ellauri054.html on line 183: Hannu Riikonen oli omituinen jo Norssin pihalla. Tepasteli kädet ristissä selän takana kuin Charlie Chaplin sen toisen hörhön Eero Tarastin perässä. Hannun sankari on Tex Willer. Lempo! Pannahinen! “I’ve tried to uphold the tradition of eccentric professors,” Riikonen says.
ellauri064.html on line 522: “I don’t know,” said Marvin, “I’ve never been there.”
ellauri111.html on line 235: “I’ve read about it …” I answered, not wanting to risk offending him any more, though sensing that he did in fact know exactly what I had and hadn’t read.
ellauri378.html on line 114: “I’ve been poor and I’ve been rich,” quipped the comedian Sophie Tucker. “Rich is better.”
ellauri412.html on line 64: I met a sweet gal named Jerusha. Upon hearing her name, I squealed, “I’ve never met a Jerusha!!”  She looked rather startled. (I do that to people sometimes.) “You know who Jerusha is?”  “Of course! She’s King Uzziah’s wife in the Bible.”  This sweet girl smiled and confessed she’d stumped many Bible nerds with her name. I wouldn’t have known either unless I’d been studying Isaiah and the kings who reigned during his ministry.  Here’s another woman I’ve read over at least a dozen times–Ahinoam. I knew one of David’s wives was Ahinoam, but did you know King Saul’s wife was also named Ahinoam? Aha! Got you there! And what about Job’s wife? Scripture doesn’t even name her. We only know her as the crotchety old gal that gripes at her suffering husband. The shepherd girl in Solomon’s Song of Songs is another one who gets no name. At least we know she was loved. And how! Isaiah’s wife is another woman mentioned but given no name.
ellauri430.html on line 522: Vance: “I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you’ve had problems, bringing people into your military?”
xxx/ellauri167.html on line 594: By early October of 1968, CBS received 8,670 letters about Chicago, and 60 Minutes’ Harry Reasoner reported that the mail ran 11-to-1 against the network. A viewer in Ohio wrote, “I’ve never seen such a disgusting display of one-sided reporting in all of the years I’ve watched television.” From South Carolina, a letter writer griped, “Your coverage was … slanted in favor of the hoodlums and beatniks and slurred the police trying to preserve order.” A North Carolina viewer complained that, “When a great network refers to trouble makers as THESE YOUNG PEOPLE and in such a … tender tone, that is bias.” A New Yorker even suggested that the police had engaged in righteous violence: “Our Lord whipped the money lenders out of the temple. Are you going to accuse Him of brutality?”
7