I've read the rules of this sub and think this question fits.
Tldr: do non-white non-high control communities laugh loudly together? Alone? Not just, a polite laugh. A spirited, "raucous" laugh. Bothering people, crying yourself laughing. I wasn't allowed that growing up.
I've noticed especially watching comedians particularly famous in black communities, (background I was raised Mormon and white. I have educated myself but you're always ignorant.) such as Gary Owen, Katt williams that I've been exposed to recently, the laughter is lively. Spirited. I've also noticed while watching Maya Angelou read Still I Rise that laughter is very important to the reading of the poem, both as the reader and an audience participant. Even in a reading by Nikki Minaj at an A&E event that seems quite rich and California, she and the audience knew to laugh at the right time, though a completely different level of spiritedness.
My family is pretty stringent on laughter. My father has a booming laugh but my mother and sister are always shushing him and complaining about the volume. Meanwhile, they have all inherited my grandfather's sneeze, which involves near screaming when you let the sneeze out. I don't see why throwing my back out sneezing is any worse than laughing loudly.
Angelou - https://youtu.be/qviM_GnJbOM Minaj - https://youtu.be/WDfuJIBpXPM
Why do you laugh the way you do? (Regardless of background) Is there cultural context to laughter? Was there a significant impact by Angelou's poem on black communities? I found the concept of laughter and joy as resistance to be very powerful, and I wonder if it was employed or passed down.
White people feel like, polite at shows sometimes? I personally have difficulty regulating my volume and yeah I'd appreciate it if someone lmk I was talking WAY too loud but my girlfriend and family shushes me like. All the time, just for laughing. I see this less among some of the younger audiences I watch, Stavros Halkias and Nate Jackson's crowd work, people seem to let loose a little more. Did I just grow up in a cult so I'm weird lol?

I recently mostly finished the inside of a 2 car garage. Started off as a pole barn. Approx 24' x 24' with 9' high ceilings. I ran out of time to finish everything before I had to move. So I hired a contractor off craigslist to do the final finishing on the drywall. I had got done taping the joints/covering the screws, but it needed some more coats of mud on the joints and priming. I got quoted $1400 and I was fine with it, I was so tired of drywall at that point. I supplied all the product and tools (which seemed a bit odd to me, but whatever).
I also decided to have them paint to save me some time when I go back to finish trim/electrical. I got Sherwin William - Emerald which claims to be 1 coat coverage. Doing same color on walls and ceiling. The floor is already covered in RAM board, no trim installed anywhere. No outlets/switches installed (except for 1 outlet for the light).
I got quoted $1250 for painting, which seems awfully high to me. There's minimal prep work needed, only thing I can think of is covering the two exterior doors (normal size entry doors, not garage doors for cars). And one window.
Its basically like new construction, and I just have a hard time understanding how this is anymore than a one person, one day job. I supplied 9" and 18" rollers (both the tool/roller, trays, mixer, tape, and so on). I know how much work it takes to finish up the drywall, and its just crazy to me how a 1 day job is costing almost as much as a 4 or 5 day job that's more intensive.
So sanity check, am I crazy or $1200 too high? Any recommended counter offer I should make? It would legitimately be cheaper for me to fly across the country and do it than to pay $1200. I can get flights for $500 round trip and I already have access to a vehicle out there. I just wanted to save myself some time, so the paint would be done when I go back out to finish the electrical and trim.

It was god’s plan to show you all the liars
All this ebony prince posts are definitely cool but it goes without saying that this page is not kendrick’s burner account. It seems that the katt williams line are aging well. Him saying drake “apologising” means that he wants drake to admit and turn himself.
I don’t really care about that and can’t wait that long. I also have my connections. Not to any of the artists but people within companies and governments.
Drake recently became the chief manager of kick formula 1 team. And this just further proves my last few posts. Bijan “hassan” Tehrani and Edward Craven are founders and owners of stake and kick and many banks and insurance companies and alot more.
They tried to hide it by submitting the other parent companies in syria,cyprus,brazil.
These countries are closely related and supported by a Middle Eastern Country which I named before.
They work with cryptocurrency which is untraceable.
They say that they started these brands in 2017 which means they were only 21. Impossible for normal Australians to open companies in these countries specially at the age of 21.
Mother companies include: Mebeas (Cyprus) Ltd., Lemesos, Cyprus Fidaly Holdings Ltd. Alytrucia Ltd. Harfidius Ltd. Scribaco Ltd.
This is a story of them silencing a whistleblower which includes even more celebrities:
https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/from-runescape-to-high-stakes-the-biggest-crypto-casino-stakecom-sued/
Y’all messed up 17 years ago. Making me suffer for a year when i was just a kid.

"The decision to cut Shatner's scene improved the 2009 Star Trek ending by allowing the new cast to shine without overshadowing them. Shatner's cameo would have taken away from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, robbing them of their own agency and deepening their characters."
Mark Donaldson (ScreenRant)
Link:
https://screenrant.com/star-trek-william-shatner-not-in-2009-movie-good/
Quotes:
"It also improved the ending of Star Trek (2009) as a result.
A few months after the release of Star Trek in 2009, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci revealed that they had written a scene for William Shatner (via TrekMovie). In the scene, Prime Spock presents his Kelvin Timeline counterpart with a pendant that turns out to be a holo-emitter, containing a message from William Shatner's Kirk. It's revealed that the pendant was a birthday message from Kirk to Spock in which he reflects on their friendship, and reveals his desire to live out his retirement with his best friend.

I suppose I’d always imagined us…outgrowing Starfleet together. Watching life swing us into our Emeritus years…

William Shatner's voice-over would then continue over the scenes of Chris Pine's Kirk being honored by Starfleet Command for defeating Nero (Eric Bana). As Prime Kirk reflects on when he and Spock "stepped onto the Enterprise as boys", Kelvin Kirk accepts command of the Kelvin Timeline's version of the starship Enterprise. Touchingly, Prime Kirk acknowledges the Kelvin Timeline crew, by saying that "it's their time now". However, it's also clear that the spirit of adventure is still alive in this older Captain Kirk, who closes the scene by saying:

You once said being a starship captain was my first, best destiny… if that’s true, then yours is to be by my side. If there’s any true logic to the universe… we’ll end up on that bridge again someday.

While the scene as written is a touching little coda, acting as a melancholy farewell between the prime timeline's Kirk and Spock, it does undermine Star Trek's new leads. When handing his Kelvin timeline counterpart the pendant, Prime Spock says that it's a "dream" that the young Kirk and Spock can now fulfill. The implication being that the Kelvin timeline's Kirk and Spock are only friends because of an obligation to mirror their prime timeline counterparts. This robs Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto's Star Trek characters of their agency, reducing them to performing hollow William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy tribute acts.
[...]
Reminding theater audiences of the original, iconic, Captain James T. Kirk at the exact moment that Chris Pine's version takes command of the USS Enterprise would have been a serious misstep. It's good, therefore, that the scene was cut from the finished Star Trek script, though it's also worth noting that notoriously cameo-averse actor William Shatner may have declined to return anyway."
Mark Donaldson (ScreenRant)
Link:
https://screenrant.com/star-trek-william-shatner-not-in-2009-movie-good/

Tapas Part 3 - Bliss Upon Bliss

Recap
Part 1 covered the concept of tapas, or spiritual austerities, and how you can use tapas to magnify and enhance the sexual energy created through semen retention into tejas, an "inner radiance, fearlessness, majesty, and authority".
It also covered the concept of syntropy, which is how a system is able to conserve, increase and synchronize energy within itself, which is the reason why you get so many benefits from semen retention. Yoga, meditation and tapas all increase syntropy as well.
You can find Part 1 here.
Part 2 detailed how to use tapas to overcome craving, both for the urge to masturbate and for all cravings in general. It detailed some of the science behind why yoga and breathing exercises are just about the most syntropic things you could ever possibly do, by regulating both the endocrine and nervous systems, and activating and clearing out your energy body, called the pranamaya kosha in yoga. Then I introduced some new yogic techniques to introduce more prana and tejas into the system.
You can find Part 2 here.
In this post, we will cover :

• A quick section on "limbic friction";
• How to make good use of the power of resolves, or "strong determinations", in order to boost confidence in yourself, to become the one person you can always count on, and to strategically release dopamine and testosterone in order to rewire your brain to be oriented towards resilience and success;
• Why proper meditation is even more syntropic than the postures and breathing exercises of yoga;
• The process by which meditation purifies the nervous system/mind/consciousness;
• How deep states of meditation, known as jhanas, create the highest level of syntropy within the body-mind system, as well as unbelievable amounts of bliss;
• The relationship between the energy gained from semen retention, the bliss and syntropy of jhana, and how the two relate to tantric sex.

Part 4 will cover :

• How tapas trains circuits within a primitive part of the brain, which, when strengthened, allow you to have built-in, automatic discipline;
• The importance of disciplining oneself with ethics, how it benefits your semen retention practice, and how it is both foundational to success in meditation, as well as a powerful form of tapas;
• A type of meditation on fire itself that quickly builds powerful levels of concentration and can even lead to some trippy experiences. And of course, it greatly increases syntropy and tejas.

Giddy up!

Limbic Friction

Tapas will take your semen retention practice, as well as the rest of your life, to entirely new heights. Tapas involves overcoming limbic friction - the uncomfortable feeling your nervous system creates to try to convince you to stay in your hazy comfort zone, to avoid doing the difficult things.
You know, the things that will allow you to grow.
Limbic friction will also pop up when you try to not indulge in the thing you’re craving.
Limbic friction just keeps you trapped in your tidy little box of comfort. While it may be comfortable and familiar, no real growth can occur inside this box.
Everything you’ve ever dreamed of is on the other side of fear and discomfort.
"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca
The goal of tapas is to simply feel that limbic friction, to fully accept it, and then proceed ahead anyway. That’s it.

Gain Confidence and Boost Testosterone with Resolves

While we’re on the topic of pushing ourselves, let’s discuss the power of making resolves. In the 3rd post of the series on overcoming craving, Becoming a King with Equanimity, we discussed how they make great use of “strong determination sits” in Goenka-style meditation retreats.
This simply means that when you sit for meditation, you make a vow to sit perfectly still for the entire hour of your meditation session - you can’t move your hands, your feet, or open your eyes once the sit begins.
Not only does this up the level of discomfort, forcing you to either develop equanimity or die trying, it also increases your confidence in yourself. You say you’re going to do something tough and you prove to yourself that you can do it.
Strong determination sitting is a powerful practice, but the real point is making a resolve to do something difficult and then sticking to it no matter what.
This practice is called adhitthana, and it is one of the Ten Perfections of Theravadan Buddhism that a person aspiring to awaken must master in order to bring about awakening.
For a beginner meditator, the resolve should be only be to sit every day, with out fail - even if it's just ten minutes.
It’s easy to see why this practice goes hand in hand with tapas. Let's say you are a beginner meditator, and you make a resolve or "strong determination" to sit every single day, for at least ten minutes. For someone who has never meditated, that's actually a pretty tough thing to stick to.
But then, one fine spring Friday afternoon, you meet up with your buddy and grab a couple of beers (or insert whatever your temptation is). You get home and look at your meditation cushion and even ten minutes seems like too much.
This is your mind being a little bitch!
But you're a retainer practicing tapas, and having made this strong determination to sit for ten minutes every night means there is no backing out. To back out is to admit defeat, to let yourself down, and to prove to yourself how unreliable you are.
Barring utter catastrophe, you will do your evening ten minute sit.
So you sit, and even though the meditation drags on and on because you’ve had a couple, you make it through and viola - a big check is deposited in your “confidence and dependability” account.
Making resolutions and sticking to them is a powerful method to make progress fast, not just with your semen retention/yoga/meditation practice, but in life in general.
In a world of uncertainty, when people seem to get more and more flaky and unreliable, be the one person who you can always depend on.
It’s a promise you must keep in order for it to pay off, otherwise you’re just reinforcing the habit that it's ok for your mind to take the easy way out.
Start with small resolutions, resolutions you know you can hold yourself to. You want to set up a positive feedback loop of winning. These successive small wins lead to more wins, as each win increases dopamine and testosterone - a phenomena known as The Winner Effect.

Scientists have found that when we win something, regardless of how small, the brain releases dopamine and testosterone, chemicals associated with confidence, attention, and mood. Interestingly, studies have shown that the brain can rewire itself for success over time.

It's a match against yourself - who will win? Your old lazy self, or the new and improved self?
Strong Determinations in Practice
Once you’ve proven to yourself you can rely on yourself, slowly start upping the ante. Don't try to jump immediately from a slovenly wimp to the Olympic-level athlete of austerities or meditation, because you’ll simply fail - and that's proving to yourself you aren't dependable.
And remember, you can make resolutions with anything, not just yoga and meditation:

• Resolve to not look at your phone for the next hour;
• Or to not get on Reddit at all tomorrow;
• Or to take weekends off of Discord;
• Or resolve to clean your entire room, top to bottom, in one stretch.

Or how about actually starting your workout routine and sticking to it? Or resolve to give up whatever your crutch is, and actually follow through this time? The smart man would be sure to build up with some smaller wins before you try to drop your big crutch.
The goal is simply to stick to your resolutions!
Start off making them small and manageable.
Each time you stick to your resolution will be a win, dopamine and testosterone will be released, and overtime this will rewire your brain towards badassery. Your confidence and strength will grow and grow. Only when there is no more limbic friction from the original resolution do you add another or increase the intensity of the original resolution.
Prove to yourself that you are dependable and watch your confidence skyrocket. I've included a video at the end of this post talking about the benefits of strong determination and resolves as they relate to meditation, but remember - these resolves can benefit you in regards to any behavior.
The late and great Anthony Bourdain

Meditation for Tejas

As we covered in Part 2, yoga, with its postures, breathing exercises, and energetic locks and seals, is easily the fastest and almost the most effective manner of increasing tejas.
What about meditation? Well, let's all be honest, for most beginners, meditation is a bitch. It's difficult to sit down, stop the constant doing, disengage from all that thinking in your mind and focus on one object to the exclusion of all others.
But once you're good at meditating, it is perhaps the most syntropic thing you can possibly do. Stilling the mind is the epitome of conserving energy - your body isn't moving and now, even your mind has reached stillness.
And once you get really good at meditation, a positive feedback loop occurs in the mind, magnifying energy in the body-mind system many times over - so much so that it starts producing an intense bodily bliss and mental happiness, respectively called piti and sukha.
When piti (rapture) and sukha (joy, mental bliss) start arising, you can be sure that you're on the precipice of what is known as jhanas in Buddhism, and dhyana/samadhi in yoga. These are meditative absorptions that are extremely purifying and endlessly praised by the Buddha, not only as one of the proper ways to meditate, but as the one and only type of pleasure to actively seek out.
And believe it or not, the pleasure of jhana can exceed even the pleasure of sex, and can last much, much longer.
You know how people with anxiety get stuck in a loop of rumination that just magnifies their anxiety? Jhanas are the opposite of this anxiety loop.

"Anxiety can capture attention, which can lead to more anxiety, which can capture more attention, and so on, leading to a physiological response (e.g. heart rate changes, sweating, in the extreme case a panic attack). Jhana meditators create a similar positive feedback loop between attention and pleasure." Jhourney - These are guys who led the metta retreat where I was first able to achieve jhanas

Once you can get to this level in your sits, then some real juice is added to your meditation, and tejas will start overflowing.
Thy cup will runneth over, as they say.
And as we'll see in an eventual post in the Craving Series, once you get to the point of reliably reaching jhanas, you can say bye bye to pretty much any and all cravings. Why? Because why would you want to masturbate, getting only 5-10 minutes of pleasure, when you can sit down and hang out in a much more pleasurable jhana for 20 minutes to 2 hours?
And that pleasure, ease and joy follows you around the rest of the day, coloring everything you do. It's difficult to crave when you're already deeply satisfied.

Purificatory Fire of Meditation

But that leaves us with the problem of getting good enough at meditation to achieve those states of bliss, and now that I've mentioned how amazing some of these higher states of meditation can be, I may have inadvertently caused you to crave them.
And you cannot reach jhana from a place of craving. In fact, jhanas are all about letting go. More on that in the Craving Series.
However, worry not! Just beginning on the path of meditation starts working wonders for the purificatory process, no matter how "bad" you may be at it.
Recall how in Tapas Pt 2, I mentioned how effective yoga asanas and pranayama are at cleaning out the gunk and detritus from the nervous system/mind/energy body?
Meditation does the exact same thing, even if you think you're doing it poorly.
So, as a beginner or someone who thinks they "can't meditate", understand that each time you sit down and do metta, or focus on the breath, or do vipassana, or recite a mantra, or whatever, even if you think you aren't meditating well, as long as you know your technique is proper, you're doing great, and it's having quite the purifying effect on the brain/mind/nervous system.
Recall in the previous post how I mentioned that once the gunk is cleared from the system, that it is like living life as a child again? Perceptions become crisp and clear, wonder and joy are always right around the corner, and things become "feather light and paper thin" - meaning things feel less solid, and more vibrant, vibratory, alive.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” - William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Here are a few key quotes from one of my favorite books on meditation, The Science of Enlightenment : How Meditation Works by Shinzen Young. I highly recommend this book, especially for science-oriented types. The "fixating forces" he mentions in the following quote are our deeply ingrained habit patterns of chasing after the pleasant and running from the unpleasant (tanha, craving) and the word kleshas refers to the three defilements#Three_poisons) of craving, aversion and ignorance.

"So if, as many believe, we really are imbedded in spiritual reality, why don't we see it? Why isn't every vision beatific? It's because of fixating forces deep down in the subconscious. And our job, according to a plethora of self-help paradigms, is to become free from these forces.
"In the Buddhist, Hindu, and Abrahamic contemplative traditions, the process of becoming free of those limiting forces is sometimes referred to as purification (vishuddhi in Sanskrit; catharsis in Greek). Purification could be described as the process that breaks this material up, digests it, metabolizes it, and (pardon the metaphor) excretes it. Purification is what it 'tastes like' as we are getting free from those limiting grooves. It's a sort of immediate reward. You sense that the limitations of the past are being metabolized and a bright future is being created because of the way you're experiencing a certain something in the present. Once you learn the taste of purification, your growth goes exponential. The ability to taste purification is the sign of a mature spiritual palate.
"From a Buddhist perspective, that old material gets worked through by pouring clarity (mindfulness) and equanimity into the experience of the moment. That clarity and equanimity percolate down into the subconscious and give the subconscious what it needs to resolve/dissolve its issues."
"Through meditation, we smelt away the kleshas (craving, aversion, ignorance). We refine the ore, and we are left with what always was - the pure gold of consciousness."

So three important notes to end on

1. If you're new to meditation, or even if you've had a practice, realize that there are no bad sits! If your mind wanders 100 times in 10 minutes of meditating, and you brought your mind back to its object 101 times, that means you've done 101 "reps". That is a successful sit!
2. Do not crave results! Just focus on the right inputs, and eventually the right outputs appear on their own. The right inputs here being that you sit consistently and with proper technique, in a relaxed and un-expectant manner. Focus on the inputs, the results will come.
3. That sense of struggle that you must overcome to sit on the cushion, plus the subtle (or not so subtle) struggle while you're actually meditating is the taste of purification! That feeling is the feeling of tapas itself! You may not enjoy the feeling (yet), but you can at least know that you're engaging with powerful, purificatory tapas each and every time you sit. Even more so if you start using resolves.

That feeling of resistance is none other than our friend limbic friction. When you feel that limbic friction pop up, and then you do the thing anyway, remember - that's gunk being burned out of the system!

Jhanas, Orgasms, and Tantric Sex

Now, there will be an upcoming post in the Craving Series that will be a deep dive on the style of meditation that produces this bliss and happiness.
If you guys are interested, I made a recent post on metta meditation, which is arguably the easiest way to get into these states. While I think the whole thing is worth reading, feel free to skip to the end for instructions. This was the style of meditation that finally allowed me to begin accessing these states of absorption and bliss, after 13 years of trying to do so.
On the other hand, feel free to skip my post entirely and head straight to one of the links I've included at the end of this post for guided metta meditations.
Metta is a fantastic method for jhana because the feeling of loving-kindness itself is inherently pleasant. Because it is pleasant, your mind will focus easily upon it; because your mind focuses easily upon the pleasant sensation, the pleasantness grows; the mind is able to concentrate more easily upon this increased pleasantness, which then causes the pleasantness to grow even more, on and on and on, until bodily bliss (piti) and mental joy (sukha) start arising and you're blasted into the first jhana.
The Joy of Jhana
What does "being blasted in the first jhana by bodily bliss and mental joy" feel like?
Well, the best way to describe jhana is somewhere between an extended orgasm and being on the love drug MDMA/ecstasy.
"Hold up - that sounds like it would be debilitating to all this energy we've been cultivating... Surely there will be devastating consequences to our semen retention practice, right?"
Orgasms drain you of energy, not just due to the release of prolactin which lowers dopamine and testosterone, but also because of the effect on your nervous system. As you get more and more sexually aroused, energy builds up in your nervous system. Once your nervous system can no longer handle the energy and stimulation, you orgasm, at which point prolactin is dumped into the body and the nervous system starts shaking off all the energy that has accumulated inside.
Toes curl in, eyes roll into the back of the head, and your nerves fire like off like its the Fourth of July, right? You get hormonal dampening, and a good portion of the energy you've been building up and conserving through semen retention, wise use of energy, tapas, yoga, pranayama and meditation gets literally shivered away and shook off.
Jhanas, on the other hand, allow for a very slow build up of energy within the nervous system, (one that doesn't involve your Johnson), but instead of that build up resulting in a big explosion of energy that the nervous system shakes off, it is all contained within and sustained for long periods of time!
This pleasure, which is simply a build up of energy, is extremely purifying to the entire system.
And when the jhana is over, you're left feeling invigorated and refreshed, not drained and depleted, because your nervous system remains supercharged with energy and bliss. Not only will you be radiating good vibes everywhere, but you will be supercharged with our friend tejas, that "inner radiance, fearlessness, majesty, and authority".
The Tantric Sex Connection
This is also one reason why tantric sex is such a powerful adjunct to semen retention. In tantric sex, you build up energy within the nervous system and don't release it - but in this case, the energy comes from sex, not from meditation.
And all of this is even more reason to have a strong yoga practice, because it is only through yoga (or qi gong/tai chi) that you begin to slowly build up prana within yourself, training your nervous system and pranamaya kosha to be able to handle higher and higher amounts of energy.
Through yoga, you also purify the channels, called nadis, through which this energy flows, as well as the chakras, the "power transformers" of the energy body.
If these aren't purfied and opened up, the energy will remain stuck and unable to participate in the feedback loop of jhana, nor of tantric sex. This is a major reason why guys are unable to make it very long with retention - their bodies can't handle the build up of sexual energy, so it seeks release and homestasis the only way it knows how - through orgasm.
Again, I refer you to Can You Handle the Power? if you'd like to read more about the concept of being able to handle more and more energy.
Better yet, skip the reading and get to practicing.

Resources

A quick note on guided metta meditations - you kind of have to shop around to find one you really enjoy. There are many different ways of doing metta, and when you multiply that by the way some teachers sound, whether there is music or not, and the quality of recording, well... Some are hits, some are huge misses.
My recommendation is to find one you like and either stick to it, or better yet, simply do the meditation yourself.
A 30 Day guest pass to the Waking Up app - Amazing resource with 3 different metta modules under the "Practice" tab - Compassionate Awareness is one module, Metta (loving-kindness) is another, and Metta for Everyone.
Shinzen Young on Strong Determination Sits
18 Minute Metta Meditation with Samaneri Jayasara - My favorite of the guided meditations here. She is a fantastic resource, and she has plenty of readings and guided meditations on her Youtube.
35 Minute Metta Meditation with Jayasara - I did not check this video out, so if it isn't great, well..
23 Minute Tonglen Meditation by Tara Brach - Tonglen comes to us from the Tibetan Buddhists, and combines metta with compassion.
14 Minute Guided Metta Meditation with Ayya Khema - This one is interesting.
Rob Burbea Metta Retreat - These are the recordings of a metta meditation retreat led by Rob Burbea, a phenomenal teacher. These include some theory and are all longer sits though - great for strong determination sits!
A great 3 month course for the seriously-inclined beginner meditator, with a section on metta.
A great interview with the guy I learned jhanas from, describing their benefits.

"I played major league baseball for parts of 10 years, and I played in the magnificent city of New York, and as a child in St. Croix that was beyond dreams. Yes, I am a happy man." -- Horace Clarke
The worst stretch of Yankee baseball since the Highlander days, the mid 60s to the mid 70s, is remembered by those who lived through it as the Horace Clarke Era. Unfairly or not, the bespectacled switch-hitting middle infielder from the U.S. Virgin Islands came to symbolize all that was wrong with the Yankees in those sad years.
Horace Meredith Clarke grew up on the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He was just the fifth player from the U.S. Virgin Islands to play in the majors, and the first Yankee. His father had grown up playing cricket, and because there were no youth baseball leagues on the island, young Horace played softball. He said he didn't see his first baseball game until around age 13, when he saw some U.S. Navy sailors playing.

“We were poor kids in St. Croix. We played on a field which was right on the ocean and had no fences. We couldn’t afford baseballs. So the coach made the lefthanded batters hit righthanded and the righthanded batters hit lefthanded. This was so they couldn’t hit the ball so far. It saved us from losing the baseballs in the ocean.”

Clarke was spotted by a Yankee scout in the Caribbean and assigned to the lowest run of the Yankee farm system -- the Kearney Yankees in Class D ball. Imagine being an 18-year-old kid from St. Croix in the Caribbean, and arriving in Kearney, Nebraska in the spring of 1958. The culture shock must have been overwhelming. Maybe not surprisingly, Clarke hit a disappointing .225/.322/.283 in 187 at-bats. He said the biggest adjustment wasn't the cold weather, but night games played under the lights, something he'd never done before.
The following year Horace was in the Florida State League, and he thrived in the warmer weather, hitting .293/.375/.366 in 571 at-bats. He also stole 34 bases that year. The year after that, he was back up north, playing for Fargo in the Northern League, and hit .307/.389/.369 in 537 at-bats. The following year was Amarillo in the Texas League, where he hit .300/.364/.429.
Then the next three years in the International League, where he hit .281/.345/.352 in 1,494 at-bats while playing shortstop and second base.
But despite Clarke's promise, he was blocked by Bobby Richardson. By the time Clarke had reached Triple-A at age 24 in 1963, the 27-year-old Richardson had already been a four-time All-Star, a two-time Gold Glove winner, and had won three World Series rings... plus the MVP for the 1960 World Series, the only time in baseball history a player for the losing team won the award!
But the Yankees knew Richardson was planning on retiring, so they kept Clarke waiting in the wings. He opened the year with the Toledo Mud Hens, then the Yankees' Triple-A team, and then after a month he finally got the call to the show.
Fifty-nine years ago today, on May 13, 1965, Clarke was sent up to the plate in the 7th inning as a pinch hitter to make his major league debut in a game the Yankees were losing, 4-1, to the Boston Red Sox in Fenway Park.
Clarke, facing Dave Morehead, beat out an infield single. It was a promising beginning. But, as if scripted to be symbolic of his career, Clarke's success was short-lived as the next batter bounced into a fielder's choice. Forced out at second base, Clarke watched the rest of the game from the dugout. The next day he'd get the start and go 0-for-4.
Hitting .250/.298/.269 at the end of June as a utility infielder, Clarke was sent back down to Toledo for two months to get more regular playing time. It helped. When he returned on September 3 -- coincidentally, also against the Red Sox -- he went 3-for-5 with an RBI. Overall that month, Clarke hit .273/.298/.327, and for the season, .262/.298/.299 in 115 plate appearances. But the Yankees, the reigning A.L. champions for the past five seasons, finished a shocking 77-85, all the way in sixth place.
That off-season, Phil Linz -- the harmonica playing utility infielder -- was traded to the Phillies, opening up a roster spot for Clarke. Richardson, though only 31, had told the Yankees he would retire at the end of the 1966 season, and the Yankees wanted him to mentor Clarke as his successor.
Clarke started just seven games over the first half, but a series of injuries forced him into regular service. Over the second half, he played almost every day, hitting .276/.334/.404 in 300 plate appearances. He was mostly used at shortstop, where his defense wasn't great, but in 16 games at second base he looked good enough that the Yankees were confident he could be a regular there. Yankee fans were no doubt a little sad when Richardson officially announced to the press on August 31 that it was his last season, but at least we knew who would be playing second base the following year.
Indeed, second base was the least of the Yankees' problems. New York finished dead last at 70-89 in 1966, the team's worst performance since 1925, as injuries fell Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Elston Howard, and Whitey Ford.
Entering 1967 as the starting second baseman, Clarke hit a solid .272/.321/.316 (94 OPS+) in 633 plate appearances while leading the league in fielding percentage, assists, and range factor as a second baseman. He also stole 21 bases in 25 tries, a second-best .840 SB%. His 3.7 bWAR that year was better than any season Richardson ever had -- his career high was 3.2 bWAR in 1962.
The following year, the Yankees finished 83-79 -- above .500 for the first time in four seasons -- but a whopping 34.5 games out. Clarke had one of the worst years of his career, hitting .230/.258/.254 (60 OPS+) as he played through injuries all year.
He rebounded in 1969 to .285/.339/.467 (101 OPS+), with 33 stolen bases. It was, statistically, the best season of his career (3.9 bWAR). But once again the Yankees were terrible -- 28.5 games out.
In 1970, Clarke again disappointed, hitting .251/.286/.309 (68 OPS+). The Yankees won 93 games that year, but it amounted to naught as the Orioles ran away with the pennant, going 108-54 to win it by 15 games. In fact, it was pretty much over by July, with the Yankees 7 games out at the All-Star break.
It was around this time that Yankee fans began focusing their frustration on Clarke. One New York sportswriter routinely referred to him as "Horrible Horace". Miscast as a leadoff man -- he had a career .308 OBP -- and criticized for "bailing out" on double plays, manager Ralph Houk years later offered a tepid defense of his second baseman:

“I know I got a lot of criticism for playing Horace Clarke as much as I did, but he was a lot better ballplayer than anyone gave him credit for. He did a lot of things good but nothing great, and that was his problem. Besides, I didn’t have anyone else.”

The lack of a replacement was certainly an issue. In 1971, there was talk in The Sporting News about a prospect named Fred Frazier being the heir apparent to Clarke at second base. That year, Frazier hit a disappointing .261/.316/.313 in Triple-A; the next year, .216/.302/.281. The year after that, he was in the Orioles organization. He never made it out of the minors.
In fact, Clarke was the only constant in the Yankee infield in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Yankees during the, ahem, Horace Clarke Era had holes everywhere, with a revolving door at first base, third base, and shortstop. For five years, from 1967 to 1971, Clarke was the Opening Day starter at second base; during that same stretch, there were five different third basemen, five different third basemen, and three different shortstops. Between 1967 and 1973, he started 1,017 games at second base, or 90% of all Yankee games.
But that, explained Yankees PR man Marty Appel, was kind of the problem. "Fans especially didn’t like the second baseman, the beleaguered Horace Clarke, whose major flaw seemed to be longevity. It wasn’t his fault that no one better came along, and he was a better player than the fans gave him credit for. But because he was out there, year after year, he came to stand for this disappointing run by the club."

"I always did my best. I always played as hard as I could. I never was concerned about how the fans reacted to me." -- Horace Clarke

The following year Clarke hit .250/.321/.318 in 696 plate appearances, but the Yankees again were out of it, finishing 82-80 in 1971.
Yankee fans had been miserable since 1965, but frustration with the team in general -- and Clarke in particular -- reached a boiling point in 1972. It had been seven years since the Yankees had been in the post-season, and 1972 was the first year the Yankees had the playoffs within our grasp since winning the pennant in 1964. (The "closest and latest" the Yankees had been since the 1965 season was 9 games out of 1st place on September 8, 1970.)
On September 12, 1972, the Yankees were a half-game out of 1st place at 74-64, with 17 games left to go in the season. The Red Sox were in 1st at 73-62, the Orioles tied with New York at 74-64, and the Tigers a half-game behind at 73-64. Over the rest of the season, the Yankees went a heartbreaking 5-12, while the Tigers won 13 out of 19 to win the A.L. East.
There was plenty of blame to go around for that collapse, but Yankee fans were particularly irate at Clarke, who hit .225/.267/.296 during those final 17 games.
To his credit, Clarke never complained about the boos from fans or the criticism in the press. As quoted by Dick Young in the New York Daily News in 1972:

"Sure, I would feel bad when I saw in the papers that, 'the Yankees can never win the pennant with that guy at second base.' But why get mad. I figure that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. I must have been able to do something. Don't tell me a ballplayer can fool a manager for seven years."

Years later, Thurman Munson said his adversarial relationship with the media was based on how Horace Clarke was treated.
In 1973, the 34-year-old Clarke hit .263/.317/.308 (80 OPS+), his defense was no longer among the league leaders, and the Yankees were once again double-digit games behind by Labor Day.
It was finally time to move on. That off season, the Yankees acquired 23-year-old utility infielder Jim Mason from the Texas Rangers and installed him as the starting shortstop for the upcoming 1974 season; Gene Michael, the Yankees' on-again, off-again shortstop since 1968, was moved to second base; and Clarke to the bench. It wasn't exactly an earth-shattering move -- Mason was coming off a season in which he hit .206/.273/.290, and Michael .225/.270/.278. If anything, the two represented a substantial downgrade from Clarke's numbers. (By bWAR the previous season, Clarke was still the best option of the three, 0.6 compared to Mason's -0.7 and Michael's -0.9.)
After hitting .234/.294/.255 in 53 plate appearances as a pinch hitter and spot starter, on May 31, 1974, the Yankees finally ended the Horace Clarke Era by selling his contract to the San Diego Padres along with minor league pitcher Lowell Palmer for $25,000. At the time of the deal, Clarke was still the Yankees' best option at second base as Mason was hitting .214/.287/.307 and Michael a putrid .134/.224/.179!
Six weeks later, the Yankees tried to address their second base problem again by acquiring former All-Star Sandy Alomar from the Angels. Alomar, who fathered major leaguers Sandy Jr. and Roberto, played for the Yankees for the next two and a half seasons, hitting .248/.287/.302... again, worse than Horace's career average of .256/.308/.313.
And yet getting rid of Horace Clarke immediately turned around the Yankees' fortunes. With Horace, the Yankees were 23-27, the worst record in the American League; without him, a second-best 66-46. New York finished 89-73, just two games behind the Baltimore Orioles.
The Yankees finally found a solution to the second base problem on December 11, 1975, trading previously forgotten Yankee Doc Medich to the Pirates for Dock Ellis, Ken Brett, and a 20-year-old prospect named Willie Randolph.
Meanwhile, Clarke went to San Diego and hit .189/.255/.200 in 99 plate appearances. He was released at the end of the season and retired. He was a frequent attendee at Yankee Old Timers' Games, and promoted baseball in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He died at age 81 on August 5, 2020, from complications due to Alzheimer's disease.
The Clarke Side

• Horace's nickname was "Hoss". Yankee play-by-play man Bill White loved to draw out the "s" sound.
  
• Clarke had a reputation of being timid on double plays -- the team's pitchers thought he was apt to hold onto the ball and hop aside rather than try to get off a throw if it meant getting barreled over by the runner. (And in those days, runners came in hard -- just ask Willie Randolph!) Yankee pitchers complained to the press about it, and fans started watching for such plays. Any time the 175-pound Clarke didn't complete a double play, the boo birds came out. To be fair, despite his reputation as being afraid of contact, Clarke led the league in double plays turned as a second baseman in 1969 and again in 1971, and finished in the top five every year he was a regular.
  
• Clarke was the last Yankee to live within walking distance of Yankee Stadium, at the Grand Concourse Hotel. His commute to work was a three-block walk... which could be a problem sometimes. Sportswriter Dick Young reported Clarke had an awkward moment when a fan, "this kid, maybe 11 or 12," walked up and asked: "Hey Hoss, how come you can't make the double play?" Clarke replied: "Well, we can't all be stars. I guess I'm just a lousy ballplayer."
  
• Clarke had an unusual batting stance, a throwback to the Deadball Era. He stood with his legs far apart and he choked up high on the bat. Not surprisingly, he had just 27 home runs in 5,243 career plate appearances... but apparently all of them were of the over-the-fence variety.
  
• The first of those 27 home runs was a grand slam! It was off Floyd Weaver of the Cleveland Indians on September 21, 1965. The two-out grand slam in the 4th inning helped power the Yankees to a 9-4 win.
  
• And Clarke's second career home run? Another grand slam! It came on July 16, 1966. Clarke came up with the bases loaded and one out in the top of the 10th of a 5-5 game. Clarke crushed Jack Aker's offering to deep right to clear the bases and give the Yankees a 9-5 lead; Pedro Ramos pitched a perfect 9th to preserve the victory. Whitey Ford, who had entered the game in the 9th inning in relief, got the win. Clarke's first and second home runs were the only grand slams of his career!
  
• Aker was later Clarke's teammate with the Yankees from 1969 to 1972, and the sinkerballing reliever was one of the pitchers who criticized Horace about bailing out on double plays.
  
• Long before John Olerud made it cool, Horace sometimes wore a batting helmet while playing the field. He never explained why; some speculated it was because he'd once been hit in the head by a thrown ball.
  
• Clarke said he grew up listening to Yankee games on the radio, and Phil Rizzuto -- a similarly undersized infielder -- was his favorite player. Horace was 11 years old when the Scooter won the A.L. MVP in 1950.
  
• Mickey Mantle, his knees shot, moved to first base for the final two years of his career. Clarke, the regular second baseman both of those seasons, said that Mantle told him to get every ball he could. Horace led the league in range factor as a second baseman both of those seasons.
  
• The Sporting News reported on March 14, 1970, that Clarke had a "novel twist" during salary negotiations for the upcoming 1970 season. He told the Yankees he'd take less money in salary if they helped him secure a $1 million loan for a construction project in the Virgin Islands. Sportswriter Dick Young speculated: "It's a very simple gimmick. First you get the Yankees to lend you $1 million for an investment. You bank it at seven percent. That brings in $70,000 a year. Then you negotiate your contract with the independent feeling that you don't have to play baseball for a living." Clarke and the Yankees eventually agreed on a more conventional contract at $32,000 -- and no loan.
  
• Check out Horace Clarke's leadoff single on Opening Day in 1970, called by Phil Rizzuto! #23 playing first base for the Yankees is not Don Mattingly, but previously forgotten Yankee John Ellis.
  
• Clarke set the major league career record -- since tied by Joe Mauer -- of most no-hitters broken up in the 9th inning. Both players did it three times in their career... but Clarke did it three times in the same season! He had 9th inning singles to break up no-no's by Kansas City's Jim Rooker on June 4, 1970, Boston's Sonny Siebert on June 19, 1970, and Detroit's Joe Niekro on July 2, 1970. No other hitter has broken up more than two no-hitters in the 9th inning in his career, according to the book Baseball's No-Hit Wonders by Dirk Lammers, but Clarke amazingly did it three times in 24 games spread over 28 days. Mauer's 9th inning heartbreakers came over a six-year stretch.
  
• Clarke went 5-for-6 with an RBI in the second game of a doubleheader on April 19, 1970 -- and had 11 other games where he had four hits. In terms of fantasy scoring, his best day was either May 21, 1969, when he went 4-for-6 with three runs scored and three stolen bases, or July 22, 1971, when he was 4-for-5 with three runs scored and three RBIs.
  
• Clarke was involved in one of the most surreal moments of baseball history on the final day of the 1971 season. The Yankees were playing the Washington Senators -- not the original Senators, who had moved to Minnesota to become the Twins in 1961, but the expansion team founded that same year to replace them. Rangers owner Bob Short, who had bought the team three years earlier, announced he was moving the team to Arlington, Texas, to become the Rangers. (Coincidentally, in 1957, Short had bought the Minneapolis Lakers and, three years later, moved them to Los Angeles.) The final home game of the Senators at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C., was on September 30, 1971 against the Yankees. The game was tied, 5-5, but the soon-to-be Rangers scored a pair in the bottom of the 8th to take a 7-5 lead. In the top of the 9th, Felipe Alou and Bobby Murcer grounded out to bring up Horace Clarke. Before he could get to the plate, however, a fan ran onto the field and pulled up first base, prompting hundreds more fans to run onto the field in search of their own souvenirs. Clarke and the Senators ran off the field and the umpires called it a forfeit in favor of the Yankees.
  
• Horace wore #20 all 10 seasons he was with the Yankees. It was never a particularly popular number before him, as the only player who wore it more than a few seasons was Tiny Bonham (1940-1946). Bucky Dent wore #20 from 1977 to 1982, and previously forgotten Yankee Bobby Meacham from 1983 to 1988. Another previously forgotten Yankee, Mike Stanley, wore it from 1992 to 1995, then Jorge Posada had it until Stanley returned in 1997 and reclaimed it. After Stanley left the Yankees, he asked Posada to take it back, saying that number should belong to a catcher. And now it always will, as it was retired for Posada in 2015.
  
• His obituary in The New York Times noted that among major leaguers from the Virgin Islands -- "a relatively small roster" -- Clarke still holds the records for games played, hits, runs, RBIs, and stolen bases.
  
• After he retired, Clarke helped promote youth baseball in the U.S. Virgin Islands. One of the players he mentored was Jerry Browne, who played 10 years in the majors between 1986 and 1995 with the Rangers, Indians, A's, and Marlins. In his SABR biography, Browne credits Clarke with teaching him baseball fundamentals.
  
• According to the book Where Have All Our Yankees Gone? by Brian Jensen, Clarke played a uniquely Caribbean instrument called "the vibes." "The vibes is like a xylophone, marimba-related type sound. It's a keyboard-type related instrument." Clarke said he played the instrument during his Yankee days, but -- unlike Bernie Williams, who frequently strummed on his guitar in the clubhouse -- only during the off-season. "When I was with the Yankees, ya know, the instrument that I had, the vibes, I was doing it, ya know, but never in the clubhouse, though. Once you are in the clubhouse, it is all work, ya know. That was never so much allowed. I had the instrument all the years that I was a Yankee but I was involved with baseball. That was my full time and I didn't have full time to play music but, ya know, in the off-season I would have a vibe and try to learn a song by hearing from a tape or a record and that's what it was." After retiring, Clarke played the instrument with a local band called Out of Nowhere.
  
• Of the 15 major leaguers to have been born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the only other Yankee was Elrod Hendricks, a backup catcher for the Bombers from 1976 to 1977. Jabari Blash, born in St. Thomas, gets an honorable mention for the three months he spent as a Yankee during the 2017-2018 off-season. Blash was acquired from the Padres for Chase Headley on December 12, then traded to the Angels for a PTBNL or cash considerations. I guess we got the cash, because apparently no player was ever named.
  
• There's a Horace Clarke High School in Jamaica, but it's not named after the Yankee. It's named after the Horace Clarke who was a member of parliament in Jamaica from 1972 to 2002.
  
• Also not him: Horace Clarke, a teenager shot and seriously wounded by a Blackfeet Indian named Owl Child on August 17, 1869. Clarke's father, Malcolm, was killed in the same attack, which was purportedly revenge for Malcolm Clarke having attacked him two years earlier... which Malcolm claimed he'd done because Owl Child had stolen horses from him... which Owl Child said he'd done in revenge for yet an earlier dispute. The pursuit of Owl Child resulted in a massacre of at least 170 people, mostly elderly men, women, and children. As for Owl Child, he escaped to Canada and was never seen again.
  

"I remember the first game I played in Yankee Stadium in 1965. There were more than 40,000 people in the stands. I had just come from my country where there are 30,000 people in the entire country. That was some adjustment." -- Horace Clarke

Overall, Horace Clarke hit .257/.309/.315 in 5,144 plate appearances as a Yankee. His numbers aren't quite as bad as they appear, as he played during one of the lowest offense eras since deadball... an 84 OPS+. That ranks him ahead of fondly-remembered Yankees like Shelley Duncan (81 OPS+), Rick Cerone (80 OPS+), Miguel Cairo (80 OPS+), Bucky Dent (72 OPS+), and... Bobby Richardson (77 OPS+). And while many complained about his defense, his defensive metrics -- such as we have for his era -- indicate he was at least an average defender. He led the league in range factor three times, in fielding percentage once, in assists six times, and in double plays twice.
People tend to think about Clarke -- if they think about him at all -- as either a terrible player, representative of the teams he played on, or a good player who was wasted on bad teams. The truth is somewhere in the middle. As sportswriter Maury Allen said, he was "an average big-leaguer on below-average Yankee teams."
And in fact, Clarke's 16.0 career bWAR as a Yankee is twice as much value as the player he replaced, Bobby Richardson (8.0 bWAR). But Richardson was a fan favorite, while Clarke was scorned. But of course... Richardson won three rings. And Yankee fans love a winner!

"New York is New York. You don’t win, you’re going to hear about it. I was in the middle." -- Horace Clarke

Had Clarke come along a few years earlier and been part of the early 1960s dynasty, he might be remembered fondly as a scrappy infielder, a Tony Kubek or a Bucky Dent or a Scott Brosius -- a good but not great player who had some memorable moments.
Instead, Horace Clarke defines an era of futility.

The idea that the universe and its exquisite fine-tuning is the product of "self-organization" or "self-cause" is a woefully inadequate and logically incoherent attempt to explain away what is more reasonably attributed to the intentional activity of a transcendent intelligent Creator. As philosopher William Lane Craig argues, "The most plausible answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing is that there is a necessarily existent being, God, who is the ground of being for everything else that exists." (Craig, 2008, p. 182)
The concept of "self-organization" posits that the staggeringly complex and finely-calibrated cosmos arose through mindless, unguided processes - that the unimaginably precise initial conditions and physical constants required for a life-permitting universe all fell into place by sheer chance or some inscrutable naturalistic mechanism. But as philosopher and mathematician William Dembski notes, "The amount of specified complexity in even the simplest life-forms is staggering. The probability of their occurrence by chance is unfathomably small. Attributing such specified complexity to blind natural causes is akin to attributing the integrated circuit to the blind heat of a kiln. It strains reason." (Dembski, 2004, p. 151)
In our uniform and repeated experience, specified complexity and informational richness invariably originate from minds, not mindless processes. As former atheist philosopher Antony Flew observes, "The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such 'end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind." (Flew & Varghese, 2007, p. 132) To suggest that the functional complexity and apparent design of biological systems and the cosmos as a whole is the product of unguided natural processes is as absurd as suggesting that the informational content of software wrote itself, or that the faces on Mount Rushmore are the result of mere wind and erosion. It flouts the principle of abductive reasoning, which compels us to infer to the best explanation given our background knowledge. As philosopher Richard Swinburne contends, "The hypothesis of theism is a simple hypothesis which leads us to expect these observable phenomena, when no other simple hypothesis will do so." (Swinburne, 2004, p. 68)
Moreover, "self-cause" scenarios run aground on inescapable logical and metaphysical absurdities. They inevitably involve the universe somehow "causing itself" or "arising from nothing" - but this is patent nonsense. As Aristotle recognized, "Nothing can come from nothing, and nothing can become actual except it is potentially so." (Aristotle, Physics, 1.8) Being cannot spontaneously arise from non-being. Every contingent effect requires a sufficient non-contingent cause. As philosopher Alexander Pruss argues, "The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and the causal principle. . . provide strong reasons to suppose that there is an ultimate cause of contingent things and that this cause. . . is a necessary being." (Pruss, 2009)
An eternal, uncaused, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and intelligent Mind - in short, God - is a far more plausible and logically coherent explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos than naturalistic appeals to "self-cause." As philosopher Robin Collins concludes, "Given the fine-tuning evidence, the many-worlds hypothesis is at least no better as a theory for explaining the fine-tuning than the design hypothesis, and arguably is worse. . .[T]he inference to design is in this case the best explanation." (Collins, 2009, p. 274)
Those who deny this and attribute everything to "self-cause" are really just engaging in a thinly-veiled attempt to evade the obvious conclusion to which the evidence points - that our universe is the product of a transcendent and intentional Creator. They accuse theists of a "God of the gaps" approach while conveniently ignoring their own "self-cause of the gaps" explanatory failure.
Abductive logic and the principle of inferring to the best explanation compel the conclusion that an intelligent First Cause is the most plausible and causally adequate explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos. To quote Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, himself no theist, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics. . . and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." (Hoyle, 1982, p. 12) The cosmos bears the unmistakable imprint of intentional design by a Supreme Intelligence. Naturalistic appeals to unguided "self-organization" simply fail to adequately account for its astounding sophistication and specificity.
In conclusion, the concept of "self-cause" is nothing more than an ad hoc "X of the gaps" attempt to deny what the evidence clearly indicates - that our universe is the product of an intentional and intelligent First Cause. Pushing the explanatory question back a step by appealing to an inscrutable "self-organizing" process is a glaring explanatory failure that runs aground on logical absurdities and violates the principle of abductive reasoning. A transcendent and superintelligent Creator remains the best and most causally adequate explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos.
References: - Aristotle. (4th c. BC) Physics. - Collins, R. (2009). The teleological argument. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 202-281). Wiley-Blackwell. - Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith. 3rd ed. Crossway. - Dembski, W. (2004). The Design Revolution. InterVarsity Press. - Flew, A. & Varghese, R. A. (2007). There Is a God. HarperOne. - Hoyle, F. (1982). The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Vol. 20, pp. 1-35. - Pruss, A. (2009). The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 24-100). Wiley-Blackwell. - Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

The idea that the universe and its exquisite fine-tuning is the product of "self-organization" or "self-cause" is a woefully inadequate and logically incoherent attempt to explain away what is more reasonably attributed to the intentional activity of a transcendent intelligent Creator. As philosopher William Lane Craig argues, "The most plausible answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing is that there is a necessarily existent being, God, who is the ground of being for everything else that exists." (Craig, 2008, p. 182)
The concept of "self-organization" posits that the staggeringly complex and finely-calibrated cosmos arose through mindless, unguided processes - that the unimaginably precise initial conditions and physical constants required for a life-permitting universe all fell into place by sheer chance or some inscrutable naturalistic mechanism. But as philosopher and mathematician William Dembski notes, "The amount of specified complexity in even the simplest life-forms is staggering. The probability of their occurrence by chance is unfathomably small. Attributing such specified complexity to blind natural causes is akin to attributing the integrated circuit to the blind heat of a kiln. It strains reason." (Dembski, 2004, p. 151)
In our uniform and repeated experience, specified complexity and informational richness invariably originate from minds, not mindless processes. As former atheist philosopher Antony Flew observes, "The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such 'end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind." (Flew & Varghese, 2007, p. 132) To suggest that the functional complexity and apparent design of biological systems and the cosmos as a whole is the product of unguided natural processes is as absurd as suggesting that the informational content of software wrote itself, or that the faces on Mount Rushmore are the result of mere wind and erosion. It flouts the principle of abductive reasoning, which compels us to infer to the best explanation given our background knowledge. As philosopher Richard Swinburne contends, "The hypothesis of theism is a simple hypothesis which leads us to expect these observable phenomena, when no other simple hypothesis will do so." (Swinburne, 2004, p. 68)
Moreover, "self-cause" scenarios run aground on inescapable logical and metaphysical absurdities. They inevitably involve the universe somehow "causing itself" or "arising from nothing" - but this is patent nonsense. As Aristotle recognized, "Nothing can come from nothing, and nothing can become actual except it is potentially so." (Aristotle, Physics, 1.8) Being cannot spontaneously arise from non-being. Every contingent effect requires a sufficient non-contingent cause. As philosopher Alexander Pruss argues, "The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and the causal principle. . . provide strong reasons to suppose that there is an ultimate cause of contingent things and that this cause. . . is a necessary being." (Pruss, 2009)
An eternal, uncaused, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and intelligent Mind - in short, God - is a far more plausible and logically coherent explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos than naturalistic appeals to "self-cause." As philosopher Robin Collins concludes, "Given the fine-tuning evidence, the many-worlds hypothesis is at least no better as a theory for explaining the fine-tuning than the design hypothesis, and arguably is worse. . .[T]he inference to design is in this case the best explanation." (Collins, 2009, p. 274)
Those who deny this and attribute everything to "self-cause" are really just engaging in a thinly-veiled attempt to evade the obvious conclusion to which the evidence points - that our universe is the product of a transcendent and intentional Creator. They accuse theists of a "God of the gaps" approach while conveniently ignoring their own "self-cause of the gaps" explanatory failure.
Abductive logic and the principle of inferring to the best explanation compel the conclusion that an intelligent First Cause is the most plausible and causally adequate explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos. To quote Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, himself no theist, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics. . . and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." (Hoyle, 1982, p. 12) The cosmos bears the unmistakable imprint of intentional design by a Supreme Intelligence. Naturalistic appeals to unguided "self-organization" simply fail to adequately account for its astounding sophistication and specificity.
In conclusion, the concept of "self-cause" is nothing more than an ad hoc "X of the gaps" attempt to deny what the evidence clearly indicates - that our universe is the product of an intentional and intelligent First Cause. Pushing the explanatory question back a step by appealing to an inscrutable "self-organizing" process is a glaring explanatory failure that runs aground on logical absurdities and violates the principle of abductive reasoning. A transcendent and superintelligent Creator remains the best and most causally adequate explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos.
References: - Aristotle. (4th c. BC) Physics. - Collins, R. (2009). The teleological argument. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 202-281). Wiley-Blackwell. - Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith. 3rd ed. Crossway. - Dembski, W. (2004). The Design Revolution. InterVarsity Press. - Flew, A. & Varghese, R. A. (2007). There Is a God. HarperOne. - Hoyle, F. (1982). The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Vol. 20, pp. 1-35. - Pruss, A. (2009). The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 24-100). Wiley-Blackwell. - Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

Casting Director Dianne Young is a guest host.

• Pete Ferriero is sad that the Mets season is over.
• Jeffrey White produced the first 6 episodes.
• Paul Waigner then came in after that.
• Dianne Young was Rosin’s 2nd hire.
• She came from Growing Pains.
• Joanna Ray casted the initial cast.
• Joanna Ray left to go do Twin Peaks.
• Rosin says the first 6 episodes of Twin Peaks was great. They didn’t know how to end it after that.
• By the end of season 1 of Beverly Hills, 90210, the ratings were better than that of Twin Peaks.
• They love the Pacific Northwest shots in Twin Peaks.
• Young had known most of the cast of this show before, except for Ian Ziering and Gabrielle Carteris.
• Young: Tori Spelling worked hard at being an actress.
• Young thinks Bob (Robert) Harbin recommended her to Rosin.
• They needed to replace the father on this show.
• When Rosin started talking to Young about the character of Dylan, she knew exactly who they should cast: Luke Perry.
• Rosin had heard 12 others audition for Dylan. Luke Perry was the first one he thought could not only be cast, but could elevate the show.
• Young had been working on a pilot for Paramount. Another casting director had recommended Perry. When another casting director recommends someone, then one takes notice. Perry came in to read for the part. He said himself to Young that he wasn’t right for the part. She agreed, and told him she would remember him for something else.
• Kurt Geiger also read for Dylan.
• Perry was overwhelmingly Rosin and Young’s choice for Dylan.
• Others that read for Dylan: Matt LeBlanc, Trevor Edmond, Sean Patrick Flannery, David Gray, Carl Evans, Keith Pugan.
• Trevor Edmond would go on to play Evan Potter.
• Carl Evans would play Jonathan Casten in season 6.
• If they liked someone during their audition, they would write OTW by their name – Onto Wardrobe.
• Perry was nervous for his FOX audition.
• The network was lukewarm on him. Aaron Spelling liked him, and had their own production company pay for him.

​

• Phases during the audition process: 1) Casting director sends out breakdown for a role.

2) Agents and managers submit actors.
3) Casting director goes through the actors. Well known actors go straight to producers.
4) Casting sessions are set up.
5) Producers are then present for callbacks. They look to make sure they’re right for the role, and can have consistent performances.
6) Another callback, this time with the production company.
7) Another callback, this time for the network. Bob Harbin and Wendy Matthews were in charge for FOX.

• Young would constantly talk with Tony Shepherd throughout this process.
• Early in the series, they would have appointments for actors to come in, and they wouldn’t show up. 40% of them would not show up.
• Young would have to tell the producers, “they’re not here, let me find out what’s going on”, while sweating bullets.
• Aaron Spelling built a really beautiful casting room.
• Darren Starr would be there.
• David Stenn (writeproducers) would also be involved.
• Because they were a bottom feeder, they worked with what they had.
• Young had gotten a quote from Luke Perry’s agent and manager, about his salary. However, quotes are not always accurate, so she has to verify the quote.
• The quote was actually lower than what she had first heard.
• The production company, not FOX, paid for Perry’s contract. Usually FOX pays for the contracts.

​
​

• Luke Perry gave Young a Christmas present. It was a magnifying glass, and a horseshoe. The magnifying glass, was to help Young look for people like him.
• He also signed a poster of “8 seconds” for her.

​
​
James Eckhouse interview:
​

• Lyman Ward was initially cast as Jim Walsh.
• Carol Potter read with James Eckhouse in front of Aaron Spelling.
• Eckhouse didn’t think he was going to get the part. No way, he thought.
• After Eckhouse left, Aaron Spelling said “there’s something about that Eckhosue.”
• Potter said “Yeah, he’s Jewish.”
• Barry Diller was the head of FOX. He almost always recast someone. For example, the original lead of 21 Jump Street was not Johnny Depp. Depp was recast into that role.
• So, the same thing happened with Beverly Hills, 90210. Ward was recast with Eckhouse.
• Eckhouse looked like someone who would have been against the Vietnam War. They would not have done such a plot, in season 3, if Lyman Ward were Jim Walsh. He didn’t have that same look.
• Rosin had seen Eckhouse on TV, on 30 Something.
• Eckhouse had another audition on the same day as Beverly Hills, 90210. He had a snooty attitude about Beverly Hills, 90210. He didn’t think he was going to do that show. He didn’t even know why he was there.
• His wife, said to get his ass to the Beverly Hills, 90210 audition.
• His other audition was afterwards.
• He doesn’t remember what the other audition was for.
• Eckhouse went straight to the Producers’ audition. He didn’t have to do a round before.
• Young had really liked Eckhouse as a person, as well as his credits. She also liked how “easy” he was. She was comfortable with him. That’s an important quality for her.
• Eckhouse teaches acting now.
• Eckhouse tells a story of how he went to New York to audition for a movie. He would prepare for his scenes. When he’d get there, he’s ask if they wanted him to read for him. They’d say no, they just wanted to get a feel for how he was as a person. So he would get cast, just based off of his personality, at a certain point. They would already know his credits and know he could act.

​
​

• Young auditioned Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Affleck came in a few times. Eventually, he stopped.
• Damon would keep coming back, every single time. Young told Damon she’s sorry to keep dragging him in, only to tell him they went with somebody else. Damon told her never worry about him not coming in. He’s always going to come in.
• Eckhouse says there’s one show where he went in 17 times to audition. He’s not going to name the show. He eventually got a part on his 17th audition.
• Eckhouse did not think he did a good audition for Beverly Hills, 90210. It wasn’t his finest hour. He didn’t think he’d get called back.
• He did better during the callback.
• When Eckhouse went to the network audition, he was intimidated by another actor who looked Christian and Scottish.
• Then there was someone else who had tall, dark hair.
• Ken Campbell was also in the audition.
• Eckhouse and Luke Perry were in the bathroom together. Perry almost threw up, from the nerves.
• That’s where Perry and Eckhouse met for the first time, in the bathroom. They loved each other right away.
• Eckhouse really thought Campbell was going to get the part.
• When Eckhouse came back for the network audition, Eckhouse was broke and poor, with two kids. He called his agent. Eckhouse told the agent he didn’t do that well. The agent went to find out what happened. The agent then called Eckhouse back and said, “you were right, you did suck. But you got the part.”
• Rosin said Eckhouse’ previous credits were a huge positive factor.
• Eckhouse was the 2nd highest paid actor during most of the Rosin era.
• During that same network audition, Rosin was confused about something himself. He didn’t know if he worked for Aaron Spelling or someone else. Rosin got confirmation that it was Aaron Spelling.
• Aaron Spelling was always nice to Young.
• When Young’s grandmother passed away, Spelling said how sorry he was, and gave her a big hug.
• When Eckhouse was a director and cast people on another show, it was terrifying. If he said “so and so was pretty good”, someone else in the room would say that person was terrible.
• If Eckhouse saw someone didn’t give their best audition, he’d ask them to do another take, because he could tell they were nervous.
• People from the network would tell Eckhouse, “how dare you waste my time like that. You knew we weren’t going to cast them.”
• Eckhouse would think “give me a break, I just wanted to give them a chance.”
• Eckhouse liked working with the directors on this show, Beverly Hills, 90210. He liked observing them.
• When it was Eckhouse’s first time directing, certain cast members were late. Eckhouse kept looking at his watch. DP Rick Gunter came over and said “let me see your watch”. Eckhouse gave him his watch. Gunter said you’ll get it back at the end of the episode. “That’s not your job.” Let the AD take care of that. You do your job.

​
​
​

• Leslie Bega (Marianne) reminded Rosin of girls from his high school. Anti materialistic.
• He was surprised the company didn’t try to bring her back.
• Young says she was terrific in the pilot.
• Young would always meet anyone agents and managers recommended her to.
• Young: You can also find good young actors in local theater. The tiniest theater in San Fernando Valley will still have someone that Young would want to bring in.
• Rosin agrees with Young about local theater.
• For the character of Nat, Young brought in Frank Gorshin. Joe E. Tata was a friend of Tony Shepherd’s. So that’s how Tata was brought in. Young says their auditions were similar but different.
• In a previous podcast, Rosin had said that Gorshin had an arrogant vibe. He had played The Riddler on Batman.
• Rosin says Joe E. Tata brought in warmth. Whereas Gorshin played it as someone who didn’t want to be there, but would offer sage advice.
• Rosin says Joe E. Tata was introduced to him as a friend of E. Duke Vincent’s.
• The Spelling company paid for overages with Luke Perry’s contract.
• E. Duke Vincent told Rosin that anytime the network asked someone to change something, ask them who is paying for it.
• Rosin says Beverly Hills, 90210 had the lowest license fee in all of network television.
• They haven’t been able to find Lisa Dean Ryan, who played Bonnie on “The Gentle Art Of Listening”.
• Young says maybe she’s moved on to other interests.
• Rosin says Lisa Dean Ryan, and Noelle Parker, had a range of talent.
• Young had hired Ann Gillespie elsewhere before Beverly Hills, 90210.
• Young liked Tico Wells right away. Her advice to him for the next callback was “don’t do too much”.
• Young met Luisa Leschin (Anna Rodriguez) earlier.
• Rosin used to teach an extension class at UCLA. He used to use the pilot for Hill Street Blues as an example. He would even bring in Bob Butler to come in and watch the episode with the class. The pilot had changed his life. But now, he says the pilot does not hold up. It’s too racist and sexist.
• Beverly Hills was run by the nannies and housekeepers. So Rosin wanted to have a maid character, to represent that. And show the diversity of Los Angeles.
• Aaron Spelling did not like the elitism that was shown in the culture of Beverly Hills. So he asked for her character to be removed.
• Young did hear the criticism about people of color not being on the show. Young said it was disappointing to hear, because she did try to bring in different people.
• There was an author that thought Mark Damon Espinoza didn’t have a big enough role. That author went on FOX News to talk about it. Young had that author meet with producer Paul Waigner. Things did not get resolved, and that author remained angry.
• Rosin repeats what he said earlier, about the show having the lowest license fee in television. They didn’t have the budget for new cast members. That’s why they kept having focused episodes about race like “One On One” or “East Side Story”.
• They were eventually able to cast Denise Dowse and Henry Pickens in recurring roles.
• They made sure the extras reflected the racial diversity of Los Angeles.
• Rosin repeats what he said on previous episodes, that he won an Imagen Award for East Side Story. That’s an award that celebrates Latino actors and their positive portrayal.
• Young: Denise Dowse was a delight to sit and talk to. She’s likable.
• There’s a story about Denise Dowse on Seinfeld, but Young says she’s not going to share that story.
• Ok, she ended up telling the story. Young gave Dowse a message to give to Jerry Seinfeld, during the time Seinfeld was working on Seinfeld. Dowse gave Jerry Seinfeld the message, and he doubled over in laughter.
• Kristin Dattilo was on “One Man And A Baby”. She also read for Brenda Walsh.
• Here’s the actors that read for either of Kelly, Brenda, or Andrea: Kirstin Dattilo (Melissa in this series), Robin Lively, Tamara Glen, Kelly Williams, Sarah Buxton, Patricia Arquette, Brooke Mills, Julie Condra, Jaycee Brownlee, Heather McAdam (Surf Betty / Sarah on this series), Cheryl Pollock, Sydney Penny, Heather Grimes, Portia Dawson, Kendra Booth, Patricia Jennings, Megan Ward, Lisa Wilcox, Nicole Egbert, Tiffani Amber-Thiessen, Lisa Ann Capps, Deborah Levin, Jennifer Guthrie, Juliet Lewis, Tiffany (the mononymous singer), Karla Montana, Tracey Needham, Tracy Wells, Rebecca Cross, Kristy Swanson.
• Pete Ferriero can’t find Michelle Abrahms (Amanda Peyser).
• Julie McCulloh (Trina on “Slumber Party”) used to be on Growing Pains. She was removed from Growing Pains because she was in Playboy, and Kirk Cameron didn’t like that.
• Young was on Growing Pains at that time.
• “Slumber Party” is Rosin’s favorite episode among ones he didn’t work on.
• Rosin bought Playboy because of the interviews with Huey Newton and Tom Hayden. Those guys were not going to be on the LA Times.
• Ferriero says his first Playboy was the one with Julie McCulloh, because of her.
• Rosin likes Joshua Karton (Driver’s Ed instructor). He was one of Rosin’s friends.
• Aaron Spelling did not like that character.
• Jessica Klein’s first episode was “April Is The Cruelest Month”, the episode with Matthew Perry. Rosin says maybe Shira Wasserman (Klein’s daughter) will help do a podcast for that episode.
• Young knew Matthew Perry from before. It was a great reading.
• Michael Cudlitz (Tony Miller, later in the series) also read for that same part as Matthew Perry. Cudlitz did a great job too.
• Rosin liked how Matthew Perry was a youth champion Canadian tennis player. Rosin liked casting people that could play the sport. So he also liked Tico Wells from One On One.
• Ian Ziering and Jason Priestley could also really play basketball.
• Years later, Rosin saw Matthew Perry playing tennis at Beverly Hills High School. Rosin was too shy to go up to him and say “remember when you did my episode”. Rosin regrets that shyness now.
• Young had also worked with Matt LeBlanc elsewhere, on Just The 10 Of Us.
• Young had hired Jennifer Anniston on a pilot before.
• Young also cast Marcy Kaplan (Lydia Leeds).
• Melissa Rivers is in “Fame Is Where You Find It”.
• Young had tried to get Tori Spelling cast before. It was for another 1 hour show. The producer said she was terrific but she doesn’t need the job. Young said Tori Spelling shouldn’t be penalized for who her father is. She’s trying to build a resume.
• Young has said she’s always tried to give people who are 2nd generation people in the entertainment industry, a fair chance.
• Melissa Rivers is another example of this.
• Carrie Hamilton from the “Stand And Deliver” episode is another example.

This is going to be a long one. Firstly, the Confession of Dositheus, a confession ratified by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and signed by all Patriarchs since the Council of Crete in 2016, says the following in its second decree (you can read it here https://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html ):
"but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God – who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich – it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority." (Confession of Dositheus, Decree 2)
However, it appears as if the Orthodox Church has erred in at least two places in its councils. Firstly, the Council of Jassy in 1642 ratified the Confession of Peter Moghila, which states the following in its 104th decree (https://maksimologija.org/mogila-orthodox-confession ):
"The ointment of chrism is the second mystery; and this had its beginning at the time when the Holy Spirit came down from heaven and rested upon the Apostles, and sealed them with his divine grace, that they might preach the faith of Christ steadfastly and without ceasing. Of this blessing and divine assistance hath every one need who becometh a Christian; and as then the Holy Spirit came down in the visible form of fire and bestowed his grace, or gifts, upon the Apostles, so now, when the priest anointeth the newly baptised person with the holy oil, he becomes endued from above with the gifts of the Holy Spirit: As appears from the words which the priest (as appointed) useth in the celebration of this Mystery; namely, the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, Amen. As if he should say, By the anointing of this holy ointment thou art sealed and confirmed into the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which thou dost receive for a confirmation of thy Christian faith. Agreeable hereto are the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. 1.21), He which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God: Who hath also sealed us, and given the Earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. This Anointing, or rather the bestowing the Efficacy of this Unction, was done in the times of the Apostles by laying on of hands; according to the Scripture (Acts 8.17), Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. This was afterwards performed by anointing with ointment, as we learn from St Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the Disciple of St Paul (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chs. 2 and 4)."
^ The text above clearly attributes the work of Pseudo-Dionysius to Dionysius the Areopagite as mentioned in the book of acts. By citing Ecclesiastical Hierarchy here, it is saying that this text was written by a disciple of the historical Paul. The problem is that scholarship is unanimous that the works of Pseudo-Dionysius are dependant on Proclus, who wrote in the late 5th century. Even if this is not true, we do not have any unambiguous mentions of the work of Dionysius before the sixth century, which would be odd if he was a prominent apostle, who, according to Church tradition, later became the Bishop of Athens. Furthermore, this work, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, contains references to ecclesiastical structures that were not present in the first century.
A= 'we learn [that it was performed by anointing with oitment] from St Dionysius the Areopagite, who was the Disciple of St Paul'
B= St Dionysius the Areopagite was the Disciple of St Paul
A → B
B = false
∴ A is false
Below I have attached some resources on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20717171?searchText=pseudo-dionysius&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpseudo-dionysius%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A989329de8aa08b25bc69195915261da6
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jmedirelicult.43.1.0001?searchText=pseudo-dionysius&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpseudo-dionysius%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A0cf11a64bb46b55bdcccfcdfc0cf3e38
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474890?searchText=pseudo-dionysius&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dpseudo-dionysius%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A17c51552dad6f7378aaae7441274950f
It is considered completely untenable that he was a disciple of St. Paul by modern scholarship. Regarding earlier texts that seem to mention him, modern scholarship has shown that instead, Pseudo-Dionysius was dependant on these: "Until more recently more credit was given to other lines of evidence on which Franz Hipler endeavoured to support his entirely new thesis, to the effect that the author of the writings lived about the year 375 in Egypt, as Abbot of Rhinokorura. Hipler's attempts, however, at removing the textual difficulties, ekleipsis, adelphotheos, soma, proved to be unsuccessful. In fact, those very passages in which Hipler thought that the Fathers had made use of the Areopagite (e.g., in Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome) do not tell in favor of this hypothesis; on the contrary, they are much better explained if the converse be assumed, namely, that Pseudo-Dionysius drew from them. Hipler himself, convinced by the results of recent research, has abandoned his opinion." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Note that the letter describing the reception of the Confession of Peter Moghila describes it as such:
"…vested with the most full and plenary power of the whole sacred Synod; he went into Moldavia, as we have said, together with Porphyrius; whither also, sent from the Russians, came Isaias Trophinus, and Conovicius, and Xenovicius; men truly excellent, adorned with all kind of learning and liberal knowledge. These three taking God only for their guide and master, who is the giver of all knowledge, and of all true holiness and understanding, brought the book to this excellent conclusion; having by much mutual disquisition and disputation thoroughly purged it from all foreign doctrines and defilements of novelty, and then forthwith he sent it to the most holy four orthodox patriarchs, the successors in the seats of the Apostles, to be reviewed and considered of. They also confirmed it with their approbation, as containing the true and genuine doctrines, and in nothing departing from the sincere and catholic faith of the Greeks, and declared it to be pure and uncorrupt; by the universal judgement, determination and consent of all, and furthermore by their own proper subscription, and of their clergy as appears hereunto annexed, they decreed and confirmed it; and entitled it, not only of the Russians, but by a more universal Appellation, The orthodox Confession of all the Greeks. Yet however, this book as it was but lately to be had in print among the Russians, so among the Greeks it was only to be had in manuscripts, and that but very rarely. Whereupon, the Lord Panagiota, Interpreter to his imperial Majesty of the East and West, a person of wisdom and piety, and entirely devoted to true religion; as he is most regardful and affectionate of our Greek nation, and zealous contender for the orthodox faith; among his many other magnificent works and public employments, wherein he is daily and hourly engaged, he willingly undertook the care and patronage of this also; and caused this book to be printed at his own expense in our and the latin languages, that every one, who was desirous to increase in piety, might without any expense (for he caused the copies to be distributed to all gratis) be provided with a book, from when as from a source of pure and living water, and out of the genuine fountain of salvation draw the sacred doctrine of our Church, unpolluted with the muddy and foreign opinions of sectaries. And now, let no one marvel, that this book is expressed in a plain style, and unadorned with eloquence; seeing that thereby, it is not only fitted for the learned, but the unlearned multitude also. For the wise and prudent reader ought not to regard the unfinished manner of expression, but the truth of the words and thoughts." (Prefatory Letter of Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem)
The above quote can once again be found here: https://maksimologija.org/mogila-orthodox-confession/
This letter describes the way in which the Confession was declared as ‘containing the true and genuine doctrines, and in nothing departing from the sincere and catholic faith of the Greeks, and declared it to be pure and uncorrupt; by the universal judgement, determination and consent of all’ by the patriarchs who signed off on it. As such, it seems that it was viewed as infallible.
The Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, in ratifying the Confession of Peter Moghila, says this: "And only some six or seven years ago at the most there was published a book intituled The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, which the IVTost Holy Metropolitan, Peter of Kieff, compiled ; and which was revised* and corrected, where revision and correction were needed, at the instance of the Synod of Jassy, by the Protosyncellus and Preacher of the Great Church at Constantinople, Meletius Syrigus, from Crete. And this the Eastern Church hath entirely received, and doth receive ; and the same was published" (Dositheus et al. 2011: pp. 15)
You can find this text on internet archive: https://archive.org/details/actsanddecreess00lucagoog/page/n26/mode/2up?q=Kieff
Dositheos, Robertson James Nathaniel William Beauchamp, and Cyril Lucaris. The acts and decrees of the synod of jerusalem: Sometimes called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden under Dositheus, patriarch of jerusalem in 1672. Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, 2011.
The Holy Spirit didn't lead the Synod of Jassy to correct the authorship of the Dionysian corpus? This part implies that correction and revision were not needed in decree 104 of the Confession of Peter Moghila, and, furthermore, that the Church entirely receives the confession as dogmatic.
Secondly, the Horos of the Photian Council of 879, considered the eighth ecumenical council by Orthodox Christians, says this (read it here https://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm ):
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered."
In this statement, there is an entailment that the disciples have sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations.
The entailment is as follows:
We expel those… → ([we are] Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact… the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment (based on sentence structure) → The Apostles have canonical stipulations)
Here, the structure of the sentence shows that "we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered" is dependent upon 'jointly sanctifying and preserving in tact...the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles'
A = 'we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered.'
The sentence structure indicates that this entails B:
B = [we are] Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact… the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment
C= The Apostles have canonical stipulations
A → (B → C) = (A ˄ B) → C
For example, if I say 'keeping in mind the letter that Obama wrote me, I will do x', this entails that Obama wrote me a letter. If my statement entails something false, the statement is false: If p is false and q is true or p is true and q is false, the statement is still false.
P. Q. P + Q
TRUE. TRUE. TRUE FALSE. TRUE. FALSE
TRUE. FALSE. FALSE
FALSE FALSE. FALSE
So lets say that p + q is '(we are) Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact...the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment'
p = (we are) Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact...the sacred ordinances...of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment
q= (we are) Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact...canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment'
Even if the Disciples have ordinances, if p+q =B above (based on the text) and q entails C then if C is false q is false and p + q is also false.
B = p+q
B→ C
p+q → C
p ⊭ C
q → C
C= false
∴ q = false
∴ p + q = false
A → B and B = p + q
A → p + q
∴ A = false
The problem is, it is considered completely untenable that the canons of the apostles actually go back to the apostles, as they quote canons from the Council of Antioch in 341 and reference a type of Church hierarchy not present in authentic writings from the first century written by presumed successors of the apostles. They are also not mentioned before the 4th century, which is very suspect for a canonical collection supposedly left by the apostles to help govern the Church. If the council of Antioch is instead dependent on the canons, why does it not cite them? If there are other canons that go back to the Apostles, where are they, and what is the evidence that they do? Certainly no other canonical collection states that it has a directly apostolic origin. Thus, it can be said that the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council entails something false, which means in no ambiguous terms that it has erred.
Note that the statement from the Confession of Dositheus reads: "it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority" (Decree 2) and again "In like manner the Church is taught indeed by the Life-giving Spirit, but through the medium of the holy Fathers and Doctors (whose rule is acknowledged to be the Holy and Ecumenical Synods; for we shall not cease to say this ten thousand times); and, therefore, not only are we persuaded, but do profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or at all be deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth. For the All-holy Spirit continually operating through the holy Fathers and Leaders faithfully ministering, delivers the Church from error of every kind." (Decree 12)
If we call the second quote above x, it seems that x entails the truth of all other binding statements the church has made. Statement A from further above is binding because of its presence in a Horos (definition) from an ecumenical council.
Horoi from Ecumenical Councils are binding and infallible
A is a Horos
∴ A is binding and infallible
x from decree 12 → A
A is false
∴ x is false
You can read the following sources on the Canons of the 'Apostles' and why scholarship is unanimous as to their status as a forgery or fraud: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23947920?searchText=apostolic+canons&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dapostolic%2Bcanons%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Afb0f4deadf16b447c63b049972f4248e
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23948013?searchText=apostolic+canons+authorship&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dapostolic%2Bcanons%2Bauthorship%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aef8cb9e3774f5026b5fccc1979d79eb1&seq=8
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01/encyc01.html?term=Apostolic%20Constitutions%20and%20Canons
etc.
Note that 'canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles' is not the name of a document, and, if the statement should be analyzed [canonical] [stipulations] rather than [canonical stipulations], why would there be stipulations of the Apostles that wouldn't be canonical if they are the guardians of Church tradition received from Christ?
From these two arguments, it is clear that the Orthodox Church has erred and been deceived into thinking that forgeries are legitimate and actually originate from their pseudonymous attributions. Error and deception are just what the Holy Spirit was supposed to prevent according to the Pan-Orthodox and binding Confession of Dositheus. If a pan-Orthodox council signed by all Patriarchs with the same authority as other ecumenical councils as per i.e. the acts of the seventh ecumenical council (https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/07/03/what-makes-a-council-ecumenical/#nicaea2 ) can be wrong, how can anything in Orthodox tradition be trusted? Keep in mind these are not disciplinary canons either, the texts cited are meant to be a binding confession of faith (for the Confession of Peter Moghila), and the definition (Horos) of an ecumenical council (the Horos of the Photian Council of 879). On the ecumenical status of the latter in the east, see https://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm and https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eighth_Ecumenical_Council
On the ecumenical status of the Council of Jassy see https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/12/21/the-delayed-synodical-receptions-of-the-councils-of-jasy-1642-and-jerusalem-1672/
The Photian Council was also ecumenical in Rome for a while before they opted to go with the earlier robber council as the legitimate one, so this post may also falsify Roman Catholicism.

Vlad's Distressed Mistress: A New FNAF Theory....
A while ago, I came across a new perspective on a commonly overlooked part of the FNAF franchise, and I couldn’t help but not go deeper and share my findings. Plus with the advent of new FNAF content, this topic only seems to get more and more interesting.
Back in FNAF Sister Location, at the end of nearly each night, we find ourselves in what we assume to be Mike's house, where he spends some time watching a show called 'The Immortal and the Restless.' For those who may be new to the franchise, this four episode show seems to be styled after late 50's soap operas. Specifically, it is very similar in style and music to a real life soap opera called 'As The World Turns' from 1956 and also has a similar naming convention as 'The Young and the Restless' from 1973.
In Immortal, we catch a glimpse into the lives of Vlad the vampire and Clara, who are shown to be consistently on edge with each-other.
At a glance, this doesn't seem like much, but as I delved deeper I noticed many things that I have never heard or seen talked about in the FNAF community. So here it is, my notes and theories on what Scott might be trying to tell us through 'The Immortal and the Restless.'
Sources:

• The Five Nights at Freddie’s Ultimate Guide
• The Immortal and the Restless Series from FNaF Sister Location
• Five Nights at Freddie’s Fazbear Frights Book #1: Into the Pit Stitchwraith Stinger
• Five Nights at Freddie’s Security Breach
• Five Nights at Freddie’s The Movie

NOTE #1: William Afton had an Affair
As I was reading the Ultimate Guide, I came across the script for The Immortal and the Restless on pages 420 and 421. But what got me thinking wasn't what Vlad or Clara said, but it was the first lines that was spoken by the narrator.
In episodes 1 & 2 of I&R, Clara is described by the narrator as ‘Vlad’s distressed mistress…’
Immortal and the Restless: Episode 1
Narrator: Another day, another dramatic entry in the lives of Vlad and his distressed mistress!
Narrator: Will Vlad and hisdistressed mistressfind common ground? Tune in next time!
Immoral and the Restless: Episode 2
*Narrator: As the sun sets, so does another chapter in the saga of love lost between Vlad and his distressed mistress…
The fact that this phrasing was used three times got me to thinking. To start, what does the word mistress mean? According to to the official Oxford Language website, the word has two meanings;

1. A woman in a position of power or authority
2. A woman having a extramarital sexual relationship, especially with a married man.

With this in mind, I am under the impression that Vlad and Clara are NOT married. Clara does brings up a Dimond ring in episode 4: ‘Well, how’s this? Im keeping the diamond ring.’ I believe that she is most likely referring to a engagement ring, which only further cements my initial observation that these two are NOT married.
Through-out the story of I&R I find no evidence that Vlad and Clara are married. From the language used in the script to even watching the shorts closely and taking note of their hands for wedding bands. Nothing. They are referred to as ‘long lost lovers’ and ‘star-crossed lovers’, but nothing that indicated that they officially ‘tied the knot’.
With this information, I believe that Vlad had an affair with Clara and cheated on Mrs. Vlad. Then, if we are to assume that Vlad is a representation of William Afton in this story, than I believe that Willam had an affair with another woman. This is why Mrs. Afton left, sure William was probably consumed by his work with the animatronics, but the fact that he cheated on her is most likely what sent her off the edge.
NOTE #2: Child Support
As I was reading trough the I&R script again, there are a few times that the story brings up Vlad having to pay child support.
Immortal and The Restless: Episode 1
Clara: Well, then, at least pay your child support, you deadbeat!
Immortal and the Restless: Episode 4
Narrator: But what about the baby? What about the back child support?
Why would Vlad have to pay child support? If we are building off of the theory that Vlad cheated on his wife, she probably filed for divorce and demanded custody of the baby. A custody battle ensued, with Vlad coming out on top, giving us an explanation of why we see the baby with him in I&R. I then looked through-out the franchise and, wouldn’t you know it, there is a reference to a custody case in three other places.
1.Fazbear Frights Stitchwraith Stinger #1 (The Books)**
In the first Stitchwraith stinger at the end of the first Fazbear Frights book Into the Pit, we meet Detective Larson who just divorced his wife and is in the middle of a custody battle over their seven-year-old son Ryan.
2.Five Nights at Freddie’s Security Breach: Retro CD 4-7140 (A Modern Game)**
In Retro CD 4-7140, while having a session with Vanessa, the therapist brings up the fact that Vanessa’s father, Bill, ‘didn’t play fair’ when he was in a custody battle with Vanessa’s mother. Quote from the game;
Therapist: I know you do. Your supervisor notes that you follow instructions perfectly. Your dad made you follow instructions, didn’t he? I’m talking about the custody battle between your mom and your dad. Your dad didn’t play it fair, did he? He used to make your mom look bad in court.
While this snippet could be used to explain how Vanessa got to where she is in the game, I think that this has a deeper meaning that could relate to this story in I&R.
3.Five Nights at Freddie’s The Movie**
In Five Nights at Freddie’s Movie, one of the main points of the film is that Mike was *fighting for custody** of his sister Abby against their horrible aunt. It is one of, if not the main reason why Mike accepted the job at Freddie’s in the first place.
With all of this in mind, the biggest question is WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Ok, so William Afton had a custody battle, but for which child? Is it Crying Child? Is it Michael? Or is it Elizabeth? What other implications does this have on the lore overall? For that, I am still working out an answer.
Regardless, the fact that this comes up FOUR different times in multiple aspects of the franchise gives me more than enough reason to think that Scott is trying to tell us something. Now, I personally do not have open access to either the Fazbear Frights or Tales from the Pizzaplex series, so there could be a chance that there could be more cases of custody battles. For that, I reach out to you, my fellow theorists, please comment down below and let me know if there are other instances of this in the franchise.