Remove eSignature Word Easy

In my very first condo building, one of the other residents didn’t like me. Most people also didn’t like her, but she was a lawyer (she told everyone, I knew she was just starting law school), so they deferred to her. She somehow convinced them that they didn’t need to do the 2 things required for association meetings per the laws in my area - send a notice of the meeting date, time, and location to all owners at the address the association has for them by mail, and post a notice of the same in public areas of the building that all owners can access, both at least 21 days in advance - and held an association meeting that specifically excluded me and 2 other owners using this tactic. Keep in mind this was an 8-unit building, so excluding 3 units from representation meant that they didn’t have a 2/3 (67%) vote, required for many things.During that association meeting, they passed 3 rules (two of which were completely bunk because they were amendments to the bylaws which required a paper ballot, mailed, which at least 2/3 of owners agreed to)…(1) Any owner who did not park their car in their designated parking spot at least 3 nights a week forfeited the use of that parking space to the association to assign or use as they saw fit (parking spots were limited common elements, and any amendment to their use constituted a change to the bylaws; I and one other owner did not own cars, but occasionally let friends park in our spaces, and the car owners wanted our spaces for guests of their own). To best accomplish this, “resident use” spaces could only be used by a car the owner notified the association they possessed, with the license plate and VIN and proof of ownership by a resident, at least 2 weeks prior to that car parking in the space. Guests could not use “resident” spaces, nor could owners for rental cars. Yeah;(2) No one could consume alcohol “on the premises” within “plain view” of other residents. This was precipitated by an uber-”christian” owner who kept us “heathens” out of the association meeting. Everyone thought this meant in just the common spaces, but they were WRONG. Banning having a beer in our big yard was bad enough, but this owner meant if she could see you at all. So, I ended up being the first one “rung up” about it. Since I didn’t even know the rule had passed (minutes and vote results were also not mailed as required by law), she had our management company blowing up my phone on a Friday evening about HAVING A BEER ON MY PRIVATE BALCONY. She could see me from the parking lot, that was “in plain view of other residents,” and I needed to stop. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE. A neighbor on the first floor was sitting on her couch having a glass of wine when Ms. Perfect walked up to the main door of the building. HER BLINDS WERE OPEN, THAT VIOLATES THE RULE, SHE EITHER HAS TO CLOSE HER BLINDS OR STOP DRINKING *INSIDE* HER OWN HOME. Edit, and I don’t know how I forgot this before: the woman who was hassled for drinking wine in her own living room WAS AN ORDAINED MINISTER. And I don’t mean online just to marry your friends (not necessary in DC…for $30 to the city anyone can perform a wedding, and for $0 beyond the cost of a marriage license you can self-signNow a marriage if both parties are over 21 and sign the proper paperwork)…in an actual, physical, local church, one with a pretty conservative bent (I attended her wedding in her church…they ain’t “progressive” (in a weird stroke of “it’s a small world,” she got engaged to a fairly close coworker of mine just a few months after we both moved into the building…they actually met before either of us moved into the building and didn’t know that we had this weird connection until after they were engaged, when I walked out my door to see my coworker standing in the front yard and said “what the hell are you doing here???”))! And SHE’S being heckled for having a glass of wine with her husband on a Friday evening in her own living room!(3) The building was sold as pet-friendly, with no restrictions. The lawyer neighbor moved in a big, poorly mannered dog just before said association meeting where they excluded several of us. She then proposed to ban all pets, even down to a goldfish in a bowl, except those already in the building. The allowance of pets was actually written into the bylaws (unusual, but it does happen), so, again violating the bylaws except for her own benefit. I was in the process to adopt a dog at that time (appropriate to a small condo and less than 1/3 the size of hers), and I only found out about the bylaw change when I asked the management company for a letter stating dogs were allowed to present to the rescue.Thankfully, all this was resolved pretty quickly when the 3 of us who were excluded from the meeting and a fourth who objected to most of the rule changes paid (payment is necessary unless there’s a good reason for them to do work pro bono) a lawyer friend of mine to write a simple letter asking for proof the meeting and bylaw changes had been properly conducted. The “lawyer” girl sent a letter back saying, without proof, they had, but upon further insistence, the management company stepped in, said that the proof was not there, please don’t sue (since they would be on the hook for not conducting the meeting properly), and asked for permission to re-do the association meeting, with proper notice, in a proper place, and with proper balloting for bylaw changes. We agreed, all measures failed when properly voted upon, and the “lawyer” and “christian” could only get revenge on us through disapproving stares and putting their units up for rent as soon as they could afford something else.

I speak two languages: English and Japanese.The word that describes turning nouns into verbs in English is declension. The easiest way to declense a noun in English is to add “to” to the beginning of it. For example, party → to party. Then, you just treat it as a regular verb with standard conjugation.Party: to party, partied, parties, will party, has partied, etc..Knife (meaning “to stab with a knife”): to knife, knifed, knifes, will knife, etc..Declension is a pretty rudimentary skill in English—anyone can do it, I believe. However, Japanese is much more fascinating.In Japanese, there is an entire verb class dedicated to declension called group III verbs, or する (suru) verbs. する (suru) is the Japanese verb for “to do” in English. In Japanese, there is a class of nouns called “action” nouns, or -する (-suru) nouns. To declense a -する (-suru) noun, all you have to do is add する (suru) to it. From there, you can conjugate it to whatever tense/form you need.Examples:勉強 (べんきょう, benkyou): Study/studies (as in, scholarly study, Japanese studies, etc.)勉強する (benkyou suru): To study or I/you/he/she/etc. studies (informal)勉強します (benkyou shimasu): To study or I/you/he/she/etc. studies (formal)勉強しない/しません (benkyou shinai/shimasen): I/you/he/she/etc. doesn’t study (informal/formal)勉強できる/できます (benkyou dekiru/dekimasu): Can study (informal/formal)And so on.If you have a noun in Japanese and you want to make it into a verb, there’s a really high chance that all you have to do is add a conjugation of -する onto it and you’ll have the verb you need.Furthermore, there are many nouns to which there are related verbs.Examples:諦め (akirame): resignation/quitting; 諦める (akirameru): to resign/quit光 (hikari): light; 光る (hikaru): to shine/glow笑い (warai): laughter; 笑う (warau): to laugh数 (kazu): a number; 数える (kazoeru): to count答 (kotae): an answer; 答える (kotaeru): to answer痛み (itami): pain; 痛む (itamu): to ache, to feel painAnd so on.All in all, I find Japanese declension really interesting, and once I started learning the language, this one rule expanded my Japanese reservoir of verbs to easily twice or three times its size. To anyone learning Japanese, this will be one of the most, if not the most important grammar rules past the very basics.

Algorithm for starting a Private Limited Company: Engineer's View Personally I believe, If someone is starting a company with long term perspective or to bring some change through their unique Product/Services, one must go for Private limited firm. Prime reason for this is easy to raise funds from Angels/VC in case you go for investment. Step 1. Registration of Company 1. Name Selection: Check whether your desired company name is available or not at MCA website [ http://www.mca.gov.in/ ]. Name must be unique & must resemble with business you intend to do (highlighted one). EX: Arihant Labs Retail Services Pvt. Ltd 2. Registration of Name at ROC: Name approval usually takes maximum of 14 days. This is done online through MCA website. Moreover, you need to apply with at least 4 names for approval with a writeup about significance of names with main business of the company. 3. 1. Documents Required: 2. 1. Options for names for the proposed Company (on the basis of preference) 2. Amount of Share Capital; proposed shareholding ratio 3. A paragraph on the proposed major line of business of the company (main objects) 4. City of Registered Office. 5. Copy of ownership deed/sale deed(if property is owned) 6. Copy of rent agreement with NOC (if property is rented) 7. Copy of latest electricity bill/telephone bill/mobile bill for both directors 8. Copy of latest electric bill/telephone bill for the registered office proof. 4. Obtaining DIN & DSC: 5. 1. Documents Required 2. 1. PAN Card copies for directors and shareholders. 2. Voter ID/Passport/Driving License for directors and shareholders. 3. Occupation of the Directors for directors and shareholders. 4. E-Mail IDs of all directors and shareholders. 5. Phone Numbers for all directors and shareholders. 6. Photos for directors and shareholders 6. Company Incorporation: After above mentioned formalities have been completed, we need to file following forms/docs in Rs 100 stamp paper: 7. 1. Affidavits for non- acceptance 2. INC 9, INC 10 3. DIR 2 4. NOC : This is required to be filed by the owner of the property on which your company will be situated. 5. Subscriber Sheets of MOA & AOA 6. Documents required for filling MOA & AOA 7. 1. Must be filled on OWN handwriting 2. Passport size photos 3. Sheets needs to be witnessed by CA/CS/Advocate Step 2. Obtaining PAN/TAN: After company gets incorporated, you may apply for PAN/TAN. Step 3. Trade Licence in case you are selling PRODUCTS: This is required in some places for carrying out sales. You can obtain this from local Municipality. Step 4. VAT/CST registration for selling Products: For selling intra-state, you need VAT registration & for selling inter-state, you need to register for CST. 1. Documents Required: 2. 1. Trade Licence 2. Company Incorporation Certificate 3. PAN card of company as well as of all the directors 4. Proof of residence of Directors 5. Proof of occupancy of place of business (Rent agreement/ ownership deed, Rent Bills etc) 6. MOA & AOA of company 7. Current Account in the name of company in any national bank Step 5. Service tax registration for Service Industry: In India, you need to pay service tax of 14.5% on every services you have charged customer for. 1. Documents Required: 2. 1. Company Incorporation Certificate 2. PAN card of company as well as of all the directors 3. Proof of residence of Directors 4. Proof of occupancy of place of business (Rent agreement/ ownership deed, Rent Bills etc) 5. MOA & AOA of company 6. Current Account in the name of company in any national bank That's All folks! Your STARTUP is up to Conquer the World. UPVOTE & SHARE your views/issues We at labkafe [ http://labkafe.com/ ], prefer taxmantra [ http://taxmantra.com/ ] for our legal requirements.

Over time it has become increasingly difficult to define what is the difference between imperative and functional languages. The original functional languages Lisp, was imperative. Today it seems as if the main distinction relates to functional purity meaning immutable data and the control of effects through the type system. However, this definition excludes most languages considered to be functional such as Scheme, SML, OCaml, Clojure, Scala and leaves Haskell (and family members).Q: What are the pros and cons of Haskell programming compared to imperative programming?ProsImmutability improves the ability to reason about code, particularly when their is substantial composition of disparate components.ConsNot scalable, most immutable data-structures have non-constant asymptotic complexity and those with constant complexity have a relatively large constant. Anton Carver's answer to When should I avoid functional programming and use imperative programming instead?Some sequential algorithms are only possible by using excessive workarounds (union/find).Some parallel algorithms are only possible by using excessive workarounds (parallel union/find).Mismatch when working with databases (transactional mutation).Mismatch when working with distributed systems (Byzantine failures). Anton Carver's answer to Can one make distributed computing systems taking advantage of functional programming's stateless behavior?Not mainstream, difficulty in finding skilled engineers.Neutral (these things apply to both Haskell and imperative languages).Use of immutable data-structures as shared messages in a concurrent systems.Ability to operate with high-level abstractions, composition and meta-constructs.

In India, Advertising is most popular to signNow peoples and promote your business, but there are several words which are considered as Spam by the auto bots. Here is the list of spam words which i recommend you to not use it in E-mail marketing or any kind of marketing or advertising medium.Note:- I will also upload Image at last so that you can save it in your mobile and view the list without searching on Quora again.List:- 4UClaims you are a winnerFor instant accessAccept credit cardsClaims you registered with Some Kind of PartnerFor just $ (some amt)Act now! Don’t hesitate!Click belowFree accessAdditional incomeClick here linkFree cell phoneAddresses on CDClick to removeFree consultationAll naturalClick to remove mailtoFree DVDAmazingCompare ratesFree grant moneyApply OnlineCompete for your businessFree hostingAs seen onConfidentially on all ordersFree installationAuto email removalCongratulationsFree investmentAvoid bankruptcyConsolidate debt and creditFree leadsBe amazedCopy accuratelyFree membershipBe your own bossCopy DVDsFree moneyBeing a memberCredit bureausFree offerBig bucksCredit card offersFree previewBill 1618Cures baldnessFree priority mailBilling addressDear emailFree quoteBillion dollarsDear friendFree sampleBrand new pagerDear somebodyFree trialBulk emailDifferent reply toFree websiteBuy directDig up dirt on friendsFull refundBuying judgmentsDirect emailGet It NowCable converterDirect marketingGet paidCall freeDiscusses search engine listingsGet started nowCall nowDo it todayGift certificateCalling creditorsDon’t deleteGreat offerCan’t live withoutDrastically reducedGuaranteeCancel at any timeEarn per weekHave you been turned down?Cannot be combined with any other offerEasy termsHidden assetsCash bonusEliminate bad creditHome employmentCashcashcashEmail harvestHuman growth hormoneCasinoEmail marketingIf only it were that easyCell phone cancer scamExpect to earnIn accordance with lawsCents on the dollarFantastic dealIncrease salesCheck or money orderFast Viagra deliveryIncrease trafficClaims not to be selling anythingFinancial freedomInsuranceClaims to be in accordance with some spam lawFind out anythingInvestment decisionClaims to be legalFor freeIt's effectiveJoin millions of AmericansNo questions askedReverses agingLaser printerNo sellingRisk freeLimited time onlyNo strings attachedRound the worldLong distance phone offerNot intendedS 1618Lose weight spamOff shoreSafeguard noticeLower interest ratesOffer expiresSatisfaction guaranteedLower monthly paymentOffers couponSave $Lowest priceOffers extra cashSave big moneyLuxury carOffers free (often stolen) passwordsSave up toMail in order formOnce in lifetimeScore with babesMarketing solutionsOne hundred percent freeSection 301Mass emailOne hundred percent guaranteedSee for yourselfMeet singlesOne time mailingSent in complianceMember stuffOnline biz opportunitySerious cashMessage contains disclaimerOnline pharmacySerious onlyMLMOnly $Shopping spreeMoney backOpportunitySign up free todayMoney makingOpt inSocial security numberMonth trial offerOrder nowSpecial promotionMore Internet trafficOrder statusStainless steelMortgage ratesOrders shipped by priority mailStock alertMulti level marketingOutstanding valuesStock disclaimer statementName brandPennies a dayStock pickNew customers onlyPeople just leave money laying aroundStop snoringNew domain extensionsPlease readStrong buyNigerianPotential earningsStuff on saleNo age restrictionsPrint form signatureSubject to creditNo catchPrint out and faxSupplies are limitedNo claim formsProduced and sent outTake action nowNo costProfitsTalks about hidden chargesNo credit checkPromise you …!Talks about prizesNo disappointmentPure profitTells you it’s an adNo experienceReal thingTerms and conditionsNo feesRefinance homeThe best ratesNo gimmickRemoval instructionsThe following formNo inventoryRemove in quotesThey keep your money — no refund!No investmentRemove subjectThey’re just giving it awayNo medical examsRemoves wrinklesThis isn’t junkNo middlemanReply remove subjectThis isn’t spamNo obligationRequires initial investmentUniversity diplomasNo purchase necessaryReserves the rightUnlimitedUnsecured credit/debtWe honor allWill not believe your eyesUrgentWeekend getawayWinnerUS dollarsWhat are you waiting for?WinningVacation offersWhile supplies lastWork at homeViagra and other drugsWhile you sleepYou have been selectedWants credit cardWho really wins?Your incomeWe hate spamWhy pay more?Image:-Thank you, if possible, Please visit my website:- www.statusfactory.in

In a way, it is correct to say that life went on as normal; which is not to say, of course, that there was anything normal about life at all, in those days and years and centuries.The Fall of the Western Roman Empire was a long agony, so we’d be best served by limiting our scope to the two most traumatic events: the sack of Rome by the Arian (non-Catholic Christian) Visigoths in 410 AD (800 exact years after Brennus’ Gauls) and the final collapse of Roman Italy in 476 AD (in Ravenna, capital of the Western Empire, Skirian (?) General Odoacer deposes his titular boss Romulus Augustus and crowns himself King of Italy and vassal of the Eastern Emperor); but first, a premise on the two very different sets of witnesses.The one cultural event monopolizing the debates of the era is the slow victory of Christianity over traditional Roman religion: the Romans of 410 had barely anything but blood in common with Scipio, Caesar or even Trajan. Not even the Latin language itself, as words irredeemably lost their old meaning: fides went from meaning “commitment”, “word of honor” (~besa) to “blind belief”; gratia went from “goodwill”, “friendliness” to “divine intervention”; persona went from “[theater] mask” to “human being” (replacing the usual homo with a very explicit metaphor on the emptiness of Man); damnatio went from “penal punitive measure” to “life failure”; a daemon went from being a “supernatural” force to a “supernaturally evil” one[1]; salus went from “deliverance” to “salvation” and then, in Medieval Romance, to “health”, through a process of normalization of Christian theological vocabulary; etc.[2] The “uneasy coexistence of Science and Faith” is a concept a Pagan Roman would have lacked the very words to formulate.One may of course dismiss this as an overly technical observation, but the fact is, upheavals this thorough are not normal in history: they are artificial, sustained interventions with a purpose, and as such are both cause and consequence of extremely unusual social circumstances — I’ve written about the Nazis’ kindred efforts, but the Soviets and other Communists acted in this direction too (eg. power — vlast’, pushtet, etc. — went on to mean “government”, and was normally used with that meaning by non-activists: putting yourself against “the System” meant putting yourself against Soviet Power, an almost metaphysical-sounding concept), and they were all following the logic expressed with dazzling clarity by George Orwell in a little gem, his scholarly appendix to 1948:“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.”— Appendix: The Principles of NewspeakThe Fall of the Western Empire intertwines with such and other (much larger, and longer) processes, of which it ends up constituting but a chapter.We think of the ruins, of course: those are what remains to speak on behalf of it all, the mere shell. But what about the men inhabiting those ruins — what was lost within men, before the walls even started giving in? Look at what is missing in the picture of a modern ruin.Not just language, lifestyle and hopes changed, but the very nature of thought down to what people consider obvious and what they don’t: matters of behavior, of ethics, of one’s knee-jerk ideas of “good” and “evil”; but also the deeper cosmological roots of people’s worldview: does time have a beginning? Is it a line going in one direction, or is it a disorderly succession of progress and regress, with no underlying “goal” or purpose, but with recurring patterns? Are our senses helping us or hindering us in making sense of the world? Do you get to the truth by adding or subtracting? Is knowledge a journey or is it the destination? Is what we live life, or is it a tricky, lying, dangerous prelude to life? The answers to these questions were so blatantly obvious to the man of the street before and after roughly the 3rd to 7th Centuries, but opposite answers to all the above questions would be given in those two eras. What happened during the centuries comprising the Fall of Rome was nothing short of the greatest Cultural Revolution in European history, and the contemporaries’ experience of the traumatizing, extremely unsettling and unpredictable geopolitical upheavals that riddled those years was obviously marked by the still-ongoing debate on the very foundations of life.It is indeed a conflict that has lost its dramatic poignancy to our eyes, and that we’ve grown used to see as a “frozen” horror at the root of the West, a mere footnote, perhaps: but the violence was no less than what tv newscasts from recent years might have shocked us with, and the stakes — much, much higher.One of the cardinal incidents from the time of these culture wars is the debate regarding the Altar to Victoria in the Roman Senate, in 384 AD — four years after the Edict of Thessalonica and twenty-six years before Alaric’s Sack of Rome — which started with Pagan praefectus urbis (“governor” of Rome) Symmachus’ plea with the Emperors Valentinian II (West) and Theodosius I (East) to restore the golden statue, which had presided over all Senate sessions since before the Punic Wars, until removed a few years earlier. In a mix of Roman Nationalism, allegiance to Imperial authority and earnest piety, Symmachus pleads:9. Romam nunc putemus assistere, atque his vobiscum agere sermonibus: “Optimi principes, patres patriae reveremini annos meos, in quos me pius ritus adduxit. Utar cerimoniis avitis; neque enim poenitet. Vivam meo more, quia libera sum. Hic cultus in leges meas orbem redegit: haec sacra Hannibalem a moenibus, a Capitolio Senonas repulerunt. Ad hoc ergo servata sum, ut longaeva reprehendar? Videro quod instituendum putatur; sera tamen et contumeliosa emendatio senectutis.”10. Ergo diis patriis, diis indigetibus pacem rogamus. Aequum est quidquid omnes colunt, unum putari. Eadem spectamus astra, commune coelum est, idem nos mundus involvit. Quid interest qua quisque prudentia verum requirat? Uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum. Sed haec otiosorum disputatio est: nunc preces, non certamina offerimus.——9. Let us now imagine that Rome herself were before you and addressed you in these words: “Excellent princes, fathers of the fatherland, respect my age, which my pious rites allowed me to signNow. Let me follow the ancestral ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws, these sacred rites kept Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the Capitol. Have I been saved to see this, to be reproached in my old age? I shall consider the nature of what is being proposed for adoption; but reproaching the elderly is untimely and arrogant.”10. Thus, we ask for the gods of our fathers and for the gods of the land to be afforded peace. It is fair to consider all that men worship as one same thing: we observe the same stars, one sky is above all of us, the same world involves us: what matters which wisdom we rely on, in our quest for truth? A single path cannot lead to solving such a grandiose mystery. But these are moot disquisitions: we are now offering prayers, not diatribes.[3]Far from being mere syncretism or relativism or oecumenic imperialism or missionaryism or the consequence of a Spermatikos Logos[4] (a concept best synthesized as “whatever they got right is ours, because they managed to catch a glimpse of our truth” — eg. check paragraph 12 here), the bolded sentence above is the expression of the Pagan trust in the evocative power of human research and memory, rather than revelation, which would in itself be shared by all men and thus common to all “natural” religions: I’ve touched upon this fundamental doctrine, known in its practical results as interpretatio, in an older answer of mine comparing the Greek god Ares with Roman Mars:We in the modern world are more used to the Abrahamic understanding of theological knowledge being revealed unto mankind by the deity through men temporarily inspired to repeat God’s very own words into a holy book: this is the principle that makes Abrahamic religions “exclusionary” (a much better label than “monotheistic”, as argued by prof. Jan Assmann [more on him below]); but ancient paganism saw the source of theological knowledge in men particularly sensitive to being possessed by Muses/Camenes/goddesses linked to a general, underlying Memory of the world, who dictated to their countrymen bits of deeper knowledge — and those could easily turn out to coincide with some parts of the neighboring culture’s imperfect knowledge of the foundations of the world (a common occurrence, since there usually were distant but shared Indo-European roots to European foreigners): since cosmology and theology were seen as ever-perfectable fields of inquiry, other cultures’ intuitions were welcome into your own knowledge, if the two were compatible — this is the principle underlying interpretatio.The newly-triumphant cult would have nothing of this, of course; more precisely, the new Abrahamic religion had a very hard time even conceiving of these premises — the gap between the two traditions’ outlook was simply too huge for bridges, and once you joined the new cult, you accepted an exclusive and jealous authority that made you grow very distant from the premise itself of Paganism.As soon as Symmachus’ plea was heard, Archbishop of Milan (and later Saint as well as modern Patron Saint of that city) Ambrose, who had great influence on the young Western Emperor, wrote him two letters as counterargument (epistulae 17, 18 — here in English), and his position eventually won.The first letter was written by an alarmed Ambrose before having a chance to read Symmachus’ plea:1. Cum omnes homines, qui sub dicione Romana sunt, vobis militent, imperatoribus terrarum atque principibus, tum ipsi vos omnipotenti deo et sacrae fidei militatis. Aliter enim salus tuta esse non poterit, nisi unusquisque deum verum, hoc est, deum Christianorum, a quo cuncta reguntur, veraciter colat; ipse enim solus verus est deus, qui intima mente veneretur: “Dii enim gentium daemonia”, sicut scriptura dicit.2. Huic igitur vero deo quisque militat et, qui intimo colendum recipit affectu, non dissimulationem, non conniventiam, sed fidei studium et devotionis inpendit. Postremo si non ista, consensum saltem aliquem non debet colendis idolis et profanis caerimoniarum cultibus exhibere. Nemo enim deum fallit, cui omnia etiam cordis occulta manifesta sunt.[…]6. Nullus obrepat iuniori aetati tuae! Sive ille gentilis est, qui ista deposcit, non debet mentem tuam vinculis suae superstitionis innectere, sed proprio studio docere et admonere te debet, quemadmodum verae fidei studere debeas, quando ille tanto motu veri vana defendit. Deferendum meritis clarorum virorum et ego suadeo, sed deum certum est omnibus praeferendum.7. Si de re militari est consulendum, debet exercitati in proeliis viri exspectari sententia, consilium conprobari, quando de religione tractatus est, deum cogita! Nullius iniuria est, cui deus omnipotens antefertur. Habet ille sententiam suam.[…]14. Quid respondebis sacerdoti dicenti tibi: Munera tua non quaerit ecclesia, quia templa gentilium muneribus adornasti? Ara Christi dona tua respuit, quoniam aram simulacris fecisti; vox enim tua, manus tua et subscriptio tua, opus est tuum. Obsequium tuum dominus Iesus recusat et respuit, quoniam idolis obsecutus es; dixit enim tibi: «Non potestis duobus dominis servire» (Matth. 6,24). Privilegia tua sacratae deo virgines non habent et vindicant virgines Vestae? Cur sacerdotes dei requiris, quibus petitiones profanas gentilium praetulisti? Alieni erroris societatem suscipere non possumus.——1. Even as all men that live under Roman domination fight for you, Emperors of the Earth and sovereigns, you in turn fight for almighty God and for the Holy Faith. Salvation could otherwise not be assured, if everyone did not earnestly worship the true God, that is, the God of the Christians, by Whom all things are ruled; He is indeed the one true God, who is worshipped within the deepest of one’s soul: “For the gods of the Gentiles are daemonic things [“daemonia” in the Latin]”, as the Scripture says [Ps. xcv. 5].2. It is for this reason that whoever fights for this true God and accepts the principle that He is to be worshipped with intimate participation, devotes himself not to dissimulation, not to connivance, but to the practice of faith and adoration. At the very least, if he doesn’t engage in this, he shall not give his consent to the worship of idols nor to the celebration of profane cults. For nobody escapes God, to Whom even the deepest of all hearts appears clearly.[…]6. Let nobody take advantage of your young age! If he is a Gentile who asks such things of you, he must not clutch your mind with the fetters of his own superstition, but he must rather teach you and exhort you by [the example of] his own dedication how strongly you should dedicate yourself to the practice of the True Faith, whenever he puts so much true effort into defending empty things. I too suggest you respect the achievements of great men, but God obviously must come before everyone else.7. If a matter of warfare were at hand, you would seek the advice of a man who has become expert by going through many battles, and then follow his suggestions; when it is a matter of religion, think of God! Nobody shall be offended if almighty God is put before him. Let the other man have his own mind on this.[…]14. What will you answer to the priest who tells you: “The Church doesn’t want your gifts, for you have adorned the Gentiles’ temples with your gifts. The Altar of Christ spits away your endowment, for you have built an altar to an image; for yours is the voice, yours is the hand and yours is the signature — yours is then the work. Lord Jesus rejects your respects and spits them back to you, for you have respected the idols; he did tell you: «You cannot serve two masters» [Matth. vi, 24]. The virgins consecrated to God won’t accept your sponsorship, while the virgins of Vesta expect it? Why do you seek the ministers of God for those requests you preferred to first hear from the profane Nations? We cannot burden ourselves with another’s errors.”Letter 18, on the other hand, is a more technical counterargument to Symmachus’ many specific points. Here are some ideological highlights:1. Cum vir clarissimus praefectus urbis Symmachus ad clementiam tuam retulisset, ut ara, quae de urbis Romae curia sublata fuerat, redderetur loco et tu, imperator, licet adhuc in minoris aevi tirocinio florentibus novus annis, fidei tamen virtute veteranus obsecrata gentilium non probares, eodem quo conperi puncto libellum obtuli. Quo licet conprehenderim, quae suggestioni necessaria viderentur, poposci tamen exemplum mihi relationis dari.2. Itaque non fidei tuae ambiguus, sed providus cautionis, et pii certus examinis, hoc sermone relationis adsertioni respondeo hoc unum petens, ut non verborum elegantiam, sed vim rerum exspectandam putes. […] Volve, quaeso, atque excute sectam gentilium! Pretiosa et grandia sonant, veri effeta defendunt. Deum loquuntur, simulacrum adorant.[…]4. In prima propositione, flebili Roma questu sermonis inlacrimat veteres, ut ait, cultus caerimoniarum requirens. Haec sacra, inquit, Hannibalem a moenibus, a Capitolio Senonas repulerunt. Itaque dum sacrorum potentia praedicatur, infirmitas proditur. Ergo Hannibal diu sacris insultavit Romanis et diis contra se dimicantibus usque ad muros urbis vincendo pervenit. Cur se obsideri passi sunt, pro quibus deorum suorum arma pugnabant?5. Nam de Senonibus quid loquar, quos Capitolii secreta penetrantes Romanae reliquiae non tulissent, nisi eos pavido anser strepitu prodidisset? En quales templa Romana praesules habent! Ubi tunc erat Iuppiter? An in ansere loquebatur?6. Verum quid negem sacrorum ritus militasse Romanis? Sed etiam Hannibal eosdem deos colebat. Utrum volunt igitur? Eligant. Si in Romanis vicerunt sacra, in Carthaginiensibus ergo superata sunt; si in Carthaginiensibus triumphata, nec Romanis utique profuerunt.7. […] Venite et discite in terris caelestem militiam. Hic vivimus et illic militamus. Caeli mysterium doceat me deus ipse, qui condidit, non homo, qui se ipsum ignoravit. Cui magis de deo quam deo credam? Quomodo possum vobis credere, qui fatemini vos ignorare quod colitis?8. Uno, inquit, itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum. Quod vos ignoratis, id nos dei voce cognovimus. Et quod vos suspicionibus quaeritis, nos ex ipsa sapientia dei et veritate conpertum habemus. Non congruunt igitur vestra nobiscum. Vos pacem diis vestris ab imperatoribus obsecratis, nos ipsis imperatoribus a Christo pacem rogamus. Vos manuum vestrarum adoratis opera, nos iniuriam ducimus omne, quod fieri potest, deum putari. Non vult se deus in lapidibus coli. Denique etiam ipsi philosophi vestri ista riserunt.9. Quodsi vos ideo Christum deum negatis, quia illum mortuum esse non creditis - nescitis enim, quod mors illa carnis fuerit, non divinitatis, quae fecit, ut credentium iam nemo moriatur - quid vobis inprudentius, qui contumeliose colitis et honorifice derogatis; vestrum enim deum lignum putatis. O contumeliosa reverentia! Christum mori potuisse non creditis. O honorifica pervicacia!—1. Since the esteemed Praefect of the City Symmachus has entrusted your clemency with a plea to restore the altar, which had once been removed from the roman Curia; and since you, Emperor, despite being in your young age and thus like a fresh soldier, are in fact like a veteran in your faith, you haven’t granted the Gentiles’ pleas. When I came to know of this, I sent you a document through which, in order to understand what suggestion you may need, I asked for a copy of the original request.2. Thus, not out of doubt in your faith, but with an eye to caution, and secure in your pious wisdom, I answer with these words what was asserted in the original request, with but one demand — that you look not at the elegance of my words, but rather at the strenght of my arguments. Look, I beg you, and observe with great care the Gentiles’ sect! They speak of precious and lofty things, but they defend nothingness. They speak of God, but they worship objects.[…]4. In the first argument, Rome makes a tearful speech, lamenting and requesting, as she says, the old cults’ ceremonies back. These rites, she says, have once warded off Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the Capitol. Yet, even as the might of these rites is extolled, their weakness appears. Because Hannibal long insulted the Roman rites and gods that were fighting against him, so long as he signNowed the walls, one victory after the other. Why did they suffer being besieged, if their gods were fighting for their side?5. Or should I speak of the Senones, who, having penetrated the holy Capitol, wouldn’t have been repulsed, hadn’t a fearful goose betrayed them with its cackling? Here, what guardians do Roman temples have! And where was Jupiter then? Or was he speaking through that goose?6. Indeed, why should I deny that those holy rites were aiding the Romans? But Hannibal too was worshipping the same gods! Which is it, then? Let them pick one. If those rites won the day for the Romans, then the Carthaginian ones have been useless; if they led to the Carthaginians’ triumphs, then they hadn’t been of much use to the Romans.7. […] Come and discover that, here on Earth, there is a divine army. Here we live and here we fight. Let the Heavens’ secrets be taught to me by God Himslef, who created them, not by man, who doesn’t even know himself. Who is more authoritative about God that God? How can I believe you, who admit to ignoring what you worship?8. “One path alone”, he says, “cannot lead to the bottom of such a great mystery.” What you ignore, we have learnt from God’s own voice. And what you seek through hypotheses, we know that in detail through God’s own wisdom and through Truth. Your views, then, do not align with ours. You beg from the Emperor peace for your gods, ourselves we beg from Christ peace for our Emperors. You worship the fruit of your hands, we consider it offensive to deem a god whatever can be made into one. God doesn’t want to be worshipped in stones. After all, your own philosophers have laughed at such things.9. If you can similarly bring yourselves to deny that Christ is God, since you cannot believe that he may have died — for you ignore that that was the death of the flesh, not the Godliness’, undergone so that no believer may ever die again — what is less wise than yourselves, who worship him offensively, and insult Him by your adoration? You believe your god to be a piece of wood! What offensive worship! You cannot believe that Christ may have died. What an elegant wickedness!I’m keeping from quoting more for the sake of readability, but the three documents and the two sides’ arguments are fascinating to say the least. As a last curiosity, elsewhere (ep. 18:10) Ambrose asks polemically: “But, he says, the old altars must be given back to the idols, and the ornaments to the temples. Let them ask this of someone their fellow in superstition: the Christian Emperor has learnt to honor the Christ’s altar only. Why do they try to have pious hands and faithful eyes lend themselves to their sacrilege? Let our Emperor’s voice sing the praises of the Christ and speak of Him only, for he feels His truth, «as the heart of the King is held in God’s hand» [Prov. xxi, 1]. What Gentile Emperor ever raised an Altar to the Christ anyway?”Severus Alexander (r. 222–235), cousin and successor of the infamous Elagabalus, seems to have counted, among his guardian Lares, not just his imperial predecessors and his ancestors, but also “enlightened souls” such as Apollonius of Tyana, Orpheus, Abraham and Jesus Christ.But that had been the case in times long gone and never to return.Statues were at the center of many acts of violence throughout the Empire, as were in Germanic lands the irminsûl (pillars), sacred trees and groves (true to Exodus 34:13: “But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves”) and their Pagan worshippers were taunted as if they believed the object itself to house the deity — which thus became worth deriding as mere, dumb “pieces of wood” (you can see one such scene from the film Agora (2009), among other artistic depictions) — whereas they were in fact seen as tangible aid to memory, which was the one and only source of “religious authority” throughout all Indo-European Paganism: whether in the shape of the oldest Pagan cults — the ancestors’ tracks, faces, gestures and belongings — or in the shape of Muses (Mousa < *montja: “she who remembers [smth. to s.o.]” < PIE *men: “thought”; they were also known to be the daughters of Mnemosyne, “memory”) inspiring the Poets who would then teach religion to other men, poets such as Hesiod, Orpheus and many others. At one point, when the poets’ task was taken up by philosophy — as Nietzsche cannily noticed — the latter weakened this worldview by abstracting and rationalizing it beyond the interpretive means and knowledge of the day.“Even outside of the parameters of our current sensitivities, it is indisputable that triumphant Christianity displayed an extreme intolerance towards traditional cults […]. Faced with a doctrine manifesting itself under a totalitarian shape, then, the Pagans had no easy task on their hands, but we must on the other hand acknowledge that they resorted to arguments that, to a Christian audience, would have sounded highly unconvincing. […] They were themselves as rigid in their positions as their adversaries were. The debate between Christians and Pagans witnessed the confrontation between two statements that were by their own nature absolute.”— F. Paschoud, Christian intolerance as seen and judged by Pagans[5]I would counter the bolded part of this excerpt by a scholar our contemporary by reminding the patient reader of the Appendix on Newspeak I quoted above: rather than being rigid or even outspoken (as only a handful of authors seem to have been — Celsus, Julian, Zosimus — and certainly nowhere near the intensity normal among their Abrahamic opponents), the Pagans lacked the very ideological infrastructure to even conceive the mental framework their opponents wandered through with “exact and often very subtle” scrupulousness, and if they may seem insightful to us, modern readers, it is only insofar they supply ideas very difficult for ourselves to produce: in this case, the Christian “Newspeak” limited the outsiders’ capacity to understand orthodoxy even more than it did the insiders’ ability to speak heresy, and the historical impact Abrahamism would have on culture was too huge to be foreseeable to either side — we too have slowly started picturing it around the Enlightenment, after all. Moreover, Paganism certainly was “absolute” — a religion that isn’t would be a strange sight — but not at all militantly absolute, nor in any way an oecumenical (“for the whole inhabited world”), catholic (“towards the whole [world]”), orthodox (“right opinion”) tradition: traditional Paganism left alone those who wanted no part of it, and I agree with Jan Assman’s relabeling the old terms “Monotheistic” and “Polytheistic” as “Exclusionary” and “Inclusionary” forms of religiosity.Saint George topples the Pagan idols; Dečani, 14th Century. Images of these frescoes come from here: a (by no means complete) list of Christian Saints who destroyed religious imagesLeft, a Christian Saint destroying a Pagan statue; Right, in an ironic turn of events that came about half a millennium after the scope of this answer, the Christian Iconoclasts took to destroying Christian religious images: depicted in the (possibly clandestine, at the time it was produced) Chludov Psalter, chief Iconoclast John the Grammarian’s face happens to have rubbed out. This is how the Iconoclasts’ churches ended up looking, in 9th Century Costantinople.[6] By then, Charlemagne had also sanguinarily managed to evangelize modern Germany, mostly through mass decapitations.[7][8]The political attempt at defending traditional religion in the Empire ended with the sudden death of traditionalistic Emperor Julian (the so-called “Apostate”, r. 361–363 AD) and the highly emblematic Battle of the Frigidus in 394 AD, which got the aptly-named Pagan usurper Eugenius off the scene; but the Lupercalia were celebrated in Central Italy until as late as the 5th Century, when Pope Gelasius I finally abolished them and possibly had them replaced with the celebration of the Purification of the Virgin Mary; and it is well known that the very slow penetration of Christianity into the countryside (“pagan”, after all, means “village-dweller”, as the Germanic “heathen” means “heath-dweller”) was had at the cost of a thorough syncretism with some elements of the local traditional cults.Meanwhile, on the military/administrative side, the Aurelian Walls were built in 271–275 AD, as Rome had vastly outgrown the existing Servian Walls (built six centuries before) many centuries before anybody even thought of building the newer ones — that Aurelian did so upon putting an end to half a century of anarchy hints to just how precarious the very heart of Empire had come to be perceived as. Rome ceased to be the Capital ten years later, Christianity would be depenalized another thirty years later, and finally made the sole religion another half century later, in 380 AD.Around the time these new walls were built, Rome was already down to 350 000 inhabitants from the estimated 1 or 2 mln (top estimate 3.5 mln)[9]that used to call her home; Alexandria had 216 000; six coastal cities were between 90 and 50 thousand inhabitants, the rest were all below 40 000. Rome herself would end up with a few thousand inhabitants by the end of the 5th Century.The Visigothic Sack of Rome — 410 AD: Christian reactions.Having laid the backdrop clear in its complexity, let’s get down to military/political upheavals and their written record, and let’s start with those contemporary writers that were, to all intents and purposes, the Culture of the day: the Christians.Jerome (347-420), a devout Christian, Father of the Church, quite open to dialogue but struggling with his identity (he famously dreamt of a voice accusing him: “You’re no Christian, you are a Ciceronean!”[10]) as well as a patron of sorts to translators, given his extensive, high-quality theorical and practical work on the only translation of the Bible the Latin West would use for a full millennium, was following a trend quite popular in his day and living as a hermit in Palestine when news of the 410 AD sack of Rome — no longer the capital since 286 — signNowed him. Alaric’s siege had started already in 408 AD, and in 409 Jerome had written to a widow by the name of Ageruchia:123.16–17 [16.] Verum quid ago? Fracta navi de mercibus disputo. Qui tenebat, de medio fit, et non intelligimus Antichristum appropinquare, quem Dominus Jesus Christus interficiet spiritu oris sui. “Vae praegnantibus, et nutrientibus in illa die”; quorum utrumque de fructibus nuptiarum est. Praesentium miseriarum pauca percurram. Quod rari hucusque residemus, non nostri meriti, sed Domini misericordiae est. Innumerabiles et ferocissimae nationes universas Gallias occuparunt. Quidquid inter Alpes et Pyrenaeum est, quod Oceano et Rheno includitur, Quadus, Wandalus, Sarmata, Halani, Gipedes, Heruli, Saxones, Burgundiones, Alemani, et, o lugenda respublica! hostes Pannonii vastarunt. “Etenim Assur venit cum illis”. Moguntiacum, nobilis quondam civitas, capta atque subversa est, et in Ecclesia multa hominum millia trucidata. Vangiones longa obsidione deleti. Remorum urbs praepotens, Ambiani, Attrebatae, extremique hominum Morini, Tornacus, Nemetae, Argentoratus, translatae in Germaniam. Aquitaniae, Novemque populorum, Lugdunensis, et Narbonensis provinciae, praeter paucas urbes populata sunt cuncta. Quas et ipsas foris gladius, intus vastat fames. Non possum absque lacrymis Tolosae facere mentionem, quae ut hucusque non rueret, sancti Episcopi Exuperii merita praestiterunt. Ipsae Hispaniae jam jamque periturae, quotidie contremiscunt, recordantes irruptionis Cimbricae, et quidquid alii semel passi sunt, illae semper timore patiuntur.17. Caetera taceo, ne videar de Dei desperare clementia. Olim a mari Pontico usque ad Alpes Julias, non erant nostra, quae nostra sunt. Et per annos triginta fracto Danubii limite, in mediis Romani imperii regionibus pugnabatur. Aruerunt vetustate lacrymae. Praeter paucos senes, omnes in captivitate et obsidione generati, non desiderabant, quam non noverant libertatem. Quis hoc credet? quae digno sermone historiae comprehendent? Romam in gremio suo, non pro gloria, sed pro salute pugnare? imo ne pugnare quidem, sed auro et cuncta supellectile vitam redimere? Quod non vitio Principum, qui vel religiosissimi sunt, sed scelere semibarbari accidit proditoris, qui nostris contra nos opibus armavit inimicos.[…]Hannibal, de Hispaniae finibus orta tempestas, cum vastasset Italiam, vidit urbem, nec ausus est obsidere. Pyrrhum tanta tenuit Romani nominis reverentia, ut deletis omnibus, e propinquo recederet loco: nec audebat victor aspicere, quam regum didicerat civitatem. […] et utriusque provinciae populi Romani vectigales sunt. Nunc ut omnia prospero fine eveniant, praeter nostra quae amisimus, non habemus quod victis hostibus auferamus. Potentiam Romanae urbis, ardens Poeta describens, ait: “Quid satis est, si Roma parum est?”Quod nos alio mutemus elogio: “Quid salvum est, si Roma perit?”“Non mihi si linguae centum sint, oraque centum,Ferrea vox, omnes captorum dicere poenas,Omnia caesorum percurrere nomina possim.”—*—

This is height of hypocracy and believing themselves to be above law .What is the difference between ShriShri Ravishankar from the so called DABANGS of Bihar and UP who flout law openly and brazenly.Please do not start with comparison proving difference between the two.He is a renowned man with million of followers this hypocracy and behaviour puts him in a wrong colour and picture.If people like him are so brazen in not sticking to their commitments what kind of message does his act convey in general masses and his followers in particular.This is the difference between as real sadhu and teacher and a pseudo sadhu and teacher.The real teacher leads by example and put a very correct picture of himself to his followers.he is not a teacher and there is no difference between the people who indulge in crime but brazen it out and he who with his WCF raped the flood plains of Yamuna, promised to pay the nominal fine imposed by NGT on the eve of the festival and got approval on condition that the fine will be paid after the festival but has since refused to stick to his commitment.He is trying to be a states man by writing to ISIS and they joked about his naivety by sending him a picture of beheaded man.There are some question which should be asked :A. How does he know ISIS.B. Why did he corrosponded with them.C. Who or whose behalf did he write this letter.D. Did  GOI appointed him as  incoluter with ISIS .E. What is his standing among Arabs and supporters of ISIS .F. Is he looking for a active political role with GOI.G. Should not NIA question him on his relationships inside ISIS high command?H. On relationship with person to whom the letter was addressed?.I . If he wrote directly to Bagdadi and Bagdadi replied to him then it really becomes a case for thorough investigation by intelligence agencies across the globe because there is no intelligence available on Bagdai, his movements, and his place of stay and his permanent postal address.I. He should voluntarily cooperate with intelligence agencies and share details of Bagdadi it may help in eliminating Bagdadi.