Jordanne is a short portrait film about 22 year old British female disabled tennis player, Jordanne Whiley. Jordanne was born with brittle bone disease. The film is narrated by Jordanne, and filmed in her hometown of Halesowen, UK, in the lead up to the US Open 2014.


If you're looking for a compact SUV with impressive capabilities and an affordable price, then the new Jeep Compass could be perfect for you. This vehicle has been redesigned for a sportier style, a more refined interior and more rugged capabilities. The latest model is more exciting than ever, but is still available at an affordable price.
The Compass now has a more modern design which offers a sleeker and sportier style. The front grille is reminiscent of the active Cherokee and the smoother edges give it a more modern shape that we think you're going to love.
That sporty look is matched by excellent performance. The new Compass offers a choice of two 4x4 systems, so you can choose the kind of capability you want in your drive. You can also make the most of features like the Selec-Terrain Traction Management system, which allows you to enjoy great performance in a variety of conditions. Additional features like skid plates and a higher ride height further improve its performance and improve its off-roading prowess.
When you step inside the new Compass, you'll find a more refined interior than before. It offers features like leather trim, a power-adjustable driver's seat, heated seats and more for a comfortable ride. Other features like the split-folding rear seats and the power liftgate provide simplicity to your driving experience while the Uconnect system helps you stay connected throughout your drive.
To find out more about the new Jeep Compass, come on over to our Rockaway, NJ dealership. We would be happy to show you our available models, answer all your questions and arrange a test drive so you can see for yourself what this vehicle has to offer and decide if it's the right choice for you.


text:
By kwiat_skye,
October 4, 2007 in Thomas Jane
legacyofbrutality86 0
legacyofbrutality86
Interests:-MMA
-Boxing
-Movies
-Video Games
-Comic Books
The first time I saw this movie it scared the hell out of me, I was 13 and a pussy! lol but as I got older it got a bit cheesier to me...
Geoff 20 posts
sidewaysgaze 15 posts
Enaira 11 posts
Aurelia 7 posts
mediumfan 0
Watch 'Driven' and your opinion might change for the worse, although I have to say, apart from Deep Blue Sea, The Long Kiss Goodnight was kickass.
"The Long Kiss Goodnight" sucked, as did "Cutthroat Island". I'm not a big fan of Renny Harlin as a director, but I do love "Deep Blue Sea". Mainly because of the cast, but the direction was pretty good in this one.
I don't like "Driven" but I like "The Long Kiss Goodnight" ("Au revoir à jamais" in french).
ReCoil 0
Location:Norway.
Interests:Movies, comics and all that jazz... I have no idea what that means.
Nighthawk 0
Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger.... Good fuckin' movies. Also Long Kiss Goodnight. Remember renting Deep Blue Sea mainly because of Samuel L. Jackson, and was a bit shocked that he got killed off so early. Re watched it a couple of weeks ago (along with Waterworld. KICK ASS!), and this time I thought he had way more screen time. I don't want to compare movies, but it is definitely the best "shark movie" after Jaws.
Also it ain't easy coming from Finland, starting to make huge hollywood movies.. I have a huge amount of respect for Renny Harlins' accomplishments. Too bad with Cutthroat Island and the lukewarm response at the box office for LKG..
kwiat_skye 0
kwiat_skye
Framling
Location:Middle Tennessee
Geena didn't help his career any.
Long Kiss Goodnight and Cutthroat Island were both riddled with cliches, bad dialogue, and some truly ridiculous scenes. (Like the water wheel torture in LKG - gimme a break!) But there were a few great stunts and action sequences in both, though not enough to make the movies rewatchable again and again for me. I liked Die Hard though. Great script, great acting. and great action sequences. But he's one of those directors who's hit or miss. And he can't really hit one out of the park that often, in my book.
Kind of like Jan de Bont, who did the horrible Speed 2:Cruise Control. Not even a great cast (Bullock, Patrick, Dafoe) could salvage that one.
But Harlin did a good job with Deep Blue Sea. It was a so-so script, but he had a great cast (loved Thomas and LL Cool J, and Saffron Burrows wasn't bad either). Add to that Samuel L. Jackson, even in a brief appearance, and it's definitely rewatchable.
I am a fan of the serie of "Die Hard", "Speed 2" was really useless, lol, and what I like in "Long Kiss Goodnight" it's when Geena Davis cut vegetables ...
I don't want to compare movies, but it is definitely the best "shark movie" after Jaws.
Yep !!!
For my money, Jaws and Deep Blue Sea are the only shark movies worth wathing anyway.... except for Casper Van Dien's "Shark Attack" obviously
except for Casper Van Dien's "Shark Attack" obviously
This one, I didn't dare to see him...
Renny just makes cheesy flicks. I can't take any of his work seriously. Deep Blue Sea was just a fun movie, and worked on that level. Popcorn munching goodness. Long Kiss was the same for me. Can't be taken seriously or you will hate it.
Cuttthroat tried to be high adventure, but the movie just didn't work on any level.
You know LKG was written to be a brutal spy thriller. Shane Black's original script was pretty bleak, and much darker. I think Renny was tyring to give it the Lethal Weapon treatment (which Black also wrote to be a darker film) and give it a lot of comedy to offset the darkness, and somewhere in there just ended up making an action comedy. I liked it, but I have to be in the mood to sit through the whole thing.
My girlfriend loves the movie though.
It means that she has good taste.
asimonep 0
asimonep
Location:Atl, GA
Interests:my husband, movies, music, scooters, and horror
Man, The Mythbusters love the crap out of Deep Blue Sea! This time, they even paid for a clip from the movie (it was sped up just a bit, so Thomas sounded all cute and chipmunkey). I think it's episode 12 for season 6. Can't find any dates for episode to show again.
So did the Mythbusters prove that Sharks can swim backwards or that LL Cool J has some discernable acting talent ... only kidding, to be fair he was pretty good in Deep Blue Sea and Any Given Sunday
I just found this online, a blogger who spotted a tribute in Deep Blue Sea to Jaws.
Read on only if you've seen both movies, or don't care if about possible plot spoilers:
"Now, I'm a geek in lots of ways, heheh, but I just keep being surprised by the depth and magnitude. See, I just figured out that the license plate Carter wrangles from the tiger shark's teeth at the beginning of Deep Blue Sea is a tribute to Jaws, when Hooper hacks open the tiger shark's stomach to see if the kid's remains are in there and prove that the caught shark isn't the one that's been rampaging.
Louisiana plate number 007 981.
See, I hadn't watched Jaws since I was a kid, and I got to thinking I should. So, I rented it, and when Hooper tosses that license plate at Chief Brody, I got to thinking about Carter's BS explanation about how a shark with a Louisiana license plate in its mouth ended up in Aquatica's range. The little wheels in my dedicated geek's brain started turning, and I put DBS back in and, viola.
Louisiana plate number 007 981."
http://letters2charlie.blogspot.com/2009/0...charlie_12.html
Aww, that is TOO funny! I never noticed that, but then those little details often escape me on the first five or six viewings.
jayesse8 0
jayesse8
DeathSpider Pupa
Location:NorCal
Director Renny Harlan mentions the nod in the commentary ... and, yes, I am that kind of film-loving geek!
I'll have to see if my DVD has the director commentary on it. I used to buy everything on tape, and it took me a while to switch to DVDs, and when I made the switch, I don't think explored all the options on the DVDs, although, for Tripper, I think I did listen to all the commentary, but that's because I knew Tom was involved in it...
relias33 0
relias33
Location:Sterling Heights, Michigan
Interests:Movies, Comic books, Weightlifting, Eating, Acting, Cigars, Football, Golf.
Did you also notice that the 3 sharks also died in a verrrrrrrrrry similar way that the sharks in the first 3 Jaws movies did?
Oh, goodness Raffi - this calls for a Shark Movie double-feature! Jaws and Deep Blue Sea, yeah! Just in time for...well, I guess summer's not here yet where I am, but maybe it'll get the mind off all the April showers and chilly weather.
BTW, Deep Blue Sea is/will be on TV in the U.S.; I noticed it when I was checking out the TV listings for other things, but didn't write down the exact info. So, if anyone hasn't seen it yet, or dropped a dime to buy it, check it out on TV hopefully.
Yup, they play it on tv often. That's how I first saw it. It's a fun movie I think. Cheesy effects but a fun movie. Good actors as well.
Here's the link to a detailed review of the Deep Blue Sea DVD, Special Edition,
including a discussion about Extras and Audio and Video quality. A good read.
"The film is extreme, silly, loud and entertaining--all things that make it
worth watching. Throw together three eight-thousand pound Mako sharks with a
desperate scientist, a capable but down-on-his-luck grease man,..."
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/dvd-deep-blue-sea/7095
Padre 0
I was watching this with a friend earlier today. His reaction: "Thomas Jane is fucking cool"
It's been playing on the fuckin' Weather Channel.
Aly 0
Location:Indianapolis
The weather channel? LOL that's really funny!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Judicial Watch: FBI Investigation Documents of IRS Scandal
Reveal Top Washington IRS Officials Knew About Targeting of "Tea Party" Groups Two Years Before Disclosing it to Congress and Public
FBI interview with IRS senior official reveals: "he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations"
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 294 pages of new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "302" documents revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting "Tea Party" and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.
The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report that said, "Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011." Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The new documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner's response: "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate."
The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011. According to one senior tax law specialist, "The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant's political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way … [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations." And IRS senior official Nancy Marks, appointed by Miller to conduct an internal investigation stated, "Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity."
Judicial Watch obtained the new documents through a federal court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01239)).
According to the FBI documents, Paz and others were informed in the late spring and summer of 2011 that Cincinnati agents were using "BOLO" (Be On the Look Out) briefing guides that instructed them to be "looking at cases using the Tea Party term." The IRS failed to reveal such targeting until the ABA conference in May 2013:
The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Senior Tax Law Specialist:
She read how the case was screened and it was not because of the organization's activity. The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant's political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way.… She wanted to alert the managers about the way the cases were being pulled…. [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations.… [Redacted] then went to tell [Redacted] said he would follow up on the issue and would let HOLLY PAZ know this was possibly occurring. This occurred in the mid to late March or April 2011 timeframe.
The cases were labeled as Tea Party cases. The screening sheets said the two cases were pulled because of the names and political affiliations.
The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Technical Advisor who reported directly to Lerner:
[Redacted] attended a meeting in the summer of 2011. She was not invited, but she was talking to LERNER about something else in the office when LERNER mentioned that it would be interesting for her to attend … Only people from Washington, D.C. were in the room, to include HOLLY PAZ … At the meeting, it was disclosed that one of the ways Cincinnati was looking for cases was using the "Tea Party" term. They were calling the body of cases involving political activity "Tea Party" cases. The concern was that the IRS had put a label on the cases that would be problematic.
The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Acting Manager of Exempt Organizations Technical (EOT):
In his meeting concerning the briefing in mid-June [2011] [Redacted] met with EOT and EOG [Exempt Organizations Group] staffs and PAZ…. They showed PAZ the briefing paper and the use of the Tea Party term. PAZ was the highest ranking person at the meeting.… Somebody said they may not want to use Tea Party as a labeling term. [Redacted] had recognized they may not want to use the term Tea Party when they were doing the briefing paper, but his plan was to raise the issue with PAZ at the briefing. He does not recall PAZ's reaction.
According to a ten-page section of the documents containing the FBI interviews with IRS Senior Technical Advisor Nancy Marks, in the spring of 2012, Miller asked Marks to "look into how these 501 (c)(4) cases were being handled and find out what the problems were." After investigations in Washington and Cincinnati, Marks reported the following to Miller in May 2012 according to the FBI:
It was not until much later that MARKS saw information that [Redacted] was only looking for Tea Party cases…. The BOLO [Be on the Lookout] showed that at various points the criteria called for "Tea Party" name, and then later the ideology…. She told him [Miller, on May 3, 2012] that Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity. When MARKS told MILLER this, he threw his pencil across the room and said, "Oh shit."
The FBI documents also reveal that the FBI investigated why Holly Paz, the IRS Acting Director of Rulings and Agreements in 2011, sat in on numerous of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) interviews with lower level IRS employees and if her presence improperly influenced the employees' responses to investigators' questions. The documents repeatedly state, "Other than the auditors, the only person present during the [Redacted] interview was HOLLY PAZ."
The documents contain two separate lengthy FBI interviews with Lois Lerner, the first in June 2013 and the second in October 2013. Both interviews came after Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination before the House Oversight Committee in May 2013. By answering questions under oath in her FBI interviews, Lerner seemed to undermine her earlier Fifth Amendment-based refusal to testify to Congress, since witnesses generally cannot invoke the right in one instance and not another. The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress for her refusal to testify.
And the FBI 302 documents also contain an interview in which Miller reveals that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman very likely misled Congress in his March 22, 2012, testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee when he said, "There is absolutely no targeting." According to the FBI report on the Miller interview, "In February or March, MILLER talked to SHULMAN about the development letters." The "development letters" were letters sent by the IRS primarily to targeted conservative groups seeking what the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) later termed "inappropriate" information about websites and donors.
"These new smoking-gun documents show Obama FBI and Justice Department had plenty of evidence suggesting illegal targeting, perjury, and obstruction of justice," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Both the FBI and Justice Department collaborated with the Lois Lerner and the IRS to try to prosecute and jail Barack Obama's political opponents. These FBI documents show the resulting compromised investigation looked the other way when it came to Obama's IRS criminality."
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Corruption, Cover-up, FBI, FBI Investigation Documents of IRS Scandal, IRS, Obama IRS scandal, Resident in Thief, Tea Party, Tyranny. Bookmark the permalink.
← Swimsuit mural of Hillary Clinton creates a stir in Australia
Harry Reid is the latest Democrat not to be prosecuted for breaking the law →


How reliable are the New Testament Gospels?
Let's recap what we've learned so far (see below for links to previous posts): We've verified that Jesus was a real, historical person. We've seen that the story of Jesus was unique and not copied from existing religions. We've discovered the careful criteria the early followers of Jesus used to accept the early, confirmed Gospel accounts of Jesus and to reject the later, aberrant gospels. But this still leaves us with questions. The early Christians may have accepted the New Testament Gospels, but how much should we trust these Gospels today? How reliable are their descriptions of Jesus' words and life?
Let's clear something up right away. The question of whether or not the Bible is inspired by God is an important and fascinating one. But it's not the question we're seeking to answer now. Even if the Gospels are merely the work of human authors, they can still be incredibly helpful to us by providing historical information about Jesus.
And we need to remember that a source doesn't have to be 100% error-free to be considered historically reliable. We routinely utilize ancient sources for information about historical people and events, and none of these other sources are infallible. So the issue of whether the Bible is completely without error and inspired by God isn't necessary for our current study. All we're trying to determine is whether the New Testament descriptions of Jesus are generally historically reliable.
The Jesus Seminar was a group of people who met together during the 1980s and 1990s. They're most remembered for using colored beads to vote on which biblical sayings of Jesus were genuine. During their heyday, they received media attention that was unprecedented for research concerning the historical Jesus. In fact, the Seminar leaders such as Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan were open about their desire to seek such press for their work. Many other Jesus researchers were troubled by this, seeing this media blitz as hype and unworthy of serious scholarship.
Adding to the unease of the scholarly world was the way the Seminar described its membership. They were usually referenced as a broad consensus of scholars, when almost all of them were from the extreme "left" of Jesus scholarship (not to mention the fact they were almost exclusively American). Describing them as representing a broad range of scholarly views would be similar to describing either very conservative Republicans or very liberal Democrats as representing (by themselves) a broad range of American political views. Not only was such a description inaccurate and offensive, it seemed intentionally misleading.
There was also a question as to how many Seminar members could be rightly called "scholars." While the Seminar did include such well-known scholars as Funk and Crossan, most of the members were noticeably lacking in qualifications. Most had written only one or two minor papers, or nothing at all. Few had significant teaching positions, many teaching at community colleges or with no teaching role anywhere. Some even lacked the requisite degrees to be considered part of such a scholarly Seminar, such as filmmaker Paul Verhoeven (director of films such as Basic Instinct, Showgirls and Starship Troopers). To many, it was telling that this "Seminar" wasn't associated with any reputable scholarly guild, such as the Society of Biblical Literature.
Seminar leader Robert Funk, in particular, made it clear from the beginning the Seminar had an agenda of correcting and changing the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus. They were seeking to give the world a "new fiction" of Jesus. People with strong views (whether devout Christians or outspoken critics) may approach historical study with a prior agenda, and this doesn't necessarily call into question their conclusions. But it's disingenuous to describe such research as the result of a broad overview of mainstream scholars. Even if one was to leave out evangelical and conservative scholars, this Seminar is still not remotely close to being representative of the wide range of Jesus scholars. In fact, many have suggested their results aren't even representative of the views of all Seminar members, but of only a handful of its leaders such as Robert Funk.
Many, if not most, of the members of the Jesus Seminar dismissed out of hand (a priori) any biblical clams of supernatural events, such as Jesus performing miracles or rising from the dead. Some readers may be sympathetic to such a view. But to claim one is fairly considering the biblical claims regarding Jesus, while dismissing the possibility of anything supernatural before one even begins to look at the evidence, is not intellectually honest. This guarantees an outcome—any outcome—other than the biblical accounts. We all have our presuppositions. But we need to be willing to set to the side our presuppositions and consider other possibilities, to follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it proves us wrong.
Jesus was crucified in the early 30s CE (or AD). The critics generally accept the New Testament Gospels as written between the 70s and 90s of the first century. Before these Gospel accounts were written down, Jesus' deeds and words were passed on by word of mouth. Many of the Seminar members doubt whether this oral history could have been conveyed accurately. At the very most, they feel, it could only have preserved the short, pithy sayings of Jesus. But this view flies in the face of a mountain of scholarly research to the contrary. We simply know too much about the reliability of oral history to doubt the Gospel material (for this reason).
The Jewish people of the first century were used to remembering and recounting to each other detailed events and extensive teachings. This was everyday life for them. And we don't have to read very many of the teachings of Jesus before we recognize he taught in a rhythmic, repetitious manner that would have been easily memorized. It still is. If we were to prompt people—even completely irreligious people—with the beginning words, "Our Father . . . ," a surprising number of people would be able to finish the rest of the Lord's Prayer. The early followers of Jesus were dedicated to following him at the risk of their very lives. Certainly they would have been highly motivated to thoroughly know all of the accounts and teachings of Jesus and to be resistant to any substantive change anyone might try to introduce.
Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus wouldn't have commented on the events occurring around him, he would never have delivered any longer talks, and he wouldn't have been a part of any dialogue or conversation. (Even if he actually did any of these things, it's just not possible for his followers to have correctly remembered Jesus' statements and the immediate context!) No, we're told, Jesus only spoke in short, witty sayings.
Not only must Jesus be completely non-Jewish in what he said, but they also claim that if there's any statement by Jesus in the Gospels that was later used widely by Christians, that statement could not have been authentically spoken by Jesus! Astoundingly, we're to accept that the only genuine statements of Jesus were the ones that made so little impact on his hearers they never repeated them. Any principle that was worthy of being incorporated into the thinking and vocabulary of Jesus' followers must have been invented by them—it couldn't possibly reflect the original teachings of Jesus.
This use of a "criterion of dissimilarity" is nonsensical; it's not used this way in evaluating any other ancient documents. One would never reject a quote of Socrates because it reflected the Greek culture of his day or because it was picked up and reiterated by his followers. By using such criteria the Jesus Seminar is disqualifying everything but a Jesus who has no connection whatsoever with either his culture or his followers, and who spoke only in brief, provocative statements. Not surprisingly, that's exactly who they claim to have discovered.
By a "hermeneutic of suspicion" what they mean is that the canonical Gospels are guilty until proven innocent. Everything in them is automatically doubted and only what can be verified (using the criteria of the Jesus Seminar) is accepted. Again, such a standard isn't used for any other ancient document or even for any other religious text. This standard is arbitrary and aberrant.
Let's give the Seminar the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the full remaining 42% of the members voted grey. And let's say both the red votes and the pink votes were each less than 42% (for instance, hypothetically, 30% red and 28% pink). This would make grey the "winner" in a sense, but to mark the passage as grey would be badly misleading. It's misleading to mark the passage as unlikely because a majority of the Seminar members thought the passage was at least likely (if not certain) to have been spoken by Jesus. Do you see why this voting process is faulty?
The problem is that when people see a particular outcome, they tend to assume it's the consensus of the Seminar members. (Or even worse they think it's the consensus of scholars in general.) If a verse is in red, we think the Seminar members agreed that Jesus actually said these words; if the words are in black, then the members must have all decided they're not genuine. But actually each one of these conclusions was more like a political compromise; they are results that don't accurately reflect the real views of anyone. For most of these passages there were Seminar members who voted for each color. As it stands, the published results—though colorful!—don't really tell us anything (except possibly the views of Robert Funk and the other leaders of the Seminar).
Practically all Jesus scholars still accept the New Testament Gospels as generally reliable historical accounts of Jesus' ministry and teachings (even if many of these scholars don't believe these Gospels to be infallible, inspired Scripture). So what do these Gospel accounts reliably tell us about Jesus? We'll explore this next week.
Why did the early Christians accept the New Testament Gospels?
Why did the early Christians reject the "alternative gospels"?
What can we know about the historical Jesus?
What good is a dead Messiah?
If you read our last post, you saw why the early Christians accepted the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authentic. But we also hear people talk about the "Gospel of Thomas," the "Gospel of Peter," and the "Gospel of James." (These writings and others like them are often called the "Gnostic gospels." I'll explain why below.) Some even refer to these as "alternative" or "competing" gospels of Jesus. What do we make of these writings? Why did the early Christians reject these other accounts of Jesus?
Let's put this into historical perspective. Jesus' ministry took place either in the late 20s or early 30s of the 1st century. The Christian apostle Paul wrote his letters from the 40s to the 60s. Most scholars agree that Mark's Gospel was written by the 60s, that Matthew's and Luke's were written by the 70s (although many scholars date all three much earlier), and John's Gospel was written by the 90s.
The Gnostic gospels, on the other hand, were written much later. While a few have tried to argue otherwise, there is no historical or literary evidence placing the writing of any of these other gospels before the middle of the 2nd century. This means they couldn't have been written by eyewitnesses and their authors couldn't even have directly interviewed eyewitnesses. Their late dates call their authenticity into question.
By the time these gospels were written there was already widespread agreement among Christian leaders as to which writings they considered Scripture. This is especially true concerning the Gospel accounts of Christ. Despite the rhetoric of some sensationalistic critics, these Gnostic "gospels" weren't considered by the earliest Christians as alternative or competing gospels because they didn't exist yet.
This may surprise some readers, but all scholars agree that none of these later Gnostic gospels were written by the people they claim to be written by. The Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas, the Gospel of Peter wasn't written by Peter, etc. These gospels are what we call "pseudonymous," they were written in the name of someone famous (even someone long dead). This was done intentionally in the ancient world to attract a wider reading.
While Gnostics and other groups followed such a practice, the early Christians viewed these falsely claimed letters with disdain. These believers saw this attribution to famous dead people as inauthentic and grounds for immediate rejection. Not only did they not know who wrote the books or what connection they had with the apostles, but they felt the books were misleading and deceitful. Because Jesus was a literal, historical person, and because they claimed the events recorded in the Gospels actually took place, they were very serious about the trustworthy nature of the accounts of Jesus' life and words.
Had it been widely accepted and used by the churches?
These other gospels fare poorly on this question as well. They weren't old enough to have been around for the formative years of the early Christian movement. The churches simply didn't use them, even as merely inspirational works. These gospels were propagated by groups of people outside of the Christian churches (more on this below). Not only did no one know who wrote these gospels, but the Christians viewed much of their content as strange and not in harmony with the apostolic teaching at the heart of the Christian faith. It's not just that they weren't widely accepted by the churches, they were consistently panned and rejected. Thankfully, we have writings from Christian leaders of this period showing their quick and decisive rejection of these so-called gospels. They were aware of the "gospels" now loudly hailed by a few speculative critics; they were not impressed.
To understand these later gospels, it's helpful to know a bit about the ancient religious system known to us today as Gnosticism. This religion gets its name from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge." These people sought secret or hidden knowledge that was supposedly only known to a select few, so they were called "Gnostics." Through their writings we know what some of this "secret knowledge" was.
The Gnostics were heavily influenced by some forms of Greek philosophy. They viewed the spiritual or immaterial to be pure, and the physical to be innately corrupt. They believed the physical world was created by an evil god (the god of the Jews), and that salvation could only be attained through secret knowledge. These secrets were said to reveal how to escape the prison of physical, bodily existence. Some Gnostics taught that Jesus was an "emanation" of God who came to teach them this secret knowledge. They denied the physical existence and humanity of Jesus.
It's important to know that Christianity was rooted in 1st century Jewish beliefs. The beliefs of the Gnostics were hostile to both Jewish religious tradition and early Christian beliefs. They borrowed some of the terms Jews and Christians used, but redefined them according to their own unique purposes. One example of this is the way they "borrowed" Jesus. Similar to New Age proponents who speak of a Christ-consciousness but don't believe in the biblical Christ, these Gnostics adapted the story of Jesus to fit their new religion.
Scholars agree that the Gnostic faith developed during the 2nd century. Gnosticism didn't exist during the 1st century, so there's no way for there to have been Gnostic gospels written that early. This was a religion that developed independently of Christianity, but sought to draw new followers from the Christian churches. Because Christians put great stock in the teachings of the apostles, these Gnostics wrote "gospels" of Jesus that claimed to be written by Peter, James, Thomas, etc. Of course, the fact they weren't written in the 1st century was a problem, but they also depicted a distinctly Gnostic Jesus and worldview, which were incompatible with the existing beliefs of the Christians. Because of this, these so-called gospels were universally rejected.
These are the secret words that the living Jesus spoke and Judas, even Thomas, wrote.
The book goes on to tell us of the secret or hidden teachings of Jesus. These teachings are meant only for the spiritually elite, not for the common people. Instead of being taught to have faith, the reader is urged to discover the hidden interpretations that will reveal the secret knowledge necessary for salvation.
In the midst of this, we find statements that are strikingly similar to what we read in the biblical Gospels. Does this mean the Gospel of Thomas is actually from the 1st century, maybe even older than the New Testament Gospels? A few (very few) scholars would say yes, but most other scholars—Christian and non-Christian—see these critics as clutching at straws. The evidence is just too convincing otherwise.
We have no historical evidence placing the Gospel of Thomas before the mid-2nd century. And the Gospel of Thomas includes quotes of Jesus that are in common with all four of the biblical Gospels. Not only that, but it quotes from later variations of these Gospels, not the earliest readings. The Gospel of Thomas also references works we know weren't written until the 2nd century. And even when it quotes the Bible, it often twists the statements of Jesus into Gnostic variations. Despite the efforts of a few who try to find a 1st century fragment within the Gospel of Thomas, the vast majority of scholars accept that it couldn't have been written before around 170 CE (or AD).
I can't help but comment on the sensationalistic writings of Dan Brown and his ilk. Even though his writings are fictional, many surprisingly still labor under the false assumption his books are carefully researched. Nothing could be further from the truth, as countless reviews have demonstrated. For instance, Brown claims the New Testament Gospels were later revisions and the Gnostic gospels were the earlier writings. This turns all of our historical evidence and scholarly consensus on its head. It would be laughable if it wasn't taken seriously by some.
Brown also claims the Gnostic gospels defended a human Jesus from the Christians who wanted to turn him into a god. We'll explore in a future post just when the Christians started believing in Jesus' divinity, but Brown shockingly gets completely backward the nature of his own cherished alternative gospels. It was the New Testament Gospels who portrayed a Christ who was not only divine but also profoundly human. And it was the later, Gnostic gospels who denied the humanity of Jesus, and insisted he was purely divine! [Note: The Gospel of Thomas doesn't specifically deny the humanity of Jesus, but it does strongly emphasize his divinity, and even encourages us to recognize our own divinity!] Again, such subterfuge could be humorous if not for the surprising influence it has somehow garnered.
Some may be asking, 'Why are you talking about Dan Brown of all people?' Sadly, far too many believe that even though his stories are fictional, his historical research is legitimate. This is definitely not the case. Brown is an extreme example, but there are other highly speculative, sensationalistic sources out there that contradict what we know from history. I challenge everyone to not just assume these kinds of books (or internet sites) are correct; do the homework for yourself. If you'd like, I can recommend good books representing different perspectives on these issues.
These later gospels give us a lot of helpful insight into the nature of 2nd century Gnostic beliefs, but they don't tell us anything about the historical Jesus. They were written too late by unknown authors with an alternative agenda. The early Christians consistently rejected these gospels, and for good reason. So this brings us back to the New Testament Gospel accounts of Jesus. Now we know why these Gospels were accepted by the early followers of Jesus. But does this mean they're historically reliable? How sure can we be about what Jesus did and said? We'll explore these questions next week.
As promised, this week we begin looking at our historical sources for the life and teachings of Jesus. Which ones do we trust, and which ones should we reject? To help us understand why followers of Christ refused to accept some gospels we need to understand why they embraced the ones they did. Once we're familiar with the standards they used in evaluating the Gospels that became part of the New Testament, we'll be able to better consider why they rejected the "alternative" gospels.
You may have heard the claim that the Roman emperor Constantine is the one who decided which books would be included in the Bible and which ones would not. This idea may have spiced up a fictional novel or two, but it has no basis in reality. The truth is by the second century church leaders were already listing the books they considered to be Scripture. These lists aren't exactly the same, but they're strikingly similar. Christians immediately accepted most of the New Testament books as divinely inspired, including the letters of Paul and—most relevant to our current study—the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Now we're not yet trying to determine whether these Gospels were actually divinely produced or not, just that the early Christians accepted them as the definitive accounts of Jesus. I should clarify there were a few books (especially 2 Peter and 3 John) that had to be discussed awhile before they were universally accepted. This hesitation seemed to be mostly due to a lack of familiarity with certain books in some geographical regions. By the fourth century there was widespread agreement among church leaders as to which books were authentically biblical. When leaders later agreed in various councils on a list of scriptural books, they were simply affirming what had been commonly accepted for a long time. Most important for our discussion is the observation that the four biblical Gospels were never in doubt and were accepted from the very beginning.
So why were these books embraced by Christian believers? What criteria were used to evaluate the authenticity of Gospel accounts of Jesus?
The early Christians wanted to rely on the earliest, most reliable accounts of Jesus. This makes perfect sense to us today. The four biblical Gospels were all written in the first century. Everyone agrees that John's Gospel was the last written. Most scholars believe Mark's was first, with Matthew and Luke following soon after. There is compelling evidence suggesting Mark's Gospel was written as early as the 40s AD, which would have been very soon after Jesus' death and the early spread of the Christian faith. Many scholars don't accept this date, but most feel Mark was written by the 60s and all agree his Gospel was finished by the 70s AD. If an alleged account of Jesus was written too late to be credible, it would have been viewed with suspicion. The New Testament Gospels passed the test of being written early enough to be authentic.
The early Christians were very concerned with how apostolic the writings were. Remember the apostles were men Jesus had personally commissioned to be his formal representatives or ambassadors. They were to speak his words with his authority. We know this understanding of the prominent role of the apostles of Christ goes back to the earliest followers of Jesus after his death and resurrection. So these believers wanted to accept only Gospel accounts and letters written by the apostles or people closely associated with them. And the content had to have the ring of authenticity as apostolic writing.
This doesn't mean they were desiring only books written by the "superstars." They weren't demanding the sensational, but the authentic. We can see this by looking at the accepted authors for the four biblical Gospels. Only John was well-known as an apostle, although he had nothing like the notoriety of a Peter. Matthew was also an apostle (and both he and John were eyewitnesses of the events of which they wrote), but he was neither famous nor prominent. He didn't have the name recognition that someone would want if they were marketing a Gospel of Christ. And Mark and Luke were not widely known at all. They were both closely associated with apostles, and were known by the churches where they had ministered, but their names were definitely not sensational attention-getters.
The relative obscurity of these Gospel authors testify to their authenticity. There would have been no reason to attribute these writings to these little-known authors unless they actually wrote these Gospels. And one of the fastest ways to get your writing rejected was to attribute it to another (usually famous) author. These kinds of writing are called "pseudonymous," and were considered acceptable by most people in the first few centuries after Christ—but not by Christians considering whether a writing should be accepted as definitive Scripture. If they became suspicious a writing was not really written by the alleged author, it would be immediately disqualified.
This doesn't mean a letter or gospel written in someone else's name couldn't be produced with good intentions (possibly to honor an admired apostle), or that it couldn't contain any material that might be spiritually helpful. But these early believers refused to accept pseudonymous writings as part of the New Testament Scriptures. The biblical Gospels were not only written early enough to be authentic, but the early Christians verified them as being written by men who were either apostles or closely associated with the apostles.
Were many churches, over a broad geographical span, actually using this writing? Were church leaders universally accepting this writing as apostolic? Were pastoral leaders invested in studying and teaching this writing? Did it have the ring of apostolic truth to them? Was there general agreement that the content of this writing was in harmony with other accepted apostolic teaching?
These questions were commonly asked. While some books, such as 2 Peter and Revelation, took longer to reach this kind of universal usage (which is why their inclusion in the New Testament was discussed longer than the rest), the four Gospels were widely used and accepted from extremely early in the history of the Christian faith. There was never any controversy among Christians as to whether Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be accepted as authentic, reliable (even inspired) accounts of Jesus Christ.
We haven't established yet whether we should accept these New Testament Gospels as historically reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. But we have seen the reasons why the early Christians accepted the four biblical Gospels as genuine. So why didn't they accept other writings that claimed to be gospel accounts of Jesus? What were the problems with these "alternative" gospels? We'll look at this next week.
Our church's study time is interactive. I often ask for a response from the people, and they can raise their hands and ask questions during the teaching. This past Sunday, the interaction got a little more intense than usual. There was some question as to the interpretation of a particular passage, but the underlying tension seemed to be more about how we view the authority of Scripture. Since this is a vital issue for us as believers, we're going to explore this topic for the next three weeks.
We begin by making clear our position on the Bible. While we have people attending our church who hold differing viewpoints (whom we love very much), our church is an evangelical Christian church. We believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, and that it is without error. We accept Scripture as the final authority for the Christian faith, for our church life and ministry, and for our individual Christian lives. We measure every idea, tradition and action according to the standard of the Scriptures.
So the question for most of us isn't whether we believe the Bible. We do. We have faith in the Scriptures as God's Word to his people. But a question we should explore is: What kind of faith do we have in the Bible?
This kind of faith is focused on the object of our faith—who or what we believe in. It's faith that is justified because the object of our faith is trustworthy. It's a surprise to many non-Christians that they use faith all the time. When you go to work every morning, you do this because you have faith in your employer. You believe they'll keep the business operating and pay you at the appropriate time. If you had good reasons to not believe this, you probably wouldn't keep going to work. This is objective faith. You go outside of town and climb up into a hollow, metal tube, which is controlled by someone you don't even see, and expect this contraption to take you hundreds or even thousands of miles over sea and land—and even get you to your destination in time to catch another metal tube! Why do we do this? Because we have a sufficient faith in the airlines to transport us from one point to another.
The Christian faith is an historical faith. It's based on a real, historical person and event. At the heart of our faith is the person of Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead. We make this truth claim and put it out there for anyone to examine and either verify or refute. [For more on this, see In search of Jesus.] If someone suggests it really doesn't matter whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, we're quick to point out that the actual, literal truth of the resurrection is the basis for our faith. As the apostle Paul said, if Christ has not been raised from the dead then our faith is useless, we are still guilty of our sins and we are to be pitied more than anyone in the world (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). If the resurrection is not true, then at best we're just playing church, believing in a myth. The Christian faith is an objective faith; it's focused on the truth we believe (not on the mere fact we believe something).
Have you ever heard someone say, "It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just whether you sincerely believe"? This is subjective faith. The emphasis isn't on the trustworthiness of what we're placing our faith in. It's really a faith in faith itself. When a friend or family member patronizingly pats you on the hand and says, "I'm glad your faith works for you," their understanding of faith is a subjective one. When people speak of a blind leap of faith, they're referring to this kind of faith.
The problem with subjective faith is clear. If the emphasis is on the faith itself, and if it doesn't matter if the object of one's faith is trustworthy or not, then we can just believe any ridiculous thing we want. You want to believe that UFOs are coming to pick you up, or that the rock in your backyard is your god? Go right ahead! As long as you sincerely believe! Subjective faith is irrational faith. People who have this kind of faith aren't willing for the object of their faith to be examined and verified or refuted. Because the issue for them isn't whether the object of their faith is trustworthy or not, it's just that they believe.
What kind of faith do you have in the Bible?
This is the very beginning of Luke's Gospel account of Jesus. Notice that others had already written Gospels. But Luke still takes the time to investigate everything carefully. Why? Why not simply believe? Why not believe the Gospel accounts just because they're Gospel accounts? Why not tell his friend to believe what he was taught because that's what he was taught? No, Luke takes the time to be certain of the truth he believes and that he presents to others. He's actually so bold as to examine the Gospel accounts and verify whether they are indeed trustworthy. Is this a good thing? Absolutely.
That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. The people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.
"Aha!" someone might be thinking, "See, they searched the Scriptures." But let's think about this. Who were these people? They were Jews. So what Scriptures would they have been searching? The Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. As Jews, they already accepted the Old Testament as God's Word. But what was Paul presenting to them? The New Testament gospel of Jesus Christ. And did he insist they believe this gospel based on what the New Testament witness said? No, that would be circular reasoning. It would be irrational. He allowed them to examine his message using the truth they already had.
We see something similar in the way Paul addressed Gentiles in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). He begins by relating to their worship of an unknown God, offering to explain this unknown God to them. He speaks of how there is one God who created everything and everyone, and how this God desires for all people to come into relationship with him. Along the way he quotes from their own writings. He ends by telling them of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead. But notice he never once expects the people to believe what he's telling them because "the Bible says." Everything he says is very biblical, but he doesn't appeal to the Scriptures as authoritative. Why not? Because these people have no reason yet to accept the Bible as authoritative!
And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way.
A big part of our Christian hope is what the Scriptures tell us, and we need to be prepared to explain to people why we can draw this hope from the Bible, why it's trustworthy. And we need to offer more than just that it's the Word of God.
Imagine you're having a discussion with a Mormon and a Muslim. Each of you has a different faith and you use different books as your highest, most authoritative guides. So you gently and respectfully challenge your friends as to why they believe in the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an. They each say they believe in their Scriptures because they're the Word of God. Do you accept their claims? Why not? If you disagree with them only because you believe the Bible is the Word of God, you're at a stalemate, aren't you? Each of you believes in your holy book simply because you believe in your holy book.
But let's say you're familiar with both religions' books, and you know of serious problems with these books that would cause a person to doubt whether they are, in fact, God's Word. So you share your concerns with your friends, right? What are you expecting of them? You want them to listen to your challenge of their holy books. But to really listen to you they must be willing to consider the possibility their holy book is not actually the Word of God. They must be so committed to the truth they're willing to reexamine their beliefs to make sure they're truly sound.
Are we willing to do the same thing? Are we willing to not only respect another person enough to hear out their challenge of our Scriptures, are we willing to respect the Bible enough to see whether it stands up to the challenge? If not, what are we afraid of? If the Bible is the Word of God, won't it be able to withstand any challenge?
In the study of logic, there's a fallacy known as 'invincible ignorance.' This is the attitude that "I already have my mind made up, and I'm not going to listen to anything different." It's an adult's way of plugging their ears and yelling so they can't hear what you're saying. Some may act like they're listening politely to you, but eventually you find they're not willing to truly hear anything different than what they already believe. This is an irrational, subjective faith. It's not healthy and it's not the faith the Bible teaches. We must be prepared to put the Bible through the same rigorous tests we require of the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, or any other supposed holy book.
But are we now judging Scripture?
We often emphasize that Scripture tells us when we're right or wrong; we don't judge when Scripture is right or wrong. And this is true of the Bible in the same way it's true of other standards on which we rely. I've often compared Scripture to a level, or a scale, or the instruments in an airplane. But do we place automatic, blind faith in these standards just because they're supposed to be reliable? My father introduced me to the idea of a level. My first trust of a level was as much a trust of him as it was the level. But then he demonstrated the level for me, and I saw for myself how it could show whether a surface was truly level or whether it was slightly off. After using it a few times, I trusted it absolutely. But I was convinced of its trustworthiness.
We may think we trust the Bible just because it's the Bible, but if we think back to when we came to faith in Christ (or came back to faith in Christ), most of us had some reasons why we began to believe the Scriptures. Now we may have had different reasons. Maybe you believed the Bible is the Word of God because your parents told you this, or a pastor or church leader. Maybe you felt God speaking to you through the words of Scripture. Maybe you were like Luke and the Bereans and you examined the claims of the Bible carefully before placing your faith in the Scriptures. But we all had some reason for our initial belief.
Now, do we ever reevaluate our trust of a standard? What if you stepped on a scale and it said you weighed 43 pounds? Would you start celebrating because your diet is going a lot better than you imagined?! Or would you suspect something is wrong with the scale? If you just filled your car with gas and then the indicator still reads empty, do you go back and fill up all over again out of blind faith in the gas gauge?
Fine, but should we ever reevaluate our beliefs? Yes, if want to have confidence in what we believe. Should such an idea scare us? Only if we're more committed to our beliefs than we are to the truth. Some Christians have the mistaken idea that if we really have faith we'll never feel doubt. But faith isn't never having doubt; it's being convinced despite our doubts. We don't want to be wishy-washy, constantly switching back and forth between believing and not believing. But there are times when Christians reexamine what they believe—and this is healthy. Facing our doubts strengthens our faith.
When a believer experiences doubts about the truth of the resurrection, we don't rebuke them for their doubts or blithely dismiss the challenges they're facing. No, we help them work through the questions and issues; we show where the truth of the resurrection is so sound it can withstand any of these challenges. Many scholars who are now highly effective at studying the historical evidences for the resurrection began as Christians with serious doubts.
What about the Bible? If we read a passage in Scripture that is deeply troubling to us, is it sinful for us to reconsider our belief in Scripture as the inerrant Word of God? No, it's simply being intellectually honest. Of course, we shouldn't immediately reject the Bible as infallible just because we're struggling with a certain passage. But by reevaluating the nature of Scripture, we're demonstrating that our faith in the Bible is not a blind, irrational faith, but one based on the trustworthiness of the Bible itself. If this trustworthiness is challenged, we must reevaluate it. We are people of faith, not fanatics who arrogantly refuse to consider the possibility we're wrong. And by reexamining the trustworthiness of Scripture, we gain a stronger, more mature faith in the divine nature of the Bible.
This is invincible ignorance. It's the irrational faith of a person who will not even consider the possibility that what they believe may not be true. This is the faith of the cultist, not of the Christian. We seek a mature faith in Christ and the Scriptures, not a childish faith of sticking our fingers in our ears and outshouting any opponents.
Should a Christian ever reevaluate their faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God?
If there is absolutely nothing that could cause you to reconsider whether the Bible is the Word of God then you're probably more committed to your own personal beliefs than you are to what is actually true. As shocking as it might sound, if the Bible isn't true, we shouldn't want to believe in it. Our first commitment must be to truth itself. This helps ensure we're worshiping the true God rather than our own preferred beliefs.
Thankfully, we have very convincing evidence that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, without error and trustworthy as an infallible, authoritative standard for our faith and lives, leading us to the one true God. What is this evidence? Why do we believe the Bible? We'll begin exploring this next week.


text:
Jon Whyte leaves ATB Sales
by Bikemagic
The Jon Whyte Timeline
1984 Aerospace engineer Jon Whyte joins the F1 world as a designer
1994 As a senior suspension designer he helps the Benetton team and Michael Schumacher to their first of his world championships.
1996 Jon joins ATB Sales's design team and develops its first full suspension system, featuring on a Marin bike
1996 Paul Lasenby wins his first XC national points series race with Jon's system – the first ever win at this level on a full suspension bike.
1997 Lasenby sweeps all before him to win the National XC Championship on the FRS Mount Vision. Every year since, a suspension bike designed by Jon has won a major championship
2003 Jon develops the Quad Link system>
2004 Jon designs and develops the Mezzo folding bike
2005 Jon brings out the second version of his Quad Link system, launched in the Whyte E5
2006 Discovers freeride, and the Quad Link II Marin Quake is launched. Shaums March wins the Masters DH World Championships on it
2006 Sept – Schumacher announces his retirement from F1, Jon Whyte leaves ATB Sales
Towards the end of last week, we got an email from Jon Whyte, the designer responsible for Marin's full suspension bikes as well as the ones that bear his name:
…I wanted you to be one of the first people I tell that as of today I am no longer employed by ATB Sales ltd.
And then a little while later, a press release from ATB Sales entitled "Jon Whyte Retires From Cycle Trade":
Jon Whyte – father of the full-suspension mountain bike – has retired from the cycle industry. The 50-year-old engineering guru has hung up his trusty pedal spanner and is moving on after eleven years in the bike trade.
It's certainly no exaggeration to say that Jon is largely responsible for the popularity of full suspension bikes. The original Marin Mount Vision was the first FS bike to be notably successful in XC racing, an area that at the time was dominated by hardtails. The subsequent range of variously-travelled single-pivot bikes were hugely popular, being reasonably priced, reliable and effective. Having lured XC riders on to full suspension, the B-17 made long travel a workable option for trail riders too – at the time, 6in was considered DH-only travel, but the B-17 combined it with reasonable weight and the ability to pedal. It kind of accidentally became a favourite amongst DHers and freeriders on a budget, even though it wasn't really designed with that in mind – it was about the cheapest way to get your hands on a 6in travel bike, though…
The lightweight, long-travel theme was one that Jon returned to with the acclaimed Whyte 46, a 30lb-ish bike with 6in of travel at both ends that blazed a trail for things like the Santa Cruz Nomad, Scott Ransom and Specialized Enduro SL.
So what happens now? Well, on the ATB Sales side, it's largely business as usual. Ian Alexander, who's been working alongside Jon for the last few years, takes over design duties – the curvy lines of the forthcoming 2007 Mount Vision are his, and an indication of things to come. ATB Sales owns the various patents and intellectual property, and also the Whyte brand name, so there'll still be Whyte bikes.
Ross Patterson, ATB's sales and marketing director said: "We wish Jon every happiness in his retirement. It has been a great decade and we have enjoyed working with such a consummate professional for all this time. It is a fond farewell to Jon after a fantastic partnership… His legacy continues with the ATB design team at our UK R&D facility and there are exciting developments ahead."
And Jon? He doesn't consider himself to have "retired". "I have a number of plans for my future," he says, "that include doing more ultra distance events throughout the world and also setting up my own innovative design company."
And bikes? There'll definitely be more bicycle-related stuff from Jon at some point, but he's taking a bit of time off from matters bicycular for the next few months. Watch this space…
Cotic gets new Test Centre
Cotic's latest frames: The Simple Soul (top) and BFe (bottom) It's clearly all happening at Cotic. To say it's a small outfit would be to stretch...
Happy birthday, Gustav
In the fast-moving world of mountain bike technology, products that stick around largely unchanged for a decade are few and far between....
MTB history film premieres in Mill Valley
The commonly-accepted early history of the mountain bike – modified cruiser bikes on the slopes of Mt Tamalpais in Marin County, California and a roughly...
Tesco Bike Active hits Sherwood
Tesco Bike Active rolls into the lustrous setting of Sherwood Pines on Sunday 15th October on it's five-stop tour of the country. We've already had...
Crankworx on TV
Unless you've been living clinging to a rock with a community of barnacles and whelks for the last decade, you're probably at least vaguely familiar...


text:
According to Yves Congar, he first met Cardijn during the early 1930s while he (Congar) was living and working at the Dominican centre, Le Saulchoir, which was then located near Tournai in Belgium.
Following in the footsteps of his Dominican counterpart and friend, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Congar became a regular collaborator with the Young Christian Workers teams in the Mouscron region of Belgium and also in the Lille region of France, just across the border.
In fact, Congar preached regular retreats for YCW leaders during those years.
In 1975, he described those early contacts with the YCW and with Cardijn as "decisive" in his orientation as a theologian.
After World War II, Congar remained close to the YCW in France, writing in the publication Masses Ouvrières, and was also sought after as a speaker by many other lay movements including the YCS (JEC), JAC (Rural YCW), the ACO (Workers Catholic Action) and Catholic intellectual groups.
In 1949, Cardijn invited Congar and Chenu along with other Belgian theologians and philosophers to a meeting at Tourneppe to discuss various controversial issues then facing the emerging International YCW.
During this period, Congar was also close to the worker priests in France, many of whom were also Dominicans. Indeed, this was undoubtedly one of the key reasons that Congar was eventually sent to England, to Cambridge University for a year "to cool his heels" in the midst of the crisis that led to the closing down of the worker priest experience by the Holy See.
None of this, however, affected the relationship between Congar and Cardijn.
Upon becoming cardinal, Cardijn sought Congar's assistance in the drafting of his eventual speeches at Vatican II.
Here is some of the documentation and letters that shed light on their collaboration.


Our inbox has been full of news about exciting databases where we can learn more about slaves – where they are buried, who owned them and much more. Additionally, we have been reminded what a great resource Afrigeneas is – the Facebook page for that organization has been humming recently with news. A few other great resources that jump to mind are then listed.
And, remember, any database about slaves is also, at a certain level, a database about slave owners and vice-versa. Learning about everyone who was involved with slavery benefits all research!
Burial Database Project of Enslaved African American Ancestors (Fordham University) – for this project you can both learn about slave burying grounds and also submit information about such.
Help us identify, document and memorialize burial grounds of enslaved African Americans. Burial grounds of enslaved African Americans are disappearing from the American landscape, taking with them history, heritage and a people's place in the world. You can help us protect these sacred places.
Colonial slavery shaped modern Britain and we all still live with its legacies. The slave-owners were one very important means by which the fruits of slavery were transmitted to metropolitan Britain. We believe that research and analysis of this group are key to understanding the extent and the limits of slavery's role in shaping British history and leaving lasting legacies that reach into the present. The stories of enslaved men and women, however, are no less important than those of slave-owners, and we hope that the encyclopaedia produced in the first phase of the project, while at present primarily a resource for studying slave-owners, will also provide information of value to those researching enslaved people.
Do you know of another recently announced or "classic" African-American research resource? Please do share and post a comment!


Welcome to ELDORADO STEAKHOUSE. Located in the center of Anytown's historic shopping and arts district, ELDORADO STEAKHOUSE serves up Anytown's finest foods 365 days a year. At ELDORADO STEAKHOUSE, every dish is created using only the freshest, finest ingredients. We never use frozen ingredients. There is no microwave oven at ELDORADO STEAKHOUSE. We serve only the choicest meats and seafood, vegetables fresh from the farm, and breads and pastries that are baked fresh daily. Our fun and tasty menu makes ELDORADO STEAKHOUSE your home away from home.
Open everyday from 11 a.m. to 12 a.m.
Content copyright . ELDORADOSTEAKHOUSE.COM. All rights reserved.


text:
DIAND Supports Moose Cree Sustainable Forestry Venture
February 21, 2003 • By tsa
The Moose Cree First Nation has received $650,800 from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to pursue a sustainable forestry license. This is in response to the Northern Boreal Initiative, which provides First Nations communities with opportunities "to take a leading role in the development of new sustainable commercial forestry opportunities."
The project has been in the works on the part of the Moose Cree's corporate entity, the Moose Band Development Corporation, since 1996. The money was earmarked years ago to continue exploring the feasibility of developing forestry operations in the area designated as the Moose Cree Management Unit. The area in question is 1.1 million hectares of land, north of the 51st parallel. Ontario does not use terminology like category I, II or III lands. Whatever is native land is just that and for years the government has done pretty much whatever it wants with this native land.
Lillian Trapper, the land and resources coordinator for the Moose Cree, says that "half our territory is in the area of the undertaking, and this is where the MNR (ministry of natural resources) has the trap lines set up and all kinds of forestry going on in there, with settlements and roads. There is a plan for all of this but we weren't involved in that at all. They have set up trap line systems and they have non-aboriginal trappers on those trap lines and we are not aware of who those trappers are."
The area north of the invisible 51st parallel is a "wild roadless area" to the government, "one of the last great intact forests on earth," home to caribou, bears, wolves and wolverines. It is untouched and unknown by anyone but the trappers and hunters who use it.
Trapper says that "because there is no land use plan and no environmental assessment in this area, it offers great opportunities to do things differently and to ensure that this part of the world is still here for those seven generations ahead. This is the thinking that we are trying to keep in mind all the time".
Thus far the Moose Cree Management Unit is considered as having an ample supply of softwood for a viable sustainable forestry operation, with over 204,800 cubic metres a year. Trapper was quick to point out that "the initial inventory was high, but there are a lot of other issues to be addressed which will probably bring that number down, such as trapping, traditional land use areas, wildlife areas, sacred areas – all this information still needs to be gathered. There is no commitment yet. We are still exploring the options and. forestry is just one resource development we are looking at."
At the same time the Land and Resources people are gathering their part of the information, the Moose Band Development Corporation is gathering the scientific data: the annual growth and yield of the trees, the various species of trees and plants, soil samples and animal tracking. Ruth Biederman, the business manager for the corporation, says that "we are being slowed down right now by the province, because of the environmental assessment. And I don't know what kind of impact that will have on our area because the area has never been touched. In the meantime we are going ahead with the inventory."
Once all the results are in, a land use plan will be developed. Then comes the task of taking it to the membership in extensive consultations. Chief Norm Hardisty has stipulated that first and foremost in their thinking is that if the environment is not properly taken care of with thought for the next seven generations, then it is not a viable business venture. He also mentioned that it must be approached based on a community consensus, which involves educating people about sustainable forestry.
"When people think of forestry, they think of all the clear-cutting out in B.C.," says Trapper. "We need to ensure that each person who is out on the land, each family, is well informed to make wise decisions as to what they want to see happen, whether it is forestry or something else."
The initial consultations have shown that the people are interested in the potential job development, and that they are just as concerned about the potential environmental impacts.
There are a few more hoops to jump through before they can apply for the sustainable forestry license, which would be the first by any First Nation. Biederman is optimistic. "We're hoping the province won't take too long and hopefully we can log in maybe 2-3 years," she says. "It's all subjective to what the Moose Cree want."


Convocation will take place in downtown, Spokane, Washington, October 30-November 2, 2020! This is the first time NRVC Pacific Northwest members will host Convocation. Consider coming a few days early or staying later for the same amazing hotel rate of $109 per night. Our hotel, the Davenport Grand, is located next to the Spokane Falls, west of the Rocky Mountain Foothills. The airport is just 8 miles from the airport and the hotel offers complimentary shuttle service to/from GEG airport. Enjoy this video clip offered by the travel bureau https://vimeo.com/289740332.


Academic Staff of Moshood Abiola Polytechnic, under the aegis of the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, has resumed its industrial action after the expiration of two weeks it gave the authorities to meet some its demands.
The two weeks given the state government to meet some of its demands lapsed last Friday.
The lecturers had also alleged threat to their lives as they claimed that some unregistered vehicles had been sighted within the school premises, a development they claimed was breach of security arrangement.
He further alleged that those unregistered vehicles had, on two occasions traced him to the junction of his residence.
Abiola said the members of the union were no more willing to offer their services until the government comply with their demands.
It will be recalled that the lecturers and the state government had been at loggerheads over the announcement of the upgrading MAPOLY to Moshood Abiola University of Science and Technology.
While the government also announced the establishment of the Ogun State Polytechnic, Ipokia. The contention had been what would be the role of the lecturers in the new MAUSTECH.
The government said those who wish to lecture at MAUSTECH would have to re-apply and if they met the requirements, they would be accommodated. While those among them who wanted to continue with the new polytechnic at Ipokia, would move there without re-applying.
Some of the lecturers were however not comfortable with the option of resigning and re-applying for their upgrade to MAUSTECH, as they argued that their years of service at MAPOLY, might no longer count for them.
Abiola alleged that the policy of the government to upgrade MAPOLY to a university status has affected the school negatively.
According to him, salaries are not being paid since the school operated majorly on school fees while prospective students were not willing to seek admission into the school since the announcement of the upgrade.
"Do they want us to start selling mats? Do they want us to start selling out students to get money?
"And for a school that has been running on school fees, now students are not coming. More than 7,500 were offered admission into HND, only 132 has responded to come to the school.


10 yr old with mock disappointment: "93"
10 yr old with mock-er disappointment: "96"
Family: "And what about Rahul?"
10 yr old with a wide grin and thumbs-down: "0"
10 yr old with absolute delight: "Chicken Pox. He didn't come to the school at all."
Family smiles nastily as if Rahul has acted foolish by contracting chicken pox.
And all this in the name of a "public awareness campaign" for a Chicken Pox vaccine. I would request the great people behind this ad to spare us their concern for our well-being. Some other child falling sick should raise nothing else but compassion in everyone. But these amazingly conceited people make completely innocent kids act mean and selfish and derive happiness out of others' sufferings on screen. This message is then telecast to millions of impressionable minds.
World is mean and materialistic enough. We definitely don't need such blatant pokes on our subconscious to make it worse. I wonder what kind of human beings wrote the script of this irresponsible ad and who approved it. People with such sadistic approach to life should not be on such important positions.
Thanks, but no thanks. We are better unaware than being aware like this. Less of us are likely to die of chicken pox than of meanness and unkindness in the next year.


text:
MOVIERAPTURE
Cocktail (1988)
Directed by Roger Donaldson
Artistic & Entertainment Value
Rent DVDs online!
In the USA: In the UK:
Brian Flanagan (Tom Cruise), an avaricious young man who has just been discharged from the military, takes a job as a bartender while trying to figure out how he can enrich himself. Later, after he has a fight with his new best friend and fellow bartender, Doug (Bryan Brown), Brian relocates to Jamaica, where he meets Jordan (Elisabeth Shue) and begins to fall in love with her.
Roger Donaldson's Cocktail is so dull and hackneyed that there is relatively little I can say about it. The narrative is entirely formulaic and predictable. The acting ranges from mediocre to atrocious, and, visually, the movie is utterly uninteresting.
The film's characters are particularly painful to watch. All are either nasty or contrived, and, as a consequence, not one of them is engaging. Brian, for instance, is such a smarmy, materialistic creature that he is absolutely repulsive. The other characters may not be as irritating as is the movie's hero, but that is only because they so forgettable. Both Doug and Jordan are more tools by means of which the story is advanced than individuals. Donaldson thus initially presents Doug as a likeable scoundrel and then exposes how hurtful and obnoxious the character really is. He even tries to bother the moviegoer by showing how that villain prospers when he marries a wealthy woman. Apparently, he does all this only in order to build tension and, later, to create a sense of satisfaction when he depicts Doug's inevitable comeuppance. Jordan is even more of a non-entity. She exists only to provide an object towards which Brian can direct his affections. Sadly, their romance is consistently prosaic. There is not any part of it that the viewer will not be able to foresee.
What is more, the director's efforts to make his vile characters likeable are so juvenile, so clumsy, and so false that, rather than allowing the viewer to involve himself with Cocktail, they are more likely to annoy him. There are, however, a few times when Donaldson's ham-handedness may make the moviegoer laugh. In one scene, for instance, after the director has revealed that Brian is a completely generic and vacuous person, he has Jordan mention how unique her new boyfriend is. Perhaps her line was meant to be sarcastic, but I do not think it was.
Lastly, I should note that the performances of the leads are never able to add any appeal to the nasty, superficial persons they are playing. While Brown and Shue are just unmemorable, Cruise is agonizingly wooden. I actually felt a little embarrassed for him when I was watching the film's opening scenes. After a moment's reflection, however, I felt sorrier for those who, for whatever reason, had had the misfortune to see the actor's performance.
There really is nothing good to say about Cocktail. It is just dreadful.
Review by Keith Allen
Home Page / Alphabetical List of Films
List of Films by Star Ratings
Aesthetic Principles / Guide to Ratings
Criteria for Inclusion / DVD Stores / Blog
© 2005 movierapture@hotmail.com Keith Allen. All rights reserved.


India Computers Buyers Directory provides list of India Computers importers, buyers and purchasers who wanted to import computers in India.
we are in this business in last 15 years, sold old and new computers, laptop. deals in all type of computers parts.
I m Dealing in Computer Hardware. & Provide Servie to At School Collage & Many Other Government & Non Government Department . I Also Deling In Software .
OUR COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE SALES OF COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER PARTS I AM LOOKIN FOR THE INTEL CHIPSET MOTHER BOARD00 370 SOCKET.
I am looking for Software, Computer Software, Accounting Software, Calculating Software, Programming Software.
At Hourglass IT solutions, we provide website design, web app development, IT consulting, outsourcing & digital marketing services to the clients in India.
GET HRM is one among the best HR Software Solutions that help businesses to automate online HRMS needs at one place- employee, leave, payroll, and attendance management.
Sai Santosh Technology is an advanced Institute of Digital Marketing Course . It is the subsidiary concern of Advanced Group of Institutions, which was established.


Bokaro: Jharkhand lacks vision in sustainable utilization of fly ash produced in its thermal power plants.
This is not only causing serious environment threat, but also fail in attracting investors and companies engaged in manufacturing of fly ash based products in the state. In this scenario when environment protection has become a major issue across the globe, ignorance of state government over proper utilization of fly ash is a matter of concern.
proper utilization of fly ash, Jharkhand lacks vision".
Mal who is also permanent invitee member of Fly Ash and Slag Committee of Niti Aayog said "Fly ash, which is produced during burning of coals in thermal power plants and seen as industrial waste about a decade ago, is now been identified as a commodity that is wealth generator. Sustainable utilization of fly ash would not only save environment, but also boost industrialization with coming of fly-ash products manufacturers in this region".
electricity generation, India depends mostly 60% on coal based thermal power plants. "Utilization of fly ash has become a need," said Mal.
Mal visited Bokaro on Thursday and met with the CEO, Bokaro Power Supply Company Private Limited (BPSCL), K Harinarayana, head of environment, Bokaro Steel Plant (BSL), Navin Prakash Srivastava and district disaster management officer, Shakti Kumar. He discussed the initiatives took by them related to utilization of fly ash.
Mal raised concern over abundance of fly ash being dumped in ponds or mounds in power plants here. "Even Niti Aayog is acquainted with fly ash utilization problems in Jharkhand," he added.
In Bokaro, there are four power plants. BPSCL produces 7 lakh tonnes of fly ash every year, state-run- Tenughat Thermal Power Plant has a fly ash production of 5 lakh tonnes and Chandrapura Thermal and Bokaro Thermal Power Stations, the two units of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), produces 14 and 5 lakh tonnes respectively in a year.


Find your future at Sonic with competitive pay and benefits plus, – and this is a no brainer – free Sonic-Drive In Meals!
Lauren McNeese is our General Manager of the Sonic Drive-In located at 4320 W 45th Street in Amarillo, Texas. Lauren is from the area and graduated high school from Vega, Texas. She has been with the Castleberry Group since 2009. Lauren went to Amarillo College and graduated from the vocational nursing program. She began studies at West Texas A&M University for nursing when she was hired on at our Washington Street Sonic location in Amarillo.
During the summer of 2009, Lauren worked her way up in the store becoming an Assistant Manager. At that point, she decided she enjoyed working with the management team for Sonic and changed her career path to focus on training to become a General Manager. She says she likes the fast pace of Sonic, working with the numbers, and most importantly building a good team of people. She feels she is part of the Sonic family and embraces the challenge of managing her own store.
Lauren has been a General Manager for three years now. Her store is seeing positive sales growth and she is proud of her current team of employees. She says they are very energetic, friendly and outgoing. Her team likes to get to know the customers on a first name basis and helps to create a positive atmosphere to be a part of. Her store creates another Sonic family feel, as Lauren is a mentor to her employees. She wants to be a support for them, whether their job with Sonic is short term during high school or college or if they are individuals who come in and find they want to pursue a career. She wants to be a part of that journey and help her employees achieve their goals.
Lauren also takes pride in being a part of the Amarillo community. She feels that the Castleberry Group gives back to the schools and local charitable organizations and she enjoys helping in those areas whenever and however she can.
During her time off, Lauren enjoys reading, baking and gardening. She loves to be outside whenever she can, participates in tennis, and watches as many football games as possible. Lauren and her fiancé, Tony, are expecting their first child in May this year. Lauren is a valued member of the Castleberry Group and we have enjoyed watching her success.
Rhett Garvin is our Owner/Operator of the Sonic Drive-In located in Childress, Texas. Rhett graduated from Lander University in 2004 with a Dual Degree: Bachelor's in Marketing/Management and a Bachelor's in Finance. He has been with the Castleberry Group since November 2013.
Rhett's background is in the retail business. He worked at Walmart for 12 years before he joined the Sonic team. He moved numerous times during his time with Walmart, starting off as an hourly employee during Christmas while going to college. He then worked his way up until he became a part of the regional team for their Inventory Management System. He became a trainer, teaching other store managers how to operate the systems and make a profit.
With Rhett's experience in management, inventory and training, his transition into the Sonic operations was positive. Rhett began his time with Sonic in Mangum, Oklahoma. He worked into the General Manager position and stayed at that location for 18 months. He then relocated to our store in Stillwater, Oklahoma on 6th street, managing that store for 14 months.
At both Sonic locations, Rhett demonstrated strong leadership skills and the ability to run a sound store with operational expertise with increased sales and profitability. Rhett has always been a high achiever and loves a challenge. When the opportunity for Childress, Texas was presented, he made the decision to take on the chance to grow with the company as a Managing Partner by rebuilding the business in Childress. He has been in Childress for 13 months now and recently opened the new store after tearing down the existing building. His wife, Kimberly of 16 years also works for the Castleberry Group as an Assistant Manager for Childress. The store is on the rise showing significant sales increases and increased traffic. He and the Sonic team are looking forward to a successful 2018.
Rhett has two sons and three daughters; Haddon is 17, Bryson 16, Emily-Grace 13, Kalynn 11, and Olivia who is 10. His son Bryson also works at the Childress Sonic Drive-In. Rhett loves the Lord, reads the Bible daily, and watches all sports as often as he can. We are proud to have Rhett as a member of the Castleberry Group.
Dean Leal is one of our owners and a Supervisor for western Oklahoma. Dean worked in the oil and gas industry prior to working for Sonic. Dean's father-in-law, franchisee, David Castleberry had mentioned that he was needing some managers in the Oklahoma market. Dean was interested, he had never managed and supervised a group of employees but was willing to learn and felt he would have a great mentor with David Castelberry.
He began his Sonic journey in Clinton, Oklahoma as Co-Manager in January of 1985. He and his wife, Linda, were sent to Sonic Management School and after that training Dean became the General Manager. He was later transferred to the Sayre, Oklahoma Sonic. In 1986, Dean moved to the Elk City Sonic location where he trained for the new store and was sold stock in the Elk City location. He managed that store for 10 years and was then promoted to Supervising Partner over the Western Oklahoma Sonics.
Dean loves working with his group of managers and feels like they are part of his family. In fact, that is what he loves the best about working for the Castleberry Group is the close family values it has with all of the management teams both in Oklahoma and Texas. Dean is part of a solid foundation of the Castleberry Group in Oklahoma and brings 33 years of experience to our team. Dean has been recognized as Turn Around Supervisor of the year for the Castleberry Group and actually managed the first store in our group to run $1 million in sales.
Dean's favorite menu item is the Super Sonic Double Cheeseburger with jalapeños and the chili cheese tator tots come in for a close second. His hobbies are spending time with his family, road trips on his Harley, gardening and making his delicious homade candy that he enjoys sharing with his managers. Dean has been married to his wife, Linda, for 32 years. They have two children, Dava and David Jr. and five grandchildren, Kadin, Kylie, Brock, Heidi and Maddi Kay.
We are looking for professional, highly motivated individuals who are interested in joining a goal-oriented company with extremely high standards. We offer career opportunities at all levels of management.


I've written about the difficulties of finding time to write day in and day out. Jobs, family, pets, books to read, and … what else? … oh, yes! … wife and friends. The priority list can be long.
Or it needs to be short.
The question is, How serious are you about your writing career? Hours in the day can be shaved; you can learn to write a AT LEAST a few paragraphs every day. Remember, "one page per day and I'll have 7/8 of a book in a year." That's the pattern, that's the goal, that's the priority that must top the list. And you'll still have time for everyone else in your life. Reading good books, too!
Today I had my 3rd writing day in a row. Saturday & Sunday morning, and Monday afternoon (stretching into early evening). That's a total of sixteen hours or so. Today I was hot because yesterday I took a few afternoon hours to set myself up for today's writing. When I got home from teaching two classes (money!), I had a snack and then sat down.
Did the blank screen frighten me? NO! I didn't have a blank screen because I had a place where I had left off, and I had notes and story chunks to bring me further. This is all part of the preparation and continuance of deep thinking about your project. If you never let it go (for long), then it's always going to be with you … and, with a project that can take two years or more, I need to live with my characters, the places in which they live and move, the ideas and emotions they encounter.
When writing is good, try to follow it up with more writing. The next day; the next afternoon; or the next evening. Just a few paragraphs on a scrap of paper while on the train can be a great encouragement for that upcoming day where you have a whole block of HOURS to write.
Short-answer, short-comment, dialogue is effective to communicate a single idea through the personalities of your characters. Allow your story to tell itself. Don't allow "line-length" to dictate how your scene plays itself out.


For the original Summer Maiden, also called Summer, see Maidens.
Summer Rose is Ruby Rose's deceased mother and was the leader of Team STRQ. Her gravestone is at a cliff in the Cliffside Forest.
As revealed in "Burning the Candle", Yang Xiao Long is Ruby's half-sister, making Summer Yang's stepmother. Summer is believed to have died prior to the start of the series, possibly during her final mission.
According to Yang, Summer was a highly skilled Huntress. Yang also reveals that she was part of Team STRQ alongside Taiyang Xiao Long and the Branwen twins, Raven and Qrow Branwen. Yang describes Summer as a "super mom" and still fondly remembers her cookies.
Summer almost appeared to be the spitting image of Ruby, having the same silver eyes, fair complexion, and graduating black-into-red hair. In "Our Way" as part of her daughter's flashback, she had shoulder length hair tied back in a half-up/half-down style and wore a similar outfit to her daughter's but all-black, and a hooded cloak which is white outside and red underneath.
In a photograph of her in her younger days with Team STRQ, Summer's face was partially obscured by her cloak, as well as much of her outfit aside from part of a black pleated skirt, which was similar to her daughter's style. In comparison to the rest of her old team, she appeared to be the shortest.
Yang described Summer at best as an attentive mother to both her and Ruby. Despite Yang acknowledging that she was not Summer's biological daughter, she seemed to have a profound love for her as Summer cared for Yang like her own. In "The More the Merrier", Raven notes that Ruby shares some ideals with Summer, believing in working together to beat Salem.
Summer was a skilled Huntress, going on missions until her presumed death. In addition to being a "Super-Mom", Summer was described as a "slayer of giant monsters" by Yang.
Summer, and by extension her daughter Ruby, comes from a line of warriors who possess powerful abilities related to their Silver Eyes. The extent of their power is unknown, but according to an ancient legend, those with Silver Eyes were destined to be warriors, and the Grimm feared them. It is gathered that Silver Eyes are capable of blinding, petrifying and even disintegrating Grimm.
Her name derives from the poem The Last Rose of Summer by Thomas Moore, as evidenced by the epitaph on her gravestone: "Summer Rose/Thus Kindly, I Scatter", a line from the poem. In the poem, all of the rose's companions are dead, and the writer promises to help the rose join them.
Summer's name follows the naming conventions of Remnant in two different ways. "Summer" is one of the four calendar seasons, usually characterized by warm weather, which brings warm colors to mind. "Rose" is a type of flower that can be found in various colors, such as red and white.
According to Jeff Williams, Summer's gravestone in the "Red" Trailer originally had no story significance, as when he questioned Monty Oum about who was in the grave, Monty replied "I don't know. We just thought it would be cool if she visited a grave". Jeff went on to ask "What if it's her mom?" to which Monty answered "That's cool".
Summer and Ruby share the same emblem design.
Though on the show both emblems are shown as gray due to being carved in either metal or stone, Ruby's is seen to be red on other RWBY media.
Aside from her overall look and Emblem, Ruby also shares her mother's last name instead of her father's, the reason for this is unknown.
Summer and Ruby also share the ability to emit rose petals.
Unlike Ruby's solid red petals, Summer's are two-toned, just like her cloak.
Ruby's reaction to her death is told in the first set of lyrics in "Red Like Roses Part II".
Likewise, the second verse of the song is told from Summer's perspective, stating her regret for having left her daughter behind.
The vocalists in the song are mother and daughter, with the Ruby lyrics sung by Casey Lee Williams and the Summer lyrics sung by her mother, Sandy Lee Casey.
Could Summer be inspired by Sypha Belnades from Castlevania 3?


The glamorous digital photography below, is segment of 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro New Release editorial which is classified within Audi, and posted at June 21st, 2018 11:28:57 AM by admin.
The 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro has the road manners of another kind of car but don't worry, it still works well as a crossover. The 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro lets down safety shoppers with relatively poor crash-test results. It overcompensates with features: leather, navigation, a tow package, and forward-collision warnings with automatic emergency braking.
With its better than average exterior, we give the 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro a 6 for styling. We still like the 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro pert sheet metal, six model years into its life span. It's an urban running shoe, trading off some ground-hugging lines for a tall roofline, a strike thrown right down the middle between rugged SUV and darty liftback.
Swoopy lines say everything you need to know about the 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro performance. It acts more like a zippy hatchback than crossover SUV, especially when it's fitted with the more powerful turbocharged engine. Offers a simple system that splits power between the front and rear wheels, and can move power between them as wheelslip is sensed. The 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro New Release can clamp its front brakes individually to simulate torque-vectoring, and to help the crossover corner more effectively.
The differences between the two illustrate perfectly how expressive styling can rob interior room. The 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro has a deep, heavily sculpted dash compared to the Honda; in the dash cuts into front knee room, and its footwells taper. There's plenty of head room, but the 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro available panoramic sunroof has a deep mount, which slices into head room.
Rivals are more fuel-efficient than the 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro, but gas mileage isn't bad. 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro wins over crossover-SUV buyers with myriad features.
Here is crucial notification on . We have the tops substance for . Check it out for yourself! You can find New 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro First Drive guide and read the latest 2018 Audi A3 20T Quattro New Release in here.