text:
Talk:Liberals and friendship
- 1 Liberals aren't friends of Andy?
- 2 Another take
- 3 Come on
- 4 Reply to all above
- 5 Cites
- 6 Source
- 7 Please think logically
- 8 Still no cites, Andy?
- 9 Misleading terminology
- 10 Where is the evidence?
- 11 Ostracize a republican
- 12 Since it's been a while now...
- 13 No evidence for this article period
- 14 The summary
- 15 Closing Arguments
- 16 No Closing argument needed
- 17 Drivel
- 18 Delete?
- 19 Anecdotes, anecdotes and MORE anecdotes.
- 20 Reply
- 21 Reagan
- 22 Please Mr. schlafly
- 23 No Liberal Friends?
Liberals aren't friends of Andy?
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have any liberal friends, Andy? SSchultz 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- Fuzzy 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? SSchultz 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- Fuzzy 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? SSchultz 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Another take
A Christian friendship is a friendship on Christian terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of Christian values. It is often the product of peer pressure. Someone in a Christian friendship can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the Christian values.
A Christian friendship can occur wherever Christians apply peer pressure to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.
In contrast, atheists virtually never require censorship or acceptance of atheist principles as a condition of friendship.
- I like this take, here's another one:
- A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.
- You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! SSchultz 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. Maestro 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Come on
Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false. I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.KarlJ 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. SSchultz 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.KarlJ 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. SSchultz 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Which statement. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.KarlJ 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Which statement. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Reply to all above
Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that all liberals behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--Aschlafly 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?KarlJ 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SSchultz (talk)
- Whilst I do not consider myself a liberal, and am very much a Christian, I have observed rather the opposite, that it is conservatives, especially Christians, seem the more likely to make approval of their value system a condition of the relationship. This seems also what one might rationally expect; conservatism is by its nature intolerant of difference. This doesn't make it "wrong", as many of the things liberals tolerate I thoroughly disapprove of, but this is an irrelvance.
Whilst I am aware of the reasons why I should not do so, I make a certain degree of agreement with my value system a requirement of friendship. This does not mean that I don't endeavour to show love for people who do not, but it does prohibit me from meeting with them on a purely casual basis. And to a greater or lesser degree I imagine it's true of everyone.Trinity123
- Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term politically correct developed out of a liberal insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--Aschlafly 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. SSchultz 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.KarlJ 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --KimSell 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --KimSell 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- This encyclopedia is really starting to baffle me. I made an edit to They, backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --KimSell 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to they, which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If Wikipedia allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
- So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --KimSell 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--Aschlafly 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --KimSell 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to they, which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If Wikipedia allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
- KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See Special:Contributions/KimSell. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- "Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags." When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Still no references. --KimSell 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- "Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags." When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? SSchultz 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. Hammet 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)
Please think logically
I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? BenSchumin 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Still no cites, Andy?
This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --Jdellaro 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on my user page, in this tabula rasa environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-PhoenixWright 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I'd love to see some cites myself. kitefox
As would I. Barikada 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)
The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. Humblpi 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
I think a good example of this is Bill Maher and Ann Coulter :) DLerner 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Misleading terminology
The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --Ed Poor Talk 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Where is the evidence?
The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:
- Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.
- A conservative friendship can occur wherever conservatives apply peer pressure to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.
- In contrast, liberals virtually never require censorship or acceptance of liberal principles as a condition of friendship.
Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. Humblpi 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
- We know Liberals all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your Liberal tricks. Reflect and improve! Koba 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
- I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a reflection of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. Humblpi 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
- Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. Koba 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
- So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. Humblpi 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
- Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. Koba 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
- I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a reflection of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. Humblpi 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...Maestro 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
- It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--Aschlafly 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Ostracize a republican
This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?
My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. ד.לערנער 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
- No one is claiming anything about all liberals. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
- I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-PhoenixWright 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values. Murray 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about all conservatives. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. Humblpi 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- " But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"
- Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, Aziraphale 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove nothing whatever about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than Aschlafly can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. Humblpi 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
For another matter, the section about 'ostracize a republican' should be taken out of the article, since the website is not online anymore. The cited scource delivers a dead link and I also found no other site fitting that name. --Shakleton 22:34, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Since it's been a while now...
...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the imprimatur of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.PhoenixWright 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values. and it would be just as "true". You know, Michael Moore's book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to never concede anything to a liberal. Just some food for thought. ד.לערנער 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--Aschlafly 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". Murray 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
- Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--Aschlafly 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
- "Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", yes. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, no. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. Humblpi 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their friends, (after all, that is the title of the article). The user formerly known as DLerner 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
No evidence for this article period
Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case whatsoever: They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system. Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.
Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.
Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at Bob Jones University you don't think they'd get flack?!
For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! ד.לערנער 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in university's, it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. ד.לערנער 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
- I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--Aschlafly 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from opinionjournal.com), doesn't provide any proof for this article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.
- Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is opinion. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")
- I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am The user formerly known as DLerner 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- I think the point is that liberals all too frequently do try to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see conditional love; compare unconditional love.
- Unless your are trying to censor this opinion, you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).
- I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' Urushnor 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--Aschlafly 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the original source, is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. Urushnor 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. Urushnor 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. Urushnor 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them opinions. I refer you to Deliberate ignorance: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." Humblpi 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
- And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. Urushnor 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how many of them there are. There is still no evidence. Murray 21:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
- Nonsense. Observations certainly are evidence.--Aschlafly 22:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
- Evidence of what? First, unsystematically collected anecdotal observations are subject to all sorts of biases and do not allow you to draw any conclusions about generalities. Second, any evidence you have presented in the article could just as easily be evidence that conservatives have a tendency to whine and complain when they feel dumped or let down. There is certainly evidence (of a sort) there, but it does not support the conclusions, which remain unsubstantiated (and hurtful) opinion. Humblpi 06:02, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
The summary
This seems to sum up to the entirely non-controversial, "shocking" observation that people with different ideological beliefs often disagree, and sometimes tensions flare. ...is there evidence that conservatives don't do that?-HankS 16:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Closing Arguments
The premise of this article is "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship. My previous arguments haven't been on the premise, I have instead focused on the references which to the best of my understanding, do not bolster Andy's case. They do (perhaps) show bias from liberals in other areas, but they don't show any friendships lost due to politics.
Now, it's a fact that many friendships have been diminished, damaged, strained, weakened, tested, or even destroyed because of politics, religion, associations with various characters, marriage, and yes, because of voting. I'm sure that there are many stories out there that will bolster Andy's argument.
However, the conclusion/Parthian shot of the article states: "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." It's impossible to prove this; it's a classic example of negative proof, or "proving a negative", a logical fallacy.
But just for fun, I'll bring some sources to show that might disprove it:
- Katie Kish writes: "Not only have I lost friends over being an atheist - I've lost jobs, been told I can't listen to some musicians because they're "Godly" and I'm not..."
- Bruce Bartlett was fired from his job at the National Center for Policy Analysis, because he spoke ill of President Bush.
I can go on, but it won't prove anything.
In conclusion: To your surprise I agree with your premise! Yes! People have falling out's over politics/religion. My problem is with your closing. There is no way to prove that Conservatives aren't just as guilty; and to say "prove it" is a logical fallacy. (We see X but we don't see Y, obviously Y doesn't exist etc.)
I'll conclude with a prayer: Let us hope that through discussion on real issues, we can work together to make the world a better place for all of us. Amen
God bless.
The user formerly known as DLerner 05:45, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- It proves that you are unclear about the distinction between employment and friendship (Bruce Bartlett). --Ed Poor Talk 08:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- Pray do tell what is your view of the distinction? BTW, please don't put comments in the middle of my posts. The user formerly known as DLerner 08:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- I think you have put your finger on something useful here, DLerner. We can allow the premise, but the conclusion does not follow from it. Equally, of course, we could put it the other way around, and accept the "conclusion" but not the premise. The closing remark may well in fact be true: I for one am quite happy to believe that indeed "conservatives virtually never require acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship". What I object to, though, are the words "In contrast" - because it is surely equally true that liberals virtually never require acceptance of liberal principles as a condition of friendship. All the examples of liberals rejecting a friend because of his/her conservative values will do nothing to alter the fact that in general, people don't behave that badly. And finding lots of examples of conservatives dumping on their liberal friends would likewise do nothing to disprove the general truth that conservatives are on the whole pretty good to their friends. I have no problem with a Conservapedia article which displays a list of stories of liberals being mean to their friends (or any other list of alleged misdemeanors by liberals - take your pick from a large number of articles). That's all perfectly fine, and indeed, collecting such stuff seems to be the main function of Conservapedia these days. What I object to, however, is the pretense that collecting anecdotes like this can prove anything about "liberal" behavior in general. That is simply nonsense. Humblpi 10:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
No Closing argument needed
Frankly this shouldn't even be a debate. If this is an encyclopedia this tabloid rubbish shouldn't be here. If it is a blog it belongs. LeaningRight 21:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
The arguments in this article are weak as Hercules is strong. Essentially it is a long list of quotes and anecdotes. This is the weakest class of evidence after pure hearsay. For all I know, for every story of conservatives being "persecuted", there might be 314 stories of conservatives being given the red carpet. You should use proper evidence or delete this article. I personally nominate this article for deletion, on the grounds of being so ludicrous that RаtionalWiki couldn't better it, even if they tried. Please bear in mind that the burden of proof is on the author, as one user forgot during the discussion on Professor Values. Innsmouth 16:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy, there's been alot of talk about deleting this page, so why don't put up a delete nomination, I'd do it but I'd probably be blocked again. ---user:DLerner--- 08:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- It won't be deleted and likely won't be moved. I'd say focus your efforts on improving the article. HelpJazz 10:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
You people keep saying that as if this article had any value to begin with. Listen to me, this article is bunk, rubbish, trash, nonsense, drivel, propagandist and a whole lot of other adjectives. The only way for it to be improved is it's nomination for deletion. ---user:DLerner--- 22:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
And when I nominate it Andy of course removes the nomination, Well I should have expected as much. ---user:DLerner--- 23:41, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Anecdotes, anecdotes and MORE anecdotes.
Andy, I believe you're a lawyer, would any court accept this to "convict" Libs of being mean-hearted SOG's? ---user:DLerner--- 23:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
This is a thoroughly supported and well-referenced entry, and your insistence on deleting this information smacks of liberal bias. This isn't Wikipedia where liberal editors censor and delete informative entries. And we don't want to be like Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
DLerner, please do yourself a favor and become open-minded about how militant liberals sometimes behave, and how they try to intimidate and ostracize conservatives. Just observe some of the vandals here, for example.--Aschlafly 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia gets a lot more vandals then here you know that. You're right Andy "militant liberals along with just about everybody in the world sometimes behave" poorly. This site is guilty itself of intimidating and ostracizing liberals who come here to help. I am one of those liberals.
P.S. According to your last note, shouldn't this article be called "Militant Liberals and friendship"?
---user:DLerner--- 23:53, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- You're right about one thing: Wikipedia does get hit by vandals ... who are often smearing entries about conservatives. There are no conservative vandals on Wikipedia or here.
- Liberal denial is rampant. I guess we have to add liberal denial of ostracizing conservatives to the growing list. Do yourself and your cause a favor by admitting to the excesses on your side.--Aschlafly 23:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
There are nuts on all sides except the indifferent. Yes, sometimes conservatives are ostracized by liberals, but look at title of the damn article. Which article have you shown that proves liberals will throw out friends because of politics?
And pray to do tell why can't we discuss deleting it, I haven't challenged all your "liberals-like-barbecuing-babies-using-the-fire-of-a-burnt-flag-during-a-gay-wedding" articles, just this one. Do the AMERICAN thing, put it up for a vote.
---user:DLerner--- 00:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
<sigh> didn't I tell you that In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship is a logical fallacy, you can't prove a negative!!!!
---user:DLerner--- 00:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
When liberals want us to delete an article, that's a great reason to keep it and make it even better! --Crocoite 00:17, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.
Aha, so if RR had liberal friends, all conservatives must have them... ---user:DLerner--- 09:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- ... and presumably, by the same token, those liberals (O'Neil and Kennedy) had at least one conservative friend (Reagan). Or did they behave in a typical liberal manner and reject his friendship? Humblpi 11:06, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- They were pretending. See Liberal deceit. -DrSandstone 11:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- My dear, you have to take all of those "Liberal ______" with a grain, nay a spoon of salt, Andy's thoughts are unfortunatly not reality. ---user:DLerner--- 11:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- Andy's project, Andy's word is gospel. My dear. -DrSandstone 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- No "Good news" in it. Well if he wants he can change it back, let's not have an edit war here. Oh, and it takes big spheres to say that somebody faked a friendship without anything to back it up. ---user:DLerner--- 11:53, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- Fine, then, let's get him involved. I'm sure he's got nothing better to do. You fail to see the point. Still. My dear (condescending a**hole). -DrSandstone 11:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- No "Good news" in it. Well if he wants he can change it back, let's not have an edit war here. Oh, and it takes big spheres to say that somebody faked a friendship without anything to back it up. ---user:DLerner--- 11:53, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- Andy's project, Andy's word is gospel. My dear. -DrSandstone 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- My dear, you have to take all of those "Liberal ______" with a grain, nay a spoon of salt, Andy's thoughts are unfortunatly not reality. ---user:DLerner--- 11:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- They were pretending. See Liberal deceit. -DrSandstone 11:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Ed blocked "Doctor" Sandstone, but for the edit comment, not the one above. I have a feeling that might change. --₮K/Talk 16:32, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
"In contrast, there are many instances of conservatives not requiring acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship. For example, Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.
This paragraph destroys the whole mesage of the article... Obviously the stated liberals made friends with Reagan even though they had political differences. I don't agree with this article (as I have friends who are liberals), but I would suggest that in the spirit of the article this part should be removed. --Chris
- Maybe we should keep it in as a counterpoint, and as further evidence that this article should just be gotten rid of. HelpJazz 14:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Please Mr. schlafly
As has been stated above, there are numerous problems with this article. The evidence is mostly anecdotal. On top of that, the topic is of your own invention, and you seem to have written it before looking for citations. I'm new here and hoping to make some positive changes to this encyclopedia. A more professional tone would be helpful in legitimizing the concept of the site. I agree with many who have posted before me that this page has numerous problems, and would add there are many similar pages. I would suggest you delete this page. Perhaps some of this information is relevant to other articles and it could be merged. Please consider this. Pages like this make my liberal friends laugh at me.
AdamBurns 01:12, 16 December 2009 (EST)
No Liberal Friends?
I was wondering, do most of you have no liberal friends? Several of my friends have been liberals, who I met at work (health care, then in retail), or through pasttimes (football, stand up comedy). I really appreciate their friendship, and for the most part we don't talk politics or religion(or drugs, or sex), but we can get along for the duration of the job we're doing or while watching a football gaming or taking part in the same comedy show (and my stand-up makes fun of Obama, Pelosi, and Hollywood values pretty often), or even talking afterwards. Now, that said, every one of my liberal friends has at least one friend (and often several) that I can't associate with and that fits all the stereotypes mentioned in this article. I know the type, believe me, and luckily I have enough education and experience that I can more than hold my own when they attack capitalism or religion or conservative lifestyles. But my friends also will take my side, not because they agree with me but because they respect me. I just don't think this article is true in my experience. I don't disqualify anyone from being my friend, unless they disqualify themselves with their behavior toward me or to their fellow man. KingHanksley 15:20, 15 December 2011 (EST)


text:
167 Ames Street
Rochester, NY 14611
Phone: 585-235-4545
Brinkman Products, Inc., the parent company of CJWinter and Davenport Machine, is a full scale manufacturer of multi spindle screw machines, attachments and repair parts as well as specialty machine dies, thread rolling attachments and thread rolls.
CJWinter has been in business for almost sixty years and is one of the world s leading manufacturers of cold displacement, cylindrical dies and rolling attachments holders. CJWinter s products are found in traditional rolling applications such as those used to create threads, knurls or splines on parts manufactured from multi spindle screw machines, rotary transfer machines, CNC lathes and standalone secondary operation machines. CJWinter s products and forming dies are also found in specialty applications such as those used by the oil and gas industry to perform cold root rolling operations and by other industries that employ dedicated rolling, forming and shaping mills.
Utilizing its over half century of experience with multiple product installations on every continent except Antarctica, CJWinter developed cold roll tools specifically for Rotary Shouldered Connections in the Petroleum Industry.
Davenport Machine is an ISO 9001 2008 certified manufacturer of standard and custom machines, machine replacement parts, high precision heads, revolving heads, and various machine attachments. Types of machines include high precision machines, automatic screw machines and spindle chucking machines.
Davenport Machine, Inc. has hundreds of attachments, which allow parts to be made complete in most cases, and eliminate expensive secondary operations. This unique versatility has kept Davenport Machine, Inc. in the forefront of screw machine technology for many years.
Davenport Machine provides the highest quality OEM Replacement Parts.
»Other Equipment Categories for this company

subset: commoncrawl


text:
'Camp Grounded,' 'Digital Detox,' and the Age of Techno-Anxiety
What to make of the new New Naturalism
On a weekend in the middle of June, a few hundred people gathered together at an event called Camp Grounded in northern California for a celebration of leaving technology behind. Organized by the group Digital Detox, the $350 experience appears to have been fun.
And exceptionally well attended by national media.
First, Chris Colin filed a dispatch for The New Yorker. Then, NPR and The New York Times got into the mix.
You know, just your average down-home weekend with the elite of the elite of the media elite. (No, really, Chris Colin is one of the very best writers around.)
I bring this up not to pick on the writers or stories themselves, but to point out that all three of these newsrooms thought the event would be of interest to their readers. Here's what happened on the retreat.
"The rules of Camp Grounded were simple: no phones, computers, tablets or watches; work talk, discussion of people's ages and use of real names were prohibited," the Times wrote.
"Campers at Camp Grounded participated in "playshops," featuring yoga, laughing contests and writing sessions," NPR wrote. "But for many of the participants, the most exciting activity was conversation."
Commenting on the pervasiveness of technology, one of Digital Detox's founders told the NPR reporter, "People are feeling like something's not right."
Indeed, tech anxiety abounds. And I take it seriously. Some people feel something is amiss in their relationships, and that technology is to blame. There's a move, cataloged in nearly every magazine, towards seeing the offline as authentic and the online as hollow, false, unreal. This may be a false distinction, digital dualism, as Nathan Jurgenson calls it, but it's a widespread reaction to the technologies at hand. What was once an exciting new way to make friends now feels overengineered, or -- more damningly in the current climate -- processed.
Processed foods were once the time-saving, awe-inducing markers of an upwardly mobile household. (Check out this ad for dextrose.) Now, among the upper middle classes, they're a sure sign that someone does not have a firm grip on what the good life is. Processed food, Michael Pollan would tell you, is not even really food at all. And it tangles you up in huge economic webs that stretch across the globe. So while Farm Bill politics make larger-scale solutions impractical, the answer, mostly, is to eat local, organic food -- prepared like Grandma would.
This logic has been extended to digital friendships. Processed relationships get scare quotes: Facebook "friends." Processed relationships can't be as genuine or authentic or honest as real life friendships. Processed relationships generate data for Facebook and Twitter and Google and the NSA. So the solution is to make local friends, hang out organically, and only communicate through means your Grandma would recognize. It's so conservative it's radical!
turning off toward the achievement ethic, competition, science, technology, and bureaucracy, and a turning on toward direct sensory experience, adapting to nature rather than seeking to master it, cultivating deep and honest relationships in small groups, and seeking self knowledge through introspection.
Compare that summary to Colin's description of Camp Grounded:
The urge to check in, to check out, to Vine, to Snap, to Tumbl, faded with surprising ease. But the Camp Grounded vision of technology's toxic influence is more holistic: money, clocks, alcohol, drugs, and any talk of people's ages or work were all off-limits. Conversations could no longer begin with 'What do you do?'
Turn against achievement ethic? Check. Turn against technology? Check. Direct sensory experience? Check. Adapting to nature? Check. Cultivating deep and honest relationships in small groups? Check.
As for introspection... The Times' article describes one 45-year-old CEO "carrying the Camp Grounded journal he was given in which he asked himself over and over 'Who am I?' before concluding that he is 'a man with an open heart.'" It ends with the author staring up at the sky, "looking for shooting stars, not reality ones. And for once, I was enjoying the silence."
Digital Detox's name even conjures up the same chemophobia that pervades the current whole foods movement. It says: technology is toxic and addictive, unnatural.
The list of banned items extended beyond phones to beer and *time* itself. According to the Times account, all meals were vegan and gluten-free. The men and women were also separated into different sleeping grounds, and there wasn't much free love. (It turns out that the hippie future is way less fun than the hippie past.)
The dream, I would offer, is that by stripping away the trappings of modern life, we reach a place where humans naturally fall into deep and honest relationships with each other. The vision promises that if it weren't for all the damn new stuff (like watches), we'd all be sitting around sharing the parts of ourselves that we're ashamed of, supporting others in their most meaningful endeavors, and paying mind only to worthy causes and ideas.
The whole concept has a baseline problem. This is not a strawman. Take a look at the media coverage: it's all in there. Camp Grounded is a pure distillation of post-modern technoanxiety. More concentrated than most, but fundamentally composed of the same stuff.
I can sympathize. Who doesn't want depth in their relationships? Or to be judged by the content of one's character, not the company on one's business card? Why won't life slow down and be still? Why can't I figure it all out? And also my phone is making noises while I'm trying to think.
My own view is that life, itself, is the toxic and addictive bit. You cannot stop doing it and doing it and doing it until eventually you die from too much living. (Haruki Murakami touched on this in his book on running: "When we use writing to create a story, like it or not a kind of toxin that lies deep down in all humanity rises to the surface," he wrote. "All writers have come face-to-face with this toxin and, aware of the danger involved, discover a way to deal with it.")
These are trite observations that could have been made at any time in the last few centuries: you will be imperfect and you'll be distracted by petty nonsense and jealousy and celebrity gossip and football trades. You'll have too much to drink and parcel out time too stingily and judge people for the wrong reasons. You, too, will go to a party and make a snap judgment about continuing to talk with someone on the basis of their answer to the question, "What do you do?" Like the millions before you, you will be horribly uneven but probably pretty decent, all things considered.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the entire Judeo-Christian tradition is founded on duplicity; and early 19th century (i.e. pre-Industrial) literature is filled with the most shallow backstabbing and infighting imaginable.
Digital Detox's project, then, is not a flight back to the natural: They are trying to strip away the gluten and electromagnetic waves and gossip to create new, artificial, better humans.
The whole rhetoric, though, requires a retreat from the frontlines of the battle to define tomorrow's systems. These technologies need real critiques. Our social networks and smartphones are not "neutral" tools. We may be able to manage our relationships with them, but we need to know what they are trying to do, technically, culturally, and financially.
And besides: Facebook is just the tip of the iceberg. Every single person out there on the land is deeply dependent on the digital-industrial infrastructure of our society. Long ago (Spring 1994), J. Baldwin wrote an essay in the Whole Earth Review on this very topic called, "Where Did You Get Your Axe?"
He begins in a despairing mode we're all familiar with.
We know where the blame lies: Big corporations and their political protectors, advertising and consumerism, and most of all, technology -- especially computers -- that gives them their power. Without the pervasive effects of technology run amok, we could exist as good earth citizens, doing honest work in harmony with the environment... We can forsake the hi-tech life that brings with it so much ruin of environment and human spirit. We should return to the simple life.
Baldwin goes on to describe a family that escaped the hi-tech life for a valley in Wyoming where they made many things by hand. They showed slides and talked about the salutary effects of DIY life. Everyone applauded.
But Baldwin asks, "Where did you get your axe? And the slide camera and the stove, the flour, the nails, the books, the garden seeds, and the window glass?" While it seemed that they'd gotten farther away from a technological life, "they'd merely lengthened the umbilical cord." And here's the key part of the criticism: "By moving to the bucolic boondocks, that happy family dodged the undesirable effects of the technology that was supporting them even as they sneered," he concludes.
There's nothing really wrong with escaping to the boonies. But individuals unplugging is not actually an answer to the biggest technological problems of our time just as any individual's local, organic dietary habits don't solve global agriculture's issues. These are collective problems that will require collective action based on serious critique. (Want a good model? Check out Pollan's sweeping Farm Bill criticisms *and* policy suggestions, which have been overshadowed by his eating advice.)
I refuse to accept that the only good response to an imperfect technology is to abandon it. We need more specific criticisms than the ever-present feeling that "'something's not right." What thing? Developing a political agenda to remake, improve, or forbid technologies requires some sort of rubric: how can I judge what I'm using? What are the deleterious impacts? How are they specific to these media and this time? Which effects are *caused by* the technologies and which are *enabled by* the technologies and which just happen to *occur through* the technologies? What are the ethics? What are the mechanics? What is the baseline?


text:
Vale Clearances – House Removals Nottingham
Property Clearance & Removal Experts
Changing homes and moving to a new location? Allow Vale Clearances to take care of your house clearance. We can help you move into a property that requires clearance or get rid of your stuff before you move. We believe in recycling and reusing things so you can declutter your property the right way with our services. Our friendly yet professional team takes care of everything and leaves your property looking squeaky clean. Being fully insured clearance experts and licensed waste carriers, you can expect only the best results from us.
Business Name:
Vale Clearances – House Removals Nottingham
2 Lombard St, OrstonNottingham Nottinghamshire NG13 9NFUnited Kingdom
About Nottingham
Nottingham ( (listen) NOT-ing-əm, locally ) is a city and unitary authority area in Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, England. It is located 110 miles (180 km) north-west of London, 33 miles (53 km) south-east of Sheffield and 45 miles (72 km) north-east of Birmingham. Nottingham has links to the legend of Robin Hood and to the lace-making, bicycle and tobacco industries. The city is also the county town of Nottinghamshire and the settlement was granted its city charter in 1897, as part of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Nottingham is a tourist destination; in 2018, the city received the second-highest number of overnight visitors in the Midlands and the highest number in the East Midlands.In 2020, Nottingham had an estimated population of 330,000.
Neighborhoods in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
Beechdale, Bobbers Mill, Clifton Village, Nottingham city centre, Snape Wood, St Ann's, The Meadows, The Park
Things to do in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
Our Newest Profiles


text:
Senators slip past Bruins
Senators 4, Bruins 3
Bobby Ryan scored at 15:25 of the third period and the Ottawa Senators defeated the Boston Bruins 4-3 on Saturday night.
Patrick Wiercioch, Cory Conacher and Zack Smith also scored for the Senators. Craig Anderson stopped 29 shots to earn the victory.
Daniel Paille, Jarome Iginla and David Warsofsky scored for the Bruins. Tuukka Rask allowed three goals on 12 shots before being replaced by Chad Johnson, who allowed one goal on 18 shots.
Both teams were missing a number of key players, including both captains as the Senators were without Jason Spezza and the Bruins were without Zdeno Chara. Both sat out with lower body injuries.
Ottawa hoped to rebound after Friday's 5-0 loss in Boston. The Senators got off to a strong start and managed to play well enough through 60 minutes to hold off the Bruins.


text:
Koizumi, Junichiro
|born on
|8 January 1942
|Yokosuka (Kanagawa), Japan, 35n18, 139e40
|JST h9e (is standard time)
|Data source
|Astrology data
Japanese politician, elected Prime Minister on 4/24/2001, the 11th Japanese P.M. in 11 years. An iconoclastic reformer elected by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Koizumi faces crises in every direction, politically, economically and historically, facing factions of dissent. A representative of "new" Japan, he is divorced, outspoken and has been called "a weirdo" for promoting the unpopular idea in the mid-'90s of privatizing the profitable banking duties of the Post office.
Growing up in the port city, Koizumi is a third-generation politician as his father and grandfather occupied cabinet posts. His father, Junya, served as Defense Agency chief in the Cabinet of Hayato Ikeda during the '60s. He worked on election campaigns during college before continuing his education in London. He returned to Japan in a year when his dad died of cancer. He worked as a secretary for former Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda and carried out a number of odd jobs before winning election to the Diet in 1972. In 1988, he was the Minister of Health & Welfare and in 1992, the Minister of Posts & Telecommunications.
Koizumi is said to be basically shy about flaunting his talents and is a cultured man who enjoys opera and Kabuki. He married a woman 14 years younger; they had two children but separated after four years. He raised his sons, now grown at ages 22 and 20. His wife had conceived their third child when they divorced in 1982 before the birth of the baby and he has never met this son. The emotional price of divorce was so difficult to him that he swore he would never remarry.
He stepped into a more dangerous arena than politics when he described the three types of women: "those who do not understand even when you tell them something; those who do understand when you tell them something; and those who understand without needing to be told." He continued, "And the best type is the one who can understand what you want without you having to tell them."
Koizumi has a reliable male secretary who has remained with him through some 30 years. His ability to deliver highly intelligent speeches without any notes is remarkable.
Source Notes
Yoshiko Mochizuki quotes Japanese sources, location of Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken .David Keston quotes web news on ACT, 4/2000, for same data.
- Family : Childhood : Family noted (Third-generation in public office)
- Family : Relationship : Number of Marriages (One, four years)
- Family : Parenting : Kids 1-3 (Two)
- Vocation : Politics : Heads of state (P.M.)


text:
Defconn is the stage name of Yoo Dae Joon, a South Korean rapper, composer and host. Born on January 6, 1977, he released his first hip hop album "Straight From the Streetz" in 2001 and has since released many successful albums that have cemented his status as one of the best known underground rappers in South Korea. Defconn has since expanded his career as a television MC and host, including on the shows "Weekly Idol" and "2 Days & 1 Night." In 2012, he and Hyungdon formed the hip-hop duo known as Hyungdon and Daejun.
- Born
- Jan 6, 1977 (age 46)
- Star Sign
- Capricorn


text:
Black dessert plate
800,00 Kč Prix régulier
Taxes incluses. Frais d'expédition calculés lors du paiement.
The plates are made of porcelain by turning technique. This technique is based on taking away the cobalt black engobe step by step by the whipping tools. The whipping tools are specially made for this technique.
The specific position of the tool ́s edge on the shard causes the vibration which makes specific imprints of the whipping tool all around the surface of the product. This will provide decor, which is always original and cannot be repeated.
Ø 15,5cm
height 3cm
Design by Martina Žílová
Made in Prague, Czech republic


text:
This past Sunday's episode of Once Upon A Time was groundbreaking for both the show and for the history of television itself.
Once Upon A Time is an ABC drama series which takes actual characters from fairy tales and throws them into the "real world" after having lost their memories of their life in the fairy tale world. Who can forget our excitement when we discovered that Mulan would be a character on the popular show and that Audrey's Fall 2012 covergirl Jamie Chung would be the actress to play her.
Recently, the show revealed some attention-grabbing news about our favorite Once Upon A Time character: the iconic Disney princess is bisexual.
[Spoiler Alert] In the show, Mulan is advised to tell the person she loves about her feelings before it is too late. She then rushes back to Prince Phillip and Princess Aurora. At this point, many viewers expected a confession of love for Prince Phillip. After all, in the previous season, she showed all signs of emotions for him. The show even toys with us and has Mulan ask for Phillip upon her arrival.
Feelings are finally revealed when Mulan admits that the person she wants to speak with is Aurora, not Phillip. Unfortunately, Mulan never does get to confess her love. Aurora reveals that she and Phillip are expecting a child which leads Mulan to decide on the spot that she will join Robin Hood's band.
The internet is buzzing with reactions to this reveal in sexuality. Some are claiming that they were pushing for it all along and others claim it is not the right angle for a Disney princess. Entertainment Weekly applauded the plot twist and the tasteful way in which Once Upon A Time revealed her sexuality:
This makes Mulan's attraction to Aurora a pretty huge milestone. Given both characters' ultra-heteronormative histories — and a general lack of LGBT characters in Disney properties — this twist is an even bigger deal. Remember, too, that Aurora isn't the first recipient of Mulan's unrequited love; back in the beginning of season 2, the warrior maiden had a thing for Aurora's own Twue Wuv, Prince Phillip. That means Mulan isn't simply a lesbian — she's bisexual, not to mention one of the few bisexual characters on TV whose orientation isn't a ready-made punchline. (Looking at you, Glee.)
TL;DR: Mulan's big moment was pretty awesome, and we should all be impressed with Jane Espenson for somehow managing to queer up a figure included in the Disney Princess lineup… without even making her sexuality into some giant, character-defining thing.
Watch the heartbreaking scene below:


text:
FITCHBURG — With Saturday's autopsy results confirming what many have feared, the months-long search for Jeremiah Oliver came to a sad end.
Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr. confirmed Saturday afternoon that the body found Friday morning off of Interstate 190 southbound in Sterling is the missing Fitchburg 5-year-old, last seen by family in September.
"The autopsy report is not complete," Early spokesman Tim Connolly wrote in an email just after 4 p.m. Saturday. "No other information about the case will be released at this time. The investigation continues."
Jeremiah's body was found around 9 a.m. Friday in a wooded area 40 feet off of I-190 southbound in Sterling. At a Friday afternoon press conference, Early said the body was wrapped in a blanket and "packed inside a suitcase-like object," but would not elaborate on its condition.
The state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner performed the autopsy.
Connolly declined to answer questions regarding whether the cause and manner of Jeremiah's death are known yet and whether Jeremiah's mother, Elsa Oliver, or her boyfriend, Alberto Sierra, will face upgraded charges.
Oliver and Sierra pleaded not guilty in March to charges including kidnapping, assault and battery, and reckless endangerment in Worcester Superior Court. Both are being held on high bail — $100,000 for Oliver and $250,000 for Sierra.
Three others have also been charged with interfering with a criminal investigation and misleading police in connection with the case.
Elsa Oliver's attorney, James Gavin Reardon Jr., reached by phone Saturday, said it would be "incredibly speculative" to "forecast any additional charges" that his client could face. He acknowledged, however, that she, Sierra, and any of the other three defendants in the case — or others that may come as a result of the investigation of the body — could face homicide charges.
While Early said Jeremiah's death appears to be a homicide, Reardon said he awaits official information that it has been determined as such.
"If it has been determined to be a homicide case, it will proceed through the court system through the normal course for homicide cases," Reardon said. "Obviously, everyone understands it's a tragedy, but I'm sure our legal system will deal with it appropriately as it does with other tragic cases."
Reardon, who has expressed doubt at the court's ruling that Elsa Oliver is competent to stand trial, said she was transferred on April 2 from the correctional institution where she has been held in Framingham to a mental-health facility for further evaluation and treatment.
"This was done independently by personnel at MCI Framingham," he said. "I didn't request it, I did not know it had been done."
Reardon said he continues to have difficulty in having "any practical or useful conversations" with Oliver, but that he will discuss this latest development in the case with her.
Following the confirmation of the identity of the body, residents visited a makeshift memorial in Jeremiah's honor in the lot across from 276 Kimball St., where he and his family once lived.
Neighbor Danny Diaz, who participated in many searches for Jeremiah, said he has three young children and he couldn't imagine them going through the same abuse Jeremiah and his two siblings allegedly received at the hands of their mother and her boyfriend.
"It makes me so sad for several months, to now find him," Diaz said. "Thank God they found the body so he can rest in peace."
Millie Melendez said she never knew Jeremiah or his family, but the case hit close to home for her, because her cousin's son, Aaden, died at the hands of his stepfather in 2010 when he was only 23 months old.
"Any little kid that passes so young, it just breaks my heart, because it reminds me of him," she said.
Melendez said she's glad Jeremiah was found because he can be given a proper burial and his family can find closure.
"I am so grateful to the state police and others in law enforcement for their tenacity in finding Jeremiah and so sad that he was not found alive," Gov. Deval Patrick said in a statement Saturday. "We now look to the district attorney to prosecute this crime to the fullest extent of the law."
The state Department of Children and Families, which had an open case with the Oliver family, came under intense scrutiny after it was revealed that a social worker had missed routine visits with the family for months. As a result, three employees of the agency — a social worker, a supervisor and an area manager — were fired after an internal investigation. Many have called for DCF Commissioner Olga Roche to be fired as well.
"We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of Jeremiah Oliver. The department is grateful for the dedication of the District Attorney and law enforcement partners leading this investigation and will continue to assist in any way we can," Roche said in a statement Saturday. "DCF continues to focus on caring for Jeremiah's siblings to ensure they are receiving the support they need during this very difficult time."
Jeremiah's father, Jose Oliver, of New Britain, Conn., and his uncle, Sandrino Oliver, of Worcester, did not respond to requests for comment throughout the day Saturday.
Sandrino Oliver, overcome with emotion on Friday, collapsed with what family members called an asthma attack and was taken away from the memorial site in an ambulance.
Kevin Lynch, a member of the search team for Jeremiah, used social media Saturday to express the innocence the child represents to him, and how "he has ascended into heaven as our little angel." While Jeremiah has been lost, he said, the search for him has brought many others to recognize the importance of their own loved ones and cherish them every day, as well as brought awareness to the abuse many other children like him experience.
"I have heard dozens of stories and conversations between families as they held each other that much closer due to Jeremiah's suffering," Lynch wrote on Facebook. "Jeremiah has already created widespread awareness."
Follow Alana Melanson at facebook.com/alanasentinel or on Twitter @alanamelanson.


text:
Welcome to Winchester/Clark
County, Kentucky - The Crossroads of Commerce. Whether you are a
site selection consultant, a real estate development professional
or the person in charge of your company's relocation/expansion effort,
you will find Winchester to be your community of choice.
There are many
reasons to choose Winchester as your next site location. If you
are already part of our industrial community and are preparing to
expand your existing facility those same reasons apply. Here are
a few:
As you can see,
our location, our innovative approach to providing infrastructure,
and our commitment to continuing education are indicators of a progressive
community whose priority is creating quality jobs for all people
of Winchester, Clark County and our region.
Please, take
a moment to find out more about us and what we can do for YOU!
Todd Denham Executive Director


text:
SMALE et al. v. MITCHELL.
12 S.Ct. 353
36 L.Ed. 90
SMALE et al.
February 1, 1892.
Action of ejectment by Charles H. Mitchell against Jabez G. Smale, John I. Bennett, Frank I. Bennett, and Conrad N. Jordan. Defendants appealed from an order denying a new trial as of right.
The defendant in error, Charles H. Mitchell, as plaintiff, commenced an action of ejectment in a state court of Illinois, to recover certain described premises situated in that state, against Jabez G. Smale and others, which action was afterwards, on sufficient grounds, removed to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. Issue being joined in the action, it was tried by the court without a jury, and upon the facts found judgment was rendered on February 1, 1886, in favor of the plaintiff for a portion of the demanded premises, and in favor of the defendants for the residue. Judgment being entered thereon, the case was brought to this court on a writ of error, and on May 11, 1891, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court, with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in conformity with the opinion of this court. 140 U. S. 406, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 819, 840. According to that opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a greater quantity of land than that described in the judgment reversed. The declaration contained two counts, each describing a portion of the demanded premises, and the opinion directed that a general judgment be entered for the plaintiff for the property described in both counts. The judgment was reversed accordingly, and the cause remanded, with instructions as above mentioned. The mandate of the court issued thereon followed the judgment, and was filed in the court below, June 8, 1891; and that court, in obedience thereto, on the 12th of June following, entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the premises described, and ordered a writ of possession to be issued.
On the following day, June 13, 1891, the defendants moved the court to vacate the judgment thus entered, and to grant them a new trial under the statute of Illinois, all costs of the action having been previously paid; but the court, after hearing argument thereon, denied the motion, and to its ruling the defendants excepted.
To review this ruling the defendants, in September, 1891, sued out a writ of error from the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit, returnable in October following, and assigned as error the refusal of the circuit court to vacate the judgment entered on June 12, 1891, and grant a new trial under the statutes of Illinios, the costs having been paid, and the motion made in open court within one year from the rendition of the judgment, and the defendants never having had a new trial in the cause, as provided for by that statute
The case being brought, upon this writ of error, before the circuit court of appeals, was heard on October 5, 1891, and the question arose as to the power of the court below to set aside and vacate the judgment entered on June 12, 1891, pursuant to the mandate and opinion of the supreme court of the United States, and to grant the defendants a new trial, as of course, and simply upon the payment of costs, as provided in the statutes of Illinois relating to the practice in actions of ejectment. The court being advised, it was ordered that the question be certified to the supreme court of the United States, pursuant to the sixth section of the act establishing circuit courts of appeals. 26 St. p. 828.
On the hearing in the circuit court of appeals, the circuit judge did not sit, but the court which made the order was held by the circuit justice and the district judge for the northern district of Illinois, who had been assigned to sit as a member of that court. Upon this certificate the case is now before this court for hearing.
The provisions of the law of Illinois relating to ejectment are contained in sections 34 and 35 of chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes of that state. They are as follows:
'34. Every judgment in the action of ejectment shall be conclusive, as to the title established in such action, upon the party against whom the same is rendered, and against all parties claiming from, through, or under such party, by title accruing after the commencement of such action, subject to the exceptions hereinafter named.
'35. At any time within one year after a judgment, either upon default or verdict in the action of ejectment, the party against whom it is rendered, his heirs or assigns, upon the payment of all costs recovered therein, shall be entitled to have the judgment vacated, and a new trial granted in the cause. If the costs are paid and the motion therefor is filed in vacation, upon notice thereof being given to the adverse party or his agent or attorney, or the officer having any writ issued upon such judgment, all further proceedings shall be stayed till otherwise ordered by the court. The court, upon subsequent application, made within one year after the rendering of the second judgment in said cause, if satisfied that justice will thereby be promoted, and the rights of the parties more satisfactorily ascertained and established, may vacate the judgment and grant another new trial; but not more than two new trials shall be granted to the same party under this section.'
W. C. Goudy and John I. Bennett, for plaintiffs in error.
W. M. Booth, J. S. Harlan, S. S. Gregory, Thomas Dent, and Wm. Prescott, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 102-104 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The contention of the plaintiffs in error, the defendants below, is that the mandate of the supreme court was fully obeyed when, in pursuance thereof, judgment was entered in the circuit court, and that they have the same right after the entry of that judgment to a new trial, according to the provisions of the statute of Illinois, which they would have had if the circuit court had on the trial, in the first instance, rendered such judgment. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant in error, the plaintiff below, is that the judgment entered by direction of the supreme court of the United States is final, and that the right to a second trial given by the statutes of Illinois to the losing party in ejectment does not apply where the judgment against such party is entered by direction of that court.
It is insisted at the outset that the statute of Illinois confers a right to a new trial in ejectment only when the judgment is rendered upon default or verdict, and does not apply to cases where it is entered upon the mandate of an appellate court, the latter judgment not being within its language of intent. We are unable to agree in this respect with counsel. By a judgment upon a verdict the statute evidently intended to embrace all cases where the decision upon which the judgment was entered had been given upon contestation, as distinguished from one upon default; and the reason of the law is as applicable to all judgments in such cases as to those entered upon verdicts of a jury. Chamberlin v. McCarty, 63 Ill, 262.
By the common law the action of ejectment was purely one of possession, and, as it proceeded upon a fictitious demise between fictitious parties, its determination decided nothing beyond the right of the plaintiff at the date of the alleged demise. A new action, upon the allegation of a different demise, might immediately be instituted. It was only after repeated verdicts in such cases in favor of the plaintiff that the real claimant could apply to a court of equity to quiet the possession and put an end to the fruitless litigation respecting the property. A judgment in ejectment in an action was consequently not a bar to a second action for the same premises.
The law of Illinois changes this rule of the common law, and makes a judgment in the action of ejectment conclusive as to the title established in such action upon the party against whom it is rendered, and parties claiming under him by title arising after the commencement of the action, subject to certain exceptions named. Those exceptions provide in two cases for a second trial of the action. One is after the first trial and judgment; the party against whom the judgment has been rendered, or his heirs or assigns, is entitled to have the judgment set aside and a new trial granted within one year from the date of the judgment, upon the payment of all costs in the action. The new trial in such case is a matter of right, upon the mere application of the party. The other is after the second trial and judgment; then a new trial may be granted, upon the application of the losing party, if the court is satisfied that justice would be thereby promoted, and the rights of the parties be more satisfactorily ascertained and established. But only two trials can be granted to the same party.
This absolute right of a party against whom a judgment in ejectment has been rendered in such cases to a second trial, upon his application and payment of costs in the action, is esteemed in Illinois to be a valuable one. The statute which authorizes it is there regarded as conferring a substantial right, in that it increases the security of holders of real property that, in case their title is brought into litigation, it will be more fully examined and satisfactorily ascertained and established than by confining the parties to a single trial, as in other controversies, except where another trial is ordered for cause. In the courts of that state this right is secured in all cases of ejectment. As it is a valuable one, there would seem to be every reason why it should be enjoyed when the action was commenced in a state court, and for good cause removed to a court of the United States; there being nothing in the practice of the latter court or in the laws of congress which prevents or impedes its enjoyment. If there existed any such objection in the practice of the federal courts, or in any law of congress, as prevents the trial of equitable defenses to an action at law which are allowed in some state courts, the second trial in ejectment, simply upon the application of the party and the payment of the costs, might properly be refused; but there exists, as stated, no such objection. It is not the purpose of the statutes of the United States, which authorize the removal of causes from a state court to a federal court, to deprive either party of any substantial right, but to secure to the parties all such rights which could be claimed in the state courts when capable of enforcement under the settled federal practice.
The duty of the federal courts to follow the practice of the state courts in cases like the present one, where the law of the state allows a new trial in actions of ejectment without showing cause, is recognized by this court in Equator, etc., Co. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 86, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 128. That was an action in the circuit court of the United States against a mining company to recover possession of a silver mine in Colorado. The case was, by agreement of parties, submitted to the judge of the court, who found for the defendant, and rendered judgment in his favor. Thereupon the plaintiffs paid the costs of the action up to that time, and under the provisions of a section of the Code of Civil Procedure of that state moved for and obtained a new trial without showing any cause. At a subsequent term the case was again tried, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was entered. The defendant then, without showing cause, moved for a new trial, which was claimed to be a matter of right under the same section of the Code under which the previous new trial had been granted. The judges of the court were divided in opinion on this motion, and certified the question to this court. The section of the Code of Colorado under which the motion was made was as follows:
'Whenever judgment shall be rendered against either party under the provisions of this chapter, it shall be lawful for the party against whom such judgment is rendered, his heirs or assigns, at any time before the first day of the next succeeding term, to pay all costs recovered thereby, and, upon application of the party against whom the same was rendered, his heirs or assigns, the court shall vacate such judgment and grant a new trial in such case; but neither party shall have but one new trial in any case, as of right, without showing cause; and, after such judgment is vacated, the cause shall stand for trial the same as though it had never been tried.' Section 274, Code 1883.
In disposing of the question this court referred to the fictions in the action of ejectment at common law, and to the inconclusiveness of the results of such actions, and observed that this form of action had been abolished in some of the states; and that in abolishing it with its accompanying evils, and in substituting an action between the real parties, plaintiff and defendant, it was found necessary to provide a rule on the subject of new trials in actions concerning the titles of land. While these provisions, said the court, were not the same in all states, it was believed that almost all of them had made provision for one or more new trials as a matter of right. The court added 'We are of opinion that, when an action of ejectment is tried in a circuit court of the United States according to the statutory mode of proceeding, that court is governed by the provisions concerning new trials, as it is by the other provisions of the state statute. There is no reason why the federal court should disregard one of the rules by which the state legislature has guarded the transfer of the possession and title to real estate within its jurisdiction. Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35.'
That decision goes beyond the requirement of this case, for that action was commenced in a federal court, while here it was begun in a state court, and subsequently removed to the circuit court of the United States. It is only necessary to hold that in this case the same right to a second trial can be claimed and enforced as if the action had never been thus removed.
Against this view the defendant in error cite section 701 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which prescribes the power of the supremecourt in reviewing the judgment of inferior courts, as follows:
'The supreme court may affirm, modify, or reverse any judgment, decree, or ordel of a circuit court, or district court acting as a circuit court, or of a district court in prize causes, lawfully brought before it for review, or may direct such judgment decree, or order to be rendered, or such further proceedings to be had by the infe rior court, as the justice of the case may require. The supreme court shall not issue execution in a cause removed before it from such courts, but shall send a special mandate to the inferior court to award execution thereupon.
They contend that the supreme court having rendered its decision and remanded the case to the court below, with directions to enter the appropriate judgment, the judgment thus entered becomes, in substance and effect, the judgment, not of the court to which it was thus remanded, but of the supreme court, and that it is not within the power of the lower court to change its results or directions in any respect. Undoubtedly, in ordinary cases, a new trial cannot be granted by the court below, except for good cause, and in the exercise of its sound judgment, and it is not within its power, in entering the judgment of the supreme court, to award a new trial; and it only remains to carry the judgment into execution.
But this rule cannot apply to an action of ejectment, where the party is entitled by the law of the state in which the action arose to a new trial without showing cause, and in regard to which the trial court possesses no discretion. The judgment entered in an action of ejectment in such case, by direction of the supreme court, stands subject to the same control by the lower court as if thus rendered in the first instance.
The defendants in error also cite in support of their position the case of Ex parte Dubuque & P. R. Co., 1 Wall. 69. At first sight this decision would seem to be an authority for their position, but upon examination it appears that the new trial there depended upon the discretion of the court, and that there was not, as mistakenly stated, any statute at that time in Iowa which gave the party a right to a new trial as a matter of course. It appears from the record in that case that after the mandate had gone down, and judgment had been entered in obedience to it, affidavits were presented and a motion made for a new trial, which was granted by the court; and that subsequently a mandate was issued by this court commanding the court below to vacate the order. That case, therefore, as correctly stated by counsel, falls within the class where the litigation was ended with the first trial, and its decision does not apply to those cases of ejectment where more than one trial is directly allowed by statute.
Our conclusion is that the plaintiffs in error were entitled to a new trial, upon their application in the circuit court and payment of costs, without showing other cause than that a judgment was entered against them within the year. This conclusion will be certified to the circuit court of appeals, upon which that court will proceed to render the proper judgment in the case pending before it; ant it is so ordered.
The following state regulations pages link to this page.


text:
Colet, John
Colet, John kŏ´lĭt [key], 1467?–1519, English humanist and theologian. While studying on the Continent (1493–96), Colet became interested in classical scholarship and in theories of education. After his residency at Oxford as a lecturer, in 1505 he became dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, London. He planned the new St. Paul's School (1509) and endowed it from his private fortune. With William Lily, the school's first headmaster, and Erasmus, he collaborated on a Latin grammar that was later called the Eton grammar and used by generations of schoolboys. Colet did not, himself, break with the Roman Church, but his ideas on church reform were influential later. Most of his writings were unpublished until the late 19th cent.
See biography by J. H. Lupton (2d ed. 1961); F. Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers (1913, repr. 1971).
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2023, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: Scholars, Antiquarians, and Orientalists: Biographies


text:
Welcome to our website! As we have the ability to list over one million items on our website (our selection changes all of the time), it is not feasible for a company our size to record and playback the descriptions on every item on our website. However, if you have a disability we are here to help you. Please call our disability services phone line at (203) 934-9258 during regular business hours and one of our kind and friendly personal shoppers will help you navigate through our website, help conduct advanced searches, help you choose the item you are looking for with the specifications you are seeking, read you the specifications of any item and consult with you about the products themselves. There is no charge for the help of this personal shopper for anyone with a disability. Finally, your personal shopper will explain our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, and help you place an order if you so desire.
White's Plumbing Supplies in West Haven, CT is an authorized dealer of Brizo Products. Brizo is a premium faucet brand that promises distinctive design, inventive faucets and accessories that make a fashion statement in the home.
Rooted in the fashion and design communities, Brizo is the primary sponsor of fashion designer superstar Jason Wu. Demonstrative of the brands commitment to care in how its products are made and its community, Brizo is also the first national sponsor of the St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital Dream Home® Giveaway.
So if you are looking for Brizo products in West Haven, New Haven, Milford, Fairfield, Norwalk, Branford, Guilford, Madison, Old Saybrook, Bridgeport and Hartford, or if you have any questions about Brizo products, please feel free to call us at (203) 934-9258 or simply stop by White's Plumbing Supplies at any time and we would be glad to help you.