Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/28/2017 in all areas

  1. Until there's some permanent remedy, you can access the old files from the GSC documents and the RealAudio files. They're archived elsewhere. Here's the menu for the RealAudio files: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030309073639/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/real.html For those of you who need a media player for your computer, I recommend a free program like VLC player (as flexible as exists)(didn't read the files) MPC-HC (media player classic-home cinema, also very flexible) UMPlayer (again, flexible) (didn't read the files) Daum Pot Player (the smallest of the free, flexible players that I know of.) Real Alternative (designed to read Real Media files especially) ================================================== The Lawsuit-Related documents are here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030215213033/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/lawsuit-main.htm ===================================================== Documents FROM twi are here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030216030833/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/way-generated.htm Those of you who need help reading PDFs either need Adobe or SumatraPDF or some other free PDF reader. ======================================================== Corps notes are here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030215212317/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/corpsnotes.html ============================ GSC editorials are here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030215212642/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/editorial.html ================================= Newspaper articles are here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030215214149/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/newspapers.htm ================================= Miscellaneous documents are here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030215214434/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/misc.htm =================================== Recommended reading is here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030216030722/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/reading.htm This should be useful until a more direct solution is posted (and handy as a backup for future crashes.)
    2 points
  2. Do the actors from today size up to the actors from the day? I want to open up and discuss who you might think those actors are today, who have been out there for 20 or 30 years and not become more popular because of their clothing lines, colognes, and their beautiful bodies, those actors who burst onto the scene with the highest expectations but have not come up to the ranks of say Peter O'toole, Gene Wilder, or say a Robert Duvall? I like Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Do you think their work is really standing up? DiCaprio's latest oscar performance was riveting. IMO he has laid down some tracks but not all toward a movie career the likes of a Ford, Hanks or a Dustin Hoffman. It's still early. Maybe. I realize that these actors are from another generation, the generation of actors whom we hoped would become the next great DeNiro or Gene Hackman, Sean Connery or Gregory Peck, but can their work achieve what the Marlon Brando generation achieved, the Orson Welles, Gary Cooper's, or James Stewart's did? Who do think stands up today? Does anyone come to mind?
    1 point
  3. You can access the appropriate menu here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030309073639/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/main/real.html I checked, and you can get the Realmedia file there. If you can't play the file, you need a more flexible media player. Let me know if you need some suggestions for free media players to download.
    1 point
  4. Except Hubbard didn't pretend to be a Christian or that Scientology had anything to do with Christianity, unlike Jim Jones and People's Temple, David Koresh and Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witness, and Hebert and Garner Ted Armstrong with Worldwide Church of God, or VPW and TWI which made such a claim and were more deceptive.
    1 point
  5. If it doesn't make sense...stick around for a couple of years....it will ! == == == == Who needs the keys to biblical research....we just break in !
    1 point
  6. AD "27 things you never knew about the Bible. (# 6 will blow your mind!)"
    1 point
  7. Here's another woman Actor to consider: Dame Judi Dench. Has been around forever (professional career started 1957) and has played so many roles. She's a pretty awesome female; formidable, one might say.
    1 point
  8. Interesting that you've all named MALE actors with the exception of Goldie Hawn who's more noted for other work. Can I offer Meryl Streep? She has acted in a variety of roles over a very long period, and her roles've all been different. And "believable." As to the great "glamor" actors of the 40s and 50s, they've gone and their ilk will never return. Much more natural styles now. Better.
    1 point
  9. I would agree that Sean Penn's (like him or not) film work stands up. If a list were made today of hollywood's best, for me, I think it would be a very short list. I would also agree with you George, that a good actor should be versatile in both comedies as well as dramas. . Robert DeNiro comes to mind. So versatile. Take your Ryan Reynolds, or Brad Cooper's, or Chris Pine's. They are all good looking hunks who play heartthrobs for the ladies but they fall short imo when it comes to giving a truly worthwhile performance. They are mostly known for choosing comedies. I don't know if that's because that is all they are offered or not, and I find that hard to believe, but I think it suggests A: that hollywood has dried up and no longer cares about really good roles or B: that those actors aren't as versatile and haven't developed that kind of range to play really good roles. I never would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that George Clooney would come up in the conversation as a really good actor. But imo that's what he has done. He has developed that range in his acting and has become versatile at playing both arenas.
    1 point
  10. ...Trinity Schminity...who cares. The bottom line for me is that being a Christian and being in the "God business" are two different things entirely. I don't think that any organiztion that makes a paycheck selling God should be an exception to paying taxes. This church against that church isn't much different than coke versus pepsi or Republicans against Democrats...This was instilled in us when our high school football team was better than the rival town's team. Us versus them seems to be woven into the herd mentality. ...and what greater thrill is there to know that YOUR God is the true God...and the other guy is really worshipping some horned demon in disguise. Truth is...most of these big time preachers are nothing more than carnival barkers hawking money. They lie through their teeth and they would steal Christ off the cross and come back for the nails... I'm through with all of em...
    1 point
  11. From Cheranne's link: I would have thought the first question to ask is: "Do they love God?"Quickly followed by: "Do they love their fellow human beings?" (Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 10) And then the next thing to ask is: "Do they confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised him from the dead? " Three yeses and you might be onto something. If they don't do these things - run, do not walk, away from this organization. Or website, as the case may be. What the heck is the Chjristian orthodox historical concept of anything?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...