WordWolf

It was taught in detail. It was broken down with examples. EB had a bunch of recordings of TIP, and played them to illustrate. In the example of one (the "muck and mire" one), he pointed out the interpretation was MUCH longer, and supposedly pointed out where the speaker had interpolated his own thinking into the translation. In another example, he counted out on his fingers, pointing out the interpretation had the same number of natural breaking points and the same overall time as the "tongue."

What's so shocking about an IC syllabus? If you took any level of pfal, it came with a syllabus. The only class I took in twi that didn't come with a syllabus (I didn't take ALL the classes) was the CFS class, which had 2-pages for a 7-session class.

Just to be clear..... It was the Intermediate Class. Rev E@rl B taught that, with a brief introduction by vpw. Before someone jumps in and says that this means it wasn't vpw who made the mistake, vpw signed off on 100% of everything in that class. If any segment had been less than 100% what he wanted, you KNOW he would have had it re-filmed- as many times as needed until he found it exactly what he wanted. So, either vpw taught him that, and E@rl passed that along, or EB taught it and vpw reviewed it and said, "That's fine. Print it."

You don't have to post that big a quote in the first try. Some of us can get that from a MUCH smaller quote. This is the Grateful Dead's "TOUCH OF GREY", off of "In The Dark", which was probably their biggest commercial success in terms of album sales or hit singles.

The Hunger Games Woody Harrellson Doc Hollywood

I was giving the others a chance to chime in. I had it from Peter Venkman's "Back off man, we're scientists." "GHOSTBUSTERS."

2. Making up words based on how they sound in the King James does not work. Colossians 3:5a "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; " Intermediate class: "What does 'mortify' mean? It means to blow it to smithereens." No, you're confusing "mortify" with a "mortar", a modern artillery weapon that was completely unknown in Paul's time. The KJV "mortify" is related to the latin word "mortis", which is "death", as any "mortician" could tell you. The Greek word for "mortify" there is "nekrosate". "Nekro" is the Greek prefix meaning "death." It's used in English as well- "necromancer" is one word you can even find in the KJV. 3. Translating from language to language doesn't work like the Intermediate class states. We're told the translations should match in exact number of natural breaking points, approximate number of words, and approximate time of speech. That may "work" with "interpretation of tongues", mainly because it's what's expected. In real life, with real languages, that can be very different. Greek and German, for example, are very compact languages. Translating to and from one of those to a "Romance" (Latinate) language will completely break the rules set out in the intermediate class. If you ever get the chance, catch the "I Love Lucy" episode, "Paris At Last". Towards the end, Lucy -who only speaks English- has to explain what's happened to a French Police Sargeant. The Sargeant calls on one of his officers who speaks French and German, and a lost tourist who speaks German and Spanish. With Ricky there (who speaks Spanish and English), the sargeant can ask his questions in French, and they can be translated to German, Spanish, then English, and Lucy's responses can be translated back the same way. The German step is INCREDIBLY short, especially compared to the French and the Spanish preceding it and following it. (They're all grammatically-correct translations that correctly translate what's being said, so that's not the fault of bad translating or bad writing.)

Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Gordon "Sting" Sumner Samuel West Raul Julia Kenneth Branagh Aden Young Peter Cushing Alec Newman James McAvoy

No. Just because Branagh is on the list is no guarantee the answer involves Shakespeare.

Got it in one!

https://web.archive.org/web/20030713171917/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue2.htm https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/ Here's some optional reading for the curious and those arriving late.

17. It often contains errors that are the byproduct of pretending that the over 400-years old, obsolete King James Version is authoritative in aiding our understanding, as if the KJV word usage was consistent within itself and consistent with modern usage. Probably the most obvious of those errors was hanging an entire doctrine on the KJV usage of the word "replenish" in Genesis 3, when the Hebrew word from which it was taken should be translated "fill" and not "replenish." However, since this error matched what vpw wanted it to say, he went with it. Furthermore, "throughly" is an archaic word that DOES mean "thoroughly" and there is NO DIFFERENCE between their definitions- even though vpw made up an explanation of their differences. 18. II Peter 1: 20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. =========================== vpw made a big deal out of these verses meaning we aren't to do any "private interpretation"- complete with his own, made-up explanation of what that supposedly meant. However, these verses explained the ORIGIN of the verses- they didn't show up because someone sat in a corner and decided to write something on his own, but with input from God Almighty directing him. There's nothing in them about how we are to approach the Bible. [For those arriving late, I'm just repeating points that were posted over 20 years ago in both examples, and not by me originally.]

This show had an organization: the Nation Organization of Men Against Amazonian Mastery- abbreviated "NO MA'AM," and fans who signed up for it on a national registry! Plans to spin it off as its own show fell through.

Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Gordon "Sting" Sumner Samuel West Raul Julia Kenneth Branagh Aden Young

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!