PADI Divers carry the most respected and sought after scuba credentials in the world. No matter where you choose to dive, your PADI certification card will be recognized and accepted. In fact, on most dive adventures you'll be surrounded by other PADI Divers who made the same certification choice you did - to train with the world's largest and most respected diver training organization. PADI courses are designed to make learning enjoyable and worthwhile. You get in and under the water quickly, scuba diving. Under the guidance of your professional PADI Instructor, you gain confidence while mastering important safety concepts and skills. You pick up key information as well as helpful tips by interacting with PADI educational materials - manual, videos, workbooks, multimedia discs, etc. Credentialed instructional designers use state-of-the-art technology and learning theories to create PADI materials with you, the student diver, in mind.


text:
Q: Что нужно сделать, чтобы при изменения размера, страница была по середине? Подскажите пожалуйста, как сделать так, чтобы при изменение размера странице, все содержимое было привязано к центру, а не расходилось по бокам?

body {
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0 auto;
  display: block;
  float: center;
  width: 100%;
}

header {
  background-color: #EAEAEA;
  height: 669px;
}

a {
  padding: 0px;
  margin: 0px;
  text-decoration: none;
}

div {
  box-sizing: border-box;
  padding: 0px;
  margin: 0px;
}

.menu a {
  color: #222222;
}

.menu {
  float: right;
}

#now {
  color: #00CCC7;
}

li {
  display: block;
  float: left;
  margin-right: 30px;
}

Home

About

Contact

Project single

Если в body изменять параметр width, то все нормально, но если его поставить на 100%, то все притягивается по краям, а единое значение я не могу задать, так как у всех экраны разные.
Как можно это исправить?

A: Вам нужно завести класс .container к которому вы привяжите ширину для определенных устройств при помощи @media, пример как это выглядит:

.container {
  margin: 0 auto;
  width: 1170px;
}

    Hello world

Далее для различных экранов, например, для desktop разрешения (1280px) вы можете задать ширину Вашего контейнера в 1170px(к примеру), для планшетов(712px), так же, к примеру, Вы можете задать разрешение контейнера 460px

P.S. Все числа брались "наобум", вместо того, чтобы пытаться
  настраивать правила @media для конкретных устройств, возможно, более
  целесообразно использовать их на Вашем конкретном макете. То есть,
  постепенно сокращайте окно рабочего стола браузера и наблюдайте
  естественные точки (breakpoints) для Вашего контента. Они отличаются
  для каждого сайта.

A:

.container {
  margin: 0 auto;
  max-width: 1200px;
  width:100%;
  padding:0 15px;
  display: block;
}

    Hello world

Можно задать максимальную ширину включая внутренние отступы и вам не нужно будет добавлять медиа запросы

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I have a Multipatch model that an outside firm created for CityEngine of our Campus Buildings.
I need to turn them off because they are horribly ugly.
In the attached image of one of the buildings the only view setting that is one is texture. If these lines are part of the texture why dont they show in ArcScene?
If I turn the wireframes on the texture on the lines that im calling the "wireframe" appear to become the true wireframe and are shown in black instead of grey.
Further more I cant import any multipatches into CE 2015.0, spoke to ESRI already and the ticket is still open.
This should alleviate your problem (hopefully!).
First, make a backup of your scene.
If your buildings are part of the shapes layer, then apply the below rule (also attached).
If the buildings are on the model layer then select them, and in shapes menu, do convert models to shapes, and then run the rule.
I hope the first one solves your problem. The settings shown there are the ones that generally control the view port in CE.
Yes the Wireframe on textured IS turned off. I have already ran cleanup Shapes. BUT I cant find solid documentation on how to determine what valuse to use for distance tolerance and angle tolerance. With out more info Im not sure how to determine it... The Help doc says to use the defaults... I bumped them up iterativel untill I got to a distance of 1 and a angle of 10.... No changes what so ever... Im going to keep bumping away and try to see where the tipping point is. Very frustrating. Thank you for your reply.
How many layers are there in the Scene? Is it just this one?
Do the lines appear in snap shots taken in CE?
It is possible that different combinations of the show Shapes vs. Models buttons might get rid of the lines.
Currently the only other item in the scene is a multipatch that is being used to create a high resolution basemap that originated from a TIN with hard line breaks. I created the Multipatch in house and made sure to use the best practices. The big issue there is that when I start toggling things on and off it effects the appearance of that layer. But I havent had any success with my experiments either. Ive pretty much exhausted the obvious I think.
btw its all helpful cause at minimum I know that I was moving in the right direction. Im wondering if its a behind the scenes issue with the vendor not meeting the EXACT CE criteria for proper creation :/ which will put a bee in my bonnet to be nice.
Thank you so much worked beautifully and exactly as described!
Thanks Chris. I was curious if it had something to do with the shape and model layers. At least the general process is outlined in this thread.
Also there are other shape manipulation tools that might be helpful that are spelled out in the documentation. I did not think of it but clean up shapes might help do something similar. I am not sure though.
Chris what does the rule do in this case? Is it just sending it to a empty leaf that casts the shape as it is as a shape rather than a static model?
Clean up shapes even at the defaults skewed my shapes but looks like in the right scenario would be valuable.
Got it. I think the rule application might be the best solution then. It might be any rule application would have a similar effect.
What happens when you apply another shell rule generally? If you have any to test it.
Shapes display with those lines. Models don't. And rules convert Shapes to models.
I have no idea what types of objects Shapes or Models are internally so I wouldn't apply the concept of casting here.
I haven't done OOP in years, so I really don't remember much about casting. Search the terms implements, interface, and casting, and you'll find details of that.
I guess what is confusing me is that I thought when imported they start as static models, and as part of the process you converted them to shapes, then applied a rule to make a rule based model in CE.
I was just using the word casting trying to understand if you were molding one type of object into another with a rule application. It sounds like any rule would work for this purpose. I did some experimentation and came up with this image. The raw DAE model does not have the lines (static model), converted to shapes does, but when the rule is applied and sent to X. it also does not have the lines but also is a little different (likely just a result of certain shapes being sent to white blank leafs). It the three combinations that is a little confusing.
Thanks for the help Chris! It makes a little more sense now.


text:
Za druge pomene glejte Stryker (razločitev)

Brigadna bojna skupina Stryker  (; kratica SBCT) je tip mehanizirane brigadne bojne skupine, ki jo je razvila Kopenska vojska Združenih držav Amerike.

Zgodovina razvoja
Velika pogostnost skupnih kontingentnih operacij v 90. letih 20. stoletje (rezultat globalne nestabilnosti in napetosti v po času po koncu hladne vojne in zmanjševanje ameriških oboroženih sil je razkrila območje, na katerem bo morala delovati Kopenska vojska Združenih držav Amerike s hitrim odzivom na nastale krize. Tako je leta 1999 ASPG naložil KOV ZDA, da vzpostavi sistem za bolj strateško odzivanje; tako so začeli delati na razvoju STRIKE FORCE (udarne sile).

V ta namen so morali spremeniti strukturo kopenske vojske, tako da so ustanovili enote za hitro posredovanje z organiziranjem Task Force, ki bi združevala različne rodove kopenske vojske: AC/RC, specialne sile, regularne pehotne enote, mehanizirane enote in lahke enote.

Udarna sila bi morala biti zmožna delovati globalno s sestavo, ki bi združevela bojne, bojno podporne in zaledne enote, ki bi bile zmožne opravljati strateške hitroposredovalne operacije v podporo skupnih kontingentov. Zmožna opravljati vse naloge v kriznih situacijah je Udarna sila namenjena za opravljanje manjših kontingentnih operacij ter zmanjšati ali odpraviti krizo s sodelovanjem z vojaškimi, skupnimi, mednarodnim in medagencijskimi silami; prav tako lahko podpira ključne ofenzivne ali defenzivne operacije in izvaja humanitarne akcije. Prav tako poveljstvo Udarne sile služi kot osnova za razvoj novih formacij.

Oktobra 1999 je Načelnik Generalštaba Kopenske vojske ZDA general Eric Ken Shinseki objavil, da bo KOV ZDA vzpostavila dve tehnološko razviti, hitroposredovalni in bojni brigadi v Fort Lewisu, z znanjem, ki ga je razvila Force XXI in privatni oborožitveni sektor (industrija). Težka gosenična vozila (tanki in oklepni transporterji) bodo bila nadomeščena z lažjimi, hitrejšimi, bolj uporabnimi kolesnimi oklepnimi vozili. Celotna brigadna bojna skupina bi morala biti zmožna posredovati kjerkoli na svetu v 96 urah po vzletu iz matične baze, divizija v 120 urah in pet divizij v 30 dneh. Ti dve začetni brigadi bosta bili zgrajeni na konceptu Udarne sile, z glavnim poudarkom na zmožnostjo hitrega posredovanja, kot bojna modularna sila za operacijske naloge kjerkoli na svetu.

Prvi dve začetni brigadni bojni skupini (angleško Initial Brigade Combat Teams; kratica IBCT) vmesne sile (angleško Interim Force; pokriva vse IBCT) sta bila ustanovljeni v Fort Lewisu (Washington) z reorganizacijo 3. brigade 2. pehotne divizije in 1. brigade 25. pehotne divizije. Skupaj naj bi ustanovili 6 ICTjev, od katerih bi bila ena v rezervi; večina naj bi delovala na področju Pacifika.

Vmesna sila naj ne bi bila sila za zgodnje posredovanje (angleško Early-entry Force), ampak formacija, ki bi zapolnila vrzel med silami za zgodnje posredovanje (po navadi specialne sile) in težjimi enotami, ki pridejo pozneje (npr. oklepne enote); v tem času mora imeti dovolj ognjene moči, mobilnosti ter prilagodljivosti na vse možne situacije.

Šole Poveljništva Kopenske vojske ZDA za usposabljanje in doktrino so razvile novo doktrino in postopke usposabljanja za IBCT. Nekaj usposabljanja bo v obliki simulacij preko izobraževalnega sistema kopenske vojske na daljavo. V razvoju je tudi šolski sistem za podčastnike in častnike ter izobraževanje za učenje delovanja enot.

Med razvojem prihodnjega bojnega sistema bodo IBCT opremljene z vmesnimi oklepnimi vozili (angleško Interim Armored Vehicles); tako da bo cena za opremo, izobraževanje ter orožje ene IBCT narasla do 1.5 milijarde $. Sprva so IBCT delovala z oklepnimi vozili, ki so se jih izposodili v tujini kot nadomestek za prihajajoče vmesne oklepne vozila.

Kopenska vojska Združenih držav Amerike načrtuje, da bo celotena Vmesna sila usposobljena med 2008 in 2012; do takrat naj bi pridobili vso potrebno tehnologijo za IBCT. Med to novo tehnologijo je tudi nadomestilo za 70-tonski tank M1 Abrams, ki naj bi imelo isto ognjeno moč in odpornost kot tank, toda z težo le 20 ton (pozno 2005, zgodaj 2006 naj bi proizvedli tako vozilo za testne potrebe).

SBCT je polno zmogljiva, kolesna bojna sila, ki se lahko uporabi v vseh operacijskih okoljih proti vsem možnim grožnjam. Toda zasnovana je bila primarno za uporabo v manjših kontingentnih operacijah v težkih in urbanih naseljih v kriznih situacijah (manjše in srednje intenzitete), v katerih bi izvajali konvencionalno in asimetrično bojevanje. IBCT hitro posreduje, izpelje hitri vstop v krizno področje in izvaja operativne naloge neposredno od pristanka naprej z namenom preprečiti, omejiti, stabilizirati ali končati konfliktno situacijo z uporabo kratkih, a natančnih operacij. Tako sodeluje v vojni kot podrejeni maneverski del divizije oz. korpusa.

SBCT je divizijska brigada. Zasnovana je, da izkoristi organizacijsko uporabnost in da uskladi tradicionalne koncepte ognjene oči, mobilnosti in preživetje s koncepti hitrega posredovanja, razporeditve, minimalne navezanosti na območje. Največji prednosti SBCT sta visoka mobilnost (strateška, operacijska in taktična) in zmožnost opravljanja natančne pehotne akcije).

Da doseže prag hitrega posredovanja, SBCT uporablja vozila na isti osnovi (visokomobilno, srednje težko, bojno in/ali
nosilec oborožitvenih sistemov) z minimalizacijo osebja in logistične podpore. Tako IBCT ima v sestavi okoli 3.500 vojakov, ki se vkrcajo v letala tako, da lahko neposredno po pristanku začnejo izvajati bojne naloge.

Bojna uporaba
Trenutno obe operativni SBCT sodelujeta v operaciji Iraška svoboda.

Struktura in organizacija
 poveljstvo in prištabna četa
 pehotni bataljon
 pehotna četa
 pehotni vod
 pehotni vod
 pehotni vod
 minometni oddelek (81 mm)
 MGS vod
 ostrostrelska ognjena ekipa
 pehotna četa
 pehotna četa
 pehotni bataljon
 pehotni bataljon
 konjeniški RSTA bataljon
 poljski artilerijski bataljon
 protitankovska četa
 inženirski bataljon
 komunikacijska četa
 vojaška obveščevalna četa
 brigadni podporni bataljon

Seznam SBCT-jev
 3. brigada, 2. pehotna divizija (ZDA) (operativna)
 1. brigada, 25. pehotna divizija (ZDA) (operativna)
 172. pehotna brigada (samostojna) (operativna)
 2. oklepni konjeniški polk (lahek) (v postopku reorganizacije)
 2. brigada, 25. pehotna divizija (ZDA) (v postopku reorganizacije bo 2006)
 56. brigada, 28. pehotna divizija (ZDA) (v postopku reorganizacije bo med 2008 in 2010)

Glej tudi

 seznam brigad Kopenske vojske ZDA

Zunanje povezave
 Priročnik KOV ZDA o SBCT (v angleščini)

Enote za hitro posredovanje

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


My .sav file is 430,000 KB, so I can't show it to you.
thing, never mind command syntax.
the whole thing. Later I installed PSPP version 10.1.
These are both from the same build generation. So this is no problem.
although mine is a Toshiba and hers is a Compaq. Both are at least 6 years old.
I use Task Manager I find that only System Idle Process is competing with PPSP.
System Idle Process mean and can I do anything about it?
In general the Idle Proces means your processor is waiting for work. Together with a high memory usage, info on internet point to hardware problems with your harddisk. By increasing your workspace you might reduce the harddisk usage and get around this.
Without the .sav file you use and the command syntax you use I can't say more about it.
b) your hardware, especially the harddisk or its driver has a problem. Is it possible to have your hardware checked? However you wrote that you already tried on another laptop (of your daughter) so this doens't look as a likely case.
c) you and your daughter have some program on your computer which greatly slows down disk IO. You could check it by testing on a clean installed PC.
> don't think it's the data set.
I don't think PSPP is to slow with big datasets. 500 Mb is not that big. I just think you are not working with an optimal configuration.
The tests Alan suggested would have given more info about the problem so people could give you an advice. May guess at the moment is that you should use a bigger workspace or have a problem with your tmp files on a slow disk. The later is unlikely as I expect just 1 disk in your laptop.
You find the syntax editor by going in PSPPIRE to the file tab and then syntax.
If you could tell the exact file you downloaded for your work people could try to find out what is going on and help you. It would also be usefull if you could post what happens if you change your workspace settings as suggested above.
to go for a trial version of SPSS.


text:
Ian Leslie: "Notes on Peter Jackson's Get Back"
By Michael Gerber|2023-01-02T14:24:49-08:00January 2, 2023|Uncategorized|32 Comments
Four unidentified musicians, ca. 1969
Through the magic of the internet (actually my friend @comicthief on the rapidly decaying Twitter) I stumbled upon this chunk of fine writing by Ian Leslie on Peter Jackson's Get Back. So many solid insights here, I'll forgive the insane length.
I always feel so bad castigating contemporary writers for their prolixity; it's just contemporary style. But ye gods, we need Doctors Without Borders, but for Editors. Leslie warns you right up top, then makes it too good to stop reading in the middle. Unfair! 🙂
Anyway, read it. It's Dulbloggy, and you'll enjoy it.
Tumblr Fandom Categories and Beatle Books The Beatles on Shindig John Was My Favorite Beatle Hey Dullblog Loves Harry Nilsson! Craig Brown's "One Two Three Four" "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard": Or, music to confront a small-scale void by Beatles in Austin The Bollywood Beatles—I Want To Hold Your Hand John Lennon, Alma Cogan, and the Delicate Mechanism of Efficient Beatles Operations Beep beep yeah! Paul Better Than John? Hell Has Frozen Over! Beatle Cars
Hieronymus January 2, 2023 at 5:57 pm - Reply
Excellent article (and recommendation). It's especially gratifying to see my favourite moment of the documentary shared: the overhead shot on the roof where the band are seemingly hit with electric jolt and instantly rediscover the sheer joy of playing to live audience, albeit out of sight (man). Also pleased to see, at last, a satisfying analysis of the 'Get Back' genesis with Paul riffing ideas on the bass. So many have marvelled at how Macca seemingly plucked a brilliant song from the ether without realising their hindsight bias. It's an amazing scene, for sure, but I always felt many missed the point. The moment is wondrous because you're hearing the first fragment of the classic song you know so well. You're seeing the base metal, and it's awe-inspiring because you're familiar with the gold it became. And, luckily enough, we got to see the sometimes tortuous process of the alchemy in action. It's thrilling to see the inspiration – and, after all, it's an inspired genius in action – but the final work of genius is the product of perspiration from four supremely gifted artists who make magic when working as one. Without that, the initial scene of Paul jamming his ideas and the resultant riff is unremarkable. One lightbulb, four Beatles, to paraphrase George. For me, the biggest takeaway from Get Back was seeing how that four-piece jigsaw puzzle fitted together and completed the picture (or didn't when one was missing). Anyway, enough metaphors already.
Dan January 4, 2023 at 3:53 am - Reply
That's a great piece, I actually wished it was longer! My only disagreement is with this –
"A phone rings. John picks up a film reel case, pretends to answer it, embarks on a glorious riff which culminates in a joke about scouts and masturbation which leaves Paul, so morose just a minute ago, helpless with giggles."
I think that's a misreading. The feeling I got from that scene was an old friend who used to make you laugh at school, still making the same old jokes but they're just not funny anymore and you force yourself to laugh out of politeness. I think Paul was more irritated than amused, pretending to giggle with Lindsay-Hogg but wishing he was elsewhere.
Nancy Carr January 4, 2023 at 9:16 am - Reply
If there ever is a "Doctors Without Borders" for editors, I will volunteer! This piece is very good but I think it would be even better with some editing.
I love these lines particularly: "In the flowerpot conversation, we hear Paul reassuring John that he's the boss, has always been the boss, John demurring. Paul has power without legitimacy; John has legitimacy but no longer wants power." That seems to me to capture what was going on in this period of the band's life.
Respectfully disagree about the need for editing. As this thread demonstrates only too well, opinions on the Get Back doc are heavily subject to confirmation bias and, indeed, any other type of bias – as is the case with every other aspect of Beatles mythology (and let's not attempt to kid ourselves that mythology isn't what we're dealing with, because there is no definitive 'truth' even as far as the protagonists are concerned), but I've read so many teeth-grindingly bad takes on the series that the article was a refreshing oasis of perspicacity and balance – so more, not less, is what I crave here. Again, let's be aware that our analyses and subsequent conclusions of the events of January 1969 amount to little more than parlour games – as much as our delusions of grandeur and claims to real insight might tell us – but some play better than others, so props to Mr Leslie.
Michael Gerber January 5, 2023 at 6:06 pm - Reply
So, @Hieronymus, your response here joggled out a question:
Given that we have more raw data by and about The Beatles than nearly any other historical phenomenon I can think of off the top of my head–more interviews, more footage, a nearly complete record of their work, etc; that The Beatles were not a solipsistic individual, but on the other hand being just four people are bounded with a reasonable limit to the amount of data generated; that they were an item of pop culture and not something strictly political or one where lives were/are at stake; that they are over, but not so far in the past that we cannot perceive them clearly; since, in other words, they seem to be almost lab-built for being examined and understood in full, or close to it–do you believe that no definitive "truth" is possible in any historical event? Or just in The Beatles? And if it's just The Beatles, why? And if it's NOT just the Beatles, why?
Hieronymus January 6, 2023 at 4:21 am - Reply
Great question, Michael, and it goes right to the heart of a quandary I've pondered for quite some time – not limited to the context of the Beatles but they provide an excellent case in point for the very reasons you mention. The short answer is that I've come to the conclusion that pure, unadulterated "truth" of a past event is impossible to extract from analysis of data – which, really, is not too controversial when you think about it. George Harrison, as we know, was completely dismissive of any writer attempting to chart Beatles history if they "weren't there". His view on this even extended to the likes of Mark Lewisohn, who tends to keep his work as grounded in actual evidence as much as possible. George, being George, was an absolutist about it but I have a lot of sympathy for his standpoint – after all, he was there and they weren't. The Get Back/Let it Be sessions certainly had their share of downers but didn't look like the exercise in abject misery that John and George described. Maybe they misremembered or allowed the later squabbles to darken their hindsight, as some have speculated. Or maybe they just felt utterly wretched the whole time even when appearances suggested otherwise. We can't know for sure. Maybe Paul found John's smack-comedown humour genuinely hilarious when he was reduced to giggles or perhaps it was just his way of relieving the tension. We can speculate and we can be reasonably confident in our conclusion but we can never know for sure. Now, I'm not arguing against the speculation – on the contrary, it's the lifeblood of the noble and honourable pastime of Beatle overthinking. I love the analysis and speculation. But I like it done WELL (which, after all, is what this place is about, right?). And, for me, that means trying to temper the biases we're all subject to and also maintaining an awareness that the real, unadulterated 'truth' will forever remain illusive because – to return the original question with a slightly nebulous philosophical answer – it only exists in the moment. And these moments have long since passed beyond a fully accurate analysis from even the surviving protagonists and eye-witnesses. Not that I'm dismissing those either – for example, while I'm on the subject, check out this fairly recent podcast with MLH, in which he notably pushes against the received view of Allen Klein:
https://iamtheeggpod.com/2022/09/04/michael-lindsay-hogg-directing-the-beatles-let-it-be/
Also kind of related, I was listening to the Paul McCartney disc interview from 1980 recently and he was talking about how the White Album sessions were really the most tense and fraught, more so than Get Back/Let it Be. Except he cited 'beds in the studio' so he was probably misremembering and meant Abbey Road. But who knows – he was there, after all. (Or was he? Haha.)
Excellent, @Hieronymus, thank you! Do you have a timestamp for that portion of the podcast? I'd like to hear it.
To me, Allen Klein is a perfect example of how data CAN give you the truth. Klein's biggest clients, all of them, withered under his management; for a manager, that is the test, and Klein fails it. Michael Lindsay-Hogg's opinion of the guy doesn't matter; the facts surrounding Sam Cooke, The Stones, and The Beatles paint an excruciatingly clear picture. One doesn't need to build a case against Klein; Klein did that. Similarly, Brian's reputation must be viewed in light of his making his clients the biggest act in the history of showbiz. Epstein fucked up Seltaeb, for sure; but no Brian, no Beatles. Factually, Epstein is mixed but skews positive. Factually, Klein had his talents–he shook down EMI–but he was instrumental in the breakup of The Beatles. These are durable, sensible, logical readings of "what really happened" based on data.
Re: White: I've heard that from Paul, too–maybe I read it at the time? Remember that in 1980, the trope "Paul broke up the Beatles because he was bossy during the Let It Be sessions" was the common reading, so Paul would have a vested interest in pushing back against that. Not in some nefarious mastermind way, but because everybody wants to look good.
When we attempt to overturn a basic tenet of the conventional story, I think we have to
1) have powerful reasons for doing so–the tenet has to fundamentally not work in a large way; and
2) apply an extremely high standard. Sixty years on, The Beatles story has not been decided upon arbitrarily by a few people; it was developed over time, by many people, and agreed to by the principals.
For example: I am sure there are fans out there who, because they are anti-drug, don't want to believe that John Lennon took LSD often, if at all. And we only have his word, and the words of others, saying that he did. The only reason we don't have tons of comments here explaining that "John really only experimented with LSD a few times and just wanted to be cool so he said he did it a lot", is because the idea behind it isn't attractive to enough contemporary fans. Contemporary fans seem much more likely to attach to theories reinterpreting Paul or defending Yoko, which I suspect is more about contemporary attitudes than What Actually Happened.
"The short answer is that I've come to the conclusion that pure, unadulterated "truth" of a past event is impossible to extract from analysis of data"
I think there's a nugget of wisdom in this viewpoint, when applied by a thoughtful person like you in a responsible way. However, I think a healthy respect for the subjectivity of experience can be taken too far, to the point of "nobody can know anything, so everything is an opinion." That's not so; D-Day happened, Eleanor Roosevelt was biologically female, FDR won four terms, etc. But facts are the bricks of stories, and so informational nihilism is pretty common in the digital world, where vehemence of assertion and size of platform too often win the day. It's the horseshoe where seemingly individualist ideas ("Don't believe the biased gatekeepers") bend back around to functional authoritarianism ("I have a lot of Twitter followers, so I set what is true"). Holocaust deniers deny mountains of data, thus people who wish to exonerate the Nazis for whatever reason feel free to do so. Most people are not responsible enough to drive a car, much less tease out the truth from an historical record. And many who could do it, won't do it, because it is often painful. Every hero I can think of has huge flaws.
With something like The Beatles, it doesn't really matter whether the factual record is bashed around by the desires of vocal segments of the fandom. But I think the boundaries between history–which I define as a good faith effort to determine what actually happened–and alternative history–a history-like narrative that is pleasing/enticing in some way–are blurry and getting blurrier. Whereas in 1980 I would consider gatekeeping to be a bigger problem, today I find informational nihilism more troubling, mostly because of an informational sharing system which rewards emotional attachment.
As I endlessly reminded myself when I read about the assassinations, any historical reading that connects with me emotionally–any one that I LIKE–should be viewed skeptically. Those are the theories that must be interrogated most relentlessly.
As Beatles fans, we naturally wish for the Get Back sessions to be harmonious, fun, and fruitful. Jackson's doc, because it presents this reading, should be viewed skeptically. Assessing more data can be helpful, or it can be a way to keep rolling the dice until you get the double-sixes you wish. It's all a question of responsibility and intent.
"Assessing more data can be helpful, or it can be a way to keep rolling the dice until you get the double-sixes you wish. It's all a question of responsibility and intent." I think that absolutely nails it, Michael – thank you for taking the time to indulge my ramblings with such a perspicacious and articulate response. On reflection, I think my position is that there's not so much an absence of truth in the data but rather one or several – or many – among multiple others that combined in the moment to construct the full, unadulterated 3D image. While we can't (yet) travel in time (come on, scientists, pull your fingers out!) to observe that full picture in, say, the heavy, heady atmosphere of Middlesex TW1 or London W1 in that typically gloomy January 54 years ago, I wholeheartedly thank the gods of whatever – or at the very least Michael Lindsay-Hogg – that we have a feast of footage to extract, ponder and debate the multifarious truths therein. And speaking of MLH, I'm not sure whereabouts in that podcast it is that he mentions Klein as it was a few months ago I listened but I intend to give it another spin soon as he's good value, and all evidence suggests he's also another one of the good guys – unlike Klein.
Holly January 4, 2023 at 10:29 am - Reply
Personally, I did not care for the 'Paul has Power WITHOUT legitimacy; John has legitimacy but NO LONGER wants power" that statement diminishes Paul's leadership, vision, talent and presence within this band. IMO, over the years as all of the peels of the onion come off, we learn more and more that it was Paul who was the visionary, driver and navigator of this machine much more, yes much -than John.
Nancy Carr January 4, 2023 at 11:44 am - Reply
So much depends upon how "power" is defined, and how the holding of power is understood within the group. I think it's fair to say that John was the recognized chief power in the Beatles, particularly early on.
I don't think it diminishes Paul at all to note that at the time of "Let It Be" he had "power without legitimacy." Instead, I think it explains why the debacle with Allen Klein went as it did, with Paul being the only holdout (and thus the one who ultimately helped to save the band's legacy). Mikal Gilmore gets into this dynamic in detail in his "Why The Beatles Broke Up" article for Rolling Stone.
One of the things I appreciated about Leslie's piece was its focus on the Lennon/McCartney dynamic, as the main "bonds of the nucleus" in the band.
Neal January 4, 2023 at 4:52 pm - Reply
Perhaps it might have rung just a bit truer if he had said "power without portfolio" instead of legitimacy?
I kinda/sorta get the idea he is conjuring, but I am not quite clear on the wording.
Matt January 4, 2023 at 7:20 pm - Reply
"…we learn more and more that it was Paul who was the visionary, driver and navigator of this machine much more, yes much -than John."
John was definitely the driving force during the early years. But on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and the White Album, he was just as dominant in terms of direction and contributions as Paul was. Lennon was an active and willing participant on Sgt Pepper too, even if Paul took charge, and this only seemed to fester into a resentment retrospectively when things had turned acrimonious. Abbey Road is definitely where Lennon's lack of input is most apparent. I agree that Paul's vision and motivation was essential, I just don't think we have to mitigate John to emphasize that fact, just as we don't need to do the reverse to appreciate John.
Peter Macmillan January 10, 2023 at 5:57 am - Reply
John stopped collaborating. He doesn't seem to have contributed anything to Paul's songs, but Paul's singing and bass lines add a lot to his (and to George and Ringo's). On side two, Paul elevated John's throwaways and created the medley; John contributed a guitar solo. Paul may have been overwhelming or exhausting, but he did great work on Abbey Road. I don't think he was as open to John or George's attempts to alter his songs, and that may explain why they disliked "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and others.
Lara January 5, 2023 at 2:00 pm - Reply
I read Ian Leslie's article a while ago and thought it a good article, despite a few inaccuracies (America was the last country to topple to Beatlemania, not the second) but, to be fair, I think it suffers itself from confirmation bias or received information to some extent. Again, it fails to address John's behaviour towards George in the studio; it is Paul who shows scant interest in George's songs (I didn't see that) and treated the others like session men. Why would this sort of thing not cause resentment? Paul has never admitted to treating them like session and there is no reason why he should. Their often misleading and contradictory accusations were in response to Paul's depositions to the court, in which the judiciary ruled in Paul's favour and likely for reasons beyond financial issues. I think it's important to remember that 'antipodean' Jackson edited much of Get Back out of context. The lunchroom tapes were not just Paul and John; Yoko, Ringo, Neil Aspinall and others were also there and Paul in particular was likely mindful of their prescence. Power with or without 'legitimacy' is the construct of historians. There seems to be some widely held belief that John somehow 'relinquished' or 'let' Paul lead (because, of course, if he hadn't then John would still be the 'number one' songwriter, right?). The facts contradict themselves particularly when Lennon started to reinvent his past. We see him actively engaged during the filming of Magical Mystery Tour. There he is behind the camera with his arm out directing others. We see him leading the group sing-a-longs during their time in Rishikesh. It is only with the advent of Yoko and heroin do we see John's ambivalence towards Paul. Yet both of them continued to maintain a high level of creativity from Sgt Pepper onwards. I propose that much of John's later behaviour towards Paul had its origins in his Quarry Bank days. As admitted to Hunter Davies in the only authorized biography, he had to be number one, had to be kingpin. Once at grammar school and competing with equals, he dealt with it by rebelling in his most idiosyncratic Lennonesque way. And that is meant as a compliment. John knew Paul was his equal right from the start and by the mid sixties the only way to deal with Paul's unstoppablility and to save face was to go left-field with Yoko.
Laura January 6, 2023 at 8:25 am - Reply
@Lara wrote, "John knew Paul was his equal right from the start and by the mid sixties the only way to deal with Paul's unstoppablility and to save face was to go left-field with Yoko."
Yep. This is at the center of what went wrong between them. And to lay some of it at Yoko's feet, while convincing John he was a true artist (he was), she half-convinced him Paul was a lowly pop musician (he wasn't).
John was privately dealing with deep-seated psychological problems that the fame and fortune he'd so desperately sought hadn't fixed. He felt out-paced by Paul's seemingly endless drive, but Paul saw John's power and brilliance, and at least at this point, only glimpses of his jealousy.
From the day he met Paul, John could see that he might pose a challenge to his superiority. If his decision to invite Paul to join the Quarrymen had come back to bite him and he now felt the need to stifle Paul… good luck with that. Instead, he escaped by reforming himself as JohnAndYoko.
Has the basic tenet of the conventional story been overturned though? What is interesting about the Beatles story is not always the parts that have been left in but those that have been left out. There is always room for interpretation or reinterpretation of undeveloped themes, facts or not. Or 'truth'. Otherwise there is nothing left to say about the Beatles.
@Lara, I would say that "the sessions in January 1969 were very unpleasant, showing the creative processes of the band breaking down, and ultimately presaged the breakup of the group" is a basic tenet of the Beatles story. Anything that says, "Oh those sessions weren't so bad" flies in the face of this up-til-Jackson completely accepted tenet, which was completely accepted because it seemed to be demonstrated by Let It Be the film, and because it's both a logical and efficient explanation of what happened next–that is, they fought a lot, made an uneasy truce that allowed them to produce a wonderful album, and then split.
@Michael, I didn't say that though, which was why I questioned that it had been overturned. However, while I think the atmosphere was unpleasant and tense most of the time it wasn't all of the time. Furthermore, any unpleasantries were not due to one person alone (or two) and the Get Back footage, previously unavailable to the public, has allowed room for some reinterpretation which is a positive not a negative. Both the Let It Be and Get Back documentaries were filmed out of context and that's not meant as a criticism: its brief was to provide a fly-on-the wall snapshot of the Beatles at work at a given time. But this was to become problematic. Michael Lindsay-Hogg has mentioned in various interviews that the situation was not expected to unravel so quickly. In effect he was left with a big headache in how he was going to edit and present his film in 1970 by which time the Beatles were effectively finished. He had no choice but to provide a negative slant within that frame of reference.
Michael Gerber January 9, 2023 at 10:28 pm - Reply
@Lara, I'm sorry, you've lost me here.
In an attempt to clarify: I think Peter Jackson's version of the Get Back sessions is a definite departure from the story as we've known it previously, and because it is such a departure, plus because it's a much sunnier, more palatable, more marketable version of the story, I think we have to be skeptical towards it.
"He had no choice but to provide a negative slant within that frame of reference."
MLH made the movie The Beatles wanted him to make. The question isn't, "How did circumstances force MLH to skew it in a certain way?" but "Why did The Beatles allow a cut with such a negative slant and sour feel to be their swan song?" There were other avenues for fulfilling their UA deal–The Long and Winding Road, for example.
Anna January 10, 2023 at 5:28 am - Reply
@Michael I remember you posted an article before Get Back came out on similar notes, and I disagree, today as then, mainly because I think the view of Let It Be as a deliberately sad and negative film is too influenced by the coincidences around it than by the film itself. It came out right after the announce of the break up and everyone, including the Beatles, viewed and remembered it as a sad film about the break up.
I am of the opinion that it wasn't a deliberate choice, and MLH has said so also in recent interviews. As I see it, it's a verité style film with a good mix of boring, funny, sad, and exciting moments (among the funny ones, some are in Get Back like the Heather moments, some are not like Besame Mucho). It ends on a high note with the rooftop performance. I think that if it came out in a different moment – say late summer 69 together with Abbey Road – it would have been received and remembered very differently.
It has its limits, though, which contribute to its sad vibe: the quality of the images in 16mm, the limits on what MLH could show and explain (George's leaving the band, too much John & Yoko, Klein requesting to cut scenes with the entourage, which now thanks to Get Back we know were interesting and engaging, etc.), and some choices like putting Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road right after one another.
I also disagree with the view of Get Back as just a sunnier version of the story. I think Get Back shows that the breakup was drawing nearer DESPITE the funny and touching moments of friendship, and for me that's not too far from what we know was happening at the time from various sources. And in a way it is even more sad, seeing the inevitability of it, seeing Klein's shadow looming over them and knowing what would happen later.
I do agree it's a marketable product, and that sometimes the narratives Peter Jackson has absorbed and wants to communicate prevail on facts. PJ wants to show that Paul was sad about the Beatles breakup – he transform a bleak joke into a tragic moment ("And then there were two"); he wants to show that Yoko was not responsible for the breakup – he silences her for most of the film. Too much of this editorializing is annoying and make Get Back not a reliable historiographical document, but still I get that it works to convey the messages to the large public. And in the end Paul WAS sad, even if not crying in that particular moment; Yoko WAS NOT responsible for the breakup (even if she was a factor in it as all of them).
Michael Gerber January 11, 2023 at 4:23 pm - Reply
@Anna,
"I think the view of Let It Be as a deliberately sad and negative film is too influenced by the coincidences around it than by the film itself. It came out right after the announce of the break up and everyone, including the Beatles, viewed and remembered it as a sad film about the break up."
All we know is that it was authorized–approved by all four, and released by their company. And they viewed it and must've seen how it was a downer, and been okay with that. The why of that is more interesting to me than arguing that it isn't really a downer.
I first saw "Let It Be" in 1981, not in 1970. Yes, the received wisdom was that the film was a drag, and showed Paul being bossy and the others not liking that, but…that's what the film showed. And that reading of the film dovetailed very closely with Lennon's memories in 1970, and Harrison's later, and Martin's, and…really everybody's. There has never been any secret "LIB is skewed negative" underground movement…until Peter Jackson's film. Which is what I predicted and I stand by that prediction. Beatles fans want their heroes to be happy and funny and work well together and don't want to hate Yoko or Linda and–this is all completely logical. "Get Back" serves that audience very well and I see nothing wrong with that except its revision to a stable historical record. It can, and should, temper our view of the era; but "Get Back" shouldn't change it. It was too uniform, for too long.
"Get Back" would have less of a credibility problem as a source if the multi-decade consensus on "Let It Be" hadn't been so uniform; if you don't find it a downer, you are a rare viewer. And that is why it alone of the Beatles' movies was never released on DVD, even to this day; most fans didn't like it. And why should they? It's ugly and muddy and shows them bickering and (whispers) the songs aren't very good. You gotta be a hell of a big Beatles fan to watch LIB and think, "Oh man that 'Besame Mucho' scene was worth the price of admission!" I was easily that big of a fan in 1981 and…I was still depressed. LIB is depressing; when I watched a pirated DVD in 2014, it was still depressing.
When a movie about four guys who were Joy in human form is that depressing, and exists as a photographic record of the breakup for fifty years without being fundamentally gainsaid, and then suddenly Apple puts out a new documentary by a famous director that just happens to be a lot more fun to watch and makes everybody a lot of money…I'm just dubious, that's all. I'm not mad, I just think what's at work is capitalism, not history.
"I think that if it came out in a different moment – say late summer 69 together with Abbey Road – it would have been received and remembered very differently."
That's an interesting idea, similar to mine about Magical Mystery Tour being released as a midnight movie in 1972 rather than a 1967 Boxing Day extravaganza. But ultimately, all we know is that LIB is a drag, just like MMT is a shambolic mess. (I kinda love MMT for precisely that, but I'm not going to say people who dislike it are wrong.)
Matt January 11, 2023 at 7:42 pm - Reply
'Let It Be' is depressing. Whether it is deliberately depressing, that's a question. Michael Lindsay-Hogg's original cut that he screened for the Beatles and their wives was almost twice as long. What we got left with is presumably the result of his whittling down to accommodate four divisive egos (or five, because John&Yoko sort of count for two people.) That original cut is seemingly lost to time, so we'll never know how much it differed, or if it was better spirited. We won't know whether the 80 minutes of mostly apathetic tedium that made the final cut was a conscious choice or an incidental one; or for that matter, whether the rough cut was actually worse: imagine the 1970 Let It Be just like it is but doubled in length. That's an ordeal. But like Michael said, just about everybody involved recollected the sessions in a way the original film accurately reflects, which is why, I'm sure, when it came to approving the film, nobody imagined that something different could be made out of it. What little joy involved was obviated in their memories by how overwhelmingly unpleasant it was. Jackson takes the Beatles performative moments, clowning about and what not, and amplifies them into the crux of the film instead of the periphery. Those moments are either a direct reaction to how glum the collective mood was, or a natural response to having cameras trained on themselves. It also asks you to forget that the duration of this perceived mirth is relative to almost a month's work, and notwithstanding all the squabbles, angst, and business problems occurring in between and outside the filming. All this seems akin to me to somebody who watches 'A Hard Day's Night' and mistakes it for reality. But in all that time, they emerged with a dearth of worthwhile material. That isn't the outcome of happy, productive people working together. Just the lack of realized music is evidence of how bored and apathetic they were. Jackson did an amazing job restoring and making available all that footage, for which I'm sure we all agree to be grateful. But the narrative imposed on it definitely should not be taken at face value.
Neal January 11, 2023 at 8:03 pm - Reply
@Michael
One of the reasons I am a eager and frequent reader of this blog is that I like how you, Nancy, and others, closely examine the shifting lines between just-having-fun fandom and "wishful fandom" as an easel upon which fans paint their wishes as to how the heros should appear to them.
Viewing, Jackson's GB was indeed fun. Yet I always prefer the historical record and some rationality in drawing conclusions. Not to make it dry as dust off course, but I believe that the overall arc and history is compelling enough. I don't need embellishments. In fact, I would argue that a rational and accurate recounting actually affords the viewer a deeper and more meaningful learning experience. I applaud directors who will take the step in this direction. Just the facts ma'am as Joe Friday said might be a little too sterile, but it would help us draw conclusions
BTW, is LIB to be found anywhere on the net? Is there a copy stored deep underground in the seed vaults north of the arctic circle in Longyearbyen/Svalbard? I have not seen it but would lto.
Cristian J January 13, 2023 at 9:23 am - Reply
@Neal
You can watch it in the link below, in fact it's pretty easy to find in several sources, this copy is easily within reach.
https://archive.org/details/Let_It_Be_1970_film
Thank you @Cristian.
I had a most unusual thought as I watched the section of the rooftop concert and the pedestrians on the streets below being interviewed.
One of the gentleman being asked for his opinion appeared to be a touch older than 70. Another gent, standing to the immediate left of another man being interviewed looked as if he were even older.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that these men could have fought in the first world war. At Ypres, the Somme or theVilny Ridge. Yet here they were in January 1969, listening to the Beatles deliver a concert using instruments (electric guitars) and amplifiers that were far from being invented in the early 20th century.
It just made me think that this concert was closer in time to the Armistice than it is to today. It is rapidly slipping into a time when all those gathered around the studio that day will no longer be with us.
…just an unusual thought. Thank you again for the link.
Lara January 11, 2023 at 9:13 pm - Reply
The hours of footage presented to Peter Jackson in Get Back where we see John and Paul dancing, for example, or all of them laughing and fooling around, or working together, do not make those scenes either revisionist or inauthentic. Is it being suggested that they were acting? All of the footage, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, presented the same snapshot of the Beatles during those three weeks of January 1969. Michael Lindsay-Hogg could not use those scenes because it was incongruous to do so in the light of the Beatles acrimony… starting out then but mainly played out in the following months. I think it obvious that each Beatle authorized the final version of Let It Be because the downer scenes represented how they FELT in 1970 and not because of how they actually WERE in January 1969. This is not to deny the cracks were showing then; quite obviously they were – and in 1968. The Get Back docs show Paul to be bossy. But so what? Interviews with John in late 1965 and early 1966 show him to be happy and funny when he clearly was not during his self-described 'fat period'. This narrative gained traction, not because of outward appearances, because John told us so. To 'show' someone or something is meaningless without context. In lieu of John and George's quote where they stated that musically they wanted to go in the underground direction (they didn't) and Paul wanted to go in the pop direction (he didn't), it seems clear that they did not want to work on some of Paul's songs. They more or less had said so. In the recorded version of Let it Be, John can be heard to mock the song with his Hark the Angels comment. If Paul at times treated them like session men then maybe it was because they acted like session men. Their behaviour was passive-agressive: expressionless, yawning and gum-chewing throughout several takes. Heck, that's an insult to session men because even they behave with a lot more courtesy and respect. That's my interpretation and of many others. If others see it differently then that's fine but I'm not seeing any rights or wrongs here.
I find the ownership of the Beatles disturbing. We look at them from the hindsight of the 21st century where thousands of bands formed in the aftermath providing templates for how band members should behave. There were no such templates in 1962 for a bunch of 20 somethings, least of all for a phenomenon such as the Beatles. If Get Back provided some sort of closure for Paul and Ringo then so be it. It was their history, not ours. They were members of the band not us. We don't know how John and George may have felt about it but who has the right to speak on their behalf? The breakup was acrimonious. But if it was THAT acrimonious they would have NEVER spoken or contacted each other ever again. The fact that after 1970, John and Paul particularly, reached out to each other in interviews, in songs, and in letters indicates that they were hankering for good times – even in their
very public spats. It belies the fact that Get Back is supposedly revisionist. Heavily edited, yes, but that's something else.
*passive-aggressive
Anna January 12, 2023 at 2:04 pm - Reply
@Micheal "All we know is that it was authorized–approved by all four, and released by their company. And they viewed it and must've seen how it was a downer, and been okay with that. The why of that is more interesting to me than arguing that it isn't really a downer."
Between January 1969 and May 1970 they apparently viewed it twice and requested changes, so it seems to me that, as for the album mixing, they weren't fully satisfied and probably there were (strong?) differences of opinion among them. In the meantime, the situation at Apple had radically changed with Klein, Paul had both isolated himself from Apple and been isolated by the others, Klein and John were taking unilateral choices such as the involvement of Phil Spector, and by March 1970 the Beatles were actually over. So I don't know how you can support the thesis that the decisions around Get Back/Let It Be were approved by all four as, let's say, Abbey Road release or MMT.
So maybe some of the Beatles (John? Paul after the press release? But we know they weren't really speaking at the time…) thought it was okay by May 1970 to make a declaration through the film that they were over. Maybe it was a commercial strategy from Klein to cash in on the drama (wasn't the change to "Let It Be" his idea?). Or maybe they were just tired to review a project that was more than one year old, they knew the band was over and released as it was after the various changes and cuts. Maybe it was a bit of all of these things, at this point we cannot know, but I think the director's opinion that it wasn't an intentional declaration should be given relevance.
"And that reading of the film dovetailed very closely with Lennon's memories in 1970, and Harrison's later, and Martin's, and…really everybody's. "
This is where it's really problematic for me. In Lennon Remembers John says that the film presented Paul as a god, that it was a vanity project of Paul to show how talented he was, and he seems jealous of MLH's cameras focusing on Paul. So what was it? Did the film show Paul to be an unsufferable bossy guy or a talented god? Was it MLH and Paul's showing off project or an intentional declaration on how miserable the Beatles were? It cannot be both.
My point would be: the Beatles breakup was quite a trauma for them all to go through, and their memories of anything linked to it, such as the film, are to be taken as very emotionally charged and not in any way unbiased representations of how things went, especially the closer they were to the breakup, but even years and years later.
John looked at Let It Be through the lens of his jealousy and anger at Paul, and maybe an unhealthy bit of paranoia. George through resentment at not being valued enough, and probably with a little bit of shame at how he throwed a tantrum in the middle of the project. Paul through anger at the others' lack of enthusiasm and probably (in later years) with a lot of guilt at being insensible to the others' feelings and not being good enough to fix their problems. Ringo maybe with a lot of sadness at how inevitable it all was? He's the more difficult to read for me.
But memories so emotionally charged cannot be used to confirm or reject a reading of the film, and I would also claim that they very much informed that reading, especially John and George's, so it is a vicious cycle of bias and confirmation.
Reflecting about the complex relationship between how things went daily, memories and received views: I think if MLH and his crew had filmed the Beatles in the studio every day from The White Album sessions until Abbey Road, the raw footage wouldn't be much different from what he took in January 1969, a mix of negative and positive moments. We've read the stories of bickering and tensions, that even G. Martin and Emerick struggled with them, but we've also heard the audios of them being silly and affectionate, we've also seen how productive they were.
We know that their memories were very different. John remembered the White Album as the moment when he came back into his strength, Paul as the most tense period (and he said this well before Get Back came out), Ringo as a moment when he felt very close to the others even if he was the one who left, etc. They're all true in the sense that memories truly reflect the feelings of what the person was going through at the time. The received view, the one that becomes mainstream, cannot accommodate this complexity, and so it takes one of their view or a simplified version. I'd say most of the times it favoured John's recollections, mainly for the influence of Lennon Remembers and Shout!, but sometimes it went with Paul's or even George Martin's, such as with the Abbey Road period.
Michael Gerber January 13, 2023 at 1:59 am - Reply
"So I don't know how you can support the thesis that the decisions around Get Back/Let It Be were approved by all four as, let's say, Abbey Road release or MMT."
Because if any one of the four of them had not approved the release, there would've been legal repercussions; and at the very least there would've been a huge stink. (Like Paul's letter about strings. <--DATA.) A fight over "Let It Be" would've been another item in the lawsuit. We must assume that all four approved the cut, because we don't have any data otherwise, and if there had been serious fighting about it, that would've been A Big Deal. The Beatles approved the final cut of Let It Be. To argue anything else--until we have definitive proof--is wishing. "So what was it? Did the film show Paul to be an unsufferable bossy guy or a talented god? Was it MLH and Paul's showing off project or an intentional declaration on how miserable the Beatles were? It cannot be both." Of course it can be, @Anna. A talented god would likely be unsufferably bossy. It can be MLH and Paul's showing off project that was MAKING the other three Beatles visibly miserable. Honestly: this is exactly the common reading of "Let It Be" from 1970 to 2020. There is no conflict here, unless you look at "Get Back," and think, "That feels tru-er to me, so how could 'Let It Be' have been false?" Any mass of data is going to appear inconsistent if you take it piece-by-piece and WANT it to be inconsistent. The simplest, most logical reading is the one that existed from "Let It Be"'s release until "Get Back." Watching "Get Back" and then trying to retcon "Let It Be" so that the two sources don't clash is not necessary. In 1970 The Beatles, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they wanted "Let It Be" to be their message; they approved it and released it when they could've easily shelved it, and there was no big stink about releasing it. In 2020, the surviving Beatles wanted "Get Back" to be their message. Both items are not The Truth--they are artistic statements made from assemblages of footage. But of the two, "Let It Be" is the one that was assembled while all four Beatles were still alive, watched and approved by them. Plus, it came out nearer to the events in question. "My point would be: the Beatles breakup was quite a trauma for them all to go through, and their memories of anything linked to it, such as the film, are to be taken as very emotionally charged and not in any way unbiased representations of how things went, especially the closer they were to the breakup, but even years and years later." And an historian might say to you, "We must privilege statements closer to the event, while the memories are still fresh, and before age and mellowing begins to change the story and remove any unpleasantness." This bias thing commenters always bring up cuts both ways. Think about it: if you say, "Oh well, Paul said x because he was feeling overtired and emotional" or "John said Y but surely he was just speaking out of trauma" you're not giving The Beatles themselves the final word on their own story. You're imposing a framework upon it out of your own biases and--while I think that's what fans DO--I would say that ultimately there is more to be gained by accepting what they said, and trying to figure out what happened from that. "John looked at Let It Be through the lens of his jealousy and anger at Paul, and maybe an unhealthy bit of paranoia. George through resentment at not being valued enough, and probably with a little bit of shame at how he throwed a tantrum in the middle of the project. Paul through anger at the others' lack of enthusiasm and probably (in later years) with a lot of guilt at being insensible to the others' feelings and not being good enough to fix their problems. Ringo maybe with a lot of sadness at how inevitable it all was? He's the more difficult to read for me." I don't take issue with any of this, but remember: it is all in your mind. This is treating the Fabs more as literary characters than people who generated certain statements and actions at a certain time and place. When you attempt to fill in the gaps--when you attempt to make them consistent and fulfulling like literary characters--you are filling those gaps in with YOU, not The Beatles. So I would just be cautious about it. "The received view, the one that becomes mainstream, cannot accommodate this complexity, and so it takes one of their view or a simplified version." If this is true about "the received view," it's also going to be equally true of any counter-reading. And so this leads us into a morass, where "what we believe" is simply a reflection of the interpreter's bias. This is common in historical situations that generate too much data, and are looked at too closely. Look, if the common view of the Twickenham Sessions was inaccurate, it wouldn't have lasted unchallenged all these years. John Lennon was alive until 1980 and was asked about this period many times, and he responded at length, and was consistent. George was alive until 2001. Paul and Ringo are still alive. The reading of those sessions was consistent until Peter Jackson's video, and anyone who says it wasn't because Paul said the White Album was worse, or Ringo said that he quite liked playing "Maxwell" a zillion times or anything--if you're trying to overturn a really settled point in a really exhaustively examined history, you have to have really compelling evidence, and whatever new story you insert has to be MORE explanatory and useful. "Twickenham sucked" is a logical, stable, useful reading that does explanatory work: it helps explain the splintering of the group by September of that same year. Pivoting to "White was worse, Twickenham wasn't so bad" begs the question: if White had been so bad, why didn't they break up then? Why did they find themselves back making two more albums in the next year? Explaining via mindstates and possible emotional interactions is just not strong enough to overturn such a basic part of the story.
@Anna brought up some very good points worth exploring in her comments. From what I've also read John was told by his legal advisors (Klein?) that Paul had come across well compared to John in Let it Be. Which is a complete turnaround from how the film has been perceived for decades irrespective of whether people have seen it or not. With due respect, I think many people born after the Beatles ended already had or have preconceived notions about the events surrounding this film. The data is there but the data can also be cherry picked. Photographic evidence shows all four Beatles together with MLH, Yoko and Linda in a room reviewing the rushes. Linda was heavily pregnant so it was probably around August 1969. I don't know whether this was the last time it was reviewed by one, two, or all four of them. It's astonishing that people so willingly attempt to charge Paul with machavellian motives for everthing he does. He conspired with MLH to edit Let it Be (apparently). He conspired with Peter Jackson to edit Get Back (apparently). In fact, everything the Beatles did it was down to Paul's shifty, sneaky conspiratorial nature in the eyes of his detractors.
Paul's misplaced guilt is disappointing and his latter obsequiousness towards John and George irritating. Neither of them took any ownership for how they behaved. There were no winners or losers in this debacle. Tell someone enough times how bossy, insensitive and horrible they are is enough for them to eventually start believing it themselves.
Those who accuse others of hurting them are often the worst offenders and I think it pays to be circumspect in the quagmire of the Beatles final years. George Martin shouldn't be let off the hook either. His pot boiler comments about Paul's songs unwittingly helped unleash a whole industry based on John the deep and meaningful writer, Paul the purveyor of commercial granny pop. So what were the early reviews of Let it Be like? Not great. The biggest gripe was that it failed to deliver what was promised – a highly respected band at work developing new material in the studio. It took Get Back to rectify that. Let it Be was criticized for bad editing, too many conversations and arguments, silliness, and for being just plain boring. None of them alluded to Paul's supposed bossiness or controlling nature. When asked about the film, Ringo said it was joyless, George said he was aggravated. What I came away from seeing Let it Be was, if anything, mild embarrassment at Paul's over enthusiasm, his silliness at times and sadness at his attempt in his monologue to engage a clearly uninterested John. It's interesting that much later Elvis Costello said something similiar about Paul when he worked with him on Flowers in the Dirt. That he is SO enthusiastic, that he has SO much music dripping from his fingertips, he is almost embarrassing.
Another interesting parallel: by the time Hunter Davies' The Beatles; the official biography was published, the personal circumstances of the Beatles had changed. John had left Cynthia for Yoko Ono and Paul and Jane were no longer together. Davies provided an editorial comment in the first edition to explain that. The book was approved by the Beatles because presumably it reflected the circumstances at that time, and as such had no appetite to bring legal proceedings against an author whom they had engaged to write about their lives.
Hieronymus January 17, 2023 at 4:20 am - Reply
"That he is SO enthusiastic, that he has SO much music dripping from his fingertips, he is almost embarrassing". And for a bone fide musical genius, too much of his solo work is just plain embarrassing IMO. That's not helped by his single-mindedness to the point of excluding criticism of his works in progress. Even when he's worked with people unafraid to question (like Costello and Nigel Godrich) and acknowledged its worth, he's failed to pursue those partnerships beyond one-offs. John Lennon was the only guy he'd take it from and that's why he's never bettered his work from their partnership.
As has often been noted, while enormously prolific, Paul needs an external filter to compensate for his lack of an internal one. For all the talk of the multitude of songs he worked on during the Get Back sessions, I question whether those that ended up on his solo albums were good enough to be GOOD Beatles songs, and I might be in the minority but I wish Long and Winding Road had been kicked into the long grass far enough to prevent it making it into the Beatles discography (whether Spectorised or not).
It's becoming deeply unfashionable and even taboo to criticise Paul (like, oh, that's so passé and 80s) and in a way it's understandable because he IS a global treasure and his Beatles contribution was underrated for many years (although the pendulum has swung so far the other way that now John's is being underrated). Also, douchebags like Philip Norman did way too much Paul bashing over the years. But the image of Paul as musical Midas whose touch turned everything into gold is becoming as irksome as the perception of Lennon as godlike guru on a cloud.
Let it Be/Get Back made for some great footage but musically it was unsuccessful. Yes, John didn't contribute nearly enough musically. Yes, George was surly and sometimes uncooperative. Yes, the whole project was overambitious in part because of Ringo's filming schedule when arguably he should have prioritised the Beatles. But part of its failure was also due to the lack of quality of songs, including Paul's which were either trite or required too much time to bang into shape, like Get Back. What's more, the Beatles knew this at the time, which is why everything was left in the can for so long. And this feeling of producing sub-par work might well be the main factor that coloured (or discoloured) their view of the sessions.
Lara January 17, 2023 at 11:46 pm - Reply
@Hieronymus. I love The Long and Winding Road. I love Don't Let Me Down and I've Got A Feeling too so I apologise for my poor taste. I agree to some extent that the variety in quality of Paul's solo work can be extreme. Then again, he's written far more dud songs than John because he's lived twice as long as John. The idea that any criticism of Paul has become deeply unfashionable and that he's praised to the heavens has, ironically, become fashionable in its own right. Perhaps we read different Beatles-related material, but be assured that the old 1970s bias against Paul is still alive and well. It's the reason why he has become hardened and sensitive to ANY criticism of him, not just musical. The British press, for example, still does its best to demean and ridicule him. I think you've illustrated it consciously or unconsciously to some extent in your comment. Did any of the other Beatles' solo work match up to the Beatles output? Your opinion of Paul's songs, and of the others, is surely subjective, as is mine and millions of others. That Paul specifically needed John and only John as a filter has always been dubious. Why does Paul McCartney need to pass the John Lennon fitness test but not the other way round? Paul did have other people in his life besides John and other factors could be taken into account. His muse – Linda? Living on a farm in sleepy Sussex compared to London? Thousands of enabling fans? Massive fame and money? Expectations? Out of interest, did Eric Clapton and Billy Preston ever work with George again after the long and tiring All Things Must Pass sessions? Did John actually work with David Bowie and Elton John et al or did he just jam with them? After watching John lose his rag on the Oh,Yoko sessions I think any producer would approach him with a good deal of trepidation.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


"Our company aims to operating faithfully, serving to all of our customers , and working in new technology and new machine constantly for Poe Switch 16 Port , Poe Switch 4 Port , Switch 16 Port , We have been in operation for more than 10 years. We are dedicated to quality products and consumer support. We currently own 27 product utility and design patents. We invite you to visit our company for a personalized tour and advanced business guidance.


Zepf Surgical scissors are light weight and well balanced offering superior cutting ability for a variety of soft tissues. Smooth ring fingers for advanced comfort during surgery.
Straight, curved, sharp, blunt, serrated, Super Cut, tungsten carbide, left handed, ergonomic ring handles, spring/leaf handles we have it all! Zepf scissors are available for all surgical needs.


Large Notepad - Bee | Stock Photo Clichés on T-shirts | Creative Shapes Etc.
Our Bee Notepad has 50 sheets per package and is approx. 5" x 7." It is great for making word cards, shaped books, game parts, scrapbooks and much more. ACID FREE!


The Internal Revenue Service has issued proposed Treasury Regulations that would provide guidance for determining how a partner's distributive share of partnership items should take into account the varying interests of the partners in any year in which there is a change in a partner's interest in the partnership.
In general, a partner separately takes into account his distributive share of partnership items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit. Each partner reports his distributive share of the partnership income, deductions and other items (including guaranteed salary and interest payments) for a partnership tax year on his return for his tax year within or with which the partnership tax year ends.
1. If a partner's interest changes during the partnership's tax year, the partnership would have to determine the partner's distributive share using the interim closing method. However, the partnership by agreement of the partners could use the proration method.
2. A partnership generally would have to take into account any variation in the partners' interests in the partnership during the tax year by determining the distributive share of partnership items under Section 702(a) of the Code for each segment of that tax year using an interim closing of the books method and by allocating those items among the partners in accordance with their respective partnership interests during that segment.
3. For each partner whose interest changes in the tax year, the partnership would have to maintain segments to account for such changes. The partnership would have to determine the items for each segment of the tax year created by the variation event for a partner in accordance with the partnership's method of accounting used for its entire tax year. For purposes of the Proposed Treasury Regulations' interim closing and proration methods, a special accounting rule would have to be used to account for certain items.
4. A partnership using the proration method would have to allocate extraordinary items (as defined in the Proposed Treasury Regulations) among the partners in proportion to their interests at the beginning of the day on which they are taken into account.
5. A partnership using the interim closing method could use either a calendar day convention or a semi-monthly convention. A partnership using the proration method could use only the calendar day convention.
6. The varying interests rule would not preclude changes in the allocations among contemporaneous partners resulting from amendments to the partnership agreement made no later than the due date of the partnership return for the tax year (excluding extensions).
7. Service partnerships could allocate items relating to the provision of services among the partners whose interests vary during the year using any reasonable method to account for such changes.
8. A deemed disposition of the partner's interest under Treasury Regulations Section 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi) (relating to corporate partners that become or cease to be members of a consolidated group), Treasury Regulations Section 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi) (relating to the termination of the S election of an S corporation partner), or Treasury Regulations Section 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi) (regarding an election to terminate the tax year of an S corporation partner), would be treated as a disposition of the partner's entire interest in the partnership.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to call our office.


Headquartered in City of Industry, CA., Jada Toys is a privately held leading manufacturer of authentically licensed and highly stylized figures, die-cast collectibles, radio control vehicles, and toys. Jada works closely with major entertainment and vehicle brands to produce the innovative, patented items that our fans have come to expect.
Reflecting the hottest trends in the automotive culture, Jada has revolutionized the die-cast collectible vehicle category by offering an extreme level of detail and styling which appeals to a whole new generation of enthusiasts with hit brands such as DUBCity, BigTime Muscle, Option-D, Hero Patrol, Lopro, Just Trucks and the highly anticipated JDM Tuners.
Jada Toys is a pioneer in radio control technology. In the Fall of 2009, Jada introduced Battle Machines revolutionizing RC play by adding video game like play pattern. Battle Machines combines radio control with laser tag technology bringing a new level of high speed action to the category.
Jada diversified their Boy dominated portfolio of products by obtaining the "Hello Kitty" license in 2011 and introduced its first Girls toy line. The Hello Kitty playsets that Jada Toys produced proved that they were not just a boys vehicle toy company anymore, but are now a major player in the girls category. Continuing an Innovation Forward philosophy, Jada launched their "Cutie Pops" doll line in 2012 with a multi-million dollar TV promotion which was awarded the brand top selling fashion doll of the year honors.
In another move to further expand their growth and diversity, Jada Toys was awarded the master toy licenses for the "RoboCop" movie reboot released in 2014 and the license to create vehicles and figures for the hit Xbox video game, Halo. The attention to detail, craftsmanship and execution of the figures gave Jada Toys credibility in the Action Figure world and paved the way to the creation of their latest die-cast collectable offerings: Metals Die-Cast.
In just one year, starting in January 2015, Metals Die-Cast has become a name synonymous with quality and styling. By obtaining major licenses from Universal, Marvel, Disney, DC and more, Metals Die-Cast has built a huge library of die-cast figures in a short amount of time. These die-cast collectable figures is one of the fastest growing lines Jada has ever produced.
Jada Toys, Inc. has become a powerhouse in the toy manufacturing industry, combining hot new licenses with innovative and cutting edge technology. At Jada, we strive to bring our customers the same fun, high quality products we have been delivering for over a decade.


We recently surveyed HOAs to learn more about their experience using community management software. We got some great learnings around software satisfaction, but also received valuable insight into residential populations. 43% of communities surveyed were comprised of residents over the age of 60. That stood out to us, as this population requires more training to properly use technology, more specifically, FRONTSTEPS.
Managing an older community doesn't mean you should skip using modern technology. Rather you must provide ample training to help users become comfortable with and adopt the technology. Follow these tips to help introduce technology to your senior communities.
According to a study from Pew Research, 77% of older adults need assistance when it came to learning how to use technology. When Googling articles about introducing technology to seniors, the most common trend is that this population is intimidated by technology. They are hesitant to ask for help, and therefore lack the necessary knowledge to even attempt navigating these tools on their own. These individuals grew up in a pre-digital era, and simply need basic education in order to dip their feet into the digital world.
According to the New York Times, senior centers, retirement communities, and advocacy groups like AARP are offering more free digital education courses for older adults. This is absolutely something you should consider providing to your residents. Create several training sessions for your community to help them get comfortable using various devices, understanding digital terminology, and eventually, learning how to use FRONTSTEPS.
Offer training sessions that provide an in-depth overview on how to use various devices, from smartphones and tablets to laptops. Cover the basics such as how to turn the device on, get on the internet, setup email, and adjust the settings. Be sure to show users how to adjust the volume and font size. Think about creating homework assignments, such as receiving and responding to an email you've sent or RSVPing digitally to a community event to ensure they're comfortable using the device once on their own.
With technology comes confusing terminology. Teach an interactive class covering common tech terminology. For example, introduce the word browser and then show users how to open up their browser and browse the internet. Beyond cookies, buffering, and modems, cover additional terms like App Store and Google Play, as these will come into play with your FRONTSTEPS training.
Overview and setup: talk about the benefits of FRONTSTEPS and how this tool will improve resident's overall experience in the community. Explain the registration process, show them the email they'll receive, and how to click on the link to setup their profile. Be sure to cover step-by-step instructions and encourage residents to setup their account during the training session.
Community communications: educate residents about how this tool will be used to keep them in the loop on all community happenings. Walk them through digital bulletins, and why they should check these on a daily basis. Show them the calendar and how they can see what's going on in the community on any given day.
Self-service features: explain to residents how they can do things like reserve amenities, submit work orders, and pay dues and fees without making a phone call or writing a check.
App overview: for more advanced residents, show them how to use FRONTSTEPS on their smartphone by downloading the free iOS and Google apps. Walk through everything from downloading the app to signing into their account.
Providing special training to address the needs of your residents is a great way to improve their overall experience living in the communities you manage. For more tips on how to delight your residents, download our free six-step guide!


30% Off. Hurry, there are only 100 item(s) left!
This long dress is V- neckline, with beaded embellishment,wide shoulder straps, short sleeve and partial backless design.
Suitable for Gatsby Prom, 1920s Party, Roaring 20s Party, Vintage Party, Cocktail, Prom, Garden Reception.
The accessories in the picture like bracelet, flapper headband, flapper fan are not included.
S 4-6 8-10 36-38 86.0 cm 33.86" 76.0 cm 29.92" 96.0 cm 37.8 " 123.0 cm 48.43"
M 8-10 12-14 40-42 90.0 cm 35.43" 80.0 cm 31.5 " 100.0 cm 39.37" 124.0 cm 48.82"
L 12-14 16 44 94.0 cm 37.01" 84.0 cm 33.07" 106.0 cm 41.73" 126.0 cm 49.61"
XL 14-16 18 46 97.0 cm 38.19" 88.0 cm 34.65" 108.0 cm 42.52" 128.0 cm 50.39"


text:
News 360 / TV Schedule
Good Morning News
Hosted by Meg Johnson
The latest news, sport, business and weather from the Reendex's Breakfast. The latest news, sport, business and weather…
Reendexroom
Hosted by Mona Cruz, Richard Mclaughlin
Mona Cruz and Richard Mclaughlin bring you the news that matters to you! Mona Cruz and Richard Mclaughlin bring you the…
Happening Now In World
Hosted by Kerry Thomas
Kerry Thomas will take you to news when and where it happens and James will take you to news when and where it happens.
Caught Red Handed Now
Series 5, Episode 2
An ex-copper has a charity tin nicked , so he decides to use social media. An ex-copper has a charity tin nicked , so he…
All New Traffic Cops
Cases and hits the road with the traffic cops handing out on-the-spot fines. Cases and hits the road with the traffic cops…
Inside Story Today
The headlines of the news of the day gets the Story from some of the best minds.
On the Record Meaning
Hosted by Sam Anderson
Inside News and the stories making headlines! Inside News and the stories making headlines!
Live, breaking and in-depth news from around the world. Cases and hits the road with the traffic cops handing out on-the-spot…
Take a look at the manufacturing and assembling processes of luxurious cars.
Hosted by Jason Mckenzie
Join host Jason Mckenzie to find out what's happening on the world stage. Join host Jason Mckenzie to find out what's…
Hosted by Howard Scott
Latest up on national, local and world best news. The headlines of the news of the day gets the Story from some of the best…
The First Stop On Your Next Trip is the Travel & Adventure Show. The Second Stop On Your Next Trip is the Travel &…
Reendex at Six
Hosted by Garry Owen
National and International News stories from the Reendex Team and Local News more stories
Sport Fixtures
Hosted by Chelsea Hart
All the latest sports news from around the world. Roger F has revealed he will miss next month's.
Kerry Thomas will take you to news when and where it happens and Julie will take you to news
Cook like a Chef
The Grand Finale
Do you know what really goes into being a Chef? Join us for the Grand Finale!
Reendex at Ten
Hosted by Anthony Edwards
Latest National and International news, with reports correspondents worldwide.
News Insight
Hosted by Christina Stevens
Get the context behind the news and find out how it will affect of the world.
The Late Talk Show with K C
Hosted by Kerry Cohen
Find out who this week's guests are on "The Late Talk Show with K C"! Find out who this week's guests…
Join Reendex for a night of news. Kerry. bring you the news that matters to you!
Museums have an exotic collection from history that…
The city, Delhi, has many shades. From gurudwaras…
Unleash your love for art at these remarkable art…
The ruling Taliban in Afghanistan have warned…
While the Indians have seemingly normalised hate speech…
Every evening, Indian television news anchors disseminate…
American Youth Football, is a organization, dedicated to promoting the wholesome development of youth. Rules and regulations ensure players are in a safe environment with a competitive balance between teams.Read more...
It's a signal to the other players to hike the ball (start play). Probably a short form of "ten hut" meaning "attention", used by the military. Read more...
Randy knew he was destined for a sports career OFF the court while he became the 13th man on… A news anchor for the Reendex and was a longtime sports anchor and reporter for various television stations. He has won five awards for his news and sports reportingRead more...
Sports includes all forms of competitive physical activity or games which through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants, and in some cases, entertainment for spectators.Read more...
Which players use various clubs to hit balls into a series of holes on a course in as few strokes as possible and cannot and does not utilize a standardized playing areaRead more...
Men's tennis differs from women's tennis, as in many other sports, due to the fact that men are generally taller, stronger and faster.The average serve speeds of match winners is slightly higher than the average serve speeds of match losers.Read more...
Reendex TV & Radio
Amazing Luxury
Walk around some
Museums have an exotic collection from history that offers an entertaining yet educating experience to its visitors. Here are some well-known museums of the city that tourists can visit. Shankar's International Dolls Museum Musical Located next to ITO Metro station (Violet Line), Shankar's International Dolls Museum Musical has approximately more than 6000 dolls from all over the world. They represent the eras and cultures of the different countries and how people have evolved. Most of the tourists call it a dreamland for children. Tourists can tour around this site on all days of the week except for Mondays. Craft Museum […]Read more...
Stroll around the
The city, Delhi, has many shades. From gurudwaras to masjids to churches and temples, the tourists and locals have various options to stroll around and experience the pilgrimage vibes of the city. Known for its culture, food, shopping spots, and many more things, this city offers a lot. Akshardham Mandir: Located near the heart of Delhi, Akshardham Mandir unfolds the legacy of thousands of years through its architecture. Standing on the banks of Yamuna, it took almost five years to construct it, and today, it attracts millions of tourists. After the darshan, the visitors can enjoy the movie or exhibitions […]Read more...
Explore the artistic
Unleash your love for art at these remarkable art galleries and museums in the city. From the artwork of emerging artists to decades-old paintings, you'll find everything here. National Gallery of Modern Art This traditional and contemporary art gallery is a must-visit for all art lovers. With the charming architecture of this museum, you can explore international exhibits, miniature paintings, print photographs, paintings of great Indian artists like Rabindranath Tagore, abstraction in contemporary Indian art and modern sculptures. You can discover the beauty of this place on all the days of the week except Mondays and national holidays. Kiran Nadar Museum […]Read more...
Soak in some
Delhi, a metropolitan city, is known for its colourful culture, bustling markets and fast life. With its thriving past, the city unveils its ancient history through monuments, tombs and forts. It is one of the best states in the country to discover and explore the architectural beauty from the past. From Chandni Chowk to Hauz Khas to Mehrauli Archaeological Park, there are some must-visit places in the city through heritage walks. Red Fort: Built-in the 17th century by a Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, Red Fort is named after its impregnable red sandstone walls. Apart from accommodating emperors and their families, it […]Read more...
Elephant Rock: one
Headlines – In
We can paint a pretty grim picture of life across our planet. But in fact, doing the opposite can produce surprisingly curative results. Spin the globe…Read more...
Bhutan happiest on
Citizens of one of the happiest countries on Earth are surprisingly comfortable contemplating a topic many prefer to avoid. Is that the key to joy?Read more...
The most exotic
Canada may not be the most exotic of destinations, but sometimes, exotic is overrated. Canada tempts us with familiarity, blissfully cool weather and…Read more...
The bustle of the workweek and the noise of traffic? To find out, you turned to question-and-answer our site , where users have been sharing opinions…Read more...
Back after a long holiday weekend, lawmakers must reach an agreement on a budget plan before the Friday deadline when government funding runs out, but demands from each side of the aisle are impeding progress on negotiations.


text:
MEN'S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP - MIDWEST REGION - SWEET 16 AT ST. LOUIS
13OhioBobcatsOHIO
Final/OT
OHIO 22 41 2 65
UNC 29 34 10 73
1North CarolinaTar HeelsUNC
BracketBracket
Ohio takes UNC to overtime before Tar Heels prevail
ST. LOUIS -- The last of the little guys gave North Carolina a massive scare.
Harrison Barnes scored five of his 12 points in overtime and the top-seeded Tar Heels escaped a huge upset with a 73-65 victory over No. 13 seed Ohio on Friday night in the Midwest Regional semifinals.
Ohio, trying to become the first team seeded 13th or worse to make the regional finals since the NCAA tournament expanded in 1985, had a chance to convert a three-point play that would have given the Bobcats the lead with 25 seconds left in regulation. Walter Offutt missed from the line, however, and Ohio went 0 for 6 from the field in the first overtime of this year's tournament.
"One free throw away," Offutt said. "As a leader on this team, I take responsibility that I've got to hit that free throw. ... It just feels terrible to kind of let my team down in that sort of way."
Tyler Zeller finished with 20 points and a career-high 22 rebounds for North Carolina, which sorely missed injured point guard Kendall Marshall. The Tar Heels had three players with double-doubles for the first time in an NCAA tournament game: Reggie Bullock had 17 points and 10 boards, and John Henson had 14 points and 10 rebounds.
Freshman guard Stilman White was an impressive fill-in for Marshall, dishing out six assists without a single turnover and playing 32 minutes -- almost three times his previous high.
"We feel like we got away with one," Zeller said. "Ohio played the better game, they hit a lot of shots. I think we just were able to make a lot of plays at the end that made us capable of pulling it out."
Offutt led the Bobcats (29-8) with 26 points, including 18 from 3-point range, and Nick Kellogg added 14. But D.J. Cooper, who averaged 20 points in Ohio's first two tournament games, finished with just 10 on 3-of-20 shooting.
"I've been getting those same shots all tournament," Cooper said. "I've been making them, and tonight I just didn't get the job done."
North Carolina (32-5), which has won 11 straight in the regional semifinals, plays Kansas on Sunday afternoon.
"It means a heck of a lot," coach Roy Williams said moments after his team escaped, "but we've got to play better than we did today."
That's for sure -- especially since the Tar Heels are playing without Marshall, perhaps their most irreplaceable player and the steadying hand behind their fast-paced attack. The left-handed guard broke his right wrist Sunday when he was fouled on a drive against Creighton. He had surgery Monday to put a screw in the wrist and got his cast off Wednesday.
Though Marshall said the wrist is improving, he didn't even dress Friday night, sitting on the bench in a suit.
"He still hasn't done anything," Williams said when asked about the prospects of Marshall returning Sunday. "But North Carolina's going to play on Sunday. We're happy about that."
Barnes was dismal, flirting with a season low in scoring as he went 3 for 16 while missing from inside, outside and everywhere in between. But his teammates weren't much better, turning the ball over a season-high 24 times and shooting just 40 percent, six percentage points below their average.
Worse, they could never get a handle on the smaller, quicker Bobcats.
"They don't play like a 13-seed," Henson said. "It was a great game."
After trailing by as much as 15 in the first half, Ohio got hot from long range and gave the Tar Heels almost more than they could handle. Ohio, a 10½-point underdog, was 8 of 13 from 3-point range in the second half, with Offutt doing most of the damage. He made a 3-pointer to start a 14-5 run and hit two more during the stretch, which pulled the Bobcats to 42-41 with 10:23 to play.
After Zeller's layup and a dunk by James Michael McAdoo, Cooper hit his only 3 of the game. Kellogg came right back with another to give Ohio its first lead, 47-46, with 8:28 to play, and the Ohio faithful -- plus all the new fans the Bobcats picked up -- went into a frenzy.
The teams traded leads, neither able to put the other away. When Barnes missed badly on a 3 with 1:17 to play, the crowd taunted him with chants of "Air-ball! Air-ball!" Williams could be heard yelling "One stop!" at his team, and the Tar Heels got it when Cooper missed a jumper at the other end.
Bullock then drilled a 3 to give North Carolina a 63-61 lead with 39 seconds left, but Offutt -- who else? -- scored on an off-balance drive and drew a foul from White. Offutt's foul shot was way left, the only free throw the Bobcats missed in eight attempts, and Zeller grabbed the rebound.
"It's just like him to take responsibility for the loss because that's who he is," Bobcats coach John Groce said of his senior, a transfer from Ohio State by way of Wright State. "But the reality of it is, that doesn't fall on him. There's so many plays during the game that make up the game in a 45-minute game, and if anybody deserved to make that free throw, it's him. It just didn't go in."
The Tar Heels worked the shot clock down to the very last seconds, but Barnes lost the ball and Offutt came up with it. He flipped the ball to Cooper, who raced to midcourt and launched a prayer. It caromed off the rim, sending the game into overtime.
Kellogg's father, Clark, calling the games in Atlanta for CBS, smiled as he watched the final plays.
"Overtime," he said, clapping.
But the Bobcats had nothing left. Bullock opened the extra period with a 3 and Barnes came right back with a jumper. After Kellogg made a pair of free throws to cut it to 68-65, Barnes made a pair of his own and Ohio could never get any closer.
"Awful proud of our guys for the way that they fought," Groce said. "But as I told them in the locker room, there's nothing I can say to them at this point that's going to take away the sting of getting beat in that one. They've got a lot of pride and they believed all year that we could compete and beat anybody that we played. That was no different heading into tonight's game."
2021-22 Mid-American Conference Standings
Ohio 5-0 - 14-2
Toledo 6-1 - 14-4
Akron 3-2 2 10-5
Buffalo 3-2 2 9-6
Kent State 4-3 2 9-8
Northern Illinois 2-2 2.5 5-9
Miami (OH) 2-3 3 8-8
Eastern Michigan 2-3 3 7-9
Bowling Green 2-4 3.5 9-8
Ball State 2-4 3.5 7-10
Central Michigan 1-2 3 2-12
Western Michigan 0-6 5.5 4-13
2021-22 Atlantic Coast Conference Standings
Miami 6-1 - 14-4
Florida State 5-2 1 11-5
Duke 4-2 1.5 14-3
North Carolina 4-2 1.5 12-5
Notre Dame 4-2 1.5 11-6
Wake Forest 5-3 1.5 15-4
Louisville 5-3 1.5 11-7
Virginia 5-3 1.5 11-7
Syracuse 3-4 3 9-9
Virginia Tech 2-4 3.5 10-7
Boston College 2-4 3.5 7-9
Clemson 2-5 4 10-8
Pittsburgh 2-5 4 7-11
NC State 2-6 4.5 9-10
Georgia Tech 1-6 5 7-10


Voice Prompts for Trixbox. Professional sound recordings by our native speaking voice artists.
Give your customers the right impression the moment their call is answered by using our highly trained professional voice artists.
All of our voice prompts are recorded by our fully trained professional voice artists, that speak their language natively, and are recorded and edited in our state-of-the-art recording studios.
Our Trixbox (formally knows as amp or asterisk@home) voip voice prompts are recorded in 96khz aiff and can be transcoded from these high quality sound files into a wide selection of sound formats, such as ULAW, ALAW, WAV, MP3, GSM, and many others, allowing you to choose the format that is right for your telephone system.
Our native speaking voices make your Trixbox installation sound professional right out of the box. Because we use only professional voice artists who are at the "top of their profession" all of our languages are very high quality.
Now you can replace the standard American-English language voice with a Westany voice prompt product so your customers are greeted with a professional, clear voice that the customer understands.
The recorded sound files will support all of the major features of Trixbox including voicemail, ivr, call queues, call transfers, call parking, conferences, torture menus, error messages, numbers, alphabet and phonetics right out of the box.
We provide a customisation service for recording prompts specific to your needs.