LowlyLollyPoppy

Sorry you're mad, Ex', and, for the life of me, if you are trying to be funny or if you are serious about me saying you were in an offshoot, truthfully, I don't get it - call me thick headed if you must (my Mom called me that all the time. LLP

It's not my response that I felt was mistakenly assumed to be that indicative of TWI, but Insurgent's. I've acknowledged some of your rhetorical and not so rhetorical questions - so, let up and give me a breather - I worship God, I don't claim to be Him, so I can't answer all of your questions in the "twinkling of an eye." For what it's worth, I try to call 'em as I see 'em, and, I think I have, over time, tolerated and accepted the response here on this board as objectively as one who holds my generally divergent viewpoint can on such a board. I didn't denigrate anyone or anything, not even Mel or his film. Given the stern tone of your post, you won't agree, but that's your right . . . I don't challenge it. Also, I post here to express my opinion (which is just that, nothing more, but nothing less) in an atmosphere I know from experience can be hostile - that's to be expected, not because anyone else here is bad, not because I am bad. I know I'm not stupid, nor are my viewpoints. I don't consider anyone else or their viewpoints in that category. How any of you feel is your business, your right. I certainly do not seek validation of my right to post here, I was validated during the registration process, just like the rest of you. That I don't measure each and every word in an initial post as to how it will affect responses, that I don't review and analyze that initial post to coordinate it with my own subsequent replies is more the result of spontaneity than deliberate or accidental contradiction. You of course, are free to interpret all my words as you see fit. Perhaps, as some say, I do live in la-la land. I make free will chioces with God's guidance to craft my own, individual walk. That it includes TWI is my own choice, and not due to some sort of cultish blackmail. I won't be intimidated by such blackmail (if ever it presents itself) to stay in TWI, nor will I be shamed into leaving TWI because of someone else's experience. You've made your choice, I've made and will continue to make mine. I'd be willing to concede that I may have been too narrow in my initial description of Mel's motives, how 'bout some of you coming around to the concession that what I say about my experience might just possibly be true (for me, at least, if for no one else)? I feel like I'm starting to sound pompous, now, so I'm going to sign off and cool down. Honestly, I don't mean to rant. I'm just like you, though, just a human with human feelings, emotions, strong opinions, and I find it helpful to participate here (whether you choose to believe that or not). Thanks to all who replied, whether your message was intended to please, entertain, inform, or , well, whatever. We aren't nearly as at odds with one another as it may seem. To all, a fine day. Thanks for the opportunity to post. Respectfully, LLP

Insurgent, you and I really ought to compare notes sometime - not on this board, of course. I do understand where you're coming from, and, perhaps what you say is accurate, that my area somehow differs from all others - or, OTOH, perhaps yours is the one that is "unique." LLP

That was Smith Barney - not E.F. Hutton. LLP, I happen to agree with some of what you say about Gibson's profit motive for Passion. However I do also think that Gibson's passion for this movie was at least paritally based in his faith. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Live isn't all black and white. You are fairly bright person, but you sure have a pompous way of expressing yourself which I think may be partly why some folks jump on your posts so much. BTW, I did a post in the Open Forum on how to use GS's quote feature. You may consider looking at that. Goey Goey: Touche on the E.F. Hutton/Smith Barney thing, LOL, and, I do appreciate that you (and, to be sure, others) continue to actually read and respond without flaming me. Further, I'm sorry if my writing style seems pompous. I'm really not that way, so, I'll do my best to tone it down a little. OTOH, I try to be as open-minded as a stubborn one such as myself can be - and sometimes it gets a little frustrating on the board (although I do enjoy coming here and reviewing the posts). I understand that the mass-mentality here is going to be anti-TWI. Based upon what I've read in the past, that is understandable; but if you review the initial post, IMO, it didn't warrant all the "jumpers-on" who pretty much amplified what appears to me to be a non-documented statement of opinion on how the poster expects (based, perhaps, upon his/her experience) TWI leadership to react to this film. In my experience, exactly the opposite is true. Yet, the majority of posters immediately jumped to support Insurgent as though what was posted is the (excuse me, please) prevailing position throughout TWI. I can tell you, most believers support this film and have taken non-believer friends (BTW, there is a lot of socializing with non-believers in my fellowship - no mandate to get them to class or to fellowship, just to be friends like anyother relationship where friends share different beliefs) to see it. I can't speak for all of TWI and don't pretend to, and I am sorry if I come off pompously. I'll try to work on that. Respectfully, LLP

That was Smith Barney - not E.F. Hutton. LLP, I happen to agree with some of what you say about Gibson's profit motive for Passion. However I do also think that Gibson's passion for this movie was at least paritally based in his faith. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Live isn't all black and white. You are fairly bright person, but you sure have a pompous way of expressing yourself which I think may be partly why some folks jump on your posts so much. BTW, I did a post in the Open Forum on how to use GS's quote feature. You may consider looking at that. Goey

First of all, please excuse the slight name change – ‘puter lost my stored password, and I can’t remember it. Now, to the topic: Chewster, you write: “How do you know this? Are you Mel Gibson's spokesperson? Do you have direct contact to his mind? Or do you just believe the worst about everyone? It might be a good idea not to speak for others, but only speak for yourself. Question 1: Being a businessperson myself, I assume (and I believe correctly), that no one embarks on a venture of this scale without firm belief in the project and ones own skill to bring it off profitably. Mel didn’t stumble into the working capital to be able to pull this off. As E.F. Hutton so aptly (if misleadingly inaccurately in their case) put it, he made that money the old fashioned way, he earned it. Question 2: Spare me rhetorical questions to which you already know the answer. Question 3: See my reply to question 2. Question 4: Reread my post. It discredits the sea wave of sentiment elevating and extolling Mel’s motives. You won’t (if you actually read my post objectively, not from the perspective of an outie to an innie) discern anything there that paints a negative view of a businessperson’s motive to make profit – profitability is the businessperson’s mantra. In a way, Mel, in this instance, at least, is not unlike the “colonel” of KFC fame. He (Mel) had a vision (the making of this movie) and belief that he could pull it off, creatively and financially, and would not be put off by any nay Sayers (the old colonel also wasn’t put off by a string of prior bankruptcies). I admire Mel for his strength in pursuing this vision, overcoming the obstacles, and, yes, making a profit – profit is the defining measure of success for any business venture. I’m not opposed to the movie, the money, the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the message, and I don’t eat or keep grapes, sour or otherwise. The fellowships in my area are generally supportive of this movie, so I chuckle when I see all these “jump-on” undocumented messages amplifying the ministry’s obviously “obtuse and envious” response this show (“[‘cause they didn’t come up with it first]”). I’m probably among the minority who haven’t bothered to see it, yet. When I do, I probably will be busy watching for many things (technical, etc) in addition to the “show.” I doubt I’ll be absorbed to the point of tears (I usually am not), but one never knows in advance. I maintain (as I am free to maintain) my position that money (and the associated collateral considerations that go along with a successful career) was Mel’s motivation. There is nothing unclean about that motivation – I made no statement condemning that motivation – you (and others) did. I remember in the waning days of Waydale, I took (and expressed) the opinion that the founder’s main motivation (in establishing the website/pursuing the trial) was to extract money from the ministry. While the byproducts of that motivation netted an informative, helpful, and entertaining website (make that website(s), as GS was an offshoot), I still hold the opinion that the founder was basically out to gain compensation in monetary form. Waydale was a tool used to accomplish that end. Given his experience/perspective, there was nothing inherently wrong with that motivation, nor was there anything inherently wrong with his collecting accolades and gratitude from those who benefited from the “byproducts”. Having achieved his objectives, he closed the site (albeit sensitive enough to encourage an alternative site for those who had developed (for lack of a better word) an affinity for the byproducts referred to above. You, of course, are free to conclude what you want – about Mel’s motives, about PA’s motives, about mine. I will continue to exercise my privilege to express my opinion, as well. Wordwolf: bother making this movie.>> . . . and how many fine movies might qualify for the same comment – better, how many truly epic films would not. Kevlar > . . . and for the courage he demonstrated to take that risk, he is entitled to our respect, congratulations, and box-office dollars. > Thus is the stuff for which BBS’s retain our interest . . . you have and share your opinion (belief), I have and share mine. Mel’s instinct that the film would be successful was accurate (and his/his organization’s excellent execution facilitated the validation of that accuracy). Call me a skeptic if you like, but, I don’t believe he was more committed to his religious vision – artistic vision probably was right up there with money, however. Mark Sanguinetti: As one who normally reads with an open, objective mind, I can give you the benefit of the doubt – perhaps you were tired when you read my post, or had dirt in your eye or something. Go back and review, then, tell me if the sour grapes you discern are from my post or from presumptive responses to it. I am not at all sour that the movie has met with acclaim and box office success. I don’t bemoan Mel’s financial reward. I’m a died-in-the-wool capitalist, so I don’t begrudge his successful business adventure. . . . and you, of all people here, should know that I’m not some line toeing denominational type. I’m still thinking/speaking for myself. Others on this board, not me, painted the notion of profit-making/taking in some sort of negative hue. Read it again, Mark. Be objective. Then, tell me what your second take might be. > Thanks, Tex. Cherished: > You have no grasp of my logic, and absolutely no knowledge of the length of my involvement in The Way – none whatsoever. “sheer lack of logic” – sounds like some of those meaningless, wordy phrases that so many on this board seem to eschew. Exactly what logic (or lack of logic) would you point to, given the words in my initial post? > You are focusing a general bias of yours upon me with absolutely no personal knowledge of me – you don’t know me to be smug or otherwise, self-righteous or otherwise. I’m an innie, but, unless you’ve read my posts (or spoken to me personally), you don’t even know what I believe. Set aside your presumptions and reread my posts objectively (if you can). Then, tell me what you think. Vickles: Nothing and nowhere. Although you don’t address your post to me, specifically, your response would appear to be in the series elicited by my post, so, I ask you to reread my post, and show me where I say that getting profit from the movie is wrong? Respondents have extrapolated that position from my post because posters on this thread tend to suffer from the same sort of groupthink they accuse TWI of promoting. Oldiesman: Good that someone here finally raised this question. The only comments I’ve heard have been generally supportive. All are encouraged to see the movie and the generally accepted consensus is that, regardless of whether it is “complexly accurate” or not, at has, at least, focused mass attention during this special time of year on Christ – and is proof that the general public will come out for a movie centered on some topic other than sex, terrorism, comedy. I have seen or heard no comment portraying this film in a negative light. The notion that TWI is green with envy is one that has evolved on this board, right here in this thread, not from within TWI. That the film focuses on the torture and not the resurrection may be true (I haven’t succumbed to viewing the film, yet), but that could be a matter of interpretation. I can imagine how the resurrection, though not occupying much footage, could be viewed as the climax and main point of the film. The only comments of that nature I’ve heard from TWI were always followed with “buts” explaining that, at least, the film gets the issue of Christ out there in front of the masses – accurate or no, not a bad thing – and not commented on as bad from any TWI leadership sources of mine. > Rafael: Why must the act of pointing out that financial gain was Mel’s motive be defined as mean-spirited? Henry Ford didn’t invent the car so that the masses could make it on time to church. His motive (well, one of them, at least) was to make money. Billy Gates didn’t devote his life to computers/software because of some deep-seated desire to open the world of knowledge to the world – he wanted to make money. To the extent that there is nothing wrong with wanting to make money, why should pointing out the making of money as a motive be “mean-spirited”? He took a business risk to which no one else was willing to risk the exposure. In business, the higher the risk, the higher the loss (in failure) or reward (with success). Right/wrong/mean-spirited need not enter into it. Oh, and watch who you’re calling stupid, there, fella!! > Good point, Wyteduv58 From Wayfernot quoting Insergent’s initial post: > Wayfer’s statement has been amplified as though it is some official TWI leadership edict or a standard comment amongst those of us attending fellowships. From experience, I can assert that no such thing is true. Perhaps (after all these posts and presumptions), Wayfer could enlighten us as to the source of this statement. From Cherished: > Sure, Cherished, it is at least possible. Let’s see what happens now that his venture is a success. Then, we won’t need to make concessions – we’ll know. > Actually, Cherished, I can’t speak for your experience, but I have heard just the opposite expressed by leadership – that TWI is not the only place where God is present – that we should be ever mindful and humble to that fact. Good questions to which I have no immediate reply. I’ll get back to you. > No, I do not. > I do not. > I do not. > I do not. > Good questions. > Insurgent, why don’t you clear up the question that has been raised several time on this thread? This comment of yours, about the exclusion or lack of focus on the resurrection, was that your interpolation of what you expect TWI’s take on the movie to be, or did someone (or several persons . . . perhaps leadership) actually make an official statement regarding this movie? Why don’t you clear that up for us, Insurgent? Most of the strong comments on this thread derived from your statement. Clear it up for us, won’t you? Respectfully, LLP

Try deep frying ice cream. It really works, and tastes great!! LLP