© 2023 by Name of Site. Proudly created with Wix.com





The 1–3–1 defense and offense is a popular strategy used in basketball.



Typical 1-3-1 Formation

The 1-3-1 zone defense is a defensive basketball formation. It was originally utilized by legendary basketball coach, Red Sarachek. This defense is named for its formation since there is one defender at the point, three defenders at the free throw level, and one defender at the base line. The main focus of this defensive strategy is to force turnovers. This is done by using quick, pestering defense and anticipating any passes to attempt a steal. A two-man trap is implemented in this defense. The defense attempts to guide the ball handler towards a corner and quickly close in and double team the offensive player creating a trap with the defenders and side lines. This trap often forces the ball handler to get rid of the ball prematurely taking the offense out of their set up. This often results in poor passes or shots. These poor passes are meant to be taken advantage of in this defense so the weak side defenders must anticipate passes to create turnovers.



Xmas is a common abbreviation of the word Christmas. It is sometimes pronounced /ˈɛksməs/, but Xmas, and variants such as Xtemass, originated as handwriting abbreviations for the typical pronunciation /ˈkrɪsməs/. The "X" comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός, which in English is "Christ".[1] The "-mas" part is from the Latin-derived Old English word for Mass.[2]


There is a common belief that the word Xmas stems from a secular attempt to remove the religious tradition from Christmas[3] by taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas", but its use dates back to the 16th century.

Use of "X" for "Christ"[edit]

For the article about the χρ symbol, see Chi Rho.


The labarum, often called the Chi-Rho, is a Christian symbol representing Christ.

The abbreviation of Christmas as "Xmas" is the source of disagreement among Christians who observe the holiday. Dennis Bratcher, writing for a website for Christians, states "there are always those who loudly decry the use of the abbreviation 'Xmas' as some kind of blasphemy against Christ and Christianity".[16] Among them are evangelist Franklin Graham and CNN journalist Roland S. Martin. Graham stated in an interview:


"for us as Christians, this is one of the most holy of the holidays, the birth of our savior Jesus Christ. And for people to take Christ out of Christmas. They're happy to say merry Xmas. Let's just take Jesus out. And really, I think, a war against the name of Jesus Christ."[17]


Martin likewise relates the use of "Xmas" to his growing concerns of increasing commercialization and secularization of one of Christianity's highest holy days.[18] Bratcher posits that those who dislike abbreviating the word are unfamiliar with a long history of Christians using X in place of "Christ" for various purposes.


The word "Christ" and its compounds, including "Christmas", have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern "Xmas" was commonly used. "Christ" was often written as "Xρ" or "Xt"; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as 1021. This X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters χ (Ch) and ρ (R) used in ancient abbreviations for Χριστος (Greek for "Christ"),.[1] The labarum, an amalgamation of the two Greek letters rendered as ☧,[note 1] is a symbol often used to represent Christ in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian Churches.[19]


The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the OED Supplement have cited usages of "X-" or "Xp-" for "Christ-" as early as 1485. The terms "Xtian" and less commonly "Xpian" have also been used for "Christian". The OED further cites usage of "Xtianity" for "Christianity" from 1634.[1] According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, most of the evidence for these words comes from "educated Englishmen who knew their Greek".[11]


In ancient Christian art, χ and χρ are abbreviations for Christ's name.[20] In many manuscripts of the New Testament and icons, Χ is an abbreviation for Χριστος,[21] as is XC (the first and last letters in Greek, using the lunate sigma);[22] compare IC for Jesus in Greek.


Other uses of "X(t)" for "Chris(t)-"[edit]

Other proper names containing the name "Christ" besides those mentioned above are sometimes abbreviated similarly, either as "X" or "Xt", both of which have been used historically,[23] e.g., "Xtopher" or "Xopher" for "Christopher", or "Xtina" or "Xina" for the name "Christina".


In the 17th and 18th centuries, "Xene" and "Exene" were common spellings for the given name Christine. The American singer Christina Aguilera has sometimes gone by the name "Xtina". Similarly, Exene Cervenka has been a noted American singer-songwriter since 1977.


This usage of "X" to spell the syllable "kris" (rather than the sounds "ks") has extended to "xtal" for "crystal", and on florists' signs to "xant" for "chrysanthemum",[24] even though these words are not etymologically related to "Christ": "crystal" comes from a Greek word meaning "ice" (and not even using the letter χ), and "chrysanthemum" comes from Greek words meaning "golden flower", while "Christ" comes from a Greek word meaning "anointed".



Thirdness, in its logical aspect, is triadic. It is a First bound together in relationship with a Second by the mediation of a Third: "The beginning is first, the end second, the middle third." (1.357) It is combination, pattern, structure, mediation, continuity. A monad can form no combination with another; two dyads can join together only to form another dyad (think of two lengths of pipe screwed together); but triads can combine into arbitrarily complex structures (think of a tinkertoy set, or the colored plastic beads in a chemistry class which can snap together to form models of molecules).9 Thus, argues Peirce, there is from the logical side no need for a category of Fourthness.10 Peirce equates Thirdness with the structure of hypothetical or "abductive" thought, and with the conjunction into an organic unity in the act of perception of imputed individual entities and the qualities attributed to them. (Cf. 1.471-520, 1.551, 2.694-794, 5.171-174, 5.590-604)


Peirce's Sign: Why Triadic?


It should now be very clear that triads and trichotomies form the warp and woof of Peirce's approach to semiotics. The debate over this triadicity has taken two divergent and incompatible avenues: proposals for a category of Fourthness which question the sufficiency of Peirce's semiotic, and proposals for a reduction to dyadicity which would render the semiotic triad unnecessary.



"One, Two, Three... But Where Is the Fourth?"


At least three proposals have been made for a Peircean category of Fourthness: those of Donald Mertz, of Herbert Schneider and Carl Hausman, and of Carl Vaught.


Mertz's proposal is the most easily disposed of. He examines Peirce's argument for the irreducibility of triads, as illustrated in "A Guess at the Riddle":


...the fact that A presents B with gift C, is a triple relation, and as such cannot possibly be resolved into any combination of dual relations. Indeed, the very idea of a combination involves that of thirdness, for a combination is something which is what it is owing to the parts which it brings into mutual relationship. (1.363)19

Mertz grants Peirce this argument, but denies Peirce's claim that "the quadruple fact that A sells C to B for the price of D" can be reduced to "a compound of two facts: first that A makes with C a certain transaction, which we may name E; and second, that this transaction E is a sale of B for the price D."20 Mertz notes correctly that Peirce would express this symbolically as R(A,C,E).R'(E,B,D) = S(A,C,B,D), but then asserts that the second fact should be expressed dyadically as E = T(B,D) so that, by substitution, R(A,C,T(B,D)) = S(A,C,B,D), an irreducibly tetradic relation. From another angle, Mertz states that no two of the triadic relations "1) A sells C to B, 2) C is sold to B for D, and 3) A sells C to D" can be conjoined to arrive at the original tetradic relationship. (It is neither here nor there, but puzzling: why does Mertz omit "A sells to B for a price D"?) Mertz concludes that Peirce was blinded to such arguments by his fascination with logical diagrams which Peirce named "existential graphs."21

Mertz's argument may be convincing on its own terms, but Mertz is manipulating Peirce's polyads in ways which bear little resemblance to any way in which Peirce ever worked with them. In his first argument, Mertz is attempting to join a dyad with a triad without identifying which of the elements in the dyad is being joined to the triad. His second argument involves joining two triads by joining two elements in one with two elements in another. The former procedure has no precedent in Peirce, and the latter under Peirce's methods ought to yield a dyad, not a tetrad as Mertz thinks Peirce would have expected. Since Mertz gives us no clue as to how his procedures relate to those of Peirce, we have no way of judging whether Mertz is doing anything really entailed by Peirce's project, or whether Mertz is simply arriving at different conclusions because he is working out of different assumptions.22


A more detailed proposal for Fourthness comes from Herbert Schneider. Schneider concedes three categories to be adequate for dealing with cognitive processes, but argues for "importance" as a category of Fourthness. He notes that, for Peirce, any purpose or good has meaning only in relation to a completely general summum bonum. "No Kantian idealist could have stated this conception of moral science more formally."23


Schneider observes this scheme does not accommodate norms which might apply "even in the absence of a summum bonum," itches that call to be scratched for their own sake. Such norms he proposes as a phenomenological aspect of Fourthness: logical import is Thirdness, vital importance Fourthness. Satisfaction may comprise either the Thirdness of achievement or the Fourthness of satiety or contentment. The moral self-control of Thirdness in pursuit of an abstract summum bonum is only an abstract "intellectual framework" until it is taken up into the "concrete universal" of the moral self-criticism of Fourthness. Fourthness supplies what depth psychology, but not the Kantian "moral law within," acknowledges.24


In logical terms, Fourthness would constitute a temporal sequence, though one which is an absolutely discontinuous string of points superimposed on the triadic continuum. Triadic semiosis is "prospective and cumulative"; tetradic semiosis adds a fourth factor which is non-cumulative, but "retrospective" along the hierarchy of categories, giving "meaningful individuality" to instances of Firstness. Since Firstness and Secondness "look 'forward'" to Thirdness while Fourthness "looks back" to Firstness, Thirdness in a sense "governs" Fourthness while Fourthness provides the steam to "drive" Thirdness.25


Carl Hausman provisionally adopts Schneider's scheme, applied to both ethics and aesthetics with "importance" or "value" as a possible category of Fourthness. Hausman notes that Schneider's suggestion rejects "Peirce's own principle that a highest good makes specific goods intelligible," but that, quite regardless of this, Schneider puts a finger both on the problematic status of value in Peirce's semiotic and on an apparent "special connection" between value and Firstness.26


Hausman turns to Peirce's categorial classification of the sciences to investigate the relations among value and the categories. Peirce categorially divided philosophy into phenomenology, normative science, and metaphysics, and normative science into aesthetics, ethics, and logic (1.186). Just as normative science rests on phenomenology and on the prior field of mathematics (within which two fields Peirce constructed his categories), so the categorial hierarchy is reflected in an order of dependence in which "ethics rest[s] on aesthetics, and logic on ethics," all three but especially aesthetics dependent on phenomenology.27


All three sciences, according to Peirce, distinguish a kind of good and bad, "Logic in regard to representations of the truth, Ethics in regard to efforts of the will, and Esthetics in objects considered simply in their presentation," with both logical and ethical goods presupposing esthetic good. Remarks Hausman: "This is why Peirce says that ethics must appeal to aesthetics for aid in determining the summum bonum."28 Considered thus, value itself is not a fourth category. Rather, it seems related but not identical to the teleological thrust built into Peirce Thirdness, and bound up with the categorial hierarchy.29


Hausman notes that the categories can be related by what Peirce calls discrimination or distinction, prescission, and dissociation (1.353). We can prescind Firstness and Secondness from value, but neither value nor Thirdness from each other. Hausman speculates that value and Thirdness could be separated by "discrimination," "so interdependent that they are co-present as mutual grounds for one another," though this is difficult to determine since Peirce is none too clear as to what he meant by the term.30


I think that Schneider and Hausman are correct to point out the problematic place of value in Peirce's thought. As Peirce himself was aware, as a natural scientist he devoted more attention to logic and less to ethics and aesthetics (2.120, 2.197).31 And I think the two are correct to note a connection between value and Firstness, though I consider Hausman's attempt to bring value in tandem with Thirdness more economical than Schneider's attempt at severing it altogether from Thirdness, and thus from a summum bonum. But I would concede Schneider's point that Peirce's account, as it stands, does justice better to the apollonian than to the dionysian side of human existence.


However Peirce, especially in his explorations of phenomenological Firstness (cf. 1.312-316) and his discussions of vagueness (cf. 6.494ff.), is far more sensitive to these issues than Schneider will grant. And a sequence of monads co-present with the semiotic "time line" which present themselves immediately and spontaneously in the interpretation of the sign ought to suggest a factor of the Peircean sign already familiar to us: the immediate interpretant.


Although Peirce is not explicit, the logical and phenomenological characteristics which Schneider attributes to Fourthness all fit well the spot the immediate interpretant occupies in Peirce's semiotic. By its relation to dynamical and final interpretant, the immediate interpretant is certainly "related but not identical" to the teleological thrust of Thirdness. And energetic immediate interpretants would "give a meaningful individuality" to Firstness. Finally, if Hausman's interpretation of "discrimination" is correct, then the immediate (unlike the dynamical or final) interpretant would indeed be related to the sign by discrimination.32


The most detailed proposal for Fourthness comes from Carl Vaught. Vaught points out that, phenomenologically, there is a similarity between things such as a left hand and a right hand which does not seem reducible to a combination of identity and difference. According to Peirce, most spatial relationships can be dealt with predominantly in terms of the Secondness of objects in dynamic interaction or relative location. Yet as Vaught notes, Peirce vacillated over whether right and left can be distinguished in terms of Secondness-- for example, indexically (2.290)-- or whether Thirdness must be invoked, as for example in what physicists call the "right-hand rule":


Thus, your right hand is that hand which is toward the east, when you face north with your head toward the zenith. Three things, east, west, and up, are required to define the difference between right and left. (1.345)33

Vaught argues that not even Thirdness suffices to distinguish right from left, since the definitions of east, north, and zenith themselves presuppose a distinction between right and left. Right and left, Vaught concludes, embody a similarity irreducible to identity and difference.34

In a parallel manner, on the logical level, Peirce insisted that analogy is reducible to a combination of univocity and equivocity, and is not a mediating third between them (3.421, 3.483-485, 1.34). Thus, a four-term analogical relation would be reducible to a combination of simpler terms. But Vaught argues that just such irreducible analogical tetrads occur in Peircean semiosis.


For semiosis gives rise to a sequence of signs and interpretants, each at a slightly different moment in time, and as Peirce's later distinction between immediate and dynamical object implies, the object itself is not static but constitutes a corresponding temporal sequence of objects in interaction with the sign/interpretant sequence. Within the vagueness inherent in Peircean semiosis then, says Vaught, lies precisely a similarity, irreducible to identity and difference, which embraces interpretant at t1, interpretant at t2, dynamical object at t1, and dynamical object at t2 in a tetradic analogical relationship which due to the vagueness is not precisely reducible to any combination of triads. As an example of this, consider a legisign which grows and develops over time: its form at any two instants can, under this proposed Fourthness, be seen as related by an irreducible analogical similarity. Likewise, the similarity between right and left can be seen only through a judgment of analogy.35


Vaught's argument is both closely reasoned and richly textured, very much in the spirit of Peirce's own approach. If similarity is not to be understood (as Peirce saw it) as reducible to some combination of univocity and equivocity, then Vaught's argument is probably correct. But I think counter-arguments can be mounted on both logical and phenomenological fronts.


Logically, if the sequence of interpretants in Vaught's argument on analogy are considered, not as a sequence of discrete frames in a movie film (as Vaught takes them), but rather as a genuinely continuous flow of interpretants (and likewise the flow of dynamical objects continuous), then the need for the four-term relationship vanishes and Thirdness suffices. The situation becomes logically similar to, and no more problematic than, an account of a continuous function in differential calculus.


On the phenomenological front, I note that mathematicians define the "orientation" or handedness of a space by dyadic and triadic arguments alone. The proof is rather technical, but it enables one to speak of left- or right-handedness in space (of three dimensions, or even more) without resort to any tetradic combinations and without any prior invocation of right or left.36






There are numerous theories of the triadic sign. A triangle is often used to visually represent this type of sign, known as the "semiotic triangle". The base of the triangle is usually shown as a dotted line, indicating that the relation between the first and last points is less direct than the others. We will come back to this.


The following diagram is based on a diagram by Umberto Eco, enhanced with some additions (mostly from Rastier, 1990). It matches up various names given to the "same" terms. We have put "same" in quotation marks, because these terms are often interpreted in very different ways. They are actually more analogous than equivalent. For instance, Peirce's "interpretant" is the term in his theory of the sign that comes the closest to what Saussure calls the "signified" and what Aristotle calls "states of mind", and so on. In order to give reference points, we have placed Saussure's terms for the sign in the diagram, but we should point out that the Saussurian sign is not triadic; it is dyadic, as we have just seen.


The terms of the semiotic triangle

• signified (Saussure)

• states of mind (Aristotle)

• intellectus (Boèce)

• conceptus (Thomas Aquinas)

• idea (Arnauld and Nicole)

• interpretant (Peirce)

• reference (Ogden-Richards)

• concept (Lyons)

• sense (Ullman)

• meaning (Frege)

• intension (Carnap)

• designatum (Morris, 1938)

• significatum (Morris, 1946)

• concept (Saussure)

• connotation (Stuart Mill)

• mental image (Saussure, Peirce)

• content (Hjelmslev)

• state of consciousness (Buyssens)

Semiotic triangle

• signifier (Saussure)

• logos (Aristotle)

• vox (Boèce)

• vox (Thomas Aquinas)

• word (Arnauld et Nicole, 1683)

• sign (Peirce)

• representamen (Peirce)

• symbol (Ogden-Richards, 1923)

• sign (Lyons)

• name (Ullman)

• sign vehicle, sign (Morris)

• expression (Hjelmslev)

• seme (Buyssens)

• referent (Ogden-Richards)

• thing (Aristotle)

• thing (Boèce)

• res (Thomas Aquinas)

• thing (Arnauld et Nicole)

• object (Peirce)

• denotatum (Morris)

• significatum (Lyons)

• thing (Ullman)

• Bedeutung (Frege)

• denotation (Russell)

• extension (Carnap)



Here is a comment from Eco (trans. of 1988, page 39) on the profusion of terminology around the semiotic triangle: "One person even goes so far as to use the term 'signified' for what we call the referent and 'meaning' for what we call the 'signified'. And for example, Frege's Bedeutung was translated as 'signifié' or 'meaning' by one person and as 'reference' by another." Divergent terminologies sometimes obscure theoretical agreement; sometimes they reinforce and highlight profound disagreements. Sometimes the same name is used for different terms. This is the case with the signified, which in practice is often construed as a concept, in direct contradiction, as we have seen, with Saussure, who invented the name.


The most common triadic sign structures combine the stimulus or signifier, the logical or psychological concept, and the referent. For instance, we would say that the Aristotelian sign is composed of a stimulus, a psychological concept (state of mind) and a referent. Many of the theories that use this sign have used the term "signified" for what is in fact a concept.







Since to our knowledge no one has proposed a sign composed of either five of our terms or all six, we will finish our presentation of sign structures with the tetradic sign. The only tetradic sign we know of that incorporates four of the terms we have presented is Klinkenberg's (1996). According to Klinkenberg, the sign is composed of the stimulus (it was from his work that we adopted the name of this term), the signifier, the signified and the referent. (The iconic visual sign has a slightly different structure, as we will see.) This tetradic model is represented visually as a rectangle, shown below.



The semiotic square, also known as the Greimas square, is a tool used in structural analysis of the relationships between semiotic signs through the opposition of concepts, such as feminine-masculine or beautiful-ugly, and of extending the relevant ontology.


The semiotic square, derived from Aristotle's logical square of opposition, was developed by Algirdas J. Greimas, a Lithuanian linguist and semiotician, who considered the semiotic square to be the elementary structure of meaning.


Greimas first presented the square in Semantique Structurale (1966), a book which was later published as Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method (1983). He further developed the semiotic square with Francois Rastier in "The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints" (1968).



I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four stages:

(i) this is worthless nonsense;

(ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;

(iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;

(iv) I always said so.

The Four Fold Breath

The Four Fold Breath, also know as Square Breathing, is a breathing exercise based on yogic pranayama.  It is used in the preparatory work of the Golden Dawn magic system and is advocated by many adepts of both eastern and western magic and mysticism.  This simple yet profound exercise is used to calm and center the mind and body and to open the auric field in preparation for magic and meditation.  It can also be used a stand-alone meditation or in combination with and before the Simplified Banishing Meditation.

One should be sure not to strain during this exercise.  Keep the body relaxed and if discomfort or dizziness occurs, cease the exercise immediately.  The count can be as slow or fast as needed and the breath should be gentle and rhythmic.

The Four Fold Breath

  • Sit comfortably in a chair or a floor cushion with the spine strait and the body relaxed

  • STEP 1: Inhale for a count of four

  • STEP 2: Hold the breath for a count of four

  • STEP 3: Exhale for a count of four

  • STEP 4: Hold the breath, lungs empty, for a count of four

  • Take a few regular breaths and repeat the exercise up to four times

Many tools are used in the practice of ritual magic.  The tool necessary for performing a magical ceremony change depending on the tradition of magic being practice, the intention of the ritual and the preference of the individual magician.  There are, however, four main ritual tools that have become common in many form of western ritual magic.  Sometimes called Elemental Weapons or Working Tools, these four ritual implements are commonly used by those practicing Wicca, Ceremonial Magic, Solomonic Magic, Enochian Magic, Thelema and Traditional Witchcraft among others.  They are associated the four elements of Air, Fire, Water and Earth also relate to the four suites of the Tarot.  All four ritual weapons can be seen in the Magician tarot card of the Rider-Waite and other decks. In wielding these ceremonial weapons, the Ritual Magician effectively manipulates the earthly elements with which they are associated.  The Four Elemental Tools are:


The Dagger: Associated with either the Air or Fire Element and masculine energy, the dagger (also called an Athame) is used to direct and control magical energy, to protect one’s self spiritually, to cast out negative energies and to control and command spirits.  A ritual sword is used similarly, although a dagger is more suited to solitary and indoor work.  Daggers and swords play an important part many mystical traditions including Freemasonry, Martinism, Witchcraft and types of magic attributed to King Solomon. In some traditions, the handle of the dagger is inscribed with magical symbols.




The Wand: The Wand corresponds to either to the Element of Fire or Air and masculine energy.  It is used to direct magical energy, to invoke spirits or deities, for casting magical circles and drawing energetic sigils in the air.  Being a smaller version of a staff and traditionally made out of wood, the wand can represent the world tree or tree of life. In the Solomonic tradition, the Wand is to be made from nut or hazel wood and cut from a virgin tree at sunrise on the day of Mercury . The Wand or Staff is known to be of particular importance in Norse Shamanism in which the female magicians were called Völva or "wand bearers." 




The Cup: Also called a Chalice, the Cup corresponds to the Element of Water and feminine energy. It is used to hold libations for ritual use, as a offering cup and to combine with the dagger in male-female conjoining rites. In Wiccan and neo-pagan traditions, the cup represents the Goddess and can be emblematic of a woman’s womb. The Chalice can be associated with the Grail of Arthurian legend, the Cup of Jesus Christ, the Cauldron of Kerridewn, the Cup of Jamshid of Persian mythology and the Elixir of Immortality.




The Pentacle:  This is a round disk or plate usually inscribed with a pentagram, hexagram or other magical symbol.  Also called a paten, it is associated with the Element of Earth and with feminine energy.  It can be used to consecrate cakes, bread or other objects for ritual use, to invoke elemental or earthly spirits or call heavenly spirits into the earthly plane.  In the Golden Dawn tradition of magic, the Pentacle is inscribed with a hexagram, a six pointed star, and decorated in the colors of the four elements.  Because of it's correspondence to the Earth Element and it's relation to the coin symbolism of the Tarot, the Pentacle is often used in prosperity and money magic.




We demonstrate the basic technique of vibrational linguistic coding by working with some basic Hebrew codes. There are four Hebrew coding systems that we show how to activate. These coding systems are directly linked to the Gamma brain wave and the four basic brain wave states. There are linguistic codes for the four elements, the four souls, the four worlds, and the four letters of the divine name YHVH. We connect these code structures into the basic breathing sequence that was explained in the introduction. Each linguistic coding system follows a similar pattern: there are four sacred words (linguistic codes) for each brain wave state, plus one special word that links them all together. You will learn how to pronounce these words and practice the technique while watching the video. We reinforce the idea of practicing these techniques on a regular basis for optimal performance.



The Moor's Account, a 2014 novel by Laila Lalami, is a fictional memoir of Estebanico, the Moroccan slave who accompanied Cabeza de Vaca as one of the four survivors of the expedition. He is known as the first black explorer of America. Lalami explains that nothing is known about him except for one line in Cabeza de Vaca's chronicle: "The fourth [survivor] is Estevanico, an Arab Negro from Azamor."[11] It was a finalist for the 2015 Pulitzer Prize in fiction. A Land So Strange, a 2007 historical narrative by Andrés Reséndez, retells the journey for a modern audience using primary sources by Cabeza de Vaca and the official report.


The Narváez expedition was a Spanish journey of exploration and colonization started in 1527 that intended to establish colonial settlements and garrisons in Florida. The expedition was initially led by Pánfilo de Narváez, who died in 1528. More men died as the expedition traveled west along the unexplored Gulf Coast of the present-day United States and into the American Southwest. Only four of the expedition's original members survived, reaching Mexico City in 1536. These survivors were the first known Europeans and Africans to see the Mississippi River, and to cross the Gulf of Mexico and Texas.


Only four of the original party—Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Alonso del Castillo Maldonado, Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, and Dorantes' enslaved Moor Estevanico—survived the next eight years, during which they wandered through what is now the Southwestern United States and northern Mexico. They eventually encountered Spanish slave-catchers in Sinaloa in 1536, and with them, the four men finally reached Mexico City. Upon returning to Spain, Cabeza de Vaca wrote of the expedition in his La Relación ("The Relation"), published in 1542 as the first written account of North America. With later additions, it was published under the title Naufragios ("Shipwreck").[2]


By 1532, only four members of the original expedition survived: Alonso del Castillo Maldonado, Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, and Estevanico, an enslaved Moor. They headed west and gradually south hoping to reach the Spanish Empire's outpost in Mexico, becoming the first men of Europe and Africa to enter Southwestern North America (present day Southwestern United States and Northwest Mexico). Their precise route has been difficult for historians to determine, but they apparently traveled across present-day Texas, perhaps into New Mexico and Arizona, and through Mexico's northern provinces near the Pacific Coast before turning inland.


In July 1536, near Culiacán in present-day Sinaloa, the survivors encountered fellow Spaniards on a slave-taking expedition for New Spain. As Cabeza de Vaca wrote later, his countrymen were "dumbfounded at the sight of me, strangely dressed and in the company of Indians. They just stood staring for a long time."[10] The Spaniards accompanied the survivors to Mexico City. Estevanico later served as a guide for other expeditions. Cabeza de Vaca returned to Spain, where he wrote a full account, especially describing the many indigenous peoples they encountered. He later served the colonial government in South America.



The Moor's Account is a novel by Laila Lalami. It was a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction finalist in 2015.[1][2]


The Moor's Account is a fictional memoir of Estevanico, the Moroccan slave who survived the Narvaez expedition and accompanied Cabeza de Vaca. He is widely considered to be the first black explorer of America, but little is known about his early life except for one line in Cabeza de Vaca's chronicle: "The fourth [survivor] is Estevanico, an Arab Negro from Azamor."


The story is narrated in the first person by Mustafa ibn Muhammad ibn Abdussalam al-Zamori, a Moroccan slave who has been taken by his Spanish master, Andrés de Dorantes, on an expedition to the New World. The expedition lands in Florida in the vicinity of what is now Tampa Bay. Under the leadership of Pánfilo de Narváez, the men leave their ships behind and travel inland to look for gold. As they journey northward, they face resistance by indigenous tribes, suffer from disease and starvation, and quarrel with one another. Within a year there are only four survivors: Cabeza de Vaca, the treasurer of the expedition; Alonso del Castillo, a young nobleman, Andrés de Dorantes, one of the captains; and his Moroccan slave, Mustafa, whom the other three Spaniards refer to as Estebanico. Together, these four survivors travel westward, crossing the continent and living among indigenous tribes, reinventing themselves along the way as faith healers. Some years later, they are found by a party of Spanish slavers and brought to Mexico City, where they are asked to provide testimony about their journey—all except the slave, who tells his own story in the novel.[3]



With this framework in place, Descola now has the basis of four basic ontologies that, for him, govern the fundamentals of variation in collective life. And it is on the basis of these ontologies, in turn, that he is going to set out on a grand comparative project, based on an originary matrix of collective life, subjectivity, and social relations. The four ontologies are (1) animism (where there is an assumption that many human and non-human beings have similar interiorities to one another, but are made up of very different stuff); (2); naturalism (where all beings are radically separated by their internal lives, albeit made of basically the same substance); (3) totemism (in which there is continuity between both interiority and physicality, across a very wide array of beings); (4) analogism (a sort of radical system of difference, in which each being has a uniquely constituted interior and physical existence) (122).



Richard McKeon’s system of Philosophical Semantics arises from the sixteen pairwise and ordered relations between his four aspects of knowing or cognates: knower, knowledge, the known, and the knowable. These sixteen relations can be sorted in four groups of four elements each: methods, interpretations, principles, and selections.


Between knower and knowledge, and between the knowable and the known, arise the four methods of two each: the universal and the particular.


From knower to knowledge, the operational method.

From knowledge to knower, the dialectical method.

From the knowable to the known, the logistic method.

From the known to the knowable, the problematic method.

Between knower and the known, and between the knowable and knowledge, arise the four interpretations of two each: the phenomenal and the ontic.


From knower to the known, the existential interpretation.

From the known to knower, the essential interpretation.

From the knowable to knowledge, the entitative interpretation.

From knowledge to the knowable, the ontological interpretation.

Between knower and the knowable, and between knowledge and the known, arise the four principles of two each: the meroscopic and the holoscopic.


From knower to the knowable, the actional principle.

From the knowable to knower, the simple principle.

From knowledge to the known, the comprehensive principle.

From the known to knowledge, the reflexive principle.

Between each of the aspects of knowing with itself, arise the four selections.


From knower to itself, the perspectival selection.

From knowledge to itself, the transcendental selection.

From the knowable to itself, the reductive selection.

From the known to itself, the functional selection.

Each method can be associated with a discursive process: operational with debate, dialectical with dialogue, logistic with proof, and problematic with inquiry. Each method is also associated with a mode of thought which in turn has two moments and one dependency or assumption: the operational method is debate by discrimination and postulation dependent on chosen theses, the dialectical method is dialogue by assimilation and exemplification dependent on changeless models, the logistic method is proof by construction and decomposition dependent on indivisible constituents, and the problematic method is inquiry by resolution and question dependent on discoverable causes.

The Four Temperaments



For a history of the humour theory of temperament in medicine and psychology, see Passions and Tempers: A History of the Humours by Noga Arikha (Ecco/HarperCollins, 2007; reviewed by Sherwin P. Nuland in the New York Times Book Review, 07/08/2007).


The classic fourfold typology, derived from ancient Greek humour theory, is often referred to as The Four Temperaments. Under that label, it has been the subject of a number of artworks. In Christ Crowned with Thorns (c.1479, also called the Mocking of Christ), Jesus is tormented by four men who represent the four temperaments: clockwise from the upper left, choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, and melancholic.






In music, a humoresque is a term given to a light-hearted musical composition. But Robert Schumann's "Humoreske in Bb",Op. 20 (1839), is a suite based on the four classical humours.


The German composer Paul Hindemith also wrote a suite for piano and strings -- a actually, a theme with four variations -- entitled The Four Temperaments (1940), which was choreographed for the Ballet Society, the forerunner of the New York City Center Ballet by George Balanchine (1946).


The Four Temperaments is a ballet made by New York City Ballet co-founder and ballet master George Balanchine to music he commissioned from Paul Hindemith (the latter's eponymous 1940 music for string orchestra and piano) for the opening program of Ballet Society, immediate forerunner of City Ballet.


The work is divided into five parts, a theme and four variations, which reflect the temperaments of Galen's tradition. Balanchine downplayed the references to medieval "humors" that were believed to determine a person's temperament, saying the four personality types—melancholic, sanguinic, phlegmatic, and choleric—were merely points of departure for the creation of abstract music and dance.[1]

Part of what makes this scene entrancing is the weapons. Priest carries an enormous metal cross–all the better for bludgeoning with (Scorsese uses Neeson’s formidable height to emphasize his power as a leader and a fighter)


The Last Don is a novel by Mario Puzo, best known as the author of The Godfather.[1]


The story alternates between the film industry and the Las Vegas Strip casinos, showing how the Mafia is linked to both.



The last plan of Don Domenico Clericuzio, an aging Mafia boss, is to eventually have his family enter the legitimate world and assimilate into American society. Twenty-five years later, his grandson Dante and grandnephew Croccifixio (Cross) make their way through life, and the eighty-year-old Don is semi-retired. Cross, who holds a majority share in a Las Vegas casino, is supposed to become the strong arm of the family. However, when he refuses to take part in the murder of an old friend, Dante is left to be the sole tough guy. Dante's greed for power and blood lead him to plan the elimination of his relatives, who are an obstacle to the desire to become as powerful as the old Don himself. Cross, who is aware of being on the black list, anticipates Dante's plans and catches him in a trap. Having acted against the family, he waits for the Don's vendetta, but, to his own surprise, his life is spared and he is only condemned to exile. The story concludes with the revelation that the Don had planned this outcome all along for the long-term survival of the family.



The title track has been described as heralding "a new era of experimentalism" for Bowie.[32] "Station to Station" was in two parts: a slow, portentous piano-driven march, introduced by the sound of an approaching train juxtaposed with Earl Slick's agitated guitar feedback, followed by an up-tempo rock/blues section. In 1999 Bowie told UNCUT magazine, "Since Station To Station the hybridization of R&B and electronics had been a goal of mine".[33] Despite the noise of a train in the opening moments, Bowie says that the title refers not so much to railway stations as to the Stations of the Cross, while the line "From Kether to Malkuth" relates to mystical places in the Kabbalah, mixing Christian and Jewish allusions.


The Austrian artist Martina Schettina created a tetrahedron using fluorescent lamps. It was shown at the light art biennale Austria 2010.[26]

The Royal Game of Ur, dating from 2600 BC, was played with a set of tetrahedral dice.

Especially in roleplaying, this solid is known as a 4-sided die, one of the more common polyhedral dice, with the number rolled appearing around the bottom or on the top vertex. Some Rubik's Cube-like puzzles are tetrahedral, such as the Pyraminx and Pyramorphix.

Martina Schettina: Tetrahedron

The tetrahedron is used as album artwork, surrounded by black flames on The End of All Things to Come by Mudvayne.

The End of All Things to Come is the second studio album by American heavy metal band Mudvayne. Released on November 19, 2002, the album expanded upon the sound of the band's debut, L.D. 50, with a more versatile range of sounds, dynamic, moods and vocalization. 


The group consisted of Chad Gray (lead vocals), Greg Tribbett (guitar, vocals), Ryan Martinie (bass guitar) and Matthew McDonough (drums). Formed in 1996, Mudvayne became popular in the late-1990s Decatur, Illinois underground musicscene. The band released an EPKill, I Oughtta, in 1997 and a successful debut album, L.D. 50, in 2000. They had global success with The End of All Things to ComeLost and Found and The New Game.

Below is the four members of Mudvayne in the song Dig.

THE FOUR MEMBERS OF PANTERA IN QUADRANT FORMATION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouth_for_War





The music video for "Closer" was directed by Mark Romanek and received frequent rotation on MTV, though the network heavily censored the original version, which they perceived to be too graphic. The video shows events in a laboratory dealing with religion, sexuality, animal cruelty, politics, and terror; controversial imagery included a nude bald woman with a crucifix mask, a monkey tied to a cross, a pig's head spinning on some type of machine, a diagram of a vulva, Reznor wearing an S&M mask while swinging in shackles, and of him wearing a ball gag.[78] A radio edit that partially mutes the song's explicit lyrics also received extensive airtime.[12]:96

Reznor coined the name "Nine Inch Nails" because it "abbreviated easily", rather than for "any literal meaning".[22] Other rumored explanations have circulated, alleging that Reznor chose to reference Jesus' crucifixion with nine-inch spikes


The Tetrahedral hypothesis is an obsolete scientific theory attempting to explain the arrangement of the Earth's continents and oceans by referring to the geometry of a tetrahedron. Although it was a historically interesting theory in the late 19th and early 20th century, it was superseded by the concepts of continental drift and modern plate tectonics.


The theory was first proposed by William Lowthian Green in 1875.[4] It was still popular in 1917 when summarized as:
"The law of least action … demands that the somewhat rigid crustal portion of the earth keep in contact with the lessening interior with the least possible readjustment of its surface. … a shrinking sphere tends by the law of least action to collapse into a tetrahedron, or a tetra-hedroid, a sphere marked by four equal and equidistant triangular projections; and the earth with its three about equal and equidistant double continental masses triangular southward with three intervening depressed oceans triangular northward, its northern ocean and southern continent, with land everywhere antipodal to water, realizes the tetrahedroid status remarkably.“[5]

This is suggesting that a cooling spherical Earth might have shrunk to form a tetrahedron, with its vertices and edges forming the continents, and four oceans (Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and Arctic Ocean) on its faces.

By 1915 German Alfred Wegener (1880–1930) had proposed in his continental drift theory that land masses moved great distances over the Earth's history. Wegener was also at first met with hostile reactions.[6] By the mid-1920s Holmes had developed theories on what could cause the drift.[7][8] The plate tectonics theory is now generally accepted to explain the dynamic nature of the Earth's surface; the tetrahedral shape plays no special role in modern theories.[9] Explanations of details such as water to land ratios, the precise shape of continents and their sizes continue to be developed.








 The hook-and-cross logo was designed by Bill Gawlik[3] in January 1972,[17] and appears on all of the band's albums.[16] In Greek mythology, "... the hook-and-cross symbol is that of Kronos (Cronus), the king of the Titans and father of Zeus ... and is the alchemical symbol for lead (a heavy metal), one of the heaviest of metals."[18] Sandy Pearlman considered this, combined with the heavy and distorted guitar sound of the band and decided the description "heavy metal"[19] would be aptly applied to Blue Öyster Cult's musical sound. The hook-and-cross symbol also resembled the astrological symbol for Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture,[20] and the sickle, which is associated with both Kronos (Cronus) and Saturn (both the planetand the Roman god).[21] The logo's "... metaphysical, alchemical and mythological connotations, combined with its similarity to some religious symbols gave it a flair of decadence and mystery ..."[17]



In Defense Of “The Big Four” Of Silent Comedy

Posted on December 1, 2016

There’s an old quote you may have heard, attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “…In this world, nothing can said to be certain, except death and taxes.” I’d like to amend that: “…In this world, nothing can said to be certain, except death, taxes, and fans of silent comedy debating about the ranking of the Big Four.” (Or the “Big Three,” for the multitudes of you who haven’t made Harry Langdon an integral part of your lives yet.)



There’s a reason Harry’s wiping away a tear.


General film enthusiasts take the informal-yet-widespread ranking of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd as the all-time best silent comedians for granted (and more would include Harry if they would actually watch Harry, harumph), but for some time now the tide has been changing among silent comedy fans. It’s not uncommon to find arguments in favor of less emphasis on “The Big Four,” of adding or replacing a comedian or two, or even of ditching the ranking all together. Those in favor of the latter say there were lots of popular comedians back in the silent era, and furthermore, these unjustly overlooked folks could be just as funny as Lloyd or Keaton. Thus, the ranking is unfair and not even historically accurate. Right?


Image result for jimmie adams comedian

Jimmie Adams is all for this.


As regular readers know, I love learning about obscure silent era personalities–the more obscure the better–and recently devoted an entire month to covering forgotten comedians. I’m currently researching Louise Fazenda, as overlooked a comedienne as you could get. And I’m still going to argue that the Big Four ranking is not only just, but that there are sound historical reasons why it exists, and I shall defend this argument with every molecule of my entire being.


First, let’s examine where the Big Four ranking came from…or rather, where we think it came from, according to popular lore.


The Legend of the Big Four: Origins


The usual explanation is this: In 1948 respected critic James Agee wrote a piece on silent comedy called “Comedy’s Greatest Era,” specifically singling out Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd and Langdon as the “four most eminent masters” of screen clowning. This piece is often credited as resurrecting interest in early comedy, and is also either assumed or implied to have ushered in that lofty silent comedy pantheon referred to as “The Big Four.” (Note: new fans who have yet to become obsessive superfans are usually only aware of “The Big Three” at first. Might I introduce you to the classic 1925 short Saturday Afternoon?)




“The Big Four” was further cemented by theater critic Walter Kerr’s beautifully-written 1975 book The Silent Clowns (despite having nearly a thirty year gap between his work and Agee’s, I guess). In his analysis of silent comedy, Kerr laid out his case for why Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd and Langdon are masters of their art, and also argued–at times controversially–why other clowns rank below them. And thus, so the legend goes, we’ve all been taking the Big Three or Four for granted ever since, while worthy performers languish in obscurity to this very day.


Image result for kerr silent clowns

Dagnabbit, Kerr!


Well, let’s think critically here. The glossing over of pop culture history aside (like the role television played in keeping silent comedies in the public consciousness), this appears to be saying that if Agee and Kerr had chosen to write about Mack Swain, Lupino Lane, Snub Pollard and Billy Bevan, then comedy fans would be praising them to the skies while dismissing Harold Lloyd as a schmuck, visual evidence be darned. (Swain and company are awesome, but you know what I mean.) I’m thinking that two big fallacies are at work here.


Fallacy #1: The “Exclusive Club” Fallacy


This is the general idea that the Big Four ranking is a sort of exclusive club of the laugh-out-loud funniest, and thus any comedian not part of the Big Four must hardly rate a titter (or a watch).


Image result for laurel and hardy



Three quick points, based on my observations of interacting with silent fans online daily (and occasionally in person!) for years:


It’s mainly silent film newbies who think this. This is usually because they’re unaware of the wide variety of talent out there. Give ’em some time!

People who are silent comedy enthusiasts love obscure comedians (especially comediennes) and are overwhelmingly in favor of giving them more attention.

I have yet to find a hardcore enthusiast who argues that none of the Big Three or Four are worthy of any attention, although plenty of them are really super tired of people always talking about ranking comedians.

Thanks to this fallacy, silent fans who love people like Charley Chase and Larry Semon can get pretty miffed at the ranking. But I’d say the “exclusive club” is a wrong perception. The ranking isn’t just about who’s “funniest”–“funny” can be subjective–but about who was also a great artist. It takes a clever comedian to be funny, but it takes an exceptionally clever artist to turn out consistently fresh, excellent work year after year in a very distinct era of the cinema. It ain’t as easy as it looks.



Image result for harold lloyd safety last

Even with a mattress underneath you…a couple stories down…that the practice dummy bounced off of.


“But what about people like Douglas Fairbanks or Marion Davies? They were consistently funny and turned out great work–why can’t they be in your fancy Big Four club?” Well, Doug and Marion were hilarious and insanely talented, but they did not establish distinct comic characters with distinct costumes and distinct makeup, and they acted in as much drama as comedy. In short, they were not “clowns” the way Keaton or Chaplin were. This is no slight to them whatsoever–it’s a complement to point out their versatility. I think they’re two of the best actors of the silent era, but do not classify them as clowns the way Larry Semon and Alice Howell are clowns. There’s a difference, and that’s okay.


Image result for larry semon

This man basically had no choice but to be clown.


Here’s where we could have a long discussion about the differences between clowns, regular comedians and light comedians, and why some comedies are considered masterpieces while others are not, and it would be a familiar one with points already made by dozens of other writers and film buffs. To keep things moving, all I can say is if you are insisting that there’s really no discernible difference between Billy West and Charlie Chaplin, then…I might not be able to help you. Let’s move on to fallacy #2, because this is the one that’s critical.


Fallacy #2: The “Arbitrary Big Four” Fallacy


This is the notion that the Big Four were chosen more or less arbitrarily–mainly by James Agee’s 1940s tastes–while performers who were just as lauded were unjustly overlooked.


Related image

This would include Ford Sterling at his hammiest, you know.


Now, I’ve searched, I’ve hunted, and I have scoured messageboards, but it looked to me like a crucial factor was always being overlooked. That is, until I spied this comment on the silent film board Nitrateville:





Bingo!! He’s on the right track, folks. Research in vintage newspapers, trade publications, and magazines will confirm that the Big Four were always considered top-ranking comedians, even back in the 1920s, and were praised and informally ranked the same way they are now. Let me repeat that: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon were considered the Big Four even in the 1920s.


To be even more specific, Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd were the Big Three for years before Langdon entered the picture, when he was instantly considered their match in the talent department.


Image result for chaplin lloyd keaton


I, too, had a touch of the “arbitrary Big Four” fallacy back when I was first getting into silents. When my interest in Keaton’s work led me to start dabbling in research in online archives, to my surprise I kept finding his name linked with Lloyd’s and Chaplin’s, just like it is today.


For instance, here’s an excerpt* from an article from The Photodramatist, 1923:




And some mentions in exhibitors’ reviews of comedy shorts (in this case Buster shorts) they rented for their theaters, submitted to trade publications:



Exhibitor’s Herald, 1922



Exhibitor’s Herald, 1921



Exhibitor’s Herald, June 2, 1922


This confident review might raise your eyebrows–especially if you know that Snooky was a chimpanzee:



Exhibitor’s Herald, June 3, 1922


Here’s some mentions in newspapers and movie magazine articles:



Picture-Play Magazine, March 1923.



The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 14 1922.



Exhibitor’s Trade Review, Jan. 19, 1924.



The New York Herald, July 10, 1922



Photoplay, 1928.


And as early as 1930 they were being discussed in serious books on the cinema, as in this excerpt from The Film Till Now: A Survey of the Cinema by Paul Rotha:




When Langdon came on the scene in the mid-1920s and skyrocketed in popularity, what happened? His comedic talents were immediately being linked with Chaplin’s, Keaton’s, and Lloyd’s:



Moving Picture World, Feb. 21, 1925.



Exhibitor’s Trade Review, June 6, 1925.


Image result for chaplin keaton langdon lloyd



Picture Play Magazine, 1927.


The take away from all of this is that Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd and Langon were always considered masters of their particular slapstick art. They set the standards for what a great comedy could be. Thus, Agee and Kerr were merely drawing on what was arguably common knowledge to anyone who knew or remembered silent comedy–even if that knowledge was little-discussed at the time.


Is the Ranking Even Necessary Anymore?


I suspect a few of you out there aren’t quite satisfied. “Fine, so Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon always had a high reputation. That doesn’t change the fact that lots of excellent comedians languish in undeserved obscurity!” you shout, banging your shoe on the table before dramatically flipping it over. I applaud your passion, my friend, but as soon as your blood pressure normalizes I’m going to make one more point.


If film historians across the world vowed to smash the pantheon forthwith and start silent comedy history anew with the wealth of accessible information and films that we have now, I’m willing to bet a silly amount of money that folks are still going to be drawn to the films of the Big Three (who in turn will introduce them to their friend Harry Langdon). Their high-quality work simply has more universal appeal that that of, say, Joe Murphy and Fay Tincher in the Andy Gump shorts.


Related image

Believe it or not.


And someone like Keaton inspires more devotion than, say, Lloyd Hamilton or Max Davidson. Talented as many comedians are, it’s simply a fact that some performers and films are always going to be strictly niche interests (and silent film’s already a niche as it is!). This holds true in every genre of film. The “cult classic” label exists for a reason.


So in my opinion, the ranking is always going to stick around, because Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd and Langdon are simply that fantastic. But if there’s one thing you and I can agree on, passionate fellow silent fan, it’s that we should keep sharing the more obscure comedians with anyone who has an open mind.


Image result for john bunny flora finch

Early comedy pioneers Flora Finch, John Bunny and Mary Anderson.


I’ve been to a number of silent film showings featuring obscure performers, and folks always seem to have a great time (a Charley Bowers program was a big hit). The Big Three/Four may get more attention and discussion, but Max Linder, Marcel Perez, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Drew, etc. can certainly deliver the laughs too. (To say nothing of the great Roscoe Arbuckle, my pick for turning the Four into a Big Five.) The ranking doesn’t, in my view, take anything away from everyone else’s talent. If their work is good, people will enjoy it.


Image result for mabel normand

And who couldn’t enjoy Mabel’s work?


So point people toward as many silent era comedians as possible, most definitely. But know this, fellow passionate fan of silent comedy: the next time you feel compelled to sigh over the attention constantly given to the Big Three/Four in our beloved niche genre, remember–we do live in a world full of people of all ages and creeds who have never seen a Chaplin film and have no idea who Buster Keaton is.



*A couple of theses clippings were also used in my article “Were Chaplin and Keaton Rivals?” All clippings were snipped by yours truly.


To read the famous James Agee article for yourself, visit this link.

A long ime ago i listened to truth hertz and he was a guy who hated jews and had a radio show but he espoused the theory and did an episode where he said there was actually four columbine shooters



2) Littleton PO Mike Eyman (8670) Advised that "there were possibly 4 suspects in the school."


Alicia Maes, sophomore (22755) Saw 4 people with trenchcoats and guns, according to Rachel Nelson.


16) Natalie Baker, freshman (2583) Told her mother there were 2 other shooters besides Harris and Klebold.


17) Jennifer Tindall, sophomore (1226) Sees 2 suspects, neither of which is Harris and Klebold.


18) Ryan Ezzie, sophomore (2967) Saw 4 people outside with hats on backwards. On 20612, he says he "...saw at least 4 parties dressed in black standing calmly when others were running."(by the school library)


The swastika gets its name from the Sanskrit word svastika, meaning well-being and good fortune. The earliest known swastikas date from 2500 or 3000 B.C. in India and in Central Asia. A 1933 study suggests that the swastika migrated from India across Persia and Asia Minor to Greece, then to Italy and on to Germany, probably in the first millennium B.C.

The fateful link was made by the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. From 1871 to 1875, Schliemann excavated the site of Homer's Troy on the shores of the Dardanelles. When he found artifacts with swastikas, he quickly associated them with the swastikas he had seen near the Oder River in Germany. As Steven Heller, the art director of The New York Times Book Review, writes in ''The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption,'' ''Schliemann presumed that the swastika was a religious symbol of his German ancestors which linked ancient Teutons, Homeric Greeks and Vedic India.''

Pretty soon swastikas were everywhere, rotating both clockwise and counterclockwise. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society, included the swastika in the seal of the society. ''Rudyard Kipling combined a swastika with his signature in a circle as a personal logo,'' Mr. Heller reports. And the swastika was part of the logo of the Bauhaus, under Paul Klee.

Continue reading the main story

The swastika spread to the United States, too. Coca-Cola issued a swastika pendant. Carlsberg beer etched swastikas onto its bottles. During World War I, the American 45th Infantry division wore an orange swastika as a shoulder patch. At least one train line had swastikas on its cars. The Girls' Club published a magazine called The Swastika. And until 1940 the Boy Scouts gave out a swastika badge.


A question frequently asked of the Society concerns the presumption that Kipling's use of the swastika meant that he allied himself to the Nazi cause. 

Fortunately it is easy to show that this is a misapprehension, and a number of articles in the early issues of The Kipling Journal explain the provenance of its use.

This suspicion is nothing new. When the topic resurfaced in more recent numbers there was interesting testimony from, for example, the late Tom Driver, a well-respected Kipling bookseller in Arundel Sussex, England (Kipling Journal September/December 1984). Mr Driver had found that the author was regarded by potential customers as objectionable because so many of the detested symbols could be seen on the books displayed around the shop entrance. 


He kept a tally and found that on average, the comment was made about once each week. But even those who ought to know better perpetuate misconceptions. 

As George Webb, the Editor of the Kipling Journal pointed out in a note accompanying Mr Driver's letter, the late Professor V. de S. Pinto, an eminent authority on English literature in his Crisis in English Poetry [Hutchinson, 1951, later revised] revealed a total ignorance of what the pre-Nazi Swastika stood for, and linked its use with some of Kipling's work.

    • http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/JustSoStories

    • There's a swastika in a picture illustrating "The Crab that Played with the Sea", which is identified as "a magic mark". Remember the book was published decades before Those Wacky Nazis, when the swastika was known only as a generic positive mystical symbol by many people, especially in India (and in some places still is). Pre-war editions of Kipling often have a small swastika as a title-page decoration.



Only as of the twentieth century have more than four all survived infancy.


In humans, the average length of pregnancy (two weeks fewer than gestation) is 38 weeks with a single fetus. This average decreases for each additional fetus: to thirty-six weeks for twin births, thirty-two weeks for triplets, and thirty weeks for quadruplets. With the decreasing gestation time, the risks from immaturity at birth and subsequent viability increase with the size of the sibling group. Only as of the twentieth century have more than four all survived infancy.


Recent history has also seen increasing numbers of multiple births. In the United States, it has been estimated that by 2011, 36% of twin births and 78% of triplet and higher-order births resulted from conception by assisted reproductive technology.[1]



Main article: Twin

Twins are by far the most common form of multiple births in humans. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report more than 132,000 sets of twins out of 3.9 million births of all kinds each year, about 3.4%, or 1 in 30.[2]




Identical triplets like these three sisters occur when a single fertilized egg splits in two and then one of the resulting two eggs splits again.

File:UOTW 19 - Ultrasound of the Week 1.webm

Monoamniotic triplets as seen on ultrasound[3]


Identical triplets come from a monozygotic pregnancy, three fetuses from one egg. The most common set, strictly fraternal triplets, comes from a polyzygotic pregnancy of three eggs. Between these types, triplets that include an identical (monozygotic) pair of siblings plus a fraternal sibling are the result of a dizygotic pregnancy, where one zygote divides into two fetuses and the other doesn't.


Triplets are far less common than twins, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accounting for only about 4300 sets in 3.9 million births, just a little more than 0.1%, or 1 in 1000.[2] According to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, only about 10% of these are identical triplets: about 1 in ten thousand.[2] Nevertheless, only 4 sets of identical triplets were reported in the U.S. during 2015, about one in a million.[2] According to Victor Khouzami, Chairman of Obstetrics at Greater Baltimore Medical Center, "No one really knows the incidence".[2]


Identical triplets or quadruplets are very rare and result when the original fertilized egg splits and then one of the resultant cells splits again (for triplets) or, even more rarely, a further split occurs (for quadruplets). The odds of having identical triplets is unclear. News articles and other non-scientific organizations give odds from one in 60,000 to one in 200 million pregnancies.[2][4][5][6][7][8]



Quadruplets are much rarer than twins or triplets. As of 2007, there were approximately 3500 sets recorded worldwide. Quadruplet births are becoming increasingly common due to fertility treatments. There are around 70 sets of all-identical quadruplets worldwide. Many sets of quadruplets contain a mixture of identical and fraternal siblings, such as three identical and one fraternal, two identical and two fraternal, or two pairs of identicals. One famous set of identical quadruplets was the Genain quadruplets, all of whom developed schizophrenia. Quadruplets are sometimes referred to as "quads" in Britain.[9]




The Canadian Dionne sisters, seen in this 1947 photograph, were the first quintuplets known to survive infancy.

Quintuplets occur naturally in 1 in 55,000,000 births.[10] The first quintuplets known to survive infancy were the all-female Canadian Dionne Quintuplets, born in 1934. Quintuplets are sometimes referred to as "quins" in the UK and "quints" in North America.[11]