Generated text unrelated to prompt

Describe the bug Ran the README example with the following prompts: ['forklifts', 'tell me about forklifts', 'what is the current state of the art in forklifts'] None of generated entries contained the work 'forklift', or were in anyway related.

To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:

>>> from gpt2_client import GPT2Client
>>> gpt2 = GPT2Client('774M', save_dir='models')
>>> gpt2.load_model(force_download=False)
Loading checkpoint                             File already exists 
Loading encoder.json                           File already exists 
Loading hparams.json                           File already exists 
Loading model.ckpt.data-00000-of-00001         File already exists 
Loading model.ckpt.index                       File already exists 
Loading model.ckpt.meta                        File already exists 
Loading vocab.bpe                              File already exists 
>>> text = gpt2.generate_batch_from_prompts(['forklifts', 'tell me about forklifts', 'what is the current state of the art in forklifts'])
Prompt: forklifts
Prompt: tell me about forklifts
Prompt: what is the current state of the art in forklifts
>>> len(text)
9
>>> ['fork' in entry for entry in text]
[False, False, False, False, False, False, False, False, False]

Expected behavior

>>> len(text)
3
>>> ['fork' in entry for entry in text]
[True, True, True]

Screenshots Not applicable

Desktop (please complete the following information): OS: Ubuntu (doesn't matter)

Additional context

>>> text
['coated, the latest effort in the ongoing saga of the U.S. Department of Justice\'s investigation of the FBI\'s corruption investigation.\n\nThe movie looks at the FBI corruption investigation which led to the death of a U.S. senator and a U.S. House of Representative. Also, Robert Mueller\'s tenure as FBI Director and the resulting scandals have given rise to two other FBI scandals.\n\nThe plot focuses on the rise and fall of former FBI Director Robert Mueller and other scandal in the FBI\n\nSpoilers ahead!\n\nIn the movie, Robert Mueller is forced to resign from his position in the FBI for notifying the FBI Director of a criminal investigation into a campaign donor. During the investigation, the FBI discovers a political crime of unknown origin and the president seeks to cover it up.\n\nThe film also reveals how FBI Director Robert Mueller and other scandal members were recruited to serve in top positions within the Justice Department\'s Office of Professional Responsibility. In another surprising revelation, the DOJ is involved in a number of corrupt activities and conflicts of interest. It is speculated that this is what gave rise to the appointment of Mueller as FBI Director.\n\nThe movie is based on the true story. The Washington Post published a front page story revealing the corruption of the FBI during the Nixon administration:\n\nFormer Justice Department official Jack Palladino will direct the movie, which was optioned by Michael Bay, whose credits include the rebooted "Transformers." It will be produced by Steve DeKnight, who wrote the "Transformers" franchise script; John G. Freedman, who wrote "X-Men" and "Avengers," and John J. McCarthy, who wrote the script for "American Beauty"; and Michael E. Peña. The movie is in post-production on Universal Pictures\' "Avengers: Age of Ultron" for release in May of 2015.\n\nThere is a lot to unpack and intrigue surrounding the film and the various conflicts of interest surrounding it:\n\nDid Robert Mueller lie to FBI Director William Sessions?\n\nWas Robert Mueller involved in a cover-up of a major criminal investigation.\n\nWas Robert Mueller involved in a deal to fire James Comey in early February?\n\nDid Robert Mueller bribe the FBI Assistant Director.\n\nWas the FBI Director\'s corrupt actions involved in a bribery scandal that gave rise to the 2016 Presidential campaign?\n\nWas the FBI Director and other scandal members involved in the DOJ bribery scandal?\n\nIf these answers do not pique your curiosity, then we would urge you to ignore the movie and do something else for the rest of your Saturday! It\'s one of Hollywood\'s most anticipated movies that will surely get you excited! Check it out below:\n\nAre you interested in watching a very exciting, high quality film with interesting characters and a lot of intrigue?\n\nGet the movie right now on Amazon or iTunes!\n\n\nIf you have any issues or comments on the movie in the meantime, feel free to contact alexis.giles at thedailydot dot com. We would love to get more information like this and if you can read Chinese, please contact us through rfccom iclix.com or through rfccom rcom.\n\nIf you are interested in reading the article on the Dailydot, then please click here!\n\nThis article was updated with additional statements from the Dailydot and with comment from Steve DeKnight.\n\nUpdate: It\'s been pointed out to me that the Dailydot has an anti-Trump thread and the film is also based on a story the Dailydot wrote based on an article which was published on April 5th. Although the article itself doesn\'t reveal the nature of the conflict, it does claim that Robert Mueller and the FBI director "were aware of a conspiracy involving Russian operatives to disrupt and influence the 2016 presidential election". It also suggests that Robert Mueller lied to the Department of Justice about the nature of the obstruction of justice which led to the ouster of FBI Director James Comey.<|endoftext|>A man stands in front of burning homes after Israeli army planes bombed a refugee camp in Syria at Abu Kamal camp in the northern Lebanese town of Arsal on July 4, 2014. The Israeli army flew over the camp for hours killing scores of alleged militants. (Reuters)\n\nThis article has been updated.\n\nMore warplanes bombed Gaza in four hours on Monday for the second time on the day, making it one of the deadliest days in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between Israeli airstrikes and rocket fire. At least 20 people died and at least 100 were wounded in the attacks — the worst in a month of escalating Israeli violence, experts say.\n\nIsrael\'s main civilian target in the three-day campaign of conflict was a U.N.-run United Nations High Commission for Refugees building in the northern Gaza city of Beit Lahiya, the United Nations agency said in a statement. The agency said it was a U.N. compound, but Israeli forces and', ' Share and Bikeshare are not mutually exclusive! They are mutually compatible with each other. There are many great ways to join. For example, if you are driving, you can ride to the bike share stations, or walk to a docking station where you can borrow a bike and pay a ride fee. For those who already own a parked bike at a station like Loyola Marymount or the University of San Francisco, there are many other ways of joining as well.\n\nWhen joining at a bike share station there is much more information available on the bike share website.\n\nBike Share and Bikeshare are not mutually exclusive! They are mutually compatible with each other.\n\nFor more information on which bike share stations you have access to, click here.\n\nBike Share and Bikeshare are not mutually exclusive!\n\nWhat happens if I don\'t meet the criteria for getting a Bicycle Registration Card from any of the above listed Bike Share and Bikeshare station locations?\n\nTo get a Bicycle Registration Card, you will NOT get a Bike Share or Bikeshare membership. There is another group in LA that offers a new monthly fee for new members. The fee is $12.50.\n\nThe Bicycle Registry Card is an easy way to register your bike in the system. We will use a photo ID that appears on your driver\'s license, passport, military ID, utility bill or utility bill. Our members are allowed to register up to 5 bikes at one time. After registration, you will be able to ride on a one way trip to a bike share station. The B-tag system will recognize your registered bike as a Bikeshare or Bicycle Registration Card, for up to 30 days from the date of your registration. Registration will remain valid for the entire 30 day period. If you have missed your registration time period and want to make a trip to a station with another bike to make a "quick bike" purchase at the station, you can pick up your new registration card for $6.50 at our Customer Services desk at any of the above listed stations. The time remaining on the 30 day period will be automatically charged to your credit card (with an extra $0.20 fee). We accept cash and check. Please note: this promotion does not apply to the monthly pass.\n\nIs my payment processed through Paypal?\n\nPaypal is the payment method available on the Bike Share and Bikeshare sites. If you have a PayPal account and don\'t have an account yet, please sign-up here and sign up for an account. Please sign up with your social media or email address and we will be able to connect it with your account. To use the service, your account must be a member of Bikeshare or Bicycle Registry but with the email address "bikesharelaura@gmail.com". If you have an existing account, please visit us by clicking on your bike near the "members" navigation buttons. You can also sign-up to get your Bike Share or Bikeshare membership card online at "donate.cyclereg.org/donate.cyclereg.org/bikereg.org?". There is also another option that allows you to register your bike and make a $6.50 payment via email. Please click here to register your bike.\n\nDoes Bike Registration work at "bike share stations" and "bike share kiosks"?\n\nYes! You can register your car or bike at any of the above listed locations.\n\nDo I need a Bike Registration Card in order to cycle in the system?\n\nNo. Simply showing identification on a bike with a B-tag will get you access to a Bike Share station or Bikeshare kiosk for a specific trip.\n\nDoes it really take 30 days to get a registration card?\n\nYes. You can get it the same day you are registered/re-registered with your social media or email or by picking it up after registration.\n\nSo you can get your registration card now?\n\nWe\'ll send the registration card the same day you\'re registered. They ship via UPS.\n\nI registered at the LA Bike Share "station" and I can\'t get into the system. Why?\n\nIt could be a lot of things. Our system has always been very strict on registration, but there are several possible reasons why you may not have been properly registered or you may not have a valid driver\'s license or passport. If you have not received a B-tag, get in email, call us at 877-826-3472, or email, send the ticket to bikereg.org/lafbikeshare\n\nWhat will happen if my registered bike isn\'t there at the next station I take me to?\n\nYou can get your Registration Card the same day you are registered via the website.\n\nI forgot my Registration Card at a station. Can I still', ' in her 20s was critically stabbed at a McDonald\'s in downtown Montreal on Friday evening, and the attacker was eventually subdued by a bystander.\n\nThe young woman was rushed to a trauma ward at the hospital, Montreal police spokesman Ian Lafrenière said at a news conference. She underwent surgery for wounds to the neck and hip and is listed in life-threatening condition.\n\nPolice believe the victim was the lone attacker, but she is not believed to have been part of any organized crime group, Lafrenière said.\n\nPolice were called to the eatery at around 9:45 p.m. Friday. The restaurant\'s manager said the woman\'s injuries were too severe to alert management.\n\nThe assailant is described only as a young man, 35 to 40 years old.\n\nHe has a beard, wearing a white shirt with the word "MacDonald" and dark pants.\n\nThe man did not appear to threaten other patrons or customers, Lafrenière said.\n\nIn April, a man was stabbed to death inside the fast-food restaurant in Quebec City.\n\n\nLafrenière did not identify the victim as early as Friday evening, however several media outlets identified him.<|endoftext|>In the face of mounting scrutiny and calls from lawmakers and advocacy groups for an investigation, the National Security Administration has quietly put an end to a controversial program that had allowed domestic law enforcement agencies to wiretap American citizens who were not suspected of any kind of wrongdoing.\n\nThe NSA program was revealed this week as part of documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who went on to flee the U.S. and is currently holed up in Russia. Although the documents are classified and cannot be discussed within the agency, they suggest that the agency could have secretly tapped into the private communications of American citizens and foreign officials without first obtaining a warrant.\n\nThe program, called Trailblazer, was developed under former President Ronald Reagan and was run by the NSA\'s Signals Intelligence Directorate. Its purpose was to help law enforcement in tracking suspected terrorists and criminals through phone calls and emails. Though the NSA later told reporters that the program was subject to an intelligence oversight board "that would consider all of the appropriate safeguards," some have questioned whether any safeguards took place, and others say that the program could have been more widely abused.\n\nSince its public disclosure, the program has come under a lot of scrutiny, with a number of lawmakers calling for a probe into how the program was handled. Many lawmakers and civil liberties advocates say the program is problematic in a number of ways, but the government has resisted calls to change the process through which the secret court that oversees some parts of the program decided when to allow surveillance.\n\nEarlier this week, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, proposed a bill that would overhaul the way in which the surveillance program is reviewed and approved by the court. Wyden has said that the program could have broken the law by targeting Americans on terrorism watch lists, though he stopped short of calling for an investigation to determine whether or not they were intentionally targeted.\n\nThe NSA\'s new rules for how its surveillance program is carried out have not gone into effect yet, and it\'s not entirely clear how widespread the surveillance of domestic Americans would have been without the program.\n\n[Updated at 11:52 a.m. ET on Sunday]: The National Security Agency says that the surveillance program\'s current procedures have been amended to ensure that only people suspected of criminal activity are targeted.\n\nFollow the latest coverage on Twitter at @GlobeScanner<|endoftext|>This is a great piece on the importance of a positive mental outlook on life – and an especially valuable resource for a teenager (that\'s what she is).\n\nWe are often told that our mental state affects our body health. And that is indeed true for many of us. People with higher levels of anxiety and depression are more likely to experience illness, and in many cases, death. The problem is, how we perceive the impact of our thoughts and experiences can play a role in how we think about our health.\n\nWhile the effects of stress and anxiety can be problematic, our own thoughts are more damaging due to their connection to our body and emotions.\n\nWhen we experience stress, the amygdala (the brain\'s fear centre) and hippocampus (our mind\'s memory centre) become activated. This is not pleasant to our body.\n\nSo the next time you feel tired and stressed out, here\'s a bit of advice for keeping you mind and body clear by learning some positive mental images. Your body will thank you for taking the time to find a calm space and reflect – because these can be very powerful mental exercises if used regularly.\n\nThe most important thing to remember is simple: do as you think, and do the same thing to others. When you get to know others, you\'ll notice that they can learn in the same way. (This isn\'t just a theory; here are some of the benefits of using', '.S. has sought to build bridges with China. But the recent U.S.-China Comprehensive Dialogue was fraught over the U.S. position on Taiwan, in particular its view of Taiwan\'s de jure independence and the prospect of it becoming a functioning state. Taiwan\'s foreign minister also had to go to Washington to explain his country\'s position on the U.S. position on Taiwan. And a similar U.S.-China Dialogue in 2012 was even more fraught, with the U.S. insisting that it uphold the principle of one China, while at the same time the Taiwanese side insisted that this was "null and void" and that it did want Taiwan to maintain its current status as a de facto independent country. The Chinese side, led by the top Chinese Communist party official, Yang Jiechi, rejected the U.S. position that Taiwan\'s sovereignty in the islands rests wholly with Beijing. This time, after a series of conversations, the American side came to the negotiating table with the idea of a two-tiered approach. While China would accept the use of force to bring the island over to its side, the U.S. would refrain from that kind of action and would call for continued efforts to resolve the islands\' status through a gradual process of normalization. While the two sides are already at the table, there are lingering tensions over how to do so. After the first session of the new dialogue, the White House released a statement stating that the U.S. hopes "China will not use force against its neighbors, nor deploy military forces against U.S. allies in a situation where they pose no challenge." But in their subsequent meetings, with some Chinese officials going on the record as not wanting to see the U.S. use its military, the U.S. still refused to take that position. The U.S-Chinese leaders then met again in Beijing to talk again about an issue that has been simmering for years: the U.S.-China Joint Communiqué, which officially recognizes Taiwan as a separate and sovereign nation, and provides that the "one China" principle should be upheld even if that principle is not stated in the Joint Communiquine or in any relevant U.S. domestic legal documents. The U.S. and China should have agreed to keep that document secret to keep tension between the two capitals at bay. With little doubt on whether the U.S. is willing to continue its embrace of the principle of "one China" and to take a hard line against China\'s territorial claims toward Taiwan, the U.S. is now backpedaling. On January 14, a top senior U.S. official admitted that the U.S. will accept the Chinese position, and that is probably the best a U.S. leader can do. The U.S. and both China and Japan can then take a very different approach to Taiwan. The U.S. is seeking to keep the Joint Communiqute a secret, while all the parties, including Taiwan, need to know, as well as its position on territorial claims, to avoid unnecessary tensions and allow time for all parties to negotiate a final product. To put this point, the U.S. position is that it should stay quiet about a "one China" document because if Taiwan is able to win this battle, and it\'s not clear that any other party will be willing or able to, some of these conflicts could escalate into an act of war. The U.S. is insisting that any solution will depend on Taiwan\'s willingness to take steps to achieve independence. This will not help to resolve the disputes with China and Japan on the islands as well. The U.S.-China and Taiwan-to-Taiwan dialogues can be effective for a number of reasons. First, they both emphasize the one China principle, without the U.S. needing to be asked about whether it recognizes it. While the U.S. will not be asked directly, neither will there be any questions about supporting the China-oriented independence movement on the island. The U.S. also can emphasize the "one China," and that\'s an issue the Taiwanese side will understand, even without China\'s asking. But the U.S. is unlikely to put forward new demands for more autonomy in Taiwan when it does not take a hard line against China, in order to avoid provoking China. Instead, the U.S. is taking a wait-and-see approach. As long as Taiwan is under-recognized, China has only the diplomatic leverage to push it toward independence. And given China\'s historical position on Taiwan, the U.S. can avoid being involved in a protracted conflict and move on.\n\nChinese Reaction The State Council\'s National Security Committee on January 15 issued the following statement on the new dialogue. According to the statement, China and Japan will move to the second round of dialogue in the near future. This may be seen as a sign that the U.S. strategy to', ' new game, the new version of Sling, is that it\'s free. You don\'t need the game for anything. You don\'t need the game for my advertising or my donations. It\'s not about me at all. It\'s about you.\n\nFor many years I played video games. I had my hand in every console game I played on, and the only reason I ever didn\'t buy a new console was money. I would buy new consoles at the price the company said the price should be, then I would go and buy a game I thought would be just as good as the one I got at the price it was advertised at. For me, that was a game of trust. Not the trust of the game\'s publisher, not the trust of the publisher of the game I wanted, but of the trust of the customer, the customer who made it possible for me to play that game again at cheaper price.\n\nTo me, that\'s the heart of advertising — that trust of the customer. This game is a game of trust. When the game\'s publisher says $16.99, I give them a dollar. When they say $39.99, I buy the game. When they say $49 to play the game, I will buy it. When the game developer says $9.99, I pay for it. When the people behind the game say $6.99, I pay for it. When the developers say $14.99, I buy the game. When the people saying that they will use the game to promote an Xbox One, I will buy it.\n\nIt wasn\'t that there was a sense of fairness in trying to earn my trust, or that I was owed something. What I found was a sense of justice. And in that sense, I\'m happy to be supporting the Sling channel.\n\nWhy is that different from my trust in the other games I play? It\'s different because I had a different relationship with them — I owned them as an object of my ownership and ownership became transactional. The Sling channel is something I am not selling, and it never will be sold. It is something I am not buying, and it never will be bought. It is an object of ownership that I never might sell any time soon, and to date, I\'ve never even heard from a business contact that offered to buy it.\n\nA video game company is not your friend. You are not their friend. They\'re businesspeople, and they exist to sell things. I\'m not saying one way or the other, but from my point of view, what I see with regard to Sling is an object for my objecting.\n\nBut my point wasn\'t to defend myself against accusations of being a greedy corporation. My point was a statement about the relationship between what I own and how I spend my money and where that money is supposed to be going.\n\nIt is easy to talk about owning the object, but it often leads to people saying things like, "you are wasting money in a free game where you don\'t own the thing." I agree. If you don\'t own the thing, how is it helping you buy it? Because I\'ll point out that for every Sling game that costs $59.99, a hundred copies of the same game will cost me $9.99.\n\nAt the center of my argument are my friends (who were not paid for making the game) for whom a game is more than a game. Those people have an emotional attachment to that thing and a stake in its continuation, because their children play it.\n\nFor other games, what they do with their money is really more of a concern. You want to watch a baseball game at 2 a.m.? You want to play Minecraft? You want to go out to a club and catch a game? You want to play Call of Duty? I don\'t know of any reasons for people wanting to do these things more than once or twice a week.\n\nI can argue that, to some degree, the way I spend my money is wrong when I spend it on things with some connection to games. We can argue it is wrong every day, but I\'m going to make an argument for it every chance I get. But I want to make this argument today because it has some real-world importance, because I want to make it now, and because I want to talk about how games are becoming less about the things we bought and more about the things we don\'t.\n\nA game is not a product or a service, or even your right to get a service or product any longer. The thing you buy into is the relationship between the game or service vendor and you — the person who gives that money and the person who makes that service or product a service to you.\n\nWe can see exactly how deeply embedded this is from the history of game-making in games, of which there already is a significant literature, but', ' living off of the streets and in jails rose by more than 30,000 to 4.5 million in 2016. That\'s more than a tenfold increase over the previous decade, to a total of more than 12.8 million people living off the streets, according to census data released by the US Census Bureau in December 2017.\n\nThat surge in homeless populations is being reported all over the country — in cities, in rural communities outside cities, and in rural areas with high poverty rates. But in some states, where the number is up even more sharply, there\'s a clear pattern: More residents have been forced to move off of the streets and into jails during the period examined in the charts below.\n\nThe numbers are broken down by the state, and they vary by a wide margin. In some states, such as Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Arizona and New Mexico, the increase between 2014 and 2016 was more than 10 percent. Other states, such as Delaware, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia, saw a drop of more than 3.5 percent. Only one state, South Dakota, saw the rate of homeless people increased between 2014 and 2016. Another state, Kentucky, saw the number of homeless people decline by more than 5 percent.\n\nSource: US government\n\nThe map above shows estimates of homelessness by county and by state, using data from the federal government\'s National Survey on Homelessness released this July. For comparison reasons, the maps also show the percentage change in the number of people living off of the streets and jail beds through the first quarter of 2017:\n\n\nSource: US government<|endoftext|>A former Marine says he\'s suing the U.S. Marine Corps and Army because they kicked him off active duty after he refused to remove a patch depicting the Prophet Mohammed.\n\nRyan T. Williams is a Muslim convert, who is suing the Army and Marine Corps in Florida.\n\n"I don\'t think it is the role of the federal government to tell me who I can be." - Ryan T. Williams\n\nRyan Williams says he wants to fight on in the military with pride, despite having lost his job, a Purple Heart, and an eye.\n\nHe says that he and his brothers all fought in Iraq and that a U.S. flag is a symbol of America, even if one is not supposed to like Muhammad.\n\nWilliams explains that he was in charge of a battalion, and he objected to something on the patch:\n\n"Just like this sign in Texas in front of the Alamo is disrespectful to the Alamo. I believe it is anti-Christian. I believe it is anti-American," Williams said.\n\nWilliams had to leave the battalion, and was later discharged for refusing to remove the patch because he wanted to be able to wear his military rank as other servicemen do.\n\nHis commander sent him home, saying he should not wear the patch on his chest, and he could be forced to go back to Iraq.\n\nIt is not known why his commander sent him home, or even if an investigation was done.\n\nWilliams and his friends at the Marines say he was told to not return to training, but that would be a mistake, he says.\n\n"This is not about patriotism, this is not about God. It is about me not being comfortable with the uniform," Williams said.\n\nHe is seeking an injunction, as well as damages for his injury, and an unspecified amount in a civil lawsuit — he does not know what the amount will be yet.\n\nThe Army did not return a request for comment, but the Marine Corps told Action News:\n\n"We are disappointed the court granted an injunction and we are taking the necessary steps to move forward. We are looking at the options available to us immediately. The matter will be addressed in a timely manner."\n\nThe U.S. Navy is representing Williams\' claims in court, which is expected to take several weeks to resolve.<|endoftext|>You\'ve probably seen the headlines: "The United States has \'become more religious\' in the last decade".\n\nIt seems like most people agree that religion has gotten stronger in the US. However, has their faith been strengthened or is it a symptom of an unhealthy environment, such as social media, for example?\n\nThe facts show a different picture. According to a study published in the American Sociological Review last week, religiosity is not increasing in the US, and has not since the 1990s, for that matter.\n\n"Although more people are becoming religiously active, it has not been driven by religious belief," says sociologist Dan Kahan of the University at Buffalo at the press conference.\n\nWhy religion has not become more "religiously active" in the US\n\nDespite the claims regarding rising faith in the US, the study found that religiously unaffiliated Americans are not only growing, but are also becoming more religiously active.\n\nIn 2002', ' to door in rural and remote communities to collect a wide range of data on local land use, including property taxes, water and sewage services, and fire safety, to create an overall picture of how the province is faring — even before a spring budget. At first glance, that could be surprising.\n\nAs some readers here have noted, provincial governments collect a wide range of data from many different sources through its various agencies, and a major part of their duties are ensuring that the information is publicly available.\n\nBut as I\'ve written about here, public figures often take things a step too far when they make personal or intimate inquiries about private land, water, or local matters that are not directly connected with government.\n\nSo if a government official wants to talk about a proposed water or sewage dam or bridge on their property, or make an effort to understand the impact of a fire in a community, it\'s not uncommon for a local official or private person to say, "Yes, of course, of course."\n\nBut it\'s even more common for people — sometimes, the same people who are making the request — to deny the request outright. The local official may say the official is making a "personal inquiry" in order to gain access to the property. A local resident may say the request is inappropriate or invasive, and may object when the official goes off about a particular part of his or her property.\n\nOften, residents respond in kind.\n\nThis is not the first time the Harper government\'s penchant for snubbery toward rural and remote communities has come under scrutiny.\n\nLast October, I investigated why Stephen Harper\'s government has never publicly mentioned the fact that there was a large, contentious fire in the same area, and why it was only made public when the local municipality was forced to ask for help from emergency services.\n\nBut I have to say this incident made me even more suspicious of government officials\' openness when it comes to information on personal and private matters. It\'s as if government officials feel they have a duty to protect and protect people\'s secrets. (I\'m always quick to point out that, even when the government doesn\'t feel like releasing information, its decision makers often make efforts to inform the public of the matter if, for example, they think information is important or potentially injurious to the public\'s health.)\n\nThis isn\'t unique to Canada. The New York Times recently revealed that the American government routinely refuses to release information on its national security policies — despite repeatedly promising to do so.\n\nIt\'s also not the first time the government has turned down requests from Canadians who want to better understand our health-care system. For example, Ottawa told the CBC last spring that a local man with cancer had not responded because of privacy concerns. But a federal bureaucrat later noted that the man had responded to an official request from the hospital\'s public health system — which is part of the official Health Canada\'s public health service.\n\nThis week, that very bureaucrat told a CBC reporter, "I\'m sorry, I\'m sorry, I\'m sorry."\n\nBut the fact is, governments are already well beyond the point where they have an obligation to respond to the general public regarding matters that are unrelated to their official job. In that sense, I agree that the government should give Canadians access to all the information a federal bureaucrat thinks is important (or even possible).\n\nBut even if the government is not obligated to provide access to personal and private information, as long as it does so, it can, under certain circumstances, turn a blind eye to citizens who ask for it, and even offer them help.\n\nFor example, a public body in B.C. recently created two separate websites for people to find information about fire safety and to apply for a fire licence, and then told all of the people in those municipalities, for free, to visit the website to get the details they wanted.\n\nAs I previously noted, this type of "satisfaction survey" is common for health-care practitioners to ask about a person\'s symptoms or medical history — and in many cases, the information provided to the practitioner is then shared with other health-care professionals.\n\nFor instance, a local health-care practitioner might be asked to review patients\' test results or to diagnose an injury, and would also likely share the information with other health-care professionals who may be able to help.\n\nIn both cases, the information would become the property and responsibility of health-care professionals, but ultimately would be publicly accessible: the person who requested that information wouldn\'t have to ask the practitioner to give it to him or her.\n\nBut in both of those cases, it remains the responsibility of the health-care practitioner to share the information with everyone who was a patient after that practitioner reviewed their test results. The person is then expected to inform the person who requested the information, after being asked by him or her, that they', ' best-known religious leaders, a man who preached that Satan was "not real," said he is not a believer and has no plans to start a new church after his "apostasy," the expulsion of his followers and the closing of his Texas megachurch, the Austin Palladium.\n\nThe Rev. Robert Jeffress said Thursday, the day the pastor said he was leaving his Austin megachurch to start his own megachurch, that he would be ready to return after he had a family to care for.\n\n"If it were me, as opposed to being a pastor, I would not have done what I did," Jeffress told the American Baptist Churches of North America. "I would have stayed in Austin."\n\nJeffress is the pastor of Austin\'s First Baptist Church, the largest megachurch of the state.\n\nRelated: Religious freedom bill dies in Texas Senate\n\nJeffress, 77, also announced that the Austin Palladium was coming to an end, as it\'s been operating for 27 years. He said he was leaving and taking his 4,000 faithful to Texas megachurches to be closer to God.\n\nThe Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.\n\nThe Rev. Jeffreyress is widely known as the founder of the Moral Majority, a religious group that campaigned vigorously against same-sex marriage. Jeffress, who says the Bible calls for Christians to stay in the public square to battle the forces of evil, was an outspoken opponent of marriage equality and gay adoption and was quoted as saying in 2007: "The Bible does not say any man can tell a woman who she can and cannot marry."\n\nJeffress said today that he had been struggling with his conscience for the past few months or so when he reached a hard decision. On Sept. 21, he met with a close friend to tell him that he was gay, and he didn\'t want to live as a gay man. The friend said he was told he had to leave the ministry.\n\n"If I don\'t want to be a homosexual, the Bible says I have to leave this ministry," Jeffress told those gathered at the meeting. "The Bible says we are not to be gay. It is one of the reasons I am standing here tonight. … What I\'ve decided to do is leave this ministry and do what I am planning to do."\n\nA month later, a small group of followers in the Southern Baptist Convention voted to expel Jeffress from the denomination.\n\nRelated: Here\'s what happened when Texas religious freedom bill died in Texas Senate\n\nSome of Jeffress\'s supporters had argued that the Southern Baptist Convention\'s decision, which was based on Jeffress\'s sexual orientation, amounted to church discipline, while others said it was a legitimate way to discipline him.\n\nThe Southern Baptist Convention did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Baptist pastor John Hagee tweeted that he welcomed Jeffress into the Southern Baptist Convention.\n\nMore than 40,000 pastors, ministers, and church members signed a letter opposing the "apostasy" of Jeffress and urging Texas lawmakers not to pass anti-LGBT legislation that would have prevented him from preaching.\n\n"To deny Dr. Jeffress his religious liberty is to deny a good portion of the very people who want to follow his example," Hagee said in a statement following a vote against the bill. "We owe it to our fellow countrymen and especially to each and every one of them who are denied religious freedoms or are afraid they will lose them because of their personal choice."\n\nDuring the meeting Jeffress said, he decided to leave the pulpit because he wanted to be with his family and not be subject to that debate.\n\nThe Southern Baptist Convention and Southern Baptist churches in Texas did not respond to requests for comment.\n\nRelated: Jeffress, other anti-LGBT pastors face off as gay adoption bill dies in Texas Senate\n\nThe last Texas Baptist church to be open to all comers was the First Baptist Church of Austin, which was founded in 1775. Jeffress is a member of the church, and the congregation was founded by a minister James White to bring down the heavy weight of the U.S. Civil War.\n\nThe last congregation in the state to be open to all comers was the Trinity Baptist Church of Texas, which opened in 1875. After a year of intense fighting, the church in 1900 was destroyed. The New Texas Baptist Seminary, near San Antonio, was built in 1905. By the 1970s, there had been six churches in the state.\n\nThis story has been updated.<|endoftext|>On a typical day of the football season, there are few moments that generate more buzz than the start of the draft. Most teams can only dream of winning their division, and with a wide swath of the league likely to be eliminated sooner rather than later, every team is in desperate need of a boost in production', ' New York City police respond to "trouble spots," the more specific description including areas or areas of the city where problems are often seen. The report\'s authors, Nicholas Kristof, Mark Leibovich and Adam Liptak, made their findings public via email Thursday evening.\n\nThe report, which was written by Kristof, Liptak, Leibovich and Tom Wicker, found that many New Yorkers\' experience with police isn\'t entirely positive — in fact, more than half of the officers polled by the Times said they felt less safe on the job than they\'d ever been in their lives.\n\nWhile the police are a critical part of a cityscape — the paper notes that New Yorkers "consume as much as a third of all of the material created by metropolitan cities" — the reporters looked at a number of variables to get a sense of their experience while out on the beat.\n\nFirst, they looked at their own safety when they traveled across the city:\n\nThe next thing the report did was look at the cops and what sort of issues they see. "We asked officers to tell us what kind of problem they were encountering," the report explains:\n\nOn most days, I saw a uniformed officer approach with a badge. On other days, an unmarked SUV with lights and siren would pull up to a stop sign or red light and then the officer would step on the horn, wave a police car over, and then exit. The frequency of these interactions fluctuated from day to day, as did what kinds of incidents they involved — from an officer blocking your car while you were trying to turn left or right to an officer stopping you at a red light. More than three-quarters of the officers said they were dealing with minor offenses of disorderly conduct and traffic infractions but that they had seen some serious crimes that they felt required their immediate attention. The frequency of these interactions fluctuated from day to day, as did what kinds of incidents they involved — from an officer blocking your car while you were trying to turn left or right to an officer stopping you at a red light.\n\nOne reason the frequency of some incidents can fluctuate is because they often involve interactions between officers and the public. But even when the cops and the public don\'t interact frequently, they still work together on a daily basis. The Times notes that NYPD officers patrol 7,500 public spaces on an average weekday, but more officers have to go on patrol than the people they\'re called to protect. So, a cop has to go out on patrol only when many in the public feel safer, while the people being protected generally don\'t need someone with all their information, knowledge, and power sitting around the corner.\n\nThe report also looked at officers\' interactions with the public: While the number of civilians in public spaces was fairly consistent, the numbers of officers — both on and off duty — also varied considerably:\n\nAnd on another issue that the reporters have long pointed to, the officers who are given the most complaints said they dealt with the most complaints.\n\nThe New York City police department is now under new leadership following an internal investigation which has led to an internal probe into how the department handled criticism last year by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other city agencies like the Office of the Inspector General. The review found that complaints about the NYPD increased over the first half of last year, while the number of arrests also went up during that time, according to a copy of the report obtained by the Times.\n\nThe Times report notes that the department is now looking into how its handling of the scrutiny, especially how the FBI has been allowed to monitor the reports.\n\nThe bureau\'s director, James B. Comey, has criticized the department for not cooperating fully in the investigation, which was ultimately halted amid confusion and other internal issues.<|endoftext|>The former top White House counsel will appear in public Friday in Washington to testify before a Senate subcommittee on potential obstruction of justice in the firing of former FBI director James B. Comey.\n\nJay Sekulow, a former associate general counsel for President Trump\'s legal team, will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, its executive members announced Thursday.\n\nIn testimony before the panel on Thursday, Sekulow said Trump was in "active consideration" to remove Comey on May 9, a few days before he was fired by President Trump.\n\nSIGN UP\n\nIn April, Sekulow told The Washington Post that he knew the president of the United States wanted Comey removed even before he spoke to Comey on the Oval Office tarmac in February.\n\nSekulow said Comey informed him in a private phone conversation on Feb. 14, two days after Trump fired him, that he could not remain in the job.\n\nComey said Trump asked him to end an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn\'s ties to Russia, Sekulow said. And in a memo written the next day, he said Trump expressed']

rish-16 / gpt2client

Generated text unrelated to prompt #15