The one person in history you admire most...

The one person in history you admire most...

Hmmmm....

I'm not sure I can limit it to one, but here are some I'd like to meet when they invent time travel:

James Graham, Marquis of Montrose
MacBeth
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Ronald Reagan

Any of the Founders would be a lot of fun. Including the Howe brothers, Gen'l Burgoyne, Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes, and George III.

But I'd be much more interested in interviewing Native Peoples
Tecumseh (Shawnee)
Black Elk (Lakota)
Cannasatego (Iroquois)
Powhatan
Massasoit
etc.

For me it is between 2 men:

Ghandi

and

Ashoka

Ashoka Maurya ca. 304–232 BC), commonly known as Ashoka and also as Ashoka the Great, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from ca. 269 BC to 232 BC. One of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka reigned over most of present-day India after a number of military conquests. His empire stretched from the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan to present-day Bangladesh and the Indian state of Assam in the east, and as far south as northern Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. He conquered the kingdom named Kalinga, which none of his ancestors had conquered starting from Chandragupta Maurya. His reign was headquartered in Magadha (present-day Bihar). He embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. He was later dedicated to the propagation of Buddhism across Asia and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. Ashoka was a devotee of ahimsa (nonviolence), love, truth, tolerance and vegetarianism. Ashoka is remembered in history as a philanthropic administrator.

Subject to change:
Ho Chi Minh

Living I have to say Ben Chaney, I did meet him once and I have to say I can only hope my brothers would be as loyal to me as he is to his late brother.

Bayard Rustin, a great and complicated man who achieved a lot even though he had to stay in the background.

Edgar Rice Burroughs, jack of all trades before he started writing fiction, when he did he really took off, first writer to incorporate, found his own town and he created several immortal characters. He was walking the beach of Hawaii on the morning of December 7 1941 and remade himself into a war correspondent, an experience that changed his life.

US Grant, the only one that fits the definition of a "great man of history" on my list.

Alexander the Great, though I might just like to be a fly on the wall observing him.

Henrich Schliemann, the guy who took Homer at his word and dug up Troy, more or less founding modern archaeology. He didn't start this work until he was about 50, having first educated himself and had a successful business career. He did somewhat creepily marry an 18-year-old Greek girl, but I'm not interested in him that way!

Eleanor of Aquitaine, definitely. Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.

George Washington. James Polk. Herbert and Lou Hoover.

My "one person" was very soon
morphed into ten:

In no particular order
except alphabetical:

Gautama Buddha

Jesus

Joan of Arc/ Jeanne dʻArc

Kalanimoku*

John Keats

Lao Tzu

the Blessed VIrgin Mary

William of Occam


William Shakespeare

John Wesley

of the above list, however.

the three that came soonest to

mind were Buddha, Jesus and

Lao Tzu -- the 3 of them about

equally admired.

*Kalanimoku: the only one
that Touchstones couldn't pick up, but then he was
way past school age by the
time writing was introduced into Hawai'i by foreigners, and he hasn't been a favorite subject of biographers.
He was not one of the 8
Hawaiian monarchs, but
was the maine aide to the
first of them,
Kamehameha I

>2dkhiggin

MacBeth

???

So you chose him because he was one of the very first environmentalists who was concerned with the conditions of forests, their getting cut down, and reforestation?

'Fear not, till Birnam wood
Do come to Dunsinane:' and now a wood
Comes toward Dunsinane.

Other than that I can not imagine.

Ur.

Hard to pick just one.

John Adams
Roger Williams
James Baldwin
Zora Neale Hurston
Frieda Kahlo

would all be on my list at one point or another.

>2 dkhiggin:

You admire the Marquis of Montrose? The first Marquis? Aka Bloody Graham of Claberhouse?

Dear me, you clearly were not raised Presbyterian...

As to Macbeth, have you perhaps been reading King Hereafter? I wouldn't mind meeting that Macbeth either, but he's a figment of Dorothy Dunnett's imagination.

(The Macbeth of) . . .The King Hereafter (is)
a figment of Dorothy Dunnettʻs imagination." (11)

And the Macbeth of "Macbeth the King" (a novel)
is a figment of Nigel Tranterʻs*. But the publsherʻs
blurb for it, doesnʻt mind reminding us that the
Macbeth" of ca. 1600 is a figment of Shakespeareʻs;
they say: "Forget Shakespeareʻs villain!"

*author of the non-fictions Culloden and The
Glencoe Massacre

Dostoyevski
George Washington
Shakespeare
Florence Nightingale
Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire
Her sister Henrietta
John of Gault
Margaret Beaufort
Catnerine Of Aragon
Louisa May Alcott
Katherine Grey

Favorite characters--
Nell Gwyn
Charles Brandon


I am leaving out religious figures and 20/21 Century figures (Eli Manning)

Following the limit of one person...

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne.

Most admire? Thomas Jefferson . . . despite his evident faults . . .

Want to have dinner with? I'd like to have the fourth chair at a table with:

Theodore Roosevelt
H. L. Mencken
Clarence Darrow

Teddy Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
Otto von Bismark
Cyrus the Great
Chou En-Lai
Lord Acton

Oh, come on y'all! I didn't pick on any of your choices! Inasmuch as this is a very personal choice, I don't see how you can make fun of mine. I have my reasons...

>11 dajashby:
I believe Bloody Graham of Claverhouse refers to John Graham, 1st Viscount of Dundee. And there are very few Presbyterians in South Dakota where I was raised as a good Lutheran. Nowadays, I am agnostic.

18 Excluding religious persons, the person I admire the most is:

Jean Jacques Rousseau

The person I'd most like to meet in person:

Blackbeard. Yes, the pirate. Why not?

>18 madpoet:

Indeed! Why not!

I could add to my list Genghis Khan, Vercingetorix, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Jesus, Cartismandua, Siddhartha, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Tycho Brahe, Erzsébet Báthory, Gustavus Adolphus...plenty more where those came from!

I would recommend reading Up the Line by Robert Silverberg. The pivotal moment around which the plot moves is the death of a time tourist who is infatuated with a Roman general. She jumps in front of his chariot during a victory parade to profess her love and gets gored by him.

;-)
Daniel

Dinner with Napoleon would make for a fascinating evening, though I can't say I exactly admire him.

There's a problem developing here. Personally I would like to be able to meet emperor Rudolf II: very interesting person (yes, check) but not somebody I hugely admire (mostly ineffective wannabee).

You get my drift: the two are not necessarily the same.

My favorite historical character is Lucius Apuleius “Africanus”.

Between 60 and 46 BC, during the reign of Juba I, the North African Kingdom of Numidia was not under the rule of Romans. Juba was defeated at Thapsus in 46 BC by Caesar. The Romans officially annexed Numidia at that date and renamed it "Africa Nova." Bocchus II willed the Kingdom of Mauretania to Octavian in 33 BC. However, Mauretania was not similarly annexed by the Romans until 40 AD. It is also to be noted that the name of Mauri was applied to all non-romanized natives of North Africa still ruled by their own chiefs, until the third century AD. Carthage, Rome and the Berbers, J.A. Ilevbare, Ibadan University Press, 1980.)

Apuleius of Madaurus (c 124 CE –c. 180CE) was an older neighbor of Tertullian, (c. 160 – c. 225 AD, the person in history I most dislike. , Apuleius was born in Madauros, a Roman colony in the south of Numidia, which was situated in an area now located near modern Mdaourouch in Algeria, and he died in or around Carthage. He referred to this colony as a "most splendid one, " ("splendissima colonia sumus," Apologia, chapter 24.)
Along with St. Augustine in the fourth Century, this area would later produce the noted African liberation scholar Franz Fanon in the Twentieth Century.

With everything on the line, Apuleius' words showed little need to be called a “Roman”.

“Concerning my fatherland, as you have shown on the basis of my own writings, it lies on the very border of Numidia and Gaetulia. I have in fact declared in my public declarations made in the presence of the honorable Lollianus Avitus, that I am half Numidian and half Gaetulian. However, I do not see what there is in this for me to be ashamed of, any more than there was for the Elder Cyrus, being of mixed origin, half Mede and half Persian. After all it is not where a man was born but his way of life that should be considered, nor in what region, but how he lives his life. . . . Have we not seen that in all periods and among all peoples different characters occur, while some appear more remarkable for their stupidity or their cleverness? The wise Anacharsis was born among the extremely foolish Scythians, among the intelligent Athenians, the silly Meletides. And yet I have not spoken out of shame for my country.'"

"It is true I am not a Roman, and you call me a Barbarian. Yes, I am a Barbarian, and say I have no shame in my origins. Moreover, I can use your own language so well, so proficiently, and with such virtuosity as to make you look ridiculous in your charges of barbarism. The tools of consciousness are my own, delivered in words from your language that I throw back at you with such ease and dexterity, and the mirror image that I am placing before you is that of the other you despise through ignorance In this defense of my identity, I am aided by all the powers of the earth, ancient wisdom, our African heritage, all the powers of transformation and true knowledge. We are the heirs to ancient Egyptian wisdom, to the Isis/Osiris mysteries of ancestral truth, to the transcendental consciousness that will outlive and outwit the centuries, and this message, I know, by the grace bestowed upon me by my dreams, will live on and become my long lived legacy as a North African philosopher and not a Roman, even though I use your language to send the message off."

Apuleius spoke these words after his successful courtship of a rich Roman matron stirred up the envy of his Roman neighbors, and he found himself accused of having used witch-craft to win her. This was a capital crime. Apuleius explained to the jury that he had won the fair lady with his cooking skills and asked if anyone really thought well cooked fish were “magic?” When the laughter stopped, Apuleius was not only free but famous. He went on to write on the philosophy of Plato and fiction, most notably the still hilarious novel The Golden Ass which is often quoted by authors on Early Imperial Rome.

> 24 Apuleius has just become a favorite of mine.

On seeing the topic, my first thought was of Muhammad. I know, I know. But let me be clear: I'm talking about Muhammad, the historical actor who lived in 7th-century Arabia, not Muhammad the founder of Islam and focus of considerable myth making. Incidentally, one of the most fascinating things about him is the wealth of contradictory stories told about him, dating from several generations after his death. Islamic hadith scholars, concerned with documenting Muhammad's life because they considered him a perfect model of human behavior, collected every stray rumor about him, including stories that showed him as impulsive, vacillating, doubtful of his calling, or otherwise flawed. These were considered "weak" (poorly attested) traditions, but they were collected and preserved anyway. It's a very rigorous method of dealing with oral history, and I regret that it is so seldom discussed in treatments of historiography, or the history of history.

There's no denying Muhammad's influence on world history, but why find him admirable except within the confines of Islam, in which he is God's mouthpiece? My reasons for admiring the man, as opposed to the prophet, have to do with the ways in which he defied the conventions of his patriarchal, often chauvinist, reactionary, and honor-jealous Arab tribesmen. Muhammad esteemed women and sought their advice at the crisis points of his life. This from a man whose contemporaries regarded women as chattel to be exchanged at will or even killed without remorse whenever they became a burden. I'd like to know what made Muhammad capable of rejecting those views and, what's more, of persuading other Arab men to surrender these practices.

As a Westerner I've had trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of a religious leader who also led troops into battle and governed a state. (I suppose I should not have been too surprised; the Judeo-Christian tradition has David and Solomon. But the J-C tradition declines to call them "prophets," despite the portions of the Bible that legend attributes to each.) Here I find Muhammad's example admirable because he took many opportunities to de-escalate, giving back the spoils of raids to their original owners, and pardoning most of the Meccan Arabs who had sought his own death, besides causing the deaths of many people he had loved.

There's one story I'm intrigued with and would like to track to its original source. In the intro to his Quran translation, Marmaduke Pickthall retells a story in which one of Muhammad's companions is fatally poisoned, and M. and others are sickened, by food served by women of a recently conquered town. The woman responsible for the act is brought before Muhammad and questioned. She states that she is a Jew, and that she used the poison because the Muslims had been too fierce and arrogant in defeating her tribe. Muhammad pardoned her. The poison is supposed to have shortened his life.

Everything about that story intrigues me. I would like to track it down in a more authoritative biography.

"The (Judeo-Christian Bible declines to call (David and Solomon) prophets . . ." ( 25)
--And the Koran (or the Muslim tradltion; I camʻt quote chapter-and-verse on this) does call
them prophets! -- two of the 28 "major" prophets of whom the last three are
Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad.
But there was a Jewish tradition, too that they were prophets: In the Hebrew Bible, there are three Parts (Law, Prophets, and Writings)
Law (Torah) is the first six books; most of the rest of
what is the Christian "Old Testament" comes under the heading: "Prophets"., --except a few short books,
including Job* which are
"Writings". (No distinction is made been "historical" and what might be called "spiritual", or "Strictly religious" books.)

*Some historians believe that the model for Job was, although of course not a Bedouin or Mulsim, an Arab. The reverse of this direction is more important historically: that David,
SOlomon, and many others, including Isaac the rival brother of Ishmael! were taken up from the Jewish tradition by the Muslims.

I wrote 25 before noticing what Thread I was in.
For what itʻs worth, my favorites -- in Biblical history--
are: Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Evangelist Luke.*

*Even though, answering strictly as a litterateur, I regard John
the Evangelist as a better writer.

>24 quicksiva:
More from Apuleius:

"There is a remarkable saying of a wise man concerning the pleasures of the table to the effect that, 'The first glass quenches thirst, the second makes merry, the third kindles desire, the fourth madness.' But in the case of a draught from the Muses' fountain the reverse is true. The more cups you drink and the more undiluted the draught the better it will be for your soul's good. The first cup is given by the master that teaches you to read and write and redeems you from ignorance, the second is given by the teacher of literature and equips you with learning, the third arms you with the eloquence of the rhetorician.

Of these three cups most men drink. I, however, have drunk yet other cups at Athens—the imaginative draught of poetry, the clear draught of geometry, the sweet draught of music, the austerer draught of dialectic, and the nectar of all philosophy, whereof no man may ever drink enough. For Empedocles composed verse, Plato dialogues, Socrates hymns, Epicharmus music, Xenophon histories, and Xenocrates satire.

But your friend Apuleius cultivates all these branches of art together and worships all nine Muses with equal zeal. His enthusiasm is, I admit, in advance of his capacity, but that perhaps makes him all the more praiseworthy, inasmuch as in all high enterprises it is the effort that merits praise, success is after all a matter of chance."

Apuleius, Lucius (2012-05-16). The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura (Kindle Locations 2301-2312). . Kindle Edition.

28quicksiva-Today, 11:25am
>24 quicksiva:

Nice, really nice; and thank you

I thank Roland Perkins for having the temerity to mention Jesus of Nazareth, or shall we be more inclusive by denominating him the Rabbi Yehoshua. Anyway I second Roland's list in #27. On a much lower level -- without reflecting on anyone's personal faith or lack thereof -- it's curious how quickly this thread turned to fascinating, or far-out, or mysterious, or controversial figures. Of-course, there are no real ground rules, so I'm not violating anything by proposing some of these worthies: Beethoven, Lorenzo "the Magnificent", William H. Silvis, Alberic Magnard, John Lloyd Stephens (the 19th-century traveler in Central America), Ben Fletcher, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Thomas Cranmer, Maimonides, Emanuel Schickaneder, Louis Moreau Gottschalk, George Washington Carver, Dante Alighieri, and the anonymous poet of Gilgamesh. That should keep your fingers clicking, friends and neigbours!
Small pause, then some revision after an envigourating walk under the starry half-lunar sky. It occurs to me that several of the people I've listed seem so familiar to me from reading (including reading their own words), that the nature of the "time machine" discoveries about them would be vastly different from encountering people about whom I have a mostly a loving curiosity. Then too, I ask myself abouth this whole concept of "favourite", and put it into practical terms. Would I want to drink wine with this person, or visit his home and family -- or vice-versa? Would I want to pray with that person, or introduce him to my friends, or put-up with the nearly-inevitable stand-offishness of persons from ages or societies far more stratified and formal than ours? So, while I would probably still swing with Lorenzo de' Medici, I'm not sure that Dante would tolerate me.
With all that in mind, let me add a few more names: Pope Clement VI, Edwin Armstrong (genius electrical engineer and inventor), Linnaeus, Eugene Varlin (hero/martyr of the Paris Commune, and of-course, Thoreau

Now, in terms of the best person to hang out with, I'd say Lord Byron. He was a poet and intellectual, well travelled, but also liked to party. Samuel Coleridge would be cool, too.

In re #31, I admire Byron's verse, and his efforts for Greek independence, but all the accounts I have ever read reveal a dishonest, vain, conniving prig, whose self-involvement would make an NBA or rock star seem like one of the Twelve Apostles. Suum cuique, I guess.

I would say at this time that my choice would be Abraham Lincoln I feel somewhat provincial in making that choice but the ability and character he showed during his life was amazing. I am sure that my choice is influenced by the reading I having been doing lately which has included many books about Lincoln.

>32 HarryMacDonald: Byron made enemies, like all famous people, but he certainly wasn't a prig! Quite the opposite: he was considered scandalously immoral in his time, and had affairs with dozens of women all across Europe. When he wrote 'Don Juan', it was widely read as autobiographical.

My favourite anecdote about Byron is when his friend Shelley used to watch him, at night, swimming across Lake Geneva from the house of one of his lovers, to another lover's house, holding his clothes over his head!

In rebus 32 & 34. Perhaps "prig" was a poorly chosen word. The point I was trying to make is this: while nominally the great immoralist, and equally-opportunity sexual marauder of almost anything which moved, there was only great love in his life -- and that was himself. As I said above (perhaps I need to translate), to each his own. As to the autobiography in DON JUAN, the self-revelation is not anecdotal, but attitudinal: he scorned everybody and didn't care who knew. How boring: he could have been a modern novelist, or sports-star, or US President. Come to think of it, though, I might cut even O-Bomb-Us some slack if he could write in ottava rima.

The Monsters: Mary Shelley and the Curse of Frankenstein by Dorothy Hoobler points out that Byron most likely was the model for John Polidori’s (his doctor) gothic novel, The Vampyre.

Padraig Pearse

> 35: In other words, if I may: he was just another upper-class git. But he could string words, I'll give him that.

Of the countries Iʻve made some study of, the persons I most admire within that country:
ROME: Publius Vergilius Maro (Vergil); Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid); Justinian

GREECE: Sophocles; Aristotle

ISRAEL/PALESTINE: Jesus; Mary, the Mother of Jesus

EGYPT: Anwar Sadat;
Akhnaton


GERMANY: Goethe Kurt Schumacher, Willy Brandt

FRANCE: St. Joan of Arc;
Charles De Gaulle; Pierre Mendes-France

SPAIN: Miguel de Unamuno; Pedro Calderon

AUSTRALIA: Patrick White

TONGA: I. Futa Helu

NEW ZEALAND: Ernest Rutherford; David Lange

IRELAND: Brendan Behan, Sean Oʻ Casey;
Charles Stewart Parnell

SCOTLAND: Robert Louis Stevenson

WALES: Caradoc Evans; Meredydd Evans, Aneurin Bevin

ENGLAND: Willilam Shakespeare, Samuel Coleridge, John Keats

MEXICO: Lazaro Cardenas

ITALY: Ignazio Silone;
Pope John XXIII

Most of them are writers, but the list is very different from an LT "Favorites" List, although it does have some of the emotion that goes into listing "Favorites".
I have many authors on my favorites list that I wouldnʻt think of including in such a list as this, since it is an overa-all consideration of them primarily as human beings rather than as writers, politicians, or whatever their "field" was.

Taking another swing

Denis Diderot

he was awarded the degree of master of arts in the University of Paris on Sept. 2, 1732. He then studied law as an articled clerk in the office of Clément de Ris but was more interested in languages, literature, philosophy, and higher mathematics. Of his life in the period 1734 to 1744 comparatively little is known. He dropped an early ambition to enter the theatre and, instead, taught for a living, led a penurious existence as a publisher’s hack, and wrote sermons for missionaries at 50 écus each. At one time he seems to have entertained the idea of taking up an ecclesiastical career, but it is most unlikely that he entered a seminary. Yet his work testifies to his having gone through a religious crisis, and he progressed relatively slowly from Roman Catholicism to deism and then to atheism and philosophical materialism. That he led a disordered and bohemian existence at this time is made clear in his posthumously published novel, Le Neveu de Rameau (Rameau’s Nephew). He frequented the coffeehouses, particularly the Régence and the Procope, where he met the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1741 and established a friendship with him that was to last for 15 years, until it was broken by a quarrel.

source: eb.com

In re #40. vy, you have temporarily restored my faith in LT, which I have watched swooning -- with rare exceptions -- into a collective swamp of self-involvement and trivilaity. I'm sure Diderot's spirit -- in which he often disbelieved -- rejoices at being rememebered in our little digital coffeehouse. I have read most of his fiction and it's all fascinating, though his "nun-novel" is a trifle twisted. Anyway, the article you cite fails to mention one of his vivid and enjoyable gifts to his own time and to all times, namely the SALONS in which he virtually re-created art-history and art-criticism, which had languished since its earlier brief effluorescence with Giorgio Vasari. Good choice!

Yes, having studied French art theory and criticism of that period I can confirm that Diderot was a breath of fresh air in those fields.

I'll confine myself to a single person. Eugene V. Debs. I won't go into a lot justification except to say he's been a hero of mine since I first read about him.

Personally I had to "google" just to find out who you are talking about. Never heard of him. No offense though: simply somebody we here in Europe wouldn't have heard about, even in his lifetime.

In re #44. Matt, in a West European context, it's hard to find somebody quite like him. Of course, there were plenty of Social Democrats who opposed World War One -- though sadly not enough of them -- but I can't think of prominent ones from the true working class. He was a working fireman, after all. Of-course there was Merrheim of the (French) Federation des Metaux, but he never achieved the national fame, almost mythic status, of Debs. If you have the historical background, you can get some of the idea if you combine Jean Jaures, Victor Grifhueles (spelling), and Domela Niewenhuis. He was a good one, and the US would be a better place if more people had paid attention to him. Side-note: for almost fourty years the Debs Foundation has awarded an annual Debs Prize for outstanding service to working people. When I was still active in the Steelworkers (our Federation des Metaux), the prize was given to one I. W. Abel, sometime International President of the Steelworkers -- whose most notable "contribution" was a nationwide no-strike pledge to the companies. To put it mildly, I was not impressed. -- G

Yes, in my country Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis sort of had such status, but stress: "sort of". As a former Lutheran pastor he wasn't really working class himself, and by that time he had moved away from social democracy into anarchism - so his actual following was fairly slim. (We did manage to stay out of WWI, but that was more a matter of luck).

During the last election whenever someone asked who I supported my stock answer was "The Debs / Harrington ticket. Even dead they are the best choice for the country" I think that the number of blank looks I got, from people who called Obama a Socialist, speaks volumes about the American education system.

Its about time for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington dinner. I think President Obama lives in Harrington's old neighborhood. You might want to attend.

>47 TLCrawford: I think that the number of blank looks I got, from people who called Obama a Socialist, speaks volumes about the American education system.

People in the USA use "socialist" they way they used "left-wing radical" in the seventies, and "communist" in the fifties, and "anarchist" before that. It's not a real word, it's a fear word.

The young people I knew in the sixties scared the communists as much as they scared "the Man."

"...scared the communists as much as they scared "The Man"

In the 1968 near-revolution in Paris, a conservative Frenchman was quoted as remarking, "Thank God we still have ONE conservative party: The Communists!"

A joke, reputedly from Russia
circulated during the early 90s when the Soviet Union was changing to being "Russia":

Q. What is the main political difference between the U.S. and the U.S. S. R. ?

A. The U. S. still has a Communist Party.

...is an historian essayist, Stefan Zweig.

Curiosity:

What does ". . . is an historian essayist, Stefan Zweig" continue? (52) (assuming the 3 dots mean it is a continuation of something).

>53 rolandperkins: the title of the thread.

">53 rolandperkins: the title..."
(! Without comment on 52ʻs rating
philosophy),
Thanks, southernbooklady

...does correspond to the title of this thread.