waysider

In 1972, it was illegal for a minor to consume alcohol, other than "Sunday beer", or offer it to a minor for consumption in the State of Ohio, which was VPW's home state, the state with whose laws he would have or should have been most familiar, even if this did not take place in Ohio. If he did not know the local laws, he should have inquired rather than pronounce it "OK" to offer a minor alcohol, which, by the way, would contradict our Biblical admonition to obey the laws of the land. (ie: what some might classify a "sin".) edited to reiterate this question again in case it went unnoticed. "Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described?'

I'll ask the question again in case it wasn't clear. "Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described?'

Maybe my memory is slipping. Wasn't it stated that Del confronted the BOT to no avail?

Oldies Could you perhaps clarify what is is about this situation that you find redeeming? Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described? If that is indeed your premise, can you explain in greater detail why you feel that way? Would it have been appropriate if it had been your mother?

I'm still stuck on this II Peter 1:20 thing. ("Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.") Is this saying that no scripture is of any PI or is it isolating the prophetic components? Add to that, verse 21 says "For the prophesy came not-------" Then, of course, if you continue on into chapter2, which, if the part of the class about chapter and verse markings is correct, was all part of a larger context anyway, you find the warning about false TEACHERS. So, I'm just asking, What's the emphasis here? Is it the scriptures or the prophesies of the scriptures?

Ham Although I can't speak to this particular incident, I can tell you that this effect is rather elementary for a lighting technician. I was once involved in a production of Royal Hunt Of The Sun which is a play that loosely chronicles the clash between Pizzarro, the explorer, and Atuhalpa, the Inca leader who was considered to be the personification of The Sun God. When Atuhalpa made his first appearance, he was elevated at center stage and back-lit with a gold gel-paper frame. He looked for all the world like he was surrounded by an aura. It was extremely effective.(And simple)

Thanks, Sky Watcher It took a tremendous amount of courage to post like that. There is so much there, on so many different levels, it's hard to know what to say. I'm glad you are here. waysider

Kick out the jams, Brother Ham!!

Excie You were NOT a member of The Secret Agenda Society. You were like the teller who was present when the bank was held up. You were there but certainly not part of the hold up gang. PS----It makes PERFECT sense. You are NOT the one who should be saying you are sorry.

I had to google it so I'm out. It's a really good one, though.

So now you're equating "ignore" with M&A? I hardly think so.

Maybe it's supposed to say 2'429 MUMBLERS!

Wierwille was a sham. He knew less about spiritual matters than the average "pet rock". Looking back on it, I'm surprised some some irate husband or father didn't blow the S.O.B's brains out. Maybe he had people threaten to do just that. Why else would someone who is so "spiritually perceptive" need to surround himself with armed body guards? Edited to point out that those things have all been said before by others. I just "put them all together" like they haven't been put together since the last time they were all put together ;)

Is it Bad To The Bone---George Thoroughgood?

One thing I find myself wondering is if they are able to spot each other, form alliances, cover for each other. Just wondering.

When Emmitt Rhodes split from The Merry Go Round back in 1970 or so, he released a solo album--- a REAL solo album. Multi-tracking was still quite new but Emmitt mastered it in no time at all. Every part on here is Emmitt. Here is a clip from that album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQstonvVxpA...feature=related PS--- When this was released I bought it on 8 track!

OK Would someone else like my turn? Just in case you're interested it's Live by The Merry-Go-Round. The only youtube I could find of it includes it in a medley. It's the first song of the medley.

Is this one too obscure?

Great post, Copenhagen. Who would know better than someone who is right there in the midst of it?

Kinda looks like they weren't as "spiritual tuned in" as they would have had us believe. Wierwille claimed suicide was caused by a devil spirit yet he failed to spot this supposed "spirit" in this young woman. That's not a very encouraging endorsement for his so-called "spiritual perception". In fact, it's not much of an endorsement for the whole concept of "devil possession".

That sounds a bit counter-productive to me. This is a forum for voicing opinions. Those opinions will not always be in agreement. Voicing an opinion that is in disagreement with another poster's opinion does not constitute a "personal attack" in and of itself. If another poster voices an opinion that appears to me to be idolatrous, there is nothing wrong with me or anyone else voicing an opposing view to that opinion as long as I address the opinion without attacking the poster. IMO

The problem with the truth that Wierwille spoke(and, yes, I believe some of what he spoke contained "truth", at least in the conventional sense.) is that it's like mixing flea poop in a pepper shaker. How in the world can you completely separate it all back out again?

More like they pushed her back in after she thought she had made it to the safety of the shore.

C'mon, Baby, do the Locomotion--------Little Eva

Perhaps you don't quite understand what a person attack is, Oldies. A personal attack is when a person attacks you rather than the position you take or the opinion you express. Here is an example: Speaker#1. "What you are saying is false." Speaker #2. "Are you calling me a liar?"(Changes the subject) Speaker #1. "I am not calling you anything at all. I am simply stating that your premise is false." Now, if the person, instead, called you a liar, that would be a personal attack because they are no longer attacking the opinion, they are attacking you as a person. My post did not accuse you of being an idoloter. What I said was that your distortion of T-Bone's question is an blatant attempt to exonerate Wierwille. If I have misunderstood your purpose in making the comparisons you that you made, maybe you could explain why it is you believe they illustrate a valid analogy.