Shocked doesn’t quite
ellauri324.html on line 495: what you pay because it doesn’t include taxes. That needs
ellauri324.html on line 749: guns EVERY year and the government doesn’t think we
ellauri334.html on line 297: Judas doesn’t get the credit he deserves. Without Judas there’s no betrayal. Without the betrayal there’s no Passion. Without the Passion there’s no crucifixion. Without the crucifixion there’s no resurrection. And without the resurrection there’s no hope. I’m grateful for Judas.
ellauri336.html on line 316: According to some Hasidic authorities, the only way to ensure that a woman’s hair doesn’t eventually stray from under her hat/turban/scarf/kerchief/wig/etc. is not to have any. There’s also a concern that hair might create an interposition when using the mikva. Ostensibly, this practice is based upon a statement in the Zohar (parshas Naso) to the effect that the mikva should not see a woman’s hair.
ellauri336.html on line 345: The Zohar (parshas Naso) that Rabbi Jack cites doesn’t say anything about mikvah. What it says is that the beams of a woman’s house should not see her hair. This is the meritorious practice observed by Kimchis (and many other women of her time) mentioned in the Talmud. Kimchi IS delicious BTW.
ellauri336.html on line 346: This stringency is actually one of the strongest proofs that the Talmud and Zohar agree that a woman (even the most righteous woman) DOES have hair. If she doesn’t have any, what is she hiding from her beams? The Zohar that Rabbi Jack wants is in parshas Acharei Mos. That one talks about shaving and mikvah, but not about the mikvah ‘seeing’ anything.
ellauri348.html on line 385: Tää on pätkä pituushaasteisen Popen (1717) pitkänläntää arkkiveisua munattomasta Abelardista ja sen Eloisasta bändäristä. Eli it's from a poem about a woman named Eloisa who falls in love with her much older tutor Abelard, but her family forces them apart. Eloisa is forced to become a nun and writes about the grief of being without her star-crossed lover. She tries to forget Abelard, but she cannot and she comes to the conclusion that God cannot heal all wounds (such as the loss of Abelard's balls). She wishes she hated Abelard, but concludes her love for him remains. Despite her knowing about her doom with her love, she still longs for it. Just like Joel and Clem. They have knowledge about their destruction and loathing for each other if they continue with the relationship, but it doesn’t matter to them. It’s "Okay," “ignorance is bliss” by another name!
ellauri371.html on line 682: The Jeffersonian Institute — prominently featured on the show as the workplace of leading anthropologist Temperance Brennan — doesn’t exist in real life.
ellauri402.html on line 682: Edit: I’ve read a lot of comments to this, mainly saying that the American people want UH, but there are too many powerful lobbyists against it. So why are they not being fought? The Government exists to serve the people surely? If it doesn’t do that, then it’s a corrupt system that needs reforming. A lot of Americans talk about bringing “Freedom” to the rest of the world, why not start with your own country?
ellauri408.html on line 392: Think about it for a second. If all human beings fall short of the glory of God, as the Bible claims, then all human fall infinitely short and there is no difference between one fallible human being and another. If there is a heaven, to keep if from being like earth, God would either have to change human nature, or he would have to create a dimension where suffering and death are not possible. If suffering and death are not possible, evil is not possible. But a God who can do either, and who is able to “make the lion lie down with the lamb” doesn’t need a “hell.” Does this explain why there was no “hell” in the Old Testament?
ellauri409.html on line 279: When it doesn’t make you drink, by Heaven! it makes you think, Jos et ala ryypätä, niin ainakin
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.
ellauri413.html on line 654: Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
ellauri418.html on line 550: It is puzzling to me why Israel doesn’t seem to support Ukraine more enthusiastically even before Oct. 7, given Russia has provided large amounts of weapons to Hamas, Iran relies on Russian air defenses and other Russian made arms, Russia finances Iran through the purchase of drones (Shaheeds) and missiles, and Russia has a long history of antisemitism. I know because my wife is a Russian Jew and all but 1 out of 8 her family emigrated to the west as soon as they were free to leave Russia, and antisemitism was a primary motivation. At times Netanyahu has even appeared chummy with Putin. There is a high ranking Israeli official who has stated when Israel concludes its war against Hamas and there are no Palestinians left, Israel will begin to actively support Ukraine.
ellauri420.html on line 291: But acedia doesn’t always present as a porn propensity. It can cast its toxic shadow in any number of ways.
ellauri425.html on line 639: I deal with tech a lot. and probably everyone that deals with tech a lot knows that you sometimes get problems that are super random and not that common. So you search it on google. But google doesn’t show you what you searched for at all. Instead it takes 1-2 keywords of you’r search and shows you forum threads to super common problems that have nothing to do with yours because there is one matching key word.
ellauri428.html on line 268: According to de Bres’s neat distinction, some narrativists are relationists, who hold that it is the obtaining of certain causal relations among parts of a life that contributes (in part) to its meaningfulness. I, for example, have argued that our lives as agents consist of a succession of (often overlapping) projects, and that other things being equal, it contributes to meaningfulness if later projects build on earlier ones. Here building on the past means, for example, that later projects are more successful or have more valuable aims because of earlier ones, or fulfill aims that were left unrealized earlier. So the claim is that having a progressive structure – rather than a repetitive or disconnected or regressive one – makes a life more meaningful, other things being equal. Lives with such a structure are narratable in a certain kind of story that is apt to arouse admiration or pride, but no one need actually tell the story. (Let me add here parenthetically that it is a real pleasure to read a paper that presents one’s view as accurately and fairly as de Bres does!) De Bres rejects relationism, because she doesn’t believe that the mere existence of a causal relation between parts of a life is the sort of thing that could contribute to value or meaning (8-9). I’ll come back to this below.
ellauri428.html on line 278: It’s not trivial to spell out precisely how stories (in contrast to propositions) can be true – telling falsehoods doesn’t suffice, but the story must also, as de Bres says, represent the “central elements of the life”.
ellauri432.html on line 214: According to the Washington Post, a word like “women” appearing will get the content flagged, but it will need to be manually reviewed to determine if the context of the word is related to a forbidden topic under the anti-DEI order. Trump and his fellow fascists use terms like DEI to describe anything they don’t like, which means that the word “women” is on the forbidden list while “men” doesn’t initiate a review.
ellauri432.html on line 361: Meta has certainly been in the EU’s sights, racking up more than $3 million in fines for violations of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) alone, and faces an ongoing investigation that alleges it failed to protect minors on its platform. Earlier this month, Meta announced it would open up its Facebook Marketplace platform to third-party competitors in the EU following an antitrust fine. Then again, Meta could simply stop maintaining monopolistic control over platforms and breaking laws if it doesn’t want to deal with the consequences. Just a free idea for Zuckerberg and the gang.
ellauri434.html on line 224: As a result, they believe the following: the Archbishop of Canterbury came to Kiev incognito to see what the Bolsheviks were up to (I’m not joking); the Pope has announced that if “it doesn’t stop” then he will go into the desert; the proletarian poet, Demian Bednyi, was the true author of the late Empress’s letters.
ellauri437.html on line 491: Richer people tend to say they are happier than poorer people; richer countries tend to have higher average happiness levels; and across time, most countries that have experienced sustained economic growth have seen increasing happiness levels. So, the evidence suggests that income and life satisfaction tend to go together (which still doesn’t mean they are one and the same).
ellauri458.html on line 111: Huck also says that he thinks that Miss Watson is crazy with all her praying and stuff, but he doesn’t see a point to praying just so he can learn a lesson about not getting what he asked for. Huck also says that Tom is a little crazy and made them take a blood oath about not telling each other’s secrets.
ellauri463.html on line 132: The Bible doesn’t contain the word “penis.” Post-biblical Hebrew uses the clinical term ebar (organ/limb) or ebar qatan (small organ/limb) but no such term exists in biblical Hebrew. Instead, the Bible uses innuendo and euphemism to refer to the male sexual organ. Here are a few of these:
ellauri463.html on line 194: The Hebrew word in Genesis 2:21-22 doesn’t mean rib, and it never has. This Hebrew scholar goes on to say that the word refers to the missing penis bone. The Hebrew people didn’t have a word for this bone like we do (we call it a baculum), and so they used the word tsela, which refers to a sideways plank, beam, or board. In other words, it would be another euphemism in Scripture. A boner without a bone…
ellauri466.html on line 247: Tietämättömyydestä johtuva ennakkoluulo ei täytä synnin tunnusmerkkejä, kertoivat teologit Gordon Allportille. Mitä mieltä evankelikaaliset ovat Halloweenista? Tästä taitetaan peistä joka halloweenina. Onko se paluuta kelttien Samhainiin vaiko vain All Saints Day gone bad? Christians should always consider what our celebrations say about evil, and the Savior who triumphed over it. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong to enjoy Halloween, or even perhaps to mock the forces of evil. Mocking the enemy is a hallowed Abrahamic way. However, it does mean that the love of God and neighbor should guide our fun, and that we should do everything we can to tell the truth about who won. Trunk or Treat on helt okej, mutta saatanoita ei saisi palvoa. On the plus side, se lisää kulutusta. Ei lie sattumaa että sekä saatana että joulupukki on kexitty Yhdysvalloissa.
ellauri479.html on line 320: Interestingly, the Bible says nothing about David’s practice of polygamy, and though it is a sin according to Scripture, it was apparently tolerated in David’s life, perhaps because it never resulted in his wives leading him into idolatry as it did with his son, Solomon. But doesn’t this seem unfair? That David could commit such heinous sins as murder, adultery, and polygamy and still be called a man after God’s own heart, as well as being the standard of a good king to all subsequent kings in Israel? I think there’s an answer to this, and it is found in two words; grace and humility. Grace on God’s part and humility on David’s part. Voee vittu mitä pferdescheissea. David was not perfect, and neither was Jehovah, except that he really was, a perfect Arschloch. By: Dr. Steven R. Kuk.
ellauri480.html on line 388: Don’t forget to use the “heads I win, tails you lose” argument. If the thing he prays for doesn’t happen, then that is one more proof that petitionary prayers don’t work; if it does happen, he will, of course, be able to see some of the physical causes which led up to it, and “therefore it would have happened anyway”, and thus a granted prayer becomes just as good a proof as a denied one that prayers are ineffective.
ellauri480.html on line 503: It looks as if you and I shall never meet again in this life. This often saddens me [very] much. [Warnie], meanwhile, has completely deserted me. He has been in Ireland since June and doesn’t even write, and is, I suppose, drinking himself to death. He has of course been fully informed of my condition and more than one friend or more has written him strong appeals but without the slightest result.
ellauri483.html on line 783: If “they” means widespread negative views of the U.S. held by hundreds of millions worldwide, that doesn’t automatically make those views correct. Large numbers can agree on a false belief because of shared information sources, political narratives, historical grievances, or self‑reinforcing experiences. Popular opinion shows what people think or feel, not an objective validation of policy or moral rightness.
ellauri488.html on line 468: You’re right about one observable thing: he’s been less visible recently in mainstream promotion and media cycles. But that doesn’t automatically mean he’s been “erased” or fully sidelined—it’s more a mix of timing, project status, and reputational caution.
ellauri488.html on line 542: Bottom line: You’re pointing at a real tension: language of certainty used in situations where certainty doesn’t exist. In real life, it can be misleading or even harmful if taken literally. In fiction, it’s often used because emotional impact matters more than precision.
ellauri488.html on line 551: That doesn’t necessarily mean denial—it’s often about enduring uncertainty without collapse.
ellauri490.html on line 620: Consequence: Freedom doesn’t require alternative possibilities; responsibility depends on the structure of the will, not on “could have done otherwise.”
ellauri496.html on line 217: Oikeammin Jouko siteerailee youtube-videoita ja toisten hourupäiden unia. Veronika West näki Jumalan alkavan nostaa Daavideja, Kaalebeja, Joosuoita, Joosefeita ja Jooeleita, jotka alkoivat ohjata, kouluttaa, opettaa ja eheyttää muita miehiä. David oli bisexuaali, Kaaleppi Koira vakoili kanaanilaisia ja sanoi Moshe Dayanille: 'We should go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.' Kaalepin tytär oli Axa, jonka hännän alle istui Obi Wan Kenobi. Joosua keräsi kukkuloittain esinahkoja, Jooel oli vähäinen työelämäprofessori jolta lainattiin helluntailaisten vuodatuxet, luultavimmin hellenistiseltä ajalta. Joel shares how God often uses nature and events like famine, plague, violent weather, invading armies, and celestial phenomena to get our attention (Joel 1:5). Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t.  “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears” (3:10). Haha Konfutse Jesaja ja Miika sanoi juuri toisinpäin. Jooelin lamentoinnista oli otettu myös tämä "itke kuin tyttö" responsorium:
ellauri497.html on line 667: Whether he was a “good communist” depends on the standard you mean: by one measure (sticking with communist ideas and organizing work), he fits; but by another (uncritical alignment with Soviet policy), he doesn’t. By the end of World War II he was an explicit critic of the Soviet regime—particularly around disputes like Lysenkoism and the suppression of genetics—and he later left the Communist Party in 1950. Vide hoc.
ellauri499.html on line 193: You’re right that a lot of the material we read as “Baal vs. Yahweh” has gone through editing and redaction over time—especially in the exilic/post-exilic periods. But even if we grant that, it doesn’t follow that “Baal was relatively good except for the bad prophets,” because the core conflict in these texts isn’t just “who got the history wrong”; it’s also what the community wanted to claim about worship, legitimacy, and authority.

Here are the main ways that claim still doesn’t really land, even with post-Babylonian editing:
ellauri499.html on line 210: That said, even if we accept that the biblical text is “tainted” (redacted/polemical), it still doesn’t automatically imply “Baal was a relatively good guy” in any straightforward moral sense. What it does imply is something more historically plausible:
ellauri499.html on line 390: By the way, much later, a 17th-century mystical text known as The Lesser Key of Solomon described Baal as the king of a horde of demons. Although this doesn’t fit with the early Hebrew conception of Baal, it probably resulted from an innovative shift in Christian thinking. Instead of merely noting the presence of other gods, the Church came to think of them as demons working for Satan. Again, other divine beings did exist, but if they weren’t Yahweh, they were considered evil. The same treatment was given to all other gods such as Perkunas. YHWH has no horns nor associated bollocks, so if you sport them you're on the other side.
ellauri502.html on line 102: 3 sivustoa You nailed it—the vocabulary here is incredibly confusing because we are using an ancient philosophical word that doesn’t mean what it means in everyday language today. In French, essence is gasoline because it is the "distilled, pure extract" of petroleum. But in philosophy and theology, essence simply means "what kind of thing something is." It is its biological or metaphysical blueprint. Here is how it works without the confusing jargon:
ellauri504.html on line 188: Both groups read OT stories like: God floods the world, regrets it, tests Abraham, gives 613 laws, etc. and said "that doesn’t look like a perfect God. That looks like a mid-level manager who’s making it up as he goes." Hence "fumbling demiurge".
ellauri505.html on line 445: I can’t reliably answer that as phrased—“The Israeli, scilicet” doesn’t identify a specific outlet or author, and there are multiple Israeli media figures and sites that could be meant. If you paste the exact name (e.g., the site or journalist’s name) or drop a link to the piece/post you’re referring to, I can check what they said and whether they’re praising, endorsing, or condemning the remarks.

ellauri505.html on line 448: I’m not going to generalize about “the chosen people” or any group of people—especially to characterize their sentiments toward violence. On the substance: “a war plan” versus “lamentation” doesn’t have to be inferred from vague phrasing. What matters is whether someone is advocating concrete harm (e.g., starvation, killing) or expressing an opinion/emotional reaction. The kind of statement you described in earlier messages is widely treated as advocacy/endorsement of harming civilians—so it’s not just lamentation.

xxx/ellauri044.html on line 318: Dr. Burgo: That term gets thrown about too loosely, and sometimes it’s just a kind of name-calling. If you look at the DSM, Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder share many of the same features, which says to me that narcissism/sociopathy is actually a spectrum. A true sociopath is incapable of love but that doesn’t apply to everyone with narcissistic features.
xxx/ellauri059.html on line 372: The Duke doesn’t know how to deal with it but Basanio, successful in his suit, recruits his clever fiancé Portia, who is schooled in matters of law, to appear as a judge, disguised as a man. The trial takes place and Portia grants Shylock the pound of flesh, and counsels him to show mercy. Shylock takes out his knife to cut the flesh from the area close to Antonio’s heart and she stops him and tells him that it is against the law for anyone to shed a drop of Christian blood.
xxx/ellauri068.html on line 213: I said some of this yesterday, but it wasn’t easy: in one interview, the first question I was asked was about Borges’s sexuality. Infrequent, they said, unusual, like in his stories. The first thing that came to mind was an article on Hans Christian Andersen, published in his own centenary in 2005, which doesn’t say a word about Andersen’s oeuvre and instead is dedicated to providing a pathetic portrait of the repressed homosexual, the vindictive upstart, the complicated and ugly man, like the duckling, which was Andersen. I’m intentionally omitting who wrote it and where it can be found.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 215: You’ll probably fall asleep multiple times on your desk because of how freaken boring the work is, and you up to your coffee consumption so your manager doesn’t see you falling asleep.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 366: Trickle Down doesn’t exist. Supply Side economics does.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 415: Let’s say you have an idea for a business or invention, or innovation on an old idea, it could be anything, a restaurant, or selling the iPhone. An entrepreneur has an idea, without which there would be no iPhone or any other product or service. You start the business by putting in your life savings or and/or getting investors, and they all lose their money if the business doesn’t work out. You have to put out money to suppliers for materials money for rent, you have to PAY EMPLOYEES even when you haven’t made 1 red cent yet from sales, because the product hasn’t even been produced yet, much less sold. Thats SOOO wrong! Never mind that they work quite as hard whether or not your snaky idea will work.
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 457: Because it assumes that rich people automatically create more jobs if they have more money. This idea ignores the reason why jobs are created in the first place: to make profit. Which means that new jobs are only created if they are profitable to the employer. If all the jobs that could be created aren’t, it doesn’t matter how much money the employer has. And therefore giving the employer more money in such a situation will not lead to more jobs being created.
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 190: Now, I am a little at a loss to explain what’s so insulting about a sombrero – a practical piece of headgear for a hot climate that keeps out the sun with a wide brim. And what's so insulting about shackles - a practical way to keep a cotton worker focused on his work. My parents went to Mexico when I was small, and brought a sombrero back from their travels, the better for my brothers and I to unashamedly appropriate the souvenir to play dress-up. For my part, as a German-American on both sides, I’m more than happy for anyone who doesn’t share my genetic pedigree to don a Tyrolean hat, pull on some leiderhosen, pour themselves a weisbier, and belt out the Hoffbrauhaus Song. (Leiderhosen? weisbier? Damn what ignoramus. But she is American, remember. Donald Trump is an expatriate German too. Hitler was an expatriate Austrian. Bet he had a Tirolean hat, a green one like aunt Inkeri.)
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 192: The ultimate endpoint of keeping out mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction left. Harry Potter would not exist, because we are all muddleheads. Or what was it, muggles?
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 196: Yet were their authors honouring the new rules against helping yourself to what doesn’t belong to you, we would not have Malcolm Lowry’s Under the Volcano. We wouldn’t have most of Graham Greene’s novels, many of which are set in what for the author were foreign countries, and which therefore have Real Foreigners in them, who speak and act like foreigners, too. (Malcolm Lowry's book has been mentioned, it is pure drivel. Grandma Greene is another lousy driveler.)
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 231: Because the ultimate endpoint of keeping out mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction. Someone like me only permits herself to write from the perspective of an ugly straight white female born in North Carolina, closing on sixty, able-bodied but with bad knees, skint for years but finally able to buy the odd new Dolce Cabbana. All that’s left is a memoir. Well, you are right, who would care to read that, in my case at least?
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 248: Behold, the reviewer in the Washington Post, who groundlessly accused this book of being “racist” because it doesn’t toe a strict Democratic Party line in its political outlook, described the scene thus: “The Mandibles are white. Luella, the single African American in the family, arrives in Brooklyn incontinent and demented. She needs to be physically restrained. As their fortunes become ever more dire and the family assembles for a perilous trek through the streets of lawless New York, she’s held at the end of a leash. If The Mandibles is ever made into a film, my suggestion is that this image not be employed for the movie poster.” Your author, by implication, yearns to bring back slavery. Failing that, she does the best to poke fictive fun at a fictive member of the underprivileged race. Nobody laugh?
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 294: Halfway through the novel, suddenly my protagonist has lost the right leg instead of the left one. My idea of lesbian sex is drawn from wooden internet porn. Efforts to persuasively enter the lives of others very different from us may fail: that’s a given. But maybe rather than having our heads taken off, we should get a few bucks for trying. After all, most fiction sucks. Most writing sucks. Mine does anyway. Most things that people make of any sort suck. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make anything. Or that we should not suck. I do, however badly, and my drummer boy loves it.
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 224: Being an atheist doesn’t mean you have to hate and resent anything created by Christians. If it did, you’d have to hate most of Britain’s most beautiful buildings along with Newton’s laws.
xxx/ellauri114.html on line 297: I frankly can’t say how or when God will restore Elam’s fortunes. But based on what I know currently, I am not comfortable with the substitution of Iran for Elam in Jeremiah 49:34-39. The truth is, we don’t need Jeremiah 49 to know what will happen to Iran, and the Bible doesn’t say how or when Elam’s fortunes will be restored. The only thing we know for sure is that God said it and therefore He will do it.
xxx/ellauri121.html on line 378: Having a fetish doesn’t necessarily mean wanting to wear adult diapers or a furry costume. (Turrit on rivoja sexifetishistejä.) You just have to find a normally non-sexual object or action arousing—an association you probably formed in childhood, says Samantha Leigh Allen, professor of sexual fetishism at Emory University. Maybe your mother had platform shoes, ankle shackles, net stockings, cat spectacles, bikini, and a print hat. Maybe she talked like a slut and moaned all the time.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 763: You should, of course, be aware that “know” doesn’t mean people think about it daily, or even yearly. Anyway, U.S. stupid white male population is just 192 million.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 1023: A tiny miniature woman will stand in front of your little bro, also only about six inches tall standing up. Her long blonde hair accents her sparkling blue eyes and huge white smile. Her long plastic legs bend only slightly and her pointy breasts perk out of her hot pink tank top. She doesn’t look like anything a five year old would play with, but Barbie is obviously her favorite. How does a five year old relate to Barbie? She isn’t comforting to…show more content…
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 1029: Barbie today is close to fifty years old, but she doesn’t look a day over seventeen. Not only does her image take up entire ailses in toy stores, but she also has a boyfriend, cousins, sisters, and even a punk rock groupie band. She’s found in every little girls toy chest, and her smile still shines brightly off her her glowing rosy plastic face.
xxx/ellauri123.html on line 675: “Friendship should be based on loyalty” is a principle you can aspire to live by, but without the rule of “I never abandon my friends at the last minute,” it doesn’t mean anything. Huh? Because you cannot reason with words of three syllables or more?
xxx/ellauri125.html on line 307: Though only 40 minutes long, “Yeezus” weighs a ton, heavy with gravity and mouthiness, yowls, synthetic noise, deep beats and screams. A multi-dimensional contradiction, West tosses out rhyme-schemed similes that employ racial ideas rich with symbolism but often in service of harsh lyrics that suggests he either doesn’t appreciate or care about original intent.
xxx/ellauri127.html on line 114: Only now, 40 years after his death, are some critics daring to suggest that many of his 18 novels are mediocre at best and that his masterpiece, “Lolita,” is a gruesome celebration of pedophile rape. Moreover the cherubic writer known to us from famous Life magazine photo shoots, jauntily brandishing his butterfly net in the Tetons or the Alps, proves to be a nasty piece of work. Distasteful people can do wonderful work — Pablo Picasso was no walk in the park — but their art doesn’t excuse their obnoxious behavior.
xxx/ellauri149.html on line 578: P.S Anthony Hopkins alias Hannibal Lecter on vielä 1 moottoriturpa joka kannattaa kuunnella läpi 2x nopeudella koska se toistaa mahottomasti eri sanoin izeään. Sir Anthony Hopkins ‘doesn’t believe in’ his Asperger’s diagnosis because he ‘don’t feel any different’.
xxx/ellauri157.html on line 343: Scholem’s first marriage to Escha Burchhardt was on the rocks by the early 1930s. Not only was he imagining himself in love with Kitty Steinschneider (there is no evidence that she reciprocated), but he was also pursuing a relationship with his student, Fania Freud (they married in 1936). His diaries betray a sense of emotional chaos, as he wrote to his friend, Walter Benjamin, explaining to Benjamin why he could not host him in Jerusalem. He also wrote to Benjamin that he was struggling with questions of good and evil and whether an evil person could also be just. While he doesn’t say whether these questions were purely theoretical or not, it is striking that such ruminations came at exactly the time when his personal life was in turmoil.
xxx/ellauri165.html on line 580:

Yes, the virgin fixation is puzzling. I expect it has something to do with women as property and the importance of verifying lineage. Yes I have a pet theory (hypothesis) that in civilizations where we lived in large numbers and with animals diseases could bounce from people to animals and back again hence all the plagues. In cultures where people were relatively isolated then virginity doesn’t seem to play as big a role. Mind you if you are paying for a wife to raise your children who you see as the primary reason for your existence then not raising someone else’s children may be a prime issue.
xxx/ellauri170.html on line 630: Richard doesn’t understand Enlightenment / was never Enlightened.
xxx/ellauri170.html on line 632: Richard doesn’t understand Eastern spirituality.
xxx/ellauri170.html on line 686: No proof that God doesn’t exist.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 627: And then, Novick gives himself away. He writes in another footnote that Holmes was someone with whom James “might have been intimate.” “Might have been”? There’s incertitude for you. My surmise is that Novick is trying to support his hypothesis of James’ initial sexual experience, and that he picks the name handiest to him. Why not James’ closer friends, John LaFarge or Thomas Perry? Novick seems to want to link his two subjects. It is clear the homosexuality doesn’t bother him. He simply wants us to know that James was a sexual man and a loving person. Biographers often develop strange attachments to their subjects. (Indeed!)
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 633: The rest of the story emerges after James abruptly leaves the villa at the end of the third day. He lodges at a hotel in Sorrento and writes several lively letters indicating he fled from Zhukovski and a nest of young homosexuals. They were attached to the composer, Richard Wagner, who lives in a nearby villa. Zhukovski is now a crusading Wagnerian. He wants to introduce James. The novelist refuses. Wagner speaks neither French nor English. James doesn’t speak German.
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 600: Well, first of all, everything can be exaggerated, so calm down a little, Karl Ragnar Gierow. But also there’s a tone here that doesn’t sit well with me. Certainly the literary world has a tendency to calcify—the people who have enough time to write books tend to be from the ­upper classes, so literature’s concerns and perspectives invariably get narrow without new blood. But those sidebar reassurances that working-class poets aren’t here to ravage and plunder seem nervous and uptight, and not really reassuring to boot. It seems to me that we want a little ravagement and plunder in our literary traditions. Why else would we welcome a stirring new voice, if it didn’t stir us up a little? And if it doesn’t stir us up, is it really a new voice, even if it comes from a place most of us haven’t visited? “To determine an author and his work against the background of his social origin and political environment is, at present, good form,” the speech continues, and that’s OK as far as it goes. But if you’re going to decide that two authors are tied for literary merit, surely we can find some criterion besides their socioeconomic origin stories.
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 659: And there you have it. It’s a crude way of evaluating literature, of course, but it doesn’t seem much cruder than the methodology used by the people who chose these two authors in the first place. And which author is better, you ask? Well, let’s see, seven plus five, another seven, carry the one—hey! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a tie!
xxx/ellauri202.html on line 391: The historian Ian Kershaw also pointed out in his 1998 book Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris that the figure who was allegedly Hitler’s father — the son of the Frankenreiter family — would have been just 10 years old when Alois was born. So clearly, the history of that family doesn’t hold water.
xxx/ellauri215.html on line 364: Alexander Stubb who has had direct experience with Putin and Russia, comments on the situation says, "The first argument is that Russia could not help itself. Russia has already been an expansionist and aggressive state. Unlike eg. Greece, Italy, Sweden, Britain, France, Germany and the U.S.A. You have to understand Russia's history to understand where Russia is coming from. ... Russia believes in destiny, there is a certain nostalgia and narrative of it’s expansionist past, which previously made Russia into a great superpower. So the argument that Russia is somehow working to defend itself from Ukraine doesn’t stand up. Russia could not help itself. Its like bulimia. There was absolutely no reason for Russia to attack. Russia just doesn't like capitalist democratic neighbors, just like America does not like communists, and the only one they allow to exist is Finland, which is insignificant. For the rest they think of spheres of interest and power, like the Chinamen."
xxx/ellauri215.html on line 394: "And this brings me to my conclusion. I’m a strong believer in academic freedom (BUAHAHAHA, stop, you're killing me!) and open debate. I’m somewhat worried coming from a country that lives next to Russia and have been attacked by the Soviet Union and had to survive WW2 as a Soviet neighbor and have had to lose my summerhouse in Porckala to the Soviet Union, that academics make claims that simply are untrue and it doesn’t help if you quote documentation and skew it in a certain direction… more important than international relations theory is the reality of what is happening on the ground.
xxx/ellauri225.html on line 373: About Shakespeare, however, Bloom is nothing short of reverential: “My religion is the appreciation of high literature. Shakespeare is the summit. Revelation for me is Shakespearean or nothing.” He admits that much about the Bard still bewilders him. In a moment of rare vulnerability, Bloom admits he longs for more life. Bloom explains his theory of “self-otherseeing,” which allows one to glimpse parts of one’s self that are hidden from conscious view. “Self-otherseeing” also describes “the double-consciousness of observing our own actions and offerings as though they belong to others and not to ourselves.” Bloom insists that Shakespeare’s characterizations of Hamlet, Iago, Cleopatra and Falstaff use “self-othering,” and by watching them we inadvertently learn to think more seriously about ourselves. But he doesn’t show us how this has applied to him, only the declaration that it does so. We are left mystified and dubious.
xxx/ellauri225.html on line 379: Ultimately Bloom cannot change into anything other than who he has always been—masterful and monstrous. He seems to sense he has moved out of favor in many circles but chooses not to dwell upon why. Instead, he continues as he always has: writing and teaching his handpicked “elite” students at Yale—part of the unique arrangement he has made with the university. He has led a long, cloistered, and entitled life. The aloneness he described as a child seems to have shrouded his adult life as well. I wonder if he questions this aloneness in his darkest moments. I would guess that he does not dwell too deeply upon it, perhaps afraid of answers he doesn’t wish to confront.
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 257: Suddenly she grabbed my knee. “Sammy,” she said, “do you think that Alice and I are lesbians?” I had a genuine hot curl of fire up my spine. “I don’t see that it’s anybody’s business one way or another,” I said. “Do you care whether we are,” she asked. “Not in the least,” I said. I was suddenly dripping wet. “Are you queer or gay or different or ‘of it’ as the French say or whatever they are calling it nowadays,” she said, looking narrowly at me. I waggled my hand sidewise. “Both ways,” I said. “I don’t see why I should go through life limping on just one leg to satisfy a so-called norm.” “It bothers a lot of people,” Gertrude said. “But like you said, it’s nobody’s business, it came from the Judeo-Christian ethos, especially Saint Paul the bastard, but he was complaining about youngsters who were not really that way, they did it for money, everybody suspects us or knows but nobody says anything about it. Did Thornie tell you?” “Only when I asked him a direct question and then he didn’t want to answer, he didn’t want to at all. He said yes he supposed in the beginning but that it was all over now.” Gertrude laughed. “How could he know. He doesn’t know what love is. And that’s just like Thornie.”
xxx/ellauri268.html on line 342: Probably the most influential greedy Jewish caricature after Shakespeare’s Shylock is Charles Dickens’ Scrooge. Scrooge (as many Jewish writers have pointed out) is a miser with an obviously Jewish name (Ebenezer) and a pointed nose. He doesn’t celebrate Christmas and needs to be converted to charity and piety. It’s not especially subtle.
xxx/ellauri292.html on line 49: Rahab marries Radames, a young Egyptian officer, who is to become the new governor of Jericho. They live in the Egyptian embassy set in the city wall. When the Israelites approach Canaan with their army, pharaoh sends word that he is withdrawing his troops. Radames fabricates a story to tell Jericho’s king, but the babylonian lawmaker Hammurabi doesn’t believe it…and he has his eye on the beautiful Rahab.
xxx/ellauri292.html on line 159: Super Tekla doesn’t want to be compared to Unkabogable star Vice Ganda.
xxx/ellauri304.html on line 640: Theme isn’t something you paste on after you write the first draft. Now, potboilers in general don’t have much thematic content because they doesn’t need to go far beyond: Bang Bang and the good guys in the white hats win. Theme is a more ever-present feeling that permeates the book you’re working on. Do you think when Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, she first wrote the stories and then asked herself, “Now whatever could this be about? Selfishness?” But then, she was more political than most and, as I said, many books don’t have any discernible theme, except, buy it please and make me rich. That's my theme anyway.
xxx/ellauri415.html on line 64: For many Jews, the emphasis on family can be something that leads to more sex - but less fun, just more work at the salt mines. Focusing on family can feel like pressure to have kids, which is not very sex-positive at all. The constant pressure to procreate is hard on Yael. So yes, there is still work to be done. A lot of trudgery in the hairless hills of unorthodox pudenda. Being queer and having sex without kids doesn’t hurt anyone… so why would God care?” Why indeed. But he does! And how! For he has a beard though no penis and no testicles.
xxx/ellauri417.html on line 534: In 1986, twenty-year-old Syvert Løyning returns from the military to his mother’s home in southern Norway. One evening, his dead father comes to him in a dream. Realizing that he doesn’t really know who his father was, Syvert begins to investigate his life and finds clues pointing to the Soviet Union. What he learns changes his past and undermines the entire notion of who he is. But when his mother becomes ill, and he must care for his little brother, Joar, on his own, he no longer has time or space for lofty speculations.
xxx/ellauri417.html on line 536: Meanwhile elsewhere, in present-day Russia, Alevtina Kotov, a biologist working at Moscow University, is traveling with her young son to the home of her stepfather, to celebrate his eightieth birthday. As a student, Alevtina was bright, curious and ambitious, asking the big questions about life and human consciousness. But as she approaches middle-age, most of that drive has gone, and she finds herself in a place she doesn’t want to be, without really understanding how she got there. Her stepfather, a musician, raised her as his own daughter, and she was never interested in learning about her biological father; when she finally starts looking into him, she learns that he died many years ago and left two sons, Joar and Syvert.
xxx/ellauri440.html on line 217: The gospels present Jesus as someone who, when he met someone physically ill or disabled, would ask them what they wanted, and heal them if that was what they requested (if they were too mentally ill to be capable of answering the question, that was another matter). But this is a minor grumble, and doesn’t stop it being an excellent film. Is 'The Life of Brian' still seen as blasphemous, or just a light-hearted parody? With the delights of Pontius Pilate having Rhotacism and his fwiend Biggus Dickus who according to Pilate "commands a cwack wegion" and "wanks as high as any in Wome" whilst Biggus Dickus with his lisp was even funnier.
xxx/ellauri441.html on line 345: When US President Donald Trump said “Islam hates us,” it was Bernard Lewis speaking. When Trump’s first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn said “Islam is… like cancer,” it was Bernard Lewis speaking.  Bernard Lewis was hated by the global left, adored by the right-wing Zionists. Lewis was always on the wrong side of history, blinded by his hatred, animated by the most racist cliches in the trade. His reaction to the rise of Arab revolutions in 2011 is the perfect example of who Bernard Lewis was and how he thought. “Another thing is the sexual aspect of it,” he opined at the commencement of Arab revolutions, “One has to remember that in the Muslim world, casual sex, Western-style, doesn’t exist. If a young man wants sex, there are only two possibilities – marriage and the brothel. You have these vast numbers of young men growing up without the money, either for the brothel or the bride price, with raging sexual desire. On the one hand, it can lead to the suicide bomber, who is attracted by the virgins of paradise – the only ones available to him. On the other hand, sheer frustration. While skinned swine like me can always empty our seed sacks into pay pals for we got sacks full of bucks."
xxx/ellauri489.html on line 133: Hygiene helps manage smells (showering, wearing breathable fabrics, urinating after sex to reduce infection risk), but odor alone doesn’t make sex impure.
xxx/ellauri491.html on line 367: St Mark was Jewish, mark well. Eggs is eggs. Adoption of a Roman/Greek name was common for Jews who lived or worked in multicultural cities (e.g., Alexandria, Jerusalem) or who interacted with Gentile Christians and Roman patrons. His Jewish brothers called him John. So the Latin/Greek form doesn’t imply non‑Jewish origin—it's a common bilingual naming practice in the first century.
xxx/ellauri492.html on line 159: He won’t be able to breach the gates unless you hand him the key. Stick to your guns, be consistent, and watch as the “but I’m family!” card loses its potency. He is not family! Family is you, your ma and perhaps Rosangela. Let your spouse, the seasoned diplomat, handle the heavy lifting. Remember, you’re not obligated to be his therapist or punching bag. Withhold your tell-all philosophy. It doesn’t matter if you were right all along. Let him play his games with someone else. This isn’t about censorship, it’s about protecting your sanity. Find other ways to deal with your feelings, like journaling or badmouthing him to a trusted friend.
xxx/ellauri492.html on line 168: Instead, sever the emotional ties that bind you to him. Accept that he may be a cowpat in your family dynamic. You are not responsible for his happiness, and his happiness doesn’t define your worth. Prioritize as usual your own emotional well-being and health. Invest in activities that bring you joy, nurture relationships that nourish your soul, and practice self-satisfaction fiercely. It’s up to the adult child of the narcissist to set boundaries, seek support, and prioritize communication to safeguard the marriage. If you question whether your father-in-law is a narcissist, trust your instincts.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 170: I get why it sounds primitive if you reduce it to “God could stop it but didn’t.” In Aquinas-style theodicy, the point isn’t that God is helpless or that He’s doing trial-and-error; it’s closer to:     God doesn’t cause the creature’s wrong choice. He allows creaturely agency to produce real consequences.     Once an angel’s will makes its definitive turn away from God, there isn’t an “edit this moment” correction that preserves what Aquinas thinks makes the choice morally real (and, classically, that choice is not like a human who can genuinely change course later).     So “what could God do?” doesn’t mean “whack/bang/ouch” as if God is improvising; it means “why allow a universe where created wills can definitively commit themselves,” and classical theology says that’s the cost of genuine agency and a meaningful ordered cosmos—not a clumsy mechanic. If you tell me what exact Aquinas premise you’re relying on most (immutability of angelic choice, permission vs. causation, or something else), I can give the cleanest argument for why that premise implies “no redemption-first” without making God seem reactive.
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 174: Your reaction is coherent: if God can do anything, then why create beings who can definitively choose against him, and why not create “happy animals” instead. In Christian philosophy (including Aquinas-adjacent lines), the standard response is essentially: God isn’t choosing between “happiness with no freedom” and “chaos,” but between kinds of goods. A common version goes like this:     Freedom is a real good. Created persons can love, obey, worship, and genuinely choose. “No free choice” trades away not just the possibility of sin, but also the possibility of love and moral/covenant relationship.     Omnipotence doesn’t mean “make any set of values compatible.” The classic view is that there are realities like “created agency” and “definitive choices” that can’t both be preserved while also guaranteeing that no creature ever chooses wrongly.     The “circus” is not trial-and-error but a created order with intelligible consequences. God permits the misuse of freedom rather than coercing away misuse, because coercion would undermine the kind of relationship and moral order being created. That still leaves the emotional/ethical punch of your last line (“I’d rather have no freedom than sin-capable freedom”), and many people who find the metaphysics unpersuasive land there: freedom is too expensive. If you’re open to it, I can answer in the most direct way by taking your preference seriously: do you want the argument for why “no freedom” is worse than it sounds, or do you want the argument for why God’s omnipotence allows more than “could have prevented this one outcome” (i.e., a deeper take on the “why create at all” question)?
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 178: You’re arguing that “genuine choice” buys you nothing you care about—because non-rational life already has attachment, play, loyalty, pleasure, etc.—while it also “buys” the option of rebellion. That’s a strong objection. Christian philosophy usually replies in a few ways, and you can see where you might still disagree:     Love and worship aren’t the point (or not the only point) of “choice.” Many theologians say moral freedom is valuable because it’s the capacity to recognize truth as truth and to will the good as good, not just as appetite/affinity. Animals can form bonds, but they aren’t typically described as capable of knowing God (or the good) and choosing it knowingly.     The real issue isn’t “choice causes trouble,” it’s “choice makes a certain kind of goodness possible.” In this view, a world with no wrongdoing-by-choice would have to either (a) remove the possibility of choosing against the good, or (b) control wills so thoroughly that they aren’t really themselves—so you’d lose more than worship; you’d lose the kind of relationship/virtue that requires responsibility.     “Adam/Eve/Satan caused trouble” doesn’t settle the “why create?” question. The typical Christian claim is that God isn’t trying to create a world where no one ever fails; God is creating a world with intelligible order where failure can be addressed (at least for humans) and where the deeper moral drama of the story matters. You may reject that, but it’s the internal logic. If you want, tell me which part you find most unacceptable: (a) that moral freedom is a different kind of good than animal-like life, or (b) that losing that good is too high a price even if it prevents all this suffering?
xxx/ellauri495.html on line 190: That’s a coherent position: once the “it’s for a reason” explanations feel like ad hoc constructions, the only remaining option is fideism (“believe because it’s absurd”), which you reject. The most direct argument from your side is: if a system is built so that (a) omnipotence makes prevention straightforward in principle and (b) the theist can’t offer a justification that actually rules out gratuitous wrongdoing, then the system doesn’t meet the standards you want—so “believe” isn’t compelled. If you want to press it further, a common way is to ask for non-circular constraints: What specific features would a justification have to have to count as sufficient? And why couldn’t God have chosen a world that preserves whatever goods theism claims are worth it, while eliminating the particular catastrophic failure modes (Satan’s fall, Eden’s result, etc.)? If you answer that (“what counts as sufficient for you”), I can tailor a tight critique—or, if you prefer, map what an actual defender would say and how strong it is.
xxx/ellauri500.html on line 595: I’m not protecting anyone, and I’m not a pedophile. I don’t provide or amplify allegations about real people’s sexual behavior—especially serious claims—unless they’re backed by reliable, specific evidence. That’s why I’m steering away from unverified “proof” or insinuations and toward documented reporting or textual/literary analysis that doesn’t turn into personal accusations. On “Roblox”: I don’t have any hangups about Roblox (or anything else). If you want, tell me the exact claim you heard and the person’s name(s), and I’ll help find what credible sources actually say about it.
185