10,000 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2018
    1. "Sparrowe'sHouse,"abitofoldarchitecturewhereCharlesIIlayconcealedafterthebattleofWorcester,

      The Battle of Worcester (1651) was the final battle of the English Civil War. King Charles II's army of Royalists was defeated by Oliver Cromwell’s Parliamentarian New Model Army, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. After the battle, a £1,000 bounty was placed on the former king’s head, and he fled the country. After six weeks of traveling by night and taking refugee in various estates, Charles safely arrived in France.

    2. WilliamWallace,

      William Wallace (b. 1270s, d. 1305) was a Scottish knight who became an important military leader during the Wars of Scottish Independence. Wallace led the Scots to a shocking victory against the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (1297). He then became the Guardian of Scotland, the de facto head of state, until his defeat at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298. In 1305, Wallace was turned over to King Edward I of England by a Scottish knight loyal to England, and was hanged, drawn, and quartered for treason.

    3. LookatJapan

      Meiji Constitution (1889): The Meiji Restoration restored the Japanese Emperor to direct political power, and the nation underwent a series of reform and westernization to strengthen Japan in relation to nations of the West. The constitution set clear boundaries for the Emperor and the rest of the executive branch and created an independent judiciary system which guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties.Under this constitution, the first Asian Parliamentary government was established. The Emperor acted as the head of state with control over the armies and whether there were to be declarations of war or peace, while the Prime Minister was the head of government (the House of Peers and House of Representatives) and had legislative authority.

    1. But the difficulty of finding and keeping a roof over one’s head — for many families in eviction court, rent consumes as much as 80 percent of their income, he writes — has become “not just a consequence of poverty, but a cause of poverty.”

      It must be a difficult decision for families facing poverty to have to choose between paying for their shelter or putting what little money they have into other basic human needs such as food.

    1.     Of my own thoughts it is folly to speak. Swooning, I staggered to the opposite wall. For one instant the party upon the stairs remained motionless, through extremity of terror and of awe. In the next, a dozen stout arms were toiling at the wall. It fell bodily. The corpse, already greatly decayed and clotted with gore, stood erect before the eyes of the spectators. Upon its head, with red extended mouth and solitary eye of fire, sat the hideous beast whose craft had seduced me into murder, and whose informing voice had consigned me to the hangman. I had walled the monster up within the tomb!

      He had put the cat in he wall

    1. A key feature of QUIC is support for multiple data streams. New data streams can be created implicitly by the client or server by increasing the channel id.

      Can create multiple connections to server to send data in parallel but each parallel connection is still subject to head blocking

  2. www.nature.com.wdg.biblio.udg.mx:2048 www.nature.com.wdg.biblio.udg.mx:2048
    1. Concerns regarding the ‘green’ quality of batteries have long existed and over the years these concerns have been addressed in a vari-ety of ways. We must now address the issue of chemical toxicity in batteries head-on by identifying non-toxic element and additive alternatives with similar performance to their toxic counterparts
    1. For ex-ample, Mayers and colleagues (2014) applied electricity in-tensity estimates as part of an LCA study comparing differentmethods of games distribution, concluding that the carbon-equivalent emissions arising from an Internet game download(for an average 8.8-gigabyte [GB] game) were higher than thosefrom Blu-ray Disc distribution in 2010

      I still have a hard reading getting my head around this

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. In the search for gravitational waves, “most of the action takes place on the phone,” Fred Raab, the head of LIGO’s Hanford site, told me.

      This came directly from an interview with the head of LIGO's Hanford site, Fred Raab.

    1. When Nettie says this, I can imagine how broken she is because she and Celie are trying their best to get an education, and their father is bringing them down, and making them feel unworthy. In addition, their father is sexually abusive, so in my head, I thought that that'd be the only thing he was doing to hurt these girls, but no. He is saying how they are stupid and do not deserve to go and get an education.

    1. Tonight I lay my head down but the pressure never stops knawing at my sanity content when I am dropped

      Even when I sleep, trouble stays on my mind. I'll be happy and at peace when I'm dead....prolific.

    1. laurels

      the foliage of the bay tree woven into a wreath or crown and worn on the head as an emblem of victory or mark of honor in classical times.

    1. He says he also got a couple death threats and had to consider switching phone numbers. Boulder pushed off overpass kills dad in car     by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links MORE FOR YOUActivatedYou SupplementsActress: "Eating This Every Morning Changed My Life"ActivatedYou SupplementsUndoMorning Finance | LendingTree QuotesLittle-Known Veteran Benefit Eliminates Mortgage Payments in IllinoisMorning Finance | LendingTree QuotesUndoSafe Step Walk-In TubsThe Top Rated Walk-In Tub for 2017Safe Step Walk-In TubsUndoAlabama sheriff kept $750K in funds meant to feed inmates: reportThe Hill on MSNUndoTexas State Rep Faces Backlash Over Snide Stephen Hawking Condolence TweetGeoBeats on MSNUndoUnarmed felon robs bar so he could go back to prison, avoid homelessnessFOX News on MSNUndoAntivirus Top 10Top 10 Recommended Antivirus Providers For Mac Users (2018)Antivirus Top 10UndoEverQuote Insurance QuotesChicago, Illinois: This Unbelievable, Tiny Company Is Disrupting a $200 Billion IndustryEverQuote Insurance QuotesUndoGundry MDU.S. Cardiologist: Stop Taking Probiotics ImmediatelyGundry MDUndoLisa Bonet says Bill Cosby gave off a 'sinister' energyAssociated Press on MSNUndoEXCLUSIVE: Eddie Murphy 'not interested' in seeing the daughter, 10, he had with Mel BDaily Mail on MSNUndoAn emotional support dog bit a six-year-old girl on a Southwest Airlines flight — and some people are blaming the child (LUV)Business Insider on MSNUndoIcePopMost People Missed The Giant Blooper In This Iconic 'Forrest Gump' SceneIcePopUndoHyperactivzRemember Fabio? Try Not to Gasp when You See Him NowHyperactivzUndoLuxury Auto | Sponsored LinksThe Most Amazing Luxury Cars for 2018 Are Finally HereLuxury Auto | Sponsored LinksUndoStephen Hawking's death converges with Pi Day, Einstein's birthdayFOX News on MSNUndoTori Spelling’s Family and Friends Are ‘Very, Very Worried’US Weekly on MSNUndoThis is the No. 1 food to avoid at buffets at all costs, according to a restaurant ownerAOL on MSNUndoBanyan HillSeniors Rush For Chance at Freedom Checks: "It's Better Than Social Security"Banyan HillUndoHarry&#39;sHarry's Releases New Razor, Keeps Price at $2 a BladeHarry'sUndoLendingTreeBest way to save on your mortgage: shop aroundLendingTreeUndo Previous Next Go to MSN Home Go to MSN News ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin(); var vglnk = { key: '33701cec9fcd3b06ac687703f44f1f14', cuid: 'AA7mZ3|us|new|ar|newsus|Associat' }; ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin(); require(["c.deferred"], function () { require({ js: '//cdn.viglink.com/api/vglnk.js' }); }); ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin(); require(["refreshPdpModules", "c.dom", "c.sso"], function(refreshPdpModules) { try { define("c.financeajaxrefreshstart", 1); refreshPdpModules(); } catch (e) { define("c.financeajaxrefresherror", 1); } }); require(["refreshPdpModules", "c.dom", "c.pdp"], function(refreshPdpModules) { try { define("c.financeajaxrefreshstart", 1); refreshPdpModules(); } catch (e) { define("c.financeajaxrefresherror", 1); } }); require(["jquery", "binding", "LocaleSettings", "c.pdpready"], function($, binding, utils) { utils.PostAjaxComplete(); }); require(["jquery", "binding", "LocaleSettings", "finance.ajax.done"], function($, binding, utils) { utils.PostAjaxComplete(); }); define("LocaleSettings", ["utils"], function() { var settings = {}; settings.numberGroupSizes = "3".split(" "); settings.numberDecimalSeparator = "."; settings.numberDecimalDigits = "2"; settings.numberGroupSeparator = ","; settings.currencyGroupSizes = "3".split(" "); settings.currencyGroupSeparator = ","; settings.currencyDecimalSeparator = "."; settings.currencyDecimalDigits = parseInt("2"); settings.currencySymbol = "$"; settings.currencyPositivePattern = parseInt("0"); settings.currencyNegativePattern = parseInt("0"); settings.percentGroupSizes = "3".split(" "); settings.percentGroupSeparator = ","; settings.percentDecimalSeparator = "."; settings.percentDecimalDigits = parseInt("2"); settings.percentSymbol = "%"; settings.percentPositivePattern = parseInt("0"); settings.percentNegativePattern = parseInt("0"); settings.shortTimePattern = "h:mm tt"; settings.monthYearPattern = "MMM yyyy"; settings.monthDatePattern = "MMM d"; settings.dayDatePattern = "ddd MMM d"; settings.negativeSign = "-"; settings.defaultDatePattern = " MMMM d, yyyy"; settings.monthDayYearPattern = "M/d/yyyy"; settings.longTimePattern = "h:mm:ss tt"; settings.dateSeparator = "/"; settings.timeSeparator = ":"; settings.indexdetailsurl = "/en-us/money/indexdetails"; settings.stockdetailsurl = "/en-us/money/stockdetails"; settings.funddetailsurl = "/en-us/money/funddetails"; settings.etfdetailsurl = "/en-us/money/etfdetails"; settings.commoditydetailsurl = "/en-us/money/markets/commoditydetails"; settings.watchlisturl = "/en-us/money/watchlist"; settings.commoditiesNewsurl = "/en-us/money/commoditiesnews"; settings.currencyConverterUrl = "/en-us/money/currencyconverter"; settings.serpUrl = "/en-us/money/serp"; settings.milestoneDigits = "".split(","); settings.milestoneWords = "".split(","); settings.isUserAuthenticated = "False"; settings.currenciesUrl = "/en-us/money/currencydetails"; settings.marketDetailsUrl = "/en-us/money/marketdetails"; settings.homepageScreenersUrl = "/en-us/money/homepagescreeners"; settings.screenerAddFilterUrl = "/en-us/money/getscreenerfilters"; settings.filterResponseUrl = "/en-us/money/getfilterresponse"; settings.presetScreensUrl = "/en-us/money/getpresetscreens"; settings.realTimeQuotesUrl = "/en-us/money/realtimequotes"; settings.autosuggestControllerUrl = "/en-us/money/autosuggest"; settings.searchresultsPageUrl = "/en-us/money/searchresults"; settings.heroChartUrl = "/en-us/money/stockdetails/herochart"; settings.stockDetailsFilmstripUrl = "/en-us/money/stockdetailsfilmstrippartialpage?symbol=BBKIKZU"; settings.locale = "en-us"; settings.language = "en"; settings.country = "us"; settings.PostAjaxComplete = function(alwaysReset) { var pagingSection = binding.get("pagingSection", ".pagingsection"); //<![CDATA[ if (pagingSection && typeof pagingSection.teardown === "function" && typeof pagingSection.setup === "function") { pagingSection.teardown(); pagingSection.setup(); if (alwaysReset) { binding("pagingSection", ".pagingsection").all(); } } else { binding("pagingSection", ".pagingsection").all(); } //]]> }; return settings; }); ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); .bingNewsContainer h2::after, [data-aop="financeportfoliobingnewsmodule"] h3::after, .bingNewsContainer #pdp-module h3::after { content: "News from the Web"; } PROMOTED LINKS Sponsored It's Like Amazon, but Everything Sells in 90 Seconds Tophatter This App Applies Every Coupon on the Internet… Honey A Couple Tried A NECTAR Mattress: Here's What… Popdust for Nectar Sandra Bullock's Most Daring Red Carpet… StyleBistro by Taboola by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksSponsored LinksSponsored LinksMORE FROM MSNCustodian at a South Carolina school steals students' money during walkoutCNN on MSNUndoBlind date: ‘She was somewhat stunned to find out that I was an “old man” ’The Boston Globe on MSNUndoInd. Man Who Fatally Shot Girlfriend After She Rejected His Marriage Proposal Gets 45 YearsPeople on MSNUndo7th-grader had a funny feeling about her math teacher — what she found got him firedMiami Herald on MSNUndo     by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Sponsored Links YOU MAY LIKEGlassesUSA.comGlasses-Wearers Are Going Crazy Over This WebsiteGlassesUSA.comUndoTopixoffbeatOnly True Christians Can Pass This Bible Women QuizTopixoffbeatUndoLowerMyBillsHow To Pay Off Your House ASAP (So Simple It's Unbelievable)LowerMyBillsUndoTwo Red DotsTry Not to Smile When You See Her TodayTwo Red DotsUndo AdChoices by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksSponsored LinksSponsored LinksMORE FROM NEWSMan kills baby and 2 family members in Brooklyn homeNew York Daily News on MSNUndoAirport officials intercept highly destructive pestWBAL TV Baltimore on MSNUndoUtah woman found guilty of trying to hire hit man charged with same crime for third timeFOX News on MSNUndoDog mistakenly sent to Japan by United gets a private jet homeCBS News on MSNUndo Microsoft Store Offers - Sponsored ASUS VivoBook Flip, sale $314 NEW! Fitbit Versa (pre-order) Save $50 on the Forza Motorsport 7 Bundle Windows Mixed Reality headsets, from $314 Feedback © 2018 Microsoft Privacy Legal About our Ads Feedback Help MSN Worldwide Newsletter Found the story interesting? Like us on Facebook to see similar stories I'm already a fan, don't show this again Send Feedback We appreciate your input! How we can improve? Please give an overall site rating: Submit Close Privacy Statement Help Help & Support ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin();require(["window","document","locat1on","trackInfo","c.onload"],function(n,t,i,r){(function u(){var e=r.sitePage,h=e.chartBeatUID,v=e.localeCode,o=e.channel,c=e.department,l=e.chartBeatBase,y=e.chartBeatDomain||i.hostname,p=c?o+","+o+":"+c:o,s,f,a;h&&l?(s=n._timing||{},n._st_startpt=s.start||0,n._st_endpt=s.load||0,f=((I11C || I10C).PreLocationContextProxy)(n).locat1on.pathname,f==="/"||f==="/en-us/"?f="/en-us":f.charAt(f.length-1)=="/"&&(f=f.substr(0,f.length-1)),n._sf_async_config={uid:h,sessionLength:15,domain:v+"."+y,sections:p,authors:e.cvPartner?decodeURIComponent(e.cvPartner.replace("+","%20")):"",path:f},a=(/\bsn:\s*(\w*)/.exec(t.getElementsByTagName("HEAD")[0].getAttribute("data-info"))||{})[1]||"",n._cbq=n._cbq||[],n._cbq.push(["_cdname",a]),require({js:l+"/js/chartbeat.js"})):setTimeout(u,50)})()}) ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin(); require(["headData", "pageInstance", "mediator", "c.deferred"], function (headData, pageInstance, mediator) { var url = '//www.bizographics.com/collect/?fmt=gif&pid=7850'; if (headData && headData.clientSettings && headData.clientSettings.static_page) { mediator.pub(pageInstance.eventName); var rid = pageInstance.getActivityId(); url = url.replace(/([?&]rid=)[^&#]*/i, "$1" + rid); } new Image().src = url.replace(/&amp;/g, '&'); }); ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); <div> <img data-src="//www.bizographics.com/collect/?fmt=gif&amp;pid=7850&amp;ts=noscript" width="1" height="1" alt="" /> </div> ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin(); require(["document", "c.deferred"], function (document) { var iframe = document.createElement("iframe"); var protocolWithColon = "True" === "True" ? ((I11C || I10C).PreLocationContextProxy)(document).locat1on.protocol : protocol + ":"; iframe.src = protocolWithColon + "//" + "cdn.adaptv.advertising.com/msft/msftsync.html"; iframe.width = 0; iframe.height = 0; iframe.setAttribute("style", "display: block; border: 0"); document.body.appendChild(iframe); }); ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); <iframe src="cdn.adaptv.advertising.com/msft/msftsync.html" height="0" width="0" style="display: block; border: 0"></iframe> ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin();require(["imageLoad","perfMarker","perfMeasure"],function(n){n.cleanup()});require(["trackInfo","window","c.onload"],function(n,t){function o(){if(n.sitePage.requestId){var i=u.setupParameters("load_time");i&&(i.timeToOnload=r,i.timeToDomComplete=f,i.timeToFirstByte=e,t.performance&&t.performance.navigation&&t.performance.navigation.type&&(i.navType=t.performance.navigation.type),u.sendUpdate(i))}else t.setTimeout(o,500)}var u=n.telemetryTracking,r,f,e,i=(t.performance||{}).timing;i&&(r=i.loadEventStart-i.navigationStart,f=i.domComplete-i.navigationStart,e=i.responseStart-i.navigationStart,r&&o())});window._perfMarker&&window._perfMarker("TimeTocDom",!0);window._perfMeasure&&window._perfMeasure("TimeForcDom","TimeToHeadStart","TimeTocDom",!0);define("c.dom",1);window.onload=function(n){function r(){clearTimeout(t);t=0;window._perfMarker&&window._perfMarker("TimeTocDeferred");window._perfMeasure&&window._perfMeasure("TimeForcDeferred","TimeTocOnload","TimeTocDeferred");define("c.deferred",1);require(["c.deferred"],function(){i=setTimeout(f,u)})}function f(){clearTimeout(i);i=0;window._perfMarker&&window._perfMarker("TimeTocPostDeferred");window._perfMeasure&&window._perfMeasure("TimeForcPostdeferred","TimeTocDeferred","TimeTocPostDeferred");define("c.postdeferred",1)}var t,i,u=2e3;return function(n){var i;n&&(i=(window.JSON&&window.JSON.parse(n)||{}).dms,u=(window.JSON&&window.JSON.parse(n)||{}).ps);t=setTimeout(r,i||3e3)}(document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].getAttribute("data-js")),function(i){typeof n=="function"&&n(i);window._perfMarker&&window._perfMarker("TimeTocOnload",!0);window._perfMeasure&&window._perfMeasure("TimeForcOnload","TimeTocDom","TimeTocOnload",!0);define("c.onload",1);t&&(window.setImmediate?setImmediate(r):setTimeout(r,0))}}(window.onload) ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd();;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin();define("trackingConstants",{trackingData: {lastIndex: 184 } }); ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd(); ;/*7P1RCD3H9R0M*/var I10C;var I11C;(function(I10C){ I10C.ScriptBegin || (I10C.ScriptBegin = function(){}); I10C.ScriptEnd || (I10C.ScriptEnd = function(){});I10C.PostMessage || (I10C.PostMessage = function(){ return this.postMessage.apply(this, arguments); });I10C.Location || (I10C.Location = function i10cloc(ba$e, isWrite, op){ var locat1onPresent = Object.getOwnPropertyNames(ba$e).indexOf('locat1on') !== -1; return (!isWrite) ? ( locat1onPresent ? ba$e.locat1on : (ba$e.location || ba$e.locat1on)) : (locat1onPresent ? {set href(v) {ba$e.locat1on.href = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}} : {set href(v) {ba$e.location = v;}, get href() {return i10cloc(ba$e,false,op);}});}); I11C.PreLocationContextProxy || (I11C.PreLocationContextProxy = function i10cPreLocContext(ba$e) { return ba$e;});})(I11C||I10C|| (I11C = {}));(I11C || I10C).ScriptBegin();window._perfMarker && window._perfMarker("TimeToBodyEnd");window._perfMeasure && window._perfMeasure("TimeForBody","TimeToBodyStart","TimeToBodyEnd",true); ;(I11C || I10C).ScriptEnd();

      that is awful

    1. After years of denials, the NFL has acknowledged a link between head blows and brain disease and agreed in 2015 to a $1 billion settlement with former players.

      the players know what they signed up for

    1. The night waned, and I worked hastily, but in silence. First of all I dismembered the corpse. I cut off the head and the arms and the legs.

      This is just complete overkill

    1. "What signifies it," said the Dervish, "whether there be evil or good? When his highness sendsa ship to Egypt, does he trouble his head whether the mice on board are at their ease or not?"

      In our Enlightenment Reader the naturalist Comte de Buffon discusses the habits and evolution of mice in his piece titled “The Rat.” Buffon states that, “She (nature) has not only put those inferior animals in a condition to perpetuate and to resist by their own numbers, but she seems, at the same time, to have afforded a supply to each by multiplying the neighbouring species. The rat, the mouse, the field-mouse, the water-rat, the short tailed field mouse, the fat squirrel, the garden squirrel, the dormouse, the shrew-mouse, and several others” (Buffon 60-63). Buffon points out that these little creatures will persist even when they are one of the weakest and most inferior species alive. I related this back to Candide by focusing on the moment when they’re discussing if the rats are comfortable on their journey. The irony here is that no one worries themselves about the relief of the mice, but what Buffon points out is that even these seemingly dismissible creatures will resist against the superior species. The mice are merely present on the ship in Candide, but from Buffon’s “The Rat” it’s evident that they can create so much more damage than what is perceived.

      Buffon, Comte de. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. Isaac Kramnick, ed. 1996. Penguin Classics. Print.

    2. the coolness of the magistrate and of the skipper who had robbed him, roused his choler and flung him into a deep melancholy. The villainy of mankind presented itself before his imagination in all its deformity, and his mind was filled with gloomy ideas.

      Alternate translation: "..who had robbed him, affected his spleen and plunged him into the deepest melancholy"

      The Four Humours including Blood, Phlegm, Black Bile, and Yellow Bile are metabolic agents in the human body that had to be balanced in order to maintain health.

      According to Greek Medicine's classifications, Yellow Bile = The Choleric Humor, linked to the gall bladder, provokes, excites and emboldens the passions. Being inflammatory, irritating and caustic, it provokes anger, irritability, boldness, ambition, envy, jealousy and courage. Black Bile = The Melancholic Humor, linked to the spleen, makes one pensive, melancholy and withdrawn. It encourages prudence, caution, realism, pragmatism and pessimism.

      According to The Anatomy of Melancholy by Democritus Junior: “As it is in a man's body, if either head, heart, stomach, liver, spleen, or any one part be misaffected, all the rest suffer with it: so is it with this economical body” (40).

      In “The Angry Liver, the Anxious Heart and the Melancholy Spleen," Thomas Ots suggests that “grumbling anger corresponds with the spleen” and encourages his readers to “note the proximity of this concept to the Hippocratic notions of “choleric” and “melancholic” (41).

      The villainy of mankind has been affecting Candide directly and indirectly while he suppresses his natural anger toward his misfortunes and constant obstacles in his path.

    1. what seems to me to be an overwhelming confrontation of ourexperience by a comprehensive intellect magnificently greater than our own or the sum of all human intellects which has everywhere and everywhen anticipatorilyconceived of the complex generalized, fundamental principles which all together interact as universe

      head explodes

    1. SWAN. Pluck him like a chicken or a duck and scald or do again [in hot water]; put him on a spit skewered in four places and roast him whole with beak and feet and pluck not his head; eat with yellow pepper sauce

      This recipe in particular seems so simple; it's interesting to see how bland and mundane these old recipes are in comparison to the recipes that exist today

    2. Taking the first of the four particulars, which biddeth you to be humble and obedient to your husband, the Scripture bids it .... That is to say, it is the command of God that wives be subject to their husbands as their lords, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as our Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. Thus it followeth that even as the Church is subject and obedient to the commandments, great and small, of Jesus Christ, as to her head, even so wives ought to be subject to their husbands as to their head and obey them and all their commandments great and small....

      Is this actually true?

    3. for the husband is the head of the wife, even as our Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.

      Comparing men to THE Jesus Christ? Slight reach.

  3. doc-08-5g-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-08-5g-docs.googleusercontent.com
    1. The success of manga in the American market cannot be understood without fi rst appre-ciating the role that distribution played and the possibilities that a new distribution mode opened up. Without distribution beyond the dominant modes of direct distribution and comic book stores, it is very likely that manga would have experienced minimal market penetration and would likely have never attracted a substantial female readership. New publishers (entrants) and buyers changed the contours of the industry and the range of content available.

      If you wrap your head around only one part of this article, let it be this: how distributors and publishers impact readers and content.

    2. The Tail That Wags the Dog: The Impact of Distribution on the Development and Direction of the American Comic Book Industry

      Seminar Leadership Discussion Questions

      (page 237) “Although seemingly taken for granted, and despite its mundane and invisible aspect, distribution is critical to understanding what ultimately gets created, printed, sold, consumed and studied. Fundamentally, how, where and when something is made available for purchase influences who will purchase it.”

      Q1 Do you agree with the author that distribution should be credited as a major factor to radically changing and upsetting the comics industry despite its “mundane” role? If not, what are your thoughts on what actually affects content?

      (page 243) “The group did not view comic books as disposable but instead as desirable and sometimes expensive collectibles.” –referring to fandoms as well.

      Q2 Leading off from the first question: Based on the comic book industry’s nature of physically or digitally OWNING the published work, does this affect the role that distributors play? Does the significance and influence of the retailer and distributor vary drastically between industries and mediums? What other areas of the publishing industry can we draw similarities from regarding this idea of owning the ‘product?’

      (page 242) “In an attempt to head off possible governmental regulation and in light of existing ordinances and restrictions, the industry turned to self-policing.”

      Q3 The main reason the Comics Code Authority was established was to self-regulate so the government did not need to step in. When should (or shouldn’t) the government intervene in cultural industries? Despite some criticisms for how the Comics Code handled the industry and skewed the audience and content of comics, do you think it was a better choice than government regulations?

      (page 242) “For a time, the very real threat of being denied distribution compelled publishers and creators to restrict allowable content and served to limit experimentation.”

      Q4 When government, self-regulating bodies or aspects of the actual business or industry start imposing or phasing out specific content or forms, when does this begin to overstep on creative freedom or even become censorship? In some cases people view it as a political move to not distribute or publish something. How do you think you would feel if something you enjoyed and followed closely became heavily regulated, or even discontinued because of content regulation?

    1. We have developed a powerful system for mapping EOD potentials and electric field vectors in three dimensions.

      Electric organ discharge (EOD) potentials, which are generated by electrodes located near the head and tail of an electric fish, are typically difficult to analyze due to variations among different species and the inconsistent geometry of the EOD spatial patterns. Thus, to overcome this obstacle, the authors devised a system for the visual representation of EOD potentials to facilitate analysis. This was achieved by the creation of a robotic arm that recorded the EOD of an immobile electric fish at multiple positions around its body. The motionless state of the fish also enabled the authors to capture the exact times of numerous EODs. Each EOD measurement collected from the arm was then digitally processed and converted into a color-coded map overlaid on a diagram of the fish's body for further research/analysis in the phenomenon known as electrolocation.

    1. “Devil,” I exclaimed, “do you dare approach me? And do not you fear the fierce vengeance of my arm wreaked on your miserable head? Begone, vile insect! Or rather, stay, that I may trample you to dust!

      Frankenstein seems like he's afraid for the monster he created to come near him. He does not like the Monster approaching him what so ever. Frankenstein wants the Monster to leave his sight because he is disgusted and regrets to have created the Monster. He's also not contented with the Monster with whom he created.

    2. I entreat you to hear me before you give vent to your hatred on my devoted head. Have I not suffered enough, that you seek to increase my misery? Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it. Remember, thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine, my joints more supple. But I will not be tempted to set myself in opposition to thee. I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me.

      The creation is saying that he will protect himself no matter what, but will do no harm to his creator even if the creator wants to kill him. The wretch is grateful to his creator for giving it life.

    1. And bats with baby faces in the violet light Whistled, and beat their wings And crawled head downward down a blackened wall And upside down in air were towers Tolling reminiscent bells, that kept the hours And voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells.

      Bats join other dubious sources of sound. In this case they seem to remind the poet of village or city (church) bells and singing voices. But the voices, like the other sound sources in this section, arise from the "empty" and the "exhausted."

    2. “Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?”

      Alluding to the zombie motif. Between life and death, having a functioning head but at the same time an empty head.

    1. According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.

      11 months later, Jane Mayer in the New Yorker wrote that Hannigan told Brennan about "a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted." I thought that was new, but Twitter user @empiricalerror set me straight.

    1. Forty Years Later, the Golden Record Goes Vinyl The audio comes from the original tapes that sat untouched in an underground warehouse since the Voyager launched in 1977.

      This title and subtitle gives linguistic metadata about what this article is about. I did not know what the "Golden Record" was before the subtitle helped to clear things up a little. Based on the metadata it seems as if "The Golden Record" is well known and that this is a big deal. Maybe it just isn't to me because I have never head of it.

    1. knowledge that colleague has in their head that’s just going to be lost to those who remain

      This point is an important one. Universities produce knowledge and knowledge is not neutral. Certain types of knowledges and perspectives are more valued than others. Although still equally valuable, their is something lost, but, at the same time, these lost knowledges manifest themselves in different ways.

    2. I don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t know what I’m good for. I don’t know how to come to terms with the fact that I have so much in my head, and so much in my Google Drive, that is basically useless right now.

      My one true gripe with these lamentations--all appear to work within a very conservative frame of what is the life of the mind. You can be employed elsewhere and still pursue scholarship. If your mind's work is so deeply embedded in who you are as a person, you must be able to find a life for your ideas outside of the academy (honestly, even if you work for the academy, you should still aspire to this). The validity of scholarship must not depend on institutional backing. In my opinion, we need to start cultivating a broader, more enlightened understanding of intellectual work that lends just as much heft and validity to independence as it does to affiliation. Some of the most interesting work is achieved by those who pursue their ideas untethered by institutional milestones. My suggestion is, rather than lament the institution that won't have you, begin generating ideas for a new institution.

    3. Being a scholar isn’t my vocation, nor am I curing cancer with my research on 19th century Catholic women. But more importantly, no one is owed my work. People say “But you should still write your book – you just have to.” I know they mean well, but actually, no, I don’t. I don’t owe anyone this book, or any other books, or anything else that’s in my head.

      And in a similar way, not every individual is "owed" work (though certainly we need it to survive, no one is guaranteed work simply because they acquired a degree) and this is possibly what needs to be considered within the micro-world of the PhD---expectations for employment need to be curbed and this should start at the level of the institution. Phd-dom is a gamble--as is acting, as is being a musician.

    1. he head, neck, and shoulders of Mary were literally cut to pieces. I have frequently felt her head, and found it nearly covered with festering sores, caused by the lash of her cruel mistress. I do not know that her master ever whipped her, but I have been an eye-witness to the cruelty of Mrs. Hamilton. I used to be in Mr. Hamilton's house nearly every day. Mrs. Hamilton used to sit in a large chair in the middle of the room, with a heavy cowskin always by her side, and scarce an hour passed during the day but was marked by the blood of one of these slaves.

      It is normal for slaves to experience cruelty from the mistress of the house if the mistress knows that the master is having sexual relations with the slave. It is not common to hear about a mistress being cruel or more cruel than the master is described to be towards these women slaves.

    1. If you have cameras, consider using several camera presets for different areas of the room. Some systems allow you to point the camera to a specific (local or remote) location and save that “pose” for later recall via a button push. This greatly facilitates conversations during the live session; when someone is talking, you can push a button and the camera will focus on that individual. Always focus on people, not objects. If you set a preset on yourself, follow the elbows and wrists rule. When you stretch out your arms, the edge of the screen should fall between your elbows and wrists. Ten percent of the picture area should be left above the head. Note the microphone placement in the room. Are there multiple microphones, or is there only one that must be shared? If so, can it be shared? If it is fixed in place, you should plan on repeating any statements or questions from participants into the microphone so remote participants can hear the statement or question. A common problem with audio is feedback or echoing. This happens when an open microphone is too close to a speaker – the sound loops from the speaker to the microphone, from the microphone back to the speaker, etc. Thus, microphones should not be active unless one is speaking, and even so you may need to recommend the use of headsets with microphones for participants to eliminate this problem.

      I would lump these together and place as the second item under a category "room-based system considerations:" then for all the others "both room-based system and Personal computer-based videoconferencing systems considerations" as faculty have a hard time grasping which best practices are for which delivery method.

    1. If you fall, without fail Straightway you lose your head, For I will have no pity on you -- Or I will dismount on foot, And I will bend over And you will come and kiss my arse,

      Wow, for a lady, she's super bold to be talking like that. I feel like this shows that not all women kept mum. There were some who were the exception. But it's kind of gross that she'd suggest to do that in public.

    1. Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.’s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.’s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted. (The content of these intercepts has not become public.)

      This unsourced bombshell comes after about 10,000 words of this 15,000 word story. Only in the New Yorker.

    1. A Golden Age of Podcasting? Evaluating Serial inthe Context of Podcast Histories

      1. "Despite [its] growth, podcasting does not seem to have crossed the line into the mainstream, with both radio and streaming music services accounting fora larger ''share of ear'' (Edison et al, 2014).

      This article was written three years ago, and so, many of its references and statistics are taken from 2012-2014 (over eight years ago!). Today, would you consider podcasts "mainstream" or "niche." Why?

      2. "In 2012, the wealth of content that was being created at the thin end of what Anderson calls "the long tail." Conversely, this meant that the head of the tail represented the "hits." These hits were created by services, brands, and individuals with public profiles. In this light, "podcasting is just another form of distribution" (Berry, 2015).

      In its early days, podcasts were considered a true "uncontrolled space" where amateurs could compete equally with traditional media. Since, if podcasts are considered a "mainstream," embodying "just another form of distribution" does this strip away what made them great to begin with? Why or why not?

      3. ''Serial spurred conversation like few other stories…. There was plenty to disagree about, and many questions to ask…. All of these things are good ingredients for the conversations that one can build a podcast around'' (Personal communication, 2015).

      This exert begs the question, are there certain "ingredients" that can be mixed together to warrant success, through podcasts or another medium? Was serial a phenomenon or was its success due to strategic implementation? What elements can we apply to other projects or mediums to aid in generating awareness and ultimate "success"?

      4. *Richard Berry concludes his article by stating "Serial is a significant but not necessarily a defining moment [within a cultural context]."

      Do you agree with his conclusion?

      5. "Indeed, while the Internet may be supplementing traditional broadcasting rather than replacing it (Ibid, p. 249), and while there may be a point at which audiences choose Internet delivered content over live linear broadcasting, that point has not yet arrived" (Berry, 2015).

      Do you think it will one day?

    2. Markman’s work in 2012 and 2014 discusses thewealth of content that is still being created at the almost infinitely thin end ofwhat Anderson (2006) calls ‘‘the long tail.’’ However, the head of the tail in 2014is still about ‘‘hits’’—podcasts created by services, brands, and individuals withpublic profiles. This includes content for which podcasting is merely another formof distribution.

      This statement is especially gloomy, but it's importance cannot be overstated.

      According to Richard Berry, podcasts are still not considered "mainstream media." And yet, at the same time, they are are "merely another form of distribution."

      Presently, do you think they are still intended for "amateurs to compete with traditional media?" Why, or why not?

    1. The Mother is shaking her head but Attila opens his big bearded mouth and laughs, mirthlessly and loudly, showing his teeth, big as a donkey’s.

      I wonder why they explain her teeth like that, isn't that rude to say?

    2. She doesn’t know why.

      this is definitely mothers intuition. I hear this all the time that mothers know when something is wrong with their child, and this is a good representation. She did not know why, but she knew for sure she could not go to the library, instead head back to the library.

    3. The Mother runs after the Wife, and at the Ward door she puts her hand briefly on the Baby’s head and tries to smile at the Wife, but it comes out as a moan.

      The Mother must be in so much pain. The person she invested herself into most, her son, is now in really bad condition and has pulled himself so far apart from her that she didn't even know she had a grandchild.

    1. DAISI Staff

      Replace photo of Joanne McLean with the one now provided in the relevant dropbox folder (incorrect image originally supplied)

      Crop and place all photos to: • achieve consistency of head size and positioning centrally within frame • avoid any part of faces being covered by the name & title boxes (particular attention to Leah, Lori, Isaac & Renée

      Correct Renée’s name by adding the accent above the e - see bolded text below (not shown in original content) Renee Jarrett Finance Officer Renee Jarrett has only recently joined the DAISI team. She is well qualified, with a Graduate Diploma in Accounting and qualifications in Business and Education. Renee also brings a diverse range of work experiences to this role. The quality of work that she carries out are a testament to her attention to detail and work ethic. Renee and her family have spent over ten years travelling in a caravan and working throughout this awesome country, recently returning to settle back in Ballina. Renee is passionate about learning and is always developing her skills and knowledge.

    2. DAISI Board

      Reorder Board photos to show the Chairperson Ray Chesher first.

      Crop and place all photos to achieve consistency of head size and positioning centrally within frame.

    1. “Aun’ Peggy look’ at de head-hankercher, en run her han’ ober it, en sez she:—

      The emphasis on gift exchange--Aunt Peggy never conjures for free--rhymes with the way Julius uses his tales to "buy" himself things from John/Annie, even if the latter don't always realize it.

    1. Basically, the use of pens enabled me to concentrate on getting my ideas out of my head without being worrisome. As opposed to pens, quills are like a nightmare to me because I end up being more focused on using it correctly than thinking about what to write, so it had a negative impact on me in terms of producing and processing information.

      Very interesting connection here between productivity and physicality

  4. engl22049.commons.gc.cuny.edu engl22049.commons.gc.cuny.edu
    1. Calling my officers about me, in mybranched velvet gown, having come from a daybedwhere I have left Olivia sleeping—

      Malvolio acts quite foolish about his desire for power. Malvolio is delusional as he is imagining himself as someone who will be wealthy and powerful. His head is too far into the future to be able to achieve his goal, which why he was able to fall for the letter. This is evident specifically "having come from a daybed where I have left Olivia sleeping." He is not married to Olivia and imagines a scenario where he is. -Owen, Simone, Janely

    1. Thou shakest thy head and hold'st it fear or sin To speak a truth. If he be slain, say so; The tongue offends not that reports his death: And he doth sin that doth belie the dead,

      He realizes that Morton is afraid of telling the truth (telling him his son Hotspur is dead). He tells him he should not be afraid of telling the truth. Instead it would be a sin for him to lie about it.

    2. my office is To noise abroad that Harry Monmouth fell Under the wrath of noble Hotspur's sword, And that the king before the Douglas' rage Stoop'd his anointed head as low as death.

      He is here to spread a rumor that the rebels won the battle. That the Prince and the King are both dead.

  5. Feb 2018
    1. These are some of the consequences of expecting more from technology than technology can offer. I've also said that in our flight from conversation, we expect less from each other. Here, mobile communication and social media are key actors. Of course, we don't live in a silent world. We talk to each other. And we communicate online almost all the time. But we're always distracted by the worlds on our phones, and it's become more common to go to great lengths to avoid a certain kind of conversation: those that are spontaneous and face-to-face and require our full attention, those in which people go off on a tangent and circle back in unpredictable and self-revealing ways. In other words, what people are fleeing is the kind of conversation that talk therapy tries to promote, the kind in which intimacy flourishes and empathy thrives.

      The population relies heavily on the use of technology with social media being a head factor in many peoples lives. Due to the extensive use of social media and telecommunication, many people lack the ability to hold an intimate conversation with one another. With all of these on going problems with holding conversations, therapists look at the outcomes of overusing technology and how it affects the mind of a person and recommend talk therapy to reestablish the necessary abilities to hold a spontaneous conversation in person.

    1. she been less charm'd with his renew'd Eagerness of Desire, she scarce would have had the Power of refusing him; but in granting this Request, she was not without a Thought that he had another Reason for making it besides the Extremity of his Passion, and had it immediately in her Head how to disappoint him.

      WOW , I cant believe this girl. he professed and she is scheming on how to hurt him.

    2. But all his Endeavours for Consolement appear'd ineffectual, and he began to think he should have but a dull Journey, in the Company of one who seem'd so obstinately devoted to the Memory of her dead Husband, that there was no getting a Word from her on any other Theme: – But bethinking himself of the celebrated Story of the Ephesian Matron, it came into his Head to make Tryal, she who seem'd equally susceptible of Sorrow, might not also be so too of Love; and having begun a Discourse on almost every other Topick, and finding her still incapable of answering, resolv'd to put it to the Proof, if this would have no more Effect to rouze her sleeping Spirits: – With a gay Air, therefore, though accompany'd with [Page 273] the greatest Modesty and Respect, he turned the Conversation, as though without Design, on that Joy-giving Passion, and soon discover'd that was indeed the Subject she was best pleas'd to be entertained with; for on his giving her a Hint to begin upon, never any Tongue run more voluble than hers, on the prodigious Power it had to influence the Souls of those posses'd of it, to Actions even the most distant from their Intentions, Principles, or Humours. – From that she pass'd to a Description of the Happiness of mutual Affection; – the unspeakable Extasy of those who meet with equal Ardency; and represented it in Colours so lively, and disclos'd by the Gestures with which her Words were accompany'd, and the Accent of her Voice so true a Feeling of what she said, that Beauplaisir, without being as stupid, as he was really the contrary, could not avoid perceiving there were Seeds of Fire, not yet extinguish'd, in this fair Widow's Soul, which wanted but the kindling Breath of tender Sighs to light into a Blaze.

      Although he agrees to help her after listening to her story, listening to her go on about her "dead husband" disappoints him. By bringing up the topic of love he hopes to distract her but in actuality he has an ulterior motive.

    1. Like one who, on a lonely road, Doth walk in fear and dread, And, having once turned round, walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.

      I feel Frankenstein was regret about his creation. He was trying to walk as quick as possible in order to avoid the contact with his monster. He's trying to escape from that monster.

    1. Machine Age

      I don't know how reliable the sources are but I included this so I could wrap my head around the period names and associated dates:

      The mechanical age is when we first start to see connections between our current technology and its ancestors. The mechanical age can be defined as the time between 1450 and 1840. A lot of new technologies are developed in this era as there is a large explosion in interest with this area.

      The electromechanical age can be defined as the time between 1840 and 1940. http://openbookproject.net/courses/intro2ict/history/history.html

      The Machine Age is an era that includes the early 20th century, sometimes also including the late 19th century. An approximate dating would be about 1880 to 1945. Considered to be at a peak in the time between the first and second world wars, it forms a late part of the Second Industrial Revolution. Wikipedia.com

    1. Is there a constitutional right in the United States to reshape one’s mind not merely with words or images but also with chemicals or electrical currents?

      Most of the preceding arguments are attempting to use the concept of cognitive enhancement in a different - and one could argue, misleading - sense. By attempting to merge the concept of reading a book with implanting electromagnetic coils or taking psycho-enhancing drugs under the umbrella of cognitive enhancement, the author attempts to hide the stigmas associated with these drugs or implants, and to make them sound far more reasonable than they have any right to be. After all, in what world is implanting electromagnetic coils in your head even remotely close to watching an educational video? There are different layers of "cognitive enhancement", and the author attempts to blur the lines far too much.

    1. Saying them words put a good idea in my head.  I see how maybe I could get me and Jim rid of the frauds; get them jailed here, and then leave.

      Huck never runs out of clever ideas to get out of sticky situations. I think sentences like this show a bit of the romantic write in Twain.

    2. Saying them words put a good idea in my head.  I see how maybe I could get me and Jim rid of the frauds; get them jailed here, and then leave.

      This shows further evidence that Huck and Jim are planning to get rid of the frauds and go off on their own again.

    3. I put it in the coffin.  It was in there when you was crying there, away in the night.  I was behind the door, and I was mighty sorry for you, Miss Mary Jane.” It made my eyes water a little to remember her crying there all by herself in the night, and them devils laying there right under her own roof, shaming her and robbing her; and when I folded it up and give it to her I see the water come into her eyes, too; and she shook me by the hand, hard, and says: “Good-bye.  I'm going to do everything just as you've told me; and if I don't ever see you again, I sha'n't ever forget you and I'll think of you a many and a many a time, and I'll pray for you, too!”—and she was gone. Pray for me!  I reckoned if she knowed me she'd take a job that was more nearer her size.  But I bet she done it, just the same—she was just that kind.  She had the grit to pray for Judus if she took the notion—there warn't no back-down to her, I judge.  You may say what you want to, but in my opinion she had more sand in her than any girl I ever see; in my opinion she was just full of sand.  It sounds like flattery, but it ain't no flattery.  And when it comes to beauty—and goodness, too—she lays over them all.  I hain't ever seen her since that time that I see her go out of that door; no, I hain't ever seen her since, but I reckon I've thought of her a many and a many a million times, and of her saying she would pray for me; and if ever I'd a thought it would do any good for me to pray for her, blamed if I wouldn't a done it or bust. Well, Mary Jane she lit out the back way, I reckon; because nobody see her go.  When I struck Susan and the hare-lip, I says: “What's the name of them people over on t'other side of the river that you all goes to see sometimes?” They says: “There's several; but it's the Proctors, mainly.” “That's the name,” I says; “I most forgot it.  Well, Miss Mary Jane she told me to tell you she's gone over there in a dreadful hurry—one of them's sick.” “Which one?” “I don't know; leastways, I kinder forget; but I thinks it's—” “Sakes alive, I hope it ain't Hanner?” “I'm sorry to say it,” I says, “but Hanner's the very one.” “My goodness, and she so well only last week!  Is she took bad?” “It ain't no name for it.  They set up with her all night, Miss Mary Jane said, and they don't think she'll last many hours.” “Only think of that, now!  What's the matter with her?” I couldn't think of anything reasonable, right off that way, so I says: “Mumps.” “Mumps your granny!  They don't set up with people that's got the mumps.” “They don't, don't they?  You better bet they do with these mumps.  These mumps is different.  It's a new kind, Miss Mary Jane said.” “How's it a new kind?” “Because it's mixed up with other things.” “What other things?” “Well, measles, and whooping-cough, and erysiplas, and consumption, and yaller janders, and brain-fever, and I don't know what all.” “My land!  And they call it the mumps?” “That's what Miss Mary Jane said.” “Well, what in the nation do they call it the mumps for?” “Why, because it is the mumps.  That's what it starts with.” “Well, ther' ain't no sense in it.  A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, 'Why, he stumped his toe.'  Would ther' be any sense in that? No.  And ther' ain't no sense in this, nuther.  Is it ketching?” “Is it ketching?  Why, how you talk.  Is a harrow catching—in the dark? If you don't hitch on to one tooth, you're bound to on another, ain't you? And you can't get away with that tooth without fetching the whole harrow along, can you?  Well, these kind of mumps is a kind of a harrow, as you may say—and it ain't no slouch of a harrow, nuther, you come to get it hitched on good.” “Well, it's awful, I think,” says the hare-lip.  "I'll go to Uncle Harvey and—” “Oh, yes,” I says, “I would.  Of course I would.  I wouldn't lose no time.” “Well, why wouldn't you?” “Just look at it a minute, and maybe you can see.  Hain't your uncles obleegd to get along home to England as fast as they can?  And do you reckon they'd be mean enough to go off and leave you to go all that journey by yourselves?  you know they'll wait for you.  So fur, so good. Your uncle Harvey's a preacher, ain't he?  Very well, then; is a preacher going to deceive a steamboat clerk? is he going to deceive a ship clerk?—so as to get them to let Miss Mary Jane go aboard?  Now you know he ain't.  What will he do, then?  Why, he'll say, 'It's a great pity, but my church matters has got to get along the best way they can; for my niece has been exposed to the dreadful pluribus-unum mumps, and so it's my bounden duty to set down here and wait the three months it takes to show on her if she's got it.'  But never mind, if you think it's best to tell your uncle Harvey—” “Shucks, and stay fooling around here when we could all be having good times in England whilst we was waiting to find out whether Mary Jane's got it or not?  Why, you talk like a muggins.” “Well, anyway, maybe you'd better tell some of the neighbors.” “Listen at that, now.  You do beat all for natural stupidness.  Can't you see that they'd go and tell?  Ther' ain't no way but just to not tell anybody at all.” “Well, maybe you're right—yes, I judge you are right.” “But I reckon we ought to tell Uncle Harvey she's gone out a while, anyway, so he won't be uneasy about her?” “Yes, Miss Mary Jane she wanted you to do that.  She says, 'Tell them to give Uncle Harvey and William my love and a kiss, and say I've run over the river to see Mr.'—Mr.—what is the name of that rich family your uncle Peter used to think so much of?—I mean the one that—” “Why, you must mean the Apthorps, ain't it?” “Of course; bother them kind of names, a body can't ever seem to remember them, half the time, somehow.  Yes, she said, say she has run over for to ask the Apthorps to be sure and come to the auction and buy this house, because she allowed her uncle Peter would ruther they had it than anybody else; and she's going to stick to them till they say they'll come, and then, if she ain't too tired, she's coming home; and if she is, she'll be home in the morning anyway.  She said, don't say nothing about the Proctors, but only about the Apthorps—which 'll be perfectly true, because she is going there to speak about their buying the house; I know it, because she told me so herself.” “All right,” they said, and cleared out to lay for their uncles, and give them the love and the kisses, and tell them the message. Everything was all right now.  The girls wouldn't say nothing because they wanted to go to England; and the king and the duke would ruther Mary Jane was off working for the auction than around in reach of Doctor Robinson.  I felt very good; I judged I had done it pretty neat—I reckoned Tom Sawyer couldn't a done it no neater himself.  Of course he would a throwed more style into it, but I can't do that very handy, not being brung up to it. Well, they held the auction in the public square, along towards the end of the afternoon, and it strung along, and strung along, and the old man he was on hand and looking his level pisonest, up there longside of the auctioneer, and chipping in a little Scripture now and then, or a little goody-goody saying of some kind, and the duke he was around goo-gooing for sympathy all he knowed how, and just spreading himself generly. But by and by the thing dragged through, and everything was sold—everything but a little old trifling lot in the graveyard.  So they'd got to work that off—I never see such a girafft as the king was for wanting to swallow everything.  Well, whilst they was at it a steamboat landed, and in about two minutes up comes a crowd a-whooping and yelling and laughing and carrying on, and singing out: “Here's your opposition line! here's your two sets o' heirs to old Peter Wilks—and you pays your money and you takes your choice!” CHAPTER XXIX. THEY was fetching a very nice-looking old gentleman along, and a nice-looking younger one, with his right arm in a sling.  And, my souls, how the people yelled and laughed, and kept it up.  But I didn't see no joke about it, and I judged it would strain the duke and the king some to see any.  I reckoned they'd turn pale.  But no, nary a pale did they turn. The duke he never let on he suspicioned what was up, but just went a goo-gooing around, happy and satisfied, like a jug that's googling out buttermilk; and as for the king, he just gazed and gazed down sorrowful on them new-comers like it give him the stomach-ache in his very heart to think there could be such frauds and rascals in the world.  Oh, he done it admirable.  Lots of the principal people gethered around the king, to let him see they was on his side.  That old gentleman that had just come looked all puzzled to death.  Pretty soon he begun to speak, and I see straight off he pronounced like an Englishman—not the king's way, though the king's was pretty good for an imitation.  I can't give the old gent's words, nor I can't imitate him; but he turned around to the crowd, and says, about like this: “This is a surprise to me which I wasn't looking for; and I'll acknowledge, candid and frank, I ain't very well fixed to meet it and answer it; for my brother and me has had misfortunes; he's broke his arm, and our baggage got put off at a town above here last night in the night by a mistake.  I am Peter Wilks' brother Harvey, and this is his brother William, which can't hear nor speak—and can't even make signs to amount to much, now't he's only got one hand to work them with.  We are who we say we are; and in a day or two, when I get the baggage, I can prove it. But up till then I won't say nothing more, but go to the hotel and wait.” So him and the new dummy started off; and the king he laughs, and blethers out: “Broke his arm—very likely, ain't it?—and very convenient, too, for a fraud that's got to make signs, and ain't learnt how.  Lost their baggage! That's mighty good!—and mighty ingenious—under the circumstances!” So he laughed again; and so did everybody else, except three or four, or maybe half a dozen.  One of these was that doctor; another one was a sharp-looking gentleman, with a carpet-bag of the old-fashioned kind made out of carpet-stuff, that had just come off of the steamboat and was talking to him in a low voice, and glancing towards the king now and then and nodding their heads—it was Levi Bell, the lawyer that was gone up to Louisville; and another one was a big rough husky that come along and listened to all the old gentleman said, and was listening to the king now. And when the king got done this husky up and says: “Say, looky here; if you are Harvey Wilks, when'd you come to this town?” “The day before the funeral, friend,” says the king. “But what time o' day?” “In the evenin'—'bout an hour er two before sundown.” “How'd you come?” “I come down on the Susan Powell from Cincinnati.” “Well, then, how'd you come to be up at the Pint in the mornin'—in a canoe?” “I warn't up at the Pint in the mornin'.” “It's a lie.” Several of them jumped for him and begged him not to talk that way to an old man and a preacher. “Preacher be hanged, he's a fraud and a liar.  He was up at the Pint that mornin'.  I live up there, don't I?  Well, I was up there, and he was up there.  I see him there.  He come in a canoe, along with Tim Collins and a boy.” The doctor he up and says: “Would you know the boy again if you was to see him, Hines?” “I reckon I would, but I don't know.  Why, yonder he is, now.  I know him perfectly easy.” It was me he pointed at.  The doctor says: “Neighbors, I don't know whether the new couple is frauds or not; but if these two ain't frauds, I am an idiot, that's all.  I think it's our duty to see that they don't get away from here till we've looked into this thing. Come along, Hines; come along, the rest of you.  We'll take these fellows to the tavern and affront them with t'other couple, and I reckon we'll find out something before we get through.” It was nuts for the crowd, though maybe not for the king's friends; so we all started.  It was about sundown.  The doctor he led me along by the hand, and was plenty kind enough, but he never let go my hand. We all got in a big room in the hotel, and lit up some candles, and fetched in the new couple.  First, the doctor says: “I don't wish to be too hard on these two men, but I think they're frauds, and they may have complices that we don't know nothing about.  If they have, won't the complices get away with that bag of gold Peter Wilks left?  It ain't unlikely.  If these men ain't frauds, they won't object to sending for that money and letting us keep it till they prove they're all right—ain't that so?” Everybody agreed to that.  So I judged they had our gang in a pretty tight place right at the outstart.  But the king he only looked sorrowful, and says: “Gentlemen, I wish the money was there, for I ain't got no disposition to throw anything in the way of a fair, open, out-and-out investigation o' this misable business; but, alas, the money ain't there; you k'n send and see, if you want to.” “Where is it, then?” “Well, when my niece give it to me to keep for her I took and hid it inside o' the straw tick o' my bed, not wishin' to bank it for the few days we'd be here, and considerin' the bed a safe place, we not bein' used to niggers, and suppos'n' 'em honest, like servants in England.  The niggers stole it the very next mornin' after I had went down stairs; and when I sold 'em I hadn't missed the money yit, so they got clean away with it.  My servant here k'n tell you 'bout it, gentlemen.” The doctor and several said “Shucks!” and I see nobody didn't altogether believe him.  One man asked me if I see the niggers steal it.  I said no, but I see them sneaking out of the room and hustling away, and I never thought nothing, only I reckoned they was afraid they had waked up my master and was trying to get away before he made trouble with them.  That was all they asked me.  Then the doctor whirls on me and says: “Are you English, too?” I says yes; and him and some others laughed, and said, “Stuff!” Well, then they sailed in on the general investigation, and there we had it, up and down, hour in, hour out, and nobody never said a word about supper, nor ever seemed to think about it—and so they kept it up, and kept it up; and it was the worst mixed-up thing you ever see.  They made the king tell his yarn, and they made the old gentleman tell his'n; and anybody but a lot of prejudiced chuckleheads would a seen that the old gentleman was spinning truth and t'other one lies.  And by and by they had me up to tell what I knowed.  The king he give me a left-handed look out of the corner of his eye, and so I knowed enough to talk on the right side.  I begun to tell about Sheffield, and how we lived there, and all about the English Wilkses, and so on; but I didn't get pretty fur till the doctor begun to laugh; and Levi Bell, the lawyer, says: “Set down, my boy; I wouldn't strain myself if I was you.  I reckon you ain't used to lying, it don't seem to come handy; what you want is practice.  You do it pretty awkward.” I didn't care nothing for the compliment, but I was glad to be let off, anyway. The doctor he started to say something, and turns and says: “If you'd been in town at first, Levi Bell—” The king broke in and reached out his hand, and says: “Why, is this my poor dead brother's old friend that he's wrote so often about?” The lawyer and him shook hands, and the lawyer smiled and looked pleased, and they talked right along awhile, and then got to one side and talked low; and at last the lawyer speaks up and says: “That 'll fix it.  I'll take the order and send it, along with your brother's, and then they'll know it's all right.” So they got some paper and a pen, and the king he set down and twisted his head to one side, and chawed his tongue, and scrawled off something; and then they give the pen to the duke—and then for the first time the duke looked sick.  But he took the pen and wrote.  So then the lawyer turns to the new old gentleman and says: “You and your brother please write a line or two and sign your names.” The old gentleman wrote, but nobody couldn't read it.  The lawyer looked powerful astonished, and says: “Well, it beats me”—and snaked a lot of old letters out of his pocket, and examined them, and then examined the old man's writing, and then them again; and then says:  "These old letters is from Harvey Wilks; and here's these two handwritings, and anybody can see they didn't write them” (the king and the duke looked sold and foolish, I tell you, to see how the lawyer had took them in), “and here's this old gentleman's hand writing, and anybody can tell, easy enough, he didn't write them—fact is, the scratches he makes ain't properly writing at all.  Now, here's some letters from—” The new old gentleman says: “If you please, let me explain.  Nobody can read my hand but my brother there—so he copies for me.  It's his hand you've got there, not mine.” “Well!” says the lawyer, “this is a state of things.  I've got some of William's letters, too; so if you'll get him to write a line or so we can com—” “He can't write with his left hand,” says the old gentleman.  "If he could use his right hand, you would see that he wrote his own letters and mine too.  Look at both, please—they're by the same hand.” The lawyer done it, and says: “I believe it's so—and if it ain't so, there's a heap stronger resemblance than I'd noticed before, anyway.  Well, well, well!  I thought we was right on the track of a solution, but it's gone to grass, partly.  But anyway, one thing is proved—these two ain't either of 'em Wilkses”—and he wagged his head towards the king and the duke. Well, what do you think?  That muleheaded old fool wouldn't give in then! Indeed he wouldn't.  Said it warn't no fair test.  Said his brother William was the cussedest joker in the world, and hadn't tried to write—he see William was going to play one of his jokes the minute he put the pen to paper.  And so he warmed up and went warbling and warbling right along till he was actuly beginning to believe what he was saying himself; but pretty soon the new gentleman broke in, and says: “I've thought of something.  Is there anybody here that helped to lay out my br—helped to lay out the late Peter Wilks for burying?” “Yes,” says somebody, “me and Ab Turner done it.  We're both here.” Then the old man turns towards the king, and says: “Perhaps this gentleman can tell me what was tattooed on his breast?” Blamed if the king didn't have to brace up mighty quick, or he'd a squshed down like a bluff bank that the river has cut under, it took him so sudden; and, mind you, it was a thing that was calculated to make most anybody sqush to get fetched such a solid one as that without any notice, because how was he going to know what was tattooed on the man?  He whitened a little; he couldn't help it; and it was mighty still in there, and everybody bending a little forwards and gazing at him.  Says I to myself, now he'll throw up the sponge—there ain't no more use.  Well, did he?  A body can't hardly believe it, but he didn't.  I reckon he thought he'd keep the thing up till he tired them people out, so they'd thin out, and him and the duke could break loose and get away.  Anyway, he set there, and pretty soon he begun to smile, and says: “Mf!  It's a very tough question, ain't it!  yes, sir, I k'n tell you what's tattooed on his breast.  It's jest a small, thin, blue arrow—that's what it is; and if you don't look clost, you can't see it.  now what do you say—hey?” Well, I never see anything like that old blister for clean out-and-out cheek. The new old gentleman turns brisk towards Ab Turner and his pard, and his eye lights up like he judged he'd got the king this time, and says: “There—you've heard what he said!  Was there any such mark on Peter Wilks' breast?” Both of them spoke up and says: “We didn't see no such mark.” “Good!” says the old gentleman.  "Now, what you did see on his breast was a small dim P, and a B (which is an initial he dropped when he was young), and a W, with dashes between them, so:  P—B—W”—and he marked them that way on a piece of paper.  "Come, ain't that what you saw?” Both of them spoke up again, and says: “No, we didn't.  We never seen any marks at all.” Well, everybody was in a state of mind now, and they sings out: “The whole bilin' of 'm 's frauds!  Le's duck 'em! le's drown 'em! le's ride 'em on a rail!” and everybody was whooping at once, and there was a rattling powwow.  But the lawyer he jumps on the table and yells, and says: “Gentlemen—gentlemen!  Hear me just a word—just a single word—if you please!  There's one way yet—let's go and dig up the corpse and look.” That took them. “Hooray!” they all shouted, and was starting right off; but the lawyer and the doctor sung out: “Hold on, hold on!  Collar all these four men and the boy, and fetch them along, too!” “We'll do it!” they all shouted; “and if we don't find them marks we'll lynch the whole gang!” I was scared, now, I tell you.  But there warn't no getting away, you know. They gripped us all, and marched us right along, straight for the graveyard, which was a mile and a half down the river, and the whole town at our heels, for we made noise enough, and it was only nine in the evening. As we went by our house I wished I hadn't sent Mary Jane out of town; because now if I could tip her the wink she'd light out and save me, and blow on our dead-beats. Well, we swarmed along down the river road, just carrying on like wildcats; and to make it more scary the sky was darking up, and the lightning beginning to wink and flitter, and the wind to shiver amongst the leaves. This was the most awful trouble and most dangersome I ever was in; and I was kinder stunned; everything was going so different from what I had allowed for; stead of being fixed so I could take my own time if I wanted to, and see all the fun, and have Mary Jane at my back to save me and set me free when the close-fit come, here was nothing in the world betwixt me and sudden death but just them tattoo-marks.  If they didn't find them— I couldn't bear to think about it; and yet, somehow, I couldn't think about nothing else.  It got darker and darker, and it was a beautiful time to give the crowd the slip; but that big husky had me by the wrist—Hines—and a body might as well try to give Goliar the slip.  He dragged me right along, he was so excited, and I had to run to keep up. When they got there they swarmed into the graveyard and washed over it like an overflow.  And when they got to the grave they found they had about a hundred times as many shovels as they wanted, but nobody hadn't thought to fetch a lantern.  But they sailed into digging anyway by the flicker of the lightning, and sent a man to the nearest house, a half a mile off, to borrow one. So they dug and dug like everything; and it got awful dark, and the rain started, and the wind swished and swushed along, and the lightning come brisker and brisker, and the thunder boomed; but them people never took no notice of it, they was so full of this business; and one minute you could see everything and every face in that big crowd, and the shovelfuls of dirt sailing up out of the grave, and the next second the dark wiped it all out, and you couldn't see nothing at all. At last they got out the coffin and begun to unscrew the lid, and then such another crowding and shouldering and shoving as there was, to scrouge in and get a sight, you never see; and in the dark, that way, it was awful.  Hines he hurt my wrist dreadful pulling and tugging so, and I reckon he clean forgot I was in the world, he was so excited and panting. All of a sudden the lightning let go a perfect sluice of white glare, and somebody sings out: “By the living jingo, here's the bag of gold on his breast!” Hines let out a whoop, like everybody else, and dropped my wrist and give a big surge to bust his way in and get a look, and the way I lit out and shinned for the road in the dark there ain't nobody can tell. I had the road all to myself, and I fairly flew—leastways, I had it all to myself except the solid dark, and the now-and-then glares, and the buzzing of the rain, and the thrashing of the wind, and the splitting of the thunder; and sure as you are born I did clip it along! When I struck the town I see there warn't nobody out in the storm, so I never hunted for no back streets, but humped it straight through the main one; and when I begun to get towards our house I aimed my eye and set it. No light there; the house all dark—which made me feel sorry and disappointed, I didn't know why.  But at last, just as I was sailing by, flash comes the light in Mary Jane's window! and my heart swelled up sudden, like to bust; and the same second the house and all was behind me in the dark, and wasn't ever going to be before me no more in this world. She was the best girl I ever see, and had the most sand. The minute I was far enough above the town to see I could make the towhead, I begun to look sharp for a boat to borrow, and the first time the lightning showed me one that wasn't chained I snatched it and shoved. It was a canoe, and warn't fastened with nothing but a rope.  The towhead was a rattling big distance off, away out there in the middle of the river, but I didn't lose no time; and when I struck the raft at last I was so fagged I would a just laid down to blow and gasp if I could afforded it.  But I didn't.  As I sprung aboard I sung out: “Out with you, Jim, and set her loose!  Glory be to goodness, we're shut of them!” Jim lit out, and was a-coming for me with both arms spread, he was so full of joy; but when I glimpsed him in the lightning my heart shot up in my mouth and I went overboard backwards; for I forgot he was old King Lear and a drownded A-rab all in one, and it most scared the livers and lights out of me.  But Jim fished me out, and was going to hug me and bless me, and so on, he was so glad I was back and we was shut of the king and the duke, but I says: “Not now; have it for breakfast, have it for breakfast!  Cut loose and let her slide!” So in two seconds away we went a-sliding down the river, and it did seem so good to be free again and all by ourselves on the big river, and nobody to bother us.  I had to skip around a bit, and jump up and crack my heels a few times—I couldn't help it; but about the third crack I noticed a sound that I knowed mighty well, and held my breath and listened and waited; and sure enough, when the next flash busted out over the water, here they come!—and just a-laying to their oars and making their skiff hum!  It was the king and the duke. So I wilted right down on to the planks then, and give up; and it was all I could do to keep from crying. CHAPTER XXX. WHEN they got aboard the king went for me, and shook me by the collar, and says: “Tryin' to give us the slip, was ye, you pup!  Tired of our company, hey?” I says: “No, your majesty, we warn't—please don't, your majesty!” “Quick, then, and tell us what was your idea, or I'll shake the insides out o' you!” “Honest, I'll tell you everything just as it happened, your majesty.  The man that had a-holt of me was very good to me, and kept saying he had a boy about as big as me that died last year, and he was sorry to see a boy in such a dangerous fix; and when they was all took by surprise by finding the gold, and made a rush for the coffin, he lets go of me and whispers, 'Heel it now, or they'll hang ye, sure!' and I lit out.  It didn't seem no good for me to stay—I couldn't do nothing, and I didn't want to be hung if I could get away.  So I never stopped running till I found the canoe; and when I got here I told Jim to hurry, or they'd catch me and hang me yet, and said I was afeard you and the duke wasn't alive now, and I was awful sorry, and so was Jim, and was awful glad when we see you coming; you may ask Jim if I didn't.” Jim said it was so; and the king told him to shut up, and said, “Oh, yes, it's mighty likely!” and shook me up again, and said he reckoned he'd drownd me.  But the duke says: “Leggo the boy, you old idiot!  Would you a done any different?  Did you inquire around for him when you got loose?  I don't remember it.” So the king let go of me, and begun to cuss that town and everybody in it. But the duke says: “You better a blame' sight give yourself a good cussing, for you're the one that's entitled to it most.  You hain't done a thing from the start that had any sense in it, except coming out so cool and cheeky with that imaginary blue-arrow mark.  That was bright—it was right down bully; and it was the thing that saved us.  For if it hadn't been for that they'd a jailed us till them Englishmen's baggage come—and then—the penitentiary, you bet! But that trick took 'em to the graveyard, and the gold done us a still bigger kindness; for if the excited fools hadn't let go all holts and made that rush to get a look we'd a slept in our cravats to-night—cravats warranted to wear, too—longer than we'd need 'em.” They was still a minute—thinking; then the king says, kind of absent-minded like: “Mf!  And we reckoned the niggers stole it!” That made me squirm! “Yes,” says the duke, kinder slow and deliberate and sarcastic, “we did.” After about a half a minute the king drawls out: “Leastways, I did.” The duke says, the same way: “On the contrary, I did.” The king kind of ruffles up, and says: “Looky here, Bilgewater, what'r you referrin' to?” The duke says, pretty brisk: “When it comes to that, maybe you'll let me ask, what was you referring to?” “Shucks!” says the king, very sarcastic; “but I don't know—maybe you was asleep, and didn't know what you was about.” The duke bristles up now, and says: “Oh, let up on this cussed nonsense; do you take me for a blame' fool? Don't you reckon I know who hid that money in that coffin?” “Yes, sir!  I know you do know, because you done it yourself!” “It's a lie!”—and the duke went for him.  The king sings out: “Take y'r hands off!—leggo my throat!—I take it all back!” The duke says: “Well, you just own up, first, that you did hide that money there, intending to give me the slip one of these days, and come back and dig it up, and have it all to yourself.” “Wait jest a minute, duke—answer me this one question, honest and fair; if you didn't put the money there, say it, and I'll b'lieve you, and take back everything I said.” “You old scoundrel, I didn't, and you know I didn't.  There, now!” “Well, then, I b'lieve you.  But answer me only jest this one more—now don't git mad; didn't you have it in your mind to hook the money and hide it?” The duke never said nothing for a little bit; then he says: “Well, I don't care if I did, I didn't do it, anyway.  But you not only had it in mind to do it, but you done it.” “I wisht I never die if I done it, duke, and that's honest.  I won't say I warn't goin' to do it, because I was; but you—I mean somebody—got in ahead o' me.” “It's a lie!  You done it, and you got to say you done it, or—” The king began to gurgle, and then he gasps out: “'Nough!—I own up!” I was very glad to hear him say that; it made me feel much more easier than what I was feeling before.  So the duke took his hands off and says: “If you ever deny it again I'll drown you.  It's well for you to set there and blubber like a baby—it's fitten for you, after the way you've acted. I never see such an old ostrich for wanting to gobble everything—and I a-trusting you all the time, like you was my own father.  You ought to been ashamed of yourself to stand by and hear it saddled on to a lot of poor niggers, and you never say a word for 'em.  It makes me feel ridiculous to think I was soft enough to believe that rubbage.  Cuss you, I can see now why you was so anxious to make up the deffisit—you wanted to get what money I'd got out of the Nonesuch and one thing or another, and scoop it all!” The king says, timid, and still a-snuffling: “Why, duke, it was you that said make up the deffisit; it warn't me.” “Dry up!  I don't want to hear no more out of you!” says the duke.  "And now you see what you GOT by it.  They've got all their own money back, and all of ourn but a shekel or two besides.  G'long to bed, and don't you deffersit me no more deffersits, long 's you live!” So the king sneaked into the wigwam and took to his bottle for comfort, and before long the duke tackled HIS bottle; and so in about a half an hour they was as thick as thieves again, and the tighter they got the lovinger they got, and went off a-snoring in each other's arms.  They both got powerful mellow, but I noticed the king didn't get mellow enough to forget to remember to not deny about hiding the money-bag again.  That made me feel easy and satisfied.  Of course when they got to snoring we had a long gabble, and I told Jim everything. CHAPTER XXXI. WE dasn't stop again at any town for days and days; kept right along down the river.  We was down south in the warm weather now, and a mighty long ways from home.  We begun to come to trees with Spanish moss on them, hanging down from the limbs like long, gray beards.  It was the first I ever see it growing, and it made the woods look solemn and dismal.  So now the frauds reckoned they was out of danger, and they begun to work the villages again. First they done a lecture on temperance; but they didn't make enough for them both to get drunk on.  Then in another village they started a dancing-school; but they didn't know no more how to dance than a kangaroo does; so the first prance they made the general public jumped in and pranced them out of town.  Another time they tried to go at yellocution; but they didn't yellocute long till the audience got up and give them a solid good cussing, and made them skip out.  They tackled missionarying, and mesmerizing, and doctoring, and telling fortunes, and a little of everything; but they couldn't seem to have no luck.  So at last they got just about dead broke, and laid around the raft as she floated along, thinking and thinking, and never saying nothing, by the half a day at a time, and dreadful blue and desperate. And at last they took a change and begun to lay their heads together in the wigwam and talk low and confidential two or three hours at a time. Jim and me got uneasy.  We didn't like the look of it.  We judged they was studying up some kind of worse deviltry than ever.  We turned it over and over, and at last we made up our minds they was going to break into somebody's house or store, or was going into the counterfeit-money business, or something. So then we was pretty scared, and made up an agreement that we wouldn't have nothing in the world to do with such actions, and if we ever got the least show we would give them the cold shake and clear out and leave them behind. Well, early one morning we hid the raft in a good, safe place about two mile below a little bit of a shabby village named Pikesville, and the king he went ashore and told us all to stay hid whilst he went up to town and smelt around to see if anybody had got any wind of the Royal Nonesuch there yet. (“House to rob, you mean,” says I to myself; “and when you get through robbing it you'll come back here and wonder what has become of me and Jim and the raft—and you'll have to take it out in wondering.”) And he said if he warn't back by midday the duke and me would know it was all right, and we was to come along. So we stayed where we was.  The duke he fretted and sweated around, and was in a mighty sour way.  He scolded us for everything, and we couldn't seem to do nothing right; he found fault with every little thing. Something was a-brewing, sure.  I was good and glad when midday come and no king; we could have a change, anyway—and maybe a chance for the change on top of it.  So me and the duke went up to the village, and hunted around there for the king, and by and by we found him in the back room of a little low doggery, very tight, and a lot of loafers bullyragging him for sport, and he a-cussing and a-threatening with all his might, and so tight he couldn't walk, and couldn't do nothing to them.  The duke he begun to abuse him for an old fool, and the king begun to sass back, and the minute they was fairly at it I lit out and shook the reefs out of my hind legs, and spun down the river road like a deer, for I see our chance; and I made up my mind that it would be a long day before they ever see me and Jim again.  I got down there all out of breath but loaded up with joy, and sung out: “Set her loose, Jim! we're all right now!” But there warn't no answer, and nobody come out of the wigwam.  Jim was gone!  I set up a shout—and then another—and then another one; and run this way and that in the woods, whooping and screeching; but it warn't no use—old Jim was gone.  Then I set down and cried; I couldn't help it. But I couldn't set still long.  Pretty soon I went out on the road, trying to think what I better do, and I run across a boy walking, and asked him if he'd seen a strange nigger dressed so and so, and he says: “Yes.” “Whereabouts?” says I. “Down to Silas Phelps' place, two mile below here.  He's a runaway nigger, and they've got him.  Was you looking for him?” “You bet I ain't!  I run across him in the woods about an hour or two ago, and he said if I hollered he'd cut my livers out—and told me to lay down and stay where I was; and I done it.  Been there ever since; afeard to come out.” “Well,” he says, “you needn't be afeard no more, becuz they've got him. He run off f'm down South, som'ers.” “It's a good job they got him.” “Well, I reckon!  There's two hunderd dollars reward on him.  It's like picking up money out'n the road.” “Yes, it is—and I could a had it if I'd been big enough; I see him first. Who nailed him?” “It was an old fellow—a stranger—and he sold out his chance in him for forty dollars, becuz he's got to go up the river and can't wait.  Think o' that, now!  You bet I'd wait, if it was seven year.” “That's me, every time,” says I.  "But maybe his chance ain't worth no more than that, if he'll sell it so cheap.  Maybe there's something ain't straight about it.” “But it is, though—straight as a string.  I see the handbill myself.  It tells all about him, to a dot—paints him like a picture, and tells the plantation he's frum, below Newrleans.  No-sirree-bob, they ain't no trouble 'bout that speculation, you bet you.  Say, gimme a chaw tobacker, won't ye?” I didn't have none, so he left.  I went to the raft, and set down in the wigwam to think.  But I couldn't come to nothing.  I thought till I wore my head sore, but I couldn't see no way out of the trouble.  After all this long journey, and after all we'd done for them scoundrels, here it was all come to nothing, everything all busted up and ruined, because they could have the heart to serve Jim such a trick as that, and make him a slave again all his life, and amongst strangers, too, for forty dirty dollars. Once I said to myself it would be a thousand times better for Jim to be a slave at home where his family was, as long as he'd got to be a slave, and so I'd better write a letter to Tom Sawyer and tell him to tell Miss Watson where he was.  But I soon give up that notion for two things: she'd be mad and disgusted at his rascality and ungratefulness for leaving her, and so she'd sell him straight down the river again; and if she didn't, everybody naturally despises an ungrateful nigger, and they'd make Jim feel it all the time, and so he'd feel ornery and disgraced. And then think of me!  It would get all around that Huck Finn helped a nigger to get his freedom; and if I was ever to see anybody from that town again I'd be ready to get down and lick his boots for shame.  That's just the way:  a person does a low-down thing, and then he don't want to take no consequences of it. Thinks as long as he can hide it, it ain't no disgrace.  That was my fix exactly. The more I studied about this the more my conscience went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down and ornery I got to feeling. And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven, whilst I was stealing a poor old woman's nigger that hadn't ever done me no harm, and now was showing me there's One that's always on the lookout, and ain't a-going to allow no such miserable doings to go only just so fur and no further, I most dropped in my tracks I was so scared.  Well, I tried the best I could to kinder soften it up somehow for myself by saying I was brung up wicked, and so I warn't so much to blame; but something inside of me kept saying, “There was the Sunday-school, you could a gone to it; and if you'd a done it they'd a learnt you there that people that acts as I'd been acting about that nigger goes to everlasting fire.” It made me shiver.  And I about made up my mind to pray, and see if I couldn't try to quit being the kind of a boy I was and be better.  So I kneeled down.  But the words wouldn't come.  Why wouldn't they?  It warn't no use to try and hide it from Him.  Nor from me, neither.  I knowed very well why they wouldn't come.  It was because my heart warn't right; it was because I warn't square; it was because I was playing double.  I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all.  I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that nigger's owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it.  You can't pray a lie—I found that out. So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter—and then see if I can pray.  Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone.  So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote: Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send. Huck Finn. I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now.  But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking—thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell.  And went on thinking.  And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time:  in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing.  But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind.  I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, 'stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had small-pox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper. It was a close place.  I took it up, and held it in my hand.  I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it.  I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: “All right, then, I'll go to hell”—and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said.  And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.  I shoved the whole thing out of my head, and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn't.  And for a starter I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog. Then I set to thinking over how to get at it, and turned over some considerable many ways in my mind; and at last fixed up a plan that suited me.  So then I took the bearings of a woody island that was down the river a piece, and as soon as it was fairly dark I crept out with my raft and went for it, and hid it there, and then turned in.  I slept the night through, and got up before it was light, and had my breakfast, and put on my store clothes, and tied up some others and one thing or another in a bundle, and took the canoe and cleared for shore.  I landed below where I judged was Phelps's place, and hid my bundle in the woods, and then filled up the canoe with water, and loaded rocks into her and sunk her where I could find her again when I wanted her, about a quarter of a mile below a little steam sawmill that was on the bank. Then I struck up the road, and when I passed the mill I see a sign on it, “Phelps's Sawmill,” and when I come to the farm-houses, two or three hundred yards further along, I kept my eyes peeled, but didn't see nobody around, though it was good daylight now.  But I didn't mind, because I didn't want to see nobody just yet—I only wanted to get the lay of the land. According to my plan, I was going to turn up there from the village, not from below.  So I just took a look, and shoved along, straight for town. Well, the very first man I see when I got there was the duke.  He was sticking up a bill for the Royal Nonesuch—three-night performance—like that other time.  They had the cheek, them frauds!  I was right on him before I could shirk.  He looked astonished, and says: “Hel-lo!  Where'd you come from?”  Then he says, kind of glad and eager, “Where's the raft?—got her in a good place?” I says: “Why, that's just what I was going to ask your grace.” Then he didn't look so joyful, and says: “What was your idea for asking me?” he says. “Well,” I says, “when I see the king in that doggery yesterday I says to myself, we can't get him home for hours, till he's soberer; so I went a-loafing around town to put in the time and wait.  A man up and offered me ten cents to help him pull a skiff over the river and back to fetch a sheep, and so I went along; but when we was dragging him to the boat, and the man left me a-holt of the rope and went behind him to shove him along, he was too strong for me and jerked loose and run, and we after him.  We didn't have no dog, and so we had to chase him all over the country till we tired him out.  We never got him till dark; then we fetched him over, and I started down for the raft.  When I got there and see it was gone, I says to myself, 'They've got into trouble and had to leave; and they've took my nigger, which is the only nigger I've got in the world, and now I'm in a strange country, and ain't got no property no more, nor nothing, and no way to make my living;' so I set down and cried.  I slept in the woods all night.  But what did become of the raft, then?—and Jim—poor Jim!” “Blamed if I know—that is, what's become of the raft.  That old fool had made a trade and got forty dollars, and when we found him in the doggery the loafers had matched half-dollars with him and got every cent but what he'd spent for whisky; and when I got him home late last night and found the raft gone, we said, 'That little rascal has stole our raft and shook us, and run off down the river.'” “I wouldn't shake my nigger, would I?—the only nigger I had in the world, and the only property.” “We never thought of that.  Fact is, I reckon we'd come to consider him our nigger; yes, we did consider him so—goodness knows we had trouble enough for him.  So when we see the raft was gone and we flat broke, there warn't anything for it but to try the Royal Nonesuch another shake. And I've pegged along ever since, dry as a powder-horn.  Where's that ten cents? Give it here.” I had considerable money, so I give him ten cents, but begged him to spend it for something to eat, and give me some, because it was all the money I had, and I hadn't had nothing to eat since yesterday.  He never said nothing.  The next minute he whirls on me and says: “Do you reckon that nigger would blow on us?  We'd skin him if he done that!” “How can he blow?  Hain't he run off?” “No!  That old fool sold him, and never divided with me, and the money's gone.” “Sold him?”  I says, and begun to cry; “why, he was my nigger, and that was my money.  Where is he?—I want my nigger.” “Well, you can't get your nigger, that's all—so dry up your blubbering. Looky here—do you think you'd venture to blow on us?  Blamed if I think I'd trust you.  Why, if you was to blow on us—” He stopped, but I never see the duke look so ugly out of his eyes before. I went on a-whimpering, and says: “I don't want to blow on nobody; and I ain't got no time to blow, nohow. I got to turn out and find my nigger.” He looked kinder bothered, and stood there with his bills fluttering on his arm, thinking, and wrinkling up his forehead.  At last he says: “I'll tell you something.  We got to be here three days.  If you'll promise you won't blow, and won't let the nigger blow, I'll tell you where to find him.” So I promised, and he says: “A farmer by the name of Silas Ph—” and then he stopped.  You see, he started to tell me the truth; but when he stopped that way, and begun to study and think again, I reckoned he was changing his mind.  And so he was. He wouldn't trust me; he wanted to make sure of having me out of the way the whole three days.  So pretty soon he says: “The man that bought him is named Abram Foster—Abram G. Foster—and he lives forty mile back here in the country, on the road to Lafayette.” “All right,” I says, “I can walk it in three days.  And I'll start this very afternoon.” “No you wont, you'll start now; and don't you lose any time about it, neither, nor do any gabbling by the way.  Just keep a tight tongue in your head and move right along, and then you won't get into trouble with us, d'ye hear?” That was the order I wanted, and that was the one I played for.  I wanted to be left free to work my plans. “So clear out,” he says; “and you can tell Mr. Foster whatever you want to. Maybe you can get him to believe that Jim is your nigger—some idiots don't require documents—leastways I've heard there's such down South here.  And when you tell him the handbill and the reward's bogus, maybe he'll believe you when you explain to him what the idea was for getting 'em out.  Go 'long now, and tell him anything you want to; but mind you don't work your jaw any between here and there.” So I left, and struck for the back country.  I didn't look around, but I kinder felt like he was watching me.  But I knowed I could tire him out at that.  I went straight out in the country as much as a mile before I stopped; then I doubled back through the woods towards Phelps'.  I reckoned I better start in on my plan straight off without fooling around, because I wanted to stop Jim's mouth till these fellows could get away.  I didn't want no trouble with their kind.  I'd seen all I wanted to of them, and wanted to get entirely shut of them. CHAPTER XXXII. WHEN I got there it was all still and Sunday-like, and hot and sunshiny; the hands was gone to the fields; and there was them kind of faint dronings of bugs and flies in the air that makes it seem so lonesome and like everybody's dead and gone; and if a breeze fans along and quivers the leaves it makes you feel mournful, because you feel like it's spirits whispering—spirits that's been dead ever so many years—and you always think they're talking about you.  As a general thing it makes a body wish he was dead, too, and done with it all. Phelps' was one of these little one-horse cotton plantations, and they all look alike.  A rail fence round a two-acre yard; a stile made out of logs sawed off and up-ended in steps, like barrels of a different length, to climb over the fence with, and for the women to stand on when they are going to jump on to a horse; some sickly grass-patches in the big yard, but mostly it was bare and smooth, like an old hat with the nap rubbed off; big double log-house for the white folks—hewed logs, with the chinks stopped up with mud or mortar, and these mud-stripes been whitewashed some time or another; round-log kitchen, with a big broad, open but roofed passage joining it to the house; log smoke-house back of the kitchen; three little log nigger-cabins in a row t'other side the smoke-house; one little hut all by itself away down against the back fence, and some outbuildings down a piece the other side; ash-hopper and big kettle to bile soap in by the little hut; bench by the kitchen door, with bucket of water and a gourd; hound asleep there in the sun; more hounds asleep round about; about three shade trees away off in a corner; some currant bushes and gooseberry bushes in one place by the fence; outside of the fence a garden and a watermelon patch; then the cotton fields begins, and after the fields the woods. I went around and clumb over the back stile by the ash-hopper, and started for the kitchen.  When I got a little ways I heard the dim hum of a spinning-wheel wailing along up and sinking along down again; and then I knowed for certain I wished I was dead—for that is the lonesomest sound in the whole world. I went right along, not fixing up any particular plan, but just trusting to Providence to put the right words in my mouth when the time come; for I'd noticed that Providence always did put the right words in my mouth if I left it alone. When I got half-way, first one hound and then another got up and went for me, and of course I stopped and faced them, and kept still.  And such another powwow as they made!  In a quarter of a minute I was a kind of a hub of a wheel, as you may say—spokes made out of dogs—circle of fifteen of them packed together around me, with their necks and noses stretched up towards me, a-barking and howling; and more a-coming; you could see them sailing over fences and around corners from everywheres. A nigger woman come tearing out of the kitchen with a rolling-pin in her hand, singing out, “Begone you Tige! you Spot! begone sah!” and she fetched first one and then another of them a clip and sent them howling, and then the rest followed; and the next second half of them come back, wagging their tails around me, and making friends with me.  There ain't no harm in a hound, nohow. And behind the woman comes a little nigger girl and two little nigger boys without anything on but tow-linen shirts, and they hung on to their mother's gown, and peeped out from behind her at me, bashful, the way they always do.  And here comes the white woman running from the house, about forty-five or fifty year old, bareheaded, and her spinning-stick in her hand; and behind her comes her little white children, acting the same way the little niggers was doing.  She was smiling all over so she could hardly stand—and says: “It's you, at last!—ain't it?” I out with a “Yes'm” before I thought. She grabbed me and hugged me tight; and then gripped me by both hands and shook and shook; and the tears come in her eyes, and run down over; and she couldn't seem to hug and shake enough, and kept saying, “You don't look as much like your mother as I reckoned you would; but law sakes, I don't care for that, I'm so glad to see you!  Dear, dear, it does seem like I could eat you up!  Children, it's your cousin Tom!—tell him howdy.” But they ducked their heads, and put their fingers in their mouths, and hid behind her.  So she run on: “Lize, hurry up and get him a hot breakfast right away—or did you get your breakfast on the boat?” I said I had got it on the boat.  So then she started for the house, leading me by the hand, and the children tagging after.  When we got there she set me down in a split-bottomed chair, and set herself down on a little low stool in front of me, holding both of my hands, and says: “Now I can have a good look at you; and, laws-a-me, I've been hungry for it a many and a many a time, all these long years, and it's come at last! We been expecting you a couple of days and more.  What kep' you?—boat get aground?” “Yes'm—she—” “Don't say yes'm—say Aunt Sally.  Where'd she get aground?” I didn't rightly know what to say, because I didn't know whether the boat would be coming up the river or down.  But I go a good deal on instinct; and my instinct said she would be coming up—from down towards Orleans. That didn't help me much, though; for I didn't know the names of bars down that way.  I see I'd got to invent a bar, or forget the name of the one we got aground on—or—Now I struck an idea, and fetched it out: “It warn't the grounding—that didn't keep us back but a little.  We blowed out a cylinder-head.” “Good gracious! anybody hurt?” “No'm.  Killed a nigger.” “Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.  Two years ago last Christmas your uncle Silas was coming up from Newrleans on the old Lally Rook, and she blowed out a cylinder-head and crippled a man.  And I think he died afterwards.  He was a Baptist.  Your uncle Silas knowed a family in Baton Rouge that knowed his people very well.  Yes, I remember now, he did die.  Mortification set in, and they had to amputate him. But it didn't save him.  Yes, it was mortification—that was it.  He turned blue all over, and died in the hope of a glorious resurrection. They say he was a sight to look at.  Your uncle's been up to the town every day to fetch you. And he's gone again, not more'n an hour ago; he'll be back any minute now. You must a met him on the road, didn't you?—oldish man, with a—” “No, I didn't see nobody, Aunt Sally.  The boat landed just at daylight, and I left my baggage on the wharf-boat and went looking around the town and out a piece in the country, to put in the time and not get here too soon; and so I come down the back way.” “Who'd you give the baggage to?” “Nobody.” “Why, child, it 'll be stole!” “Not where I hid it I reckon it won't,” I says. “How'd you get your breakfast so early on the boat?” It was kinder thin ice, but I says: “The captain see me standing around, and told me I better have something to eat before I went ashore; so he took me in the texas to the officers' lunch, and give me all I wanted.” I was getting so uneasy I couldn't listen good.  I had my mind on the children all the time; I wanted to get them out to one side and pump them a little, and find out who I was.  But I couldn't get no show, Mrs. Phelps kept it up and run on so.  Pretty soon she made the cold chills streak all down my back, because she says: “But here we're a-running on this way, and you hain't told me a word about Sis, nor any of them.  Now I'll rest my works a little, and you start up yourn; just tell me everything—tell me all about 'm all every one of 'm; and how they are, and what they're doing, and what they told you to tell me; and every last thing you can think of.” Well, I see I was up a stump—and up it good.  Providence had stood by me this fur all right, but I was hard and tight aground now.  I see it warn't a bit of use to try to go ahead—I'd got to throw up my hand.  So I says to myself, here's another place where I got to resk the truth.  I opened my mouth to begin; but she grabbed me and hustled me in behind the bed, and says: “Here he comes!  Stick your head down lower—there, that'll do; you can't be seen now.  Don't you let on you're here.  I'll play a joke on him. Children, don't you say a word.” I see I was in a fix now.  But it warn't no use to worry; there warn't nothing to do but just hold still, and try and be ready to stand from under when the lightning struck. I had just one little glimpse of the old gentleman when he come in; then the bed hid him.  Mrs. Phelps she jumps for him, and says: “Has he come?” “No,” says her husband. “Good-ness gracious!” she says, “what in the warld can have become of him?” “I can't imagine,” says the old gentleman; “and I must say it makes me dreadful uneasy.” “Uneasy!” she says; “I'm ready to go distracted!  He must a come; and you've missed him along the road.  I know it's so—something tells me so.” “Why, Sally, I couldn't miss him along the road—you know that.” “But oh, dear, dear, what will Sis say!  He must a come!  You must a missed him.  He—” “Oh, don't distress me any more'n I'm already distressed.  I don't know what in the world to make of it.  I'm at my wit's end, and I don't mind acknowledging 't I'm right down scared.  But there's no hope that he's come; for he couldn't come and me miss him.  Sally, it's terrible—just terrible—something's happened to the boat, sure!” “Why, Silas!  Look yonder!—up the road!—ain't that somebody coming?” He sprung to the window at the head of the bed, and that give Mrs. Phelps the chance she wanted.  She stooped down quick at the foot of the bed and give me a pull, and out I come; and when he turned back from the window there she stood, a-beaming and a-smiling like a house afire, and I standing pretty meek and sweaty alongside.  The old gentleman stared, and says: “Why, who's that?” “Who do you reckon 't is?” “I hain't no idea.  Who is it?” “It's Tom Sawyer!” By jings, I most slumped through the floor!  But there warn't no time to swap knives; the old man grabbed me by the hand and shook, and kept on shaking; and all the time how the woman did dance around and laugh and cry; and then how they both did fire off questions about Sid, and Mary, and the rest of the tribe. But if they was joyful, it warn't nothing to what I was; for it was like being born again, I was so glad to find out who I was.  Well, they froze to me for two hours; and at last, when my chin was so tired it couldn't hardly go any more, I had told them more about my family—I mean the Sawyer family—than ever happened to any six Sawyer families.  And I explained all about how we blowed out a cylinder-head at the mouth of White River, and it took us three days to fix it.  Which was all right, and worked first-rate; because they didn't know but what it would take three days to fix it.  If I'd a called it a bolthead it would a done just as well. Now I was feeling pretty comfortable all down one side, and pretty uncomfortable all up the other.  Being Tom Sawyer was easy and comfortable, and it stayed easy and comfortable till by and by I hear a steamboat coughing along down the river.  Then I says to myself, s'pose Tom Sawyer comes down on that boat?  And s'pose he steps in here any minute, and sings out my name before I can throw him a wink to keep quiet? Well, I couldn't have it that way; it wouldn't do at all.  I must go up the road and waylay him.  So I told the folks I reckoned I would go up to the town and fetch down my baggage.  The old gentleman was for going along with me, but I said no, I could drive the horse myself, and I druther he wouldn't take no trouble about me. CHAPTER XXXIII. SO I started for town in the wagon, and when I was half-way I see a wagon coming, and sure enough it was Tom Sawyer, and I stopped and waited till he come along.  I says “Hold on!” and it stopped alongside, and his mouth opened up like a trunk, and stayed so; and he swallowed two or three times like a person that's got a dry throat, and then says: “I hain't ever done you no harm.  You know that.  So, then, what you want to come back and ha'nt me for?” I says: “I hain't come back—I hain't been gone.” When he heard my voice it righted him up some, but he warn't quite satisfied yet.  He says: “Don't you play nothing on me, because I wouldn't on you.  Honest injun now, you ain't a ghost?” “Honest injun, I ain't,” I says. “Well—I—I—well, that ought to settle it, of course; but I can't somehow seem to understand it no way.  Looky here, warn't you ever murdered at all?” “No.  I warn't ever murdered at all—I played it on them.  You come in here and feel of me if you don't believe me.” So he done it; and it satisfied him; and he was that glad to see me again he didn't know what to do.  And he wanted to know all about it right off, because it was a grand adventure, and mysterious, and so it hit him where he lived.  But I said, leave it alone till by and by; and told his driver to wait, and we drove off a little piece, and I told him the kind of a fix I was in, and what did he reckon we better do?  He said, let him alone a minute, and don't disturb him.  So he thought and thought, and pretty soon he says: “It's all right; I've got it.  Take my trunk in your wagon, and let on it's your'n; and you turn back and fool along slow, so as to get to the house about the time you ought to; and I'll go towards town a piece, and take a fresh start, and get there a quarter or a half an hour after you; and you needn't let on to know me at first.” I says: “All right; but wait a minute.  There's one more thing—a thing that nobody don't know but me.  And that is, there's a nigger here that I'm a-trying to steal out of slavery, and his name is Jim—old Miss Watson's Jim.” He says: “What!  Why, Jim is—” He stopped and went to studying.  I says: “I know what you'll say.  You'll say it's dirty, low-down business; but what if it is?  I'm low down; and I'm a-going to steal him, and I want you keep mum and not let on.  Will you?” His eye lit up, and he says: “I'll help you steal him!” Well, I let go all holts then, like I was shot.  It was the most astonishing speech I ever heard—and I'm bound to say Tom Sawyer fell considerable in my estimation.  Only I couldn't believe it.  Tom Sawyer a nigger-stealer! “Oh, shucks!”  I says; “you're joking.” “I ain't joking, either.” “Well, then,” I says, “joking or no joking, if you hear anything said about a runaway nigger, don't forget to remember that you don't know nothing about him, and I don't know nothing about him.” Then we took the trunk and put it in my wagon, and he drove off his way and I drove mine.  But of course I forgot all about driving slow on accounts of being glad and full of thinking; so I got home a heap too quick for that length of a trip.  The old gentleman was at the door, and he says: “Why, this is wonderful!  Whoever would a thought it was in that mare to do it?  I wish we'd a timed her.  And she hain't sweated a hair—not a hair. It's wonderful.  Why, I wouldn't take a hundred dollars for that horse now—I wouldn't, honest; and yet I'd a sold her for fifteen before, and thought 'twas all she was worth.” That's all he said.  He was the innocentest, best old soul I ever see. But it warn't surprising; because he warn't only just a farmer, he was a preacher, too, and had a little one-horse log church down back of the plantation, which he built it himself at his own expense, for a church and schoolhouse, and never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too.  There was plenty other farmer-preachers like that, and done the same way, down South. In about half an hour Tom's wagon drove up to the front stile, and Aunt Sally she see it through the window, because it was only about fifty yards, and says: “Why, there's somebody come!  I wonder who 'tis?  Why, I do believe it's a stranger.  Jimmy” (that's one of the children) “run and tell Lize to put on another plate for dinner.” Everybody made a rush for the front door, because, of course, a stranger don't come every year, and so he lays over the yaller-fever, for interest, when he does come.  Tom was over the stile and starting for the house; the wagon was spinning up the road for the village, and we was all bunched in the front door.  Tom had his store clothes on, and an audience—and that was always nuts for Tom Sawyer.  In them circumstances it warn't no trouble to him to throw in an amount of style that was suitable.  He warn't a boy to meeky along up that yard like a sheep; no, he come ca'm and important, like the ram.  When he got a-front of us he lifts his hat ever so gracious and dainty, like it was the lid of a box that had butterflies asleep in it and he didn't want to disturb them, and says: “Mr. Archibald Nichols, I presume?” “No, my boy,” says the old gentleman, “I'm sorry to say 't your driver has deceived you; Nichols's place is down a matter of three mile more. Come in, come in.” Tom he took a look back over his shoulder, and says, “Too late—he's out of sight.” “Yes, he's gone, my son, and you must come in and eat your dinner with us; and then we'll hitch up and take you down to Nichols's.” “Oh, I can't make you so much trouble; I couldn't think of it.  I'll walk—I don't mind the distance.” “But we won't let you walk—it wouldn't be Southern hospitality to do it. Come right in.” “Oh, do,” says Aunt Sally; “it ain't a bit of trouble to us, not a bit in the world.  You must stay.  It's a long, dusty three mile, and we can't let you walk.  And, besides, I've already told 'em to put on another plate when I see you coming; so you mustn't disappoint us.  Come right in and make yourself at home.” So Tom he thanked them very hearty and handsome, and let himself be persuaded, and come in; and when he was in he said he was a stranger from Hicksville, Ohio, and his name was William Thompson—and he made another bow. Well, he run on, and on, and on, making up stuff about Hicksville and everybody in it he could invent, and I getting a little nervious, and wondering how this was going to help me out of my scrape; and at last, still talking along, he reached over and kissed Aunt Sally right on the mouth, and then settled back again in his chair comfortable, and was going on talking; but she jumped up and wiped it off with the back of her hand, and says: “You owdacious puppy!” He looked kind of hurt, and says: “I'm surprised at you, m'am.” “You're s'rp—Why, what do you reckon I am?  I've a good notion to take and—Say, what do you mean by kissing me?” He looked kind of humble, and says: “I didn't mean nothing, m'am.  I didn't mean no harm.  I—I—thought you'd like it.” “Why, you born fool!”  She took up the spinning stick, and it looked like it was all she could do to keep from giving him a crack with it.  "What made you think I'd like it?” “Well, I don't know.  Only, they—they—told me you would.” “They told you I would.  Whoever told you's another lunatic.  I never heard the beat of it.  Who's they?” “Why, everybody.  They all said so, m'am.” It was all she could do to hold in; and her eyes snapped, and her fingers worked like she wanted to scratch him; and she says: “Who's 'everybody'?  Out with their names, or ther'll be an idiot short.” He got up and looked distressed, and fumbled his hat, and says: “I'm sorry, and I warn't expecting it.  They told me to.  They all told me to.  They all said, kiss her; and said she'd like it.  They all said it—every one of them.  But I'm sorry, m'am, and I won't do it no more—I won't, honest.” “You won't, won't you?  Well, I sh'd reckon you won't!” “No'm, I'm honest about it; I won't ever do it again—till you ask me.” “Till I ask you!  Well, I never see the beat of it in my born days!  I lay you'll be the Methusalem-numskull of creation before ever I ask you—or the likes of you.” “Well,” he says, “it does surprise me so.  I can't make it out, somehow. They said you would, and I thought you would.  But—” He stopped and looked around slow, like he wished he could run across a friendly eye somewheres, and fetched up on the old gentleman's, and says, “Didn't you think she'd like me to kiss her, sir?” “Why, no; I—I—well, no, I b'lieve I didn't.” Then he looks on around the same way to me, and says: “Tom, didn't you think Aunt Sally 'd open out her arms and say, 'Sid Sawyer—'” “My land!” she says, breaking in and jumping for him, “you impudent young rascal, to fool a body so—” and was going to hug him, but he fended her off, and says: “No, not till you've asked me first.” So she didn't lose no time, but asked him; and hugged him and kissed him over and over again, and then turned him over to the old man, and he took what was left.  And after they got a little quiet again she says: “Why, dear me, I never see such a surprise.  We warn't looking for you at all, but only Tom.  Sis never wrote to me about anybody coming but him.” “It's because it warn't intended for any of us to come but Tom,” he says; “but I begged and begged, and at the last minute she let me come, too; so, coming down the river, me and Tom thought it would be a first-rate surprise for him to come here to the house first, and for me to by and by tag along and drop in, and let on to be a stranger.  But it was a mistake, Aunt Sally.  This ain't no healthy place for a stranger to come.” “No—not impudent whelps, Sid.  You ought to had your jaws boxed; I hain't been so put out since I don't know when.  But I don't care, I don't mind the terms—I'd be willing to stand a thousand such jokes to have you here. Well, to think of that performance!  I don't deny it, I was most putrified with astonishment when you give me that smack.” We had dinner out in that broad open passage betwixt the house and the kitchen; and there was things enough on that table for seven families—and all hot, too; none of your flabby, tough meat that's laid in a cupboard in a damp cellar all night and tastes like a hunk of old cold cannibal in the morning.  Uncle Silas he asked a pretty long blessing over it, but it was worth it; and it didn't cool it a bit, neither, the way I've seen them kind of interruptions do lots of times.  There was a considerable good deal of talk all the afternoon, and me and Tom was on the lookout all the time; but it warn't no use, they didn't happen to say nothing about any runaway nigger, and we was afraid to try to work up to it.  But at supper, at night, one of the little boys says: “Pa, mayn't Tom and Sid and me go to the show?” “No,” says the old man, “I reckon there ain't going to be any; and you couldn't go if there was; because the runaway nigger told Burton and me all about that scandalous show, and Burton said he would tell the people; so I reckon they've drove the owdacious loafers out of town before this time.” So there it was!—but I couldn't help it.  Tom and me was to sleep in the same room and bed; so, being tired, we bid good-night and went up to bed right after supper, and clumb out of the window and down the lightning-rod, and shoved for the town; for I didn't believe anybody was going to give the king and the duke a hint, and so if I didn't hurry up and give them one they'd get into trouble sure. On the road Tom he told me all about how it was reckoned I was murdered, and how pap disappeared pretty soon, and didn't come back no more, and what a stir there was when Jim run away; and I told Tom all about our Royal Nonesuch rapscallions, and as much of the raft voyage as I had time to; and as we struck into the town and up through the the middle of it--it was as much as half-after eight, then—here comes a raging rush of people with torches, and an awful whooping and yelling, and banging tin pans and blowing horns; and we jumped to one side to let them go by; and as they went by I see they had the king and the duke astraddle of a rail—that is, I knowed it was the king and the duke, though they was all over tar and feathers, and didn't look like nothing in the world that was human—just looked like a couple of monstrous big soldier-plumes.  Well, it made me sick to see it; and I was sorry for them poor pitiful rascals, it seemed like I couldn't ever feel any hardness against them any more in the world.  It was a dreadful thing to see.  Human beings can be awful cruel to one another. We see we was too late—couldn't do no good.  We asked some stragglers about it, and they said everybody went to the show looking very innocent; and laid low and kept dark till the poor old king was in the middle of his cavortings on the stage; then somebody give a signal, and the house rose up and went for them. So we poked along back home, and I warn't feeling so brash as I was before, but kind of ornery, and humble, and to blame, somehow—though I hadn't done nothing.  But that's always the way; it don't make no difference whether you do right or wrong, a person's conscience ain't got no sense, and just goes for him anyway.  If I had a yaller dog that didn't know no more than a person's conscience does I would pison him. It takes up more room than all the rest of a person's insides, and yet ain't no good, nohow.  Tom Sawyer he says the same. CHAPTER XXXIV. WE stopped talking, and got to thinking.  By and by Tom says: “Looky here, Huck, what fools we are to not think of it before!  I bet I know where Jim is.” “No!  Where?” “In that hut down by the ash-hopper.  Why, looky here.  When we was at dinner, didn't you see a nigger man go in there with some vittles?” “Yes.” “What did you think the vittles was for?” “For a dog.” “So 'd I. Well, it wasn't for a dog.” “Why?” “Because part of it was watermelon.” “So it was—I noticed it.  Well, it does beat all that I never thought about a dog not eating watermelon.  It shows how a body can see and don't see at the same time.” “Well, the nigger unlocked the padlock when he went in, and he locked it again when he came out.  He fetched uncle a key about the time we got up from table—same key, I bet.  Watermelon shows man, lock shows prisoner; and it ain't likely there's two prisoners on such a little plantation, and where the people's all so kind and good.  Jim's the prisoner.  All right—I'm glad we found it out detective fashion; I wouldn't give shucks for any other way.  Now you work your mind, and study out a plan to steal Jim, and I will study out one, too; and we'll take the one we like the best.” What a head for just a boy to have!  If I had Tom Sawyer's head I wouldn't trade it off to be a duke, nor mate of a steamboat, nor clown in a circus, nor nothing I can think of.  I went to thinking out a plan, but only just to be doing something; I knowed very well where the right plan was going to come from.  Pretty soon Tom says: “Ready?” “Yes,” I says. “All right—bring it out.” “My plan is this,” I says.  "We can easy find out if it's Jim in there. Then get up my canoe to-morrow night, and fetch my raft over from the island.  Then the first dark night that comes steal the key out of the old man's britches after he goes to bed, and shove off down the river on the raft with Jim, hiding daytimes and running nights, the way me and Jim used to do before.  Wouldn't that plan work?” “Work?  Why, cert'nly it would work, like rats a-fighting.  But it's too blame' simple; there ain't nothing to it.  What's the good of a plan that ain't no more trouble than that?  It's as mild as goose-milk.  Why, Huck, it wouldn't make no more talk than breaking into a soap factory.” I never said nothing, because I warn't expecting nothing different; but I knowed mighty well that whenever he got his plan ready it wouldn't have none of them objections to it. And it didn't.  He told me what it was, and I see in a minute it was worth fifteen of mine for style, and would make Jim just as free a man as mine would, and maybe get us all killed besides.  So I was satisfied, and said we would waltz in on it.  I needn't tell what it was here, because I knowed it wouldn't stay the way, it was.  I knowed he would be changing it around every which way as we went along, and heaving in new bullinesses wherever he got a chance.  And that is what he done. Well, one thing was dead sure, and that was that Tom Sawyer was in earnest, and was actuly going to help steal that nigger out of slavery. That was the thing that was too many for me.  Here was a boy that was respectable and well brung up; and had a character to lose; and folks at home that had characters; and he was bright and not leather-headed; and knowing and not ignorant; and not mean, but kind; and yet here he was, without any more pride, or rightness, or feeling, than to stoop to this business, and make himself a shame, and his family a shame, before everybody.  I couldn't understand it no way at all.  It was outrageous, and I knowed I ought to just up and tell him so; and so be his true friend, and let him quit the thing right where he was and save himself. And I did start to tell him; but he shut me up, and says: “Don't you reckon I know what I'm about?  Don't I generly know what I'm about?” “Yes.” “Didn't I say I was going to help steal the nigger?” “Yes.” “Well, then.” That's all he said, and that's all I said.  It warn't no use to say any more; because when he said he'd do a thing, he always done it.  But I couldn't make out how he was willing to go into this thing; so I just let it go, and never bothered no more about it.  If he was bound to have it so, I couldn't help it. When we got home the house was all dark and still; so we went on down to the hut by the ash-hopper for to examine it.  We went through the yard so as to see what the hounds would do.  They knowed us, and didn't make no more noise than country dogs is always doing when anything comes by in the night.  When we got to the cabin we took a look at the front and the two sides; and on the side I warn't acquainted with—which was the north side—we found a square window-hole, up tolerable high, with just one stout board nailed across it.  I says: “Here's the ticket.  This hole's big enough for Jim to get through if we wrench off the board.” Tom says: “It's as simple as tit-tat-toe, three-in-a-row, and as easy as playing hooky.  I should hope we can find a way that's a little more complicated than that, Huck Finn.” “Well, then,” I says, “how 'll it do to saw him out, the way I done before I was murdered that time?” “That's more like,” he says.  "It's real mysterious, and troublesome, and good,” he says; “but I bet we can find a way that's twice as long.  There ain't no hurry; le's keep on looking around.” Betwixt the hut and the fence, on the back side, was a lean-to that joined the hut at the eaves, and was made out of plank.  It was as long as the hut, but narrow—only about six foot wide.  The door to it was at the south end, and was padlocked.  Tom he went to the soap-kettle and searched around, and fetched back the iron thing they lift the lid with; so he took it and prized out one of the staples.  The chain fell down, and we opened the door and went in, and shut it, and struck a match, and see the shed was only built against a cabin and hadn't no connection with it; and there warn't no floor to the shed, nor nothing in it but some old rusty played-out hoes and spades and picks and a crippled plow.  The match went out, and so did we, and shoved in the staple again, and the door was locked as good as ever. Tom was joyful.  He says; “Now we're all right.  We'll dig him out.  It 'll take about a week!” Then we started for the house, and I went in the back door—you only have to pull a buckskin latch-string, they don't fasten the doors—but that warn't romantical enough for Tom Sawyer; no way would do him but he must climb up the lightning-rod.  But after he got up half way about three times, and missed fire and fell every time, and the last time most busted his brains out, he thought he'd got to give it up; but after he was rested he allowed he would give her one more turn for luck, and this time he made the trip. In the morning we was up at break of day, and down to the nigger cabins to pet the dogs and make friends with the nigger that fed Jim—if it was Jim that was being fed.  The niggers was just getting through breakfast and starting for the fields; and Jim's nigger was piling up a tin pan with bread and meat and things; and whilst the others was leaving, the key come from the house. This nigger had a good-natured, chuckle-headed face, and his wool was all tied up in little bunches with thread.  That was to keep witches off.  He said the witches was pestering him awful these nights, and making him see all kinds of strange things, and hear all kinds of strange words and noises, and he didn't believe he was ever witched so long before in his life.  He got so worked up, and got to running on so about his troubles, he forgot all about what he'd been a-going to do.  So Tom says: “What's the vittles for?  Going to feed the dogs?” The nigger kind of smiled around gradually over his face, like when you heave a brickbat in a mud-puddle, and he says: “Yes, Mars Sid, A dog.  Cur'us dog, too.  Does you want to go en look at 'im?” “Yes.” I hunched Tom, and whispers: “You going, right here in the daybreak?  that warn't the plan.” “No, it warn't; but it's the plan now.” So, drat him, we went along, but I didn't like it much.  When we got in we couldn't hardly see anything, it was so dark; but Jim was there, sure enough, and could see us; and he sings out: “Why, Huck!  En good lan'! ain' dat Misto Tom?” I just knowed how it would be; I just expected it.  I didn't know nothing to do; and if I had I couldn't a done it, because that nigger busted in and says: “Why, de gracious sakes! do he know you genlmen?” We could see pretty well now.  Tom he looked at the nigger, steady and kind of wondering, and says: “Does who know us?” “Why, dis-yer runaway nigger.” “I don't reckon he does; but what put that into your head?” “What put it dar?  Didn' he jis' dis minute sing out like he knowed you?” Tom says, in a puzzled-up kind of way: “Well, that's mighty curious.  Who sung out? when did he sing out?  what did he sing out?” And turns to me, perfectly ca'm, and says, “Did you hear anybody sing out?” Of course there warn't nothing to be said but the one thing; so I says: “No; I ain't heard nobody say nothing.” Then he turns to Jim, and looks him over like he never see him before, and says: “Did you sing out?” “No, sah,” says Jim; “I hain't said nothing, sah.” “Not a word?” “No, sah, I hain't said a word.” “Did you ever see us before?” “No, sah; not as I knows on.” So Tom turns to the nigger, which was looking wild and distressed, and says, kind of severe: “What do you reckon's the matter with you, anyway?  What made you think somebody sung out?” “Oh, it's de dad-blame' witches, sah, en I wisht I was dead, I do.  Dey's awluz at it, sah, en dey do mos' kill me, dey sk'yers me so.  Please to don't tell nobody 'bout it sah, er ole Mars Silas he'll scole me; 'kase he say dey ain't no witches.  I jis' wish to goodness he was heah now—den what would he say!  I jis' bet he couldn' fine no way to git aroun' it dis time.  But it's awluz jis' so; people dat's sot, stays sot; dey won't look into noth'n'en fine it out f'r deyselves, en when you fine it out en tell um 'bout it, dey doan' b'lieve you.” Tom give him a dime, and said we wouldn't tell nobody; and told him to buy some more thread to tie up his wool with; and then looks at Jim, and says: “I wonder if Uncle Silas is going to hang this nigger.  If I was to catch a nigger that was ungrateful enough to run away, I wouldn't give him up, I'd hang him.”  And whilst the nigger stepped to the door to look at the dime and bite it to see if it was good, he whispers to Jim and says: “Don't ever let on to know us.  And if you hear any digging going on nights, it's us; we're going to set you free.” Jim only had time to grab us by the hand and squeeze it; then the nigger come back, and we said we'd come again some time if the nigger wanted us to; and he said he would, more particular if it was dark, because the witches went for him mostly in the dark, and it was good to have folks around then. CHAPTER XXXV. IT would be most an hour yet till breakfast, so we left and struck down into the woods; because Tom said we got to have some light to see how to dig by, and a lantern makes too much, and might get us into trouble; what we must have was a lot of them rotten chunks that's called fox-fire, and just makes a soft kind of a glow when you lay them in a dark place.  We fetched an armful and hid it in the weeds, and set down to rest, and Tom says, kind of dissatisfied: “Blame it, this whole thing is just as easy and awkward as it can be. And so it makes it so rotten difficult to get up a difficult plan.  There ain't no watchman to be drugged—now there ought to be a watchman.  There ain't even a dog to give a sleeping-mixture to.  And there's Jim chained by one leg, with a ten-foot chain, to the leg of his bed:  why, all you got to do is to lift up the bedstead and slip off the chain.  And Uncle Silas he trusts everybody; sends the key to the punkin-headed nigger, and don't send nobody to watch the nigger.  Jim could a got out of that window-hole before this, only there wouldn't be no use trying to travel with a ten-foot chain on his leg.  Why, drat it, Huck, it's the stupidest arrangement I ever see. You got to invent all the difficulties.  Well, we can't help it; we got to do the best we can with the materials we've got. Anyhow, there's one thing—there's more honor in getting him out through a lot of difficulties and dangers, where there warn't one of them furnished to you by the people who it was their duty to furnish them, and you had to contrive them all out of your own head.  Now look at just that one thing of the lantern.  When you come down to the cold facts, we simply got to let on that a lantern's resky.  Why, we could work with a torchlight procession if we wanted to, I believe.  Now, whilst I think of it, we got to hunt up something to make a saw out of the first chance we get.” “What do we want of a saw?” “What do we want of it?  Hain't we got to saw the leg of Jim's bed off, so as to get the chain loose?” “Why, you just said a body could lift up the bedstead and slip the chain off.” “Well, if that ain't just like you, Huck Finn.  You can get up the infant-schooliest ways of going at a thing.  Why, hain't you ever read any books at all?—Baron Trenck, nor Casanova, nor Benvenuto Chelleeny, nor Henri IV., nor none of them heroes?  Who ever heard of getting a prisoner loose in such an old-maidy way as that?  No; the way all the best authorities does is to saw the bed-leg in two, and leave it just so, and swallow the sawdust, so it can't be found, and put some dirt and grease around the sawed place so the very keenest seneskal can't see no sign of it's being sawed, and thinks the bed-leg is perfectly sound. Then, the night you're ready, fetch the leg a kick, down she goes; slip off your chain, and there you are.  Nothing to do but hitch your rope ladder to the battlements, shin down it, break your leg in the moat—because a rope ladder is nineteen foot too short, you know—and there's your horses and your trusty vassles, and they scoop you up and fling you across a saddle, and away you go to your native Langudoc, or Navarre, or wherever it is. It's gaudy, Huck.  I wish there was a moat to this cabin. If we get time, the night of the escape, we'll dig one.” I says: “What do we want of a moat when we're going to snake him out from under the cabin?” But he never heard me.  He had forgot me and everything else.  He had his chin in his hand, thinking.  Pretty soon he sighs and shakes his head; then sighs again, and says: “No, it wouldn't do—there ain't necessity enough for it.” “For what?”  I says. “Why, to saw Jim's leg off,” he says. “Good land!”  I says; “why, there ain't no necessity for it.  And what would you want to saw his leg off for, anyway?” “Well, some of the best authorities has done it.  They couldn't get the chain off, so they just cut their hand off and shoved.  And a leg would be better still.  But we got to let that go.  There ain't necessity enough in this case; and, besides, Jim's a nigger, and wouldn't understand the reasons for it, and how it's the custom in Europe; so we'll let it go.  But there's one thing—he can have a rope ladder; we can tear up our sheets and make him a rope ladder easy enough.  And we can send it to him in a pie; it's mostly done that way.  And I've et worse pies.” “Why, Tom Sawyer, how you talk,” I says; “Jim ain't got no use for a rope ladder.” “He has got use for it.  How you talk, you better say; you don't know nothing about it.  He's got to have a rope ladder; they all do.” “What in the nation can he do with it?” “Do with it?  He can hide it in his bed, can't he?”  That's what they all do; and he's got to, too.  Huck, you don't ever seem to want to do anything that's regular; you want to be starting something fresh all the time. S'pose he don't do nothing with it? ain't it there in his bed, for a clew, after he's gone? and don't you reckon they'll want clews?  Of course they will.  And you wouldn't leave them any?  That would be a pretty howdy-do, wouldn't it!  I never heard of such a thing.” “Well,” I says, “if it's in the regulations, and he's got to have it, all right, let him have it; because I don't wish to go back on no regulations; but there's one thing, Tom Sawyer—if we go to tearing up our sheets to make Jim a rope ladder, we're going to get into trouble with Aunt Sally, just as sure as you're born.  Now, the way I look at it, a hickry-bark ladder don't cost nothing, and don't waste nothing, and is just as good to load up a pie with, and hide in a straw tick, as any rag ladder you can start; and as for Jim, he ain't had no experience, and so he don't care what kind of a—” “Oh, shucks, Huck Finn, if I was as ignorant as you I'd keep still—that's what I'D do.  Who ever heard of a state prisoner escaping by a hickry-bark ladder?  Why, it's perfectly ridiculous.” “Well, all right, Tom, fix it your own way; but if you'll take my advice, you'll let me borrow a sheet off of the clothesline.” He said that would do.  And that gave him another idea, and he says: “Borrow a shirt, too.” “What do we want of a shirt, Tom?” “Want it for Jim to keep a journal on.” “Journal your granny—Jim can't write.” “S'pose he can't write—he can make marks on the shirt, can't he, if we make him a pen out of an old pewter spoon or a piece of an old iron barrel-hoop?” “Why, Tom, we can pull a feather out of a goose and make him a better one; and quicker, too.” “Prisoners don't have geese running around the donjon-keep to pull pens out of, you muggins.  They always make their pens out of the hardest, toughest, troublesomest piece of old brass candlestick or something like that they can get their hands on; and it takes them weeks and weeks and months and months to file it out, too, because they've got to do it by rubbing it on the wall.  They wouldn't use a goose-quill if they had it. It ain't regular.” “Well, then, what'll we make him the ink out of?” “Many makes it out of iron-rust and tears; but that's the common sort and women; the best authorities uses their own blood.  Jim can do that; and when he wants to send any little common ordinary mysterious message to let the world know where he's captivated, he can write it on the bottom of a tin plate with a fork and throw it out of the window.  The Iron Mask always done that, and it's a blame' good way, too.” “Jim ain't got no tin plates.  They feed him in a pan.” “That ain't nothing; we can get him some.” “Can't nobody read his plates.” “That ain't got anything to do with it, Huck Finn.  All he's got to do is to write on the plate and throw it out.  You don't have to be able to read it. Why, half the time you can't read anything a prisoner writes on a tin plate, or anywhere else.” “Well, then, what's the sense in wasting the plates?” “Why, blame it all, it ain't the prisoner's plates.” “But it's somebody's plates, ain't it?” “Well, spos'n it is?  What does the prisoner care whose—” He broke off there, because we heard the breakfast-horn blowing.  So we cleared out for the house. Along during the morning I borrowed a sheet and a white shirt off of the clothes-line; and I found an old sack and put them in it, and we went down and got the fox-fire, and put that in too.  I called it borrowing, because that was what pap always called it; but Tom said it warn't borrowing, it was stealing.  He said we was representing prisoners; and prisoners don't care how they get a thing so they get it, and nobody don't blame them for it, either.  It ain't no crime in a prisoner to steal the thing he needs to get away with, Tom said; it's his right; and so, as long as we was representing a prisoner, we had a perfect right to steal anything on this place we had the least use for to get ourselves out of prison with.  He said if we warn't prisoners it would be a very different thing, and nobody but a mean, ornery person would steal when he warn't a prisoner.  So we allowed we would steal everything there was that come handy.  And yet he made a mighty fuss, one day, after that, when I stole a watermelon out of the nigger-patch and eat it; and he made me go and give the niggers a dime without telling them what it was for. Tom said that what he meant was, we could steal anything we needed. Well, I says, I needed the watermelon.  But he said I didn't need it to get out of prison with; there's where the difference was.  He said if I'd a wanted it to hide a knife in, and smuggle it to Jim to kill the seneskal with, it would a been all right.  So I let it go at that, though I couldn't see no advantage in my representing a prisoner if I got to set down and chaw over a lot of gold-leaf distinctions like that every time I see a chance to hog a watermelon. Well, as I was saying, we waited that morning till everybody was settled down to business, and nobody in sight around the yard; then Tom he carried the sack into the lean-to whilst I stood off a piece to keep watch.  By and by he come out, and we went and set down on the woodpile to talk.  He says: “Everything's all right now except tools; and that's easy fixed.” “Tools?”  I says. “Yes.” “Tools for what?” “Why, to dig with.  We ain't a-going to gnaw him out, are we?” “Ain't them old crippled picks and things in there good enough to dig a nigger out with?”  I says. He turns on me, looking pitying enough to make a body cry, and says: “Huck Finn, did you ever hear of a prisoner having picks and shovels, and all the modern conveniences in his wardrobe to dig himself out with?  Now I want to ask you—if you got any reasonableness in you at all—what kind of a show would that give him to be a hero?  Why, they might as well lend him the key and done with it.  Picks and shovels—why, they wouldn't furnish 'em to a king.” “Well, then,” I says, “if we don't want the picks and shovels, what do we want?” “A couple of case-knives.” “To dig the foundations out from under that cabin with?” “Yes.” “Confound it, it's foolish, Tom.” “It don't make no difference how foolish it is, it's the right way—and it's the regular way.  And there ain't no other way, that ever I heard of, and I've read all the books that gives any information about these things. They always dig out with a case-knife—and not through dirt, mind you; generly it's through solid rock.  And it takes them weeks and weeks and weeks, and for ever and ever.  Why, look at one of them prisoners in the bottom dungeon of the Castle Deef, in the harbor of Marseilles, that dug himself out that way; how long was he at it, you reckon?” “I don't know.” “Well, guess.” “I don't know.  A month and a half.” “Thirty-seven year—and he come out in China.  That's the kind.  I wish the bottom of this fortress was solid rock.” “Jim don't know nobody in China.” “What's that got to do with it?  Neither did that other fellow.  But you're always a-wandering off on a side issue.  Why can't you stick to the main point?” “All right—I don't care where he comes out, so he comes out; and Jim don't, either, I reckon.  But there's one thing, anyway—Jim's too old to be dug out with a case-knife.  He won't last.” “Yes he will last, too.  You don't reckon it's going to take thirty-seven years to dig out through a dirt foundation, do you?” “How long will it take, Tom?” “Well, we can't resk being as long as we ought to, because it mayn't take very long for Uncle Silas to hear from down there by New Orleans.  He'll hear Jim ain't from there.  Then his next move will be to advertise Jim, or something like that.  So we can't resk being as long digging him out as we ought to.  By rights I reckon we ought to be a couple of years; but we can't.  Things being so uncertain, what I recommend is this:  that we really dig right in, as quick as we can; and after that, we can let on, to ourselves, that we was at it thirty-seven years.  Then we can snatch him out and rush him away the first time there's an alarm.  Yes, I reckon that 'll be the best way.” “Now, there's sense in that,” I says.  "Letting on don't cost nothing; letting on ain't no trouble; and if it's any object, I don't mind letting on we was at it a hundred and fifty year.  It wouldn't strain me none, after I got my hand in.  So I'll mosey along now, and smouch a couple of case-knives.” “Smouch three,” he says; “we want one to make a saw out of.” “Tom, if it ain't unregular and irreligious to sejest it,” I says, “there's an old rusty saw-blade around yonder sticking under the weather-boarding behind the smoke-house.” He looked kind of weary and discouraged-like, and says: “It ain't no use to try to learn you nothing, Huck.  Run along and smouch the knives—three of them.”  So I done it. CHAPTER XXXVI. AS soon as we reckoned everybody was asleep that night we went down the lightning-rod, and shut ourselves up in the lean-to, and got out our pile of fox-fire, and went to work.  We cleared everything out of the way, about four or five foot along the middle of the bottom log.  Tom said he was right behind Jim's bed now, and we'd dig in under it, and when we got through there couldn't nobody in the cabin ever know there was any hole there, because Jim's counter-pin hung down most to the ground, and you'd have to raise it up and look under to see the hole.  So we dug and dug with the case-knives till most midnight; and then we was dog-tired, and our hands was blistered, and yet you couldn't see we'd done anything hardly.  At last I says: “This ain't no thirty-seven year job; this is a thirty-eight year job, Tom Sawyer.” He never said nothing.  But he sighed, and pretty soon he stopped digging, and then for a good little while I knowed that he was thinking. Then he says: “It ain't no use, Huck, it ain't a-going to work.  If we was prisoners it would, because then we'd have as many years as we wanted, and no hurry; and we wouldn't get but a few minutes to dig, every day, while they was changing watches, and so our hands wouldn't get blistered, and we could keep it up right along, year in and year out, and do it right, and the way it ought to be done.  But we can't fool along; we got to rush; we ain't got no time to spare.  If we was to put in another night this way we'd have to knock off for a week to let our hands get well—couldn't touch a case-knife with them sooner.” “Well, then, what we going to do, Tom?” “I'll tell you.  It ain't right, and it ain't moral, and I wouldn't like it to get out; but there ain't only just the one way:  we got to dig him out with the picks, and let on it's case-knives.” “Now you're talking!”  I says; “your head gets leveler and leveler all the time, Tom Sawyer,” I says.  "Picks is the thing, moral or no moral; and as for me, I don't care shucks for the morality of it, nohow.  When I start in to steal a nigger, or a watermelon, or a Sunday-school book, I ain't no ways particular how it's done so it's done.  What I want is my nigger; or what I want is my watermelon; or what I want is my Sunday-school book; and if a pick's the handiest thing, that's the thing I'm a-going to dig that nigger or that watermelon or that Sunday-school book out with; and I don't give a dead rat what the authorities thinks about it nuther.” “Well,” he says, “there's excuse for picks and letting-on in a case like this; if it warn't so, I wouldn't approve of it, nor I wouldn't stand by and see the rules broke—because right is right, and wrong is wrong, and a body ain't got no business doing wrong when he ain't ignorant and knows better.  It might answer for you to dig Jim out with a pick, without any letting on, because you don't know no better; but it wouldn't for me, because I do know better.  Gimme a case-knife.” He had his own by him, but I handed him mine.  He flung it down, and says: “Gimme a case-knife.” I didn't know just what to do—but then I thought.  I scratched around amongst the old tools, and got a pickaxe and give it to him, and he took it and went to work, and never said a word. He was always just that particular.  Full of principle. So then I got a shovel, and then we picked and shoveled, turn about, and made the fur fly.  We stuck to it about a half an hour, which was as long as we could stand up; but we had a good deal of a hole to show for it. When I got up stairs I looked out at the window and see Tom doing his level best with the lightning-rod, but he couldn't come it, his hands was so sore.  At last he says: “It ain't no use, it can't be done.  What you reckon I better do?  Can't you think of no way?” “Yes,” I says, “but I reckon it ain't regular.  Come up the stairs, and let on it's a lightning-rod.” So he done it. Next day Tom stole a pewter spoon and a brass candlestick in the house, for to make some pens for Jim out of, and six tallow candles; and I hung around the nigger cabins and laid for a chance, and stole three tin plates.  Tom says it wasn't enough; but I said nobody wouldn't ever see the plates that Jim throwed out, because they'd fall in the dog-fennel and jimpson weeds under the window-hole—then we could tote them back and he could use them over again.  So Tom was satisfied.  Then he says: “Now, the thing to study out is, how to get the things to Jim.” “Take them in through the hole,” I says, “when we get it done.” He only just looked scornful, and said something about nobody ever heard of such an idiotic idea, and then he went to studying.  By and by he said he had ciphered out two or three ways, but there warn't no need to decide on any of them yet.  Said we'd got to post Jim first. That night we went down the lightning-rod a little after ten, and took one of the candles along, and listened under the window-hole, and heard Jim snoring; so we pitched it in, and it didn't wake him.  Then we whirled in with the pick and shovel, and in about two hours and a half the job was done.  We crept in under Jim's bed and into the cabin, and pawed around and found the candle and lit it, and stood over Jim awhile, and found him looking hearty and healthy, and then we woke him up gentle and gradual.  He was so glad to see us he most cried; and called us honey, and all the pet names he could think of; and was for having us hunt up a cold-chisel to cut the chain off of his leg with right away, and clearing out without losing any time.  But Tom he showed him how unregular it would be, and set down and told him all about our plans, and how we could alter them in a minute any time there was an alarm; and not to be the least afraid, because we would see he got away, sure.  So Jim he said it was all right, and we set there and talked over old times awhile, and then Tom asked a lot of questions, and when Jim told him Uncle Silas come in every day or two to pray with him, and Aunt Sally come in to see if he was comfortable and had plenty to eat, and both of them was kind as they could be, Tom says: “Now I know how to fix it.  We'll send you some things by them.” I said, “Don't do nothing of the kind; it's one of the most jackass ideas I ever struck;” but he never paid no attention to me; went right on.  It was his way when he'd got his plans set. So he told Jim how we'd have to smuggle in the rope-ladder pie and other large things by Nat, the nigger that fed him, and he must be on the lookout, and not be surprised, and not let Nat see him open them; and we would put small things in uncle's coat-pockets and he must steal them out; and we would tie things to aunt's apron-strings or put them in her apron-pocket, if we got a chance; and told him what they would be and what they was for.  And told him how to keep a journal on the shirt with his blood, and all that. He told him everything.  Jim he couldn't see no sense in the most of it, but he allowed we was white folks and knowed better than him; so he was satisfied, and said he would do it all just as Tom said. Jim had plenty corn-cob pipes and tobacco; so we had a right down good sociable time; then we crawled out through the hole, and so home to bed, with hands that looked like they'd been chawed.  Tom was in high spirits. He said it was the best fun he ever had in his life, and the most intellectural; and said if he only could see his way to it we would keep it up all the rest of our lives and leave Jim to our children to get out; for he believed Jim would come to like it better and better the more he got used to it.  He said that in that way it could be strung out to as much as eighty year, and would be the best time on record.  And he said it would make us all celebrated that had a hand in it. In the morning we went out to the woodpile and chopped up the brass candlestick into handy sizes, and Tom put them and the pewter spoon in his pocket.  Then we went to the nigger cabins, and while I got Nat's notice off, Tom shoved a piece of candlestick into the middle of a corn-pone that was in Jim's pan, and we went along with Nat to see how it would work, and it just worked noble; when Jim bit into it it most mashed all his teeth out; and there warn't ever anything could a worked better. Tom said so himself. Jim he never let on but what it was only just a piece of rock or something like that that's always getting into bread, you know; but after that he never bit into nothing but what he jabbed his fork into it in three or four places first. And whilst we was a-standing there in the dimmish light, here comes a couple of the hounds bulging in from under Jim's bed; and they kept on piling in till there was eleven of them, and there warn't hardly room in there to get your breath.  By jings, we forgot to fasten that lean-to door!  The nigger Nat he only just hollered “Witches” once, and keeled over on to the floor amongst the dogs, and begun to groan like he was dying.  Tom jerked the door open and flung out a slab of Jim's meat, and the dogs went for it, and in two seconds he was out himself and back again and shut the door, and I knowed he'd fixed the other door too. Then he went to work on the nigger, coaxing him and petting him, and asking him if he'd been imagining he saw something again.  He raised up, and blinked his eyes around, and says: “Mars Sid, you'll say I's a fool, but if I didn't b'lieve I see most a million dogs, er devils, er some'n, I wisht I may die right heah in dese tracks.  I did, mos' sholy.  Mars Sid, I felt um—I felt um, sah; dey was all over me.  Dad fetch it, I jis' wisht I could git my han's on one er dem witches jis' wunst—on'y jis' wunst—it's all I'd ast.  But mos'ly I wisht dey'd lemme 'lone, I does.” Tom says: “Well, I tell you what I think.  What makes them come here just at this runaway nigger's breakfast-time?  It's because they're hungry; that's the reason.  You make them a witch pie; that's the thing for you to do.” “But my lan', Mars Sid, how's I gwyne to make 'm a witch pie?  I doan' know how to make it.  I hain't ever hearn er sich a thing b'fo'.” “Well, then, I'll have to make it myself.” “Will you do it, honey?—will you?  I'll wusshup de groun' und' yo' foot, I will!” “All right, I'll do it, seeing it's you, and you've been good to us and showed us the runaway nigger.  But you got to be mighty careful.  When we come around, you turn your back; and then whatever we've put in the pan, don't you let on you see it at all.  And don't you look when Jim unloads the pan—something might happen, I don't know what.  And above all, don't you handle the witch-things.” “Hannel 'M, Mars Sid?  What is you a-talkin' 'bout?  I wouldn' lay de weight er my finger on um, not f'r ten hund'd thous'n billion dollars, I wouldn't.” CHAPTER XXXVII. THAT was all fixed.  So then we went away and went to the rubbage-pile in the back yard, where they keep the old boots, and rags, and pieces of bottles, and wore-out tin things, and all such truck, and scratched around and found an old tin washpan, and stopped up the holes as well as we could, to bake the pie in, and took it down cellar and stole it full of flour and started for breakfast, and found a couple of shingle-nails that Tom said would be handy for a prisoner to scrabble his name and sorrows on the dungeon walls with, and dropped one of them in Aunt Sally's apron-pocket which was hanging on a chair, and t'other we stuck in the band of Uncle Silas's hat, which was on the bureau, because we heard the children say their pa and ma was going to the runaway nigger's house this morning, and then went to breakfast, and Tom dropped the pewter spoon in Uncle Silas's coat-pocket, and Aunt Sally wasn't come yet, so we had to wait a little while. And when she come she was hot and red and cross, and couldn't hardly wait for the blessing; and then she went to sluicing out coffee with one hand and cracking the handiest child's head with her thimble with the other, and says: “I've hunted high and I've hunted low, and it does beat all what has become of your other shirt.” My heart fell down amongst my lungs and livers and things, and a hard piece of corn-crust started down my throat after it and got met on the road with a cough, and was shot across the table, and took one of the children in the eye and curled him up like a fishing-worm, and let a cry out of him the size of a warwhoop, and Tom he turned kinder blue around the gills, and it all amounted to a considerable state of things for about a quarter of a minute or as much as that, and I would a sold out for half price if there was a bidder.  But after that we was all right again—it was the sudden surprise of it that knocked us so kind of cold. Uncle Silas he says: “It's most uncommon curious, I can't understand it.  I know perfectly well I took it off, because—” “Because you hain't got but one on.  Just listen at the man!  I know you took it off, and know it by a better way than your wool-gethering memory, too, because it was on the clo's-line yesterday—I see it there myself. But it's gone, that's the long and the short of it, and you'll just have to change to a red flann'l one till I can get time to make a new one. And it 'll be the third I've made in two years.  It just keeps a body on the jump to keep you in shirts; and whatever you do manage to do with 'm all is more'n I can make out.  A body 'd think you would learn to take some sort of care of 'em at your time of life.” “I know it, Sally, and I do try all I can.  But it oughtn't to be altogether my fault, because, you know, I don't see them nor have nothing to do with them except when they're on me; and I don't believe I've ever lost one of them off of me.” “Well, it ain't your fault if you haven't, Silas; you'd a done it if you could, I reckon.  And the shirt ain't all that's gone, nuther.  Ther's a spoon gone; and that ain't all.  There was ten, and now ther's only nine. The calf got the shirt, I reckon, but the calf never took the spoon, that's certain.” “Why, what else is gone, Sally?” “Ther's six candles gone—that's what.  The rats could a got the candles, and I reckon they did; I wonder they don't walk off with the whole place, the way you're always going to stop their holes and don't do it; and if they warn't fools they'd sleep in your hair, Silas—you'd never find it out; but you can't lay the spoon on the rats, and that I know.” “Well, Sally, I'm in fault, and I acknowledge it; I've been remiss; but I won't let to-morrow go by without stopping up them holes.” “Oh, I wouldn't hurry; next year 'll do.  Matilda Angelina Araminta Phelps!” Whack comes the thimble, and the child snatches her claws out of the sugar-bowl without fooling around any.  Just then the nigger woman steps on to the passage, and says: “Missus, dey's a sheet gone.” “A sheet gone!  Well, for the land's sake!” “I'll stop up them holes to-day,” says Uncle Silas, looking sorrowful. “Oh, do shet up!—s'pose the rats took the sheet?  where's it gone, Lize?” “Clah to goodness I hain't no notion, Miss' Sally.  She wuz on de clo'sline yistiddy, but she done gone:  she ain' dah no mo' now.” “I reckon the world is coming to an end.  I never see the beat of it in all my born days.  A shirt, and a sheet, and a spoon, and six can—” “Missus,” comes a young yaller wench, “dey's a brass cannelstick miss'n.” “Cler out from here, you hussy, er I'll take a skillet to ye!” Well, she was just a-biling.  I begun to lay for a chance; I reckoned I would sneak out and go for the woods till the weather moderated.  She kept a-raging right along, running her insurrection all by herself, and everybody else mighty meek and quiet; and at last Uncle Silas, looking kind of foolish, fishes up that spoon out of his pocket.  She stopped, with her mouth open and her hands up; and as for me, I wished I was in Jeruslem or somewheres. But not long, because she says: “It's just as I expected.  So you had it in your pocket all the time; and like as not you've got the other things there, too.  How'd it get there?” “I reely don't know, Sally,” he says, kind of apologizing, “or you know I would tell.  I was a-studying over my text in Acts Seventeen before breakfast, and I reckon I put it in there, not noticing, meaning to put my Testament in, and it must be so, because my Testament ain't in; but I'll go and see; and if the Testament is where I had it, I'll know I didn't put it in, and that will show that I laid the Testament down and took up the spoon, and—” “Oh, for the land's sake!  Give a body a rest!  Go 'long now, the whole kit and biling of ye; and don't come nigh me again till I've got back my peace of mind.” I'D a heard her if she'd a said it to herself, let alone speaking it out; and I'd a got up and obeyed her if I'd a been dead.  As we was passing through the setting-room the old man he took up his hat, and the shingle-nail fell out on the floor, and he just merely picked it up and laid it on the mantel-shelf, and never said nothing, and went out.  Tom see him do it, and remembered about the spoon, and says: “Well, it ain't no use to send things by him no more, he ain't reliable.” Then he says:  "But he done us a good turn with the spoon, anyway, without knowing it, and so we'll go and do him one without him knowing it—stop up his rat-holes.” There was a noble good lot of them down cellar, and it took us a whole hour, but we done the job tight and good and shipshape.  Then we heard steps on the stairs, and blowed out our light and hid; and here comes the old man, with a candle in one hand and a bundle of stuff in t'other, looking as absent-minded as year before last.  He went a mooning around, first to one rat-hole and then another, till he'd been to them all.  Then he stood about five minutes, picking tallow-drip off of his candle and thinking.  Then he turns off slow and dreamy towards the stairs, saying: “Well, for the life of me I can't remember when I done it.  I could show her now that I warn't to blame on account of the rats.  But never mind—let it go.  I reckon it wouldn't do no good.” And so he went on a-mumbling up stairs, and then we left.  He was a mighty nice old man.  And always is. Tom was a good deal bothered about what to do for a spoon, but he said we'd got to have it; so he took a think.  When he had ciphered it out he told me how we was to do; then we went and waited around the spoon-basket till we see Aunt Sally coming, and then Tom went to counting the spoons and laying them out to one side, and I slid one of them up my sleeve, and Tom says: “Why, Aunt Sally, there ain't but nine spoons yet.” She says: “Go 'long to your play, and don't bother me.  I know better, I counted 'm myself.” “Well, I've counted them twice, Aunty, and I can't make but nine.” She looked out of all patience, but of course she come to count—anybody would. “I declare to gracious ther' ain't but nine!” she says.  "Why, what in the world—plague take the things, I'll count 'm again.” So I slipped back the one I had, and when she got done counting, she says: “Hang the troublesome rubbage, ther's ten now!” and she looked huffy and bothered both.  But Tom says: “Why, Aunty, I don't think there's ten.” “You numskull, didn't you see me count 'm?” “I know, but—” “Well, I'll count 'm again.” So I smouched one, and they come out nine, same as the other time.  Well, she was in a tearing way—just a-trembling all over, she was so mad.  But she counted and counted till she got that addled she'd start to count in the basket for a spoon sometimes; and so, three times they come out right, and three times they come out wrong.  Then she grabbed up the basket and slammed it across the house and knocked the cat galley-west; and she said cle'r out and let her have some peace, and if we come bothering around her again betwixt that and dinner she'd skin us.  So we had the odd spoon, and dropped it in her apron-pocket whilst she was a-giving us our sailing orders, and Jim got it all right, along with her shingle nail, before noon.  We was very well satisfied with this business, and Tom allowed it was worth twice the trouble it took, because he said now she couldn't ever count them spoons twice alike again to save her life; and wouldn't believe she'd counted them right if she did; and said that after she'd about counted her head off for the next three days he judged she'd give it up and offer to kill anybody that wanted her to ever count them any more. So we put the sheet back on the line that night, and stole one out of her closet; and kept on putting it back and stealing it again for a couple of days till she didn't know how many sheets she had any more, and she didn't care, and warn't a-going to bullyrag the rest of her soul out about it, and wouldn't count them again not to save her life; she druther die first. So we was all right now, as to the shirt and the sheet and the spoon and the candles, by the help of the calf and the rats and the mixed-up counting; and as to the candlestick, it warn't no consequence, it would blow over by and by. But that pie was a job; we had no end of trouble with that pie.  We fixed it up away down in the woods, and cooked it there; and we got it done at last, and very satisfactory, too; but not all in one day; and we had to use up three wash-pans full of flour before we got through, and we got burnt pretty much all over, in places, and eyes put out with the smoke; because, you see, we didn't want nothing but a crust, and we couldn't prop it up right, and she would always cave in.  But of course we thought of the right way at last—which was to cook the ladder, too, in the pie.  So then we laid in with Jim the second night, and tore up the sheet all in little strings and twisted them together, and long before daylight we had a lovely rope that you could a hung a person with.  We let on it took nine months to make it. And in the forenoon we took it down to the woods, but it wouldn't go into the pie.  Being made of a whole sheet, that way, there was rope enough for forty pies if we'd a wanted them, and plenty left over for soup, or sausage, or anything you choose.  We could a had a whole dinner. But we didn't need it.  All we needed was just enough for the pie, and so we throwed the rest away.  We didn't cook none of the pies in the wash-pan—afraid the solder would melt; but Uncle Silas he had a noble brass warming-pan which he thought considerable of, because it belonged to one of his ancesters with a long wooden handle that come over from England with William the Conqueror in the Mayflower or one of them early ships and was hid away up garret with a lot of other old pots and things that was valuable, not on account of being any account, because they warn't, but on account of them being relicts, you know, and we snaked her out, private, and took her down there, but she failed on the first pies, because we didn't know how, but she come up smiling on the last one.  We took and lined her with dough, and set her in the coals, and loaded her up with rag rope, and put on a dough roof, and shut down the lid, and put hot embers on top, and stood off five foot, with the long handle, cool and comfortable, and in fifteen minutes she turned out a pie that was a satisfaction to look at. But the person that et it would want to fetch a couple of kags of toothpicks along, for if that rope ladder wouldn't cramp him down to business I don't know nothing what I'm talking about, and lay him in enough stomach-ache to last him till next time, too. Nat didn't look when we put the witch pie in Jim's pan; and we put the three tin plates in the bottom of the pan under the vittles; and so Jim got everything all right, and as soon as he was by himself he busted into the pie and hid the rope ladder inside of his straw tick, and scratched some marks on a tin plate and throwed it out of the window-hole. CHAPTER XXXVIII. MAKING them pens was a distressid tough job, and so was the saw; and Jim allowed the inscription was going to be the toughest of all.  That's the one which the prisoner has to scrabble on the wall.  But he had to have it; Tom said he'd got to; there warn't no case of a state prisoner not scrabbling his inscription to leave behind, and his coat of arms. “Look at Lady Jane Grey,” he says; “look at Gilford Dudley; look at old Northumberland!  Why, Huck, s'pose it is considerble trouble?—what you going to do?—how you going to get around it?  Jim's got to do his inscription and coat of arms.  They all do.” Jim says: “Why, Mars Tom, I hain't got no coat o' arm; I hain't got nuffn but dish yer ole shirt, en you knows I got to keep de journal on dat.” “Oh, you don't understand, Jim; a coat of arms is very different.” “Well,” I says, “Jim's right, anyway, when he says he ain't got no coat of arms, because he hain't.” “I reckon I knowed that,” Tom says, “but you bet he'll have one before he goes out of this—because he's going out right, and there ain't going to be no flaws in his record.” So whilst me and Jim filed away at the pens on a brickbat apiece, Jim a-making his'n out of the brass and I making mine out of the spoon, Tom set to work to think out the coat of arms.  By and by he said he'd struck so many good ones he didn't hardly know which to take, but there was one which he reckoned he'd decide on.  He says: “On the scutcheon we'll have a bend or in the dexter base, a saltire murrey in the fess, with a dog, couchant, for common charge, and under his foot a chain embattled, for slavery, with a chevron vert in a chief engrailed, and three invected lines on a field azure, with the nombril points rampant on a dancette indented; crest, a runaway nigger, sable, with his bundle over his shoulder on a bar sinister; and a couple of gules for supporters, which is you and me; motto, Maggiore Fretta, Minore Otto.  Got it out of a book—means the more haste the less speed.” “Geewhillikins,” I says, “but what does the rest of it mean?” “We ain't got no time to bother over that,” he says; “we got to dig in like all git-out.” “Well, anyway,” I says, “what's some of it?  What's a fess?” “A fess—a fess is—you don't need to know what a fess is.  I'll show him how to make it when he gets to it.” “Shucks, Tom,” I says, “I think you might tell a person.  What's a bar sinister?” “Oh, I don't know.  But he's got to have it.  All the nobility does.” That was just his way.  If it didn't suit him to explain a thing to you, he wouldn't do it.  You might pump at him a week, it wouldn't make no difference. He'd got all that coat of arms business fixed, so now he started in to finish up the rest of that part of the work, which was to plan out a mournful inscription—said Jim got to have one, like they all done.  He made up a lot, and wrote them out on a paper, and read them off, so: 1.  Here a captive heart busted. 2.  Here a poor prisoner, forsook by the world and friends, fretted his sorrowful life. 3.  Here a lonely heart broke, and a worn spirit went to its rest, after thirty-seven years of solitary captivity. 4.  Here, homeless and friendless, after thirty-seven years of bitter captivity, perished a noble stranger, natural son of Louis XIV. Tom's voice trembled whilst he was reading them, and he most broke down. When he got done he couldn't no way make up his mind which one for Jim to scrabble on to the wall, they was all so good; but at last he allowed he would let him scrabble them all on.  Jim said it would take him a year to scrabble such a lot of truck on to the logs with a nail, and he didn't know how to make letters, besides; but Tom said he would block them out for him, and then he wouldn't have nothing to do but just follow the lines.  Then pretty soon he says: “Come to think, the logs ain't a-going to do; they don't have log walls in a dungeon:  we got to dig the inscriptions into a rock.  We'll fetch a rock.” Jim said the rock was worse than the logs; he said it would take him such a pison long time to dig them into a rock he wouldn't ever get out.  But Tom said he would let me help him do it.  Then he took a look to see how me and Jim was getting along with the pens.  It was most pesky tedious hard work and slow, and didn't give my hands no show to get well of the sores, and we didn't seem to make no headway, hardly; so Tom says: “I know how to fix it.  We got to have a rock for the coat of arms and mournful inscriptions, and we can kill two birds with that same rock. There's a gaudy big grindstone down at the mill, and we'll smouch it, and carve the things on it, and file out the pens and the saw on it, too.” It warn't no slouch of an idea; and it warn't no slouch of a grindstone nuther; but we allowed we'd tackle it.  It warn't quite midnight yet, so we cleared out for the mill, leaving Jim at work.  We smouched the grindstone, and set out to roll her home, but it was a most nation tough job. Sometimes, do what we could, we couldn't keep her from falling over, and she come mighty near mashing us every time.  Tom said she was going to get one of us, sure, before we got through.  We got her half way; and then we was plumb played out, and most drownded with sweat.  We see it warn't no use; we got to go and fetch Jim. So he raised up his bed and slid the chain off of the bed-leg, and wrapt it round and round his neck, and we crawled out through our hole and down there, and Jim and me laid into that grindstone and walked her along like nothing; and Tom superintended.  He could out-superintend any boy I ever see.  He knowed how to do everything. Our hole was pretty big, but it warn't big enough to get the grindstone through; but Jim he took the pick and soon made it big enough.  Then Tom marked out them things on it with the nail, and set Jim to work on them, with the nail for a chisel and an iron bolt from the rubbage in the lean-to for a hammer, and told him to work till the rest of his candle quit on him, and then he could go to bed, and hide the grindstone under his straw tick and sleep on it.  Then we helped him fix his chain back on the bed-leg, and was ready for bed ourselves.  But Tom thought of something, and says: “You got any spiders in here, Jim?” “No, sah, thanks to goodness I hain't, Mars Tom.” “All right, we'll get you some.” “But bless you, honey, I doan' want none.  I's afeard un um.  I jis' 's soon have rattlesnakes aroun'.” Tom thought a minute or two, and says: “It's a good idea.  And I reckon it's been done.  It must a been done; it stands to reason.  Yes, it's a prime good idea.  Where could you keep it?” “Keep what, Mars Tom?” “Why, a rattlesnake.” “De goodness gracious alive, Mars Tom!  Why, if dey was a rattlesnake to come in heah I'd take en bust right out thoo dat log wall, I would, wid my head.” “Why, Jim, you wouldn't be afraid of it after a little.  You could tame it.” “Tame it!” “Yes—easy enough.  Every animal is grateful for kindness and petting, and they wouldn't think of hurting a person that pets them.  Any book will tell you that.  You try—that's all I ask; just try for two or three days. Why, you can get him so, in a little while, that he'll love you; and sleep with you; and won't stay away from you a minute; and will let you wrap him round your neck and put his head in your mouth.” “Please, Mars Tom—doan' talk so!  I can't stan' it!  He'd let me shove his head in my mouf—fer a favor, hain't it?  I lay he'd wait a pow'ful long time 'fo' I ast him.  En mo' en dat, I doan' want him to sleep wid me.” “Jim, don't act so foolish.  A prisoner's got to have some kind of a dumb pet, and if a rattlesnake hain't ever been tried, why, there's more glory to be gained in your being the first to ever try it than any other way you could ever think of to save your life.” “Why, Mars Tom, I doan' want no sich glory.  Snake take 'n bite Jim's chin off, den whah is de glory?  No, sah, I doan' want no sich doin's.” “Blame it, can't you try?  I only want you to try—you needn't keep it up if it don't work.” “But de trouble all done ef de snake bite me while I's a tryin' him. Mars Tom, I's willin' to tackle mos' anything 'at ain't onreasonable, but ef you en Huck fetches a rattlesnake in heah for me to tame, I's gwyne to leave, dat's shore.” “Well, then, let it go, let it go, if you're so bull-headed about it.  We can get you some garter-snakes, and you can tie some buttons on their tails, and let on they're rattlesnakes, and I reckon that 'll have to do.” “I k'n stan' dem, Mars Tom, but blame' 'f I couldn' get along widout um, I tell you dat.  I never knowed b'fo' 't was so much bother and trouble to be a prisoner.” “Well, it always is when it's done right.  You got any rats around here?” “No, sah, I hain't seed none.” “Well, we'll get you some rats.” “Why, Mars Tom, I doan' want no rats.  Dey's de dadblamedest creturs to 'sturb a body, en rustle roun' over 'im, en bite his feet, when he's tryin' to sleep, I ever see.  No, sah, gimme g'yarter-snakes, 'f I's got to have 'm, but doan' gimme no rats; I hain' got no use f'r um, skasely.” “But, Jim, you got to have 'em—they all do.  So don't make no more fuss about it.  Prisoners ain't ever without rats.  There ain't no instance of it.  And they train them, and pet them, and learn them tricks, and they get to be as sociable as flies.  But you got to play music to them.  You got anything to play music on?” “I ain' got nuffn but a coase comb en a piece o' paper, en a juice-harp; but I reck'n dey wouldn' take no stock in a juice-harp.” “Yes they would they don't care what kind of music 'tis.  A jews-harp's plenty good enough for a rat.  All animals like music—in a prison they dote on it.  Specially, painful music; and you can't get no other kind out of a jews-harp.  It always interests them; they come out to see what's the matter with you.  Yes, you're all right; you're fixed very well.  You want to set on your bed nights before you go to sleep, and early in the mornings, and play your jews-harp; play 'The Last Link is Broken'—that's the thing that 'll scoop a rat quicker 'n anything else; and when you've played about two minutes you'll see all the rats, and the snakes, and spiders, and things begin to feel worried about you, and come.  And they'll just fairly swarm over you, and have a noble good time.” “Yes, dey will, I reck'n, Mars Tom, but what kine er time is Jim havin'? Blest if I kin see de pint.  But I'll do it ef I got to.  I reck'n I better keep de animals satisfied, en not have no trouble in de house.” Tom waited to think it over, and see if there wasn't nothing else; and pretty soon he says: “Oh, there's one thing I forgot.  Could you raise a flower here, do you reckon?” “I doan know but maybe I could, Mars Tom; but it's tolable dark in heah, en I ain' got no use f'r no flower, nohow, en she'd be a pow'ful sight o' trouble.” “Well, you try it, anyway.  Some other prisoners has done it.” “One er dem big cat-tail-lookin' mullen-stalks would grow in heah, Mars Tom, I reck'n, but she wouldn't be wuth half de trouble she'd coss.” “Don't you believe it.  We'll fetch you a little one and you plant it in the corner over there, and raise it.  And don't call it mullen, call it Pitchiola—that's its right name when it's in a prison.  And you want to water it with your tears.” “Why, I got plenty spring water, Mars Tom.” “You don't want spring water; you want to water it with your tears.  It's the way they always do.” “Why, Mars Tom, I lay I kin raise one er dem mullen-stalks twyste wid spring water whiles another man's a start'n one wid tears.” “That ain't the idea.  You got to do it with tears.” “She'll die on my han's, Mars Tom, she sholy will; kase I doan' skasely ever cry.” So Tom was stumped.  But he studied it over, and then said Jim would have to worry along the best he could with an onion.  He promised he would go to the nigger cabins and drop one, private, in Jim's coffee-pot, in the morning. Jim said he would “jis' 's soon have tobacker in his coffee;” and found so much fault with it, and with the work and bother of raising the mullen, and jews-harping the rats, and petting and flattering up the snakes and spiders and things, on top of all the other work he had to do on pens, and inscriptions, and journals, and things, which made it more trouble and worry and responsibility to be a prisoner than anything he ever undertook, that Tom most lost all patience with him; and said he was just loadened down with more gaudier chances than a prisoner ever had in the world to make a name for himself, and yet he didn't know enough to appreciate them, and they was just about wasted on him.  So Jim he was sorry, and said he wouldn't behave so no more, and then me and Tom shoved for bed. CHAPTER XXXIX. IN the morning we went up to the village and bought a wire rat-trap and fetched it down, and unstopped the best rat-hole, and in about an hour we had fifteen of the bulliest kind of ones; and then we took it and put it in a safe place under Aunt Sally's bed.  But while we was gone for spiders little Thomas Franklin Benjamin Jefferson Elexander Phelps found it there, and opened the door of it to see if the rats would come out, and they did; and Aunt Sally she come in, and when we got back she was a-standing on top of the bed raising Cain, and the rats was doing what they could to keep off the dull times for her.  So she took and dusted us both with the hickry, and we was as much as two hours catching another fifteen or sixteen, drat that meddlesome cub, and they warn't the likeliest, nuther, because the first haul was the pick of the flock.  I never see a likelier lot of rats than what that first haul was. We got a splendid stock of sorted spiders, and bugs, and frogs, and caterpillars, and one thing or another; and we like to got a hornet's nest, but we didn't.  The family was at home.  We didn't give it right up, but stayed with them as long as we could; because we allowed we'd tire them out or they'd got to tire us out, and they done it.  Then we got allycumpain and rubbed on the places, and was pretty near all right again, but couldn't set down convenient.  And so we went for the snakes, and grabbed a couple of dozen garters and house-snakes, and put them in a bag, and put it in our room, and by that time it was supper-time, and a rattling good honest day's work:  and hungry?—oh, no, I reckon not!  And there warn't a blessed snake up there when we went back—we didn't half tie the sack, and they worked out somehow, and left.  But it didn't matter much, because they was still on the premises somewheres.  So we judged we could get some of them again.  No, there warn't no real scarcity of snakes about the house for a considerable spell.  You'd see them dripping from the rafters and places every now and then; and they generly landed in your plate, or down the back of your neck, and most of the time where you didn't want them.  Well, they was handsome and striped, and there warn't no harm in a million of them; but that never made no difference to Aunt Sally; she despised snakes, be the breed what they might, and she couldn't stand them no way you could fix it; and every time one of them flopped down on her, it didn't make no difference what she was doing, she would just lay that work down and light out.  I never see such a woman.  And you could hear her whoop to Jericho.  You couldn't get her to take a-holt of one of them with the tongs.  And if she turned over and found one in bed she would scramble out and lift a howl that you would think the house was afire.  She disturbed the old man so that he said he could most wish there hadn't ever been no snakes created.  Why, after every last snake had been gone clear out of the house for as much as a week Aunt Sally warn't over it yet; she warn't near over it; when she was setting thinking about something you could touch her on the back of her neck with a feather and she would jump right out of her stockings.  It was very curious.  But Tom said all women was just so.  He said they was made that way for some reason or other. We got a licking every time one of our snakes come in her way, and she allowed these lickings warn't nothing to what she would do if we ever loaded up the place again with them.  I didn't mind the lickings, because they didn't amount to nothing; but I minded the trouble we had to lay in another lot.  But we got them laid in, and all the other things; and you never see a cabin as blithesome as Jim's was when they'd all swarm out for music and go for him.  Jim didn't like the spiders, and the spiders didn't like Jim; and so they'd lay for him, and make it mighty warm for him.  And he said that between the rats and the snakes and the grindstone there warn't no room in bed for him, skasely; and when there was, a body couldn't sleep, it was so lively, and it was always lively, he said, because they never all slept at one time, but took turn about, so when the snakes was asleep the rats was on deck, and when the rats turned in the snakes come on watch, so he always had one gang under him, in his way, and t'other gang having a circus over him, and if he got up to hunt a new place the spiders would take a chance at him as he crossed over. He said if he ever got out this time he wouldn't ever be a prisoner again, not for a salary. Well, by the end of three weeks everything was in pretty good shape.  The shirt was sent in early, in a pie, and every time a rat bit Jim he would get up and write a little in his journal whilst the ink was fresh; the pens was made, the inscriptions and so on was all carved on the grindstone; the bed-leg was sawed in two, and we had et up the sawdust, and it give us a most amazing stomach-ache.  We reckoned we was all going to die, but didn't.  It was the most undigestible sawdust I ever see; and Tom said the same. But as I was saying, we'd got all the work done now, at last; and we was all pretty much fagged out, too, but mainly Jim.  The old man had wrote a couple of times to the plantation below Orleans to come and get their runaway nigger, but hadn't got no answer, because there warn't no such plantation; so he allowed he would advertise Jim in the St. Louis and New Orleans papers; and when he mentioned the St. Louis ones it give me the cold shivers, and I see we hadn't no time to lose. So Tom said, now for the nonnamous letters. “What's them?”  I says. “Warnings to the people that something is up.  Sometimes it's done one way, sometimes another.  But there's always somebody spying around that gives notice to the governor of the castle.  When Louis XVI. was going to light out of the Tooleries, a servant-girl done it.  It's a very good way, and so is the nonnamous letters.  We'll use them both.  And it's usual for the prisoner's mother to change clothes with him, and she stays in, and he slides out in her clothes.  We'll do that, too.” “But looky here, Tom, what do we want to warn anybody for that something's up?  Let them find it out for themselves—it's their lookout.” “Yes, I know; but you can't depend on them.  It's the way they've acted from the very start—left us to do everything.  They're so confiding and mullet-headed they don't take notice of nothing at all.  So if we don't give them notice there won't be nobody nor nothing to interfere with us, and so after all our hard work and trouble this escape 'll go off perfectly flat; won't amount to nothing—won't be nothing to it.” “Well, as for me, Tom, that's the way I'd like.” “Shucks!” he says, and looked disgusted.  So I says: “But I ain't going to make no complaint.  Any way that suits you suits me. What you going to do about the servant-girl?” “You'll be her.  You slide in, in the middle of the night, and hook that yaller girl's frock.” “Why, Tom, that 'll make trouble next morning; because, of course, she prob'bly hain't got any but that one.” “I know; but you don't want it but fifteen minutes, to carry the nonnamous letter and shove it under the front door.” “All right, then, I'll do it; but I could carry it just as handy in my own togs.” “You wouldn't look like a servant-girl then, would you?” “No, but there won't be nobody to see what I look like, anyway.” “That ain't got nothing to do with it.  The thing for us to do is just to do our duty, and not worry about whether anybody sees us do it or not. Hain't you got no principle at all?” “All right, I ain't saying nothing; I'm the servant-girl.  Who's Jim's mother?” “I'm his mother.  I'll hook a gown from Aunt Sally.” “Well, then, you'll have to stay in the cabin when me and Jim leaves.” “Not much.  I'll stuff Jim's clothes full of straw and lay it on his bed to represent his mother in disguise, and Jim 'll take the nigger woman's gown off of me and wear it, and we'll all evade together.  When a prisoner of style escapes it's called an evasion.  It's always called so when a king escapes, f'rinstance.  And the same with a king's son; it don't make no difference whether he's a natural one or an unnatural one.” So Tom he wrote the nonnamous letter, and I smouched the yaller wench's frock that night, and put it on, and shoved it under the front door, the way Tom told me to.  It said: Beware.  Trouble is brewing.  Keep a sharp lookout. Unknown Friend. Next night we stuck a picture, which Tom drawed in blood, of a skull and crossbones on the front door; and next night another one of a coffin on the back door.  I never see a family in such a sweat.  They couldn't a been worse scared if the place had a been full of ghosts laying for them behind everything and under the beds and shivering through the air.  If a door banged, Aunt Sally she jumped and said “ouch!” if anything fell, she jumped and said “ouch!” if you happened to touch her, when she warn't noticing, she done the same; she couldn't face noway and be satisfied, because she allowed there was something behind her every time—so she was always a-whirling around sudden, and saying “ouch,” and before she'd got two-thirds around she'd whirl back again, and say it again; and she was afraid to go to bed, but she dasn't set up.  So the thing was working very well, Tom said; he said he never see a thing work more satisfactory. He said it showed it was done right. So he said, now for the grand bulge!  So the very next morning at the streak of dawn we got another letter ready, and was wondering what we better do with it, because we heard them say at supper they was going to have a nigger on watch at both doors all night.  Tom he went down the lightning-rod to spy around; and the nigger at the back door was asleep, and he stuck it in the back of his neck and come back.  This letter said: Don't betray me, I wish to be your friend.  There is a desprate gang of cutthroats from over in the Indian Territory going to steal your runaway nigger to-night, and they have been trying to scare you so as you will stay in the house and not bother them.  I am one of the gang, but have got religgion and wish to quit it and lead an honest life again, and will betray the helish design. They will sneak down from northards, along the fence, at midnight exact, with a false key, and go in the nigger's cabin to get him. I am to be off a piece and blow a tin horn if I see any danger; but stead of that I will baa like a sheep soon as they get in and not blow at all; then whilst they are getting his chains loose, you slip there and lock them in, and can kill them at your leasure.  Don't do anything but just the way I am telling you, if you do they will suspicion something and raise whoop-jamboreehoo. I do not wish any reward but to know I have done the right thing. Unknown Friend. CHAPTER XL. WE was feeling pretty good after breakfast, and took my canoe and went over the river a-fishing, with a lunch, and had a good time, and took a look at the raft and found her all right, and got home late to supper, and found them in such a sweat and worry they didn't know which end they was standing on, and made us go right off to bed the minute we was done supper, and wouldn't tell us what the trouble was, and never let on a word about the new letter, but didn't need to, because we knowed as much about it as anybody did, and as soon as we was half up stairs and her back was turned we slid for the cellar cupboard and loaded up a good lunch and took it up to our room and went to bed, and got up about half-past eleven, and Tom put on Aunt Sally's dress that he stole and was going to start with the lunch, but says: “Where's the butter?” “I laid out a hunk of it,” I says, “on a piece of a corn-pone.” “Well, you left it laid out, then—it ain't here.” “We can get along without it,” I says. “We can get along with it, too,” he says; “just you slide down cellar and fetch it.  And then mosey right down the lightning-rod and come along. I'll go and stuff the straw into Jim's clothes to represent his mother in disguise, and be ready to baa like a sheep and shove soon as you get there.” So out he went, and down cellar went I. The hunk of butter, big as a person's fist, was where I had left it, so I took up the slab of corn-pone with it on, and blowed out my light, and started up stairs very stealthy, and got up to the main floor all right, but here comes Aunt Sally with a candle, and I clapped the truck in my hat, and clapped my hat on my head, and the next second she see me; and she says: “You been down cellar?” “Yes'm.” “What you been doing down there?” “Noth'n.” “Noth'n!” “No'm.” “Well, then, what possessed you to go down there this time of night?” “I don't know 'm.” “You don't know?  Don't answer me that way. Tom, I want to know what you been doing down there.” “I hain't been doing a single thing, Aunt Sally, I hope to gracious if I have.” I reckoned she'd let me go now, and as a generl thing she would; but I s'pose there was so many strange things going on she was just in a sweat about every little thing that warn't yard-stick straight; so she says, very decided: “You just march into that setting-room and stay there till I come.  You been up to something you no business to, and I lay I'll find out what it is before I'M done with you.” So she went away as I opened the door and walked into the setting-room. My, but there was a crowd there!  Fifteen farmers, and every one of them had a gun.  I was most powerful sick, and slunk to a chair and set down. They was setting around, some of them talking a little, in a low voice, and all of them fidgety and uneasy, but trying to look like they warn't; but I knowed they was, because they was always taking off their hats, and putting them on, and scratching their heads, and changing their seats, and fumbling with their buttons.  I warn't easy myself, but I didn't take my hat off, all the same. I did wish Aunt Sally would come, and get done with me, and lick me, if she wanted to, and let me get away and tell Tom how we'd overdone this thing, and what a thundering hornet's-nest we'd got ourselves into, so we could stop fooling around straight off, and clear out with Jim before these rips got out of patience and come for us. At last she come and begun to ask me questions, but I couldn't answer them straight, I didn't know which end of me was up; because these men was in such a fidget now that some was wanting to start right NOW and lay for them desperadoes, and saying it warn't but a few minutes to midnight; and others was trying to get them to hold on and wait for the sheep-signal; and here was Aunty pegging away at the questions, and me a-shaking all over and ready to sink down in my tracks I was that scared; and the place getting hotter and hotter, and the butter beginning to melt and run down my neck and behind my ears; and pretty soon, when one of them says, “I'M for going and getting in the cabin first and right now, and catching them when they come,” I most dropped; and a streak of butter come a-trickling down my forehead, and Aunt Sally she see it, and turns white as a sheet, and says: “For the land's sake, what is the matter with the child?  He's got the brain-fever as shore as you're born, and they're oozing out!” And everybody runs to see, and she snatches off my hat, and out comes the bread and what was left of the butter, and she grabbed me, and hugged me, and says: “Oh, what a turn you did give me! and how glad and grateful I am it ain't no worse; for luck's against us, and it never rains but it pours, and when I see that truck I thought we'd lost you, for I knowed by the color and all it was just like your brains would be if—Dear, dear, whyd'nt you tell me that was what you'd been down there for, I wouldn't a cared.  Now cler out to bed, and don't lemme see no more of you till morning!” I was up stairs in a second, and down the lightning-rod in another one, and shinning through the dark for the lean-to.  I couldn't hardly get my words out, I was so anxious; but I told Tom as quick as I could we must jump for it now, and not a minute to lose—the house full of men, yonder, with guns! His eyes just blazed; and he says: “No!—is that so?  ain't it bully!  Why, Huck, if it was to do over again, I bet I could fetch two hundred!  If we could put it off till—” “Hurry!  Hurry!”  I says.  "Where's Jim?” “Right at your elbow; if you reach out your arm you can touch him.  He's dressed, and everything's ready.  Now we'll slide out and give the sheep-signal.” But then we heard the tramp of men coming to the door, and heard them begin to fumble with the pad-lock, and heard a man say: “I told you we'd be too soon; they haven't come—the door is locked. Here, I'll lock some of you into the cabin, and you lay for 'em in the dark and kill 'em when they come; and the rest scatter around a piece, and listen if you can hear 'em coming.” So in they come, but couldn't see us in the dark, and most trod on us whilst we was hustling to get under the bed.  But we got under all right, and out through the hole, swift but soft—Jim first, me next, and Tom last, which was according to Tom's orders.  Now we was in the lean-to, and heard trampings close by outside.  So we crept to the door, and Tom stopped us there and put his eye to the crack, but couldn't make out nothing, it was so dark; and whispered and said he would listen for the steps to get further, and when he nudged us Jim must glide out first, and him last.  So he set his ear to the crack and listened, and listened, and listened, and the steps a-scraping around out there all the time; and at last he nudged us, and we slid out, and stooped down, not breathing, and not making the least noise, and slipped stealthy towards the fence in Injun file, and got to it all right, and me and Jim over it; but Tom's britches catched fast on a splinter on the top rail, and then he hear the steps coming, so he had to pull loose, which snapped the splinter and made a noise; and as he dropped in our tracks and started somebody sings out: “Who's that?  Answer, or I'll shoot!” But we didn't answer; we just unfurled our heels and shoved.  Then there was a rush, and a Bang, Bang, Bang! and the bullets fairly whizzed around us! We heard them sing out: “Here they are!  They've broke for the river!  After 'em, boys, and turn loose the dogs!” So here they come, full tilt.  We could hear them because they wore boots and yelled, but we didn't wear no boots and didn't yell.  We was in the path to the mill; and when they got pretty close on to us we dodged into the bush and let them go by, and then dropped in behind them.  They'd had all the dogs shut up, so they wouldn't scare off the robbers; but by this time somebody had let them loose, and here they come, making powwow enough for a million; but they was our dogs; so we stopped in our tracks till they catched up; and when they see it warn't nobody but us, and no excitement to offer them, they only just said howdy, and tore right ahead towards the shouting and clattering; and then we up-steam again, and whizzed along after them till we was nearly to the mill, and then struck up through the bush to where my canoe was tied, and hopped in and pulled for dear life towards the middle of the river, but didn't make no more noise than we was obleeged to. Then we struck out, easy and comfortable, for the island where my raft was; and we could hear them yelling and barking at each other all up and down the bank, till we was so far away the sounds got dim and died out.  And when we stepped on to the raft I says: “Now, old Jim, you're a free man again, and I bet you won't ever be a slave no more.” “En a mighty good job it wuz, too, Huck.  It 'uz planned beautiful, en it 'uz done beautiful; en dey ain't nobody kin git up a plan dat's mo' mixed-up en splendid den what dat one wuz.” We was all glad as we could be, but Tom was the gladdest of all because he had a bullet in the calf of his leg. When me and Jim heard that we didn't feel so brash as what we did before. It was hurting him considerable, and bleeding; so we laid him in the wigwam and tore up one of the duke's shirts for to bandage him, but he says: “Gimme the rags; I can do it myself.  Don't stop now; don't fool around here, and the evasion booming along so handsome; man the sweeps, and set her loose!  Boys, we done it elegant!—'deed we did.  I wish we'd a had the handling of Louis XVI., there wouldn't a been no 'Son of Saint Louis, ascend to heaven!' wrote down in his biography; no, sir, we'd a whooped him over the border—that's what we'd a done with him—and done it just as slick as nothing at all, too.  Man the sweeps—man the sweeps!” But me and Jim was consulting—and thinking.  And after we'd thought a minute, I says: “Say it, Jim.” So he says: “Well, den, dis is de way it look to me, Huck.  Ef it wuz him dat 'uz bein' sot free, en one er de boys wuz to git shot, would he say, 'Go on en save me, nemmine 'bout a doctor f'r to save dis one?'  Is dat like Mars Tom Sawyer?  Would he say dat?  You bet he wouldn't!  well, den, is Jim gywne to say it?  No, sah—I doan' budge a step out'n dis place 'dout a doctor, not if it's forty year!” I knowed he was white inside, and I reckoned he'd say what he did say—so it was all right now, and I told Tom I was a-going for a doctor.  He raised considerable row about it, but me and Jim stuck to it and wouldn't budge; so he was for crawling out and setting the raft loose himself; but we wouldn't let him.  Then he give us a piece of his mind, but it didn't do no good. So when he sees me getting the canoe ready, he says: “Well, then, if you're bound to go, I'll tell you the way to do when you get to the village.  Shut the door and blindfold the doctor tight and fast, and make him swear to be silent as the grave, and put a purse full of gold in his hand, and then take and lead him all around the back alleys and everywheres in the dark, and then fetch him here in the canoe, in a roundabout way amongst the islands, and search him and take his chalk away from him, and don't give it back to him till you get him back to the village, or else he will chalk this raft so he can find it again. It's the way they all do.” So I said I would, and left, and Jim was to hide in the woods when he see the doctor coming till he was gone again. CHAPTER XLI. THE doctor was an old man; a very nice, kind-looking old man when I got him up.  I told him me and my brother was over on Spanish Island hunting yesterday afternoon, and camped on a piece of a raft we found, and about midnight he must a kicked his gun in his dreams, for it went off and shot him in the leg, and we wanted him to go over there and fix it and not say nothing about it, nor let anybody know, because we wanted to come home this evening and surprise the folks. “Who is your folks?” he says. “The Phelpses, down yonder.” “Oh,” he says.  And after a minute, he says: “How'd you say he got shot?” “He had a dream,” I says, “and it shot him.” “Singular dream,” he says. So he lit up his lantern, and got his saddle-bags, and we started.  But when he sees the canoe he didn't like the look of her—said she was big enough for one, but didn't look pretty safe for two.  I says: “Oh, you needn't be afeard, sir, she carried the three of us easy enough.” “What three?” “Why, me and Sid, and—and—and the guns; that's what I mean.” “Oh,” he says. But he put his foot on the gunnel and rocked her, and shook his head, and said he reckoned he'd look around for a bigger one.  But they was all locked and chained; so he took my canoe, and said for me to wait till he come back, or I could hunt around further, or maybe I better go down home and get them ready for the surprise if I wanted to.  But I said I didn't; so I told him just how to find the raft, and then he started. I struck an idea pretty soon.  I says to myself, spos'n he can't fix that leg just in three shakes of a sheep's tail, as the saying is? spos'n it takes him three or four days?  What are we going to do?—lay around there till he lets the cat out of the bag?  No, sir; I know what I'll do.  I'll wait, and when he comes back if he says he's got to go any more I'll get down there, too, if I swim; and we'll take and tie him, and keep him, and shove out down the river; and when Tom's done with him we'll give him what it's worth, or all we got, and then let him get ashore. So then I crept into a lumber-pile to get some sleep; and next time I waked up the sun was away up over my head!  I shot out and went for the doctor's house, but they told me he'd gone away in the night some time or other, and warn't back yet.  Well, thinks I, that looks powerful bad for Tom, and I'll dig out for the island right off.  So away I shoved, and turned the corner, and nearly rammed my head into Uncle Silas's stomach! He says: “Why, Tom!  Where you been all this time, you rascal?” “I hain't been nowheres,” I says, “only just hunting for the runaway nigger—me and Sid.” “Why, where ever did you go?” he says.  "Your aunt's been mighty uneasy.” “She needn't,” I says, “because we was all right.  We followed the men and the dogs, but they outrun us, and we lost them; but we thought we heard them on the water, so we got a canoe and took out after them and crossed over, but couldn't find nothing of them; so we cruised along up-shore till we got kind of tired and beat out; and tied up the canoe and went to sleep, and never waked up till about an hour ago; then we paddled over here to hear the news, and Sid's at the post-office to see what he can hear, and I'm a-branching out to get something to eat for us, and then we're going home.” So then we went to the post-office to get “Sid”; but just as I suspicioned, he warn't there; so the old man he got a letter out of the office, and we waited awhile longer, but Sid didn't come; so the old man said, come along, let Sid foot it home, or canoe it, when he got done fooling around—but we would ride.  I couldn't get him to let me stay and wait for Sid; and he said there warn't no use in it, and I must come along, and let Aunt Sally see we was all right. When we got home Aunt Sally was that glad to see me she laughed and cried both, and hugged me, and give me one of them lickings of hern that don't amount to shucks, and said she'd serve Sid the same when he come. And the place was plum full of farmers and farmers' wives, to dinner; and such another clack a body never heard.  Old Mrs. Hotchkiss was the worst; her tongue was a-going all the time.  She says: “Well, Sister Phelps, I've ransacked that-air cabin over, an' I b'lieve the nigger was crazy.  I says to Sister Damrell—didn't I, Sister Damrell?—s'I, he's crazy, s'I—them's the very words I said.  You all hearn me: he's crazy, s'I; everything shows it, s'I.  Look at that-air grindstone, s'I; want to tell me't any cretur 't's in his right mind 's a goin' to scrabble all them crazy things onto a grindstone, s'I?  Here sich 'n' sich a person busted his heart; 'n' here so 'n' so pegged along for thirty-seven year, 'n' all that—natcherl son o' Louis somebody, 'n' sich everlast'n rubbage.  He's plumb crazy, s'I; it's what I says in the fust place, it's what I says in the middle, 'n' it's what I says last 'n' all the time—the nigger's crazy—crazy 's Nebokoodneezer, s'I.” “An' look at that-air ladder made out'n rags, Sister Hotchkiss,” says old Mrs. Damrell; “what in the name o' goodness could he ever want of—” “The very words I was a-sayin' no longer ago th'n this minute to Sister Utterback, 'n' she'll tell you so herself.  Sh-she, look at that-air rag ladder, sh-she; 'n' s'I, yes, look at it, s'I—what could he a-wanted of it, s'I.  Sh-she, Sister Hotchkiss, sh-she—” “But how in the nation'd they ever git that grindstone in there, anyway? 'n' who dug that-air hole? 'n' who—” “My very words, Brer Penrod!  I was a-sayin'—pass that-air sasser o' m'lasses, won't ye?—I was a-sayin' to Sister Dunlap, jist this minute, how did they git that grindstone in there, s'I.  Without help, mind you—'thout help!  that's wher 'tis.  Don't tell me, s'I; there wuz help, s'I; 'n' ther' wuz a plenty help, too, s'I; ther's ben a dozen a-helpin' that nigger, 'n' I lay I'd skin every last nigger on this place but I'd find out who done it, s'I; 'n' moreover, s'I—” “A dozen says you!—forty couldn't a done every thing that's been done. Look at them case-knife saws and things, how tedious they've been made; look at that bed-leg sawed off with 'm, a week's work for six men; look at that nigger made out'n straw on the bed; and look at—” “You may well say it, Brer Hightower!  It's jist as I was a-sayin' to Brer Phelps, his own self.  S'e, what do you think of it, Sister Hotchkiss, s'e? Think o' what, Brer Phelps, s'I?  Think o' that bed-leg sawed off that a way, s'e?  think of it, s'I?  I lay it never sawed itself off, s'I—somebody sawed it, s'I; that's my opinion, take it or leave it, it mayn't be no 'count, s'I, but sich as 't is, it's my opinion, s'I, 'n' if any body k'n start a better one, s'I, let him do it, s'I, that's all.  I says to Sister Dunlap, s'I—” “Why, dog my cats, they must a ben a house-full o' niggers in there every night for four weeks to a done all that work, Sister Phelps.  Look at that shirt—every last inch of it kivered over with secret African writ'n done with blood!  Must a ben a raft uv 'm at it right along, all the time, amost.  Why, I'd give two dollars to have it read to me; 'n' as for the niggers that wrote it, I 'low I'd take 'n' lash 'm t'll—” “People to help him, Brother Marples!  Well, I reckon you'd think so if you'd a been in this house for a while back.  Why, they've stole everything they could lay their hands on—and we a-watching all the time, mind you. They stole that shirt right off o' the line! and as for that sheet they made the rag ladder out of, ther' ain't no telling how many times they didn't steal that; and flour, and candles, and candlesticks, and spoons, and the old warming-pan, and most a thousand things that I disremember now, and my new calico dress; and me and Silas and my Sid and Tom on the constant watch day and night, as I was a-telling you, and not a one of us could catch hide nor hair nor sight nor sound of them; and here at the last minute, lo and behold you, they slides right in under our noses and fools us, and not only fools us but the Injun Territory robbers too, and actuly gets away with that nigger safe and sound, and that with sixteen men and twenty-two dogs right on their very heels at that very time!  I tell you, it just bangs anything I ever heard of. Why, sperits couldn't a done better and been no smarter. And I reckon they must a been sperits—because, you know our dogs, and ther' ain't no better; well, them dogs never even got on the track of 'm once!  You explain that to me if you can!—any of you!” “Well, it does beat—” “Laws alive, I never—” “So help me, I wouldn't a be—” “House-thieves as well as—” “Goodnessgracioussakes, I'd a ben afeard to live in sich a—” “'Fraid to live!—why, I was that scared I dasn't hardly go to bed, or get up, or lay down, or set down, Sister Ridgeway.  Why, they'd steal the very—why, goodness sakes, you can guess what kind of a fluster I was in by the time midnight come last night.  I hope to gracious if I warn't afraid they'd steal some o' the family!  I was just to that pass I didn't have no reasoning faculties no more.  It looks foolish enough now, in the daytime; but I says to myself, there's my two poor boys asleep, 'way up stairs in that lonesome room, and I declare to goodness I was that uneasy 't I crep' up there and locked 'em in!  I did.  And anybody would. Because, you know, when you get scared that way, and it keeps running on, and getting worse and worse all the time, and your wits gets to addling, and you get to doing all sorts o' wild things, and by and by you think to yourself, spos'n I was a boy, and was away up there, and the door ain't locked, and you—” She stopped, looking kind of wondering, and then she turned her head around slow, and when her eye lit on me—I got up and took a walk. Says I to myself, I can explain better how we come to not be in that room this morning if I go out to one side and study over it a little.  So I done it.  But I dasn't go fur, or she'd a sent for me.  And when it was late in the day the people all went, and then I come in and told her the noise and shooting waked up me and “Sid,” and the door was locked, and we wanted to see the fun, so we went down the lightning-rod, and both of us got hurt a little, and we didn't never want to try that no more.  And then I went on and told her all what I told Uncle Silas before; and then she said she'd forgive us, and maybe it was all right enough anyway, and about what a body might expect of boys, for all boys was a pretty harum-scarum lot as fur as she could see; and so, as long as no harm hadn't come of it, she judged she better put in her time being grateful we was alive and well and she had us still, stead of fretting over what was past and done.  So then she kissed me, and patted me on the head, and dropped into a kind of a brown study; and pretty soon jumps up, and says: “Why, lawsamercy, it's most night, and Sid not come yet!  What has become of that boy?” I see my chance; so I skips up and says: “I'll run right up to town and get him,” I says. “No you won't,” she says.  "You'll stay right wher' you are; one's enough to be lost at a time.  If he ain't here to supper, your uncle 'll go.” Well, he warn't there to supper; so right after supper uncle went. He come back about ten a little bit uneasy; hadn't run across Tom's track. Aunt Sally was a good deal uneasy; but Uncle Silas he said there warn't no occasion to be—boys will be boys, he said, and you'll see this one turn up in the morning all sound and right.  So she had to be satisfied.  But she said she'd set up for him a while anyway, and keep a light burning so he could see it. And then when I went up to bed she come up with me and fetched her candle, and tucked me in, and mothered me so good I felt mean, and like I couldn't look her in the face; and she set down on the bed and talked with me a long time, and said what a splendid boy Sid was, and didn't seem to want to ever stop talking about him; and kept asking me every now and then if I reckoned he could a got lost, or hurt, or maybe drownded, and might be laying at this minute somewheres suffering or dead, and she not by him to help him, and so the tears would drip down silent, and I would tell her that Sid was all right, and would be home in the morning, sure; and she would squeeze my hand, or maybe kiss me, and tell me to say it again, and keep on saying it, because it done her good, and she was in so much trouble.  And when she was going away she looked down in my eyes so steady and gentle, and says: “The door ain't going to be locked, Tom, and there's the window and the rod; but you'll be good, won't you?  And you won't go?  For my sake.” Laws knows I wanted to go bad enough to see about Tom, and was all intending to go; but after that I wouldn't a went, not for kingdoms. But she was on my mind and Tom was on my mind, so I slept very restless. And twice I went down the rod away in the night, and slipped around front, and see her setting there by her candle in the window with her eyes towards the road and the tears in them; and I wished I could do something for her, but I couldn't, only to swear that I wouldn't never do nothing to grieve her any more.  And the third time I waked up at dawn, and slid down, and she was there yet, and her candle was most out, and her old gray head was resting on her hand, and she was asleep. CHAPTER XLII. THE old man was uptown again before breakfast, but couldn't get no track of Tom; and both of them set at the table thinking, and not saying nothing, and looking mournful, and their coffee getting cold, and not eating anything. And by and by the old man says: “Did I give you the letter?” “What letter?” “The one I got yesterday out of the post-office.” “No, you didn't give me no letter.” “Well, I must a forgot it.” So he rummaged his pockets, and then went off somewheres where he had laid it down, and fetched it, and give it to her.  She says: “Why, it's from St. Petersburg—it's from Sis.” I allowed another walk would do me good; but I couldn't stir.  But before she could break it open she dropped it and run—for she see something. And so did I. It was Tom Sawyer on a mattress; and that old doctor; and Jim, in her calico dress, with his hands tied behind him; and a lot of people.  I hid the letter behind the first thing that come handy, and rushed.  She flung herself at Tom, crying, and says: “Oh, he's dead, he's dead, I know he's dead!” And Tom he turned his head a little, and muttered something or other, which showed he warn't in his right mind; then she flung up her hands, and says: “He's alive, thank God!  And that's enough!” and she snatched a kiss of him, and flew for the house to get the bed ready, and scattering orders right and left at the niggers and everybody else, as fast as her tongue could go, every jump of the way. I followed the men to see what they was going to do with Jim; and the old doctor and Uncle Silas followed after Tom into the house.  The men was very huffy, and some of them wanted to hang Jim for an example to all the other niggers around there, so they wouldn't be trying to run away like Jim done, and making such a raft of trouble, and keeping a whole family scared most to death for days and nights.  But the others said, don't do it, it wouldn't answer at all; he ain't our nigger, and his owner would turn up and make us pay for him, sure.  So that cooled them down a little, because the people that's always the most anxious for to hang a nigger that hain't done just right is always the very ones that ain't the most anxious to pay for him when they've got their satisfaction out of him. They cussed Jim considerble, though, and give him a cuff or two side the head once in a while, but Jim never said nothing, and he never let on to know me, and they took him to the same cabin, and put his own clothes on him, and chained him again, and not to no bed-leg this time, but to a big staple drove into the bottom log, and chained his hands, too, and both legs, and said he warn't to have nothing but bread and water to eat after this till his owner come, or he was sold at auction because he didn't come in a certain length of time, and filled up our hole, and said a couple of farmers with guns must stand watch around about the cabin every night, and a bulldog tied to the door in the daytime; and about this time they was through with the job and was tapering off with a kind of generl good-bye cussing, and then the old doctor comes and takes a look, and says: “Don't be no rougher on him than you're obleeged to, because he ain't a bad nigger.  When I got to where I found the boy I see I couldn't cut the bullet out without some help, and he warn't in no condition for me to leave to go and get help; and he got a little worse and a little worse, and after a long time he went out of his head, and wouldn't let me come a-nigh him any more, and said if I chalked his raft he'd kill me, and no end of wild foolishness like that, and I see I couldn't do anything at all with him; so I says, I got to have help somehow; and the minute I says it out crawls this nigger from somewheres and says he'll help, and he done it, too, and done it very well.  Of course I judged he must be a runaway nigger, and there I was! and there I had to stick right straight along all the rest of the day and all night.  It was a fix, I tell you! I had a couple of patients with the chills, and of course I'd of liked to run up to town and see them, but I dasn't, because the nigger might get away, and then I'd be to blame; and yet never a skiff come close enough for me to hail.  So there I had to stick plumb until daylight this morning; and I never see a nigger that was a better nuss or faithfuller, and yet he was risking his freedom to do it, and was all tired out, too, and I see plain enough he'd been worked main hard lately.  I liked the nigger for that; I tell you, gentlemen, a nigger like that is worth a thousand dollars—and kind treatment, too.  I had everything I needed, and the boy was doing as well there as he would a done at home—better, maybe, because it was so quiet; but there I was, with both of 'm on my hands, and there I had to stick till about dawn this morning; then some men in a skiff come by, and as good luck would have it the nigger was setting by the pallet with his head propped on his knees sound asleep; so I motioned them in quiet, and they slipped up on him and grabbed him and tied him before he knowed what he was about, and we never had no trouble. And the boy being in a kind of a flighty sleep, too, we muffled the oars and hitched the raft on, and towed her over very nice and quiet, and the nigger never made the least row nor said a word from the start.  He ain't no bad nigger, gentlemen; that's what I think about him.” Somebody says: “Well, it sounds very good, doctor, I'm obleeged to say.” Then the others softened up a little, too, and I was mighty thankful to that old doctor for doing Jim that good turn; and I was glad it was according to my judgment of him, too; because I thought he had a good heart in him and was a good man the first time I see him.  Then they all agreed that Jim had acted very well, and was deserving to have some notice took of it, and reward.  So every one of them promised, right out and hearty, that they wouldn't cuss him no more. Then they come out and locked him up.  I hoped they was going to say he could have one or two of the chains took off, because they was rotten heavy, or could have meat and greens with his bread and water; but they didn't think of it, and I reckoned it warn't best for me to mix in, but I judged I'd get the doctor's yarn to Aunt Sally somehow or other as soon as I'd got through the breakers that was laying just ahead of me—explanations, I mean, of how I forgot to mention about Sid being shot when I was telling how him and me put in that dratted night paddling around hunting the runaway nigger. But I had plenty time.  Aunt Sally she stuck to the sick-room all day and all night, and every time I see Uncle Silas mooning around I dodged him. Next morning I heard Tom was a good deal better, and they said Aunt Sally was gone to get a nap.  So I slips to the sick-room, and if I found him awake I reckoned we could put up a yarn for the family that would wash. But he was sleeping, and sleeping very peaceful, too; and pale, not fire-faced the way he was when he come.  So I set down and laid for him to wake.  In about half an hour Aunt Sally comes gliding in, and there I was, up a stump again!  She motioned me to be still, and set down by me, and begun to whisper, and said we could all be joyful now, because all the symptoms was first-rate, and he'd been sleeping like that for ever so long, and looking better and peacefuller all the time, and ten to one he'd wake up in his right mind. So we set there watching, and by and by he stirs a bit, and opened his eyes very natural, and takes a look, and says: “Hello!—why, I'm at home!  How's that?  Where's the raft?” “It's all right,” I says. “And Jim?” “The same,” I says, but couldn't say it pretty brash.  But he never noticed, but says: “Good!  Splendid!  Now we're all right and safe! Did you tell Aunty?” I was going to say yes; but she chipped in and says:  "About what, Sid?” “Why, about the way the whole thing was done.” “What whole thing?” “Why, the whole thing.  There ain't but one; how we set the runaway nigger free—me and Tom.” “Good land!  Set the run—What is the child talking about!  Dear, dear, out of his head again!” “No, I ain't out of my head; I know all what I'm talking about.  We did set him free—me and Tom.  We laid out to do it, and we done it.  And we done it elegant, too.”  He'd got a start, and she never checked him up, just set and stared and stared, and let him clip along, and I see it warn't no use for me to put in.  "Why, Aunty, it cost us a power of work—weeks of it—hours and hours, every night, whilst you was all asleep. And we had to steal candles, and the sheet, and the shirt, and your dress, and spoons, and tin plates, and case-knives, and the warming-pan, and the grindstone, and flour, and just no end of things, and you can't think what work it was to make the saws, and pens, and inscriptions, and one thing or another, and you can't think half the fun it was.  And we had to make up the pictures of coffins and things, and nonnamous letters from the robbers, and get up and down the lightning-rod, and dig the hole into the cabin, and made the rope ladder and send it in cooked up in a pie, and send in spoons and things to work with in your apron pocket—” “Mercy sakes!” “—and load up the cabin with rats and snakes and so on, for company for Jim; and then you kept Tom here so long with the butter in his hat that you come near spiling the whole business, because the men come before we was out of the cabin, and we had to rush, and they heard us and let drive at us, and I got my share, and we dodged out of the path and let them go by, and when the dogs come they warn't interested in us, but went for the most noise, and we got our canoe, and made for the raft, and was all safe, and Jim was a free man, and we done it all by ourselves, and wasn't it bully, Aunty!” “Well, I never heard the likes of it in all my born days!  So it was you, you little rapscallions, that's been making all this trouble, and turned everybody's wits clean inside out and scared us all most to death.  I've as good a notion as ever I had in my life to take it out o' you this very minute.  To think, here I've been, night after night, a—you just get well once, you young scamp, and I lay I'll tan the Old Harry out o' both o' ye!” But Tom, he was so proud and joyful, he just couldn't hold in, and his tongue just went it—she a-chipping in, and spitting fire all along, and both of them going it at once, like a cat convention; and she says: “Well, you get all the enjoyment you can out of it now, for mind I tell you if I catch you meddling with him again—” “Meddling with who?”  Tom says, dropping his smile and looking surprised. “With who?  Why, the runaway nigger, of course.  Who'd you reckon?” Tom looks at me very grave, and says: “Tom, didn't you just tell me he was all right?  Hasn't he got away?” “Him?” says Aunt Sally; “the runaway nigger?  'Deed he hasn't.  They've got him back, safe and sound, and he's in that cabin again, on bread and water, and loaded down with chains, till he's claimed or sold!” Tom rose square up in bed, with his eye hot, and his nostrils opening and shutting like gills, and sings out to me: “They hain't no right to shut him up!  SHOVE!—and don't you lose a minute.  Turn him loose! he ain't no slave; he's as free as any cretur that walks this earth!” “What does the child mean?” “I mean every word I say, Aunt Sally, and if somebody don't go, I'll go. I've knowed him all his life, and so has Tom, there.  Old Miss Watson died two months ago, and she was ashamed she ever was going to sell him down the river, and said so; and she set him free in her will.” “Then what on earth did you want to set him free for, seeing he was already free?” “Well, that is a question, I must say; and just like women!  Why, I wanted the adventure of it; and I'd a waded neck-deep in blood to—goodness alive, Aunt Polly!” If she warn't standing right there, just inside the door, looking as sweet and contented as an angel half full of pie, I wish I may never! Aunt Sally jumped for her, and most hugged the head off of her, and cried over her, and I found a good enough place for me under the bed, for it was getting pretty sultry for us, seemed to me.  And I peeped out, and in a little while Tom's Aunt Polly shook herself loose and stood there looking across at Tom over her spectacles—kind of grinding him into the earth, you know.  And then she says: “Yes, you better turn y'r head away—I would if I was you, Tom.” “Oh, deary me!” says Aunt Sally; “Is he changed so?  Why, that ain't Tom, it's Sid; Tom's—Tom's—why, where is Tom?  He was here a minute ago.” “You mean where's Huck Finn—that's what you mean!  I reckon I hain't raised such a scamp as my Tom all these years not to know him when I see him.  That would be a pretty howdy-do. Come out from under that bed, Huck Finn.” So I done it.  But not feeling brash. Aunt Sally she was one of the mixed-upest-looking persons I ever see—except one, and that was Uncle Silas, when he come in and they told it all to him.  It kind of made him drunk, as you may say, and he didn't know nothing at all the rest of the day, and preached a prayer-meeting sermon that night that gave him a rattling ruputation, because the oldest man in the world couldn't a understood it.  So Tom's Aunt Polly, she told all about who I was, and what; and I had to up and tell how I was in such a tight place that when Mrs. Phelps took me for Tom Sawyer—she chipped in and says, “Oh, go on and call me Aunt Sally, I'm used to it now, and 'tain't no need to change”—that when Aunt Sally took me for Tom Sawyer I had to stand it—there warn't no other way, and I knowed he wouldn't mind, because it would be nuts for him, being a mystery, and he'd make an adventure out of it, and be perfectly satisfied.  And so it turned out, and he let on to be Sid, and made things as soft as he could for me. And his Aunt Polly she said Tom was right about old Miss Watson setting Jim free in her will; and so, sure enough, Tom Sawyer had gone and took all that trouble and bother to set a free nigger free! and I couldn't ever understand before, until that minute and that talk, how he could help a body set a nigger free with his bringing-up. Well, Aunt Polly she said that when Aunt Sally wrote to her that Tom and Sid had come all right and safe, she says to herself: “Look at that, now!  I might have expected it, letting him go off that way without anybody to watch him.  So now I got to go and trapse all the way down the river, eleven hundred mile, and find out what that creetur's up to this time, as long as I couldn't seem to get any answer out of you about it.” “Why, I never heard nothing from you,” says Aunt Sally. “Well, I wonder!  Why, I wrote you twice to ask you what you could mean by Sid being here.” “Well, I never got 'em, Sis.” Aunt Polly she turns around slow and severe, and says: “You, Tom!” “Well—what?” he says, kind of pettish. “Don't you what me, you impudent thing—hand out them letters.” “What letters?” “Them letters.  I be bound, if I have to take a-holt of you I'll—” “They're in the trunk.  There, now.  And they're just the same as they was when I got them out of the office.  I hain't looked into them, I hain't touched them.  But I knowed they'd make trouble, and I thought if you warn't in no hurry, I'd—” “Well, you do need skinning, there ain't no mistake about it.  And I wrote another one to tell you I was coming; and I s'pose he—” “No, it come yesterday; I hain't read it yet, but it's all right, I've got that one.” I wanted to offer to bet two dollars she hadn't, but I reckoned maybe it was just as safe to not to.  So I never said nothing. CHAPTER THE LAST THE first time I catched Tom private I asked him what was his idea, time of the evasion?—what it was he'd planned to do if the evasion worked all right and he managed to set a nigger free that was already free before? And he said, what he had planned in his head from the start, if we got Jim out all safe, was for us to run him down the river on the raft, and have adventures plumb to the mouth of the river, and then tell him about his being free, and take him back up home on a steamboat, in style, and pay him for his lost time, and write word ahead and get out all the niggers around, and have them waltz him into town with a torchlight procession and a brass-band, and then he would be a hero, and so would we.  But I reckoned it was about as well the way it was. We had Jim out of the chains in no time, and when Aunt Polly and Uncle Silas and Aunt Sally found out how good he helped the doctor nurse Tom, they made a heap of fuss over him, and fixed him up prime, and give him all he wanted to eat, and a good time, and nothing to do.  And we had him up to the sick-room, and had a high talk; and Tom give Jim forty dollars for being prisoner for us so patient, and doing it up so good, and Jim was pleased most to death, and busted out, and says: “Dah, now, Huck, what I tell you?—what I tell you up dah on Jackson islan'?  I tole you I got a hairy breas', en what's de sign un it; en I tole you I ben rich wunst, en gwineter to be rich agin; en it's come true; en heah she is!  dah, now! doan' talk to me—signs is signs, mine I tell you; en I knowed jis' 's well 'at I 'uz gwineter be rich agin as I's a-stannin' heah dis minute!” And then Tom he talked along and talked along, and says, le's all three slide out of here one of these nights and get an outfit, and go for howling adventures amongst the Injuns, over in the Territory, for a couple of weeks or two; and I says, all right, that suits me, but I ain't got no money for to buy the outfit, and I reckon I couldn't get none from home, because it's likely pap's been back before now, and got it all away from Judge Thatcher and drunk it up. “No, he hain't,” Tom says; “it's all there yet—six thousand dollars and more; and your pap hain't ever been back since.  Hadn't when I come away, anyhow.” Jim says, kind of solemn: “He ain't a-comin' back no mo', Huck.” I says: “Why, Jim?” “Nemmine why, Huck—but he ain't comin' back no mo.” But I kept at him; so at last he says: “Doan' you 'member de house dat was float'n down de river, en dey wuz a man in dah, kivered up, en I went in en unkivered him and didn' let you come in?  Well, den, you kin git yo' money when you wants it, kase dat wuz him.” Tom's most well now, and got his bullet around his neck on a watch-guard for a watch, and is always seeing what time it is, and so there ain't nothing more to write about, and I am rotten glad of it, because if I'd a knowed what a trouble it was to make a book I wouldn't a tackled it, and ain't a-going to no more.  But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it.  I been there before. THE END. YOURS TRULY, HUCK FINN. End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Complete, by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HUCKLEBERRY FINN *** ***** This file should be named 76-h.htm or 76-h.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.net/7/76/ Produced by David Widger. Previous editions produced by Ron Burkey and Internet Wiretap Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. *** START: FULL LICENSE *** THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license). Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at http://pglaf.org For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director gbnewby@pglaf.org Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://pglaf.org While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: http://www.gutenberg.net This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. 06020000

      Huck feels guilty about taking the money, so he puts the money in the coffin to make himself feel better about lying.

    1. Trump has turned that distinction on its head. He’s willing to legalize the “Dreamers”—who came to the United States illegally—so long as the number of legal immigrants goes down. He has not only blurred the GOP’s long-held moral distinction between legal and illegal immigration. In some ways, he’s actually flipped it—taking a harder line on people who enter the U.S. with documentation than those who don’t.

      It is not about documentation anymore, but rather race and ethnicity. He does not like people from certain countries, and wants to do all he can to keep them out, whether they are illegal or not.

    1. To the contrary, it is precisely through demonstrating the concordance with demo-cratic principles of social and discursive processes that constitute deliberative public opinionin any given instance that social legitimacy and utility are claimed

      Thanks to Giny and Ryan for carrying through to the end. I kind of just shook my head at some point and jumped over a lot of stuff and went straight to the end. I am underwhelmed.

    Annotators

    1. "Farmers are left with nothing, not event with clean drinking water," said Matthew Marek, the head of disaster response in Bangladesh for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent.

      Question:

      What evidence is given for the primary claim? Select all that apply.

      Answer:

      Experts are cited

    1. He was not entirely black, and this fact, together with the quality of his hair, which was about six inches long and very bushy, except on the top of his head, where he was quite bald, suggested a slight strain of other than negro blood. There was a shrewdness in his eyes, too, which was not altogether African, and which, as we afterwards learned from experience, was indicative of a corresponding shrewdness in his character.

      In this description, the narrator reveals a persistent prejudice to anti-Blackness as he repeatedly endeavors to characterize the stranger by observations of traits that are "not altogether African."

    2. He resumed his seat with somewhat of embarrassment. While he had been standing, I had observed that he was a tall man, and, though slightly bowed by the weight of years, apparently quite vigorous. He was not entirely black, and this fact, together with the quality of his hair, which was about six inches long and very bushy, except on the top of his head, where he was quite bald, suggested a slight strain of other than negro blood. There was a shrewdness in his eyes, too, which was not altogether African, and which, as we afterwards learned from experience, was indicative of a corresponding shrewdness in his character. He went on eating the grapes, but did not seem to enjoy himself quite so well as he had apparently done before he became aware of our presence.

      Who is Julius? What is the narrator's assessment? How might we revise this assessment, by the time we've read more deeply into the collection?

    1. multimoda

      Multimodal is the use of multiple modes of text to better convey a writers point. For example: an advertisement might use linguistic devices like slogans or something ridiculing people with thinning hair, using spatial devices like big font around the mean words to draw attention to them. Beside this, there might be a picture of someone with a full head of hair being happy. After i wrote this, I searched online for an example of this and there were so many: In the photo, there is a split picture of a man. On the left, the man is bald, and the words "Before" are written above him. Surrounding the man, are unkind, humiliating descriptions of the bald man. On the right side, the man has hair. "After" is written above the man and there are all sorts of compliments for the man, like "handsome" and "youthful". The ad plays directly into the insecurities of many men suffering from hair loss, making them feel humiliated in an attempt to convince them to receive hair transplants.

    1. “The Haunted Palace,”

      "The Haunted Palace") is a poem written by Poe that was originally published before this story in 1839. Poe later incorporated his poem into the piece. In the first few stanzas, the description of the palace symbolizes a human head. "The poem serves as an allegory about a king "in the olden time long ago" who is afraid of evil forces that threaten him and his palace, foreshadowing impending doom."

    1. A!, adopted at the meeting of the Joint Playing Rules Committee of the Nauoaal League and the American League, held at National League Head: Q11Uten,, l\ew York City.

      As seen in earlier documents, the code of rules developed for Major League Baseball was also used for minor league National Association teams.

  6. doc-08-c4-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-08-c4-docs.googleusercontent.com
    1. adoption of the alternative procedurewould be a testament to Somali cultural flexibility and their own respect for cultural differences.

      Now I understand what was meant by compromising and accommodating being essential to multicultural democracies. Trying to find a compromise with law and culture can be quite difficult and unsettling for all parties.I say law because when I read this sentence that is what popped into my head...since FGM is illegal in the United States, the compromise was a way to try and honor the Somali tradition legally.

    1. These college sports revenues are passed along to NCAA executives, athletic directors and coaches in the form of salaries. In 2011, NCAA members paid their association president, Mark Emmert, $1.7 million. Head football coaches at the 44 NCAA Bowl Championship Series schools received on average $2.1 million in salaries.

      They are paid because it is their job. Paying college athletes would mean that they would become employees of the NCAA.

    1. Her tone was growing angrier and angrier. “I’m not going to be fine, do you understand me? Don’t just put your head in the sand! This is the moment, this is when I needed someone and you turned your back on me! And I will not survive this!”

      This is more evidence of Jill Easter's vindictive and manipulative ways.

    1. This combination of education with practicalwork would seemtheoretically, by joining head and hand, to provide communities in the monasteries where technological innovation would thrive.

      Yet, that combination wouldn't last in the long term as we see in present day.

    1. when abortion-rights activists still were claiming that "no one knows when life begins."

      is this not true? how can we really define when a human life starts? is it the heart or the head that defines a true life?

    1. It turned out that, in fact, Gypsy hadn’t used a wheelchair from the moment she left her house a few days earlier. She didn’t need one. She could walk just fine, there was nothing wrong with her muscles, and she had no medication or oxygen tank with her either. Her hair was short and spiky, but she wasn’t bald — her head had simply been shaved, all her life, to make her appear ill. She was well-spoken, if shaken by recent events. The disabled child she’d long been in the eyes of others was nowhere to be found. It was all a fraud, she told the police. All of it. Every last bit. Her mother had made her do it.

      This is called Munchausen by proxy syndrome.

    1. Conclusions about marijuana are often formed in the gut rather than the head and heart. The visceral feelings supersede the faithful discernment.

      Conclusions people make about marijauna are usually based off the gut rather than the "head and the heart"

    1. And presently their outlines and their sunlit surface, as though they had been a sort of rind, were stripped apart; a little of what they had concealed from me became apparent; an idea came into my mind which had not existed for me a moment earlier, framed itself in words in my head; and the pleasure with which the first sight of them, just now, had filled me was so much enhanced that, overpowered by a sort of intoxication, I could no longer think of anything but them. At this point, although we had now travelled a long way from Martinville, I turned my head and caught sight of them again, quite black this time, for the sun had meanwhile set. Every few minutes a turn in the road would sweep them out of sight; then they shewed themselves for the last time, and so I saw them no more.

      By thinking back on the steeples, the narrator deconstructs their reality into an involuntary memory that has some meaning hidden within them. By deconstruction, we mean that the narrator picks apart specific aspects of the steeple (the outlines, the rind) and strips apart their physicality into a sort of fictional memory. Moreover, as the narrator gets physically further away from them, the more their meaning seems to reach out to the narrator. This suggests that the hidden meaning (truth?) to any sort of reality lies in the (deconstructed?) memory.

    1. "It has eight lashing arms and two slashing tentacles growing straight out of its head and it's got serrated suckers that can latch on to the slimiest of prey and it's got a parrot beak that can rip flesh. It's got an eye the size of your head, it's got a jet propulsion system and three hearts that pump blue blood."

      I dont know who would not be completely terrified by the idea of a creature like this. I dont know if i would rather be afraid of the myth or the actual creature.

    1. instead build a curriculum that puts students’ lives at the center

      This is my first time teaching English 12 (I've mostly lived in grades 9, 10, and 11), and there is an injustice research project in quarter three. I've been scared to death of it. I didn't know how to wrap my head around the complexities of "research any injustice in the world." Really? I thought it was too broad for my students and felt compelled to offer a list of 10-15 on which I knew I could find quality resources. I didn't. I let the students choose - and the most beautiful, poignant papers and projects are being created. Students chose injustices that have affected them personally and their papers are better because of it.

    1. an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time

      I took this phrase to mean an "image" is something (to use Pound's vocabulary) that procures an emotional/intellectual comment or picture. If you have vivid scene reproduced in your head as a result of the writing, the writer has created an "image."

    1. In his tower overlooking the river Neckar, Hölderlin had a piano that he sometimes played so hard he broke the keys. But there were quiet days when he would just play and tilt back his head and sing. Those who heard said they could not tell, though they listened, what language it was.

      After reading this passage I believe Holderlin was in fact a genius due to his manipulation of his environment. Most people live their lives wishing they could do something else or be a different person or maybe even more of themselves. They cant achieve this because they cant manulpulate their environment, unlike Holderlin. He would play his piano so violently the keys would break but other days softly so that people can listen. He made his environment ( people) hate the loud noisy days so they would appreciate the quiet days and his singing. It works because even though they don't understand what he is saying they still listen. Is this kind of manipulation needed to be considered a genius?

    1. the Euphrates depicted with the head of an Ethio-pian for America, this one with the face turned to the heavens in an act of wonder, and he has a bracelet on one leg,

      -Suggests that Africans couldn't possibly look so God-like naturally -It fits European body and cultural standards wherein an African man - a slave as suggested by the "bracelet" on one leg - is a lesser being, weak, cannot possibly be strong or powerful because he is being exploited and suppressed into slavery, so the thought that this classically, perfectly sculpted body might belong to an African slave is outlandish

      • Defining this figure as a European body "with the head of an Ethiopian" is also a way to cleverly associate this African figure with monstrosity - a Frankenstien-like creature that had to be created. Whatever perfection the figure has is an act of European creation, a sort of idealized perfection that (to them) is impossible for an African to naturally embody
      • However, the statue being carved of marble and the times being what they were, I can understand how it would be hard for them to imagine it as a black man - the stone is literally white and the only cue they have of the figures race resides in his face. In their mind they might, as soon as they see the Ethiopian features, paint the marble black and immediately separate the dark head from the white body.
    1. But we wonder, proceeded the Spirits, that you desire to be Empress of a Terrestrial World, when as you can create your self a Cœlestial World if you please. What, said the Empress, can any Mortal be a Creator? Yes, answered the Spirits; for every human Creature can create an Immaterial World fully inhabited by Immaterial Creatures, and populous of Immaterial subjects, such as we are, and all this within the compass of the head or scull; nay, not onely so, but he may create a World of what fashion and Government he will, and give the Creatures thereof such motions, figures, forms, colours, perceptions, &c. as he pleases, and make Whirl-pools, Lights, Pressures, and Reactions, &c. as he thinks best; nay, he may make a World full of Veins, Muscles, and Nerves, and all these to move by one jolt or stroke: also he may alter that World as often as he pleases, or change it from a Natural World, to an Artificial; he may make a World of Ideas, a World of Atoms, a World of Lights, or whatsoever his Fancy leads him to.

      This about how this passage relates to Cavendish's epistle to the reader.

    2. That as it was natural for one Body to have but one Head, so it was also natural for a Politick body to have but one Governor; and that a Common-wealth, which had many Governors was like a Monster with many Heads.

      Does this remind you of the different Enlightenment thinkers we learned about in the video for Week 2?

    1. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit. When you think of something abstract, you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning.

      This quote by George Orwell perfectly helps give supporting evidence to the thesis of this text. It not only gives a expert opinion, but masterfully puts the thesis into words. A concrete object requires you to describe something that can be explained through senses and can be very descriptive; however when describing an abstract idea, or something in your head it is so much harder to gather the thoughts in your head and put them down into a comprehendible writing. This entire quote could also be the thesis of the Haltman text, if you make a conscious effort to focus on being descriptive on an object your vocabulary will be precise and clear and make your writing very comprehensible.

    2. I wanted to remind her what she knew but had forgotten: that abstractions are what you get when you pull back from (or abstract from) concrete reality -- from the world of things.

      I really like this point that Maguire made, I feel that it is a lot harder for students to learn based upon someone's ideas and what is going on in their head. If you can see and smell and touch something it is much easier to obtain your own ideas and your own interpretations and lead to more original and unique writings. I am seeing why we are doing the AIDS quilt as our first project. Something that is concrete reality. To continue with my previous post it is of utmost importance that you first focus on a concrete idea and from that you can gleam the "more abstract, conceptual,or even metaphysical aspects of that culture that they quite literally embody," as Haltman says.

    1. Below the sky are several grey/dark lavender mountains. Most of the mountains are about the size of a fist, except the mountain slightly of center. This particular mountain is slightly larger are a bit to the left of the panel. The light is resting on it and in its center is a text. Browns and Greens make up valleys and tiny hills pushing the mountain more into the background.

      Once again, amazing job describing what you saw on the quilt. You're giving the reader a great visual image in their head about the subject you are talking about. Good job.

    1. Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily.‘They’re such beautiful shirts,’ she sobbed, her voice muf-fled in the thick folds. ‘It makes me sad because I’ve never seen such—such beautiful shirts before.

      Daisy sees the shirts and begins to cry--

      She is overjoyed to see Gatsby or devastated to see that things have changed

    1. locate him exactly and properly on the margins between experimental discovery and literature, head and heart.

      I find both of these to be attempts to understand ourselves, others and the human condition.

    1. ovicephalos

      ovi - relating to eggs And I presume Heinz is referring to ''cephalic'', which is a technical term relating to the head.

      The closest use of ''ovicephalos'' I found is as the name of a species of hookworm, Metacanthocephalus ovicephalus.

    1. We – I was very lucky, again there was a man that recognised me, that had stayed in our hotel and he said “Do you like to have a good job?”  And I said, “Yes, he said “Would you like to be the head of the laundry?”I said “Yes”, I didn’t know anything about laundry, but I thought everything is better then – perhaps it looks good. So I worked in the laundry and I had to assort clothes and they were sent out.

      Being in a camp was obviously horrific and terrifying, but this instance of a German soldier recognizing a Jewish woman from before the war and giving her an "easier" job helps remind me that these soldiers were human beings with empathy, even if they were complicit in crimes against humanity.

    1. Security itself actually is justified less as a public good than as a sort of baseline Hobbesian individual right, a more general right from which the right to bear arms is derivative, and that for which the state supposedly was socially contracted into existence. Even something as basic as health has been reduced to individualized, private concern: the virulent attacks on “Obamacare,” accordingly, have been fueled by its supposed intrusion upon individual freedoms.

      Well, this trend has certainly come to a head more recently (current admin taking away health care, building a wall).

    1. My uncle laughed too, but he always looked over at me and shook his head.

      I've grown up around people with disabilities since I was a toddler. I've always been deeply bothered by the tendency of those without disabilities to infantilize people with disabilities. Although everyone's case is different and some cognitive disabilities can severely affect a person's perception and understanding of reality, disabled people are hardly ever given the respect and credit they deserve as adults. This line seems to suggest that Uncle Sally knew exactly what was going on as the neurotypical adults joked around with him.

    1. took my little brother by the throat, threw him on the ground, and with the heel of his boot stamped upon his head till the blood gushed from his nose and ears—was well calculated to make me anxious as to my fate. After he had committed this savage outrage upon my brother

      The savagery of a slave holder. Also, he is seeing the savage act happening.

    2. I had no bed. I must have perished with cold, but that, the coldest nights, I used to steal a bag which was used for carrying corn to the mill. I would crawl into this bag, and there sleep on the cold, damp, clay floor, with my head in and feet out. My feet have been so cracked with the frost, that the pen with which I am writing might be laid in the gashes.

      Surreal image of the pen of the author being laid in the cracked feet of the enslaved boy he once was. This poetic images makes us ask, "what are the material conditions for getting experience into print?" And "what kind of discourse issues from cracked, whipped, damaged bodies?"

    1. dozen very recent puppies of an indeterminate breed.

      This reminds me of the time I went to go adopt my kitty, and there were swarms of puppies and kitties. In the rooms they were all swarmed around toys and I vividly remember picking out mine. The author does a good job using diction to strike up the image in my head.

    2. "It was on the two little seats facing each other that are always the last ones left on the train. I was going up to New York to see my sister and spend the night. He had on a dress suit and patent leather shoes, and I couldn't keep my eyes off him, but every time he looked at me I had to pretend to be looking at the advertisement over his head. When we came into the station he was next to me, and his white shirt-front pressed against my arm, and so I told him I'd have to call a policeman, but he knew I lied. I was so excited that when I got into a taxi with him I didn't hardly know I wasn't getting into a subway train. All I kept thinking about, over and over, was 'You can't live forever; you can't live forever.'"

      Myrtle's description reminded me of the song "The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face" by Roberta Flack; because as clearly as Myrtle described, the beginning of Tom and Myrtle's relationship was clearly described from a possible love at first sight scenario.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id_UYLPSn6U

    1. The idea for restricting tackle football for children has drawn support from prominent concussion researcher Robert Cantu, who has said children should instead opt for flag football, and some former NFL players like former San Francisco 49ers linebacker Chris Borland, who retired from the game at age 32 after concerns over the long-term head trauma

      This goes over with every idea I have on this matter in one sentence.

    1. A small, flat-nosed Jew raised his large head

      That's such a funny statement, I couldn't help but laugh because I've never heard of a flat -nosed Jew. The stereotype is that the noses are extremely large... at least that's how it is in my Jewish community.

    2. memory of that sudden extinction of a clan still haunted him.

      The use of the word "clan" automatically registered as the KKK in my head. I don't think that Gatsby was part of that clan, but that would be a bad plot twist. The KKK mostly resided in the south, so it would be confusing if he was a part of it in New York.

    1. Teachers, meanwhile, fretted that the scheme's roll-out would mean job losses. Angus MacLennan, e-Sgoil's head, says such fears are unfounded, since the scheme provides teleteachers only where it has proved impossible to recruit a permanent one

      NEGATIVE If more kids are taking online courses than potential teachers are losing jobs and would be less likely to have people entering the schooling field.

    1. Brittain's pacifism was grounded in personal exper

      Brittain's own loss inspired her burgeoning attitude that war was futile, unnecessary and of course, senseless which is heavily portrayed in her 1933 memoir, 'Testament of Youth'. Brittain became an advocate for peace and pacifism as a result of her own personal turmoil. Her intimate friend and fiance, Leighton was shot through the abdomen by a German sniper whist in the French trenches; her childhood friend Richardsonwas shot through the head, suffered blindess and died weeks later in a hospital in London; Thurlow was shot through the lung by a sniper and died immediately; and her brother was shot in Italy in 1917.

    1. They warn that technology must be applied thoughtfully to maximize its benefits and minimize its potential for disruption and distraction. Social justice activists have also voiced concern that technology can widen the education gap between the rich and poor by creating a digital divide that provides a head start to students from affluent communities who experience greater access and receive better training with regard to technology than students without those opportunities.

      NEGATIVE Not everyone is able to have access to the internet, which sets specific groups of people behind others unintentionally because they do not have the luxury of technology incorporated into the classroom. Learning gap.

    1. What had that flower to do with being white, The wayside blue and innocent heal-all? What brought the kindred spider to that height, Then steered the white moth thither in the night?

      I think that most people would not even notice such a thing so small or even consider the probability of coincidence for these details to come about together perfectly. In my head I do not picture a perfect coincidence but rather an image, wishful thinking almost, that the speaker finds the perfect coincidence sitting atop a flower.

    1. I walk back to the school with a million thoughts racing in my head. Aaron was at the top of my "kids who are struggling" list. He had just exposed me to a whole new world that I am not representing in my classro

      I can't even imagine how fast her heart would be racing realizing her own misconceptions and maybe even sadness in thinking about not having certain representations in her class. This is just one student out of 28, who knows what else could be incorporated in the classroom!

    1. On 2013 Oct 29, Michael Eisen commented:

      According to recent Frontline documentary "League of Denial" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/ this paper was the first step in a chain of events that has finally led to the NFL acknowledging that repeated head trauma can potentially cause long term problems for professional football players, and to a series of changes in the game designed to reduce head injuries.

      Note that, according to Frontline, the NFL originally disputed the finding and attacked the work and its author - see Casson IR, 2006.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2013 Oct 24, Tom Kindlon commented:

      Extremes In Activity Levels Of Those With Persistent Fatigue Were Not Investigated

      I question the claim in Viner et al<sup>1</sup> that "being highly sedentary or highly active independently increased the risk of persistent fatigue, suggesting that divergence in either direction from healthy levels of activity increases the risk for persistent fatigue."

      The authors themselves point out that their "definition of being physically active (1 hour of exercise on >=2 days per week) is roughly similar to the current recommendations for adolescents of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education: “teens should do at least 20 minutes of vigorous activity 3 days a week and 30 minutes of moderate activity 5 days a week”.<sup>2</sup> So why is this level of activity, which was reported by 48.7% of the young people, being presented as being excessive? If they wanted to investigate being "highly active" (as opposed to simply being “active”), activity levels should not have been dichotomized at level they were in this study.

      The question about sedentary activities was: “Outside school hours, on average, how many hours a day do you usually watch TV or videos, play video games, or play on the computer?” If a young person was sedentary for >4 hours a day, it does not mean they was necessarily inactive; indeed in phase 1, 23% of active young people were sedentary for more than 4 hours per day (compared with 30% of inactive young people). Such a lifestyle could be associated with fatigue for other reasons; for example, it could result in a shortage of sleep, rather than it necessarily causing unhealthily low levels of activity.

      1 Viner RM, Clark C, Taylor SJ, Bhui K, Klineberg E, Head J, Booy R, Stansfeld SA. Longitudinal risk factors for persistent fatigue in adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008 May;162(5):469-75.

      2 Corbin CB, Pangrazi RP, Le Masurier GC. Physical activity for children: current patterns and guidelines. Res Dig. 2004;5(2):1-8.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Oct 27, Peter Gøtzsche commented:

      The authors report that escitalopram was significantly more effective than citalopram but caution against the “potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias.” Indeed. Both substances were patented by Lundbeck, and the rejuvenated “me-again” drug, escitalopram, is merely the active half of the “old me” stereoisomer drug, citalopram.

      One would not expect a molecule to be better than itself. I therefore suggest that the Cochrane review mention the results of a 2012 meta-analysis (1), also in the abstract and plain language summary. Independent researchers confirmed the Cochrane review’s findings that escitalopram was better than citalopram in head-to-head trials. All seven trials found this, apart from the single one that was not sponsored by Lundbeck or its affiliates. These researchers also did an indirect comparison of the two drugs based on 10 citalopram and 12 escitalopram placebo controlled trials (1), and now the effect of “me-again” and “old me” was very similar (odds ratio 1.03; 0.82 to 1.30).

      Usually, direct comparisons are more reliable than indirect comparisons, but the drug industry routinely distorts its research to such an extent (2) that the indirect comparisons are sometimes the most reliable ones, which I believe is the case here. Lundbeck did not have any particular incentive to manipulate its placebo controlled studies more with escitalopram than with citalopram.

      The Cochrane authors note that cost-effectiveness information is also needed in the field of antidepressant trials. Indeed. Even if we take Lundbeck’s results in its head-to-head trials at face value, there is no meaningful difference between the two versions of the drug. In one of Lundbeck’s own meta-analyses, the difference after eight weeks was 1 on a scale that goes up to 60 (2,3), which is totally irrelevant (4).

      When I checked the Danish prices in 2009, Cipralex (escitalopram) cost 19 times as much for a daily dose as Cipramil (citalopram). This enormous price difference should have deterred the doctors from using Cipralex, but it didn’t. The sales of Cipralex were six times higher in monetary terms than the sales of citalopram both at hospitals and in primary care. I have calculated that if all patients had received the cheapest citalopram instead of Cipralex or other SSRIs, Danish taxpayers could have saved around €30 million a year, or 87% of the total amount spent on SSRIs.

      1 Alkhafaji AA, Trinquart L, Baron G, et al. Impact of evergreening on patients and health insurance: a meta analysis and reimbursement cost analysis of ci¬talopram/escitalopram antidepressants. BMC Med 2012;10:142.

      2 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted health care. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013.

      3 Gorman JM, Korotzer A, Su G. Efficacy comparison of escitalopram and citalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder: pooled analysis of placebo-controlled trials. CNS Spectr. 2002; 7(4 Suppl. 1): 40–4.

      4 Leucht S, Fennema H, Engel R, et al. What does the HAMD mean? J Affect Disord 2013;148:243-8


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Jan 07, Tom Kindlon commented:

      Does reduced similarity across timescales really mean reduced complexity?

      Despite a good familiarity with the CFS literature and despite taking many mathematics courses in university, including a methods course which included some coverage of non-linear dynamics, I will admit to not fully understanding this paper. However, I think I will not be alone in that and so will put my head above the parapet and ask the following: This study found CFS cases (compared to controls) showed reduced dissimilarity within timescales as well as reduced similarity across timescales. This is summarised by the authors as CFS patients showing a reduction in complexity. But does the second finding not show the CFS cases demonstrated increased complexity compared to controls for that measure? For measurements within a timeframe, the controls are closer to the scores one would see with random patterns (4.75). For measurements across timescales, the scores of the CFS patients are closer to the scores one would see with random patterns (1.5).


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2013 Dec 19, Scott Federhen commented:

      I am Scott Federhen, head of the GenBank taxonomy group, and author of his article. Since this article appeared, we have added a significant new feature to the taxonomy database - we have started to curate type material, and are using these data to flag sequence from type in Entrez. Sequence from type material is an important subset because the species identification is virtually certain to be correct (by definition) - but see Buddruhs N, 2013 for a rare cautionary example.

      When a new species of prokaryote is described, the authors are required to designate a type strain and deposit it in at least two different culture collections. These are usually widely distributed between other culture collections and sold to researchers, so we have lots of sequence from type strains of prokaryotes, including many of our complete genomes.

      When a new species of eukaryote is described, the authors are required to designate a type specimen and deposit it in a museum (or herbarium) where it is generally not available for subsequent sequence analysis (unless living cultures can be derived from the specimen, as with some of the fungi). We currently have very little sequence from type in the plants and animals, though it is becoming more common to include a little sequence with the description of new species - see Stoev P, 2013 for an extreme example.

      See Salmonella enterica and Cercopithecus lomamiensis for examples of type material annotation in the taxonomy database.

      The Entrez query sequence from type [filter] can be used to retrieve these sequence entries, and can be used in combination with other queries, e.g.: sequence from type [filter] AND metazoa[orgn].

      sequence from type [filter] is also a very useful as an Entrez query to limit your BLAST searches to reliably identified sequences (particularly in the prokaryotes).


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Mar 03, Andrea Messori commented:

      Overlapping meta-analyses on novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation

      The systematic review by Baker and Phung [1] is probably the most comprehensive analysis presently available on the comparative effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. One problem for researchers who are interested in this topic is that PubMed now includes 13 meta-analyses or systematic reviews focused on this issue [1-13]. This confirms that a problem exists with multiple overlapping meta-analyses that study the same randomized trials published on the same topic [14,15]. However, there seems to be no simple solution to this problem.

      Andrea Messori, HTA Unit, Regional Health Service 50100 Firenze ITALY

      1. Baker WL, Phung OJ. Systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012 Sep 1;5(5):711-9.
      2. Lip GY, Larsen TB, Skjøth F, Rasmussen LH. Indirect comparisons of new oral anticoagulant drugs for efficacy and safety when used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Aug 21;60(8):738-46.
      3. Sardar P, Chatterjee S, Wu WC, Lichstein E, Ghosh J, Aikat S, Mukherjee D. New oral anticoagulants are not superior to warfarin in secondary prevention of stroke or transient ischemic attacks, but lower the risk of intracranial bleeding: insights from a meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparisons. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 25;8(10):e77694.
      4. Assiri A, Al-Majzoub O, Kanaan AO, Donovan JL, Silva M. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of aspirin, warfarin, and new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Clin Ther. 2013 Jul;35(7):967-984.e2.
      5. Biondi-Zoccai G, Malavasi V, D'Ascenzo F, Abbate A, Agostoni P, Lotrionte M, Castagno D, Van Tassell B, Casali E, Marietta M, Modena MG, Ellenbogen KA, Frati G. Comparative effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: evidence from pair-wise and warfarin-controlled network meta-analyses. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth. 2013;5(1):40-54.
      6. Pink J, Pirmohamed M, Hughes DA. Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and warfarin in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Aug;94(2):269-76. doi:10.1038/clpt.2013.83.
      7. Messori A, Maratea D, Fadda V, Trippoli S. New and old anti-thrombotic treatments for patients with atrial fibrillation. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013Jun;35(3):297-302.
      8. Messori A, Maratea D, Fadda V, Trippoli S. Comparing new anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation using the number needed to treat. Eur J Intern Med. 2013 Jun;24(4):382-3.
      9. Harenberg J, Marx S, Wehling M. Head-to-head or indirect comparisons of the novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: what's next? Thromb Haemost. 2012 Sep;108(3):407-9.
      10. Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Patrick AR, Choudhry NK, Avorn J. Comparative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012 Jul 1;5(4):480-6.
      11. Skjøth F, Larsen TB, Rasmussen LH. Indirect comparison studies--are they useful? Insights from the novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost. 2012 Sep;108(3):405-6.
      12. Testa L, Agnifili M, Latini RA, Mattioli R, Lanotte S, De Marco F, Oreglia J, Latib A, Pizzocri S, Laudisa ML, Brambilla N, Bedogni F. Adjusted indirect comparison of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. QJM. 2012 Oct;105(10):949-57.
      13. Mantha S, Ansell J. An indirect comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost. 2012 Sep;108(3):476-84.
      14. Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013 Aug 14;347:f5040. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5040.
      15. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013 Jul 19;347:f4501. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4501.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Apr 09, Lydia Maniatis commented:

      For comments (and author reply) on the craziness of the claim of "orientation averaging" go here: https://pubpeer.com/publications/62E7CB814BC0299FBD4726BE07EA69

      Additional craziness (based on conventional visual psychophysics wisdom):

      "The voluntary averaging paradigm assumes that we perceive identical samples as slightly different due to noisy sample estimates (i.e. internal noise) and therefore have to average them to find a group estimate." And the contradiction: "However, voluntarily averaging different samples is a demanding task, and we can easily imagine that observers might see no reason to average samples that appear to be identical. Indeed, we do not often perceive identically oriented Gabors as having slightly different orientations except when their signal strength is weak (with brief or noisy presentation. [No citation for this last]. Indeed, we even perceive slightly different orientations as being identical (Morgan et al 2008). This could be due to a thresholding mechanism preventing us from perceiving our internal noise...."

      A few things are worth noting. First, the authors seem to be claiming both that the samples don't look identical ("we perceive identical samples as slightly different") and that they do look identical "we do not often perceive identically oriented Gabors as having slightly different orientations." Which is it? Second, the fact that identical samples look identical in no way interferes with the authors "noise" belief system. They just explain it away on the basis of "a thresholding mechanism." But the noise paradigm, aside from being arbitrary, falls at the mere hint of a logical breeze.

      Some things that should be taken into consideration: Some orientations are perceived with more precision than others (vertical, horizontal); we don't perceive orientation averages (see link above for discussion); differences in orientation in a field of oriented objects are subject to pop-out effects, not averaging effects.

      The casual attitude towards assumptions that I've commented on frequently is of course on display here too: "This function is typically used [so it must be right] to quantify the averaging efficiency...and, based on the averaging model, this efficiency is assumed [in psychophysics, we can assume anything we want, whether Teller (1984) https://pubpeer.com/publications/70EEEA9EF5D6A4AE003C4559D2832C likes it or not] to be the same in low noise."

      How many psychophysicists can dance on the head of a pin? I'm sure there's a model for that.

      Also: It seems rather strange at first that there was a condition in which people's (supposed) estimation of “average orientation” was better for the case of four patches versus one patch. We can make sense of this if we consider the authors' methods and some of the conclusions of Solomon, May and Tyler (2015) (commented on also in the link above).

      First, the location of the single patch in the periphery was both brief and unpredictable. This unpredictability was designed to avoid saccades to the object.

      Second, Solomon, May and Tyler (2015) concluded that the observers were “averaging” one or two patches (because there's really no such thing as an orientation averaging percept). It's a little bit of a stretch to refer to an average of a single one out of a group of patches.

      Now, in the single patch condition, it takes a little time to locate and focus attention on the single relevant object. In the four patch condition, the observer could already be focussed on any of the four locations, and base their response on that, perhaps they'd also have time to attend to a second one. Since they don't really consider more than one or two anyway, knowing where the patches are going to appear is an advantage, and explains the paradox.

      The proper control (assuming the experiment had been worth doing in the first place) would have been to make the four-patch condition locations unpredictable as well. But instead, the authors contrive a strained interpretation in terms of orientation averaging in one “process” vs no orientation averaging in another.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Aug 23, David Keller commented:

      Information theory contradicts Guideline Statement 4: more frequent PSA testing should benefit patients, not harm them

      Information theory describes the reconstruction of continuous signals from discrete samples, and the extraction of signals from noise. Screening for prostate cancer involves scrutiny of a man's serial PSA measurements, with the goal of determining the likelihood that his prostate has developed a malignancy which could affect his longevity or quality of life (ie: his mortality or morbidity). Statement 4 from the 2013 Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline [1] is as follows:

      "Guideline Statement 4: To reduce the harms of screening, a routine screening interval of two years or more may be preferred over annual screening in those men who have participated in shared decision-making and decided on screening. As compared to annual screening, it is expected that screening intervals of two years preserve the majority of the benefits and reduce over diagnosis and false positives. (Option; Evidence Strength Grade C)"

      Guideline Statement 4 can be proved false using the principles of information theory as follows. Individual PSA blood test results constitute discrete samples of the continuous signal which would result from continuous monitoring of the patient's PSA. The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling theorem states that the minimum sampling rate for perfect reconstruction of a signal is equal to twice the bandwidth of the signal [1]. Expressed another way, the maximum bandwidth of a signal to be perfectly reconstructed from samples taken at a sampling frequency f is f/2.

      The crucial signal we wish to detect is a rising PSA consistent with a dangerous prostate cancer. Empirically, the faster a prostate cancer grows, the more rapid the rise in PSA and therefore the higher the bandwidth of the PSA signal. We would like to detect PSA signals which rise rapidly (have high bandwidth) in order to treat the patient while his cancer is confined to his prostate. The more frequently we sample the PSA, the higher the bandwidth of the PSA signal we can detect, meaning the more rapid rises in PSA will not escape detection. So, increasing the PSA sampling rate from once every 2 years to once every year can only improve the detection of the high-bandwidth signal caused by a rapidly growing prostate cancer. In fact, increasing the PSA sampling rate to twice per year, 4 times per year or even higher will only increase the maximum detectable bandwidth of the PSA signal.

      Harms associated with PSA screening are generally associated with the prostate biopsy procedure and downstream diagnostic and therapeutic intervetions. The purpose of PSA sampling is to inform us when a prostate biopsy is likely to be more beneficial than harmful. The cumulative harm of multiple biopsies is proportional to the number of biopsies done, so we want to minimize the number of biopsies without missing a dangerous cancer. However, if the PSA signal includes useful information about the presence of cancer, the best way to reduce the number of biopsies is to improve the quality (bandwidth) of the detected PSA signal, which requires increasing the PSA sampling rate.

      Reducing the PSA sampling rate in an attempt to reduce the harms caused by prostate biopsy is akin to hiding one's head in the sand. Continuous monitoring of the PSA signal would be ideal, but the maximum practical PSA sampling frequency should be employed to maximize the quality of the reconstructed PSA signal, and thereby increase the likelihood of detecting a fast-growing tumor while it is confined to the prostate. Application of a low-pass filter to the PSA signal should reduce the number of biopsies triggered by noise.

      Lastly, the prostate biopsy rate need not be correlated with the PSA sampling rate, and indeed should be inversely correlated with it if the PSA signal has useful information about the presence of dangerous cancer in the prostate.

      Reference

      1: Shannon CE, Communication in the presence of noise, Proc. Institute of Radio Engineers, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 10–21, Jan. 1949


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Jan 02, Paul Harch commented:

      Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> characterize the Department of Defense HBOT TBI studies<sup>1-3</sup> as sham-placebo controlled clinical investigations. A sham group “omits a key therapeutic element of the treatment or procedure under investigation”<sup>4</sup> and a placebo must be inert.<sup>5</sup> The key therapeutic elements in hyperbaric therapy are pressure and hyperoxia, neither of which are inert.<sup>6</sup> Therefore, Cifu et al<sup>1</sup> is neither sham, placebo, nor controlled; all groups contain either increased pressure, hyperoxia, or both.<sup>6,7</sup><br> Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> define HBOT as involving “…breathing high levels of oxygen…at… at least 1.4 times greater than …(1 atmosphere absolute…ATA)…. <sup>1</sup> This non-physiologic definition sets an arbitrary threshold for HBOT that excludes the contribution of lesser elevated pressures and degrees of hyperoxia (e.g. 1.39999 ATA hyperbaric oxygen is not HBOT?). Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a combination intervention of increased pressure and hyperoxia,<sup>6,7</sup> that up- and down-regulates both independent and overlapping pressure and oxygen-sensitive genes<sup>6,8-10</sup> to produce well-known clinical effects.<sup>11</sup> Cifu et al<sup>1</sup> purported to test the doses of HBOT in previous publications.<sup>12-14.</sup> It did not. Cifu et al<sup>1</sup> studied 3 composite doses of hyperbaric therapy by using different doses of oxygen, a single dose of pressure (2.0 ATA), and changing doses of oxygen and pressure during compression and decompression that have not been previously tested in mTBI/PPCS and PTSD. Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> stands in contrast to Wolf, et al<sup>2,</sup> which initially showed statistically significant beneficial effects of two different composite doses of hyperbaric therapy in mTBI/PPCS and PTSD (1.3 ATA air and 2.4 ATA 100% oxygen), and other studies using 1.5 ATA 100% oxygen.<sup>12,15-17</sup> (Wolf, et al’s<sup>2</sup> findings have been qualified in a subset analysis that demonstrated a trend toward harm with 2.4 ATA oxygen in PPCS).<sup>18</sup> According to Cifu, et al<sup>1,</sup> the results of Wolf, et al<sup>2</sup> and “…prior case reports<sup>14,19-22</sup> are explained by factors other than the effect of HBO2 on PPCS,” i.e., placebo, relocation, reduced duty schedules, Hawthorne Effect, leisure time and activities in a noncombat, semitropical beach environment, and other non-biologic effects of the hyperbaric chamber experience. This explanation has merit if Cifu, et al’s<sup>1</sup> data were uniformly positive. However, it is not, despite the maximal salutary environment of Pensacola, FL. The most logical explanation for Cifu, et al’s<sup>1</sup> data is the independent and differing bioactivity of different combination doses of pressure and hyperoxia on gene expression. <sup>9,10</sup> Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of 2 new composite doses of hyperbaric therapy on PTSD and 3 new doses on PPCS, and the effectiveness of one dose on PTSD. The PPCS findings are consistent with the literature on HBOT in chronic traumatic brain injury cited by Cifu and others<sup>1-3,6,7,12-16,23</sup> that reveal no evidence for the effectiveness of 2.0 ATA of pressure or oxygen on chronic TBI, and negative/toxic effects ≥ 2.0 ATA in acute severe TBI.<sup>24,25</sup> Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> finish with a claim that the results of HBOT in acute severe TBI are “inconclusive.” There are five randomized clinical trials on HBOT in acute severe TBI,<sup>26-30</sup> a comparative dosing study,<sup>25</sup> and two Cochrane reviews<sup>21,31</sup> demonstrating a significant reduction in mortality<sup>26,28-31</sup> (~60%) and improvement in outcome.<sup>25-27,29,30</sup> There is nothing inconclusive about this data, however it’s inclusion in a report on mTBI PPCS is inappropriate. In summary, Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> is mis-described as a sham placebo controlled study based on a non-physiologic definition of hyperbaric therapy that omits the bioactivity of increased pressure. On this foundation Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> combine their data with Wolf, et al<sup>2</sup> and offer sweeping erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of hyperbaric therapy in PPCS of mTBI and acute severe TBI. Cifu, et al<sup>1</sup> is a 3 dose study of different combinations of pressure and oxygen that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of two doses of hyperbaric therapy in patients with PPCS and PTSD and the effectiveness of a third dose in PTSD and possibly PPCS. Their data complement the effectiveness of multiple other doses of hyperbaric therapy in mTBI PPCS<sup>2,12,15-17,23</sup> and PTSD<sup>2,12,15,17</sup> which they refer to incorrectly as showing “no symptom relief with HBO2,” and an animal model of HBOT in chronic mTBI.<sup>32</sup> The Cifu,<sup>1</sup> Wolf,<sup>2</sup> and civilian studies<sup>12,15,16</sup> must be appreciated In terms of the effects of different doses of hyperbaric therapy (increased pressure and hyperoxia) on PPCS and PTSD whose doses have different physiologic and gene profiles. Some of these doses are effective while others are not. Conflict of Interest: The author is the co-owner of Harch Hyperbarics, Inc., a C-corporation that provides expert witness testimony and hyperbaric consulting. References: 1. Cifu DX, et al. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013 Sep 18. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182a6aaf0.<br> 2. Wolf G, et al.. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:1–7. 3. Weaver LK, et al. Undersea Hyper Med. 2012;39(4):807–814 4. Sham. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sham. 5. Placebo. Available at: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/placebo+effect. 6. Harch PG. J Neurotrauma. 2013 Oct 11. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1089/neu.2012.2799. 7. Harch P. Undersea Hyper Med. 2013;40(5):469-70. 8. Godman CA, et al. Cell Stress Chaperones. 2010;15:431–442. 9. Chen Y, et al. Neurochem. Res. 2009; 34:1047–1056. 10. Oh S, et al. Cell Stress and Chaperones. 2008;13:447-458. 11. Gesell LB, ed. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Indications. The Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee Committee Report. 12th ed. Durham, NC: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society;2008. 12. Harch PG, et al. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:168–185. 13. Rockswold SB, et al. J Neurosurg. 2010;112:1080–1094. 14. Harch PG. In: Joiner JT, ed. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Hyperbaric Oxygenation for Cerebral Palsy and the Brain-Injured Child. Flagstaff, AZ: Best Publishing Co;2012:31–56. 15. Harch, PG, et al. Cases Journal. 2009;2:6538. http://casesjournal.com/casesjournal/article/view/6538. 16. Wright JK, et al. Undersea Hyper Med. 2009;36:391–399. 17. Data on Cifu, et al1, Wolf, et al3, and HOPPS Army study presented at the 46th Annual UHMS Scientific Meeting in Orlando, FL 6/15/2013 in a special symposium. 18. Scorza KA, et al. Abstract C27, Friday, 6/14/2013, 8:12 a.m. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. 19. Rockswold SB, et al. Neurol Res. 2007;29(2):162–172. 20. Bennett MH. Extrem Physiol Med. 2012;1(1):14.<br> 21. Bennett MH, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD004609. 22. McDonaugh M, et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(7):1198-1204. 23. Harch PG, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in global cerebral ischemia/anoxia and coma. In: Jain KK, ed. Textbook of Hyperbaric Medicine, 5th revised edition Chapter 19. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers;2009:235–274. 24. Holbach KH, et al. J Neurol. 1977;217:17-30. 25. Holbach, KH. In: Schurmann K, ed. Advances in Neurosurgery, Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer;1973:158-163. 26. Holbach KH, et al. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1974;30:247–256, (Ger) 27. Artru F., et al. Eur Neurol. 1976;14:310-318. 28. Rockswold GL, et al. J Neurosurg. 1992;76:929–934. 29. Ren H, et al. Chinese Journal of Traumatology (English Edition). 2001;4(4):239-241. 30. Rockswold SB, et al. J Neurosurg. 2013;118(6):1317-28. 31. Bennett MH, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD004609. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004609.pub3. Review. 32. Harch, PG, et al. Brain Res. 2007. 1174, 120–129.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Oct 15, Amanda Capes-Davis commented:

      The cell lines used here - HEp-2 and KB - are both known to be cross-contaminated. Unfortunately, that means that both of these models are actually HeLa, from cervical carcinoma.

      HEp-2 and KB are widely used in the literature as models for head and neck SCC, even though they are not appropriate models for this tissue type. Always be careful to test cell lines to check that they are not cross-contaminated, using a consensus method such as short tandem repeat (STR) profiling.

      For a list of known cross-contaminated or otherwise misidentified cell lines, see http://iclac.org/databases/cross-contaminations/.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Jul 02, Valeria Fadda commented:

      Gastrointestinal adverse events of bisphosphonates

      Valeria Fadda HTA Unit, Area Vasta Centro Toscana, Regional Health System, Via San Salvi 12, 50100 Firenze (Italy)

      In the paper by Tadrous et al. [1], the gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis has been assessed. In particular, the safety end-point has been compared for individual agents (i.e. alendronate, zoledronate, risedronate or etidronate) versus placebo; some head-to-head comparisons between active agents were studied too. The original analysis by Tadrous et al. expressed these outcomes according to the outcome measure of odds-ratio (OR). However, since the outcome measure of risk difference (RD) is preferable for analyses aimed at equivalence testing, we have repeated the meta-analysis by Tadrous using RD in substitution for OR. Our results are shown in Figure S1.


      Figure S1. Standard pair-wise meta-analysis of the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events: Forest plot of risk differences for a series of comparisons involving alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, zoledronate, and placebo (data of 103 study arms from 51 randomized trials). The horizontal bars indicate the two-sided 95% confidence interval for RD of individual trials (solid squares) or of subgroup meta-analysis (yellow diamonds). Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; RD, risk difference; P, placebo; A, alendronate; R, risedronate; E, etidronate; Z, zoledronate; Ev, events; Trt, number of patients in the treatment groups; Ctrl, number of patients in the control groups.

      This figure is available at url http://www.osservatorioinnovazione.net/papers/figures1fromtadrous.jpg


      References

      1. Tadrous M, Wong L, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, Krahn MD, Lévesque LE, Cadarette SM. Comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2014 Apr;25(4):1225-35. doi: 10.1007/s00198-013-2576-2


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Jan 24, Tom Kindlon commented:

      The validity of using subjective outcome measures as primary outcomes is questionable in such a trial

      Crawley and colleagues suggest dropping school attendance as a primary outcome from the full study, and replacing it with self-report outcomes "such as the SF-36 or the Chalder Fatigue Scale" and using "school attendance as a secondary outcome"(1). And indeed, this is what they have done with the full study which has two primary outcome measures: "Chalder Fatigue Scale at 6 months" and "SF 36 physical function short form at 6 months"(2). I question the wisdom of using self-report measures as primary outcomes for such a trial.

      The authors do not give much information about the details of the Lightning Process (they do mention it is "developed from osteopathy, life coaching and Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP))" but here are some descriptions from other sources (individuals who have undertaken a course) (note these are not descriptions from participants from the trial itself):

      (a) "It felt very naughty but I whispered to one of the woman (sic) sitting next to me 'how are you, is this working for you?'. She was reluctant to answer, to say anything but that she was doing well would be to go against the process because that is a negative thought. It was pointless asking really. Still I wanted it to work, but I was starting to worry about the fact that I was not only not feeling any better the effort of doing the course, not getting my normal rest was making me feel worse. But these were negative thoughts. I started to ruthlessly suppress them like I had been shown." (3)

      (b) “They tell you that you're not allowed to say that you're ill anymore or that you have any symptoms. They force you to ignore the symptoms because they say that the symptoms don't really exist. They force you to do activities even though it's making you really ill, but you're not allowed to say so.” (4)

      Another, more thorough, description can be found on the Skeptic's Dictionary website(5).

      I have seen many similar descriptions to these in discussions in many private fora. Here's one example: "So the first step in the process is to recognise when you’re in THE PIT. Maybe sometimes or all the time. It’s important to recognise what you say to yourself as you go into the pit. For example “I’m feeling really ill this morning”, “if I do this, then I’ll get exhausted”, “last time I did this I got really ill for days”, “I can never eat this” etc. This takes some practise but we were assured that you always say something in your head as you go into the pit. As soon as you spot one of your “pit” phrases you want to STOP yourself right away. So imagine you’re on the mat and you start to say “I feel really ill today”. Before you get to the end of this phrase you will interrupt with a very firm, loud “STOP” (yes, talk out loud to yourself!) and jump into the STOP position as described above. So you jump outside the mat, to your left. Now you’re here you have interrupted your bad thought patterns."

      In essence when one is doing the lightning process, both during the three days training and after, you are to declare yourself well. You are not to say (or think) you have symptoms and you are not to say (or think) you have limitations. In other words, patients are 'trained' to dismiss and deny their symptoms and illness. Patients are instructed not to “do” ME or CFS anymore. In such a scenario, subjective reports from the patient are no longer reliable. Hence the need for objective measures in such trials.

      To a lesser extent, it can also be argued that subjective measures are not ideal for all participants in this trial, including the control group. With graded activity-oriented therapies, which all the participants undertake (1), there may be response bias (6). This was seen in a review of three Dutch trials of graded activity-oriented cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for CFS. While the CBT participants reported improvements in fatigue (and also SF-36 physical functioning although that was not measured in all of the trials), no improvements in objectively measured activity were reported over the control group(7). Similarly a mediation analysis showed changes in physical activity were not related to changes in fatigue. A similar effect with CBT could be in PACE Trial, the largest such trial in the CFS field(8).

      Although participants who had undergone CBT reported improvements in scores on both the Chalder Fatigue Scale and SF 36 physical function subscale, no improvements were reported in the six minute walking distance compared to the group who had undergone no additional individual therapy (all participants had specialist medical care). Similarly, CBT did not significantly reduce employment losses, overall service costs, welfare benefits or other financial payments(9).

      Objective measures of physical activity are one type of objective measurement that could be employed. This could be used not just to measure the total quantity of activity but also to check the intensity of activity as people with ME/CFS may perform lower levels of more intensive activity(10). Tests of neuropsychological performance could also be used, given the impairments that have previously been reported(11). If necessary, a webpage could be created that could be accessed remotely.

      One particular problem with the 0-33 scoring method for the Chalder fatigue scale is that patients can give unusually low, or artificially good, scores.

      The scale consists of 11 questions. For each question (e.g. "Do you have less strength in your muscles?"), patients have to say whether they have the symptom: "Less than usual" (score of 0); "No more than usual" (score of 1); "More than usual" (score of 2) or “Much more than usual” (score of 3). So healthy people should score around 11 and indeed in the only population study I can recall that gave data for a healthy (no disease/current health problem) group, the mean was 11.2 (12).

      However, some unusual scoring is possible. This was seen in a multiple sclerosis trial, of a similar CBT intervention to the graded activity-oriented CBT used in CFS (13). Participants in the CBT leg of the trial entered with a Chalder fatigue scale score of mean (sd): 20.94 (4.25). Two months after therapy, the mean (sd) was 7.90 (4.34) i.e. this groups suffering from multiple sclerosis had a much better score than one sees in healthy people!

      Such averages could also hide non-responders or, possibly more seriously, people who deteriorated, depending on how the data was analysed. For example, if two participant deteriorated and ended up with a Chalder fatigue scale scores of 32, but 8 others had an average score of 2, this would give an average score of 8, again giving the impression that this group had less fatigue than healthy people. This issue of supranormal scoring with likert scoring (0-3) can be dealt with by utilising the commonly used bimodal scoring method for the Chalder fatigue scale. However, both it and likert scoring suffer from ceiling effects in CFS populations so other scales are likely preferable (14,15). If the Chalder fatigue scale is used, the original developers of the scale suggested, based on their analyses, that "it would probably be more useful to have two scores, one for physical fatigue and one for mental fatigue"(16).

      (Message has reached word limit - references are reply)

      Competing interests: I am the Assistant Chairperson and Information Officer for the Irish ME/CFS Association. All my work for the Association is voluntary.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Feb 01, Jan Tunér commented:

      In the paper, the parameters are described: According to the acknowledged guidelines (WALT, 2004), delivery parameters were: wavelength 904 nm; pulse duration 200 ns; pulse frequency 1953 Hz; peak power 90 mW; average output 30 mW; power density 22.5mWcm2; treatment time 600 seconds; energy dose 18 J per session; spot size 4 cm2 and treatment frequency five times/week. Laser probe (head size: 4 cm2) was applied steady in skin contact with no pressure over the MTP. The 904 nm laser cannot possibly have a peak power of 90 mW. Let us accept this as a misprint for 90 watt. If so, the average output is 35 mW (not 30), which is reasonable for a TP. However, the “spot” is 4 cm2, so the 30 mW is spread over a large area, producing a power density which is very low. And in fact even lower than the one stated in the paper. Assuming that the peak power is 90 watt instead of 90 mW, the average output power can be calculated to 35 mW. Spot size is said to be 4 cm2. Then the power density will become 7.5 mW/cm2 (if 39 mW is used) or 8,8 mW/cm2 (if 35 mW is used). How are the stated 22.5 mW/cm2 calculated? Anyway, both 22 and 8 mW/cm2 are relatively low power densities. Further, WALT recommendation for a TP is not 18 J, but 2-4 J per point and certainly not one single TP. The conclusion of this study is based upon flawed parameters.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Apr 26, Gonzalo Sanchez commented:

      In order to explain concurrent signs of spastic hemiparesis with bleeding from the nose and the ear in the closed head injury of Case # 8 of the Edwin Smith Papyrus, JC Ganz states that recent trauma must have occurred in a patient with an already existing hemiparesis. This would be a good explanation if the Papyrus were describing a specific injury in a specific patient. The Edwin Smith papyrus is, rather, a teaching trauma treatise of “Case Types” with Case #8 addressing Closed Head Injuries. Sanchez and Meltzer (2012)1 note (p.5) their clinical interpretation is based on the textual evidence and the structure of the original document.<br> In Appendix II these authors acknowledge Case #8a as a closed head injury that has passed the acute stage “ as development of spasticity takes several weeks”. Fresh bleeding through the nose and the ears would indeed be unlikely present at this stage. Apparent inconsistencies in these clinical issues may be simply related to the various findings observed by the ancient Egyptians in cases of the same type. It is our opinion that strict criticism of the ancient physicians’ clinical methodology in structuring and documenting their teaching text cannot be applied using current criteria.

      Gonzalo M. Sanchez MD. and Edmund S. Meltzer Ph.D. gonzalosanchez411@gmail.com

      1 Sanchez GM and Meltzer ES. The Edwin Smith Papyrus – Updated Translation of the Trauma Treatise and Modern Medical Commentaries. Lockwood Press. Atlanta Ga. 2012.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Feb 28, Jessie Tenenbaum commented:

      This is a great paper for people like me who think about p-values, and yet are by no means statisticians- highly recommended.

      I've been trying wrap my head about the fact that p-value does NOT mean the likelihood my hypothesis is correct. Here's what I've come up with:

      I could hypothesize that a given male subject has only Y-containing sperm. We could then do the experiment of having him mate 5 times. If all 5 progeny come out as male, the p-value is under .05. That is, there is less than 5% chance those results could be observed by random chance. BUT that does NOT mean there is less than 5% chance that I am wrong, because it was a "long shot" (to use the article's phrase) to begin with.

      Does that seem right? Any other examples that would better illustrate this point?


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Sep 21, Bernard Baars commented:

      Dear Leonard, --- I admire your range of interesting papers on fundamental questions.

      In regard to esthetic pleasure and behavior, I would call your attention to a sizable evolutionary anthropology literature on the cost of social display of primary and secondary sexual signals --- the classical case being the male peacock.

      Dan Zahavi called this the Handicap Principle in 1975, and the idea is essentially that sexual selection for mating with the fittest available other-gender mates is so important as an evolutionary driver (only comparable to individual survival itself) that hominins like us, and all of our ancestors among primates, mammals and vertebrates, dedicated a great percentage of biological resources to it. The male peacock posing for sexual selection (by the well-camouflaged females) is endangering his life by attracting predators (by blatant visual, auditory, and presumably olfactory signaling.) The female peahen takes no such chances. Thus the male handicaps himself to look beautiful, and interestingly, humans have used peacock feathers historically to decorate themselves as well.

      It is precisely the apparently inutility of esthetic enjoyment that is evolutionarily important, along the lines of Thorstein Veblen's "conspicuous consumption." Biologically, the male peacock is signaling "looking how strong and fertile I am!!!" I can even afford to waste immense personal risk of predation, great metabolic energy, attacks from competing males in heat, the strength to shiver my tail feathers and preen for hours, simply to attract the best female! What healthy offspring we shall have! The easy analogy would be to men who buy muscle cars or Cadillacs when they could drive a mini-car instead. Among recent entertainment stars, Kim Kardashian and her many imitators among women spending hugely on breast and buttocks enlargements imitates varieties of H sapiens sapiens morphology among peoples who evolved large breasts, steatopigous buttocks, and large stomachs in evolutionarily recent times. Fat storage is a great advantage in certain climates (Siberian-descended Inuits and Amerindians are a good example), but encounter handicaps to survival in the face of massive droughts and famine conditions. Since human ancestors are known to have encountered massive drought conditions in the desertification of the Sahara in the millennia prior to the "African Exodus," when the Hss population is thought to have collapsed to 5,000 individuals in North East Africa, famine-adaptibility is plausibly a major Darwinian constraint on human survival.

      (Note that the term "African Exodus" does not apply to African humans who escaped the desertification of the Sahara by migrating southwards, and who never left Africa. Nor does it apply to the peoples who remained sub-Saharan, such as plausibly the Khoi San of the Kalahari Desert. Khoi San body morphology is gracile rather than robust, as befits a desert-dwelling people, and their cultural and personal knowledge of semi-arid survival tactics is vast.)

      Nicholas Wade has also pointed out the fact that tribal peoples very often perform frequent, vigorous and long-lasting community dancing, and universally harbor other-worldly religious beliefs, which are thought to enhance group harmony and therefore survival. (Mating in tribal peoples tends to obey strict kinship rules, either within the birth group, or between allied groups). The very wide distribution of these human cultural habits has been very well studied since the publication of Stephen Brown's Human Universals (1992) (also called Cultural Universals today).

      In human evolution the earliest evidence for artificial body decoration comes from human-related diggings in South Africa of ancient colored clay deposits, thought to have been used for spectacular body decoration by men and women, especially during and after puberty. (At least 200KYA) Personal jewelry involving trading over sizable distances, such as seashells found far from their origins in North Africa, are also ancient. In more recent years mating-related body decoration, hair styles, special clothing, vigorous dancing, music-making, singing and use of instruments (!), seductive movements and gestures, open competition within genders, verbal facility, display of cooking and hunting skills, and an essentially unlimited number of novel attention-catching behaviors can be related to sexual display. Among the American Sioux the male warriors showed their physical size (often 6' or taller), and created new clothing fashions each year (while the women took a more modest role). "Counting coup" --- rushing into an enemy village, physically touching a fierce enemy warrior, and rushing out again to safety was a quantitative measure of masculine heroics. Precisely analogous behavior can be seen today in ever-changing female fashions, in male body building, and in military uniforms for men, including medals and honor ribbons displayed on the left chest, reflecting both combat experience, military skills, and rank in the male hierarchy. The bodily posture of "pride" is also on display (see palace guards throughout Europe, including the Kremlin in Russia). Mammalian positions of pride are anti-gravity postures (head back, body erect, goose-stepping high) which require great physical training, and which oppose the body posures of social defeat, depression and surrender (head down, bowing low, slow non-threatening approach to the victors, etc.) Notice that we instantly recognize those body postures in lions, horses, and humans --- the standard Napoleonic pride statue in European capitals is a proud-looking man on a horse, bearing a sword. The upward direction of the sword, spear or rifle in heroic sculptures may hark back in evolution to the upward-pointing position of the penis during courtship display in our primate relatives. In classical art this is highly visible in 19th century paintings of Napoleon on a white horse, surrounded by battle. The link between male heroics, female fashions, secondary and primary sexual signals, music and the arts is unavoidable in the art of the Romantic period in Europe.

      Notice that this bio-anthropological hypothesis accounts for a number of features of esthetics you have raised in your interesting article.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Jan 20, E DAVID KLONSKY commented:

      MMA Fighters Experience Less Head Trauma Compared to Hockey and Football: A Re-Analysis of Data in Hutchison et al. (2014)

      E. David Klonsky PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia

      Hutchison et al. (2014) present the most detailed and authoritative analysis to date of head trauma in mixed martial arts (MMA) competitions. The study is a valuable contribution to the literature on the frequency and predictors of head trauma in combat sports. This comment was written to suggest a reinterpretation of a particular aspect of the paper.

      Hutchison et al. estimate the number of concussions that occur per 100 ‘athlete exposures’ in MMA, and compare their finding to data from other sports, including hockey and football. The figures reported are: 15.9 per 100 exposures for MMA, 8.8 for football, and 2.2 for hockey. Reported this way, the numbers imply that participating in MMA results in significantly more head trauma than hockey or football.

      However, the authors’ choice to standardize concussion figures per 100 athlete exposures overlooks a key consideration: it is not only the rate per exposure that matters, but the sheer number of exposures. It is significant, then, that the number of exposures per year and per career varies systematically across sports.

      Consider that a National Hockey League (NHL) regular season consists of 82 games, and that a National Football League (NFL) regular season consists of 16 games. In contrast, MMA fighters average approximately 3 fights per year. If we adjust the Hutchison et al. figures for number of exposures per year, concussion rates become highest for hockey and lowest for MMA: 1.80 for hockey, 1.41 for football, and 0.48 for MMA. In other words, a typical year of competition in professional football or hockey results in 3 to 4 times more concussions than a typical year of competition in MMA.

      It is also important to consider head trauma experienced over the course of a career. To do so we must first consider the number of career exposures typical for each sport. As a rough barometer of career exposures, let us consider players recently inducted into each sport’s Hall of Fame. The four 2014 NHL player inductees competed in an average of 1201 career games. The seven 2014 NFL player inductees competed in an average of 206 career games. In contrast, the last four fighters to be inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame competed in an average of 33 career matches.

      Notice the massive discrepancy in average career exposures across sports: 1201 (hockey) vs. 206 (football) vs. 33 (MMA).

      If we use these differences in career exposures to adjust the concussion figures reported by Hutchison et al., we get the following: 26.4 for hockey, 18.1 for football, and 5.25 for MMA. In short, the concussion rate for an MMA career is 3 to 5 times lower than that of a hockey or football career.

      This analysis, like the Hutchison et al. analysis, has limitations. First, the Hutchison et al. figures for MMA concussions were based on official bout results and video analysis rather than medical diagnosis. Second, the figures for hockey and football cited by Hutchison et al. were taken from previous studies using different methodologies and sampling procedures. Third, my analysis focuses on professional sports, which have longer seasons (i.e., more exposures) than sports at collegiate, high-school, or recreational levels. Fourth, I roughly rather than precisely estimated the average numbers of career exposures. Finally, a full understanding of head trauma risk in sports requires data on concussions that occur during practice and training, not just competition.

      In sum, understanding the risks of head trauma in sports is critical. Some have been quick to associate MMA with disproportionately high risk of head trauma compared to other sports. However, when the stakes are high, it is important to get the science right. And the available data suggest that professional MMA fighters will experience less, not more, head trauma compared to professionals competing in hockey and football.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Oct 10, Peter Good commented:

      Baron-Cohen and colleagues here present “the first direct evidence of elevated fetal steroidogenic activity in autism” – primarily elevated androgenic hormones of the Δ4 pathway androstenedione and testosterone. They propose that high fetal testosterone explains the “extreme male brain” of autism [Baron-Cohen S, 2005] – why these children appear to be extreme versions of normal male intelligence, as Asperger noted many years ago [Frith 1991].

      But high fetal testosterone does NOT readily explain why autistic children are often anxious, even timid, in the presence of others. Markram and colleagues pointed out that Kanner (1943) observed abnormal anxiety and phobias in these children, as other researchers have since [Markram K, 2010]. Melvin Konner noted that early pioneers of autism research Niko and Elisabeth Tinbergen detected signs of fear in these children in social situations, and “reasoned that exceptionally timid children might be at risk for developing the disorder if they grew up in a sufficiently threatening – or perhaps for them, merely a very intrusive – social environment.”[Konner 1982] Since testesterone allays fear [Konner], why are autistic children timid?

      One explanation may be androstenedione, which the present study also found at higher than normal levels in amniotic fluid of these children. Androstenedione is a weak androgen precursor of testosterone, estrone, and estradiol, the primary estrogen. However, Taylor and colleagues concluded that its effects on rat sexual behavior reveal that androstenedione leaves “behavioral footprints” different from testosterone [Taylor GT, 2012]. Jacklin and colleagues assessed timidity in infants by their reaction to fear-provoking toys. Low timidity in boys was associated with higher levels of testosterone at birth – but not androstenedione [Jacklin CN, 1983]. Ward pointed out prenatal stress “causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstenedione, from the maternal or fetal adrenal cortices, or from both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone.”[Ward IL, 1972] This happens because release of androstenedione and testosterone from the testes is triggered by luteinizing hormone (LH) from the pituitary; high adrenal androstenedione suppresses LH release by negative feedback.” Do high levels of androstenedione differentiate the brain of a male fetus BEFORE they turn to testosterone and estrogen?

      A second challenge to high prenatal testosterone is the certainty the brain overgrowth of autism happens after birth, not before. Courchesne and colleagues found that children with autism have smaller heads at birth, then a sudden excessive increase in head size beginning a few months after birth and lasting six to 14 months: “[O]ur study found evidence of neonatal brain undergrowth followed by rapid and excessive postnatal brain growth beginning in the first few months that precedes the clinical behavioral onset of autism.”[Courchesne E, 2003] This sounds like postnatal catch-up growth in infants born prematurely or whose fetal head growth was restrained for any reason [Cockerill J, 2006]. Or was it due to the usual postnatal testosterone surge in male infants within a few months of birth [Swaab DF, 2007]? Courchesne et al. didn’t mention the surge; some of the infants they studied were girls.

      Herbert reviewed the pathology of these large brains in ASD: disproportionate proliferation of white matter, yet diminished connectivity, and neuroinflammation and astrogliosis [Herbert MR, 2005]. She and her colleagues previously found the increased brain volume was confined to the subcortical white matter, especially in the frontal lobes, and did not include the deep white matter, e.g. corpus callosum: “This lack of expected association between radiate compartment and corpus callosum volume suggests that the white matter volume increase predominantly involves short and medium-range corticocortical connections within hemispheres, with less, if any, involvement of connections between hemispheres.” [Herbert MR, 2004] Intrahemispheric white-matter tracts are testosterone-dependent; interhemispheric white-matter tracts estrogen-dependent [Baron-Cohen S, 2005]. If postnatal brain overgrowth in ASD is catch-up growth, overgrowth of testosterone-dependent structures implies prenatal undergrowth of the structures. Yet insufficient estradiol might also explain smaller brains at birth. But then why doesn’t postnatal brain overgrowth favor estrogen-dependent structures?

      These arguments have also been posted online in my paper Chronic neurochemical cerebral asymmetry and dysconnection in autism. Implications of a personal trial of oral citrulline + taurine at: http://www.autismstudies.net

      references

      Baron-Cohen S, Knickmeyer RC, Belmonte MK. Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science 2005;310: 819–823.

      Cockerill J, Uthaya S, Doré CJ, Modi N. Accelerated postnatal head growth follows preterm birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006;91:F184–F187.

      Courchesne E, Carper R, Akshoomoff N. Evidence of brain overgrowth in the first year of life in autism. JAMA 2003;290(3):337–344.

      Frith U. Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1991.

      Herbert MR, Ziegler DA, Makris N, Filipek PA. Kemper TL. Localization of white matter volume increase in autism and developmental language disorder. Ann Neurol 2004;55:530–540.

      Herbert MR. Large brains in autism: the challenge of pervasive abnormality. Neuroscientist 2005;11:417–440.

      Jacklin CN, Maccoby EE, Doering CH. Neonatal sex-steroid hormones and timidity in 6-to-18-month-old boys and girls. Dev Psychobiol 1983;16:163–168.

      Konner M. The Tangled Wing. Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1982.

      Markram K, Markram H. The intense world theory – a unifying theory of the neurobiology of autism. Front Hum Neurosci 2010;4:224.

      Swaab DF. Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;21:431–444.

      Taylor GT, Dearborn JT, Maloney SE. Adrenal steroids uniquely influence sexual motivation behavior in male rats. Behav Sci 2012;2:195–206.

      Ward IL. Prenatal stress feminizes and demasculinizes the behavior of males. Science 1972;175:82–84.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Sep 27, David Keller commented:

      Pembrolizumab first-line for metastatic melanoma & preexisting autoimmune disease?

      Patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases were excluded from the landmark trials of ipilimumab and pembrolizumab, which therefore cannot provide high-quality safety data for these patients. The grade 4 (life-threatening) and grade 5 (fatal) adverse events for both medications were primarily autoimmune in nature, in trial patients with no history of autoimmune disease. Pembrolizumab appears to have a somewhat lower rate of severe-to-fatal adverse events than ipilimumab, although no head-to-head comparison is available.

      Pembrolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating metastatic melanoma patients who have disease progression following ipilimumab. Medicare and private insurers are quite strict about not paying for off-label use of pembrolizumab, even for patients with active autoimmune disease. I have personally corresponded with two authors of this paper who advocate first-line treatment using pembrolizumab in selected clinical scenarios, for enhanced patient safety. Although there is controversy on this question in the immuno-oncology community, it seems reasonable to let treating oncologists decide when pembrolizumab should be used first-line and off-label for selected high-risk patients, pending their inclusion in randomized trials. As matters now stand, the wealthy who can pay cash for pembrolizumab effectively have access to a treatment option not available to less-wealthy melanoma patients. The FDA should reconsider their narrow prescribing indication for pembrolizumab, the adverse effects this may have on melanoma patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases, and the disparity caused by expensive off-label treatment options which are available only to patients who can pay the very large cash price in advance.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Jul 25, Ryan Radecki commented:

      Post-publication commentary:

      "The Scandal of Dabigatran – A Summary"

      We’ve been desperate for a more elegant solution to anticoagulation than rat poison for seemingly an eternity. Now, we have them: direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors. The studies supporting their use seem favorable.

      But, as the old story goes – and as previously reported on this blog many times – Boehringer Ingelheim has been selectively reporting only the most favorable aspects of their flagship drug, dabigatran. Increased cardiovascular events have been downplayed through study design not powered to detect a difference. Issues with fixed dose therapy – and lack of a range of options for patients with renal impairment – rear their ugly head in multiple case reports....

      http://www.emlitofnote.com/2014/07/the-scandal-of-dabigatran-summary.html


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Aug 10, Ryan Radecki commented:

      Post-publication commentary:

      "Get to the Choppa! Or ... Maybe Not?"

      Helicopter transport is entrenched in our systematic management of trauma. It is glamorized on television, and retrospective National Trauma Data Bank studies seem to suggest survival improvement – and those with head injury seem to benefit most.

      But, these NTDB studies encompass heterogenous populations and are challenged in creating truly equivalent control groups. This study, on the other hand, is a single-center experience, allowing greater consistency across divided cohorts. In a novel approach, these authors collected all HEMS trauma transfer requests to their facility across their 30-county catchement area – and specifically looked at occasions when weather precluded HEMS. This therefore created two cohorts of patients eligible for HEMS, with a subset that was transported by ALS due to chance events. The paramedic crews manning the HEMS and ALS transfers were staffed by the same company, and therefore had roughly equivalent training....

      http://www.emlitofnote.com/2014/08/get-to-choppa-or-maybe-not.html


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Mar 28, Amit Kumar Chowhan commented:

      Dear Sir,

      We read the article by Srikanth S et al.<sup>1</sup> on ‘A comparative study of fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and fine-needle non-aspiration cytology (FNNAC) techniques in head and neck swellings’ with interest and appreciate the inclusion of multiple organs i.e. lymph node, thyroid and salivary gland located in head and neck region in the study. Although fine needle aspiration cytology is a well-established tool as a first line diagnostic modality, however, a major criticism pertains to its use in highly vascular organs such as thyroid and liver, or in haemorrhagic lesions where large quantities of blood compromise cytologic interpretation. Hence we agree with the authors when they excluded lesions of vascular origin from their study.

      We agree with the authors that FNNAC allows greater ease of sampling with better control of the hand during the procedure and a good perception of the lesion consistency, enabling more precise entry into the mass and thus is more user friendly. Apart from being less traumatic and painful to the patient, as suggested by the authors, we would like to add that with this technique the patient would also be less apprehensive about the procedure, when a large syringe with needle and a syringe holder is not seen, thus making FNNAC more patient friendly. Another advantage of FNNAC is that the syringe is used to expel the material after the procedure is completed, whereas in FNA it is used to create a suction force to aspirate the cells in to the needle. A fresh sterile syringe is therefore not necessary for FNNAC, thus reducing the cost of procedure.

      In their study the authors concluded that for thyroid lesions the non-aspiration technique was better than aspiration technique with respect to all the five parameters proposed by Mair et al.<sup>2</sup> i.e. background blood/clot, amount of cellular material, degree of cellular degeneration & trauma and retention of appropriate cellular architecture. In a similar study conducted by us<sup>3</sup> on thyroid lesions, we found that the non-aspiration technique was better in relation to all the parameters except for amount of cellular material, which was better with aspiration technique. In cases of colloid goiter, brownish colloidal fluid drained out immediately on putting needle and drenched the fingers holding the needle. This problem was handled by keeping a syringe ready, which was immediately attached to the needle and the fluid collected in the syringe – to be cyto-centrifuged for better cellularity. Another problem encountered was for calcified nodules, which required vigorous aspiration, as it didn’t yield any material on non-aspiration. We therefore, would recommend first non-aspiration technique to be performed and if the material obtained is insufficient then only to go for another pass with aspiration technique.

      References:

      1.Srikanth S, Anandam G, Kashif MM. A comparative study of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle non aspiration techniques in head and neck swellings. Indian J Cancer 2014;51:98-9.

      2.Mair S, Dunbar F, Becker PJ, Du Plessis W. Fine needle cytology - is aspiration suction necessary? A study of 100 masses in various sites. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:809-13.

      3.Chowhan AK, Babu KV, Sachan A, Rukmangdha N, Patnayak R, Radhika K, Phaneendra BV, Reddy MK. Should we apply suction during fine needle cytology of thyroid lesions? A prospective study of 200 cases. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2014;8:19-22.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Nov 11, Serge Ahmed commented:

      This comment is a follow-up of my previous comment about the difficulty in interpreting this study that contradicts most previous similar studies. After a careful analysis of this paper and after collecting all elements of methods “ectopically scattered” through the text, I think I finally arrived at a satisfactory explanation for why most rats preferred cocaine over sweet water in the present study. Briefly, everything was made to make access to sweet water reinforcement less direct and more difficult than access to cocaine reinforcement, thereby biasing choice towards cocaine!

      More specifically, rats had to go through an unusually long chain of behavioral events before getting access to sweet water. A similar chain was not required for cocaine delivery. First, once rats turned the wheel on the operant panel, they had to cross the cage to reach a magazine on the opposite panel inside which there was a retractable drinking spout that delivered sweet water. This arrangement introduces a spatial and thus a time gap between responding and sweet water reinforcement. Both gaps are known to reduce conditioning. Second, once rats have reached the magazine, they did not have directly access to the drinking spout that delivered sweet water. They had first to insert their head into the magazine to make the retractable drinking spout appears. This behavior amounts to a second operant response which thus defines with the first response (i.e., wheel turning) an operant chain. In addition, once rats inserted and maintained their head in the magazine, the drinking spout was not continuously available but came “back and forth in the magazine during 50s.” This is a rather unusual method of fluid delivery (note: the frequency and duration of these back-and-forth movements are not indicated in the Methods).

      Thus, to repeat, everything was made in the present paper to make access to sweet water reinforcement more difficult and less direct than access to cocaine reinforcement, thereby biasing choice towards cocaine. This unusual approach may be appropriate for addressing some scientific questions but it is misguided and inappropriate for studying the vulnerability to cocaine addiction which was the main goal of the present paper. If one wants to pursue such a goal, one better tries to make access to cocaine reinforcement equal to or more difficult than access to the nondrug option and not the other way around! Indeed, if one sufficiently weakens the nondrug option, then one will eventually reach a point where most individual rats, even the non-addicted ones, will prefer the drug! To take an extreme example, if one provides rats with ready access to cocaine but ask them to play piano or climb Mt Everest to get access to sweet water, they will surely choose cocaine over sweet water. This is not surprising, this is just trivial! In contrast, if rats take cocaine despite and at the expense of an equally or a more accessible potent nondrug option, then one has got something much less trivial and probably more relevant for studying the vulnerability to cocaine addiction.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 May 01, Doug Berger commented:

      LACK OF BLINDING IN THIS STUDY WAS A SERIOUS METHODOLOGIC FLAW. ADDITIONALLY, FACULTY SUPERIOR OF LEAD AUTHOR STEVEN HOLLON, DR.STEPHAN HECKERS, EDITOR OF JAMA PSYCHIATRY, BOTH AT VANDERBILT DEPT. OF PSYCHIATRY REQUIRES REPORTING AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

      This study by Hollon et al. compared an antidepressant medication-only arm with a combined cognitive therapy/antidepressant arm and concluded that the cognitive therapy/antidepressant combination enhanced the recovery rates compared with antidepressant alone, and that the magnitude of this increment nearly doubled for patients with more severe depression.

      We opine that for subjects with greater severity, there could have been both antidepressant efficacy, as well as more hope and expectation as bias in the group who knew openly that they had received combined cognitive therapy/medication as a possible treatment. This can lead to an erroneous conclusion of greater efficacy for the combined group. The large subject number in this study could also easily lead to an erroneous finding on statistical testing as a small amount of bias in the subjects adds-up.

      In addition, it goes against clinical trial logic to compare the unbilnded-cognitive therapy/medication group to the unblinded medication-only group.This is because, as all the study arms were unblinded, the combined cognitive therapy/medication group has an advantage over the medication-only group. The combined group does not filter any hope or expectation bias that may be lurking in the cognitive therapy arm, while the medication-only group engenders no different hope or expectation than the medication arm in the combined group. It is thus logically invalid to compare the cognitive therapy-medication arm that can have an unfiltered cognitive therapy-positive bias from the unblinded nature of receiving cognitive therapy tasks by cognitive therapy trained therapists vs. the medication-only arm which has the same bias possibility as the medication in the combined group, but lacking any possible positive bias from the combined cognitive therapy arm. Medications are required to show efficacy when compared in a double-blind study that includes a blind-placebo control as these controls are necessary to filter bias of any hope or expectation of efficacy. Neither blind controls nor blinded placebo were used in the design of the Hollon et al. study here.

      Dr. Hollon should have also noted the conflict of interest in that the Director of his dept. Dr. Stephan Heckers was also on the Editorial Board of JAMA Psychiatry when this paper was submitted and was the Editor-in-Chief of JAMA Psychiatry when it was published.

      The paper was retracted once for multiple errors, and it should be withdrawn completely because of poor clinical trial logic in making claims from unblinded subjects and treaters, and in addition due to conflict of interest in having the Editorial Director (Stephan Heckers) of the publication (JAMA Psychiatry) also as head of the Faculty of the lead author's (Hollon) affiliation at Vanderbilt University.

      The full comment on the Hollon et al. study above can be read here;

      Double blinding requirement for validity claims in cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention trials for major depressive disorder. Analysis of Hollon S, et al., Effect of cognitive therapy with antidepressant medications vs antidepressants alone on the rate of recovery in major depressive disorder: a randomized clinical trial. By D. Berger. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4863672/


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Dec 30, MARK WEST commented:

      Comment on “Striatal firing rate reflects head movement velocity” by Namsoo Kim, Joseph W. Barter, Tatyana Sukharnikova and Henry H. Yin

      We read the experiments conducted by Kim et al. with enthusiasm. We feel that it is important to comment on previous studies that demonstrated a direct relationship between striatal activity and movement velocity, which Kim et al. support. Originally demonstrated in the nonhuman primate (DeLong, 1973), several studies in rodents have shown relationships between firing rates of dorsolateral striatal neurons and movement velocity. Kim et al. find that both putative dorsal striatal projection neurons and putative fast-spiking interneurons fire during head movements and exhibit a firing rate relationship with the velocity of head movement. Given our previous demonstration of firing rate correlations with head movement velocity in the subpopulation of dorsolateral striatal projection neurons selectively related to head movement (Pederson et al., 1997; Tang et al., 2007), it is interesting that firing of putative striatal interneurons also exhibits a relationship to movement velocity (although not subjected to sensorimotor examination of the entire body by Kim et al). We want to add information regarding dorsolateral striatal projection neurons, over half of which fire selectively in relation to activity of single body parts (Carelli and West, 1991; Cho and West, 1997), as revealed by sensorimotor examination of the entire body. These neurons exhibit movement properties which may have been outside the scope of the authors’ study. First, movement-related firing patterns are not limited to neurons phasically related to head movements, as they are found throughout the dorsolateral striatum containing single body part neurons. For instance, we have also demonstrated similar properties in neurons phasically related to vibrissae movement (Carelli and West, 1991), forelimb movement (Carelli et al, 1997) or tongue movement (Mittler et al., 1994; Tang et al., 2008). Second, each single body part neuron exhibits a preferred direction of movement. Third, though velocity of movement is a major predictor of firing rate change for many single body part neurons, not all these neurons are sensitive to velocity and some may be sensitive to one or a combination of several movement-related characteristics (e.g., movement length, movement position, etc). References: Carelli RM, West MO (1991) Representation of body by single neurons in the dorsolateral striatum of the awake, unrestrained rat. J Comp Neurol 309:231 249. Carelli RM, Wolske M, West MO (1997) Loss of lever press-related firing of rat striatal forelimb neurons after repeated sessions in a lever pressing task. J Neurosci 17: 1804-1814. Cho J, West MO (1997) Distributions of single neurons related to body parts in the lateral striatum of the rat. Brain Res 756:241-6. DeLong, MR (1973) Putamen: Activity of Single Units during Slow and Rapid Arm Movements, Science 179:1240-1242. Mittler T, Cho J, Peoples LL, West MO (1994) Representation of the body in the lateral striatum of the freely moving rat: Single neurons related to licking, Exp Brain Res 98:163-167. Pederson CL, Wolske M, Peoples LL, West MO (1997) Firing rate dependent effect of cocaine on single neurons of the rat lateral striatum. Brain Res 760:261-5. Tang C, Pawlak AP, Prokopenko V, West MO (2007) Changes in activity of the striatum during formation of a motor habit. Eur J Neurosci 25:1212-1227. Tang CC, Root DH, Duke DC, Zhu Y, Teixeria K, Ma S, Barker DJ, West MO (2009) Decreased firing of striatal neurons related to licking during acquisition and overtraining of a licking task. J Neurosci 29(44):13952-13961.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2014 Oct 12, George Ntoumenopoulos commented:

      I completely concur with these authors. In addition the potential impact of ventilatory and patient positioning strategy on the movement of airway secretions also deserves attention. Our recent case report (Physiother Res Int. 2014 Jun;19(2):126-8. doi: 10.1002/pri.1563. Epub 2013 Aug 17. Justification for chest physiotherapy during ultra-protective lung ventilation and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation: a case study.Cork G1, Barrett N, Ntoumenopoulos G.) highlights the potential failings of current recommendations for secretion clearance. The ultra protective ventilator settings combined with head of bed upright positioning may predispose to secretion retention and warrants further investigation.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Apr 26, Geriatric Medicine Journal Club commented:

      This is a systematic review of non-pharmacologic interventions for orthostatic hypotension including exercise, FES, compression, physical countermaneuvers, head of bed up, water intake, and meal strategies. This article was critically appraised at the April 2015 Geriatric Medicine Journal Club (follow #GeriMedJC on Twitter). The full discussion can be found at: http://gerimedjc.blogspot.com/2015/04/april-2015-gerimedjc.html?spref=tw An interesting finding was that an acute bout of exercise may exacerbate orthostatic hypotension in short term. This review did not cover interventions like salt intake.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Jan 03, William Grant commented:

      The paper by Tomasetti and Vogelstein reported that variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions (1). In addition, they divided cancer types into two categories: those more susceptible to environmental factors (D-tumors) and those more susceptible to stochastic effects associated with DNA replication of the tissues' stem cells (R-tumors). The authors concluded that primary prevention measures were not likely to be very effective for R-tumor types of cancer. In this comment, I point out that risk of cancers in this category can be reduced through primary prevention measures.

      One way to reduce risk of many types of cancer is through higher solar UVB exposure. Many types of cancers have been found inversely correlated with indices of solar UVB doses in geographical ecological studies in the United States and several other countries including these types of R-tumor types of cancer:esophageal, gallbladder, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer (2). Also, these R-tumor types of cancer have been found inversely correlated with 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations in prospective observational studies: chronic lymphocytic leukemia (3), head and neck cancer (4), hepatocellular carcinoma (5), and pancreatic cancer (4). One D-tumor type of cancer has the strongest evidence for beneficial effects of UVB exposure and vitamin D: colorectal cancer.

      The findings with respect to UVB exposure are generally attributed to production of vitamin D. However, they may also include some effects from mechanisms other than vitamin D. For example, in a mouse model experiment on intestinal tumors, considered an R-tumor type of cancer, both UVB exposure and oral vitamin D reduced the progression of the tumors, with UVB being more effective than oral vitamin D at approximately the same 25(OH)D concentrations (6). However, neither approach reduced the incidence rate of intestinal tumors in this mouse model with a genetic propensity for intestinal tumors. The mechanisms whereby vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer include effects on cellular differentiation, progression, and apoptosis (2). Vitamin D also reduces progression of tumors by reducing angiogenesis around tumors, and reduces metastasis as well.

      Another very important risk factor for cancer is diet. In a multi-country ecological study of cancer incidence rates with respect to diet, smoking, latitude, gross domestic product, alcohol consumption, and life expectancy, high animal product consumption was a significant risk factor for three types of R-tumor cancers: ovarian, testicular, and thyroid cancer (7). Smoking was a significant risk factor for these types of R-tumor cancers: laryngeal, lip and oral, and pancreatic cancer. Animal product consumption is a risk factor for cancer in part through increasing insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) (8), which increases growth tumors as shown for small cell lung cancer (9).

      Thus, risk of several of the R-tumor types of cancer can be reduced by several environmental approaches including higher UVB exposure and 25(OH)D concentrations, eating fewer animal products, and not smoking. So "bad luck" can be overcome by "healthy choices".

      References 1. Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science 2015;347:78-81. 2. Moukayed M, Grant WB. Molecular link between vitamin D and cancer prevention. Nutrients. 2013;5:3993-4023. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/5/10/3993 3. Luczynska A, Kaaks R, Rohrmann S, et al. Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and lymphoma risk: results of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:827-38 4. Afzal S, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG. Low plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of tobacco-related cancer. Clin Chem. 2013;59:771-80. 5. Fedirko V, Duarte-Salles T, Bamia C, et al. Pre-diagnostic circulating vitamin D levels and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in European populations: A nested case-control study. Hepatology. 2014;60:1222-30. 6. Rebel H, der Spek CD, Salvatori D, et al. UV exposure inhibits intestinal tumour growth and progression to malignancy in intestine-specific Apc mutant mice kept on low vitamin D diet. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:271-7. 7. Grant WB. A multicountry ecological study of cancer incidence rates in 2008 with respect to various risk-modifying factors, Nutrients. 2014;6:163-189. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/1/163 8. Larsson SC, Wolk K, Brismar K, Wolk A. Association of diet with serum insulin-like growth factor I in middle-aged and elderly men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:1163-7. 9. Warshamana-Greene GS, Litz J, Buchdunger E, et al. The insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) receptor kinase inhibitor NVP-ADW742, in combination with STI571, delineates a spectrum of dependence of small cell lung cancer on IGF-I and stem cell factor signaling. Mol Cancer Ther. 2004;3:527-35.

      Disclosure I receive funding from Bio-Tech Pharmacal (Fayetteville, AR) and MediSun Technology (Highland Park, IL).


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    2. On 2015 Jan 05, Vincent Detours commented:

      No one denies that cancer initiation has a stochastic component, but the conclusion that "prevention measure are not likely to be effective" for tumors arising in organs undergoing many stem cell divisions could be dangerously broad if not misleading.

      The paper's investigation is limited to the variation of cancer incidence among organs within a single population. But the incidence of many cancers varies enormously among populations. For example, the incidence of esophagus cancer is 20-30 time higher in China than in the USA and 50-100 higher in subject with a history of Barett esophagus (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769895). Yet, this cancer is considered the result of 'bad luck' and unlikely to benefit from prevention measures (R-group) according to Tomasetti and Vogelstein who consider only the overall incidence in the USA. Their analysis is blind to the population-specific incidences and consequently to many environmental and genetics causes of cancer.

      The variation of cancer incidence among organs spans five orders of magnitudes. Hence, a one or two orders of magnitude difference due to, say, Barett esophagus, would presumably not affect drastically the overall correlation between organ-related incidence and stem cell division. The classification in the 'deterministic' vs. 'replicative' framework proposed in the paper, however, could change dramatically. This is in fact illustrated by a few cancers for which the authors stratify incidence according to etiology, e.g. virus-associated liver and head & neck cancers vs. their non virus-related counterparts and lung cancers of smokers vs. non smokers. Likely the same could have occurred with many other cancers provided a more detailed population stratification.

      Another possibility limiting the authors conclusions is that the total number stem cells divisions in an organ could itself vary from person to person under the influence of non-random genetic and/or environmental factors. A trivial example is age. It is hardly a preventable phenomenon, but other preventable factors could also play a role, tissue injury for example.

      A fully developped and extended version of this comment can be found here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/08/12/024497.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    3. On 2015 Jan 15, Vladimir Kuznetsov commented:

      One of the main hallmarks of cancer is uncontrolled cell proliferation, ultimately leading to the death of the multicellular organism. The strong link between cell proliferation and cancer risk is well-known[1]. While studying this correlation in various human tissues, the scientists at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S. hypothesize that most of the genomic changes leading to human cancer "occur simply by chance during DNA replication rather than as a result of carcinogenic factors"[2]. According to their hypothesis, the authors observed correlation between the estimates of division rates of normal self-renewing tissue-specific cell population (termed as “normal stem cells”(NSC)) with the estimates of overall lifetime risk of cancers, studied across the USA population. In this comment, I point out that the lack of tissue-specific data quality and its incompleteness, population bias, and oversimplification of modeling can lead to ambiguity in the interpretation of the results and loss of confidence in the dichotomized classification of tissue-specific cancer risks in context of efficiency of 'primary prevention measures'. 1. The cell counts and division rates of NSC in normally slow-proliferative and non-proliferated tissues/cell subpopulation (in liver, brain, gallbladder, thyroid tissue, bone, and pancreas) might not be accurately estimated and extrapolate to CSC. 2. The correlation model does not consider directly the level of variation of the number of NSC divisions due to "random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal non-cancerous stem cells" in individuals. According to the authors, "random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal non-cancerous stem cells” leading eventually to occurrence of cancer stem cells (CSC) and tumors due to “many genomic changes occur simply by chance”, or “bad luck”. However, recent integrative genomics studies of somatic mutation spectra in different tumors defined tissue-associated non-random somatic mutation signatures, mutation clusters with specific sequence context and preferential location of the mutations in certain disease-associated chromosomal regions involved in the initiation and development tissue-origin tumor types and subtypes [3, 4]. 3. The model in [2] assumes that the proliferation rate of NSC in normal tissue and the proliferation rate of CSC are closely correlated, however the assumption may be not true [3]. 4. Based on "extra risk score"(ERS) cluster analysis, the authors provided a classification of the tumors into two classes, referred as R-tumors (occurred at random; relatively smaller ERS) and D-tumors (occurred via additional 'deterministic factors'). However, ERS did not include any additive and multiplicative factors which allow to estimate explicitly the effects of individual covariates and their interactions (for instance see [5]). Thus, clustering model does not allow in principle to estimate the significance of alternative factors due to absence of these covariates in the model risk assessment. 4.Variation of the total number of stem cell divisions during an individual’s lifetime is unknown. Therefore, the model reported in [2] says nothing about variation in the cancer risk between individuals and cannot say that ~70% of cancer cases are just "bad luck" only due to count of the rates of divisions in the limited number of normal stem cells. It was argued, that breast cancer stem cell-like cells arise de novo form non-stem-like tumor cells [3] and this could make cancer cell population more heterogeneous. Such plasticity indicates that the concept of CSC can be essentially different from that of NSC. It makes a linear correlation model proposed in [2] more difficult in context of its mechanistic interpretation.<br> 5.The authors considered the "ovarian cancer germ cell" as a representative precursor (“cell of origin”) of the cancer cells in ovaries. However, according to the literature, “ovarian cancer germ cells” (should be classified as D-tumors) and responsible for only a few percent of ovarian cancer cases. Furthermore, "ovarian cancer” can be mostly represented by some distinct secondary “cell of origin” due to migration (or metastasis) from source tissues/organs [6, 7]. Therefore, the estimations under their model assumptions become inappropriate.<br> 6.The authors used 31 normal tissues. The exclusion of the common cancers (breast, prostate and gastric cancers) and the inclusion of 5 times osteosarcomas (depended samples) could induce essential bias which further complicates result interpretation and ability to extrapolate the results into entire population in the USA. 7.Their analysis was not directly concerned with the variations of population-specific incidences or other environmental causes of cancers. For instance, according to published statistics, oral cancer (OrCa) is a heterogeneous group of cancers arising from different parts of the oral cavity, with well-defined and differentiated predisposing risk factors, prevalence, and treatment outcomes[8-10]. There is a significant difference in the incidence of OrCa in different regions of the world. In contrast with the U.S. population where oral cavity cancer represents only about 3% of occurring malignancies, it accounts for over 30% of all oral cancers in India. Due to these results, it is unlikely that these well-established observations can be explained with the prevalence of “oral cancer stem cells”[2] variations. It was estimated that 91% of OrCa cases in the U.K. are linked to lifestyle factors including smoking (57%), alcohol (30%), and infections (13%)[9]. Such knowledge provides oncologists and patients a real hope for prophylactic efforts and prevention via early detection of the OrCa in a near future[10,11]. However according to the prediction in [2], OrCa was classified as so-called R-tumors, of which “primary prevention measures are not likely to be very effective”[2]. 8. Comparison of Fig2 and Fig S1 in the main text and suppl. file, shows that so-called D class tumors includes 9 cancer types in Fig 2 whereas12 cancer types were represented in Figure S1. In Fig S1, head &neck, melanoma, and gallbladder tumors were included in the D-cluster. Also, for ovarian, testicular, and thyroid cancers which were classified by the authors[2] as R-tumors, the significance of the impact of lifestyle and diet in reducing the cancer risk has been reported[12]. For others such as pancreatic, laryngeal, lip and oral cancers which were also classified as R-tumors, the significance of smoking as significant risk factors has also been established. Therefore, there are several inconsistencies in the results of [2] when compared with current knowledge from the literature. 9.Summary: The classification of the tumors on the R (random) and D (deterministic) classes is based on indirect and unreliable measurements and to a certain extent, even inconsistent with well-established data. Risks of at least several of the R-tumor types of cancer can be significantly reduced by several environmental improvements, diets and prophylactic approaches. Therefore, the conclusion that "primary prevention measures are not likely to be effective..." for tumors arising in organs undergoing origin stem cells and their divisions could be misleading and inappropriate. The predictions of the models based on the U.S. data might not be scalable onto other countries and geographic regions. Direct detection of the NSC and CSC characteristics should be obtained and multivariate probabilistic models of cancer risk prediction should be developed and used.

      References: PMID: 1: 2174724; 2: 25554788; 3: 21854987; 4: 24132290;5: ISBN 978-0-205-45938-4; 6: 24879340; 7: 24265397; 8: 24408568; 9: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/keyfacts/Allcancerscombined/;10: 16629526; 11: 15936419; 12: 24379012


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    4. On 2015 Jan 20, Paolo Vineis commented:

      We read Drs. Tomasetti and Vogelstein paper on the strong and positive association between the frequency of stem cell division and the risk of cancer with interest (1). However, their analytical approach was limited and their interpretation of findings was misleading. First, the study was based on a relatively small number of cancer types, most of which are rare, and excluded several common cancer types such as breast, prostate, bladder, and endometrium. Second, the frequency of stem cell division over time or across region is expected to change very little compared to changes in risk of cancer for the various cancer types. For example, during the 20th century in the US, risk for lung cancer increased by more than 50 fold but decreased by about ten-fold for cervix and stomach cancers (2). Liver cancer incidence rates in males (number of newly diagnosed cancer cases per 100,000 males per year) range from 2 in Iceland to almost 100 in Mongolia (3), with even larger variation if we were to consider incidence in high-risk vs. low-risk subgroups of populations. These data suggest that the degree of association between the frequency of stem cell division and the risk of cancer across tissues is unlikely to remain constant over time and across regions. Third, their statement on page 79, first column “we show that these stochastic influences are in fact the major contributors to cancer overall, often more important than either hereditary or external environmental factors” is not supported by the data. They can only say that variations in life time risk of cancer across cancer types could be explained by differences in frequency of stem cell divisions as stated on page 79 of the paper. Fourth, the inclusion of oesophageal and head and neck cancers in the “Replicative” category is questionable, since risk factors are well-known for a large fraction of these cancers. The overall conclusion that a large proportion of cancers would not be preventable is not supported by the analyses contained in the paper.

      Paolo Vineis School of Public Health, Imperial College London, W2 1PG UK. e-mail - p.vineis@imperial.ac.uk Ahmedin Jemal American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA

      1. Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B. Cancer etiology. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science. 2015 Jan 2;347(6217):78-81
      2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254. [Epub ahead of PRINT
      3. Globocan 2012, International Agency for Reaserch on Cancer. Acessed on January 9, 2015. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Aug 20, Lydia Maniatis commented:

      The authors here report having “investigated how texture and stereo cues are integrated to perceive 3D slant.” The problem here (as with other literature dealing with the same topic) is with the unqualified references to “texture cues.”

      2D “textures” are composed of 2D shapes, and 2D shape is dispositive when it comes to the perception of slant. If I start with a rectangle (or syncytium of rectangles) and I slant it so that it produces a trapezoidal 2D projection, then this projection will look like a slanted rectangle. If I start with a trapezoid and slant it so that it casts a rectangular 2D projection, then it will look like a fronto-parallel rectangle, not a slanted trapezoid. Perceived slant is a function of the shape of the projection.

      Because shape is the key factor mediating apparent slant, and because textures are composed of shapes, saying that we will study the role of “texture” without specifying and controlling for the effects of the particular shapes of which the texture is composed is like proposing to investigate the role of “food cues” on blood pressure, without caring about what type of food we are employing as our “stimulus.” Such practice ensures the enduring confusion and ambiguity that characterizes slant studies, which often seem to contradict each other.

      This study used “Voronoi” textures. Why? An earlier study (Todd et al, 2010) used textures composed of rectangles orthographically projected. Yet another study referred to by Saunders and Chen used Voronoi textures that were more regular than theirs. Do the authors believe that by using the type of structure the do, in which the cells' shape varies, and which has a particular degree of irregularity, they are controlling for the effects of shape? To continue my previous analogy, this would be like assuming that mixing many foods together will control for the effect of the individual nutrients on blood pressure.

      If we know a variable matters, then we don't control for it by mixing it up its values, we control for it by controlling for it. “Food” in this analogy is obviously not an appropriate level of analysis, and the results will vary with the choice of “food.” The same goes for “texture.” What is left after we subtract shape? At the least, the authors should have provided some rationale for their choice of texture.

      There is no doubt whatsoever that the choice of “texture” affects perceived slant. Erkelens (2013) used a “texture” composed of rectangles under perspective projection and found very good agreement with prediction, and an underestimation at all slants. Saunders and Chen found underestimation at low slants, and not at higher ones. They should explain why this low/high dichotomy should be found in their particular conditions, including their choice of pattern, and not in, e.g., Erkelens'. (Are they suggesting that by using “Voronoi” patterns, they have isolated the role of “texture,” independently of shape, and that their results are more valid?)

      The authors' decision to deal with the potential role of the outline containing their texture by randomly varying this shape reflects the tendency to embed confounds in the data in the hope that they will average out (rather than distort or flatten the results – averaging black and white makes grey) rather than to confront and control for them head on.

      Of course, they found that “texture” cues and disparity cues are somehow integrated (the claim that they are “optimally” integrated is difficult to judge, as it has been preceded by layers of speculation). The basic findings were a sure thing. The specifics of the data are uninterpretable due to lack of control of relevant variables.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Mar 18, Kim D Pruitt commented:

      As the head of NCBI’s RefSeq project I would like to make a clarification on the relevance of the authors' results to RefSeq. The authors refer to the RefSeq dataset and UCSC RefGene dataset as if they are equivalent. However, the RefGene data represents annotation derived from UCSC-generated alignments of approximately 1/3 of the RefSeq data. The analysis presented here is of the UCSC RefGene dataset and not the complete RefSeq set as obtained at NCBI which builds and curates RefSeq. NCBI also provides human genome annotation data that includes the comprehensive RefSeq transcript data set. Details about the annotated location of a given RefSeq transcript at NCBI may differ from that shown in the UCSC RefGene track.

      Therefore, the relevance of this analysis to RefSeq is unclear.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Sep 30, Lydia Maniatis commented:

      This study has very serious problems in terms of both its purpose and its methods.

      Purpose: The authors' guiding question is “how color constancy supports object selection,” an issue they claim is “not understood.” What, exactly, is not understood? If color constancy is achieved, if the percept is clear and the task unambiguous, then what do we hope to gain by having subjects choose a matching surface (out of a limited number of pre-selected options) rather thanfreely adjusting a patch, and then comparing it to a target in order to judge the correspondence between the two? Unless the means of gauging the subjects' perceptual experience is expected to affect the experience itself, then why not choose the most direct, precise, and easy-to-analyze means, rather than a cruder, ambiguous, difficult-to-analyze method deemed to be more “naturalistic”? (The authors themselves acknowledge the crudeness of their method – basically a forced-choice method - in relation to the free-choice “asymmetric matching” method).

      Methods: 1) The authors' use the dimensions “naturalistic” vs “simple” as their independent variables, without explaining what they mean by the terms. The study purports to compare color comparison/selection in a “naturalistic” stimulus vs a “simple” stimulus. The problem with this may be appreciated if we describe the “naturalistic” stimulus, which was actually a series of “simulated naturalistic scenes:” “The target objects were embedded in a multifaceted cube suspended in midair in a room in which the illumination, coming from multiple light sources, varied spatially.” Each facet of the cube contained 49 differently-colored, semi-randomly assigned checks. The illumination on one side was blue or yellow, on the other “standard.” Targets were placed on top of these colored checkerboards. The “simple” stimuli were “flat patches embedded in a textured color background across which simulated illumination varied.” It is not clear why the backgrounds in the “simple” stimulus were not checkerboards matched to those of the “natural” stimuli, or, alternatively, a solid background. Even though the authors state, at one point, that they are controlling for “low-level” features of the stimuli, methodological choices are never clarified beyond the “simple/natural” dichotomy.

      The authors themselves acknowledge the theoretical gap at the heart of this dichotomy: “A systematic characterization of how color constancy varies with the degree of stimulus naturalness is challenging, because a definition of naturalness remains elusive.” So, “Rather than attempting to define dimensions along which naturalness varies, we chose to study two configurations that we judged differed considerably in how natural they appeared.” Despite this vagueness in their chosen dimensions, they qualify the undefined value, “stimulus naturalness,” as a “key factor” in their results (at another point they refer to their stimulus as “nearly naturalistic” and the task as “fairly natural”). The problems here are beyond methodological, they are epistemological – failure to specify conditions in an experimental study means it does not meet the basic demands of the scientific method. Scientists go from nature to the lab in order to control and test potential causal variables; these authors are arguing that going "natural" is a merit - is somehow informative - even if they can't define what they mean by the term.

      2) The authors conclude that “a reasonable degree of color constancy operates effectively in support of object selection.” (Again, why wouldn't it?). The assertion turns the scientific method on its head. This is because the surfaces and illumination were “simulated.” Thus, judgment of whether observers' choices are 'color-constant' or not hinged on assumptions about what the true reflectance of a patch should be judged to be, based on the “simulated” illumination: “To find the reflectance match for each target under a test illuminant, we [derived] a surface reflectance function...using a three-dimensional linear model for surface reflectance...derived from analysis of the spectra of Munsell papers, using the tabulated spectral data reported by Nickerson (1957)...”

      Here's the problem: Let's say I take a black surface, place it on a larger grey surface, and brightly illuminate the smaller surface such that its boundary and the boundary of the illumination precisely coincide. Then, based on my knowledge of the illumination, I declare that a well-functioning lightness constancy mechanism should label the smaller surface “black.” Of course, my subjects would all fail this test. But it will not have been fair test, because observers are required to use the luminance structure of the stimulus to guess at both the reflectance and the illumination of the surfaces; they don't have my inside information about the illumination. If the stimulus itself doesn't support the inference of differential illumination, then the best inference is that illumination is uniform. Similarly, observers (their visual systems) of Radonjic et al's stimuli are called on to make guesses about both the reflectance and the illumination of target surfaces based on stimulus structure (geometric/chromatic). In order for the authors' presumed “correct” answers to constitute a valid test of observers' choices, they would have to provide a specific theory of why these answers constitute the best-guess based on stimulus structure. They would need to explicitly state their assumptions, rather than “cheating” by simply stripping away the “simulated illuminant.” And if they had made and shared any such theoretical assumptions, it would probably be more appropriate to consider observer choices a test of the theory, rather than making the predictions of the theory a test of observer choices. Because if we're studying perception, then the typical observer is never wrong.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Dec 05, David Keller commented:

      Patient-oriented result: response rate to magnetic stimulation was the same as to placebo

      This study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was designed to test the hypothesis that rTMS would result in a "statistically significantly greater percentage of responders to treatment in an active rTMS group compared with a placebo rTMS group" [1]. A relatively new metric called the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was used to measure response to treatment. The TFI rated 18 of the 32 subjects actively treated with rTMS as responders to treatment (56%), while only 7 of the 32 subjects treated with sham therapy were rated as responders (22%). These two rates differed significantly, which was pre-specified in the Objectives section as defining a successful outcome.

      However, 7 of the 18 treated subjects rated as "responders to therapy" using the TFI scale nevertheless believed they had received sham therapy, implying that they did not perceive any treatment benefit beyond the placebo effect. When a subject states that his treatments seemed like sham therapy, providing only placebo-strength benefit, this is important information. Since it is a direct expression of the subject's assessment of the efficacy of rTMS therapy, it has more validity than a contrived metric like the TFI, from a patient-oriented perspective.

      The data in e-Table 12 indicate that, of the 32 subjects who received active rTMS treatments, only 11 correctly guessed they had received active therapy at the end of the last treatment, which implies that only 11 out of 32 actively-treated subjects (about 34%) noted perceptible improvement in their tinnitus symptoms. Coincidentally, 11 of the 32 placebo-treated subjects (also 34%) guessed that they had received active rTMS therapy, which equals the placebo effect. Thus, active rTMS treatments had the same response rate as sham therapy, equal to the placebo effect of 34%.

      Conclusion: rTMS is no more effective than placebo for treating tinnitus, when assessed by subjects after a full course of treatments, based on their perception of whether they received active or sham therapy. The advantage of this assessment is that it eliminates uncertainty about the accuracy and clinical relevance of the TFI metric, because the assessment of treatment benefit came directly from the subjects themselves.

      Reference

      1: Folmer RL, Theodoroff SM, Casiana L, Shi Y, Griest S, Vachhani J. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Treatment for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Aug;141(8):716-22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.1219. PubMed PMID: 26181507.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Sep 15, David Keller commented:

      Proposal for a clinical trial to test the safety of a widely-used radionuclide scan

      A recent letter to JAMA Internal Medicine [1], asked whether substantia nigra (SN) neurons weakened by Parkinson disease (PD) may be more sensitive to the adverse effects of ionizing radiation than are healthy mature neurons. Dosimetry safety studies assume that neurons are relatively resistant to damage from ionizing radiation. Radiation safety is, instead, calculated based on exposure of such tissues as the thyroid and the lining of the bladder. If SN neurons in PD are significantly more radiosensitive than healthy neurons, then PD patients might suffer progression of PD caused by the level of ionizing radiation exposure caused by certain diagnostic scans.

      In a widely-used clinical diagnostic brain imaging procedure known as the "DaT scan", a radiopharmaceutical tracer marketed as "DaTscan" (Ioflupane I-123) is injected intravenously, crosses into the brain and binds to dopamine transporters. The tracer emits gamma radiation, thereby allowing for imaging which can help distinguish Parkinsonism from other causes of similar symptoms. According to Table 1 of the DaTscan product information, the highest concentration of injected activity occurs in the striatum, close to the substantia nigra [2]. At the recommended adult dose of DaTscan, the striatum is exposed to 185 MBq x 230 microGray/MBq = 42550 microGray = 42.55 mSv = 4.25 Rad of gamma radiation (1 Sv = 1 Gray = 100 Rad). The nearby SN receives approximately the same exposure, although the exact figure is not specified in the DaTscan product information.

      How damaging is a gamma exposure of about 42.5 mSv to SN neurons already weakened by PD? For comparison, a head CT exposes the entire brain to about 2 mSV uniformly; so the radiation exposure to the striatum caused by a dose of DaTscan is the same as it would receive from 21 brain CT scans [3]. The SN and other nearby basal ganglia presumably receive about the same exposure, although the DaTscan product insert does not specify this important information.

      The clinical effect of this radiation dose on PD patients may be found by conducting an observational study of patients who have been ordered to get a DaTscan by their neurologist. Each patient would be given a thorough UPDRS exam (a detailed PD-focused neurologic exam) prior to being scanned, and at appropriate intervals after scanning. The overall rate of UPDRS score deterioration in the study subjects should be compared with that of matched PD patients who have not undergone scanning. Any significant worsening of UPDRS scores in the intervention group, compared to the control group, would presumably be an adverse effect of the DaTscan radiotracer, and should be investigated further.

      With the increasing use of DaT scans, PD patients should be informed whether their clinical condition, as measured by the UPDRS, will be expected to worsen as a result of these scans, and if so, approximately how much.

      I emailed the above observations to the Commissioner of the FDA recently, and received a reply which failed to address my radiation safety concerns regarding the FDA-approved radiopharmaceutical tracer marketed by General Electric as DaTscan.[4]

      The Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Section 601.35 (Evaluation of safety of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals) mandates evaluation of "changes in the physiologic or biochemical function of the target and nontarget tissues". The effect of 42.5 mSv of gamma radiation concentrated on the already diseased neurons in the substantia nigra of patients with Parkinson's disease has not been determined, as is required under the above-cited Federal regulation.

      I urge neurologists and their patients with PD to consider the high concentration of gamma radiation caused by DaTscan and ask, before injecting this tracer, "is this scan really necessary, and how will it substantively alter clinical management?".

      References

      1: Keller DL. Non-neurologists and the Dopamine Transporter Scan. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Aug 1;175(8):1418. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2497. PubMed PMID: 26236969.

      2: DaTscan drug prescribing information, visited on 9/16/2015:<br> http://us.datscan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/prescribing-information.pdf

      3: M.I.T. online guide to radiation exposure, accessed on 9/20/2015 at:<br> http://news.mit.edu/2011/explained-radioactivity-0328

      4: Email received from FDA pharmacist identified only by the initials "H.P.", 10/15/2015.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Oct 04, Michael R Blatt commented:

      Dear Dr. da Silva,

      Thank you for your comments. I am happy to discuss thoughtfully on the open forum of PubMed Commons. Like you, I reflected long and hard before writing my piece for precisely the reasons we are entering into this discussion: anonymity, fear, and scientific debate. Several of my closest colleagues expressed their anxieties that putting my head ‘above the social media parapet’ could have negative consequences for them. I, too, had my doubts but felt it important to raise concerns expressed to me by colleagues, young and old, which I share. I am therefore writing both in response to your invitation and generally to some of the comments posted to my editorial. I want to thank Philip Moriarty who I have come to know over the past week and who is much more eloquent than I could ever be, and Leonid Schneider who has shown true grace in stepping back from his initial cynicism to participate in the discussion.

      I agree with your point that we should not fear to associate our names with critical opinion and, like Moriarty, I am dismayed by the lack of appetite to engage in open debate (note my emphasis on names and open). I am also deeply disturbed by the attitude of those who think that scientific critique is a license to ride roughshod into any discussion without once considering the possibility of a wider context or background to the questions at hand. At the most trivial level, it is easy – and cheap – to extract a few lines and twist them to the ridiculous; at the most fundamental, it shows an ignorance of social norms that make constructive debate possible. It’s no wonder that my colleagues were anxious and that there is fear within the community. They fear to engage because they do not want to become targets of the vitriol that pervades anonymous social media. To my mind, this is a sign that the “patient is not well” and I agree fully with the assessments of Moriarty, Schneider and others that our current approach to scientific exchange is deeply flawed in many ways.

      So we come to your concerns: journal publication, PPPR, and anonymity. Here I must respectfully disagree with you on several points. Consider your starting premise, that “the final product, i.e. the published paper [is] the product of a failsafe process that is not meant to be challenged.” Surely, this flies in the face of scientific enquiry and one of the first lessons we all learn as students: to challenge ideas in order to progress understanding. Nor is publication a final product; it’s just the most visible at times. The real product of a body of work lies in its capacity to guide subsequent studies and predict their outcomes. As scientists, we subject our own work, and that of others, to scrutiny that either validates, discounts, or refines their outputs. The scientific literature is riddled with misconceptions, false conclusions, and ideas that failed this so-called ‘test of time’. And so it should be. As scientists, we put our work and ideas out into the community and, as a community, we improve and expand on each body of work. In short, publication is only one small step in the scientific process and always has been.

      Second, let me stress that the purpose of editorial review is to assess a body of research, its scientific soundness, and whether it is of sufficient interest to the community – and, most important to the journal readership – to justify publication. Maintaining ethical standards is, of course, part of this task, but only one part of it. Nor is is the editorial process failsafe. No journal editor is able to catch all errors, innocent or otherwise, although on the whole editors are usually pretty good at identifying problems. I agree that there is a place for post-publication critique, including an element of quality control. I stated as much in my editorial.

      What I cannot abide is PubPeer’s stance on anonymity, and I am angered by their efforts to masquerade as a site for open discussion that reflects the opinions of the scientific community. Both I consider to be fundamentally deceitful. I outlined my reasons in the editorial and these have been reiterated in several posts in response. Anonymity does not ‘level the playing field’; quite the contrary, it embeds inequality in any debate simply because one side is hidden. Furthermore, anonymity opens the door to all kinds of antisocial and nefarious behaviour. You need only read many of the comments posted in response to my editorial to see the innuendo and vitriol that was unleashed towards me as well as towards others posting on the site. Such verbal abuse belongs … well, let’s just say it does not belong in the public domain outside the schoolyard. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but in my book this is unnecessary, grubby and, what’s worse, counterproductive. For most people, the mob mentality behind this kind of behaviour is quite frightening. And like it or not, mob mentality is the framework of vigilantism. Is it any wonder, then, that so many of my colleagues, young and old, are fearful? Is this the kind of ‘scientific debate’, indeed the kind of society, we want to support? I don’t. It seems to me that anonymity in these circumstances is not the solution, but the problem. It is at the root of much that has gone terribly wrong in scientific exchange today.

      I agree that there are some circumstances in which confidentiality (not anonymity!) is necessary to protect the identities of individuals, especially of whistleblowers (I’ll come to this point in a moment). However, the vast majority of posts on PubPeer do not fall in this category, even those which highlight one or more errors in a figure. I maintain that it is possible for a PhD student or postdoc to approach a colleague, even a senior scientist, in order to point out an error, and to do so in a way that is constructive and non-threatening. This is a vital social skill to learn. I shudder to think that, through ‘social’ media, this skill could be lost to the sound bite of a tweet. Like Julian Stirling (cited on PubPeer in several posts), I have no patience with lazy or conflicted thinking, and I welcome critical analysis when presented thoughtfully. I encourage my students and postdocs to question me, and others, all the time and, no surprise, the ones who have done so have also proven most successful when they leave my lab. I think you and others have vastly overstated the dangers of retribution, in part perhaps by conflating scientific debate and error correction with whistleblowing. They are not the same.

      As for misconduct, of course whistleblowers need protection through confidentiality, but not through anonymity. Again, I have set out my reasoning in the editorial and will not reiterate here. Mechanisms are in place to provide confidentiality, in the first instance through the established channels of most journals. I agree, too, that if these fail, then there must be alternative mechanisms that allow legitimate concerns to be addressed effectively. I, for one, support efforts to ensure such alternatives. However, I do not agree that the answer is through a culture of secrecy and hearsay.

      So how do we encourage thoughtful debate? How do we enable quality control and at the same time protect whistleblowers? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it is patently clear to me and many others that the answer is not through a so-called post-publication peer review process that is anonymous and, for all intents and purposes, unmoderated. Again, I point you to my editorial and the three challenges I have laid before PubPeer. I believe Stell and his colleagues have a real opportunity to lead the way in raising the tenor of science in this social media age, but they must address these challenges to do so.

      Finally, to your personal critique, I appreciate that you have included reference to your own pieces, as I am sure other readers will too.

      Thank you.

      Mike Blatt


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Dec 26, Boris Barbour commented:

      In this "perspective", the authors build up the importance of using full electrodiffusion simulations without an electroneutrality constraint to describe current flow and ion distributions within dendritic spines, rather than treating the cytoplasm as an Ohmic conductor. Although an electrodiffusion model is in principle more accurate and may in some cases be necessary, the authors do little to make their case here, because their illustrative model in Fig. 3 is quite divorced from physiological conditions.

      They illustrate the equilibrium spatial distribution of ions within a small and isolated sphere of water, a situation loosely representing the head of a dendritic spine. When electrical interactions between the ions are considered at high concentrations, a highly nonuniform spatial distribution emerges. However, there are both trivial and fundamental problems with this apparently dramatic illustration.

      It is worth fixing some numbers. Empirical measurements of membrane capacitance typically yield values of ~1microF/cm<sup>2.</sup> So the capacitance of a typical spine head with diameter 0.5 microns will be about 10fF. Charging this capacitance to the most extreme membrane potentials observed in neurones (of the order of 100mV) will therefore require about 1fC, a charge that represents about 5000 ions. The volume of such a spine head would be about 70aL (attoLitres) and, assuming a 150mM saline of monovalents, would contain about 600000 each of cations and anions. The authors use a rather oversized spine head compared to this, but the numerical differences will be unimportant to what follows.

      The authors simulate 1000, 100000 and 1000000 charges, but already the second number exceeds the largest net concentration of charges that will occur physiologically.

      The concentrations they report are numerically incorrect at least in Fig. 3b (where the mean concentration should be 40 microM) and in Fig. 3c (where the mean concentration should be 400 microM).

      A true representation of these gradients would include the existing 150mM saline. Thus, for Fig. 3a, the ~100nM gradient would be superimposed upon 150mM, about one part in a million, which may not be that significant.

      Another important problem arises from the fact that the authors only include charges of one sign in their model, while physiological saline contains both cations and anions, in roughly if not exactly equivalent concentrations (we calculated above that the net charge represents of the order of 1% of ions present, and even this number is only made possible by the membrane capacitance). This unrealistic situation is likely to have a very strong influence on the behaviour illustrated, because the existence of ions of the opposite sign would allow electrostatic screening, which the authors have in effect banished from their model by only including a single ionic species.

      The ionic gradients illustrated by the authors arise from collective mutual Coulombic repulsion (note that the submembrane ionic concentration shown is unrelated to the concentrations of charges normally occurring on either side of the membrane capacitance, because the external saline is absent in this model). Such Coulombic forces are usually annihilated over all but the shortest distances and times by electrostatic screening. The habitual approximation considers electrostatic shielding to cause an exponential attenuation of Coulombic interactions with a length constant of the Debye length. In 150mM monovalent saline the Debye length is about 0.6nm (using an approximate formula given on wikipedia), so, even over a fraction of a micron, Coulombic interactions should be attenuated to a cosmic degree and the forces generating the interesting concentration gradients of Fig. 3 are unlikely to operate.

      In conclusion, although I'm not in a position to describe exactly the distribution of net charges in the spine head under physiological conditions in the absence of strict electroneutrality, neither are the authors. However, ignoring electrostatic screening seems to be an extremely unrealistic approximation.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2015 Nov 20, David Keller commented:

      Why the blinding of experimental subjects should be tracked during a study, from start to finish

      I wish to address the points raised by Folmer and Theodoroff in their reply [1] to my letter to the editor of JAMA Otolaryngology [2] concerning issues they encountered with unblinding of subjects in their trial of therapeutic MRI for tinnitus. These points are important to discuss, in order to help future investigators optimize the design of future studies of therapies for tinnitus, which are highly subject to the placebo, nocebo, Pygmalion and other expectation effects.

      First, Folmer and Theodoroff object to my suggestion of asking the experimental subjects after each and every therapy session whether they think they have received active or sham placebo therapy in the trial so far (the "blinding question"). They quote an editorial by Park et al [3] which states that such frequent repetition of the blinding question might increase "non-compliance and dropout" by subjects. Park's statement is made without any supportive data, and appears to be based on pure conjecture, as is his recommendation that subjects be asked the blinding question only at the end of a clinical trial. I offer the following equally plausible conjecture: if you ask a subject the blinding question after each session, it will soon become a familiar part of the experimental routine, and will have no more effect on the subject's behavior than did his informed consent to be randomized to active treatment or placebo in the first place. Moreover, the experimenters will obtain valuable information about the evolution of the subjects' state of mind as the study progresses. We have no such data for the present study, which impairs our ability to interpret the subjects' answers to the blinding question, when it is asked only once at the end of the study.

      Second, Folmer and Theodoroff state that I "misinterpreted" their explanation of why so many of their subjects guessed they had received placebo, even if they had experienced "significant improvement" in their tinnitus score. They object to my characterization of this phenomenon as due to the "smallness of the therapeutic benefit" of their intervention, but my wording summarizes their lengthier explanation, that their subjects had a prior expectation of much greater benefit, so subjects incorrectly guessed they had been randomized to sham therapy even if they exhibited a small but significant benefit from the active treatment. In other words, the "benefit" these subjects experienced was imperceptible to them, truly a distinction without a difference.

      A therapeutic trial hopes for the opposite form of unblinding of subjects, which is when the treatment is so dramatically effective that the subjects who were randomized to active therapy are able to answer the blinding question with 100% accuracy.

      Folmer and Theodoroff state that, in their experience, even if subjects with tinnitus "improve in several ways" due to treatment, some will still be disappointed if their tinnitus is not cured. Do these subjects then answer the blinding question by guessing they received placebo because their benefit was disappointing to them, imperceptible to them, as revenge against the trial itself, or for some other reason? Regardless, if you want to know how well they were blinded, independent of treatment effects and of treatment expectation effects, then you must ask them early in the trial, before treatment expectations have time to take hold. Ask the blinding question early and often. Clinical trials should not be afraid to collect data. Data are good; more data are better.

      References:

      1: Folmer RL, Theodoroff SM. Assessment of Blinding in a Tinnitus Treatment Trial-Reply. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Nov 1;141(11):1031-1032. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.2422. PubMed PMID: 26583514.

      2: Keller DL. Assessment of Blinding in a Tinnitus Treatment Trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Nov 1;141(11):1031. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.2425. PubMed PMID: 26583513.

      3: Park J, Bang H, Cañette I. Blinding in clinical trials, time to do it better. Complement Ther Med. 2008 Jun;16(3):121-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2008.05.001. Epub 2008 May 29. PubMed PMID: 18534323.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Sep 17, ROBERT COMBES commented:

      Professor Michael Balls and Dr Robert Combes respond to Dr Coral Gartner regarding concerns about possible conflicts of interest.

      We thank Dr Gartner for her comments, and for the opportunity to clarify potential conflicts of interest relating to our paper [1]. This was written by us as independent individuals, free of any commercial influence or funding, and after both of us had ceased having close ties with FRAME. FRAME is a scientific charity that has openly received financial support from the chemical, cosmetic, household product, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, to enable it to undertake independent research into the development, validation and acceptance of alternatives to animal experiments.<br> Some of this work included the development, characterisation and preliminary assessment of in vitro models of inhalation toxicology. While we are not in a position to say anything about FRAME’S current policy on industrial funding, we must stress that the tobacco industry funding enabled FRAME to investigate ways to replace highly invasive and complex animal experiments with urgently needed alternatives with the potential for producing more-relevant and more-reliable data for assessing human safety.

      As far as personal remuneration is concerned, RDC has acted as an external consultant for the tobacco industry since retiring in 2007 from FRAME. This work was conducted under standard contract research agreements, the last of which terminated over 12 months prior to the writing of our article. The work referred to by Dr Gartner, that was co-authored by RDC with a named individual as lead, relates to research undertaken when this individual and RDC were employed by Inveresk Research International (IRI, now Charles River Laboratories), a contract research establishment. This can be directly verified by opening the authors’ affiliations in PubMed (http://9www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)for each of the four respective abstracts (PMID: 9491389; PMID: 1600961; PMID: 1396612; and PMID: 7968569). This work was entirely funded by the US Government, as was acknowledged in each of the papers, and also by the inclusion of another co-author, then based at NIEHS (the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, USA), who acted as project leader. It should be noted that the lead author of the publications arising from the work conducted at IRI subsequently went to work at BAT, and this might have added to any confusion.

      MB has never been a paid consultant for any industrial company. He was honorary Chairman of the FRAME Trustees from 1981 to 2013, and has been honorary Editor of FRAME’s journal, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, since 1983. He no longer has any influence on FRAME’s policies on the tobacco industry or on any other issue. None of FRAME’s industrial supporters ever attempted to dictate or limit FRAME’s activities, or influence the circulation and/or publication of the results of any FRAME research. While MB was head of the FRAME Alternatives Laboratory at the University of Nottingham Medical School, no tobacco product, or chemical, other material or product of interest to the tobacco industry was involved in FRAME’s research. He left the University of Nottingham in 1993, to become the first head of the European Commission’s European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, a position from which he retired in 2002. We consider that there is a distinction between the above situation, in which, despite previous links of various kinds with the tobacco industry, we wrote our critique [1](ref) without any form of external influence, and that which we referred to, involving alleged conflicts of interest in the MCDA study. However, while we acknowledge that conflicts of interest and their consequences are complex, we hope that we have taken into account as much relevant information as possible to permit a fair and balanced appraisal of the information on which PHE's policy on electronic cigarettes is based. We consider it crucial that scientific opinions, and the policies which result from them, are based on freely-available evidence of high quality, which has been openly conducted and independently assessed. We know of no such evidence to support PHE’s claim that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than tobacco cigarettes.

      We welcome Dr Gartner’s comment, we hope that others will address the scientific arguments that we have used to justify our position, since, the validity, or otherwise, of these should be unaffected by any conflicts of interest. There is a great deal at stake, including the future well-being of those who have opted for vaping as an alternative to tobacco smoking. We stand by our belief, expressed in a letter published in The Times on 18 February 2016, that “The human respiratory system is a delicate vehicle, on the which the length and quality of our lives depend. For governments and companies to condone, or even suggest, the regular and repeated inhaling of a complex mixture of chemicals with addictive and toxic properties, but without comprehensive data, is irresponsible and could have serious consequences.”

      1. Combes, R D. & Balls, M. On the safety of e-cigarettes: "I can resist anything except temptation". ATLA. (2015) 43, 417-425.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Mar 15, Lionel Christiaen commented:

      In this article, the author presents an extensive account of the extreme diversity of adult anatomies and life histories encountered across the thousands of tunicate species that roam the oceans worldwide, and occupy multitudes of ecological niches. The author then emphasizes that tunicate genomes are markedly more compact and evolve faster than the genomes of their chordate relatives, the cephalochordates and vertebrates. Several recent studies support this notion, and the argument that rapid genome diversification may have fostered tunicate evolution is reasonable. Since the early development of tunicates, in particular ascidians, has been considerably simplified and streamlined in a manner analogous to what is observed in nematodes, the author argues that tunicates must have lost most ancestral genomic, developmental and anatomical features that could inform reconstruction of the evolutionary history of vertebrate traits. We wish to provide alternative interpretations and propose a more inclusive approach to the problems posed by tunicates in building models for the evolution of vertebrates. First, the argument about faster evolutionary rates implies that every part of the genome evolves at similarly faster rates; yet, phylogenomic analyses of concatenated coding sequences unequivocally revealed that tunicates and vertebrates form a monophyletic group referred to as olfactores [1, 2]. Moreover, conserved anatomical features including the notochord, the dorsal neural tube and the pharyngeal gill slits depend upon ancestral regulatory inputs from conserved transcription factors, as noted by the author. These simple examples argue against a complete relaxation of evolutionary constraints on ancestral features in tunicates, especially in ascidians. In other words, high average rates of sequence evolution and profound morphological changes are not incompatible with deep conservation of cellular and molecular mechanisms for embryonic patterning and cell fate specification. Instead, the apparent incompatibility between high rates of genome divergence and the maintenance of ancestral olfactores features over long evolutionary distances hints at the notion of developmental system drift (DSD), whereby mechanistically connected developmental features may be conserved between distantly related species exhibiting extensive divergence of the intervening processes [3]. Ascidians provide an attractive test-bed to study DSD since their early embryos have barely changed in almost half a billion years, despite considerable genomic divergence [4]. This is a lively area of research as illustrated by the 11 tunicate genomes recently made openly available to the worldwide research community [4-6]. We argue that comparative developmental studies are poised to identify additional features conserved between tunicates and vertebrates, such as those recently reported for the neural crest, the cranial placodes and the cardiopharyngeal mesoderm [7-10]. These "islands of conservation" will continue to shed light on the mechanisms of tunicate diversification and the deep evolutionary origins of the vertebrate body plan.

      REFERENCES 1. Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H., Chourrout, D., and Philippe, H. (2006). Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates. Nature 439, 965-968. 2. Putnam, N.H., Butts, T., Ferrier, D.E., Furlong, R.F., Hellsten, U., Kawashima, T., Robinson-Rechavi, M., Shoguchi, E., Terry, A., Yu, J.K., et al. (2008). The amphioxus genome and the evolution of the chordate karyotype. Nature 453, 1064-1071. 3. True, J.R., and Haag, E.S. (2001). Developmental system drift and flexibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evolution & development 3, 109-119. 4. Stolfi, A., Lowe, E.K., Racioppi, C., Ristoratore, F., Brown, C.T., Swalla, B.J., and Christiaen, L. (2014). Divergent mechanisms regulate conserved cardiopharyngeal development and gene expression in distantly related ascidians. eLife 3, e03728. 5. Voskoboynik, A., Neff, N.F., Sahoo, D., Newman, A.M., Pushkarev, D., Koh, W., Passarelli, B., Fan, H.C., Mantalas, G.L., Palmeri, K.J., et al. (2013). The genome sequence of the colonial chordate, Botryllus schlosseri. eLife 2, e00569. 6. Brozovic, M., Martin, C., Dantec, C., Dauga, D., Mendez, M., Simion, P., Percher, M., Laporte, B., Scornavacca, C., Di Gregorio, A., et al. (2016). ANISEED 2015: a digital framework for the comparative developmental biology of ascidians. Nucleic acids research 44, D808-818. 7. Abitua, P.B., Gainous, T.B., Kaczmarczyk, A.N., Winchell, C.J., Hudson, C., Kamata, K., Nakagawa, M., Tsuda, M., Kusakabe, T.G., and Levine, M. (2015). The pre-vertebrate origins of neurogenic placodes. Nature 524, 462-465. 8. Abitua, P.B., Wagner, E., Navarrete, I.A., and Levine, M. (2012). Identification of a rudimentary neural crest in a non-vertebrate chordate. Nature 492, 104-107. 9. Diogo, R., Kelly, R.G., Christiaen, L., Levine, M., Ziermann, J.M., Molnar, J.L., Noden, D.M., and Tzahor, E. (2015). A new heart for a new head in vertebrate cardiopharyngeal evolution. Nature 520, 466-473. 10. Stolfi, A., Ryan, K., Meinertzhagen, I.A., and Christiaen, L. (2015). Migratory neuronal progenitors arise from the neural plate borders in tunicates. Nature 527, 371-374.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Jun 17, David Keller commented:

      "Long-Acting Opioids Increase Mortality in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain" - erroneous Practice Update headline

      Through no fault of the investigators of this trial, the headline over the Practice Update summary of this study mistakes the association demonstrated in this observational study for causality, which can only be proved by means of a prospective, randomized, head-to-head interventional trial comparing long-acting opioids with other options for treating chronic non-cancer pain. Until such results are available, the headline should read:

      Long-Acting Opioids Are Associated With Increased Mortality in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain

      This distinction is important, and is a frequent cause of confusion in writers of headlines about clinical trials. Because serious therapeutic mistakes result from over-valuing observational data, it is important to correct these erroneous headlines. Here is the link to Practice Update, accessed on 6/17/2016, containing the erroneous headline:

      http://www.practiceupdate.com/content/long-acting-opioids-increase-mortality-in-patients-with-chronic-noncancer-pain/40326/55/6/1#commentarea

      The primary-care expert who discusses this study for Practice Update is Peter Lin MD,CCFP, who writes: "Long acting opioids increase death? This is an important question but one that we can’t ethically answer with a study. Imagine getting consent for this study? We are trying to see if these medications would kill you. So we could not ethically randomize patients to long acting opioids versus antiepileptic or antidepressant treatment and see who dies faster." This comment misses the most important question raised, but not answered, in this paper.

      The authors list a number of possible toxicities of opioids, and state that long-acting opioids (LAO's) "are of particular concern because the prolonged drug levels might increase toxicity." This raises the question of whether chronic pain patients experience higher mortality due to the long-acting delivery system itself, and whether an equal daily dose of the same opioid would be safer if taken in divided doses of the immediate-release form. For example, a study comparing the mortality associated with extended-release oxycodone versus immediate-release oxycodone would answer the question of how much of the mortality associated with long-acting opioids in this study was due to the long-acting delivery of opioids versus the opioids themselves. Only by comparing an intrinsically short-acting opioid, such as oxycodone, with its extended-release form, in a head-to-head randomized study, can we isolate and quantify any increased harm of the extended-release delivery system itself. Such a trial would be ethical if the subjects were pain patients who are stable on a short-acting opioid and have been designated as appropriate candidates to switch to the extended-release form. The control group would delay that change for a month, while the intervention group would switch to extended-release immediately. Any difference in harms between these two groups during the first month could then be definitely attributed to the extended-release delivery system itself, because all other variables would be held constant, including the pain medication molecule.

      Only a randomized, controlled, head-to-head trial, such as proposed above, can quantify the harms and benefits caused by the extended-release delivery of an opioid molecule as compared with the same total daily dose of the immediate-release form of the same opioid molecule. Answering this fundamental question is necessary before further comparisons can be interpreted, such as between opioid pain medications with differing intrinsic durations of effect, or comparisons between opioids and nonopioid pain treatments.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Dec 06, Morten Frisch commented:

      Problems in the qualitative synthesis paper on sexual outcomes following non-medical male circumcision by Shabanzadeh et al

      by Frisch M<sup>1,2</sup> & Earp BD<sup>3</sup>

      <sup>1</sup> Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark <sup>2</sup> Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark <sup>3</sup> Hastings Center Bioethics Research Institute, USA

      The comment below was published on the Danish Medical Journal's (Ugeskrift for Læger's) website on July 1, 2016: http://ugeskriftet.dk/files/2016-07-01_commentary_frisch_earp_on_paper_by_shabanzadeh_et_al_dmj_1.pdf

      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Shabanzadeh et al (1) claim in their title that “Male circumcision does not result in inferior perceived male sexual function.” Yet such a categorical conclusion does not follow from the data and analysis presented in the paper itself. As the authors state, there was “considerable clinical heterogeneity in circumcision indications and procedures, study designs, quality and reporting of results” in the studies they reviewed, which precluded an objective, quantitative assessment. Inadequate follow-up periods of only 1-2 years in the prospective studies imply that their results cannot be generalized beyond that range. In addition, “Risks of observer and selective reporting bias were present in the included studies … only half of the studies included validated questionnaires and some studies reported only parts of questionnaires.”

      There is also a troubling heteronormativity to the authors’ headline claim. As they state: “Most studies focused on the heterosexual practice of intravaginal intercourse and did not take into account other important heterosexual or homosexual practices that comprise male sexual function.” Such practices include, inter alia, styles of masturbation that involve manipulation of the foreskin itself, as well as “docking” among men who have sex with men (MSM), both of which are rendered impossible by circumcision (2). Related to this, a recent Canadian study, not included in the paper by Shabanzadeh et al, found “a large preference toward intact partners for anal intercourse, fellatio, and manual stimulation of his partner’s genitals,” in a small but demographically diverse sample of MSM (3). Against such a backdrop, the authors’ characterization of their paper as “a systematic review” showing a definitive lack of adverse effects of circumcision on perceived male sexual function is unjustified. As Yavchitz et al argue, putting such a conclusive ‘spin’ on findings that are in truth more mixed or equivocal “could bias readers' interpretation of [the] results” (4). Thus, while the literature search performed by Shabanzadeh et al may well have been carried out in a systematic manner, their ‘qualitative synthesis without metaanalysis’ leaves the distinct impression of a partial (in both senses of the word)assessment.

      The authors mention that the rationale for undertaking their analysis was “the debate on non-medical male circumcision [that has been] gaining momentum during the past few years”. But the public controversy surrounding male circumcision has to do with the performance of surgery on underage boys, specifically, in the absence of medical necessity. By contrast, therapeutic circumcisions that cannot be deferred until an age of individual consent are broadly perceived to be ethically uncontroversial, as are voluntary circumcisions performed for whatever reason on adult men, who are free to make such decisions about their own genitals (5). Consequently, studies dealing with either therapeutic or adult circumcisions are irrelevant to the ongoing controversy and should have been excluded by the authors in light of their own aims; such exclusion would have left only a handful of relevant investigations out of the 38 included studies.

      As one of us has noted elsewhere: “the [sexual] effects of adult circumcision, whatever they are, cannot be simply mapped on to neonates” or young children (2). This is because studies assessing sexual outcome variables in adults typically do not account for socially desirable responding (6); they concern men who, by definition, actively desire to undergo the surgery to achieve a perceived benefit, and are therefore likely to be psychologically motivated to regard the result as an improvement overall; and such studies are typically hampered by limited follow-up (as noted above), rarely if ever extending into older age, when sexual problems begin to increase markedly (7). In infant or early childhood circumcision, by contrast, “the unprotected head of the penis has to rub against clothing (etc.) for over a decade before sexual debut. In this latter case … the affected individual has no point of comparison by which to assess his sexual sensation or satisfaction - his foreskin was removed before he could acquire the relevant frame of reference - and thus he will be unable to record any differences” (2).

      The sexual consequences of circumcision are likely to vary from person to person. All-encompassing statements, such as that forming the title of the paper by Shabanzadeh et al, do not reflect this lived reality. Individual differences in sexual outcome variables will be shaped by numerous factors, such as the unique penile anatomy of each male, the type of circumcision and the timing of the procedure, the motivation behind it, the cultural context, whether it was undertaken voluntarily (or otherwise), the man’s subjective feelings about having been circumcised, his underlying psychological profile, and so on (8, 9). Collapsing across all of these factors to draw general conclusions can only serve to obscure such crucial variance (10).

      Therefore, the choice of the authors to include any study looking at sexual outcomes after circumcision, whether in boys or adult males, whether in healthy individuals or in patients with a foreskin problem, whether in Africa or in Western settings, and whether with a follow-up period of decades or only a few months to years is problematic. Such a cacophony of 38 studies, dominated by findings on short-term sexual consequences of voluntary, adult male circumcision has limited relevance, if any, to the authors’ stated research question: how non-therapeutic circumcision in boys affects the sex lives of the adult men they will one day become.

      References

      (1) Shabanzadeh DM, Düring S, Frimodt-Møller C. Male circumcision does not result in inferior perceived male sexual function – a systematic review. Danish Medical Journal 2016; 63: A5245 (http://www.danmedj.dk/portal/page/portal/danmedj.dk/dmj_forside/PAST_ISSUE/2016/D MJ201607/A5245).

      (2) Earp BD. Sex and circumcision. American Journal of Bioethics 2015; 15: 43-5.

      (3) Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Bartley K. You either have it or you don't: the impact of male circumcision status on sexual partners. Can J Hum Sex 2015; 24: 104-19.

      (4) Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med 2012; 9, e1001308.

      (5) Darby R. Targeting patients who cannot object? Re-examining the case for nontherapeutic infant circumcision. SAGE Open 2016; 6: 2158244016649219.

      (6) Earp BD. The need to control for socially desirable responding in studies on the sexual effects of male circumcision. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: 1-12.

      (7) Earp BD. Infant circumcision and adult penile sensitivity: implications for sexual experience. Trends in Urology & Men’s Health 2016; in press.

      (8) Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU International 1999; 83: 93-102.

      (9) Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. Journal of Health Psychology 2002; 7: 329-343.

      (10) Johnsdotter S. Discourses on sexual pleasure after genital modifications: the fallacy of genital determinism (a response to J. Steven Svoboda). Global Discourse 2013; 3: 256-265.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Apr 07, Janelia Neural Circuit Computation Journal Club commented:

      Highlight/Summary

      This is one of several recent papers investigating cortical dynamics during head-restrained behaviors in mice using mostly imaging methods. The questions posed were:

      Which brain regions are responsible for sensorimotor transformation? Which region(s) are responsible for maintaining task-relevant information in the delay period between the stimulus and response?

      These questions were definitely not answered. However, the study contains some nice cellular calcium imaging in multiple brain regions in a new type of mouse behavior.

      The behavior is a Go / No Go behavioral paradigm. The S+ and S- stimuli were drifting horizontal and vertical gratings, respectively. The mouse had to withhold licking during a delay epoch. During a subsequent response epoch the mouse responded by licking for a reward on Go trials.

      Strengths

      Perhaps the greatest strength of the paper is that activity was probed in multiple regions in the same behavior (all L2/3 neurons, using two-photon calcium imaging). Activity was measured in primary visual cortex (V1), ‘posterior parietal cortex’ (PPC; 2 mm posterior, 1.7 mm lateral), and fMC. ‘fMC' overlaps sMO in the Allen Reference Atlas, posterior and medial to ALM (distance approximately 1 mm) (Li/Daie et al 2016). This location is analogous to rat 'frontal orienting field’ (Erlich et al 2011) or M2 (Murakami et al 2014). Folks who work on whiskers refer to this area as vibrissal M1, because it corresponds to the part of motor cortex with the lowest threshold for whisker movements.

      In V1, a large fraction (> 50 %) of neurons were active and selective during the sample epoch. One of the more interesting findings is that a substantial fraction of V1 neurons were suppressed during the delay epoch. This could be a mechanism to reduce ‘sensory gain’ and ’distractions' during movement preparation. Interestingly, PPC neurons were task-selective during the sample or response epochs; consistent with previous work in primates (many studies in parietal areas) and rats (Raposo et al 2014), individual neurons multiplexed sensory and movement selectivity. However, there was little activity / selectivity during the delay epoch. This suggests that their sequence-like dynamics in maze tasks (e.g. Harvey et al 2012) might reflect ongoing sensory input and movement in the maze tasks, rather than more cognitive variables. fMC neurons were active and selective during the delay and response epoch, consistent with a role in movement planning and motor control, again consistent with many prior studies in primates, rats (Erlich et al 2011), and mice (Guo/Li et al 2014).

      Weaknesses

      Delayed response or movement tasks have been used for more than forty years to study memory-guided movements and motor preparation. Typically different stimuli predict different movement directions (e.g. saccades, arm movements or lick directions). Previous experiments have shown that activity during the delay epoch predicts specific movements, long before the movement. In this study, Go and No Go trials are fundamentally asymmetric and it is unclear how this behavioral paradigm relates to the literature on movement preparation. What does selectivity during the delay epoch mean? On No Go trials a smart mouse would simply ignore the events post stimulus presentation, making delay activity difficult to interpret.

      The behavioral design also makes the interpretation of the inactivation experiments suspect. The paper includes an analysis of behavior with bilateral photoinhibition (Figure 9). The authors argue for several take-home messages (‘we were able to determine the necessity of sensory, association, and frontal motor cortical regions during each epoch (stimulus, delay, response) of a memory-guided task.'); all of these conclusions come with major caveats.

      1.) Inactivation of both V1 and PPC during the sample epoch abolishes behavior, caused by an increase in false alarm rate and decrease in hit rate (Fig. 9d). The problem is that the optogenetic protocol silenced a large fraction of the brain. The methods are unlikely to have the spatial resolution to specifically inactivate V1 vs PPC. The authors evenly illuminated a 2 mm diameter window with 6.5mW/mm<sup>2</sup> light in VGat-ChR2 mice. This amounts to 20 mW laser power. According to the calibrations performed by Guo / Li et al (2014) in the same type of transgenic mice, this predicts substantial silencing over a radius (!) of 2-3 mm (Guo / Li et al 2014; Figure 2). Photoinhibiting V1 will therefore silence PPC and vice versa. It is therefore expected that silencing V1 and PPC have similar behavioral effects.

      2.) Silencing during the response window abolished the behavioral response (licking). Other labs labs have also observed total suppression of voluntary licking with frontal bilateral inactivation (e.g. Komiyama et al 2010; and unpublished). However, the proximal cause of the behavioral effect is likely silencing of ALM, which is more anterior and lateral to ‘fMC’. ALM projects to premotor structures related to licking. Low intensity activation of ALM, but not more medial and posterior structures such as fMC, triggers rhythmic licking (Li et al 2015) The large photostimulus used here would have silenced ALM as well as fMC.

      3.) Somewhat surprisingly, behavior is perturbed after silencing fMC during the sample (stimulus) and delay epochs. In Guo / i et al 2014, unilateral silencing of frontal cortex during the sample epoch (in this case ALM during a tactile decision task, 2AFC type) did not cause a behavioral effect (although bilateral silencing is likely different; see Li / Daie et al 2016). The behavioral effect in Goard et al 2016 may not be caused by the silencing itself, but by the subsequent rebound activity (an overshoot after silencing; see for example Guo JZ et al eLife 2016; Figure 4—figure supplement 2). Rebound activity is difficult to avoid, but can be minimized by gradually ramping down the photostimulus, a strategy that was not used here. The key indication that rebound was a problem is that behavior degrades almost exclusively via an increase in false alarm rate -- in other words - mice now always lick independent of trial type. Increased activity in ‘fMC’, as expected with rebound, is expected to promote these false alarms. More experiments are needed to make the inactivation experiments solid.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Jan 05, Alan Roger Santos-Silva commented:

      The spectrum of oral squamous cell carcinoma in young patients

      We read with interest the current narrative review published by Liu et al [1], in Oncotarget. The article itself is interesting, however, they appear to have misunderstood our article [2] because they seem to believe that there was a cause-effect relationship between orthodontic treatment and tongue squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) at young age. This idea might provide anecdotal information about the potential of orthodontic treatment to cause persistent irritation on oral mucosa and lead to oral SCC. Thus, we believe that it is relevant to clarify that the current understanding about the spectrum of oral SCC in young patients points out three well-known groups according to demographic and clinicopathologic features: (1). 40-45 years old patients highly exposed to alcohol and tobacco diagnosed with keratinizing oral cavity SCC; (2). <45 years old patients, predominantly non-smoking males, diagnosed with HPV-related non-keratinizing oropharyngeal SCC; and (3). Younger than 40-year-old patients, mainly non-smoking and non-drinking females diagnosed with keratinizing oral tongue SCC (HPV seems not to be a risk factor in this group) [3-5]. Therefore, chronic inflammation triggered by persistent trauma of the oral mucosa must not be considered an important risk factor in young patients with oral cancer.

      References: 1. Liu X, Gao XL, Liang XH, Tang YL. The etiologic spectrum of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in young patients. Oncotarget. 2016 Aug 12. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11265. [Epub ahead of print]. 2. Santos-Silva AR, Carvalho Andrade MA, Jorge J, Almeida OP, Vargas PA, Lopes MA. Tongue squamous cell carcinoma in young nonsmoking and nondrinking patients: 3 clinical cases of orthodontic interest. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145: 103-7. 3. Toner M, O'Regan EM. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the young: a spectrum or a distinct group? Part 1. Head Neck Pathol. 2009; 3: 246-248. 4. de Castro Junior G. Curr Opin Oncol. 2016; 28: 193-194. 5.Santos-Silva AR, Ribeiro AC, Soubhia AM, Miyahara GI, Carlos R, Speight PM, Hunter KD, Torres-Rendon A, Vargas PA, Lopes MA. High incidences of DNA ploidy abnormalities in tongue squamous cell carcinoma of young patients: an international collaborative study. Histopathology. 2011; 58: 1127-1135.

      Authors: Alan Roger Santos-Silva [1,2]; Ana Carolina Prado Ribeiro [1,2]; Thais Bianca Brandão [1,2]; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes [1]

      [1] Oral Diagnosis Department, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. [2] Dental Oncology Service, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

      Correspondence to: Alan Roger Santos-Silva Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, UNICAMP Av. Limeira, 901, Areão, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, CEP: 13414-903 Telephone: +55 19 2106 5320 alanroger@fop.unicamp.br


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2016 Oct 26, Lydia Maniatis commented:

      Natural scenes

      The use of “natural scene statistics” is popular in current vision science and directly linked to its conceptual confusion.

      In the words of the authors, “Biological systems evolve to exploit the statistical relationships in natural scenes….”

      I want to first address the authors’ use of the term “natural scenes” and its implications, and move on to the problem of the validity and implications of the above quote in a subsequent comment.

      “Natural scenes” is a very broad category, even broader given that the authors include in it man-made environments. In order to be valid on their own terms, the “statistics” involved – i.e. the correlations between “cues” and physical features of the environment – must hold across very different distances and orientations of the observer to the world, and across very different environments, including scenes involving close-ups of human faces.

      Describing 96 photographs taken of various locations on the University of Texas campus from a height of six feet, a camera perpendicular to the ground, at distances of 2-200 meters as a theoretically meaningful, representative sample of “natural scenes” seems rather flakey. If we include human artifacts, then what count as “non-natural scenes” ?

      The authors themselves are forced to confront (but choose to sidestep) the sampling problem when they note that “previous studies have reported that surfaces near 0° of slant are exceedingly rare in natural scenes (Yang & Purves, 2003), whereas we find significant probability mass near 0° of slant. That is, we find—consistent with intuition—that it is not uncommon to observe surfaces that have zero or near-zero slant in natural scenes (e.g., frontoparallel surfaces straight ahead).”

      (Quite frankly, the authors’ intuition is causing them to confuse cause and effect, since we have a behavioral tendency to orient ourselves to objects so that we are in a fronto-parallel relationship to surfaces rather than in an oblique relationship to them, thus biasing the “statistics” in this respect).

      They produce a speculative, technical and preliminary rationalization for the discrepancy between their distributions and those of Yang and Purves, leaving clarification to “future research.”

      What they don’t consider is the sampling problem. Is there any doubt WHATSOEVER that different “natural scenes” - or different heights, or different angles of view, or different head orientations - will produce very different “prior probabilities”? If this is a problem, it isn’t a technical one.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Mar 03, Ole Jakob Storebø commented:

      In their editorial, Gerlach and colleagues make several critical remarks (Gerlach M, 2017) regarding our Cochrane systematic review on methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Storebø OJ, 2015). While we thank them for drawing attention to our review we shall here try to explain our findings and standpoints.

      They argue, on the behalf of the World Federation of ADHD and EUNETHYDIS, that the findings from our Cochrane systematic review contrast with previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK), 2009, Faraone SV, 2010, King S, 2006, Van der Oord S, 2008) which all judged the included trials more favorably than we did.

      There are methodological flaws in most of these reviews that could have led to inaccurate estimates of effect. For example, most of these reviews did not publish an a priori protocol (Faraone SV, 2010, King S, 2006, Van der Oord S, 2008), or present data on spontaneous adverse events (Faraone SV, 2010, King S, 2006, Van der Oord S, 2008), nor did they report on adverse events as measured by rating scales (Faraone SV, 2010, King S, 2006, Van der Oord S, 2008), or systematically assess the risk of random errors, risk of bias, and trial quality (Faraone SV, 2010, King S, 2006,Van der Oord S, 2008). King at al. emphasised in the quality assessments for the NICE review that almost all studies did not score very well in the quality assessments and, consequently, results should be interpreted with caution (King S, 2006).

      The authors of this editorial refer to many published critical editorials and they argue that the issues they have raised have not adequately been addressed adequately by us. On closer examination, it is clear that virtually the same criticism has been levelled at us each time by the same group of authors, published in several journal articles, blogs, letters, and comments (Banaschewski T, 2016, BMJ comment,Banaschewski T, 2016, Hoekstra PJ, 2016, Hoekstra PJ, 2016, Romanos M, 2016, Mental Elf blog.

      Each time, we have refuted repeatedly with clear counter-arguments, recalculation of data, and detailed explanations (Storebø OJ, 2016, Storebø OJ, 2016,Storebø OJ, 2016, Pubmed commment, Storebø OJ, 2016, BMJ comments, Responses on Mental Elf, Pubmed comment.

      Our main point is that the very low quality of the evidence makes it impossible to estimate, with any certainty, what the true magnitude of the effect might be.

      It is correct that a post-hoc exclusion of the four trials with co-interventions in both MPH and control groups and the one trial of preschool children changes the standardised mean difference effect size from 0.77 to 0.89. However, even if the effect size increases upon excluding these trials, the overall risk of bias and quality of the evidence deems this discussion irrelevant. As mentioned above, we have responded several times to this group of authors Storebø OJ, 2016, Storebø OJ, 2016,< PMID: 27138912, Pubmed commment, Storebø OJ, 2016, BMJ comments, Responses on Mental Elf, Pubmed comment.

      We did not exclude any trials for the use of the cross-over design, as these were included in a separate analysis. The use of end-of-period data in cross-over trials is problematic due to the risk for “carry-over effect” (Cox DJ, 2008) and “unit of analysis errors” (http://www.cochrane-handbook.org). In addition, we tested for the risk of “carry-over effect”, by comparing trials with first period data to trials with end-of-period data in a subgroup analysis. This showed no significant subgroup difference, but this analysis has sparse data and one can therefore not rule out this risk. Even with no statistical difference in our subgroup analysis comparing parallel group trials to end-of-period data in cross-over trials, there was high heterogeneity. This means that the risk of “unit of analysis error” and “carry-over effect” is uncertain, and could be real. The aspect about our bias assessment have been raised earlier by these authors and others affiliated to the EUNETHYDIS. In fact, we see nothing new here. There is considerable evidence that trials sponsored by industry overestimate benefits and underestimate harms (Flacco ME, 2015, Lathyris DN, 2010, Kelly RE Jr, 2006). Moreover, the AMSTAR tool for methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews includes funding and conflicts of interest as a domain (http://amstar.ca/). The Cochrane Bias Methods Group (BMG) is currently working on including vested interests in the upcoming version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

      The aspect about whether teachers can detect well known adverse events of methylphenidate have also been raised earlier by these authors and others affiliated to the EUNETHYDIS (Banaschewski T, 2016, BMJ comment,Banaschewski T, 2016, Hoekstra PJ, 2016, Hoekstra PJ, 2016, Romanos M, 2016, Mental Elf blog.). We have continued to argue that teachers can detect the well-known adverse events of methylphenidate, such as the loss of appetite and disturbed sleep. We highlighted this in our review (Storebø OJ, 2015) and have answered this point in several replies to these authors (Storebø OJ, 2016, Storebø OJ, 2016,Storebø OJ, 2016, Pubmed commment, Storebø OJ, 2016, BMJ comments, Responses on Mental Elf, Pubmed comment. The well-known adverse events of “loss of appetite” and “disturbed sleep” are easily observable by teachers as uneaten food left on lunch plates, yawning, general tiredness, and weight loss.

      We have considered the persistent, repeated criticism by these authors seriously, but no evidence was provided to justify changing our conclusions regarding the very low quality of evidence of methylphenidate trials, which makes the true estimate of the methylphenidate effect unknowable. This is a methodological rather than a clinical or philosophical issue.<br> We had no preconceptions of the findings of this review and followed the published protocol; therefore, any proposed manipulations of the data proposed by this group of authors would be in contradiction to the accepted methods of high-quality meta-analyses. As we have repeatedly responded clearly to the criticism of these authors, and it is unlikely that their view of our (transparent) work is going to change, we propose to agree to disagree.

      Finally, we do not agree that the recent analysis from registries provides convincing evidence on the long-term benefits of methylphenidate due to multiple limitations of this type of kind of study, albeit that interesting perspectives are provided. They require further study to be regarded as reliable.

      Ole Jakob Storebø, Morris Zwi, Helle B. Krogh, Erik Simonsen, Carlos Renato Maia, Christian Gluud


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Apr 22, Alessandro Rasman commented:

      Aldo Bruno MD, Pietro M. Bavera MD, Aldo d'Alessandro MD, Giampiero Avruscio MD, Pietro Cecconi MD, Massimiliano Farina MD, Raffaello Pagani MD, Pierluigi Stimamiglio MD, Arnaldo Toffon MD and Alessandro Rasman

      We read with interest this study by Zakaria et al. titled "Failure of the vascular hypothesis of multiple sclerosis in a rat model of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency".(1) Unfortunately the authors ligated the external jugular veins of the rats and not the internal jugular veins. Dr, Zamboni's theory on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency is based on the internal jugular veins and not on external jugular veins.(2) Maybe the authors can read the two papers from Dr. Mancini et al. (3) and (4). So, in our opinion the title of this study is absolutely not correct.

      References: 1. Zakaria, Maha MA, et al. "Failure of the vascular hypothesis of multiple sclerosis in a rat model of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency." Folia Neuropathologica 55.1 (2017): 49-59. 2. Zamboni, Paolo, et al. "Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis." Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 80.4 (2009): 392-399. 3. Mancini, Marcello, et al. "Head and neck veins of the mouse. A magnetic resonance, micro computed tomography and high frequency color Doppler ultrasound study." PloS one 10.6 (2015): e0129912. 4. Auletta, Luigi, et al. "Feasibility and safety of two surgical techniques for the development of an animal model of jugular vein occlusion." Experimental Biology and Medicine 242.1 (2017): 22-28.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Oct 28, Daniel Weiss commented:

      Karter et. al describe a tool to predict the risk of hypoglycemia in persons with Type 2 Diabetes. This tool confirms obvious, well-established clinical observations: sulfonylureas and insulin are associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia. Three points are worth clarifying.

      First, this tool was developed in the Kaiser Permanente of Northern California health care system where practitioners have a very limited choice of agents for Type 2 Diabetes. In that system and the Veterans Health Administration, the usage of drugs that do not tend to cause hypoglycemia is restricted due to cost. Yet, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been available since 2005 and the first sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was approved in 2013. Although less effective, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been around since 2007. All these drug classes cost more than sulfonylureas but none put patients at risk for hypoglycemia.

      In large part, because of that risk of hypoglycemia, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists algorithm (1) for pharmacotherapy of Type 2 Diabetes judges sulfonylureas as the worst option. Indeed, the annual rate of hypoglycemia was lowest in the Group Health Cooperative patients where sulfonylureas were used less frequently.

      Second, the authors fail to account for the type of insulin prescribed. They lump all insulins together. And they discuss skipping meals as a cause of hypoglycemia. All insulins are not the same. For example, NPH insulin is associated with a greater risk of hypoglycemia than is insulin glargine in head to head trials (2). And the pharmacokinetics of NPH insulin are such that insulin levels often peak when the patient is not eating. Well-designed insulin regimens allow patients to skip meals with no problem.

      Third, in their lengthy discussion on steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, the authors fail to even mention choosing effective agents that do not cause hypoglycemia such as GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT-2 inhibitors. And some of these newer agents have now been demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.

      The authors focus on population approaches, not the best care for the individual patient in the exam room.

      Conflict of Interest Disclosures: This commenter receives clinical research funding and speaker honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies that market medication for diabetes.

      1. Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. Consensus Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm - 2017 Executive Summary. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(2):207-238.
      2. Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J, Insulin Glargine Study I. The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3080-3086.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Oct 01, David Mage commented:

      Altfeld et al., PMID: 28838726, made an excellent study of the recent efforts to reduce sleep-related infant deaths in the U.S. However, they made both an explicit error and an implicit error that needs to be called to the readers’ attention:

      Explicit Error: On page 2, they refer to “mothers of non-Hispanic Black infants” and “mothers of Hispanic infants.” [NB: Hispanic is an ethnicity and not a race] Apparently, the authors did not read carefully their references [1, 2, 21] and the Technical Notes cited therein. The CDC and NCHS both explicitly state that their cited racial data are either the mother’s self-identified race if monoracial, or “To provide uniformity and comparability of these data [to census data, per OMB requirement], multiple race [of mother] is imputed to a single race.” (see NCHS Technical Notes). The authors of reference 21 conducted an evening at-the-door survey of parents of recently born infants, and “Participants were asked: ‘Which of the following best describes [your, or] the mother's race or ethnic background?’ They were then read a list but also given the option to name one that was not listed.” The mother answered 84% of the time and 16% of the time another adult person responded for her;

      Implicit Error: The authors seem to have forgotten that the father of an infant often plays a role in the determination of the race of the infant. I used the word “often” instead of always because “Tis a wise child that knows its own father.” [Puddn’head Wilson, Mark Twain] {Old Burlesque joke: Enter little redhaired boy. Clown: What lovely red hair you have. Do mommy and daddy have red hair too? Little Boy: No --- But we do have a milkman with red hair. (audience laughs) Exit boy.} Therefore, implicitly, the self-identified race of the mother is the same race as the infant if, and only if, the mother is monoracial, and the father (either known or unknown) is the identical race as the mother.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Sep 26, Clive Bates commented:

      I would like to recommend that the authors (and anyone attempting similar experiments) consult experienced users about the way these products are used in practice in order to ensure their work is relevant and realistic. I am posting a critical review of this paper by an experienced vaper, Paul Barnes, a trustee of the New Nicotine Alliance.

      Paul Barnes' review starts here

      An emerging category of electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) are sub-Ohm devices (SODs) that operate at ten or more times the power of conventional ECIGs

      Sub-Ohming has been a feature of vaping for many years with advanced, or hobbyist, users utilising knowledge of Ohms Law and unregulated mechanical mods (“mech-mods”), along with user-made coils to provide an experience customised to suit the individual user.

      As technology has improved, the need for mechanical mods has waned, bringing forth the era of the regulated devices. These contain a chipset to regulate power output (wattage), include safety cut-off (to prevent over-use), and control thermal safety (to prevent cell failures), among other features. These devices can produce similar, or greater, power output compared with the mechanical device.

      Pre-made coils are now the norm for most users. The coils mentioned in this paper - Smok TF-Q4 (1), Smok V8-Q4 (2), Smok V8-T8 (3) and the Smok V8-T10 (4) - present a unique problem for researchers lacking in an understanding of both the technology and the consumer.

      In this paper, all the chosen coils were used at a constant power of 50W, with the Smok V8-T8 coil head being used at varying power levels (50, 75, and 100 Watts).

      Fundamentally, the design of the coil head is suitable for higher power usage, not low power.

      One of the key problems with this approach is the misunderstanding of a) how these devices are used in the real world, and b) the particular user characteristics.

      For example, the Smok TF-Q4 states (screen printed on the coil head itself) that the “best” range (determined by user experience, the resistance of the coil, and knowledge of consumer preferences) for power (in Watts) is between 80-120W - between the medium and the upper end of the coil-head maximum capability of 140 Watts.

      The power ranges for the other coils are as follows (according to manufacturer specifications):

      Smok V8-Q4: 50-180W and "best between" 90-150W

      Smok V8-T8: 50-260W and "best between" 125-180W

      Smok V8-T10: 50-300W and "best between" 130-190W

      Considering that the coil head chosen for the variable power test (Smok V8-T8) has a “best” operating range of 125-180 W, testing at 100 demonstrates an imbalance between the cooling effects of the e-liquid, aerosol generation and airflow - a factor not directly considered in the paper.

      At a measured resistance of 0.15 Ohms - the culmination of eight physical coils arranged in parallel - (assuming the Joyetech Cuboid used measured the resistance accurately), and a power setting of 100W, the voltage applied to the coil head is 5.33V (35.59A).

      Finding a decrease in VA emissions is obvious, given the coil heads fundamental design and operating parameters. In comparison, the Vapor Fi (5) device used demonstrated high levels of VA emissions when used at 11 W (approximately 6.2V), far and above the power that would generate the "dry puff" phenomenon (6); as commonly seen in the older CE4/CE5 clearomisers favoured by some researchers (7).

      The key difference between the VF coil and the Smok coil-heads is in the construction. The Smok coil-heads utilise multiple physical coils inside a single unit, conversely, the VF coil is a single coil unit. Therefore, the entirety of the 6.2V (at 11W) is being applied to a single resistance material. The unique construction of the Smok coil-heads negates this fundamental problem by providing up to 10 distinct coils within the head. The total effect is the same, 5.33V is being applied to the entirety of the head, but distributed across 4, 8 or 10 distinct paths.

      Coupled with the larger surface area and substantially more wicking material, heat dissipation through the wick, aerosolisation and air inhalation, the Smok coil heads are capable of handling much higher voltage, while using substantially more e-liquid, without generating the dry-puff.

      Prior research (8) on the various types of e-cig coil, including a common Sub-Ohm tank and coil, has previously been performed with a focus on nicotine aerosolisation, suggesting that the liquid consumed through vaping is not proportional to nicotine content.

      In summary

      The central point of this paper is to examine the relationship between increasing power applied to a coil or coil-head and increasing VA emissions. Fundamentally, with a coil-head containing multiple physical coils, the total heating area, relative to a single (or even a dual) coil is substantially greater. The amount of wicking material which, when soaked with e-liquid (with or without nicotine) provides a significant cooling effect, is also substantially greater. With more physical coils in the coil-head, the time taken for a coil-head to reach a temperature that is both a) satisfying for the user, and b) includes the possibility of inducing a dry-puff, is much longer. Further, the material used for the coil alters the overall heat capacity; as demonstrated by the "Coil Wrapping" calculator (9).

      In reality, as power to the coil increases, liquid consumption also increases. In real-world scenarios, human users regulate both power and liquid flow to minimise the risk of dry-puff conditions and therefore avoiding increases in VA emissions.

      References

      (1) Smok TF-V4 Coil - UK ECIG Store: [link]

      (2) Smok Tech Store V8-Q4 core: [link]

      (3) Smok Tech Store V8-T8 core: [link]

      (4) Smok Tech Store V8-T10 core: [link]

      (5) VaporFi Platinum II Tank: [link]

      (6) Farsalinos K, Voudris V, Poulas K - E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in 'dry puff' conditions [link] Farsalinos KE, 2015

      (7) CE5 Clearomizer Tank - VapeClub: [link]

      (8) Farsalinos K et al - Protocol proposal for, and evaluation of, consistency in nicotine delivery from the liquid to aerosol of electronic cigarette atomizers: [link] Farsalinos KE, 2016

      (9) For example, see Steam Engine Coil Wrapping Calculator [link]


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Oct 04, Brad Rodu commented:

      The study by Feirman et al. (Feirman SP, 2018) described in detail the results from one question in the 2012, 2014, and 2015 Health Information National Trends Surveys: “Do you believe that some smokeless tobacco products, such as chewing tobacco and snuff, are less harmful than cigarettes?” The possible answers were “Yes,” “No,” and “Don’t Know.”

      The article highlighted these findings:

      • “A majority of adults do not think smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes.” (i.e., didn’t answer “yes.”) • “Believing smokeless tobacco is not less harmful than cigarettes declined from 2012–2015.” • “Perceptions about the harm of smokeless tobacco differed by demographic subgroup.”

      The authors, from the U.S. FDA and National Cancer Institute, commented: “…our findings may help inform public health communications aimed at reducing tobacco-related harms. Additionally, understanding consumer perceptions of tobacco products plays an important role in FDA's regulatory work.”

      This claim is not valid because of one glaring omission throughout the article, which contained 3,800 words, 3 large tables of numbers and 58 references. The article failed to specify that the correct answer is: “Yes, smokeless tobacco products are less harmful than cigarettes.” In fact, it focused almost entirely on the majority of participants who inaccurately answered “No” or “Don’t Know,” which reflects misperception fostered by an effective “quarantine” of truthful risk information by federal agencies (Kozlowski LT, 2016).

      Decades of epidemiologic studies have documented that the health risks of smokeless tobacco use are, at most, 2% those of smoking (Rodu B, 2006; Rodu B, 2011; Fisher M 2017; Royal College of Physicians, 2002; Lee PN, 2009). Unlike cigarettes, smokeless tobacco does not cause lung cancer, heart and circulatory diseases or emphysema. In 2002 the Royal College of Physicians concluded: “As a way of using nicotine, the consumption of non-combustible [smokeless] tobacco is on the order of 10–1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the product.” (Royal College of Physicians, 2002)

      The low risks from smokeless tobacco use even include mouth cancer. A 2002 review documented that men in the U.S. who use moist snuff and chewing tobacco have minimal to no risk for mouth cancer (Rodu B, 2002), and a recent federal study found no excess deaths from the disease among American men who use moist snuff or chewing tobacco (Wyss AB, 2016).

      As one of us recently wrote, “Deception or evasion about major differences in product risks is not supported by public health ethics, health communication or consumer practices. Public health agencies have an obligation to correct the current dramatic level of consumer misinformation on relative risks that they have fostered.” (Kozlowski LT, 2018)

      Brad Rodu Professor of Medicine University of Louisville

      David Sweanor Adjunct Professor of Law Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics University of Ottawa

      Brad Rodu is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville, and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Dec 13, Franz Schelling commented:

      "Without a good understanding of the vascular pathophysiologic factors that influence the patency of ballooned IJVs, it is difficult to perform any meaningful work relating any neurologic condition that may or may not be associated with constricted venous outflow." ... ought not this point given in the papers 'Discussion' be given in its 'Conclusion' part.

      Three questions asides: (1) Wasn't it observed that the muscular IJV entrapments depend widely on (a) head, (b) shoulder position and (c) jaw bracing? with (a) applying first to the sternal head of the sternocleidomastoid, (a)+(b) to the omohyoid, and (c) to the digastric muscle? (2) What about the often observed efficacy of deep inspiration/chest bracing in terms of flow reversals in the left IJV? (3) MRI findings of a severe hypoplasia of the entire J1 length seem preferentially due to its broad clamping between sternal part of the sternocleidomastoid and anterior scalene muscle - a problem which any good ENT surgeon can solve.

      Just some cues which may prove useful for making further advances.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. On 2017 Nov 30, Donald Forsdyke commented:

      CRISPR SPACERS PROVIDE "JUNK" VLA RNAs

      A "peculiarity of human thinking" invokes sad head-shaking in some quarters. It is argued, not only that "the vast majority of low abundant transcripts are simply junk," but also that such junk is "simple" (1). Those led to think that junk DNA serves the organism (i.e. can under some conditions be functional and hence selectively advantageous) are labelled "determinists." They can scarcely be distinguished from "ID believers"! There is no mention of the two-decade-old view that very low abundance transcripts (VLA RNAs) represent an intracellular antibody-like repertoire, for which much evidence has since accumulated (2-4).

      For microorganisms, the CRISPR system provided a clear example of the functionality of the transcription of their spacer "junk DNA." Ledford notes that the system "adapts to, and remembers, specific genetic invaders in a similar way to how human antibodies provide long-term immunity after an infection" (5). Just as we have germline cascades of V genes that confer immunological specificity on B and T lymphocytes, so microorganisms have their germline spacers that confer a similar specificity on their RNA populations. However, the functionality of an individual spacer "sense" transcript is only tested when a virus with a specific "antisense" sequence enters the cell. Transcription is conditional. The selective advantage can only emerge when the corresponding pathogen attacks.

      Thus, the analytical problem is not so "simple" as showing by experimental DNA deletion that the transcript of a specific eukaryotic gene is functional, or as dismissively postulating a requirement for "unacceptably high birth rates." Deletion of a single human V-region gene could show no selective effect if no corresponding pathogens invaded the body. Even if there were such an invasion, other V-regions would likely be able to compensate for the deletion. Similarly, deleting a segment of "junk" DNA is unlikely to impact survival if some of the wide spectrum of alternative "junk" transcripts can compensate for this defect in the RNA antibody-like repertoire.

      1.Sverdlov E (2017) Transcribed junk remains junk if it does not acquire a selected function in evolution. BioEssays doi: 10.1002/bies.201700164. Sverdlov E, 2017

      2.Cristillo AD, Mortimer JR, Barrette IH, Lillicrap TP, Forsdyke DR (2001) Double-stranded RNA as a not-self alarm signal: to evade, most viruses purine-load their RNAs, but some (HTLV-1, Epstein-Barr) pyrimidine-load. J Theor Biol 208:475-491. Cristillo AD, 2001

      3.Forsdyke DR, Madill CA, Smith SD (2002) Immunity as a function of the unicellular state: implications of emerging genomic data. Trends Immunol 23:575-579. Forsdyke DR, 2002

      4.Forsdyke DR (2016) Evolutionary Bioinformatics. 3rd edition. Springer, New York, pp. 279-303.

      5.Ledford H (2017) Five big mysteries about CRISPR’s origins. Nature 541:280-282. Ledford H, 2017


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

    1. “Cameras are also mounted at eye level for kids, so teachers can review successful lessons and ‘the steps leading up to those ‘ah-ha’ moments,’ head of school Kathleen Gibbons said. Some children use them as confessionals, sharing their secrets with the camera.”

      I don't really have anything to say about this but I think this extension is very cool and I can't wait to use it!

    1. Whether or not a witch needs any man other that the one she has currently chosen is relatively unimportant. What is important, however, lies in the fact that if a woman wants anything in life, she can obtain it easier through a man than another woman, despite woman liberationists ’ bellows to the contrary. The truly “ liberated ” female is the compleat witch, who knows both how to use and enjoy men. She will fi nd the energies she expends in her quixotic cause would be put to more rewarding use, where she to profi t by her womanliness by manipulating the men she holds in contempt, while enjoying the ones she fi nds stimulating.

      I thought this passage was particularly interesting as it utilizes reverse gender norms and gender roles and turns it on its head as a way in which to empower instead of suppress women. Again, manipulation is never good, however, I think LaVey in a way is highlighting an ideal world that women who are witches should strive toward in order to be fully complete within this religious structure.

    1. The body temperature at the stimulus location [15, 30, 45, 60, 75% along the fish fork length (Lf) with 0% representing the tip of the head and 100% the fork of the tail] was

      They also measured the muscle temperatures of each fish at the 5 different areas (along the length of the fish from head to tail) where they measured muscle contraction times. The temperature of the muscle would affect whether it contracts faster or slower (warmer is faster).

    1. I knew they'd been stoned and beaten off the streets in surrounding towns. That in Newbridge a priest had "torn the thin shawl and gown" from a Wren before flogging her bare shoulders with his riding whip "until the blood spurted onto his boots". All without a voice in the watching crowd raised in protest. I'd read how another priest made a practice of pouncing with a scissors on Wrens who ventured into the towns and "cutting their hair close to the head". That the only local shop to serve them was owned by a widow, but that they were allowed attend the market held in the army camp twice a week. That the British army sent water wagons out to them twice a week.

      Both encounters feature priests. Interesting that the British Army sent rations whilst their own countrymen did not.

    1. mple-mindedness, or commercial interests, horror fiction authors will not go beyond the exposition of a particular real-life issue and its linking to apparently unrelated if not downright amoral fantasies. Novels like King's may be a remarkable index of the anxieties besetting America - especially American men - but cannot articulat

      "[...] a moral message to overcome them."

      Perhaps true, but I believe this requires more looking into. In It and Gerald's Game, there is a strong message that the ultimate way to overcome childhood trauma is to confront it head on.

    1. And shook his head, and was again alone.

      He shakes his head because is remembering that he alone, and that nothing is the same here anymore. The song was done and now he is surrounded by strangers rather than friends.

    2. The weary throat gave out, The last word wavered, and the song was done. He raised again the jug regretfully And shook his head, and was again alone.

      The full name of the character in this poem is given in the first line: Eben Flood. So when Eben speaks to "Mr. Flood" he appears to be talking to himself. Apparently he has no one left to talk with. In this annotated section of the poem the dialog ends and Eben "was again alone." But he seems to be just as alone as he was at the start of the poem.

    1. Favonius

      Favonius also known as Zephyrus is the God of the west-wind and is married to Chloris, the goddess of fruits and flowers. Zephyrus is rejected by the Hyacinthus, he was the cause of his death by blowing Apollo's quoit against his head. His name is Zephyrus but he romans identify him as Favonius (1911).

    1. Jim told me to chop off the snake’s head and throw it away, and then skin the body and roast a piece of it. I done it, and he eat it and said it would help cure him. He made me take off the rattles and tie them around his wrist, too. He said that that would help. Then I slid out quiet and throwed the snakes clear away amongst the bushes; for I warn’t going to let Jim find out it was all my fault, not if I could help it.

      This shows Jim's superstitions on how to cure himself without medical attention. He believes in other means to become healthier. Also this shows how Huck starts to create a relationship with Jim because he feels bad for hurting him. It shows he is starting to have emotions for someone who was considered not even a person during that time. He felt sympathy towards him and shows how he is turning into Jim's friend.

    1. Furthermore, as I learned from talking to the head of the Access to Information unit, the process of searching for information at the AHPN has been designed in a way that allows the archivists to bear witness to the memories of the researchers. Each visit begins with a question: Tell us what happened to your loved one. The question has a practical purpose. It allows the archivists to glean the information that will make it possible to locate the necessary records from among the millions of files. But in answering this question, families are also sharing an intimate story with an archivist, an act of strength and also, often, of courage. Can a digital archive create similar opportunities for those who are unable to make the visit in person?
    1. He said that after the wall-paper was changed it would be the heavy bedstead, and then the barred windows, and then that gate at the head of the stairs, and so on.

      This slippery slope argument that John makes for not changing the wallpaper is reminiscent of the attitude of people in power.

      Those who have control do not want to see change and thus resist it as much as possible. The argument that if one small thing changes, then people will want more and bigger changes.

      Change, to the ruling class, is perhaps equivalent to relinquishing control; the more things change and the more dramatic the change, the more power they lose. John wants to remain dominant over his wife and therefore refuses to comply to her requests.

    1. He falls to his knees on the steps and presses his face to her belly, curving a little with maternity. Her eyes go blind with tenderness as she catches his head and raises him level with her.

      :/ rising action: she goes back w him

      • things to figure out: is this the first time he hit her?
    1. Rather it is an invitation to open content publishers to be thoughtful in the technical choices they make - whether they are publishing text, images, audio, video, simulations, or other media.

      I am still trying to wrap my head around how you make images open and meaningfully editable. For instance, if I create a graphic or diagram, I would do it in InDesign, illustrator, or Photoshop. Typically these files are built in layers, with different effects, transparencies, etc. The files are huge. I would then have to flatten the layers and reduce the file size to make the graphic workable in an online, or even printed environment. Once flattened, they are no longer editable.

    1. Thoroughly describe this object, paying careful attention, as relevant, to all of its aspects-material, spatial, and temporal. Be attentive to details (for which a technical vocabulary will almost certainly prove useful), but ever keep an eye on the big picture.

      The more words you use in your description, the more visible the image in your head becomes. Describing an object can be done in a few sentences or as many as maybe two pages according to Ms. Rose. One could start off by stating the more obvious and as the obvious slims down you must then go into more depth and look at little details people may not see at first glance. With a machete one could say that it's a large steal object with knife-like qualities and could be used as a tool or weapon.

    1. painted perhaps some 10,000 to 30,000 years ago

      perhaps the paintings show up so long after the fossil because the dexterity required for art (fine motor) is more difficult to master (and, one assumes, develop) than the gross motor skills required to use a spear. Cephalocaudal (head to tail), promixaldistal (inner to out)...fine motor movements of the hands and fingers are the last skills babies develop.

    1. The particular lipids that formed the first cells had two parts, a polar top part (a head) and a non-polar (hydrophobic) tail. Because of these tails, lipids gather into bubbles with their hydrophobic (“afraid of water”) tails pointed inwards and their heads outward.

      Do you think we should ask Prof. Dennehy how relevant the chemistry of lipids hiding from water is? That is, should we know a lot about entropy?

    1. He suffers nothing but pain. After two hours, the felt is removed, for at that point the man has no more energy for screaming. Here at the head of the bed warm rice pudding is put in this electrically heated bowl. From this the man, if he feels like it, can help himself to what he can lap up with his tongue. No one passes up this opportunity. I don’t know of a single one, and I have had a lot of experience. He first loses his pleasure in eating around the sixth hour.

      The flip from "nothing but pain" to the human spirit broken so far that it won't lap up warm rice pudding is especially funny. Is rice pudding a Austrian/Czech food?

    1. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., walks on the arm of Dr. Ralph Abernathy, her husband's successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership conference, leading about 10,000 people in a memorial march to the slain Dr. King. The King children, Yolanda, Martin III, and Dexter are at left with Harry Belafonte. Reverend Andrew Young marches next to Dr. Abernathy. #

      What kept protestors going after seeing how gruesome protest can end? (MLK assassination)

  7. Jan 2018
    1. Just how I would do it I could never decide: by reading law, by healing the sick, by telling the wonderful tales that swam in my head,—some way

      It's unfortunate how relevant this poem still feels. Often, in being an "outsider" in a society that puts white cishet men as the "normal" citizen, people that do not fit such a mold are forced to be exceptional in order to fit into this society, and even then, the fit is not a natural one, compared to what is deemed "normal".

    2. To the real question, How does it feel to be a problem?

      His frankness in this first paragraph, as well as throughout the whole chapter, is powerful. It's shocking in its honesty, forcing the reader to confront head on something that might be difficult to consider.

    1. In those early days, whatever he might say to her, she would answer admiringly: "You know, you will never be like other people!"óshe would gaze at his long, slightly bald head, of which people who know only of his successes used to think: "He's not regularly good-looking, if you like, but he is smart; that tuft, that eyeglass, that smile!" and, with more curiosity perhaps to know him as he really was than desire to become his mistress,

      This is the first time we get Odette's opinion of Swann and it has some similarities to his original impression of her. Neither one is actually attracted to the other but they talk themselves into it. This makes the whole relationship seem more artificial and forced. "Odette's face appeared thinner and more prominent than it actually was, because her forehead and the upper part of her cheeks, a single and almost plane surface, were covered by the masses of hair" (182).

    1. he insisted. "I want you to meet my girl."

      my girl Honestly, these were the words that went through my head when he wanted to introduce Nick to the woman he is cheating on Nicks cousin with. I just like don't understand that. I was so shocked. I mean I know Nick and Tom are friends, but Toms wife is also his cousin!! I was also sort of surprised that Nick did not refuse to go. Does he not care about Daisy?! I never would've guessed that Tom would introduce Nick to Myrtle. It was a mini-plot-twist.

    1. The web is a network for conversations, and if students still see their audience as a teacher with a red pen, then nothing changes.

      True. For a student to have a domain, the feeling of being graded by a teacher hangs over the head, defeating the purpose of the blog itself. However, if it is done right it can be very beneficial.

    1. The crayon, or perhaps more accurately “crayon-like object”, is 22-milimetres long and seven-millimetres wide, an elongated structure comprised primarily of haematitite, although with some small hard pieces of other minerals embedded.

      In this article we see Materson displaying those major attributions to a good description that Haltman spoke of in his text. "The key to good description is a rich, nuanced vocabulary". We see him giving readers a description that gives a sense of imagery here. Had there not been a picture, with this description readers would have been able to create an image in their head. We see this "rich, nuanced vocabulary" that Haltman suggested, in this article.

    1. He recognized on the sign, however, the ruby face of King George, under which he had smoked so many a peaceful pipe, but even this was singularly metamorphosed. The red coat was changed for one of blue and buff, a sword was held in the hand instead of a sceptre, the head was decorated with a cocked hat, and underneath was painted in large characters, “GENERAL WASHINGTON.”

      transposition of King George for GW

    2. He recognized on the sign, however, the ruby face of King George, under which he had smoked so many a peaceful pipe, but even this was singularly metamorphosed. The red coat was changed for one of blue and buff, a sword was held in the hand instead of a sceptre, the head was decorated with a cocked hat, and underneath was painted in large characters, “GENERAL WASHINGTON.”

      Change a few aspects and suddenly the same thing is considered something different and better.

    1. Every night the same prayer. I ask HIM to forgive my SINS HE hears me better at night, or so I tell myself. HE can’t hear the doubts rattling around in my head like a rattlesnake’s tail.

      really like the capitalization, especially because you also capitalize SINS which is an interesting tie to the HIM/HE

    1. He labored at a job he detested so that he could send his children to college

      My father continues to do the same. As the child of immigrant parents and an immigrant myself, putting my head down and working without questions was how I was raised. I think its honorable to do that kind of work for something greater than ones self. To serve for a better family/community. One first needs shelter and food before he can "follow his passion."

    1. writing with things you can drop on your foot

      I believe this is a great way at looking at things as far as being descriptive. Using actually objects, things that your audience can actually visualize in their head while reading. This will allow readers to be more engaged because they can relate more.

    1. this reminds me of a joke I heard once. The joke is that if the resurrection of Jesus was in modern times then Christians would be wearing electric chairs around their necks instead of a cross. Not the best joke but the imagery is there. The connection in my head is that Christians view the cross as a reminder of the guilt that follows us for nailing Jesus to the cross. The dynamo parallels this because it is not a pretty invention. It was very powerful at the time but it is force that we must deal with and Adams must feel some guilt or obligation to the dynamo.