Pandarus or Pandar is a Trojan aristocrat who appears in stories about the Trojan War. In Homer's Iliad he is portrayed as an energetic and powerful warrior, but in medieval literature he becomes a witty and licentious figure who facilitates the affair between Troilus and Cressida. In Shakespeare's play Troilus and Cressida, he is portrayed as an aged degenerate and coward who ends the play by telling the audience he will bequeath them his "diseases". In Homer's Iliad, Pandarus is the son of Lycaon. Pandarus, who fought on the side of Troy in the Trojan War and led a contingent from Zeleia, first appeared in Book Two of the Iliad. In Book Four, he is tricked by Athena, who wishes for the destruction of Troy, to shoot and wound Menelaus with an arrow, sabotaging a truce that could have led to the peaceful return of Helen of Troy, he attempts to kill Diomedes at close range, since Athena is protecting him from his deadly arrows, while Aeneas acts as his charioteer. Diomedes narrowly survives the attack, retaliating with a deadly blow that knocks Pandarus out of the chariot.
Diomedes pursues Aeneas, saved by his mother Aphrodite. Pandarus is the name of a companion of Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, his skull is cut in half vertically by Turnus' sword in Book IX of the Aeneid. Pandarus is not to be confused with Pandareus. Pandarus appears in Il Filostrato by Giovanni Boccaccio, in which he plays the role of a go-between in the relationship of his cousin Criseyde and the Trojan prince Troilus, the younger brother of Paris and Hector. Boccaccio himself derived the story from Le Roman De Troie, by 12th-century poet Benoît de Sainte-Maure; this story is not part of classical Greek mythology. Both Pandarus and other characters in the medieval narrative who carry names from the Iliad are quite different from Homer's characters of the same name. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s poem Troilus and Criseyde, Pandarus plays the same role. Chaucer's Pandarus is of special interest because he is constructed as an expert rhetorician, who uses dozens of proverbs and proverbial sayings to bring the lovers Troilus and Criseyde together.
When his linguistic fireworks fail at the end of the story, the proverb and human rhetoric in general are questioned as reliable means of communication. William Shakespeare used the medieval story again in Cressida. Shakespeare's Pandarus is more of a bawd than Chaucer's, he is a lecherous and degenerate individual. In The Duke's Children by Anthony Trollope when the Duke of Omnium suspects Mrs Finn of encouraging his daughter's romance he refers to her as a'she-Pandarus'. In "The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea" by Yukio Mishima, Pandarus is mentioned during an internal contemplation by the character Ryuji Tsukazaki; the plot function of the aging lecher Pandarus in Chaucer's and Shakespeare's famous works has given rise to the English terms a pander, from Chaucer, meaning a person who furthers other people's illicit sexual amours. A panderer is a bawd — a male who arranges access to female sexual favors, the manager of prostitutes. Thus, in law, the charge of pandering is an accusation that an individual has sold the sexual services of another.
The verb "to pander" is used in a more general sense to suggest active or implicit encouragement of someone's weaknesses. This article contains content from the Owl Edition of Nordisk familjebok, a Swedish encyclopedia published between 1904 and 1926, now in the public domain
Scott Chaplain is a Scottish retired professional footballer. He last played for Albion Rovers in their 2014-15 Scottish League Two winning season. Chaplain began his career in the Rangers youth set-up before moving on to Ayr United in 2000, he made 91 starts and scored 11 goals in his 5 seasons at the club before being released and signing for Albion Rovers. In the 2006–07 season he scored 18 league goals and won the SPFA's player of the year award for the Third Division. At the end of the season, he was signed on a full-time contract by Partick Thistle manager Ian McCall. After leaving Partick Thistle in the summer of 2009, Chaplain was signed by Dumbarton, he rejoined Albion Rovers in January 2011. He scored the goal that got Rovers into the play-off final, in that final against Stranraer he scored two goals as the club retained their place in the third tier. In 2012, Chaplain left Albion Rovers to join Third Division side Annan Athletic but once again signed for Albion Rovers in May 2013, he was part of the Rovers team that reached the last eight of the 2013-14 Scottish Cup, scored ten goals from midfield in the 2014-15 season, when Albion Rovers won the League Two title.
Chaplain retired from football in June 2015, having been offered a position with the Scottish Football Association. He has played for the Scotland national futsal team and became their coach in February 2018 and has led the side to 3 wins in 4 games, one of which gave the national side their first clean sheet. Scott Chaplain at Soccerbase
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance is a joint venture between Bajaj Finserv Limited owned by the Bajaj Group of India and Allianz SE, a European financial services company. Being one of the private insurance companies in India, it offers insurance products for financial planning and security, it is led by Tarun Chugh, the Managing director and Chief Executive Officer of the company. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance began operations on 12 March 2001 and today has a pan-India presence of 759 branches, it is headquartered in India. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance received the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority certificate of Registration on 3 August 2001 to conduct Life Insurance business in India. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance offers a range of insurance services, operating through Participating, Non-Participating, Linked segments. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance launches digital branches through Mosambee. Mosambee is a handheld device that offers the services of a mobile branch and assists customers with an entire range of customer services.
The Stray Dog is a 2000 children's picture book by Marc Simont. A family of four meets a stray dog while having a picnic in the park; the two kids ask their parents if they can keep him. Their parents say no. During the next week, every member of the family keeps on thinking about Willy; when Saturday comes, they decide to go on another picnic to see. When they see a dogcatcher chase after the dog, they try to save him; when they catch up to him, the dogcatcher says. The kids tell him that the dog does belong to them by saying that the boy's belt was the dog's collar and the girl's hair ribbon was his leash; the dogcatcher leaves. Steve Barancik of Best Children's Books has written that the story is heartwarming and that the ending reminded him of that of Horton Hatches the Egg; the book has won several awards, including ALA Notable Children’s Book, Boston Globe-Horn Book Award, Caldecott Honor Book
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported if not the "favourite" of each individual, it has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus, from cōnsentiō meaning feel together. It is used to describe both the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, the social, legal and political effects of applying this process. Characteristics of consensus decision-making include: Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible. Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.
Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, amend proposals. Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process. Participatory: The consensus process should solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers. Consensus decision-making is an alternative to practiced group decision-making processes. Robert's Rules of Order, for instance, is a guide book used by many organizations; this book allows the structuring of debate and passage of proposals that can be approved through majority vote. It does not emphasize the goal of full agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it can involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions; these dynamics may harm group member relationships and undermine the ability of a group to cooperatively implement a contentious decision. Consensus decision-making attempts to address the beliefs of such problems.
Proponents claim that outcomes of the consensus process include: Better decisions: Through including the input of all stakeholders the resulting proposals may better address all potential concerns. Better implementation: A process that includes and respects all parties, generates as much agreement as possible sets the stage for greater cooperation in implementing the resulting decisions. Better group relationships: A cooperative, collaborative group atmosphere can foster greater group cohesion and interpersonal connection. Consensus is not synonymous with "unanimity"– though that may be a rule agreed to in a decision making process; the level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a "decision rule". To ensure the agreement or consent of all participants is valued, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as their decision rule. Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants the option of blocking a group decision; this provision motivates a group to make sure that all group members consent to any new proposal before it is adopted.
Proper guidelines for the use of this option, are important. The ethics of consensus decision-making encourage participants to place the good of the whole group above their own individual preferences; when there is potential for a block to a group decision, both the group and dissenters in the group are encouraged to collaborate until agreement can be reached. Vetoing a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensus blocking; some common guidelines for the use of consensus blocking include: Providing an option for those who do not support a proposal to “stand aside” rather than block. Requiring a block from two or more people to put a proposal aside. Requiring the blocking party to supply an alternative proposal or a process for generating one. Limiting each person's option to block consensus to a handful of times in one's life. Limiting the option of blocking to decisions that are substantial to the mission or operation of the group and not allowing blocking on routine decisions. Limiting the allowable rationale for blocking to issues that are fundamental to the group's mission or disastrous to the group.
A participant who does not support a proposal may have alternatives to blocking it. Some common options may include the ability to: Declare reservations: Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal. Stand aside: A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal. Object: Any group member may "object" to a proposal. In groups with a unanimity decision rule, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal.
Other decision rules may require more than one objection for a proposal to be blocked or not pass. The basic model for achieving consensus as defined by any decision rule involves: Collaboratively generating a proposal Identifying unsatisfied concerns Modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possibleAll attempts at achieving consensus begin with a good faith attempt at generating full-agreement, regardless of decis
The Battle of Shepeleviche or Battle of Ciecierzyn on 24 August 1654 was one of the first battles of the Russo-Polish War. It ended with a Russian victory. A small Polish–Lithuanian force of about 5,000 under Great Lithuanian Hetman Janusz Radziwiłł stopped the Russian force under knyaz Yakov Cherkassky at Shklow and camped at Hołowczyn, he learned that a Russian force under knyaz Aleksey Trubetskoy crossed Drut River near Ciecierzyn on 23 August. Radziwiłl was joined by the Field Lithuanian Hetman Wincenty Korwin Gosiewski with 3,000 strong forces, increasing the Polish–Lithuanian army to about 6,000–8,000. Radziwiłł and Gosiewski tried to stop a numerically superior Russian force of 15,000 near Shepelevichy. Trubetskoy forces included Cherkassky's, he took positions near Bialynichy. This time the larger Russian army managed to outflank him, with Russian infantry holding Shepelevichy and cavalry attacking from the rear. Radziwiłł ordered a retreat, on the 24 August the retreating Polish army was defeated and its artillery was captured by the Russians.
Radziwiłł with a remainder of his forces retreated to Minsk. His defeat meant that Russians faced no opposition in Lithuania, they were able to take Polotsk and Mogilev, advancing to the Berezina River. Russian forces were able to advance and take Smolensk as well as Orsha which they held till 1661