Podcasts about shepperd

This week we get to meet Duke, a 3 1/2 year old Heeler mix, and Cooper, a one year old black and brown Shepperd mix,…

National Lollipop day.  Entertainment from 1965. Sitting Bull surrendered, First man on the moon, Miss America had to resign due to nude pictures of her.  Todays birthdays - Richard Owen, Edmund Hillary, Buddy Knox, Diana Rigg, Natalie Wood, TG Shepperd, Kim Carnes, Carlos Santana, Donna Dixon, Radney Foster, Chris Cornell, Sandra Oh, Julianne Hough.  Buce Lee died.Intro - Pour some sugar on me - Def Leppard    https://defleppard.com/Lollipop - The Chordettes(I can't get no) Satisfaction - The Rolling StonesBefore you go - Buck OwensBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent    https://www.50cent.com/Pary doll - Buddy KnowI loved em everyone - TG ShepperdBetty Davis eyes - Kim CarnesEvil ways - SantanaNobody wins - Radney FosterBlack Hole Sun - SoundgardenThat song in my head - Julianne HoughExit - Its not love - Dokken    https://dokken.net/Follow Jeff Stampka at Facebook and cooolmedia.com

This week's episode of Green Minds features Annie Shepperd OBE, whose decorated CV includes Chair of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), former Chief Executive of Salix Finance, and former Chief Executive of Walsall Council and the London Borough of Southwark.    In this episode, guest co-host Laurence and Lorenzo interview Annie about the role of local government in achieving net zero, Salix Finance's role in delivering energy efficiency and clean heat in the UK, how to create leaders in the fight against climate change, and CIWEM's work to ensure clean drinking water.    CIWEM's report, A Fresh Water Future, is available to read here: https://www.ciwem.org/policy-reports/fresh-water-future     Do you have any suggestions for guests or themes that we should take a closer look at? Feel free to drop us an email at podcast.greenminds@gmail.com  

Embark on a captivating odyssey with Andrew Shepperd as he shares his remarkable journey through China, weaving tales of adventure, cultural immersion, and entrepreneurial wisdom. From the bustling streets of Shanghai to the remote landscapes of Inner Mongolia, Andrew's exploration offers profound insights into resilience, humility, and the pursuit of inner peace amidst the complexities of modern life. Join us as we delve into his experiences, uncovering invaluable lessons for navigating both the geographical expanse of China and the entrepreneurial landscape of today's world. [00:35] - About Andrew Shepperd Andrew is an author and an entrepreneur. He is the author of a book titled, “Lost and Found in China.” He is also the Co-Founder and Director of Entrepreneurs Hub Limited.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tbcy/support

Highlight – “Everything Jesus did was Discipleship.”  In today's episode, Jason Shepherd discusses his revolutionary approach to Church Projects, a movement that started in 2010. He emphasizes the importance of distributing pastoral leadership, decentralizing church gatherings, and fostering diverse discipleship communities grounded in shared scripture. He also discusses the function of house churches and how they enrich the church community. Furthermore, he provides practical tips for managing kids within a house church setting and fostering powerful church growth. The discussion is tied together with a focus on aligning all church activities with Biblical teachings, values, and examples. Key Takeaways  00:00 Introduction and Prayer 07:09 The Concept of Distributed Pastoral Leadership 11:28 The Importance of Diverse Discipleship Communities 14:30 The Balance Between Large Gatherings and House Churches 19:18 Protecting Sound Doctrine in House Churches 20:30 The Role of House Church Pastors 23:56 The Health of House Churches 27:19 The Structure of House Church Gatherings 29:17 The Role of Children in House Churches 33:18 The Benefits of a Separate Sunday Gathering 36:59 The Church Project Network   Check out our popular ebook on Becoming a Disciple Maker Interested in taking an assessment on Disciple Making: Individual Disciple Maker Assessment To learn more about church project visit: https://www.churchproject.org/    Join Jason Shepperd at our National Forum this May on Disciple Making Culture  

SUBSCRIBE TO THE SALES SECRETS PODCASTITUNES ► https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/s...​SPOTIFY ► https://open.spotify.com/show/1BKYsQo...​YOUTUBE ► https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVUh...​THIS EPISODE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY SEAMLESS.AI - THE WORLD'S BEST SALES LEADSWEBSITE ► https://www.seamless.ai/LINKEDIN ► https://www.linkedin.com/company/seamlessai/JOIN FOR FREE TODAY ► https://login.seamless.ai/invite/podcastSHOW DESCRIPTIONBrandon Bornancin is a serial salesperson, entrepreneur and founder of Seamless.AI. Twice a week, Brandon interviews the world's top sales experts like Jill Konrath, Aaron Ross, John Barrows, Trish Bertuzzi, Mark Hunter, Anthony Iannarino and many more -- to uncover actionable strategies, playbooks, tips and insights you can use to generate more revenue and close more business. If you want to learn the most powerful sales secrets from the top sales experts in the world, Sales Secrets From The Top 1% is the place to find them.SALES SECRET FROM THE TOP 1%WEBSITE ► https://www.secretsalesbook.com/LINKEDIN ► https://www.linkedin.com/company/sales-secret-book/ABOUT BRANDONBrandon Bornancin is a serial salesperson (over $100M in sales deals), multi-million dollar sales tech entrepreneur, motivational sales speaker, international sales DJ (DJ NoQ5) and sales author who is obsessed with helping you maximize your sales success.Mr. Bornancin is currently the CEO & Founder at Seamless.ai delivering the world's best sales leads. Over 10,000+ companies use Seamless.ai to generate millions in sales at companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Slack, Dell, Oracle & many others.Mr. Bornancin is also the author of "Sales Secrets From The Top 1%" where the world's best sales experts share their secrets to sales success and author of “The Ultimate Guide To Overcoming Sales Objections.”FOLLOW BRANDONLINKEDIN ► https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandonbornancin/INSTAGRAM ► https://www.instagram.com/brandonbornancinofficial/FACEBOOK ► https://www.facebook.com/SeamlessAITWITTER ► https://twitter.com/BBornancin

Before there was ever a public broadcasting system in the USA there were "educational" broadcasters.

Our guest, Joshua Shepperd, is an expert on the history of radio. His recent book, Shadow of the New Deal, tells the amazing and often surprising story of the rise of public broadcasting in the United States. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kath and Jan are joined by old theatre pals and long-time married couple, Michael Shepperd and Hutchins Foster. We reminisce about the old days in Chicago when Kath, Jan and Michael were in “The Good Times are Killing Me” at City Lit, which was supposed to run for 6 weeks and ended up running for over a year, and is considered by all of us to be a true career highlight. Jan speaks of a very dark time in her life and how Michael managed to shine a little light on her to help her. We talk about Michael and Hutch's meet-cute at that infamous seedy bar in Brooklyn. We plug their various projects, including their YouTube channel @boozinwithgays4123 (can also be found on Facebook facebook.com/boozinwithgays) and how sometimes the demon gin can cause their own broadcast to devolve into fighting. We plug Michael's latest show Blood at the Root at Open Fist (www.openfist.org). Michael recalls his beloved mom Choice and how by the time Michael was of age, she was kind of over cooking, since she had six children, but many decades apart. Hutch remembers a series of Salvadoran housekeepers who had to do all the cooking under the tutelage of Sally, his glamorous mom. Kath tells the story of how she begged Hutch for five years to get his family's famous eggnog recipe – which she finally did. Michael tells Jan how to properly cook a pork chop. We talk about who cooks in the marriage (Hutch) and how their kids feel about food. It was so great to catch up with old friends who we don't get to see that much, even though we live in the same damn city, but that's LA for you. A terrific conversation – listen in!

National lollipop day. Entertainment from 2003. 1st moon landing, Sitting Bull surrendered, Assassination attempt on Hitler. Todays birthdays - Richard Owen, Edward Hillary, Buddy Knox, Diana Rigg, Natalie Wood, TG Shepperd, Kim Carnes, Carlos Santana, Donna Dixon, Radney Foster, Dean Winters, Chris Cornell, Sandra Oh, Julianne Hough. Bruce Lee died.Intro - Pour some sugar on me - Def Leppard http://defleppard.com/Lollipop - ChordettesCrazy in love - beyonceMy front porch looking in - LonestarBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent http://50cent.com/Party doll - Buddy KnoxI loved em everyone - TG ShepperdBetty Davis eyes - Kim CarnesEvil ways - Santana Nobody wins - Radney FosterBlack hole sun - SoundgardenThat song in my head - Julianne HoughExit - It's not love - Dokken http://dokken.net/

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Despite uncertain beginnings, public broadcasting emerged as a noncommercial media industry that transformed American culture. In Shadow of the New Deal: The Victory of Public Broadcasting (U Illinois Press, 2023), Josh Shepperd looks at the people, institutions, and influences behind the media reform movement and clearinghouse the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) in the drive to create what became the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Founded in 1934, the NAEB began as a disorganized collection of undersupported university broadcasters. Shepperd traces the setbacks, small victories, and trial-and-error experiments that took place as thousands of advocates built a media coalition premised on the belief that technology could ease social inequality through equal access to education and information. The bottom-up, decentralized network they created implemented a different economy of scale and a vision of a mass media divorced from commercial concerns. At the same time, they transformed advice, criticism, and methods adopted from other sectors into an infrastructure that supported public broadcasting in the 1960s and beyond. Connor Kenaston is an Assistant Professor of History and Ainsworth Scholar in American Culture at Randolph College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grab your Bible and your notes, this is a service you DON'T want to miss. Don't forget to send this to a friend!

How Guy Shepperd has seen health and fitness change after 40 years in the health care industryLinkedIn: Guy Shepperd

Jason Shepperd left a prevailing model mega-church to plant Church Project 13 years ago.Beginning with 40 people, the group now numbers more than 4,000 showing up on weekends. Much to Jason's chagrin, the weekend numbers are overwhelming. Overwhelming in that this is a gathering of house churches, not a weekend event. The weekends are designed to serve the house churches where the real stuff happens. The influx of weekend attendees presents problems that take time and effort to overcome by more rapid multiplication.You could say that Church Project is like what I've known as Hope Chapel on steroids. We planted churches from a hub of “MiniChurches” that met as a “weekend convention.” They operate similarly but are seeing local numbers that we never did. Our hubs topped at a couple of thousand. We reproduced ourselves often, but I think there is more long-term potential in the future than we knew in the past. These people are among a growing number of visionaries carrying the mission of Jesus to new levels.The problem is that of launching new Church Projects quickly enough to drain off the overload of people showing up on weekends. So far, they've reproduced themselves more than 70 times in several countries, including local Church Projects, the nearest of which is just three miles from the original gathering place. Each “project” is a cluster of house churches (they may meet in places other than homes) coming together for celebration and equipping on weekends.Church Project began as an experiment utilizing a simple ecclesiology derived from the book of Acts. The earliest believers mainly met in homes, as would the members of the Church Project. They built an elder body overseeing needs and operations, as exemplified in Paul's admonition to Titus in the first chapter of that letter. Because the ministry functions in homes, it requires a minimal staff to keep everything afloat. However, the even that team remains mostly hidden. The building used for weekly gatherings sports no identifying sign (in Texas, where megachurches glory in mega-neon). There is no published phone number. And the staff restrain themselves to equipping and enhancing the real pastors—who lead the house churches. They even have a theology of space. While many view church facilities as “sacred spaces,” these folks use space for “sacred purposes.” This frees their buildings, current and those acquired in earlier stages of growth, for the use of other groups—both profitmaking and non-profit. This approach drastically lowers the cost of owning real estate.This description could go on for several pages, but it is sufficient to alert you to a different working model than you've met before. This podcast will especially intrigue those hoping to plant clusters of microchurches without breaking wineskins. You can learn more about Jason Shepperd and Church Project at churchproject.org or by emailing me via the contact form at ralphmoore.net (Jason's info does not appear on the Church Project site).If you enjoy the podcast, you'll want to catch the other tools and insights available at ralphmoore.net. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jason Shepperd left a prevailing model mega-church to plant Church Project 13 years ago. Beginning with 40 people, the group now numbers more than 4,000 showing up on weekends. Much to Jason's chagrin, the weekend numbers are overwhelming. Overwhelming in that this is a gathering of house churches, not a weekend event. The weekends are designed to serve the house churches where the real stuff happens. The influx of weekend attendees presents problems that take time and effort to overcome by more rapid multiplication.You could say that Church Project is like what I've known as Hope Chapel on steroids. We planted churches from a hub of “MiniChurches” that met as a “weekend convention.” They operate similarly but are seeing local numbers that we never did. Our hubs topped at a couple of thousand. We reproduced ourselves often, but I think there is more long-term potential in the future than we knew in the past. These people are among a growing number of visionaries carrying the mission of Jesus to new levels.The problem is that of launching new Church Projects quickly enough to drain off the overload of people showing up on weekends. So far, they've reproduced themselves more than 70 times in several countries, including local Church Projects, the nearest of which is just three miles from the original gathering place. Each “project” is a cluster of house churches (they may meet in places other than homes) coming together for celebration and equipping on weekends.Church Project began as an experiment utilizing a simple ecclesiology derived from the book of Acts. The earliest believers mainly met in homes, as would the members of the Church Project. They built an elder body overseeing needs and operations, as exemplified in Paul's admonition to Titus in the first chapter of that letter. Because the ministry functions in homes, it requires a minimal staff to keep everything afloat. However, the even that team remains mostly hidden. The building used for weekly gatherings sports no identifying sign (in Texas, where megachurches glory in mega-neon). There is no published phone number. And the staff restrain themselves to equipping and enhancing the real pastors—who lead the house churches. They even have a theology of space. While many view church facilities as “sacred spaces,” these folks use space for “sacred purposes.” This frees their buildings, current and those acquired in earlier stages of growth, for the use of other groups—both profitmaking and non-profit. This approach drastically lowers the cost of owning real estate.This description could go on for several pages, but it is sufficient to alert you to a different working model than you've met before. This podcast will especially intrigue those hoping to plant clusters of microchurches without breaking wineskins. You can learn more about Jason Shepperd and Church Project at churchproject.org or by emailing me via the contact form at ralphmoore.net (Jason's info does not appear on the Church Project site). If you enjoy the podcast you'll want to catch the other tools and insights available at ralphmoore.net. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Vailes ("Joye") Shepperd is a captivating author. There are few historical novels about the successful Black experience before, during and after slavery. Because of a lack of documentation about the African American experience and culture during the early part of U.S. history, A Good Ending for Bad Memories (Bold Story Press, 2021), while fiction, is a true account of Black reality and culture in the U.S. It is full of compelling characters and rich settings, and adds to an important narrative. "Our history was not compiled and kept like others, but we all know stories that are important to know," Vailes relates. Her book's characters bring to life multiple aspects of the American Black experience, and her readers, like me, are the beneficiaries of her shared work. A Good Ending for Bad Memories is a richly sensual novel about a prosperous African American family before, during, and after slavery. It threads truth, folklore, legend and fact, in a captivating exploration of a family's complex legacy. The plot frames their experiences and events in the United States, as well as in Mexico and Egypt. Vailes brings her characters to life in a way I have not experienced, in recent memories. She shares that her brother is a poet but, I believe, Vailes's work sometimes reads like poetry. Vailes is one of the founding/member editors of the Washington Independent Review of Books (www.wirobooks.com), which began when The Washington Post ceased publishing Book World. She interviewed authors and wrote regular articles about writing for the Washington Independent Review. She designed a writing program for high school students while teaching in a Saturday program under the auspices of Substance Abuse Prevention Education. Vailes was editor of The African Safari by P.J. Fetner (St. Martin's Press) and Take Me with You by Scott Jackson, President and CEO of Global Impact. Her short story, "Monroe" was published in an anthology of women writing about men, Brothers and Others. She lives in Washington, DC with her husband and, sometimes, two sons. A Good Ending for Bad Memories is the first of four upcoming books. When asked what she does to become her best version, Vailes explains that "sometimes you just have to make a decision, like 'This is a good day. I am thankful to have this day and I'm going to make it the best I can. I'm going to smile at this. I'm going to look at something beautiful and smile.'" Vailes reminds us to be intentional about what we ingest with our minds. We all have the ability to control, more or less, what we allow into our orbit. Learn more (and check out her blog) here: https://linktr.ee/vailesshepperd https://www.vailesshepperdbooks.com/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/maria-leonard-olsen/support

Want to know what's happening in the world's most active and prolific oil and gas production area, the Permian Basin? Here you go.In this episode of The Energy Question, David Blackmon interviews Ben Shepperd, President of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. Created in the early 1960s, PBPA represents the interests of the oil and gas industry in the huge region, which spans most of West Texas and a big swath of Southeastern New Mexico.During the course of this interview, Ben discusses how reforms being made to the Texas power grid are impacting his members, New Mexico's ongoing irrational assault on an industry that funds 40% of its state budget, operational challenges currently happening in the Oil Patch, and an array of other topics.It's a fast-paced and informative half-hour with one of the real leaders in the Texas oil business.

This episode we have a guest Greg Mosley from Simpli.fi and Nick Sheppard from CinchIT.Welcome to the NerdBrand Podcast! In this episode it's the bots! Allll the bots! Thank you for listening in on the episode today. We're talking with Greg Mosely from simpli.fi, a programmatic advertising firm. Simpli.fi is a leader in programmatic advertising and agency management software delivering integrated omni-channel workflow that helps media buying organizations perform more effectively and efficiently. We also have Nick Sheppard, an Army Veteran who has been awarded a Bronze Star for combat operations in Iraq. Now, Nick is the Dark web spy for Cinch I.T. as well as The Regional Account Manager for the Louisville office. Some thought questions we sort of tackled:What are Simpli.fi's primary offerings?How many active daily campaigns are typically run by one client?Can you explain Geo-fencing vs Targeting (radial vs polygon)?The CIA has a podcast!Can you read my emails? Or hear my conversations in my house? (Nick)Support the show

M

Lead Pedal Truck of the Week Shepperd's Western Star Today's truck is a cool Western Star from the Big Rigs Truck Show. Each week Bruce picks a cool truck from the many truck shows he attends. Hearing about them is one thing, seeing them is another. Check out this cool ride! Check out the video on this featured truck by clicking here This episode is sponsored by Drive Weather. Trip planning is critical to a successful road trip especially for professional drivers and the Drive Weather App should be in every tool kit. Drive Weather is an app that tracks the weather specific to the route you choose allowing for you to know exactly the type of weather you will run into on the trip. It can be customized and has many other features that make it a must have app for people on the road. Download the app in your app store or visit www.driveweatherapp.com This episode is also sponsored by The Trucking Network which holds mega job fairs across the Country. You can learn about all the upcoming events at www.thetruckingnetworkevents.ca ISBMEE is having their next Biz and Breakfast Event on October 27th, 2022 in Milton Ontario. Learn more at www.ISBGlobalServices.com   About the Show LISTEN TO THE PODCAST- The show is available at www.theleadpedalpodcast.com  , ITunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Tunein, iHeartradio, SoundCloud, and other popular podcast platforms. Thanks for listening JOIN THE LEAD PEDAL PODCAST FAN CLUB www.TheLeadPedalPodcastFanClub.com LISTEN TO LEAD PEDAL RADIO at www.LeadPedalRadio.com The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers talks all things trucking for people in the transportation industry helping them improve their business and careers. Interviews with industry professionals and truck drivers, trucking information, and other features on the industry are meant to be helpful for truck drivers and those in transportation. The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers has main episodes released every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with bonus material on other days. You can learn more about the host and show on our website and make sure to SUBSCRIBE to the show on your favourite podcast platform. www.theleadpedalpodcast.com What does The Lead Pedal Podcast mean? The Lead (pronounced - Led) stands for acceleration or fast-track of your career or business. It is a play on words and we certainly are not here promoting speeding in the industry. We are hoping this information will help you become a professional driver faster than if you didn't know about many of these topics. Are you enjoying the show? If so we would appreciate you leaving us a rating and review on iTunes or on your favourite podcast platform. www.theleadpedalpodcast.com Join The Lead Pedal Podcast Fan Club where are loyal fans get first chance at specials, discounts on merchandise and much more.The club is free to join and you can learn more at www.theleadpedalpodcastfanclub.com    

hot dogs, pop culture 1971, natalie wood, edmund hillary, diana rigg, buddy knox, apollo 11 lands on moon, tg shepperd, carlos santana, kim carnes, julianne hough, chris cornell, sandra oh, dean winters, radney foster, donna dixon

Opening: #567 Holy, holy, holy, Lord god Almighty Readings: #1088 Psalm: #8 O Lord, our god, how wonderful your name in all the Earth Presentation: #712 The King of Love my Shepperd is Communion: #578 How Great thou art Closing: #611 All creatures of our God and King All music reproduced and streamed with permission from ONE LICENSE, license #A-723939. Celebrant: Father Daniel T. Straughn To listen by phone: (855) 768-8468 Today's readings (via USCCB): bible.usccb.org/daily-bible-reading For more information, visit our parish website at MaryQueenofPeacePGH.org.

­­Guest host and DUTV producer, John Gordon, interviews Guy Shepperd and Richie Davenport of Moose Media, Mossy Oak's video production company. Moose has field produced DU TV since 2013, capturing the best of waterfowl hunting and wetlands conservation around North America. Shepperd and Davenport discuss some of their favorite moments over the seasons while offering a behind-the-scenes look at DU TV. DUTV's 25th season kicks off in July on The Sportsman Channel. Watch your favorite episodes on ducks.org/media/du-tv/video, Ducks Unlimited's YouTube page, or MOTV. 

In this episode of the Sales Secrets podcast, founding partner of GrowthX and serial entrepreneur Sean Shepperd joins Brandon to talk about riding or fighting trends, and ensuring that you're creating opportunities out of failures. Sean also talks about our natural resistance to change, and how sellers can help clients overcome it.SUBSCRIBE TO SALES SECRETS PODCASTITUNES ► https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/s...​SPOTIFY ► https://open.spotify.com/show/1BKYsQo...​YOUTUBE ► https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVUh...​THIS EPISODE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY SEAMLESS.AI - THE WORLD'S BEST SALES LEADSWEBSITE ► https://www.seamless.ai/LINKEDIN ► https://www.linkedin.com/company/seamlessai/JOIN FOR FREE TODAY ► https://login.seamless.ai/invite/podcastSHOW DESCRIPTIONBrandon Bornancin is a serial salesperson, entrepreneur, and founder of Seamless.AI. Twice a week, Brandon interviews the world's top sales experts like Jill Konrath, Aaron Ross, John Barrows, Trish Bertuzzi, Mark Hunter, Anthony Iannarino, and many more -- to uncover actionable strategies, playbooks, tips, and insights you can use to generate more revenue and close more business. If you want to learn the most powerful sales secrets from the top sales experts in the world, Sales Secrets From The Top 1% is the place to find them.SALES SECRET FROM THE TOP 1%WEBSITE ► https://www.secretsalesbook.com/LINKEDIN ► https://www.linkedin.com/company/sales-secret-book/ABOUT BRANDONBrandon Bornancin is a serial salesperson (over $100M in sales deals), multi-million dollar sales tech entrepreneur, motivational sales speaker, international sales DJ (DJ NoQ5), and sales author who is obsessed with helping you maximize your sales success.Mr. Bornancin is currently the CEO & Founder at Seamless.AI delivering the world's best sales leads. Over 10,000+ companies use Seamless.ai to generate millions in sales at companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Slack, Dell, Oracle & many others.Mr. Bornancin is also the author of "Sales Secrets From The Top 1%" where the world's best sales experts share their secrets to sales success and author of “The Ultimate Guide To Overcoming Sales Objections.”FOLLOW BRANDONLINKEDIN ► https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandonbornancin/INSTAGRAM ► https://www.instagram.com/brandonbornancinofficial/FACEBOOK ► https://www.facebook.com/SeamlessAITWITTER ► https://twitter.com/BBornancin

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello Dreamers ! On this episode of What's Your Sound, We get to know Blake Shepperd a self made artist from Chicago, repping MN. His sound is like no other bringing EDM mixed w/ hip-hop. Please join us as we talk about his music and what inspires his creativity. Follow on all social media @blakeshepperd. Music Link: https://solo.to/blakeshepperd

Join Jamie & Simon as they Rewind Better Call Saul S1E5 and deep dive into the show's symbolism, symmetry and plot twists. From Wikipedia: Chuck's neighbor reports him for taking her newspaper. Mistakenly believing his empty propane cans and damaged electrical lines indicate illegal drug production, the police break down Chuck's door, taser him, then arrest him. Chuck is hospitalized, and the doctor, believing that his "disease" is psychosomatic, wants to have him committed, but Jimmy declines. Jimmy's newfound fame attracts less than promising clients, including one who wants to secede from the United States. He meets an elderly woman who wants him to prepare a will. Her bequests consist almost entirely of leaving her Hummel figurines to various friends and family members, but she pays in cash. Jimmy's rapport with her leads his colleague Kim Wexler to suggest that he specialize in elder law. Jimmy begins promoting himself at a nursing home, including clothing patterned after the titular character of the TV series Matlock. Mike is visited at home by several Philadelphia police officers.

Agatha Christie - The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd - Episode 2 - Agatha Christies Masterpiece of Whodunit!   HI, I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    And I'm Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love lit podcast.  This is our second and final episode discussing Christie's breakout novel, the one critics claim is her very best, The Murder or Roger Ackroyd.  Last week, we talked about the book in terms of it being a formal detective novel- a murder of manners as I read one critic describe the genre.  We discussed the conventions of the style.  We also introduced her most famous and beloved character, Hercule Poirot, and you left us, Christy, with a teaser saying you wanted to get back to the story of Christie, as in Agatha Christie and Poirot's relationship before we finish by spoiling for everyone who hasn't read it yet, who did kill Roger Ackroyd.  So, Christy, and it is slightly confusing- calling you Christy and then her being Dame Christie.  But even still,, here's the question to start with, Did Christie really hate Poirot?  He made Christie quite a bit of money over the years.  How could she hate  a character that had been so good to her?    Yes, I truly think she came to.  The first reason I feel confident making this claim is that she wrote an essay titled “Why I got Fed up with Poirot”-    Well, that certainly conveys at minimum a slight frustration.      Yes- the title is a little catchy.  I read the essay, and the first reason is simple, makes a lot of sense if you thnk about it.  She was just saddled with him- she didn't know when she made him up that she was going to closer to him than most husbands and she made him deliberately annoying to be around.  Some of her final words in that essay were advice to future writers and she says this, “I would give one piece of advice to young detective writers: be very careful what central character you create- you may have him with you're a very long time.”      HA!  So basically, his eccentricities the ones people find hilariously annoying just got on her last nerves over time.  She said once that he was a “detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep”.   Which is, of course, a nasty way of saying some of the same things she's said about him in her books, but often in her books she uses gentler terms.  He IS annoying- that's part of the schtick.  He DOES brag and constantly reminds his suspects that he always uncovers their lies.  Even in this book, up to the very end, he gloats and brags on himself from the beginning to end.      Oh for sure!  And since she wrote him in 33 novels, two plays and over 50 short stories. I can only imagine he was with her, at least in the back of her mind, always.  If he's not like a husband, he's certainly like her child, maybe that's the right metaphor.  But I do think it went even beyond her being annoyed with him, as a character.  Poirot, in very obvious ways,  limited her as a writer.  In that same essay she also said this, “  My own Hercule Poirot is often somewhat of an embarrassment to me – not in himself, but in the calling of his life. Would anyone go and ‘consult' him? One feels not.    So, it seems as if it bothered her that he wasn't as realistic as she would have written him, maybe later in life?    I think it's something along those lines.  He was a great schtick, but there was schtick element to it, in many ways.   He didn't allow her to develop her writing or even her thematic ideas-  he was just too silly.   Her great- grandson, James Pritchard spoke to this to the BBC.  He said that in her own words she wanted to “exorcise herself of him” but he was her- and again in her own words- “bread and butter”.  He was of immense commercial importance to her, if not of great creative importance in some ways.   According to Pritchard she had so many other ideas for books that weren't appropriate for Poirot, but her agents and publishers would come back and remind her he was his most popular character. And so, there was the conundrum…although I have to admit, I'd love to have a problem like that.    Yes, I think many of us would, although I can kind of see where she's coming from.  We hear actors from time to time express ideas similar that.  Famously, I remember George Reeves, who was the original Superman, complained all the way until his strange and mysterious suicide that he just hated always being Superman.  Or more recently, one example that comes to mind might be Daniel Ratcliffe who noticeably has worked incredibly hard to demonstrate that he is not just Harry Potter, but a versatile actor.  What I find interesting about Christie's relationship with Poirot is that she was loyal or maybe even jealous of him.    Explain that.    She took great pains not to let anyone else have him.  During WW2, Christie, like many patriotic British celebrities chose to stay was in London during the Blitz.  In other words, not taking advantage of the privilege of wealth and fame to ride the war out in America or some other safe destination.  If you remember, the Blitz is what we call the eight months during 1940-1941 when the Nazis sieged London as well as other large and important British cities with constant bombings. But choosing to stick it out during the bombings is not the same as not being concerned that the decision might cost you your life.   Fearing she might not survive the attacks, she wrote two stories that killed off each of her most famous detectives – Poirot and Miss Marple. She included a provision in her will that the stories would be published if she were to die in the war. But fortunately for us, she didn't die in the war and Poirot hung around to annoy his creator for three more decades.    True, and it wasn't until 1975, when her own health began to fail that , she finally published Curtain, the novel she wrote during World War II, which killed off Poirot. It wasn't but a few months later, in 1976, that Christie herself died- so you can see, she kept him around her entire adult life.  I would tell you how Poirot dies, but you never want to give too much away about Christie novels- the surprises are the fun part- but it is a really great conclusion.  Oh and one more thing- and this is really to Poirot's credit, maybe more than Christie's, the public reaction to what Christie did in her final novel was so tremendous that Hercule Poirot was the first ever fictional character to get a front page obituary in the New York Times. On August 6, 1975, a headline ran announcing, “Poirot is Dead; Famed Belgian Detective; Hercule Poirot, the Detective, Dies”.     Incredible!  Truly, so back to our story.  Last week, we talked about all the ways, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd fits the bill for a traditional formal detective novel: the setting, the characters, the weapon, the investigative style, all of it cul minating in a happily ever after ending where the world is left back in an orderly fashion- where justice is served- you even brought up the mah jong game, and even suggested that Christie may even be constructing a subtle argument that life is better in community playing by the rules.  Where life is better lived when and where people interact and engage each other deliberately- where people organize and live according to commonly agreed-upon rules of engagement…or something like that…And now this week, we are going to see that all that talk about rules is just a cruel joke to seduce us into a game where she is NOT going to follow the rules of the game.  And here's the spoiler, so if you haven't read the book, unplug now…fair warning….drum roll for the reveal….. the narrator is the murderer!!!  That's unfair!!!  Even according to Christie's own set of rules.    And yet is it? and I assume, by rules you are referring to the rules of the Detection Club.   In 1930, a group of mystery writers, Agatha Christie, among them but also others one example being, interestingly enough, the  AA Milne who's most famous for giving us Winnie the Poo.  The Detection Club actually still exists, btw.  You have to be formally invited, and obviously it's prestigious.   But, to be a member, you swear an oath- and of course, it's a bit tongue in check but you are asked to foreswear any of the bad practices of mystery writing.  Garry, read for us the oath.     “Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect crimes presented to them using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence or Act of God?    It's awesome, and gives you a distinct impression that this is  a fun bunch to be associated with.  The Detection Club hosts formal dinners and other social things, but also The members collaborate with ideas, encourage each other with their individual works and even at times have co-written  books together.  Beyond the oath though, they also have what they call the “fair play rules” of detective novels.  There are ten of them.  One rule is that the detective himself will not commit the murder.  But here's the one that people claim Christie broke with Dr. Shepperd.  Rule number 9- let's read that one     And I quote- The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.    What we have to recognize, and what is so awesome about how Christie wrote the book is that Dr. Shepperd, the narrator who is actually our murderer never lies tp us.  He never conceals anything that happens during the investigation at all really- the facts are the facts.  He faithfully relays what is going on.  In one sense of the word, he is faithful to us, but, of course, as we reread the book knowing that he's the murderer- we can see that we are deliberately misled at every point.  Here's one example of what I'm talking about.  On the night that Ackroyd is murdered, Shepperd is the ONLY one with him.  He's the last one to see him.  Naturally, that should make him the first and perhaps most important suspect.  Everyone knows that, but in our minds we dismiss the obvious…until we know than it jumps out on the page.  Let's read the actual murder scene as we know it no in retrospect.    Page 43    So, from the first read, we think Shepperd walked out before Ackroyd read the letter.  Shepperd intends for us to read it exactly like that.  And of course- everything here is true-    Well, there are only a few omissions literally accounting for only give minutes of narrative- he left out the small detail that he murdered Roger Ackroyd, ran down to the summerhouse, took Ralph Patton's shoes out of a bag, slipped them on, walked through mud, left prints on the window ledge, climbed in the same window, changed back into his own shoes and raced down to the gate.       HA!!!  Well, it turns out a lot can happen in five minutes.  But it's also not inaccurate to say, as he did say in summary- he left with nothing left undone- meaning he staged the murder exactly as he wanted- nothing undone.     And yet, Christie gets everyone to just blow right pass that omission- which when I read the book the second time jumped out at me as being obvious.     How does she make us dismiss him?   I'll admit the thought crossed my mind that Shepperd should be a suspect.  There were things that were odd, but I ended up quickly dismissing anything that would make me even question him.     Exactly, for one thing, we have been conditioned by Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and Christie plays with this.  We expect the sidekick to be naïve and overconfident- look at the rules of fairplay- of being of slightly lower intelligence than us.  Watson always is. Also, if you have read any other Poirot story, you would really be at a disadvantage because even Poirot has a sidekick- one he references in this book- Captain Hastings.  What Christie has done is make a parody of the old model.  She used our own experience of reading other detective novels against us.  She's kind of mocking the model, is some sense.       In other words, She's toying with our prejudices and previously held assumptions- encouraging us to entertain our own unconscious biases- to use a term we would use for this default judgement nowadays.  We don't even realize we're doing it- it's unconscious.      I think so, we don't even know we're doing it, and yet we do- and she does this while clearly and making the most important clues the most obvious- with one exception- the dictophone.  There's only one reference to that and it is a passing reference, and some people have said that's not fair, but I think that's just sour grapes- to use a reference to Aesop's fables.   The other clues are very prominent.  Poirot is quick to point out that the arm chair is out of place.  This is a very important clue.  In fact, it's obvious to the reader the Christie wants us to know it's important, but we don't know what to do with it.    That's how I felt about the telephone call. Poirot references it multiple times, and literally says if we could make sense of the phone call, we would solve the mystery.  We know the phone call is the most important thing, but that didn't help me solve it.  I never did understand it until Poirot explained it.    And Shepperd's double-talk is really everywhere.  Look back at what Shepperd said about the last time he spoke with MRs. Ferrars before her suicide.  He said, “Her manner then had been normal enough considering-well-considering everything.”  We think he means considering the fact that she'd killed her husband, but what he actually means, considering everything- considering that she killed her husband AND that he was blackmailing her.      Well, my favorite deception is the one where Dr. Shepperd hollers at Ackroyd, while knowing he's dead.  He breaks down the door then states this to us the reader and let me quote him directly, “Ackroyd was sitting as I had left him in the armchair before the fire.  His head had fallen sideways, and clearly visible, just below the collar of his coat, was a shining piece of twisted metalwork.”  That IS EXACTLY how he left him, but we are left to assume he meant- except for the knife in his neck, but he doesn't actually say that.  WE think it on our own. We construct the rest of the statement with our own unconscious biases.  Of course, the knife wasn't in his neck, that would mean Dr. Shepperd killed him which of course he couldn't have.  He's the narrator, so we unconsciously add something to the narrative that is not there.       It's very clever wording.  Changing directlions just a little bit.  I want to talk about a trick that Poirot does over and over again  that I didn't catch on to until Poirot's revelation at the very end.  Poirot gives out quite a few  false stories.  We really shouldn't believe eveyrthing he says at all.   Had I understood he did that, I might have had a fighting chance at following Poirot's line of reasoning, although likely not.  Poirot is the one with a habit of fabricating stories, or little false lies, not Shepperd.    There was the fake experiment with Flora the one where he was trying to see if Flora had actually gone in the study, or if she had just gone in front of the study to get to the stairs that led to Ackroyd's bedroom.  But that's not the only one, and we're at least told about that one.  And In that case,  Poirot regularly lets Shepperd into his confidence about his lying, which made me think Poirot trusted Shepperd.  He admitted to Shepperd the truth about the ring when that lie was told as well as the fake newspaper story.  Christie misleads us to the assumption that Poirot implicitedly trusts Shepperd because he was telling Shepperd some things.  We assume he is telling Shepperd everything, if not explaining any line of reasoning. But he wasn't, we find out later that Poirot had fabricated an entire family member.        Another point that becomes clear in the all important chapter 23, that's the chapter about little reunion, is that even Poirot agrees with Shepperd's retelling of the investigation.  Poirot even compliments Shepperd for his faithful retelling of the investigation.      It's kind of an interesting section once you understand Poirot knows Shepperd is the murderer.  Poirot doesn't let on anything.   Shepperd confesses to Poirot that he has been writing the account of the murder in book form and had 20 chapters already written.  Poirot asks to read it, referencing his old friend Hastings.  After he finishes reading Shepperd's account- ironically while sitting in Shepperd's own workshop where he built the contraption he was going to use in the murder, Shepperd asks Poirot what he thinks.      Let's read Poirot's carefully chosen comments- knowing that we now know on the second read that Poirot knows he's talking to the murderer.    Page 255     Such irony- Poirot is deceiving the deceiver. And when we get to the little reunion, it becomes obvious that Poirot had been concealing a LOT of things from Shepperd including the fact that he had hidden Ralph Patton the whole time while letting Shepperd frame him or at least appear guilty to everyone.  Another really ironic line from Dr. Shepperd is what he says to us the readers the moment Ralph Patton walks out.  It's the first sentence of chapter 24, Shepperd sees Ralph coming in and he says, “It was a very uncomfortable minute for me.”    I imagine it really was.  And yet, even at this point with that kind of comment in our faces, we still don't suspect the doctor of being the murderer.  But we definitely should. Shepperd confesses that he secretly went to Ralph Patton, talked him into abandoning his wife and then stashed him in a hospital.  When Poirot brings out Patton, it's uncomflrtable because Shepperd was the one that had hid Patton.  Poirot wasn't supposed to know where he was at all.  When Patton walks out, what's uncomfortable for Shepperd is realizing that Poirot has known for a long time where Patton was hidden, and if Poirot knew where he was hidden, he knew who was responsible for hiding him.  Awkward.    True, but maybe Christie's biggest deception as far as what she's concealed from us the readers and that kept us from suspecting Shepperd is that we really didn't see him as having a motive.  Why kill his friend?  And he and Ackroyd were clearly friends.  What made Dr. Shepperd commit this heartless crime?      Part of the fun of reading a detective novel is understanding how someone committed a crime.  That is more fun than understanding they why of why they did it.  We know from real life that people kill for so endless reasons some of them terribly meaningless, we don't need a lot by way of justification.  But in this case, Dr. Shepperd doesn't seem the type to commit a random murder.  He didn't have a clear personal issue with Ackroyd, either.  They don't seem in love with the same woman, so we have to rule- crime of passion-  out.  It's hard to imagine Shepperd would do it for the money either, although doctors weren't necessarily rich in those days, they were employed and Shepperd expresses no real habits that would be high-dollar like gambling or traveling or anything like.  But maybe more importantly, doctors just normally seem committed to saving lives rather than ending them- and he's seeing patients all the way to the end of the book. There's no obvious motive really.      Poirot answers this for us very subtextually in chapter.  He has come back from Cranchester, knows Shepperd is the murderer, and tells Caroline and Shepperd as well as us, the readers, why he did it- of course Caroline thinks he's talking about Ralph Patton.        Page 202      Christie speaks about weakness several times and has Caroline call her brother weak several times.  It's not necessarily evil, as we generally define evil, which I find very interesting- but of course is absolutely IS evil in this case because it leads to the taking of life.      Yes, and from a historical perspective, this is where I find that knowing something about the author's background changes my understanding of what she is saying.  We know Christie publishes this novel in 1926.  She was a nurse during WW1.  No one in Europe was untouched by evil.  Everyone was trying to understand it and confront it, but most were unsuccessul.    It is out of this kind of madness that we get great thinking and writing of a different kind, writers like Kafka, Sartre, Dostoyesky, Camus were all talking about the purpose of life, the cause of evil, the ability to keep from committing physical and/or mental suicide- of finding purpose in meaningless tragedy- that sort of thing.  Hemingway and Fitzgerald even Steinbeck on this side of the Atlantic were doing the same thing.  In fact, in our next book we're going to get neck deep in Camus' ideas of the absurd as expressed in the Stranger.   Knowing this was what people were dealing with and writing about makes it  safe to infer that Christie was not oblivious to the thoughts of the age and  certainly not above making her own commentary on the essence of evil.     Evil, embedded in the heart of every man, is an ancient idea- not an original one.  It's even a Biblical idea.   But she situates it in a claustrophobic, safe enclosed environment- not a chaotic warzone.   There are no outside forces forcing people into impossible moral compromises.  She illustrates something different.  There is weakness from within regardless of the environment- it is in a single, seemingly simple but brilliant country doctor, a man who is a community icon- the bastion of propriety and virtue in his world.      Which of course, makes him invisible to everyone, even us the readers.  Are you suggesting Shepperd embodies her ironic social commentary?    She's engaging her postwar countrymen while appearing to NOT engage them- it's very Hercule Poirot-like.    I kind of see it that way- I can only imagine what she saw in those patient beds during the war days.  If it is anything close to what Walt Whitman talked about it must have supported the idea of a deeply embedded weakness in every human being- good people showing up maybe even confessing to having committed horrible atrocities to themselves and others.   There were easy opportunities for exploitation too, beyond just the obvious war zones.    Exactly the source of PTSD in a lot of people.      Which brings us to the solution of our murder. So, at the very end, chapter 20, it finally occurs to Shepperd that Poirot may not be so easily fooled as he originally thought…and I quote, “it occurred to me that there was not much which escaped Hercule Poirot”.  Poirot invites all of the suspects over to his house for, as he called it “a little conference”.  This conference will even include the notorious Ralph Patton, although no one knows that until he reveals himself.  But of course, in typical detective book fashion, they all go to the meeting.      Before we get there, though, I do pause for one more funny aside and bring up a comment Caroline makes about men,     Oh dear.    I know, right,  in chapter 22, Ursula is making a confessional to Caroline basically admitting that she had said some very nasty things to Ralph Patton that she regrets saying to which Caroline responds with this deep and insightful life lesson for us all, “Never worry about what you say to a man. They're so conceited that they never believe you mean it if it's unflattering.”  So, Garry, what do you think about that little comment…is it true?    Well, all I have to say is that Caroline has been wrong about everything else.  I don't know why you'd start taking life lessons from her now?  This is the same woman that is trying to fake being a vegetarian to a world-class detective.      True, but funny.  Which us brings us back to chapter 23.  This is where Dr. Shepperd gives over to Poirot his narrative of the events of the murder investigation.  It's also where Poirot collects all the suspects in a single room.    Dr. Shepperd should have been worried when Caroline tries to maneuver an invitation to the activity and is rebuffed with this comment, “I should much like to have had you present, mademoiselle, but at this juncture it would not be wise. See, all these people tonight are suspects.  Amongst them, I shall find the person who killed Mr. Ackroyd.”       That should have tipped off not only Dr. Shepperd but the reader as well.  Why does Dr. Shepperd get to go, unless of course, he's a suspect?     It's a fun chapter to read really.  Part of the fun of the detective story is reconstructing the thought processes that led to the discovery- we get to identify with the detective as well as the murderer.  In this chapter, we do both- and we get to identify creatively with all of the little crimes of all the secret- keepers, Ursula, Mrs. Russell, Flora.  He discloses everyone's secrets one by one, and so far everyone is getting a happy ending.      After everyone leaves, we are left alone with Dr. Shepperd and Poirot and hence we have our confrontation.  Dr. Shepperd reveals all the details of the murder, and we, as readers, are shocked and confused as to how we missed it up to that point.  Ironically, Shepperd's book that he wrote with the idea of monetizing Poirot's greatest failure as a detective, ironically has turned out to be something of a confession.   Let's read the final interaction between Poirot and Dr. Shepperd.    Page 282     The final chapter, the Apologia is positioned as if it were Dr. Shepperd's suicide note- except Dr. Shepperd just told us that above all, he is no fool.  And this is where the story gets ambiguous- are we to believe that this guy committed suicide?  Poirot tells him to. He tells him to rewrite his book and confess to the murder- which I guess he does since that's what we're reading.  But does he?  The apologia in many ways is him boasting about how far along he actually got.  He doesn't express remorse, and I quote, “I suppose I must have meant to murder him all along.”  He goes on to say, “I am rather pleased with myself as a writer.”  He literally quotes himself bragging about how he concealed the murder in the pages of the book we just read.    We now see in this very confessional that not only is he a flat out deceiver, but the object was not necessarily to deceive Poirot as it was to deceive the readers of this narrative.  So….does he do it again….are we deceived in thinking he's killed himself and taken the Veronal…or does Dr. Shepperd get away?      Ha!  Clearly Christie doesn't live within the world of perpetual sequels or telenovelas or she just might have written, to be continued.      Well, we hope you've enjoyed our discussion on one of the world's favorite mystery writers and her stand out crime story- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.  IT certainly has been fun for me.  And speaking of fun, please don't overlook our merchandise- if you're interesting in supporting the podcast or just need a fun happy for someone…we've got you covered..stickers, mugs, tshirts…all the things…they are there with our teaching materials on our website www.howtolovelitpodcast. Also, always feel free to connect with on social media- fb, insta, twitter, linked in- or simply via email.             

Agatha Christie - The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd - Episode 1 - Meet The Author That Made The Whodunit What It Is Today!   I'm Christy Shriver, and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    And I'm Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  For the next two episodes, we are going to discuss an author who for me flies under the radar when we think of literary icons.  When you look at the lists of the world's greatest writers and/or novels, she's never on then.  Yet, she has sold more books than any other novelist in the world- bar none.  Her books collectively in terms of sales rank only after The Holy Bible and the works of William Shakespeare, totally over 2.3 billion copies sold.  Those kinds of numbers we only talk about when we're talking about Amazon, Google or the National Debt of entire countries.      HA! So true.    She is also the author of the single longest running play ever to play in London's West End.  The name of that play, The Mousetrap,  opened in London's West End in 1952 and ran continuously until 16 March 2020, when all stage performances were discontinued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Performances of The Mousetrap restarted on March 17, 2021, as soon as state restrictions were lifted.  In case, you haven't figured out who we're talking about yet, today we're discussing the Queen of Crime, Dame Agatha Christie.    It really and truly is impressive how enormous of a body of work that Mrs. Christie has AND how influential her work has become.  For clarification, why do we say Dame Agatha Christie.     Of course, Dame is the feminine equivalent of Sir, it's a honorific title, in her case, she received an Order of Dame Commander of the British Empire in 1971 from Queen Elizabeth II.   Oh wow, that sounds very impressive however, at the same time, people, far less successful- non-recipients of Commander titles from Queen Elizabeth I might add, scoff at her and her work.  Many claim she's not to be taken seriously, her work isn't sophisticated, it's clichéd, yada-yada-yada…They say this in spite of all the big numbers.  Garry, beyond the big 2.3 billion in sales, quantify for us in other ways what the data reveals about Dame Christie.     Sure, first there's the amount of works she produced.  She famously wrote 66 detective novels, 14 collections of short stories (that's 150 short stories) as well as over 30 plays.  The most famous, we already mentioned, The Mousetrap.  But there are other numbers to consider, beyond just how much she produced.  Because of the long running status of The Mousetrap, her name has been in the newspapers of the West End every day without fail with the exception of 2020 since 1952 (btw, just in case you are doing the math on the performances, that number is over 25,000 of the Mousetrap- and that is just in London's West End). .   She tried to retire at the age of 75, but her books were selling so well, she said she'd give it five more years.  She actually wrote until one year before her death at age 86.   Less famously she wrote six semi-autobiographical, bitter-sweet novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott.   Interestingly enough, it took 20 years for the world to uncover the identity of Mary Westmacott as being the detective icon Agatha Christie.      That is a funny fact to me, I guess she thought it would ruin her reputation to write sappy books?.  I haven't read them, but her daughter Rosalind Hicks had this to say about her mother's romantic books. "They are not ‘love stories' in the general sense of the term, and they certainly have no happy endings. They are, I believe, about love in some of its most powerful and destructive forms."  They were moderately successful in their own right , even without her name of the cover, and Christie was said to be proud of that accomplishment, but obviously romance wasn't her forte.   Beyond just the quantity of work she produced, the amount of it we've consumed as a planet is also incredible.  Today her books are translated in over 100 languages, 48 million, at least have watched her movies, including I might add the one that is out right now, Death on the Nile Here's a. numbers fun-fact, in 1948 she became. the first crime writer to have 100,000 copies of ten of her titles published by Penguin on the same day in what is called - A Penguin Million   Oh wow- I guess that's like going platinum of something in the music industry.   I'd say that's a platinum in a day- usually the term going platinum refers to selling a million over the course of a life time- a single day is crazy..  In terms of dollars, I tried to find a good figure, but I don't really know.  At the time of her death, it's estimated she was worth $600 million, but she had incorporated her work in a business, of course, which of course lives on chaired and managed by Agatha Christie's great grandson James Prichard.    To me, it's an amazing resume, and I'm not a literary person, so obviously I'm looking at this differently, but I don't see how anyone could realistically contest that she's a good writer.  It sounds laughable in the face of so much success- if that's not good writing, how could we possibly measure it?  HA!  It shows how much you know- you'd make a perfectly horrible literary snob.  Everyone who's anyone knows, you can't go by the views of the lowly general population aka, the box-office!!!    Oh, well there is that.  But, just for those of us, who don't know, in all seriousness how can you explain her success away?  Well, no one is going to do that.  Obviously, but it does boil down to how you define your fiction.  In one sense, we can divide fiction into two broad categories- there's literary fiction and commercial fiction.  Obviously, commercial fiction is written to be sold.  It's the reason there are more Marvel movies than I can count on both my hands and toes.  They sell well and are enjoyable to consue.  It's why there are multiple versions of basically the same Spiderman movie, or double-digit sequels to Star Wars.  Now, there is nothing wrong with any of that that- we love it.  Every bit of that is fun and defines the culture of the world in some sense.   But there is a sense, and this is the English teacher nerd, that some of us find those pieces unsatisfying over the long term- and not worth teaching as a work of art in school.  There are many books we just don't care to read more than once.  There are many movies and songs we feel the same way about.  They are good but not considered of literary merit because there is no enduring quality to them.  On the flip side, there are other books that speak to man's condition., that expresses universal truths, that reflect something about the world that resonates inside of us- which is why we can read, watch or listen to them over and over again and still love it.  I would suggest that The Scarlet Letter or Hamlet are examples of that.  When we read them agin, we find something else that perhaps we didn't see before, of even if we did see it beflre, it satisfies something eternal inside of us to hear it once again.  The knock on Agatha Christie is that they say she's full-on commercial fiction and there is just nothing universally true about what she has to say.  The critique is that her characters are flat and underdeveloped, even the main ones.   The main character in our book is Hercule Poirot but her other main reoccurring character is a woman named Miss Marple – both are sort of shallow, honestly, featureless except for maybe being kind of annoying.  Christie investigates crime, but she doesn't really seem all that interested in any of the existential or moral questions surrounding crime-  like what social causes lead people to these actions.  She doesn't explore any social, psychological or moral issues of any kind in any real obvious way?   And do you agree with that?  Well, honestly, a little.  You can't deny that the characters are flat, and, it's absolutely true, she doesn't get into any deep discussions about the nature of man.  But having acknowledged that, I cannot discount the numbers, and so I feel compelled to think about it more deeply.   Well, and just to add to the confusion, we've been poking fun at the hoi polloi here, but from what I read, Christie is popular primarily with higher educated audiences.  She is a preferred writer of the world's academic elites.    I know, and she has been since she started writing a far more accomplished litearary critic than myself was a ardent fan of Agatha Christie, the Nobel Prize winner, TS Eliot.  Eliot actually loved all crime fiction, especially Agatha Christie.  He even wrote about it from a critical standpoint.  For TS Eliot, good crime fiction had to follow five basic rules.  Let me read these to you:  (1) The story must not rely upon elaborate and incredible disguises.  (2) The character and motives of the criminal should be normal. In the ideal detective story we should feel that we have a sporting chance to solve the mystery ourselves; if the criminal is highly abnormal an irrational element is introduced which offends us.  (3) The story must not rely either upon occult phenomena, or, what comes to the same thing, upon mysterious and preposterous discoveries made by lonely scientists.  (4) Elaborate and bizarre machinery is an irrelevance.  (5) The detective should be highly intelligent but not superhuman. We should be able to follow his inferences and almost, but not quite, make them with him.    I think I must agree with the Nobel- prize winner.  We do intuitively feel that way about a good crime novel.  So, taking Elliot's list as the standard or rubric for crime novels, should that have different standards than other books or rather- No insight to life or theme necessary?  Oh, I don't know about that.  I think anything that lasts 100 years, as does the book we're going to discuss- The Murder of Roger Ackroyd,  it turns 100 in June of 2026, - anything people are reading for that long-  must be saying something.  So the mystery the mystery novel is what resonates with our souls in these works?  HA!  A little irony.   Yes, but before we get into the nitty, gritty about what makes this book great, oh and make no mistake, it IS considered great. The 2013  The Crime Writers Association claimed The Murder of Roger Ackroyd to be the greatest crime novel of all times- so there you go for a shout out- I haven't read enough crime novels to contest them.- but before we talk about this particular book- let's talk about Christie' life, for just a bit, and bring us up to speed on how this book came about.  She has a bit of a mystery embedded in her life story as well.  Indeed- but I will say, one thing I do enjoy about the books is that, at least the ones I've read, are often set in this very English very Victorian setting.  There's some fun in that.  True, you can't say that Christie didn't write about what she knew.  She was born in Torquay in 1890..  Torquay is a seaside town on the Southeastern side of the UIK.  I saw one article that called it the. English Riviera.  It's a resort town, and once even Elizabeth Barrett Browning was sent there to help recover her health.  Her family was an upper-middle class family,  In other words, they were financially well-enough but not limitlessly wealthy.  One interesting to note is that that family did not approve of her learning and didn't want her to read until she was eight.  It seems the general attitude of the time is that smart girls had trouble finding reliable husbands that wanted them (I'm not going to speak to that thought).  Oh dear, I would like to say that I find smart women immeasurably attractive.    Well, thank you, darling.  In her case, there was no holding even little Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller (that's her maiden name), back.  Apparently, she just picked it up on her own, and eventually her nurse had to confess that Agatha had taught herself to read.  HA!  Oh my, there's a rebel.  Well, did they relinquish ahd let her go to school at that point.  Well, it depends on what you mean by school.  When she turned 15, they sent her to Paris to attend finishing school.  I probably could have used that kind of support myself, honestly.  At Mrs. Dryden's finishing school she studied singing and piano playing.  This is what Christie herself said about it years later, “I am hazy now as to how long I remained at Miss Dryden's – a year, perhaps eighteen months, I do not think as long as two years.”    So, not reading Voltaire or Flaubert.   Well, maybe she did, but not because she was forced to.  But, reading was not her only rebellious streak.  In 1914, Agatha met, fell in love with and became engaged  on Christmas Eve to the man of her dreams,  A very handsome war pilot named Archie Christie.  Unfortunately, this was not the match her mother had in mind for her.    What was wrong with him?  Well, not his looks or personality,  He seemed to have that covered.  His problem was that He had no money.  But they married and a few months later Rosalind, her only daughter was born.  During WW1 Archie went off to war.  Agatha stayed home, trained and worked as a nurse at the local Red Cross hospital in Torquay- and let me add here, this is where she got her start learning so much about drugs- something she became very knowledgeable of and used successfully during her entire career.  In 56 of her novels there are over 200 references to specific, individual drugs.    So, can we expect that a large number of her characters will get poisoned?  No, not necessarily,although that IS a thing.  The most commonly dispensed drugs by Mrs. Christie were sedatives.  As you might expect, if someone is always being murdered, you may need to have a supply on hand to calm down or even put to sleep your cast of suspects.  But there are pain relievers, stimulants, blood pressure medicines, barbituates and even antidotes to other poisons.      Of course, our book, The Murder of Roger Ackrod has three drugs: liniment for a knee problem, tonic as a stimulant and of course, veronal which is the cause of a lethal overdose early in the story.    Yes, so after the war,  In 1920, after six rejections, her first real novel finally got published for $25 (pounds),- not a big risk on the part of the publisher. The title of that book was The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and it introduced the world to a 5'4 Belgian refugee who would charm and annoy readers for over 100 years, Hercule Poirot.  It did well, but her breakthrough novel would be her third novel.  It came out in the summer of 1926.  It became a best seller and launched her into a stardom from which she would never return, which is remarkable, but honestly, it's not the most interesting to happen to her that year.   I'm not sure how you top becoming a best seller.  I know, right, but it can be bested!  So, the story goes that the year 1926, in general, starts out a little rough.  Agatha's mother, who was very dependent on her daughter, died in April- and this was devastating for Agatha.  But, while she was at her mother's estate with their seven year old daughter, Rosalind, Archie revealed that he had fallen in love with another woman by the name of Nancy Neele, and he wanted a divorce.  Agatha said no.  She was deeply in love with him, and she wasn't willing to give him up.  Well on December 3 of that same year, Archie informed Agatha that he did not want to be married to her and he wasn't going to be married to her.  To somewhat reinforce this idea, he told her he was going off for the weekend with Ms. Neele.- which he did.  Apparently, Agatha did not receive this news well..and this is where the mystery begins…..and it does sound quite a bit like a story she would write.  So at 9:45pm, we know that Agatha left the house in her car after having written three letters- one to her secretary Charlotte Fisher, one to Archie and one to Archie's brother Campbell.   So far, I feel like I listening to an explanation by Piorot.    Exactly, and here is where it gets very strange.  Agatha does not return home.  In fact, she will be missing for 11 days.  The next day they find her car crashed in a tree above a local quarry with the head lights still on.  Her fur coat was in the car as well as  a small suitcase and an expired driver's license.  There was no blood anywhere in the car.   There were no skid marks on the road like you might have expected if she had been driving too fast and there had been an accident.  Finally the gearshift was in neutral, the way it would be if you had been pushing the car and not driving it.   It makes no sense, but Agatha was gone.    Well, the world went nuts.  Numbers very but possibly up to a 1000 police officers were dispatched on four countinents looking for her.  15,000 volunteers, fans, amateur detectives and so forth, joined the hunt. They used airplanes and diving equipment.  Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle joined in- remember that's Sherlock Holmes.  He took Christie's glove to his medium for a consultation to see if she could find her.    I'm guessing no.  No.  She wasn't in the afterlife. Everyone around the world was looking for this mystery writer.  When Archie got back from his weekend activity- which quite likely was an engagement party a friend threw for him and Nancy, he found a very different world- than just the unpleasantness of fighting again with Agatha; , now he was a potential murder suspect.  He also found his letter, which curiously he and burned immediately- to this day,  no one has any idea what she wrote in that letter.  His brother, Campbell, got his later, and strangely again, his letter was postmarked on Saturday AFTER Agatha went missing,  This does sound like Hercule Poirot and I'm starting to need to employ my little gray cells just to keep up.    Exactly, what secret did Campbell carry that also caused him to dispose of his letter as well.  Everything seemed to indicate that Archie had murdered her.  The police dragged the ponds, searched everywhere, it was in every newspaper on earth… until on December 14th, two musicians report seeing Mrs. Christie at a luxury spa called the Harrogate Hydro.  She had checked into the hotel days before under the name, get this- Mrs. Theresa Neele (Archie's girlfriend's last name).  This honestly sounds exactly like something she would right.  Was she play-acting?.  We will never know, this mystery, I'm sorry to say, is unsolved.  Christie had told the people at the spa that she had arrived from South Africa. She played pool, she danced, she read mystery novels in the hotel library.  She seemed undisturbed.  And here's an even stranger turn of events, Archie covered for his wife afer she was busted.  She was immediately accused of abusing an entire country's police resources over a publicity stunt, but Archie helped dispel this criticism.   He called in two doctors, they interview Agatha, and arrived at the conclusion that Agatha Christie suffered an episode of temporary amnesia.  She stress of her mother's death, the success of new book and the divorce from her husband led to a nervous breakdown.  The only thing she ever admitted to was havin been in a car crash, but even that is suspect since although she said she bruised her head, no one ever saw any bruises.  Well, after the bitterness of paying all those police overtime, can we say, all's well that ends well.?  For Agatha, yes, but not Archie.  The scandal sold gobs of books, and basically cemented her celebrity, but it also portrayed Archie as a terrible person.  How terrible for a man to do such a thing to his wife and cause the Queen of Crime to have a nervous breakdown.  He got to be the world's biggest schmuck.  Nancy Neele's family were so embarrassed they sent her on an around the world trip for ten months trying to get her away from Archie.  It didn't work though.  Archie and Nancy did get married two years later.  But so did, Agatha.  And her second marriage was to a man who adored her.  They were amazingly compatible and had a wonderful marriage.  He was an archeologist, and they spent time all over the world- hence the setting of several of her books including Murder on the Orient Express.    So, do you buy Agatha had amnesia.  Personally, not at all.  I think she got angry, ran off and then things got crazy.  I did read that she was shocked at how the story blew up.  She never imagined that that many police would come looking for her. Do you think it was legit?  It does seem a little far-fetched.  And to be the world's most famous detective novelist- I'd say, there's room to doubt.  But I'm keeping an open-mind- isn't that what Hercule Poirot would tell us to do.  The question I have is what were in those letters she left Archie and Campbell.  We need Hercule Poirot, as he would remind us, nothing is ever concealed to him..  He would have gotten to the bottom of it..    Oh, no doubt- so are we ready to meet Hercule Poirot and open the Murder of Roger Ackroyd?.   I think so, so let me make an important disclaimer- we are NOT going to spoil the book this episode by telling you who the murderer is, but we will next episode.  So, if you are starting the book now and are listening to this in real time, you have one week…. But you do have a week.  This week we are going to look at the book from the perspective of understanding how Christie was adhering very cleverly to the conventions of what we call a “formal detective. Novel” - otherwise known as the “whodunit”.  Edgar Alan Poe is credited of creating the detective story,  but of course most of us think of Sir Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and his side-kick Watson as being kind of the iconic example of what this looks like. Agatha Christie basically follows their pattern but takes it from the short story to the longer novel form.  As we might expert per the conventions of the trade, we are going to open up our story in an English country house- think of every clue like movie you have ever seen.   But in this case, there has already been a murder, but not the one from the title.  Let's read the opening couple of paragraphs.  Page 1  We also meet the narrator who is going to walk us through the story, Dr. James Shepperd and his meddling sister Caroline (Caroline, by the way is going to by the prototype for Mrs. Marple, Christie's other detective.). But since the opening murder isn't the murder from the title of the book, so we know this isn't the right murder.  I want to say that another characteristic of these formal detective stories is that we don't have emotional connections to any of the characters of the story.  We are not made to feel upset in the least that there has been a murder.  At no point in the story at all are we to feel sad about anything- not when victims die,or get falsely accused or anything.  We don't feel angry either, in fact, there are no negative emotions at all.  We aren't even led to find the perpetrator necessarily an evil person.    You know, I think that may be one of the appeals.  We feel enough anger, guilt or sadness in real life. These books may be relaxing  BECAUSE we don't have to be emotionally stressed out about anything.  We can just enjoy the process of the puzzle..  We know the murder will get solved, and all will be set aright in the world.  So, it's just a matter of watching everything unfold.  True, and although there is fun in trying to guess who did it and following the clues, but I'll be honest, I didn't figure out who the murderer was, and I basically never do when I read these thing. I barely even try.  And I don't think most people do either, or even care to try.    I know, kind of like when someone tells you a riddle, you're likely to give it about 30 seconds, then you want them to tell you what the riddle is.  Exactly.    Funny, by chapter 2, we meet the man who will be murdered, Roger Ackroyd. King's Abbot, which is the name of this village, apparently has several very wealthy people- one of which is already dead, Mrs. Ferrars; the other is getting ready to die, Roger Ackroyd- and the crime scene will be Mr. Ackroyd's house, Fernly Park, of course.  For me, one of the hardest parts of this book is keeping straight in. my mind all of the characters that will necessarily become the suspects.  That IS the hard part, but that's one of the most important elements of the entire game.  We have to know who each of these suspects will be, so we can focus not only on whether they have opportunity and means, but if they also have motive.    And we meet the cast of suspects here at the beginning.  There's Mrs. Russell, the housekeeper.  There's the two female relatives, a sister-in-law and her beautiful daughter, Mrs. Cecil Ackroyd and Flora.  We don't meet but we find out about Ralph Paton, Mr. Ackroyd's adopted son who seems to have a reputation for being irresponsible with money and women but who will be the heir to the fortune.  When our narrator, Dr. Shepperd, meets Roger Ackroyd on the road, Ackroyd is extremely upset.    Let's read that encounter.  Page 11  And that is an example of Christie's writing style that I find so charming.  The narrator takes us into his confidences and these little aside comments to us, as readers, are charming and endearing.  We find ourselves as we read the story trusting Dr. Shepperd's understanding of the murder, for one reason precisely because he takes us into his confidence   True, although I will say, another reason we trust him is because the detective Hercule Poirot takes him so often into his confidence.  Dr. Shepperd goes everywhere and helps with the investigation from start to finish.  He's kind of like Watson to Sherlock Holmes.    True, and we see that this cast of characters looks remarkably like a lot of them from this Golden Age and in fact, they are the stock characters from many a Clue game.  We will have the damsel in distress, (who we have already met with Flora).  We'll have the house staff who are always keeping secrets thus making them suspicious. Besides Miss Russell, who we've met there's also Geofrey Raymond, who is Roger Ackroyd's secretary, Ursula Bourne who is a house maid, and John Parker, the Butler.  Of course- the Butler in the library with the Candle-sticks.  HA!! To which we say, is that your guess.  For those of you who don't know, that's how you play the game of Clue.  So true.  And so when we get to chapter five and Dr. Shepperd gets the call to come over to the house go inspect the body because there has been a murder, we already have all of suspects lined up and ready to go.  Well, and although this next feature isn't in a game of Clue, We can't overlook the buffoon policemen who will be foils to our eccentric but brilliant detective.  Inspector Davis who comes over initially and then later on Inspector Raglan our of members of the law enforcement community..    Oh, and let's not fail to mention the silent almost brooding Major Hector Blunt- our visiting military man, who although never is a suspect in this particular murder, has an important role in the story, none the less, because he's secretly in love with Flora, and this would not be a classic detective story without a romantic interest somewhere.  You know, it's almost like we're not reading a drama at all.  In some ways these books feel like sit-coms.    That is it exactly.  And I want to make this point, a formal detective novel of this tradition, is not a tragedy at all, but in fact, meets the criteria of what we would call a comedy.  If you remember from our series on Romeo and Juliet, we talked about the difference between a comedy and a tragedy. A comedy ends in marriage and a tragedy in death.  From a literary stand point, an Agatha Christie novel, and those that are modeled after hers, are popular precisely because they are comedies of manners cloaked as tragedies (it's a trick).  The characters serve comedic purposes- not thematic ones.  That's why it's okay that they are pretty much the same stock characters in every story.  The story would be totally different and if fact would be a completely different genre, if we did not have every assurance, life would end well.  Let me explain what I mean,  Recently, Lizzy and I watched together the Netflix movie, The Woman in the. Window.  Lizzy had just finished reading the book  by AJ Finn and had really liked it.  It's also a murder mystery, but totally different in purpose and genre.  In The Woman in the Window,, the characters are serious, They struggle with anxiety and depression.  The characters themselves are meant to be deeply analyzed- that's the entire point of it.  Finn is commenting on issues regarding mental health.  That is not Christie's purpose at all.   It would take away from the fun really if she went that direction.  In comedies, only the unlikeable characters ever really suffer anything terrible.  And Roger Ackroyd,, although we don't get to know him very well, is not a likeable person.  He's selfish, stingy and is forcing his son Ralph and Flora to get married against their wills (in fact, we find out towards the end, that Ralph is actually already secretly married to the parlormaid) and this makes Ackroyd lose his mind.  In chapter six, Dr. Shepperd describes Ackroyd of having a “choleric temper”- and although it's never good to murder people because they are disagreeable, it's worth pointing out that Christie doesn't go to any trouble to make Ackroyd likeable in any way.  The point being, we don't really care that Ackroyd's been murdered really.  There's nothing tragic about it.    And so the fun of every chapter is following Hercule Poirot around, interviewing all the witnesses and seeing if we can figure out before he does who the murderer is.  Who has the most compelling reason to do it, and it will turn out that almost everyone stands to gain something from his death.  Exactly, except we don't figure it out- and if Christie's success is any indication I don't think almost anyone in the last 100 years figured it out before Poirot.  During my second reading of the book, the one where I read it after already knowing who killed Roger Ackrod, I realized that Poirot had the murder solved well before- well, at least before chapter 17.    I want to revisit that, but before we do, let's flesh out a little our heroic detective.  This isn't the first book where she introduces Poirot, but I was surprised to see that he was retired.  I didn't expect that precisely because I knew she wrote 66 novels, and I had heard of this funny little man, as he is described.    And he IS a funny little man- obnoxious and ridiculous.  And the way Christie introduces him is funny too.  Hercule moves into the house next door to Dr. Shepperd and his sister Caroline live.  They are both unmarried.  James is a doctor, and Caroline's main occupation is local purveyor of gossip- something she seems to conduct through a very sophisticated network of servants and friends.  Dr. Shepperd acts annoyed by it, but he also seems very impressed with her mad-dog skills.  Before we meet Poirot, we are led to believe by Dr. Shepperd that the mysterious neighbor next door must a hairdresser as evidenced by his perfectly groomed mustache.    That mustache is what he is most famous for- that and his egg-shaped head- whatever that is.  According to Christie, he was inspired by a Belgian refugee she saw coming off of a bus after the first World War.  Of course, all of the inspiration was external, and she never met the gentleman personally, but she took that inspiration and created a short man, with a distinguished mustache, a solid head of black hair and an egg-shaped head.  She wanted him to have as she called it a “grandiloquent name”- hence Hercule and she wanted him to be very orderly, brilliant but vain.  After a while, she says she came to be resentful that she was stuck with him since she didn't like him very much.  Well, and funny enough, at one point in her career, she killed him off, but her publishers didn't let her publish that book.  What, she killed Hercule? Did it ever get published?  Oh, it eventually did, of course, we'll save that story for next week.    Oh okay, something to look forward to, but back to our book, if you are a Christie fan, you'll know immediately that the mysterious hairdresser is none other than our sleuth.  If this is your first Christie book, you may not but it doesn't matter.  By chapter 8, he's in the mix having been hired by Flora to figure out who killed her uncle.   By chapter 6, we've also introduced a rogue stranger with a mysterious accent, who we know from years of experience with other detective novels and movies, cannot possibly be the murderer- he's too much of a ruffian.  We all know that our criminal, although technically a criminal by virtue of having murdered someonw, will have no actual noticeable criminal behaviors.  In fact, he likely will have impeccable manners, just like everyone else in the story.We won't experience any bloody murder scenes; there will no harsh language, the investigation will be polite and the world “unpleasantness” will be the euphemism of choice to describe anything from the dagger in the neck to the awkward questioning   Well, speaking of the daggar to the neck, I'm assuming that a spectacular weapon of choice is also a characteristic of the formal detective story.  OH, it absolutely is.  And ours, does not disappoint- we have a Tunisian one of a kind dagger.  Let's read about it.   Page 64-65  And of course, the details are the glorious part.  In fact, that's one reason I never even attempt to solve these murders.  It tires me out to weed through all of the details.  There is a diagram of the study, the specifics of when Dr. Shepperd left, when he was called back, when Flora last heard from her uncle, where everyone was at exactly the time of the murder, the phone call, the foot print, the in and out of the garden house over and over again- all of it laid out before us with consummate British precision.  The pieces of the puzzle are completely spread on the table ready to be ordered again.  The universe that Christie creates, some have called claustrophobic because it's small and contained, but that's what's great about it.  It's knowable, ordered, and most importantly benevolent.  These people are good- likely even the murderer.  Of course, they are trying to get away with little lies and deceptions because Victorian society is very demanding, but even the murderer is not going to want to leave willingly.  He or she will only leave as a final resort.  This world is rational and sensible and one where even we as readers find comfort.    Well, from a historical perspective, I find that extremely important.  If you recall, England or rather Europe in general was nothing ljke what you described.  It was not predictable or benevolent.  People were being exiled; wars were raging, governments were in upheaval; poverty was rampant- what a wonderful escape and promise of possibility- a well ordered upper class environment where the rules apply and if you break them- you get exiled.  I would say the rigid formality came across as comforting and peaceful- not boring and predictable.    I guess you're right.  The book is really best read twice, if you want my opinion.  At least it was for me.    It's a very carefully crafted puzzle, so when you read it the first time, you can enjoy it as a it's a straightforward whodunnit- but when you read it the second time knowing who the murderer is, it's even more interesting to watch how she deceived you.  Nothing is every hidden, but her duplicitous way of writing deceives us from start to finish, and it's delightful to watch her do it.    So, Christy, getting us back to the difference between commercial fiction versus literary fiction, you said you think there is a theme in her work?  Without giving away the murderer can we speak to it this episode?  Yeah, I think we can- there are several, but one I think does speak to this idea of finding value in a well-ordered world.   One of the most memorable scenes in the entire book is chapter 16.  When I read it the first time, I had no idea why it was included.  For most of the book, we're following Poirot around, looking at clues, interrogating witnesses, but chapter 16 is different. Also, it's pretty much the center physically of the book.  Sheppard and his sister Caroline and spend an evening playing Mah jong with local friends (a retired Army officer, Colonel Carter and a Mrs. Gannett)- neither of which have anything to do with anything, at least as far as I can tell.  They enjoy coffee, cake, sandwiches and tea and then sit down to play. The main purpose of the evening really is to collect gossip, but sitting around and doing that would be vulgar.  And no one in King's Abbot is vulgar, so an exotic game from the Far East is a wonderful excuse.  As they go through the hand, we realize in some ways playing this game is a lot like living life.  They talk about how each person expresses something about themselves by how they play.  They can express weakness or strength, an ability to perceive, an ability to make decisions.  Sometimes the hand you are giving is a wreck; sometimes you get a winning hand effortlessly.  At one point, Caroline very astutely yet unconsciously comments that Miss Gannett isn't playing like she thinks she should.   “   Garry, do you know how to play mah jong?  NO, I really don't.  It looks fascinating and of course I've seen it featured in several movies, just from looking at the external features it appears to be a little bit like rummy except with tiles.  I don't know either.  But at this point in the game, Caroline points out that Miss Gannett's hand wasn't worth going mah Jong over.  Miss. Gannett responds to Caroline's criticism by saying, “Yes, dear, I know what you mean, but it rather depends on what kind of hand you have to start with, doesn't it? Caroline replies, “You'll never get the big hands if you don't go for them.”  To which Miss Gannet replies, “Well, we must all play our own way, mustn't we? After all, I'm up so far.”   This goes on and on for an entire chapter- the women gossiping, attention going in and out.  Let's read the part where the finally get to the end of the game and someone wins.   The situation became more strained. It was annoyance at Miss Gannett's going Mah Jong for the third time running which prompted Caroline to say to me as we built a fresh wall: ‘You are too tiresome, James. You sit there like a deadhead, and say nothing at all!' ‘But, my dear,' I protested, ‘I have really nothing to say that is, of the kind you mean.' ‘Nonsense,' said Caroline, as she sorted her hand. ‘You must know something interesting.' I did not answer for a moment. I was overwhelmed and intoxicated. I had read of there being such a thing as The Perfect Winning – going Mah Jong on one's original hand. I had never hoped to hold the hand myself. With suppressed triumph I laid my hand face upwards on the table. ‘As they say in the Shanghai Club,' I remarked – Tin-ho – the Perfect Winning!' The colonel's eyes nearly bulged out of his head.  And so there you have it, Dr. Shepperd has been tight-lipped the entire book which for us as his partners sometimes can get frustrating.  He always knows more than he says, but he's a medical man and feels compelled to keep people's confidences until this night.  Right after his big win, he is so exhilarated, he blurts out to everyone everything Poirot had told him the previous day about the ring- a specific ring Poirot had kept entirely out of the sight but had revealed only to Dr. Sheppherd now Dr. Shepperd is getting the world's biggest gossips and the news will for sure spread all over town.      And so, where's the theme?  I don't see it.    Well, I'm not English, so I'm going to make a disclaimer that this could be a very American interpretation, but it seems to me that Christie is making a commentary on how society functions best- Mah Jong is a communal game with strict rules- but it is indeed about community- very much like the society she has built for us her readers.  Although Shepperd claims all they do in King's Abbot is gossip, we see through every chapter that that is not true.  There is a very active local pub that everyone goes to.  They garden; they visit.  They have true community.  And yet there are indeed winners and losers, Miss Gannett isn't good at mah jong because she's too independent or impulsive. Shepperd has a bit of good luck, but he also lets  it get to his head and blurts things out at the end that he probably shouldn't have.  At least he regrets it at the beginning of the next chapter.   I don't know, I just think she may be advocating to the rest of us who may find rules stifling, the traditional ways boring, or the conventions cumbersome, that there just might be something of value in the vintage- something comforting and enjoyable in a well-ordered and fair universe.   But like I said, that's just one thought.  And it is most definitely arguable.   Okay- thanks for listening…

Josh Shepperd joins Money on the Left to discuss the research and activism that hastened the rise of public media in the United States. Assistant Professor of media studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder, Shepperd shows how public-interest broadcasting platforms like NPR and PBS exist in the U.S. today in large part as a consequence of hard-fought battles by committed scholars and advocates throughout the inter- and post-war periods. In particular, Shepperd traces the untold aftermath of the Communications Act of 1934 which, in addition to creating the Federal Communications Commission, gave overwhelming legal support to private for-profit networks, while stripping radio licenses from public and educational broadcasters committed to serving the common good. Deepening this narrative, Shepperd draws special attention to the Princeton Radio Research Project, spearheaded by noted sociologist and communication studies scholar Paul Lazarsfeld. Through the Project, Lazarsfeld developed influential quantitative research methods that fundamentally shaped the discipline of communication studies. Fascinatingly, however, Lazarsfeld hired then-immigré critical theorist Theodor Adorno to assist in the research program. As Shepperd tells it, Lazardfeld welcomed and even incorporated the critical theorist's incisive contributions into the Project. Yet, Adorno ultimately repudiated the Project's efforts to build a robust U.S. public radio system, unfortunately divorcing the developing tradition of Critical Theory from the domain of public media research and advocacy. Fast-forwarding to the present, we ask Shepperd about his argument that contemporary humanities research ought to be politically constructive. We then conclude by exploring his important archival work for the Radio Preservation Task Force at the Library of Congress.See here for Shepperd's article, “Theodor Adorno, Paul Lazarsfeld, and the Public Interest Mandate of Early Communications Research, 1935–1941,” published by the journal Communication Theory in August 2021.Visit our Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/MoLsuperstructureMusic by Nahneen Kula: www.nahneenkula.com

In this episode of the Future Church Podcast, Todd Wilson (President & CEO, Exponential) talks to Jason Shepperd from the Church Project.      Church Project is a church of house churches and is beginning a movement of planting and replanting churches to become decentralized in community, distributed in leadership, function with simplicity for the sake of generosity, and formed in a collective of house churches, under one common structure, oversight, and support. Today, Church Project has grown into 50 house churches locally with over 3,000 people, plus several church plants. Listen to Episode 2 of the podcast and access the show notes below. Future Church Insights: 1. Jason talks about the Biblical example of “House Church” Jason notes that in Acts, there are thousands of people doing church together, meeting needs and discipleship through ‘house churches' all across Jerusalem. So the “House Church” model is smaller groups (20 - 25 people) meeting in homes across the city. 2. Jason speaks about leadership within the Church Project. Jason points out that leadership and pastoring for these house churches is done by lay leaders. The only people on staff are those who oversee the execution of these house churches and larger gathering meetings (he uses childcare as an example). But, he does note that to be a lay leader for a house church requires the “Biblical expressions or qualifications of an elder”. 3. Jason answers what the differences are between a house church and a traditional small group. He states that the biggest difference is expectation and identification. The leader of a house church is the pastor of that house church. Jason also notes that there is a significant difference in being a “leader” vs. a “pastor”. Goals and Desired Outcomes of Church Project To build the infrastructure and leadership necessary to grow the Church Project Network. To build a network of churches well beyond the Church Project identifiers, who hold common values of "A Church of House Churches" and other basic shared doctrines and practices, but who will also have diversity in other arenas of theology and philosophy. To codify and communicate and connect resources to help serve local and global church planters, existing pastors, and missionaries abroad who may be struggling in their expression of formation and function of church, to rethink their existing model, and move to a more basic biblical expression of church leadership. Links:  www.churchproject.org www.Churchprojectnetwork.com www.housechurchnetwork.com More of a reader? Download the transcription here. Key Quotes from the episode: “We see this beauty of the early church in Acts. All that's happening in house churches all across Jerusalem. And that continued to spread, but they didn't neglect the large gathering.” - Jason Shepperd “A house church pastor begets a house church pastor. A house church begets a house church.” - Jason Shepperd

There's something in the Fridge. Could this be the second coming? Or did someone leave the butter out too long? Ryan – Dominic Kelly Olivia – Ivy Davies Little Wonder Team – Keith Crawford, Owen Roberts, Chris Taylor, Oliver Warren Visit us at www.littlewonder.website

On today's episode of Ready to Record, Daniel continues his conversation with recording veteran Tony Shepperd about his career, spanning from his earliest memories of learning about recording, as well as the changes in the record industry over the years. On today's Gear Talk, D3 talks wireless headphones and earbuds, namely apple's AirPods line. On today's Music from Blue Girl, something new in the realm of production for The D3.Find Tony hereFind Blue Girl Productions hereThis show is part of Pantheon Podcasts.

Tony Shepperd, CEO of Breath of Life Records, is a legendary producer, engineer, and mixer who's credits are through the roof! He's worked on countless records for Quincy Jones, Whitney Houston, Madonna, Boyz II Men, Diana Ross, Lionel Richie, Kenny Loggins, Disney, Take 6, Shelea, Maysa, Mandy Moore, Yolanda Adams, Kamasi Washington, Michelle Williams, and The Manhattan Transfer just to name a few. Additionally, he currently has a 16-ch summing mixer out called "Mix Factory." If you don't know about Tony Shepperd, then you MUST have been living under a rock. Listen and learn here, only at The Career Musician!https://www.instagram.com/tonyshepperd/?hl=enhttps://themixfactory.com/https://www.allmusic.com/artist/tony-shepperd-mn0000131095/credits@thecareermusician@nomadsplace

On today's episode of Ready to Record, Daniel continues his conversation with recording veteran Tony Shepperd about his career, spanning from his earliest memories of learning about recording, as well as the changes in the record industry over the years. Find Tony hereFind Blue Girl Productions hereThis show is part of Pantheon Podcasts.

On today's episode of Ready to Record, Daniel talks to recording veteran Tony Shepperd about his career, spanning from his earliest memories of learning about recording, as well as the changes in the record industry over the years. In today's Gear Talk and Music from Blue Girl, D3 gives an update on the long awaited Bandmaster amplifier demo and shows a rough version of the song used to demonstrate the amplifier.Find Tony hereFind Blue Girl Productions hereThis show is part of Pantheon Podcasts.

Dezi Shepperd Speaks on her experience as a child and what lead her to becoming  a Children's Book writer.  Join us in listening to inspiration and check out her book! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kiara-randle/message

Message from Will Lewis on December 13, 2020

A Church of House Churches — Jason Shepperd of Church Project What do you think of when you hear the words “house churches”? Do your palms get a little sweaty? Do you start to get nervous, and look around for an exit? Do you get twitchy, and wonder if somebody is going to convince you that this is THE WAY? In recent years, Exponential has been asking church leaders to review their score card, and take stock of what they value and celebrate. What if our scorecard valued multiplication over anything else? Would it help us to be open to other models that God is using in church multiplication? Regardless of your chosen model, today's episode will help you to think outside the box and learn some important lessons from what a reproducing house church movement looks like. Today's guest is Jason Shepperd of Church Project. Church Project began in 2010 with 40 people in an obscure warehouse, and quickly grew to thousands. We were pursuing a New Testament elemental DNA of discipleship, simplicity, generosity, diversity in community, reproduction, and a “declergyification” of the centrality of the church. We were attempting to return to a biblical and Spirit-led church planting pursuit, and to resist most common elements of churches and church planting – massive marketing, mega overhead, and attractive and attractional elements. Church Project isn't just a church. It's a church of house churches, that has also become a network of churches of house churches. Confused yet? After few minutes into today's episode, you won't be. In fact, you'll be refreshed by Jason's commitment to strip everything back to the barebones of multiplication and “do things the easy way.” Perhaps you thought that house churches did things the hard way, but after today, you'll see a network of multiplying house churches that has plenty of money to spare and give, simply because they have very little overhead. Here's some of today's topics: Why you might need to reconsider the house church model How house churches multiply The benefits of space, and paid staff to a house church movement How you can rewrite your church's scorecard What can established and traditional churches learn from house churches? Listen to today's podcast and find out from Jason Shepperd.

This is the second interview with Jason. The first (Episode #50252) was recorded several months earlier.While the first deals with the theology and practice of a microchurch network. This episode pinpoints the ease with which a network of house church is adapting to, and growing during the pandemic. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

SWS Co-Host Chris Shepperd shares his story.