ellauri097.html on line 95: Mencken admired the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (he was the first writer to provide a scholarly analysis in English of Nietzsche´s views and writings) and Joseph Conrad. His humor and satire owed much to Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain. He did much to defend Dreiser despite freely admitting his faults, including stating forthrightly that Dreiser often wrote badly and was a gullible man. Mencken also expressed his appreciation for William Graham Sumner in a 1941 collection of Sumner´s essays and regretted never having known Sumner personally. In contrast, Mencken was scathing in his criticism of the German philosopher Hans Vaihinger, whom he described as "an extremely dull author" and whose famous book Philosophy of 'Als ob' he dismissed as an unimportant "foot-note to all existing systems."
ellauri156.html on line 588: Sixth, our text makes Uriah a hero and a dress model, not a chump and not a sucker. There are those who might conclude that Uriah's elevator may not “go to the top floor” (as my neighbor used to say of those she considered less than bright). Is Uriah gullible? Is he ignorant of what David is trying to do? Is he a coon? A spook? I don't think so. This is what makes his loyalty to David and to God's Law so striking. I think it is safe to say that here Uriah is very much like David in his earlier days, in terms of his response to Saul. As Saul sought to kill David unjustly, because he was jealous of his successes, so also David submitted himself to faithfully serving Saul, his master. He left his safety and future in God's hands, and God did not fail him. Who? Not Uriah, apparently.
ellauri171.html on line 1119: Amnon sighed in a dispirited way and said he could not eat, but on being pressed by his father admitted that yes, he might be able to eat if his sister Tamar cooked some food and fed it to him. David, gullible in matters regarding his sons, immediately sent for Tamar to come and tend her brother.
ellauri412.html on line 681: ———-No, I’m arguing for the proper interpretation of a myth I don’t believe in, in order to falsify the Christian interpretation of it, because the Christian interpretation of it plays a part in ensnaring innocently gullible unbelievers into thinking they “need” to repent and spend the rest of their lives talking to an invisible man who allegedly wants a “personal relationship” with them in a way that would make no sense unless the new believer radically redefines “personal relationship”.
xxx/ellauri305.html on line 44: Pete Mencken defended Dreiser despite freely admitting his faults, stating forthrightly that Dreiser often wrote badly and was a gullible man. Dreiser oli Chicagon kirjallisuusliikkeen veteraani ja antisemiitti.
5