text:
_WHY ORWELL MATTERS_, released in the UK as _ORWELL'S VICTORY_, is a book-length biographical essay by Christopher Hitchens. In it, the author relates George Orwell's thoughts on and actions in relation to: The British Empire, the Left, the Right, the United States of America, English conventions, feminism, and his controversial list for the British Foreign Office.

Summary

The British Empire

Orwell spoke for his radio magazine 'Voice' on the BBC of India where he spoke about literature and ideas. Orwell agreed to broadcast to India under his own name on one condition; that he could express his anti-imperialist opinions without diluting them. He criticized the British government's lack of principles regarding Indian self-government and never failed to argue for India's independence. Orwell's experience working with the BBC correlated with some of the concepts in his novel _Nineteen Eighty-Four_. Such as his concept doublethink, in relation to the sometimes extreme daily changes in political propaganda that was being broadcast. Orwell's thoughts and writings on colonialism are a permanent part of his lifelong commitment to the subjects of power, cruelty, force, and the relationship between the dominator and the dominated. Orwell can be read as a teaching in Britain's transition from an imperial society to a multicultural and multi-ethnic one. Since this was a great development in his time, and continues to be, this is one reason Hitchens argues that Orwell matters.[1]

The Left

Orwell contributed to the socialist press in England for many years. He considered himself to be on the left and advocated for democracy, decolonization, egalitarian ideals and heavily criticized totalitarianism.[2] Orwell had lived under a Stalinist police regime in Spain when he fought against fascism in the Spanish Civil War.[3] His time in Spain never left him; he continuously helped vindicate those he had known that survived the Stalinist regime. He did this by publicizing their cases, helping their families, getting them out of prison and saving them from being condemned.[4] He witnessed how the government could distort the truth and how political enemies could suddenly disappear.[5] Orwell returned home after he was shot in the throat by a fascist bullet. This may have saved him in a way as he was “guilty” of Trotskyism and served with the POUM militia, which was more than enough to land him in prison. Orwell's friends, such as his brigade commander Georges Kopp, were imprisoned under horrendous conditions. Kopp was subject to torture of close confinement with rats; this, and some of Orwell's other experiences in Spain, initiated some of the subject matter for _Nineteen Eight-Four_.[6] His socialist peers had a great appreciation for the Soviet Union. Since Orwell had witnessed its cruelty first hand, he did not.[7] He argued that it was not socialism, but a viscous form of state-capitalism.[8] Many of them never forgave him about his criticisms towards the Soviet Union and being right about Spain. Despite being a leftist himself, many of Orwell's harshest critics were on the left and came about after his death.[9] In the 1960s and 1970s the New Left despised Orwell, partly because his writings were right about the issues in society and they were not. 'Orwell put it best: the sin of most leftists is that they wanted to be anti-totalitarian without being anti-communist.'[10]

The Right

Orwell spent his entire adult life renouncing his upbringing in the conservative English Tory Party. It is true that he was one of the founders of anti-communism and held some beliefs that are associated with the right. Such as individualism, patriotism, his strong sense of right and wrong, and his dislike for bureaucracy and government. Liberty and equality were two of the things Orwell valued the most, as told in his writings, 'A society of free and equal human beings.' As such, they were generally not allies in Britain's colonial laissez-faire culture at the time. Orwell was aware of this paradox and symbolizes it in _Nineteen Eighty-Four_; his point being that there should be no utilitarian trade-off between freedom and security. _Nineteen Eight-Four_ was accused of attacking the British Labour Government. Orwell responded that he supported the British Labour Party and his novel was not meant to attack it nor socialism. 'It exposes the corruptions that a centralized economy is prone to, as witnessed with communism and fascism. The novel takes place in Britain to emphasize that English-speaking races are not innately better and that totalitarianism can triumph everywhere, if not fought against.' Orwell was invited by the Duchess of Atholl in November 1945 to speak on behalf of the right-wing and anti-communist group, League for European Freedom. Orwell thought that their arguing against communist brutality was inconsistent with them claiming to support democracy, yet not supporting the end for Britain's unwanted rule in India. Therefore, Orwell did not want to associate himself with them. In Orwell's words, 'I belong to the Left and must work inside it, as much as I hate totalitarianism and its poisonous influence.' It is true that Orwell held many conservative instincts, not prejudices. Such as his somewhat traditional moral and sexual values. Also his dislike of abortions and homosexuals, as well as sharing some anti-semitic comments in his writings. Hitchens argues that Orwell spent his life trying to reason himself out of them. Although there were times that his upbringing and pessimism succeeded his efforts, oftentimes when he was ill or depressed. Hitchens writes, 'Orwell was conservative about many things, but not about politics.'[11]

America

Orwell never traveled to the United States as he had little interest in it. He was suspicious of the consumerist and materialistic culture. He was somewhat resentful of its imperial ambitions and overly critical about its size and vulgarity. Orwell did take American literature seriously, he recognized its success with the incomplete struggle for liberty, and discussed it on the BBC. Near the end of his life when his health was failing due to tuberculosis, he began to have a change of heart towards America. He wrote about Jack London's life and works and had a great appreciation for them. He began to realize the appeal for North America's vast land and fierce individualism. Orwell's admirers from the states urged him to visit them. There were many suitable climates for his health and the streptomycin that might have healed his lungs was only manufactured and easily distributed in America. Orwell briefly contemplated spending some time in the South writing, but he was too weak to visit.[12]

Hitchens thinks that if Orwell had lived another ten years he would have visited the United States after being persuaded by his friends in New York. Orwell understood the importance of Thomas Paine and having a constitution. His references to American history and American ideals are scarce but quite accurate.[13] Hitchens writes, 'the American subject was in every sense Orwell's missed opportunity.'[14]

Feminism and women

Hitchens devotes his “Feminism and Women” chapter to the controversies surrounding the accusations of Orwell's fear and hatred towards women. Hitchens notes that Orwell wrote for a predominantly male audience and had a hard time developing a believable female character. Yet Orwell had good relationships with intelligent and strong women. Orwell was married twice and his first wife, Eileen O'Shaugnessy, helped sharpen the plot for _Animal Farm_. Orwell would read aloud his newest written chapters to her for her constructive criticism. Hitchens writes that, “Orwell desired the feminine but was put off his guard by the female. But he did not hate women.”[15]

List for the British Foreign Office

In 1949, shortly before he died, the English author George Orwell prepared a list of notable writers and other persons he considered to be unsuitable as possible writers for the anti-communist propaganda activities of the Information Research Department, a propaganda organisation of the British state under the Foreign Office.

Over fifty years later, in 2002, the list was first published in _The Guardian_; and the original was released by the Foreign Office soon after.

Hitchens conclusion on Why Orwell Matters

According to Hitchens, Orwell is still very modern because he writes about things relevant to today like machinery, modern tyranny and warfare, psychiatry.[16] Orwell's style is fresh, clear, and persuasive.[17] He managed to do this while dying of tuberculosis. Hitchens: “Power is only what you allows it to be. You can resolve not to be a citizen like that, not to do the work of power for it. The reading of Orwell is not an exercise in projecting blame on others but is an exercise in accepting a responsibility for yourself and it’s for that reason that he’ll always be honored and also hated. I think he wouldn’t have it any other way.”[18]

At the end of the book, Hitchens critiques Orwell's novels and legacy. An essay sequel to the book, “Why Orwell Still Matters,” appears in John Rodden's 2007 compilation _The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell_ ().

Orwell's life as a writer

Orwell was brought up in a conservative upper class environment where people felt fear and loathing towards the poor.[19] His father was involved in the opium trade, which had his family built upon a guilty colonial secret. Orwell volunteered to be a part of that by becoming an imperial police officer in Burma, living under a dictatorship. Orwell's first novel, _Burmese Days_ was about a policeman, clearly based upon himself and his time there. In the novel, the policeman has a live-in mistress and servant that he has bought from her family. Hitchens speculates that Orwell resigned from his job as a police officer in the Burma because he feared he would become part of the dirty secret himself; that he would become a racist and a sadist. Hitchens points out that this is especially important because he was facing this policeman within himself and choosing to defeat it. Orwell was ahead of his time and Hitchens believes that in some ways post-colonial studies are founded by Orwell. He figured out early on, before he went to University, that some people were in power because they enjoy punishing others.[20]

He went 'native', as if he was in a colony, in his own country before the 30s. When the great political decade of the century had hit the world, he was ready for it.[21] Orwell wanted to find out what living in impoverished environments were really like and to familiarize himself with the harsh facts of reality.[22] These experiences and especially his years fighting in the Spanish Civil War turned him into a full-fledged socialist.[23] The unpleasant facts he faced were usually the ones that put his own principles to the test. He stayed true to his experiences regardless of their harshness and regardless if they changed some of his thoughts and opinions.[24] Orwell could easily condemn others for their dishonest and immoral stances. Despite his best efforts to reason himself out of certain prejudices; such as anti-Americanism, homophobia, misogyny and antisemitism, he struggled to completely rid himself of such.[25]

If you were to compare Orwell's works with other journalists during his time many were likely to be tempted by those in power while Orwell was not. When Orwell was alive his works were not popular nor were they lucrative. He was not confident in his works and he would not dilute his opinions in order to gain wealth.[26] Therefore, he had a hard time getting some of his works published. Orwell thought that his books were failures, he wrote _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as he was dying. If he were alive today he would be surprised at how popular they became.[27]

Reception and criticism

_Publishers Weekly_ wrote, “Hitchens brilliantly marshals his deep knowledge of Orwell's work. Fans of Orwell will enjoy Hitchens's learned and convincing defense, while those unfamiliar with Orwell may perhaps be induced to return to the source.”[28] George Packer of _The Independent_ gave the book a mixed review, however, remarking, “_Why Orwell Matters_ is presented by its publisher as a case of posthumous affinity between writers across generations, but critic and subject turn out to be mismatched, and it's the critic who suffers as a result.”

Despite praising many of Hitchens's analyses of Orwell, Packer added, “For a slender book, _Why Orwell Matters_ is oddly unfocused and hard to get through. What Hitchens has to say is what a sympathetic reader of Orwell would want said. But he never sustains a line of thought long enough or searchingly enough to reach a truly provocative insight. There's no sense of a deepening engagement with the subject; one is never allowed to forget the gesticulating presence of the critic. The valuable reflections on Orwell keep getting interrupted by a series of asides, ripostes and thrusts into tangled little backwaters.”[29]

Alex Lee from the Yale review of books concludes that in the end Hitchens has “proved his basic point: The modern world needs more of the clear thinking, good writing and simple ideals that Orwell stood for.” Lee recommends that the reader go back and read some of Orwell's own books and essays: “Only by directly dealing with Orwell’s work can one comprehend his profound wisdom and his continued relevance in troubled and uncertain times.”[30]

John Rossi, professor of history at La Salle University in Philadelphia, wrote that: “Christopher Hitchens has written one of the best books on Orwell to appear in recent years. I found a few mistakes but nothing serious. What makes it such a powerful book is that it can be read either as an introduction to Orwell and his works or as a summary insight into them. Quite an accomplishment and one that will convince many to take Hitchens seriously in the future.”[31]

Statistics

As of August 3, 2020, _Why Orwell Matters_ ranked No. 5 in Political Literature Criticism best sellers on Amazon.com.[32]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18] Hitchens, Christopher. “Christopher Hitchens - [~2005] - Why Orwell Matters.” YouTube, 24 Apr. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5Ste5xRAA&t=121s.

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

title: Why Orwell Matters

question: What does "Why Orwell Matters" say about women?

text: The response should include the fact that Orwell was married twice.

answer: Hitchens devotes a chapter to the controversies surrounding the accusations of Orwell's fear and hatred towards women. Hitchens notes that Orwell wrote for a predominantly male audience and had a hard time developing a believable female character. Yet Orwell had good relationships with intelligent and strong women. Orwell was married twice and his first wife, Eileen O'Shaugnessy, helped sharpen the plot for Animal Farm. Orwell would read aloud his newest written chapters to her for her constructive criticism. Hitchens writes that, “Orwell desired the feminine but was put off his guard by the female. But he did not hate women.”

answer: Hitchens devotes a chapter to the controversies surrounding the accusations of Orwell's fear and hatred towards women. Hitchens notes that Orwell wrote for a predominantly male audience and had a hard time developing a believable female character. Yet Orwell had good relationships with intelligent and strong women. Orwell was married twice and his first wife, Eileen O'Shaugnessy, helped sharpen the plot for Animal Farm. Orwell would read aloud his newest written chapters to her for her constructive criticism. Hitchens writes that, “Orwell desired the feminine but was put off his guard by the female. But he did not hate women.”

text: The answer should mention Orwell's views on feminism.

text: The answer could mention Orwell's views on feminism.

text: The answer should mention Orwell's opinions on feminism.

text: The response could use clearer sentence structure.

text: The answer should mention Orwell's prejudices.

text: The answer is taken from the text verbatim and has no added analysis, it can be edited from the text and written in simpler terms.

answer: There is a chapter in the book surrounding the accusations of Orwell's fear and hatred towards women. Orwell wrote for a predominantly male audience and had a hard time developing a believable female character. The author states that Orwell desired the feminine but was put off his guard by women.

text: The answer should mention that Orwell had good relationships with intelligent and strong women.

text: The answer should mention Orwell's relationships with women.

text: The response should include that Orwell had good relationships with intelligent and strong women.

text: The answer omits that Orwell was married twice and had good relationships with intelligent and strong women.

text: It's omitted that Orwell's contemporaries hurled a lot of these accusations at the author.

answer: There is a chapter in the book surrounding the accusations of Orwell's fear and hatred towards women. Orwell wrote for a predominantly male audience and had a hard time developing a believable female character. The author states that Orwell desired the feminine but was put off his guard by women.

text: The first sentence is wholly inaccurate. Hitchens specifically says that Orwell had good relationships with women and didn't hate them

text: The answer should mention that Orwell had good relationships with women. He married twice. His first wife helped him with the plot of Animal Farm

answer: There is a chapter in the book surrounding the accusations of Orwell's fear and hatred towards women. Orwell wrote for a predominantly male audience and had a hard time developing a believable female character. Orwell was married twice. The author states that Orwell desired the feminine but was put off his guard by women.

text: It is omitted that Hitchens, the author of the book, claims that Orwell did not hate women.


text:
IDENTIFICATION is a psychological process whereby the individual assimilates an aspect, property, or attribute of the other and is transformed wholly or partially by the model that other provides. It is by means of a series of identifications that the personality is constituted and specified. The roots of the concept can be found in Freud's writings. The three most prominent concepts of identification as described by Freud are: primary identification, narcissistic (secondary) identification and partial (secondary) identification.[1]

While “in the psychoanalytic literature there is agreement that the core meaning of identification is simple – to be like or to become like another”, it has also been adjudged '“the most perplexing clinical/theoretical area” in psychoanalysis'.[2]

Freud

Freud first raised the matter of identification () in 1897, in connection with the illness or death of one's parents, and the response “to punish oneself in a hysterical fashion...with the same states [of illness] that they have had. The identification which occurs here is, as we can see, nothing other than a mode of thinking”.[3] The question was taken up again psychoanalytically “in Ferenczi's article, 'Introjection and Transference', dating from 1909”,[4] but it was in the decade between “On Narcissism” (1914) and “The Ego and the Id” (1923) that Freud made his most detailed and intensive study of the concept.

Freud distinguished three main kinds of identification. “First, identification is the original form of emotional tie with an object; secondly, in a regressive way it becomes a substitute for a libidinal object-tie...and thirdly, it may arise with any new perception of a common quality which is shared with some other person”.[5]

Primary identification

Primary identification is the original and primitive form of emotional attachment to something or someone prior to any relations with other persons or objects:[6] “an individual's first and most important identification, his identification with the father in his own personal prehistory...with the parents”.[7] This means that when a baby is born he is not capable of making a distinction between himself and important others. The baby has an emotional attachment with his parents and experiences his parents as a part of himself. “The breast is part of me, I am the breast”.

During this process of identification children adopt unconsciously the characteristics of their parents and begin to associate themselves with and copy the behavior of their parents. Freud remarked that identification should be distinguished from imitation, which is a voluntary and conscious act. Because of this process of emotional attachment a child will develop a (super)ego that has similarities to the moral values and guidelines by which the parents live their lives. By this process children become a great deal like their parents and this facilitates learning to live in the world and culture to which they are born.[8]

“By and large, psychoanalysts grant the importance and centrality of primary identification, even though...the concept varies 'according to each author and his ideas, its meaning in consequence being far from precise' (Etchegoyen 1985)”.[9]

Narcissistic (secondary) identification

Narcissistic identification is the form of identification following abandonment or loss of an object. This experience of loss starts at a very young age.[10] An example: wearing the clothes or jewellery of a deceased loved one.[11] In “Mourning and Melancholia” Freud, having “shown that identification is a preliminary stage of object-choice”, argued that the experience of loss sets in motion a regressive process that “served to establish an _identification_ of the ego with the abandoned object”.[12] In “The Ego and the Id”, he went on to maintain that “this kind of substitution has a great share in determining the form taken by the ego and that it makes an essential contribution towards building up what is called its 'character'”.[13]

Lacan, in his theory of the Imaginary, would develop the latter point into his view of “the ego is constituted in its nucleus by a series of alienating identifications”[14] - part of his opposition to any concept of an “autonomous” and conflict-free ego.

Partial (secondary) identification

Partial identification is based on the perception of a special quality of another person.[15] This quality or ideal is often represented in a “leader figure” who is identified with. For example: the young boy identifies with the strong muscles of an older neighbour boy. Next to identification with the leader, people identify with others because they feel they have something in common. For example: a group of people who like the same music. This mechanism plays an important role in the formation of groups. It contributes to the development of character and the ego is formed by identification with a group (group norms). Partial identification promotes the social life of persons who will be able to identify with one another through this common bond to one another, instead of considering someone as a rival.[16]

Partial identification and empathy

Freud went on to indicate the way “a path leads from identification by way of imitation to empathy, that is, to the comprehension of the mechanism by which we are enabled to take up any attitude at all towards another mental life”.[17] Otto Fenichel would go on to emphasize how “trial identifications for the purposes of empathy play a basic part in normal object relationships. They can be studied especially in analyzing the psychoanalyst's ways of working”.[18] Object relations theory would subsequently highlight the use of “_trial identification with the patient in the session_”[19] as part of the growing technique of analysing from the countertransference.

Anna Freud and identification with the aggressor

In her classic book _The Ego and the Mechanism of Defence_, Anna Freud introduced “two original defence mechanisms...both of which have become classics of ego psychology”,[20] the one being altruistic surrender, the other identification with the aggressor. Anna Freud pointed out that identification with parental values was a normal part of the development of the superego; but that “if the child introjects both rebuke and punishment and then regularly projects this same punishment on another, 'then he is arrested at an intermediate stage in the development of the superego'”.[21]

The concept was also taken up in object relations theory, which particularly explored “how a patient sometimes places the analyst in the role of victim whilst the patient acts out an identification with the aggressor”[22] in the analytic situation.

With the analyst

Mainstream analytic thought broadly agrees that interpretation took effect “by utilizing positive transference and transitory identifications with the analyst”.[23] More controversial, however, was the concept of “the terminal identification” at the close of analysis, where “that with which the patient identifies is their strong ego...[or] identification with the analyst's superego”.[24]

Lacan took strong exception to “any analysis that one teaches as having to be terminated by identification with the analyst...There is a beyond to this identification...this crossing of the plane of identification”.[25] Most Lacanians have subsequently echoed his distrust of “the view of psychoanalysis that relies on identification with the analyst as a central curative factor”.[26] How far the same criticism applies, however, to those who see as a positive therapeutic result “the development of a self-analytic attitude...[built on] identification with and internalization of the analyst's analytic attitude”[27] is not perhaps quite clear.

Marion Milner has argued that “terminal identification” can be most acute in those analysands who go on to become therapists themselves: “by the mere fact of becoming analysts we have succeeded in bypassing an experience which our patients have to go through. We have chosen to identify with our analyst's profession and to act out that identification”.[28]

In psychoanalytic thinking today

Much has been written on identification since Freud. Identification has been seen both as a normal developmental mechanism and as a mechanism of defence.[29] Many types of identification have been described by other psychoanalysts, including counter-identification (Fliess,1953),[30] pseudoidentification (Eidelberg, 1938),[31] concordant and complementary identifications (Racker, 1957),[32] and adhesive identification (Bick, 1968):[33] “the work of Bick and others on adhesive identification, exploring the concept of the 'psychic skin'”.[34]

[1] Laplanche, J. and Pontalis, J.-B. (1973), The language of psychoanalysis. The Hogarth Press.

[2] Malcolm Macmillan, _Freud Evaluated_ (1997) p. 496 (quoting Rangell)

[3] Freud, quoted by Angela Richards “Editor's Note”, _On Metapsychology_ (Penguin Freud Library 11, 1987) p. 248

[4] Jacques Lacan, _Écrits: A Selection_ (London 1997) p. 250

[5] “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”, in Sigmund Freud, _civilisation, Society and Religion_ (Penguin Freud Library 12) p. 137

[6] W.W. Meissner, 1970. Notes on Identification I. Origins in Freud, _Psychoanalytic Quarterly_, 39, 563-589.

[7] “The Ego and the Id”, _Metapsychology_ p. 370

[8] http://www.answers.com/topic/identification (5 May 2007)

[9] Macmillan, p. 497

[10]

[11] Hart, H. H. (1947), Problems of Identification. Psychiatric Quarterly, 21, 274-293.

[12] _Metapsychology_ p. 258

[13] _Metapsychology_ p. 368

[14] Jacques Lacan, _Écrits_ (London 1996) p. 128

[15]

[16]

[17] _Civilization_ p. 140n

[18] Otto Fenichel, _The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis_ (London 1946) p. 511

[19] Patrick Casement, _Further Learning from the Patient_ (London 1996) p. 138

[20] Lisa Appignanesi/John Forrester, _Freud's Women_ ( London 1993) p. 294

[21] Appignanesi, p. 294

[22] Patrick Casement, _Further learning from the patient_ (london 1996) p. 8

[23] Otto Fenichel, _The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis_ (London 1946) p. 570

[24] Lacan, _Écrits_ p. 274 and p. 246

[25] Jacques Lacan, _The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis_ (London 1994) p. 271-3

[26] John P. Muller, _Beyond the Psychoanalytic Dyad_ (1996) p. 130

[27] Alan S. Gurman, _Essential Psychotherapies_ (2003) p. 47

[28] Quoted in Janet Malcolm, _Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession_ (London 1988) p. 155

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34] Judith Mitrani and Joyce McDougall, _A Framework for the Imaginary_ (London 2008) p. 152

title: Identification (psychology)

question: Summarize what the text says about primary identification.

text: The answer contains a repetitive part and also contains grammatical errors.

category: coherence

answer: Primary identification is the original is the original form of emotional atachment to something or someone prior to any association with them. Childrens first identification is with their parents. During the process, they adopt the characteristics of their parents, subconsciously. Freud states that this identification is different from imitation, which is a voluntary and conscious act. This identification leads to children developing a superego that is similar to the moral values their parents live by. The process leads to children becoming a lot like their parents.

answer_source: Human misleading

text: The first sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity as it has some repetition.

answer: Primary identification is the original is the original form of emotional atachment to something or someone prior to any association with them. Childrens first identification is with their parents. During the process, they adopt the characteristics of their parents, subconsciously. Freud states that this identification is different from imitation, which is a voluntary and conscious act. This identification leads to children developing a superego that is similar to the moral values their parents live by. The process leads to children becoming a lot like their parents.

text: The first "is" should be removed.

text: The answer should mention that the process facilitates learning to live in the world and culture to which they are born.

text: The response contains a typo.

text: This is unnecessary and should be omitted.

text:
- The first sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
- The answer omits that the identification facilitates the learning to live in the world.

text: Typo: "atachment"

text: It's omitted that during this stage a baby will experience his parents as a part of himself.

category: coverage

text: Omit the second "is the original" in the first sentence.

text: Typo: "atachment" should be "attachment".

answer: Primary identification is the original and primitive form of emotional attachment to something or someone prior to any relations with other persons or objects. The individual is born without the ability to make distinction between himself or herself and others. Later the child adopts the characteristics of the parents and begins to associate him or herself with their parents' behaviors. There are three hypotheses on primary identification.

answer_source: Model

text: The last line is unattested.

category: accuracy

answer: Primary identification is the original form of emotional attachment to something or someone prior to any association with them. Children's first identification is with their parents. During this process, they adopt the characteristics of their parents unconsciously. Freud states that this identification is different from imitation, which is a voluntary and conscious act. This identification leads to children developing a superego that has similarities to the moral values their parents live by. This process leads to a child becoming a lot like their parents.

answer_source: Human

text: The answer should mention that the child identifies with the parents as a part of himself.

text: The answer should mention that the child is born without the ability to distinguish between himself and his parents.

text: The answer should mention that the child identifies with the parents because he cannot differentiate between himself and the important others.

text: It's omitted that this facilitates learning to live in the world and culture to which they are born.

text: This does not fully answer the question

text: The answer omits that the process of identification facilitates learning to live in the world and culture to which they are born.

text: The article doesn't say that if a person is associated with a person or not.

answer: Primary identification is the original and primitive form of emotional attachment to something or someone prior to any relations with other persons or objects. The individual is born without the ability to make distinction between himself or herself and others. Later the child adopts the characteristics of the parents and begins to associate him or herself with their parents' behaviors. There are three hypotheses on primary identification.

text: There are three hypotheses on identification, not primary identification.

text: The last sentence is not relevant and should be removed.

text: The answer should mention the ego.

text: There are three hypotheses on identification, but only the first is relevant to primary identification.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary.

text: There are three hypotheses on identification, not on primary identification.

text: There are only three hypotheses, not hypotheses.

text: It is omitted that Freud remarked that identification should be distinguished from imitation, which is a voluntary and conscious act. Because of this process of emotional attachment a child will develop a (super)ego that has similarities to the moral values and guidelines by which the parents live their lives.

answer: Primary identification is the original form of emotional attachment to something or someone prior to any association with them. Children's first identification is with their parents. During this process, they adopt the characteristics of their parents unconsciously. Freud states that this identification is different from imitation, which is a voluntary and conscious act. This identification leads to children developing a superego that has similarities to the moral values their parents live by. This process leads to a child becoming a lot like their parents.


text:
REUVEIN MARGOLIES, (Hebrew: ראובן מרגליות) (November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar and head of the Rambam library.

Early life

Margolies was born in 1889 in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv.

Writings

Margolies authored over 55 books on Jewish topics. He possessed a photographic memory, and was well versed in all aspects of both the written Bible, Oral Torah (Talmud and its commentaries) and Kabbalah (Zohar etc.). He established the Rambam library.

He wrote on a wide range of subjects; His works were meant for both scholars and laymen alike. All of his writings are in Hebrew.

He wrote on the formation of the Mishna and the Talmud displaying originality in thought, and a wide range of knowledge.

He further wrote on the Kabbalah. Such works include “The Rambam and the Zohar” demonstrating correlations between Maimonides Mishneh Torah and the Zohar; _Nitzotzei Zohar_ demonstrating correlations between the Tannatic and Amoraic works (such as the Talmud and Medrashim) and the Zohar.

He was also involved in a controversy with Gershon Scholem over the Rabbi Jacob Emden/Rabbi Jonathan Eybeshuetz controversy. Margulies produced a pamphlet defending R. Eybeshuetz and in response Scholem produced his own disagreeing with Marguleis's conclusions.

He wrote a number of scholarly biographies of major Jewish personalities such as Maharsha, Ohr Ha-Chaim Hakodosh, Noam Elimelech, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban), and R' Yechiel of Paris including valuable annotation clarifying ideas in their works. The biographies focus primarily on their methods of scholarship and not on their personalities. First printed in Poland, they were never reprinted.

He wrote several works concerning the development of a legal system in the newly formed Jewish State (Kavei Ohr, Tal Techiyah).

According to Dr. Yitzchok Raphael, his writing is in a terse style designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum of space.

Awards

-   In 1957, Margolies was awarded the Israel Prize for his work on Rabbinical literature.[1]

Bibliography

-   _Toldot Adam_ (Lemberg 1912) on R. Shmuel Edels, also known by the acronym “Maharsha”
-   _Kav Bashamaim_ (Lemberg 1913), notes on the writings of the Tosafists
-   _Kavei Ohr_ and _Tal Techiya_ (Lemberg 1921), two volumes on Jewish law in the Land of Israel, and essays on various topics, including “Medicine and Healers in the Talmud”, “The Laws of Ger Toshav”, and the first printing of “Yesod Hamishna Va'arichatah”
-   _Yesod Hamishna Va'arichatah_ (Lemberg, printed on its own first in 1923, then 1933, with addendums in Jerusalem 1956) on the creation of the Mishna
-   _Sefer Hasidim_ (Lemberg 1924, Jerusalem 1957, 1960, 1964, 1970) by Rabbi Yehuda Hachassid, with biographical information, commentaries, and his own notes titled Mekor Hessed
-   _Tolodot Rabbenu Hayyim ben Atar_ (Lemberg, 1925), biography on the Ohr ha-Hayyim includes the notes of Rabbi Meir Dan Plotzky (_Kli Chemdah_)
-   _Ohr Meir_ (Lemberg 1926, Tel-Aviv 1964), biography of R. Meir of Przemyślany
-   _Margenita d'Reb Meir_ (Lemberg 1926, Germany 1948, Tel-Aviv 1964), sayings of the above R. Meir
-   _She'elot Uteshuvot Min Hashamayim_ (Lemberg 1926, 1929, Jerusalem 1957), the responsa of R' Yaakov the Tosafist, who claimed to have received answers to questions of Jewish law from an angel, with R. Margolios's extensive notes, as well as a comprehensive introduction discussing prophecy and its effect on Jewish law and other related topics
-   _Yalkut Margoliot_ (Lemberg 1927), homiletic material for Sabbaths and holidays, and various times of the year
-   _Imrei Kadosh Hashalem_ (Lemberg 1928)
-   _Vikuach Rabbenu Yehiel miParis_ (Lemberg, 1928), the disputation of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris in 1240, with biography of R. Yehiel
-   _Mekor Hesed_ (Lemberg 1928)
-   _Lecheker Shemot Vekinuyim Batalmud_ (Lemberg 1928, Jerusalem 1960), on names and nicknames in the Talmud
-   _Hilula D'Tzidkaya_ (Lemberg 1929, Tel-Aviv 1930, 1961), a collection of different views and customs of great Torah scholars
-   _Vikuach HaRamban_ (Bilgoraj 1928), the disputation of Nachmanides against Pablo Christiani in 1263, with his notes
-   _Butzina D'Nehora Hashalem_ (Bilgoraj 1930)
-   _Gevurat Ari_ (Lemberg 1930)
-   _Toldot Rabbenu Avrohom Maimoni_ (Lemberg 1930), biography of the son of Maimonides, Rabbi Abraham ben HaRambam, including his responsa translated from the original Arabic
-   _Mekor Baruch_ (Lemberg 1931)
-   _Shem Olam_ (Lemberg 1931, 1962), an attempt to discover the authorities behind the Talmudic phrase “One said... and one said...” in Midrash, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud
-   _Nefesh Haya_ (Lemberg 1932, Tel-Aviv 1954), notes on Shulchan Orakh Orakh Haim
-   _Hagadah shel Pesach_ (Tel-Aviv 1937, 1950), with commentary
-   _Sichot Chachamim_ (Tel-Aviv 1938), a collection of sayings and quotes from various rabbinic sages
-   _Ner LaMaor_ (Bilgoraj 1932, Jerusalem 1959), notes and emendations on the book Ohr HaHaim by Rabbi Haim ben Atar
-   _Mekor Habracha_ (Lember 1934), on clarifying the concept of making a blessing for a Torah commandment “al asiyatan”, as well as the formulation of the blessings
-   _Zohar_ (Jerusalem 1940-1946, 1960) with his extensive notes (multiple printings)
-   _Sibat Hitnagduto_ (Tel-Aviv 1941), discussing the R. Emden/R. Eybeschitz controversy
-   _Mal'ache Elyon_ (Jerusalem 1945, 1964) on angels in the thought of Hazal
-   _Olelot_ (Jerusalem 1947), essays on various topics
-   _Tekunei Zohar_ (Tel-Aviv 1948), a kabbalistic work attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, with extensive notes by Rabbi Margolies
-   _Sefer HaBahir_ (Jerusalem 1951), a kabbalistic work attributed to Rabbi Nehunye Ben HaKaneh with extensive notes by Rabbi Margolies
-   _Zohar Hadash_ (Jerusalem 1953), a collection of statements from the Zohar, arranged according to the weekly portion. Includes a discussion of the tradition of the Zohar, as well as comparisons of sayings from the Talmud and Midrash, with the Zohar
-   _Milchamot Hashem_ (Jerusalem 1953), the famous book by Rabbi Abraham ben HaRambam about the controversy surrounding his father, Maimonides. This version is based on the manuscript from the Vatican. The introduction is a biography of Rabbi Abraham ben HaRambam by Rabbi Morgolies
-   _Mefarshei HaTalmud_ (Jerusalem 1954-1961), a commentary on some parts of the Talmud
-   _Shaarei Zohar_ (Jerusalem 1957) notes on the Talmud directing one to the relevant passages in Zohar.
-   _Margalios HaYam_ (Jerusalem 1958), a commentary on Sanhedrin
-   _D'varim B'Itam_ (Tel-Aviv 1959), homiletic material for Sabbaths and holidays and various times of the year
-   _HaMikra Vehamesora_ (Jerusalem 1964, 1965), various articles relating to issues of chain of tradition in Judaism, as well as other various topics
-   _Mechkarim Bedarkei Hatalmud Vechidotav_ (Jerusalem 1967), varied essays on the Talmud
-   _Peninim U'Margoliyot_ A posthumously published collection of essays.

There is also a memorial volume edited by Dr. Yitchak Raphael and published by Mossad R' Kook, which describes these and more books in more detail.

[1]

title: Reuvein Margolies

question: What does the text say about Reuvein Margolies?

text: "Reuben" - is incorrect. The correct spelling is "Reuvein"

text: "Margolies won second place in the Israel Awards for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957." - this is incorrect. He didn't win second place and the Israel Awards don't exist.

answer: Reuvein Margolies (November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar, and head of the Rambam library, which he established. He was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv. Margolies possessed a photographic memory and was well versed in all aspects of both the written Bible, Oral Torah, and Kabbalah. He authored over 55 books on Jewish topics and all his writings are in Hebrew. Margolies wrote about a wide range of topics, including several works concerning the development of a legal system in the newly-formed Jewish State (Kavei Ohr, Tal Techiyah). His terse writing style is designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum amount of space. Margolies was awarded the Israel Prize for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957.

answer: Reuvein Margolies, (Hebrew: ראובן מרגליות; November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar, and head of the Rambam library. He was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv.

text: The answer should mention his works.

text: It is omitted that he wrote over 55 books on Jewish topics.

text: It's omitted that Margolies authored over 55 books on Jewish topics.

text: It is incorrect that Margolies was born in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. This is the place he was born.

text: It is omitted that he wrote many books.

text:
It is omitted that he authored over 55 books on Jewish topics.
The answer should mention that Margolies possessed a photographic memory and was well versed in all aspects of both the written Bible, Oral Torah (Talmud and its commentaries), and Kabbalah (Zohar etc.).
It should mention that he established the Rambam library.
It should state that he was also involved in a controversy with Gershon Scholem over the Rabbi Jacob Emden/Rabbi Jonathan Eybeshuetz controversy and produced a pamphlet defending R. Eybeshuetz. In response, Scholem produced his own disagreeing with Margulies's conclusions.
It should mention that Dr. Yitzchok Raphael stated that Margolies' writing is in a terse style designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum of space.
It should mention that Margolies was awarded the Israel Prize for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957.

text: '...then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland.' - This detail is unnecessary. Delete this.

answer: Reuben Margolies (November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar, and head of the Rambam library, which he established. He was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv. Margolies possessed a photographic memory and was well versed in all aspects of both the written Bible, Oral Torah, and Kabbalah. He authored over 55 books on Jewish topics and all his writings are in Hebrew. Margolies wrote about a wide range of topics, including several works concerning the development of a legal system in the newly-formed Jewish State (Kavei Ohr, Tal Techiyah). His terse writing style is designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum amount of space. Margolies won second place in the Israel Awards for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957.

text: The article does not mention that Margolies won second place in the Israel Awards.

text: The Israel Prize is not an award for second place.

text: It is wrongly stated that he won second place in the Israel Awards for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957.

text: There is no evidence that he came second in the Israel Awards.

text: There is no evidence that Margolies won second place.

text: Doesn't mention controversy with Gershon Scholem over the Rabbi Jacob Emden/Rabbi Jonathan Eybeshuetz controversy.

answer: Reuben Margolies (November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar, and head of the Rambam library, which he established. He was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv. Margolies possessed a photographic memory and was well versed in all aspects of both the written Bible, Oral Torah, and Kabbalah. He authored over 55 books on Jewish topics and all his writings are in Hebrew. Margolies wrote about a wide range of topics, including several works concerning the development of a legal system in the newly-formed Jewish State (Kavei Ohr, Tal Techiyah). His terse writing style is designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum amount of space. Margolies won second place in the Israel Awards for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957.

text: The text said he won the Israel Prize in 1957, not that he came in 2nd place at the Israel Awards.

answer: Reuvein Margolies, (Hebrew: ראובן מרגליות; November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar, and head of the Rambam library. He was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv.

text: The response is missing relevant information about Margolies, e.g. his books and awards.

answer: Reuvein Margolies (November 30, 1889 – August 28, 1971) was an Israeli author, Talmudic scholar, and head of the Rambam library, which he established. He was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv. Margolies possessed a photographic memory and was well versed in all aspects of both the written Bible, Oral Torah, and Kabbalah. He authored over 55 books on Jewish topics and all his writings are in Hebrew. Margolies wrote about a wide range of topics, including several works concerning the development of a legal system in the newly-formed Jewish State (Kavei Ohr, Tal Techiyah). His terse writing style is designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum amount of space. Margolies was awarded the Israel Prize for his work on Rabbinical literature in 1957.

text: The answer should mention the controversy with Scholem.

text: It is not stated that his terse writing style is designed to concentrate a maximum amount of information in a minimum amount of space.

text: The answer omits the controversy between Margolies and Scholem.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary.

text: It is not stated that he was born in Lemberg (now Lviv), then part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and now in Ukraine and from 1918 to 1940 in Poland. After the passing of his wife, he emigrated to Israel in 1934, settling in Tel-Aviv.

text: The response is missing the part about Margolies' controversy with Gershon Scholem.

text: He wrote on various topics, but not necessarily "about a wide range of topics".


text:
Upon arriving at the school I was groggy. Not much sleep last night. I was at an elementary school serving as security. Today there was going to be a demonstration for the kids on military might and air superiority, as a way to get young kids excited for the military. They're trying to grab 'em while they're young I guess, influence 'em now and over the years that's what they'll want to do or so they hope.
The school was located next to a mountain that the military had barred off to the public. Convenient enough there was a base not far from the school. The mountain was off limits to civilians since an accident occurred there involving military personal and the story was that some chemicals leaked out, so no one was allowed to enter it. Today however was going to be an exciting demonstration of what one of the airforce’s top-of-the-line jets could do. They were going to blow up a bus. Jets weren't actually going to do anything as explosives had already been planted and were set to go off as the jets approached for a realistic effect.
I was standing with my back next to a pillar just outside the school fences with some kids next to me eagerly awaiting the big event. The military had brought in some tanks but we were told they wouldn't be firing, they were just for show and so most of the kids weren't as exited for them.
I figured there would be a speaker giving some talk on how great these new jets were. That was the whole point right? As we waited our attention was gathered to some General Pierce, who just told us two jets would fly by once to let us know they were preparing to “fire” and then on their second approach would fire at the bus, afterwards they would come around and land for the kids to ask them questions. This is where I came in. I'm here to make sure the kids don't rush mob the guy, don't know why they would but that's what I'm being paid for.
After Pierce said his few words he left with what seemed like more protection than anything else. Don't know what that was about except that his ego is probably through the roof.
The jets made their first pass and the kids cheered and then got quite and awaited their next one. Then on their second pass, before they flew over the bus it exploded and all the kids cheered once again. Military personnel went to the bus and began to extinguish the fire and gather debris from the explosion.
The jets begin to land and the first one landed outside of the school fences next to me. I didn't like the idea of the pilot landing and standing near me, all I could think was that he would end up making some crack comment how I'm what happens when you don't join the military.
After landing the pilot came out and greeted the kids. He told them to gather behind me and sit on the ground so that he could see all of them, and to raise their hands when they had a question. Everyone rose their hand as soon as they sat. As he began listening to their questions and answering them I went to spit out some gum I was chewing on and accidentally got it on the pilot's uniform. “My bad man” I said, but he just looked at me as if he didn't know why I was apologizing. The kids were kind enough to point out what I had done and he just gave me a look of disapproval. I'm sure in his head he was calling me an asshole.
He started talking again telling the kids how great it was flying a jet, how cool it was and some such nonsense. I was aggravated by the whole thing. I guess it was my fault for being security at some school. He kept talking about the perks of being in the military and not just the airforce. It was then that people starting shouting. I looked around and saw it was the cleanup crew near the bus. The were running from the mountain and just then I heard gunshots. Someone was shooting and I had no inclination as to who or where it was coming from. I immediately told the kids to return to the classrooms.
As quickly as the shootings began, the tanks rolled up and began firing on the mountain. What the hell was going on? I looked and saw that there were men emerging from the somewhere in the mountain. They were wearing black uniforms and looked like part of the military but why would they be shooting each other? I had no idea.
The pilot went to his jet and tried to lift off but their was something wrong with it. He got out and I heard him communicating with someone, his superiors I guess. They had remotely disabled the jets as there was an immediate no fly order given over the area. The pilot was upset and he displayed it.
He pulled out a rifle from a compartment on the jet began to head toward the mountain. I asked him what he was doing and he just looked at me and kept going. I don't know why but I followed him. He told me one the way to wherever we were headed that I needed to go back. I told him I wasn't going anywhere, I wanted to find out what was going on.
As we got closer I noticed there were shipping containers scattered about near what appeared to be the entrance to the mountain. They were covered with rock and camouflaged netting colored just like the mountain. Inside it looked like there was some installation. I had no idea what it was. People began to open fire on us as and we took cover behind one of the containers.
He handed me a pistol along with a few clips and asked me if I knew how to use it. I had previous training and told him so.
As the men got closer we shot them one after another but I knew we both would run out of ammo soon. We got lucky as two of them had somehow snuck past us and made their way behind the containers we had been using for cover. I only noticed them because I had just reloaded and after shooting them my heart was pounding. This was scary. I picked up their guns and they looked almost exactly like the rifle that the pilot had but there was something different about them but I couldn't put my finger on it.
The pilot told me he was planning on heading inside. I didn't know why and he told me to stay here. I told him he was crazy but that if he was going to go in I was heading in there with him, that I couldn't let him go in alone. I must be crazy too.
He had his orders just like the men in the tanks had theirs. They were still firing on the mountain and it could only mean that they were ordered to fire until given the order to recede. I had my orders too.
We noticed that men stopped exiting the facility as we got closer and I told him it could be some kind of ambush. He agreed and we proceeded with caution.
Entering the facility we found men ripped apart. Their bodies were scattered about and neither of us had any idea what was did this, only that they were slaughtered. There was gunfire coming from down one of the halls. Just a few shots from a pistol I imagine. It stopped just as quickly as it started. We crept over to the one of the consoles located in the center of the room and the pilot started reading the displays. I wasn't sure what he was looking for and he didn't say when I asked him. Shortly after some of the same men we were firing upon began to rush into the area from one of the halls. They were retreating from something. Five of them kept firing down the hall and only hid behind the corners when they needed to reload. Some switch was activated and a doorway leading into the hall was closing, but slowly. Two of them were struck with something and fell to the ground. As one of them began to reload he saw us and yelled out to “get the hell out” while we still can. The other three didn't last long and each of them were each struck as the door finally closed. Only the one that yelled out to us seemed to be alive. I rushed over to him to find out what the hell was going on.
There was something on the other side of the door, I could hear screeching and something clawing at the door. It sounded pissed. I asked the guy what the fuck was going on. He told me “there isn't much time. You need to leave...You need to get out...get out before...before...”. That was it, that was the last thing he said before he died.
When I looked back to the pilot he was still on the console. I took a moment to just look around the room. There was shipping containers in here as well, some surrounding the console. After looking more closely at the containers there appeared to be burn marks as well as giant scratch marks on the edges of each. What the fuck. I didn't know and I continued to look around. There were a total of fourteen halls, and as it stood twelve of them were closed. The two that were open were on the opposite side of the room that the men just came from. Side by side and both of them went in opposite directions after a few yards.
This pilot was still concerned about his mission and I didn't even know his name. I asked him and he just said it didn't matter, the only thing that did now was sealing the facility. I asked him why and he didn't say. He managed to get the right door to close. Damn did it close slow. I kept looking at both the last two doors expecting some horrific monster to appear but nothing did. The pilot had a grim look on his face and told me I needed to head back to his jet and bring back something just in case. I asked him about the other pilot and he assured me he was already dead.
My head was turned only for a few moments but it was enough time for something to shoot out before the door completely sealed and hit the pilot. He fell to the ground and within seconds some sort of poison began working through his body. He wasn't in any pain other than the area he was it that I could tell. I tried to have him hang on to me as I carried him but I knew it wouldn't work. I laid him against the side of one of the containers and brought him his rifle. I asked him what I needed from the jet and through slurred words he told me there was a belt in a compartment inside the jet. He mumbled something like “I can't believe it” and I told him I would be right back.
I exited the installation and entered chaos. There were flying creatures all around. They were massive, some looked like the size of SUV's. More of the military had shown up and were firing at both the aerial creatures and the ones attacking them from the ground. I could see them out in the distance and had no idea what they were. They were in different shapes and sizes, the biggest the size of two men it seemed. I had no idea what they were and didn't care to find out. My path to the jet looked clear and so I made my way there. I thought about the kids and how they were doing. I could only imagine.
I managed to make it to the jet without any trouble and I found the belt. It wasn't sure what I thought it would be but what it was was some sort of device. On the belt there were seven shells, a bit taller than a regular soda can and each one in bold red leaders read “Primed”. I didn't know what they would do but I had a good idea. I looked around and up at the sky. I figured I wouldn't another chance to see it.
I headed back to where I left the pilot and found a man tending his wounds. He told me he had been poisoned, something I already knew, and that he would be unable to stand on his for awhile. I asked him if he could help carry him out and we began to lift him. Just then something struck the man and he fell, yelling in agony. I turned and saw this creature that had what appeared to have giant curved blades for arms hissing at us. I hesitated for a moment but I shot and killed it. The man was bleeding out and didn't say anything. He just looked at me if wanting to say sorry.
I tried not to think about what I had just seen and asked the pilot if he could manage to make it out with me. He nodded and as I lifted him up he told me I would need to set the timer on one of the shells. As we stood we heard noises coming from the last hallway and turned to see creatures emerging it. We were quickly surrounded with them gnarling and growling at us.
I set the pilot down and he told me to take one of the shells off and throw it on the ground. I assumed we would be dead after so I asked the pilot his name. “Landers, Christoff Landers”. I told him mine. Lance Taylor. As the creatures approached us I lifted one of the shells off the belt and rose it high, the rushed as I threw it down.

title: Untitled works (Repost)

question: What is the twist of the story?

text: The narrator does not kill the pilot.

answer: The plot twist is that the military is attacking the school because they are under attack from some sort of monster or alien. The soldiers want to protect the kids, but some were killed in the attack.

text: The twist is that the military is under attack from some sort of monster or alien.

text: The twist is that the military is under attack by some sort of monster or alien.

text: The answer is incorrect. The twist of the story is that the military is under attack from some sort of monster or alien.

text: The military is not attacking the school.

text: The story does not reveal the twist.

text: The twist is that the military is under attack by monsters, and is trying to seal the facility where the monsters are coming from.

text: Noone says this

text: It is not specified that the school itself is the target. It is implied that there is a secret military facility that is either being attacked or the monsters are coming from it.

answer: The twist occurs after the military demonstration. The narrator hears gunshots and sees people fleeing from the mountain. The story turns from a regular day for the security guard narrator to an all out warzone with humans pitted against unknown creatures.

text: The answer should mention the creatures.

text: The answer should mention the reveal about the creatures.

text: The answer could be clearer in its pronoun use.

text: It's omitted that the creatures are implied to be aliens.

text: Does not mention the attempted coup.

text: This should mention that they are massive creatures that have curved blades for arms, and shoot poison.

text: This omits that the narrator follows the pilot who sets off to confront the creatures.

answer: The twist occurs after the military demonstration. The narrator hears gunshots and sees people fleeing from the mountain. The story turns from a regular day for the security guard narrator to an all out warzone with humans pitted against unknown creatures.

text: The answer should be specific about the flying creatures with curved blades for arms.

answer: The plot twist is that the military is attacking the school because they are under attack from some sort of monster or alien. The soldiers want to protect the kids, but some were killed in the attack.

text: The response is incorrect. The military wasn't attacking the school.

answer: The twist occurs after the military demonstration. The narrator hears gunshots and sees people fleeing from the mountain. The story turns from a regular day for the security guard narrator to an all out warzone with humans pitted against unknown creatures. The narrator also kills the pilot that he is with.

text: The narrator did not kill the pilot he was with.

answer: The twist occurs after the military demonstration. The narrator hears gunshots and sees people fleeing from the mountain. The story turns from a regular day for the security guard narrator to an all out warzone with humans pitted against unknown creatures. The narrator also kills the pilot that he is with.

text: The narrator does not kill the pilot.

text: The narrator doesn't kill Christoff Landers.

text: In the end, the narrator drops a shell causing it to explode and presumably killing himself and the pilot who is with him


text:
[The parish church of St John the Baptist, Seafield Road, Clontarf] THE PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, the Church of Ireland Parish of Clontarf, Dublin is a religious community located on the north shore of Dublin Bay, bounded by the Parishes of North Strand to the west, Coolock to the north, and Raheny to the east (the latter two are in a Union).[1]

The Parish Church is situated on Seafield Road, approximately from the churches of each of the adjoining parishes. It was built in 1866 to replace an earlier church some 200 metres away on Castle Avenue, on the edge of the grounds of Clontarf Castle.

The early days

The first church in Clontarf was reputedly founded by the great Abbot of Bangor, St. Comgall, as part of Christian development through north Dublin, perhaps from a base at St. Mobhi's Church at Glasnevin. St. Comgall became the Patron of Clontarf and remained so until replaced by St. John the Baptist when the Parish came under the control of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in the 14th century.

Clontarf was a central location of the Battle of Clontarf in 1014, when Brian Boroimhe (Boru) defeated the Vikings and reduced their power in Ireland, although they retained control of Dublin city and much of the surrounding land. The remains of the well supposed to have been used by Brian Boru can still be seen on Castle Avenue, just under 500 meters from the Parish Church. The history of Clontarf itself, however, goes back much further.[2]

The Middle Ages

In the reign of Henry II, the lands of Clontarf passed to the Knights Templar, an arm of the Church, and in turn, on the suppression of the Knights Templar in 1307, it became a preceptory of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, which it remained until their disbandment in 1542, when the last Prior, Sir John Rawson, was created Viscount Clontarf.

An early church had existed on the Castle Avenue site and this was rebuilt in 1609, the new building remaining the Parish Church for over 250 years, serving Clontarf and later also the neighbouring Parish of St. Brigid, Killester, which was amalgamated with Clontarf in 1686. In 1659, the population of Clontarf was 79 and of Killester 32.

The nineteenth century

A key arrival in the Parish was Sir Benjamin Lee Guinness, the grandson of Arthur Guinness, and his partner in running the brewery, who purchased lands in Clontarf and Raheny to form St. Anne's Estate (the remnants of which now comprise Saint Anne's Park). He was married to his cousin Elizabeth and all their children were baptised in Clontarf Parish Church.[3]

In 1872 Arthur (by then Sir Arthur) was elected to the Select Vestry of the Parish but, in a letter from Ashford Castle, declined the offer on the grounds of frequent absences from the parish. He funded the building of All Saints Church, Raheny. Benjamin's cousin Dr. Arthur Grattan Guinness practised and lived in the parish and most of his children were baptised in the church. In 1872 he was appointed Officer of Health for the parish jointly with James Colville.

[Bram Stoker] On 30 December 1847 Abraham, son of Abraham and Charlotte Matilda Stoker of The Crescent, Clontarf, was baptised by Rev. Edward, a visiting clergyman from the Diocese of Ossory. Bram Stoker, as he became known, was the creator of the Dracula stories and is commemorated today in the Bram Stoker Museum in Westwood Club near the Crescent. Bram's family later moved to Artane Lodge but his younger siblings were also baptised in Clontarf.

The church, meanwhile, was becoming too small for its growing congregations, especially in the summer. Plans were developed in 1859 by Trustees including Mr. John E.V. Vernon of Clontarf Castle and substantial funding secured to build a second church at the Dollymount end of the parish. These plans were brought to an advanced stage, with an architect appointed and a site leased, despite the reservations of the Rector, Rev. William Kempston, who believed that the existing church was adequate and advised the Archbishop of his views. The Archbishop, whose permission was required for the building, told the Trustees that permission would not be given against the wishes of the Rector and the project was abandoned.

In 1862, Mr. Kempston left the Parish and was replaced by Rev. James Pratt. New plans were then developed with his co-operation for a new and larger church on a site close to the existing church. The foundation stone was laid by Mr. Vernon with great ceremony on 9 August 1864 and the church was completed over the next two years. The new church was consecrated by the Archbishop of Dublin at a service on 14 May 1866 and remains in use to this day. The church was originally built without a chancel and this was added in 1899.

The twentieth century

The First World War saw many of the parishioners joining up to fight[4] and these were commemorated by an illuminated scroll in the church and a War Memorial erected in the grounds.

In 1916, the fiftieth Anniversary of the building of the Church was celebrated at a special service on 14 May at which the Archbishop, Dr. Bernard, preached.

The 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s saw a building boom in the area and Clontarf grew to be one of the biggest parishes in the Church of Ireland. Greenlanes School, which had started in 1854 and had been located for most of its life in the Parish Hall on Seafield Road, about 200 metres from the Church, grew so much that a new school had to be built on a new site at Seafield Avenue and this was opened in 1952. The pace of growth was so rapid that by the time the new school was opened, it was too small and a further classroom was added and opened the following year.

The centenary of the Church was celebrated in 1966 with a programme of religious and social activities aimed at all age groups.

The twenty-first century

[New Parish Centre under construction] The beginning of the new millennium was marked by the decision of the Select Vestry to dispose of the Parish Hall which had served the parish for well over a hundred years but had become a major maintenance burden. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2007, in the grounds of the church.

Curates, rectors, and incumbents

Impropriate Curates

(Definition - Perpetual (or Impropriate) Curate : Clergyman in charge of a benefice in which all the tithes were held by someone else who could be a layman or another clergyman, for example the Archdeacon of Dublin. This was a permanent appointment.)

-   1546 John Quyn
-   1591 William Savage also Curate Drumcondra and Killester
-   1615 Simon Thelwell also Curate Drumcondra
-   1630 Richard St. Laurence
-   1637 Randolphe Dymocke; still Curate in 1639, as also of Balgriffin, St. Dolough's and Portmarnock.
-   1642 William Tedder : licensed 1 July 1642; appears Vicar of Garristown and Ballymadun during the rebellion of 1641 and lost property worth £52.
-   1643 Hugh Morrison: licensed 10 July 1643.

Rectors

(Definition – Rector : Parish Clergyman who received the whole tithes of the Parish; after Disestablishment usually referred to as Incumbent.)

[]1670-80 Henry Brereton
[]1680-13 Adam Ussher : collated 8 July 1680.
[]1713-66 Frederick Ussher : presented by the Crown 8 June 1713.
[]1766-11 John Ussher : instituted 21 May 1766. []1811-29 Charles Mulloy : presented by the Crown 4 February.; instituted 1 March 1811.
[]1830-40 William Handcock : instituted 18 February 1830.
[]1840-41 Thomas Packenham Huddart : instituted 1 December 1840.
[]1841-54 James Reid : instituted 11 August 1840.
[]1854-62 William Augustus Kempston : instituted 1 November 1854.
[]1862-75 James Pratt : instituted 21 May 1862.

Incumbents

[]1875-93 MacNevin Bradshaw : instituted 6 October 1875.
[]1894-04 Frederick William Mervyn : instituted 5 January 1894.
[]1904-36 John Connell : instituted 2 March 1904.
[]1936-62 John Bourke Neligan : instituted 22 May 1936.
[]1962-89 Robert George McCollum : instituted 17 December 1962.
[]1990-01 Thomas Haskins : instituted 23 March 1990.
[]2003-12 Derek Connor Sargent : instituted 25 July 2003. []2013 - E.C. Lesley Robinson: instituted 20 September 2013

Curates

-   1630 Christopher Cuiston
-   1645 Laurence Wogan : licensed 16 October 1645.
-   1733 John Phipps : licensed 27 December 1733
-   1743-5 Adam Ussher : 'Minister of Clontarf, died of a fever and pleurisy on Sunday morning' (_Dublin Gazette_, Thursday 10 September 1745.)
-   1758 Robert Shenton : appointed Curate of Killester by the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church.
-   1779-81 William Montgomery : licensed 1 June 1779.
-   1799 John Bayly : appointed Curate of Killester by the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church 11 May 1799.
-   1808 John Armstrong Coughlan : licensed 22 October 1808.
-   1841 Augustus William West : licensed 13 January 1841.
-   1843 William Gilbert Ormsby.
-   1844-5 Christopher Henry Gould Butson.
-   1846 William FitzGerald.
-   1846-7 Edward Gabbett : licensed 8 April 1846.
-   1864 John Crawford : licensed 10 June 1864.
-   1870 Sidney Leslie Cousins : appointed 22 September 1870
-   1871 Robert Wyndham Guinness : licensed 8 December 1870.
-   1874-6 Peter Henry Schoales : licensed 5 August 1874.
-   1876 John Galloway Garrett : licensed 1 November 1876.
-   1881 James Joseph Woodroofe : licensed 2 February 1881.
-   1885 George Benjamin Taylor : licensed 30 September 1885.
-   1888 Samuel Russell McGee : licensed 10 September 1888.
-   1894 Henry Brodie Good : licensed 12 July 1894.
-   1896-03 Richard Henry Fawcett : licensed 30 September 1886.
-   1904-9 John George Donaldson Pyper : licensed 4 March 1904.
-   1909-12 Frederick McConnell : licensed 13 October 1909.
-   1912-23 Josiah Francis Shearman : licensed 10 February 1912.
-   1924-9 Charles John Tyndall : licensed 24 June 1924.
-   1929-32 John Bourke Neligan : licensed 5 October 1930.
-   1932-4 Edward Francis Butler Moore : licensed 31 December 1932.
-   1934-8 Matthew Thomas Porteus : licensed 1 October 1934.
-   1939-41 Graham Ronald McCollum : licensed 16 March 1939.
-   1941-4 William Warburton Lloyd Rooke : licensed 8 April 1941.
-   1944-9 Richard William Maurice Wynne : licensed 15 October 1944.
-   1949-53 Robert Denholm Moore : licensed 1 August 1949.
-   1953-57 Stanley Pettigrew : licensed 24 September 1953.
-   1957-60 Allen James Nelson : licensed 24 October 1957.
-   1961-4 Richard St. Lawrence Broadberry : licensed 5 October 1961.
-   1966-70 Donald William McClatchie : licensed 26 June 1966.
-   1970-73 Michael Alistair Graham : licensed 5 July 1970.
-   1974-6 Thomas Andrew Hayden Foster : licensed 9 June 1974.
-   1978-80 David Trevor Muir : licensed 25 June 1978.

[1] The Parishes referred to here are those defined in the Church of Ireland, and differ somewhat from the historic parishes, more from the civil parishes, and more again from the old Roman Catholic Parish of Clontarf, the interim Union Parish of the same name, or the three modern parishes.

[2] An anglicisation of the old Irish name Cluain Tairbh – the Field of the Bull, the latter possibly referring to the rumbling noise made by the sea as it rolled over the mudbanks of Inbhear Dubh Linne, Dublin Bay.

[3] Anne Lee (later to marry William Conyngham, 4th Baron Plunkett and Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin in Clontarf Parish Church on 11 June 1863) in 1839, Arthur Edward (later Baron Ardilaun) in early 1841, Benjamin Lee (later Captain in the Horse Guards and married to Lady Henrietta St. Lawrence, daughter of the third Earl of Howth) in 1842, and Edward Cecil (later first Lord Iveagh) in 1847

[4] http://homepage.eircom.net/~wlawless/ww1/Clontarf.htm

title: Clontarf parish (Church of Ireland)

question: Summarize the parish's activities in the 21st century.

text: The new Parish Centre was completed in 2007, not 2008.

answer: At the turn of the millennium, the Select Vestry decided to dispose of the Parish Hall which had served the parish for well over a hundred years but had become a major maintenance burden. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2007.

text: The last sentence adds no value

answer: At the turn of the millennium, the Select Vestry decided to dispose of the Parish Hall which had served the parish for well over a hundred years but had become a major maintenance burden. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2007.

text: The answer should mention the centenary celebrations.

text: The answer should mention the 50th Anniversary of the building of the Church.

text: The answer could mention the activities that took place in the 21st century.

text: The answer could mention the centenary celebrations.

text: The answer should mention the 50th Anniversary of the building of the church.

text: The response is missing information about the activities in the 21st century.

text: The answer should mention the anniversary celebrations.

text: The sentence can be improved grammatically by reversing the two halves of the sentence (selects the Vestry, decisions to dispose).

answer: At the turn of the millennium, the Select Vestry decided to dispose of the Parish Hall which had served the parish for well over a hundred years but had become a major maintenance burden. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2008.

text: The response is missing the part about the First World War.

text: The response is missing the part about the activities in the 21st century.

text: The answer could mention the centenary celebration.

text: The response is missing the information about the first world war and the fiftieth Anniversary of the building of the Church.

text: The answer omits the events of the centenary.

text: Include information about the activities of the parish in addition to the construction

text: The word "Century" is omitted.

answer: In the beginning of the new millennium, the Select Vestry decided to dispose of the Parish Hall. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2007. The centenary of the Church was celebrated in 1966.

text: The response includes extraneous information not useful for the task.

text: The response includes information that is not useful for the task.

text: The answer should mention the continuance of the parish.

text: The response includes information from the prior century and not the requested one.

text: Something that occurred in 1966 is irrelevant to the question and should be omitted.

text: It's omitted that there was an incumbent instated in 2003, and a new one in 2013.

answer: At the turn of the millennium, the Select Vestry decided to dispose of the Parish Hall which had served the parish for well over a hundred years but had become a major maintenance burden. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2008.

answer: In the beginning of the new millennium, the Select Vestry decided to dispose of the Parish Hall. A new Parish Centre was completed in 2007. The centenary of the Church was celebrated in 1966.

text: The response needs to state the reason why the Parish Hall was torn down. Also, the last sentence is irrelevant.


text:
On Thursday, June 30, New York's FOX 5 news proved there is great public interest in learning more about the complexities of Lyme disease.

Despite airing at 10:30 p.m., the "Lyme and Reason" special drew strong ratings as it delved into issues surrounding Lyme disease that few news programs ever do, including the fallibility of diagnostic blood tests, common misdiagnoses, potentially fatal heart complications--including aninterview with Neil Spector, a medical doctor who was told by other physicians that his failing health was little to worry about--and then required an emergency heart transplant to save his life.

New York is one of the "ground zero" areas in which Lyme disease is endemic, with New York City only a little over 100 miles from Lyme, Connecticut--the town where Lyme was first discovered and described. Yet, as Susan Green, legislative council for NatCapLyme, told FOX5NY, "this disease is in every state in the country...it is not selectively a northeastern disease." NatCapLyme is the primary community resource for Lyme disease patients in one of the country's most hard-hit areas, the Washington, D.C. region.

Lyme, in fact, is an epidemic, with the the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reporting over 300,000 new cases contracted by American people every year. This statistic was revised from an estimated 30,000 in 2013--yet the FOX5NY special is the first of its kind. Why?

Because, as discussed in the special, there is great resistance from medical authorities--particularly the CDC and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)--to acknowledge abundant current scientific evidence and countless patient reports of Lyme symptoms that persist and worsen following their recommended maximum 28 day treatment with antibiotics.

The CDC has been notoriously quiet about Lyme disease, focusing almost exclusively on prevention (avoiding ticks, recognizing the bullseye rash that many Lyme patients never see) and avoiding conversation about poor diagnostics, newer research than that on which the IDSA treatment guidelines are based, and complexities relating to persisting Lyme symptoms. Emily Lampa, lead investigative reporter for a Salisbury, Maryland ABC news program, revealed that she was refused an interview by anyone at the CDC in May, for a story she produced as part of Lyme Disease Awareness Month.

FOX5NY had better luck in securing a CDC interview. Paul Mead, chief of epidemiology and surveillance activity of the Bacterial Diseases Branch of CDC, confirmed in an on-camera interview that the Center continues to endorse the two-tiered ELISA and Western blot blood diagnostics that, as Susan Green described, have been proven to result in false negative readings for at least half of patients who are tested. Mead, on behalf of CDC, maintains that the two-tiered test is "reliable" in later stages of Lyme; however, as Green discusses at length in the above interview, this is not the case for many patients, for a number of reasons, one of which has to do with the many species and strains of Borrelia bacteria that may cause Lyme or "Lyme-like illness," but which never will result in a positive Lyme disease blood test.

(NatCapLyme has facilitated the passing of laws in Virginia and Maryland requiring that doctors inform patients about the failings of these tests, which usually are not explained to patients by doctors.)

Although Fairfax, Virginia-based George Mason University and Ceres Nanosciences recently created a urine-based Lyme disease testthat was shown in a trial to be more accurate than the two-tiered Lyme disease test, the CDC still only endorses the traditional two-tiered ELISA + Western blot testing process. "In general," Mead said, "CDC recommends that people rely on FDA-approved tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease."

I contacted the CDC Clinician Outreach and Community Activity office to inquire about the urine-based test and received this reply from someone named Will (no last name was given):

  ...we have not evaluated the Nanotrap(r) Lyme Antigen test. CDC supports the development of new testing methods for Lyme disease and encourages laboratories to submit their newly developed tests to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clearance in order to ensure that the highest quality diagnostic tests are available.

(It is worth noting that the average cost to secure FDA approval of a new medical device is $24 million, which can present delays and sometimes even indefinitely prohibit creators of better and more accurate devices from securing FDA approval.)

According to LymeDisease.org's Lorraine Johnson, the CDC did not officially reject non-FDA approved diagnostic tests until 2013. Johnson writes:

  The CDC does not have jurisdiction over the FDA, of course. And, the FDA permits the marketing of tests that do not have FDA approval. Many tests on the market today fall in this category. What the announcement means is that physicians and insurers will be less likely to accept non-FDA approved tests. This means that patients who want these tests will need to pay for them out of pocket. It also means that the entrenched lab tests that simply do not work will have more of the market to themselves.

The Meade interview presents a perplexing dichotomy. Meade states--consistent with CDC's messaging--that the concern about Lyme disease specialists treating patients who have persisting symptoms is that "there is no evidence" (other than over 300 peer-reviewed, published articles) for Lyme bacteria that persist after short-term antibiotic treatment, and that patients are "treated with therapies that are sometimes harmful. There are cases of patients who have died as a result of long-term therapies for Lyme disease." When citing these cases, the CDC never mentions, for example, cancer patients who are treated with chemotherapy for years and succumb to the illness, or to the poisonous treatment, anyway. The conversations, which sometimes invoke one or two anecdotes of patients who die, for example, from an infected IV port used to administer antibiotics, don't discuss that across the board, hospital mistakes are the third leading cause of deaths in the United States. The publisher of the cancer journal _Oncology_ states that "infections are among the most common, potentially serious complications of cancer and its treatment"--yet, the CDC doesn't recommend against chemotherapies for this reason, or because chemo often fails and is toxic to the body. The CDC and IDSA frequently use this argument against treatment Lyme disease patients.

Similarly paradoxical, CDC's current priority of raising awareness about and preventing the spread of Zika virus among the American population focuses--as the CDC should--on protecting the overall public health. Yet, CDC's approach to Lyme disease often is to refuse interviews that would serve to inform the public, to deny an abundant and growing body of evidence for persisting Lyme disease, and rather than focusing on raising awareness and containing the Lyme epidemic--the fastest-spreading bacterial infection in the country--CDC personnel and publications consistently cite chemotherapy-like risks to individual patients from treatment instead of, as it does with Zika and most other infectious diseases, focusing on containing the greater public health threat. This makes no sense.

FOX5NY's Teresa Priolo asked Meade about patients who are misdiagnosed with multiple sclerosis, ALS and other diseases and succumb directly or indirectly, and then are diagnosed after death with Lyme disease.

"Reports of cases of Lyme being mistaken for other diseases are really quite rare," Mead said. "Some...patients were actually seriously harmed by being given a diagnosis and long-term therapy for Lyme disease when in fact their underlying condition went untreated."

I can only speak anecdotally, but my story in a nutshell: I was diagnosed with and treated for Lyme in 1997, at age 18 or 19. Undertreated. By age 33, doctors thought I might have multiple sclerosis or possibly even ALS. Tests were inconclusive but ruled those out. At 36, I was re-diagnosed with Lyme, as well as bartonella and babesia coinfections. After approximately six months of antibiotic treatment, I was no longer semi-disabled. My recovery has continued.

Last month, I met a young woman in her early 30s who was born ill. She was diagnosed at a young age with multiple sclerosis and treated for it. She was then un-diagnosed with MS and instead diagnosed with Crohn's disease, and treated with biologic medications. She was given a partial colectomy and treated with biologic medications that have destroyed her body. She could not turn her head without turning her whole body, and I heard her bones crack every time she moved a joint. She was ultimately diagnosed with Lyme disease, and it was determined that she was most likely born with it.

I have met scores of people who were initially diagnosed with MS or another condition and then were found to have Lyme disease, underwent treatment, and recovered a great deal of wellness as a result. Based on my personal experience and my personal encounters, this is not a rare occurrence. With approximately 10,400 new cases of MS diagnosed each year, according to the CDC's own data, Lyme disease is 30 times more prevalent--and yet physicians continue to be encouraged to look for something, anything, other than Lyme disease when patients with symptoms that could be attributable to Lyme disease present. This is, by way of great understatement, nonsense.

Thank you, and congratulations, to FOX5NY, Teresa Priolo, and all others who are making real efforts to inform the public about this epidemic. This type of coverage is overdue, but it's more necessary than ever. For journalists who haven't scratched the surface of the complexities and controversies surrounding Lyme disease, read through these questions and start doing your homework. The success of FOX5NY's special report is evidence that the public is hungry for information about Lyme disease, recognizing the threat through word of mouth that cannot be contained.

Lyme is today's greatest medical mystery, and for any journalist with investigative instincts and an interest in uncovering the truth, the Lyme story is only beginning to be told.

question: What is the official stance of medical agencies about Lyme disease?

text: The answer should mention that the CDC often refuses to engage in public outreach about Lyme disease.

answer: They are resistant to acknowledge abundant current scientific evidence and countless patient reports of Lyme symptoms that persist and worsen following their recommended maximum 28 day treatment with antibiotics.

text: The answer should mention that the CDC recommends that people rely on FDA-approved tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

text: This is a partial answer. The answer should mention the official stance of the CDC and IDSA.

text: The article does not say what the "official stance" is, but it does have a great deal of information about the CDC's position.

text: The answer should include that the medical authorities' official stance on Lyme disease is that there is no evidence for Lyme bacteria that persist after short-term antibiotic treatment.

text: "acknowledge abundant current scientific evidence and countless patient reports" - add "and testimonies of doctors" to broaden this statement

text: The response should mention that the CDC primarily focuses on Lyme disease prevention.

answer: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) both recommend the standard 28-day antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, claiming that there's no evidence of Lyme bacteria persisting after it. They also endorse the FDA-approved two-tiered test for it, which results in false negatives half the time. CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause. CDC endorses prevention methods.

text: It's only said that the CDC approves of the two-tiered test, not that IDSA also approves.

text: It's omitted that these medical agencies seem to resist acknowledging abundant scientific evidence and countless patient reports of Lyme symptoms that persist past 28 days.

answer: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) both recommend the standard 28-day antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, claiming that there's no evidence of Lyme bacteria persisting after it. They also endorse the FDA-approved two-tiered test for it, which results in false negatives half the time. CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause. CDC endorses prevention methods. They also tend to refuse publicly informative outreach activities about Lyme disease.

text: The article doesn't mention the side effects of long-term antibiotics as a reason for rejecting newer treatments.

text: The article doesn't mention that the CDC endorses prevention methods.

text: The article doesn't mention that the CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause.

text: The article doesn't mention that the CDC refuses publicly informative outreach activities about Lyme disease.

text: The article does not mention that the CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause.

text: The article doesn't mention that CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause.

text: The answer is a bit long-winded.

text: The narrator thinks that CDC's attitude toward Lyme disease is confusing. They seem to be reluctant in accepting and communicating current research to the public.

answer: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) both recommend the standard 28-day antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, claiming that there's no evidence of Lyme bacteria persisting after it. They also endorse the FDA-approved two-tiered test for it, which results in false negatives half the time. CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause. CDC endorses prevention methods. They also tend to refuse publicly informative outreach activities about Lyme disease.

answer: They are resistant to acknowledge abundant current scientific evidence and countless patient reports of Lyme symptoms that persist and worsen following their recommended maximum 28 day treatment with antibiotics.

answer: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) both recommend the standard 28-day antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, claiming that there's no evidence of Lyme bacteria persisting after it. They also endorse the FDA-approved two-tiered test for it, which results in false negatives half the time. CDC's reason for rejecting newer treatments is the potential side effects long-term antibiotics could cause. CDC endorses prevention methods.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary.

text: The answer should mention that the IDSA and the CDC are against acknowledging the abundant current scientific evidence and countless patient reports of Lyme symptoms that persist and worsen following the recommended treatment.

text: The IDSA is not mentioned.

text: The fourth sentence is made up.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary.