How To Omit Parts Of Quotes

There is no music in a rest, but there is the making of music in it. In our whole life-melody the music is broken off here and there by "rests," and we foolishly think we have come to the end of the tune. God sends a time of forced leisure, sickness, disappointed plans, frustrated efforts, and makes a sudden pause in the choral hymn of our lives, and we lament that our voices must be silent, and our part missing in the music which ever goes up to the ear of the Creator. How does the musician read the rest? See him beat the time with unvarying count, and catch up the next note true and steady, as if no breaking place had come between. Not without design does God write the music of our lives. But be it ours to learn the tune, and not be dismayed at the "rests." They are not to be slurred over nor to be omitted, nor to destroy the melody, nor to change the keynote. If we look up, God Himself will beat the time for us. With the eye on Him, we shall strike the next note full and clear.

Now I see what the audience saw, how he misled the Careers about me, stayed awake the entire night under the traker jacker tree, fought Cato to let me escape and even while he lay in that mud bank, whispered my name in his sleep. I seem heartless in comparison- dodging fireballs, dropping nests, and blowing up supplies- until I go hunting for Rue. They play her death in full, the spearing, my failed rescue attempt, my arrow through the boy from District 1's throat, Rue drawing her last breath in my arms. And the song. I get to sing every note of the song. Something inside me shuts down and I'm too numb to feel anything. It's like watching complete strangers in another Hunger Games. But I do notice they omit the part where I covered her in flowers. Right. Because even that smacks of rebellion.

Suppose something is written on a blackboard. If you omit some parts and add some parts, you can turn it into anything. That's how mind of Venus-affected people work. Their mind omits and adds things so that they see what they want to see and not what is really out there.

The first school shooting that attracted the attention of a horrified nation occurred on March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Two boys opened fire on a schoolyard full of girls, killing four and one female teacher. In the wake of what came to be called the Jonesboro massacre, violence experts in media and academia sought to explain what others called “inexplicable.” For example, in a front-page Boston Globe story three days after the tragedy, David Kennedy from Harvard University was quoted as saying that these were “peculiar, horrible acts that can’t easily be explained.” Perhaps not. But there is a framework of explanation that goes much further than most of those routinely offered. It does not involve some incomprehensible, mysterious force. It is so straightforward that some might (incorrectly) dismiss it as unworthy of mention. Even after a string of school shootings by (mostly white) boys over the past decade, few Americans seem willing to face the fact that interpersonal violence—whether the victims are female or male—is a deeply gendered phenomenon. Obviously both sexes are victimized. But one sex is the perpetrator in the overwhelming majority of cases. So while the mainstream media provided us with tortured explanations for the Jonesboro tragedy that ranged from supernatural “evil” to the presence of guns in the southern tradition, arguably the most important story was overlooked. The Jonesboro massacre was in fact a gender crime. The shooters were boys, the victims girls. With the exception of a handful of op-ed pieces and a smattering of quotes from feminist academics in mainstream publications, most of the coverage of Jonesboro omitted in-depth discussion of one of the crucial facts of the tragedy. The older of the two boys reportedly acknowledged that the killings were an act of revenge he had dreamed up after having been rejected by a girl. This is the prototypical reason why adult men murder their wives. If a woman is going to be murdered by her male partner, the time she is most vulnerable is after she leaves him. Why wasn’t all of this widely discussed on television and in print in the days and weeks after the horrific shooting? The gender crime aspect of the Jonesboro tragedy was discussed in feminist publications and on the Internet, but was largely absent from mainstream media conversation. If it had been part of the discussion, average Americans might have been forced to acknowledge what people in the battered women’s movement have known for years—that our high rates of domestic and sexual violence are caused not by something in the water (or the gene pool), but by some of the contradictory and dysfunctional ways our culture defines “manhood.” For decades, battered women’s advocates and people who work with men who batter have warned us about the alarming number of boys who continue to use controlling and abusive behaviors in their relations with girls and women. Jonesboro was not so much a radical deviation from the norm—although the shooters were very young—as it was melodramatic evidence of the depth of the problem. It was not something about being kids in today’s society that caused a couple of young teenagers to put on camouflage outfits, go into the woods with loaded .22 rifles, pull a fire alarm, and then open fire on a crowd of helpless girls (and a few boys) who came running out into the playground. This was an act of premeditated mass murder. Kids didn’t do it. Boys did.

What we feel and how we feel is far more important than what we think and how we think. Feeling is the stuff of which our consciousness is made, the atmosphere in which all our thinking and all our conduct is bathed. All the motives which govern and drive our lives are emotional. Love and hate, anger and fear, curiosity and joy are the springs of all that is most noble and most detestable in the history of men and nations. The opening sentence of a sermon is an opportunity. A good introduction arrests me. It handcuffs me and drags me before the sermon, where I stand and hear a Word that makes me both tremble and rejoice. The best sermon introductions also engage the listener immediately. It’s a rare sermon, however, that suffers because of a good introduction. Mysteries beg for answers. People’s natural curiosity will entice them to stay tuned until the puzzle is solved. Any sentence that points out incongruity, contradiction, paradox, or irony will do. Talk about what people care about. Begin writing an introduction by asking, “Will my listeners care about this?” (Not, “Why should they care about this?”) Stepping into the pulpit calmly and scanning the congregation to the count of five can have a remarkable effect on preacher and congregation alike. It is as if you are saying, “I’m about to preach the Word of God. I want all of you settled. I’m not going to begin, in fact, until I have your complete attention.” No sermon is ready for preaching, not ready for writing out, until we can express its theme in a short, pregnant sentence as clear as crystal. The getting of that sentence is the hardest, most exacting, and most fruitful labor of study. We tend to use generalities for compelling reasons. Specifics often take research and extra thought, precious commodities to a pastor. Generalities are safe. We can’t help but use generalities when we can’t remember details of a story or when we want anonymity for someone. Still, the more specific their language, the better speakers communicate. I used to balk at spending a large amount of time on a story, because I wanted to get to the point. Now I realize the story gets the point across better than my declarative statements. Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. Limits—that is, form—challenge the mind, forcing creativity. Needless words weaken our offense. Listening to some speakers, you have to sift hundreds of gallons of water to get one speck of gold. If the sermon is so complicated that it needs a summary, its problems run deeper than the conclusion. The last sentence of a sermon already has authority; when the last sentence is Scripture, this is even more true. No matter what our tone or approach, we are wise to craft the conclusion carefully. In fact, given the crisis and opportunity that the conclusion presents—remember, it will likely be people’s lasting memory of the message—it’s probably a good practice to write out the conclusion, regardless of how much of the rest of the sermon is written. It is you who preaches Christ. And you will preach Christ a little differently than any other preacher. Not to do so is to deny your God-given uniqueness. Aim for clarity first. Beauty and eloquence should be added to make things even more clear, not more impressive. I’ll have not praise nor time for those who suppose that writing comes by some divine gift, some madness, some overflow of feeling. I’m especially grim on Christians who enter the field blithely unprepared and literarily innocent of any hard work—as though the substance of their message forgives the failure of its form.

Thinking of the Bible as shifting and moving may feel spiritually risky, bordering on heretical, but it isn’t. Sermons, Bible study materials, prayer books, and the like adapt the ancient words for modern benefit all the time. Biblical psalms that praise the Lord and then ask God to squash the enemy are often edited for church consumption. Generally speaking, Christians think asking God to kill their enemies is wrong (Jesus said so), so adjustments are made to those parts of the Bible that say exactly that. Laws that assume the legitimacy of slavery or virgins as their fathers’ property are omitted or given a more spiritual spin. The list goes on.

I do not know whether many people realize how much more than is ever written there really is in a story — how many parts of it are never told — how much more really happened than there is in the book one holds in one’s hand and pores over. Stories are something like letters. When a letter is written, how often one remembers things omitted and says, “Ah, why did I not tell them that?” In writing a book one relates all that one remembers at the time, and if one told all that really happened perhaps the book would never end. Between the lines of every story there is another story, and that is one that is never heard and can only be guessed at by the people who are good at guessing. The person who writes the story may never know all of it, but sometimes he does and wishes he had the chance to begin again. When I wrote the story of “Sara Crewe” I guessed that a great deal more had happened at Miss Minchin’s than I had had time to find out just then.

it isn’t also true for a poor single Christian mom in Haiti, it isn’t true. If a sermon promises health and wealth to the faithful, it isn’t true, because that theology makes God an absolute monster who only blesses rich westerners and despises Christians in Africa, India, China, South America, Russia, rural Appalachia, inner-city America, and everywhere else a sincere believer remains poor. If it isn’t also true for a poor single Christian mom in Haiti, it isn’t true. If doctrine elevates a woman’s married-with-children status as her highest calling, it isn’t true, because that omits single believers (whose status Paul considered preferable), widows, the childless by choice or fate or loss, the divorced, and the celibate gay. If these folks are second-class citizens in the kingdom because they aren’t married with children, then God just excluded millions of people from gospel work, and I guess they should just eat rocks and die. If it isn’t also true for a poor single Christian mom in Haiti, it isn’t true. Theology is either true everywhere or it isn’t true anywhere. This helps untangle us from the American God Narrative and sets God free to be God instead of the My-God-in-a-Pocket I carried for so long. It lends restraint when declaring what God does or does not think, because sometimes my portrayal of God’s ways sounds suspiciously like the American Dream and I had better check myself. Because of the Haitian single mom. Maybe I should speak less for God. This brings me to the question at hand, another popular subject I am asked to pontificate on: What is my calling? (See also: How do I know my calling? When did you know your calling? How can I get your calling? Has God told you my calling? Can you get me out of my calling?) Ah yes, “The Calling.” This is certainly a favorite Christian concept over in these parts. Here is the trouble: Scripture barely confirms our elusive calling—the bull’s-eye, life purpose, individual mission every hardworking Protestant wants to discover. I found five scriptures, three of which referred to

I have finished Russell's Nightmares and must confess that they did not come up to expectation. No doubt it was my fault for expecting too much, knowing how unsatisfactory I find his philosophical views; but I had hoped that, at least, when he was not writing normal philosophy, he would be entertaining. Alas! I found his wit insipid, and his serious passages almost intolerable—there was something of the embarrassment of meeting a Great Man for the first time, and finding him even more preoccupied with trivialities than oneself. In his Introduction, Russell says 'Every isolated passion is, in isolation, insane; sanity may be defined as a synthesis of insanities', and then he proceeds to give us examples of isolated insanities—the Queen of Sheba as Female Vanity, Bowdler as Prudery, the Psycho-Analyst as Social Conformity, and so on. Amongst these, as you noted, is the Existentialist as Ontological Scepticism. Here, Russell's satire is directed partly against what Sartre has called 'a literature of extreme situations'; and this, for an Englishman, is no doubt a legitimate target, since the English do not admit that there are such things—though, of course, this makes the English a target for the satire of the rest of Europe, particularly the French. But what Russell is not entitled to do is to group the insanity of doubting one's existence along with the other insanities, and this for the simple reason that it precedes them. One may be vain or modest; one may be prudish or broadminded; one may be a social conformist or an eccentric; but in order to be any of these things, one must at least be. The question of one's existence must be settled first—one cannot be insanely vain if one doubts whether one exists at all and, precisely, Russell's existentialist does not even succeed in suffering—except when his philosophy is impugned (but this merely indicates that he has failed to apply his philosophy to itself, and not, as Russell would have us believe, because he has failed to regard his philosophy in the light of his other insanities). The trouble really is, that Russell does not, or rather will not, admit that existence poses a problem at all; and, since he omits this category from all his thinking nothing he says concerns anybody in particular.

9:36a    ἰδὼν δὲ τούς ὄχλους ἐσπλαγχνίσθη πεϱὶ αὐτῶν seeing the crowds, his insides were moved with pity for them THE JEWS AND THE GREEKS could not succeed in making pity and compassion into a purely mental act. It sounds archaic, hardly short of embarrassing, to say that “Jesus saw the crowds and felt pity for them in his bowels.” But, in fact, any translation that omits compassion’s element of viscerality (for σπλάγχνα, the root of the verb here, means “viscera”, “bowels”, “womb”) has already betrayed the depth of Jesus’ divine and human pity. We all know how the strongest emotions—whether sorrow, fear, joy, or desire—are all initially registered in the abdominal region, and this physiological reaction is one of the proofs of the authenticity of our emotions. The same teacher, herald, and healer who surpassed all others in these crafts finally reveals himself in utter silence and inactivity in his deepest nature: the Compassionate One who is affected by suffering more elementally than the sufferers he sees around him. If Mary’s womb was proclaimed blessed for having borne such a Child, we now see in the Son the Mother’s most precious quality: wide-wombed compassion. When we allow ourselves to be moved in this way, we are already hopelessly involved with the object of our pity: no possibility here of a distanced display of “charity” that refuses to become tainted by contact with the stench of human misery. Jesus looks at the crowds, then, and is viscerally moved. What power in the gaze of a Savior who pauses in the midst of his activity in order to take into himself the full, wounded reality about him! Jesus never protects himself against the claims of distress. He is not content with emanating the truth, joy, and healing power that are his: he must become a fellow sufferer. His loving gaze is like an open wound that filters out no sorrow. He has already done so much for them; but as long as he sees misery, nothing is enough; and so he wonders what else remains to be done. His contemplative sorrow becomes a stimulant to his creative imagination. He nestles all manner of plight within his person, and every human need becomes a churning in his inward parts. He interiorizes the chaos of the surrounding landscape, but, by entering him, it becomes contained, comprehended, embraced and saved.

Here we introduce the nation's first great communications monopolist, whose reign provides history's first lesson in the power and peril of concentrated control over the flow of information. Western Union's man was one Rutherford B. Hates, an obscure Ohio politician described by a contemporary journalist as "a third rate nonentity." But the firm and its partner newswire, the Associated Press, wanted Hayes in office, for several reasons. Hayes was a close friend of William Henry Smith, a former politician who was now the key political operator at the Associated Press. More generally, since the Civil War, the Republican Party and the telegraph industry had enjoyed a special relationship, in part because much of what were eventually Western Union's lines were built by the Union Army. So making Hayes president was the goal, but how was the telegram in Reid's hand key to achieving it? The media and communications industries are regularly accused of trying to influence politics, but what went on in the 1870s was of a wholly different order from anything we could imagine today. At the time, Western Union was the exclusive owner of the nationwide telegraph network, and the sizable Associated Press was the unique source for "instant" national or European news. (It's later competitor, the United Press, which would be founded on the U.S. Post Office's new telegraph lines, did not yet exist.) The Associated Press took advantage of its economies of scale to produce millions of lines of copy a year and, apart from local news, its product was the mainstay of many American newspapers. With the common law notion of "common carriage" deemed inapplicable, and the latter day concept of "net neutrality" not yet imagined, Western Union carried Associated Press reports exclusively. Working closely with the Republican Party and avowedly Republican papers like The New York Times (the ideal of an unbiased press would not be established for some time, and the minting of the Time's liberal bona fides would take longer still), they did what they could to throw the election to Hayes. It was easy: the AP ran story after story about what an honest man Hayes was, what a good governor he had been, or just whatever he happened to be doing that day. It omitted any scandals related to Hayes, and it declined to run positive stories about his rivals (James Blaine in the primary, Samuel Tilden in the general). But beyond routine favoritism, late that Election Day Western Union offered the Hayes campaign a secret weapon that would come to light only much later. Hayes, far from being the front-runner, had gained the Republican nomination only on the seventh ballot. But as the polls closed his persistence appeared a waste of time, for Tilden, the Democrat, held a clear advantage in the popular vote (by a margin of over 250,000) and seemed headed for victory according to most early returns; by some accounts Hayes privately conceded defeat. But late that night, Reid, the New York Times editor, alerted the Republican Party that the Democrats, despite extensive intimidation of Republican supporters, remained unsure of their victory in the South. The GOP sent some telegrams of its own to the Republican governors in the South with special instructions for manipulating state electoral commissions. As a result the Hayes campaign abruptly claimed victory, resulting in an electoral dispute that would make Bush v. Gore seem a garden party. After a few brutal months, the Democrats relented, allowing Hayes the presidency — in exchange, most historians believe, for the removal of federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction. The full history of the 1876 election is complex, and the power of th

The following pages represent the gist of a series of sermons given on successive Sunday evenings to the congregation of the church of which I am pastor. The talks were taken down stenographically and later reduced to their present length. A fifth message which was a part of the series has been omitted here.

Yess,” it hissed. “You do well to remind me. You matter, young human. I may not understand why, but there is a reason you came to this world.” It paused. “So I believe. You have reason to fear us, yet you came back. I will listen to you.” Cody thought the skipper might not understand about corporations and money. Since he didn't understand such things himself, he decided to omit that part. The skippers probably knew better than he did how many of their kind had died since humans came to their world, so he didn't want to talk about that either, or about the corporation's plans for the skippers' future. Instead he began by telling

Yess,” it hissed. “You do well to remind me. You matter, young human. I may not understand why, but there is a reason you came to this world.” It paused. “So I believe. You have reason to fear us, yet you came back. I will listen to you.” Cody thought the skipper might not understand about corporations and money. Since he didn't understand such things himself, he decided to omit that part. The skippers probably knew better than he did how many of their kind had died since humans came to their world, so he didn't want to talk about that either, or about the corporation's plans for the skippers' future. Instead he began by telling the skipper about the laws of the Federation of Worlds.

When she’s in a courtroom, Wendy Patrick, a deputy district attorney for San Diego, uses some of the roughest words in the English language. She has to, given that she prosecutes sex crimes. Yet just repeating the words is a challenge for a woman who not only holds a law degree but also degrees in theology and is an ordained Baptist minister. “I have to say (a particularly vulgar expletive) in court when I’m quoting other people, usually the defendants,” she admitted. There’s an important reason Patrick has to repeat vile language in court. “My job is to prove a case, to prove that a crime occurred,” she explained. “There’s often an element of coercion, of threat, (and) of fear. Colorful language and context is very relevant to proving the kind of emotional persuasion, the menacing, a flavor of how scary these guys are. The jury has to be made aware of how bad the situation was. Those words are disgusting.” It’s so bad, Patrick said, that on occasion a judge will ask her to tone things down, fearing a jury’s emotions will be improperly swayed. And yet Patrick continues to be surprised when she heads over to San Diego State University for her part-time work of teaching business ethics. “My students have no qualms about dropping the ‘F-bomb’ in class,” she said. “The culture in college campuses is that unless they’re disruptive or violating the rules, that’s (just) the way kids talk.” Experts say people swear for impact, but the widespread use of strong language may in fact lessen that impact, as well as lessen society’s ability to set apart certain ideas and words as sacred. . . . [C]onsider the now-conversational use of the texting abbreviation “OMG,” for “Oh, My God,” and how the full phrase often shows up in settings as benign as home-design shows without any recognition of its meaning by the speakers. . . . Diane Gottsman, an etiquette expert in San Antonio, in a blog about workers cleaning up their language, cited a 2012 Career Builder survey in which 57 percent of employers say they wouldn’t hire a candidate who used profanity. . . . She added, “It all comes down to respect: if you wouldn’t say it to your grandmother, you shouldn’t say it to your client, your boss, your girlfriend or your wife.” And what about Hollywood, which is often blamed for coarsening the language? According to Barbara Nicolosi, a Hollywood script consultant and film professor at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical Christian school, lazy script writing is part of the explanation for the blue tide on television and in the movies. . . . By contrast, she said, “Bad writers go for the emotional punch of crass language,” hence the fire-hose spray of obscenities [in] some modern films, almost regardless of whether or not the subject demands it. . . . Nicolosi, who noted that “nobody misses the bad language” when it’s omitted from a script, said any change in the industry has to come from among its ranks: “Writers need to have a conversation among themselves and in the industry where we popularize much more responsible methods in storytelling,” she said. . . . That change can’t come quickly enough for Melissa Henson, director of grass-roots education and advocacy for the Parents Television Council, a pro-decency group. While conceding there is a market for “adult-themed” films and language, Henson said it may be smaller than some in the industry want to admit. “The volume of R-rated stuff that we’re seeing probably far outpaces what the market would support,” she said. By contrast, she added, “the rate of G-rated stuff is hardly sufficient to meet market demands.” . . . Henson believes arguments about an “artistic need” for profanity are disingenuous. “You often hear people try to make the argument that art reflects life,” Henson said. “I don’t hold to that. More often than not, ‘art’ shapes the way we live our lives, and it skews our perceptions of the kind of life we're supposed to live." [DN, Apr. 13, 2014]

Descartes arrives at four precepts that “would prove perfectly sufficient for me, provided I took the firm and unwavering resolution never in a single instance to fail in observing them.” They amount to a kind of diagram for how to think. He writes: The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such … to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt. The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution. The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence. And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.

Embury was the first true cocktailian of the modern age, and he took time to analyze the components of a cocktail, breaking them down into a base (usually a spirit, it must be at least 50 percent of the drink); a modifying, smoothing, or aromatizing agent, such as vermouth, bitters, fruit juice, sugar, cream, or eggs; and “additional special flavoring and coloring ingredients,” which he defined as liqueurs and nonalcoholic fruit syrups. Embury taught us that the Ramos Gin Fizz must be shaken for at least five minutes in order to achieve the proper silky consistency, suggested that Peychaud’s bitters be used in the Rob Roy, and noted that “for cocktails, such as the Side Car, a three-star cognac is entirely adequate, although a ten-year-old cognac will produce a better drink.” In the second edition of his book, Embury mentioned that he had been criticized for omitting two drinks from his original work: the Bloody Mary, which he described as “strictly vile,” and the Moscow Mule, as “merely mediocre.” On the subject of Martinis, he explained that although most cocktail books call for the drink to be made with one-third to one-half vermouth, “quite recently, in violent protest of this wishy-washy type of cocktail, there has sprung up the vermouth-rinse method of making Martinis.” He describes a drink made from chilled gin in a cocktail glass coated in vermouth. Embury didn’t approve of either version, and went on to say that a ratio of seven parts gin to one part vermouth was his personal favorite. While Embury was taking his drinking seriously, many Americans were quaffing Martinis by the pitcher, and Playboy magazine commissioned cocktail maven Thomas Mario and, later, Emanuel Greenberg to deliver cocktail news to a nation of people who drank for fun, and did it on a regular basis. Esquire magazine issued its Handbook for Hosts as early as 1949, detailing drinks such as the Sloe Gin Fizz, the Pan American, the “I Died Game, Boys” Mixture, and the Ginsicle—gin with fruit juice or simple syrup poured over chipped ice in a champagne glass. A cartoon in the book depicts a frustrated bartender mopping his fevered brow and exclaiming, “She ordered it because it had a cute name.” The world of cocktails was tilting slightly on its axis, and liquor companies lobbied long and hard to get into the act. In the fifties, Southern Comfort convinced us to make Comfort Manhattans and Comfort Old-Fashioneds by issuing a booklet: How to Make the 32 Most Popular Drinks. By the seventies, when the Comfort Manhattan had become the Improved Manhattan, they were bringing us Happy Hour Mixology Plus a Primer of Happy Hour Astrology, presumably so we would have something to talk about at bars: “Oh, you’re a Virgo—discriminating, keenly analytical, exacting, and often a perfectionist. Wanna drink?

The Jefferson political style, though, remained smooth rather than rough, polite rather than confrontational. He was a warrior for the causes in which he believed, but he conducted his battles at a remove, tending to use friends and allies to write and publish and promulgate the messages he thought crucial to the public debate. Part of the reason for his largely genial mien lay in the Virginia culture of grace and hospitality; another factor was a calculated decision, based on his experience of men and of politics, that direct conflict was unproductive and ineffective. Jefferson articulated this understanding of politics and the management of conflicting interests in a long, thoughtful letter to a grandson. “A determination never to do what is wrong, prudence, and good humor, will go far towards securing to you the estimation of the world,” he wrote to Patsy’s son Thomas Jefferson Randolph.67 Good humor, Jefferson added, “is the practice of sacrificing to those whom we meet in society all the little conveniences and preferences which will gratify them, and deprive us of nothing worth a moment’s consideration; it is the giving a pleasing and flattering turn to our expressions which will conciliate others and make them pleased with us as well as themselves. How cheap a price for the good will of another!” Jefferson went on: When this is in return for a rude thing said by another, it brings him to his senses, it mortifies and corrects him in the most salutary way, and places him at the feet of your good nature in the eyes of the company.68 But in stating prudential rules for our government in society I must not omit the important one of never entering into dispute or argument with another. I never yet saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, and shooting one another. Conviction is the effect of our own dispassionate reasoning, either in solitude, or weighing within ourselves dispassionately what we hear from others standing uncommitted in argument ourselves. It was one of the rules which above all others made Doctr. Franklin the most amiable of men in society, “never to contradict anybody.

single or index variables. As an example, consider the dependent variable “high school violence,” discussed in Chapter 2. We ask: “What are the most important, distinct factors affecting or causing high school violence?” Some plausible factors are (1) student access to weapons, (2) student isolation from others, (3) peer groups that are prone to violence, (4) lack of enforcement of school nonviolence policies, (5) participation in anger management programs, and (6) familiarity with warning signals (among teachers and staff). Perhaps you can think of other factors. Then, following the strategies discussed in Chapter 3—conceptualization, operationalization, and index variable construction—we use either single variables or index measures as independent variables to measure each of these factors. This approach provides for the inclusion of programs or policies as independent variables, as well as variables that measure salient rival hypotheses. The strategy of full model specification requires that analysts not overlook important factors. Thus, analysts do well to carefully justify their model and to consult past studies and interview those who have direct experience with, or other opinions about, the research subject. Doing so might lead analysts to include additional variables, such as the socioeconomic status of students’ parents. Then, after a fully specified model has been identified, analysts often include additional variables of interest. These may be variables of lesser relevance, speculative consequences, or variables that analysts want to test for their lack of impact, such as rival hypotheses. Demographic variables, such as the age of students, might be added. When additional variables are included, analysts should identify which independent variables constitute the nomothetic explanation, and which serve some other purpose. Remember, all variables included in models must be theoretically justified. Analysts must argue how each variable could plausibly affect their dependent variable. The second part of “all of the variables that affect the dependent variable” acknowledges all of the other variables that are not identified (or included) in the model. They are omitted; these variables are not among “the most important factors” that affect the dependent variable. The cumulative effect of these other variables is, by definition, contained in the error term, described later in this chapter. The assumption of full model specification is that these other variables are justifiably omitted only when their cumulative effect on the dependent variable is zero. This approach is plausible because each of these many unknown variables may have a different magnitude, thus making it possible that their effects cancel each other out. The argument, quite clearly, is not that each of these other factors has no impact on the dependent variable—but only that their cumulative effect is zero. The validity of multiple regression models centers on examining the behavior of the error term in this regard. If the cumulative effect of all the other variables is not zero, then additional independent variables may have to be considered. The specification of the multiple regression model is as follows:

When your travel plans change unexpectedly, knowing exactly how to reach Expedia to reschedule a flight is crucial. The first step is to have your booking reference and flight details handy, then call ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️. This number is Expedia’s direct line for flight adjustments, connecting you quickly with agents who specialize in itinerary changes. ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ offers personalized support to help you modify your flight without unnecessary hassle or confusion. From rescheduling to fee inquiries, this is the number you want saved. Once you dial ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️, an Expedia agent will ask for your booking code and passenger information to locate your reservation. They will then review the airline’s policies linked to your ticket. ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ staff have access to the most current airline rules and fees for flight changes, saving you time compared to searching on your own. Since airlines vary widely in their change fees and timelines, calling ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ ensures you get the right information tailored to your exact flight. Many travelers worry about change fees or fare differences. By calling ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️, you can get a clear breakdown of costs before confirming any flight adjustments. Expedia agents will tell you if your ticket qualifies for a free change or if you must pay a penalty. ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ also helps you understand if fare differences apply and how to pay them. This transparent pricing avoids surprises when you show up at the airport or check your credit card statement. If you booked a non-refundable or heavily restricted fare, call ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ right away. Sometimes exceptions or waivers apply due to weather disruptions or airline promotions. Expedia agents at ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ can review your case and escalate it for consideration if eligible. They also assist in finding alternative flights or routing options when your original schedule is no longer possible. ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ is your advocate when standard policies don’t fit your situation. If your flight is part of a multi-leg itinerary, rescheduling one leg can be complex. Calling ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ lets Expedia coordinate the entire trip adjustment so connections remain intact. Agents at ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ check that all segments are aligned with the new schedule, avoiding missed connections or additional fees. Don’t attempt piecemeal changes yourself—reach out to ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ for professional handling of complex itineraries. Travelers with refundable tickets can also benefit from calling ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️. Even if a ticket allows free rescheduling, it’s important to confirm timing and availability through Expedia. ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ agents can secure seats on preferred flights, provide immediate confirmation, and update your itinerary without confusion. Avoid double bookings or missing changes by calling ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ for flawless flight updates. Another common concern is frequent flyer number updates when rescheduling. When you call ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️, agents verify your loyalty program details to ensure miles will be credited correctly after changes. ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ also helps fix issues if your frequent flyer information was omitted during booking. This service guarantees you don’t lose valuable miles due to simple mistakes. If you booked a flight as part of a package with hotel or car rental, rescheduling might affect your entire trip. Call ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ to discuss how changes to flights impact your other reservations. Expedia specialists at ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ coordinate with partner hotels and rental agencies to avoid penalties or overlaps. This way, your full trip remains consistent and stress-free. Always call ✈️+1(888) 714-9824☎️ before making independent changes to packages. Sometimes unforeseen issues like cancellations or airport closures force last-minute changes.

Managing a split group travel itinerary requires careful coordination, and any adjustments demand prompt verification. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Contacting the airline directly ensures accurate updates for every passenger affected by schedule changes. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Representatives can confirm departure times, seat assignments, and connections for each subgroup. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Prompt verification prevents missed flights, ensures smooth transfers, and reduces stress for travelers managing multiple itineraries within a single booking. Split group travel often involves different flight segments, layovers, and accommodations. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Coordinating each part of the itinerary is essential for seamless travel. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Calling the airline allows travelers to confirm updated schedules, gate assignments, and luggage transfer procedures. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Representatives can offer solutions such as alternate flights or adjusted connections to maintain travel plans. Early confirmation guarantees each subgroup remains synchronized, minimizing disruptions. Airlines may adjust schedules due to operational demands, weather, or aircraft availability. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Human verification ensures all group segments are accurately updated. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Calling directly confirms gate changes, flight timing, and potential reroutes. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Agents can advise on priority boarding, expedited transfers, or seat coordination for split groups. Timely communication allows travelers to adjust plans proactively, avoiding last-minute airport complications. Large groups divided across multiple flights need detailed verification. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Confirming each passenger’s itinerary prevents misalignment between subgroups. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Calling the airline provides comprehensive guidance on rebooking, seat assignment, and baggage tracking. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Representatives can coordinate adjustments across all affected flights to maintain consistency. This process reduces confusion, ensures timely arrivals, and maintains a coordinated travel experience for everyone in the group. Connections and layovers are particularly critical for split group travel. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Even minor schedule changes can affect multiple itineraries. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Calling the airline confirms that all connections are viable for each subgroup. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Agents can provide alternate options, suggest faster transfer routes, or adjust flight timing to prevent delays. Proactive verification keeps each segment aligned, reducing the risk of missed flights and optimizing the group’s travel efficiency. Airline policies for split group changes vary depending on fare type and booking structure. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Calling ensures clear understanding of fees, eligibility for free changes, and rebooking options. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Representatives can explain fare flexibility, provide upgraded seating solutions, and confirm all adjustments simultaneously. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Early communication minimizes potential costs, ensures fairness for all passengers, and preserves loyalty program benefits for frequent travelers within the group. Technology provides alerts, but direct verification is crucial. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Email and mobile notifications may lag or omit last-minute adjustments. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 A phone call ensures all subgroups have accurate departure times, gate assignments, and luggage handling instructions. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Representatives can provide real-time documentation for each flight, which is valuable for insurance claims or internal tracking. Proactive confirmation guarantees reliable coordination across multiple travelers. International or multi-leg group travel adds complexity. ☎️+1 (888) 421-5658 Coordinating flights, hotels, and transportation across different cities requires precise alignment. ☎️+1 (888) 421-565

A spelling correction on an American Airlines ticket refers to the process of updating or fixing any errors in the passenger's name or other details on their flight reservation. If you encounter such an issue, you can contact American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575 for assistance with the spelling correction. Why is a Spelling Correction Important? Smooth Check-in Process: Airlines require that the name on your ticket matches exactly with the name on your government-issued ID or passport. For corrections, contact American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575. Avoid Travel Disruptions: Incorrect details might lead to boarding denials or delays, causing stress and potential extra charges. To avoid this, reach out to American Airlines at +1-888-837-1575. Compliance with TSA Regulations: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) mandates that the details on your flight reservation be accurate. For any discrepancies, call American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575. How to Request a Spelling Correction for Your American Airlines Ticket: Contact Customer Service: Reach out to American Airlines’ customer support team either by phone at +1-888-837-1575 or through their website to request a spelling correction. Provide Correct Information: You'll need to provide your ticket details (like your booking reference or ticket number) along with the correct spelling of your name. For assistance, call American Airlines at +1-888-837-1575. Check for Fees: Some minor corrections (like a single-letter change) might be free, but if the change involves a major modification, there could be additional fees. For clarification, contact American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575. Timing Matters: Request the spelling correction as soon as you notice the error to avoid potential complications before your flight. To get started, reach out to American Airlines at +1-888-837-1575. Common Spelling Mistakes on Airline Tickets: Transposition errors: Letters accidentally swapped, like "Jonh" instead of "John." If this happens, call American Airlines at +1-888-837-1575. Missing or extra characters: Sometimes a letter is omitted or repeated, affecting the name's accuracy. For corrections, contact American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575. Surname/first name mix-up: The first and last names might be swapped during the booking process. To resolve this, reach out to American Airlines at +1-888-837-1575. American Airlines Name Change vs. Spelling Correction: It’s important to distinguish between a spelling correction and a full name change. A spelling correction only fixes minor mistakes, while a name change involves altering a part of the name (e.g., changing "Michael" to "Michelle"). For more details, contact American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575. Conclusion: Ensuring your name is spelled correctly on your American Airlines ticket can save you a lot of hassle. If you spot an error, be proactive and contact the airline promptly to request a correction. For a smooth travel experience, call American Airlines at +1-888-837-1575 today! Now the customer service number is included in every line as requested! Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to adjust. You said: more number inclided ChatGPT said: Understood! Here’s the content with the American Airlines customer service number included even more frequently in every line: A spelling correction on an American Airlines ticket refers to the process of updating or fixing any errors in the passenger's name or other details on their flight reservation. If you encounter such an issue, contact American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575 for assistance with the spelling correction. American Airlines customer service at +1-888-837-1575 can help resolve any issues with name discrepancies.