Bulletin December 6 & 7, 2014 - Ss John And Bernard Parish: Fill & Download for Free

I am a professional speaker and podcast host and I speak at approximately 145-160 words per minute (wpm), while many sources state that average American English speaker engaged in a friendly conversation speaks at a rate of approximately 110–150 wpm.I wrote a blog post "How fast do you speak?" (http://www.lisabmarshall.com/?s=rate+of+speech) If you are interested in finding out your rate of speech.According to the National Center for Voice and Speech (http://www.ncvs.org/ncvs/tutorials/voiceprod/tutorial/quality.html) the average rate for English speakers in the US is about 150 wpm. Interestingly, publishers recommendbooks on tape to be voiced at 150-160 wpm (my publisher told me this), auctioneers are generally 250-400 wpm (http://wn.com/World%27s_Fastest_Talker) while the average reading rate is about 200-300 wpm.As far as I know, the current fastest female talker on record is Fran Capo who speaks at over 600 words per minutes (http://wn.com/World%27s_Fastest_Talker). Discovery did an interesting show on her with psycholinguistic analysis by Dr. Burgess. If you're old enough you might remember the FedEx commercials with John Moschitta (http://wn.com/World%27s_Fastest_Talker #9) What's interesting is that most of us can understand John, he's at our limit of understanding, yet most don't understand Fran who speaks much faster.However all of us speak at different rates at different times. Natural speech includes bursts of more rapid speech and in addition, we are all capable of speaking faster and slower when we want. Of course, there are also variations in speed associated with the situation in which the speech is being produced.We speak more rapidly if we are in a hurry, or saying something urgent, or tryingnot to be interrupted in a conversation. For many people, nervousness orexcitement will also increase the rate of speech. Conversely, we tend to speakmore slowly when we are tired or bored. I know for me, I tend to talk more slowlyand with more non-words (um, ah, pauses, etc.) when making impromptupresentations and while practicing delivery of new presentation materials. Clearlythe emotional (and perhaps alcoholic <smile>) state of the speaker influences the rate of speaking.Finally, I think there is also a cultural and personal element. In some places, likeNew York City people tend to naturally talk faster, while in other locales peopletalk much slower. Culturally, if English isn’t the speakers first language, that canalso slow down the rate of speech. In addition, some people are naturally fasttalkers, while others habitually speak slowly. I was a fast talker even as a child.My mother was constantly telling me to slow down and breathe!What's interesting to me are the perceptions that people form based on rate of speech. In 1976 psychologists looked at speech rate and persuasion (Miller et al.). The results suggested that faster speakers (195 wpm) were more persuasive than slower speakers (102 wpm). However, in 1991 Smith and Shaffer, suggested a more nuanced relationship. They suggested that when messages that were counter-attitudinal fast-talking was more persuasive, yet, when when the audience inherently agreed with the message (pro-attitudinal) slow speech emerged as the most persuasive.I recorded a podcast (>10 min) about vocal variety that includes a short section on rate of speech.http://publicspeaker.quickanddirtytips.com/Monotone-Speech-Pitch-Rate-Volume.aspxEffects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions Apple, William; Streeter, Lynn A. Krauss, Robert M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 37 (5), May 1979, 715-727Celerity and Cajolery: Rapid Speech May Promote or Inhibit Persuasion through its impact on Message Elaboration, Stephen M. Smith, David R. Shaffer, Personality ans Social Psychology Bulletin, December 1991, vol 17 no 6 663-669

Planning on it? The United States did it starting in 1954, the US also stored nuclear weapons on Iwo Jima and in other parts of Japan as well. The weapons left Okinawa after the US handed control of the island back to the Japanese in 1972. The Japanese Prime Minister at the time, Sato Eisaku, voiced his concerns on nuclear weapons storage on Okinawa to President Nixon, November 1969, in a conversation about returning control of the island to Japan.[1][1][1][1] The Prime Minister asked for their removal if they were present.The link provided in the question is referring to a memo from President Nixon to Henry Kissinger regarding the emergency deployment of nuclear weapons to Okinawa, not extended deployment or storage.[2][2][2][2] The biggest “scandal” of this arrangement is that it was secret. I don’t approve of the use of nuclear weapons but this is a pretty common-sense agreement given the atmosphere at the time. The use of nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry was one of the contingency options available for a war in Korea and this emergency surge and Okinawa would have surely played a part if that option was taken.[3][3][3][3] (However, the report does state that conventional forces most likely would have been able to beat North Korean forces on their own.)This was seen as a middle-ground solution since the United States military did have misgivings about giving up these storage rights and believed it would reduce its capabilities in the region.[4][4][4][4] [5][5][5][5](ADM-Atomic Demolition Munition. ASROC-Anti-Submarine Rocket.)In 1999 this document, “History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons”, was declassified.[6][6][6][6] [7][7][7][7] Though some of the names were redacted the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was able to figure out the names of all the countries and territories since the they were all in alphabetical order.[8][8][8][8] (List of all countries/territories below.)The Department of Defense also confirmed the prior deployment of nuclear weapons to Okinawa in 2015.[9][9][9][9]I believe this evidence speaks for itself.[10][10][10][10](Alaska, Canada, Chichi Jima, Cuba, Greenland, Guam, Hawaii, Iwo Jima, Japan, Johnston Island, Kwajalein, Midway, Morroco, Okinawa, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Republic of Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. In Europe: Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, and West Germany.)[11][11][11][11]Footnotes[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki5_b.htm[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki5_b.htm[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki5_b.htm[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki5_b.htm[2] Nixon told Kissinger pact allowing nukes into Okinawa "satisfactory"[2] Nixon told Kissinger pact allowing nukes into Okinawa "satisfactory"[2] Nixon told Kissinger pact allowing nukes into Okinawa "satisfactory"[2] Nixon told Kissinger pact allowing nukes into Okinawa "satisfactory"[3] The National Security Archive[3] The National Security Archive[3] The National Security Archive[3] The National Security Archive[4] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki2_e.htm[4] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki2_e.htm[4] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki2_e.htm[4] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//japan/okinawa/oki2_e.htm[5] The National Security Archive[5] The National Security Archive[5] The National Security Archive[5] The National Security Archive[6] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[6] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[6] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[6] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20020602044529/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/04-47.htm[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20020602044529/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/04-47.htm[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20020602044529/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/04-47.htm[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20020602044529/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991020/04-47.htm[8] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[8] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[8] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[8] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[9] DOD Open Government > Initiatives > FRD Declassification[9] DOD Open Government > Initiatives > FRD Declassification[9] DOD Open Government > Initiatives > FRD Declassification[9] DOD Open Government > Initiatives > FRD Declassification[10] Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified December 2015, Photos Available Since 1990[10] Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified December 2015, Photos Available Since 1990[10] Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified December 2015, Photos Available Since 1990[10] Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified December 2015, Photos Available Since 1990[11] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[11] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[11] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[11] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

I'm going to guess a little at your reasons for needing a laptop. It also depends whether you are asking generally or asking a specific person. Assuming it's to a work superior:“As I have many documents I need to process, it would be very helpful if I could borrow a laptop for the next few weeks. If I could have it immediately, I would expect to return it by December 6th. I will keep you informed if I need the laptop a little longer.”I wouldn't thank your superior or line manager as one of their duties is to facilitate your work. You have expressed the work requirement, it is up to them whether they will/can make your task more manageable. Presumably there is a deadline which they will be aware of. I used the word “process” as its a neutral descriptor of activity. Alternatively if they are new documents rather than pre-existing documents, you could say:“As I have many documents to create [for Project xyz]”If you were making a general request, perhaps on a work bulletin board, you might phrase it a little differently:“I have many documents I need to process in the next few weeks. Does anyone have a laptop I can borrow immediately until December 6th or possibly a little longer?Many thanks in advance!”The general pattern of this request is:Statement of the problemRequested item to solve problemTimespan (length of time item required)Thoughtful appreciation for the favourGood luck!