ellauri036.html on line 1950: The incident was ridiculed both within the United States and abroad, with a number of commentators opining that it was a planned publicity stunt. Some American commentators viewed it as a sign of decreasing morality in American culture, while others considered the incident harmless and argued that it received undue attention and backlash. The increased regulation of broadcasting raised concerns regarding censorship and free speech in the United States.
ellauri096.html on line 177: The (K-0) argument stinks of the liar paradox. Subsequent commentators sloppily switch the negation sign in the formal presentations of the reasoning from K∼p
ellauri096.html on line 199: Several commentators on the surprise test paradox object that interpreting surprise as unprovability changes the topic. Instead of posing the surprise test paradox, it poses a variation of the liar paradox. Other concepts can be blended with the liar. For instance, mixing in alethic notions generates the possible liar: Is ‘This statement is possibly false’ true? (Post 1970) (If it is false, then it is false that it is possibly false. What cannot possibly be false is necessarily true. But if it is necessarily true, then it cannot be possibly false.) Since the semantic concept of validity involves the notion of possibility, one can also derive validity liars such as Pseudo-Scotus’ paradox: ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ (Read 1979). Suppose Pseudo-Scotus’ argument is valid. Since the premise is necessarily true, the conclusion would be necessarily true. But the conclusion contradicts the supposition that argument is valid. Therefore, by reductio, the argument is necessarily invalid. Wait! The argument can be invalid only if it is possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. But we have already proved that the conclusion of ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ is necessarily true. There is no consistent judgment of the argument’s validity. A similar predicament follows from ‘The test is on Friday but this prediction cannot be soundly deduced from this announcement’.
ellauri141.html on line 305: In Epode 11, the iambist regretfully recalls to his friend Pettius his infatuation with a girl named Inachia. The latter name does not occur elsewhere in extant Latin or Greek except in the very next poem in the Gedichtbuch, where the iambist’s older (ex-)lover complains of his sexual endurance with Inachia in contrast to his impotence with her (12.14-6). The name may suggest an ethnically Greek or Argive woman, or the Greek noms de lit regularly adopted by Italian meretrices. Yet, as some (but by no means all) commentators have noted, the name also evokes Io, the daughter of Inachus, jota Zeus bylsi härän hahmossa. Eli kyllä tässäkin yhden kynäilijän mielestä on jotain impotenssin käryä.
ellauri145.html on line 406: After the trial, Kenealy instigated a popular radical reform movement, the Magna Charta Association, which championed the claimant´s cause for some years. Kenealy was elected to Parliament in 1875 as a radical independent but was not an effective parliamentarian. The movement was in decline when the claimant was released in 1884, and he had no dealings with it. In 1895, he confessed to being Orton, only to recant almost immediately. He lived generally in poverty for the rest of his life and was destitute at the time of his death in 1898. Although most commentators have accepted the court´s view that the claimant was Orton, some analysts believe that an element of doubt remains as to his true identity and that, conceivably, he was Roger Tichborne. Or not.
ellauri162.html on line 822: In 2010, the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker wrote: "Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described the commentators on PZ Myers ' Scienceblogs.com site Pharyngula, and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as 'screechy monkeys'."
ellauri163.html on line 398: The older Jewish versions and commentators (e.g., Septuagint, Targums, Saadyah, and RASHI) read this word without the letter - yod, as if written - sheloh, the archaic form for - shelo, his; or, as if it were a poetic form for - shalvah, peace. (Sama sana varmaan kuin ähläm sähläm, tai shaloom.)
ellauri163.html on line 400: One translation, "until that which is his shall come.", is derived from the Septuagint. Its meaning is: 'The scepter shall not depart from Judah till all that is reserved for him shall have been fulfilled.' Another translation, "Till he come whose it (the kingdom) is.", is based on the Onkelos and Jerusalem Targums, Saadya Ga´on, RASHI, and other Jewish commentators. A modern Jewish commentator, M. Friedlander, renders this as "Till peace cometh.".
ellauri164.html on line 502: Another thing we see from Moses during his time spent in Midian is that, when God finally did call him into service, Moses was resistant. The man of action early in his life, Moses, now 80 years old, became overly timid. When called to speak for God, Moses said he was “slow of speech and tongue” (Exodus 4:10). Some commentators believe that Moses may have had a speech impediment. Perhaps, but then it would be odd for Stephen to say Moses was “mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). Perhaps Moses just didn’t want to go back into Egypt and fail again. This isn’t an uncommon feeling. How many of us have tried to do something (whether or not it was for God) and failed, and then been hesitant to try again? There are two things Moses seemed to have overlooked. One was the obvious change that had occurred in his own life in the intervening 40 years. The other, and more important, change was that God would be with him. Moses failed at first not so much because he acted impulsively, but because he acted without God. Therefore, the lesson to be learned here is that when you discern a clear call from God, step forward in faith, knowing that God goes with you! Do not be timid, but be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might (Ephesians 6:10).
ellauri164.html on line 875: This gets us back to the question of what, exactly, Moses’ sin was. Many commentators focus on the physical actions that Moses took in verses 9-11. Some say Moses sin was striking the rock rather than speaking to it, but Moses was told to take the staff of God. Exodus 17:5-6 had Moses striking the rock to cause water to come out of the rock (in fact, it’s actually the same rock of Meribah!), so it’s possible to read an inference that the staff was to be used to strike the rock. Some commentators see Moses’ harsh words for Israel as the sin, or perhaps that he speaks to the people rather than speaking to the rock. Regardless of which of these views, they don’t account for what the text itself says: Numbers 20:12 makes it clear that the sin of Moses and Aaron was “…you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel.” Indeed, focusing on Moses’ actions of striking the rock or speaking harshly makes it seem doubly unfair to Aaron, who had neither spoken nor struck the rock.
ellauri171.html on line 989: The next time we hear of Jezebel is during the ploy to obtain Naboth’s vineyard for her husband, who is unable to secure the transaction. She sends letters, with the stamp of the king, to the elders in Naboth’s town, commanding them to lie against Naboth, and then stone him. The elders do so, and after Naboth’s death, the vineyard is claimed for Ahab. Few bible commentators acknowledge the bizarre betrayal of Naboth by his neighbors. If, as is suggested, Naboth’s neighbors had known him since birth and patronized him, how could they turn so quickly? Some scholars argue that this incident highlights Jezebel’s keen understanding of Israelite men. It is perhaps, also, one of the impetus for her modern connotation as manipulator-supreme.
ellauri171.html on line 1009: The medieval commentators differ on whether Jezebel converted to Judaism in a halachically acceptable manner. R. Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag, 1288-1344) is of the view that Jezebel did not fully embrace Judaism and was not a halachic Jewess. This would mean that her two sons, Ahazia and Jehoram, also lacked Jewish credentials. But his assumption is challenged by the fact that there are indications throughout rabbinic works that Ahazia and Jehoram were regarded as bona-fide halachic Jews. Indeed, this is the position taken by a number of halachic authorities. Some contemporary authors argue instead that Jehoram was the son of another of Ahab’s 100% Jewish wives.
ellauri184.html on line 348: In Matthew 9:1 the town is referred to only as "his own city", and the narrative in Matthew 9:2–7 does not mention the paralytic being lowered through the roof. Most traditional biblical commentators (e.g. Bengel, Benson and the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary) assume that in Matthew 9:1–7 "his own city" means Capernaum, because of the details that are common to the three synoptic gospels.
ellauri194.html on line 319: Queer is noun and verb, and relational not binary. It is strange, queer in fact. Sedgwick said when appalled conservative commentators rejected her queer reading of literary greats: "Read any Sonnets lately? You dip into the Phaedrus often? To invoke the utopian bedroom scene of Chuck Berry's immortal aubade: Roll over, Beethoven, and tell Tchaikovsky the news."
ellauri262.html on line 300: The presence of sexuality in The Lord of the Rings, a bestselling fantasy novel by J. R. R. Tolkien, has been debated, as it is somewhat unobtrusive. However, love and marriage appear in the form of the warm relationship between the hobbits Sam Gamgee and Rosie Cotton; the unreturned feelings of Éowyn for Aragorn, followed by her falling in love with Faramir, and marrying him; and Aragorn's love for Arwen, described in an appendix rather than in the main text, as "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen". Multiple scholars have noted the symbolism of the monstrous female spider Shelob. Interest has been concentrated, too, on the officer-batman-inspired same-sex relationship of Frodo and his gardener Sam as they travel together on the dangerous quest to destroy the Ring. Scholars and commentators have interpreted the relationship in different ways, from close but not necessarily homosexual to plainly homoerotic, or as an idealised heroic friendship.
xxx/ellauri086.html on line 919: The essay states Poe's conviction that a work of fiction should be written only after the author has decided how it is to end and which emotional response, or "effect", he wishes to create, commonly known as the "unity of effect". Once this effect has been determined, the writer should decide all other matters pertaining to the composition of the work, including tone, theme, setting, characters, conflict, and plot. In this case, Poe logically decides on "the death... of a beautiful woman" as it "is unquestionably the most poetical topic in the world, and equally is it beyond doubt that the lips best suited for such topic are those of a bereaved lover." Some commentators have taken this to imply that pure poetry can only be attained by the eradication of female beauty. Biographers and critics have often suggested that Poe's obsession with this theme stems from the repeated loss of women throughout his life, including his mother Eliza Poe, his foster mother Frances Allan and, later, his wife Virginia.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 181:
xxx/ellauri166.html on line 399: . Rashi's commentary, drawing on his knowledge of the entire contents of the Talmud, attempts to provide a full explanation of the words and of the logical structure of each Talmudic passage. Unlike other commentators, Rashi does not paraphrase or exclude any part of the text, but elucidates phrase by phrase. Often he provides punctuation in the unpunctuated text, explaining, for example, "This is a question"; "He says this in surprise", "He repeats this in agreement", etc.
xxx/ellauri166.html on line 419: Up to and including Rashi, the Talmudic commentators occupied themselves only with the plain meaning ("peshaṭ") of the text; but after the beginning of the twelfth century the spirit of criticism took possession of the teachers of the Talmud. Thus some of Rashi's continuators, as his sons-in-law and his grandson Samuel ben Meïr (RaSHBaM), while they wrote commentaries on the Talmud after the manner of Rashi's, wrote also glosses on it in a style peculiar to themselves.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 655: After leaving office, Bryan retained some of his influence within the Democratic Party, but he increasingly devoted himself to religious matters and anti-evolution activism. He opposed Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds, most famously in the 1925 Daytona monkey case, aka Scopes Trial. Since his death in 1925, Bryan has elicited mixed reactions from various commentators, but he is widely considered to have been one of the most influential figures of the anthropocenic era.
xxx/ellauri208.html on line 1029: Many Qur´anic commentators, such as al-Tabari and Qadi Baydawi, identified Idris with Enoch. Baizawi said, "Idris was of the posterity of Seth and a forefather of Noah, and his name was Enoch (Ar. Akhnukh)". With this identification, Idris´s father becomes Yarid (يريد), his mother Barkanah, and his wife Aadanah. Idris´s son Methuselah would eventually be the grandfather of Nuh (Noah). Hence Idris is identified as the great-grandfather of Noah.
xxx/ellauri233.html on line 432: Jewish and Muslim commentators cite studies by the Vilna Gaon and Rebbe Schlemiel that show shechita is humane and that criticism is at least partially motivated by antisemitism. A Knesset committee announced (January, 2012) that it would call on European parliaments and the European Union to put a stop to attempts to outlaw kosher slaughter. "The pretext [for this legislation] is preventing cruelty to animals or animal rights—but there is an obvious element of anti-Semitism and a badly hidden message that Jews are cruel to animals," said Committee Chair MK Danny Danon (Likud).
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 103: Many commentators are loath to describe the falls in life expectancy as actual falls or to ascribe blame to the political situation in the UK. Overall, Britain’s NHS is reflective of the failure of socialized medicine: longer waiting times, rationing, poor quality of care and unnecessary deaths. Socialized medicine, the Holy Grail of leftism, is a nightmare. The U.S. should take note of the NHS’s major shortcomings, as that is where the country is headed if we fail to repeal Obamacare! Don't believe the commies! Rather follow Aaron Bandler to Hell on Twitter!
xxx/ellauri337.html on line 506: There are three dominant views regarding the famous Genesis 6 passage about the “Sons of God.” Most Bible interpreters and commentators state that the godly children of Seth are the Sons of God marrying outside the faith, or that fallen angels mated with human women to produce giant offspring. The scientific explanation of these events is still in the works. See also album 114.
24