ellauri066.html on line 511: Gloating is different from schadenfreude in that it does not necessarily require malice (one may gloat to a friend about having defeated him in a game without ill intent), and that it describes an action rather than a state of mind (one typically gloats to the subject of the misfortune or to a third party). Also, unlike schadenfreude, where the focus is on another's misfortune, gloating often brings to mind inappropriately celebrating or bragging about one's own good fortune without any particular focus on the misfortune of others. Tää on vähän kuin ne 2 näkökulmaa snobiin: ylhäältä alaspäinen ja alhaalta ylöspäinen.
ellauri083.html on line 374: At age seven Dylan first accused Allen of touching her inappropriately—a bombshell allegation that definitively tore apart the blended Allen-Farrow family, which was already reeling from Farrow’s discovery of nude photographs of her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn at Allen’s apartment. Dylan’s accusation has reverberated in the media ever since. Dylan would consistently repeat the allegation over the years—to her mother, to therapists, to experts, and to former Connecticut state prosecutor Frank Maco, who found probable cause for bringing a criminal case against Allen. (Maco said he ultimately declined to do so out of concern for retraumatizing a fragile child.)
ellauri156.html on line 309: To approach this same issue from the opposite perspective, think with me about the Book of Esther. When the king summoned his wife, Queen Vashti, to appear (perhaps in a way that would inappropriately display her goodies to the king's guests), she refused. She was removed (see Esther 1:1-22). She did not lose her life, but she was at least replaced by Esther, who had no such compunctions. Then, we read later in this same book that no one could approach the king unless he summoned them. If any approached the king and he did not raise his "scepter", they were put to death (Esther 4:10-11). Does this not portray the way of eastern kings? Does this not explain why Bathsheba went to the king's palace when summoned? Does this help to explain why she seems to have given in to the king's lustful acts? (We do not know what protests -- like Tamar's in chapter 13 -- she may have uttered, but we do have some sense of the powerlessness of a woman in those days, especially when given orders by the king. (Later on it became the requirement that a raped lady should kill herself to save her husband the disgrace of having horns.)
ellauri156.html on line 392: In our first lesson, we devoted our attention to the first four verses of chapter 11, which depict David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba. Pretty unbelievable that I got a whole four pages out of it. The trick is was to keep repeating the juicy bit about Bathsheba washing herself before (or after) David's load. I sought to demonstrate that this sin was all of David's doing. The author points his accusing finger at David, not Bathsheba. It was not Bathsheba's indiscretion in bathing herself (as I understand this story), for she was simply obeying the ritual of purification outlined in the law. It was David who, by means of his lofty elevation and view, looked inappropriately at Bathsheba, washing herself,violating her privacy. I endeavored to demonstrate that David's sin with Bathsheba was the result of a sequence of wrong decisions and attitudes on David's part. In one sense, being on the path he was, his destination (of adultery, or something like it) was to be expected. His sins of omission finally blossomed and came into full bloom.
ellauri213.html on line 172: P.S. Mitä Bruno teki väärin? Bruno tells someone when their planet is going to die, or when they are going to go extinct, for which they inappropriately blame him.
ellauri264.html on line 199: their full potential would not have been realized. The truly righteous recognize the value of their G-d-given possessions, and are very careful with them, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant they are. While not overly attached to material things, they do not dispose of objects prematurely or use them inappropriately. They understand that everything has a purpose, and they seek to use things to that purpose, with the goal of elevating the objects and themselves.
xxx/ellauri394.html on line 193: Neumann delivered a letter from the queen to Grover Cleveland, who began his second non-consecutive term as president on March 4. The Cleveland administration commissioned James Henderson Blount to investigate the overthrow. He interviewed those involved in the coup and wrote the Blount Report, and based on its findings, concluded that the overthrow of Liliʻuokalani was illegal, and that Stevens and American military troops had acted inappropriately in support of those who carried out the overthrow. On November 16, Cleveland sent his minister Albert S. Willis to propose a return of the throne to Liliʻuokalani if she granted amnesty to everyone responsible. Her first response was that Hawaiian law called for property confiscation and the death penalty for treason, and that only her cabinet ministers could put aside the law in favor of amnesty. Liliuokalani´s extreme position lost her the goodwill of the Cleveland administration.
7