WordWolf

Ok, next round. Here's some actors, and we're looking for the ROLE they all played in common. Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Gordon Sumner Samuel West

Ok, this was the game-show where clearing the board revealed part of a rebus. Now if I could only remember which one that was without breaking a blood vessel, I'd have something..... Any chance this was "Classic Concentration"???? If not, I've got nothing.

Please note the distinction. Mike does not claim to be "a devotee of all things wierwille." Mike is, however, "all a devotee of things wierwille." So, if it's in the pfal books as he sees them, he's a devotee. Otherwise, he picks and chooses, and if it's not vpw at all, he'll look it over but doesn't give it the same gravity as vpw, no matter the quality. (Bullinger is debatable, since that arguably is the same material when vpw ripped off Bullinger, thus endorsing Bullinger while ripping him off.)

I was going to go with the little boots guy, but for really famous, I'm going with JULIUS CAESAR.

Next one. "Darkness falls across the land. The Midnight Hour is close at hand. Creatures crawl in search of blood to terrorize y'alls neighborhood."

WordWolf: "One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. " Mike:"It is true in my logical system, since it is a Postulate, a fundamental assumption. Now, just because it is true in my logical system, that doesn’t make that my system is True. I think it is, so I am sticking with it." WordWolf: You just demonstrated your problem again. You're declaring you're right with no proof other than your say-so. And you've done so for over 20 years of this business. On different threads, more evidence rather than I-say-so has been provided, disproving your postulate, your fundamental assumption. Since your fundamental assumption has been disproven, so has your "logic system." Your thinking otherwise doesn't change that. Honestly, when one side says "Here's the evidence proving the other side is in error" and the other side says "No I'm not and I refuse to prove I'm right but I am anyway", anyone can see what's what." But you asked how to avoid looking as condescending as you've shown- well, declaring things correct by fiat isn't helping that any, as I answered... Mike: "I have tried out your system, several times, and in several capacities, but all ending in 1998 when I locked into my PFAL system." WordWolf: Since you didn't even start posting here until after 1998, the idea that you "tried out my system" without even encountering it is an interesting one. It's obviously error on that basis, but it's interesting. Mike: "But you have not tried my system. You think you did, but it was incomplete and you forgot some. This is my message, that you need to come back to PFAL to see what you missed. Come back to it means tinkering with your Postulates to see what happens. So in observing this, I want to make the best effort to offer my system to you all to try and see what happens. If you are not willing to do that (yet) at least you can know why I am persistent in the face of being “PROVED WRONG.” You haven’t had a chance to hear my system properly, yet. All your attention to me has been to contradict me, and not hear and consider what I say. I can see you don’t get it, what I am offering. Hence I persist. " WordWolf: We find ourselves back covering the same ground we did when you first arrived, about 20 years ago, correcting the same mistake from 20 years ago. You've said the only way to understand your side of things is to automatically declare your side and your postulates correct, and look at everything like that for several months, and completely ignore any time the evidence disproves you. Before trying such a ridiculous thing- it's especially ridiculous to anyone who's survived a cult once and is hoping to avoid a return trip= any sensible person would want some compelling evidence that such a belief system is worth giving such an incredible Carte Blanche. Your responses have always been to obfuscate and get esoteric, and to dodge,and deny any errors are errors. You've even said outright that you dodge and deny but never admit an error is an error. The opposing point of view is clear and specific, and disproved/disproves your postulates. Rather than address that, you offer up every possible excuse. Mike: ".Fully addressing your mis-understanding me and then proving wrong many things you have no idea what I am talking about is WAY TO HARD A TASK for me. I simply persist to offer what is not yet understood. You all are totally focused on proving the evil in a man, and totally unaware of the good message God had him (with many others) put together the package I made my system." WordWolf: Excuses again. "You're wrong about me but I'm not going to prove it." "But how can I sound less condescending?" You keep pretending that everything disproving you is about "the evil in a man." But the wording of your postulate itself has been disproven, and a lot of that isn't about "the evil in a man." But pretending it's so is old news, as it's another excuse to avoid addressing visible, obvious flaws in your doctrine. You can pretend there's no flaws in your doctrine, but when one side says "here's the flaws in the other side", and the other side says "there's no flaws and I refuse to address any claims there are flaws", well... anybody knows what that means. Furthermore, you're still going out of your way to skip doing what everyone knows would supposedly strengthen your case, if you had one. "When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same." Mike : "This Canon thread offers me a chance to try a WHOLE NEW APPROACH." WordWolf:it may be a chance at a whole new approach, but it's going to be a wasted opportunity, because what you need to do to actually reach your audience is.... you know, if you actually got some of this, you might improve the impression you make around here. I think it's remarkable and sad that I pay more attention to your posts than it appears you pay to mine and even your own. I may not be trying to get people to make me their next teacher, but I suspect I've earned more respect just by doing what I do than you do by trying to get people to just blindly follow along in your path.

American Graffiti Harrison Ford The Fugitive

I forgot that it's customary, in some circles, to use British actors to play ancient Romans. This is probably an ancient Roman. I wish I could summon up some kind of list of roles Claude Rains played (without cheating.) How about "I, Claudius", the title role?

The Cars, "Oh, Ho, It's Magic", or something like that.

One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. As it's already been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt- and all of that in plain sight- and you and all the posters and readers know that- your bald claims lack a lot. i noticed you had a chance to actually address how completely it's been disproven- which, frankly, is probably the biggest obstacle you actually face (as opposed to any obstacles you imagine), but you've steered clear. You're certainly free to do so, but it sends a clear message to people who see you can spend long stretches of time on any topic that interests you, but you have no words for a complete refutation of all your claims (and never have, always leaving such threads alone.) To anyone who hasn't already drunk your koolaid, it's a sign you've been refuted so thoroughly you're ducking each discussion and hoping they'll go away. Frankly, your insistence on avoiding any related discussion is quite telling. When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same.

Ok, this last song was from the one-hit wonder, the Verve Pipe, and it was their one hit, "FRESHMEN." I'll go back to 1985 and earlier. FREE POST!

"When I was young I knew everything. And she, a punk who rarely ever took advice. Now I'm guilt-stricken, sobbin' with my head on the floor. Stopped a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice, no. Can't be held responsible. She was touchin' her face. I won't be held responsible. She fell in love in the first place. For the life of me, I can not remember What made us think that we were wise and we'd never compromise." "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

I think it will save everyone some time and energy- including you, Bol- if we all (including you) accept that there is NO answer you will find acceptable as to what Waydale was and why it existed. Period. Lots of other people have come forth, explaining how Waydale or the GSC benefited them personally, and you don't see how any of them benefited. That's fine- their benefits are independent of your ability to perceive them. You were wronged by some idiots- and if other people doubted that, their doubts would not erase the wrongs. So, that's a conversational impasse, and will remain so because there's no "argument" that will change your mind, so there's no point in circling the same ideas. I'm not personally familiar with the parties involved in the lawsuit, but I'd be slow to accuse anyone of "whoring his wife for money" even if it were true (which, in this case, it isn't and is a gross misstatement of what happened.) I get that you're fine with insulting whoever and it doesn't matter to you, especially if it relates to Waydale. But you might put that past you by now. So far, you're the only person who ever came forth complaining of Waydale or the GSC that way. That suggests the problem wasn't with Waydale. Even if it had been, the site has been closed for more than 20 years. The most I've ever talked about it was in your threads recently. My suggestion is to find a way to let it go. harboring resentments for decades is not healthy.

Acts 9 KJV And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: -------------------------------------------------- I still get surprised when I run into people who don't get why Saul addressed Jesus that way, and what he meant by that. It's very simple. Really. Check a dictionary for a refresher on what "lord" means. Saul was traveling, and suddenly he saw a bright light hit him from the sky, and a voice accompanied it. "Saul, why do you persecute me?" Saul got up from the ground, and addressed the voice and light that came from the sky. "Who are you, lord?" Was Saul addressing him as God? Hardly- he had no idea whom he was addressing- otherwise he wouldn't open with "WHO ARE YOU?" He was addressing this complete stranger with respect. Our modern addresses might have said, "Who are you, Sir?" Saul addressed this being with deference and respect. Why? The man was knocked off his feet and landed on his @$$ by a being who showed up as a bright light and a voice from heaven. (I'd be shocked if the voice wasn't pretty loud, too.) Saul wasn't addressing him as God Almighty, The Savior, or anything else like that. "I don't know who you are, but I'm addressing you as 'sir' because you showed up, blew me off my feet, and surrounded me with a bright light and a voice. You're definitely more powerful than me and have more authority, whoever or whatever you are." So, "lord" here wasn't referring to God, and wasn't referring to Saul pledging his loyal allegiance to this mysterious person. Saul's loyalty wasn't that shallow. He didn't automatically switch his allegiance to this voice. But he gave his undivided attention and deference. Later, he DID switch his allegiance to Jesus, but only after finding out who was speaking to him, having more information from other Christians, and time to deliberate.

"When I was young I knew everything. And she, a punk who rarely ever took advice. Now I'm guilt-stricken, sobbin' with my head on the floor. Stopped a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice, no." "Can't be held responsible. She was touchin' her face. I won't be held responsible. She fell in love in the first place." "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

*wild swing* Alfred Pennyworth? (I'm just spitballing, here...) BTW, when giving hints, you should look up the answers so the clues are correct. If you are guessing, you are unable to look anything up, because that's cheating. If you feel you must look something up, you should announce you did and are out for the round. (If everyone is out, nobody can guess, so that's important.)

twi was and is always interested in controlling the microphone, and having only their POV be spoken, suppressing dissent whenever possible. With discussion on a website twi didn't control, suddenly, there was an opportunity to speak that wasn't controlled by twi. Those who had been hurt by them especially had something to say, and had been conditioned to keep silent- but now there was another option. People began to speak and give their points of view. Although many of those were supportive of twi (at least at first), twi hated their inability to control the discussion. So, it snowballed from then, with more and more speaking, and more and more speaking about how twi hurt them, and more women began speaking about how lcm "messed with" them. That last part would have been especially bad for twi if those women were subpoenaed to appear in court and tell what they know. They could have brought a class-action suit that would have EMPTIED the twi coffers. So, the lawyers insisted twi settle QUICKLY and QUIETLY with the A||3ns. Once people had gotten the idea it was ok to communicate freely, they did so. Having a site to communicate made it easy. twi's hated the idea ever since. BTW. that's why twi strong-armed their own follower into closing his pro-twi messageboard. Despite him being pro-twi and deleting posts that weren't RABIDLY PRO-twi and closing accounts for anyone who posted anything other than enthusiastic for twi, it wasn't under their direct control, so they leaned on him to shut it down.

Just to say I tried it, PRINCE BARAN?

IMHO, twi lost more because it had more to lose, and insisted on handling things only as quietly as their lawyers insisted. twi mgmt was used to handling everything in bad faith and getting away with it because they were bullies. That changed as soon as someone called them on it and brought in secular law. BTW, to answer an earlier question.... There were 2 ways to try to address this- as a federal case, and as a civil case. As a federal case, if lcm was found guilty, he'd probably go to prison, but the evidence had to pass a higher standard- guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With a civil case, they could sue for damages (a money amount), but the standard was simpler- the preponderance of the evidence. The suers went the simpler route- which was smart. They had a much better chance of winning the suit, and when they went public, other people started to speak up. At the advice of their lawyers, twi settled out of court rather than have all those people brought up on the witness stand. (Judges have been known to increase penalties in civil suits if they feel someone's getting away too lightly, although this is not common.) The suers won a settlement- but had to close their website as part of the settlement. However, people had begun to communicate freely, so another website was begun, and twi has dearly wished it would close- twi has hemorrhaged members and many of them point to the GSC as part of the reason they left. As for lcm, at the advice of their lawyers, twi jettisoned him as a liability. So, he didn't go to prison, but he was kicked off the pulpit and allegedly out of twi.

"When I was young I knew everything. And she, a punk who rarely ever took advice. Now I'm guilt-stricken, sobbin' with my head on the floor. Stopped a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice, no." "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

Actually, I might recognize a few songs from "Gorillaz." I might find the titles a little tricky but that's because some don't connect with the songs.

*reads* Yes, that is both additional and interesting. It is also long, so one should put aside some time to read it, since it warrants an uninterrupted read. In other news, hello, fredgrant.

That's it.

(Well, when we were at the Jekyll and Hyde, that mad scientist marked your shoulder blades for later, since he wanted them for an experiment, but apparently, he forgot and never collected them.)

I'll try this one. If it doesn't work, I'll go back to my usual rule of 1985 or earlier. "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"