WordWolf

Oh! "You Are Cordially Invited...." The Worf/Dax wedding. The only episode with a Klingon wedding ceremony in it.

Correct! "Why is there always somebody that brings eggs and tomatoes to a speech?" Cobblepott/Penguin, right after Batman turns the crowd against him. "I could really get into this mayor stuff. It's not about power, it's about reaching out to people - touching people - groping people!" "You're the coolest role-model a young person could have!" "And you're the hottest young person a role-model could have." Both Penguin again, during his mayoral run. No, it's not a movie about a religious cult. "I wish I could hand out World Peace and Unconditional Love, wrapped in a big bow." " Oh, but you can! Oh, but you will!" Schreck and Penguin. "Maybe this is a bad time to mention this, but my license has expired!" Penguin, while driving the Batmobile by remote control. "Still... it could be worse. My nose could be gushing blood. Ha, ha..." "Ha, ha..Your nose could be gushing... what do you mean... AAAAAHHHH!" Penguin with one of his political aides, showing he's not very diplomatic. "It's true I was their number one son... but they treated me like number two." His press conference right after he checks the records, when he announces his legal name.

For those of you curious about the "droit de signeur", I offer this link and its contents... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur "Droit de seigneur (IPA pronunciation: ['dʀwa d(ə) sɛ'ɲœʀ]), French for the lord's right, is a term now popularly used to describe the purported legal right of the lord of an estate to deflower its virgins. It is also spelled droit du seigneur (['dʀwa dy sɛ'ɲœʀ]); (but native French prefer the term droit de cuissage or droit de jambage) a related term is ius primae noctis (also jus primae noctis) (['ju:s 'pri:maɪ 'nɔktɪs]), Latin for law (or right) of the first night. Droit du seigneur is often interpreted today as a synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and farming." " The existence of a "right of the first night" in the Middle Ages was a disputed topic in the nineteenth century. Although most historians today would agree that there is no authentic proof of the actual exercise of the custom in the Middle Ages, disagreement continues about the origin, the meaning, and the development of the widespread popular belief in this alleged right and the actual prevalence of symbolic gestures referring to this right. In fact the ius primae noctis was, in the European late medieval context, a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of a manor to share the bed with his peasants' newlywed brides on their wedding nights. Symbolic gestures, reflecting this belief, were developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of disappearing status differences. Actual intercourse on behalf of the alleged right is difficult to prove. The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In the 16th century, Boece referred to the decree of the Scottish king Evenus III that "the lord of the ground shall have the maidenhead of all virgins dwelling on the same". Legend has it that Saint Margaret procured the replacement of jus primae noctis with a bridal tax called merchet. King Evenus III did not exist, and Boece included much clearly mythical material in his account. In literature from the 13th and 14th centuries and in customary law texts of the 15th and 16th centuries, jus primae noctis is also closely related to specific marriage payments of (formerly) unfree people. There is good reason to assume that this relation goes back to the early medieval period and has its roots in the legal condition of unfree people and Germanic marriage customs." "Some scholars have speculated that the jus primae noctis of the Medieval European tradition did exist, and that it might have been similar to defloration rituals in Ancient Mesopotamia or 13th century Tibet (Evans 1979:30). In Mesopotamian literature, the right of the first night, in the sense of the privilege of a powerful man to deflower another man's bride, is a very old topos, present at least as early as Epic of Gilgamesh (circa 2000 B.C.). Although the literary descriptions from ancient Mesopotamia and the legends of ius primae noctis in Medieval Europe stem from very different cultural traditions, they meet in the fact that, in both cases, persons of high social rank were involved. Herodotus writes that virgins in 5th century B.C. Babylon were obliged to prostitute themselves in the temple of Ishtar, allowing a stranger to deflower them before they were allowed to marry (Herodotus I.199). Marco Polo, in his Il Milione, observed that in 13th century Tibet, "The people of these parts are disinclined to marry young women as long as they are left in their virgin state, but on the contrary require that they should have had commerce with many of the opposite sex." (Evans 1979:30) Scholars have argued by analogy to the Tibetan custom recorded by Marco Polo and similar customs from other cultures that the ius primae noctis of Medieval Europe and the Mesopotamian custom alluded to in the Epic of Gilgamesh were not instances of the tyrant imposing his will on his female subjects, but a kind of "ritual defloration," in which "the community rallied around to support the individual," i.e., the deflowerer (Evans 1979:30)." ================ Frustratingly enough, the one really interesting comment there- the reference to GERMANIC marriage customs- LACKS A CITATION. (So, it may be just made-up.)

Oakspear: " quote:Originally posted by CompletelyComplete: 3. How many times were we taught that the Old Testament was "for our learning" but that we were not bound by the law, being made free by Our Lord Jesus Christ? How could they then use the verses in Samuel that "all of the women in the kingdom belongs to the king" - in essence claiming the "Man of God" as the king?? IS there a verse anywhere in the bible that says "all women in the kingdom belong to the king"? I was pretty sure that there wasn't, but that VP claimed it during his exposition of the David/Bathshebva/Uriah/Nathan record without citing a verse. There have been some good threads in the past discussing the droit de signeur (right of the lord?) that was exercised during feudel times in Europe. I can't see God sanctioning adultery for the king, when it would contradict everything else the bible says about marriage." insurgent had saved the following posts from one of the older boards and reposted, deleting the poster names. "Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm. Recall the teaching from PFAL (and WOAP) of David, Bathsheeba, and Uriah. We were taught that God was angry with David because he had Uriah killed . . . NOT because David had sex with the married Bathsheeba. VPW taught (and LCM continued teaching) that it was the right for the king to have any woman in the kingdom. This un-Biblical teaching has been promoted for decades by TWI for the express purpose of softening people up so that leaders could more easily convince women to have sex with them. (By the way, this was formalized in the middle ages with the "Droit du Seignor" or "Right of the Leader" to have sex with any woman in his kingdom. Remember Braveheart when Mel Gibson's and his woman try to avoid having the local duke screw his woman, even though it was technically his right and duty to do so.) This doctrinal depravity continued in the 1990's with Martindale teaching that the Ministers of today are the equivalent of the Kings of the Old Testament. Recall that he taught that OT verses referring to the King should be applied to Way Corps Ministers of today (This is in WOAP if you don't remember). Women who resisted Martindale's sexual advances were EXPLICITLY told that it was his right as "king" (man of god) to have ANY woman in the "kingdom" (ministry). Resistance to him was equivalent to resistance to God Himself. Think about it. The logical steps between the public doctrine and this last paragraph is simple: 1) Premise: The King of the OT has the right to have sex with any woman in the kingdom (married or unmarried) 2) Premise: The King of the OT = Minister of today 3) Conclusion: The Minister of today has the right to have sex with any woman in the ministry (married or unmarried) THE TWO PREMISES ARE STILL TAUGHT TODAY IN THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER. If you think TWI ministers of today aren't drawing the same logical conclusion today then you are not thinking logically. The problem did not go away when Martindale was kicked out. It is still there." "Yes, just prior to my exiting twi.....LCM was explicitly teaching the corps that the OT king (rulership) was equally synonymous with the New Testament "ruling" minister or MOG. LCM was rapidly paving a "six-lane highway" for his sexual driving pleasure." The higher-ups were confronted with the truth years ago when John S on the research team wrote his paper showing that adultery is wrong according to Gods' Word. He was kicked out and others lost their positions simply from reading the paper or receiving it in the mail. The upper echelon convicted themselves by their own reaction to a simple research paper. If you were a simple believer who already understood that adultery was wrong, it was hard to comprehend this kind of reaction....unless you thought about why. They have had no interest in the Truth for years. If it interferes with their own lust and selfishness, they will resist the Truth and harm those that confront them with it. They are not shepherds, they are wolves in sheeps clothing, not sparing the flock. Innocent believers have been and are condemned and maligned for insignificant infractions while those at the top of the heirarchy think nothing of taking their money, time and labor. TWI had their chance years ago to repent and change their ways. They did not and they will not. XXXXX You mentioned, "It has been well reported that Martindale had sex with nearly half of the cast of Athletes of the Spirit." I didn't know that! Two friends of mine who were in that production!!! It make me sick to think that LCM may have been stalking these 2 wonderful women. I hate to admit this, that statement has been the most troubling thing I have read. Because, at this point you are talking about friends of mine. These were friends I laughed with, ate with and enjoyed each others company. I lost track of them after they went into the WC. I was very proud to see them as they were doing the credits, and they danced across the stage. These friends are Sara B. and Connie M. I knew them in Utah. I pray they are doing well Xxxx I cannot say whether your friends are part of the group of women who Martindale had sex with. But I do know, that it is common knowlege that he had sex with many of them, and at least one of them was a main character. This person is now divorced. I don't know how many of the others got divorced or had other personal problems related to what happened. But it has been reported that one of the things Chris Gee r confronted LCM on was this issue regarding dancers in the Athletes production. XXXX I can confirm this regarding the AOS knowledge...and there are records on other sites of this exact scenario....I will try to dig the links up when I have more perusing time xxxxxx Rosey Lie had to have known about extramarital sexual activity at top leadership level because it was DOCTRINE as well as practice. I've posted this before, but it might be of some value to lurkers now. Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm. Recall the teaching from PFAL (and WOAP) of David, Bathsheeba, and Uriah. We were taught that God was angry with David because he had Uriah killed . . . NOT because David had sex with the married Bathsheeba. VPW taught (and LCM continued teaching) that it was the right for the king to have any woman in the kingdom. This un-Biblical teaching has been promoted for decades by TWI for the express purpose of softening people up so that leaders could more easily convince women to have sex with them. (By the way, this was formalized in the middle ages with the "Droit du Seignor" or "Right of the Leader" to have sex with any woman in his kingdom. Remember Braveheart when Mel Gibson's and his woman try to avoid having the local duke screw his woman, even though it was technically his right and duty to do so.) This doctrinal depravity continued in the 1990's with Martindale teaching that the Ministers of today are the equivalent of the Kings of the Old Testament. Recall that he taught that OT verses referring to the King should be applied to Way Corps Ministers of today (This is in WOAP if you don't remember). Women who resisted Martindale's sexual advances were EXPLICITLY told that it was his right as "king" (man of god) to have ANY woman in the "kingdom" (ministry). Resistance to him was equivalent to resistance to God Himself. Think about it. The logical steps between the public doctrine and this last paragraph is simple: 1) Premise: The King of the OT has the right to have sex with any woman in the kingdom (married or unmarried) 2) Premise: The King of the OT = Minister of today 3) Conclusion: The Minister of today has the right to have sex with any woman in the ministry (married or unmarried) THE TWO PREMISES ARE STILL TAUGHT TODAY IN THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER. If you think TWI ministers of today aren't drawing the same logical conclusion today then you are not thinking logically. The problem did not go away when Martindale was kicked out. It is still there. Get out. xxxx Excellent Points!! Yes, just prior to my exiting twi.....LCM was explicitly teaching the corps that the OT king (rulership) was equally synonymous with the New Testament "ruling" minister or MOG. LCM was rapidly paving a "six-lane highway" for his sexual driving pleasure." "It was at Word In Business 1994 in Chicago that LCM taught TWC the night before it opened, that in the OT, that the King was synonymous with the minister in today's administrations, and that many of the things that you read, that applied to the King in the OT, applied to the minister in the NT. I was personally present when he taught it. It was a multi-leveled teaching. If you had no idea what was going on, it was simply a great teaching regarding leadership principles. But if you were privy to the sexual goings-on, it was the doctrinal justification to what was allowed." WordWolf: "If you had sat thru pfal, you would have seen vpw mention the incident of Nathan the prophet confronting David about the incident with Bathsheba. (Had sex with her, then had her husband killed to cover his tracks.) vpw's explanation was..original, to say the least. He said that, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." This was a VERY peculiar statement. First off all, you will note it does NOT appear in Scripture. No Bible verse was cited for this, for there IS no verse for this. The Old Testament laws are very clear on adultery being a sin. There is NO verse saying the king is exempt from being charged for any sin he committed, nor excused from having sin imputed when he committed it. The concept was extra-Biblical. It's known as the "droit de seigneur" and has been used by pagan tyrants in many places in the world as a prerogative of their office. The Bible does NOT endorse it, nor does it endorse the treating of women as merchandise or without respect. Those who insist on vpw's innocence are unable to explain, using the Bible, WHY this claim was made, why this statement appears in his signature work." George St George: "I believe the point was that if someone knowingly sins, he'll develop a doctrinal "cover" to explain it away. For example, a "man of God" commits adultery. If he can twist an OT reference where a king commits adultery along with the medieval practice of "droit de seigneur," and then somehow contrive that a religious leader equals the "king" of our day, then BOOM! It's okay for him to be an adulterer. Practical error has led to doctrinal error. Does this mean that it ALWAYS happens? No. The sinner could simple recognize his sin and repent. Or, it could be pointed out to him (as Nathan did to David in the OT record alluded to above); and he could repent. Without godly sorrow, though, doctrinal error is almost sure to follow." Oakspear again: "We may disagree as to the purpose of including that remark in the class, but there is no argument as to its inaccuracy. There is no part of the O.T. law that gives the king the right to all the women in the kingdom, "technically" or otherwise, and the prohibition against adultery specifically would argue against it. Granted, there have been times and places where the droit de signeur was the custom, but one can hardly argue that a culture where "God's Law" was the law of the land was one of them. There is simply no evidence outside of Wierwille's statement in PFAL that "all of the women belong to the king". So, no, I don't need a better argument than that "bro" - we may reasonably disagree on why Wierwille included that remark, but it's wrong, unless you have something to prove me wrong. This does, however, illustrate another point about PFAL: Wierwille's propensity for pulling things like this out of his ear, or citing "old documents" that no one else has ever seen to make his point. For a guy who claimed he was showing us how to research the bible on our own, he sure made a lot of undocumented statements."

According to his own father, his work ethic on the farm was lacking. He slipped off while SUPPOSED to be doing chores like everyone else. The only account of him preaching to the trees came from "Uncle Harry". Who, according to his own account, never actually SAW vpw preaching to the trees. This is mentioned in "The Way:Living in Love". Some people here have heard vpw say there were different careers he was considering, and did not have "ministry" as his sole focus. However, this IS a story that seems lifted from Billy Graham's life. Some people saw him go off and preach to trees while a Divinity student, to overcome problems addressing a crowd (shyness.) Why we're supposed to believe a kid who's not obsessed with the ministry "preached to the trees" when nobody even claimed to SEE him do it is beyond me- unless it's "vpw said it, that settles it, I believe it." According to him, they said to teach on anything except tithing-and he spent the next FOUR SUNDAYS teaching on tithing. Supposedly, they spoke to him about this-the location changed when he told this more than once- and he smart-mouthed them, and they dropped the subject, and the membership didn't all leave when the minister fixated on money, but rather gave more when he made that his sole focus. Forgive me for thinking that's a load of horse-manure. The elders just dropped the subject after he gave a smart remark? The congregation just bent over to his whims and did whatever he said? If that was true, he'd never have LEFT them! He would have had exactly what he'd wanted right in the beginning! When he met the House of Acts, he'd already twisted I Corinthians 7:1- "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."- into saying it was ok with God. There were other verses later for blanket permissions to do anything. Romans 14:22b. "...Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Romans 8:1a "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus..." And so on. All of these were taught under his watch to mean people could get away with all sorts of stuff they WANTED to do. He invented-and NAMED- "the lockbox" for the code of silence kept by these premeditated sinners so that everyone else would be kept unwilling dupes. And yes, in one sentence, he considered himself ABOVE THE LAW, and thought that neither MAN'S LAWS nor GOD'S LAWS applied to him.

I draw a distinction between "disagreements" and "crises". What is a "tiny crisis", anyway? A crisis that one wants to call "a disagreement"? But churches are updated weekly as to what's going on. They have announcements, bulletins, and now in the Information Age, they can have a mailing list for email. Seems to work well for the top people, if they can manage to grab ALL the power rather than just SOME of the power at the top... it's DISASTROUS for everyone else... "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." "The lessons repeat until they are learned."

Any hope for another quote here?

*wild swing* "Diamond Dogs"?

Correct!

"Why is there always somebody that brings eggs and tomatoes to a speech?" "I could really get into this mayor stuff. It's not about power, it's about reaching out to people - touching people - groping people!" "You're the coolest role-model a young person could have!" "And you're the hottest young person a role-model could have." No, it's not a movie about a religious cult. "I wish I could hand out World Peace and Unconditional Love, wrapped in a big bow." " Oh, but you can! Oh, but you will!" "Maybe this is a bad time to mention this, but my license has expired!" "Still... it could be worse. My nose could be gushing blood. Ha, ha..." "Ha, ha..Your nose could be gushing... what do you mean... AAAAAHHHH!" "It's true I was their number one son... but they treated me like number two."

OK. How about this one? "Bat's breath!" "I'm teaching you how to throw knuckleballs, screwballs and sliders. These pitches haven't even been invented yet!" "What's a 'nuclear'?

That's one of the things that makes it difficult for some people to accept that the evidence is that he did what he did. That is, it doesn't make sense to reasonable, honest people to act in this manner. And he was put forth as a reasonable, honest person. Therefore, if he was a reasonable, honest person, he wouldn't have done that. Since he did that, he wasn't a reasonable, honest person after all, and we were all hoodwinked! Bamboozled! WHY he did it is secondary to THAT he did it, and some people can't even get past THAT he did it, and continue to insist on excusing him somehow, using any means they can find. I think the evidence strongly suggests that the reason he did it was twofold: A) primarily to make twi the sole source of "nourishment" for innies, cementing loyalty B) secondarily to make himself the sole source of knowledge for innies, inflating his image and putting forth that himself was some great one Others may disagree, but I think the evidence supports that much without any leaps. Now, why he had those 2 reasons are 2 more questions, and I'm not going to trail off into those at the moment. But, yes, it's confusing and shocking to see all this, isn't it? I mean, the first time I saw it all, it seemed ridiculous, ludicrous that it all could be true, too outrageous to be literally true without embellishment. Sadly, I was wrong.

Sometimes we need a gentle nudge to redirect a thread to its original purpose. (And sometimes we need a truck with a big front shovel.)

OK, here's one I don't think we've done yet..... "Why is there always somebody that brings eggs and tomatoes to a speech?"

I don't think we posted rules in the first post of this thread. I shall recap. All the "NAME THAT" threads follow a few simple rules. One poster posts quotes. (And occasionally adds trivia if the quotes are too hard.) The quote-poster---and ONLY the quote-poster- gets to look this up online, and that's so they make sure they're quoting correctly. Everybody else -the GUESSERS- have to go from memory only. If you look it up, you've volunteered to sit out guessing it. Once someone guesses the answer correctly (usually waiting for a confirmation), it is their turn to post quotes. And so on. Posters are allowed unlimited guesses. (However, dozens and dozens in succession would probably be unfair to everyone else trying to guess the same song. Be reasonable.) Generally, I try to post more quotes every 24 hours if no one has guessed the correct answer. That's not a rule, but it's fair in my opinion. That's it. On this thread, we're limited to the live television series', not the books, movies, or the cartoon.

"Parker Lewis Can't Lose"???

Let's not forget vpw pushing the now-famous saying that "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" and suggesting that this applied to him as well. (Otherwise, there was no relevance to the quote...) He WANTED the veneration. He WANTED the special treatment. He set about to accomplish this, and succeeded.

"BEVERLY HILLS COP." The exchange about the red meat lit a bulb for me. And I think another thread discussed how that's an urban myth. Which got me thinking about it again....

Indeed it does. Frankly, it's worth re-reading a few times until the meaning of that sentence sinks in....

Since you asked, you know how to take your own wounds and disappointments and, rather than seeking to understand them and heal, craft them into a knife to slash at your fellow Christian, and pretend THEY have something to do with all that anger caged up under the surface. You know how to spew insults on the electronic page. In those 2 skills, BTW, you exceed the abilities of every Christian I interact with, all over. However, I wouldnt be proud of that- I'd consider that something to think over. Would Christ be pleased to read your posts?

Congratulations! By skipping most of the thread, you were able to find something to correct! 1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life-- except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. ============= So, the entire concept of Israel having ANY king at ALL was against God's expressed will, and Israel insisted on it over God's clear warnings. They wanted to imitate the other nations and didn't care that they were defying God in the process. So, minimizing damage, God gives them the least-objectionable choices, at the times they're needed- King Saul and King David. Despite God's best efforts to keep them from harm while still respecting their rights to make their own choices-and accept the consequences- Israel is served poorly by having kings. As God had warned them. They were so sure a king could "go before them and fight their battles", but both Saul and David sat back, gave the orders, and sent other men to die instead. (Whoops....) David sinned in ONE insident, mainly. That was the Uriah/Bath-sheba incident. He takes another man's wife, AND has an innocent man killed. This is ONE death and ONE ruined marriage. And for this, David's child dies, and the nation of Israel suffers under his rule. And God never lets this drop- not even when Jesus' family line is covered in Matthew 1, where Uriah's mentioned out of the blue. Looks like God takes sexual sins- and the viewing of His people as DISPOSABLE- VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. Looks like the God of the Old Testament casts a very dim eye towards leaders who commit even a SINGLE sin where they use undue influence to take the wife of another. (And an unmarried woman would probably be a WORSE crime...) How does HE view causing His people to sin sexually, and perverting the office of a priest? Ask Hophni and Phineas, Eli's sons. Ask Eli- for not stopping them, he suffered a loss bad enough to kill him. (Which it did.)

There's a few guesses on that. My guess is that the Scholastic cover shows the view THROUGH the Veil- Harry having passed through and entered the Deathly Hallows. My guess is that the Bloomsbury kids' cover shows a chamber IN the Deathly Hallows. The netherworld is supposed to be a place of riches. (Precious metals and gems come from underground. The netherworld is supposed to be underground.) The lord of the netherworld- Hades, Pluto, etc- is supposed to be rich as a result. That's why the name "Pluto" is used to mean riches- as in "plutocracy", government by the rich. Then again, this chamber could be somewhere else completely. I personally was expecting LUNA and NEVILLE on the netherworld quest, not Ron and Hermione even IF JKR accidentally guaranteed they would live. Luna because in the Space room in the Dept of Mysteries, Luna blew up Pluto. Neville because I expect his mimbulus mimbletonia plant to be critically important.

CORRECT! And it was probably too easy. In case you're interested, someone made a Flash video of the song. You can find it fast enough with a quick search. (Or I can do one and post the results if you need me to.)

I contrasted with the rest of the sentence, that people wouldn't leave an obviously-incompetent leader in office. I got the idea of this thread after lots of posts where one or two people were saying that it didn't matter how much incompetence, how much being asleep-at-the-switch, how much cluelessness until a situation exploded, we see a leader demonstrate, that God Almighty would want us to leave that person in office, and render them above criticism. In short, that God advocates we approach even blatant incompetence with, at worst, a flat announcement of "bend over, here it comes again." You just take whatever a leader dishes out, no matter how blatantly ungodly, and leave him in office, no matter how corrupt, slothful, or moronic he is. Seems that was not only the minority opinion, we didn't even have a single anonymous vote advocating that position- not even from the one or two posters who advocated it! That means something, but it could be any of several things.

I'd say that's true of a number of those who don't post here- but many never came here because they've cocooned themselves in a twi bubble. Meanwhile, a number of us here have resolved all our twi issues and are here having fun and otherwise interacting. There's no correlation one to the other. See my previous point. That last line agreed with one of my points- posters here post for different reasons. Some are Never-Been-Way, if you never noticed. Makes it hard to have unresolved twi issues that way. SOME of the people of similar opinion are in one place. Where's the guarantee the rest of the population isn't all agreeing with that? Not that any of us guaranteed numbers=truth, but if almost everyone examines the facts and comes to the same conclusion, that should be sufficient reason to consider that they might be seeing something that the exceptions are missing. I've noted that consideration is lacking among some people, who object even to DISCUSSION of the facts, let along CONSIDERATION of them.