WordWolf

Saying it's a "favorite" is a bit of a stretch, but I do like the song and the artist. "Salisbury Hill," by 'Peter Gabriel. I think that one's off the album "So" , but I'm not certain of that. I've liked a number of his songs that I think were on that album.

Oh, right. In that case.... Remo Williams- the Adventure Begins Fred Ward Naked Gun 33 1/3 -The Final Insult

The Eastern Orthodox Church (including the Greek Orthodox Church) claims a history as old as the RCC, which claims a history back to the day of Pentecost. Just as churches formed in Western Europe and ended up looking towards Rome for leadership, there were churches that formed in Greece, and other countries, who ended up looking towards Byzantium/Constantinople for "leadership" (not in the absolute sense of the Pope.) So, Orthodoxy belongs to both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the EOC. Although there were larger numbers of RCC than EOC, the Protestant Reformation split the West in a way the East was NOT split, and things have developed differently in both "high church" organizations (RCC and EOC.) So, technically, no, the EOC is not a sect, offshoot, or derivative of the RCC. They comprise a sibling that has developed alongside the RCC, and their name recognition in, say, the US has increased greatly over the last 50 years, where it had previously been almost unknown.

If he'd posted "orangutans are skeptical", I would have gotten "At The Zoo" immediately. ;) I don't know all the lyrics that well.

Right, but there's not a lot of big-name actors there, and the one I remember best for another movie was in that and Nemesis. BTW, if you read the books, Chiun doesn't think ALL Koreans are superior. If you let him ramble long enough, he keeps making exceptions until he's left out everyone outside his home village, and he goes on to eventually exclude everyone except HIMSELF.

Alexander Hislop wrote "THE Two Babylons." That was a long time ago, and was written to scholarly types, who were thought to be the only people who'd care about the contents. (That was a LONG time ago, and we've come a LONG way since then.) It's now in the public domain. (That was a long time ago.) Ralph Woodrow read Hislop's book. He attempted to make a book with similar content that was a lot more readable and user-friendly, using Hislop's book as a guide. RW EXTENSIVELY end-note ALL his references to Hislop's book. This did nothing to make the book less user-friendly, but completely refutes the claim that, if vpw had properly footnoted or end-noted his books, that it would have been a distraction or taken away from his books. (Most people reading RW's book weren't really aware of the end-noting unless looking for it, but it was very useful for anyone looking to follow up on the contents.) One problem was, Alexander Hislop's book was loaded with errors. That meant that RW's book was loaded with errors. RW got a lot of feedback, some of it with extensive documentation. You may notice that "Babylon-Mystery Religion" is out of print. RW chose, instead, to write a book addressing all the problems with Hislop's "The Two Babylons" and RW's "Babylon Mystery Religion" and called it "The Babylon Connection?" That should be in print now. "The Two Babylons" is a hard read even if it's in the public domain, because it was a product of its time. Authors writing at that time wrote EXCLUSIVELY to the grad students and PhDs, and not to the public. (On these subjects, at any rate- that's why they quote Latin and expect the readers to all know what they said.) "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a nice read for protestant Christians, especially those like vpw who had an axe to grind against the RCC (not necessarily an undeserved issue.) "The Babylon Connection"" probably isn't as popular because it's not fodder for fuel for flamewars, and nobody likes to consider their previous positions were wrong, their previous beliefs were wrong. Naturally, twi had nothing to do with any of those books except to carry them in their bookstore- they certainly didn't carry Woodrow's later book.

Hi. 1) Please remember not to get TOO specific in your posts. "I live in Billings, MT and have 3 children, ages...." Twi used to have people who read every single post here and tried to figure out who was posting who was still in twi and who they were. (We called those readers "the WayGB.") If you have something specific to say while you are in twi, you'll probably want to send a private message with it, not a public one. 2) You're welcome here, whether you're still in twi or not. You opinions and positions don't have to be a certain way, either. We've had posters who agreed with vpw or twi, posters who hated them, Christians of considerable variety, non-Christian posters of different religions, and agnostics and atheists. They're all welcome, as long as they behave themselves. (Not surprisingly, the ones who trumpet how fantastic vpw- the plagiarizing rapist- was, tend to be the rudest to everyone.) 3) There's been hundreds to thousands of threads, with hundreds of thousands of posts. We've covered a lot of ground in discussions, often with multiple threads discussing the same subject, if from different perspectives. You're welcome to read any and all of them. You're welcome to post. You're welcome to start new threads. And we have some threads with games on them if you'd just like to relax. They're in the "Movies, Music, Books, Art" forum. Read the first post of such a thread and the first page to get an idea of how they work before joining a game, please, each game has posted rules. (They're also on the honor system, and we trust each other not to cheat.) 4) Please enjoy your stay here.

I was about to go through Star Trek Nemesis, but we just did that one. I know WB from 2 movies. You named one, and the other is a bit limited on linkage, and normally gets me to Nemesis.

Muppets in Space Frank Oz Trading Places

In the Man of Steel comic book miniseries, LL programmed a giant supercomputer with everything he had on Clark Kent and Superman, trying to find out their connection. The computer spit back "Clark Kent is Superman." Luthor almost kicked the machine in dismissing it. The idea that Superman would pretend to be human some of the time was so ridiculous to him, he never entertained it. Of course, later, he'd seen both together, so....

It's a lot easier to find compassion for people in the abstract (like the starving children in India or the kids with no access to schools in Africa) than it is to find compassion for people you can interact with. There's actual interaction, there's direct emotional contact, there's risk. What if you trust someone and they break your trust and hurt your feelings? It's certainly a risk we all face every day. It's generally a CALCULATED risk for many of us. You decide who is most trustworthy with your self and your privacy, and who's least likely to backstab you or betray you. Then you act accordingly- sometimes discovering later that you chose poorly. But, we are people, and we interact with people. Shutting down from EVERYONE isn't healthy. So, we risk our hearts.

The Hudson River is not potable. First, it is an ESTUARY (not, strictly, a river, just like the East "River.") So, it contains not just the fresh-water river from upstate, but it also contains seawater, so, that changes everything and introduces all sorts of contaminants into the Hudson. Second, in the 20th century, it was used for transport and other industrial things- including General Electric dumping PCBs into the water for about 40 years. (Other sources added their own "contributions" like mercury and raw sewage.) The Hudson has previously been declared a SUPERFUND site, something only really disastrous places get declared, places that need lots of toxic cleanup immediately. So, unlike the aquifers, treating the Hudson wouldn't result in potable drinking water. Treating water from the aquifers DOES result in potable drinking water, and that's why NYC has clean drinking water coming from its taps.

BTW, in reading about how Superman keeps his identity, people seem to have left out the most practical reason to disbelieve Superman and Clark Kent are the same person- they have been seen in the same place at the same time. After the "Death of Superman" storyline, and after the "Return of Superman" storyline, Superman had returned, but Clark was still one of hundreds of people missing since the day Doomsday attacked Metropolis and "killed" Superman. When Jimmy Olsen welcomed Superman back and asked if he'd seen Clark, Superman paused, and, using his enhanced hearing, located a trapped dog. (He was clearing up a recent battle site, and the dog had been trapped for a few hours.) Jimmy: "Wow, I bet that's what happened to Mr Kent!" Superman: *thinking* "OF COURSE!" The next issue began with Superman rescuing Clark out from under some rubble, with cameras recording it all. Lois posed with her arms around them, one arm around Clark, one arm around Superman. Then Clark was checked out by a doctor. Clark mentioned having managed to reach an equipped fallout shelter, so he had access to food and water, and did what he could to exercise, so he needed a shave but otherwise seemed in decent health. Then Lois drove Clark home, and Superman came in through the window. "Kent, hands off my woman!" Lois told off Superman for addressing her like that. Clark applauded, saying nobody should get away with that, not even Superman. "Clark" then transformed back into the shapechanger Matrix (with some difficulty.) The Martian Manhunter has been known to help with that sort of thing as well, shapechanging so a Justice Leaguer could be in costume AND his identity at the same time. Tim Drake (Robin/"Red Robin") got help from Miss Martian the same way once, even faking "Tim" being shot and wounded while Robin looked for the shooter- all so Tim had an excuse to need assistance walking and look rather unable to run, jump, etc. (It helped cover Tim Drake's disappearance during "No Man's Land".) Although I do like that a few characters have casually mentioned that we all know Superman does not HAVE a secret identity, and is Superman 24/7 , an idea Lex Luthor was sure of back in the "Man of Steel" miniseries following CoIE. Lex found it ridiculous that someone as powerful as Superman would pretend to be as powerless as a normal human.

Dylan Sprayberry- Man of Steel. Cooper Timberline- Man of Steel. George Newbern- Superman VS The Elite, and Injustice: Gods Among Us, and The Batman (cartoon series.) Stephan Bender- Superman Returns. Jackson Warris- Smallville. Malkolm Alburquenque- Smallville. Gerard Christopher- Superboy. John Haymes Newton- Superboy. Aaron Smolinski- Superman the Movie (the kid who lifts the car above Jonathan Kent when the jack slips out and the car drops towards JK.) With the exception of George Newbern, the names I gave so far were for actors who played young Clark Kent, generally in elementary school age or thereabouts. There's been a lot of depictions of Clark as a kid.

CORRECT! These were all Clark Kent.

I think you're correct about the OP. NYC area's drinking water is high in quality, primarily from its sources being upstate aquifers. (NYC is densely populated, NY State is not, much of the state's population and 80% of its total taxes come from NYC.) Some places need help to have potable drinking water from their taps, and that's true in the US and elsewhere. (I dare you to try to drink Pittsburgh's tap water sometime.) Some can be helped with filtration systems, some can't- if their water is beyond the help of water filters in the home. Cleaning 95% of pollutants in some places still leaves you with enough to poison someone with unfit water.

People who are OK with committing felonies on humans may have no problem plagiarizing poems, and might be able to rationalize or justify it easily.

Dylan Sprayberry Cooper Timberline George Newbern Stephan Bender Jackson Warris Malkolm Alburquenque Gerard Christopher John Haymes Newton Aaron Smolinski

It was a parable. It was meant to make a specific point by analogy- in this case, it wasn't about the prodigal son, it was about the Forgiving Father!

I found it fascinating, some time ago, to look over the Greek texts of those verses. It called him the "man of sinS", plural. I thought it was interesting that "man" there was "anthropos". He will be "the son of ruin", a title used in reference to Judas Iscariot. He will sit in the HOLY OF HOLIES of God, that is, the temple's separated area consecrated to God and representing His Presence. He will sit in the Holy of Holies of God Almighty. and "set forth that he is God." He will CLAIM he's God. Knowing all of that, why AUTOMATICALLY assume this will proceed DIRECTLY from the Trinity? Don't you know other religions and philosophies, ones that claim either that you shall be as God or that you already are? I'm suspicious that the use of "anthropos" there might suggest someone pushing a "perfectability of man" doctrine, where any man might potentially become A god. Instead of something strictly Hindu, say, I'd look for some newer, fusion of Hindu and other doctrines. Come on. The Greeks and Romans had ideas about men becoming gods- like Hercules/Heracles to the Greeks, and the Roman Emperor to the Romans (he got temples and everything.) A guy who was a big deal was promoted to a god. We know that the early church felt in competition with the Greco-Roman religion. There were rumors that, when Julius Caesar died, the dead rose from their graves and walked around in the streets. (Shakespeare mentions it in Hamlet, so it was well-known when he wrote that play.) Some Christians decided to "compete", and, next thing you know, during the earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death, we got a reference to the dead rising, and that crudely inserted into the text in a jarring way. (Things that supposedly take place weeks later are shoved into a single verse before they happened, and when they actually happened, NOBODY mentioned it. Secular writers had no mention of it. It's not in Acts, nor mentioned in books about saints and martyrs. Maybe you're worried about the wrong thing with the man of sinS, this General Practitioner of sinfulness.

At least 2 humans- you forgot the convicted criminal on Death Row did it, also.

Awoooo!

The Anvil — God's Word (attributed to John Clifford) LAST EVE I passed beside a blacksmith's door, And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime; Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor Old hammers, worn with beating years of time. " How many anvils have you had, " said I, " To wear and batter all these hammers so? " " Just one, " said he, and then, with twinkling eye, " The anvil wears the hammers out, you know. " And so, thought I, the anvil of God's Word, For ages skeptic blows have beat upon; Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard, The anvil is unharmed — the hammers gone.

Myra Brooks Welch wrote "The Touch of the Master's Hand." The Touch of the Master's Hand 'Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer Thought it scarcely worth his while To waste much time on the old violin, But held it up with a smile. "What am I bidden, good folks," he cried, "Who'll start the bidding for me?" "A dollar, a dollar. Then two! Only two? Two dollars, and who'll make it three?" "Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice; Going for three…" But NO, From the room, far back, a grey-haired man Came forward and picked up the bow; Then wiping the dust from the old violin, And tightening the loosened strings, He played a melody pure and sweet, As a caroling angel sings. The music ceased, and the auctioneer, With a voice that was quiet and low, Said: "What am I bid for the old violin?" And he held it up with the bow. "A thousand dollars, and who'll make it two? Two thousand! And who'll make it three? Three thousand, once; three thousand, twice, And going and gone!" said he. The people cheered, but some of them cried, "We do not quite understand. What changed its worth?" Swift came the reply: "The touch of the master's hand." And many a man with life out of tune, And battered and scarred with sin, Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd Much like the old violin. A "mess of pottage," a glass of wine, A game — and he travels on. He is "going" once, and "going" twice, He's "going" and almost "gone." But The Master comes, and the foolish crowd Never can quite understand The worth of a soul and the change that is wrought By the touch of The Master's hand.

I've heard he did that with "The Touch of the Master's Hand." Was that the poem you were thinking of in this case?