Linda Z

Chas, I understand what you're saying, but Rhino nailed it for me when he said: That's exactly why I posted what I did in this thread. There's plenty that was and is wrong with twi, its founder, and many of its past and current "leaders." If we stick to the facts (and the facts, IMO, include the testimonies of the people harmed by their twi involvement, in case anyone feels inclined to pop in here and say otherwise), this place has a lot more credibility. HAP, I didn't take the AC until '78, which would probbly explain why my notes differ from yours. My notes say he said cancer is "caused by," not "is," a devil spirit. He might have changed what he taught on that, I don't know. I do remember his talking about this at some length, in addition to what was on the video of the class, but I don't know if my notes reflect what he said on the video or his live comments. Either way, I agree with Rascal that it was a damn shame that people were led to condemn themselves for "lack of believing" or to shun others for the same stupid reason--although I will say I never heard it taught that to have cancer one was possessed. I want to clarify something I said earllier in the thread, that my money's on the dark side as to who ultimately caused this destructive disease. I do think there's a whole spiritual realm out there where lots is going on that we only get glimpses of--both light and darkness. But I'm highly skeptical that there are these spiritual entities running around zapping individual people with cancer. The way we eat, the toxins in and damage to our bodies from crap in our environment, genetics, and many, many other factors cause diseases.

I'm not a doctor, and I wasn't privy to the details re: VPW's ocular melanoma. None of us can say for sure what caused it, but we can make reasonable assumptions about what logically could have caused it, based on what is known about this disease. I'm still not trying to make a hero of VPW. Just trying to stick to the facts, as objectively as I can. What's tricky is that the disease is so rare that there have been a lot of small studies and case reports published about it, but not many big, statistically powerful studies. Some researchers have concluded that UV light and mechanisms associated with its effects on the human eye are clearly risk factors for the development of ocular melanoma; others aren't sure. Controversies about the causes of diseases, particularly cancers, run rampant in the medical/scientific community. There is so much we don't know about the human body, how it works, and what can go wrong with it. Here are some additional articles I've found that support the possibility that damage to VPW's eyes from those bright lights could have eventually led to his developing ocular melanoma. [Note: Both "uveal melanoma" and "choroidal melanoma," mentioned below, are ocular melanomas; "uveal" and "choroidal simply describe the part of the eye in which the cancer occurred.] Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology Volume 64, Issues 2-3, 15 November 2001, Pages 136-143 The human eye is constantly exposed to sunlight and artificial lighting. Therefore the eye is exposed to UV-B (295–320 nm), UV-A (320–400 nm), and visible light (400–700 nm). Light is transmitted through the eye and then signals the brain directing both sight and circadian rhythm. Therefore light absorbed by the eye must be benign. Damage to the young and adult eye by intense ambient light is avoided because the eye is protected by a very efficient antioxidant system. In addition, there are protective pigments such as the kynurenines, located in the human lens, and melanin, in the uvea and retina, which absorb ambient radiation and dissipate its energy without causing damage. After middle age there is a decrease in the production of antioxidants and antioxidant enzymes. At the same time, the protective pigments are chemically modified (lenticular 3-hydroxy kynurenine pigment is enzymatically converted into the phototoxic chromophore xanthurenic acid; melanin is altered from an antioxidant to pro-oxidant) and fluorescent chromophores (lipofuscin) accumulate to concentrations high enough to produce reactive oxygen species. We have known for some time that exposure to intense artificial light and sunlight either causes or exacerbates age-related ocular diseases. We now know many of the reasons for these effects, and with this knowledge methods are being developed to interfere with these damaging processes. Uveal Melanoma in Relation to Ultraviolet Light Exposure and Host Factors1 [Note: Uveal melanoma is one type of ocular melanoma.] We conducted a case-control interview study among 1277 subjects (407 patients, 870 controls selected by using random digit dial) in 11 western United States to determine whether uveal melanoma and cutaneous melanoma shared common risk factors. After adjustment for other factors, the risk of uveal melanoma was increased for those with green, gray, or hazel eyes [relative risk (RR) = 2.5, P < 0.001] or blue eyes (RR = 2.2, P < 0.001) when compared to brown. A tendency to sunburn after 0.5 h midday summar sun exposure increased risk for uveal melanoma (burn with tanning RR = 1.5, P = 0.02; burn with little tanning RR = 1.8, P < 0.001; burn with no tanning RR = 1.7, P = 0.002); as did exposure to UV or black lights (RR = 3.7, P = 0.003); and welding burn, sunburn of the eye, or snow blindness (RR = 7.2, P < 0.001). An association with uveal melanoma was also noted with an increasing number of large nevi (P = 0.04 for trend), although the individual risk estimates were not remarkable. These data suggest that host factors and exposure to UV light are risk factors for uveal melanoma. 1 This research was sponsored by NIH Grant CA37950 and in part by American Cancer Society Grant PDT-321 and NIH Grant EYO7504 And for those convinced that VPW’s liver cancer spread to his eye, and not vice versa, the one really large study on ocular melanoma to date showed the liver to be the most common site of metastsis from an ocular melanoma. I saw another study, but forgot to cut and paste it, that showed an even higher rate of spread from the eye to the liver. I didn't find one single case in which the cancer was found to be spread from the liver to the eye. Development of metastatic disease after enrollment in the COMS trials for treatment of choroidal melanoma: Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Report No. 26. OBJECTIVE: To describe the time between treatment for choroidal melanoma and first diagnosis of metastatic disease, sites of metastasis, treatments for metastasis, and time between diagnosis of metastasis and death. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal follow-up of patients diagnosed with choroidal melanoma who were enrolled in 2 randomized trials conducted by the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group. METHODS: Systemic and laboratory evaluations were performed during follow-up according to a standard protocol for 2320 patients enrolled in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study trials without evidence of melanoma metastasis or other primary cancer at baseline. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-nine patients were diagnosed with at least 1 site of metastasis during follow-up after treatment for choroidal melanoma. Five- and 10-year cumulative metastasis rates were 25% (95% confidence interval, 23%-27%) and 34% (95% confidence interval, 32%-37%), respectively. Liver was the most common site (89%). The death rate following the report of melanoma metastasis was 80% at 1 year (95% confidence interval, 77%-83%) and 92% at 2 years (95% confidence interval, 89%-94%). Overall survival after metastasis did not vary by baseline size of primary tumor nor treatment for metastasis (when known). Long-term survival after diagnosis of metastasis was uncommon; only 8 patients survived 5 or more years. CONCLUSION: Metastasis rate increased significantly with increasing primary tumor dimensions at time of patient enrollment. Prognosis after metastatic disease remains poor. Effective methods are needed to prevent, diagnose, and treat metastasis from choroidal melanoma.

Congrats to Chas and MathMan!!! Wow, it sure doesn't seem like it's been 8 years. We must be having fun, cuz time is flyin'!! Enjoy your anniversary!

WD, please put on your empathy hat for a minute and read again what P-Mosh said in his first and last post. If you will try to put yourself in his shoes, you might understand his motives better. I don't think an "Inner Circle" on GS is a good idea, for the reasons I gave earlier in the thread, but it's certainly not because I don't empathize with the position P-Mosh and others are in. I was at odds with my family twice over twi. First when I pushed them to get involved before they wanted to, and later, after they all got involved, when they left before I did. It wasn't easy, and that was even before the whole "mark and avoid" doctrine took hold, which adds even more pressure to a delicate situation.

WB said: WB, I remember him looking bad for the last couple years of his life. I don't remember if he was wearing the eye patch that day. Too long ago for my old brain.Yes, when he died, the word of his death went out through the "Way tree," with a request to pray for his family and for the ministry. I got the call in the middle of the night from my BC and had to call the local [nonstaff] people who came to my fellowship. Rascal said (with my comments in bold): I was at HQ and around VPW for the last 3 years of his life. Maybe he put on his "game face" for the ROA and other events after his eye was removed, but on a day-to-day basis, there was no longer anything in his bearing that would indicate he thought he was "the invincible MOG." I agree with you that he might well have been ashamed about his vulnerability and ashamed that his disease ran counter to everything he'd taught about the "law of believing." I don't think it was a matter of his not trusting people to love and pray for him, though. As I said earlier, I think he wanted to die and be done with it. He looked like a beaten man, not just physically but emotionally. He was tired, he was dying, and he certainly seemed depressed. Of course I can't know what was in his heart and mind, but he sure looked like someone who had given up.

WB, I'd forgotten completely about that time in '83 when he called us all together at HQ to talk about his eye surgery, ask for prayer, and about his mentioning the high priest thing. The time when he put out word that he didn't want prayer was later, in 1985, right before he died.

I'm not saying it was right for people to be criticized for "not believing." TWI's double standard was as apparent in VPW's death as it was in most other situations.

Dooj, I agree. However, the word at HQ around the time of his death wasn't that he didn't need prayer. It was that he didn't want prayer, which sorta ties into WB's "Why did VP commit suicide?" thread. In searching the medical journals re: ocular cancer, I came across one article that talked about the high rate of depression in patients who've had an eye removed. Depression coupled with knowing he had a life-threatening disease (because the cancer had already spread to his liver, and I'm sure the prognosis was dismal), plus the BOT basically blowing him off certainly could have sapped his will to live, I'd think. I think he wanted to die at that point, although I wouldn't call it suicide.

WordWolf, I don't want to get into an argument with you, but I didn't search the Internet in general. I searched the National Library of Medicine's database of medical journals. I found many articles that discussed the sites of metastasis from an ocular cancer. Ocular cancer frequently spreads to the liver, not the other way around. In none of the articles whose abstracts I read was smoking ever mentioned as even an infrequent factor in the development of ocular cancer. UV exposure was. Studies show that ocular cancer is more prevalent in countries close to the equator, where sun exposure is greater than in those farther away. Also, ocular cancer is not a common disease...I believe I read the incidence is 6 cases in a million people, so you're not going to find a ton of info when you compare it to lung cancer or breast cancer, or any other of the more common cancers. If it helps you to further demonize VPW to think smoking and drinking caused a cancer in his eye, you're free to do so. I think his behavior was despicable enough to let us know what kind of person he was at his worst without trying to use his medical diagnosis to prove it. Edited to add this: Actors on a stage or filming a movie are typically looking at each other, not staring in the direction of the lighting sources. We've seen the PFAL filming set. It was small. VP was sititng or standing still, facing the lights, for extended periods, apprently not very far from them given the size of the set.

By the definitions of "public" and "private," I'd say GS is both. It's public because it's open to public view and participation--anyone with Internet access can read what's here and, if he or she wants to register, can post here. It's private because it's privately owned and maintained. Even public places have rules and people can be ejected from them, but it doesn't make them private. Although none of us would be here on GS were it not for Paw's generousity in making this site possible, each person who contributes here adds value to this place. Every point of view, every expression of anti, neutral, or pro twi sentiment gives all of us a big picture of what the whole twi thing was/is about and how it affected/affects us, whether positively or negatively. In other words, without all the people here, there wouldn't be a GSC, and it's obvious Paw knows that. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement: We need Paw in order to be here, and he needs the GSers in order for GS to be what it is. I'm sorry, Rummie (nice to see ya, BTW ), but I don't think your analogy of inviting people to your home applies here. I trust your front door isn't wide open so that anyone coming down your street can walk in and "join the party," like the door to GS is, electronically speaking. And the existence of your private home is not dependent on anyone outside coming into it. It would be what it is with or without invited guests. But without the participants on GS, it would just be Paw sitting in front of a computer screen with crickets chirping in the background. :D

Rhino asked a good question: Didn't that happen with the "abuse victims' 'secret' forum"? Couldn't anyone with more-than-average computer savvy create a personna and register for an account, gain trust of GSers, and get accepted into the "Inner Sanctum"? P-Mosh, I really sympathize with the difficult position you're in, but I wonder if you couldn't still open up about your feelings/experiences without revealing enough specifics to expose your family to twi scrutiny or reveal to the innies in your family that you participate here? I'm not in your shoes, so I probably don't understand how hard that might be. An alternative might be for someone who's so inclined to start another site, totally separate from GS, solely for the purpose of discussions by people in P-Mosh's circumstances. Totally private and unadvertised, invitation-only. Then if there were "leaks," at least GS, which serves a much broader audience, wouldn't be to blame.

Here's a (simplified) description of the type of cancer VPW had and how it's believed to develop. Melanoma is a type of cancer that starts in melanocytes, which are the cells that produce melanin, a pigment of the skin, hair, and some eye tissues. People with blue eyes (which VPW had) are more susceptible to ocular melanoma than those with brown eyes, just as people with fair skin are more susceptible to melanoma of the skin, a highly malignant type of skin cancer. It's possible that years of exposure to the harmful UV rays of the sun without the use of sunglasses could have caused (or contributed to) VPW's ocular melanoma. I don't recall ever seeing him in sunglasses, now that I think of it. However, from everything I've read, various types of bright artificial lighting also give off harmful UV rays. I'm pretty sure that the safefy standards in 1967, when PFAL was filmed, were not as stringent as they are today and that damage from the types of lighting used very well could have been a key factor in VPW's developing cancer in his eye. I found this article online: "Artificial Light Sources and UVR Halogen and xenon lamps can emit UVR. Metal halide high intensity discharge (HID) lamps emit large amounts of UVR. Tungsten halogen lamps with incorporated reflectors are used extensively in work, display and home lighting. These lights emit some UVR which may be a hazard to the skin and eyes of people who remain in close proximity for long periods. In lighting applications where the lights are close to people they should be fitted with a glass cover to block the UVR emissions." I don't know exactly what light sources were used in the filming, but I know from witnesses present that they were exremely bright. The symptoms of overexposre of the eyes to UVR include: a burning and painful sensation in the eye a sensitivity to light the sensation of a foreign object in the eye, sometimes described as sand in the eye tearing If I remember correctly, these are the kinds of symptoms Mrs. W described when I heard her speaking on this subject The bottom line is that it doesn't much matter what caused the disease that killed VPW. He's dead. He died of cancer, which is a physical disease with physical/environmental causes. By the way, I never heard VPW teach that cancer is a devil spirit or that a person with cancer is possessed. What I have in my notes from the AC was that a DS causes cancer. I don't know about all that, but I do know this: Cancer is an evil, destructive, life-stealing disease, so if I had to guess from which side of the spiritual aisle it originated, my money's on the dark side.

I did some research on this when this discussion came up before and found that, in fact, the type of lighting used during the filiming of PFAL could cause sufficient trauma to later result in ocular melanoma. David Anderson, who was present during the filming and with whom I spoke about this (and who by the way is not a VPW cheerleader by any means), said that VPW had a great deal of trouble with his eyes during the filming because of the bright, hot lights used. I also seem to recall Mrs. Wierwille talking about this long before the cancer was discovered, saying that he had to put cold compresses on his eyes after each filming session because the lights were burning his eyes so badly. No doubt, twi used this info to feed VPW's image as a hero and certainly did not want to focus on the AC doctrine of cancer being caused by DSs, but the fact remains that one can get ocular cancer in this way. I was on staff at HQ when VP lost his eye and subsequently died. I never heard any story about a fish hook. Where John Reyn*lds got that, I don't know. I'm not saying he lied; maybe someone lied to him and he believed it.

Hahahahahaha! We WOWs in Wheeling were guarding the state from the north while you were protecting it from the south. I hope your cousin's daughter does well this year (or did well, if her event is already over). I just noticed this year that badminton is an olympic sport. How long has that been the case? What's next, tiddly winks? :)

It's quite possible he experienced facial nerve injury during the surgery to remove his eye. Such an injury is common and causes facial paralysis, which could resemble that caused by a stroke. I have a coworker who had a cancer removed near (below) his eye a couple years ago. That side of his face was paralyzed for a few months, and his speech was slightly slurred.

Well said, penworks and Tzaia. I didn't believe Jesus was God before TWI, and I still don't after TWI. The teachings by VP and others re: the trinity reinforced what I already believed, but JCNG wasn't a factor for me because I never read more than bits and pieces of it. When I was in my mid-teens, I had to take a class before being baptized and joining the Congregational Church. There was a quiz. One of the questions was, "What is the Trinity?" My answer was, "Faith, Hope, and Charity." No disrespect to the trinitarians, but that still works for me. (I'm surprised the minister didn't fail me and refuse me membership, but then how could they have sent me those little offering envelopes to use every week and gotten me to pledge a certain amount to stick in 'em?) :D I believe, and have believed since my youth, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, divinely conceived by God, without sin, perfect, my Lord and Savior, and the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. As others have said, I don't think whether one believes in the trinity or not is as big a deal as some would make of it either way.

This topic hits a critical nerve for me. I'm not in favor of cops bonking people for no good reason. I saw enough of that in the late 60s in Los Angeles to last me a lifetime. And the expressed cause of this group--to get cities to put in bike lanes--is a good one. I'm all in favor of making bike riding safer and less of a hindrance to those of us who have to drive cars to get around. I also applaud those who can save money, reduce pollution, and get some exercise by riding a bike instead of driving a car. However, <clears throat> bicyclists can be a royal pain in the bike shorts. In Cleveland, we have an extensive park system (Metroparks) nicknamed "the Emerald Necklace" that extends from the far suburbs on one side of the city to the far suburbs on the other side. Don't think park, think many, many square miles of almost undistrubed forest with a 2-lane road running through it, with picnic areas and wildlife preserves and ponds and creeks along the way. It's huge (and fabulous)! At great expense, the Metroparks, at the taxpayers' expense, put in bike trails, more than 60 miles worth, throughout the park system. They are also meant for hikers and in-line skaters, but the trails have two generous lanes. Your average bike riders use them, in perfect harmony with the hikers, runners, and skaters with no problem. But these lovely, expensive bike trails are not good enough for the competitive, hard-core bikers. These guys (sorry, but I've never seen a woman doing this in all the years I've been here) pooh-pooh the bike trails and opt to ride on the narrow 2-lane road, which has some sharp curves. The speed limit is 30 mph, and there's no passing. The bikes go about 15 mph. On many occasions, I have rounded a curve only to come upon a biker (or two) in the middle of my lane, while the bike trail just a few feet off the road is empty. It's a hazard. Of course, by now I know to keep a sharp eye out for bikes, especially as I approach the curves, but an inexperienced driver or someone not expecting bikes on the road could easily run over a biker or swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting one. Very scary. I've talked to a coworker who's an avid biker about this. His response: You're driving in the park, what's your hurry? Well duh, if I were in a hurry I'd be white-knuckle driving on a freeway somewhere, but that that's not the point. Safety is the point. With gas prices being what they are, I see a lot more people driving into and through the downtown area at rush hour. Most of them are careful and sane. But there's always that one hot-dog who's weaving in and out, cutting in front of cars, and causing general havoc. If I were a member of Critical Mass, I think I'd also be campaigning to get these attitude-laden bikers to be less cavalier. End of rant. :D

Sure. *ring ring* Hello. Purple/Suda? I think your hubby's callin' you over here. :)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Love it. Reminds me of something our friend from the Blue Grass country said once (paraphrased on accounta I can't remember it exactly: When you get older, there are three things to remember: 1. Never pass a bathroom. 2. Never assume it's "only a fart." 3. (This one's for the guys only) Never waste an erection. :D

David, do you think you could convince your Brit friend to share some of those photos with us??? Prettttty please???

Thanks for sharing those, David. I love seeing the tall ships under full sail. I've seen them several times in Cleveland and several more at Put-in-Bay, Ohio, a small town on a little island near the location where the Battle of Lake Erie took place, September 10, 1813. The first time I saw them was at Put-in-Bay, during the commemoration of the 175th anniversary of that battle. One of the greatest events that weekend was the "laying of the wreaths" ceremony, which was done to honor the men who died in that battle. My friends and I boarded a day-cruise boat that followed the Niagara about an hour out into the lake for the ceremony. We watched in fascination and awe as the sailors scrambled up the masts and raised the sails. One by one, huge expanses of canvas unfurled and caught the wind. What a majestic sight! The ceremony was so moving. Descendants of men who had fought in the battle threw floral wreaths from the deck of the Niagara out onto the water at the spot where the battle happened. Unforgettable. Here's a great pic of the Niagara when she was in Cleveland a couple years ago:

Thanks to everyone who offered help. Paw and Dan nailed it. It was an IE accessibility thing. I'm all better now!

I'll explain the symptoms, and then I'll try to explain what might have caused this screw-up and what I've already tried in an effort to fix it. I'm running Windows XP and I'm using MS Office Home and Student 2007. Symptoms: When I view Web sites that I've been on a gazillion times, they don't look right and they don't "act" right. For example, GS forums used to have a nice beige background on my monitor. Now the background is white. And now, when I'm writing a post here, if I click on the icon to change colors, the pop-up that comes up has empty boxes instead of the color choices. When I log onto a Web site that I'm supposed to be helping to maintain and edit for work, some of the fonts look screwy. For example, headlines for an article that should be bold and larger than the regular text are small and not bold, and some text (in photo captions, for example) has become supersized. How I got in this mess: The problem is, I'm not sure how this happened. Here's what I think happened. About a month ago, I was having trouble viewing something on the Web site of the journal I work on. My boss said, "Oh, it's because you don't have the latest version of Internet Explorer. Download that." She's pretty computer savvy, so I upgraded to the newest version of IE. Initially, that seemed okay. Then a few days later, I tried to open a JPG in MS Paint (it's a quick way to check image size and resolution on photos that come with the manuscripts I get), it wouldn't open them....said they weren't .bitmap files. (I don't know whether this had anything to do with the recent download of IE or if it was always like this and I'd just never before tried to open a JPG on this computer--I can't remember. ) Anyway, I open JPGs in paint all the time on my office computer, so I knew it was possible. I searched some techy/troubleshooting sites and one of them said to go into Add/Remove Programs and reconfigure something in MS Office 2007. I coudln't find the exact button or checkbox the instructions said to click next, because there were only two options, CChange" and "Remove." I thought if I clicked on "Change" it would bring up a menu that would contain the item the instructions said to change. (Probably a bad move.) Clicking on "Change" just opened a "progress" window and it starting filling, as if I was downloading or installing something. I figured that wasn't good so I closed the window, thinking that would stop whatever process I had started. Ever since that time, my display has been altered. What I've tried: I tried "System Restore" in Windows, hoping that I could reset everything back to how it was before I flugged it up. I found the date when I fiddled with Add/Remove MS Offcie and figured any date before that would be good. I picked a date. I hit "Next." A System Restore progress window opened. My computer rebooted. When it came back up I got this message: "Your system cannot be restored to that date." Of course it doesn't say why! I tried about a dozen dates. Nada. I read online that "System Restore is a failed experiment" and discovered many people who sound more computer savvy than I am couldn't make it work. Next, I ran "Microsoft Office Diagnostics" and it said everything was peachy. I reinstalled MS Office for good measure. Again, nada. I'm at my wits end. I can't edit my work Web site when I can't even see it properly, and I need to post some items there. I work at home 2 or 3 days a week, so this puts me in a real jam. Does anyone who has had the patience (of Job) to read this far have any suggestions?

The "Have you seen an angel?" thread (it was in "About the Way" but has recently moved to "Open") brought to mind a couple of TV shows I really like that have to do with angels appearing to everyday people to lend them a hand or encourage them to get themselves to the right place at the right time, etc. I didn't want to clutter up the excellent "angels" thread with a discussion of mere television shows. I know there were a couple GSers besides me who liked Joan of Arcadia which, much to my dismay, was cancelled after a couple seasons. However, dum da da daaaaaah, the SciFi channel on cable is showing it in reruns on Friday nights. I liked it enough that I'm going to try to remember to watch the reruns. In it, Amber Tamblyn plays Joan, a high school girl who is visited by an angel who appears to her in a wide (and sometimes rather comical) variety of human forms: a phone company lineman, a "cafeteria lady," etc. The list goes on and on. Her parents are played by Mary Steenbergen and Joe Montagna, and her brother is played by the late John Ritter's son. Excellent cast. This angel is always trying to get Joan to do something she doesn't want to do, like join the chess club or go to a school dance with a wierd guy, for example. Even though she doesn't understand why she's asked to do these things and generally does them relucantly, in the end it's obvious that her following the angel's suggestions makes a positive difference in her life or someone else's. She gets plenty of "Are you crazy?" looks from her family and friends along the way. It's a sweet, funny and, IMO, realistic look at how a normal teenage girl might react to being helped along life's path by an angel. The other show, Saving Grace, stars Holly Hunter and is on, I think TNT. Grace is a rather rough-around-the-edges detective. She drinks too much, sleeps around too much, and says .... a lot. But she's a good cop who loves her job and her fellow cops and her dog. Her angel is a rather scruffy looking guy named Earl, probably about 60 years old. His role seems to be to make Grace think. He often nudges her toward doing the right thing, but he never judges her. Grace is dealing with lots of issues. Her own frailties, the loss of her sister, a relationship with a fellow officer who's now going through separation/divorce. She's as human and flawed as they come, and yet this angel Earl just hangs in there with her and helps her where he can. End of plugs. If anyone else watches Saving Grace or used to watch Joan of Arcadia or will watch the reruns, I'd love to hear what you think. That's what these two shows make me do. Think. About God and how he works with us where we are, and about the possibility of our receiving a helping hand from angels at certain points in our lives.

You're right, Twinky! Make that 32.