text:
My latest book Proving History has been negatively reviewed by Kevin Brown (a Christian book reviewer [he has since deleted that post] who confesses he is "not a mathematician or historian by anyone's standard," although I must note that one only needs strong primary school math to understand and evaluate the concepts in the book). Although he doesn't actually have anything bad to say about the overall thesis of the book (the application of Bayes' Theorem to history generally and Jesus studies specifically, it's many discussions of method, and so on, beyond vague expressions of uncertainty). His objections are more of a Christian apologetical bent: he doesn't like certain conclusions about a few random minor points made throughout the book, which he cherry picks because he thinks they are egregiously false, and he uses this to build a comforting narrative for himself that I must not know what I'm talking about, if I don't agree with him on those few scattered items.
You can get an idea of his bias when he tells you my other book Why I am Not a Christian is "appalling tripe" and "by far the worst book I've read on the subject matter of atheism" and other colorful things, all because he despises the most commonsensical of atheist arguments (that a God who wanted x would do what was needed to achieve x). Brown is not a great thinker. And his intemperance and lack of objectivity show here. So when he gets to reviewing Proving History, you can expect a less than objective approach, and a similar sense of hyperbolic contempt. Indeed, for not liking the book (for no actually good reason, as we'll see), he appears to be more obsessed with attacking it than than with any other book he has ever reviewed (he has so far written six articles on Proving History, where his previous record for any other book is only four, and that only once in twenty or thirty titles).
Ironically, as so often happens with biased Christian readers, all of his complaints are already answered by any careful read of my actual book. So an attentive reader just needs to read the book to see why Brown is wrong. For example, he conflates my statement about what other scholars have concluded (that the quest for criteria has failed and no consensus exists as to who the historical Jesus was) with my own conclusion from this (that the quest for the historical Jesus has failed "spectacularly") and then accuses me of crediting the latter conclusion to those other scholars (when in fact all they document is the failure to reach any consensus and thus actually uncover the historical Jesus…which just happens to be, by definition, failure).
This is a classic example of not paying attention to what you are reading, and is a good sign of a bad reviewer. Accordingly, you can't trust his claims about the book or the conclusions he derives from his claims. In every case below, you'll just have to read the book and see for yourself what I actually said and from what actual premises I derive my conclusions. But most important to me are the confusions Brown falls into about methodology and logic, correcting which will be informative to anyone who actually wants to understand how to reason logically about historical facts, and how to apply Bayes' Theorem to the task. His attempts to criticize some few of my specific conclusions about history in the book likewise illustrate failures of methodology on his part that I actually wrote Proving History to correct. So it is ironic that his obsession with the few trivial items he actually criticizes blinded him to the rest of the book's content, as evidently he didn't learn from it.
Common Cognitive Errors on Display
Part of Brown's bias may be because he can't believe I can conclude Jesus might not have existed. Yet it is important to note that Proving History nowhere argues that Jesus didn't exist. It is, rather, a book about how one would test a question like that. Brown is aware that I will only actually argue for that thesis in my next book, On the Historicity of Jesus Christ (which is completing peer review now and will soon enter the production pipeline at an academic press). But it seems that he assumes anyone who would argue such a thing must not know what they are talking about, and therefore this becomes the narrative he struggles to support by confirmation bias in his review of Proving History, ignoring the hundreds of displays of accurate knowledge and understanding of the field throughout the book and instead only cherry picking a handful of items he thinks don't, and then making those few things more important than the hundreds of others.
Likewise, as I'll show below, Brown is not only making himself a poster boy for confirmation bias, he is also displaying the common cognitive error of expectation bias, whereby as soon as one thinks they can refute a couple of moderate arguments in a case, they then assume all the strong arguments surrounding it must also have been refuted (and thus no attempt need be made to see if they can be). On this defect in human brains, see The Christian Delusion, p. 68. There are many cognitive biases like this that Christians (and atheists) often fall victim to because they don't study them and don't know their brains are misleading them in this way and thus don't know how to compensate or correct for them (or even that they need to).
Biases also show in a failure to actually check if something you confidently assert is true. Brown exhibits this failing when he says "there doesn't seem to be any scholars (in the relevant field) who argue for such a position" (that Jesus might not have existed). In fact, there are numerous such scholars (I list them here). Brown didn't even think to check. He just assumed he was right, so strong is his bias against the conclusion that he can't imagine that any doctors or professors of biblical studies or early Christianity or second temple Judaism could actually entertain that conclusion, and his imagination then gets inadvertently substituted for research. He then makes the leap of logic that anyone who would entertain such a thesis must not know what they are talking about. And so the wheel of self-deception turns full circle.
I Don't Think You Know What a Non Sequitur Is
Indeed, not just cognitive biases afflict Brown, but also an inability to reason logically. The main argument of Brown's Review Part I is this:
Carrier states his thesis again:
When everyone picks up the same method, applies it to the same facts, and gets a different result, we can be certain that the method is invalid and should be abandoned. (14)
This is a non sequitur. Carrier is arguing that since historians have used the same method (i.e. the criteria of authenticity), yet do not arrive at the exact same conclusion, this must mean "the method is invalid and should be abandoned". But that conclusion does not follow. A more logical reason to explain the inconsistent depictions that emerge of the historical Jesus is the inevitable human element present in such undertakings. The scholars that are employing the criteria may hold different presuppositions which affect how they apply each criterion. Additionally, the data derived from applying the criteria can then be arranged in multitude of ways. The disparity in results is due, in part at least, to the unavoidable element of subjectivity in such an endeavor.
This is a weird argument, since Brown doesn't seem to recognize that if your method allows "the inevitable human element present in such undertakings" to prevent anyone from reaching any consistent conclusion about anything, then that method is invalid. You may as well not even use it (as indeed I quote Dale Allison outright saying). So his claim that my conclusion is a non sequitur is not only false, it's disproved by the very argument he uses to prove it. As I said, this is not a great thinker.
More importantly, my book discusses repeatedly and specifically the very problems Brown just confesses exist, and how Bayesian reasoning can solve them (e.g. pp. 88-93 and 208-14), and how the methods currently employed cannot. It is particularly amusing of Brown to suggest (as he does) that Allison has found a better method (in Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History), yet the method Allison uses there is far more subjective, vague, and in thrall to presuppositions and biases than the method of criteria Allison has (like me) denounced.
The method Allison now uses is essentially Dunn's [corr. Le Donne's], and contrary to Brown claiming I don't address it, I do in fact discuss why it is invalid (on pp. 189-91). Brown fails to tell his readers that. Possibly because he is so blinded by the narrative he is trying to create, he didn't even notice it. Proving History also repeatedly answers Brown's questions here as to how we would determine a reliable method and how we would reliably establish a well-founded consensus, and when historians should admit certainty cannot be had. Indeed, that is essentially what the entire book is about. Apparently, again, he didn't notice. So he fails to tell his readers anything about how my book answers those questions. He just asks them, as if the book he is asking them of provided no answers.
That sums up Brown's complaints in Part I, which are meant to address chapter one of Proving History. Not a good start for a book review. One false claim not actually relevant to the book being reviewed (as to who might buy the idea Jesus didn't exist, an idea Proving History doesn't defend), followed by one single argument wherein Brown refutes his own conclusion with his own premise.
How Do We Obtain Objective Knowledge in History?
In Brown's Review Part II, Brown agrees with the essential contents of my second chapter, and liked my third chapter ("It is quite an informative chapter and I think the author did a pretty good job of dumbing it down for the mathematically challenged (such as myself)."). He is skeptical that scholars can get past their biases and be objective, as any method, to be valid, requires. But then that would mean historians can never produce objectively reliable conclusions, that all they are doing is generating predetermined results governed by undefended ideological assumptions, and they should therefore be collectively ignored. I reject that conclusion by rejecting the premise it follows from. Brown, however, does not seem aware of the fact that that conclusion follows from his premise (not surprising, given his failure to grasp even a basic measure of methodological validity in Part I, as I just showed).
Brown says "the different ideological stances of the people applying Bayes's Theorem is going to generate disagreement on how to quantify all the relevant data," yet that is precisely a question I deal with at length in the book (again, e.g., pp. 88-93 and 208-14). If ideological presuppositions and differences on how to quantify data are the problem in any given disagreement, then that is precisely what historians then need to be debating, so they can determine which side of any such debate is the more objectively sound and defensible, or what ranges of possibilities need to be granted as likely. Because if they never do that, or can't do that, then their conclusions are simply not objectively sound or defensible. Their conclusions are then just the efflux of undefended assumptions.
That this is the very conclusion Bayes' Theorem teaches us is one of the merits of the theorem. Brown sees this as a bug. To the contrary, it's a feature. Isolating just why and where we disagree and forcing us to defend the premises that our disagreements hinge on is exactly what historians must do to claim to be an objective profession. Bayesian reasoning helps us isolate and identify the real sources of disagreement, and gives us a framework for determining if there is any objectively determinable solution (and wherever there is not, there is no objective knowledge to be had). This I explain in the book specifically and repeatedly. Yet Brown never mentions that.
How Do We Answer Questions in History?
(Especially When No One Can Be an Expert in Everything)
Again, Brown issues a long series of questions (which are indeed the kind of questions historians need to answer), not realizing that the answer to all of them is Bayesian: you must tackle every single one from a Bayesian framework (which often does not even require actual mathematics or specific quantification…a fact I repeatedly discuss, yet which Brown again never mentions). And if you can't get a result that way, there is no assertable result to be had (and we then must honestly profess not to know the answer to that question: see pp. 106-14, and likewise Axioms 3 and 5, pp. 23, 26-29).
Notably, some of Brown's questions relate to his pointing out the importance earlier of my Second Rule of historical method, in particular how I handle questions in fields I do not have the same level of expertise in, yet he overlooks the second part of that rule, even though he quoted the whole thing: I will "base all [my] assumptions in these areas on the established (and properly cited) findings of those who have" that expertise. This is important, because Brown fails to tell his readers when I do exactly that.
Otherwise I will (as the first part of Rule Two says) "develop wide expertise in the period, topics, languages, and materials that [I] intend to blaze any trails in." That does not require mastering everything. I can rely on cited experts for Aramaic translations, for example, and thus not have to blaze any trails in translating Aramaic, and only build on the premises Aramaic experts have established. Likewise, one can engage the same study they did to gain their Ph.D., to gain the equivalent mastery of a new subfield in their Ph.D. meta-field (in this case, ancient history). That is what getting a Ph.D. trains you for, in fact, and is thus what you are eminently then qualified to do. Sadly, I had to explain this even to Bart Ehrman, with evidence of historians doing exactly that (since Ehrman didn't get a degree in history and evidently doesn't know what historians are trained for or how they apply that training afterward).
In one of my Replies to Ehrman (under the heading of "The Thompson Affair") my remarks on this point are directly on point here, so I will quote them in full:
Indeed, contrary to Ehrman's claim, every historian in my field that I know publishes on all manner of diverse subjects. The idea that (to use Ehrman's own example) hyper-specializing in "Herodotus" disqualifies you from being competent to research and publish on other authors or subjects is ridiculous, and easily refuted by perusing the teaching subjects and cv's of prominent historians like W.V. Harris, Erich Gruen, Alan Cameron, or, to pick actual specialists in Herodotean studies, Donald Lateiner or James Romm. Romm, for example, is a specialist in Herodotus and Arrian (among much else), authors 600 years apart, one Greek, one Roman. According to Ehrman, we should ignore Romm's work on Arrian as being out of his field. Which would be news to Arrian specialists, who all value Romm's work. When my dissertation advisor, William Harris, wanted to publish a book on Roman anger, he did not say to himself "I have never published on that before, or taught it before, and did not specialize in it when I got my degrees, therefore I am not competent to research and publish on this subject so I should just shut up then." No, he applied his skills, degrees, and background knowledge to the task of thoroughly researching the subject and publishing a major authoritative work on it. That's what ancient historians do.
What is alarming is that Ehrman doesn't know that. For him to claim I don't "know" that it's the other way around is just appallingly rich: he is simply proving my point for me, that he really doesn't know what he's talking about, and prefers instead to disparage almost all modern scholarship in my field because it is produced by people who don't specifically teach those subjects and have not gotten hyper-specific degrees in them. His depiction and denunciation of nearly the whole of historical academia is simply absurd. All in his desperate attempt to justify the fact that he misleads his readers and misrepresents his opponents, all in defense of a dogma that he is certain cannot possibly be false, therefore he doesn't need to take us seriously (despite pretending to). If Romm can do good work in both Herodotus and Arrian, Thompson can (in principle) do good work in both OT and NT studies (the study of the OT does, after all, involve knowledge of second temple Judaism, the very context in which Christianity arose).
It's worth adding, as well, my point (which I have made countless times) that all historians make mistakes (myself included), and thus finding a few in any book (and you probably can find a few in every book by every historian there is) does not warrant concluding they are incompetent. If it did, then all historians should be dismissed as incompetent. This is why Brown's deployment of confirmation bias is so incapable of supporting the narrative he wants to be true. His only examples (even if they did validly identify errors) are too few and too minor to carry the weight of his argument.
One of Brown's questions, though, is important because it is a question about method, and one that I answer in my book. Brown asks, "Is Bayes's Theorem a practical and effective tool to use in historical studies or does it just provide only a veneer of rigor and logic?" For my answer see note 33 on page 305 and my remarks on pp. 91-92. In short: it's the job of historians to learn and understand how to evaluate the logic of their own arguments (the point also made extensively and devastatingly by David Hackett Fischer in his excellent book Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought). Doing that ultimately entails learning and understanding Bayesian reasoning. Because, as I formally prove (pp. 106-14), that is the logic of all historians' arguments, whether they are aware of it or not. Thusly informed, then they will be able to tell when Bayes' Theorem is being used to create a false appearance of rigor, and when it is being used honestly and correctly. My book, in fact, was written to help historians do exactly that.
Notably, Brown does not appear to have read my book all that carefully, because he concludes his Part II by quoting another reviewer of my book (Ian at Irreducible Complexity)–who essentially retracted his main objections in our subsequent discussion, which Brown links to, but see especially Ian's conclusion here, although we continued to work out other disagreements in the ensuing thread. Brown is evidently unaware of the fact that what he quotes from Ian (to conclude his own review) is already directly answered in my book, on pp. 110-14 (building on pp. 83-88 and 106-10).
In short, if we can't quantify the likelihood of something in any way at all (due to poor data or any other factor), we simply cannot claim to know it's likely (and therefore we should stop pretending we do); and if the only way we can quantify the likelihood of something is with a wide margin of error, then we simply cannot claim to know anything more precise than that (and therefore we should stop pretending we do). Exposing this fact is, again, not a bug in Bayesian Reasoning. It's a feature. It's the very reason historians need to be more explicitly Bayesian.
Brown, clearly, failed to get the point.
Cherry Picking Minor Points and Misrepresenting Them to Support the Narrative
In Brown's Review Part III, he skips over chapters four and six without any noted objection. He also skips over almost the entirety of the remaining chapter five. He is instead annoyed with only a small handful of claims made in that chapter, which he then uses to draw conclusions he paints the entire book with (there's that confirmation bias and expectation bias I was talking about), because he wants to sandbag in advance the conclusion of my next book (that Jesus might not have existed) by somehow building a narrative that I can't be qualified to argue it.
Here Brown mentions my lengthy treatment of the Argument from Embarrassment (pp. 124-69) and straw man's my argument there as saying "so an author would never include anything that could be viewed as embarrassing?" This is a classic straw man fallacy, as I actually repeatedly described the conditions in which an author would include things that were embarrassing to them, and would even be expected to (e.g., pp. 125-26, 138, 158-69), and explained why those conditions don't obtain for the Gospels (e.g., pp. 135, 133-34, 126-28, 156-57, etc.). So clearly Brown has not fairly characterized my argument at all. That definitely makes him a bad reviewer. Readers simply cannot trust that he has accurately represented the work he is reviewing.
Similarly, Brown bizarrely claims I approach the biblical text like a fundamentalist, even though in fact it is well know that I regard the Gospels as complete fiction. I often approach the Gospels in Proving History from a position of arguendo (assuming things for the sake of argument, or assuming conservative interpretations are correct, in order to show what the conclusions would be even in that case). Brown thus has a hard time grasping the meaning of conditional statements (like "if x is the case, then y is the case," which Brown will confuse with "x is the case, therefore y is the case"), or telling the difference between something I believe and something I am saying ancient Jews believed, and so on.
For example, contrary to his claim that all Jews in Jesus' day believed the dying messiah in Daniel 9 was Onias III, see my discussion of the evidence to the contrary in The Dying Messiah Redux (contrary to what Brown says, the authors of 11Q13 certainly did not think Daniel 9:25 or 9:26 was referring to Onias III or in fact any figure in the past, since it explicitly says it is referring to a figure in the future). Brown evidently can't tell the difference between what the authors of Daniel intended and what later Jewish readers decided the text meant. And here Brown just gainsays all the evidence and argument in my article without providing any evidence or argument of his own. He likewise cites Stark, unaware (?) that my article has been rewritten in response to Stark and is no longer vulnerable to Stark's criticisms (as the article itself now even says on the very first line…notably, an instance of my following Rule Two of historical method that Brown commends…as well as, incidentally, Rule Twelve: see pp. 37-39).
Anyone who actually reads my book (and the evidence cited there) will be set straight on all these matters. You should simply not trust Brown's characterizations. They are inaccurate. But notice how Brown bases his conclusions (and builds his narrative about my supposed incompetence) on such weak and easily disproved claims about what I said and the facts of antiquity. More importantly, notice how few such claims Brown even marshals to support that narrative, and how trivial and obscure they are relative to the entire contents and substantive points of chapter five.
The Nazorian from Narareth
In Brown's Review Part IV he obsesses over Nazareth. This always amuses me, since Jesus mythicists also have an unhealthy obsession with Nazareth, and so do Christians like Brown. Somehow it's so very important for Jesus to have hailed from Nazareth. So important to some mythicists that they can illogically conclude that if he didn't come from Nazareth, he didn't exist; and so important to some Christians that they can illogically conclude that if Nazareth existed, so did Jesus. (Likewise, in each case, some argue that it at least shifts the probabilities either way, when really it doesn't to any significant degree.) I've remarked on this before. But here I'll just address the way Brown approaches this issue.
The context is my argument that we cannot construct a valid Argument from Embarrassment from the evidence we have to the conclusion that Jesus actually came from Nazareth (note that I do not claim Nazareth didn't exist). I give numerous reasons for this conclusion (pp. 142-45), and cite primary evidence and peer reviewed scholarship supporting me. Almost none of which Brown mentions or even acknowledges. Instead, he cherry picks a single claim that annoys him (out of the many made in the course of three pages), and tries to make hay of it.
Here Brown is again annoyed by a conditional argument ("if x, then y") and seems to behave as if it wasn't a conditional. But apart from that slip of logic, he claims "Carrier doesn't provide any reasoning to support [Mark 1:9] being an interpolation, which is probably due to the fact that there isn't any support for such an idea," when in fact I cited Kennard (a peer reviewed article, no less), and did not say the claim was established, but as only worth considering (given the abundant evidence I discuss, which Brown fails to mention). There are in fact arguments to be made for that possibility even beyond those of Kennard, as cataloged by Frank Zindler in Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth (pp. 369-88; although I suspect his Bayesian model needs revision, one can appreciate the evidence and arguments Zindler presents without it).
Once again, this is a minor point, and one I don't even rely on (I state it only conditionally). Thus again Brown has ignored all the strong substantive points of the chapter (and even this section) and just cherry picked the one minor claim that annoys him. And then mischaracterized it. And then he follows that with a bizarre parody that bears no analogy to anything I was actually arguing, a parody that shows Brown doesn't understand conditional statements even when he is mocking them. The point that "if we make any weird assumption we want, then we can get any weird conclusion we want" is true but irrelevant when I am not making any assumption at all but describing what follows only if a certain assumption is made, and explicitly stating it exactly that way–and then presenting evidential reasons to suspect it might be true (arguments Brown ignores and doesn't tell his readers about) and therefore concluding it has to be ruled out before simply assuming the contrary, a conclusion that doesn't track what Brown thinks he is mocking.
Strangely, Brown even quotes the key point of all my arguments on this one issue (and remember, it's just one), that alternative explanations of the evidence are "at least sufficiently probable to require us to rule them out first," yet he fails to grasp the import of that point, but ignores it completely, and just gainsays the alternatives without properly ruling them out as one methodologically should. He thus completely misses the methodological point I was making, and demonstrates what happens when you miss the methodological point I was making, without realizing he just made himself the poster boy for exactly that kind of error.
Moreover, I am describing peer reviewed arguments (of Kennard and Laupot). Again, Brown conspicuously doesn't tell his readers that. He gives the impression these are my own off-the-cuff arguments. He has to, because his fabricated narrative requires that I be proved incompetent by this example, not Kennard and Laupot and their peer reviewers (even though Brown's argument has to entail the same conclusion for all of them…collateral damage, I guess…everyone is incompetent who doesn't agree with Brown, even peer reviewed scholarship).
At this point, Brown insists Matthew was "lying" when he said the Nazorian origin of Jesus was prophesied, yet doesn't think this through–neither has anyone else who has made this claim, a claim never anywhere proved by anyone. Thus Brown is doing the very thing he just thought he was criticizing me for: making a baseless claim that suits his agenda, without proving it true or adducing any evidence at all. Ironically, I didn't do that, since I did adduce evidence as well as cited scholarship, whereas Brown adduces none. So he has become the pot calling the porcelain black.
Let's actually think such a claim through. What use is lying about a non-existent scripture in a book meant to satisfy Jews (Torah-observant Christians) that Jesus fulfilled prophecy? If such a scripture didn't exist, Jewish readers would know this, or soon find out, and at any rate could hardly be impressed by the fulfillment of a scripture they'd never heard of and could never verify. What would be the point of making such a claim? Indeed, how could Matthew even think he could get away with it? Or indeed, why would he even try? Why not just not lie about this and simply repeat the fact that Jesus hailed from Nazareth (a fact that Brown is sure Matthew would already have learned from Mark) and was simply born in Bethlehem according to prophecy? Why did Matthew need a prophecy for Nazareth at all?
If Jesus really came from Nazareth, Matthew would not need to cite a prophecy that he did. But more importantly, if he was going to fabricate a prophecy, he would fabricate one that actually matched the town's name. Instead, Matthew invents a prophecy that Jesus would be a "Nazôriaios" in order to explain why he came from "Nazaret," which makes no sense (the two words are unrelated etymologically and phonetically). If he was fabricating, he would invent a prophecy that said Jesus would be a "Nazaretos." Clearly, Matthew was stuck with a prophecy that didn't quite match the town, but he ran with it anyway. That all but entails he wasn't lying. He was reading a scripture (or scripture variant) we no longer have (of which we know there were many, something McGrath embarrassingly isn't aware of, and now Brown repeats that same ignorance–by trusting McGrath to have told him this).
Notably, Brown leaves out all the other evidence I present on this point, and fails to mention I even make the point that we know Christians were using scriptures and variants we no longer have (not only in the paragraphs he cites, but explicitly in note 54 on pp. 315-16). This is a most unfair and misleading way to review the arguments in my book. Brown, again, evidently cannot be trusted to correctly and fairly represent what my book argues.
Sons of Man
In the same way, Brown then makes assumptions about my treatment of the Son of Man question that ignore what I actually say in the text (pp. 150-51). Brown claims:
Another display of ignorance from Carrier is his brief foray on how Mark presents Jesus speaking of "the Son of Man". There is no mentioning of the possibility of an Aramaic Vorlage underlying the Greek phrase (ο υιος του ανθρωπου), making Carrier's discussion on all this pretty meaningless. In a footnote he does list a few of the most recent scholarly volumes on the the issue, but evinces no real knowledge about this controversial topic. It's like he searched Amazon for the phrase 'Jesus Son of Man', saw the recent volumes by Müller, Casey, Walck, Hurtado and Owen, and just threw them together in a footnote to make it look like he knows what he is talking about.
This suggests he isn't paying attention to my argument in the book. Because he doesn't tell the reader here that the point Brown is concerned about (that "Son of Man" might in some instances simply be a translation of an Aramaic idiom for "person" and not a reference to the Enochic or Danielic eschatological figure that Mark clearly imagines it to be) isn't even relevant to any argument I make here. This is gross incompetence on Brown's part.
Contrary to Brown, in the section he is referring to, I was responding to the claim that Jesus must have said "Son of Man" because it references an eschatological figure as not being himself (which is supposed to be unexpected and therefore true); if instead we side with Brown and conclude it didn't reference an eschatological figure, but was just a translation from Aramaic of the generic "man," then there would be no argument for me to respond to. But alas, Mark clearly has Jesus use this phrase several times of an eschatological figure, so I do have an argument to respond to–and I can't refute that argument by claiming every instance in Mark is just the translation of the generic idiom, because every instance in Mark isn't…as, incidentally, all the literature Brown admits I cite says, yet Brown himself is the one who seems to be unaware of this.
If Brown wants to make a completely different argument than the one I am addressing here, that Jesus must have said "Son of Man" on some occasions because in those occasions it translates an Aramaic idiom and thus derives from an Aramaic source (written or oral), then Brown needs to go to the other section of my book where I address that argument, as it is a completely different argument (pp. 185-86). Thus, I don't address a point on pp. 150-51 because it isn't relevant there, and then Brown claims I didn't address it because I didn't know about it, even though I did, and addressed it where it belonged, on pp. 185-86. That's either a shocking error of reading comprehension on his part, or outright fabricating a narrative, either way, it's not a competent way to review a book.
The Judas Narrative
Brown then acts like a fundamentalist (the thing he accuses me of) by saying the Jewish authorities "could have seized [Jesus] in public at any time they wanted, [only] if they wanted to risk a deadly skirmish," a claim that presumes a literal reading of the Gospels in which Jesus is so famous and beloved that "the public" would have battled any soldiers sent to seize him. That is simply not a plausible assumption (were Jesus that famous and that supported by the masses, we would surely have much more evidence of him, as then the literary elite of the era and region could hardly not have noticed him).
Indeed, if we are to suppose a riot would have ensued at that action, it would have ensued the moment he was crucified…yet somehow, suddenly, the Jewish authorities stop being concerned about deadly skirmishes, when they do something enormously worse than merely arrest him, but actually murder him in a public and humiliating manner, and most offensively, on (or on the dawn of) a high holy day. So we're supposed to believe riots would ensue at his mere arrest that didn't ensue at his outrageous public murder? If we're going to play the game of "read the Gospels literally," the story just ends up making less sense, not more.
If you want a more historically plausible account of how the Jewish elite would have actually handled the Jesus problem, look at how we're told they planned to handle the Paul problem (Acts 23:12-21). More likely, they would have killed him immediately upon his vandalism of the temple square, which was guarded by six hundred armed soldiers (with thousands more to summon just a javelin's throw away in Fort Antonia, which housed a whole Roman legion, adjacent to the Temple: Josephus, Jewish War 2.12.1, 4.5.1, 5.238-248; Jewish Antiquities 20.8.6, 20.8.11), who were not afraid to beat down any rebellious public who got in their way (most especially trouble-makers in the Temple). Certainly in the temple they could have arrested him easily, with ample armed support (note that Gentiles were permitted in the Temple area that Jesus vandalized, so Roman legions could police it, as well as the Jewish guards authorized to kill any Gentiles who entered the forbidden areas).
Thus, as Acts would have it, Claudius Lysias had no difficulty dispatching hundreds of soldiers and cavalry from within Jerusalem to escort Paul outside the city (Acts 23:22-24), and Paul was able to be arrested even in the middle of a riot. As Josephus relates in Antiquities 20.1, the Romans regularly killed political undesirables surrounded by hundreds of fanatical supporters, without wasting time on an arrest or trial. And even Mark seems to imagine the Jews could assemble a large armed force, and indeed arrest Jesus with one (Mk. 14:43, Mt. 26:47; according to John 18:3, they even came with six hundred Roman legionairies, a full cohort).
Thus, Brown conveniently accepts the Bible literally when it supports him, but says it lies when it doesn't, and all without actually providing any other argument for either (except that either gets the result he wants, the very methodological mistake I argue against repeatedly in my book).
Another methodological gaffe is when Brown attacks my mention of the symbolic import of the name of Judas by proposing the alternative hypothesis that he was named that by coincidence (the name being common–roughly 1 in 16 Jewish men had it). But in making this argument, he ignores the entire section of my book where I explain the defects of relying on such a hypothesis (cf. pp. 192-204). His hypothesis has a probability of producing the evidence of approximately 1 in 16. Mine has a probability of producing the evidence that could be better than 1 in 2 and is certainly no worse than 1 in 16 (see the case I make: pp. 151-55, esp. with affiliated notes on pp. 316-19), and if the odds are the same on both hypotheses, both hypotheses are equally likely (if starting with neutral priors). In short, you should never try to trump a good explanation (one that makes all the evidence highly likely) by trying to argue it's all just a coincidence instead…unless you can show that such a coincidence is highly likely (as for example by pointing to a multiple comparisons fallacy). Otherwise, at best, you can only get coincidence to be a respectable possibility, not a greater probability, and my argument here can only be rebutted by the latter, not the former–since my point is that we cannot know this is historical, not that it definitely isn't.
The latter seems to be a confusion Brown is prone to. In every one of his criticisms he doesn't seem to understand the argument that "we cannot assume the historicity of stories when we have good reasons to suspect they might not be historical." That is not the same argument as "we should conclude these stories are not historical." The argument I am making is: "if we can't demonstrate a story is more likely historical than not, then we can't use it as evidence that what the story relates is historical." It might be historical, it might not be. We don't know. Because both explanations can account for all the data with the same or nearly the same probability. Maybe the nuance of this is too complex for Brown. I don't know. But the distinction is methodologically crucial.
It's ironic for Brown to miss so many methodological points in a book entirely about methodology–and instead to just focus on minor cherry picked fact-claims he doesn't like, and then address them using all the methodological mistakes the very book is warning him against.
You Might Want to Look up "Straw Man" in the Dictionary
Brown then misleads his readers by saying:
[Carrier's] discussion on the criterion of Aramaic context left a lot to be desired. Why? Because he pretty much just dismisses the possibility of the Greek text of the Gospels containing any Aramaisms, saying that any would just be the result of a Semitized Greek.
Notably, I present several reasons that criterion fails. Several. See pp. 185-86. Indeed, note most conspicuously my remark [emphasis now added] "even if we can distinguish what is merely a Semitic Greek dialect from a Greek translation of an Aramaic source (and we rarely can), that still does not establish that the Aramaic source reported a historical fact." I wonder what preceded that sentence? Brown evidently doesn't want you to know. I do not rely on only the one point Brown mentions, nor did I rely on it in the way he claims. So he is being dishonest with his readers when he says I reject the criterion because I "pretty much just" say Semitized Greek could be the cause of all the same evidence. He also doesn't mention that I cite several experts who agree with me, and even quote two of them. Instead, again, he tries to make it seem as if I am just coming to these conclusions on my own.
This is typical of Brown's review. I don't know if he's deliberately trying to deceive his readers or if he is just a lousy reader and a terrible reviewer who can't ever represent what he is reading correctly or fairly. But more notably, this is another instance of Brown's failure to grasp the actual methodological point I am making here (and elsewhere in chapter five): the point I make is that we have to be able to rule out these alternatives (and remember, there were more I listed than just the one Brown mentions) before we can assert the conclusion that Aramaicism entails a historical Jesus said it. Brown completely fails to get that. Instead, he wants to misrepresent this argument and thus not even respond to it, thereby proving once again the need of me to have made the argument in the first place. As an antidote to the awful methodology of the likes of Kevin Brown.
Thus, you really need to read my book if you want to know what is methodologically necessary to make the kind of arguments Brown wants to defend. Because you won't get properly educated on the subject from Brown. He simply won't tell you what my actual arguments are or why they matter.
That Old Quelle Demon
In Brown's Review Part V, he summarizes his conclusions, but as we've seen, none are based on accurate representations of anything I say or do in the book. (Seriously. I've surveyed all his examples. That's it. That's all he bases his conclusions on.)
The only thing he adds here is some sort of vague defense of the Q Source, without addressing anything I cite on the subject (such as the work of the renowned expert on the subject Mark Goodacre), and then a similarly vague defense of a multiply-hypothetical reconstructive claim that Q establishes a different theology for Jesus' death than the Pauline epistles evince, arguing that somehow this will be relevant to my case for the non-existence of Jesus.
Here Brown would have to be arguing that Paul's understanding of Christ's atonement sacrifice was an invention of Paul's and not original to Christianity (and that "Q" preserves the pre-Pauline understanding…of, who? Peter, James and John?), thus using a hypothetical inference, from a hypothetical document that doesn't exist, to trump a collection of pre-Gospel documents that do exist and were written in the lifetime of and with the knowledge of the original apostles (Gal. 1).
I do not find this a sound way for a historian to proceed methodologically, for a number of reasons I'll discuss in my next book. But principal among them is that (even if Q existed) we don't know what was in Q that wasn't used by Matthew and Luke, and we don't in fact know that Mark didn't use Q (a frequently made point by many experts that Q-defenders continually ignore…their argument to the contrary, that Mark didn't use Q, is classic circular logic). Thus we cannot validly infer anything about what Q didn't contain, unless it contains something that contradicts it (and thus proves Q did not argue it, but argued the contrary), and this is not such a case. For example, "For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45) could well have been in Q, or any similar statement could have been that didn't have to be used because this line from Mark sufficed. This is the problem with not actually having the document you are making claims about. You don't in fact know what all was in it.
So, no, contrary to Brown, we just can't get there from here.
Concluding Remarks
In Brown's Review Part VI, he iterates a linked debate over his review between Brown himself and Tom Verenna, which I think Verenna's original remarks already adequately address. Brown is attempting the same ridiculous tactic of attacking my qualifications instead of my actual substantive arguments. Even when he attacks any of my arguments, he picks only minor and often insubstantial points, ignoring even the substantive points those minor claims are used to elucidate, and on top of that, as I've noted all the way through, he misrepresents what I said and mischaracterizes it as if it were my own musings rather than being based on existing scholarship or actual cited evidence, and he omits all my other arguments to the same conclusion and then pretends I only made the one or other argument he thinks he can answer.
Most ironically, Brown defends his inept review by saying "Poor argumentation deserves no respect," yet notice how he completely misrepresents my actual arguments, actually going out of his way to make them look poor by omitting almost all my premises and all my actual primary evidence and cited scholarship, and then uses this fact that he just invented (that my arguments, thus straw manned by Brown, are "poor") to justify what he's done. That is cheeky. When you actually look at my book and read my arguments that he addresses, in context, with all the actual evidence and arguments and citations, and in respect to what I am actually arguing in each case, all of his claims that any of my arguments in the book are "poor" are easily shown to be false.
That means he is the one using poor argumentation. Which means by his own reasoning, his review deserves no respect. But alas, when people make false claims about our work and straw man our arguments in an effort to malign our competence, sometimes we have to pay at least the respect of exposing what they've done.


text:
Square Enix has compared the new versions of the games included in "Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix" to the original releases. According to a report from NZ Gamer on Sept. 1, the publisher revealed that "Kingdom Hearts 2 Final Mix is getting a complete overhaul in terms of its original soundtrack. As a result, more than 90 pieces have been rearranged using an orchestra. The remastered port also adds new missions based on the Gummi ship as well as a secret movie that ties the second numbered installment of the series to "Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep Final Mix."
The remastered version of the original PSP game is also getting some extra features. "Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep Final Mix" comes with new abilities based on action and support elements along with some new items. Furthermore, players will also be able to use the "Rhythmic Mixer" command.
The last game in "Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix" is "Kingdom Hearts Re:coded." Although Square Enix decided to only include cut scenes instead of gameplay, the company is also adding new movies based on several boss fights. One of the examples mentioned has the data versions of Riku and Sora squaring off.
"Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix" is coming out in Japan two months before the major western regions. The compilation will launched in the Japanese territory on Oct. 2 and then be released on Dec. 2 in North America. Europe is getting the same product three days after the North American launch. You can find a screen showing off the remastered visuals with the photo near the top of this article (courtesy of the Facebook page of Playstation).
"Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix" should bridge the gap between the first collection, "Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix," with the upcoming "Kingdom Hearts 3." The third main installment was officially announced at E3 2013 for the PS4 and Xbox One. However, a release date window has not yet been formally announced for the highly-anticipated sequel.
Suggested Links
- 'Final Fantasy Type-0 HD' release date, 'Final Fantasy XV' and more discussed
- 'Final Fantasy XV' release date could be affected by departure of programmer
- 'The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt' Xbox One exclusive content, DLC and more clarified
- 'Bloodborne' shotgun, special attack and more detailed on PS4
- 'Bloodborne,' 'Destiny' 'Final Fantasy XV' and more discussed by Sony

subset: commoncrawl


text:
More New and Used
from Private Sellers
Note: Supplemental materials are not guaranteed with Rental or Used book purchases.
Birds: A Spiritual Journal: Record the Symbology & Significance of These Divine Winged Messengers
ISBN13:by Murphy-Hiscock, Arin
Adams Media Corp
For the first time, birdwatchers can record the type of bird they see and the sacred message it holds especially for them. This lovely journal helps readers identify a specific bird, identify its corresponding symbolism, and record their impressions by asking questions such as: What kind of bird visited you today? Did the sighting evoke any immediate emotions? Were your feelings or mood transformed once you had the encounter? In what way does the bird's message resonate with you? Complete with a key to 75 of the most popular species in North America, Birds: A Spiritual Journalturns a hobby into divine providence!


text:
Ste. Genevieve will celebrate 300 years of heritage when the city's annual French Heritage Festival takes place Saturday, June 14. But it's not all pomp, circumstance and dry re-enactments.
"Ste. Genevieve is known as a quaint, historic destination. This is the oldest permanent European settlement in Missouri. But the French Heritage Festival adds so many other elements. It's the storytelling, food, dance and music. We celebrate that unique part of our history. The magic comes at the open air concert, when people hear fiddle music and just want to celebrate and have fun," Ste. Genevieve tourism director Sandra Cabot said.
The festival officially opens at noon at the Church of Ste. Genevieve, 49 DuBourg Place, followed by the traditional "grand promenade," featuring participants in French Colonial period clothing.
Those wanting an early taste of history can attend a "tea and cake" party from 11 a.m. to noon in the backyard of the Jacques Guibourd House, 1 N. Fourth St. The event, hosted by former French queen Marie Antoinette (portrayed by local resident Bonnie Samuelson), includes a "Storytelling in the Garden" session by Rose Nester of St. Louis. She will present traditional folktales and fables in French.
Re-enactments of Ste. Genevieve's early military and cultural history will take place during the festival. The Ste. Genevieve French Militia camp will be set up behind the Felix Valle House Historic Site; members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War will be at the Ste. Genevieve County Courthouse on Third Street. 'Resurgent Artists' will paint at various locations in recognition of the 80th anniversary of the Ste. Genevieve Summer School of Art.
Most of the festival activities are free, but Cabot said those who want to tour Ste. Genevieve's historic houses and sites will have to buy a "Historic Passport," The fee ($15 for adults, $5 for children) allows visitors to tour the Bolduc House, Felix Valle Historic Site, Jacques Guibourd House and Ste. Genevieve Museum.
Visitors who want to take a break from walking around the festival area can pay a nominal fee for formal horse carriage rides.
Music begins at 11:30 a.m. with Les Petits Chanteurs, Ste. Genevieve's children's folk singing group.
Entertainment continues with concerts in Main Street Park by Lynn Rose Terry & Friends (12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.) and Dennis Stroughmatt's Et L'Espirit Creole (7:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.). Stroughmatt recently won a 2014 Missouri Humanities Council award in the "Exemplary Community Achievement" category.
Performers also will take the stage at Lions Park from noon to 4 p.m.
French dancing and folktales will be presented at the Felix Valle Historic Site at 7 p.m. Visitors can also take a candlelight tour of the Felix Valle House.
A variety of "street food" will be available, including pork burgers at Main Street Park and jambalaya at Lions Club Park. Cabot said local restaurants Stella and Me, and Station 2 Café will feature special festival-themed items. The Bolduc House's open-air market, at the southwest corner of Market and Second streets, also will be open.
Wine and beer is available at Main Street Park. Cabot added Sainte Genevieve Winery will offer a "Red, White and Blue Sangria" in honor of the festival.
For more information about the French Heritage festival, call the Ste. Genevieve Welcome Center at 800-373-7007 or visit www.visitstegen.com.


text:
The Syracuse Orange men's basketball team dropped in the polls as expected going from #1 in both polls to #4 AP/ #5 Coaches Poll after two losses last week to Boston College and Duke. The once undefeated Orange takes to the road and plays at Maryland tonight at 7 p.m. on ESPN or on the radio dial of TK99.
Syracuse looks to get the offense going and the rebounding ignited after what seems like a month on the edge and finally those two losses that cost the team the top ranking. Syracuse (25-2, 12-2 ACC) is 2-5 all-time against Maryland (15-12, 7-7 ACC). The Orange currently is looking up at:
AP Top-5:
Wichita St.
Coaches Poll Top-5:
Wichita St.
Coach Boeheim has been under media scrutiny all week for his reaction to a call at the end of the Duke game and has been blamed as costing the Orange the game with his ejection and ensuing foul shots and possession of the ball for Duke. Let's be honest, after the call itself (offensive charge on a CJ Fair drive and score, bucket waved off) the game was over, period.
Maryland is looking to make some noise and get some quality wins before shipping off to the Big-10 next season. Syracuse looks to get back on track before a showdown next Saturday at Virgina who currently sits atop the ACC standings.
Game Info:
Syracuse at Maryland
7:00 p.m.
ESPN, ESP3, local radio: TK99


text:
Video Categories
Choose from a variety of video categories show below. Some categories will require a download of some sort.
GETV Kids
Nurturing your child's faith in today's world can be overwhelming. Secular media is sneaking un-biblical messages into the "safest" programs, media for children. Already, children consume up to 8... See Full List
Recently Added Videos
A list of the most recently added videos See Full List
Live Events
See Cornerstone Church Services and Events LIVE See Full List
Archived Events
Many of our live events are archived here on-demand for an entire week, including all Sunday services! See Full List
Classic Sermons
Classic sermons by Pastors John and Matthew Hagee See Full List
Church Events And Classes
View special events and classes that you can only find here on GETV! See Full List
Guests and Bonus Features
Exciting & inspirational messages from special guest speakers & bonus content on-demand! See Full List
Music Videos
Great Gospel music sung at Cornerstone and in the Difference Studio See Full List
En Español
Muchos de nuestros sermones clásicos traducidos al Español para su deleite y educación! See Full List
Pay Per View
Videos and Series that can be rented or purchased. See Full List
The Difference with Matthew and Kendal Hagee
The Difference...A show where Biblical truths and your everyday life intertwine. Join Pastor Matt, Kendal and their guests as they discuss trends, culture, and most importantly, how your faith... See Full List
Hagee Hotline
This is Pastor Hagee like you have never seen him before...conducting unedited commentary on the state or our nation and current geopolitical events from a Scriptural perspective. See Full List


text:
Local deals for martial art classes and products in the Atlanta area for Friday, May 4th are provided below. Remember that these deals are time sensitive.
Martial Art classes
- Friday, 5/4 at 7 PM - Roswell, GA - Self Defense Class for $5 (via Groupon)
- Friday, 5/4 at 9 AM - Sandy Springs/North Atlanta - Kickboxing & Boxing class for $10 (via Groupon)
- North Atlanta (multiple locations) - One month of Karate Classes and a free uniform for $30 (via Livingsocial - must purchase by May 9th)
- Woodstock, GA - Atlanta Martial Arts Center is offering One month of MMA, Thai Kickboxing, Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and Jeet Kune Do for $50 (via Livingsocial - must purchase by May 5)
Product deals
- BJJHQ.com offers daily specials on jiu-jitsu related gear. Today's special is a Submission Fight Co Gi in black for $85 (plus $5 for shipping).
- MMAHQ.com offers daily specials on martial arts related gear. Today's special is a pair of Mint MMA shorts for $30 (plus $5 for shipping).
Note: These deals are time sensitive and must be purchased and/or used today or purchased over the next few days.


text:
About the Rocky Mountain Herbarium
The RM Herbarium is an essential resource for education, research, and public service. RM also includes the National Herbarium of the U. S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Wilhelm G. Solheim Mycological Herbarium (RMS).
The RM Herbarium was founded in 1893 by Aven Nelson. It has since grown to over 800,000 specimens with approximately 25,000 new specimens added each year.
Rocky Mountain Herbarium Library
The Rocky Mountain Herbarium Library is an official non-circulating branch of the University of Wyoming Libraries. It contains an excellent collection of systematics literature for North America and major floristics and systematics treatments for the world.
Rocky Mountain People: Staff, Graduate Students, and Associates
Dr. Ronald L. Hartman is the curator and B. Ernie Nelson is the herbarium manager. Over 40 graduate students have completed Master's degrees in floristics at RM. Associates include Robert Dorn, author of the "Flora of Wyoming."
The RM Herbarium is located on the third floor of the Aven Nelson Memorial Building at the University of Wyoming. Researchers should make arrangements for access prior to visiting and should check herbarium policies.
Protocols for bringing material into the herbarium, examining specimens, requesting loans, and using the herbarium library.
Photo: Actaea rubra, northern New Mexico


text:
Greg Nicotero Returning to The Walking Dead Escape for SDCC 2013
July 12, 2013 by Brian Pate
Filed under California, Comic Books, Comic-Con International, Convention News, Horror, Television
Comments Off on Greg Nicotero Returning to The Walking Dead Escape for SDCC 2013
Press Release:
The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego, Skybound & AMC Join Forces with The Walking Dead Executive Producer Greg Nicotero
Nicotero and His Team Transform Participants into Zombies during Event at Petco Park July 19 & 20
SAN DIEGO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego, Skybound, Robert Kirkman's imprint at Image Comics, and AMC announced they are joining forces with KNB EFX Group, Inc. and its founder Greg Nicotero to serve as the Special Effects Make-up designer for the zombies featured in this one of a kind obstacle course. In addition to The Walking Dead, Nicotero is the force behind the Special Effects Make-up for TV shows and Movies such as Django Unchained, Sin City 2, Machete Kills, Breaking Bad, Kill Bill,Predators, Transformers, Land of the Dead and Army of Darkness.
With their work on AMC's The Walking Dead, Greg Nicotero and his KNB EFX team have deep experience creating some of the most incredible zombies in the industry. Founded in 1988, they have become one of the most prolific Special Make-up Effects Studios in Hollywood. Greg and his KNB EFX make-up artists provided the zombie transformations through its award-winning make-up artistry last summer at The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego event during San Diego Comic-Con.
The Walking Dead Escape allows fans to live out the events from the groundbreaking, Emmy-award winning and top-rated AMC series, which is based on Robert Kirkman's Eisner Award-winning best selling The Walking Dead graphic novels and comic book series.
There are three ways to participate in this epic adventure. Participants can be a Survivor and race through the zombie infested evacuation zone; a Walker who becomes one of the undead, embracing the inevitable; or a Spectator who watches the apocalypse from sidelines at the Escape Party. The KNB EFX team will transform those who sign up to be Walkers into the most terrifying zombies to grace San Diego. Registration is now open at www.TheWalkingDeadEscape.com.
"We couldn't be more pleased to have Greg and his KNB EFX team on board once again for The Walking Dead Escape in San Diego," said event producer Liam Brenner. "People who sign up to be Walkers will have the opportunity to be completely transformed into zombies by make-up artists who have used their talents creating walkers for the show over the last 4 seasons. It's really a chance of a lifetime!"
Survivors will climb, crawl and slide in an effort to avoid confrontation by hordes of Walkers, while achieving the ultimate adventure on The Walking Dead-themed obstacle course. The Walking Dead Escape is not a race, and Survivors are not timed, but the end is near, and they must move swiftly. If they're lucky, Survivors will reach the decontamination zone at the end where it will be determined if they have been infected.
For more information or to register for the event, please visit www.thewalkingdeadescape.com.
About Greg Nicotero & KNB EFX Group, Inc.
Greg Nicotero is Executive Producer, Director and Special Effects Make-Up designer on The Walking Dead. His work on THE WALKING DEAD has earned he and his team back-to-back Emmy wins for Best Prosthetic Make-up along with nominations for visual effects for both THE WALKING DEAD and BREAKING BAD. Greg has written and directed several installments of a webseries based on THE WALKING DEAD that have won numerous awards including WGA award for Best Internet Conent 2 years in a row. His company, The KNB EFX Group (KNB) was co-founded by Greg & Howard Berger in 1988 and has contributed special make-up and creature effects on over 700 film and television projects such as Sin City, Inglourious Basterds, This is The End, Dances with Wolves, The Amazing Spiderman 2, The Greyand Pulp Fiction, to The Green Mile, The Book of Eli and Piranha. Prosthetics and character make-up work can be seen in everything from, Oz: The Great and Powerful, and Hitchcock, to From Dusk Til Dawn. Nicotero has spent nearly 30 years designing make up effects sequences from initial creature design to on-set execution/2nd unit direction. His 20,000 square foot facility in Chatsworth, California is home to some of the most talented sculptors, designers and make-up artists in the world.
About Robert Kirkman
Robert Kirkman's success and passionate advocacy for creator-owned comics led him to become the first person invited to become a partner at Image Comics since the company's inception twenty-one years ago. Kirkman is the creator/writer of the Eisner Award-winning The Walking Dead, long-running Invincible, all-ages Super Dinosaur and Thief of Thieves. In 2010, Kirkman formed his own Image imprint, Skybound, which publishes his own work and Clone, Ghosted, Invincible Universe and Witch Doctor. Kirkman has earned the respect of the comic, writing and television communities and topped the New York Times bestseller list for graphic novels in 2011 and 2012. In April 2012, he took the top five spots on both the hardcover and paperback lists. He's the creator/executive producer and writer of the hit Emmy®-winning television show, AMC's The Walking Dead, the highest-rated basic cable drama of all time in the U.S, also an international success in 122 countries and 37 languages. Your destinations for all news and merchandise from Robert Kirkman, The Walking Dead and all Skybound titles are www.Skybound.com and www.TheWalkingDead.com
About Skybound
Skybound is Robert Kirkman's imprint at Image Comics and home to his creator-owned works including his Eisner Award-winning comic book series, The Walking Dead, long-running Invincible, all-ages Super Dinosaur and Thief of Thieves. Skybound also develops and fosters other talented writers, creators and artists and publishes their comic book series and graphic novels: Clone, Ghosted, Invincible Universe and Witch Doctor. Since its inception, Skybound has created television shows, merchandise, games (The Walking Dead: Assault iOS app), and entertainment events (The Walking Dead Escape). Skybound's successes include the comic behind the hit Emmy®-winning television show, AMC's The Walking Dead, the highest-rated basic cable drama of all time in the U.S., where Kirkman serves as Executive Producer/writer. Kirkman is also developing a new show with FOX International Channels based on his upcoming comic book series set in the world of exorcism. Skybound/Kirkman frequently top the hardcover and paperback bestseller lists. Your destinations for all news and merchandise from Robert Kirkman, The Walking Dead and all Skybound titles are www.Skybound.com and www.TheWalkingDead.com
About AMC
Whether commemorating favorite films from every genre and decade or creating acclaimed original programming, AMC brings to its audience something deeper, something richer, Something More. The network reigns as the only cable network in history ever to win the Emmy® Award for Outstanding Drama Series four years in a row, and boasts the most-watched drama series in basic cable history with "The Walking Dead." AMC's original drama series include "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Walking Dead," "The Killing" and "Hell on Wheels." Its newest series, "Low Winter Sun," premieres this summer. AMC also explores authentic worlds with bold characters through its slate of unscripted original series like "Comic Book Men," "Small Town Security," "Talking Dead," and "Freakshow." AMC is owned and operated by AMC Networks Inc. and its sister networks include IFC, Sundance Channel, and WE tv. AMC is available across all platforms, including on-air, online, on demand and mobile. AMC: Something More.
About Ruckus Sports, LLC
Ruckus Sports, LLC, an innovator in mass-participatory events, creates compelling, exhilarating outdoor events designed for a wide range of people. Beginning in 2010 with its signature event, "The Ruckus Challenge," these events reach multiple markets across the country, with thousands of participants from ages 2 to 72 having completed our premier obstacle races. As the creator and producer of "The Walking Dead Escape," Ruckus continues to demonstrate that extraordinary mass-participatory events can take many forms and appeal to a variety of audiences. Ruckus Sports is a portfolio company of Steel Sports Inc., a network of branded, participatory and experience-based businesses.
The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego Partners with KNB EFX and Greg Nicotero for SDCC 2012
June 19, 2012 by Brian Pate
Filed under California, Comic Books, Comic-Con International, Convention News, Horror, Television
The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego Partners with Make-Up Effects Company KNB EFX Group, Inc. Lead by Co-Executive Producer of AMC's The Walking Dead Greg Nicotero (via PR Newswire)
SAN DIEGO, June 19, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego announced its partnership with KNB EFX Group, Inc. and its founder Greg Nicotero, the force behind Special Effects Make-up for TV shows and movies such as AMC's The Walking Dead, Kill Bill, Predators, Transformers 1-3, Pulp…
Walking Dead Panelists Announced for NYCC 2011
October 13, 2011 by Brian Pate
Filed under Comic Books, Convention News, Horror, New York, New York Comic Con, Television, Top Stories
Comments Off on Walking Dead Panelists Announced for NYCC 2011
Press Release:
Participants Include Cast and Executive Producers; Sneak Peek at New Season; More Panelists May be Added!
Norwalk, CT, October 12, 2011: Norwalk, CT, October XX, 2011: Robert Kirkman, the Eisner Award-winning creator of The Walking Dead comic book will participate in a highly anticipated panel at New York Comic along with cast including Jon Bernthal, Laurie Holden, Steven Yeun, Chandler Riggs, Lauren Cohan and Norman Reedus. Executive Producer Gale Anne Hurd and Co-Executive producer and Emmy Award winning Makeup Effects Artist Greg Nicotero will also participate on the panel. Officials at AMC note that a sneak peek at the new season will be part of the presentation and still more participants may be added to the star-studded line up in the next day or two.
AMC's The Walking Dead panel will take place in the IGN Theater – Presented by Sprint on Saturday, October 15th, 5:15pm – 6:15pm. Cast members will do a limited signing for fans after the panel! Tickets for the signing will be handed out first come, first served in Hall 1C on Saturday, 10/15 at 12 noon. New York Comic Con is sold out of exhibit space and upwards of 100,000 people are expected to attend the show which takes place this week, October 13 – 16, 2011 at the Jacob K. Javits Center.
"I am hugely impressed with the panelists being provided by AMC for The Walking Dead panel," notes Lance Fensterman Show Manager for NYCC and Group Vice President for ReedPOP. "This is going to be one of our signature events and I know that we will have thousands of fans who will want to come to hear and see these awesome personalities who have made The Walking Dead such a huge hit. I can't thank AMC and all the participants of this panel enough for giving their time and talent to New York Comic Con."
The Walking Dead was a comic book series created by writer Robert Kirkman in 2003 which won the 2010 Eisner Award for Best Continuing Series. A television series was announced in 2009 and premiered to enormous attention and acclaim on October 31, 2010. The panel at New York Comic Con will focus on the success of season one and will discuss what to look forward to in season two. The Walking Dead returns October 16 at 9pmEST/8pmCentral only on AMC.
Tickets for NYCC are on sale via the website www.NewYorkComicCon.com. Limited 4-Day tickets are available. Tickets will also be on sale on site this weekend, October 13 – 16. Saturday one day passes are SOLD OUT! For further information about all ReedPOP shows and activity, please visit Lance Fensterman's blog, www.MediumAtLarge.net.
ABOUT REEDPOP: ReedPOP is a boutique group within Reed Exhibitions which is exclusively devoted to organizing events, launching and acquiring new shows, and partnering with premium brands in the pop culture arena. ReedPOP is dedicated to producing celebrations of popular culture throughout the world that transcend ordinary events by providing unique access and dynamic personal experiences for consumers and fans. The ReedPOP portfolio includes: New York Comic Con (NYCC), Chicago Comic and Entertainment Expo (C2E2), Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) East & West, Star Wars Celebration V, New York Anime Festival (NYAF), and UFC Fan Expo. The staff at ReedPOP is a fan based group of professionals producing shows for other fans, thus making them uniquely qualified to service those with whom they share a common passion. ReedPOP is focused on bringing its expertise and knowledge to world communities in North America, South America, Asia and Europe.


text:
VANDALS have attacked the Mates of Milton's handcrafted wooden community noticeboard - that cost £3,000 to create.
They sawed three quarters of the way through both supporting legs on the free-standing wooden noticeboard. It was only saved from collapse by an unknown passerby.
Mates of Milton member Kelly Hardy said: "Luckily, whoever did this only managed to saw part way through the legs because the weight of the board and glass alone could have seriously hurt someone. It's so heavy it took four men to put it up."
The board, designed by local people and handmade by a local carpenter, was paid for by the community through fund-raising.
** The full story appeared in the Barnsley Chronicle Hoyland edition, dated February 28.**
Most read news stories


text:
In addition to credit cards, we also accept Paypal.
Product Rating
Questions & Answers
187 customer reviews
Ask a Question
Ordering for a Team?
Let our Team Division Help!
Item has a Minimum Qty
I love it!
So the last two times i strictly bought the shampoo, thinking the conditioner wouldn't make that much of a difference, but honestly i think it does! The directions say to leave the conditioner in your hair for about 2-3 minutes and i really recommend doing so because it does help! My hair has been a lot naturally shinier and i'm even starting to think some of the chlorine damage that it had has gone away and it may be getting healthier! Buy the conditioner too!
Report abuse
Your comment has been posted.
It's been a big help
I left a review with the Ultraswim Shampoo product, so you can read the whole thing there. I've only been using the shampoo and conditioner for just over a week and they have helped tremendously. I'm in the water at least 10 hours a week and started to actually get bald on top. I've been in the pool for years, but not with head submerged in the water. A few months ago I started to swim with a snorkel and OMG! I can't tell you how bad it got. But these products have helped a lot. I also use something my sister GAME me under my cap now. I wet my hair, but that product on then use the Ultraswim products when I show getting out of the pool. I don't even get normal amount of hair breakage now when I comb my hair after showering. I recommend this product.
Patricia McIntyre
Highland, CA
necessary product
The boys need it, and wouldn't want to be without it during swim season.
Rebecca W.
Yakima, WA
nothing special
bought this when i got the shampoo... doesn't really do anything and it's pretty watery. won't buy it again.the shampoo is good though
Thought I'd try
I've been using the shampoo for years with just a regular conditioner after. The shampoo is awesome and it works (i'm a blonde). so, When I saw this I thought I would give it a try and meh. Doesn't smell as good as the shampoo and doesn't condition for $&@*. Once I finish the bottle I will go back to my old ways.
melissa t.
Lafayette, CA
Great product
It works great. I use it after swimming with and/or without the shampoo. Returns hair to its pre-chlorine state.
Gabriella B.
Yonkers, NY
Use the Ultraswim shampoo, but skip the conditioner.
This is not a great conditioner. I have used about1/2 the bottle after only three uses and my hair feels very dry. Alternatively, I would (highly) recommend using the Ultraswim shampoo to remove chlorine odor and buildup from your hair and then use a better quality regular conditioner instead.
Los Angeles, CA
Buy it all the time
Great condition with same brand shampoo. Only stuff i'll use
David B.
Modesto, CA
smells like perm
works great, smells awful. Same with the shampoo.
Tuscaloosa, AL
I use it but not as intended.
The shampoo works great. Conditioner leaves a film and weighs hair down. So now i use it after i wet my hair before i get in the pool. I squeeze the water out and put the conditioner through my hair and leave it in. When i get out of the pool, i use the shampoo and my normal conditioner. This regimen has worked well for me.
Get an alert when we add new styles of Ultraswim! Simply sign up and we'll notify you.
Ultraswim's Shampoo and Conditioner provides one of the best protections on the market for chlorine-damaged hair. Claiming to morph "swimmer's hair" into "salon-beautiful hair", Ultraswim's benevolent shampoo formula contains humectants, aloe, and vitamin E to leave hair less damaged and chlorine-free. The reformulated Ultra Repair Conditioner gives that extra ounce of moisture to leave hair soft and manageable. Acquired by Chattem, Inc in 1986, Ultraswim's Shampoo and Conditioner which is gentle enough to use everyday, gives to swimmers what pool chemicals take out- lustrous and damage-free hair.
On YourFirst Purchase


text:
NEWPORT BEACH While police were inside the Newport Beach Marriott unveiling a crime prevention campaign, other officers were outside casing the parking lot.
Here's some of what Police Chief Jay Johnson announced they'd found in parked cars: nine purses, a laptop, three iPads, five cellphones, 18 pieces of luggage (three with cash visible), 13 shopping bags, a television, eight GPS units and a set of golf clubs.
There were chuckles in the hotel ballroom, perhaps some nervous ones: Is that my car?
"We are a safe community, and that perception of safety causes us to let our guard down," Johnson said.
To counter such complacency, Newport police are starting what they hope will be an eye-catching campaign with a high-fashion theme. A news conference last week turned into a fashion show as seven models sashayed down a short runway holding designer handbags bursting with "stolen" goods: cellphones, an iPad, wallets, sunglasses, jewelry.
Ads featuring similar felonious models will be on bus shelters, gas pumps and buses. Videos will be shown in a movie theater and on local TV, and there will be a website, Stolen- Collection.com, and social media posts.
The delivery is whimsical, but the message is serious: Most theft is preventable.
Johnson said more than 90 percent of property crime in the city in November resulted from unlocked doors or leaving valuables in plain sight. Criminals, after all, like easy targets.
Last year, police said, two-thirds of home burglaries and three-quarters of vehicle break-ins involved no forced entry. In 25 percent of auto thefts, the victims left their keys in the cars.
The city paid $21,000 to a Long Beach company, ETA Advertising, for this campaign and possible future ones. Police don't yet know how much more they'll spend to place the ads. Johnson said the city is using forfeiture money, which comes from cars, cash or other property seized from criminal suspects, instead of taxpayer dollars.
The chief compared the campaign's cost with the $170,000-a-year cost of just a single extra officer, once you add in benefits and pension.
Mayor Keith Curry said it will "arm our citizens" to be part of the solution.
After the chief and mayor finished speaking, the emcee, Lt. Jon Lewis, said, "All right, let's have some fun."
As the first model walked out from behind a curtain, Lewis read from his script:
"Here we have Niko. He's mastered the runway – and running away with other people's stuff. He's currently sporting an electric orange designer bag with lots of goodies inside, including an iPad and a new iPhone.
"Let's give a shout-out to the owner of that sporty white import for leaving it unlocked."


text:
Bill Gates is in Washington D.C. this week at The American Enterprise Institute and spoke on Thursday about the future in 20 years. The mindset of the government and people have not adjusted to view the future even though technology is exploding this decade into a world of the Internet of Things and the propulsion into artificial intelligence according to Bill Gates' analysis of technology and lifestyle in the future, reports the Business Insider Thursday.
His presentation was infused with the tech slang term, 'bots' or a more gentle term, 'software substitution.' It translates to the changing job market that will make extinct the jobs to be replaced by the automated world run by computers and robots with A.I. or artificial intelligence.
Technology will provide medical check-ups through digital tests taken at home and read in a lab across town or country. Certain skill sets can be replaced such as self-driving cars, so no longer a need for taxi drivers or limousine service personnel driving.
Offices will not be filled with administrative bookkeeping and accounting personnel, as there is no need when artificial intelligence can run through a scenario and learns the tasks.
A study done at the University of Oxford in the U.K. forecasts half of the jobs in American will be replaced by robots and computers of artificial intelligence, A.I. The nurses, cab drivers, accountants and others than can be programed and developed in smart technology. The change will turn the socio-economic system and culture within a couple of decades according to Carl Benedikt Frey of Oxford who co-authored the study that forecasts how rapidly this will change lives.
There are 702 occupations that will be affected by automation into the future of A.I. and robots according to Frey and his co-author, Michael Osborne, of the study. Frey who is a Ph.D. in economics was surprised how easily the algorithm replaced the loan officer. The loan officer was predicted with a 98% probability of replacement. A safer position at only 11% probability was journalists. Surgeons were at the lowest probability along with elementary school teachers.
At least from Gates' speech there are a couple of decades to re-set the mindset and prepare for the new occupation. Preparing the next generation for college would be beneficial to take science and math courses for a medical profession in surgery and basic math and English skills for a career in teaching. Preparation will meet opportunity in the future and Gates educates government and people to be prepared to embrace the brave new world of artificial intelligence.
To view more about changes in lifestyle and culture due to technology see the list below in the Author's suggestions and view the video atop this article of an interview with A.I. developer, inventor & author, Ray Kurzweil.
Twitter: Victoria Wagner@victoriaross888


text:
Channel Rating
Stats & Numbers
- Latest Update09 Sep 2015
- Videos34
- Photo Sets34
- Views3,744,912
Not So Innocent Teens
These teens may look all sweet and innocent, but their puppy dog eyes are hiding a secret history of promiscuous behavior and raunchy sex. Born with insatiable appetites for cock, these sexy little nymphets use their tight teen bodies to get out of whatever precarious situation they find themselves. Living by the philosophy that you're only young once, these girls are making the most of their teenage years, stuffing their faces and shaved young pussies with as much cock as they can get their hands on!
Videos 34 Videos View All
- Jojo Kiss09 Sep 2015
- Marissa Mae06 Jan 2015
- Shelly Starr15 Aug 2013
- Marina Maywood24 Apr 2013
- Riley Ray19 Apr 2013
- Jessica Brandy04 Apr 2013
By joining now, you'll unlock our highly regarded, exclusive teen site network! Don't miss out on the fresh teen extravaganza. It's all for the taking and everything is yours to keep! Be a member now!Get Your Password Now
Teen Channels
Below is our elite teen channel network. Nothing but the best, premium co-ed content starring all the sweet, tender darlings you know and love! Whether it's desperate schoolgirls who'll do anything to get out of detention or newly turned exploited 18 year-olds on the casting couch, trust us, we have it all and more!
- Exploited 18 Exploited 18 55 Videos ⋅ 55 Photo Sets
- I am Eighteen I am Eighteen 82 Videos ⋅ 81 Photo Sets
- Not So Innocent Teens Not So Innocent Teens 34 Videos ⋅ 34 Photo Sets
- Real Teens Kissing Real Teens Kissing 16 Videos ⋅ 16 Photo Sets
- Schoolgirl Internal Schoolgirl Internal 34 Videos ⋅ 34 Photo Sets
- Sex For Grades Sex For Grades 43 Videos ⋅ 42 Photo Sets
You're not going to find any of these BRAND NEW amateur models anywhere else! Get your membership now to the ultimate teen paradise. Get your velvet rope member access now!Get Your Password Now


text:
Permanent URL to this publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-51796
Sennhauser, Michele (2010). Why the Linear Utility Function is a Risky Choice in Discrete-Choice Experiments. Working paper series / Socioeconomic Institute No. 1014, University of Zurich.
This article assesses how the form of the utility function in discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) affects estimates of willingness-to-pay (WTP). The utility function is usually assumed to be linear in its attributes. Non-linearities, in the guise of interactions and higher-order terms, are applied only rather ad hoc. This paper sheds some light on this issue by showing that the linear utility function can be a risky choice in DCEs. For this purpose, a DCE conducted in Switzerland to assess preferences for statutory social health insurance is estimated in two ways: first, using a linear utility function; and second, using a non-linear utility function specified according to model specification rules from the econometrics and statistics literature. The results show that not only does the non-linear function outperform the linear specification with regard to goodness-of-fit, but it also generates significantly different WTP. Hence, the functional form of the utility function may have significant impact on estimated WTP. In order to produce unbiased estimates of preferences and to make adequate decisions based on DCEs, the form of the utility function should become more prominent in future experiments.
526 downloads since deposited on 29 Nov 2011
134 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics
Additional indexing
|Item Type:
|Working Paper
|Communities & Collections:
|03 Faculty of Economics > Department of Economics
Working Paper Series > Socioeconomic Institute (former)
|Dewey Decimal Classification:
|330 Economics
|JEL Classification:
|November 2010
|Deposited On:
|29 Nov 2011 15:09
|Last Modified:
|05 Apr 2016 15:09
|Series Name:
|Working paper series / Socioeconomic Institute
|Official URL:
Users (please log in): suggest update or correction for this item
Repository Staff Only: item control page


text:
Pawn Shop Chronicles Showtimes and Tickets
Read Movie Reviews about Pawn Shop Chronicles Write a Movie Review for Pawn Shop Chronicles
Release Date: 2013-07-12 (Limited)
Genre: Action/Adventure, Comedy
Rating: R
Duration: 1hr 52min
In this shop, several people may be pawning far more than they bargained for in 3 twisted tales all connected by items from a Southern small-town pawn shop. A man searching for his kidnapped wife, a couple of white-supremacist meth heads, and a sad-sack Elvis impersonator, plus more desperate characters come to life in the action-packed and hilarious story.
Cast and Crew
- Starring
Elijah Wood, Vincent D'Onofrio, Norman Reedus, Brendan Fraser, Paul Walker
- Directed by Wayne Kramer
- Produced by Paul Walker, David Mimran, Nick Thurlow, Jordan Schur
- Written by Adam Minarovich
Search For Theaters
Write a review for Pawn Shop Chronicles
Login to write review:


text:
Children's Musical Theater Presents Honk!, Based on "The Ugly Duckling"
* Additional fees apply. No coupon or promo codes necessary to enjoy the displayed discount price.
The last date listed for Honk! was Friday July 17, 2009 / 7:00pm.
Currently at Montgomery Theater
Crazy For You: Gershwin Musical Shines With Young Stars
- Full Price:
- $18.00
- Our Price:
- $9.00
With its all-Gershwin score, witty romantic comedy and fabulous dancing, Crazy For You has been a… More
Venue Details
Reviews & Ratings
Featured review from Janet J.
view more less of this review
It was a cute little show and there were some very talented actors....I enjoyed, but was a struggle to hold young grandson's (3 1/2) interest to even make it to intermission.....My other grandson (5 1/2) seemed to enjoy and a challenge to figure what parts actors were playing by their costumes ...It would have been more helpful if costumes resembled a little more the parts they were playing.....It was their first introduction to stage acting and I will probably try another play with the older grandson, but will wait a year or 2 for the younger one.
In closing, in promoting this play, I think it would be better to mention some age guidelines.....It would have been helpful to me.
star this review starred report as inappropriate
A great time was had by all: 7, 9, and 64 year olds.
star this review starred report as inappropriate
My 11 year old son and I went together and enjoyed the play immensly. It was a great way to share some quality time on a Friday night, and we were both laughing at the play.
star this review starred report as inappropriate
Great performance by young actors that my 5 year old sister loved!
Prepare for a _Honk_ing good family experience when Hans Christian Andersen's classic tale of "The Ugly Duckling" – set to music and performed by the Rising Star casts ages 10-14 – comes to Children's Musical Theater San Jose.
This wonderful, warm-hearted and colorful story is directed by Lindsey O'Connell and choreographed by Alex Acevedo. It's not just children who will leave the theater uplifted, singing and happy – it's children of all ages.
"Warmth, joy, lessons learned, and great music – this is a show for the entire family," said CMT Artistic Director Kevin Hauge. "We are so proud to have Lindsey O'Connell and Alex Acevedo working with the cast for this show. The actors are having a wonderful experience and it translates to the audience in every performance."
Honk! is the story we all know and love. Poor Ugly! When he's hatched, all he can do is make a strange "honk" sound instead of a "quack!" Every child in the audience will understand how that feels – especially when the barnyard animals taunt and tease Ugly for being different. Then, Ugly goes on a search for his mother – a search full of adventures – and finds that he is not ugly at all – but valued and valuable and wonderful.
The show has become a perpetual favorite, winning hearts and awards. It has also received three Best Musical awards: the 2000 Laurence Olivier Award, The FNB Award in South Africa and the Elliot Norton Award in the USA. It's a delightful production by one of Silicon Valley's most valuable assets, the Children's Musical Theater San Jose.
Photo by: Chris Ayers
About the Ticket Supplier: Children's Musical Theater San Jose
Children's Musical Theater San Jose is a leader in the world of youth theater companies, renowned for its innovative spirit in every area of programming.
CMT is committed to providing excellent, accessible musical theater training and youth theater performances for young audiences, families and the entire Silicon Valley region. CMTSJ has 3 age groups:
1) The Marquee productions (age 19+) has become a CMT tradition and highlights CMT's full artistic potential with high-caliber entertainment that benefits the organization and the community
2) Mainstage Productions (featuring high school and college age performers) has made a name for itself within the local arts scene as well as on a national level with unprecedented recognition
3) Rising Stars productions inspire younger performers, ages 6-14 and their families to develop their passion for musical theater.


text:
Aug. 24, 2008
Stanford University Athletics today announced the launch of gostanford.com Phase II, which includes a virtual hall of fame, an enhanced facilities section, a revamped tickets page, and the introduction of Cardinal.Red.Football, the football program's fan affinity and recruiting site.
In addition, an official Stanford Athletics YouTube channel has also been implemented (www.youtube.com/stanfordathletics) in order to provide fans of Stanford Athletics the opportunity to view and comment on highlight videos, interviews with coaches and players, and other archived videos.
"Phase II of our redesign focuses on engaging the online visitor by providing enhanced video, imagery, and interactivity," said the Jaquish and Kenninger Director of Athletics Bob Bowlsby. "The new Cardinal.Red.Football site allows us to showcase the football program on a higher level from the caliber coaching staff and world-class facilities to our prestigious alumni and the pageantry and traditions of our program."
The Cardinal.Red.Football site (cardinalred.gostanford.com/football.html) was developed to create a connection for alumni and potential recruits, as well as to strengthen fan affinity by offering more dynamic and interactive content. Working collaboratively with the football program, the Cardinal.Red.Football site incorporates flash, movement, audio and video to deliver an enhanced and more intimate view of the program.
In the coming months, the Cardinal.Red framework will be used to build out other Stanford sport program sites.
The virtual hall of fame (gostanford.cstv.com/halloffame/) complements the Sydney and Theodore Rosenberg Stanford Athletics Hall of Fame Room, located at the Arrillaga Family Sports Center. It allows visitors to search by name or sport and will eventually include a brief profile and rich multimedia content on each of Stanford's Hall of Fame inductees.
Stanford Athletics' precinct includes 19 world-class facilities spread across more than 100 acres of land, as well as 30 acres of grounds through the main campus, and another 150 acres at the Stanford Golf Course. The new facilities section (gostanford.cstv.com/facilities/stan-facilities.html) provides a bird's eye view of Stanford Athletics' facilities utilizing Google Maps. In addition to being able to search for information by facility or by sport, photo slideshows have been incorporated to showcase Stanford Athletics' amenities.
The final enhancement of Phase II is the redesign of gostanford.com's tickets page (gostanford.cstv.com/tickets/tickets-body.html). Fans should find their ticket purchasing experience much easier with the redesigned navigation, which highlights Stanford's seven ticketed sports, as well as the popular Cardinal Fans Free program. Furthermore, ticket office information and special ticket promotions can be found on the new Tickets page.


text:
The Lake Placid Center for the Arts will host an art exhibit celebrating the history and splendor of the games with Olympic Inspirations from February 7 to April 6. This one-of-a-kind exhibit features artwork created for and inspired by the 1932 and 1980 Olympics. There will also be a tribute to our local Lake Placid Olympians and a celebration of the Paralympics. The public is invited to an opening reception Friday, February 7 from 5 PM to 7 PM. Winter gallery hours are Wednesday through Saturday from 1 PM to 5 PM.
Lake Placid Center for the Arts 17 Algonquin Dr, Lake Placid, New York 12946 View Map


text:
Hat Trick Helps #5 UNH Past UMass Hockey, 4-0
March 2, 2013
DURHAM, N.H. - The UMass hockey team went into the first intermission against #5 New Hampshire deadlocked at 0-0, but the Wildcats managed a pair of goals in the second and two in the third to defeat the Minutemen, 4-0 on Saturday night at the Whittemore Center. Following the setback, UMass is now 11-18-3 on the season 8-15-2 in Hockey East, while UNH improves to 18-8-6 overall and 13-7-5 in the conference.
The Wildcats got on the board 1:10 into the second period. Coming off a turnover at the UMass blueline, John Henrion sent a shot in high past netminder Steve Mastalerz from Casey Thrush and Nick Sorkin.
Henrion then pushed the lead to 2-0 with a UNH power play winding down at the 10:43 mark. Off a feed from Brett Kostolansky and Thrush, he ripped an attempt from the left faceoff circle into the top right corner of the net for his second of the night.
Matt Willows increased the margin to three 6:06 into the third period. Waiting at the blueline, Willows collected a pass from Kevin Goumas and Kostolansky and managed to sneak in behind the UMass defense to beat Mastalerz one-on-one.
Henrion later completed his hat trick with an empty net goal at the 19:32 mark from Thrush and Nick Sorkin.
The Wildcats finished with a 33-25 shot advantage, while the Minutemen won 25 of 48 faceoffs in the contest. Mastalerz totaled 29 saves for UMass and Casey DeSmith turned aside 25 to collect the shutout. UNH and UMass were 1-for-4 and 0-for-4 on the power play on the night, respectively.
The Minutemen will wrap up the regular season next weekend, Mar. 8-9, with a home-and-home against Merrimack, beginning with a Friday night meeting in North Andover, Mass.
Featured Links
More Headlines


text:
If I have something like a
List[Option[A]] and I want to convert this into a
List[A], the standard way is to use
scala> val l = List(Some("Hello"), None, Some("World"))
l: List[Option[java.lang.String]] = List(Some(Hello), None, Some(World))
scala> l.flatMap( o => o)
res0: List[java.lang.String] = List(Hello, World)
o => o is just an identity function. I would have thought there'd be some way to do:
l.flatMap(Identity) //return a List[String]
However, I can't get this to work as you can't generify an
object. I tried a few things to no avail; has anyone got something like this to work?


text:
Captions by Jimmicane
Bottle Thompson working with his filmer/photographer. It costs each lensman $800 to shoot here now so you better get your money's worth.
Kyle Kennelly pulling into a closeout because he must. For his filmer, who had to pay to shoot him. And for Dane Reynolds, who took a break from his ukulele to watch this wave.
Only Shane Dorian would go down to the playful Mexican points and find a Backdoor-esque slab to pull into.


text:
Scrabble word: LAMB
In which Scrabble dictionary does LAMB exist?
Scrabble (US/Canada)
(8 pts)
Scrabble (UK)
(8 pts)
Official Scrabble (OSPD)
(8 pts)
(9 pts)
Words with friends
(11 pts)
Hanging with friends
(11 pts)
(4 pts)
Lexulous (US)
(8 pts)
Definitions of LAMB in dictionaries:
- noun - young sheep
- noun - English essayist (1775-1834)
- noun - a person easily deceived or cheated (especially in financial matters)
- noun - a sweet innocent mild-mannered person (especially a child)
- noun - the flesh of a young domestic sheep eaten as food
- verb - give birth to a lamb
- A young sheep, especially one that is not yet weaned.
- The flesh of a young sheep used as meat.
- Lambskin.
- A sweet, mild-mannered person; a dear.
- One who can be duped or cheated especially in financial matters.
- verb - to give birth to a lamb (a young sheep)
There are 4 letters in LAMB: A B L M
Scrabble words that can be created with an extra letter added to LAMB
All anagrams that could be made from letters of word LAMB plus a wildcard: LAMB?
Scrabble words that can be created with letters from word LAMB
Images for LAMB
Other Resources
SCRABBLE is the registered trademark of Hasbro and J.W. Spear & Sons Limited. Our scrabble word finder and scrabble cheat word builder is not associated with the Scrabble brand - we merely provide help for players of the official Scrabble game. All intellectual property rights to the game are owned by respective owners in the U.S.A and Canada and the rest of the world. Anagrammer.com is not affiliated with Scrabble. This site is an educational tool and resource for Scrabble & Words With Friends players.


text:
Malek Harris' senior season atop the hardwood appears to be over before having even begun.
According to Joe Hendrickson of the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday, the 6'7", 200-pound Harris, a versatile wing from Carl Sandberg High School (Oakland Park, Ill.) who verbally committed to Buzz Williams and the Marquette Golden Eagles on June 26, has been suspended for the entire 2013-14 basketball campaign due to disciplinary reasons.
Harris, who average 17.5 points, 10.5 rebounds and 3.2 assists per outing as a junior, was also suspended for the first 11 games a season ago for undisclosed violations, as reported by Hendrickson.
Due to NCAA rules, Marquette is not allowed to comment on the situation until Harris formally signs a national letter of intent (the fall signing period commences on Nov. 13).
Prior to committing to the Golden Eagles over the summer, the versatile Harris, ranked as the 33rd overall power forward in the Class of 2014 by ESPN.com, had received offers from DePaul, Iowa, Kansas State, Oregon State and Purdue, among others.


text:
A little preview of what we will be seeing in a couple of months.
Terry Glenn:
August 16, 2013 1:52 am at 1:52 am
As PGs go Marcus smart is a man among boys, and without a doubt as PFs go Julius Randle is most definitely a man among boys. For me it's like Christmas and I know what I got, and can't wait to open Julius Randle. When we opened our new Christmas present early on the college basketball world, it's going to be outrageous, beat downs after beat downs are in order. BBN ILF#9