text:
How to Write an Epigraph in APA Format
The MLA Format for an Epigraph
How to Cite Shakespeare in APA Format
How to Cite the Line Numbers of a Poem in an Essay
How to Separate Lines in Poems When Quoting for Essays
How to Put an Epigraph in an Essay
Cara Batema Updated May 25, 2017
Home » How to Cite
An epigraph is a quote before the introduction of a novel, poem or essay. This convention packs a great impact in what is usually a few words or brief sentences. Rosemary Ahern, author of "The Art of the Epigraph: How Great Books Begin," compares the epigraph to a "baptism" before you share your work with an audience, so it should not to be taken lightly. By choosing the right epigraph, you can allude to a theme or drive home an idea with more power.
When to Use an Epigraph
An epigraph could be a great way to start your paper. Because it is set off from the introduction of your essay, it grabs the reader's attention. The reader will likely assume the quotation is important to your work. The American Psychological Association style blog mentions that an epigraph might "set the stage" for your ideas, or it could summarize or contrast themes. Epigraphs can provide insight, or they can even be humorous. Ahern mentions author Vikram Seth's use of a Voltaire quote, "The secret of being a bore is to say everything," before his 1400-page novel "A Suitable Boy."
Choosing an Epigraph
After you decide to use an epigraph for your essay, you must consider what quote will have the greatest impression on your reader or set the tone of your essay. Ahern mentions that some writers choose a favorite author, and many epigraphs are specific to a particular individual's tastes. She also identifies three qualities of effective epigraphs -- they are brief, funny or wise, or sometimes all three at once. Choose an epigraph that is no longer than a few words or a complete sentence. Use a comical epigraph to challenge expectations, make fun of yourself or make your essay enticing to the reader. Wise epigraphs provide insight to your paper, which might be revealed to the reader at the end of your essay.
APA Formatting
The American Psychological Association manual does not specifically address epigraphs, but the APA style blog provides rules for formatting epigraphs in APA journals. Treat the epigraph as a block quote by indenting about a half an inch from the left margin, as you would to start a new paragraph. Do not use quotation marks around the text. On the line below the epigraph, create an em dash, followed by the author's name, a comma and the source's title, which should be italicized. This credit line should be flush to the right side of the page. Do not list the source in the References page. If you use a quote from a scholarly publication or a quotation by permission, write the author's last name, year and page number, each set off with a comma, inside parentheses at the end of the quote. You do need to cite this type of source in the References page.
MLA Formatting
As with APA, the Modern Language Association manual does not have specific instructions for epigraphs, but writers typically follow the rules for indented quotations. Write your epigraph one double space beneath your title. Indent 2 inches on both sides of the epigraph, so it's 1 inch further from the standard margin. Use single spacing for the epigraph, and center the text on the page. Put quotation marks around the text. On the line below the epigraph, write the speaker's name, flush right, but still within the margins you set up for the epigraph. Cite the source in your Works Cited page. Remember to reset the 1-inch margins on the next line and resume double spacing for the remainder of your essay.
Wall Street Journal: But First, a Few Choice Words; Rosemary Ahern
APA Style: How to Format an Epigraph
APA Style: Block Quotations in APA Style
Cara Batema is a musician, teacher and writer who specializes in early childhood, special needs and psychology. Since 2010, Batema has been an active writer in the fields of education, parenting, science and health. She holds a bachelor's degree in music therapy and creative writing.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Although this Winnie the Pooh mural was painted in Burlington, Ontario, I also sell adorable kids wallpaper murals that ship FREE in Canada and the USA. They're super easy to hang and totally removable when you're ready to redecorate.
Thinking of having a Winnie the Pooh mural done in your baby's nursery? Here are photos of the mural I painted in Eli's bedroom for your inspiration. It's pure magic with none of the bother.
Here's the star of the mural – Winnie the Pooh! Once the crib is put back into the nursery, baby Eli will be able to look up at Pooh Bear floating by on a blue balloon.
Mama, Mahsa, loved Winnie the Pooh as a child and wanted a cute mural for her baby's nursery.
To personalize the mural, I "carved" baby Eli's name into the tree (with paint of course) in the shape of a heart.
I paint all my murals with non-toxic acrylic paint and no-VOC latex paint, so it's safe for your kids to sleep in – even on the night the mural is finished!
The walls were already painted with yellow on the top, green on the bottom and a white border around the middle.
Mahsa thought about painting the white border, but you would have been able to see the edges from the painter's tape.
Instead we used the border to our advantage. I painted buzzing bees all around the border, turning it into a feature.
I've been painting kids murals, from Toronto to Niagara Falls, since 2005 and I even painted one for a Mike Holmes TV show!
Do you love hot coupon codes, DIY Tips and inspirational photos of pretty rooms? I'd love to share all this with you in my newsletter!


text:
Q: Debug with the emulator I was trying to modify the icon in the manifest file.
Then when I tried to debug, I get the error:
The application could not be launched for debugging.
Ensure that the target device screen is unlocked.

What I have to do?

A: Similar issue is also presented here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wsdevsol/archive/2013/08/17/top-5-commonly-encountered-issues-and-solutions-using-the-windows-phone-8-emulator.aspx

A: It seems you are not debugging with the emulator (as you suggest). You need to change the target device to one of the emulators.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease characterised by dyspnea and loss of lung function.
Using pooled data from the replicate, randomized, 52-week, placebo-controlled INPULSIS® trials, we characterized the safety and tolerability of nintedanib 150 mg twice daily in patients with IPF and described how adverse events were managed during these trials.
One thousand and sixty- one patients were treated (nintedanib 638; placebo 423). Higher proportions of patients in the nintedanib group than the placebo group had ≥1 dose reduction to 100 mg bid (27.9 % versus 3.8 %) or treatment interruption (23.7 % versus 9.9 %). Adverse events led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 19.3 % and 13.0 % of patients in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively. Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event, reported in 62.4 % of patients in the nintedanib group versus 18.4 % in the placebo group; however, only 4.4 % of nintedanib-treated patients discontinued trial medication prematurely due to diarrhea. Monitoring of liver enzymes before and periodically during nintedanib treatment was recommended so that liver enzyme elevations could be managed through dose reduction or treatment interruption.
Nintedanib had a manageable safety and tolerability profile in patients with IPF. Recommendations for adverse event management minimized permanent treatment discontinuations in the INPULSIS® trials.
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive, fibrosing interstitial pneumonia, occurring primarily in the elderly population, which is characterized by increasing dyspnea and loss of lung function [1–3]. Patients with IPF have impaired quality of life and reduced exercise tolerance . IPF is ultimately fatal, with a median survival time of only 2–3 years from diagnosis .
Our evolving understanding of the pathophysiology of IPF suggests complex interplay between multiple pathways. Protein tyrosine kinases are known to play a key role in intracellular signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of lung fibrosis [5–7]. Nintedanib is an intracellular inhibitor of tyrosine kinases, including the receptors for the fibroblast growth factor (FGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [8, 9]. In preclinical studies nintedanib interfered with processes associated with fibrosis including fibroblast proliferation, migration and differentiation and was associated with reduced secretion of extracellular matrix and reduced lung inflammation .
The efficacy and safety of nintedanib as a treatment for IPF have been studied in the Phase II, 52-week, TOMORROW trial  and in the two replicate randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week Phase III INPULSIS® trials [11, 12]. Results from the TOMORROW trial, which involved 432 patients with IPF, suggested that compared with placebo, treatment with nintedanib 150 mg twice daily (bid) was associated with a reduced annual decline in forced vital capacity (FVC), fewer acute exacerbations, and preservation of health-related quality of life, assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) . In both INPULSIS® trials, the primary endpoint of the annual rate of decline in FVC was significantly reduced by approximately 50 % in the nintedanib group compared with placebo, consistent with a slowing of disease progression. The adjusted annual rate of decline in FVC was −114.7 mL/year with nintedanib versus −239.9 mL/year with placebo (a difference of 125.3 mL/year [95 % confidence interval (CI): 77.7, 172.8]; p < 0.001) in INPULSIS®-1 and −113.6 mL/year with nintedanib versus −207.3 mL/year with placebo (a difference of 93.7 mL/year [95 % CI: 44.8, 142.7]; p < 0.001) in INPULSIS®-2 . In INPULSIS®-2, there was a significant difference in favor of nintedanib for time to first acute exacerbation and change from baseline in SGRQ total score, both over 52 weeks. However, in INPULSIS®-1, no significant difference between groups was observed for either of these endpoints . Gastrointestinal events, particularly diarrhea, were the most frequently reported adverse events in patients treated with nintedanib.
An analysis of pooled safety data from the two INPULSIS® trials was pre-specified. In this manuscript, we further characterize the safety and tolerability of nintedanib and describe how adverse events were reported and managed during these Phase III trials.
The INPULSIS® trials, performed at 205 sites in 24 countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia, recruited a broad range of patients with IPF . Patients with IPF aged ≥40 years were eligible to participate if they had an FVC of ≥50 % of predicted value and a diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) of 30–79 % of predicted value. In the absence of a surgical lung biopsy, diagnosis of IPF required the presence of honeycombing and/or a combination of traction bronchiectasis and reticulation, without nodules or consolidation, on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), which was centrally reviewed. If available, surgical lung biopsies were centrally reviewed to confirm eligibility to enter the trials using a multidisciplinary approach. Patients with emphysema on HRCT were not excluded, but patients were required to have an FEV1/FVC ratio of ≥0.7. Concomitant therapy with prednisone ≤15 mg/day, or the equivalent, was permitted if the dose had been stable for ≥8 weeks before screening. Patients receiving other therapies for IPF, including pirfenidone, prednisone >15 mg/day, azathioprine, N-acetylcysteine and any investigational treatments for IPF, were excluded. Patients with elevated hepatic enzymes (alanine aminotransferase [ALT] or aspartate aminotransferase [AST]) or bilirubin >1.5 x upper limit of normal (ULN) were excluded.
Eligible patients were randomized using a 3:2 ratio to receive nintedanib 150 mg bid or placebo for 52 weeks, followed by a 4-week follow-up period. There was no requirement for dose titration on initiation of treatment. Treatment interruption and/or dose reduction from 150 mg bid to 100 mg bid were allowed for the management of adverse events. For patients who had a dose interruption, treatment could be reinstituted at a dose of 150 mg bid or 100 mg bid after resolution of the adverse event. After a dose reduction, the dose could be re-escalated to 150 mg bid. Specific recommendations were provided to the investigators for the management of diarrhea (Fig. 1) and hepatic enzyme elevations (Fig. 2).
For patients who had >1 treatment interruption, the duration of treatment interruption was calculated as total duration of all interruptions. Dose intensity was defined as the amount of drug administered over the study divided by the amount of drug that would have been received had the 150 mg bid dose been administered throughout the 52-week study or until discontinuation in patients who discontinued prematurely. A pre-specified subgroup analysis assessed the impact of dose intensity (≤90 % versus >90 %) on the annual rate of decline in FVC using pooled data from the two trials.
Compliance with study medication was defined as the number of capsules taken divided by the number of capsules that should have been taken over the trial period. Safety was assessed by means of clinical and laboratory evaluation, clinical assessment of vital signs and physical examination at study visits and the recording of adverse events, coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 16.1. The analyses were descriptive and based on patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication. Patients with adverse events with onset after the first dose and up to 28 days after the last dose of trial medication were included in the analysis. The intensity of adverse events was rated by the investigators as mild (easily tolerated), moderate (enough discomfort to cause interference with usual activity) or severe (incapacitating or causing inability to work or to perform usual activities). For every adverse event, investigators reported whether they considered the event was related to study drug. For patients who experienced ≥1 diarrhea adverse event, the duration of diarrhea adverse events was calculated as the total duration of all the events. A specific diarrhea electronic case report form (eCRF) was introduced during the course of the trials to characterize diarrhea adverse events. Routine clinical laboratory testing was undertaken at screening and weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 44 and 52.
Both trials were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice from the International Conference on Harmonisation and were approved by local authorities. The clinical protocol was approved by an independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each participating center. All patients provided written informed consent before study entry.
A total of 1061 patients were treated in the two INPULSIS® trials, 638 in the nintedanib group and 423 in the placebo group. Demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups (Table 1 and Additional file 1).
The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of exposure was 10.3 (3.4) months in the nintedanib group and 10.8 (2.8) months in the placebo group. Compliance with study medication was 96.4 % in the nintedanib group and 96.7 % in the placebo group.
A summary of the proportion of patients requiring dose reductions and treatment interruptions is presented in Table 2. The proportion of patients who had ≥1 dose reduction from 150 mg bid to 100 mg bid was higher in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group (178 patients [27.9 %] versus 16 patients [3.8 %]); 15 patients (2.4 %) in the nintedanib group and none in the placebo group had ≥2 dose reductions from 150 mg bid to 100 mg bid. There was no distinct temporal pattern associated with dose reductions. Forty patients (6.3 %) in the nintedanib group and 7 patients (1.7 %) in the placebo group had ≥1 dose increase from 100 mg bid to 150 mg bid. In total, 76.3 % of patients in the nintedanib group and 97.9 % of patients in the placebo group received 150 mg bid as their last dose.
A greater proportion of patients treated with nintedanib had ≥1 treatment interruption than those treated with placebo (23.7 % versus 9.9 %); 38 patients (6.0 %) in the nintedanib group and 3 patients (0.7 %) in the placebo group had ≥2 treatment interruptions. There was no discernible accumulation of dose interruptions during a specific time period during the trials. The mean (SD) duration of interruption was 25.1 (18.8) and 25.6 (15.3) days in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively.
In total, 24.5 % of patients in the nintedanib group and 18.9 % in the placebo group prematurely discontinued trial medication; 19.3 % and 13.0 % of patients treated with nintedanib and placebo, respectively, prematurely discontinued trial medication due to an adverse event.
Mean dose intensity was high in both treatment groups. In the subgroup of patients with dose intensity >90 % (n = 484), mean (SD) dose intensity was 99.3 (2.2) % in patients treated with nintedanib and 99.8 (1.6) % in patients treated with placebo. In the subgroup of patients with dose intensity ≤90 % (n = 154), mean (SD) dose intensity was 76.1 (10.1) % in patients treated with nintedanib and 80.5 (7.5) % in patients treated with placebo. The adjusted annual rate of decline in FVC was of similar magnitude in patients treated with nintedanib with dose intensity >90 % as in patients treated with nintedanib with dose intensity ≤90 % (mean [standard error] 112.7 [12.8] and 72.7 [24.3] ml/year, respectively).
A summary of adverse events is presented in Table 3. In total, 95.5 % of patients treated with nintedanib and 89.6 % of patients treated with placebo experienced ≥1 adverse event. The proportion of patients who had ≥1 serious adverse event was similar between the nintedanib (30.4 %) and placebo (30.0 %) groups.
Diarrhea was the most frequently reported adverse event in the nintedanib group, reported in 62.4 % of patients compared with 18.4 % of patients in the placebo group. A summary of diarrhea adverse events and their clinical consequences is presented in Table 4. Almost all patients who reported diarrhea adverse events (nintedanib: 94.5 %, placebo: 97.4 %) reported events of mild or moderate intensity. Of patients who had ≥1 completed eCRF specific for diarrhea (n = 185 in the nintedanib group; n = 25 in the placebo group), most had <4 extra stools per day (nintedanib: 111 patients [60.0 %], placebo: 19 patients [76.0 %]). Bowel movements were most commonly characterized as watery with or without formed stool. Among patients who experienced a diarrhea adverse event, anti-diarrheal therapies (most commonly loperamide) were used by 55.3 % of patients in the nintedanib group and 25.6 % of patients in the placebo group during the on-treatment period. For most patients who reported diarrhea adverse events (nintedanib: 78.6 %, placebo: 98.7 %), the events resolved without the need for dose reduction or treatment interruption. A small proportion of patients had a permanent dose reduction (nintedanib: 68 patients [10.7 %], placebo: no patients) and/or discontinued trial medication prematurely due to diarrhea (nintedanib: 28 patients [4.4 %], placebo: 1 [0.2 %]). Among patients who experienced any diarrhea adverse events, most reported a single event (nintedanib: 60.3 %; placebo: 76.9 %) or 2 events (nintedanib: 26.4 %; placebo: 15.4 %). The median (minimum, maximum) duration of diarrhea events was 138.5 (1, 473) days in the nintedanib group and 7.0 (1, 453) days in the placebo group. For most patients with a diarrhea adverse event, the first onset occurred within the first 3 months of treatment (Fig. 3).
In a post-hoc analysis, the absolute mean (SD) change from baseline in FVC at week 52 was −67.7 (271.4) ml for nintedanib-treated patients who experienced ≥1 diarrhea adverse event (n = 398) and −129.4 (246.0) ml for nintedanib-treated patients without any diarrhea events (n = 240). For patients treated with placebo, the absolute mean (SD) change from baseline in FVC at week 52 was −227.7 (283.6) ml for patients who experienced ≥1 diarrhea adverse event (n = 78) and −197.3 (294.7) ml for patients without any diarrhea events (n = 345).
A summary of nausea and vomiting adverse events is presented in Table 4. Almost all nausea and vomiting adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. Most patients who experienced nausea reported only 1 event (nintedanib: 74.4 %; placebo: 96.4 %). Similarly, most patients who experienced vomiting reported only 1 event (nintedanib: 54 patients [73.0 %], placebo: 11 patients [100 %]). The majority of nausea adverse events had an early onset; vomiting adverse events occurred at any time relative to the start of treatment.
A summary of the proportions of patients with elevations in hepatic enzymes is shown in Table 5. For ALT, AST and bilirubin, the proportion of patients who had normal values at baseline but maximum values above the ULN during treatment was higher in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group. In the majority of patients, values had returned to values within the normal range by the end of treatment. Nevertheless, a greater proportion of patients in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group had a last value on treatment above the ULN for ALT (4.4 % versus 3.4 %) and AST (5.0 % versus 1.7 %). While it is difficult to identify a pattern due to the low number of patients with ALT and/or AST elevations ≥3x ULN, the elevations appeared not to occur at a particular time relative to the start of treatment. Thirty-two patients (5.0 %) in the nintedanib group and 3 patients (0.7 %) in the placebo group had ALT and/or AST elevations ≥3x ULN. Hy's law criteria were met in 1 patient (in the placebo group).
With regards to other adverse events of interest, bleeding events were reported in 10.3 % of patients in the nintedanib group and 7.8 % of patients in the placebo group. Epistaxis, which occurred in 26 patients (4.1 %) in the nintedanib group and 13 (3.1 %) in the placebo group and contusion, which occurred in 10 patients (1.6 %) in the nintedanib group and 4 (0.9 %) in the placebo group, were the most frequently reported bleeding events. Serious bleeding events occurred with similar incidences in both treatment groups (8 patients [1.3 %] in the nintedanib group and 6 [1.4 %] in the placebo group. Gastrointestinal perforation was reported in 2 patients (0.3 %) in the nintedanib group and no patients in the placebo group. Hypertension was reported in 33 patients (5.2 %) in the nintedanib group and 17 (4.0 %) in the placebo group.
Cardiac disorder adverse events were reported in 10.0 % of patients treated with nintedanib and 10.6 % of patients treated with placebo (Additional file 2). Serious cardiac disorder adverse events were reported in 5.0 % of patients in the nintedanib group and 5.4 % of patients in the placebo group; fatal cardiac disorders occurred in 3 patients (0.5 %) and 6 patients (1.4 %) in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively. The MedDRA category of 'ischemic heart disease' was reported in a similar proportion of patients in the nintedanib (4.2 %) and placebo (4.0 %) groups (Additional file 2). Within the MedDRA category of 'ischemic heart disease', a higher proportion of patients reported an event in the subcategory 'myocardial infarction' in the nintedanib group (17 patients [2.7 %]) compared with the placebo group (5 patients [1.2 %]), but a lower proportion of patients reported an event in the other subcategory, 'other ischemic heart disease', in the nintedanib group (11 patients [1.7 %]) than in the placebo group (13 patients ([3.1 %]) (Additional file 2). The MedDRA preferred terms of myocardial infarction or acute myocardial infarction were reported in 10 patients (1.6 %) treated with nintedanib and 2 patients (0.5 %) treated with placebo.
A higher proportion of patients experienced weight loss as an adverse event in the nintedanib group (9.7 %) than in the placebo group (3.5 %). The mean change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was −3.1 kg in the nintedanib group and −1.4 kg in the placebo group. The proportion of patients with infection adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (nintedanib: 56.3 %; placebo: 53.9 %) as was the proportion of patients with adverse events related to respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (nintedanib: 39.8 %; placebo: 41.8 %).
We report collective safety data for nintedanib from the two Phase III INPULSIS® trials. These data demonstrate that nintedanib has a manageable safety and tolerability profile in patients with IPF.
In the INPULSIS® trials, the investigators were provided with recommendations for the management of adverse events, including symptomatic measures as well as the option of a flexible dosing regimen. These recommendations provide guidance for the management of adverse events associated with the use of nintedanib in clinical practice. Although a greater proportion of patients in the nintedanib group had a dose reduction or treatment interruption compared with patients in the placebo group, mean dose intensity in the nintedanib group was high. A pre-specified subgroup analysis demonstrated that nintedanib reduced FVC decline both in patients with a dose intensity of ≤90 % and in patients with a dose intensity >90 %, suggesting that dose reductions or treatment interruptions made to manage adverse events had no major impact on the efficacy of nintedanib.
As expected based on data from previous studies in patients with IPF  and patients with solid tumors [13, 14], the most frequently reported adverse events in patients treated with nintedanib in the INPULSIS® trials were gastrointestinal in nature, particularly diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and decreased appetite. Almost all such adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity and most resolved without the need for dose reduction or treatment interruption. A limitation of our studies was that the definition of a single diarrhea event was not specified to the investigators in the trial protocol. Thus, for patients with intermittent diarrhea over a prolonged period, some investigators may have reported this as several events and others as a single event, reducing the precision of our estimate of the number and the duration of diarrhea events. Only 4.4 % of patients in the nintedanib group discontinued trial medication prematurely due to diarrhea, suggesting that recommendations for the management of diarrhea, including symptomatic treatment with anti-diarrheal therapies, were successful in minimizing permanent treatment discontinuations. However, only 55.3 % of patients treated with nintedanib who experienced a diarrhea adverse event received symptomatic anti-diarrheal treatment during the on-treatment period, indicating that there is a need to provide adequate information to physicians in clinical practice and patients about the early management of diarrhea to enable patients to continue taking the drug and so receive maximum benefit from nintedanib treatment. This also applies to anti-emetic treatments. It is recommended that patients treated with nintedanib who experience diarrhea should maintain hydration and take antidiarrheal therapy (e.g., loperamide) as soon as symptoms occur. Dose reduction from 150 mg bid to 100 mg bid or temporary treatment interruption can also be considered. If diarrhea persists, nintedanib should be discontinued. The exact mechanism by which tyrosine kinase inhibition causes nausea or diarrhea is unknown; however, VEGF and VEGF receptors (VEGFR) are known to be highly expressed in the endocrine glands, stomach and intestines, suggesting that VEGF inhibition may cause morphometric changes in the bowel mucosa [15, 16]. A post-hoc analysis of data from the INPULSIS® trials showed that nintedanib was effective both in patients who had ≥1 diarrhea adverse event and patients who had no diarrhea adverse events, with a lower mean decline in FVC in patients who had ≥1 diarrhea adverse event. Although the limitations of this descriptive analysis do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn regarding the lower mean decline in FVC in patients who had diarrhea, trials investigating the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in oncology have reported an association between drug-related adverse events such as rash and diarrhea and efficacy [17, 18].
In addition to diarrhea, adverse events associated with inhibition of VEGF or VEGFR include arterial hypertension, gastrointestinal perforations, thromboembolism and bleeding [19, 20] and therefore these are potential risks of nintedanib treatment. Patients treated with full-dose anticoagulation or at known risk for bleeding were excluded from the INPULSIS® studies. This has led to recommendations stating that patients at known risk for bleeding should be treated with nintedanib only if the anticipated benefit outweighs the potential risk.
The mechanism behind the elevations in hepatic enzymes or bilirubin following treatment with nintedanib is not well understood, but requires laboratory testing before and periodically during treatment (e.g., during regular patient visits). In general, elevations in hepatic enzymes and total bilirubin were uncommon and returned to normal following dose reduction or treatment interruption.
Although cardiac disorders adverse events were balanced between the nintedanib and placebo groups, a higher proportion of patients in the nintedanib groups had myocardial infarctions. Conversely, a lower proportion of patients in the nintedanib groups had other ischemic heart disease. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown, and further observation is needed. However, it should be noted that the prevalence of myocardial infarctions in the INPULSIS® trials was low and below that observed in patients with IPF based on data from two US health claims databases .
In conclusion, pooled safety data from the INPULSIS® trials demonstrate that the dosing regimen utilized and the recommendations given for the management of adverse events, including symptomatic measures and hepatic enzyme monitoring, were successful in minimizing permanent treatment discontinuations. Nintedanib had a manageable safety and tolerability profile in patients with IPF. Physicians, nurses and patients will benefit from clear instructions on how to monitor patients and manage adverse events that may be associated with treatment with nintedanib, consistent with those implemented in the INPULSIS® trials.
Editorial assistance, supported financially by Boehringer Ingelheim, was provided by Julie Fleming and Wendy Morris of Fleishman-Hillard Group, Ltd, London, UK, during the preparation of this article. The authors were fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and were involved at all stages of manuscript development and have approved the final version.
The INPULSIS® trials were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. CC, KP and MQ are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. TC has received fees for consulting and serving on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; for contributing to educational materials for Boehringer Ingelheim and Actelion; travel support from Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim, and has received unrestricted educational grants from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim and InterMune. FB reports receipt of travel grants and speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as serving on advisory boards. BC reports receipt of grants, personal fees and non-financial support from InterMune and Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi; grants from Cardif and MedImmune, and personal fees from AstraZeneca. MGD reports receipt of personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim for being a member of the Data Monitoring Committee for the INPULSIS® trials. LR reports receipt of grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim for being a member of the INPULSIS® steering committee and co-principal investigator of the trials; grants and personal fees from InterMune for being a member of an advisory board; personal fees from MedImmune (advisory board member), Biogen-Idec (consulting), Sanofi-Aventis (consulting), Roche (advisory board member), Takeda (advisory board member), ImmuneWorks (consulting), Shionogi (speaker honoraria) and GlaxoSmithKline (advisory board member). JAL reports compensation from Boehringer Ingelheim for participation in a Data Monitoring Committee and advisory committee, as well as educational speaker programs.
TC, BC and LR were investigators in the INPULSIS® trials. LR contributed to the design of the INPULSIS® trials through participation in the Steering Committee. MGD and JAL were co-chairs of the Data Monitoring Committee for the INPULSIS® trials. All authors contributed to the interpretation of data and the development of this manuscript and have approved the final version.


StatFunding is available to institutional investors and other financial professionals who manage investments on behalf of their clients.
StatFunding delivers returns from diversified asset backed investment portfolios. Investing with StatFunding can produce tremendous value for asset managers, financial professionals and their clients.
If you are a financial professional or institutional investor interested in participating in the StatFunding platform, either for yourself or on behalf of your clients, please fill out this form and we will contact you regarding your inquiry or call us right now at (786)-671-1401.


After five years, my mom and I are returning as vendors to Mary Mother of Peace's annual Strawberry Festival this Saturday, May 24. I'd gotten discouraged trying to sell my art at craft fairs and turned my attention to blogging globally instead. But now that mom's making fabulous fantasy jewelry, we decided to give the local market another chance and share a table. If we end up not making a profit, at least we can drown our sorrows in some scrumptious strawberry shortcake.
To match the event, I applied Poppy & White Polka nail wraps by Jamberry Nails because the white polka dots on red reminds me of strawberries. The striped accent nail on my pinky is a sample of Flirty Flair from the Garden Party collection. You may recognize the strawberry plate I'm clutching as a prop - the delightful dish is part of my handmade trove, courtesy of Ceraminic.
Don't miss out on a sweet chance to win a sheet of floral nail wraps. Kiss My Tips' Jamberry Nails giveaway ends berry soon, on May 20, 2014 at 11:59pm EST.
Want to be a guest blogger for my Manicure Monday when I don't have new nails of my own to show off? Please contact me using the form on my contact page if you're interested in a free feature. Or if you've done a strawberry manicure in the past, comment with the link and I'll add it to my featured finds below.
This design is so much fun! Love it!
Strawberries are my favorite summer time fruit, and I love the strawberry nails!
Oh yes this is so cute! I love strawberries too!
A strawberry festival sounds like the most adorable thing ever!


text:
During July 2021, TFOM conducted a survey of key business leaders, government departments, insurance and health professionals to understand the ways TFOM can best support the Tasmanian community. We were encouraged by the response and uncovered some valuable insights into the concerns of our fellow Tasmanians.
For TFOM, it was important to note that over 50% of respondents said that the most valuable part of using an Occupational and Environmental Physician (OEP) was their holistic understanding of physical and psychological aspects of health in the workplace.
Over 80% of respondents expressed their concern about the potential impact of the retirement and shortage of available OEPs in the workforce in Tasmania.
It was also important to note that over 70% of respondents reported that there is no satisfactory substitute for a local OEP workforce in Tasmania.
Interestingly, almost 60% of respondents believed that action in relation to the shortage of OEP's in Tasmania was primarily a matter for government.
We want to thank all of the people who contributed to our survey for 2021, and we look forward to using these insights to serve the Tasmanian community over the next 12 months and beyond.


.44 Special was a standard chambering for the Frontier model. They are not extraordinarily scarce, but are less plentiful than .38s, .357s, and .45s. .
This chambering has an enduring following due to its association with Elmer Keith. Great Westerns in this caliber seem to attract broader interest in the used market.
Models / barrels: All models were made in .44 Spl. except the Sheriff. No Sheriff's have been observed in .44. It's unlikely but not out of the question that a Sheriff in .44 will be encountered.


text:
This article is about the land in North America. For other uses, see Acadia (disambiguation).
"L'Acadie" redirects here. For the Quebec town, see L'Acadie, Quebec. For the Canadian wine grape, see L'Acadie blanc.
Acadia (French: Acadie) was a colony of New France in northeastern North America that included parts of eastern Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and modern-day Maine to the Kennebec River.[1] During much of the 17th and early 18th centuries, Norridgewock on the Kennebec River and Castine at the end of the Penobscot River were the southernmost settlements of Acadia.[2][3][4] The actual specification by the French government for the territory refers to lands bordering the Atlantic coast, roughly between the 40th and 46th parallels. Later, the territory was divided into the British colonies that became Canadian provinces and American states. The population of Acadia included the various indigenous First Nations peoples that comprised the Wabanaki Confederacy and descendants of emigrants from France (i.e., Acadians). The two communities intermarried, which resulted in a significant portion of the population of Acadia being Métis.
Division of New France
1604–1713 →
Acadia (1754)
Capital Undetermined;
Port-Royal (de facto)
• Established 1604
• British conquest 1713
The first capital of Acadia, established in 1605, was Port-Royal. A British force from Virginia attacked and burned down the town in 1613, but it was later rebuilt nearby, where it remained the longest serving capital of French Acadia until the British Siege of Port Royal in 1710.[a] Over seventy-four years there were six colonial wars, in which English and later British interests tried to capture Acadia starting with King William's War in 1689. During these wars, along with some French troops from Quebec, some Acadians, the Wabanaki Confederacy, and French priests continuously raided New England settlements along the border in Maine. While Acadia was officially conquered in 1710 during Queen Anne's War, present-day New Brunswick and much of Maine remained contested territory. Present-day Prince Edward Island (Île Saint-Jean) and Cape Breton (Île Royale) as agreed under Article XIII of the Treaty of Utrecht remained under French control.[6] By militarily defeating the Wabanaki Confederacy and the French priests, present-day Maine fell during Father Rale's War. During King George's War, France and New France made significant attempts to regain mainland Nova Scotia. After Father Le Loutre's War, present-day New Brunswick fell to the British. Finally, during the French and Indian War (the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War), both Île Royale and Île Saint-Jean fell to the British in 1758.
Today, the term Acadia is used to refer to regions of North America that are historically associated with the lands, descendants, or culture of the former French region. It particularly refers to regions of The Maritimes with French roots, language, and culture, primarily in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island, as well as in Maine.[7] It can also be used to refer to the Acadian diaspora in southern Louisiana, a region also referred to as Acadiana. In the abstract, Acadia refers to the existence of a French culture in any of these regions.
People living in Acadia, and sometimes former residents and their descendants, are called Acadians, also later known as Cajuns, the English (mis)pronunciation of 'Cadiens, after resettlement in Louisiana.
The border between Acadia and New England, as claimed by the French, was the Kennebec River, seen here on a map of modern Maine.
The origin of the designation Acadia is credited to the explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano, who on his 16th-century map applied the ancient Greek name "Arcadia" (note the inclusion of the r) to the entire Atlantic coast north of Virginia. "Arcadia" derives from the Arcadia district in Greece, which since Classical antiquity had the extended meanings of "refuge" or "idyllic place". The Dictionary of Canadian Biography says: "Arcadia, the name Verrazzano gave to Maryland or Virginia 'on account of the beauty of the trees,' made its first cartographical appearance in the 1548 Gastaldo map and is the only name on that map to survive in Canadian usage."[8] In 1603 a colony south of the St. Lawrence River between the 40th and 46th parallels was chartered by Henry IV, who recognized the territory as La Cadie.[9] Also in the 17th century, Samuel de Champlain fixed its present orthography with the r omitted. William Francis Ganong, a cartographer, has shown its gradual progress northeastwards, in a succession of maps, to its resting place in the Atlantic provinces of Canada.
Also of note is the similarity in the pronunciation of Acadie and the Míkmawísimk suffix -akadie, which means "a place of abundance." The modern usage is still seen in place names such as Shunacadie (meaning "place of abundant cranberries") or Shubenacadie (meaning "place of abundant wild potatoes"). It is thought that intercultural conversation between early French traders and Mi'kmaq hunters may have resulted in the name l'Arcadie being changed to l'Acadie.[10]
TerritoryEdit
The borders of French Acadia have never been clearly defined, but the following areas were at some time part of French Acadia :
Present-day Nova Scotia with as capital Port Royal. Lost to Great Britain in 1713.
Present-day New Brunswick, which remained part of Nova Scotia until 1784 until becoming its own colony in 1785.
Île-Royale, later Cape Breton Island, with the Fortress of Louisbourg. Lost to Great Britain in 1763.
Île Saint-Jean, later Prince Edward Island. Lost to Great Britain in 1763.
The part of present-day Maine east of the Kennebec River. Became part of the New England Colonies in 1727.
Main articles: Military history of the Mi'kmaq People and Military history of the Acadians
Find sources: "Acadia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The history of Acadia was significantly influenced by the warfare that took place on its soil during the 17th and 18th century.[2] Prior to that time period, the Mi'kmaq lived in Acadia for millenia. The French arrived in 1604, claiming the Mi'kmaq lands for the King of France. Despite this, the Mi'kmaq tolerated the presence of the French in exchange for favours and trade. Catholic Mi'kmaq and Acadians were the predominant populations in the colony for the next 150 years.
Early European colonists, who would later become known as Acadians, were French subjects primarily from the Pleumartin to Poitiers in the Vienne département of west-central France. The first French settlement was established by Pierre Dugua des Monts, Governor of Acadia, under the authority of King Henry IV, on Saint Croix Island in 1604. The following year, the settlement was moved across the Bay of Fundy to Port Royal after a difficult winter on the island and deaths from scurvy. In 1607 the colony received bad news: King Henry had revoked Sieur de Monts' royal fur monopoly, citing that the income was insufficient to justify supplying the colony further. Thus recalled, the last of the Acadians left Port Royal in August 1607. Their allies, the native Mi'kmaq nation, kept careful watch over their possessions, though. When the former lieutenant governor, Jean de Biencourt de Poutrincourt et de Saint-Just, returned in 1610, he found Port Royal just as it was left.[11]
During the first 80 years, the French and Acadians were in Acadia, there were ten significant battles as the English, Scottish, Dutch and French fought for possession of the colony. These battles happened at Port Royal, Saint John,[b] Cap de Sable (present-day Port La Tour, Nova Scotia), Jemseg, Castine and Baleine.
During the next 74 years, there were six colonial wars that took place in Nova Scotia and Acadia (see the French and Indian Wars as well as Father Rale's War and Father Le Loutre's War). These wars were fought between New England and New France and their respective native allies before the British defeated the French in North America (1763). After the British Siege of Port Royal in 1710, mainland Nova Scotia was under the control of British colonial government, but both present-day New Brunswick and virtually all of present-day Maine remained contested territory between New England and New France.
The war was fought on two fronts: the southern border of Acadia, which New France defined as the Kennebec River in southern Maine.[1] The other front was in Nova Scotia and involved preventing the British from taking the capital of Acadia, Port Royal (See Queen Anne's War), establishing themselves at Canso (See Father Rale's War) and founding Halifax (see Father Le Loutre's War).
Acadian Civil WarEdit
Main article: Acadian Civil War
Siege of Saint John (1645) – d'Aulnay defeats La Tour in Acadia
From 1640 to 1645, Acadia was plunged into what some historians have described as a civil war. The war was between Port Royal, where the Governor of Acadia Charles de Menou d'Aulnay de Charnisay was stationed, and present-day Saint John, New Brunswick, where Governor of Acadia Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour was stationed.[12] There were four major battles in the war, and d'Aulnay ultimately prevailed over La Tour.
King Philip's WarEdit
During King Philip's War (1675–78), the governor was absent from Acadia (having first been imprisoned in Boston during the Dutch occupation of Acadia) and Jean-Vincent d'Abbadie de Saint-Castin was established at the capital of Acadia, Pentagouêt. From there he worked with the Abenaki of Acadia to raid British settlements migrating over the border of Acadia. British retaliation included attacking deep into Acadia in the Battle off Port La Tour (1677).
Wabanaki ConfederacyEdit
In response to King Philip's War in New England, the native peoples in Acadia joined the Wabanaki Confederacy to form a political and military alliance with New France.[13] The Confederacy remained significant military allies to New France through six wars. Until the French and Indian War the Wabanaki Confederacy remained the dominant military force in the region.
Catholic missionsEdit
There were tensions on the border between New England and Acadia, which New France defined as the Kennebec River in southern Maine.[1][3][14] English settlers from Massachusetts (whose charter included the Maine area) had expanded their settlements into Acadia. To secure New France's claim to Acadia, it established Catholic missions (churches) among the four largest native villages in the region: one on the Kennebec River (Norridgewock); one further north on the Penobscot River (Penobscot); one on the Saint John River (Medoctec);[15][16][17] and one at Shubenacadie (Saint Anne's Mission).[18]
King William's WarEdit
During King William's War (1688–97), some Acadians, the Wabanaki Confederacy and the French Priests participated in defending Acadia at its border with New England, which New France defined as the Kennebec River in southern Maine.[1] Toward this end, the members of the Wabanaki Confederacy, on the Saint John River and in other places, joined the New France expedition against present-day Bristol, Maine (the Siege of Pemaquid (1689)), Salmon Falls and present-day Portland, Maine.
In response, the New Englanders retaliated by attacking Port Royal and present-day Guysborough. In 1694, the Wabanaki Confederacy participated in the Raid on Oyster River at present-day Durham, New Hampshire. Two years later, New France, led by Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, returned and fought a naval battle in the Bay of Fundy before moving on to raid Bristol, Maine again.
In retaliation, the New Englanders, led by Benjamin Church, engaged in a Raid on Chignecto (1696) and the siege of the Capital of Acadia at Fort Nashwaak.
At the end of the war England returned the territory to France in the Treaty of Ryswick and the borders of Acadia remained the same.
Acadia in 1757
Queen Anne's WarEdit
During Queen Anne's War, some Acadians, the Wabanaki Confederacy and the French priests participated again in defending Acadia at its border with New England. They made numerous raids on New England settlements along the border in the Northeast Coast Campaign and the famous Raid on Deerfield. In retaliation, Major Benjamin Church went on his fifth and final expedition to Acadia. He raided present-day Castine, Maine and continued with raids against Grand Pre, Pisiquid, and Chignecto. A few years later, defeated in the Siege of Pemaquid (1696), Captain March made an unsuccessful siege on the Capital of Acadia, Port Royal (1707). British forces were successful with the Siege of Port Royal (1710), while the Wabanaki Conferacy were successful in the nearby Battle of Bloody Creek (1711) and continued raids along the Maine frontier.[19]
The 1710 conquest of the Acadian capital of Port Royal during the war was confirmed by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. The British conceded to the French "the island called Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the mouth of the river of St. Lawrence, and in the gulph of the same name", and "all manner of liberty to fortify any place or places there." The French established a fortress at Louisbourg, Cape Breton, to guard the sea approaches to Quebec.[20]
On 23 June 1713, the French residents of Nova Scotia were given one year to declare allegiance to Britain or leave the region.[21][22][23] In the meantime, the French signalled their preparedness for future hostilities by beginning the construction of Fortress Louisbourg on Île Royale, now Cape Breton Island. The British grew increasingly alarmed by the prospect of disloyalty in wartime of the Acadians now under their rule. French missionaries worked to maintain the loyalty of Acadians, and to maintain a hold on the mainland part of Acadia.
Dummer's WarEdit
French map of 1720 North America. Acadie extends clearly into present-day New Brunswick.
During the escalation that preceded Dummer's War (1722–1725), some Acadians, the Wabanaki Confederacy and the French priests persisted in defending Acadia, which had been conceded to the British in the Treaty of Utrecht, at its border against New England. The Mi'kmaq refused to recognize the treaty handing over their land to the English and hostilities resumed. The Mi'kmaq raided the new fort at Canso, Nova Scotia in 1720. The Confederacy made numerous raids on New England settlements along the border into New England. Towards the end of January 1722, Governor Samuel Shute chose to launch a punitive expedition against Sébastien Rale, a Jesuit missionary, at Norridgewock.[24] This breach of the border of Acadia, which had at any rate been ceded to the British, drew all of the tribes of the Wabanaki Confederacy into the conflict.
Under potential siege by the Confederacy, in May 1722, Lieutenant Governor John Doucett took 22 Mi'kmaq hostage at Annapolis Royal to prevent the capital from being attacked.[25] In July 1722, the Abenaki and Mi'kmaq created a blockade of Annapolis Royal, with the intent of starving the capital.[26] The natives captured 18 fishing vessels and prisoners from present-day Yarmouth to Canso. They also seized prisoners and vessels from the Bay of Fundy.
As a result of the escalating conflict, Massachusetts Governor Shute officially declared war on 22 July 1722.[27] The first battle of Father Rale's War happened in the Nova Scotia theatre.[c] In response to the blockade of Annapolis Royal, at the end of July 1722, New England launched a campaign to end the blockade and retrieve over 86 New England prisoners taken by the natives. One of these operations resulted in the Battle at Jeddore.[26][28] The next was a raid on Canso in 1723.[29][30] Then in July 1724 a group of sixty Mikmaq and Maliseets raided Annapolis Royal.[31][32]
As a result of Father Rale's War, present-day central Maine fell again to the British with the defeat of Sébastien Rale at Norridgewock and the subsequent retreat of the native population from the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers.
King George's WarEdit
Duc d'Anville Expedition: Action between HMS Nottingham and the Mars
King George's War began when the war declarations from Europe reached the French fortress at Louisbourg first, on May 3, 1744, and the forces there wasted little time in beginning hostilities. Concerned about their overland supply lines to Quebec, they first raided the British fishing port of Canso on May 23, and then organized an attack on Annapolis Royal, then the capital of Nova Scotia. However, French forces were delayed in departing Louisbourg, and their Mi'kmaq and Maliseet allies decided to attack on their own in early July. Annapolis had received news of the war declaration, and was somewhat prepared when the Indians began besieging Fort Anne. Lacking heavy weapons, the Indians withdrew after a few days. Then, in mid-August, a larger French force arrived before Fort Anne, but was also unable to mount an effective attack or siege against the garrison, which had received supplies and reinforcements from Massachusetts. In 1745, British colonial forces conducted the Siege of Port Toulouse (St. Peter's) and then captured Fortress Louisbourg after a siege of six weeks. France launched a major expedition to recover Acadia in 1746. Beset by storms, disease, and finally the death of its commander, the Duc d'Anville, it returned to France in tatters without reaching its objective. French officer Jean-Baptiste Nicolas Roch de Ramezay also arrived from Quebec and conducted the Battle at Port-la-Joye on Île Saint-Jean and the Battle of Grand Pré.
Father Le Loutre's War (1749–1755)Edit
Main article: Father Le Loutre's War
Acadians at Annapolis Royal, by Samuel Scott, 1751; earliest known image of Acadians
Despite the British capture of the Acadian capital in the Siege of Port Royal (1710), Nova Scotia remained primarily occupied by Catholic Acadians and Mi'kmaq. To prevent the establishment of Protestant settlements in the region, Mi'kmaq raided the early British settlements of present-day Shelburne (1715) and Canso (1720). A generation later, Father Le Loutre's War began when Edward Cornwallis arrived to establish Halifax with 13 transports on 21 June 1749.[d][33] The British quickly began to build other settlements. To guard against Mi'kmaq, Acadian and French attacks on the new Protestant settlements, they erected fortifications in Halifax (Citadel Hill) (1749), Dartmouth (1750), Bedford (Fort Sackville) (1751), Lunenburg (1753) and Lawrencetown (1754).[34] There were numerous Mi'kmaq and Acadian raids on these villages such as the Raid on Dartmouth (1751).
Within 18 months of establishing Halifax, the British also took firm control of peninsular Nova Scotia by building fortifications in all the major Acadian communities: present-day Windsor (Fort Edward, 1750); Grand Pre (Fort Vieux Logis, 1749) and Chignecto (Fort Lawrence, 1750). (A British fort already existed at the other major Acadian centre of Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. Cobequid remained without a fort.)[34] Numerous Mi'kmaq and Acadian raids took place against these fortifications, such as the Siege of Grand Pre (1749).
French and Indian WarEdit
Main article: French and Indian War
St. John River Campaign: A View of the Plundering and Burning of the City of Grimross (present day Gagetown, New Brunswick) by Thomas Davies in 1758. This is the only contemporaneous image of the Expulsion of the Acadians.
Siege of Louisbourg (1758)
In the years after the British conquest, the Acadians refused to swear unconditional oaths of allegiance to the British crown. During this time period some Acadians participated in militia operations against the British and maintained vital supply lines to Fortress Louisbourg and Fort Beausejour.[35] During the French and Indian War, the British sought to neutralize any military threat Acadians posed and to interrupt the vital supply lines Acadians provided to Louisbourg by deporting them.[36][37]
This process began in 1755, after the British captured Fort Beauséjour and began the expulsion of the Acadians with the Bay of Fundy Campaign. Between six and seven thousand Acadians were expelled from Nova Scotia[38] to the lower British American colonies.[39][40] Some Acadians eluded capture by fleeing deep into the wilderness or into French-controlled Canada. The Quebec town of L'Acadie (now a sector of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu) was founded by expelled Acadians.[41] After the Siege of Louisbourg (1758), a second wave of the expulsion began with the St. John River Campaign, Petitcodiac River Campaign, Gulf of St. Lawrence Campaign and the Île Saint-Jean Campaign.
The Acadians and the Wabanaki Confederacy created a significant resistance to the British throughout the war. They repeatedly raided Canso, Lunenburg, Halifax, Chignecto and into New England.[35]
Any pretense that France might maintain or regain control over the remnants of Acadia came to an end with the fall of Montreal in 1760 and the 1763 Treaty of Paris, which permanently ceded almost all of eastern New France to Britain. In 1763, Britain would designate lands west of the Appalachians as the "Indian Reserve", but did not respect Mi'kmaq title to the Atlantic region, claiming title was obtained from the French. The Mi'kmaq remain in Acadia to this day. After 1764, many exiled Acadians finally settled in Louisiana, which had been transferred by France to Spain at the end of the French and Indian War. The demonym Acadian developed into Cajun, which was first used as a pejorative term until its later mainstream acceptance. Britain eventually moderated its policies and allowed Acadians to return to Nova Scotia.
Notable military figures of AcadiaEdit
The following list includes those who were born in Acadia or those who became naturalized citizens prior to the fall of the French in the region in 1763. Those who came for brief periods from other countries are not included (e.g. John Gorham, Edward Cornwallis, James Wolfe, Boishébert, etc.).
17th–18th centuryEdit
Charles de Menou d'Aulnay – Civil War in Acadia
Françoise-Marie Jacquelin – Civil War in Acadia
Baron de Saint-Castin – Castine's War
Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville – Queen Anne's War
Daniel d'Auger de Subercase, last governor of Acadia 1706–1710
Sébastien Rale – Father Rale's War
Captain Charles Morris – King George's War
Chief Jean-Baptiste Cope – Father Le Loutre's War
Jean-Louis Le Loutre – Father Le Loutre's War
Charles Lawrence – Father Le Loutre's War
Thomas Pichon
OthersEdit
Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour – Civil War in Acadia
Chief Madockawando – King William's War
John Gyles – King William's War
Father Louis-Pierre Thury– King William's War
Pierre Maisonnat dit Baptiste – Queen Anne's War
Charles Morris (jurist) – King George's War
Pierre Maillard – Father Le Loutre's War
Joseph-Nicolas Gautier – Father Le Loutre's War
Pierre II Surette – French and Indian War
GovernmentEdit
Acadia was located in territory disputed between France and Great Britain. England controlled the area from 1621 to 1632 (see William Alexander, 1st Earl of Stirling) and again from 1654 until 1670 (see William Crowne and Thomas Temple), with control permanently regained by its successor state, the Kingdom of Great Britain, in 1710 (ceded under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713). Although France controlled the territory in the remaining periods, French monarchs consistently neglected Acadia.[42] Civil government under the French regime was held by a series of Governors (see List of governors of Acadia). The government of New France was located in Quebec, but it had only nominal authority over the Acadians.[43]
The Acadians implemented village self-rule.[44] Even after Canada had given up its elected spokesmen, the Acadians continued to demand a say in their own government, as late as 1706 petitioning the monarchy to allow them to elect spokesmen each year by a plurality of voices. In a sign of his indifference to the colony, Louis XV agreed to their demand.[45] This representative assembly was a direct offshoot of a government system that developed out of the seigneurial and church parish imported from Europe. The seigneurial system was a "set of legal regimes and practices pertaining to local landholding, politics, economics, and jurisprudence."[46] Many of the French Governors of Acadia prior to Hector d'Andigné de Grandfontaine held seigneuries in Acadia. As Seigneur, in addition to the power held as governor, they held the right to grant land, collect their seigneurial rents, and act in judgement over disputes within their domain.[46] After Acadia came under direct Royal rule under Grandfontaine the Seigneurs continued to fulfill governance roles. The Acadian seignuerial system came to an end when the British Crown bought the seigneurial rights in the 1730s. The Catholic parish system along with the accompanying parish priest also aided in the development Acadian self-government. Priests, given their respected position, often assisted the community in representation with the civil government located at Port Royal/Annapolis Royal. Within each parish the Acadians used the elected "marguilliers" (wardens) of the "conseil de fabrique" to administer more than just the churches' affairs in the Parishes. The Acadians extended this system to see to the administrative needs of the community in general. The Acadians protected this structure from the priests and were "No mere subordinates to clerical authority, wardens were "always suspicious of any interference by the priests" in the life of the rural parish, an institution which was, ... , largely a creation of the inhabitants."[46] During the British regime many of the Deputies were drawn from this marguillier group.
The Acadians occupied a borderland region of the British and French empires. As such the Acadian homeland was subjected to the ravages of war on numerous occasions. Through experience the Acadians learned to distrust imperial authorities (British and French). This is evidenced in a small way when Acadians were uncooperative with census takers.[42] Administrators complained of constant in-fighting among the population, which filed many petty civil suits with colonial magistrates. Most of these were over boundary lines, as the Acadians were very quick to protect their new lands.[47]
Governance under the British after 1710Edit
Main article: Deputy (Acadian)
After 1710, the British military administration continued to utilize the deputy system the Acadians had developed under French colonial rule. Prior to 1732 the deputies were appointed by the governor from men in the districts of Acadian families "as ancientest and most considerable in Lands & possessions,".[48] This appears to be in contravention of various British penal laws which made it nearly impossible for Roman Catholics and Protestant recusants to hold military and government positions. The need for effective administration and communication in many of the British colonies trumped the laws. In 1732 the governance institution was formalized. Under the formalized system the colony was divided into eight districts. Annually on October 11 free elections were to take place where each district, depending on its size, was to elect two, three, or four deputies. In observance of the Lord's Day, if October 11 fell on a Sunday the elections were to take place on the immediately following Monday. Notice of the annual election was to be given in all districts thirty days before the election date. Immediately following election, deputies, both outgoing and incoming, were to report to Annapolis Royal to receive the governor's approval and instructions. Prior to 1732 deputies had complained about the time and expense of holding office and carrying out their duties. Under the new elected deputy system each district was to provide for the expenses of their elected deputies. The duties of the deputies were broad and included reporting to the government in council the affairs of the districts, distribution of government proclamations, assistance in the settlement of various local disputes (primarily related to land), and ensuring that various weights and measures used in trade were "Conformable to the Standard".[49]
In addition to deputies, several other public positions existed. Each district had a clerk who worked closely with the deputies and under his duties recorded the records and orders of government, deeds and conveyances, and kept other public records. With the rapid expansion of the Acadian populace, there was also a growing number of cattle and sheep. The burgeoning herds and flocks, often free-ranging, necessitated the creation of the position of Overseer of Flocks. These individuals controlled where the flocks grazed, settled disputes and recorded the names of individuals slaughtering animals to ensure proper ownership. Skins and hides were inspected for brands. After the purchase by the British Crown of the seigniorial rights in Acadia, various rents and fees were due to the Crown. In the Minas, Piziquid and Cobequid Districts the seigniorial fees were collected by the "Collector & Receiver of All His Majesty's Quit Rents, Dues, or Revenues". The Collector was to keep a record of all rents and other fees collected, submit the rents to Annapolis Royal, and retain fifteen percent to cover his expenses.[50][51]
Main Acadian communities of Acadia before the deportation
After a 1692 visit, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, described the Acadian men as "'well-built, of good height, and they would be accepted without difficulty as soldiers in a guards' regiment. [They are] well-proportioned and their hair is usually blond. [They are] robust, and will endure great fatigue; [they] are fine subjects of the king, passionately loving the French of Europe'".[52] Charles Morris describes the Acadians as being "...tall and well proportioned, they delight much in wearing long hair, they are of dark complexion, in general, and somewhat of the mixture of Indians; but there are some of a light complexion. They retain the language and customs of their neighbours the French, with a mixed affectation of the native Indians, and imitate them in their haunting and wild tones in their merriment; they are naturally full cheer and merry, subtle, speak and promise fair..."[51] Most Acadians were illiterate, and many of the records, including notarial deeds, were destroyed or scattered during the Great Expulsion. For a time, Port Royal did have schools, but these were closed when the British excluded Roman Catholic religious orders from operating in Acadia.[52] Despite their nominal faith, Acadians often worked on Sundays and religious holidays.[52]
Before 1654, trading companies and patent holders concerned with fishing recruited men in France to come to Acadia to work at the commercial outposts.[53] The original Acadian population was a small number of indentured servants and soldiers brought by the fur-trading companies. Gradually, fishermen began settling in the area as well, rather than return to France with the seasonal fishing fleet.[42] The majority of the recruiting took place at La Rochelle. Between 1653 and 1654, 104 men were recruited at La Rochelle. Of these, 31% were builders, 15% were soldiers and sailors, 8% were food preparers, 6.7% were farm workers, and an additional 6.7% worked in the clothing trades.[53] Fifty-five percent of Acadia's first families came from western and west-central France, primarily from Poitou, Aunis, Angoumois, and Saintonge. Over 85% of these (47% of the total), were former residents of the La Chaussée area of Poitou.[47] Many of the families who arrived in 1632 with Razilly shared some blood ties; those not related by blood shared cultural ties with the others.[47] The number of original immigrants was very small, and only about 100 surnames existed within the Acadian community.[42] Although the majority of Acadian settlers came from France there were also members of the populace from Ireland, Spain (both Spanish and Basque), Portugal, England, Scotland, Belgium (Flemish), Channel Islands, and Croatia.[54]
Some of the earliest settlers married women of the local Mi'kmaq tribe who had converted to Roman Catholicism.[42] A Parisian lawyer, Marc Lescarbot, who spent just over a year in Acadia, arriving in May 1606, described the Micmac as having "courage, fidelity, generosity, and humanity, and their hospitality is so innate and praiseworthy that they receive among them every man who is not an enemy. They are not simpletons. ... So that if we commonly call them Savages, the word is abusive and unmerited."[55][56]
Most of the immigrants to Acadia were peasants in Europe, making them social equals in this new context. The colony had limited economic support or cultural contacts with France, leaving a "social vacuum" that allowed "individual talents and industry ... [to supplant] inherited social position as the measure of a man's worth."[57] Acadians lived as social equals, with the elderly and priests considered slightly superior.[45] Unlike the French colonists in Canada and the early English colonies in Plymouth and Jamestown, Acadians maintained an extended kinship system,[57] and the large extended families assisted in building homes and barns, as well as cultivating and harvesting crops.[58] They also relied on interfamily cooperation to accomplish community goals, such as building dikes to reclaim tidal marshes.[59]
Marriages were generally not love matches but were arranged for economic or social reasons. Parental consent was required for anyone under 25 who wished to marry, and both the mother's and father's consent was recorded in the marriage deed.[60] Divorce was not permitted in New France, and annulments were almost impossible to get. Legal separation was offered as an option but was seldom used.[61]
The Acadians were suspicious of outsiders and on occasion did not readily cooperate with census takers. The first reliable population figures for the area came with the census of 1671, which noted fewer than 450 people. By 1714, the Acadian population had expanded to 2,528 individuals, mostly from natural increase rather than immigration.[42] Most Acadian women in the 18th century gave birth to living children an average of eleven times. Although these numbers are identical to those in Canada, 75% of Acadian children reached adulthood, many more than in other parts of New France. The isolation of the Acadian communities meant the people were not exposed to many of the imported epidemics, allowing the children to remain healthier.[62]
In the 18th century, some Acadians migrated to nearby Île Saint-Jean (now Prince Edward Island) to take advantage of the fertile cropland. In 1732, the island had 347 settlers but within 25 years its population had expanded to 5000 Europeans.[63] The bulk of this population explosion on Île Saint-Jean took place in the early 1750s and has as its source Acadians removing themselves during the rising tensions on peninsular Nova Scotia after the settlement of Halifax in 1749. Le Loutre played a role in these removals through acts of encouragement and threats. The exodus to Île Saint-Jean became a flood with refugees fleeing British held territory after the initial expulsions of 1755.
In 1714, a few Acadian families emigrated to Île Royale. These families had little property. But for the majority of Acadians, they could not be enticed by the French government to abandon their heritage and the land of their forefathers for an area which was unknown and uncultivated.[64]
Most Acadian households were self-sufficient,[65] with families engaged in subsistence farming only for a few years while they established their farms.[66] Very rapidly the Acadians established productive farms that yielded surplus crops that allowed them to trade with both Boston and Louisbourg.[e] Farms tended to remain small plots of land worked by individual families rather than slave labor.[67] The highly productive dyked marshlands and cleared uplands produced an abundance of fodder that supported significant production of cows, sheep and pigs. Farmers grew various grains: wheat, oats, barley, hops and rye; vegetables: peas, cabbage, turnips, onions, carrots, chives, shallots, asparagus, parsnips and beets; fruit: apples, pears, cherries, plums, raspberry and white strawberry.[68] In addition they grew crops of hemp and flax for the production of cloth, rope, etc.[46][3][69] From the rivers, estuaries and seas they harvested shad, smelts, gaspereau, cod, salmon, bass, etc., utilizing fish traps in the rivers, weirs in the inter-tidal zone and from the sea with lines and nets from their boats. The fishery was pursued on a commercial basis as in 1715 at the Minas Basin settlements, when the Acadian population there numbered only in the hundreds, they had "between 30 - 40 sail of vessels, built by themselves, which they employ in fishing" reported Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Caulfield to the Board of Trade.[70] Charles Morris observed the Acadians at Minas hunting beluga whales.[51] The Acadians also varied their diets by hunting for moose, hare, ducks and geese, and pigeon.[46]
After 1630, the Acadians began to build dikes and drain the sea marsh above Port Royal. The high salinity of the reclaimed coastal marshland meant that the land would need to sit for three years after it was drained before it could be cultivated.[58] The land reclamation techniques that were used closely resembled the enclosures near La Rochelle that helped make solar salt.[42]
As time progressed, the Acadian agriculture improved, and Acadians traded with the British colonies in New England to gain ironware, fine cloth, rum, and salt. During the French administration of Acadia, this trade was illegal, but it did not stop some English traders from establishing small stores in Port Royal.[52] Under English rule, the Acadians traded with New England and often smuggled their excess food to Boston merchants waiting at Baie Verte for transshipment to the French at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island.[71]
Many adult sons who did not inherit land from their parents settled on adjacent vacant lands to remain close to their families.[72] As the Acadian population expanded and available land became limited around Port Royal, new settlements took root to the northeast, in the Upper Bay of Fundy, including Mines, Pisiquid, and Beaubassin. Many of the pioneers into that area persuaded some of their relatives to accompany them, and most of the frontier settlements contained only five to ten interrelated family units.[73]
Acadia portal
Acadian French
Expulsion of the Acadians
Former colonies and territories in Canada
List of Acadians
List of governors of Acadia
Military history of Nova Scotia
Military history of the Acadians
^ For the 144 years prior to the founding of Halifax (1749), Port Royal/Annapolis Royal was the capital of Acadia for 112 of those years (78% of the time). The other locations that served as the Capital of Acadia are: LaHave, Nova Scotia (1632–1636 ); present day Castine, Maine (1670–1674); Beaubassin (1678–1684); Jemseg, New Brunswick(1690–1691); present day Fredericton, New Brunswick (1691–1694), and present day Saint John, New Brunswick (1695–1699).[5]
^ Until 1784, New Brunswick was considered part of Nova Scotia.
^ The Nova Scotia theatre of the Dummer War is named the "Mi'kmaq-Maliseet War" by John Grenier (Grenier 2008)
^ The framework "Father Le Loutre's War" is developed by John Grenier in Grenier (2008) The Far Reaches of Empire. War in Nova Scotia, 1710–1760. and Grenier (2005) The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814. He outlines his rationale for naming these conflicts as Father Le Loutre's War
^ Fowler's analysis of census records and other primary documents reveal that most farms by 1686 were producing in livestock alone, on a per capita basis, twice as much as was needed for their own consumption. This does not include food crops and the animals harvested from the natural environment.[46]
^ a b c d Williamson 1832, pp. 27, 266, 293.
^ a b Reid, John G. (1998). "An International Region of the Northeast: Rise and Decline, 1635–1762". In Buckner, Phillip A.; Campbell, Gail G.; Frank, David (eds.). The Acadiensis Reader: Atlantic Canada Before Confederation (third ed.). Acadiensis Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-9191-0744-1.
^ a b c Griffiths, N.E.S. (2005). From Migrant to Acadian: A North American Border People, 1604-1755. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 978-0-7735-2699-0.
^ Webster, John Clarence (1934). Acadia at the End of the Seventeenth Century : Letters, Journals and Memoirs of Joseph Robineau de Villebon, Commandant in Acadia, 1690-1700, and Other Contemporary Documents. The New Brunswick Museum. p. 121. [permanent dead link]
^ Dunn, Brenda (2004). A History of Port-Royal-Annapolis Royal, 1605-1800. Nimbus Publishing, Limited. ISBN 978-1-55109-740-4.
^ Chalmers, George (1790). A Collection of Treaties Between Great Britain and Other Powers. J. Stockdale. p. 381.
^ Beaujot, Roderic (1998). "Demographic Considerations in Canadian Language Policy". In Ricento, Thomas K.; Burnaby, Barbara (eds.). Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-68104-3.
^ Morley, William F. E. (1979) [1966]. "Verrazzan, Diovanni da". In Brown, George Williams (ed.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. I (1000–1700) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press.
^ Lescarbot, Marc (1928). Nova Francia: A Description of Acadia, 1606. RoutledgeCurzon. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-415-34468-5.
^ Faragher 2005, p. 6.
^ Faragher 2005, pp. 17–19.
^ MacDonald, M.A. (1983). Fortune & La Tour: the Civil War in Acadia. Methuen.
^ Prins, Harald E. L. (March 1999). Storm Clouds Over Wabanaki: Confederacy Diplomacy until Dummer's Treaty (1727). The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. Amherst, Nova Scotia. Archived from the original on July 19, 2011. Retrieved January 22, 2012.
^ Campbell, William Edgar (2005). The Road to Canada: The Grand Communications Route from Saint John to Quebec. Goose Lane Editions. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-86492-426-1.
^ Grenier 2008, pp. 51, 54.
^ Meductic Indian Village / Fort Meductic National Historic Site of Canada. Canadian Register of Historic Places.
^ Meductic Indian Village / Fort Meductic National Historic Site of Canada. Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Parks Canada.
^ "Mission Sainte-Anne: Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia". Northeast Archaeological Research. Archived from the original on October 11, 2012.
^ Drake, Samuel Adams (1897). The Border Wars of New England. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 264–266.
^ Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between France and Great Britain . 1713. Article XIII – via Wikisource.
^ Doughty, Arthur G. (1916). "The Oath of Allegiance". The Acadian exiles: a chronicle of the land of Evangeline. Brook and Company. pp. 28–46.
^ "Acadian HeartlandRecords of the Deportation and Le Grand Dérangement, 1714-1768". Nova Scotia Archives. pp. 263–267 footnote.
^ "Our Acadian Heritage: Oath Of Allegiance Becomes Sticking Point With Acadians". Les Doucet du Monde.
^ Charland, Thomas (1979) [1969]. "Rale, Sébastien". In Hayne, David (ed.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. II (1701–1740) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press.
^ Grenier 2008, p. 56.
^ a b Murdoch 1865, p. 399.
^ Murdoch 1865, p. 398.
^ Plank, Geoffrey (2001). An Unsettled Conquest: The British Campaign Against the Peoples of Acadia. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 78. ISBN 0-8122-1869-8.
^ Benjamin Church, p. 289
^ Faragher 2005, pp. 164–165.
^ Dunn 2004, p. 123.
^ Akins, Thomas B. (1895). History of Halifax City. Nova Scotia Historical Society. p. 7.
^ a b Grenier 2005.
^ Patterson, Stephen E. (1998). "Indian-White Relations in Nova Scotia, 1749–61: A Study in Political Interaction". In Buckner, Phillip A.; Campbell, Gail G.; Frank, David (eds.). The Acadiensis Reader: Atlantic Canada Before Confederation (third ed.). Acadiensis Press. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-0-9191-0744-1.
^ Patterson, Stephen E. (1994). "Colonial Wars and Aboriginal Peoples". In Buckner, Phillip; Reid, John G. (eds.). The Atlantic Region to Confederation: A History. University of Toronto Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-4875-1676-5.
^ Mouhot, Jean-Francois (2009). Les Réfugiés Acadiens en France (1758–1785): L'Impossible réintégration? [The Acadian Refugees in France, 1758-1785: The Impossible Reitergration?] (in French). Editions du Septentrion. ISBN 978-2-8944-8513-2.
^ Faragher 2005.
^ Lacoursière, Jacques (1995). Histoire populaire du Québec, Tome 1, des origines à 1791 [Folk History of Quebec, Volume 1: From origins to 1791] (in French). Éditions du Septentrion. p. 270. ISBN 978-2-8944-8739-6.
^ "Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu history". Archived from the original on October 5, 2011.
^ a b c d e f g Moogk 2000, p. 7.
^ Moogk 2000, p. 9.
^ Moogk 2000, p. 176.
^ a b Moogk 2000, p. 175.
^ a b c d e f Fowler, Jonathan (2009). The Neutral French of Mi'kma'ki: And Archaeology of Acadian Identities Prior to 1755 (PhD Thesis). Oxford University.
^ a b c Brasseaux 1987, p. 8.
^ MacMechan 1900, p. 59, [1].
^ MacMechan 1900, p. 190, [2].
^ a b c Morris, Charles. A Brief Survey of Nova Scotia. The Royal Artillery Regimental Library, Woolwich, UK – via The National Archives of Canada.
^ a b c d Moogk 2000, p. 174.
^ a b Moogk 2000, p. 92.
^ White, Stephen (1992). Patronymes Acadiens/Acadian Family Names. Moncton, New Brunswick: Société du Monument Lefebvre.
^ Moogk 2000, p. 18.
^ Landry, Peter (2015) [1997]. "Marc Lescarbot". Early Nova Scotians: 1600-1867. Blupete.
^ a b Brasseaux 1987, p. 3.
^ a b Brasseaux 1987, p. 11.
^ Arsenault, Bona (2004). Histoire des Acadiens. Les Editions Fides. p. 114. ISBN 978-2-7621-2613-6.
^ Brasseaux 1987, p. 10.
^ Brasseaux 1987, p. 9.
^ Erskine, John S. (1975). The French Period in Nova Scotia. A.D. 1500-1758 And Present Remains a historical, archaeological, and botanical survey. Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Self Published.
^ Clark, Andrew Hill (1968). Acadia: the geography of early Nova Scotia to 1760. University of Wisconsin Press.
^ MacMechan 1900.
Brasseaux, Carl A. (1987). The Founding of New Acadia: The Beginnings of Acadian Life in Louisiana, 1765–1803. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-1296-8.
Faragher, John Mack (2005). A Great and Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians from Their American Homeland. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-24243-0.
Grenier, John (2005). The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-44470-5.
Grenier, John (2008). The Far Reaches of Empire: War in Nova Scotia, 1710–1760. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-8566-8 MN Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help).
MacMechan, Archibald, ed. (1900). Nova Scotia Archives II, A Calendar of Two Letter-Books and One Commission-Book in the Possession of the Government of Nova Scotia, 1713–1741. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Herald Printing House.
Moogk, Peter (2000). La Nouvelle France: The Making of French Canada—A Cultural History. Michigan State University Press. ISBN 0-87013-528-7.
Murdoch, Beamish (1865). A History of Nova-Scotia, Or Acadie. Vol. I. Halifax: James Barnes.
Williamson, William D. (1832). The History of the State of Maine; from its Discovery, A.D. 1602, to the Separation, A.D. 1820, Inclusive. Volume II. Hallowell.
Clark, Andrew Hill (1968). Acadia: the geography of early Nova Scotia to 1760. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-05080-7.
Magord, André (2008). The Quest for Autonomy in Acadia. Études Canadiennes – Canadian Studies, 18. Brussels, Belgium: P.I.E. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-90-5201-476-0.
Plank, Geoffrey (2001). An Unsettled Conquest: The British Campaign Against the Peoples of Acadia. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1869-8.
Jobb, Dean W. (2005). The Acadians: A People's Story of Exile and Triumph. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-15772-5. (published in the United States as The Cajuns: A People's Story of Exile and Triumph. ISBN 978-0-470-73961-7. )
Smith, Philip Henry (1884). Acadia: A Lost Chapter in American History. Pawling, New York: Self Published.
Richard, Édouard (1895). Acadia: Missing Links of a Lost Chapter in American History. Vol I. New York: Home Book Company.
Richard, Édouard (1895). Acadia: Missing Links of a Lost Chapter in American History. Vol II. New York: Home Book Company.
Wikivoyage has a travel guide for Acadian Coast.
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Acadie.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Acadia.
Acadian Heritage Portal ‹See Tfd›(in French) – Acadian history, genealogy and folklore
National Society of Acadia ‹See Tfd›(in French)
Acadian Ancestral Home by Lucie LeBlanc Consentino – a repository for Acadian history & genealogy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acadia&oldid=906356527"


Smee+Busby Architects spearheaded the redesign of Cherokee Mills, providing a highly-amenitized office environment with rustic class A space. Features include original hardwoods, brick walls, polished concrete floors and tongue and groove ceilings. The restoration of these facilities included a careful balance between maintaining their historic nature and breathing life and modern sensibilities back into the property.


text:
@interface S4M_062_EvalIfTestCase : XCTestCase

@end

@implementation S4M_062_EvalIfTestCase
{
    S4MStringStreamUsingNSString* inputStream;
    S4MStringStreamUsingNSString* outputStream;
    S4MSchemeObject* parsedResult;
    S4MSchemeObject* evaledResult;
    S4MSchemeEnvironment* topLevel;
}

- (void)setUp
{
    [super setUp];
    inputStream = [[S4MStringStreamUsingNSString alloc] init];
    outputStream = [[S4MStringStreamUsingNSString alloc] init];
    topLevel = [[S4MSchemeEnvironment alloc] init];
}

- (void)tearDown
{
    // Put teardown code here. This method is called after the invocation of each test method in the class.
    [super tearDown];
    parsedResult = nil;
    evaledResult = nil;
    topLevel = nil;
    inputStream = nil;
    outputStream = nil;
}

- (void)testSimpleArithmeticIf {
    [inputStream setStream:@"(if (> 2 3) 2 3)"];
    parsedResult = [[S4MReader sharedInstance] readSchemeObjectFromStream:inputStream];
    evaledResult = [[S4MEval sharedInstance] evalObject:parsedResult inEnvironment:nil];
    [[S4MPrinter sharedInstance] printSchemeObject:evaledResult onStream:outputStream];
    XCTAssertTrue([[outputStream getStream] isEqualToString:@"3"], @"2 not smaller than 3, instead: %@", [outputStream getStream]);
}

- (void)testIfWithTooFewArgs {
    [inputStream setStream:@"(if (> 2 3) 2)"];
    parsedResult = [[S4MReader sharedInstance] readSchemeObjectFromStream:inputStream];
    XCTAssertThrowsSpecificNamed([[S4MEval sharedInstance] evalObject:parsedResult inEnvironment:nil]
                                 , NSException, @"Wrong Argument Count", @"doesnt throw right exception!");
}

- (void)testIfWithTooManyArgs {
    [inputStream setStream:@"(if (> 2 3) 2 3 4)"];
    parsedResult = [[S4MReader sharedInstance] readSchemeObjectFromStream:inputStream];
    XCTAssertThrowsSpecificNamed([[S4MEval sharedInstance] evalObject:parsedResult inEnvironment:nil]
                                 , NSException, @"Wrong Argument Count", @"doesnt throw right exception!");
}

@end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
<?php

namespace Acme\SetupBundle\Form;

use Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType;
use Symfony\Component\Form\FormBuilderInterface;
use Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolverInterface;

class SupplierType extends AbstractType
{
    /**
     * @param FormBuilderInterface $builder
     * @param array $options
     */
    public function buildForm(FormBuilderInterface $builder, array $options)
    {
        $builder
            ->add('name')
            ->add('address');
    }

    /**
     * @param OptionsResolverInterface $resolver
     */
    public function setDefaultOptions(OptionsResolverInterface $resolver)
    {
        $resolver->setDefaults(array(
            'data_class' => 'Acme\SetupBundle\Entity\Supplier'
        ));
    }

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getName()
    {
        return 'acme_setupbundle_supplier';
    }
}


text:
GuidedCollective.com
Unique Papers For Students
Student ideas
Rose for emily
by admin	| Posted on November 1, 2018 November 1, 2018
Almost everyone laments how the world has changed since they were young, how everything is now faster, more complicated, and less friendly. In William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily," Miss Emily sees the world change in many different ways, and yet stays the same. In her case, the world she grew up in literally is gone, and she does not posses the skills to change along with it. She is a woman lost in time, with no real place among society, especially not a society who places her on a pedestal, enabling her many questionable actions. The factors of her life and the stigmas placed upon her due to those factors yield to her no choice but the actions which she chose.
Miss Emily's generation grew up in a time when women were expected to get married, have children, and take care of the house. For someone of her status, this would have been the epitome of her adult life. She would be the mistress of a household, leading a life of entertaining and quiet leadership. Miss Emily, however, never married. Her father had never accepted her suitors, meeting them at the door "clutching a horsewhip." He selfishly kept her single all those years, which must have caused immense embarrassment to a woman from her era, whose whole life should have led up to her marriage. She seldom left her house after her father died, further mystifying herself to the town who watched her life from behind their lace curtains.
The Civil War came and went, and Miss Emily still lived in that same house "set on what had once been the most select street," "lifting its stubborn and coquettish decay above the cotton wagons and the gasoline pumps." Miss Emily had once belonged to the most select class, and still stubbornly maintained the image, even though she and her entire town knew the truth to be otherwise. She remained a stubborn product of her times, keeping a manservant who most likely had been with her since he had been a slave, and had stayed out of loyalty to her. She continually refused progress, not allowing them to "fasten the metal numbers above her door and attach a mailbox to it" when the town finally got postal service. Time continued ticking on, and yet Miss Emily refused to acknowledge it. She firmly entrenched herself in denial when her father died, telling the townspeople "that her father was not dead. She did that for three days, with the ministers calling on her, and the doctors, trying to persuade her to let them dispose of the body." Finally, she admits that her father is in fact gone, and allows the officials to bury him. She does not have an easy time adapting, which is understandable. Her entire life, she has been stuck in that house with her father, probably has never left the town, and apparently had no friends to keep her company. Nothing has ever really changed for her, and so she has never had to deal with change.
The narrator, a random townsperson, illustrates very well the awe and fear the town held for Miss Emily. To them, she portrayed everything that they wished they could be, and all that they were glad not to be. They held a twisted form of respect for her. When she dies, she is referred to as a "fallen monument" whom the men went to see out of a "respectful affection," much like that of your child's pet, who you go through the funeral for, but will never really understand. The women of the town went "mostly out of curiosity to see the inside of her house, which no onehad seen in at least ten years." They had always wondered what she was like, but never really found out. It was not their place to speak with her, for she was a Grierson, albeit a fallen one. Miss Emily was aware of this class distinction, refusing to receive the townswomen into her home after her father's death. Miss Emily had to maintain her image of propriety that had been placed upon her. Indeed, it seems as if the town would have been disappointed to see her otherwise.
Miss Emily, in her "monument" position, was allowed to do mostly whatever she pleased. Her taxes had been remitted in the time of ladies and gentlemen, and no one pushed the issue too far when they decided she needed to start paying them. She remained stubborn and firm in her status, showing her power — however antiquated — over them when "she did not ask them to sit." She simply stated "I have no taxes in Jefferson," then asked her servant to "show these gentlemen out." They could not argue with her. She was the high and mighty Miss Emily Grierson, who had become a "tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town." This fact was never questioned; Miss Emily did as she pleased.
When Miss Emily, who was never referred to as simply "Emily," went to the druggist, he did not challenge her request. She asserted herself and her position, cutting off his sentences, staring him down with her "cold, haughty black eyes." She demands arsenic, and he gives it to her, even though it is against the law. He simply writes "for rats" on the package; Miss Emily has placed herself above the law, and no one feels the need to challenge that.
Even when her house potentially poses a health hazard, she is not confronted about the problem. The stench emanating from her house is discussed by the city authorities, who decide to deal with it themselves. The judge asks "Dammit, sir, will you accuse a lady to her face of smelling bad?" They acknowledge the era Miss Emily is still living in, the era of ladies who can do no wrong, and they do not dash this image for her. Instead, they "slunk about the house, sniffing along the base of the brickworkand sprinkled lime thereafter a week or two the smell went away." Instead of confronting Miss Emily and discovering the truth about the smell, they assume it must be something her servant killed, and continue to enable Miss Emily's notion that she is beyond reproach.
The town does not condemn Emily for her actions.When her father died and she hid with him in her house for three days, they did not condemn her. "We did not say that she was crazy then. We believed that she had to do that." For all the morbid curiosity they hold for Miss Emily, they always make excuses for her. They say "We remembered all the young men her father had driven away, and we knew that with nothing left, she would have to cling to that which had robbed her." Perhaps they would say the same when they found out who else she clung to post-mortem.
Miss Emily's one attempt to reassert herself into the present comes when the sidewalks are commissioned for the town, and Homer Barron arrives to build them. He is a northerner, and a blue-collar worker, the exact opposite of everything Emily is held to stand for. Yet she accepts him into her life, taking him as a lover when it is apparent that he will not marry her. Emily remains the distant monument to her town even though they believe that "she was a fallen" woman. "She held her head high enoughit was as if she demanded more than ever the recognition of her dignity." All her life she had been denied happiness, and now she has found it. Unfortunately, this love was doomed to fail. There are too many traditions, customs, and prejudices engrained in Emily, her town, her family, and her love. Homer will not marry her. However, she has finally found love and happiness, and Miss Emily is above the law.
So she poisons Homer Barron and keeps him in a room upstairs. She sleeps with him every night, his body arranged in the "attitude of an embrace," clinging to the idea of a "marriage" that she never had. She is a sad, lonely woman, and if she cannot have this one last chance at happiness, then she will keep it by force. Throughout her life the town she lived in has been her "enabler," allowing her to continue in her unhealthy habits; Emily has no reason to think that what she has done is wrong. She is simply preserving what is rightfully hers; she is holding on to some semblance of happiness that has always been denied her.
/ Pages : 1,495 / 24
Hamlet And Lear
Children and the Single Parent
Stem Cell Debate
What is the extent of prejudice? How far will it g
English 4/15/96
Bambi In Relation To Our Soiety
Barney Vs. Sesame Street
The Theme Of Inherit The Wind
New Ideas For Students
Capital Punishment8
Colin Ferguson 2
Stand By Me (Movie Review For Small Group Com)
Electronic Revolution
Comparison Of Crucible And The Scarlet Letter
Computer Crime: Prevention & Innovation
Book 3 Summary of Metamorphosis
Electrical Utility Deregulation
Skinhead Violence
Copyright GuidedCollective.com. All rights reserved.	| Powered by WordPress & Writers Blogily Theme
I'm Sophia


Exceptional 3 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath villa for rent, minutes from beach and Hua Hin town. Spacious 2 story house with very large, very private pool and jacuzzi. The villa, which is about 3 kilometers south of the center of town, sleeps six in three bedrooms (all with en-suite full bathrooms). One bedroom has a king bed, another a queen bed and the third has twin beds.
Granite floors throughout, extending to pool and patios on both floors. All rooms have double doors to exterior covered proches. Tastefully furnished, Thai modern, with all amenities, such as laundry room, fully-fitted European kitchen, satellite TV, internet access and telephone. Available TV includes CNN, BBC, HBO, Cinemax and History channel and similar programs. A DVD player is also included. The kitchen includes a full European set-up with gas stove top, oven, microwave, coffee maker and all necessary utensils and dishes. An automatic washing machine is in the laundry room. Unusually large wall enclosed yard.
Ample restaurants and a Tesco-Lotus marketplace with a great selection of Thai and European food restaurants are ten minutes away by car or "tuk-tuk" cabs. Local style restaurants are within walking distance.