text:
Tórshavn Cathedral

Tórshavn Cathedral (Havnar Kirkja, or Dómkirkjan) is the second oldest received church of the Faroe Islands, on Tinganes in the old town of Tórshavn. Painted white, and roofed with slate, it was established in 1788. The cathedral lies in the north of the peninsula of Tinganes and is one of the main attractions of the town. Like most churches of the country it belongs to the Evangelical-Lutheran national Church of the Faroe Islands. Since 1990, it has been the seat of the Bishop of the Faroes and is therefore known as a cathedral.

Early churches
The early history of the church is quite complicated. To all appearances there was no church in the strict sense in Tórshavn in the Middle Ages, only perhaps a "prayer house". It has been suggested that services were held in the Munkastovan in Tinganes. It was only in 1609, that a proper church, built on a stony hill, known as "úti á Reyni" was built on Tinganes, when King Christian IV directed the Lord Lieutenant at Bergenshus "to bestow upon the Faroese people some timber for the construction of their church..."

In 1780 Rasmus Jørgen Winther became minister in Tórshavn and in 1782 seized the initiative to build a new church. However it was only in 1788 that Johannes Poulsen, to the building master in Torshavn. The church of Christian IV was demolished in 1798 following the consecration of the new church, and the timber was sold at an auction. Part of the furniture was transferred to the new church. In 1788 the population of Torshavn numbered approx. 600 people and in 1865 approx. 900 people.

The present church
Though it completely changed the appearance of the church, the rebuilding in 1865 seems in fact to have only marginally affected the structural parts of the 1788 church. The church has on the whole preserved its structure from 1865. In 1935, however, the choir was extended by four metres and a new sacristy was built. The choir was also extended with an office and other secondary rooms in 1968. The nave itself contains 44 benches, the gallery 14.

Altarpiece
The altarpiece from 1647 is fitted on the north wall of the nave, with a painting of the Last Supper and the words of institution. The inscription reads: Gud Allermechtigste Hans Hellige Ord och Sacramenter Till Ere och denne Steed til Zirat haffuer Hans Sevrensen fordum Kiøbmand her paa Ferøe foraerit denne Altertaffle til Torßhaffns Kiercke 1647. ('For the Glory of God Almighty's Words and Sacraments and to ornament this Place, Hans Sevrensen, former Merchant on the Faroes, bestowed this altarpiece on the Church of Torshavn in 1647'). It is a rather simple piece of work from the late Renaissance, with a central section flanked by degenerated pilasters, a pedestal section and a small top section.

The painting of the central section, the Last Supper, belongs to the large group of Danish 17th-century paintings derived from the painting of the Last Supper by Peter Candid – the Court painter to Wilhelm V – for the Franciscan house in Munich, and popularised through prints by Sandeler. It was restored in 1961 by Ernst and Holmer Trier together with the local painter Fraser Eysturoy. The painting measures 100 x 100 cm.

The Bell From "Norske Löve"
The bell is said to have been acquired in 1708. It originates from the ship "Norske Löve" (Norwegian Lion), which went down in Lambavík on New Year's Eve, 1707.

The bell is decorated with palmettes and bears the inscription: "Danscke Ostindische Compagnies Scheb Nordische Löwe" (The Danish East India Company's ship Nordische Löwe, 1704), and the crowned monogram of the company. It is 30 cm tall, and the diameter of the outside rim is 41.5 cm.

title: Tórshavn Cathedral


text:
Talk:Ancients (Eternal Darkness)

A little defensive?
[This discussion originated at Talk:Chattur'gha before that page was moved here.] Anonymous editor, I think your removal of the word "foolish" and you other addition to the article is in bad taste. Chattur'gha is clearly meant to be the "stupid brute" if you will, of the game. Xel'lotath is the incredibly knowledgable one, whos knowledge makes her suspicious and drives her insane. Ulyaoth is the wise, seemingly calm one that has deceptive intentions. We should use these articles to reinforce these charachters for each god. Chattur'gha was indeed foolish for being so trustful, and he indeed is very stupid. It's already been mentioned that he has vast physical strength. I think we should include something that ensures the reader that he is as dangerous as the other two, but we need to focus a lot on his stupidity and his physical strength.
 * --Berserk798 17:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

not stupid
[This discussion originated at Talk:Chattur'gha before that page was moved here.] I would say calling him dumb is very stupid. It is a mistake to call him/it 'stupid' that is trying to place human values and mentallity upon an inscrutable space deity which has existed for countles millions of years, none of deities in the game are even anything approaching human so it is a mistake to place human concepts upon them.

Chattur'gha is the least subtle of the gods, granted he also the least intelligent from a human veiwpoint however this is an ancient arcane deity with earth shattering power,the worst you could say of him is that his mind is the most straightforward and simple and that he is the least 'intelligent' of the gods, which is considering his competition- not exactly humiliating. so to consider him 'stupid' is an encredably foolish within itself and (if hypotheticly he was real) would probably result in you ending up quite dead.-Hermes

 * What I'm trying to say is that the creators of the game specifically tried to make him appear as the dull and brutish one. We should thus include that in our article. No he isn't "stupid", but he's pretty dull in comparison to the other two. --Berserk798 19:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

"corrections"
I'll just deal with these paragraph by paragraph... I appreciate that you're trying to improve the article, we all are. Just make sure your corrections are accurate, and that the result is prose as good as or better than the previous version. There's no need to remove adjectives, either, unless you think they're POV. You changed"They are apparently members of a species that existed before other life emerged from the primordial ooze. The relentless movement of ice and the continental drift and other 'inscrutable' reasons bound the Ancients deep beneath the planet's surface, biding their time, waiting until the moment was right to return. The protagonists, particularly Alexandra Roivas, must stop their machinations and prevent the enslavement and destruction of humanity. The four surviving Ancients appearing in the game are:" to"A mysterious and great calamity trapped Chattur'gha, Ulyaoth and Xel'lotath deep beneath the Earth's surface and under the heavy foot of Mantorok. The protagonists in the game must stop their plans of returning to the surface of Earth and and prevent the enslavement and destruction of humanity. The four Ancients appearing in the game are:". I don't think the game or manual says anything about a calamity... or Mantorok's foot. Can you cite this?? "[Chattur'gha] resembles a huge snake-like creature with a triple jaw and lobster-like claws, and his Essense is the Claw of Chattur'gha, a red-clawed worm with an ara of violence surrounding it."to"He is a red being with lobster-like claws, and his essence is the Claw of Chattur'gha—a red claw that contains his strength."The "red-clawed worm" description is adapted from the game's description of the essence when Pious finds it, and the aura of violence from the game's statement that "The Claw of Chattur'gha [...] seethes with unrestrained violence." As for snake-like, I didn't know how to describe him. His segments make him look a bit like an Onix to me, but that doesn't seem appropriate for the tone of this article. And he has a hideous and unsettling triple-jawed mouth, you can clearly see this when you look at him, I'm not sure why you removed it. As for capitalization, the game uses capitals when referring to the Essences, so I think we should too. I did mistype it, though. "During his control of Pious Augustus he displays gullibility, as he relies on Pious's word, and puts his faith in an prophetic vision where he destroys Xel'lotath (though Ulyaoth and Xel'lotath also make mistakes similar to the latter, perhaps seeing visions of alternate timelines where they were summoned by Alex)."to"During his control of Pious Augustus he displays gullibility, as he relies on Pious's word, and puts his faith in a vague and prophetic vision where he destroys Xel'lotath (though Ulyaoth and Xel'lotath also make similar mistakes)."Not a bad change, I'll leave it, I just wonder how to convey the removed information. Each Ancient sees flashes of the battle that occurs in a different timeline. Also, the current phrasing makes it sound like the others also put too much faith in Pious, but this is not the case, Xel'lotath even questions his loyalty. "the Veil of Ulyaoth, a dome with sharp arms or talons curving downwards."to"the Veil of Ulyaoth, a dome with sharp arms or tentacles curving downward."They really don't look like tentacles, they're more like talons or claws( but I didn't want to say claws because of Chattur'gha). Frankly, the whole thing looks like a Metroid to me, but that's also not in keeping with the tone. "The very sight of [Xel'lotath] is maddening; she is a strange, pinkish being with four arms surrounding a single great eye, and a wormlike tail trailing behind her; and her Essence is the Sigil of Xel'lotath, an impossile artifact resembling a warped angel."to"She is a strange being with four arms surrounding a single eye, and a snakelike body. Her Essence is the Sigil of Xel'lotath." I'm not sure I understand the impetus behind any of these changes. Like her creatures, Xel'lotath's body seems to make no anatomical sense. Her trunk, in which her arms are rooted, is not snakelike at all, the eye is indeed "great"( in the sense of "large") and the tail is more remniscent of a fluke( flatworm) than a serpent. The warped angel thing is, again, adapted from in-game text, and I don't see how the inclusion of the description hurts the article in any way. "Mantorok, God of Order and Chaos, also known as the Corpse God, is the creator of the Tome of Eternal Darkness in the video game Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Although it appears in the game to be in a position of inferiority, it is in actuality the ultimate Ancient. It created the equilibrium between the other three Ancients, making sure that they would fight and destroy each other"to"Mantorok, God of Order and Chaos, also known as the Corpse God, is the creator of the Tome of Eternal Darkness. Although it appears in the game to be in a position of inferiority, it is in actuality the ultimate Ancient. It created the equilibrium between the other three Ancients, ensuring that they would fight and destroy each other"Good changes. "The heart never stopped beating, even throughout the many centuries of the Corpse God being bound, during which time it has apparently lain dying."to"The heart never stopped beating, even throughout the many centuries of the Corpse God being bound, during which time it has apparently laid dying."You're confusing lay(/lays/laying/laid/has laid) with lie(/lies/lying/lay/has lain). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don’t recall ever hearing about continental drift being what trapped the ancients… I can’t imagine the ancients not being able to avoid huge landmasses moving slower than an inch a year. And I wasn’t using “Mantorok’s foot” in the literal sense. I don’t think Mantorok has feet. You seem pretty adamant to take things "straight from the book", but I think it's ok if we don't quote the game or strategy guide all the time.

 * The Essence of Chattur’gha does not look like a “red-clawed worm” It really just looks like a lobster claw. I don’t think that it matters that the game describes it that way, because it’s a pretty inaccurate description. I removed the “triple jaw” description, because to someone who has never seen Chattur’gha, it really doesn’t mean anything. The possibilities of a “triple jaw” are endless.

 * I suppose we could just remove the fact that they made similar mistakes completely, because it really isn’t significant for Ulyaoth or Xel’lotath. The game uses it to give the player a sense of Chattur’gha’s ineptitude, but it was necessary to make an analogous clip showing Ulyaoth and Xel’lotath seeing similar visions.

 * They may come to a point, but they’re still intended to represent tentacles. They don’t look very much like tentacles, but they certainly don’t look like claws either.

 * Xel’lotath’s body does make anatomical sense. Just because it’s a fantastic anatomy doesn’t mean it’s nonsensical. You’re right; it looks more like a flatworm than a snake. The thing is, you didn’t specify that it looked like a flatworm, and the first thing that comes to mind when hearing the word “worm” is an earthworm. Her tail definitely doesn’t look like an earthworm. Again, the description “warped angel” is misleading to someone who has never seen it before. If you look at it, it does look somewhat like an abstract angel, but by hearing the words “warped angel”, the shape of Xel’lotath’s sigil certainly doesn’t come to mind.

 * Yes, you’re right about the laid/lain thing. I think I meant to type “lay dying” but inadvertently typed “laid dying”. --Berserk798 02:28, October 13, 2005 (UTC)

The original version of how they were trapped was lifted from the game article, you'd have to check the history and ask the original author. The instruction manual does say it was the "relentless advance of ice and the continental plates". And now that I'm looking at it( I was away visiting family before) it says they were driven into the "recesses of our world"– rather than under the surface of the planet, which always struck me as too literal and not in line with what the game shows. The game makes it seem more like they're trapped in pocket dimensions, or limbo, rather than buried in the Earth( which would also be more in keeping with how I imagine Mantorok imprisoning them). You are right that "Mantorok's foot" is good imagery, but I wasn't sure if you meant it in the literal sense or not( particularly combining that imagery with the "beneath the Earth's surface" bit), and if I wasn't sure having played the game, would a casual reader be able to make that distinction at all?

OK, I will grant that the "red-clawed worm" isn't such an apt description, but it doesn't really look like a lobster claw either, given the oddness of the shape and symmetry. To me it looks like horns mounted on I-don't-know-what. As for triple-jaw, I'm not sure what you mean about endless possibilities. I was given that description before I saw Chattur'gha and I knew what it meant. A manticore has this feature also in many traditions, and that's how I've always pictured it, the form is pretty standard.

I disagee that the misinterpretted visions of Ulyaoth and Xel'lotath are unimportant; rather than a dis aimed at Chatty I think it's the first big hint we get about the mutiple timelines and Mantorok's manipulations. The telling thing is not that he has the vision and believes it( they all do), but that Pious questions it in the Chattur'gha timeline and not in the others.

I don't think they're tentacles. That's way too abstract. Maybe change it to "sharp arms" or something?

Xel's body looks more than fantastical to me, it looks impossible. I don't think there's enough support for all its structures. Regardless, the other Ancients have bodies that appear analogous to various real creatures, she is much more surreal in appearance. And I think it's worth noting that she's pink even though she's represented by green, particularly since the other Ancients have the colors of their bodies described. How should we describe the tail? "flatworm-like tail" is clunky. "tail resembling a flatworm"? Still not sure. As for the essense, alright, we can give up angel as too confusing, but I like the mention of the "impossible artifact", it's both accurate and intriguing. Perhaps "is an impossible artifact resembling a twisted and highly abstract effigy"?

Hmmm... On the old Mantorok page it was "was apparently dying" I changed it to "has apparently lain dying" and you switched it to "laid". -- WikidSmaht (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, include your new information. Saying that “continental drift” trapped them under the Earth just sounds stupid though. They’re extremely powerful deities, so I have trouble thinking continental drift would be able to end them. I don’t understand the problem with saying “Mantorok’s foot”. Why would anyone take it literally? Even if they have no knowledge of Mantorok at all whatsoever, it’s still a common phrase. People wouldn’t think “Mantorok kept them under his foot?”

 * A jaw by definition is a bony or cartilaginous structure that holds the teeth and forms the structure of the mouth. Chattur’gha doesn’t look to have three bony structures that hold his teeth and form his mouth. I think he has one jaw, and what to me seems more like pincers.

 * I don’t really care. Do what you prefer with the “visions” thing.

 * Ok, all of the Essences represent the gods that they belong to. The green jewel in Xel’lotath’s Essence represents her big green eye, and you can see that her sigil is an abstract representation of her body. Ulyaoth’s Essence is so obviously representing him it isn’t even debatable. It looks nearly exactly like him, and the sharp “arms”, or whatever you want to call them, represent his tentacles. I suppose you could call them spurs or something, but I think we should include that they’re meant to represent tentacles.

 * How is it impossible for her body to be supported? Not only could she easily use her magick, but also the only time the game shows her is when she’s in a zero gravity environment. It isn’t worth noting that her body is pink for two reasons. One is that she really isn’t very pink at all; the other is that her eye is green. There’s no significance to her body color. If you feel that her body color needs to be included, then we should describe it as a fleshy or light brown color. For her essence, I think something like “an impossible artifact that abstractly represents the goddess herself” or something to that effect would be suitable. --Berserk798 20:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Additions? (The Ancients in combat)
Just an addition I wanted to propose, regarding the Ancients' "conflict" scenes at the end of the game. I think these scenes are worth exploring, as they reveal a little more of each of the Ancients' traits and personalities. Includes SPOILERS, of course. (This is my first attempt at editing Wikipedia, so I thought I would post in talk before messing with the actual page.)

Chattur'gha: Overview

His first "weapon" in combat is his red energy ray, which he projects from his open claw. Chattur'gha's energy ray can burn the enemy, or it can act as a kind of "tractor-beam." He tried to use the first kind of ray against Ulyaoth (only to have its power turned back against him instead). He used the ray's second function to pull Xel'lotath within range of his claws.

His claws themselves are Chattur'gha's other main weapon. He is, in fact, the only one of the Ancients to make use of purely physical attacks.

Chattur'gha: Combat against Xel'lotath

Chattur'gha relies on his brute force to win this fight. He displays very little strategy, aside from in the first round, where he allows Xel'lotath to draw close before smacking her with his claw. When his enemy appears to split into three, Chattur'gha's solution is simply to whack them all at once (after pausing for a moment as if he really had to think about it).

The battle ends because Xel'lotath is stunned from the blow, and therefore unable to dodge Chattur'gha's "tractor-beam." Once he has her in his claw, his sheer brawn is too much for her, and Xel'lotath is torn apart.

Chattur'gha: Combat against Ulyaoth

Chattur'gha's limitations become more obvious in his losing fight. It seems that he only has the two methods of attack. He IS smart enough to give up on his energy ray when he discovers that Ulyaoth can suck it up into a portal and fire it right back at him. But the only other thing Chattur'gha can think to do is try to attack Ulyaoth with his claws.

Once Ulyaoth destroys his first claw, Chattur'gha never even manages a third attack. And after his other claw is gone, he actually tries to run away, making him the only Ancient who tries to flee from his destroyer. It could be said that this is cowardice on Chattur'gha's part. (Couldn't he have tried to slither up and bite Ulyaoth with that big mouth of his?) Then again, it might be that without his claws Chattur'gha had no choice but to flee, as he was both literally and figuratively disarmed.

Ulyaoth: Overview

Like Chattur'gha, Ulyaoth's attack capabilities are limited. His sole power in battle with the other Ancients is his ability to create portals. Ulyaoth can use these portals either to shoot energy beams OUT at the enemy, or to suck the enemy IN through the portal.

Ulyaoth: Combat against Chattur'gha

It is pretty clear that Chattur'gha never had a chance. Ulyaoth uses his portals creatively, from pulling in Chattur'gha's energy ray and shooting it back at him, to dismembering the enemy Ancient by pulling him into his portals, and then closing them on Chattur'gha once he is partway through.

Ulyaoth seems to be much faster than either of the enemy Ancients: he is able to intercept Chattur'gha's attacks and counter-attack almost instantly. In contrast, both Chattur'gha and Xel'lotath have to pause for a moment before countering their opposing Ancient's move. It could be argued that Ulyaoth was toying with Chattur'gha during this fight, sadisticly cutting him apart, once piece at a time. Note that he uses his portal to absorb Chattur'gha tail-first, instead of head-first, arguably extending the other Ancient's suffering.

Ulyaoth: Combat against Xel'lotath

As with Chattur'gha, Ulyaoth's limitations become clearer when we see him in his losing battle. The Absent Horror can't seem to do anything BUT create portals. Even when Xel'lotath has proven that she can block Ulyaoth's portal-beams or deflect them back at him, he keeps trying the same tactic. Perhaps he lacks the imagination to try anything different? By the end of the fight it is pretty clear that Ulyaoth has run out of tricks.

He does not, however, attempt to use one of his portals to flee. Perhaps in his arrogance he refused to consider that he might actually lose to Xel'lotath.

Xel'lotath: Overview

Xel'lotath seems to have the widest range of powers available to her. She can channel her power to form shields, or energy balls, beams, and bolts. She also uses illusions to aid her, as when she seems to go into Ulyaoth's portal only to reappear behind him, or when she creates two duplicates of herself while trying to confuse Chattur'gha.

Xel'lotath: Combat against Ulyaoth

Xel'lotath pauses to consider each attack that Ulyaoth makes before she counters him. Since she can block his attacks with relative ease, it seems that she can afford the time. She plays with the other Ancient's mind by seeming to vanish into his portal, only to reappear behind Ulyaoth (instead of being destroyed as he must have intended). In the end, she destroys him with a blast of power once he is too weakened to attack or defend himself.

Xel'lotath: Combat against Chattur'gha

Xel'lotath's downfall appears to be her overconfidence. Despite having the apparent advantage in variety of long-range attacks, she keeps getting too close to Chattur'gha. Her "three Xel'lotaths" illusion fails because she and the duplicates are close enough together that the other Ancient can strike all of them at the same time.

Once Chattur'gha has caught her in his claw, Xel'lotath seems to panic. Instead of trying to hit him with another magic attack, she first claps her hands to her "cheeks" (the sides of her eye) in apparent shock, then flails her arms wildly in an attempt to break free. Of course she cannot compete with Chattur'gha in terms of physical strength, and so she is quickly torn apart.

Faceless Man 01:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think it needs to be cleaned up, it's kind of wordy. While I like and support your idea of adding information about the conflicts, I'm not sure we need thorough descriptions, and we definitely don't need redundant examination of each fight under each Ancient. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

70.19.79.95 06:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC): I think it sounds pretty good the way he's got it.

Parallels between the Ancients and their Great Old One inspirations
It's mentioned that Eternal Darkness is loosely based on HP Lovecraft's Cthulu Mythos but further investigation reveals quite a few parallels indeed. The Great Old One Cyäegha is Xel'lotath, without a doubt, Azathoth (The Keeper of Gates) himself I'm quite sure is Mantorok (however it is possible that Mantorok is a fusion of Azathoth and Shub-Niggurath as Azathoth is a crippled all powerful being but Shub-Niggurath has many mouthes and tentacles and is more amorphous in appearance and is also a fertility icon), as for the other Ancients, I'm not quite sure. I'm pretty sure that Chattur'gha is Hastur in that he is a massive cephlapod with a long tail with two arm like appendages. As for Ulyaoth, I have no idea who Ulyaoth represents. If anybody has any ideas I could start working on a section?--GreatMizuti 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno, that kinda seems like original research to me. -- WikidSmaht (talk)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ancients (Eternal Darkness)


text:
Talk:Takashi Matsuoka

Untitled
''Takashi Matsuoka is a American-born Japanese writer. He was born in Japan and raised in the United States.''

These sentences seem to contradict each other. The second seems to indicate that he is a Japanese-born American (more specifically Japanese-American) writer. Can you provide a little more biographical information? I'm afraid he might be miscategorized as a "Japanese writer." Thanks! CES 17:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I made the category change to "American novelist" ... if anyone feels this is incorrect, please say so. CES 11:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Takashi Matsuoka


text:
Frank Lewis Marsh

Frank Lewis Marsh (18 October 1899, Aledo, Illinois – 14 July 1992) was an American Seventh-Day Adventist biologist, educator and young Earth creationist. In 1963 he was one of the ten founding members of the Creation Research Society.

Biography
In his youth, Marsh desired to become a physician, but lacked the financial means, so he became first a nurse, then a teacher instead. He studied geology at Emmanuel Missionary College under George McCready Price, whose protégé he became. While teaching at a Seventh-day Adventist school in the Chicago area, Marsh studied advanced biology at the University of Chicago and in 1935 obtained an M.S. in zoology from Northwestern University. He joined the faculty of Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, later completing a PhD in botany on plant ecology at the University of Nebraska in 1940.

Marsh was married to dietitian Alice G. Marsh. They had two children, Kendall and Sylvia.

In his book Fundamental Biology, Marsh described himself as a "fundamentalist scientist". He argued that modern human races are degenerate forms of first-created man and warned that the living world is the scene of a cosmic struggle between the Creator and Satan. Marsh claimed that Satan is a "master geneticist" and speculated that amalgamation and hybridization are his ways of destroying the original harmony and perfection among living things. Marsh viewed dark skin color as one of the "abnormalities" engineered in this way.

In Fundamental Biology, Marsh coined the term baramin for the Genesis "kind". In Evolution or Special Creation? (1947), Marsh argued for the scientific accuracy of the Bible and concluded: "surely the time is ripe for a return to the fundamentals of true science, the science of creationism". From the publication of this work onward, Marsh avoided mentioning Ellen G. White, co-founder of Seventh-day Adventism, as he believed such references would repel non-Adventist readers.

Marsh commented that "The Bible knows nothing about organic evolution. It regards the origin of man by special creation as a historical fact... In view of the subjectivity of the evidence upon which a decision on the matter of origins must be made, creationism and evolutionism should be respected as alternate viewpoints".

His creationist views have been criticized by biologists for having no scientific basis. For instance, Theodosius Dobzhansky said that Marsh assumes that all dogs, foxes, and hyenas are members of a single kind descending from a common ancestor in less than 6000 years, a speed of evolution far faster than any evolutionary biologist could conceive.

Publications

 * (1941) Fundamental Biology
 * (1944) Evolution, Creation and Science
 * (1947) Evolution or Special Creation?
 * (c. 1950) Studies in Creationism
 * (c. 1957) Life, Man and Time
 * (1976) Variation and Fixity in Nature

title: Frank Lewis Marsh


text: User talk:68.77.55.2

title: User talk:68.77.55.2


text:
A Family at War

A Family At War is a British drama series that aired on ITV from 1970 to 1972. It was created by John Finch and made by Granada Television for ITV. The original producer was Richard Doubleday, and with 13 directors during the series. The series examined the lives of the lower middle-class Ashton family of the city of Liverpool and their experiences from 1938 and through the Second World War.

Fifty-two episodes were produced, all but eight of them in colour. Episodes numbers 25 to 32 were recorded in black and white because of the ITV Colour Strike. The memorable theme tune is from the end of the First Movement (Allegro) of Vaughan Williams's Sixth Symphony. The programme opening titles show a scene of a beach with a child's sand castle, with Union Flag flying, slowly being approached by the encroaching tide, symbolic of a beleaguered Britain standing alone in 1940–1941.

Plot summary
The families Ashton, Briggs, and Porter live in Liverpool in 1938 and later. Edwin Ashton, the son of a mineworker, has moved up to the middle class by working for a printing company and by marrying Jean, the sister of company owner Sefton Briggs. The latter is a hard businessman who appoints his son Tony as the new manager of the workplace, rather than the experienced Edwin.

Edwin and Jean have five children: Philip, David, Robert, Margaret, and Freda. Philip is a leftist who fought as a volunteer in the Spanish Civil War. David joins the RAF because he cannot find another job. He is married to Sheila, but he impregnates Peggy. Robert, the youngest son, wants to join the Navy. Margaret, the eldest Ashton daughter, marries John Porter, but she has a troubled relationship with her mother-in-law Celia. All these events take place against the backdrop of the political conflict leading to the Second World War, which will have a major impact on their lives.

Cast

 * Colin Douglas as Edwin Ashton
 * Shelagh Fraser as Jean Ashton
 * Colin Campbell as David Ashton
 * Barbara Flynn as Freda Ashton
 * Keith Drinkel as Philip Ashton
 * David Dixon as Robert Ashton
 * Lesley Nunnerley as Margaret Porter
 * Coral Atkins as Sheila Ashton
 * John McKelvey as Sefton Briggs
 * T.R. Bowen as Tony Briggs
 * Ian Thompson as John Porter
 * Diana Davies as Doris Jackson
 * John Nettles as Ian Mackenzie
 * Mark Jones as Michael Armstrong
 * Margery Mason as Celia Porter
 * Patrick Troughton as Harry Porter
 * Brett Usher as Ken Beaumont
 * Mark Edwards

DVD release
All episodes of A Family at War are available on DVD in the UK, distributed by Acorn Media UK, but with several of the episodes edited from their original running times. For example, in episode three, Margery Mason and Patrick Troughton are credited, but do not appear.

The series was released in the Netherlands in 2015 by Just Entertainment. Several brief scenes cut from the Acorn set do appear in the Netherlands set, such as the scene referenced above.

The series is rated PG in New Zealand for violence, sex scenes and sexual references.

title: A Family at War


text:
1744 English cricket season

The 1744 cricket season in England is remembered for the earliest known codification of the Laws of Cricket. This was drafted by members of several cricket clubs, though the code was not published until 1755. Much of its terminology such as no ball, over, toss, umpire and wicket remain in current use. The season is also notable for the two earliest known surviving match scorecards. The second of those matches, played on Monday, 18 June, was a celebrated event in which a Kent county team challenged an England team at the Artillery Ground, Kent winning by one wicket.

In September, Slindon Cricket Club defeated London Cricket Club and then issued a challenge to play "any parish in England". The challenge was accepted by the Addington and Bromley clubs, but there is no record of either challenge match having been completed. The single wicket form of the sport was popular and reports have survived of four top-class matches played at the Artillery Ground. Several eleven-a-side matches are the subject of surviving pre-match announcements or post-match summaries. Some reports mention crowd disturbances and efforts were made to implement control by means of admission charges and limitations on the sale of alcohol. Wagering on cricket was common and some matches are known to have been played for high stakes.

The Laws of Cricket
The earliest known coded issue of the Laws of Cricket was drafted by members of several clubs including London, of which Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, was president. Representatives of the clubs met at the Star and Garter tavern on Pall Mall, London. The heading of the printed version, published in 1755, reads: "The Game at Cricket, As settled by the Several Cricket-Clubs, Particularly that of the Star and Garter in Pall-Mall". According to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 1965, these Laws were undoubtedly a recension of a much earlier code. No earlier code has been found. However, there were cases of Articles of Agreement being drawn up, as for the matches in 1727 between Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond, and Alan Brodrick, 2nd Viscount Midleton.

Some of the main points in the 1744 code:
 * the toss of a coin determines who bats first;
 * the length of the pitch must be 22 yd;
 * the bowling and popping creases must be cut with the popping crease exactly 3 feet ten inches before the bowling crease;
 * the stumps must be 22 in high with a six-inch (152 mm) bail;
 * the ball must weigh between 5 and 6 oz;
 * overs last four balls;
 * the no ball is the penalty for overstepping, which means the hind foot going in front of the bowling crease (i.e., in direct line of the wicket);
 * various means of "it is out" are specified – they include hitting the ball twice and obstructing the field;
 * the wicket-keeper is required to be still and quiet until the ball is bowled;
 * umpires must allow two minutes for a new batsman to arrive and ten minutes between innings;
 * the umpire cannot give a batsman out if the fielders do not appeal;
 * the umpire is allowed a certain amount of discretion and it is made clear that the umpire is the "sole judge" and that "his determination shall be absolute".

There are four Laws for bowlers but they do not say he must roll the ball and there is no mention of prescribed arm action, only that he must "deliver the ball" with one foot behind the bowling crease. Rowland Bowen, writing in the 1965 edition of Wisden, asserts that the ball was bowled in the true sense (all along the ground) through the first half of the 18th century and that this was the rule prior to the 1750s, though it was largely forsaken by the 1770s after bowlers began pitching the ball.

Earliest known scorecards
The season is also notable for the two earliest known surviving match scorecards. It is not until the 1772 season that more scorecards of top-class matches have survived, although a handful of cards from minor matches have been found.

London v Surrey and Sussex, Artillery Ground, 2 June
The first, containing individual scores but no details of dismissals, is from a match between the London Cricket Club and a combined Surrey and Sussex team at the Artillery Ground on 2 June. No titles were given to the teams at the time and various titles, including London v Slindon, have been applied retrospectively by modern authors. London, whose team included given men, was the host club and their opponents were all from the counties of Surrey and Sussex. The scorecard was kept by the 2nd Duke of Richmond at Goodwood House.

The card gives the scores by each player and their surnames only, although it does differentiate between the two pairs of brothers (the Harrises and Newlands) who were playing. The Daily Advertiser carried the names of players expected to play in the match on 1–2 June and reported the same names on 3 June although some of them do not appear on the scorecard. Surrey and Sussex scored 102 runs in the first of their two innings, and 102 for 6 wickets in their second. London scored 79 in their first innings and 70 in their second so that Surrey and Sussex won by 55 runs. The highest individual score in the match was 47 by John Harris of Surrey and Sussex in the second innings. This was the first game at which tickets for readmission are known to have been issued to the spectators.

England v Kent, Artillery Ground, 18 June
Just over a fortnight later, on 18 June, the scorecard has also survived from a match at the Artillery Ground between an England team and the Kent county team. The match was arranged by Lord John Sackville who captained the Kent team. England, batting first, totalled 40 and 70 in their two innings; Kent responded with 53 and 58 for 9 to win by one wicket. Richard Newland of England made the two highest individual scores in the match with 18 not out and 15. Details of the dismissals are only partially complete; it is known that Kent bowler William Hodsoll took at least eight wickets. It is the first match for which a scorecard has survived that includes some dismissals. It became the first entry in Arthur Haygarth's Scores & Biographies, although he gave the year as 1746 instead of 1744.

The match was described by the London Daily Advertiser as the "greatest cricket match ever known". It was a noted social occasion as the spectators included the Prince of Wales and his brother, Prince William, Duke of Cumberland. Also present were the 2nd Duke of Richmond and Admiral Vernon. The poet James Love (1722–1774) commemorated it in his Cricket: An Heroic Poem (1745), written in rhyming couplets. According to cricket historian H. S. Altham, it "should be in every cricket lover's library" and "his description of the game goes with a rare swing". The poem is one of the first substantial pieces of literature about cricket – in More Than A Game, former prime minister John Major says it is the earliest-known cricket poem. Love was himself a cricketer and a member of Richmond Cricket Club in Surrey.

There was crowd disorder at the match. The Daily Advertiser reported on Saturday, 30 June that it was "with difficulty the match was played out". A decision was taken to charge sixpence admission at future matches on the Artillery Ground. Also, the field would be surrounded by a ring of benches to hold over 800 people and no one without prior authorisation would be allowed within the ring.

Slindon challenge matches
On Monday, 10 September, the London club hosted a match against Slindon Cricket Club at the Artillery Ground. Play continued into the Tuesday and, after winning the match by an unknown margin, Slindon issued a challenge to play "any parish in England" and received immediate acceptances from the Addington and Bromley clubs. These matches were arranged to take place at the Artillery Ground over the next few days and it is known that Slindon v Addington began on Wednesday, 12 September. It was impacted by bad weather and Slindon led by two runs at close of play. There are no surviving reports of play on the 13th. Slindon's match against Bromley was scheduled for Friday, 14 September, but there are no surviving reports of it taking place.

Single wicket matches
Reports have survived of four top-class matches played at the Artillery Ground under single wicket rules. This form of cricket was popular through the 1740s. On Wednesday, 13 June, there was a one-a-side match between two unnamed players "for a considerable sum of money, in order to determine finally who is the best player". On Monday, 20 August, there was another one-a-side match "for a large sum" between a Sevenoaks player and a London player.

On Monday, 17 September, a three-a-side match was billed as "Long Robin's Side v R. Newland's Side". The participants were described as the six best players in England. The teams were Robert Colchin ("Long Robin"), Val Romney and John Bryant against Richard Newland, Edward Aburrow senior and Joseph Harris. Aburrow replaced John Mills, called the "famous Kent bowler", who was originally chosen. The stake was two hundred guineas. There was another "threes" match on Monday, 1 October, again "for a considerable sum" – Robert Colchin, James Bryant and Joseph Harris played against John Bryant, Val Romney and Thomas Waymark.

Other eleven-a-side matches
Reports have survived of three earlier matches between teams called England and Kent. Two of these took place in May at unknown venues and both were won by Kent. They later became the subject of a 1748 court case over unpaid gambling debts. The famous match on 18 June was the return to one on Friday, 15 June at Coxheath Common. Details of this match, including the result, are unknown. The Kent team challenged "eleven pick'd from any part of England".

Also in May, an England team was twice matched against Surrey. The first was played at Moulsey Hurst on Monday, 14 May, and Surrey won by four runs. The return on the 21st was played at the Artillery Ground but no details, including the result, have been found. A newspaper announcement before the second match warned spectators against encroaching onto the field of play and bringing dogs into the ground.

During the season, there were three matches which modern sources have labelled Two Elevens as each involved unnamed teams. The first of these matches took place at the Artillery Ground on Thursday, 5 July. It is known that spectators had to pay sixpence – the earliest recorded admission charge. The second match began at Moulsey Hurst on Friday, 6 July, and was unfinished. Overnight, one team led by 31 runs with two second innings wickets standing. Play continued at the Artillery Ground on the 7th with admission reduced to the "usual" twopence. Near the end of the season on Wednesday, 19 September, the Artillery Ground staged "a great match between 22 of the best players from Kent, Surrey, Sussex and London".

The prominent Addington and Bromley clubs, who accepted the Slindon challenge in September, were scheduled to play a match against each other on Friday, 13 July. No post-match reports have survived. The venue was Bromley Common where, as stated in a pre-match announcement, no person was allowed to sell liquor "but who belong to the Parish". On the previous Monday, a combined Addington and Bromley team were due to play a team called Surrey and the Rest of Kent at Duppas Hill in Croydon. A similar pre-match announcement warned that no person would be allowed to bring liquor into the ground "that don't live in the Parish". In other surviving announcements, London were to host matches at the Artillery Ground against Addington on Monday, 30 July; and against Bromley on Monday, 3 September. No post-match reports have been found.

Reports or announcements have been found of five other eleven-a-side matches which all involved London. On Monday, 9 July, they were due to play Richmond on Kennington Common but no match details have survived. London arranged a match against Woburn Cricket Club at the Artillery Ground for Thursday, 19 July, but it had to be postponed for two days because the Honourable Artillery Company required the ground. No post-match report has been found.

The other three London matches were against Surrey. They first met at Moulsey Hurst on Friday, 24 August, and London won. Robert Colchin of Bromley and Val Romney of Sevenoaks played as given men for London. The stakes for this match were reported to be "£50 a side". There was a return match the following Monday, 27th, at the Artillery Ground and London with Colchin and Romney were again the winners. A third match was scheduled at the Artillery Ground for Friday, 7 September with Romney playing for London but no post-match details are known.

title: 1744 English cricket season


text: User talk:24.34.22.157

title: User talk:24.34.22.157


text:
Kamajors

The Kamajors were a group of traditional hunters from the Mende ethnic group in the south and east of Sierra Leone (mostly from the Bo district). The word "Kamajor" derived from Mende "kama soh", meaning traditional hunter with mystical powers, who were originally employed by local chiefs.

Under the leadership of Samuel Hinga Norman, the Kamajors were used by President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah in 1996 to replace mercenaries (Executive Outcomes) as the security force of the government. This security force was called Civil Defence Forces (CDF). At that time, the force was expanded to over 20,000 men, dwarfing the army and mercenaries. Kabbah's presidency ended when a coup led by junior officers in 1997 installed Johnny Paul Koroma as the head of state.

The Kamajors were a part of the ECOMOG (a Nigerian-led force) counteroffensive to reinstate Kabbah in 1998. In 1999, Freetown was taken by the Charles Taylor backed by Foday Sankoh led Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), which was a combination of the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the former Sierra Leone Army (SLA). The Kamajors again served with ECOMOG and UN peacekeepers in trying to secure stability.

Because of the alleged violations of international law, the leaders of the CDF (including Hinga Norman) were indicted before the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Legacy
Although some point to diamond fields (blood diamonds) as the real motivating factor of the Kamajors, they played a major role in the march toward Sierra Leonean stability. On the other hand, the Kamajors have been accused of pillaging, terrorizing, and killing civilians in Sierra Leone, as well as employing soldiers under the age of 15. In March 2003, Hinga Norman was indicted for these war crimes by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. His trial began in June 2004 along with that of two of his lieutenants, Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa.

title: Kamajors


text:
Toots

Toots may refer to:

People

 * Toots (nickname)
 * Adalbert Toots (1910–1948), Estonian wrestler
 * Aleksander Toots (born 1969), deputy director of the Estonian Internal Security Service
 * Arved Toots (1930–1992), Estonian agronomist and breeder of Tori horses
 * Villu Toots (1916–1993), Estonian calligrapher, book designer, educator, palaeograph and author

Fictional characters

 * Toots, a character in Bunty, a British comic anthology
 * Toots, one of The Bash Street Kids, a comic strip in the British comic book The Beano
 * Toots, a title character of Toots and Casper, an American comic strip
 * Joosep Toots, one of the main characters in Oskar Luts's novels Kevade, Suvis, and Sügis

Other uses in arts and entertainment

 * Toots (film), a 2006 documentary about restaurateur Toots Shor
 * Toots and the Maytals, a Jamaican band

Other uses

 * 13079 Toots, an asteroid named after musician Toots Thielemans
 * Folkerts SK-2, a racing airplane nicknamed "Toots"

title: Toots