T-Bone

“The bible is the most accurate source- if your rightly divide the word of God ( with no errors, contradictions and everything fits)” This is somewhat of a mental construct * – something formed within the mind. Mental constructs range from simple concepts,visualizations, and theories to vast wonderlands of make-believe. Now as far as arguments* go, the crux of the matter, of course revolves around Waxit’s premises* - indicated by the word “if” – which pulls double-duty, there are two premises - - that is to say, if Waxit’s process of reasoning and hermeneutics are correct - free from error - in order to "rightly divide the word of God" * , and if also “the word of God with no errors, contradictions and everything fits “ actually does exist - other than in one's mind, as a mental construct – then, there is justification for the conclusion – "...the Bible is the most accurate source..." – then the argument is valid. In effect, an argument is valid - having a sound basis in logic - if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. == == == For those following this thread you may have realized by now that Waxit’s feeble attempts at disputing the verses and logic offered by the opposing viewpoints are nothing more than a sham – a pretense. Waxit frequently claims by an unabashed pontificating decree to “rightly divide the word of God with no errors, contradictions and everything fits” but never actually addresses or discusses the inconsistent issues brought to his attention by Grease Spotters. An old saying is apropos here – either put up or shut up. I have had a tendency to think that’s he’s just being dishonest and lazy. I think most Grease Spotters have tried to relate or connect to Waxit at some level – I know I have by reflecting on what a cult mindset was like - and that it takes a while to unravel. repair and heal from being subjected to the psychological manipulation, anti-intellectualism and the demands for blind obedience by a destructive cult... But his obstinacy and his manner of being very unreasonable makes me wonder if there is more at play here. Is he a troll? Is he a typical follower of some church that vaunts the "greatness" of the book “God’s Plan for Mankind”? I mean do they all proselytize with such intensity like he does? Do they all display such a rabid passion for the Sabbath? inquiring minds want to know … I could be way off track on some of this stuff…It would be helpful if he addressed my concerns - I've been trying to be upfront and honest - but he ignores me - often I wind up having to refer to him in the third person...Which is kind of silly - in an open discussion on the internet – and he also tends to ignore others when they post something he doesn’t like. It’s like there’s two threads in one here. There’s the actual thread that you see and read here, with most folks trying to exchange and examine ideas about the Sabbath. Then there’s the imaginary thread in Waxit’s mind - which seems to be reflected in his posts – where he thinks (as WordWolf put it) he’s able to declare his position correct by fiat (a command or act of will that simply creates something without further effort ). …Now what would be great is if Waxit would hit the brakes on stonewalling. Simply put stonewalling is a defense-mechanism that is often activated when one feels threatened or unsure of how to respond to conflict. Sometimes folks stonewall because they fear a negative outcome. I wonder if Waxit was afraid that he didn't have what it takes to effectively proselytize...or was he worried he was not controversial enough to get a rise out of other Grease Spotters, or just afraid that he could not get folks to agree with him on Sabbath keeping? It doesn’t appear that he’s made any converts, or caused “civil unrest” at Grease Spot, or got folks to agree with him. If stonewalling is your game, that which you greatly feared has come upon you. == == == *mental construct – see Wiki construct (philosophy) and also Wiki construct (psychology) and Wiki mental construct *arguments - see arguments and inferences *premise - in logic is a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion; a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference. *”rightly dividing the word of God” – the process should be clearly defined as to what are the correct specific steps for this operation; Often when posters throw around this term without being clear and specific on how they derived their interpretation of the Bible it might just mean they’re trying to pull a fast one – being lazy or dishonest, or both.

Hi Waxit, Do I have your attention? Hopefully, you’ll read this post - since you’ve somehow managed to ignore my previous posts (as well as others quoting my posts), which were in response to your repeated requests of giving you a single Bible verse….. I could quote other verses in different books that also show the "insignificance of 7th day sabbath keeping" - but you did say just one verse ...so here it is, once again the “one bible verse (rightly divided- no errors) that shows the insignificance of 7th day sabbath keeping”: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath…Colossians 2:16 ESV

Would you please list these “14 rules for enabling one to rightly divide the word of God where there are no errors or contradictions”. I’d like to pin you down on what specific “rules“ you used to arrive at the conclusion that you have rightly-divided the word of God regarding keeping the Sabbath. Is getting “to whom it is written” one of those “rules”? If so, you seemed to have skirted around the issue in a previous post of yours here . After which I pointed out your equivocation in my post here . So perhaps you can understand my concern that you might not always go by the “rules” – even though you may think you are. I make mistakes like that myself sometimes – that’s why it’s helpful when I have other folks' eyes & brains take a look at the issue and examine my train of thought – maybe somewhere I got off track …It also might be helpful to think of Grease Spot – NOT as one’s own personal pulpit with a captive audience – but as an open discussion to exchange and analyze ideas. Sooooo…circling back…please list those “14 rules for enabling one to rightly divide the word of God where there are no errors or contradictions” – so we can all look over your line of thought on the specific “rules“ you used to arrive at the conclusion that you have rightly-divided the word of God regarding keeping the Sabbath.

I know what you mean, WordWolf…it takes more time and energy to compensate for the lack of normalcy. Like Zoom meetings and lots of homework to make up for the school being closed…and all kinds of clean-up and organizing projects to keep from going stir-crazy. At the end of the day I look at the clock and ask “where does the time go?” And I have the hardest time remembering what day of the week it is – until I look at a calendar. If not for watching the news and talk shows, each day would almost seem like a repeat of yesterday…Yikes ! Am I stuck inside a Groundhog Day movie?

that goes triple for me, Modgellan - good post and thanks good post and thanks good post and thanks

I don’t know if these will answer your specific question but here’s a few links to other Grease Spot threads that discuss plagiarism – I think there’s been some reference to "stolen characters" in some of them: Plagiarism on the road to success vpw and plagiarism wierwille's avid plagiarism and sexual predation Open letter to Jean Yves DeLisle life cycle of wierwille's Way Tree a couple of questions about vpw == == == Here’s a couple more I just found by putting “Maggie Muggins” in the search window What Maggie Muggins told us about wierwille Socrates reply on The Wierwille Legacy thread To use the search feature on Grease Spot use the search feature at the top right of Grease Spot page:

I agree with you DogLover, I think the food, time to nap, play and fellowship were great ; that's why I used the phrase "a controlled environment that tries to approximate the “domain” of the in-residence part of the way corps program" ....approximate: close to the actual, but not completely accurate or exact. If PFAL ’77 was conducted exactly like the in-residence way corps program – you might have seen a lot of unsuspecting attendees suddenly run for the hills. == == == == == == == == Attention - to all reading this thread: And just to elaborate on the reason I started this thread – I just thought I ‘d give everyone a chance to read or post any of their memories from TWI – good, bad or indifferent. Sometimes something remembered from the past can evoke a mix of good and bad feelings and perhaps the memory might even have some uninteresting, benign or bland aspects to it depending on how you slice it and dice it. As an example, I really enjoyed Skyrider's post about him figuring out the shortcut to stringing chairs by observing the indentations in the carpet. To me that was a good way (less tedious – more efficient) of dealing with a bad situation (having to string chairs, indentured servitude). If someone was never in the corps or never had to do that or couldn’t care less about being tasked with such an antiquated technique I imagine they would probably feel indifferent about Skyrider’s post. These recent posts by myself and DogLover are another example. My first post about PFAL ’77 focused on the bad aspects of it – the loooooooooong sessions and the element of some control afforded to TWI by taking over a campus for a course not open to non-grads of PFAL (referring to the original class…but I don’t know, maybe they did allow some non-grads to take PFAL ’77 – if anyone knows please chime in). DogLover focused on the good aspects of PFAL ’77 - the food, time to nap, play and fellowship – which I thought were good too. I suppose if someone didn’t mind the loooooooooong sessions, the halfway house atmosphere to help grads see the greatness of living in an alternate reality... and... could go either way on the food and self-structure time, I imagine they’d feel indifferent about PFAL ’77.

Now if you combine the the loooooooooong sessions of PFAL with a controlled environment that tries to approximate the “domain” of the in-residence part of the way corps program you might come up with something like PFAL ’77. that's all I can say for now...feeling a bit tired...maybe I'll just take a short nap...

I agree ! “Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subjects' ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into their minds, as well as to change their attitudes, values and beliefs.” from Wikipedia, brainwashing And thinking about the loooooooooong sessions of PFAL that wore people down and induced sleepiness…and how sleep deprivation was a way of life in the corps program, I’d say that was a huge boost to their brainwashing techniques “Sleep Loss Dumbs You Down Sleep plays a critical role in thinking and learning. Lack of sleep hurts these cognitive processes in many ways. First, it impairs attention, alertness, concentration, reasoning, and problem solving. This makes it more difficult to learn efficiently.” from WebMD

This just might be another good example of giving bad advice…if you get bored with the first one then go straight to the remix. Copeland blows covid19 away Copeland covid19 remix

If a number of people say something with one voice, they all express the same opinion about something. "This would enable the community to speak with one voice in world affairs." from Collins Dictionary

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath...Colossians 2:16 ESV

Please compile into categories the specific data of the “okay” stuff and the “horse manure” stuff and work out percentages with a pie chart and then post the pie chart here, to validate your assertion. If you need further help on this project you may check out this You Tube .

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Romans 14:5 ESV

Rubina brings up a good point – I think there have been a few threads discussing the latent aspect of TWI’s teachings – which lie dormant or hidden until circumstances are suitable for further development or action - like when you’re reading Romans 8 and start recalling what wierwille said about carnal versus spiritual – which can split off into other veins of thought like “maybe I’ve been reading too much worldly stuff lately…that’s why I’m not being spiritual”…I think a lot of ex-TWI folks experience that – I know I have…reminds me of…I think it was on VH1, ...remember those pop up music videos ...My wife and I loved those….TWI pop ups ---mmmmm not so much. it’s been my experience that rather than trying to suppress those “TWI pop-ups”, I’ve practically overwhelmed “the system” (my noggin ) with a plethora of new and various input (other Bible versions, commentaries, non-TWI Bible studies, systematic theology, etc.). I try to adhere to the sound advice of I Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” ; use good critical thinking skills and keep an open mind. I’m comfortable with some ideas and concepts being in a state of flux – and enjoy the freedom I have to decide what items fall into that “uncertainty category”. All this mental activity (as opposed to the passive method of absorbing TWI dogma unquestioningly) has become "the dominant force" that more often than not trumps TWI pop ups. Twinky also brought up another good point – changing what Bible version to read. For efficiency and economy I have two parallel Bibles – each has 4 different versions NIV, KJV, NASB, Amplified parallel Bible ...and NKJV, ESV, NLT, The Message parallel Bible. Then for grins you might want to check out some editors’ attempts to put the Bible in chronological order – sometimes the Gospels get a little dicey . The Integrated Study Bible – a chronological approach and The Narrated Bible - in chronological order And just to be realistic and practical - there is nothing wrong with salvaging what you want from TWI – be it certain teachings, reference material, Bible version preference. I still refer to Bullinger’s Companion Bible and “How to Enjoy the Bible” occasionally, and some of my reference material – like concordances and Lexicons are for the KJV – partly because I still used that version for a while after I left TWI ...and also - after reading KJV for 12 years and referring to Bullinger stuff while in TWI, I now have something of a natural cross-reference system in my head, handy for recalling where a chapter and verse says blah blah or where Bullinger addressed a certain word or noted a certain structure in the passage...Maybe I’m just being more selective and re-purposing some pop ups... I dunno . Thinking about what Rocky said “You should read classic literature because it forces you to think deeply and concentrate” – should apply to reading one of the greatest classics – the Bible. Yes, some old habits are hard to break – but if you can resist the temptation to “put a teaching together for the next fellowship” or the impulse to “find other verses that might corroborate TWI dogma” – and instead just read it afresh...for example, picture yourself sitting in Nympha’s home somewhere near Laodicea (see Col.4: 15ff) and after someone has read a letter from Paul, it is then passed around and you get to look at it all you want for as long as you want…Commentaries and Bible studies can be helpful – but just reading the Bible while resisting the urge to activate all of our vast mental subroutines of accumulated knowledge , might freshen up our ability to think deeply and concentrate.

Perhaps a few definitions are in order to enhance a reader’s experience while checking out this thread. I leave it up to each reader to decide for themselves what is applicable to any posts. If the shoe don’t fit you must acquit. But if the shoe fits – wear it. That’s why I always wear shoes that are a few sizes too big. This way I can accept a lot more criticism than folks with tight fitting shoes. Besides the mistakes, errors and faults I have committed I am also guilty of trying to redeem myself. Clique: a small group of people, with shared interests or other features in common, who spend time together and do not readily allow others to join them…while there are varied interests on Grease Spot, in my humble opinion two of the most common features or distinctive attributes of many Grease Spotters is the indomitable freedom of thought and the concern for honesty. I think sometimes newcomers who try to pull a fast one get confused. It’s not that we all think alike or even work from a common playbook of strategies – I can understand how they might think that at first glance, especially when their underhanded tactics get them nowhere. But to give Grease Spot a fair shake, I would suggest that anyone who feels Grease Spot is cliquish, stick around a little while and look over some old threads. You just might find a very wide assortment of belief systems and viewpoints on many threads. This is invaluable for seeing the bigger picture which is the other side of the story regarding TWI – revealing its dark underbelly. People are individuals – unique and complex human beings – so experiences are varied – so the stories are varied. Personally, I think everyone has the right to salvage or hold onto whatever they want from their TWI experience. Folks can even try to sell others on what they think is the greatest thing since rightly-divided bread. But don’t be surprised if during your sales pitch you get some flak from folks who want to shakedown every claim, every assertion to see if it rings true or makes sense. Believe it or not we have a Grease Spotter who claimed on a couple/ a few threads that PFAL is God-breathed. yeah, I know ... Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through indirect, deceptive, or underhanded tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative and devious. Guilt-trip: make someone feel guilty, especially in order to induce them to do something. Self-righteous: having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior. pigheaded: willfully or perversely unyielding; obstinate; stubborn; bull-headed. anti-intellectualism : hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits. Anti-intellectuals present themselves and are perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people. Hidden agenda: a secret or ulterior motive for something; A wish or plan to implement a particular idea without telling anybody, even though people may be affected in a negative way. Ulterior motive: ulterior motive (plural ulterior motives) An alternative or extrinsic reason for doing something, especially when concealed or when differing from the stated or apparent reason. Several of the most frequently occurring logical fallacies (I may have missed a few – but these are the most prominent ones I’ve noticed recurring on this thread): Proof by assertion: a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam) Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum): repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more; sometimes confused with proof by assertion Begging the question (petitio principii): providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence): act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

preserved for safekeeping

I do remember wierwille’s final instructions to new students very well, because of the gentle reproof I received in taking a slight deviation from his instructions. I say slight because I did lay aside all other reading material – but I assumed the Old Testament and Gospels would be okay since they’re part of “The Word” too. (Now switching to my film noir voice) “And I would have gotten away with it scot-free, if it wasn’t for some two-bit bookworm opening his yapper to the ringleader who was putting the kibosh on thinking.” …uhm…the two-bit bookworm was me and I kept pestering my Twig coordinator with questions about stuff in the Old Testament and the Gospels. My goofy attempt at film-noir-talk is an homage to the wordiness of some great old movies. I recently saw Emma and actually enjoyed being pushed out of my kick-back-and-watch-the-action-mode of watching a movie – and track the elegant-and-elaborate-while-still-being-funny dialogue. I think I’ll have to buy it when it comes out on DVD so I can relish the dynamics of the screenplay a few more times. I do agree with the idea that reading the classics and other older books can challenge one to think deeper and concentrate. When I was younger I did that a lot more without even thinking about it - without batting an eye. In high school my best friend and I would get into reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novels and talk about various plots and characters. I think the mystery genre can be quite immersive in the stream of consciousness of the characters. For me, trying to understand what motivates a character or how they came to their viewpoint is the real mystery to unravel. After reading WordWolf’s post – that got me to thinking I might crack open The Complete Works of Shakespeare that’s collecting dust on a shelf. Maybe after I finish God is Love by Gerald Bray . This is a systematic theology with a different approach. It reads like a theologian or philosopher having a conversation with a layman – since there are no scripture references in the main text – they are footnoted at the bottom of the page. I like it that way, and often find myself bringing a certain passage to mind from something he’s talking about and then verifying I’m tracking his line of thought by seeing that passage noted below – not saying I’m as smart as him – but at least we’re on the same page.

Concerning some of the double-talk on this thread I’ve noticed – and maybe other readers have too – that some folks use wierwille references almost like a polemic device - even if it's just alluding to some nebulous idea associated with wierwille or the Bible . It's contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining opposing viewpoints. I use the word “rhetoric” specifically because it is language that is designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. Aside from the fact that even wierwille said “sincerity is no guarantee for truth” – which is actually a good bit of advice coming from someone who presented them self as being free from pretense, deceit, or hypocrisy – I think more often than not, an astute listener will analyze the actual content of what is said. wierwille or Bullinger may have gotten some things wrong and may not have always adhered to the principles of interpretation of the Bible that they touted. Two of those “interpretation principles” have been brought up a few times on this thread – context and to whom is it written. I think wierwille and Bullinger were pretty consistent in going by those “rules”. My reason for presenting whole chapters (Rom. 14 & Col. 2) was to give context (Exhibit A) BUT - one poster claimed I took Rom. 14. & Col. 2 out of context (Exhibit B) I had a growing concern that some readers would not realize this obfuscating tactic – claiming something is taken out of context when it actually was not – like yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire (unless Towering Inferno is on the screen – we may dismiss that as audience participation for immersive enthusiasts).... Anyway at this point I realized the poster meant my passages were taken out of context with his viewpoint. (Exhibit C) In other words, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 can only be correctly understood when surrounded in the essential framework of keeping the Sabbath Now let’s look at “to whom it is written” principle: my hopes were raised for a more sensible discussion as to what’s applicable for whom - when a post referred to wierwille’s/Bullinger’s interpretation principle “to whom is it written” (Exhibit D) So I asked to whom is the Old Testament written (Exhibit E) And as unbelievable as it sounds the answer to my question was that “The old testament was written for all of God's people -and it is the old covenant under Abrahan It's different from the new testament where you can see in the epistles to whom it is being written to The New Testament which is the new covenant in Jesus Christ is a continuation of the old testament” (Exhibit F) So for those reading this thread who might wonder what the he11 is going on – let me just say this – there is more than one definition of what context means, and there is more than one interpretation of wierwille/Bullinger’s “to whom is it written” interpretation principle . It depends on who you ask. To clarify my position I go with the standard definition of context being the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed; in other words, a “normal” literary method one would use to explain a book, a story, technical instructions or a legal document…some folks might lean toward interpreting a passage in the context of their own belief system. I am sure there are other ways to define context – I’m just trying to be clear on my position. And for the purposes of this thread regarding “to whom is it written”, I lean toward the wierwille/Bullinger categories of “address recipients” – Jew, Gentile and Church of God…some folks might lean toward interpreting a passage as speaking directly to their belief system or somehow supporting their viewpoint. I’m sure there’s other ways of understanding to whom a passage is speaking to as well – for this thread, I’m going with the wierwille/Bullinger’s “address recipients” as the apparent...obvious and specific person or group on the receiving end of the message. It’s kind of odd – but I guess it’s convenient and efficient for selling something - when some folks use wierwille’s incompetence and/or his scandalous lifestyle as almost a makeshift strawman argument - intentionally misrepresenting a proposition (of a corrected, improved or unadulterated use of interpretation principles), because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument; and furthermore claiming that one is using “biblical principles to rightly-divide the word” is nothing more than a sales pitch; personally I am very wary of pretentious folks who claim they have all this in-depth research. One person’s idea of in-depth work might be someone else’s idea of frolicking in the shallow end of a stagnant pool. Then there’s some folks who don’t like public pools cuz they’re worried about who peed in it. == == == == Bonus feature: for solving the technical dilemma in the following problem: “It's like if you took an electrical switch from your television and fitted it into your car. Will it fit? It wont work will it?” Several issues need to be addressed before you can make this cannibalization of a TV set actually work in your car. What type of switch is it? Rotary, push-button, rocker, latching, momentary, etc.? What is the voltage/current rating of the “TV switch”? What are the voltage/current requirements of the circuit / device in the vehicle? Where will this switch be mounted in the vehicle? On the dashboard, project box on the floorboard, remotely – inside the engine well? Is there room to mount it, is there room to make the proper electrical connections, is there room for you to properly operate the switch? If these details are all properly addressed and appropriately handled – the do-it-yourself-modification should work... ...by the way - The “problem” as it was originally stated is NOT a good example of taking scripture (words) or ideas out of context – because the TV switch/car analogy actually refers to taking a physical object (TV switch) out of the context we usually find it in (a television set) and installing it in a different technological context (an automobile). It involves a much more tedious physical process and would probably be very easily noticed since it would not match the rest of the controls on the vehicle. (Sometimes mental trickery (logical fallacies) can get by unnoticed. But never fear, there’s a lot of sharp honest folks here at Grease Spot. ) Anyway for the TV Switch modification to be operational (actually work) in the car depends on the competency of the technician. Motor-heads thrive on modifying their vehicles. That reminds me - I once worked with another very capable technician who came from Mexico. I think his being so successful and efficient was due in part to the culture he grew up in. He once said to me a lot of the handy folks that were around him did not have a throw-away-mentality like some have in the US. You work with what you got. The computer went out in his Ford Expedition during one of his trips back home. All he could find was a computer out of a Lincoln Navigator at a junk yard in Mexico and with a few modifications and workarounds for some sensor errors he got it to work! ...Now if you were trying to sell the vehicle and claimed the “TV switch” in the car was factory installed or that it was a standard feature on models for that year – that wouldn’t “work” in my book because that’s being dishonest. Now something that is relatively “easy” to do since it merely involves ignoring the rules of grammar and logic in critical thinking – is to take scripture out of context or on the flip flop to insist the passage relates to something else. It is by far a much easier modification to perform than the TV switch/ vehicle adaptation – since it involves the manipulation of ideas.

Before you hit the “submit” button to scientific journal, here’s a checklist (and pitfalls to avoid) right here - steps to publishing in a scientific journal Needless to say one should revise, revise, revise before submitting an article…Revision to the Nth degree = to a very high unspecified level or perhaps to the highest extent to which something can be taken is often informally expressed as “to the Nth degree”…which usually incites envy with letters A through M. The letter L is especially known to take serious offense – since one can research the “L” out of a _ot of things but that’s not as thorough as researching a lot of things to the Nth degree.

"A brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. It is located in the head, usually close to the sensory organs for senses such as vision. It is the most complex organ in a vertebrate's body. In a human, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 14–16 billion neurons,[1] and the estimated number of neurons in the cerebellum is 55–70 billion.[2] Each neuron is connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons. These neurons communicate with one another by means of long protoplasmic fibers called axons, which carry trains of signal pulses called action potentials to distant parts of the brain or body targeting specific recipient cells." from: Wikipedia, the brain

assorted pages from ROA '86 brochure

Hey, stay in your own lane, Waysider...just kidding - always love your input - good one.