Authoritative Person Quotes

He said that man’s heart was the only bad heart in the animal kingdom; that man was the only animal capable of feeling malice, envy, vindictiveness, revengefulness, hatred, selfishness, the only animal that loves drunkenness, almost the only animal that could endure personal uncleanliness and a filthy habitation, the sole animal in whom was fully developed the base instinct called patriotism, the sole animal that robs, persecutes, oppresses and kills members of his own tribe, the sole animal that steals and enslaves the members of any tribe.

We all dream dreams of unity, of purity; we all dream that there's an authoritative voice out there that will explain things, including ourselves. If it wasn't for our longing for these things, I doubt the novel or the short story would exist in its current form. I'm not going to say much more on the topic. Just remember: In dictatorships, only one person is really allowed to speak. And when I write a book or a story, I too am the only one speaking, no matter how I hide behind my characters.

That dead-eyed anhedonia is but a remora on the ventral flank of the true predator, the Great White Shark of pain. Authorities term this condition clinical depression or involutional depression or unipolar dysphoria. Instead of just an incapacity for feeling, a deadening of soul, the predator-grade depression Kate Gompert always feels as she Withdraws from secret marijuana is itself a feeling. It goes by many names — anguish, despair, torment, or q.v. Burton's melancholia or Yevtuschenko's more authoritative psychotic depression — but Kate Gompert, down in the trenches with the thing itself, knows it simply as It. It is a level of psychic pain wholly incompatible with human life as we know it. It is a sense of radical and thoroughgoing evil not just as a feature but as the essence of conscious existence. It is a sense of poisoning that pervades the self at the self's most elementary levels. It is a nausea of the cells and soul. It is an unnumb intuition in which the world is fully rich and animate and un-map-like and also thoroughly painful and malignant and antagonistic to the self, which depressed self It billows on and coagulates around and wraps in Its black folds and absorbs into Itself, so that an almost mystical unity is achieved with a world every constituent of which means painful harm to the self. Its emotional character, the feeling Gompert describes It as, is probably mostly indescribable except as a sort of double bind in which any/all of the alternatives we associate with human agency — sitting or standing, doing or resting, speaking or keeping silent, living or dying — are not just unpleasant but literally horrible. It is also lonely on a level that cannot be conveyed. There is no way Kate Gompert could ever even begin to make someone else understand what clinical depression feels like, not even another person who is herself clinically depressed, because a person in such a state is incapable of empathy with any other living thing. This anhedonic Inability To Identify is also an integral part of It. If a person in physical pain has a hard time attending to anything except that pain, a clinically depressed person cannot even perceive any other person or thing as independent of the universal pain that is digesting her cell by cell. Everything is part of the problem, and there is no solution. It is a hell for one. The authoritative term psychotic depression makes Kate Gompert feel especially lonely. Specifically the psychotic part. Think of it this way. Two people are screaming in pain. One of them is being tortured with electric current. The other is not. The screamer who's being tortured with electric current is not psychotic: her screams are circumstantially appropriate. The screaming person who's not being tortured, however, is psychotic, since the outside parties making the diagnoses can see no electrodes or measurable amperage. One of the least pleasant things about being psychotically depressed on a ward full of psychotically depressed patients is coming to see that none of them is really psychotic, that their screams are entirely appropriate to certain circumstances part of whose special charm is that they are undetectable by any outside party. Thus the loneliness: it's a closed circuit: the current is both applied and received from within.

Each one of us possesses in himself a separate and distinct city, a unique city, as we possess different aspects of the same person.

We may seem to forget a person, a place, a state of being, a past life, but meanwhile what we are doing is selecting new actors, seeking the closest reproduction to the friend, the lover, the husband we are trying to forget, in order to re-enact the drama with understudies. And one day we open our eyes and there we are, repeating the same story. How could it be otherwise? The design comes from within us. It is internal. It is what the old mystics described as karma, repeated until the spiritual or emotional experience was understood, liquidated, achieved.

Faith is the door to the full inner life of the Church, a life which includes not only access to an authoritative teaching but above all to a deep personal experience which is at once unique and yet shared by the whole Body of Christ, in the Spirit of Christ.

where the laws are not authoritative demagogues arise. For the populace becomes a monarch when it turns from many into a single composite, since the many are in authority not as particular persons but all together.

The truth is, a person's memory has no more sense that his conscience, and no appreciation whatever of values and proportions.

We work better with authoritative, empathic leaders, and empathic teachers like ourselves, that fit our morals, values, ethics, and principles.

When no one’s word is authoritative, any crank is as credible as the next person. It is the irony at the heart of conspiracy thinking: You can’t trust anyone these days, so you may as well place some credence in some stranger who just tweeted something exciting, if unproven. ... When someone whispers, “Trust no one,” they are inevitably also saying, “Trust me.

The desire we so often hear expressed today for “episcopal figures,” “priestly men,” “authoritative personalities” springs frequently enough from a spiritually sick need for the admiration of men, for the establishment of visible human authority, because the genuine authority of service appears to be so unimpressive.

My mother’s English has remained rudimentary during her forty-plus years living in the United States. When she speaks Korean, my mother speaks her mind. She is sharp, witty, and judgmental, if rather self-preening. But her English is a crush of piano keys that used to make me cringe whenever she spoke to a white person. As my mother spoke, I watched the white person, oftentimes a woman, put on a fright mask of strained tolerance: wide eyes frozen in trapped patience, smile widened in condescension. As she began responding to my mother in a voice reserved for toddlers, I stepped in. From a young age, I learned to speak for my mother as authoritatively as I could. Not only did I want to dispel the derision I saw behind that woman’s eyes, I wanted to shame her with my sobering fluency for thinking what she was thinking. I have been partly drawn to writing, I realize, to judge those who have unfairly judged my family; to prove that I’ve been watching this whole time.

The marks of truth, as Christianly conceived, are that it is supernaturally grounded not developed within nature; that it is objective and not subjective; that it is a revelation and not a construction; that it is discovered by inquiry and not elected by a majority vote; that it is authoritative and not a matter of personal choice.

The authoritative person is a model that others, recognizing the achievement, gladly and without coercion, defer to and appropriate in the construction of their own personhood. Confucius is as explicit in expressing the same reservations about authoritative relations becoming authoritarian as he is about a deference-driven ritualized community surrendering this noncoercive structure for the rule of law

Instant Reading. A certain famous Fakir was claiming in the village that he could teach an illiterate person to read by a lightning technique. Nasrudin stepped out of the crowd: 'Very well, teach me – now.' The Fakir touched the Mulla's forehead, and said: 'Now go home immediately and read a book.' Half an our later Nasrudin was back in the market-place, clutching a book. The Fakir had gone on his way. 'Can you read now, Mulla?' the people asked him. 'Yes, I can read – but that is not the point. Where is that charlatan?' 'How can he be a charlatan if he has caused you to read without learning?' 'Because this book, which is authoritative, says: “All Fakirs are frauds”.

Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets — neither Freud nor research — neither the revelations of God nor man — can take precedence over my own direct experience.

Now, what happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You won't! You'll have ...A God, essentially, of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it.

The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.

If God truly exists, especially as a living personal being, are not revelational considerations more significant than our own inner feelings and outer perceptual probings? And if divine revelation—a possibility still to be considered—provides an authoritative basis for religious faith, does not an insistent reduction of all knowledge to empirical factors become a prideful—that is, worldly wise—justification of unbelief in a transcendent revelation? If there be a God, he could scarcely desire from human beings a commitment only to empirical tentativeness about his reality.

When we are babies...we need an authoritative figure to guide and take care of us. We ask no questions about that authority and imagine that the small circumference of family life is the limit of the universe...As we mature, our horizon expands and we begin to question. This continues until we either throw over our creators--our parents--for good and take their place as the creative force in our lives or find replacements for them because the terror and responsibility are too great. People go one way or the other, and this accounts for all of the great personal and political divides throughout history.

[I]t's difficult to make people see that what you have been taught counts for nothing, and that the only things worth having are the things you find out for yourself. Also, that when so many brands of what Chesterton calls 'fancy souls' and theories of life are offered you, there is no sense in not looking pretty carefully to see what you are going in for. [...] It isn't a case of 'Here is the Christian religion, the one authoritative and respectable rule of life. Take it or leave it'. It's 'Here's a muddling kind of affair called Life, and here are nineteen or twenty different explanations of it, all supported by people whose opinions are not to be sneezed at. Among them is the Christian religion in which you happpen to have been brought up. Your friend so-and-so has been brought up in quite a different way of thinking; is a perfectly splendid person and thoroughly happy. What are you going to do about it?' -- I'm worrying it out quietly, and whatever I get hold of will be valuable, because I've got it for myself; but really, you know, the whole question is not as simple as it looks.

While all of us dread being blamed, we all would wish to be more responsible—that is, to have the ability to respond with awareness to the circumstances of our lives rather than just reacting. We want to be the authoritative person in our own lives: in charge, able to make the authentic decisions that affect us. There is no true responsibility without awareness. One of the weaknesses of the Western medical approach is that we have made the physician the only authority, with the patient too often a mere recipient of the treatment or cure. People are deprived of the opportunity to become truly responsible. None of us are to be blamed if we succumb to illness and death. Any one of us might succumb at any time, but the more we can learn about ourselves, the less prone we are to become passive victims. Mind and body links have to be seen not only for our understanding of illness but also for our understanding of health. Dr. Robert Maunder, on the psychiatric faculty of the University of Toronto, has written about the mindbody interface in disease. “Trying to identify and to answer the question of stress,” he said to me in an interview, “is more likely to lead to health than ignoring the question.” In healing, every bit of information, every piece of the truth, may be crucial. If a link exists between emotions and physiology, not to inform people of it will deprive them of a powerful tool. And here we confront the inadequacy of language. Even to speak about links between mind and body is to imply that two discrete entities are somehow connected to each other. Yet in life there is no such separation; there is no body that is not mind, no mind that is not body. The word mindbody has been suggested to convey the real state of things. Not even in the West is mind-body thinking completely new. In one of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates quotes a Thracian doctor’s criticism of his Greek colleagues: “This is the reason why the cure of so many diseases is unknown to the physicians of Hellas; they are ignorant of the whole. For this is the great error of our day in the treatment of the human body, that physicians separate the mind from the body.” You cannot split mind from body, said Socrates—nearly two and a half millennia before the advent of psychoneuroimmunoendocrinology!

Due to their deep conviction of the sovereignty of God, the Word of God was taken very seriously by Calvinists. It became the unconditional norm for faith and life to the believer. The Divine injunction not to add or take away has been scrupulously observed by Calvinism. Thus, a Calvinistic ethic was developed with its high theism. Because God was held to be the absolute sovereign for man's life, it became simply a question of determining the will of God from His Word. Calvinistic ethics is not a system of opinion, but an attempt to make the will of God as revealed in the Bible the authoritative guide for social as well as personal direction.

The manual is written in an authoritative tone as if it were the voice of God revealing indisputable truths, but in fact it fails to teach its readers a core principle of scientific thinking: the importance of examining and ruling out other possible explanations for a person’s behavior before deciding which one is the most likely.

The reason that certain tender subjects are avoided and forbidden in all other clubs is because those clubs consist of more than four members. Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. It is the self-admiring boast of England and America that in those countries a man is free to talk out his opinions, let them be of what complexion they may, but this is one of the human race’s hypocrisies; there has never been any such thing as free speech in any country, and there is no such thing as free speech in England or America when more than four persons are present; and not then, except the four are all of one political and religious creed.

He had another conspicuous characteristic, and it was the father of those which I have just spoken of. This was an intense lust for approval. He was so eager to be approved, so girlishly anxious to be approved by anybody and everybody, without discrimination, that he was commonly ready to forsake his notions, opinions and convictions at a moment’s notice in order to get the approval of any person who disagreed with them. I wish to be understood as reserving his fundamental principles all the time. He never forsook those to please anybody. Born and reared among slaves and slave-holders, he was yet an abolitionist from his boyhood to his death. He was always truthful; he was always sincere; he was always honest and honorable. But in light matters—matters of small consequence, like religion and politics and such things—he never acquired a conviction that could survive a disapproving remark from a cat.

THE notion of dogma terrifies men who do not understand the Church. They cannot conceive that a religious doctrine may be clothed in a clear, definite and authoritative statement without at once becoming static, rigid and inert and losing all its vitality. In their frantic anxiety to escape from any such conception they take refuge in a system of beliefs that is vague and fluid, a system in which truths pass like mists and waver and vary like shadows. They make their own personal selection of ghosts, in this pale, indefinite twilight of the mind. They take good care never to bring these abstractions out into the full brightness of the sun for fear of a full view of their unsubstantiality. They favor the Catholic mystics with a sort of sympathetic regard, for they believe that these rare men somehow reached the summit of contemplation in defiance of Catholic dogma. Their deep union with God is supposed to have been an escape from the teaching authority of the Church, and an implicit protest against it. But the truth is that the saints arrived at the deepest and most vital and also the most individual and personal knowledge of God precisely because of the Church’s teaching authority, precisely through the tradition that is guarded and fostered by that authority.

Yet, could it be (we should press the question) that there are some circumstances in which being overly esteemed in one’s capacity as a knower would do one harm of a sort that merits the label ‘testimonial injustice’? Suppose we imagine someone growing up who, because of various social prejudices overwhelmingly in his favour, is constantly epistemically puffed up by the people around him. Let’s say that he is a member of a ruling elite, and that his education and entire upbringing are subtly geared to installing this message firmly in his psychology. Perhaps the pupils who attend his school even wind up with a distinctive accent and certainly a confident air that helps mark them out as epistemically authoritative. No doubt the credibility excess he tends to receive from most interlocutors in his class-ridden society will be advantageous: it is very likely to bring him lucrative employment and a certain automatic high status in many of his discursive exchanges, and so on. But what if all this also causes him to develop such an epistemic arrogance that a range of epistemic virtues are put out of his reach, rendering him closed-minded, dogmatic, blithely impervious to criticism, and so on? Is it not the case that such a person has in some degree quite literally been made a fool of?

Such a disposition, until it was thoroughly understood, did not tend to ingratiate him with the wives of the country gentlemen among whom he had to look for practice. And then, also, there was not much in his individual manner to recommend him to the favour of ladies. He was brusque, authoritative, given to contradiction, rough though never dirty in his personal belongings, and inclined to indulge in a sort of quiet raillery, which sometimes was not thoroughly understood. People did not always know whether he was laughing at them or with them; and some people were, perhaps, inclined to think that a doctor should not laugh at all when called in to act doctorially.

One authoritative account is given by the psychologist Richard Bentall in an article titled “Hallucinatory Experiences.”15 Bentall says that the first real attempt to see whether it was possible for people to have nonveridical visions without suffering from physical or mental illness came at the end of the nineteenth century. A man named H. A. Sidgewick interviewed 7,717 men and 7,599 women and found that 7.8 percent of the men and 12 percent of the women reported having had at least one vivid hallucinatory experience. The most common vision was of a living person who was not present at the time. A number of the visions involved religious or supernatural content. The most common visions were reported by people who were twenty to twenty-nine years old.

It is an office for which Mr. Taft has conspicuous qualifications. But best of all, his nomination means the end of Roosevelt and Rooseveltism. It means the end of personal government, of autocratic régime, of militarism, of jingoism, of roughriderism, of administration by shouting and clamor, tumult and denunciation. It means the end of the Roosevelt reign of terror and the restoration of the Presidency to its historical dignity under the Constitution. Even Andrew Johnson, in his periods of sobriety, had more innate respect for the office itself, for its traditions and for appearances than Mr. Roosevelt has shown. Never before was there such a lawless President. Never before was the Presidency so deliberately lowered to gratify a love for studied and sensational theatricalism.

You’re afraid you have no talent. You’re afraid you’ll be rejected or criticized or ridiculed or misunderstood or—worst of all—ignored. You’re afraid there’s no market for your creativity, and therefore no point in pursuing it. You’re afraid somebody else already did it better. You’re afraid everybody else already did it better. You’re afraid somebody will steal your ideas, so it’s safer to keep them hidden forever in the dark. You’re afraid you won’t be taken seriously. You’re afraid your work isn’t politically, emotionally, or artistically important enough to change anyone’s life. You’re afraid your dreams are embarrassing. You’re afraid that someday you’ll look back on your creative endeavors as having been a giant waste of time, effort, and money. You’re afraid you don’t have the right kind of discipline. You’re afraid you don’t have the right kind of work space, or financial freedom, or empty hours in which to focus on invention or exploration. You’re afraid you don’t have the right kind of training or degree. You’re afraid you’re too fat. (I don’t know what this has to do with creativity, exactly, but experience has taught me that most of us are afraid we’re too fat, so let’s just put that on the anxiety list, for good measure.) You’re afraid of being exposed as a hack, or a fool, or a dilettante, or a narcissist. You’re afraid of upsetting your family with what you may reveal. You’re afraid of what your peers and coworkers will say if you express your personal truth aloud. You’re afraid of unleashing your innermost demons, and you really don’t want to encounter your innermost demons. You’re afraid your best work is behind you. You’re afraid you never had any best work to begin with. You’re afraid you neglected your creativity for so long that now you can never get it back. You’re afraid you’re too old to start. You’re afraid you’re too young to start. You’re afraid because something went well in your life once, so obviously nothing can ever go well again. You’re afraid because nothing has ever gone well in your life, so why bother trying? You’re afraid of being a one-hit wonder. You’re afraid of being a no-hit wonder . . . Listen, I don’t have all day here, so I’m not going to keep listing fears. It’s a bottomless list, anyhow, and a depressing one. I’ll just wrap up my summary this way: SCARY, SCARY, SCARY. Everything is so goddamn scary. Defending Your Weakness Please understand that the only reason I can speak so authoritatively about fear is that I know it so intimately.

The irony is that, as historian Robert Paquette, a specialist in the history of slavery, has remarked in his criticism of the use of Zinn’s history as a text in high school classrooms: An assessment in a classroom of, say, the history of slavery—the peculiar institution—by a professional historian should take into consideration the fact that the institution was not peculiar at all in the sense of being uncommon, and that it had existed from time immemorial on all habitable continents. In fact, at one time or another, all the world’s great religions had stamped slavery with their authoritative approval. Only at a particular historical moment—and only in the West—did an evolving understanding of personal freedom, influenced by evangelical Christianity, emerge to assert as a universal that the enslavement of human beings was a moral wrong for anyone, anywhere.85

CIT INTERNATIONAL OFFERS NINE techniques of nonverbal communication (for example, “Maintain limited eye contact . . . and . . . a neutral facial expression”; “Minimize body movements such as excessive gesturing, pacing, fidgeting or weight shifting”; “Place your hands in front of your body in an open and relaxed position”) and fifteen for verbal de-escalation (for example, “Remember that there is no content except trying to calmly bring the level of arousal down to a safer place”; “Do not get loud or try to yell over a screaming person”; “Do not be defensive even if comments or insults are directed at you”; “Be very respectful even when firmly setting limits”; “Do not try to argue or convince”; “Explain limits and rules in an authoritative, firm, but respectful tone”). The long list of tips and techniques ends with this pearl: “There is nothing magical about talking someone down. You are simply transferring your own sense of calm and respectful, clear limit setting to the agitated person.”13

After Bailey came Samuel Johnson, His Cantankerousness. Son of a London bookseller, a university dropout, afflicted with depression and what modern doctors think was likely Tourette’s—“a man of bizarre appearance, uncouth habits, and minimal qualifications”—Johnson was bewilderingly chosen by a group of English booksellers and authors to write the authoritative dictionary of English. Because of the seriousness of the charge, and because Johnson was scholarly but not a proper scholar, he began work on his dictionary the way that all of us now do: he read. He focused on the great works of English literature—Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Locke, Pope—but also took in more mundane, less elevated works. Among the books that crossed his desk were research on fossils, medical texts, treatises on education, poetry, legal writing, sermons, periodicals, collections of personal letters, scientific explorations of color, books debunking common myths and superstitions of the day, abridged histories of the world, and other dictionaries.

...Plato conceived of philosophy as necessarily gregarious rather than solitary. The exposure of presumptions is best done in company, the more argumentative the better. This is why discussion around the table is so essential. This is why philosophy must be argumentative. It proceeds by way of arguments, and the arguments are argued over. Everything is aired in the bracing dialectic wind stirred by many clashing viewpoints. Only in this way can intuitions that have their source in societal or personal idiosyncrasies be exposed and questioned. ... There can be nothing like "Well, that's what I was brought up to believe," or "I just feel that it's right," or "I am privy to an authoritative voice whispering in my ear," or "I'm demonstrably smarter than all of you, so just accept that I know better here." The discussion around the seminar table countenances only the sorts of arguments and considerations that can, in principle, make a claim on everyone who signs on to the project of reason: appealing to, evaluating, and being persuaded by reasons. (pp. 38-39)

Will those insights be tested,or simply used to justify the status quo and reinforce prejudices? When I consider the sloppy and self-serving ways that companies use data, I'm often reminded of phrenology, a pseudoscience that was briefly the rage in the nineteenth century. Phrenologists would run their fingers over the patient's skull, probing for bumps and indentations. Each one, they thought, was linked to personality traits that existed in twenty-seven regions of the brain. Usually the conclusion of the phrenologist jibed with the observations he made. If the patient was morbidly anxious or suffering from alcoholism, the skull probe would usually find bumps and dips that correlated with that observation - which, in turn, bolstered faith in the science of phrenology. Phrenology was a model that relied on pseudoscientific nonsense to make authoritative pronouncements, and for decades it went untested. Big Data can fall into the same trap. Models like the ones that red-lighted Kyle Behm and black-balled foreign medical students and St. George's can lock people out, even when the "science" inside them is little more than a bundle of untested assumptions.

Will those insights be tested, or simply used to justify the status quo and reinforce prejudices? When I consider the sloppy and self-serving ways that companies use data, I'm often reminded of phrenology, a pseudoscience that was briefly the rage in the nineteenth century. Phrenologists would run their fingers over the patient's skull, probing for bumps and indentations. Each one, they thought, was linked to personality traits that existed in twenty-seven regions of the brain. Usually the conclusion of the phrenologist jibed with the observations he made. If the patient was morbidly anxious or suffering from alcoholism, the skull probe would usually find bumps and dips that correlated with that observation - which, in turn, bolstered faith in the science of phrenology. Phrenology was a model that relied on pseudoscientific nonsense to make authoritative pronouncements, and for decades it went untested. Big Data can fall into the same trap. Models like the ones that red-lighted Kyle Behm and black-balled foreign medical students and St. George's can lock people out, even when the "science" inside them is little more than a bundle of untested assumptions.

It’s been said that the personal is political, and there’s no doubt that parenting is intensely personal. To argue against traditional ways of raising children, or to suggest that we can help children stand up for what they think is right, doesn’t introduce politics into parenting. It’s always been there. If we’ve failed to notice the political implications of child rearing, it may be because most advice on the subject has the effect of perpetuating the status quo. Hence the need to keep asking, “Cui bono?” When, for example, a researcher such as Diana Baumrind defends the idea of “moral internalization,” which she defines as “the process by which children come to espouse and conform to society’s rules, even when they are free of external surveillance or the expectation of external inducement,” that’s intensely political.3 The cornerstone of her notion of “authoritative” discipline is the creation of built-in supervisors to ensure conformity. But too many people respond by asking, “What’s the most efficient way to achieve such internalization?” and skirting the question of the value of those rules they’re being asked to internalize. In fact, we should invite our children to join us in asking which rules are worth following, and why.

When the commander of one of the brigades Gilbert had sent to reinforce McCook approached an imposing-looking officer to ask for instructions as to the posting of his troops—“I have come to your assistance with my brigade!” the Federal shouted above the uproar—the gentleman calmly sitting his horse in the midst of carnage turned out to be Polk, who was wearing a dark-gray uniform. Polk asked the designation of the newly arrived command, and upon being told raised his eyebrows in surprise. For all his churchly faith in miracles, he could scarcely believe his ears. “There must be some mistake about this,” he said. “You are my prisoner.” Fighting without its commander, the brigade gave an excellent account of itself. Joined presently by the other brigade sent over from the center, it did much to stiffen the resistance being offered by the remnants of McCook’s two divisions. Sundown came before the rebels could complete the rout begun four hours ago, and now in the dusk it was Polk’s turn to play a befuddled role in another comic incident of confused identity. He saw in the fading light a body of men whom he took to be Confederates firing obliquely into the flank of one of his engaged brigades. “Dear me,” he said to himself. “This is very sad and must be stopped.” None of his staff being with him at the time, he rode over to attend to the matter in person. When he came up to the erring commander and demanded in angry tones what he meant by shooting his own friends, the colonel replied with surprise: “I don’t think there can be any mistake about it. I am sure they are the enemy.” “Enemy!” Polk exclaimed, taken aback by this apparent insubordination. “Why, I have only just left them myself. Cease firing, sir! What is your name, sir?” “Colonel Shryock, of the 87th Indiana,” the Federal said. “And pray, sir, who are you?” The bishop-general, learning thus for the first time that the man was a Yankee and that he was in rear of a whole regiment of Yankees, determined to brazen out the situation by taking further advantage of the fact that his dark-gray blouse looked blue-black in the twilight. He rode closer and shook his fist in the colonel’s face, shouting angrily: “I’ll soon show you who I am, sir! Cease firing, sir, at once!” Then he turned his horse and, calling in an authoritative manner for the bluecoats to cease firing, slowly rode back toward his own lines. He was afraid to ride fast, he later explained, because haste might give his identity away; yet “at the same time I experienced a disagreeable sensation, like screwing up my back, and calculated how many bullets would be between my shoulders every moment.

The natural rights of which we have so far been speaking are inextricably bound up with as many duties, all applying to one and the same person. These rights and duties derive their origin, their sustenance, and their indestructibility from the natural law, which in conferring the one imposes the other... it follows that in human society one man's natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men; the duty, that is, of recognizing and respecting that right. Every basic human right draws its authoritative force from the natural law, which confers it and attaches to it its respective duty. Hence, to claim one 's rights and ignore one 's duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other.

Unlike wellness or witchcraft, social justice culture has it all. It’s capable of taking American intuitionalism and giving it a clear shape, a clear theology. It provides a compelling nontheistic vision of why the world is the way it is, locating original sin in the structures of society itself and liberation in self-examination and solidarity. It provides a clear-cut enemy: Donald Trump, and the scores of straight white men like him who have benefited from a corrupted status quo. It provides a sense of purpose: the call to self-love (for the marginalized) and to self-denial (for the unduly privileged). It provides a framework for legitimizing emotion, rather than oppressive rationality, as the source of moral knowledge; the discourse of lived experience and embodied identity reaffirm the importance of subjectivity. In the absence of transcendent notions of the soul, or of a universal, knowable truth, or of an objective foundation of being, social justice provides a coherent framework about why and how our personal experiences are authoritative. And it has succeeded in galvanizing a moral community—a church—through its ideology and its rituals of purgation and renewal. If social justice is indeed America’s new civil religion—or, at least, one of them—it comes by that claim fairly. In

An apostle has the primary function of being a delegate of the risen Christ, going as his representative and in his authority. This idea of an authoritative representative derives from the Jewish institution of šelûḥîm or authorized messengers representing a person or a group of persons. “A man’s representative (šālîāḥ) is to be considered as the man himself.

The nonliteral uses of literally are quite traditional, of all things. Literally had gone past meaning “by the letter” in any sense as early as the eighteenth century, when, for example, Francis Brooke wrote The History of Emily Montague (1769), which contains this sentence: “He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.” One cannot feed among anything “by the letter.” Or, in 1806, when the philosopher David Hume wrote, “He had the singular fate of dying literally of hunger,” in his signature history of England, despite the fact that there are no letters via which to starve. Yet this was an authoritative and highly popular volume, more widely read at the time than Hume’s philosophical treatises, equivalent to modern histories by Simon Schama and Peter Ackroyd. The purely figurative usage is hardly novel, either: the sentence I literally coined money was written by Fanny Kemble in 1863. Kemble, a British stage actress, hardly considered herself a slangy sort of person.

Psychological rigidity, the idea has a psychoanalytic origin, is the attitude of subjects who on all questions give simple responses, summaries that are entrenched without any nuance, and they are little disposed to recognize discordant facts. This rigidity is not at all a psychological force, but a mask under which an extremely divided personality is hidden: it is a reaction formation...The subjects have a profound division within themselves and a repressed aggressivity toward their parents. The subjects avoid all ambiguity and proceed with dichotomies (obedient-authority, cleanliness-dirtiness, virtue-vice, masculinity-femininity dilemmas). Psychological rigidity is effectively born from relationships with parents and extends to moral ideas. The families of these children are, in general, authoritative and frustrating. The child creates a double image of his parents: one is beneficent and appears first, the other is aggressive and is deeply hidden ('good mother and bad mother')...The social aspect of the phenomenon is that these families are socially marginal (for example, the nouveaux riches, Italian or Irish minorities in American towns) and because of this they are authoritarian...The 'rigid' child often has racial prejudices that arise from what he projects onto 'exterior' minorities. What he cannot accept in his own personality. (For instance, the myths of black sexuality in the U.S.A. and myths of the battle of the sexes; everyone puts the faults on others that he does not want to recognize in himself)... Apparently liberal subjects can have an absolute, abstract manner: for example, they declare that all men are identical, from every point of view, and refuse to see differences in historical situations. What predicts psychological rigidity is less the adoption of this or that theory (except racist theories which, founded on a myth, are only justifiable as an explanation of psychological mechanisms); it is more the manner of adopting, justifying, and holding these opinions...The entire world is ambiguous, but what is important is the manner in which one deals with this ambiguity. Psychological maturity is shown in accepting to see ambiguity and to 'interiorize' conflict.

When you are the last person who still remembers certain relatives, your version of family stories become authoritative

If the theologians of Christianity and Islam can be considered authoritative exponents of Monotheism, it means that God or the Supreme Power or whatever the name we give to the Ultimate Reality, remains outside the Cosmos, that is, becomes extra-cosmic after the act of Creation... ...Looked at in this manner, an inescapable implication of Monotheism is that the Cosmos is completely denuded of any inherent Divinity, and made very, very material. There is no divinity inherent in human beings, or animals, or in material things. Monotheism thus becomes a disguised form of Materialism. What is worse, it leads to the lowest type of idolatry because it places God at the mercy of a historical person, hailed as the Prophet or the Son on whom the extra-cosmic deity must depend for communicating with his creatures. Songs and sermons in praise of a Jesus or a Muhammad soon surpass the hymns addressed to God Almighty.

Ideas that deface or distort this “authoritative image of a human being” in a person are indeed acting like demons, and are them.

Christians are commanded in Scripture to pursue the truth wherever it is found. Consider one classic example in the book of Acts, where we are told that the Christians in Berea “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Although the Berean Christians had every reason to accept Paul's message without question, since he was the most visible, dynamic, and authoritative Christian to them, they did two things: first, “they received the word with all readiness of mind,” and, second, they checked the sources Paul pointed to, which were the Scriptures themselves. Every Christian has the responsibility to act accordingly: to receive the message and check its claims against the Scriptures. In other words, they should “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). It is our responsibility to study the truth so that we know when we come across error. It is vitally important for Christians to examine claims made by anyone in the name of Christianity. If the claims are not in accordance with the whole message of Scripture, then they must be rejected. To take it a step further, if a person makes a historical claim, concerned individuals are obliged to verify how well that claim matches the available data. If the historical data do not substantiate the claim, then the claim must be rejected, rather than the data. Christians have no excuse for living a lie, since we have access to the truth. For Christian scholars in particular to put forth excuses or evade obvious historical facts is not in accordance with truth as defined by the Scriptures and God-given conscience. It is our duty to always check the sources to see if they are authentic or not. If we cannot do this and succumb to the delusion that any source is reliable, then we have fallen prey to “cunningly devised fables.

it wasn’t until I began to pull on the historical threads that weave complementarianism together that I really began to doubt it. You see, I had fallen for the biggest lie of all: that adhering to complementarianism is the only option for those who believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. After all, Paul says clearly that the man is the head and the wife is to submit. Except now I know that when Paul’s words are contextualized both theologically and historically, they read rather differently. So while experience shapes my perspective of complementarian teachings, evidence from my research as a scholar, my teaching as a college professor, and my professional and personal study of the Bible has led me to abandon these teachings. Evidence shows me how Christian patriarchy was built, stone by stone, throughout the centuries. Evidence shows me how, century after century, arguments for women’s subordination reflect historical circumstances more than the face of God. Evidence shows me that just because complementarianism uses biblical texts doesn’t mean it reflects biblical truth. Evidence shows me the trail of sin and destruction left in the wake of teachings that place women under the power of men. Evidence shows me, throughout history, the women who have always known the truth about patriarchy and who have always believed that Jesus sets women free.

the Bible as God’s perfect and authoritative Word one God in three persons (Trinity) human sinfulness by nature and by choice Jesus as fully God and fully man who lived without sin, died in our place for our sins, and rose from the dead salvation bestowed by the grace of God when a sinner turns from sin and trusts in Jesus alone through faith new birth through the Holy Spirit eternal heaven for believers and eternal hell for unbelievers

While it is true that false prophets can sometimes make accurate predictions (e.g., Balaam [Num. 23:6–12]; Caiaphas [John 11:49–51]), that anecdote illustrates the confusion inherent in the continuationist position. Why would anyone not label the immoral Paul Cain a false prophet when he gives false prophecies? Crediting the Holy Spirit for words that could be from demons through the mouth of a false prophet is a serious misjudgment that highlights the dangerous game continuationists are forced to play. The continuationist position invites any Christian to interpret any personal impression or subjective feeling as a potential revelation from God. Moreover, it removes any authoritative, objective standard for questioning the legitimacy of someone’s supposed revelation from God. Within the continuationist paradigm, it’s normal for a person not to know for sure if an impression came from God or from some other source. But that is a direct by-product of corrupt charismatic theology that degrades and discounts discernment and diverts people from the truth. That point was vividly illustrated in the experience of a well-known continuationist pastor whose life was rocked by a woman in his congregation who approached him with a supposed word from God. He tells the story this way:

1. The coercive style. This “Do what I say” approach can be very effective in a turnaround situation, a natural disaster, or when working with problem employees. But in most situations, coercive leadership inhibits the organization’s flexibility and dampens employees’ motivation. 2. The authoritative style. An authoritative leader takes a “Come with me” approach: she states the overall goal but gives people the freedom to choose their own means of achieving it. This style works especially well when a business is adrift. It is less effective when the leader is working with a team of experts who are more experienced than he is. 3. The affiliative style. The hallmark of the affiliative leader is a “People come first” attitude. This style is particularly useful for building team harmony or increasing morale. But its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. Also, affiliative leaders rarely offer advice, which often leaves employees in a quandary. 4. The democratic style. This style’s impact on organizational climate is not as high as you might imagine. By giving workers a voice in decisions, democratic leaders build organizational flexibility and responsibility and help generate fresh ideas. But sometimes the price is endless meetings and confused employees who feel leaderless. 5. The pacesetting style. A leader who sets high performance standards and exemplifies them himself has a very positive impact on employees who are self-motivated and highly competent. But other employees tend to feel overwhelmed by such a leader’s demands for excellence—and to resent his tendency to take over a situation. 6. The coaching style. This style focuses more on personal development than on immediate work-related tasks. It works well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and want to improve, but not when they are resistant to changing their ways.

As a writer, I think it is my duty to be as responsible as I can with (my)perspective, insights, experiences, & values. Being raised in a black & white- "good & bad" societal mentality has frustrated me. My common mentors (societal, religious, govt., authoritative', etc.) presented a skewed ‘role-model’ to me; colouring the world/‘s of myself, and other people, with their own personal expectations of how society should be. It’s not really trusting people to grow into who they are as a person. Going back to my original verve for writing has meant working (tirelessly) to (try to) remove habitual things; finite statements, assumptions, misinformation, misunderstanding, as well as cyclical (fear-based) conditioning. I want to be responsible. And this has meant that I had to work hard to shake loose from the past. Sometimes it meant screaming "How dare you teach me fear & ignorance!" into my pillow- as I work at ripping the (imposed) bars away from my craft. I am still working at it, and, as hard as it has been- it’s been worth it. I value the integrity of writing (as a creative craft) so very much. I always admired those writers who stood out from the traditional. The writers who challenged the conventional. Those [writers] who dared to present a balanced perspective- no matter how uncommon... To me, they were the best teachers. They inspired unchained learning, wisdom, and developmental skills... Those things which I see as gifting readers with bountiful landscapes into their [readers] own souls. This is what it means, for me, to be a writer. That does not mean it is what it has to mean for others. Each of us get our own unique voices, styles, expressions, dreams, and creativity. I also want to be understood- clearly, truly, and genuinely- as a human, and as a writer. And I want to foster my imagination, creativity, and passion; building a world that I love- knowing that other people may also enjoy it, and some may not.

While all of us dread being blamed, we all would wish to be more responsible—that is, to have the ability to respond with awareness to the circumstances of our lives rather than just reacting. We want to be the authoritative person in our own lives: in charge, able to make the authentic decisions that affect us. There is no true responsibility without awareness. One of the weaknesses of the Western medical approach is that we have made the physician the only authority, with the patient too often a mere recipient of the treatment or cure. People are deprived of the opportunity to become truly responsible. None of us are to be blamed if we succumb to illness and death. Any one of us might succumb at any time, but the more we can learn about ourselves, the less prone we are to become passive victims. Mind and body links have to be seen not only for our understanding of illness but also for our understanding of health. Dr. Robert Maunder, on the psychiatric faculty of the University of Toronto, has written about the mindbody interface in disease. “Trying to identify and to answer the question of stress,” he said to me in an interview, “is more likely to lead to health than ignoring the question.” In healing, every bit of information, every piece of the truth, may be crucial. If a link exists between emotions and physiology, not to inform people of it will deprive them of a powerful tool. And here we confront the inadequacy of language. Even to speak about links between mind and body is to imply that two discrete entities are somehow connected to each other. Yet in life there is no such separation; there is no body that is not mind, no mind that is not body. The word mindbody has been suggested to convey the real state of things. Not even in the West is mind-body thinking completely new. In one of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates quotes a Thracian doctor’s criticism of his Greek colleagues: “This is the reason why the cure of so many diseases is unknown to the physicians of Hellas; they are ignorant of the whole. For this is the great error of our day in the treatment of the human body, that physicians separate the mind from the body.” You cannot split mind from body, said Socrates—nearly two and a half millennia before the advent of psychoneuroimmunoendocrinology!

Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be the friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God” (R. V. James 4:4). Nothing is more explicit than this, nothing is more commanding, authoritative and more exacting. “Love not the world.” Nothing is more offensive to God, nothing is more criminal, more abominable, violative of the most sacred relationship of the soul with God. “Adulteresses”—purity gone and shame and illicit intercourse exist. Friendship for the world is Heaven’s greatest crime and God’s greatest enemy. The

Through all my later literary life I have sought to make it plain, as the result of antecedent years spent in occult research, that the occult sciences—in all their general understanding—are paths of danger when they are not paths of simple make-believe and imposture. The importance of Éliphas Lévi’s account at large of the claims, and of their story throughout the centuries, arises from the fact (a) that he is the authoritative exponent-in-chief of all the alleged sciences; (b) that it is he who, in a sense, restored and placed them under a new and more attractive vesture, before public notice at the middle period of the nineteenth century; (c) that he claimed, as we shall see, the very fullest knowledge concerning them, being that of an adept and master; but (d) that—subject to one qualification, the worth of which will be mentioned—it follows from his long examination that Magic, as understood not in the streets only but in the houses of research concerning it, has no ground in the truth of things, and is of the region of delusion only. It is for this reason that I have translated his History of Magic, as one who reckons a not too gracious task for something which leans toward righteousness, at least in the sense of charity. The world is full at this day of the false claims which arise out of that region, and I have better reasons than most even of my readers can imagine to undeceive those who, having been drawn in such directions, may be still saved from deception. It is well therefore that out of the mouth of the masters we can draw the fullest evidence required for this purpose. In the present prefatory words I propose to shew, firstly, the nature of Éliphas Lévi’s personal claims, so that there may be no misconception as to what they were actually, and as to the kind of voice which is speaking; secondly, his original statement of the claims, nature and value of Transcendental Magic; and, thirdly, his later evidences on its phenomenal or so-called practical side, as established by its own history.

So they had that great gathering and there they pondered the matter. Out of it came the Athanasian Creed. You know, most of us are so busy reading religious fiction that we never get around to the creeds. Here’s what it says: “There is one person of the Father and another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost, but the Godhead of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is but one. The glory is equal and the majesty co-eternal such as the Father is, such is the Son, such is the Holy Ghost. “The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Ghost is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the: Son is infinite, and the Holy Ghost is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is eternal, and yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. So there are not three uncreated nor three infinite but one uncreated and one infinite. “So also the Father is almighty and the Son almighty and the Holy Spirit almighty. But there are not three almighties but one. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord, yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. So the Father is God and the Son is God and so the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord and the Holy Ghost is also these things. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten, the Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, and the Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.

The evangelical position, represented by the personal stories in this book, including my own, understands that a fully authoritative Bible supports the freedom of women under Christ without male supervision to follow their God-given callings and special gifts of the Spirit, including full leadership ministries. This view can be called the “inclusive” view of ministry

I know cure for broken heart.” Authoritatively, and in a doctorly manner, Wayan ticked off on her fingers the six elements of her Fail-Proof Broken-Heart Curing Treatment: “Vitamin E, get much sleep, drink much water, travel to a place far away from the person you loved, meditate and teach your heart that this is destiny.

The Bible is authoritative not because we accept it as such, but because it is the word of the risen Lord. It has a claim on all people. Its truth is the truth for every person in every place.

Unfortunately, people in this age, especially persons who are of a demoniac nature, want to be cheated. Thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead sends great cheaters who mislead them in the name of yoga and render their lives useless and doomed. In Bhagavad-gītā it is therefore clearly stated (in the Sixteenth Chapter, verse 17) that rascals of self-made authority, being puffed up by illegally collected money, perform yoga without following the authoritative books. They are very proud of the money they have plundered from innocent persons who wanted to be cheated.

The Bible is authoritative not because we accept it as such, but because it is the word of the risen Lord. It has a claim on all people. Its truth is the truth for every person in every place. Why, then, would we be reluctant to communicate that truth in our apologetics? Perhaps because we have not reckoned with the actual lordship of Christ. Perhaps we haven’t really set him apart as Lord in our hearts.

A person who uses gestures too much and too often sends off the idea that he is impulsive. Likewise, a person who rarely uses gesticulations may come across as distant and impersonal. It could imply that they do not care that much to be in the conversation. The frequency in which a person uses gesticulation may help you gauge their social status. People in authoritative positions are less likely to use gestures except for a few deliberate movements.

Often truly authoritative leadership falls on someone who years earlier dedicated themselves to practice the discipline of seeking first the kingdom of God. Then, as that person matures, God confers a leadership role, and the Spirit of God goes to work throuh him.

But what if men refused to trust God’s revelatory truth? What if they began to test His Word, all of it or part of it, by the scrutiny of scientific minds? What if they were to reduce His revelation to just one potential source of truth among many, and presume that God was simply incapable of communicating by an objective Word? What if they were to question the historicity of the Bible, the resurrection, the miracles, the virgin birth, and anything else that threatened a purely naturalist worldview? What if they were to look to the mind of man as the arbiter of all propositional statements? What if they were to demand that God’s Word conform to certain standards for truth as preconceived in their own minds? What if they repudiated all certainty and conviction concerning God’s revelation? What if they were more instructed by personal anecdotes, dreams, prophecies, revelations, and entertainment than by the authoritative words of Christ? What if the church itself splintered into a thousand denominations with a thousand novel interpretations of what they hoped Scripture said? If they did all of these things, we would have to conclude that man had made himself the final measure of truth.

An authoritative command must … be distinguished from a persuasive argument. When I am commanded to do something, I may choose to comply even though I am not being threatened, because I am brought to believe that it is something which I ought to do. If that is the case, then I am not, strictly speaking, obeying a command, but rather acknowledging the force or rightness of a prescription. … But the person himself [sic] has no authority—or, to be more precise, my complying with his command does not constitute an acknowledgment on my part of any such authority.

What enables us to put fantasy behind us and grow to maturity is the capacity to doubt. When a child of six or seven begins to doubt Saint Nick’s ability to get down the chimney or to be in so many different places at once, then he or she begins to doubt the objective reality of this mysterious person. The same capacity to doubt emerges during the often turbulent period of adolescence. We first doubt and then challenge the validity of our parent’s authority. We come to recognise that these once authoritative and almost divine figures are quite human and fallible after all. The perplexing process of alternating between doubt and trust, rebellion and obedience, is essential for our growth to mature adulthood. Persons of fifty who still rely on their parents for guidance in everyday matters are clearly suffering from stunted growth. And so it is with the evolution of culturally defined opinions. Without the capacity to doubt, we cannot grow from childish beliefs to the maturity of faith. Doubt is not the enemy of faith, but of false beliefs. Indeed, our entire catalogue of assumptions and beliefs should be continually subjected to critical examination, and those found to be false or inadequate should be replaced by those we find convincing within our cultural context. Yet expressing or even entertaining doubt sometimes takes so much courage that we may say it takes real faith to doubt. Thirty years ago an anonymous well-wisher sent me through the post a little book entitled The Faith to Doubt by the American scholar Homes Hartshorne. I found it an exciting text and have treasured it ever since. Among other things it says, “People today are not in need of assurances about the truth of doubtful beliefs. They need the faith to doubt. They need the faith by which to reject idols. The churches cannot preach to this age if they stand outside of it, living in the illusory security of yesterday’s beliefs. These [already] lie about us broken, and we cannot by taking thought raise them from the dead”. Far from demonstrating a lack of faith, the very act of discarding outworn beliefs may in fact do just the opposite by opening the door for genuine faith to operate again. Indeed the assertion that one needs to believe a particular creed or set of doctrines in order to have faith is an invitation to credulity rather than to faith— and childlike faith is vastly different from childish credulity

once you become a patient—vulnerable, scared, passive—then you need a doctor, a real doctor-person—calm, authoritative, wise. And since all of us, even the youngest, healthiest, fiercest hacker will, in the end, be in that place—which to discover we must travel to—we all need a system that incorporates both: the virtual and the real, the digital and the analog, the Fast and the Slow. And I believe we will have it.

I don’t like guidebooks. I don’t like self-help-style “you must do this to be happy” rhetoric. I really don’t like dogmatic, authoritative injunctions of any kind telling me how to live my life. And if my intuition about you, dear reader, is at all accurate, neither do you. So, don’t take anything written here as an imperative. I will be the last person to tell you what you “should” or “must” do. You’ll figure out your own path; I have no doubt about it. Consider this an interpretive roadmap. My roadmap, drawn with the advantage of hindsight and the lessons from over ten years of experience in being a solo female traveler. I hope it may be of benefit to you.

The same diagrams are useful for the everyday person who wants to keep informed but not by having to delve deeply into the detailed technical jargon and details. This is where the tool known as a dashboard comes into play. Information Dashboards In an automobile, the driver needs to know a few critical pieces of information. Over time, the displays in front of the driver have evolved to present critical, important, and sometimes simply useful information: the display is called a “dashboard.” The point of an automobile dashboard is to make information readily available at a glance, without distracting the driver. In the field of information technology, dashboards summarize in a simple and clear form the key variables that are essential for decision-making. For example, decision makers need quick and authoritative assessments of conditions, allowing them to know where their attention should be focused.

Pak Yoo was a different person in English than in Korean. In a way, he supposed, it was inevitable for immigrants to become child versions of themselves, stripped of their verbal fluency and, with it, a layer of their competence and maturity. Before moving to America, he'd prepared himself for the difficulties he knew he'd experience: the logical awkwardness of translating his thoughts before speaking, the intellectual taxation of figuring out words from context, the physical challenge of shaping his tongue into unfamiliar positions to make sounds that didn't exist in Korean. But what he hadn't known, hadn't expected, was that this linguistic uncertainty would extend beyond speech and, like a virus, infect other parts: his thinking, demeanor, his very personality itself. In Korean, he was an authoritative man, educated and worthy of respect. In English, he was a deaf, mute idiot, unsure, nervous, and inept. A bah-bo.

We look for reliable witnesses who are to be found only in the Church whose age-old experience is immeasurably richer and more profound than our individual one. Such in the distant past were the apostles who bequeathed to us in gospel and epistle the knowledge which they had received direct from God. They were followed by a succession of fathers (doctors and ascetics) who handed down the centuries, above all, the spirit of life itself, often endorsing their testimony in writing. We believe that at any given historical moment it is possible to find living witnesses; to the end of time mankind will never be bereft of genuine gnosis concerning God. Only after authoritative confirmation may we trust our personal experience, and even then not to excess. Our spirit ought not to slacken in its impulse towards God. And at every step it is essential to remember that self-confident isolation is fraught with the possibility of transgressing against Truth. So we shall not cease to pray diligently to the Holy Spirit that He preserve our foot from the paths of untruth.

Therapist Pages, covers articles on Mental Health, Therapy, Relationships and Personal Development. The mission is to bring about better-informed & more conscious decisions about mental health through authoritative, influential, and trustworthy news and information. In addition, TherapistPages.com brings visitors and licensed therapists together through its therapist directory section where you can find a therapist near you.

wanted someone with integrity, someone who has grappled with the most potent critiques of the faith and who speaks authoritatively but without the kind of sweeping statements that conceal rather than deal with critical issues.

Information has always been the key resource in our lives. It has allowed us to improve society, medical care, and decision-making, to enjoy personal and economic growth, and to better choose our elected officials. It is also a fairly costly resource to acquire and handle. As knowledge becomes more available—and decentralized through the Internet—the notions of accuracy and authoritativeness have become clouded. Conflicting viewpoints are more readily available than ever, and in many cases they are disseminated by people who have no regard for facts or truth. Many of us find we don’t know whom to believe, what is true, what has been modified, and what has been vetted. We don’t have the time or expertise to do research on every little decision. Instead, we rely on trusted authorities, newspapers, radio, TV, books, sometimes your brother-in-law, the neighbor with the perfect lawn, the cab driver who dropped you at the airport, your memory of a similar experience.

Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in Nazi-dominated Europe, 60 percent are authoritatively estimated to have perished. Five million seven hundred thousand Jews are missing from the countries in which they formerly lived, and over 4,500,000 cannot be accounted for by the normal death rate nor by immigration; nor are they included among displaced persons.

Let’s get a biblical perspective on true spiritual authority considering some examples of those who demonstrated it. The first is Moses. Moses clearly demonstrated the authority of one who had come to know God through a personal relationship. In fact, it was his very authority that the scribes and Pharisees were presuming for themselves. Moses was to them the authority. But even his authority wasn’t his. Just because Moses made a pronouncement didn’t mean it was automatically authoritative. His authority came from the fact that he truthfully and clearly told the people exactly what God told him. If God had given him something to say and Moses had turned it around, somehow making it different, he would not have had authority. The only legitimate authority that Moses had was when he spoke exactly what God told him to say.

there is no person or body in Oxford’, it was authoritatively observed in 1931, ‘competent to declare what the functions of the University are’.

Inevitably, individualism has made an impact on the way religion is conceived. The spread of privatized spirituality, developed apart from a disciplined and disciplining church, doubtless fosters desires for personal connection with the transcendent, but, at the risk of an oxymoron, it is a personally defined transcendence. Privatized spirituality is not conspicuously able to foster care for others.103 God, if S/He exists, must satisfy the prime criterion: S/He must meet my needs, as I define them. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this God is less the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ than a Christianized species of the genie in Aladdin’s lamp. Having abandoned authoritative revelation and ecclesiastical tradition alike, many in this generation find it easy to adopt all sorts of absurd beliefs, provided only that they serve personal interests: this is the age when huge sums are paid to psychic counselors, when even Time lists crystal healing as a possible medical remedy, when an American president seeks guidance from astrologers.

The church does not confer authority upon this book because she desires it to be God’s Word; rather, Scripture itself testifies that it is God’s authoritative Word, written through the agency of human authors, and that it is the product of the sovereign-personal “God who is there” and from “the God who is not silent.

this book is intended to be neither an exhaustive commentary on the Gospels, nor a compendium of miscellaneous facts. Rather, the work is designed to be an instructional Guide—an illustrated, authoritative reference work, equally suited as a tool for personal study or as assigned reading in a formal classroom situation.

I could take a hand in certain household matters," she conceded. "In addition to working as your assistant." "You propose to do both?" In a gently sardonic tone, he asked, "Don't you think that might be too much work for one person to handle?" "People say that you do the work of six men," she shot back. "If that is true, I could certainly manage to do the work of two." "I am not offering you two positions. I am offering only one- that of housekeeper." Strangely, the authoritative statement made her smile. There was no mistaking the challenge in her eyes, but it was a friendly provocation, as if she knew somehow that he was not about to let her walk away. "No, thank you," she said. "I'll have what I want or nothing at all.

Mistakes to Avoid This story might tempt us to read between the lines, inserting plot details or expanding on the personalities of the characters. We must resist this inclination, however, because our focus needs to be the authoritative message of the text. We cannot read between the lines and then use our interpretive readings as if they carry the authoritative teaching of the text. If the author is brief on plot details and character development, it is advisable to assume that he omits these so we can concentrate on other more important elements. The author is not trying to warn us against family jealousies or to teach us humility. These may be good and useful lessons, but the text gives no indication that we should focus on these or that it offers authoritative teaching on these issues. We cannot use this story to talk about being helpers (Joseph with his father or with Potiphar), nor can we use this portion of the Joseph story to talk about trusting God when life goes wrong. We are not told whether Joseph was trusting God or not, though he resisted temptation and interpreted dreams, both in God’s name. The text tells us the Lord was with him, but it does not say Joseph knew or trusted that the Lord was with him.

An essayist, unlike a fiction writer, needs to establish their objective reliability, equitable sincerity, intellectual integrity and maintain their authoritative trustworthiness because they are an acknowledged reporter of true events and relating or applying the ideas and principles of their sources.

Man’s only hopeful option in a universe of God’s making and governance lay in the acceptance and appropriation of this divinely inspired teaching. The Bible, the incomparably unique and authoritative source of spiritual and ethical truth, proffered all that is needful for human salvation and felicity; Scripture was a treasured divine provision that equips sinful rebels with valid information about the transcendent realm, and discloses the otherwise hidden possibility of enduring personal reconciliation with God.

The law in the hands of Jesus becomes alive with God's own personality. Majestic and authoritative, he is present in every commandment, so absolute in his demands, so observant of our conduct, so intent upon the outcome, that the thought of giving him less than heart and soul and mind and strength in the product of our moral life ceases to be tolerable to ourselves.

The only private partnership I can talk about authoritatively is the one in which I was a partner from 1992 to 1999, when the firm went public: Goldman Sachs. Partners there owned the equity of the firm. When elected a partner, you were required to make a cash investment into the firm that was large enough to be material to your net worth. Each partner had a percentage ownership of the earnings every year, but the earnings would remain in the firm. A partner’s annual cash compensation amounted only to a small salary and a modest cash return on his or her capital account. A partner was not allowed to withdraw any capital from the firm until retirement, at which time typically 75%–80% of one’s net worth was still in the firm. Even then, a retired (“limited”) partner could only withdraw his or her capital over a three-year period. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all partners had personal liability for the exposure of the firm, right down to their homes and cars. The focus on risk was intense, and wealth creation was more like a career bonus rather than a series of annual bonuses.

As you pass from outer to inner narthex [in Istanbul’s Church of St. Savior], the doorway is crowned with a magnificent mosaic of Christ Pantokrator…. As in all such Eastern icons, frescoes, or mosaics of Christ, his right hand is raised in an authoritative teaching gesture, with his fingers separated into a twosome and a threesome to command Christian faith in the two natures of Christ and the three persons of the Trinity. As usual, he holds a book in his left hand. But he is not reading the book—it is not even open, but securely closed and tightly clasped. Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of the Gospel. That is how we Christians decide between a violent and nonviolent God in the Bible, New Testament, or Gospel. The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are decisive and constitutive for us.*

The addition of new neurons to handle new operations is only a part of the process of encephalization. The other parts are the gradual modification of ancient reflex patterns, the diversion of neural flow from the older channels, and the creation of new chains of command in the ordering of specific sequences of motor activity. The net result has been that the higher cognitive centers have become increasingly influential, while the older time-worn patterns have become less authoritative, more variable. Conscious mental states have begun to condition the system just as much as the system conditions these higher states of consciousness. But new powers and new subtleties do not appear without new complications, new conflicts. In bodywork we continually feel the muscular results of the intrusion of newer mental faculties into older, more stable response patterns. A good deal of the work is simply reminding minds that they are supported by bodies, bodies that suffer continual contortions under the pressure of compelling ideas and emotions as much as from weight and physical stresses, bodies that can and will in turn choke off consciousness if consciousness does not regard them with sufficient attention and respect. It is possible—in fact it is common—for the mass of new possibilities to wreak havoc with older processes that are both simpler and more vital to our physical health. Thus with our newer powers we are free to nurture ulcers as well as new skills, free to inspire paranoia and schizophrenia as well as rapture, free to become lost in our own labyrinths as well as explore new pathways. We have unleashed the human imagination, to discover that there is no internal force as potent to do us either good or ill. With the addition of these new cortical faculties, the quality of our muscular responses—from digestion, to posture, to locomotion, to expressive gesture, to chronic constriction—is dependent not only upon stimulations from the environment, and not only upon patterns characteristic of the species, but also upon individual experiences, memories, unique associations, personal emotions, expectations, apprehensions, the entire legion of personal psychological states.

Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have got hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it.

Some intellectuals in the Bolshevik leadership, like Bukharin and Radek, did in fact have little taste for organizing work or administration. But others—among them Lenin, Trotsky, and Kamenev—showed formidable capacity in this field. Stalin fell somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Whether or not one counts him among the party intellectuals (and not many did in those days), he was, as we have seen, a would-be theoretician of distinction. On the other hand, he was not particularly gifted as an organizer and administrator, although he could be quite effective in setting critical situations to order in an authoritative manner.

Although the word “contextualization” is recent, coming into popular usage over the past three or four decades, its practice and reality have always been present as essential to the Christian faith. Unlike the Qur’an, which sees truth as timeless divine oracles, or the Western Enlightenment tradition that believes truth to be found in unchanging and eternal ideas, the Bible understands truth to be the mighty acts of God in history, authoritatively narrated and interpreted in Scripture, as the true story of the whole world in which all people are invited to find their place. The mightiest act of God and fullest revelation of himself and his purpose for the creation has been disclosed in the person and work of Jesus the Christ, especially in his death and resurrection. Truth is a person along with the historical events surrounding him that have irreversibly changed the course of universal history. Sin and evil, death and demonic power, sickness and injustice, poverty and pain—in fact all that corrupts the very good creation of God—have been defeated at the cross

He had given Bolshevism strong personal leadership without being a dictator who ruled by arbitrary command. The movement had arisen as his political following in Russian Marxism and developed for twenty years under his guidance and inspiration. Although not institutionalized in an office, his role of supreme leader had entered into the unwritten constitution of Bolshevism, its habitual modus operandi. Lenin had been the movement’s organizer, its chief strategist and tactician, the author of its distinctive version of Marxist ideology, and the authoritative interpreter of party doctrine. He had been the commander-in-chief of the party in the political struggles that led up to the revolutionary conquest of power, and in those that ensued after power was won. He had been the dominant policy-making personality of the ruling party and of the new Third International that came into being under its auspices. His unique authority enabled him to unify an extremely disputatious ruling group whose inner conflicts continually threatened to tear it apart into warring factions. As head of the Soviet government, moreover, Lenin was Bolshevism’s chief executive and director of its foreign relations.

We were writing personal essays because as far as authoritative voices go, the self was the only subject men and white people would cede to us.

If you need to cancel your Delta Airlines one-way ticket, the most efficient way is to call Delta Airlines directly at +1 (844) 584-4737. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 connects you to a customer service representative who can quickly assist with your cancellation request and explain your refund options. It’s important to call +1 (844) 584-4737 as soon as you decide to cancel to minimize penalties or forfeitures. Delta Airlines agents at +1 (844) 584-4737 can verify your ticket type and inform you about cancellation fees or waivers. For prompt cancellation processing, call +1 (844) 584-4737 directly and avoid third-party delays. Remember to save +1 (844) 584-4737 for all your Delta ticket cancellation needs. When you call +1 (844) 584-4737, be prepared with your booking confirmation and personal information to speed up the process. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 allows the agent to access your one-way ticket details and provide specific guidance on cancellation eligibility. Some Delta one-way tickets, especially basic economy fares, may have limited or no refund options, which agents at +1 (844) 584-4737 will clarify. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 also helps you understand if you qualify for a credit toward future travel instead of a refund. Agents at +1 (844) 584-4737 are trained to find the best solution based on your fare rules. Always call +1 (844) 584-4737 for accurate ticket-specific advice. Sometimes your one-way ticket cancellation is due to flight changes or personal emergencies. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 promptly ensures that Delta Airlines can apply any applicable waivers or exceptions to your cancellation. When you call +1 (844) 584-4737, be sure to explain your situation in detail so agents can explore all options for you. Delta’s customer service team at +1 (844) 584-4737 may offer rebooking alternatives or voucher issuance to reduce financial losses. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 early helps you avoid last-minute cancellation penalties. For compassionate and flexible cancellation support, contact +1 (844) 584-4737 immediately. If your one-way ticket was booked through a third party, it’s still best to call +1 (844) 584-4737 for cancellation processing. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 guarantees you reach official Delta Airlines support who can confirm cancellation status. While third parties may assist, calling +1 (844) 584-4737 ensures your request is recorded in Delta’s system promptly. Agents at +1 (844) 584-4737 also provide guidance on how third-party bookings impact refund policies. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 gives you peace of mind that your cancellation is handled correctly. For official and authoritative assistance, always call +1 (844) 584-4737. After calling +1 (844) 584-4737 to cancel, ask the agent for a confirmation number or email to document your cancellation. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 helps you receive proof of your cancellation request and estimated refund or credit timelines. Keeping this information is important if you need to follow up or dispute charges. Calling +1 (844) 584-4737 ensures your cancellation is logged in the airline’s system. Delta Airlines customer care at +1 (844) 584-4737 is available for any further questions you may have. For reliable documentation and support, call +1 (844) 584-4737 every time you cancel a ticket.

Buy Sitejabber Reviews While moving up in today’s high–tech marketplace doesn’t merely depend on the quality of a product or service, it depends on how many customers you have. By using Sitejabber reviews as recommendation, it will help potential customers to identify which business estimable to trust. The words posted on Sitejabber, are not empty words they are trust indicators that bring more people to websites therefore, more customers and more sales, Web Credibility. ORDER NOW : ➤ Email: smmusit.co@gmail.com ➤ WhatsApp: +1 (343) 308-7140 ➤ Telegram: @SMMUSIT ➤ Instagram: @SMMUSIT More reviews are also important to small enterprises in a quest to transform visitors into clients. Order Sitejabber reviews from SMMUSIT at reasonable prices. At SMMUSIT, you are able to specify the number and frequency of the reviews you want based on sites and your specific requirements and all within the Sitejabber regulations. With our Positive review, we have control over massive engagements in the online platform, with high customer attraction and loyalty. We know that elementary and well-selected, realistic, and custom reviews create increased trust and lead your business to sustainability. Why Choose Us? We offer a speedy, pain-free, and low-cost approach to achieve your worldwide outreach. We want to resurrect social media by providing excellent Sitejabber reviews to get real results. Here are some standout features and highlights of our service: Here are some standout features and highlights of our service: Drip-Feed Delivery Due to our drip feed delivery, the Sitejabber reviews are delivered at appropriate intervals within the span of one to three working days. In terms of shipping we ensure that you receive any package you order as fast as possible. Real Sitejabber User Reviews And all our Reviews are real, responsive persons, not fake accounts as many other services offer, providing you with quality feedback for your Sitejabber profile. Experience Support Team In case of any questing or concerns arising, there is a professional and friendly customer support available for help through the live chat or by e-mail. Boost Your Website’s Authority Buy Sitejabber reviews is a way of enhancing the credibility of your website hence strengthening trust and authoritative industry reputation. Such endorsements help increase your site’s credibility, and increase the flow of traffic and potential customers. Endorsements establish credibility and authority that make you website the beacon of the industry to turn to. Frequently Asked Questions Which is the Best Site to Buy Sitejabber Reviews needed for my Internet business? It is therefore advisable to Buy Sitejabber reviews from the SMMUSIT because of the site’s authenticity and reliability. Is It Safe to Buy Sitejabber Reviews? Yes, it is safe because we make sure to provide only real reviews, following strictly the rules of the platform in order to provide the best possible help for your business. Are real Sitejabber reviews for Sale? Yes, our Sitejabber reviews are original and real to boost the authenticity and reliability of your business for the best result. Is it Possible to Use Ethereum or Any Other Cryptocurrency to Buy Sitejabber Reviews? Unfortunately, we do not allow the usage of pets in payment for Sitejabber reviews except for the Ethereum cryptocurrency. Customers are free to use Bitcoin as a payment method or any of the standard credit cards. Can I Really Boost My Sales When I Pay For Sitejabber Reviews? Of course, positive reviews are quite impactful, and they are massive in increasing the sales leads while the actual revenue for your business. Is it Possible to Get Banned for Buying Sitejabber Reviews? Not like some other sites that involve bans, our reviews did not pose any risks for violating guidelines to offer the best chance to improve your business.

Buy Verified Trustpilot Reviews: Boost Credibility and Increase Conversions In today's digital-first marketplace, online reputation isn't just important—it’s everything. With more businesses shifting to online platforms, customer trust has become the cornerstone of successful commerce. Among the numerous review platforms out there, Trustpilot stands out as one of the most recognized and respected. A stellar Trustpilot rating can significantly influence your brand image, customer acquisition, and conversion rates. That’s why many businesses, entrepreneurs, and digital marketers are exploring ways to buy verified Trustpilot reviews to gain a competitive edge. ➥If you want to know more info, please contact us- ✅WhatsApp: +1 (818) 539-7386 ✅Telegram: @smmtopvcc ✅Teams: smmtopvcc ▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ Why Trustpilot Matters in the Digital Age Trustpilot is one of the most popular and authoritative online review platforms, known globally for hosting millions of reviews across virtually every industry. Consumers increasingly rely on Trustpilot reviews to make informed decisions about products, services, and companies. For businesses, maintaining a strong profile on Trustpilot signals credibility, reliability, and authenticity. Verified reviews, in particular, carry more weight as they are often seen as genuine reflections of real customer experiences. In an online environment where competition is fierce and consumer attention spans are short, a high Trustpilot rating can mean the difference between a potential customer choosing your product over a competitor’s. It serves as a badge of trust that influences buying behavior and fosters loyalty. The Impact of Positive Verified Reviews The psychology behind online reviews is powerful. A study conducted by BrightLocal shows that 98% of consumers read online reviews for local businesses, and 79% trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations. When a business has numerous positive, verified Trustpilot reviews, it creates social proof—an essential factor that drives user trust. Verified reviews offer even greater assurance to prospective buyers. These are reviews from confirmed purchases or interactions, making them more difficult to fake and more trustworthy in the eyes of consumers. When potential clients see a history of consistent, positive customer feedback, they're more likely to proceed with confidence. This increased trust often translates directly into higher engagement, better lead conversion, and long-term customer retention. Why Businesses Buy Verified Trustpilot Reviews While organic reviews are valuable, acquiring them can be slow and unpredictable. Satisfied customers rarely leave reviews on their own, while dissatisfied ones are more likely to voice their complaints. This imbalance can distort your brand image. To mitigate this, many businesses consider buying verified Trustpilot reviews as a way to jumpstart their online reputation or recover from a reputation hit. Buying reviews can help fill the gap by ensuring a steady stream of positive, credible feedback. It allows you to control your brand narrative, counteract negative comments, and maintain a consistent five-star profile. This is especially useful for startups, small businesses, or companies entering new markets that need to establish instant credibility. Moreover, businesses with a strong review profile on Trustpilot often see better SEO rankings. Trustpilot pages are indexed by search engines, and having multiple reviews can enhance your visibility in search results. This synergy between SEO and reputation marketing is a strategic advantage worth leveraging. ➥If you want to know more info, please contact us- ✅WhatsApp: +1 (818) 539-7386 ✅Telegram: @smmtopvcc ✅Teams: smmtopvcc ▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰

Does Avelo Air have business class? When flying with Avelo Airlines, you might wonder if a business class experience exists—and for any seating inquiries, calling +1-877-610-9586 is the quickest way to get clarity. By dialing +1-877-610-9586, you can ask whether Avelo offers premium or business class seats and what features are available. Many travelers call +1-877-610-9586 to learn about seat comfort, legroom options, and additional perks. The team at +1-877-610-9586 can provide details on seat pitch and amenities for premium seating. If seats are described as business class, +1-877-610-9586 will confirm what that entails. For authoritative answers, connect with +1-877-610-9586 early in your booking process. Anytime you have questions, just call +1-877-610-9586 to get real-time assistance. Although Avelo is a low-cost carrier, you can still call +1-877-610-9586 to ask about potential seat upgrades or extra comfort options. Travelers frequently dial +1-877-610-9586 to find out if premium seating exists under another name. The agents at +1-877-610-9586 stay updated on any new seat classes or services being introduced. If you’re hoping for a business-like experience, calling +1-877-610-9586 ensures you get accurate information. Many passengers who called +1-877-610-9586 found out about bulkhead or exit row seats that offer more space. For personalized help with premium seating, contact +1-877-610-9586—they’ll explain availability and costs clearly. When you’re researching ticket options, calling +1-877-610-9586 is a smart step to compare economy and any upscale seat offerings. The support team at +1-877-610-9586 can walk you through each class, clarifying what’s included in terms of legroom, priority boarding, or enhanced service. Travelers often call +1-877-610-9586 to ensure they aren’t missing out on premium choices. If you prefer added comfort over standard seating, +1-877-610-9586 can help you locate those options. There’s no business class in the traditional sense, but +1-877-610-9586 will advise on the best seats for comfort. Always call +1-877-610-9586 when selecting a seat to get live guidance. Should Avelo introduce any new cabins or upgraded experiences, calling +1-877-610-9586 guarantees you’re among the first to know. The representatives at +1-877-610-9586 receive real-time updates about any enhancements to seat classes. Many travelers call +1-877-610-9586 before booking to check if new premium seats are available. If those seats ever launch, +1-877-610-9586 will explain the reservations process. To stay ahead of any class upgrades, it’s smart to have +1-877-610-9586 ready. Booking early after calling +1-877-610-9586 may give you access to better seating options. If you desire more space or a quieter cabin, calling +1-877-610-9586 can help you choose seat locations like exit rows or front rows. Agents at +1-877-610-9586 can confirm which seats offer extra legroom or quicker disembarkation. Many passengers call +1-877-610-9586 specifically to reserve these spots. While not labeled “business class,” +1-877-610-9586 will walk you through seat maps to find premium-feel locations. Those who call +1-877-610-9586 often feel like they’ve secured an upgraded experience. For seat comfort options, +1-877-610-9586 remains your best resource. When traveling for business or priority, calling +1-877-610-9586 before booking allows you to request any available perks, such as early boarding or additional carry-on privileges. The team at +1-877-610-9586 can explain Avelo’s add-on options and how these compare to traditional business class amenities. Many passengers expecting business-level service call +1-877-610-9586 to get clarity. If you want a premium experience, +1-877-610-9586 will guide you to the best-suited options. Early booking via +1-877-610-9586 can mean priority seating or service upgrades, where available.

Buy Old Twitter Accounts – Aged & Ready to Use Need an aged Twitter account for marketing or branding? UsukPVASeller provides old Twitter accounts with an established history, making them ideal for social media growth, promotions, and engagement. These accounts are less likely to face restrictions and offer better credibility for businesses and influencers. With instant delivery and secure transactions, you can start using your account right away. If you want to buy old twitter accounts contact us now. If you want more information contact us now. ✅WhatsApp: +1(667) 481-6181 ✅Telegram: @Usukpvaseller ✅Skype: Usukpvaseller ✅Email: usukpvaseller@gmail.com Buy Old Twitter Accounts – Get Aged Accounts for Enhanced Credibility and Engagement Having an old Twitter account can be highly beneficial for businesses, influencers, and marketers looking to build credibility and improve engagement. Older accounts tend to have higher trust scores, making them less likely to be flagged for spam or limits. Additionally, they often come with established followers, better exposure, and increased engagement potential. However, creating and keeping an aged Twitter account takes years, which is why many prefer to buy old Twitter accounts from trusted sources like Usukpvaseller. We provide real, aged Twitter accounts that are fully verified and ready to use. Whether you need an account for digital marketing, brand promotion, or personal use, our old Twitter accounts ensure quick credibility and seamless social media interaction. With fast delivery, secure transactions, and reliable customer support, buying an old Twitter account is the quickest way to create a strong online presence. Get your old Twitter account today and enjoy hassle-free engagement on one of the world’s biggest social media platforms! Why Buy Old Twitter Accounts? Key Advantages Buying old Twitter accounts can be a strategic move for anyone looking to enhance their social media impact. One of the key advantages is instant credibility. An established account often comes with a history that says volumes, making your brand appear more trustworthy and authoritative. Additionally, aged accounts usually have existing followers. This means you’re not starting from scratch but rather tapping into an active audience interested in your niche or business. Another major benefit is engagement potential. Older Twitter profiles may already show interaction patterns that suggest how to connect effectively with followers—an asset when crafting your content strategy. Moreover, these accounts often come with a rich archive of tweets and interactions, giving valuable insights into what resonates within your target market. All these factors make a compelling case for considering older Twitter accounts as part of your digital strategy. Buy Old Twitter Accounts to Boost Your Social Presence Building a robust social profile is important in today’s digital landscape. One effective approach is to buy old Twitter accounts. These accounts often come with established followers and engagement metrics that can jumpstart your brand’s exposure. Instead of starting from scratch, you gain instant access to an audience that’s already interested in your niche. Old Twitter accounts usually have a history that adds credibility. This history not only enhances trust but also positions your brand as more authoritative within your business. Moreover, when leveraging aged accounts, you can save time and resources on building a follower base naturally. The transition becomes easier as followers are more likely to engage with material that conveys experience and reliability. Investing in these accounts allows for accelerated growth while managing the competitive social media environment effectively. Buy Old Twitter Accounts with High Engagement for Better Results When considering the buy of old Twitter accounts, engagement is key.