One aspect of the rationalist approach is its approach to the natural order. The rationalist approach perceives nature as a superior way for God to run the world than using miracles. Related to this is the rationalist approach of seeing the natural order as being pervasive.
For the rationalist Rishonim, the reason for believing the natural order to be pervasive was the value that they ascribed to it. For rationalists today, there is a more powerful reason - empirical confirmation. We see that the natural order is able to account for all kinds of phenomena, and we see that it has been in place for billions of years.
A perfect example of the anti-rationalist approach is presented by my former colleague Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, in this lecture on the Torah Anytime website.
Rabbi Gottlieb divides scientific pronouncements into different categories to which he attributes different levels of credibility. His main point is that science cannot make any definitive statements when it is extrapolating. He refers to extrapolations that are based on the physical constants of the universe always having been the same as being utterly baseless. Of course, the unspoken subtext to all this is that science cannot proclaim the universe to be billions of years old, and we are therefore justified in insisting it to be less than 6000 years old. However, Rabbi Gottlieb, in his categorization of scientific claims, and his discussion of the weakness of claims that are based on extrapolation, makes two egregious errors.
The first is that he sets up the discussion as one relating to physics and to the origins of the universe. He quotes Steven Weinberg as saying that "all conclusions about the universe depend on the assumption that our point is non-typical." He derides this as being a gigantic extrapolation, with no evidence, and he goes on about how "everything rests on it" (sic) and about how it is related to an atheist idea that we are not special.
But this is all utterly misleading. The issue at stake is not the Big Bang theory; it is not whether the world is 13.8 billion years old; it is not physics at all. Rather, the issue at stake is whether the universe is 5768 years old, or if it is much more than that. And for this, one does not need to engage in any complex physics regarding the origins and development of the universe, which is what Steven Weinberg was discussing. There are much more straightforward and down-to-earth lines of evidence, from geology, paleontology, archeology and so on. Christian geologists of a hundred years ago knew the world to be much more than 6000 years old long before there were any assessments of how many billions of years old it is. You can be sure that when Weinberg referred to "all conclusions about the universe," he was not talking about whether the universe is more than 5769 years old!
Once you consider such down-to-earth techniques, it becomes more difficult to challenge the extrapolations. Let us consider varves as an example. These are annual layers of sediment laid down on the base of lakes. In the spring and summer, melting snow causes streams to flow with greater volume and speed, enabling them to carry coarse sediment such as sand which settles on the base of the lake. In the winter, when there is less run-off from the mountains, the streams only carry finer sediment. This is a process that can easily be observed in freshwater lakes today. Each varve therefore consists of a thin layer of light (coarse) sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. In the Green River formation of Wyoming, there are places with twenty million such layers of sediment. Now, Rabbi Gottlieb will argue that there is no basis for extrapolating that this means that it was formed over millions of years. He would claim that the rate of run-off fluctuated much more rapidly back then. But to be produced within the time span that he wants, the rate would have had to fluctuate every few minutes. But how would this have managed to produce distinct layers?!
Even more basically, the simplest evidence that the earth is far more than a few thousand years old can be detected by the naked eye and without any special scientific skills. At thousands of locations in the world, one can find remains of extinct creatures. Such remains may include fossilized skeletons, eggs, and footprints. But in every one of these places, distinct groupings of creatures are found, depending upon which layer of rock they are found in. This shows that there were many eras of different types of animal life on the planet, which in turn shows that the world is much more than 5769 years old.
The second severe error committed by Rabbi Dr. Gottlieb is that he completely omits two vital and related methods of corroboration that are available for processes of extrapolation.
The second is the convergence of techniques which results in a coherent system that makes testable predictions. As I explained in my book, there are all kinds of techniques which demonstrate the antiquity of the earth - dendrochronology, varve analysis, ice-cores, paleontology, and so on. Positing that the natural world was different such that one cannot assume that ice-layers were deposited at the same rate back then, would mean that the natural world was massively different. It would mean that dendrochronology would be thrown off, varve analysis - everything. It would mean nothing less than a totally chaotic order, absolutely incomprehensible to us.
But we can see that this is not what happened. Because science works. The different methods of dating corroborate each other. They enable us to make predictions. This is how geologists earn a living! They are employed by mineral companies precisely because geology works, and it enables us to accurately predict where different deposits will be found. Paleontologists can predict which types of fossils will be found depending on what type of rock they are investigating. Instead of finding chaos, we find a very neat arrangement of fossils and sedimentary layers, with clearly distinct eras of animal life. This is why the early Christian geologists, who had formerly assumed that the deluge could account for their findings, were forced to reject this belief.
But what if everything was changed and speeded up in synchronization? Well, if all physical phenomena as we know them were sped up, then the speeding up is irrelevant. Imagine if one were to posit that the fifteenth century only lasted five minutes, as all physical processes occurred much more quickly than usual. Would this be meaningful in any way? If virtually everything is being sped up, then effectively nothing is being sped up.
There is much, much more that can be said about this topic, but I'll leave it at this for now, aside from some final observations on the latter part of the lecture.
Making a similar error to that which he committed with regard to the age of the universe, Rabbi Gottlieb claims that evolution is all (sic) about extrapolating from micro-evolution to macro-evolution. No, it isn't! He has neglected the fossil record, the nested hierarchical pattern of classification, vestigial limbs, and so on. And of course, in his claim that macro-evolution is scientifically baseless, he does not let on that he believes in spontaneous generation (as per Chazal), which is much more radical than macro-evolution.
It is tragically ironic that Rabbi Gottlieb laments that "if only scientists were a little open-minded." He, of course, is not open-mindedly evaluating the evidence, since he a priori considers it heretical to believe that the world is billions of years old or that evolution occurred. Kol haposel bemumo posel. But perhaps the greatest irony in Rabbi Gottlieb's protest against extrapolations is that his most famous presentation about the basis of emunah - the testimony from Sinai - rests on the premise that you can extrapolate from the mesorah, thought-processes and critical skills of people today to people who lived 3000 years ago!
>"Of course, the unspoken subtext to all this is that science cannot proclaim the universe to be billions of years old, and we are therefore justified in insisting it to be less than 6000 years old.
...But this is all utterly misleading. The issue at stake is not the Big Bang theory; it is not whether the world is 13.8 billion years old; it is not physics at all.
Rather, the issue at stake is whether the universe is 5768 years old, or if it is much more than that. And for this, one does not need to engage in any complex physics regarding the origins and development of the universe, which is what Steven Weinberg was discussing."
I listened to this lecture and did not pick up on this sub-text in the slightest. It seemed to be more of a general overview/introduction regarding the reliability of scientific statements.
The subject at hand was indeed physics and not the age of the universe.
I imagine that in a series as long as this one, the age of the universe would be treated separately.
It would do well to take that one apart instead.
That is most definitely the subtext. It was a shiur delivered in a yeshivah. Do people give shiurim on charge-transfer interactions of biomolecules? He spoke about the topic because of its ramifications for Torah i.e. the age of the universe. See his blog, http://dovidgottlieb.blogspot.com, where he invokes the same ideas to justify belief in a young universe.
I could be mistaken, but it appears to be a broad introduction to an extended series on science to perhaps a secular, educated audience. Not a typical yeshiva context.
I don't think you can justify calling this lecture "misleading" if there is no trace of this subtext within the lecture itself.
If you are directing your critique at his website, then by all means cite the website. Citing this lecture makes it appear like you are looking to make an issue.
"We see that the natural order is able to account for all kinds of phenomena, and we see that it has been in place for billions of years."
You don't see, i.e. observe, you infer. Is it a strong inference, yes, strong enough that under normal circumstances most people would have no problem making the leap. Nevertheless, a little epistemological humility when confronting Divine Testimony about the process of Creation might not be such a bad thing.
It was a shiur given at Ohr Somayach. True, not a regular yeshivah, but nevertheless a shiur given in a Torah context, not part of a philosophy of science course. And I think that the subtext is clear, especially in light of his blog.
Sorry if I sound cynical and bitter; but I find this kind of thing irritating.
I have not listened to Rabbi Gottlieb's lecture, and so I will pass no judgments on it. I am also not sufficiently well-versed in the study of the age of the earth to express any opinions in that area. I have, however, read Rabbi Gottlieb's Living Up to the Truth many times, and would like to make a couple of remarks about the principles he employs and seemingly advocates in that work, and how those principles might apply to this discussion.
Rabbi Gottlieb assumes that the principles of the scientific method are the tools that lead one to truth. Unlike many other rabbis, Rabbi Gottlieb considers their validity to be unconditional and hence axiomatic. He does not allow for, or at least does not entertain, competing and perhaps overriding methods of truth-finding (such as faith, for example). Since Rabbi Gottlieb and modern science share the same epistemology, it follows that whatever science can prove convincingly using its axioms, Rabbi Gottlieb must accept. (Similarly, whatever Rabbi Gottlieb can prove convincingly using his axioms, science must accept.) In the event that Rabbi Gottlieb and science draw conflicting conclusions, whichever side makes the more compelling case wins. Rabbi Gottlieb believes in the Torah based on his application of his epistemological axioms. Thus if science can disprove the truth of the Torah more convincingly than Rabbi Gottlieb can prove it, then Rabbi Gottlieb must accept that the Torah is false. Thus he must always reconcile the Torah with well-supported science in order to maintain that the Torah is true. Other people, by contrast, feel comfortable asserting that Torah is true axiomatically, and that if science conflicts with it, science is necessarily wrong. Again, Rabbi Gottlieb will not do this.
Rabbi Gottlieb also emphasizes that the acknowledged centrepiece of his argument in favour of the veracity of the Torah, the so-called "Kuzari" proof (Chap. 6 of Living Up to the Truth, as I recall), is fundamentally not a mind experiment but an empirical argument, based on the conduct of mankind throughout human history. (It is an application of the scientific method.) He ought, therefore, to be most sympathetic to the empirical proofs of which Rabbi Slifkin speaks, if they are indeed bona fide proofs according to a genuine application of the scientific method.
I personally don't care what personal opinion a person holds vis a vis the age of the universe, evolution, daat torah, etc. But I do find it appalling that Rabbi Gottlieb uses some very skewed logic to support his young earth beliefs and then attempts to convince others that his is the only Torah-true approach.
I must second the notion that you seem to be uncharacteristically cynical and bitter in this post.
What is the need for this ad hominem attack on Rabbi Gottleib? Especially as it could be turned around on you- Perhaps it is physicists who are so caught up in groupthink who can not objectively analyze the data while a logician who studied the philosophy of science can?
There's no way of proving which way is correct, but it is just as plausible as your father's z'l (who has a bias towards physicists)take.
Who gets to decide what is a "peculiar belief"? I assure you many of your father's beliefs are considered peculiar by the secular world, notwithstanding that he was a distinguished physicist.
Rabbi Gottleib may be wrong, but he is most certainly an highly intelligent man who is deserving of more respect than you give him here.
Are you a physicist? Does this disqualify you from having an informed opinion? A writer of popular books has less credibility in my mind on these subjects than does a PHD in logic, IMO. But you have a right to be treated with respect and for your arguments to be evaluated on their merits and so does he.
WADR, Who are you trying to reach here? If you are content with preaching to the choir, fine, go right ahead.
But if you are honestly trying to have a dialog with those who may be open to hearing your point of view, I can't imagine that your tone will win you many admirers or convince many people.
It only gives unnecessary ammunition to those who (wrongly) suspect you of having a flippant attitude, reminiscent of people who mock our traditions.
It would behoove you to heed the words of our sages "Chachomim Hizahru bdivreichem!"
I shall attempt to state what I think should be Rabbi Gottlieb's position. Note that I am not attempting to address all of Rabbi Slifkin's objections to Rabbi Gottlieb's lecture. I would be interested in precise feedback as to where the significant flaws in this argument lie, if there are any.
Preliminarily, I assume all will agree that all of the evidence Rabbi Slifkin presents for the antiquity of earth can be explained away if one allows sufficient tinkering with the laws of nature. If necessary, overt miracles can account for everything within the 5769-year time frame.
1. There is considerable evidence that the Torah is true (as per Living Up to the Truth).
3. Assuming constancy in the laws of nature, there is considerable evidence that the earth is more than 5769 years old (as per Rabbi Slifkin).
5. Of choices (a), (b) and (c), (b) is the most attractive. (a) and (c) both require the contradiction of evidence. (b) merely requires the discarding of a seemingly gratuitous, if convenient, assumption. There is no obvious reason why constancy in the laws of nature should be taken as axiomatic. Furthermore, there are various indications in the Torah that the laws of nature changed at various points within the last 5769 years.
P.S. Note that this is not my position. I do not have a firm position on this matter at this time, though the topic does interest me.
Thank you, everyone, for your comments. Allow me to explain where this is coming from.
The particular problem in this case is that Rabbi Gottlieb does not merely teach his views on this topic; he teaches them on a training program for kiruv workers going out in the field. The damage is incalculable.
Furthermore, you have to understand how things work in these circles. Rabbi Gottlieb's arguments are not evaluated on their content, but rather on the basis of authority - "he's a PhD!"
I do not view it as an ad hominem attack to say that he has no qualifications or authority in this field, just as I do not view it as an ad hominem attack for someone to say that I have no qualifications or skill at playing the piano.
It's not that I want to argue from authority. It's that it bothers me that people use Rabbi Gottlieb to argue from authority, even though he isn't one.
When you say that "a writer of popular books has less credibility in my mind on these subjects than does a PHD in logic," you are overlooking the fact that this writer of popular books happens to share the same view on these topics as the entire scientific community.
When I refer to "peculiar beliefs," I am relying on the fact that this website is intended for people of a particular mindset, who consider beliefs such as the universe being 5768 years old and spontaneous generation as peculiar.
I hope this sheds light on my post. But your point about my tone, and the need for me to take into account who I am trying to reach, is well taken.
"When you say that "a writer of popular books has less credibility in my mind on these subjects than does a PHD in logic," you are overlooking the fact that this writer of popular books happens to share the same view on these topics as the entire scientific community."
Perhaps, but while I'm not quite through with Challenge of Creation, you do seem to take sides (although not dogmatically) on internal disputes in the scientific world, and you seem to lean towards the position which is more materialistic. Just a gut reaction, do you feel it is an unfair assessment?
This blog is getting exciting!
Yirmiyah, can you give me an example of an internal dispute in the scientific world where one position is more materialistic?
:P, I should of known I was going to get a pass on formulating the distinction I was trying to make.
I have found that 95% of criticisms of my writing can be neutralized by simply asking for specific examples!
I'll probably have to think it over in the morning, but yasher koach on "The Danger of Sympathetic Darwinian Evolutionists".
Chapter one was actually nice too, but rather frustrating because my policy (perhaps not a smart one but..)is to not read/avoid contemporary presentations of arguments which I tend to agree with. I like to stay independent and as a wannabe writer (is wannabe ok?) minimizes the possibility of mimicking someone else's style. Thanks for blowing that one for me...as a matter of fact your whole outline clearly plagerized the one in my head. Back to the drawing board.
"(Free tip for wannabe writers: learn to spell or use a spell-checker!)"
I DID! My comment was still in Word below my browser when I went to double check! The deck is stacked!
Rabbi Slifkin, may I ask if you have studied much philosophy of science? Surly what you are saying is not necessarily the case according to the instrumentalist and anti-realist view?
I find that invoking such concepts from the philosophy of science is irrelevant to these topics. When discussing basic, broad issues which relate to historical realities, such as the antiquity of the world, or the non-existence of spontaneous generation, there is no need to discuss such things as instrumentalism, just as there is no need or value to raising such concepts when discussing whether there was a Roman Empire.
I think billions of years and the Roman Empire are quite different. If we accept the Instrumentalist view, then science cannot tell us deep truths. Science is simply science, and empirically, it works. That's all we can say about it. It can no more tell us how old the world "really" is, than if quarks or mu-mesons "really" exist.
My point being that I don't think believing in a 6000 old earth is irrational. It's simply based on a philosophical view-point, one that no amount of rational persuasion can disprove, for the simply reason that it makes no testable claims.
I think that billions of years and the Roman Empire are exactly the same in this regard.
With regard to your statement that the belief in a 6000 year old universe makes no testable claims - it depends on what is being proposed. If the claim is that the world was created looking old, then indeed there are no testable claims. (Yet it is still irrational, for other reasons.) On the other hand, if the claim is that it developed from nothingness over that period, then there are indeed testable claims. But I agree that no amount of rational persuasion will work with someone who subscribes to this view!
"If the claim is that the world was created looking old, then indeed there are no testable claims. (Yet it is still irrational, for other reasons.)"
Why is it irrational? Let do a thought experiment: Imagine the world REALLY was created 6000 years ago from nothing. How would it appear? What would be the results of scientific investigation of this world?
Surely a case can be made that it would look exactly the same as it does now? Within the laws of nature as they are, surely the 6000 year old world would have to exhibit a completely natural history, following normal geological, chemical and psychical processes?
Does anybody have any comments on whether my formulation of what could be Rabbi Gottlieb's position makes sense? I wasn't trying to defend him; I was genuinely exploring the topic.
" The rationalist approach perceives nature as a superior way for God to run the world than using miracles. Related to this is the rationalist approach of seeing the natural order as being pervasive."
I just wish that the rationalist approached worked better all the time. When I see the semi-laughable efforts by filmmakers like Jacobovici trying to explain the ten plagues via 100% natural means, I just get frustrated.
"When I refer to "peculiar beliefs," I am relying on the fact that this website is intended for people of a particular mindset, who consider beliefs such as the universe being 5768 years old and spontaneous generation as peculiar."
"It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation. We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Wald, George [Harvard biochemist, Nobel Prizewinner, 1967], "The origin of life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.45-53, pp.45-46)"
"A perfect example of the anti-rationalist approach is presented by my former colleague"
Since one of the goals of this website is to define rationalist Judaism, it is also important to define the opposite. Are we going with "anti-rational," "irrational," or perhaps a different term that doesn't have a negative or even derogatory connotation.
Talmid - please see chapter 11 of The Challenge Of Creation for an extensive list of reasons as to why that view is irrational.
Phil - you raise an important point. Definitely not "irrational" - while some non-rationalist positions are irrational, that does not mean that non-rationalism equates to irrational. I plan to devote a post to this question.
"Talmid - please see chapter 11 of The Challenge Of Creation for an extensive list of reasons as to why that view is irrational."
I did, and it wasn't convincing, especially in light of how you were able with some of the same issues with respect to your position. It contained a more extensive presentation of what Gosse actually held than I have seen and correctly noted that those who propose it often do not follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. maintain skepticism about evolution), but I'm not certain it added anything new and or compelling by way of objections.
Starting at approx: min. 27 he applies his categories to the age of the universe conflict as a direct continuation of his earlier theme.
(I really wish you would retract your accusation that the earlier lecture was misleading.
>"(Of course the die-hard anti-rationalist will claim that this does not have any bearing on the validity of counting ice-layers before the volcanic eruption, especially during the period of creation when the laws of nature were allegedly different. Still, it should have been mentioned.)"
Rabbi Gottleib doesn't mention ice-layers specifically, but he does address the overall problem with this solution of Maimonides stating explicitly that the laws of nature that we see today were not all in effect during the six days of creation.
If Maimonides used this argument to ward off the evidence for an uncreated universe (which Gottleib reminds us was the uncontested understanding of the universe until 1965), it does not seem "anti-rational" for Rabbi Gottleib to do so as well. The application appears logically consistent.
I am filled with grief when I think about these discussions between rationalists and non-rationalists. Mainly because both sides always seem to call the other side names. Honestly, I hear where you are coming from Rabbi Slifkin. However, I think that both sides are very valid ways to follow Judaism. True, you follow the Rambam/Ralbag approach which makes a lot of sense based on scinece and the natural world. However, there is the Maharal type of approach that follows a mystical type of Judaism. This is also very valid. I mean, if we as Jews believe in a creator that can do anything than why is the non-rational approach so hard to believe? I mean, G-D can do anything so no matter what science says, that can be inaccurate. No matter what.
What bothers me, as I stated before is how the non-rationalists treat the Rambam/Ralbag followers. To call people that subscribe to this approach kofers and idiots is to be closed minded. To invoke my previous statement, G-D is all powerful He can do anything. So why couldn't have G-D created the world in such a manner? I mean there are plenty of rishonim that would agree that the world is not necessarily less than 6000 years old.
However, the rationalists have also called the mystics fools as well. So in the end of the day the discourse seems completely pointless.
I do think it is important to point out why both approaches are possible, but to point out the flaws of the other approach is pointless, in my opinion.
What needs to be focused on is when one side says the other side is not part f Judaism, that must be answered. However, I think the tone in this post does betray your frustration, which will just turn people off.
I am still unsure of how this rationalist approach could cause people to go off the derech. If anyone had a brain they would realize that G-D is all powerful and can do anything. So why should the big bang or evolution cause them to lose faith?
>"Does anybody have any comments on whether my formulation of what could be Rabbi Gottlieb's position makes sense? I wasn't trying to defend him; I was genuinely exploring the topic."
I believe the next lecture I linked to makes a similar argument made by you in your second comment.
Isaac, I am not sure when I will have time to listen to the other lecture. Does he NOT use this principle to account for the age of the universe? If so, then I will gladly retract, but I doubt that is the case.
The idea that the laws of nature were different does not help with the second point that I mentioned in the post.
Furthermore, you have to understand how things work in these circles. Rabbi Gottlieb's arguments are not evaluated on their content, but rather on the basis of authority - "he's a PhD!" This is another ad hominem attack, only now you are accusing the entire "circle" as you put it of blind acceptance and gullibility! I realize that you were (and to some extent still are?) involved in the kiruv world and therefore are quite familiar with it, but you do realize that you are disparaging the whole community in an ad hominem way, don't you?
BTW- You have changed your position here. Your original critique was that he was being cited as a Phd in Physics, and since he is in fact a Phd in mathematical logic, his opinion was to be discounted as he is one who is apt to hold "peculiar beliefs". As an ad hominem attack as it comes.
Never having worked in kiruv, I can't claim that I have the same degree of familiarity with this world as you do, but from what I know, this is a caricature.
I will endevor to explain below why his expertise does in fact qualify him to discuss the topics at hand.
I do not view it as an ad hominem attack to say that he has no qualifications or authority in this field, just as I do not view it as an ad hominem attack for someone to say that I have no qualifications or skill at playing the piano. Come now, Rabbi Slifkin- you didn't just claim that he had no authority, you said that his very credentials would lead one to believe that he is unqualified to come to a correct conclusion on this topic, if your father z'l's opinion is to be believed!
To evaluate this question, expertise in Mathematical logic is in fact a very relevant skill. In fact, as I said above, a case could be made that it might be a more relevant skill than being a physicist, due to the fact that one who is outside the profession might be able to evaluate the evidence with out being subject to the bias of the consensus opinion. I'm not saying that this is definitive, but it is certainly plausible.
When I refer to "peculiar beliefs," I am relying on the fact that this website is intended for people of a particular mindset, who consider beliefs such as the universe being 5768 years old and spontaneous generation as peculiar. Really? The mesorah as it was understood (I'm talking about 5768, not SG) for thousands of years is peculiar? My problem is not that you feel that in light of current science it needs to be interpreted differently, but to dismiss it as peculiar seems to suggest that you think that very little weight need be given to our tradition.
(This is the impression given if not your actual intent- Chachomim Hizaru applies here as well.
Of course Rabbi Gottlieb takes his position in light of his understanding of our mesorah, and looks to interpret the evidence based on it, don't you do the same? Did I not see you once quote the Rambam who says that there are some red lines in terms of belief which can not be crossed? The only difference between you and Rabbi Gottlieb is where the line is drawn. One man's "peculiar belief" is another man's Ikkar emunah. And I think that one needs to follow the guidance of Torah experts to determine where the line is. He has his, and you have yours.
Loius, allow me to accept your points in turn.
I am not sure that referring to an entire group of people as being prone to accepting matters based on authority rather than evaluating the arguments qualifies as an "ad hominem" attack. In any case, having spent several years in those circles, I assure you that, in general terms, it is true. Of course, it is not true of every person, but it is most certainly true in general. Why on earth do you think that Rabbi Gottlieb is constantly advertised with his credentials?
I did not say that because he has a PhD in mathemetical logic, this means that there is something wrong with his opinions. What I said (or meant to say) was that it does not give him expertise in these matters, and I further pointed to a pattern that I see with people of such training. I am not saying that mathematicians are inclined to peculiar beliefs; I am saying that academics with peculiar beliefs are often mathematicians.
I will have to disagree with your suggestion that mathematical logic is superior than physics in assessing the basis of scientific conclusions regarding the antiquity of the universe.
I did not mean to refer to the mesorah as peculiar. What I was referring to was the idea that, from a scientific perspective, the world is and must be 5769 years old, with no possibility of reinterpreting Bereishis. That, in 2009, is a belief that I consider peculiar, especially when held by someone with exposure to modern science and a variety of hashkafos.
Look, many Rishonim held that God was corporeal, and with considerable reason. But if someone were to believe that today, I would consider it peculiar.
When I was at Ohr Somayach, Rav Bulman z"l was there. He would be turning in his grave to hear that OS workers are now being taught to teach that the world is 5769 years old and that it is kefirah to disagree.
>"What I was referring to was the idea that, from a scientific perspective, the world is and must be 5769 years old,"
Rabbi Gottleib promotes no such idea. On the contrary. He asserts that from a strictly scientific perspective one simply cannot draw definitive conclusions based on methods involving extrapolation.
What I was referring to was the idea that, from a scientific perspective, it is legitimate to conclude that the world is 5769 years old, and that from a religious perspective, it must be so, with no possibility of reinterpreting Bereishis.
"Yirmiyah, can you give me an example of an internal dispute in the scientific world where one position is more materialistic?"
Do you agree that when you present differing opinions in the realm of science that you have a preference and that preference is indicated but not presented as the conclusion in Challenge of Creation?
How strange that so many obviously learned people would believe the popular myth that Rosh Hashana celebrates the origin of the cosmos. Based on this myth, one must either dismiss the entire Torah as fable, because it claims that only 5,769.7 years have passed since the first Rosh Hashana; or radically to reinterpret Genesis.
In fact, Jewish tradition states categorically that our 5,769-year-old calendar begins not with the cosmos but with primordial "Adam" and "Eve".
Now, according to Judaism, who were Adam and Eve? Nowhere does the Torah say that they were the first homo sapiens. All that we know from the Torah is that they were the last creatures created. Moreover, according to at least one Medieval rabbinic source (claiming in general to be transmitting ancient tradition), upon the advent of Adam and Eve there were other human-like creatures running around.
Thus, it is entirely consistent with Jewish tradition to understand Adam and Eve not as the first people, but the first people with a certain kind of awareness or mental capacity – we might call it "Divine" or "transcendental" awareness: that is, an ability to conceptualize and relate to an Infinite Creator.
To reiterate: Rosh Hashana commemorates the advent of God-conscious humans some 5,769 years ago. (And there is plenty of evidence that the correct reading of the "days" of creation is as not equivalent to our "days".
It's interesting that that number coincides with the approximate advent of civilization in the Middle East. That coincidence is enough food for thought next Rosh Hashana. But there's more.
The New York Times reported a remarkable discovery. It seems that there is new scientific evidence that a human genetic change occurred in the middle-East about 5,800 years ago which enhanced higher brain functions ("Researchers say human brain is still evolving," September 9, 2005). Interesting coincidence.
What makes the dating coincidence even more interesting is recent research upholding the veracity of oral traditions in oral cultures. It's easy for a modern literate society to dismiss such legends as mythological, but it seems that ancient minds were far more adept than we at retaining information accurately via oral transmission. If so, then it should not at all surprise us that the descendants of the genetically enhanced humans would have retained an accurate tradition about the historicity of their genetic line.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned R. Gottlieb's complete teretz to R. Slifkin's strong kasheh.
Anonymous, that link does not remotely address this topic. And the proposal that it contains is one that I raise a number of critical objections against in my book.
Also, please use a name/pseudonym in future, I don't usually allow anonymous comments.
I hope that you had a good Yomtov.
>Why on earth do you think that Rabbi Gottlieb is constantly advertised with his credentials?
For the same reason Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionist's credentials are cited when they discuss scientific topics. (As you are no doubt aware Dawkins often opines on subjects which are not those he has his degrees in. Does this bother you as well?). Yes, Rabbi Gottlieb's credentials are cited in order to bolster his credibility. So what?
> I am not saying that mathematicians are inclined to peculiar beliefs; I am saying that academics with peculiar beliefs are often mathematicians.
And there are plenty of Mathematitions who don't. This does nothing to help settle the issue at hand (whether or not he holds a 'peculiar' belief) and only serves as an ad hominem attack. But let's get off this topic, it is a distraction.
>I did not mean to refer to the mesorah as peculiar. What I was referring to was the idea that, from a scientific perspective, the world is and must be 5769 years old, with no possibility of reinterpreting Bereishis. That, in 2009, is a belief that I consider peculiar, especially when held by someone with exposure to modern science and a variety of hashkafos.
Ah, the crux of the matter. When you say "from a scientific perspective", what does this mean?? That this is the conclusion that the scientists have come to? Yes, but so what? The question should not be whether something has the imprimatur of being 'scientific' (which is just as an assertion of authority as anything a charedi does), the question is- is it true? He're's where a training in logic would be helpful to the conversation. Rabbi Gottlieb may be wrong, but he is attempting to challenge the accepted scientific conclusion based on his understanding of the evidence and the theories used by scientists, as well as the understanding of the mesorah as understood by his rebbiem.
You talk about 'no possibility of reinterpreting Bereishis' - Who is to decide this kind of question? I would think that it would be authorities in Torah, no? As I said, he has his authorities, and you have yours. For you to declare one intrepetation of the mesorah as 'peculiar' is in itself peculiar. Since most of your defense of your positions revolved around justifying yourself by citing Torah authorities (RSRH, etc.), I presume that you think that for a position in Torah to be ruled in or out is to be decided by competent Torah authorities. Are you saying that he has no Torah basis for his beliefs?
Yes, Rabbi Gottlieb's credentials are cited in order to bolster his credibility. So what?
I have no problem with people's credibility being boosted by their credentials being cited. But only in a case where the credentials genuinely serve to boost their credibility! Yes, it bothers me intensely when Dawkins is cited as an authority on issues of philosophy.
I am not attacking R. Gottlieb for being a mathematician/philosopher. I am attacking his positions! And I am making observations about a trend amongst mathematicians. I honestly do not see how that qualifies as an ad hominem.
Dr. Schroeder does not have peculiar beliefs in physics (his field), but I do consider that he has peculiar beliefs with regard to Biblical interpretation.
When you say "from a scientific perspective", what does this mean?..
Obviously, if what he says were to be true, then what I say would be irrelevant. By your logic, nobody could ever describe anyone else's beliefs in negative terms, since from the other person's perspective, they are right!
My description of his approach as peculiar was twofold in basis. First of all, from MY perspective, such an approach is false, and someone educated in the modern secular world ought to recognize that. Second, in the social/ intellectual circles of rabbonim who work in kiruv and are college-educated, it is unusual (alas, increasingly less so) to find someone insisting that the world is 5769 years old. With regard to deciding how to interpret Torah - obviously there are communities that insist on literalism. But in the circles in which R. Gottlieb operates, it is - or was - normative to say that six days need not be six literal days. I am not saying that his beliefs are peculiar in an absolute sense (although I believe them to be incorrect) - I am saying that they are peculiar given his context.
Anonymous does have a point, although he didn't flush it out. In the Gottlieb article he cites, Rabbi Gottlieb seems to contradict himself. He seems there to concede the reliability of science within its own framework, but his thesis is that a critical, rational person can rationally believe in a young universe given the evidence that Jewish tradition provides.
>By your logic, nobody could ever describe anyone else's beliefs in negative terms, since from the other person's perspective, they are right!
No I am not saying this. What I am saying (putting aside the 'peculiar' topic for a moment) is that you seem to be judging him by standards that seem to ignore the point of his entire enterprise. Your question based upon corollary data is a fair point, but to judge him based on his views that are not 'scientific' and that "someone educated in the modern secular world ought to recognize" that he is wrong- is missing the point. He (I assume as a given)is aware that his views do not comport with the views of the scientific community. But his whole point is to challenge their conclusions in light of how he understands the mesorah. If you want to take him on on his terms, you have to show how the evidence can not be read as being compatible with the world being 5769, not that 'science' has concluded otherwise!
Again, I think that your point about the convergence of many fields being indicative of extremely strong proof of an old universe is a very valid one, and one I'd like to see him answer, but presumably it would be the underlying theories and assumptions that are used to determine the conclusions that he would have to analyze and not just the conclusions themselfs.
In a way you are talking past each other here.
My point about Schroder was to bring one(I'm sure there are many) physicist who says peculiar things.
Again, you know very well that the reason why Rabbi Gottlieb makes the claims that he does is not because he is a mathematition, but rather due to his understanding of the mesorah- which is very strong data in the light of which one needs to examine the evidence. (He is quite open about this.)Data that scientists do not use in their assessments for understandible reasons.
You yourself do this (evaluate evidence in light of how you understand the mesorah), do you not? Nothing peculiar about that.
The bottom line is this: there is the Maharal approach and the Rambam/Ralbag approach to how old the earth is.
The Maharal would say, scientifically the world might appear to be old, but we know based on mesorah that G-D does miracles so any scientific facts don't show reality, but just what G-D did.
The Rambam and Ralbag would say that G-D keeps nature constant and consistent, therefore, anything that science can show empirically is the truth.
Both of these approaches have to be acceptable in Judaism, because G-D can do anything. If a person says either is false they are denying G-D's ability of being all powerful, NO?
I would describe it as much, much more than a strong inference. In the same way as I would say that we see that the Holocaust happened, I would say that we see that world is billions of years old. We don't literally observe the Holocaust, but we do have an overwhelming convergence of multiple lines of evidence. This is an adequate empirical basis to refer to it as "seeing."
I am not judging him based on that. I am judging him based on the fact that he is wrong. These are merely additional observations of how things have changed so much that a person like that, teaching in Ohr Somayach, takes such an approach. Rav Bulman must be turning in his grave.
"Complete Guide to Torah and Science for Chareidi Idiots"
Actually, the post is entitled, "The Complete Chareidi Idiot's Guide to Torah and Science", which is a play on the "Idiot's Guide" series of books. Your use of "Charedi Idiots" comes across as condescending and hateful. Freudian slip?
No, an attempt at humor that didn't come across as intended. I changed it.
"Varves," the reason why I didn't post your comment is that debates over scientific proofs for an ancient universe are endless. Anyone who is interested can easily find plenty of resources on the internet for both sides. This is not the forum for it.
This is an interesting kasheh. It seems to me that, absent a mesorah, we could not make such an extrapolation, and the Mishna and Gamara were written in a style intended to force us to learn with a rabbi. And the rabbis 2000 years ago were aware of this problem of yeridas hadoros (Avos 1:1), so, to paraphrase, tread carefully.


text:
Jakten är en norsk dramafilm från 1959 i regi av Erik Løchen, med Tor Stokke, Rolf Søder och Bente Børsum i rollerna. Den handlar om ett triangeldrama mellan en kvinna och två män som är ute i de norska fjällen för att jaga fågel. Med inspiration från Bertolt Brechts idé om verfremdungseffekt har filmen en aktiv berättarröst som samtalar med rollfigurerna under filmens gång. Andra viktiga inspirationskällor var jazzmusikens improvisationer och det franska 1930-talets poetiska realism.

Filmen fick ett positivt kritikermottagande i Norge när den släpptes. Den tävlade vid filmfestivalen i Cannes 1960 och blev där tilldelad ett pris för sitt ljudarbete. Den var länge otillgänglig på hemvideo och fick status som ett förbisett banbrytande verk. I januari 2010 gavs den ut på DVD av Norsk Filminstitutt i nyrestaurerat skick. År 2011 utsågs Jakten till tidernas bästa norska film i en omröstning bland kritiker och filmvetare, ordnad av den norska filmtidningen Rushprint.

Medverkande
 Tor Stokke som Knut
 Rolf Søder som Bjørn
 Bente Børsum som Guri
 Olafr Havrevold som berättare

Källor

Filmer 1959
Norge på film
Norska dramafilmer
Norskspråkiga filmer
Norska 1950-talsfilmer

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Deleting SharePoint calendar links In Exchange via EWS Does anyone have examples of how to delete a user's SharePoint calendar link in Outlook/Exchange via EWS Managed API?   I am able to successfully find the Calendar link item, however the item.Delete(DeleteMode.HardDelete) executes without actually removing the calendar link.  Any help or guidance would be appreciated.
Edited to include code:
    //Will target a specific user mailbox with parameter mbMailboxname
    static Dictionary<string, Folder> GetSharedCalendarFolders(ExchangeService service, String mbMailboxname)
    {
        Dictionary<String, Folder> rtList = new System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string, Folder>();

        DateTime startDate = new DateTime(2018, 8, 1);
        DateTime endDate = new DateTime(2018, 8, 31);
        CalendarView calView = new CalendarView(startDate, endDate);
        Mailbox mb = new Mailbox(mbMailboxname);

        FolderId rfRootFolderid = new FolderId(WellKnownFolderName.Root, mb);
        FolderView fvFolderView = new FolderView(1000);
        SearchFilter sfSearchFilter = new SearchFilter.IsEqualTo(FolderSchema.DisplayName, "Common Views");
        FindFoldersResults ffoldres = service.FindFolders(rfRootFolderid, sfSearchFilter, fvFolderView);

        if (ffoldres.Folders.Count == 1)
        {

            PropertySet psPropset = new PropertySet(BasePropertySet.FirstClassProperties);
            ExtendedPropertyDefinition PidTagWlinkAddressBookEID = new ExtendedPropertyDefinition(0x6854, MapiPropertyType.Binary);
            ExtendedPropertyDefinition PidTagWlinkGroupName = new ExtendedPropertyDefinition(0x6851, MapiPropertyType.String);

            psPropset.Add(PidTagWlinkAddressBookEID);
            ItemView iv = new ItemView(1000);
            iv.PropertySet = psPropset;
            iv.Traversal = ItemTraversal.Associated;

            SearchFilter cntSearch = new SearchFilter.IsEqualTo(PidTagWlinkGroupName, "Other Calendars");

            FindItemsResults<Item> fiResults = ffoldres.Folders[0].FindItems(cntSearch, iv);
            foreach (Item itItem in fiResults.Items)
            {
                Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Item foundItem = itItem;

                if (foundItem.Subject.ToString().Trim().Contains("Company Group Calendar"))
                {
                    Console.WriteLine("Deleting calendar..");
                    //Executing the delete command here does not delete the calendar
                    foundItem.Delete(DeleteMode.MoveToDeletedItems);
                }
            }

        }

        return rtList;
    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


A sleepy Marlborough driver crashed into a tree at 427 Hudson Road this morning at 1:48 a.m., police said.
A sleepy Marlborough driver crashed into a tree at 427 Hudson Road this morning at 1:48 a.m., police said. An ambulance took the 23-year-old female driver of the black 2000 Acura to Marlborough Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, police said. According to Sudbury police, she was traveling westbound on Hudson Road when she allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, crossed into the eastbound lane and hit the tree.


text:
Тульская провинция — одна из провинций Российской империи. Центр — город Тула.

Тульская провинция была образована в составе Московской губернии по указу Петра I «Об устройстве губерний и об определении в оныя правителей» в 1719 году. Делилась на дистрикты (Дедиловский, Венёвский и др.). В состав провинции были включены города Тула, Алексин, Богородицк, Венёв, Дедилов, Епифань, Крапивна. По ревизии 1710 года в провинции насчитывалось 13,3 тыс. крестьянских дворов.

В ноябре 1775 года деление губерний на провинции было отменено.

Примечания

Провинции Российской империи
Московская губерния


text:
package models.actors.dataimport

import javax.inject.Inject

import akka.actor.{Actor, ActorRef}
import akka.event.LoggingReceive
import akka.util.Timeout
import models.db.CityRepository
import models.entity.{City, SimpleCity}
import play.api.libs.concurrent.InjectedActorSupport

import scala.concurrent.{ExecutionContext, Future}
import scala.concurrent.duration._

object CitiesPersistActor {

  trait Factory {
    def apply(): Actor
  }

  case class CitiesPersistence(actorRef: ActorRef, cities: Set[SimpleCity])

  case object BatchInsertDone

  case object CitySaved

}

class CitiesPersistActor @Inject()(val cityRepository: CityRepository) extends Actor with InjectedActorSupport {

  import CitiesPersistActor._

  implicit val timeout: Timeout = 2 minutes

  def receive: Receive = LoggingReceive {

    case CitiesPersistence(actorRef, newCities) =>
      import play.api.libs.concurrent.Execution.Implicits._
      cityRepository.getAll map { oldCities =>
        val checkedCities: Set[Option[City]] = newCities.map { city =>
          oldCities.find(nc => nc.code.equals(city.id)) match {
            case Some(cityInBD) =>
              if (!cityInBD.names.contains(city.name))
                Some(cityInBD.copy(names = (cityInBD.names :+ city.name)))
              else
                None
            case None =>
              Some(City(code = city.id, state = city.state, country = city.country, names = List() :+ city.name))
          }
        }
        val partitioned: (Set[City], Set[City]) = checkedCities.filter(_.isDefined).map(_.get).partition(_.id.isDefined)

        Future.sequence(partitioned._1.map(cityRepository.update(_))).onComplete { c1 =>
          cityRepository.insertAll(partitioned._2).onComplete { c2 =>
            actorRef ! ValuesManagerActor.CitiesPersistenceDone(self)
          }
        }
      }
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Baby names always have been reflective of the times. During the post-war years, parents opted for safe names that had existed comfortably for centuries. In those turbulent times, thousands of baby girls were christened Mary, Margaret, and Helen, whilst boys varied rather rigidly between Robert, Richard, John, William, and James.
As those years faded and the world became more prosperous and relaxed, new names began to become popular. During the swinging sixties, more experimental names such as Linda, Deborah, and Michelle became commonplace. A few decades later, in the '90s, parents found themselves inspired by pop stars and as a result names such as Brittany and Ashley surged.
In modern times, it's unlikely that you'll meet a baby boy named Matthew, David, or Christopher. Instead, parents of the 21st century are adopting more unique names such as Jayden, Ethan, Logan, Mason, and Liam. Meanwhile, baby girls are being given overtly feminine names that appear to all end in the letter 'A', such as Isabella, Sophia, and Olivia.
However, just like the world of fashion, baby name trends change on an almost seasonal basis. With UNICEF estimating that approximately 353,000 babies are born every day around the world, it's easy to see why expectant parents spend so long choosing a unique name for their baby.
Influenced by celebrities who opt for quirky, often outrageous, names for their offspring (who can forget when Gwyneth Paltrow and Coldplay frontman Chris Martin named their daughter Apple), the themes for 2019 in baby names is set to be more extravagant than ever.
If you thought Kylie Jenner naming her first daughter Stormi was flamboyant, just wait 'til you hear what the future forecast is in the world of baby names.
Given the current climate of the world - which features some questionable politicians, a more rounded understanding and acceptance of the LGBTQ community, and a desire to be environmentally friendly - there is no doubt that baby names will be more diverse than ever before.
In fact, according to BabyCenter, the world's number one digital parenting resource, the future forecast looks incredibly green, with parents opting for names that fit their vegan lifestyles.
"As fast food and processed snacks lose ground to clean eating and Paleo diets, more Gen Z and Millennial parents are choosing names that reflect their love of healthy foods," a statement explained.
Popular names include Kiwi (which is up 40% in popularity), Kale (up 35%), Maple, and Clementine. Other popular names take inspiration from herbs, such as Saffron and Rosemary. Meanwhile, the name Sage was seeing a 15% surge in popularity as a boy's name.
"Parents are inspired by the things they love as well as the sound of a name," explains Linda Murray, BabyCenter's Senior Vice President of Consumer Experience. "In the past, we'd look to the Bible or royalty for name inspiration. Today's parents turn to other sources. We've had two decades plus of 'unique' names, and anything goes."
In their predictions for 2019, BabyCenter also expects to see more parents naming their children after their favorite material objects, such as sneakers. For example, names such as Chuck and Taylor (names given to Converse shoes) are thought to trend in 2019, as well as Stan and Smith (names for Adidas kicks).
As the young royals continue to birth new heirs to the throne, it is thought that the name choices could influence popular culture. For example, after the birth of Prince Louis, the name rose 17% in popularity.
Could Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's baby, which is due to be born in Spring 2019, have a huge impact on baby names as we know them? Given Meghan Markle's more bohemian lifestyle, there is every chance she could break Royal tradition and name the child after a plant!
In addition, parents are taking inspiration from celebrities with unique names that don't negate a particular gender. For example, Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks name rose 31% in popularity this year, whilst Drew Barrymore saw a 25% spike.
Some parents are taking a patriotic approach in 2019, which is no surprise given the turbulent political climate being experienced globally. Names such as Tennessee, Memphis, Dallas, Austin, and Nash (short for Nashville) are all on the rise for boys.
Essentially, it would appear that anything goes in 2019 and parents are able to get as creative as they'd like. With that in mind, what would you call your child in 2019?


text:
MISSION-MANAGED SCADA
everything users need
optimized for the water and wastewater industries
low, predictable cost
Let Mission be the Messenger
Mission-managed SCADA is a turnkey system delivered through a Software as a Service (SaaS) model that enables users to gain complete system monitoring. Mission provides and maintains everything users need to drive the system.
Why Mission is Simply More Intelligent
123SCADA
The Mission web portal lets customers drive their systems from a computer, tablet, or smartphone. It's easily customizable based on how any team likes to work.
Mission offers a mobile app, called 123SCADA, that makes system management even more convenient. The app is available on the App Store and Google Play.
With Mission, the people who answer calls are technical experts on Mission products and services. After-hours support is always available on a responsive callback basis for emergencies—at no additional charge.
MyDro Changes the Game
MyDro remote terminal units (RTUs) feature the next generation of wireless real-time alarm, monitoring, and remote control. All units have an onboard interactive display and enhanced electronics.
Mission Keeps Customers Current
Stay current with the latest events and happenings at Mission. The quarterly newsletter will keep readers informed on the most recent developments in water/wastewater monitoring.
Mission Advanced Features
Standardized hardware can be quickly deployed and installed in a morningMission operates on the largest, most reliable national cellular networksMission business guarantees protect customers from spending thousands on hardware upgrades
Customers can create a simple or sophisticated alarm call-out schedule tailored to their needsMission reports are ready for water/wastewater usersConvenient access to data and reports from desktops, tablets, and mobile devices
Mission delivers real 24-7-365 support from U.S.-based techniciansMission pledges a price stability guarantee in writing to give customers a predictable cost of ownershipMission protects customer data at every step—from RTU to end-user

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Onthophagus hastifer, is a species of dung beetle found in India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, and Myanmar.

Description
This oval, compact and less convex species has an average length of about 6 to 7 mm. Body bronze to reddish-brown in color with metallic shine on dorsum. In each elytron, there is a transverse orange basal patch between shoulder and suture. Pygidium also orange in color whereas antennae and mouthparts are yellowish. Minute greyish setae found on the dorsum. Head broad, with rugose clypeus. Clypeus divided from the forehead by a curved carina. Pronotum finely, closely, and uniformly punctured. Elytra finely striate, with flat intervals. Pygidium fairly strongly punctured. Male are observed in two forms as: long-horned phase and short-horned phase. In the long-horned phase, there is an extremely long and slender thread-like horn on head which curves backward. But in short-horned phase, there is a very short transverse tubercle between the eyes. Female beetle has a transverse carina between the eyes on head.

Adults are observed from buffalo and cow dung.

References

Scarabaeinae
Insects of India
Beetles of Sri Lanka
Insects described in 1885


text:
import {describe, beforeEach, it, expect, iit, ddescribe, el} from 'angular2/test_lib';
import {MapWrapper} from 'angular2/src/facade/collection';

import {ViewSplitter} from 'angular2/src/core/compiler/pipeline/view_splitter';
import {CompilePipeline} from 'angular2/src/core/compiler/pipeline/compile_pipeline';
import {DOM} from 'angular2/src/dom/dom_adapter';

import {Lexer, Parser} from 'angular2/change_detection';

export function main() {
  describe('ViewSplitter', () => {

    function createPipeline() {
      return new CompilePipeline([new ViewSplitter(new Parser(new Lexer()))]);
    }

    it('should mark root elements as viewRoot', () => {
      var rootElement = el('

');
      var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
      expect(results[0].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
    });

    describe('<template> elements', () => {

      it('should move the content into a new <template> element and mark that as viewRoot', () => {
        var rootElement = el('
<template if="true">a</template>
');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[1].element)).toEqual('<template if="true"></template>');
        expect(results[1].isViewRoot).toBe(false);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[2].element)).toEqual('<template>a</template>');
        expect(results[2].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
      });

      it('should not wrap a root <template> element', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results.length).toBe(1);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(rootElement)).toEqual('

');
      });

    });

    describe('elements with template attribute', () => {

      it('should replace the element with an empty <template> element', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var originalChild = rootElement.childNodes[0];
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[0].element).toBe(rootElement);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[0].element)).toEqual('
<template></template>
');
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[2].element)).toEqual('')
        expect(results[2].element).toBe(originalChild);
      });

      it('should mark the element as viewRoot', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[2].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
      });

      it('should work with top-level template node', () => {
        var rootElement = DOM.createTemplate('
x
');
        var originalChild = rootElement.content.childNodes[0];
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);

        expect(results[0].element).toBe(rootElement);
        expect(results[0].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
        expect(results[2].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[0].element)).toEqual('<template><template></template></template>');
        expect(results[2].element).toBe(originalChild);
      });

      it('should add property bindings from the template attribute', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(MapWrapper.get(results[1].propertyBindings, 'prop').source).toEqual('expr');
      });

      it('should add variable mappings from the template attribute', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[1].variableBindings).toEqual(MapWrapper.createFromStringMap({'mapName': 'varName'}));
      });

      it('should add entries without value as attribute to the element', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[1].attrs()).toEqual(MapWrapper.createFromStringMap({'varname': ''}));
        expect(results[1].propertyBindings).toBe(null);
        expect(results[1].variableBindings).toBe(null);
      });

      it('should iterate properly after a template dom modification', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

<after></after>
');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        // 1 root + 2 initial + 1 generated template elements
        expect(results.length).toEqual(4);
      });

    });

    describe('elements with *directive_name attribute', () => {

      it('should replace the element with an empty <template> element', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var originalChild = rootElement.childNodes[0];
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[0].element).toBe(rootElement);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[0].element)).toEqual('
<template if=""></template>
');
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[2].element)).toEqual('')
        expect(results[2].element).toBe(originalChild);
      });

      it('should mark the element as viewRoot', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[2].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
      });

      it('should work with top-level template node', () => {
        var rootElement = DOM.createTemplate('
x
');
        var originalChild = rootElement.content.childNodes[0];
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);

        expect(results[0].element).toBe(rootElement);
        expect(results[0].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
        expect(results[2].isViewRoot).toBe(true);
        expect(DOM.getOuterHTML(results[0].element)).toEqual('<template><template foo=""></template></template>');
        expect(results[2].element).toBe(originalChild);
      });

      it('should add property bindings from the template attribute', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(MapWrapper.get(results[1].propertyBindings, 'prop').source).toEqual('expr');
      });

      it('should add variable mappings from the template attribute', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[1].variableBindings).toEqual(MapWrapper.createFromStringMap({'mapName': 'varName'}));
      });

      it('should add entries without value as attribute to the element', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        expect(results[1].attrs()).toEqual(MapWrapper.createFromStringMap({'varname': ''}));
        expect(results[1].propertyBindings).toBe(null);
        expect(results[1].variableBindings).toBe(null);
      });

      it('should iterate properly after a template dom modification', () => {
        var rootElement = el('

<after></after>
');
        var results = createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        // 1 root + 2 initial + 1 generated template elements
        expect(results.length).toEqual(4);
      });

      it('should not allow multiple template directives on the same element', () => {
        expect( () => {
          var rootElement = el('

');
          createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        }).toThrowError('Only one template directive per element is allowed: foo and bar cannot be used simultaneously in
');
      });

      it('should not allow template and star directives on the same element', () => {
        expect( () => {
          var rootElement = el('

');
          createPipeline().process(rootElement);
        }).toThrowError('Only one template directive per element is allowed: bar and foo cannot be used simultaneously in
');
      });

    });

  });
}


We at Vinyasa Yoga School Rishikesh provide Holiday, Vacation, Retreat based Inexpensive Ashtanga Vinyasa Hatha yoga multi style multi-level training to Beginner yoga Instructor aspirants to advance yoga practitioners. We believe in a high level of quality yoga training.
BY FLIGHT: The nearest airport from Rishikesh is Jolly Grant airport on route to Dehradun, 18 kilometres from here. Indian airlines connect Dehradun to Delhi, some chartered planes also operate from here.
BY ROADS: To commute within Rishikesh there are tongas, taxis and rickshaws available. Whereas from other cities and states buses are operated by state transport corporations and private operators (deluxe, semi deluxe coaches) are available for Rishikesh. Apart from that one can also hire private vehicles to get there.


This classic solitaire features a beautiful .85 carat princess cut cubic zirconia of the highest quality on a 14k gold 3mm half round band. This ring is available with the stone shape and color of your choice, in 14 karat white and yellow gold.
If you would prefer a cubic zirconia with a different carat weight cubic zirconia, or if you would prefer this band in 18k gold, or platinum, please call us to discuss your options.


The information provided is true and completed to the best of my knowledge. I authorize Wise - Seniors in Business* the release and use, in connection with the 50 over 50 Wise – Seniors in Business* Awards, of my name, company name, likeness, recording of my voice and photographs, including video tapes or other forms of media, and I agree that no compensation shall be due to me or my company for such usage if I am selected as an Award recipient.
Do you agree to the above terms? By submitting a completed application, you consent that you are willing to answer the questions in this survey and abide by the terms.
Please note that all finalists may be asked for further information for judging purposes. If notified of being a winner we will require a short bio and hi-res image of the owner as well as a hi-res logo.


text:
Publicado a 12/12/2019 por IHBraga Teacher
Bohemian Rhapsody is a brilliant biopic about the glorious and renowned British band, Queen. Mainly focused in the lead singer Freddie Mercury, portrayed by Rami Malek, the motion picture shows the audience the behind-the-scenes of such great fame, the rises and falls through the journey that lead to the famous «Live Aid» concert.
Starting with an open window to the future, we see Freddie waking up on the morning of Live Aid but, like a time machine, we are taken back to the beginning of everything: the night Roger Taylor and Brian May meet a young distinctly misunderstood Freddie. That night changed all of their lives as Mercury arrives after Roger's and Brian's band Smile loses their vocalist. After a quick audition, the difficult path to Rock legends commences. Going through hard decisions for the band and its future, drug addiction, a messy love life, questioning his sexuality and dealing with AIDS, Freddie had a life more than worthy of a documentary. We feel rewarded and excited as we watch the Live Aid portion of the film knowing it was one of the last concerts he gave, and for sure the most unforgettable one.
Esta entrada foi publicada em Advanced, com as tags CAE Reviews, por IHBraga Teacher. Ligação permanente.


Brothers' Sam and Dan Billen wanted to start a band. So in the summer of 1998, they asked close friend Jared Bowes to help and history was finally made with the inception of The Billions. Well, not yet anyway, but very soon. With two releases under their belt and help from rock legend Kerry Livgren of Kansas fame, Quiet as It's Kept makes three times a pure charm.
To begin, I don't know if there are even words to describe what this album really does. I have never in my life listened to something and had to play the entire song from beginning to end just to get the total, pure feel. If you were keeping score, this would make it one. Going through track by track, as I did, listening to only a snippet of each song made me miss oh, so much! There are about four or five things going on simultaneously where each track might just have to be played over and over only to hear what you missed. "Millions of Miles," the opener, has somewhat of a slow Weezer feel that doesn't jump into the murky depths of cheesy pop like it's predecessor. "Close Your Eyes" is next, and a great song that brings to mind James Taylor or some later Beatles work where "Picture of You" is something Bob Dylan himself wouldn't pass up. "Victorian Shade" sounds much like Sting in his prime as "He Advances" brings to the table the good vibes of a Pink Floyd or Queen. "Hand of Jesus" is the type of song the late George Harrison, God rest his soul, would have probably released where "Cavern" shows a Dylan-esce feel with almost haunting vocal resemblance's to John Lennon. "The Weight of Eternity," the last track and highlight for me brings a little Simon and Garfunkel type vibe. Also, a hidden track at the end makes for a great tune that brings some warm Christmas cheer.
Quiet as It's Kept is more than an album, it's a major motion picture for which numerous listens bring along the question, 'How'd I miss that?' This is an "everything that's great about the 70's" compilation with a dash of some 2000 flavor. If you pass this one up, you are the one missing out. I'd hate to say I told you so. So quit searching, you won't find anybody like this. Say hello to the soon to be billions and billions of The Billion's fans.


text:
You are here: Home » Newsfeed, Politics and More » Winners & Losers: Kassim Osgood, Corrine Brown
Winners & Losers: Kassim Osgood, Corrine Brown
Posted by Graham Wellington • October 2, 2010 • Printer-friendly
WINNER, HOPEFULLY: Robert Van Winkle, a developer who claims to be getting on the ball of redeveloping the Park View Inn, one of Jacksonville's most highly esteemed examples of the "Pitiful Neglect" school of architecture, and a lugubrious eyesore that has been prominently located right in the middle of the city so that visitors and residents alike can admire its splendor.
In spite of numerous promises through the years to level it and build a space elevator, the structure continues to tag along, serving as a residence to urban wildlife, drug addicts, and possibly a few ghosts who never checked out.
Supposedly, the space will be transformed into a parking area and some stores, although whether that pans out remains to be seen. If so, Van Winkle is a Winner – assuming he doesn't wander off and take a nap like all those who have come before.
LOSERS: The Hilliard Flashes High School football team, which has dropped the ball – literally. Four losses in a row – all of which were tremendous losses, mind you – to teams which they have previously done reasonably okay against. Come on guys, get it together. At least win once in a while, or not lose so badly, or something. Hopefully there's a good excuse for this, or maybe it's a once-in-a-century kind of thing.
This sounds like the perfect backstory for a made-for-TV movie.
WINNERS: JEA and Public Service Energy Group, which recently opened a 100-acre solar power farm near Baldwin. The farm consists of 200,000 panels, which will generate 15 megawatts, or enough for about 1400 homes. PSEG actually built it, but JEA will buy power from it for 20 years. This isn't a massive revolution in power generation, but it is a huge diversion in terms of Jacksonville, where until now there has been little to no large-scale use of solar power. Hopefully we can see similar projects like this in the future, as it's significantly cleaner than the lovely coal smoke we're currently pumping into our air supply.
LOSER: Jags player Kassim Osgood, for not packing heat when dating a cheerleader with baggage. While watching television in cheerleader Mackenzie Putnal's apartment, the two were attacked by Putnal's psycho, plastic bag hat-wearing and gun-waving ex-boyfriend, Julian Bartletto.
The encounter ended when quick-thinking Putnal escaped off a balcony, retrieved her own piece, and proceeded to engage her former beau in a gunfight. Osgood wisely determined that Putnal wasn't worth getting caught in the crossfire, so he escaped to a neighbor's house and called the police. On the bright side, at least one Jaguar was able to beat the coverage!
Hmm... after seeing a photo of Osgood's friend, pictured on the right, maybe he's not such a "loser" after all! Note to anyone who might have a jilted ex on the prowl: change your locks, keep a weapon nearby and practice!
WINNER: Some dude, for obviously not caring what anyone thinks. An unnamed individual broke into a couple of houses across from Sandalwood High School recently and stole several things, including a box of Cheez-Its and a hat. This was all in the middle of broad daylight, and he posed for a picture taken by a concerned resident, before going about his merry way. Chances are this guy was really high at the time and had no idea what was going on. It'll be interesting to see how this story unfolds later.
LOSER: Corrine Brown, as usual. Although a longtime prominent Democrat and champion of her own local principality, Brown has managed to earn the ire of the ACLU and ACORN over her opposition to proposed Florida amendments 5 and 6, which would redistrict the state in a way that would lessen gerrymandering and split up Brown's carefully drawn racial bloc. Insisting that this would eliminate African-American representation in Congress – and presumably accusing voters of racism – Brown exposes her own Borgian ties to a specific group of voters that she has guilt-tripped and falsely obligated into supporting her political cult over the years.
Corrine Brown, as usual, is a loser.
In addition to offering up his weekly winners and losers in The Jacksonville Observer, Graham Wellington enjoys bacon, fancy hats and prank calling apartment complexes on Park Street.


text:
Q: Execute custom code after command was executed I have a TreeView control, and after a new node is added, I need to execute some custom code (ex expand the node, make it visible, and fire begind edit method). Since I want this to be available in every instance of TreeView control, I thought of subclassing the TreeView control.
Now, in order for treeview to know when the new node is added, it would either have an event that is fired when item is added (which it doesn't), or to have a reference to command that was executed to add a new item.
So two questions:
1) Is there a way to add an event in TreeView that would be fired whenever a treenode is added (I am always adding nodes through source collection from ViewModel) - I could not find any way to do this
2) I could add an AddCommand property to TreeList, that would be bound to ViewModel's AddCommand, and then have some button, or ContextMenu item that would bind to TreeList.AddCommand, instead of view model. This way TreeView would hold reference to AddCommand, but the drawback would be that actual usage would be kind of wierd. Question: How can I know when an TreeView's AddCommand (or any command, to that matter) is executed, so I can fire some custom code after it? It seems that CommandManager.AddExecutedHandler is a solution, but I am unable to execute it.

A: Is this any help?
public class CustomTreeControl : TreeView
{
    ...

    // WPF only
    protected override void OnItemsSourceChanged(IEnumerable oldValue, IEnumerable newValue)
    {
        base.OnItemsSourceChanged(oldValue, newValue);

        Debug.WriteLine("OnItemsSourceChanged");
    }

    // WPF + Silverlight
    protected override void OnItemsChanged(NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e)
    {
        base.OnItemsChanged(e);

        Debug.WriteLine("OnItemsChanged: {0}", e.Action);
    }
}


If you're exploring for quite stunning information on list of hypoallergenic dogs with pictures, you have actually stay on the incredible website.
In this article are pictures of the original breed of the dog pet positioned on the left and right also the actually cute outcomes when that original pet dog breed is mix with a poodle to the right of the original breed. The following photo is that of the Bernese mountain dog pet as well as Bernedoodle. The pictures that have actually been put following are ones of the Bichon Frise as well as Bich-poo and also Boston terrier and also Bossi-poo specifically. So have a look at highly cool information on best poodle mixes right now.


8 works from the 'Sleepers' series will be exhibited in the "Good Night" exhibition at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
Starting Thursday March 29th through January 31st, 2013.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 24th, 2012 at 9:00 am	and is filed under News. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.


Thank you for leaving us a great review!
There was no pressure to spend spend spend like other dental offices. These gals are fun and professional. The knowledge they all shared is invaluable and they offered to show me how to use a Waterpic and SonicCare brush if I needed help. Again, they are not pushy, but helpful! I would recommend them to everyone.
As always BEST OF THE BEST. SMILES FROM EVERYONE. LOVE THE WHOLE CREW.
My overall experience for my first visit was warm and I was treated like family. I needed to find a practice that wouldn't judge me and that truly would help me get my smile back. The staff are amazing!! I am looking forward to my journey and visits at Posh.
It is great to find a dentist with multiple capabilities to serve the clients needs. It is my great pleasure to say,this office is the entire package. The knowledge, caring,and capabilities are hands down a 10. Thank you for being a cut above the rest!
Always an amazingly awesome experience each & everytime!!! Who the heck would need nitrite oxide with these beautiful & charming ladies w amazing attitudes?!!! 💕💕 Highly recommend! I drive to them from yhe far east valley now, as i wouldnt go anywhere different!


Texas judgments obtained in Federal and State courts may be recognized and enforced in Ontario by a common law action on the Texas judgment, if in accordance with the common laws of Ontario (and Canada, if applicable) concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
The enforceability of Texas money judgments, Texas declaratory judgments and Texas injunctions and other urgent equitable relief will each be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Courts in Ontario may in the required circumstances recognize and enforce Texas equitable orders such as injunctions (not just money judgments). They may give effect to Texas world-wide injunctions.
The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Texas injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected ; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.
Recognition of a Texas Judgment in Ontario is only half the battle. We are experienced in enforcing judgments in Ontario, including by determining whether or not an Ontario judgment debtor has assets, the location of assets, whether they have been fraudulently conveyed or hidden, or dealt with by the debtor contrary to the statutory provisions of the Assignments and Preferences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.33 and/or Fraudulent Conveyances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29, and providing an assessment of viability of recovery of the debt.


Scotland's first national Climate Week aiming to inspire people across the country to take action on climate change got underway today.
Over sixty organisations from across Scotland are participating in Climate Week, running events and training designed to engage people on what climate change is, how they can be part of the solution and showcase achievements on climate change.
Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change Roseanna Cunningham launched the week whilst participating in a volunteer hedge planting day at the new Seven Lochs wetland park. She met representatives there from Climate Ready Clyde, a cross-sector partnership initiative supporting the development of a shared understanding of climate change risks and opportunities across the Glasgow City Region.
"Scotland continues to lead the UK in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have continually made excellent progress including exceeding the level of our 2020 target, six years early.
"We acknowledge that more needs to be done to meet our ambitious future targets. A new Climate Change Plan, to be published in draft this winter, will build on our strong progress to date, setting out our priorities and commitments to meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets over the coming decades.


text:
Q: I want NOT to escape HTML tag in Angular app I am newbie of AngularJS. I want NOT to escape HTML tag, so

*

*include angular-sanitize.js

*write the code below:

But nothing is being rendered.

A: You don't need the braces:

you also need to make sure angular knows that it's safe in your controller:
$sce.trustAsHtml($scope.article.content);

A: I think this will be help you.
plunker
var app = angular.module('app', ['ngSanitize']);
app.controller('appCtrl', ['$scope', '$sce', ctrl]);

function ctrl($scope, $sce) {
  $scope.getContent = function() {
    return "shohel rana";
  };
}

Hello Plunker!


text:
PeterRader
Producer, writer, media consultant
Member Since, Apr 14, 2019
Download CV Save Candidate
About PeterRader
Sector Original ContentProduct Marketing
Preferred Job Title FilmmakerProducerScreenwriterWriter
Peter Rader has worked as a film and television writer for 20 years. His first script, Waterworld, was produced by Universal in 1995. He has developed numerous projects for other studios, and industry leaders such as Steven Spielberg, Dino De Laurentiis and John Davis.
In the nonfiction arena, Rader has directed episodes of the hit TV show Dog Whisperer with Cesar Milan. He has worked as a cinematographer and editor on a number of award-winning documentary projects, including AWAKE: The Life of Yogananda, which he produced and edited. With AWAKE, Rader also honed his business and leadership skills, interfacing with the film's partners and sub-distributors worldwide. He has since consulted in marketing and messaging for numerous films, startups and brands.
Rader attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude. He is accomplished in a broad range of fields, including music and photography. Rader has taught classes and workshops in writing and filmmaking at Harvard, Los Angeles Film School, and Cal State Fullerton. He has also volunteered to teach writing to homeless people at Step Up on Second.
In 2013, Rader published his first book, Mike Wallace: A Life (St. Martin's Press), a critically acclaimed biography of the legendary CBS journalist. Rader was subsequently hired to adapt his book into a script for director Rob Reiner. More recently, he wrote Playing to the Gods: Sarah Bernhardt, Eleonora Duse, and the Rivalry That Changed Acting Forever Simon & Schuster. It received a rave review in The New York Times and has been adapted for the screen by Emmy & Golden Globe winner Michael Sucsy.


Using a needle and thread, hand-sew a project of your own. Select fabrics, ribbons or laces to decorate your project using embroidery, sequinning, quilting or applique. Create something beautiful for yourself or make a gift for someone special. Sewing requires you to focus, both physically and mentally on the task and helps to develops hand-eye coordination. Picking up a needle and thread is so good for us. It makes us feel good!


text:
Voluntary Action History Society
for the history of charity, philanthropy and voluntary organisations
History of VAHS
Seminars since 2006
Past Papers, 2001-2005
Save the Archives
← Feature: New Research on Save the Children
How much importance should we put on "great (wo)men"? →
Charity, Racism and War
Posted on June 3, 2013 by Blog Editor
Since the Woolwich murder, there have been worrying scenes and disturbances as the English Defence League has sought to become associated with Help the Heroes. Such political difficulties and controversies are nothing new to the voluntary sector. Offering some historical perspective, Peter Grant takes a look back to the activities of the Anti-German League during the First World War.
The horrific death of Drummer Lee Rigby has triggered a particularly unfortunate backlash from certain elements in British Society. Predictably the English Defence League have attempted to exploit the situation but their attempt to ally themselves to the Help for Heroes charity has been firmly rejected.
The circumstances have reminded me of the responses 100 years ago to German 'atrocities' during the First World War. The execution of Edith Cavell and, especially, the sinking of the Lusitania, 98 years ago this week, led to some violent anti-German demonstrations, notably in Liverpool, Manchester and the East End of London. German-owned or even German-sounding shops were attacked and looted. Though lasting several days and leading to further government restrictions on 'aliens' including increased internment the Lusitania riots were perhaps untypical. Nevertheless a number of more right-wing elements attempted to further exploit this anti-German feeling. Two 'Anti-German Leagues' were established in order to combat what one of them described as 'Teutonic leprosy.'
The more 'respectable' version was the British Anti-German League based in Birmingham. A number of their supporters including Admiral Charles Beresford, Dr Ellis Powell (editor of the Financial News), Joseph Havelock Wilson (sometime Liberal MP and founder of the National Amalgamated Sailors' and Firemen's Union) and the future Conservative Home Secretary, William Joynson-Hicks later began the British Empire Union, which was one of the bodies that later metamorphosed into the British Union of Fascists so it would be interesting to see how its supporters later reconciled support for Hitler with their earlier anti-Germanic pronouncements.
The other was founded by E.J. Blasir Chatterton. He sought a million members though only achieved fewer than 5,000. In reality Chatterton was not a patriot but a fraudster. In April 1916, he was declared bankrupt and the following month was charged with fraud. He was tried and found guilty at the Old Bailey in July. It was then revealed that he had previous convictions for sending indecent literature through the post, a fact he failed to point out in his appeals, and he was sentenced to six months hard labour.
It is vital in difficult times to reject the toxic xenophobia of charlatans and fraudsters and the prompt response of Help for Heroes emphasises that they are fully aware of how important retaining both dignity and social solidarity are when we are tempted to react to terrorist violence. As the work of the vast majority of charities during the First World showed positive support for our armed forces and rejection of jingoist propaganda is the surest way of achieving victory.
Recent events have been reported in the Daily Mail, the Huffington Post and elsewhere.
This entry was posted in Forum, Peter Grant, Politics, Reflections, Research and tagged campaigning, crime, racism, voluntary sector, war. Bookmark the permalink.
Tweets by @VAHS_uk
Africa America big society business history campaigning Canada children Christmas compact consumerism crime David Cameron disability education environment Europe families film Glasgow health housing humanitarianism India Labour London missions museums oral history philanthropy policy private sector religion Scotland settlements social work sport transnational histories voluntary action history voluntary sector volunteering war William Beveridge women youth youth work
Subscribe to the VAHS blog
Enter your email address to receive our weekly short essays direct to your inbox.
All content on this website is © Voluntary Action History Society