8/16/2014I was really excited to try this place after viewing the sample menu online. We went with a large party of people, some vegetarian some not. The sample menu was really easy, fun foods that I felt non vegetarians would love. The actual menu once we arrived was much different, and even as a vegetarian most menu options did not look great to me. We all had a good time, but the food was just ok. Some dishes were far better than others. Mine (a teff crepe) was definitely a miss. It was also a very very loud restaurant, so I would not recommend for a relaxing night.
- One word...GO!LivestoEatDined on 8/15/2014Do NOT allow a vegan menu to put you off whether you eat meat or not. There are few chefs today exhibiting such thoughtful, creative, well conceived dishes anywhere. That also applies to the dessert menu. The Pistachio crusted Portobello Mushroom was sublime, as was the Lemon and Blackberry Tiramisu. Ambiance speaks of energetic elegance and the service - in this case Devon- was extraordinary, far exceeding the white glove service I've received in Michelin rated establishments. A "must Go" in San Francisco!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Complex creationsEsther1958VIPDined on 8/15/2014The food was outstanding. It is not "simple veggie cooking" but highly complex with multiple ingredients and preparations in each dish. I wouldn't like to eat like this every day--but it is special and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks to the waitstaff for attentive service and excellent wine recommendations. This is the place to take people who think that veggie/vegan cooking is boring or lacking in nutrition!Special Features:
- SuperbAmandaDined on 8/15/2014Delighted, once again, with Millenium's menu, wine list and team. What a rare delight it is to be faced with a choice of vegan meals.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Was Besonderes!VolkerDined on 8/14/2014Dieses Restaurant ist wirklich was Besonderes. Vor allem da es allgemein nicht allzu viele vegane Restaurants gibt. Zum Abschluss unseres USA-Urlaubes und zu unserem Hochzeitstag genau das Richtige.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- RingLeader1VIPDined on 8/14/2014Always wonderfully prepared inventive vegan cuisine, and you do not miss the meat as the foods are so savory and rich!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Food and taste is an artnotVeganbutLoveDined on 8/14/2014I am not a Vegan but I went to this restaurant with a friend. I wasn't let down at all, in fact, it was way above my expectations. The taste of the food was, for lack of a better word, artistic. I could taste the richness and care put into the food. It was a great experience.Special Features:
- Fab veggieroyvoetenDined on 8/13/2014Loved every dish! Great service and wine pairings. One of the few restaurants we visited where they don't rush you through dinner.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Not just for vegansOpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 8/12/2014The food is creative and delicious. You don't have to be vegan to love this restaurant.Special Features:
- Artful vegan cuisineSusieQDined on 8/11/2014Love Millennium. Innovative menu. Attention to detail. Many ingredients. The care they take to ask about food allergies and prepare foods for diner's special requests speaks volumes.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Desserts to swoon forfieryblueDined on 8/11/2014Took the 18yo here for his birthday, as I had been promising him for years. The desserts stole the show. I am no stranger to excellent desserts, but those were two of the most excellent I've ever tasted. Blackberry compote drenched cake layered with blackberry mousse and the tangiest lemon curd ice cream, plus some savory caramel sauce artfully swabbed about the plate. The other was a fig tart... Moist fruits atop vegan creamy goodness in a nutty shell, and orange sorbet with melon bits. We had our eyes closed as we savored the flavors...Special Features:
- OpenTable Diner Since 2014Dined on 8/11/2014Probably the best vegan friendly restaurant period. Great food even if your not vegan. I am not and was surprised how well it was done.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Vege delight in the tenderloinDarrenhDined on 8/10/2014First visit to a vegetarian/vegan restaurant in the area. Food was well pulled together with many choices of wine. The foond really was good. The service was above average with attentive waiting staff regularly visiting the tabble. It's not cheap though!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Consistently goodAjoloteDined on 8/10/2014I have been going for years. The menu is always different, always deliciousSpecial Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- We loved our dining experienceJLlivermoreDined on 8/10/2014The food was off the chart good... the waiter made wonderful food recommendations (he came off not so friendly, but he was very efficient and spot on with his recommendation). I cannot wait to go back.Special Features:
- FantasticKWellsDined on 8/9/2014I always enjoy Millennium but tonight was extra special. We had a 4 course meal with wine pairing and every course was excellent. Wines paired very well. I can't wait to go back!Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- T & ROpenTable Diner Since 2011Dined on 8/9/2014A friend of mine recommended Millennium to me, it is his wife's favorite restaurant. It is organic and vegan....even if you are a carnivore, you will love this place! It is a bit pricey, so I would consider it a special occasion restaurant. It also has ambience. We will definitely be going back there on our anniversary.Special Features:
- Incredibly good for anyone/everyonefoodpassionVIPDined on 8/8/2014The best, we will come back again every chance that we get. Thanks for a wonderful birthday celebration for our son, Logan!Special Features:
- Just Great FoodMarinDined on 8/8/2014The fact that it is completely vegan is just a great bonus.Special Features:
- Always impressedmidtn4dinnerDined on 8/8/2014Great choices and mucho flavor in everything. One of my favorite SF restaurants.Special Features:
- Superb vegan dining experienceOpenTable Diner Since 2010Dined on 8/6/2014We met our 22 year old nephew and his girlfriend on their first trip out to San Francisco. She is a vegetarian and we thought we would try this highly recommended restaurant near downtown where they were staying. Well, all of us found something to really enjoy and the service was outstanding without being too noticeable. I would recommend it and use it again.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Gourmet vegan foodVeganGalDined on 8/6/2014It is not easy to find gourmet vegan food and Millennium is special. We enjoyed a big variety of cocktails, appetizers, salads, mains, and desserts and each one was delicious. The optional wine pairings with the prix fixe dining were great, too. It was fantastic, healthful food presented beautifully. It is our all-time favorite restaurant.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- One of the best vegan anywheremorrisDined on 8/5/2014Excellent vegan restaurant. Many dishes are just vegetarian dishes. A few have protein, such as tempeh. Fine dining, suitable for entertaining business associates. Service is friendly, not pretentious. Staff can recommend dishes, and describe anything on the menu in detail. We had four people sharing three things for each course. Restaurant is very popular, it is a little noisy.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Outstanding!kevmonadoVIPDined on 8/4/2014Even if you are not a vegan, this place is amazing. The creative use of ingredients and the wonderful favors are amazing! The chocolate layer cake was enough reason to return! Great service as well. Two thumbs up from us!Special Features:
- OpenTable Diner Since 2012Dined on 8/4/2014Tasty, beautiful presentations. Flavorful and fresh. I am by no means a vegetarian and would dine here again.Special Features:
- Great food, bad service.OpenTable Diner Since 2010Dined on 8/3/2014Hands down the best vegan good in San Francisco. Service not so much. Asked the waitress what are some of the popular dishes she said she can't answer that, but will tell us some of her favorites. Okay, I'm okay with that. However, she named the dishes and before we could order our start dishes she walked off. Also, there were a number of birthdays that night. The other tables had the wait staff sing happy birthday to them. She walked over to the table put the piece of cake down and walked off. No happy birthday, nothing. I really didn't care, but it bothered my friend who said she specifically asked them to sing happy birthday. Again, the food was great, service was not so pleasant.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Overall good, but bday was missedSLRbabeDined on 8/2/2014We went here to celebrate a 40th birthday. As always, food was excellent. Unfortunately, even though we let them know in advance we were celebrating a birthday, our server never brought the candle lit dessert. We were very disappointed by this omission. While perhaps a small gesture on the part of the restaurant, it really was an important part of the celebration. To have it missed put a damper on an otherwise enjoyable evening.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Slow ServiceAnonymousDined on 8/2/2014The waitstaff took 25 mins to take our order, and then was extremely slow for giving us our bill. Otherwise great experience.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Vegan at it's best!dineout4funVIPDined on 8/1/2014Wasn't expecting much from a vegan restaurant, but was I ever wrong! Everything, from the Pistachio Stuffed Dates, Grilled Flat Bread to Dark Chocolate Hazelnut Layer Cake, was simply amazing and elegantly presented, along with impeccable service and relaxing, quiet ambiance. The chef creates magic using fresh seasonal ingredients, so the menu changes frequently, and it's global cuisine caters to every palate whether you're a carnivore or vegetarian/vegan or a flexitarian like me. I am already looking forward to my next visit soon.Special Features:
- Creative tasty cuisineveguyVIPDined on 7/31/2014I've been going to Millennium for two decades and the cuisine still pleases. The winemaker dinners (about once a month) are the the most creative meals that I've had, and they are both surprising and delicious. The other special event dinners are wonderful too.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Will not returnJSKM4Dined on 7/31/2014Made a reservation through OpenTable. Was not notified of any changes to the menu (not even when i received a confirmation call from the restaurant the day before). Arrived on time and had to wait for table. Received Prix Fixé menu and told after being seated that it was their once a year Market Special. Both the appetizer and the entrée had eggplant which was poorly prepared - completely underwhelmed by the presentation and mostly the flavour. All of us left most of the entrée on the plate. The salad and the 2 tbsps of chilled gazpacho were good but not enough to warrant the price. There are many restaurants in the area that accomodate vegetarians/vegans which i would choose over this restaurant.
- Splendid - as alwaysHenryDined on 7/29/2014The food here is a must. Try the pistachio stuffed dates ...had them for starters and for dessert :-)I would recommend this to a friend.
- Millennium never disappointsMrYesterdayDined on 7/29/2014We happened to have our vegetarian daughter in town the week of our anniversary. Usually we find something else to do in the city, but this time we set aside just time for dinner, and the drive up from San Jose...because, worth it! Accommodation for my allergies and everyone's palette: Trumpet mushrooms! Jerk tempeh, as delicious as it is surprising. Share the thyme-roasted carrots. Many tastes--especially salads and garnished sides--get to blend on the palette and not before keeping everything interesting. Make a reservation because Millennium fills up and diners take their time...though we were accommodated nicely despite a significant traffic delay on the way in.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Wonderful food.GwenDined on 7/29/2014So happy we decided to eat at Millennium during our 4 days trip to San Fransisco. Delighted to be able to eat great vegan food made with fresh ingredients. Would love to have this restaurant back home in New Orleans.Special Features:I would recommend this to a friend.
- Great vegetarian findgimmieartDined on 7/27/2014It's fantastic to have a nice, sit down, elegant restaurant to go to with all vegetarian options. The food was plated beautifully. The staff was courteous. Overall, I had a great time.Special Features:


text:
The English Football League Championship playoffs are among the most entertaining set of matches anywhere in world football on a year to year basis, but the first legs of the 2011 playoffs left the fans feeling unsatisfied and wanting more. Both ties ended in 0-0 draws, but neither had a lack of scoring chances. Poor finishing and great goalkeeping kept the scores level, setting up some potentially close second legs. As it stands, the chances of a Welsh team making it to the Premier League look high, as both Swansea City and Cardiff City take draws back home, where they will be favored against their respective opponents, Nottingham Forest and Reading.
Swansea will be without 22-year-old defender Neil Taylor, who was shown a straight red card for a challenge just a minute into the first leg. Swansea have appealed his suspension, but there's a good chance that's not getting reversed ahead of Monday's game, mostly because Taylor actually put his studs into the thigh of Lewis McGugan, and the incident was not a figment of Mark Halsey's imagination.
While Swansea will not have Taylor available, veteran Garry Monk is more than capable. They were actually the better side for about half of the first leg, despite playing on the road with 10 men, so they will be favorites at home, as they should have 11 men for more than one minute . Striker Fabio Borini, who was substituted out for a slight knock as a precaution, is expected to return to the starting lineup. He will be flanked by speedy wingers Nathan Dyer and Scott Sinclair, who looked great in the first half of the first leg.
Forest have a variety of dangerous strikers, but none of them were able to hit the back of the net last week. They're likely to regret that, as the team as a whole and Robert Earnshaw in particular will probably have less shooting opportunities than they did in the first leg. However, if they can find shooting opportunities, Earnshaw and Kris Boyd finish more often than not.
Cardiff should be favorites in the other match, but they're in a bit of a race against the clock to find out how heavy of favorites they are. That's because the extent of Craig Bellamy's hamstring injury still isn't 100 percent certain, and he's currently a game time decision for the second leg of their playoff semifinal against Reading. Bellamy was substituted out in they first half of the first leg, but his injury was not serious. What's yet to be determined is if it was so minor that he can play again less than a week later.
Reading have a clean bill of health, so for them, it's all about getting their players on form. Shane Long was lethal in front of goal this season in the Championship, but he didn't look like a 20-plus goal scorer in the first leg. Reading's chances of advancing hinge heavily on Long's ability to score, and he's going to have to step up his game if the Royals are to get back into the Premier League.