text:
Me'am Lo'ez, hailed as "the outstanding work of Ladino literature." Written by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, one of the greatest Sephardic sages of his times, the book was first published in 1730. It changed the spiritual climate of the entire Mediterranian region.
Eastern Jews esteemed Me'am Lo'ez as a major classic, affording it the same status as the Talmud and Mishnah. Reading it each day was a religious duty; it was a highly popular text for synagogue classes held each evening.
Many count Me'am Lo'ez among the best commentaries ever written on the Torah - in any language. The book is a veritable enclyclopedia of Jewish knowledge.
Giftwrap is not available for this set.
|Related Items

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Northern New York Newspapers
- Watertown
- Ogdensburg
- Massena-Potsdam
- Lowville
- Carthage
- Malone
- NNY Business
- NNY Living
- NNY Ads
CANTON St. Lawrence County is accepting applications from volunteers interested in serving on its advisory boards, committees and councils that accept community participation.
A list and summary of each committee, as well as any vacancies, are available on the county website, www.co.st-lawrence.ny.us/Departments/BoardofLegislators/Boards/.
Interested community members may apply by completing a biography, available on the website, or by requesting the form from the Board of Legislators, 379-2276.
Thousands of readers like you have made Northern New York Newspapers the number one ranked website* for local news and sports coverage in the north country.
You can continue on to this article in a few seconds, or you can visit one of our websites:


text:
Our natural area rugs are a wonderful alternative when you want only safe, organic materials in your home. Our sisal rugs are all-natural, made from the sisal plant that originated in southern Mexico but now gros in Tanzania, Kenya and other regions around the world. They're durable and anti-static, making them ideal for high traffic areas such as living room or foyer. In addition to being practical, they also create a beautiful, natural appearance when placed on a hardwood floor.
*Please choose Custom Rugs or Standard Sizes below.
Product Info
Tightly woven and full of natural style, our Studio sisal rug is just what the decorator ordered for your space.
- 100% Natural Sisal Rug, Earth Friendly
- Hand Crafted and designed by Artisan Rug Maker. Made In USA.
- Wide Cotton Canvas Border & Non-Slip Latex Backing
- All rugs can be made in 13 different binding colors
- Naturally Durable and Great for High Traffic Areas
- Variations are part of the Natural Beauty of Natural Fiber Rugs
- Sisal is anti-static, sound-absorbing, naturally resilient & fire-retardant
- FREE mitered/standard corners on all rugs
- Click here for Wall to Wall
More Info
- For special/complex shapes and sizes, please send a drawing indicating size/dimensions (click here for sample) via Fax (323) 582-1117 or email us: Customer Service.
- We recommend using Host Dry Carpet Cleaner for spills and accidents
Please Note:
The color may vary from the actual color of the rug due to different monitor settings. We recommend you purchase an actual sample swatch before you order.
Shipping Info
- Free Shipping within Continental USA
- Ships out in 3-7 business days from our Los Angeles warehouse
- Additional charges may apply to oversized rugs for freight fuel surcharge.
- International Shipping Available.
|Binding Color:
|Eco Rug Pad:
|Yes No
Border Color: not chosen
Size: Weave: Studio
Shape: not chosen
Border: not chosen
Corner Style: not chosen
Border Color: not chosen
Size: 0'-0" Long By 0'-0" Wide
Yes, recommended to a friend.Always Top Quality February 14, 2014
"I love buying from Natural Area Rugs. I have ordered a total of 4 rugs now and each time they have been exactly what I wanted. They are beautifully crafted and each order has arrived quickly even when if they were custom
Yes, recommended to a friend.Excellent Rug October 28, 2013
"I am soooo happy with this rug. It just came today and it looks AMAZING!!!! I would recommend this and will probably purchase more products from this company in the future. The only part I was not satisfied with was the rug pad. Not the greatest quality. I'm not using it."
Yes, recommended to a friend.Outstanding November 06, 2008
"Top quality at a better price than I could find in any store. Customer service is great. I ordered another one an hour after the first one arrived."


text:
The Federal School Code for Shippensburg University is 003326.
Students should complete an electronic Master Promissory Note (eMPN) in order to borrow a Federal Direct Loan or a Federal Direct Graduate PLUS Loan at www.studentloans.gov.
Parents may complete an eMPN in order to borrow a Federal Direct Parent PLUS Loan after April 1st at www.studentloans.gov.
Prospective and returning students should complete the FAFSA as soon as possible.
Due to federal privacy laws, you must call (717) 477-1131 for individual student information.
General financial aid questions can be addressed by e-mail at email@example.com. Please provide the student's Shippensburg University ID (if applicable) in all e-mails.
Fax: (717) 477-4028
Go to FAFSA
Academic Calendar
Semester Information
How to Pay for College (college.gov)
2015-2016 academic year Parent PLUS loan applications may be completed on studentloans.gov beginning April 7, 2015. PLUS loan credit decisions are made immediately upon submission of the application. A follow-up email with the credit decision is also sent by the U.S. Department of Education to the parent borrower's email address. PLEASE NOTE: applications may be completed at this time, however, the actual loan will NOT be added to the student's financial aid award package until after July 1, 2015.
As a member of Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), Shippensburg University can offer a quality education at a surprisingly affordable cost. However, many students still need financial assistance in order to attend college.
Students are encouraged to file a
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) between January 1 and March 31.
The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) requires the FAFSA to be received by the Federal Processor no later than May 1 for Pennsylvania State Grant consideration for PA residents. Completing your federal tax return prior to completing this application is highly encouraged as the FAFSA refers to specific lines on the tax return.
When you complete and submit your FAFSA you will receive a confirmation code and an Expected Family Contribution (EFC) from The Department of Education. The EFC is used to determine your eligibility for certain federal grants and various types for financial aid. The EFC does not represent what you will pay for college but rather what the Department of Education suggests you are able to pay. The financial aid office imports records from the Department of Education on a daily basis.
When information is available (mid to late March), students will log on to the Student
myShip Portal by following the appropriate instructions under the
Financial Aid Student Portal Tab on this page to check their Financial Aid requirements, award packages, and accept, reduce or decline aid.
Students who accept any part of their Federal Direct Loans as part of their aid package and have not previously completed a Master Promissory Note (eMPN) and Entrance Counseling at
www.studentloans.gov should complete these requirements as soon as possible in order for your Federal Direct Loans to disburse timely. Students are encouraged to complete the FAFSA early to avoid processing delays. For additional information, students and parents are encouraged to follow the instructions under the
Aid Checklist and Timeline.
This page is an official publication of Shippensburg University: A member of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Shippensburg University - 1871 Old Main Drive - Shippensburg, PA 17257 - (717) 477-7447
Ask a Question/Provide Feedback | Right-to-Know Policy | Privacy Statement | View on Mobile


text:
|Crimestoppers Seek Info on Boone Assault
|Written by Steve Frank
|Monday, 25 March 2013 13:07
Boone Police have an assault under investigation, and need citizen help in finding suspects. Last Friday evening, March 22nd, a white male was found severely beaten near the Boone Trail Motel, near 275 E King Street. The victim was transported to the Watauga Medical Center ER
for treatment and was subsequently transferred to Baptist Medical Center in Winston Salem. Police were able to determine that the victim had been in the downtown business district prior to being found. Anyone with information on this crime or any other crime is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 828-268-6959 / 828-737-0125 or the Boone Police Department at 828-268-6900. All information will be kept confidential. High Country Crime Stoppers pays rewards for information, which leads to arrests; recovery of stolen property; seizure of drugs and the location of wanted persons.
|Share This Article:


text:
No matter what type of event you are planning In United States USA, if you need to hire magicians, illusionists or entertainers for hire in United States USA and nothing less than cunning, magical entertainment that differs from "the norm" will do, then there is no need to look any further!
Aedryan Methyus has a wide array of different magic show packages available for you to choose from, which will allow you to select the type of magic show that will suit your needs, the audience and your budget exactly. You simply will not find other magicians, illusionists or entertainers for hire in United States USA with as many options and show features available! With over 15 years of experience in performing magic and illusion professionally worldwide, for audiences from all walks of life, you can be absolutely certain that Aedryan will not fail to provide the most appropriate magical entertainment for you and your guests.
Whether your event will be held in the largest of civic arenas and requires only the largest and most visual magic or illusion shows United States USA magicians or illusionists have to offer or in a small club, a banquet room, a school or college or even in your living room, with a lifetime collection of cutting edge magic and illusion to select from, Aedryan has a magic show that will accommodate virtually all performance situations. Whether you want a comedy magic show that will have your guests laughing hysterically from beginning to end, an enormous illusion show that will leave them in awe or a spooky and mysterious bizarre magic show that will have your guests swearing they witnessed actual miracles, you can be certain that Aedryan will bring a high caliber, highly interactive magic show, full of audience participation that will be appropriate for your group.
Simply choose the magic show that's perfect for you! Please take a look at Aedryan's Magic Show Packages for a complete listing of all of the different magic shows Aedryan currently has available. There are MANY to choose from and Aedryan also offers different versions for many of his shows as well!
Whether your venue/event is large or small, you can be certain that Aedryan is GUARANTEED to design and custom tailor a spectacular evening of intimate magic and illusion that suits your needs, as well as your budget. If Aedryan fails to create a magical experience for your guests that they will never forget and if they do not laugh, clap and have a great time – the performance is FREE!
Once you have decided which magic show would be perfect for your event, please fill out Aedryan's convenient Client Inquiry Form at no obligation or send and email to email@example.com, along with the details of your event and contact information and someone will get right back with you. Please be sure to include the city, state and zip code of where your event will be held and a phone number you can be reached at.
Please be sure to read our Talent Buyer's Guide to see the many ways Aedryan Methyus differs from "the norm" and learn things about hiring magicians that EVERY talent buyer in United States USA NEEDS to know before they hire magicians, illusionist or entertainers for their event!
"Strange Happenings" ™
Full stage theatre production of enormous proportions. Consists of never before seen large scale grand illusions and MEGA illusions, captivating ghostly themed bizarre storytelling magic, mentalism and impossible psychic predictions. Read More….
"Forbidden Magick" ™
What real magic looks and feels like! This very unique theatrical masterpiece is truly one of the most detailed bizarre magic acts in all of magic. This ghostly themed bizarre magic act touches audiences on many deep visual, emotional and psychological levels. Read More….
"Illusions By Aedryan"
This more "commercial" illusion show features large scale grand illusions and lots of audience participation magic. Guaranteed fast paced, high energy, magical evening of entertainment, which can be setup in just about any environment! Read More….
"Las Vegas Style Cabaret Magic"
For this upscale "commercial" cabaret magic show, Aedryan and his assistant present illusionettes, lots of audience participation, comedy magic, mentalism and create an atmosphere for your guests with stage lighting. Read More….
"One Man Standup Magic Show"
This hassle free one man standup cabaret magic show makes for a highly entertaining evening of high quality, high impact magical entertainment that is very efficient for clients with limited budgets or performance space limitations. Read More….
"ADULT Comedy Magic Show"
If you have a wild and crazy group of adults, who will not be easily offended and want a comedy magic show that is on the risqué side, this is it! Features Aedryan's original comedy magic and other rare comedy magic pieces you won't see anywhere else! Read More….
"Closeup Magic Show"
For close-up/walk around magic shows, Aedryan will stroll throughout your venue/event and perform intimate close-up sleight of hand magic and highly interactive magic, which in many cases, happens right in the audience's hands. Read More….
"Children's Magic Show"
Aedryan's children's magic shows will help make any children's event just as fun and laughter filled for the adults as it will be for the children. Aedryan's children's magic shows are a guaranteed way to create memories that will last a lifetime! Read More….
Thank you for your interest in Master Magician/Illusionist – Aedryan Methyus. We look forward to working with you to help make your event spectacular!
Here's Why Talent Buyers In United States Should Hire Magicians, Illusionists And Entertainers In United States USA Direct Instead Of Using One Of The "So Called" Online Magician's Booking Agencies To Hire Magicians, Illusionists And Entertainers For Hire In United States USA
Simply put, 99% of the websites you will find online that claim to have "AMAZING UNITED STATES MAGICIANS", illusionists and entertainers for hire in United States USA are NOT entertainment booking agencies at all whatsoever! The fact is, United States magicians, illusionists and entertainers who may be for hire in United States USA, simply pay a fee, as well as a hefty commission to some slick webmaster, in order to be listed on their websites. The United States magicians, illusionists and entertainers for hire in United States USA on these websites are not screened in any way, shape or form, nor are their credentials verified. These "magician's booking agents" will gladly list any United States magician, illusionist or entertainer on their website who is willing to pay ridiculous fees and do "cheap magic shows". This is NOT the high quality magical entertainment your event deserves!
When someone who wants to hire United States magicians, illusionists or entertainers for hire in United States USA goes to these "We've Got AMAZING UNITED STATES MAGICIANS For You!" websites and fills out one of their forms, the "lead" is sent out to several magicians, illusionists and entertainers for hire in United States USA. The United States magician who bids the lowest price to do the magic show is your "AMAZING UNITED STATES MAGICIAN" and ALAKAZAM! Talent buyers have their "cheap magicians" and the webmaster (again, NOT a talent agent), who knows absolutely nothing about magic, magicians or even the entertainment business, makes more money off of the commission.
We have found that many of these webmasters are actually charging United States magicians, illusionists and entertainers up to 100% commission for these bookings! That means that YOU, the talent buyer, who is under pressure to hire high quality United States magicians, illusionists or entertainers for your special event in United States USA, end up paying over twice as much for less than professional entertainment!
Here's What Makes Methyus.com The Better Choice
Aedryan handles most of his own bookings directly and ALWAYS works closely with each of his clients one on one to make certain they are getting the best possible magic shows to suit their needs and that their budgets can afford. On occasions when Aedryan's performance schedule prevents him from having initial contact with his clients, his management team, who KNOW the magic business, as well as Aedryan's magic shows, work one on one with his clients in the same professional manner until Aedryan becomes available. If you need to hire magicians, illusionists or entertainers for hire in United States USA with an impressive list of proven credentials and satisfied clients from all over the world and you are not willing to compromise the integrity of your establishment, event and even your own reputation by taking a chance on less than professional United States magicians, who provide "cheap magic shows" then Aedryan Methyus is the perfect solution for you!
Hire Other/Additional Magicians, Illusionists And Entertainers For Hire In United States USA At Methyus.com!
Besides being the management of Master Magician/Illusionist – Aedryan Methyus and producers of professional magic shows and illusion shows in United States USA, we also offer free referrals to other types of United States entertainers for hire in United States USA whenever we are able to. Whatever your event, if you are actively seeking to hire United States magicians, illusionists or other entertainers in United States USA or would just like to learn more about magicians, illusionists and other entertainers for hire in United States USA, you have come to the right place. If for whatever reason Aedryan is not able to personally provide magical entertainment for your event, we will be happy to refer you to other qualified magicians, illusionists and entertainers for hire in United States USA. Either way, our goal is to help corporations, entertainment venues and individuals who are seeking to hire high quality United States magicians, illusionists and other entertainers for hire in the United States USA, receive the highest quality magic shows, illusion shows and other entertainers, so they can be assured that their entertainment budgets are being well spent.
Unlike 99% of talent booking agencies and event planners who have magicians, illusionists and entertainers for hire in United States USA, who are simply buried among an array of other United States magicians, illusionists, entertainers and other event related services, we KNOW magic and the magic industry. It is our specialty! We work closely with Aedryan and other United States entertainers to not only understand the needs of entertainment buyers, but also to enable us to share valuable and informative insight with our clients, which will give them peace of mind in knowing that when they hire Aedryan or other referral magicians, illusionists or entertainers in United States USA from Methyus.com to perform magic shows, illusion shows or other forms of entertainment, the entertainers will meet their needs exactly, no matter where they are in United States USA. When we refer other United States entertainers to companies and individuals you can be certain that we will not recommend any other magicians, illusionists or entertainers for hire in United States who do not display the same level of professionalism as Aedryan.
If you are seeking to hire entertainers in United States USA that provide other types of entertainment besides magic, we are always happy to provide talent buyers with free referrals to other quality United States USA entertainers for hire in United States USA as well. Though, we do not manage other United States USA magicians, illusionists or entertainers, please be assured that any entertainers we do refer to clients throughout United States USA, have been thoroughly screened and have proven themselves to be professional, working entertainers in United States USA. You may request other entertainers for hire in United States USA by filling out one of Aedryan's Client Inquiry Forms and letting us know what other types of United States entertainers you are in need of. Once we have selected qualified United States entertainers for hire in United States USA, we will send you their contact information and you will have direct contact with each of the entertainers that we recommend to you and we DO NOT charge a commission!


text:
We are Debbie and Peter Payne and we have been running our bed and breakfast since 1999. We love what we do and want to ensure if you book...Read more...
Whether it is a seaside break, a U.K holiday or a business trip to Bournemouth, you are looking for,The Rosscourt offers you the space, comfort and friendly child free environment to relax, unwind and enjoy.
We are just a short walk away from Boscombe Beach, part of the 7 mile coastline of Bournemouth. If it is retail therapy you are after, our High Street is just around the corner and has a huge variety of quirky shops, as well as an indoor Shopping Mall, cafes and a couple of great bars with live music and quizzes for evening entertainment. For fans of live music The O2 Academy is just 500 yards away.
Central Bournemouths' main town centre, with the hustle and bustle of nightclubs, bars, restaurant's and casinos ,along with The Bournemouth International Centre and Pavilion theatre are just 1.5 miles away from our door.
For footy fans AFC Bournemouth's ground is less than half a mile away and supporters are always welcome at The Rosscourt.
We are motorbike friendly, as Peter drives a Ducati Multistrada, he can help guide you to the best roads for a relaxing drive.
In short The Rosscourt is an ideal base for your next break or business stay. Debbie and Peter look forward to meeting you!
Take a virtual tour below.


text:
This major is for liberal arts students interested in the study of society, structures, social processes, and human interaction. These range from two-person interactions to relations between large social institutions to relations between nations.
Read more about the Sociology major »
Read more about Sociology minors»
Read more about Sociology thematice sequences»
Social Justice Studies (SJS) explores the ideals of justice, the realities of injustice, and practical solutions to bridge the gaps between the two. SJS covers a broad range of issues including economic justice, environmental justice, criminal justice, and fundamental human rights. It also covers a broad range of solution sets including policy-making, community organizing, social protest and restroative justice.
Read more about the Social Justice major »
Read more about Social Justice minors»
Read more about Social Justice thematic sequences»
The gerontology major has a strong liberal arts focus that includes an applied perspective. A comprehensive undergraduate gerontology education places you at a competitive advantage in the job market, graduate school admissions, and career success and satisfaction.
Read more about the Gerontology major »
Read more about Gerontology minors»
Read more about Gerontology thematic sequences»
We are a community of scholars who share concern for the structure of the social world and its resultant inequalities. We specialize in the study and teaching of social stratification and social inequalities, broadly defined. We work together to create a department with different disciplinary identities, specialties, and interests. We aim to appreciate and respect one another's different research areas, research methodologies, theoretical perspectives, teaching approaches, and service contributions. We value the activist potential of the disciplines of sociology and gerontology. We strive for engaged teaching, research and learning.
The mission of the Department of Sociology and Gerontology is to provide its students with opportunities and the expectation to be active learners fully engaged in exploring our most important societal issues, including social justice, aging, and criminology. Our commitment to these goals serves to promote life-long learning, a richer understanding of the social world, and a realization of the activist potential of our disciplines.
375 Upham Hall
100 Bishop Circle
Oxford, OH 45056
Dr. Jennifer Kinney, Chair
Andrea Parks, Program Assistant


text:
Financial Aid FAQs
The following are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) about financial aid at New England Law | Boston. If your question is not answered here or you need further information, please contact the Office of Financial Aid at (617) 422-7232 or firstname.lastname@example.com and we would be happy to assist with your financial aid questions!
For "law school FAQs" about Admissions, please visit our Law School Admissions Questions webpage.
Applying for Financial Aid
What is the financial aid application process at New England Law?
What is New England Law's FAFSA code?
What is financial need, and how is it calculated?
What determines eligibility for federal aid?
I am an international student. How can I apply for funds?
What information must I submit to be considered for financial aid?
What financial aid deadlines should I be aware of?
How long will it take for me to hear about my financial aid award?
What steps should I take after I receive my award letter?
Receiving Funds
How long will the process take to apply for and receive funds?
What should I do to ensure disbursement of my Federal Stafford Loan funds?
What should I do to ensure disbursement of my Federal Perkins Loan funds?
What should I do to ensure disbursement of my Federal Graduate PLUS or Private Loan funds?
When and where can I receive my refund check for living expenses?
Federal Work-Study Program
How do I apply for Federal Work-Study?
Loan Repayment
What should I do before my loans enter repayment?
To be eligible for financial aid, you must:
- be a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen,
- be registered at least half-time,
- be registered with the Selective Service (if required),
- be enrolled in a degree program,
- not be in default or owe a refund on any federal grant or educational loan, and
- have good credit history (for Grad PLUS/private loan approval).
During the academic year, your enrollment status must be half-time or greater, which is equal to 6 or more credits, to remain eligible for federal aid. During summer programs, half-time or greater is considered 3 or more credits.
- Incoming Students: The Office of Financial Aid reviews your financial aid after you are admitted. All students should should expect to hear about their award two to four weeks after their file with the office is complete. If considerable time has passed since you submitted the materials, please contact us. We can confirm whether we have received all necessary materials and have the correct mailing address for sending your award letter.
- Returning Students: Returning students begin to be reviewed in May. Students can expect to begin receiving their award letters by mid to late May, assuming your file was completed on time. You are able to check the status of your materials through the Financial Aid page on NECIN, to make sure everything that's needed for review has been received. Students who have applied for Summer Work-Study will receive an email regarding their work-study awards in early May, prior to the start of the summer work period.
- Merit/Scholarship Students (Returning): Merit students should expect to hear about their financial aid award two to three weeks after the Office of Financial Aid receives the final grades information from the Office of the Registrar (assuming your file is already complete).
All financial aid application materials should be submitted by the appropriate deadlines. Failure to do so may delay the arrival of funds to New England Law.
International students who are coming to New England Law and are ineligible for federal loans may email the Office of Financial Aid for a listing of appropriate private lenders along with an estimated budget.
Loan applications are processed after eligibility is established. Funds for the academic year are not disbursed to the school until at least 10 days prior to the start of your academic program; refunds are not allowed to be issued until the first week of classes. Funds applied for after the initial disbursement in a semester may take 2-4 weeks to be received.
Provided you submitted all application materials on time, funds have been disbursed on time and your tuition balance is already paid, refunds are generally available during the first week of classes. The refund checks are handled by the Office of Student Accounts, located at 46 Church St., 2nd floor, and are typically issued Wednesdays and Fridays, after your funds have posted. Refunds are split during the year, according to the loan disbursements - one in the fall and one in the spring.
Please note: Refunds are NOT available prior to the first day of classes in any semester, regardless of situation. Federal regulations prohibit us from releasing funds to students prior to that time.


text:
Creativity Studies
Creativity and Writing, 2/201302/06/2013
1.) "The Benefits of Poetry for Professionals" by John Coleman: Click here to read: "Wallace Stevens was one of America's greatest poets. The author of 'The Emperor of Ice-Cream' and 'The Idea of Order at Key West' was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1955 and offered a prestigious faculty position at Harvard University. Stevens turned it down.
Creativity and Education, 1/201301/30/2013
1.) "Top 10 Skills Children Learn in the Arts" by Valerie Strauss: Click here to read: "You don't find school reformers talking much about how we need to train more teachers in the arts, given the current obses
Enhancing Creativity01/23/2013
1.) "7 Creativity Tips from a Top Mathematician" by Hillary Harkness: Click here to read: "As an undergraduate, I studied calculus and physics; when I became an artist, I remained fascinated with the question of what artists and mathematicians can learn from one another. That's why I wanted to talk with mathematician Steven Strogatz, the New York Times columnist and author of the new book, The Joy of X..."
Creativity Journals, 1/201301/23/2013
1.) Coreopsis Journal of Myth & Theatre: "Coreopsis is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal dedicated to humanistic scholarship in the arts of sacred performance in areas of interest that include - but, are not limited to - ritual studies, liturgical considerations, musicology and composition, dance, folklore, mythology, historical research, theatre arts (including technical aspects), mythopoetics, ethnography and selected areas of psychology, brain science, neuraesthetics, cybernetics and the science of thought, shamanic studies, and consciousness.&rdqu
Creativity and Writing, 1/201301/22/2013
1.) "13 Famous Writers on Writer's Block" by Emily Temple: Click here to read: " The philosophy behind NaNoWriMo is pretty simple: get the words — 50,000 of them, to be exact — on the page. But what if you experience that dreaded writer's block while you're chipping away at your "Great Frantic Novel"? Never fear, you're not alone.
Artistic and Academic Fellowships and Residencies, 1/201301/08/2013
1.) The Bogliasco Fellowship: The Bogliasco Fellowships, due January 15th, are awarded, without regard to nationality, to qualified persons doing advanced creative work or scholarly research in the following disciplines:
- Archaeology
- Architecture
- Classics
- Dance
- Film/Video
- History
- Landscape Architecture
- Literature
Upcoming Events in San Francisco, CA: February, 201212/21/2012
1.) CREATIVITY FORUM 2013 presented by Center for Childhood Creativity
"Featuring Dr. Kenneth Ginsburg on how creativity and resiliency are critical for preparing our children to thrive in an unpredictable world."
Friday, February 8, 2013
11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
The Ritz Carlton Hotel, SF, CA
Click here for more information
Creativity Journals, 12/201212/21/2012
1.) Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts: Click here to learn more: "Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts is devoted to promoting scholarship on how individuals participate in the creation and appreciation of artistic endeavor. To that end, we publish manuscripts presenting original research on aesthetic perception and on all facets of creative behavior, production, thought, and development.
Creativity and Cognition, 12/201212/21/2012
1.) "The Parallels between Our Highly Wired Minds and Networks: Q & A with TED author Tiffany Shlain": Click here to read: "Can we draw instructive parallels between the development of the human brain and the emergence of the electronic global 'brain' of the Internet? New research in neuroscience suggests that, yes, we can.
Creativity and Mental Health, 12/201212/21/2012
1.) "Creativity Tied To Mental Illnesses Like Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia in New Swedish Study" by LiveScience: Click here to read: "Last year, researchers at the Karolinska Institutet near Stockholm found that families with a history of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were more likely to produce artists and scientists.


text:
|Bears Host Fort Valley State Saturday
|Written by Staff Reports
|Monday, 12 November 2012 10:03
For the first time in 50 years, the Lenoir-Rhyne University Football Team has earned a berth to the postseason. This selection to the playoffs is also the first as a member of NCAA Division II for L-R.
Lenoir-Rhyne (8-2), the third seed in Super Region No. 2, will host sixth-seeded Fort Valley State (8-3) next Saturday at Moretz Stadium in the First Round of the NCAA Division II Playoffs.
2012 NCAA Division II Football Playoffs
FIRST ROUND - Saturday, November 17, 2012
SECOND ROUND - Saturday, November 24, 2012
|Share This Article:


text:
20 comments:
- Daniel said...
I tried to post this at Dave's site, but Haloscan cuts off the comment length at 250 words.
Dave's words are in italics:
generally this indicates a less-than-stellar foundational Christian teaching
So him being in trouble is worse than you losing faith? Seems odd to claim, esp given some Biblical characters, whose troubles were always overcome by faith, rather than vice versa.
Even that won't suffice to prevent apostasy if there are other deficiencies because the mind is only one aspect of a well-rounded faith.
Do you think that belief is not a completely mental affair?
Much philosophy can make one go astray as well, if too much skeptical and fallacious philosophy takes hold on one's brain. But in the end it comes down to God's grace and whether we accept it and continue to live by it, or reject it.
I can honestly say that this is why I no longer believe -- atheological and philosophical arguments.
It seems you have an interesting change-up in views -- before you are emphasizing the integral issue of apologia, now you are cautioning those who may want to build defenses not to allow "much philosophy" to "take hold"...how can a Christian interested in answering doubts and such know which philosophical ideas will "take hold", and does this "taking hold" indicate that the philosophical arguments are actually strong?
Your answer seems to waver here as you indicate God's grace, something that always seems difficult to flesh out from free will. Do you think God's grace may be lessened or withdrawn if someone is reading "bad" philosophical ideas? Do you liken such reading to going into a strip club and expecting God to protect you from it? The philosophical arguments are as "seductive"? Is it perhaps because they are sound and difficult to reply to?
There is a reason many Christians lose their faith in college.
I wrote a post on this phenomenon. Do you think it possible that it is because many Christians are insulated from the most serious objections to faith, and evidence that damages their conception thereof? I certainly do. I think this is a huge reason for it -- the whole reason for going to college is to enlarge your borders/perspectives/knowledge, but this is dangerous to any religion. All religions work via identifying "us/them" and most have a protective effect (purge "them" if they infiltrate "us").
lest we get duped by truly stupid, utterly unnecessary dichotomies such as this "dogma vs. philosophy" or "faith vs. reason" claptrap
Responding to this adequately would take a lot of time, so I would just quote Aquinas and Gregory the Great:
Aquinas said, ""If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith." He admits this directly after quoting Gregory the Great, "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience."
Surely you will admit that a careful handling of dogma, philosophy, faith and reason does lead to some dichotomies? Esp the problem of revelation v reason?
in the end, belief-systems must be analyzed of their own accord.
I agree, but we must keep in mind that Xianity has a particular truth claim to evaluate and analyze that involves the indwelling, sanctification, etc., of the believer. One of the few truth claims that we can evaluate just from observation.
The fact that my wife or child may die or that my reputation is ruined, or that I go bankrupt or get a fatal disease, or become handicapped due to an assault has nothing to do with, that I can see, of whether the truth claims of Christianity are acceptable or not.
It certainly depends upon your interpretation of Xianity, doesn't it? Some going through such tragedies would point to the covenant nature of Xianity, and question if God was involved in another "bet" with the devil. Some would question the idea that God speaks to them at all, if they spend hours each day "communing" yet had no warning whatsoever that their child had an advanced stage of cancer and that no one knew until it was too late...etc., etc. Surely you can see how the question of the relationship of the believer to God falls under this category? There are many teachings about the "covenant", and so I would think you could see some falsification potential here.
People know that's not possible on merely human power alone. It contradicts everything we know about ourselves.
Ah, so you believe in Allah now?
He shows poor hermeneutical skills here.
And this is what Steve Hays would say to you. (Steve is a YEC) And AiG, and ICR, and etc., they all have their "experts" who would disagree with your interpretation of Genesis and its exegesis.
That's the view of many of us Christians, and we're not all losing faith like John. Quite the contrary. I've been doing Christian apologetics for 25 years now, and I've never been caused to doubt my faith as a result of further study (and I've done tons of that). I've always had my faith strengthened, in defending the faith, seeing how solid it is on rational grounds, and observing the weakness of attacks upon it.
Up above, you cautioned those who would delve into "much philosophy". Do you see how one could read your words before, and these words, and see a bit of a contradiction? Either you can admit that there are rational grounds for rejecting Christianity or not, but you seem to admit there is some sort of grounds that people do, upon having "too much [secular] education"...
No, but they could explain how a person would be more open to thoughts of a contrary nature to Christianity, if one is going through a period when he wonders about why God might do thus-and-so, or not do this or that, and if Christians are not being particularly consoling or understanding of his crisis. We don't develop in a vacuum.
Ah, now we're back to the catch-all factor: God's grace...
There is no question that this happens, and that intellectual rationales are only the merest facade for the real or far more important reasons.
Sometimes it does, just as many people merely believe out of tradition, fear or hope, and not serious rational analysis.
One thing to keep in mind though is that freedom does not necessitate atheism. Rejecting Christianity is just that, and it leaves one with quite a number of options for "freedom" if that is all they want -- from Buddhism to Krishna to any other Eastern philosophy, then to a sort of open/loose theism or deism, then agnosticism...etc.
Everyone wants others to think that they made these big changes in opinion based on complete rationality and objectivity.
I agree -- we all want to at least THINK that we're rational, and appear that way to others.
But any look at ourselves quickly disabuses us of that notion: at least in any pure sense.
That's a difficult claim to back up. First, looking inward is subjective, definitionally. Now, we all act irrationally at times, and often in retrospect we can even see it and admit it. But to say what you've said, bereft of argument, is...well...just another assertion.
I wonder if he still does, and if not, why atheism would change a respect for the rights of the most defenseless and innocent of human beings? It seems to me that the pro-life position is almost self-evidently right and moral, without the necessity of any theological basis.
I will admit you will find some sympatheis with me, esp regarding late-terms. However, in the end, it comes down to a question of value -- what makes human what they are, what gives them rights, and what rights does one have over their own body?
I choose to place someone's legal right to decide whether they will abort a 2-3 month old fetus above any presumed "rights" of something which can rightly be described as less complex, less value-laden in the biological and psychological sense, than a mouse. I think the difficulty in separating this from theology lies in the concept of value -- Xians believe the soul itself is an embuement of value.
It did? Not if it doesn't exist!
He certainly should've stated this (and the next statement) otherwise here. The only way to make sense of it, in light of his perspective now, is to inject, "What I thought of as..."
But Christianity (rightly understood) is the remedy of that, not its cause.
Hardly. Christianity creates guilt for normal and biological urges and behaviors. It is a source of much guilt where there is no moral argument contrariwise, especially with respect to doubt, sex, self-interest-first behavior...etc.
Yeah, me neither. Very good question.
Want a speculation? I'll bet it's because there are far fewer "true Christians" than you'd want to believe, and most just go through the motions out of tradition, to keep up appearances, and because of family. Just a speculation...
Does John give far less to charity than he used to, because he is free from guilt?
Speaking for me only, I now see the huge waste in tithing that could be going to real charities -- places that use >90% of their resources to actually help people, rather than provide infrastructure and etc. for their organizations. Here's what I did this past weekend (Amber is my wife and I took that picture).
I see. So the more we can sin, the less guilt we feel? That couldn't be more opposite of the truth than it is.
Perhaps the better way to see this is, "Why adopt ridiculous notions of perfection that don't comport with reality, which induces guilt, rather than building an ethical system that actually comes into contact with real life, and living by it, so that you don't have to deal with guilt?"
I'd lay my "sins" on the table next to anyone else's, any time. I'm a quite transparent kind of guy. People know when I feel bad, and I am a terrible liar.
That's how I (admittedly, probably cynically) read this. So he has simply gone from overscrupulosity (one extreme, and a distortion of Christianity and discipleship), to another (a marvelously "guilt-free" existence: so he says, anyway). But I don't believe it. I believe guilt is there, down deep, and knowledge of God is there too (buried and suppressed).
You believe that...and maybe you're right, although you have no evidence, but you also should consider that people are the products of their environment, and John was a minister for a very very long time. You don't "shake off" deep-seated convictions overnight, nor the guilt response you've held since you were 18. [assuming you're right]
Two considerations:
1) Do we justify Jesus' words that it is the same to hate someone as to murder? Was this merely a metaphor to point out that bad thoughts are bad? Ditto with adultery/lust?
2) His point is that overscrupulosity can be avoided by saying, "How silly is it to think that we can control our thoughts!"
But I have never doubted the fact that God loves me and that He is merciful and all-loving.
Never doubted that, eh? I guess some of us can believe easier than others. I always had doubts, and fears of going to hell, ESP as a devout Christian.
Nor do we see even a trace in this in someone like the Apostle Paul, who has a confident, almost boasting faith.
The least of the apostles? The guy who appealed to people he knew in order to make his case that he was authoritative in knowing what God wanted?
The guy who said he was "a Pharisee of the Pharisees" and killed Christians earlier in his life?
Perhaps he just wasn't as well-endowed (conscience-wise) as some of us, huh?
So this becomes a major factor. Personal elements that made John feel this excessive guilt and inability to accept God's mercy and forgiveness, are neither Christianity's nor God's fault.
I'll agree with you on this -- guilt and community should have very little to do with our analysis of Christianity.
Personal elements aren't determined or caused by God? So the density of one's conscience (a cultural and mental phenomenon) has nothing to do with God? How sovereign is your God?
- October 16, 2006 at 8:06 AM
- Daniel said...
PS: Back to the charity aspect of things, we had a post about it a while back.
Don't want to sidetrack the thread, tho.
- October 16, 2006 at 8:13 AM
- John W. Loftus said...
I know there are a few Christians who visit here regularly who knew me when I was a Christian. They could easily dispell the false assumptions and distortions Dave writes about. Why? Because they know/knew me. But to do so they would have to reveal their names, since an anynomous poster would be dismissed out of hand. And they have reasons for not doing so. Suffice it to say that I was every bit the Christian that Dave now claims to be, except that I was a much better apologist than he. He can dispute this all he wants to, since he doesn't know me. Fine. I can say no more.
- October 16, 2006 at 2:47 PM
- Matthew said...
While the tone of Dave's critique is a bit pleasant and not really nasty, I am reminded of when Frank Walton wrote a very short critique my deconversion story, pretty much attacking me as being weak-minded. He believes that I would still be a Christian today if I only had a more indepth Christian education as far as apologetics goes.
He couldn't be more wrong. I wouldn't be a Christian today if being a Christian meant spending "eternity" with him. At least Dave Armstrong seems a likeable kind of a guy, whereas I consider Walton to be a first class slimeball trailing closely behind Robert "Head-Up-the-Ass" Turkel.
- October 16, 2006 at 3:21 PM
- John W. Loftus said...
Matthew, you're right. I'm just tired of pompous asses on the internet who go around claiming they are superior to me in terms of intelligence and faith. Such arrogance makes me vomit. I'm an easy target, because they simply didn't know me. People like Dave would've looked up to me back then, but he has the audacity to go around claiming he is superior to me in both intelligence and with a deeper faith. I seriously doubt that he is, given what I've read from him. I was a much better apologist than he is now. And there probably are people smarter and with a deeper faith than I had too, so that doesn't bother me. It the self-assured arrogant idiots out there, like Dave, who prefer to proclaim off of my personal experience that they are better than I. The fact is they do not know this! I'll say it again. They do not know this!
- October 16, 2006 at 4:32 PM
- Daniel said...
The only person I delete every comment left by is FW. Let's not even mention his name, as it improves his ego and hit count.
- October 16, 2006 at 6:06 PM
- whizler said...
I don't believe Dave Armstrong's response was directed at you personally. Why?
It's my belief that apologetics is aimed not so much at the non-believer, as the believer. The role of the apologist, in my experience, is to provide some kind of response to attacks on the citadel of belief. The content and veracity of the response is of secondary importance to the fact that a response was made, because it allows a believer to remain comforted in his/her belief knowing that the charge was answered. The average Christian can say, "John Loftus? The ex-Christian? That Dave guy showed John's de-conversion was simply a matter of incorrect understanding. I need not concern myself with his story." As you know, apostates are extremely embarrassing for a faith. An attempt—any attempt—to show that some Fatal Flaw in their character was the cause of their apostasy will be readily grasped at. Apologists are simply fulfilling the demand.
This role is readily evident in Mormon apologetics, where attempts to buttress the Book of Mormon's all-but-evaporated credibility has reached comic proportions. Since I've been reading Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle," I see many of the same dynamics at work in apologetic reviews of this book.
My advice: don't take it personally. While you may be the putative target, it's a different audience Dave is speaking to.
- October 16, 2006 at 7:03 PM
- Dave Armstrong said...
So, lessee. First, according to John, I was ignorant (about the whole problem of evil issue). Oh, before that John claimed that I denied that it was even an issue at all (which is grossly untrue). Then he went on to claim that I am particularly "cocksure."
Then after my critique it was that I thought I was a better person than he is and thought he was dishonest. Now I am a "joke" and he was a much better apologist than I am and had more faith to boot, back in his Christian days (that's obvious, isn't it: he now being an atheist?).
I don't respect people as people, or folks who disagree with me. I supposedly think I am smarter than him. Now I am a "pompous ass" and "self-assured arrogant idiot."
Sounds real rational to me . . .
Finally, someone has a lick of sense in the comments and recognized that the wild charges of "personal attack" are unfounded (though with a strong atheist / agnostic / skeptical bias nonetheless). My replies are in brackets, interspersed:
At 6:03 PM, October 16, 2006, whizler said...
I don't believe Dave Armstrong's response was directed at you personally. Why?
It's my belief that apologetics is aimed not so much at the non-believer, as the believer. The role of the apologist, in my experience, is to provide some kind of response to attacks on the citadel of belief. The content and veracity of the response is of secondary importance to the fact that a response was made
[the last sentence is untrue. If an apologetic is based on falsehood, it is worthless, even if effective. If I didn't believe Christianity was true, I wouldn't devote my life to defending it.]
, because it allows a believer to remain comforted in his/her belief knowing that the charge was answered.
[of course I would say it really was answered, not only pretended to be answered to supposedly comfort the ignorant and deluded]
The average Christian can say, "John Loftus? The ex-Christian? That Dave guy showed John's de-conversion was simply a matter of incorrect understanding. I need not concern myself with his story."
[hey; no one is dealing with my actual reasoning except for Daniel Morgan, in part. That is supposed to show us Christians that atheists have a better case?]
As you know, apostates are extremely embarrassing for a faith.
[I don't see how. Every belief-system has people who forsake it for something else. Why should that be embarrassing?]
An attempt—any attempt—to show that some Fatal Flaw in their character was the cause of their apostasy
[I don't regard faulty premsies and thinking as necessarily a character flaw: only if it was deliberate, and I didn't claim that John's errors were that]
will be readily grasped at. Apologists are simply fulfilling the demand.
. . . My advice: don't take it personally. While you may be the putative target, it's a different audience Dave is speaking to.
[it's true that the apologist's main audience is the Christian, because they are the ones I am trying to equip to have a rational, defensible, plausible, cogent faith. I don't expect to persuade any atheist. If it happens, it's an extra "bonus." My job is to defeat the "defeaters," as Alvin Plantinga would say.
If John Loftus must take that personally, when it has nothing to do with that at all, and must do so in every conceivable universe, so be it. His hyper-sensitivity and ultra-thin skin are beyond my control, and I think at least two people here can see that (for which I thank them).
If we want to talk "personal", just count up all the name-calling, epithets and rank insults John has made towards me. All I've done is basically protest against those and called for calm, rational discussion minus those silly distractions.
Dave Armstrong
- October 16, 2006 at 7:59 PM
- Dave Armstrong said...
It occurred to me that if John Loftus is SO much sharper than I am, and SO much of a better apologist for the faith he later abandoned, then why is it he fundamentally misunderstands the role of the Christian apologist and who it is they primarily write for?
* * *
Also, here are some comments I made on my blog that should be considered (at least by still-rationally-functioning minds that haven't gone off into the stratosphere tilting at windmills).
The following words are all my own, posted on my blog under my critique:
1) Quite the contrary; we're all sinners. No one is any better, at bottom, than anyone else. Whatever good is in us is because of God's grace, not our inherent superiority to someone else.
2) I simply disagree with your positions and your denigration of Christianity. Your position is not you. If you write about such things publicly, then do you not expect that Christians will respond to them? You actually encouraged me to respond to your deconversion, so I did.
3) I never remotely implied such a thing; nor do I believe it. Your problem (at least insofar as this version of your story suggests) is intellectual, not a matter of dishonesty. Bad premises lead to bad conclusions. I didn't see anything that would bring any Christian doctrine into question at all. Sorry, that's my honest opinion. Or am I dishonest?
4) Well, I know one thing: you are extremely sensitive to Christian critiques, even when done respectfully and not attacking you as a person or immoral scoundrel, etc. I can understand that, but it has the effect of alienating those (such as myself) who simply don't have the attitudes you are attributing to them.
5) I understand that many Christians have treated you rottenly. I've seen some recent things that shocked me and were terrible witnesses to Christianity. That's contemptible. But I am not among them. I don't share their attitudes. I never said you were especially evil (more than any other sinner, of whom I am foremost) or damned, etc. Catholics (to their credit, and we have many faults, believe me) generally don't do that. We leave those judgments up to God.
6) You think I've attacked your person? Good grief. You should see the amazing things that are written about me. And the worst comes from fellow Christians (some of them even Catholics).
7) Now get this straight, John (in big capital letters):
Got that? Now if you say I am lying, then obviously all discourse is over. But it wasn't because of me. God is my witness for that, and also (since you think He doesn't exist) all who have read our exchanges.
8) Is that why I spent a good 3-4 hours last night, answering to the best of my ability? If I didn't take you seriously, I would simply ignore you, just like I do (almost always) the anti-Catholics, liberal Catholics, "traditionalist" Catholics, flat-earthers, etc. You have it exactly backwards, and it is amazing how often you do that.
9) I was simply resplying to the reasoning you gave. Sorry you don't like that, but this is how intellectual exchange works. It's astonishing to me that you have such a thin skin, especially since you have an academic past. Are you truly this unable to withstand any critique? If so, then I suggest to you that you don't encourage a person to analyze your deconversion, if this is how you're gonna react. It'll keep your blood pressure down to an acceptable level.
10) If I failed to give you sufficient benefit of the doubt, I apologize. I thought I had done so, but maybe not. One can always be more charitable, no doubt.
11) What did I prescribe? Faith in God? Imagine that! An apologist suggesting that faith in God and God's grace might do someone some good. LOL
12) It has little to do with how "smart" or "stupid" one is. Rather, all Christians must be equipped to deal with objections or they will be in trouble. I'm writing this paper mostly for the benefit of Christians, so I can help them avoid your sad fate.
13) It's partly intellectual and partly a loss of faith. No Christian can believe apart from God's grace and his own faith. This is what we believe. I'm sorry if it offends you to state it.
14) Of course there are hundreds of particulars I don't know about. I'd have to see those to comment.
15) But if your brief deconversion is so woefully inadequate, why put it on your blog at all? Of what good is it if it doesn't explain 1/100th of your journey? Why don't you take it down? It will actually mislead people, if it is so bad and utterly incomplete. . . . take the Reader's Digest version down since no one can understand you without reading your book. I find that strange. I don't require someone to read any of my books before they would have the slightest inkling of the cause of my conversion. They can learn that in about 15 pages. Anyone who has a head on his shoulders should be able to summarize complex reasons into an abridged version. This is the heart of what it means to be a good teacher. In my upcoming book I had to take major Christian doctrines and distill the defense of them into two pages each. This was very difficult! I think you could do similarly with your deconversion: certainly in 20-30 pages folks could get the main reasons for it.
16) I would be happy to read it [John's book] and reply, provided I get it in html or Word or some computer format, for free. I also would need to see some semblance of open-mindedness and good-natured spirit of dialogue from you before I would even consider spending that much time. I spent four hours last night. To answer your book with another million objections to Christianity would take possibly an entire week or more (if I were to devote myself to a thorough dismantling of the atheology therein). But if all you intend to do is call me a "joke" and spew a bunch of paranoid nonsense, as here, forget it. My time is too valuable for that sort of silliness.
17) [John] And your confidence is utterly amazing.
It is, isn't it? Praise God for that (Philippians 4:7). It don't come from me, that's for sure.
18) I just think it's very sad that an intelligent person like you can offer nothing but mockery and name-calling when someone gives you a (I think) thoughtful critique of your deconversion. You should welcome the opportunity as a chance to disprove Christianty by disposing of the critique. Instead you take the fool's way out of epithets and irrational dismissal and false attribution of any number of mythical characteristics to your dialectical opponent.
No one is impressed by that. I don't think even your fellow atheists (at least the more rational, less emotional ones) would be all that heartened by this pathetic performance (if not downright embarrassed).
I think you can do a whole lot better than this. A WHOLE lot. You have three Master's degrees, for heaven's sake. If you can't even respond rationally and calmly to a critique of this nature then all that does is confirm in our minds all the more that the basis of your conversion was not so much rational as it was emotional and non-rational (or that you are so insecure in your atheism that perhaps your conscience is being troubled by criticism of it and you are on your way back to Christianity). You know the old saying: "the drowning man fights the hardest right before he succumbs."
Is that the impression you wanna give? "Come to atheism, for all the wrong reasons or none at all, or just because of sheer emotionalism! If anyone questions my 'reasons' I'll pretend he thinks I am a dishonest, rascally idiot, call him a 'joke' (three times) and dare him to read to read my book so I can ignore his critique and mock him again!"
If atheism is true, my friend, it ain't gonna be because of THIS kind of reaction. Nor will these melodramatic histrionics convince anyone.
19) I did no psychology. I did no attempted mind-reading. It'd be awful nice if you pointed out where you thought I did this. But something I did is obviously extremely threatening to you. A guy as educated as you becoming literally unhinged over a simple Christian response to your deconversion? Something's going on. I have no clue what but I am experienced [enough] to identify an extremely irrational reply when I see one. I realize others are personally attacking you at the present time, but it doesn't follow that this was my motivation or intention. It was not at all.
20) I responded to the words you wrote. Apparently that is a novelty to you. I think it is rather humdrum and ho-hum: one guy responding to another, after being asked to do so.
21) [John] To think you could pompously proclaim you are better than me is beyond me when you don't know me.
Where did I do that, pray tell? For the life of me I don't remember doing so.
22) So let me get this straight. You claim I think I am "better" than you, when I don't at all. Then you take the false premise and build a castle of sand atop it: now it is supposedly a defensive mechanism I use. And this after you have been bitching about me supposedly doing inappropriate psychoanalysis of you. That's precious.
23) I can't comment on something you write? I didn't exceed any proper bounds. I simply replied to what was there. There is always some speculation with conversion stories. I don't think they have to necessarily be outrageously presumptuous, as you seem to think.
24) [John] No freebie book for you either (Are you in the habit of asking for handouts? Then take up a collection).
No skin off my back. I'd be glad to give you any of my 11 e-books for free. I wouldn't even consider it a handout. I would consider it part of my duty as an apologist.
25) For that matter, don't reviewers of books get them for free? Think of all the free advertising on a Catholic site John could get. What a golden opportunity! But are reviewers' copies considered "handouts"?
26) If I ever see John's book for a quarter at an AAUW book sale, I'll pick it up. But my budget is too limited to buy atheist books: especially from those currently with an axe to grind against me.
27) Frank [Walton], I don't agree with insults calling people "stupid" on my blog. So I have deleted your post (esp. in light of John's current over-sensitivity for no cause, and your post was certainly a real cause). Thanks for understanding.
* * *
Dave Armstrong (the "arrogant idiot," "joke" etc.)
- October 16, 2006 at 8:26 PM
- Dave Armstrong said...
To Daniel Morgan,
I see that you made a longer reply than was on my blog (blasted Haloscan!). I already made a post of our earlier (I thought, enjoyable) exchange. Now I'll add the rest you have here and reply.
Thanks for keeping calm and rational.
Dave Armstrong
- October 16, 2006 at 8:32 PM
- Anonymous said...
It's funny you say this stuff John and yet you insult the beliefs of other people on a daily basis. Here is one example:
"I'm not debating an arrogant Calvinist with the self-assured confidence of a Muslim suicide bomber."
You toot your own horn so much it is hard to take your comments seriously to be honest with you.
btw, I post anonymously because I don't have a blog. My web site (which has been under contruction for quite some time) is www.reformedapologetics.org and my new discussion boards are located at:
While I do not have the time for a formal debate, I do have time to have an informal discussion. You are welcome to post an argument on my boards and if I will reply to the best of my (limited) ability. Any other readers are welcome to post as well. As you can tell, I am a Christian presuppositionalist so I am not sure what the problem is with debating a Calvinist on the problem of evil. Thanks for your time and your blog.
- October 16, 2006 at 9:20 PM
- Hallq said...
I got about halfway through Armstrong's discussion, and then realized it pretty much boils down to "unbelievers go to hell, so he must have done something wrong to become one." The most a committed orthodox Christian can ever get out of a story like yours, John, is "Oh, I didn't know doing those things put me at risk of hellfire." A few nicer ones will try to look at it as "here's where the church is failing," but that would mean people are going to hell because of the failings of others rather than their own failing.
- October 16, 2006 at 11:13 PM
- Dave Armstrong said...
I responded to a comment by Joe Holman on my blog:
Hi Joe,
What truly baffles me about all this hysterical response is: how do you atheists expect a Christian apologist to respond to a deconversion story? I defend Christianity (I myself happen to be a professional apologist, in fact).
This sort of story starts with the assumption that it gives a rational basis for the rejection of Christianity. Obviously, then, my task is to show how the reasons given fail in their purpose. What do you expect? That I'll say, "well, reasons 4, 12, and 23 are compelling against Christianity. Therefore, I resign my vocation as an apologist immediately and reject Christianity" ?
How ridiculous will this become? OF COURSE I will disagree with the reasons offered, as long as I remain a Chrstian and an apologist. If I didn't, I would be in the wrong line of work. This is some terrible, unspeakable crime, that an apologist is an apologist, and a Christian a Christian (hence reasons like one)?
What is so scandalous and outrageous about an apologist for position x showing how the reasons person y (former adherent of x) gives for rejecting x are groundless or insufficient as a basis for rejecting x?
What did you expect? I gave my reasons as to why I thought they were insufficient. Atheists do this to Christians all the time. Actually, you do a great deal of non-rational stuff, whereas my reply was strictly within the bounds of reasoned analysis.
You subject us to endless mockery, assume that we are ignoramuses, make fun of our worship and most deeply-held beliefs, call us "insane" (I've seen that more than once at DC), cut down the God we believe in, belittle Jesus by saying He didn't even exist, attempt to rip the Bible to shreds, make out that Christian biblical ethics are utterly abominable (John did that this very day at Triablogue), and on and on and on. There is no end to it. And don't try to deny it. Proof is abundant and easily obtained.
Yet if we dare turn the tables and simply disagree with your ideas, then all hell breaks loose. It's Chicken Little. I don't buy it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't take your own medicine. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
How does it help your case to shamelessly lie about opponents? Whether I am an arrogant SOB or not is for others to judge. I say I am confident. Admittedly it is a fine line sometimes between that and arrogance.
But for John and others to say that I have hatred or think he is an evil person or damned and all this rotgut that I supposedly think, is completely groundless, unethical and uncalled-for.
As I've found in other such conflicts (the bane of the apologist's life - and often sadly coming from fellow Christians), once the irrational anger sets in, then even conciliatory explanations are disregarded and themselves mocked and assumed to be insincere.
I've stated repeatedly that I bear no ill will against John, that it isn't personal, that I don't think he is an especially "bad" person (since we Christians think all men are fallen sinners). I've tried to explain how Catholics don't judge a person (even an atheist or former Christian) as damned. We don't have the Calvinist view that someone who rejected faith necessarily could never have had it. So I don't have to deny this in John's case.
So am I to be believed or not? Why do you want to make something a rotten ugly thing when it is simply an honest disagreement?
Even "whizler": an atheist on DC, understands that it was not personal at all:
"I don't believe Dave Armstrong's response was directed at you personally. Why? It's my belief that apologetics is aimed not so much at the non-believer, as the believer. The role of the apologist, in my experience, is to provide some kind of response to attacks on the citadel of belief."
He gets it. What is so difficult about this to understand? I wrote about your own deconversion story and you didn't hit the roof and immediately vomit up gallons of personal attacks and knee-jerk reactions against me. You did nothing. How preferable and dignified compared to John's hyper-sensitive, hysterical "reply"!!!
I note once again that John asked me to respond to his deconversion after he saw that I did so with you.
Man, next time I'll think twice before fulfilling an atheist's request to critique some writing of theirs . . . I don't suffer the folly of groundless attack in place of reasonable discussion very well at all. Only my enjoyment of the absurd, ironic humor of it all saves me from lots of potential sins in reacting to this hogwash . . .
Dave Armstrong
P.S. I leave town for five days starting tomorrow, away from my computer.
- October 17, 2006 at 1:14 AM
- Admin said...
Islam, is it really how the media portrays it? Is it really all about terrorism and extremism? Ever wondered? Here is your chance to find out! Visit our blog--> http://thejourney2islam-team.blogspot.com/
- October 17, 2006 at 1:25 AM
- openlyatheist said...
At the risk of losing my atheist decoder ring, I will tentatively defend Frank Walton. (!?)
Twice on DC I have seen Walton post links to genuine "rebuttals" housed on his own blog that were deleted even though they contained little that I found inflammatory. I mean: real writing, not just cussing at atheists. Sure, I thought his posts were b.s. too, but at least he was dropping the b.s. on his own lawn.
I think posting links to your own territory (which every poster has the opportunity to do at the end of each post!) is less offensive than the run-on comments splattered on threads like this. I can order that bologna on ChristianForums.com.
So what if someone like Walton is distasteful in other places? If apologists post babble or profanity I am all for deleting it, but there is no better tool for creating atheists than links to good, "honest" Christian apologetics.
- October 17, 2006 at 3:01 AM
- Daniel said...
At the risk of losing my atheist decoder ring, I will tentatively defend [the name that cannot be uttered]. (!?)
Oh, your ring is, like, sooooo gone! ;)
Let me ask this -- do you realize that he posts links to his own blog in nearly every comment, in an attempt to raise traffic to his site, rather than posting whatever substantive [muffles laughter] comments he has here on our site?
Twice on DC I have seen [the name that cannot be uttered] post links to genuine "rebuttals" housed on his own blog that were deleted even though they contained little that I found inflammatory. I mean: real writing, not just cussing at atheists. Sure, I thought his posts were b.s. too, but at least he was dropping the b.s. on his own lawn.
If he wants to post here, he can do so anonymously, or using another username, but anything he posts that he uses his Blogger profile for will be deleted by me. If anyone here doesn't like it, and is an admin, they can email me and we can chat about it. If you aren't a contributor, tough cookies.
So long as his comments are anon or using his name in the "Other" category, without a link to his site, then I will leave them, if they are not pure rhetoric and flame-baiting.
So...that's my policy, in a nutshell. If you had been around a few months back (or if you were?), perhaps you'd understand a bit more. It is a well-known fact that this fellow contributes precious little food for thought, and instead spends practically all of his time tipping flame-baiting poison [poisoning the well] into the food for thought that everyone is chewing on. It has often been speculated (and I especially wonder) if he is just a parody, a sock puppet, not even a real person -- created by either a theist or an atheist for humor value, as he is just soooooo over the top.
If he really has something worth saying that he wants to say, the anonymous function works fine...I won't hold my breath waiting, though.
- October 17, 2006 at 5:34 AM
- Daniel said...
I have no difficulty in having rational conversation with people who treat me with respect, and I find it easy to reciprocate.
- October 17, 2006 at 5:36 AM
- whizler said...
DA: [the last sentence is untrue. If an apologetic is based on falsehood, it is worthless, even if effective. If I didn't believe Christianity was true, I wouldn't devote my life to defending it.]
Oh, I don't accuse Christian apologists of deliberate falsehood. Instead, their falsehood grows from the dubious, unlikely and unproven premises they accept as true. At some level, I'm sure you're aware that argument based on them is not really convincing to the putative non-Christian target, because they don't accept your premises, yet they nonetheless serve as the foundation of your argument. If you really wanted to attempt an effective critique, you'd completely remove it of its Christian epistemological baggage. But since your actual target is the Christian, this is not something you'll likely do.
DA: [of course I would say it really was answered, not only pretended to be answered to supposedly comfort the ignorant and deluded]
Understood, but from the non-Christian standpoint, a lot of Christian apologetics consists of weak argument, ad hoc rationalizations, and inconsistent methodology. The modus operandi is "any explanation will do," no matter how far-fetched or strained. A lot of this was evident in your critique of Loftus's deconversion story. Your discussion of his objections to the Genesis account is a good example. (One wonders, what other Biblical accounts are really "metaphorical narrations," to use Stek's words.)
It seems apologists are completely in the dark as to how unconvincing and weak their arguments appear to the non-Christian. Perhaps you can appreciate it by reading Mormon, Islamic, etc. apologetics. In fact, this is an exercise I heartily recommend to you, because you might begin to see the parallels between your work and theirs that are very obvious to the rest of us.
I wrote: An attempt—any attempt—to show that some Fatal Flaw in their character was the cause of their apostasy
DA: [I don't regard faulty premsies and thinking as necessarily a character flaw: only if it was deliberate, and I didn't claim that John's errors were that]
"Fatal flaw" was not the best choice of words. By the phrase, I meant some kind of unrequited desire to live in sin. You suggest this was part of John's deconversion. It is a common tact among apologists when dealing with apostates.
DA: [If John Loftus must take that personally, when it has nothing to do with that at all, and must do so in every conceivable universe, so be it. His hyper-sensitivity and ultra-thin skin are beyond my control, and I think at least two people here can see that (for which I thank them).]
I think the tone of your critique was dismissive and failed in large part to answer his objections. Perhaps caricatured his objections is a better description. Much of your critique can be summed up thusly: "You were never a true Christian and you just didn't properly understand Christianity, John." I don't think that's a fair charge, but it does help keep the sheep in the fold. :)
- October 18, 2006 at 8:32 AM
- John W. Loftus said...
Thanks whizler, for all that you've said to both Dave and I. Yours is a voice of reason.
- October 18, 2006 at 10:51 AM
- I. Shawn McElhinney said...
Hello Whizler:
I don't accuse Christian apologists of deliberate falsehood. Instead, their falsehood grows from the dubious, unlikely and unproven premises they accept as true.
These are not problems unique to theists. The very act of reasoning itself presupposes certain unproven assumptions which are required for even being able to exercise rational thought. So the question is not one of the theist having "faith" and the atheist relying only on reason. Reasoning abilities themselves in order to be recognized require a faith of their own. If all sides recognized this from the get-go, it would make discussions a lot more civil generally speaking.
At some level, I'm sure you're aware that argument based on them is not really convincing to the putative non-Christian target, because they don't accept your premises, yet they nonetheless serve as the foundation of your argument.
See my previous comments.
Understood, but from the non-Christian standpoint, a lot of Christian apologetics consists of weak argument, ad hoc rationalizations, and inconsistent methodology. The modus operandi is "any explanation will do," no matter how far-fetched or strained.
As a Catholic Christian, I will probably shock you by noting that I actually agree with this observation Whizler but with a caveat: this is prevalent with people of any outlook -be it atheist, theist, or whatever. The lions share of arguments for any side are less-than-solid and all of them argue from certain foundational presuppositions. The idea of a tabula rasa is as much a myth as de Leon's fountain of youth.
A lot of this was evident in your critique of Loftus's deconversion story. Your discussion of his objections to the Genesis account is a good example. (One wonders, what other Biblical accounts are really "metaphorical narrations," to use Stek's words.)
I will not comment on the "deconversion story critique" except to note that when it comes to the subject of biblical accounts there is an interesting pattern I see with atheists who deal with them. In all cases I can recall over the years when dialoguing with atheists, when biblical citations come up, the atheist presumes without warrant that they understand the correct context of what they cite without sufficient warrant for doing so.
I am not in saying this making an argument for or against any particular interpretation except to note that the methodology of the atheist is so often one that they never stop to consider. Instead, they presume that they understand things without any indepth study of the intricate factors involved and thus (without realizing it) often take the same approach that fundamentalist Christian sorts do with science.
On the latter, it is downright embarrassing to see the way many fundamentalist sorts treat scientific subjects but they jump in and presume they can handle the subjects without concern for studying the factors of the discipline at hand with greater care. They then juxtapose them with their interpretation of the Bible and never ask if it is possible that they do not understand the Bible they are quoting.
The same is the case with many if not most atheists Whizler: they do not ask themselves if they are misappropriating the Bible themselves in trying to posit "scientific errors" and the like. Instead, they presume that they can understand texts written thousands of years ago in different original languages, in different cultures, different modes of understanding, and different operative presuppositions by merely reading a translated paraphrase in a vernacular text.
We know that even in today's world there is often misunderstandings of key elements of contemporary societies or philosophies that do not get accurately translated from other languages or (at the very least) are potentially not translated in the best possible way.
And even when the translations are perfect, there are often certain underlying factors which we may misunderstand when trying to make sense of the text as translated from other languages and other cultures, etc. But with the Bible, that the additional factors of more ancient languages, societies long past, world views of long ago, etc. on top of the normal hindering factors noted earlier in this posting potentially impacting our understanding of the text is irrelevant: everyone can just open the book and easily understand it and whatever appears questionable must be an "error in the text" rather than a possible error on the part of the one reading the text. Can you not see how ludicrous such a presumption really is Whizler??? I trust you can but perhaps it helps to spell it out a bit because I see it as much of a problem as with scientifically ignorant fundamentalists presuming to tell you and your fellow atheists how to interpret science.
Consider the example of cooking and the Constitution. It would seem strange if I said that I could bake good brownies simply from reading the Constitution of the United States. If you were to respond that the Constitution was not a baking recipe, what would you think if I said you were "just trying to explain away the text" but indeed the Constitution was actually a cooking recipe and I was going to use it to make some brownies. I would not be recognizing the Constitution in the the context it was written and in accordance with the intentions of its writers; namely, as a document outlining the laws and principles of a sovereign nation.
What I note above pertains to both sides in part because a lot of atheists are former fundamentalists and while they have shed the theist affiliation, they have not shed the foundational presuppositions that they had as fundamentalists. Numerous times in dialogue with atheists in years gone by I found this to be the case and the former theists express amazement in considering another way of approaching the issues than their old fundamentalist ways.
In other words, often former theists who were fundamentalists never stop to reassess their foundational presuppositions and if their move from theist to atheist was not because of a flaw in how they approached the evidences to begin with.
This is not an accusation of bad faith on my part so please do not interpret it in that way. It is only a way to point out what a lot of theists would possibly be trying to say if not for a poor choice of words used to do it. And as you noted Whizler in your own posting that you used a poor choice of words (in referring to "Fatal flaw" when speaking to Dave Armstrong), I trust you recognize that we all can occasionally not choose the right words to convey something.
I am not saying that there is lacking some theists who would make the claims you are asserting of course and not due to a poor choice of words on their part, only that things are not always what they may appear to be at first or second glance. (Or sometimes even more glances than that.)
I think the tone of your critique was dismissive and failed in large part to answer his objections. Perhaps caricatured his objections is a better description. Much of your critique can be summed up thusly: "You were never a true Christian and you just didn't properly understand Christianity, John."
I trust you recognize that this happens on all sides Whizler. I have heard numerous atheists say the same thing about former atheists -indeed look at how Antony Flew was treated by many of his former positional allies. It should stand to reason that anyone convinced of their position (whether they are convinced on solid ground, shaky ground, or some admixture of the two) will view former allies who later diverge from them as somehow missing a key ingredient or two in the makeup of their former outlook.
After all, that is almost a given be it with the view of John Lofus amonst theists or Antony Flew amongst atheists. This is hardly as one-sided as it appears you are presuming. (Emphasis on "it appears.")
I don't think that's a fair charge, but it does help keep the sheep in the fold. :)
Again, this works both ways. I cannot speak for Dave's intentions -and as he and I have had significant disagreements before I am hardly saying this as a cheerleader of his by any means- but as a rule he does not in my experience presume bad faith on the part of anyone. Anyway, the bottom line of this posting is to note that a lot of accusations made by one side against another go both ways. Would that people of good will on all sides recognized this principle but I digress.
- October 20, 2006 at 4:16 PM


text:
The subjects of a massive manhunt last October in the Carbon area will be tried on capital murder charges and face the death penalty in a Daggett County case.
On Sept. 6, the 8th District Court ruled the preliminary hearing evidence sufficient to show probable cause Lewis Heffelfinger and Michael Heffelfinger committed the double murder crimes in Daggett County.
In a courtroom packed with family members of the alleged victims, Daggett County Attorney Dennis Judd and fellow prosecutor Creighton Horton questioned Sage McCormick, the hunting companion of the two dead men.
Additional witnessed called by the prosecution to testify at the preliminary hearing witnesses included two deputies from the Daggett County sheriff's department, Mark Watkins and Ray Ruble, as well as Helper Police Officer Kent Allred.
Following the witness testimony, 8th District Court Judge John R. Anderson bound the father and son duo over to stand trial on all charges contained in the Daggett County murder complaint.
The father and son co-defendants entered not guilty pleas at arraignment on Sept. 6, but the court did not schedule a trial date in the death penalty capital murder case.
The Heffelfingers were represented at the preliminary hearing by Salt Lake defense attorneys Ed Brass, Ken Brown, Virginia Ramos-Smith and Ann Girot.
Acting on behalf of the prosecution at the criminal proceeding were Judd along with Kirk Torgeson, Horton and Polly Samuels, legal representatives from the Utah Attorney Gen-eral's Office.
Last Friday's preliminary hearing was the first time the evidence collected against the defendants had been presented in open court, indicated Judd.
The state prosecutors met privately with the families of the victims before and after the criminal proceeding.
The attorneys serving on the prosecution team are glad to have the preliminary hearing in the capital murder complaint successfully completed, noted Judd.
After expressing sympathy to the survivors of the two alleged murder victims, Judd voiced appreciation to the the prosecution team as well as the law enforcement authorities and criminal investigators who worked to collect the evidence in the case.
In addition, the Daggett attorney reaffirmed the prosecution's intent to seek the imposition of the death penalty in the murder complaint filed against the Heffelfingers.
The capital murder charges stem from an alleged incident in the Dutch John area on Oct. 21, 2001. The two victims were found shot to death by a hunting companion.
The pickup truck belonging to one victim was reported missing and the vehicle in question was recovered that evening in Carbon County after a high speed chase.
Carbon County law enforcement agencies launched a massive manhunt to locate the suspects after the father-son duo wrecked the pickup in Price and fled the scene on foot.
On Oct. 23, Carbon County authorities arrested the Heffel-fingers and charged the suspects with attempted aggravated murder arising out of shots fired at local law enforcement officers during the high-speed chase.
After the defendants entered guilty pleas to amended lesser included felony level criminal charges in the Carbon County case, the 7th District Court sentenced the Heffelfingers to indeterminate terms in the Utah State Prison.
The 7th District Court ordered immediate execution of the prison sentences and remanded the Albuquerque, N.M., residents into the custody of the Carbon County Sheriff's Office for transport to the state correctional facility.
Following the 7th District Court convictions, Judd filed the capital murder complaint in connection with the shooting incident in Daggett County.
The defendants are charged with two counts of capital homicide and two separate aggravated robbery offenses, confirmed the Daggett County attorney.
Lewis Heffelfinger is also charged with an additional failure to respond to a law enforcement officer's command to stop (felony evasion) count, concluded Judd.


text:
Eco faux nappa adjustable wide belt featuring a eco laminate veneer wooden buckle.
This item is made from Eco Faux Nappa, an innovative material with a coating created from over 50% vegetable oil, a renewable natural resource.
The wood used in this product is FSC certified, this means that it is grown and cut sustainably.
The lining has been created from recycled plastic bottles.
This is part of our ongoing commitment to animal and eco friendly fashion.
Spot clean only
Width: 70mm


text:
You may also like
This banner shows a similar doctor. For information on how it can be removed visit RateMDs for Doctors.
You, or someone from your location, have already rated this doctor. Thanks for the rating!
Rate Dr. Dexter Louie
Top Hospitals in San Francisco, CA
Top Urgent Care Centers in San Francisco, CA
Find a Doctor by Specialty
Featured Articles
You may also like
Top Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) Doctors
in San Francisco, CA
Dr. Ivan H. El-Sayed
#1 of 87
2 reviews
#1 of 87
Dr. David L. Kahn
#2 of 87
6 reviews
#2 of 87
Dr. Kristina W. Rosbe
#3 of 87
3 reviews
#3 of 87
Dr. Matthew D. Mingrone
#4 of 87
1 review
#4 of 87
Dr. Ivor A. Emanuel
#5 of 87
1 review
#5 of 87


text:
- Northern New York Newspapers
- Watertown
- Ogdensburg
- Massena-Potsdam
- Lowville
- Carthage
- Malone
- NNY Business
- NNY Living
- NNY Ads
STAR LAKE Clifton-Fine Central Schools new superintendent was welcomed Tuesday at the school boards reorganizational meeting which included the seating of three new board members.
Jeremy E. Thompson, a board incumbent, was elected president. Christopher E. Cooper, a newcomer, was elected vice president.
The meeting was the second day on the job for Regina C. Yeo, who was chosen superintendent after the board failed to reach an agreement with Susan O. Shene, who had been interim superintendent.
In a series of controversial moves, the board in the spring gave Mrs. Shene and High School Principal Brian S. Buchanan 30-day notices terminating their interim positions. Mrs. Shene returned to her previous job as high school principal and the board appointed Beverly L. Ouderkirk as interim superintendent pending Mrs. Yeos start.
Eight candidates ran for three seats on the board, with newcomers Christopher L. Westbrook, Robert E. Lachut and Mr. Cooper elected. Voters did not re-elect Michelle L. Durham, Richard W. Hitchman, or Robert P. Tebo III.
Mrs. Ouderkirk will remain a district consultant to work with the board and with Mrs. Yeo, who has not been a superintendent before.
Thousands of readers like you have made Northern New York Newspapers the number one ranked website* for local news and sports coverage in the north country.
You can continue on to this article in a few seconds, or you can visit one of our websites:


text:
|Varsity Sports Administration
The purpose of the Varsity Sports Office is to provide oversight and assistance to Dartmouth's 35 varsity sports, close to 100 coaches and nearly 1000 student-athletes. Administrators work directly with coaches on improving the quality of Big Green programs as well as making sure that student-athletes have an enriching experience. In addition, the Varsity Sports Office also oversees compliance with NCAA and Ivy rules, home contest event management, student-athlete academic progress, and administration of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program.
For student-athletes looking for assistance, your first resource should be a member of your coaching staff. Your next resource can be the administrator for your sport (listed below).


text:
good stuff, ukrania is in good spot for that part of europe
Printable View
good stuff, ukrania is in good spot for that part of europe
And yeah, thanx 2 ID and to everyone who in any way participated or assisted in this implementation; thus the longing of ukrainian quake community for low-ping servers has finally come true xD
340ms from backyard Japan. :(
It is no different from Romania.
Vladivostok is much appreciated as an eastern European server. :)
There are companies in NZ willing to let you use there servers but still nothing has happened...
ping 60 from south croatia, very nice.
Thanks, guys! I'm glad the servers are on. Never thought I would have a chance to play normally. Now I have ping 5, and I'm in Kiev
great. time to connect there more players
thanks thanks thanks to ID & all who helped to this job!
Ping 90 from Moscow.
Thank you Id for yet another server to clutter up my server list. How hard it is to implement CHECKBOXES in the custumize menu, for God's sake? So, you know, people could remove all the unplayable crap from their server list, and yet have MORE THAN ONE server location to choose from.


text:
We had a band of musicians but unfortunately, my partners went abroad for further studies. Currently we're far away. We want to meet at some time in a week and play together online. We've tried Skype but it doesn't work OK when we all are active at the same time. Did you try it before? Which software do you recommend?
I would recommend you avoid trying to use video. Unless you are 'local' to each other the latency and jitter makes it very difficult to play together.
Audio can be encoded with much lower latency and is typically a fixed bandwidth requirement so this copes better with connection issues.
Tools like Jamulus (http://sourceforge.net/projects/llcon/) are designed for real time jamming, with one machine taking feeds from all players and then sending the mix back out to them. It seems to be better than just using a google hangout or chat type scenario.
It depends on how you want to make this work, what kind of grade your internet connection is, if you all live in the same city and have the same ISP as these factors will decide the audio quality and latency.
Old-fashioned analog landline telephone circuits had many limitations, but there is very little delay between when a party at one end says something and when the party at the other end hears it. Other technologies often involve trade-offs between audio quality and delay; for most purposes, a delay of 100ms or even longer would be barely noticeable, but adding such delay between when one performer plays something and another performer, who's supposed to be playing simultaneously, hears it, would render simultaneous performance impossible.
The only remedy I can see would be to have one person who sets the tempo, oblivious to what anyone else is playing. Audio from that person could be sent to a second person who would play along with it. Audio from both of those people could then be sent to a third person, who could play along with them, etc. At the end of the chain, have a listener who would use a separate connection to let the different performers if they need to do anything to work better with what people are doing downstream.
If money is not an issue, ISDN is perfect for this. You'd still have to connect via Skype/etc. (if you want video), but the average latency for ISDN is about 10ms. This amount might not even be noticeable to you. Many people in the voice-over industry use this, because it allows for a higher quality audio signal, as well as very low latency. Collaborating is made a breeze.
To read more, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Services_Digital_Network.
protected by Community♦ Sep 8 at 19:28
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
The Image Stabilization feature works to compensate for image blur caused by camera vibrations or movement. This is useful against building vibration or strong winds, as may occur when the camera is installed on an outdoor pole. Two levels of electronic image stabilization are fitted to the VB-H41 camera to accommodate varying levels of movement intensity.
© 2015 Canon U.S.A., Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.