Redact Sign Word Online

To effectively learn how to redact in Word, start by accessing the 'Review' tab where you'll find the 'Restrict Editing' option. This feature allows you to select specific areas to redact. For more detailed guidance, consider checking online tutorials or documentation that specifically cover the redaction tools in Microsoft Word.

While airSlate SignNow primarily focuses on eSigning and document management, it does not have specific features for redacting in Word. However, after redaction in Word, you can easily upload your document to airSlate SignNow for secure signing and sharing. This makes it an excellent choice for managing redacted documents.

Learning how to redact in Word itself is free, as Microsoft Word provides built-in features without additional costs. However, if you seek formal training or courses, those may come at a price. Ultimately, mastering how to redact in Word will save you costs associated with improper document handling.

Knowing how to redact in Word is crucial for protecting sensitive information and ensuring compliance with data privacy laws. It enhances your document security by enabling you to permanently remove or hide confidential data. This skill is essential for professionals handling sensitive documents and wishing to maintain confidentiality.

While airSlate SignNow does not directly facilitate redaction in Microsoft Word, it allows you to upload and manage documents post-redaction. After learning how to redact in Word and preparing your document, you can utilize airSlate SignNow for secure electronic signatures and streamlined document workflows.

When learning how to redact in Word, focus on features such as 'Blackout' or 'Highlight' tools that let you mark sensitive information. Additionally, the 'Restrict Editing' option is essential for limiting modifications to your document. Familiarizing yourself with these tools will enhance your redaction efficiency in Word.

Yes, it is safe to save redacted documents in airSlate SignNow. Once you have mastered how to redact in Word and removed sensitive content, you can securely store your documents with confidence. airSlate SignNow's robust security features ensure your redacted information remains protected.

Yes, it was pretty much ingrained in the culture I grew up in, being the 1970s in the UK.Being actually gay was considered pretty outré - people sometimes claimed they were for the shock value/publicity, like David Bowie. On the other hand there were sterotypical ‘gay’ characters on TV like Larry Grayson and John Inman, but they were treated as harmless figures of fun. It was perfectly acceptable to laugh at gay people, so we did. At the time, it was acceptable to laugh at any “minority”, including women. No wonder feminism started to get traction at the time, looking back it was utterly shameful.Now, not being gay myself, I have no idea what it must have been like to be gay and grow up in such a culture. While gays were treated as a joke on the surface, I’d be fairly certain that if you actually were gay, it would have been a horrible thing to have to endure. It might be something people would laugh about initially, but I bet if you were serious, it would turn dark and ugly very quickly. I mean, we had police raids by the vice squad on Gay News, for christ’s sake.In the mid 70s, there was a political scandal involving the leader of the Liberal party, Jeremy Thorpe, and his gay lover, Norman Scott. It ended Thorpe’s career in an instant, but how did the public, press and pundits react? By turning it into one massive great joke. The British will turn anything they’re uncomfortable about into humour; it’s our way of dealing with things.Some people did try to change things. Tom Robinson released a single called “Glad To Be Gay” in 1978 which is a biting attack on the anti-gay culture of the day. It was a very brave and bold thing to do, and of course he became the butt of a lot of so-called comedians’ jokes for doing it. I admire him greatly now, looking back. But at the time? There was no way you could admit to liking that song and have your credibility remain intact. But I can imagine that for a gay person, it might have been small fragment of hope to cling to that things might change.In the meantime, nobody knew anybody who was actually gay. At least that’s what we believed. Being gay was something that we knew existed, but only in a very distant and abstract way. It didn’t apply to us.The “first” gay person I met was someone I went to college with. We were friends, and his gayness was fairly obvious to most of us, though he naturally denied it. How did we treat him? As a figure of fun of course, that’s what was expected. At some level, I didn’t believe he truly was gay, he just seemed a bit camp. I’m sorry to say that we effectively bullied him about it, and I can’t imagine how horrible that must have been for him, though he handled it stoically as was expected. One night after a drunken party I caught him in bed with another lad from our group of friends, and I didn’t handle it well. It was beyond a joke now. To my eternal shame, I wasn’t able to remain friends with him after that. Goodness knows why I thought it had anything to do with me, or why I felt threatened by it. It was literally none of my business, yet I felt it necessary to be all high and mighty and believe myself to be morally superior because I was straight. I’m truly sorry mate.Finally, one incident changed my attitude forever, though in a way I like to think it was just the final flip of the switch that consolidated a long period of growing up and realising my attitude (and that of the entire nation) stunk anyway. I was 18, and working in my first job. One of my colleagues was an openly gay man called Joe who was actually a very funny and interesting person. He was so openly gay and camp in the usual stereotypical way that it was the perfect cover for his actual gayness. We all believed that he was so gay, he couldn’t possibly be. No, it makes no sense to me either.Joe liked to wind me up for my homophobia, which was far from unique, obviously. He liked to make outrageous remarks intended to make one blush and flush out the homophobic attitudes. It was a brilliant way of turning things around, actually. It was excruciatingly embarrassing, because it was our (my) attitudes that were shown up to be out of date and quite ridiculous. One day I was feeling especially uncomfortable, and, god help me, I actually came out with “look, I don’t care what you are Joe, but don’t try it on with me, OK?” He just laughed and said “don’t flatter yourself dear”.Suddenly I realised it was me that was all wrong. I saw myself through his eyes, and it wasn’t nice. I realised that gayness was nothing to fear, because, well, it really had nothing to do with me. It took a while for that to really sink in, to undo the years and years of cultural indoctrination, but gradually I became very accepting after that. But as it happens I wasn’t going against the grain after all - it was around that time that the 70s culture was being fairly quickly swept away, especially in the area of comedy - there was a ‘new wave’ of comedians that found humour in lots of other things that didn’t require the denigration of gays, women, Irish people, black people, Pakistanis and the like. People like Mel Smith, Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Ben Elton, Rik Mayall quickly displaced all those horrible old homophobic and racist twats of the 70s, like Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson. Don’t underestimate how important comedy was to the changing of cultural attitudes at the time - comedy was as important to youth as rock n roll. Suddenly it was cool to be ‘right on’ and ‘politically correct’, which of course was perfect for separating the young from the previous generation.So my personal Damascene turning point coincided with everyone else’s, as it turned out. But no less genuine for that.

The simplest way to create a pdf file is to print one out (print to file). The latest operating systems and some writing/publishing programs usually have a pdf printer available. The second easiest way is to export to one using the features within the application you are using. Most programs now have this feature, so it’s a breeze. If you don’t have a program with this feature built in or your operating system didn’t come with a pdf printer, then you have to use a pdf printing program. There are a lot of programs you can download but I’m a fan of opensource and my favorite is Ghostscript. And an adware free tool that uses that engine is FreePDF Download [ http://freepdfxp.de/download_de.html ]. It installs a PDF printer in your printers list. When you print to this printer from any application, it will create a pdf from that file. If you like to buy software, then you can buy signNow (Not Acrobat Reader), which installs a PDF printer also.

Don’t be discouraged by many long lists of suggestions for how to protect your privacy - these are the most important (and practical) for both the digital and the real worlds:Digital (online):Use a password manager for almost everythingException: have a different, unique, and really good password for whichever email service you use as your “reset” service. And use one of the big providers for this one - Apple, Google, or Microsoft. And enable “two factor authentication” for it. Your “reset” email address is the most important one for you to protect.When asked for your birth address, give a fake oneIt’s asked all the time partly to comply with laws protecting minors. You can give an accurate birth year, but month and date is not needed.Avoid giving details - or at least obfuscate themInstead of your actual zip code, give the adjacent one. If they insist on phone number give them a “555” number. If they want your “real” name, change it up - using middle name sometimes, vary the spelling (sometimes “Catherine” sometimes “Kat” etc). If they insist on an email give them “none.of.your.business@gmail.com”. Etc.Never use the last four digits of your social as a PIN codeIt is very easy for somebody to find it - various public government sources will redact all the numbers except the last four. Unfortunately, banks and others often default to this. Change it to something else. A simple trick is to use the four digits of somebody else, for example a married couple can use as the PIN the other spouse’s social. Another simple trick is to change the 4-digit PIN to a longer one, most banks etc allow that for example the last *six* digits of your social security, which is harder to find out than the last four.Turn on hard drive encryption on your computerBoth Apple and Microsoft nowadays makes that simpleWeb surf anonymously as much as possible and insist on “https”On most browsers there’s a symbol like a “lock” or similar, that shows if the web site is protected by “SSL”, which makes it hard for anybody to listen in on your interaction with that web site or service. You can web surf “anonymously” by using “incognito mode” or similar, or even better is to use specially safe browsers such as Ghostery.Don’t give “real” answers to common security questionsIf they want your mother’s maiden name as a security question, don’t give the real one, it’s easy to figure out. This can be hard to keep track of. My suggestion is that you write down in a safe place your made-up answer, and then use the same every time, that way you’ll generally remember. You can use mnemonics - for example instead of your mother’s maiden name, use the name of her favorite author. Instead of “favorite sport”, pick one you hate. For any place name (e.g. “Where did your parents meet”), use the same (made up) one everywhere, such as “Shangri La”.Minimize your use of Facebook, and Facebook-owned services such as Instagram and WhatsAppOften the advice is “avoid social media”, but that’s not entirely fair, companies like Apple, Snap, and (the now-defunct) Google+ have worked much harder to protect your privacy, and actors like Facebook have not. Unfortunately there is not (yet) a “Better Business Bureau” equivalent to track this. For now, Facebook is the biggest of the worst offenders, so take most care with them.Careful with public WiFiUnless you know what you are doing, avoid public wifi services for anything sensitive. I could give detailed technical advice here, but there are a lot of online places for that, and most people will be challenged to do it right. My advice is to think of public wifi as reading a book in public - assume everybody in the coffee shop is seeing everything on your computer screen and everything you are typing. If you are fine with that, then OK - reading the news, searching for Yelp reviews on restaurants, etc are all innocuous things, but don’t do your online banking there. If you must do social media, your cell phone provider’s data network will be safer, whether you are on your smartphone or a tablet. And don’t let your phone automatically connect to public wifi, or it might connect to something without you knowing about it.Real world:Best way to pay: CashGood old fashioned dollars, they have serial numbers so technically not completely anonymous, so stick to $20 bills or lower. [2]Second best way to pay: Apple PayIn a review of the privacy protections, Consumer Reports recently ranked Apple Pay clearly the best choice. If you have an iPhone, this is a good bet. The reason is pretty simple, Apple doesn’t make a material amount of revenue on advertising so has little to gain from monetizing information about you. That’s true in general, not just for their payment product.If you must use credit cards, be smart about itYou can use a prepaid debit card such as Visa OneVanilla. They can be topped up, you can associate a zip code with it, and you can pay both online and printed bills - you can do all of that without providing personal information. Also, credit card companies allow secondary cards - get one. Unless the teller asks for ID, it’ll work fine. And it doesn’t need to be a real name. You can always tell the bank it’s your girlfriend/boyfriend and pick a common androgynous first name. That way you can leave a credit card in various circumstances without leaving your real name.Shred or burn any trash that includes sensitive informationAnything that contains social security, account numbers, passwords, etc.Don’t give real personal information for loyalty cardsIn most common cases (such as Safeway Club Card), you can sign up for the core discount benefits without using your real personal information, or at least not all of the information. In fact, you can often just ask, “I’m concerned about privacy can I get the benefits without handing over any personal information?”. I tried that at Safeway, and the teller happily explained how I can have a “temporary” card for that store that works just fine without ever being activated online. In some cases, such as frequent flier miles, the vendor knows all about you anyway so it’s fine.Your smartphone does not need to be always-onTurn off location services unless used - or turn on airplane mode, or even turn off your phone. For the most part, you don’t need to be signNowed at a moments notice, and unless you’re an expert you will not know what apps are collecting what information about you.Don’t give your zip codeOften check-out counters and other places will ask for your zip code. Don’t give your real one. It’s only if they are checking your card for security that they really need one, in which case, the first one won’t work and you can just say “oh sorry, no, it’s actually XXX”Never answer your cell phone unless the number is in your address bookJust let it go to voicemail - it’s really easy to screen. If it was a legit call, add it to your address book.When asked for full name and home address in situation when they do not need it (such as recently for me to buy a day pass at a gym), give your real name if you want but make up the addressYou can try fun ones like “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue”.Use “burner” number for various services that do not need your real oneThere are excellent apps such as Flyp for smartphones that allow you to have temporary phone numbers - in the case of Flyp for $80 per “line” per year. Vendors such as gyms, grocery stores, umpteen online services, don’t need your “real” number. Check voicemail once every week or two. (Don’t use it for anything that could conceivably be important and urgent.)Use your passport not your driver's license as identityVast majority of situations where they ask for an ID, your home address is simply none of their businessIn other words, both online and outside, the basic principle is to avoid sharing accurate personal information as much as possible, and to avoid leaving an associated trail of decisions - purchases, movements, etc.Background: I posted this question myself a few days ago, hoping for a bit of a refresher for broad public use on the key things to learn not to do, or to do different. But it seems that the problem with privacy is so complex, that competent experts are loathe to simplify it. I’ve gotten great suggestions for books to read, but that’s not practical for most people.So, above I’ve tried to distill into a reasonable list (it’s already too long for my taste) the most important things for people to do, and also to restrict it to things that non-technical people can be expected to manage. So for example, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the broad public to use VPNs on a regular basis, for a variety of reasons (happy to debate in the comment section). But I do think it’s eminently reasonable for most online citizens to competently use something like LastPass. (Or arguably install Ghostery or an Ad Blocker, but for now I think that’s a stretch as a trade-off between technical difficulty and incremental benefit - again, happy to debate that choice.)I’m not an expert on privacy, but I care deeply about it. So please give me detailed comments and critique and I will strive to not just respond and update this answer, but to maintain it on an ongoing basis.My focus btw is not so much to avoid the NSA knowing about you or otherwise avoiding the black helicopters, but to fight back on two fronts - unnecessarily inexpensive and broad use of corporate data mining on all of us, and the most exposure to common security concerns (hacks, scams, fraud, identity theft, etc).If you want to suggest *additional* items to do, then please also point to what to *remove* from the list above. If anything, the list is too long already, so even better is commentary on what to remove or move to a secondary-priority list. It’s easy to list dozens and dozens of things people can do. But what’s really needed is a carefully curated, up-to-date, distilled list of the Most Important.There are of course umpteen of these lists online already, but I have not found any that I’m terribly excited about. There are also a couple of existing Quora answers, but same thing there. In general I find that they are either too superficial to be really helpful, or too technical to be practical for most people. This includes absolutely nutty (but technically correct) suggestions like always rebooting from a “live CD” setup (like polippix) before ever getting online … so again, I’m basically trying to answer the question “what are the most important, and also practical, suggestions for protecting privacy and security both online and off”.Notes/References:[1] Why Apple Pay Is the Highest-Rated Mobile P2P Payment Service[2] This is a minor point for most people, but this is Quora, so I’ll add some detail: there are two problems with larger bills (e.g. $50 or $100). The first is that they invite scrutiny, since those denominations are the primary targets of counterfeiting. Scrutiny reduces anonymity in general, and that’s really the main issue. Secondly, they are typically not actually anonymous, strictly speaking. The anonymity of cash is built on the probability of the bills being immediately recirculated - in other words, if you pay for something with a $5 bill, then if that same $5 is used to give change to the next customer, then tracking it is impractical. If you pay for coffee with a $100 bill, for example, then you are more or less 100% assured that the same bill will not be used to give change to a subsequent customer, which means it will be deposited with the bank. Odds are pretty good that the bank will scan the serial number on receipt, but it’s unclear to what extent ATMs scan bills that are withdrawn - though it’s technically eminently feasible nowadays, and from some sources my understanding is that all recently installed ATMs in mainland China do this. The federal reserve definitely tracks all incoming serial numbers if and when the bill makes it back to them. To be really specific, you also need to differentiate when your payment is with respect to the cashier work schedule: bills from customers are put on top, and then immediately used for change, unless they close out the register. These nuances are irrelevant for the scope of this answer, because the objective is not to avoid being caught for blackmailing, money laundering, or drug trafficking. To my knowledge, none of the details about which serial numbers go in and out of the banking system on a per-customer basis is available to anybody other than law enforcement.

No. The benefit has been zero, and the cost immeasurable.We do not know what Aaron intended or planned to do with the copyrighted and public-domain articles he downloaded. He never said. So it is hard to evaluate what vision he had in mind. In practice, he accomplished nothing, and the world did not benefit. The ultimate cost of this whole project, which undoubtedly contributed to his death, has been horrific.If Aaron intended an academic study of funding relationships in the JSTOR papers like his earlier work, there were slower ways to get the same information from JSTOR. Maybe he was impatient, or maybe he intended something else. If he wanted to sift through the downloads to find the public-domain articles and publish them for free, that too is likely to happen in coming months or years, definitely more slowly than Aaron would have liked.If he intended to publish the whole cache, including copyrighted articles, that was always going to end badly, but Aaron would not have done that. Publishing copyrighted material illegally wasn't his thing. Aaron was about finding clever legal hacks. So I doubt he ever intended something that would have actually made a dent in the cost of access to scientific research, contrary to Franck Dernoncourt.But if Aaron had come to any of his friends or advisors to talk this through, anybody would have told him that doing it in secret and working to evade MIT's attempts to block him was not justified, ethically or practically, and not a good idea. Everybody would expect that MIT would take issue with an outsider (or worse, Harvard fellow) coming to MIT, where he was a guest, to exploit its relative openness while harming actual MIT students and faculty trying to use JSTOR. Even if MIT was fine with what Aaron was doing, JSTOR was bound to freak out and block all of MIT, which is what happened, hurting innocent bystanders. When Aaron repeatedly tried to evade MIT's ban on his MAC address and hid his computer in the basement network closet, that was bound to enrage any network admin.What's unfortunate is that MIT's openness and tolerance of anonymity is something Aaron supported. I don't believe he really viewed it as something to be exploited as a loophole, and I think he did care about the collateral consequences of his actions on others. That's not how he acted in this one project, but I believe Aaron's decision to become the worst guest MIT has ever had was a lapse in judgment that does not really characterize his full views. It's unfortunate that people are holding him up as a hero for this.Aaron's beef was with JSTOR and its method of paying its scanning and hosting bills by charging for access. MIT and Harvard are victims of those bills as much as anybody. Aaron probably had no right to exploit MIT's generosity by making MIT and its community unwitting allies (and victims, when their access was cut off and they had to keep chasing him) in his quest to... what exactly, I don't know.I don't think the Aaron I knew would have agreed with what Aaron did in secret. He never defended himself and I suspect felt ashamed.Of course I don't think Aaron deserved the possibility of 30 years in jail for what he did. But he took an extraordinary risk that paid off terribly and the consequences are, I would say unimaginably horrific, but they actually happened. I wish I could go back in time and tell him: don't do it. That's what I mean by saying it was absolutely not worth it and unjustified.

That is a complicated question that requires much research. For some time now, I have wanted to answer this, but I wasn’t sure how to put my thoughts into words. I am going to try my best.To put it in basic terms, no, I do not believe that feminism is incompatible with Christianity per se; I think the Bible in general is very flexible. If a Christian is insistent enough, he or she will interpret any passage in any way desirable. This is just the thing with Christianity; if the world moves on, the beliefs can be reinterpreted.However, I do not think that this is the issue. The issue lies much deeper. When you are reconciling Christianity with feminism—or any other modern progressive worldview for that matter—you have to start asking questions. Many Christians don’t do it. I was one of these Christians; when I was a Jehovah’s Witness, I wanted to reconcile my faith with modernity. This approach is common. Some Christians (such as those answering this question) want to say that the Bible can be reconciled with modern perspective towards women, and that is fine in and of itself. What is not fine, however, is that some Christians cease asking questions, seeking deeper, once they have reconciled their faith with modernity.Having that said, what exactly is the problem? Ask yourself this question: “Why are there passages in the Bible that, by modern standards, are simply outdated in the first place?” If God had inspired the authors of the Old and the New Testaments, wouldn’t the views presented therein be morally superior to those of other societies in that time period? I think the answer is, “Yes.”If God had inspired the Bible, then the worldview of this ancient collection of books would be morally superior to the worldview of other societies in that time period. Moreover, either it should also be morally equal to our own worldview in modern times, or it should be even superior to ours. However, it is not the case. I would like to argue this assertion by quoting certain passages from both the Old Testament and the New Testament.Sexist and Otherwise Primitive Old TestamentBefore I get to argue certain passages found in this collection, I would like to mention something beforehand. I realise this question is about Christians, not Jews. So why do I want to argue about the views of the Old Testament? The answer is simple. Regardless of whether Christians are or are not under the law of the Old Testament, someone did write the Old Testament, and Christians do think that this someone—or a lot of someones—was under divine inspiration. I think we can all agree on that much.However, this is important to stress that the issue is not whether Christians are or are not under the law. If Christians want to claim they are not under the law, that is completely fine by me. I claimed the exact same thing when I was a Jehovah’s Witness, while also citing the verses from Gal. 3.13–14. So let it be clear that I have no problem with accepting this claim.Nevertheless, the problem is still here. Mainstream Christianity claims that the books of the Old Testament are divinely inspired. Hence, the issue is not whether Christians are under that law; the issue is what the law is. If the law were divinely inspired, it should have included morally superior laws, should they not? After all, this law came from God, Yahweh, who is believed by Christians to be morally superior. Therefore, I want to argue that this law of the Old Testament, despite allegedly being of divine origins, is not morally superior; on the contrary, I think it is morally inferior to our times.So let me start with the first passage that I want to discuss which undermines the role of women in the society. The passage is found in Deuteronomy 22.28–29:If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.Let us interpret these two verses first. How are they problematic? The first one, verse 28, talks about a man who “meets a virgin who is not engaged.” This man then “seizes her and lies with her,” which, put in drastic terms, means that he rapes her. The Hebrew uses two interesting words in this passage, which reinforce the point (just in case somebody wants to argue that this verse does not talk about rape.)The first word, which is rendered “to seize,” is taphas (תָּפַשׂ). This word has a rather clear definition; it can be rendered “to lay hold of, wield, capture, take,” and, of course, “to seize.” This clearly implies taking hold of someone by force. Another Hebrew word is shakab (שָׁכַב), which is rendered “to lie down.” It is often used unambiguously to mean “to have sex with someone” (Gen. 19.32, 30.15; Lev. 20.11–13; 1 Sam. 2.22). Nonetheless, some argue that this word, when used in Deut. 22.28–29, does not mean “to have sex with someone” but “to lie down with a person” without having sex. But this is just absurd. The whole point of this portion of the chapter (Deut. 22.13–30) is to introduce laws concerning sexual relations. Read it for yourself, and see what the context tells you. It is unambiguously about sex. Thus, this passage is clearly about a man who seizes a woman by force and lies down with her—as in has sex with her, and as a result, rapes her.However, there is one more objection some may make. Some Christians argue that the Hebrew word taphas means here “to entice” or “to seduce.” That is completely preposterous. How does the word “to seize” even resemble “to entice” in any way? In Hebrew, there is another word which could be used in this way: pathah (פָּתָה). This word means “to allure, entice, persuade, seduce.” The word taphas could not be used to mean the same thing, considering its actual definition—”to seize.”So to return to the subject at hand, after the man in Deut. 22.28–29 rapes the aforementioned woman, the law explicitly states that the man should then pay her father fifty shekels and then marry the woman he raped. I don’t think I need to explain how primitive this is. Firstly, it implies that the woman does not have ownership over her body, for the man has to pay her father, not her, for raping her. The father owns her even though this is the Old Testament we are talking about, and the Old Testament should reflect a society morally superior if it is divinely inspired, should it not? Secondly, the woman does not get any justice for being raped. What she does get, however, is a husband that raped her.So this passage is clearly problematic. This is a law that is as morally inferior to ours as it gets. Can you reconcile this with Christianity? Well, yes, the Bible is flexible enough to reconcile such laws with modernity. But that is not the issue. The issue is that this law is in a book that is supposed to be divinely inspired.Some people could say that, well, this was the Antiquity. At that time, people lived in primitive societies, so Jews reflected that worldview. God could not have ordered them to have moral laws that encouraged equality because the whole world in general was too backwards morally. I find that problematic in and of itself. There are other laws—nonsensical laws, I may add—that he, God, does establish, but he could not establish laws that had to do with equality? Really? Consider the law from Lev. 11.12, which condemns eating any animal that lives in water and that does not have fins and scales because they are somehow unclean—such as frogs, eels, or shellfish. Another minor law is found in Deut. 14.8, which prohibits the Jews from eating pork because the pig “divides the hoof but does not chew the cud”; therefore, it is unclean. Yet another law that somehow found its place in the Old Testament despite its ridiculousness is one from Exod. 34.26: “You shall not boil a kid [a young goat] in its mother’s milk.”What is any sensible person to make of all this? It is simply ridiculous to claim that God somehow inspired the Old Testament if it contains such nonsensical laws, but it does not have any laws that would establish equality between men and women. God is supposed to be omnipotent. Is he not omnipotent enough to rewire the brains of the Israelites so that they could accept a simple law against rape? But he does make them accept a law telling them not to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk?And this is what I was talking about when I said that, yes, Christians can reconcile feminism with Christianity, but the issue lies deeper. It’s not about whether Christians are under the Old Testament laws. I recognise the fact that no Christian would rape a woman only to marry her after paying her father. However, the issue is this: Why is this law in the Old Testament in the first place? What does this law say about God who allegedly inspired it and gave it to the Israelites? There are laws that prohibit certain diets, but there are no laws establishing equality. Where are the laws prohibiting slavery? Where are the laws prohibiting owning women and selling them for marriage to people who raped them? Where are the laws prohibiting genocide for religious purposes?Those laws are simply not in the Old Testament. Why would you want to follow a collection of ancient books written more than 2,000 years ago? Why would you claim such a collection is divinely inspired when it contains such horrible laws as Deut. 22.28–29 or Exod. 21? What do those laws show? To me, they categorically represent a society that invented a Hebrew God Yahweh only to claim authority on laws that were no different from the laws of other primitive societies.One would hope that it gets better in the New Testament. In my opinion, it does get better—but only a little bit, not enough to claim divine inspiration. The New Testament still supports issues like sexism and slavery, and while one can cite other “good” verses, one cannot make the inherent sexism in the New Testament disappear. I would like to, then, make a case against the New Testament now.The New Testament Not So NewAs I have already stated, the New Testament does get a little bit better. Now, you have clear verses in this collection that explicitly prohibit hatred and that categorically demand that one love his or her neighbour—such as the Golden Rule. Those are admirable laws, to be sure, but they do not make other laws—which sound much less progressive—disappear, and that’s the issue. You can use verses such as Gal. 3.26–28 to soften the blow of saying, “Oh, women are inferior to men, but hey! don’t worry; women and men are one in Christ Jesus,” but you cannot make it disappear altogether. Even if you say that women and men are indeed one in Christ, what does it matter when you say afterwards that women don’t have authority over men (1 Tim. 2.12) or that they are to remain silent (1 Cor. 14.34–35)?These are verses that explicitly undermine women. There are of course ways of arguing against that, and ways of reconciling the New Testament with feminism, but in the end, I think those ways are highly problematic. When you do reconcile the New Testament with feminism, you are just raising more questions than creating answers.Take, for instance, the aforementioned 1 Tim. 2.12. In the preceding verse, the author of 1 Tim. argues that women are to “learn in silence and with full submission.” He argues that especially because, in his mind, women are easily deceived, and therefore, they don’t have the qualifications to teach—only to learn. In support of that, the author of 1 Tim. specifically alludes to the creation story found in Gen. 2. He says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (vv 13–14). The author of this passage argues that women should not teach because they were deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden. She became a transgressor first, not Adam; in fact, Adam himself was never deceived by Satan. He was deceived by the woman, Eve. The context of this passage certainly suggests that women do not have the authority to teach men.This is a clearly sexist passage which undermines women. But there is an easy way to argue against it. It’s very simple, actually. Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. He also didn’t write the other pastoral epistles. Neither did he write Colossians or Ephesians or 2 Thessalonians. This is a standard scholarly view, and this means that Paul most likely is not the author of the sexist 1 Tim. 2.12. So this is how Christians reconcile this passage with Christianity. But does this actually matter? In my opinion, it does not.When you say that 1 Timothy is a forgery, you are saying that it is a lie. Someone wrote the epistle and claimed to be Paul, even though he was not Paul, to make his words more authoritative. It is a lie. This lie is in the New Testament, and that is problematic. How is the New Testament inspired if it contains a lie? How is it inspired if it contains several lies? Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonias, and all three pastoral epistles are forgeries. They were not written by Paul.So what does it mean when a Christian says that the New Testament is inspired? Does it mean that all those writers of all those books wrote word for word what God told them? If so, that is ridiculous because it then shows what kind of moral values God has. Do you still remember Deut. 22.28–29 about the raped woman? or how about Rom. 1.26–27 which condemns homosexuality? or 1 Cor. 11.5 which says that women should wear head-coverings when they “pray or prophesy”? or Eph. 6.5 which clearly supports slavery? or.. or… you just have all those verses that clearly don’t make sense when you say that God inspired the Bible word for word!So what if you say that inspiration means that those writers of the Bible just got the basic idea from God of what to write in the books but… just wrote it in their own words? That still doesn’t solve the problem. It still gives you the basic idea of God’s morality—condoning rape, slavery, homophobia, et cetera. Or does inspiration mean that God made those writers just “wise” in some ambiguous, undefined sense, and then these authors just wrote on paper (ha, papyrus!) their own ideas? But if they wrote their own ideas, not God’s, why should we trust some ignorant scribes from Antiquity? They were obviously sexist, racist, and god knows what else. Moreover, if God made them “wise” in an ambiguous, undefined sense, what is this wisdom? Is it sexism, racism, slavery, rape, and genocide for religious purposes? Is all this a part of God’s wisdom?Let me say once again that it is true that there are verses in the New Testament which are considered “good.” You have Paul who mentions Phoebe, a church leader, and Junias, a female apostle. You have gospels which say that women were the first ones to find out about Jesus’ resurrection. You have the story about the adulterous woman whom the people want to sentence to death, but Jesus says in John 8.7, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And those are the good verses. But that’s cherry-picking! You still have the bad ones which explicitly remind of ignorant scribes who didn’t know a single thing about science or modern progressive views. So, how were those scribes inspired?The Overall Value of the BibleWhat does it say about the Bible, then? It says that the Bible is just like any other book written in Antiquity or the Middle Ages or even in the modern times. It’s a piece of literature that contains plenty of valuable stories, many of which I mentioned above, such as the story of the adulterous woman. However, is that a reason to revere the Bible, considering the fact it also comes with so many primitive lessons? I don’t think so. Take Shakespeare’s play Hamlet as an example. Does it contain any sexist passages? Well, yeah, it does! Consider these quotes:'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,To give these mourning duties to your father.[…] but to perseverIn obstinate condolement is a courseOf impious stubbornness. 'Tis unmanly grief.It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,An understanding simple and unschooled:(1.2.90–92; 96–101) [emphasis added].That it should come to this:But two months dead—nay, not so much, not two.So excellent a king, that was, to thisHyperion to a satyr; so loving to my motherThat he might not beteem the winds of heavenVisit her face too roughly. Heaven and Earth.Must I remember? why, she would hang on himAs if increase of appetite had grownBy what it fed on. And yet, within a month(Let me not think on 't; frailty, thy name is woman!)(1.2.141–150) [emphasis added].Then, if he says he loves you,It fits your wisdom so far to believe itAs he in his particular act and placeMay give his saying deed, which is no furtherThan the main voice of Denmark goes withal.Then weigh what loss your honor may sustainIf with too credent ear you list his songsOr lose your heart, or your chaste treasure openTo his unmaster'd importunity.Fear it, Ophelia; fear it, my dear sister,And keep you in the rear of your affection,Out of the shot and danger of desire.)(1.3.27–39) [emphasis added].The first passage says that men should not grief because it does not belong to a man to cry over his father’s death. The second passage says that, because Hamlet’s mother is weak for being deceived by his uncle, all women are frail. The third passage says that Ophelia should guard her “chaste treasure” (virginity) because she is a woman, a virgin (the point is that men don’t have such a responsibility—such as Hamlet.)But are there any good passages in the play? Of course there are! This is why Shakespeare is considered such an ingenious poet. Hamlet teaches a lesson about not overthinking stuff through Hamlet’s failures and faults. Or even Polonius’ speech to Laertes in which he tells him to stay true to yourself. But do we consider Shakespeare a divinely inspired writer? Do we consider Simone de Beauvoir divinely inspired? Do we consider Martin Luther King, Jr. divinely inspired? I don’t think so—at least not to the same degree Christians revere the Bible.So what is my overall point? Both the Old Testament and the New Testament contain good passages. The Old Testament has the Decalogue; although I don’t agree with all the commandments, some of them are still and always will be valuable in a normal, stable society. The New Testament, on the other hand, has the Golden Rule. However, does it prove anything about the Bible’s divine origins? It does not. The Golden Rule is not of Christian origin; the earliest affirmation of this rule goes back as early as Ancient Egypt. It appears in the story of the Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (21st–17th centuries BCE.) The rule states, “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.” There is also another Ancient Egyptian papyrus which commands the opposite: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.” The Golden Rule also existed in all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. All these date to 500–400 BCE, half a millennium before Jesus was even born!So why would anyone want to follow the Bible for some special reason? That simply does not make sense—at least to me. It is a valuable piece of literature because of its many rich stories, but it also contains the bad stories—such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. So every Christian needs to ask himself or herself a question: “How is the Bible divinely inspired?” Is it a word-for-word inspiration? Is it a case of the scribes being inspired to tell a basic idea of what God wanted to communicate? Or were those scribes inspired to be “wise” in some ambiguous, undefined sense? Or maybe the Bible is not inspired at all? Either way, Christians have a serious problem to solve. The Bible in the end does contain the bad laws and the bad moral lessons which make it no different than Shakespeare’s Hamlet or the Analects of Confucius.

As a startup founder of three years myself, I can relate to how legal housekeeping can be messy. Once a year, I have our own lawyers go through and do an audit of all of our legal paperwork (which costs a couple thousand dollars to be extremely thorough, but it’s worth it). Luckily, there are now many ways to easily manage and track all of your legal, financial, and HR documents via third-party sites that specialize in these management proceedings. I wrote a blog post about this awhile back titled “5 Ways to Save Time Dealing With Documents” which highlights certain sites that can be very beneficial depending on what paperwork you’d like to track or manage. They are as follows:1. GroupDocsGroupDocs is a new, comprehensive online service for document creation and management. It has multiple features, including a viewer for reading documents in your browser, an electronic signature service, an online document converter, a document assembly service, a feature for comparing different versions of a document, and an annotation feature. An individual plan is $10 per month for limited storage and 500 documents, while a group plan for up to 9 people is $19 per user per month. Based on the number of features and pricing, GroupDoc is a good-value purchase for a small business. As you’ll see below, GroupDocs can be cheaper than a service that offers only one such feature.2. signNowWhen you’re closing a deal and need to get documents signed, the last thing you need is a slow turnaround due to fax machine problems or the postal service. The solution is to use an electronic signature service such as signNow, which is one of the most popular e-signature companies in the world. This service allows you to email your documents to the person whose signature you need. Next, the recipient undergoes a simply e-signing process, and then signNow alerts you when the process is completed. Finally, signNow electronically stores the documents, which are accessible at any time. As a result, you can easily track the progress of the signature process and create an audit trail of your documents. The “Professional” plan is recommended for sole proprietors and freelancers, and costs $180 per year ($15 per month) for up to 50 requested signatures per month. The “Workgroup” plan is geared towards teams and businesses, and it costs $240 per user per year ($20 per month per user), for unlimited requested signatures.3. signNowsignNow is another e-signature service. Similar to signNow, signNow allows you to upload a PDF file, MS Word file or web application document. Next, you can edit the document, such as by adding initials boxes or tabs, and then email them out for signatures. Once recipients e-sign the document, signNow notifies you and archives the document. signNow offers low rates for these services: a 1-person annual plan with unlimited document sending costs $11 per month. An annual plan for 10 senders with unlimited document sending costs only $39 per month.4. ExariExari is a document assembly and contract management service that assists in automating high-volume business documents, such as sales agreements or NDAs. First, the document assembly service allows authors to create automated document templates. No technical knowledge is required; most authors are business analysts and lawyers. Authors have a variety of options for customizing documents, such as fill-in-the-blank fields, optional clauses, and dynamic updating of topic headings. They also can add questions that the end user must answer. Once you send out the document, the user answers the questionnaire, and Exari uses that data to customize the document. Next, the contract management feature allows you to store and track both the templates and the signed documents. Pricing is based on the size and scope of your planned implementation, so visit their website for more information.5. FillanyPDFIt’s a hassle having to print out PDF forms in order to complete them. Fortunately, FillanyPDF is a service that allows you to edit, fill out and send any PDFs, while entirely online. This “Fill & Sign” plan costs $5 per month, or $50 per year. If you subscribe to the “Professional” plan, you can also create fillable PDFs using your own documents. With this service, any PDF, JPG or GIF file becomes fillable when you upload it to the site. You can modify a form using white-out, redaction and drawing tools. Then, you can email a link to your users, who can fill out and e-sign your form on the website. FillanyPDF also allows you to track who filled out your forms, and no downloads are necessary to access these services.  The “Professional” plan costs $49 per month, or $490 per year.Switching firms can be a hassle. As a former startup attorney, I have a bit of advice about finding the right attorney for your business: it’s best to focus on the specific attorney you’ll be working with. He or she should have a solid understanding of the ins and outs of your business industry, a deep knowledge of the legal issues your startup may face, and previous work experience with startups to ensure a quality and efficient work product. This is absolutely key when matching our startup clients at UpCounsel to attorneys on our platform who can perform their legal work and hash out their legal projects in a timely manner. We also allow clients to store any and all of their legal documents directly on UpCounsel so they don’t have to go searching in alternative places for the correct paperwork. It’s proven to be a free and lightweight way to store legal documents that our clients love. Here's what it looks like:As I’ve mentioned, it’s more important to find the right attorney as opposed to the right law firm. And seeing as you’re a startup, our own startup clients typically save an average of 50-60% on their legal work, since the attorneys don't include overhead fees (a.k.a. the fees included for doing business with the firm itself) in their invoices.Hope this gives you a deeper look into what other sites and services are out there. If you have any questions or would like more information on how best to handle your legal housekeeping/ attorney matters, feel free to signNow out to me directly. As a former startup attorney at Latham & Watkins, I’d be happy to give you some guidance.

I don’t think they care about us puny peasants who accuse them of being insular , ill researched, insensitive misogynist to begin with. To demonstrate that, I think a lot of people need to be reminded of the scandal of 2014 when in season 4 finale episodes concluded with a scene where Jaime explicitly rapes Cersei beside the corpse of their son. The scene was taken from the books, but the f*cked dynamic of how Jaime and Cersei have little no healthy communication boundaries is missing the show. In the books , as always Cersei says no to Jaime, petrified of being caught but eventually, in the middle of doing it says yes. Which in itself is bad consent .What the show did worse is that it was No on Cersei’s part throughout and there was no redacting that statement at all. Making it rape through and through and not even debatable dubious consent. Did you know what Benioff and Weiss did to combat the backlash??Nothing . They dropped off from the face of internet and refused to answer to anyone. HBO refused to answer anyone. They let the internet outrage rage on, banking on their ability to excuse them after them like they always do.And they did.Next time they got bolder and had Sansa Stark raped! ( something which never ever happened in the books. Sansa is not even there in North. It was their own writing choice to make. No one forced them to )Next time they had Tommen be written in a rape situation with Margeary. In the books Margeary is just 16 while Tommen is just 8. They just play together under the scrutiny of 500 adults in their castle. ( again, note its their own writing choices to make , no one forced them to)Their writing choices indicate they don’t care to check or understand what kind of writing choices they are making let alone deliberately check whether to safeguard themselves from potential backlash to craft a story around it. Their choices somehow always circle back to degrading women or children in some fashion . The ratings were dropping, the audience base was dropping but they didn’t bother and didn’t care. Even their recent comic con scripting via using their actors was basically them denying that 1.8 million people didn’t sign a petition to humiliate them for their choices and it was a media led frenzy.Even their steadily dropping ratings didn’t cure them of their own delusional awareness( Note the downfall started most when they started to meddle with the book canon which is as old as season 2. The show maintains its best form when it does or it seems is trying to ape the books as noted in episode 3 of season 5 )See, but here is the thing- How writing what they wrote saved them anyway from any backlash? Every 14 year old child on the internet knows that making a women “mad” is quintessential tool men have used to punish women in the narrative since dawn of time. Heck women have done this too, remember Jane Eyre? Blades of Trysale? Azula from Avatar ? Are we supposed to forget how so many victims so many witch burning were real mentally ill women and even false accusation were used to burn them?Madness, this ableist term pertaining to mental illness has been used for centuries to silence, put aside the voices of women to depower them , both in fiction and reality. Other ways you still encounter traces of it is when someone would call you “hysterical”, “emotional”, “you need to calm down”, “get her smelling salts” and what not. This problem is made worse by the fact that Daenerys’s canon storyline is all about how people refuse to take her seriously , even gaslight and slander her by using her father’s reputation against her. GRRM is deliberately playing with audience’s sympathy by presenting a 16 year old revolutionary be undermined by accusation of dis-credibility due to mental health even when she is not mentally ill or a bad person.Benioff and Weiss not only did that, but also framed Jon as the victim of this situation. THE MURDERER. They framed the man as the victim of the circumstances that Dany “forced him into” while the actual victim of murder was effectively silenced with a betrayal of intimacy ( she was murdered while the man she trusted was kissing her. Could they be really more disgusting?).They basically validated the voice of every domestic abuser there ever was. I am pretty sure Chris Brown was also blaming Rihanna for making him beat her and still does. As are all the other men documented to express similar sentiments when interrogated as to why they harm someone they claim to love.They all say that its their victim who made them do this for she or he didn’t do as they were told.Just like Jon. Dany killed hundreds of people like Tywin once upon a time did but Jon and the narrative is acting like not even three seasons ago, it wasn’t licking Tywin’s boot, making us cheer when Arya killed innocent and guilty Frey men alike and committed cannibalism and its all about Kumbaya and mercy now so much that this so called war criminal doesn’t even get a a trial -straight up a dagger in her chest will do.This is not some niche revelation, one can google this. Everyone can google how Domestic violence perpertrators think. One can even watch other shows about abusers and bullies if reading boring documents is too much. Last Jedi showed Snoke being a classic abuser to Kylo not even a year ago , the same time D&D were writing season eight.Yet they still went ahead and branded Daenerys mad because they failed to write Starks worthy or powerful on their own to win anything on their own and made Jon the real victim of the situation who gets to have a relatively alive and happy ending .I don’t know about you but like me, everyone is horrified that this is what Benioff, Weiss and Cogman think one should write an empowering story in the year of Christian lord 2019.You can google that too. Also do google how men using and calling women mad is a weapon of misogyny.““Crazy” is one of the five deadly words guys use to shame women into compliance. The others: Fat. Ugly. Slutty. Bitchy. They sum up the supposedly worst things a woman can be. “Crazy” is such a convenient word for men, perpetuating our sense of superiority. Men are logical; women are emotional. Emotion is the antithesis of logic. When women are too emotional, we say they are being irrational. Crazy. Wrong. Women hear it all the time from men. “You’re overreacting,” we tell them. “Don’t worry about it so much, you’re over-thinking it.” “Don’t be so sensitive.” “Don’t be crazy.” It’s a form of gaslighting — telling women that their feelings are just wrong, that they don’t have the right to feel the way that they do. Minimizing somebody else’s feelings is a way of controlling them. If they no longer trust their own feelings and instincts, they come to rely on someone else to tell them how they’re supposed to feel. Small wonder that abusers love to use this c-word. It’s a way of delegitimizing a woman’s authority over her own life.— From WashingtonPost online [1]This quote is especially ironic how the show has been telling and comparing Daenerys to her crazy father Aerys for being justly angry at the treatment of slaves, or enacting that anger. Men, especially western coded characters like Arya and Jon can behead people for wronging them , they are sane but Daenerys burning legitimate slavers is somehow a sign of madness ( because she didn’t give them “a trial”) as comparable to Aerys, her father who didn’t bath for two years and was burning people years before he actually got his hands on Ned’s family.Really..And of course the parallel is most complete when Varys, who helped and fanned Aerys ‘s madness tried to kill Dany for feeling sad for the death of her own friends because he cannot handle a Monarch who doesn’t have a cock and is too strong for him to manipulate.Lovely. So OP, no the writers didn’t write Daenerys mad for some sort of misogyny protection benefit. If they wanted that they wouldn’t have turned Dany mad in the first place. That is the last thing a writer does if they want to be not accused of being a Medieval dingbat.