WordWolf

"This character" was in quotes, so there's something odd about calling him a "character." WS wrote, in "Julius Caesar", that "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." I know you don't know lines from "Hamlet" nor "Romeo and Juliet", so I tried a different play. George is up!

I suddenly omitted the name of the author of the plays. (Why?) The plays are contemporary to the playwright who wrote them, of course.

Rowan Schlosberg played him on "Legends of Tomorrow." David Mitchell plays him in "Upstart Crow", which I think is a hysterical show. Patrick Stewart did the voice for a Will Shakespeare in "Gnomeo and Juliet." Joseph Fiennes was the "Shakespeare in Love." Robert "Mike Brady" Reed played him on "Fantasy Island"- he actually did quite a bit of Shakespeare in his day. And so on.

No. And I thought the A-Team's first few seasons got good ratings. Did I miss an A-Team sequel show? (Nowadays that's possible.)

YES!

This TV show seems to have done better in syndication than in its original run. It was popular enough to justify an attempt at a sequel TV show with the cast returning. One character always had a band-aid visible in each episode. One character almost never used his real name- but had lots of alternatives. One character saw combat in World War II- but you'd never imagine it looking at him on the show. One character never used his real name because he deserted the US Army during the Vietnam War- while in the field. Finally, there was a perfectly logical, real-world reason why the show had problems being rebroadcast years later.

Yes, Mrs Wolf thought he was the giveaway for anyone besides her and myself. BTW, if you examine the other 2 posts on this page where I did NOT list actors, you might be able to figure out "this character" without having even one actor's name. If you still can't name it, that's on you. The fault would lie not in your stars, but rather in yourself.

Gonna take a wild swing here..... Vin Diesel and Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson?

Still naming this role.... Rowan Schlosberg David Mitchell Colin Firth Rupert Graves Will Kemp Mathew Baynton Kenneth Branagh Laurie Davidson Tim Curry Rafe Spall Patrick Stewart (sorta) Gary Hailes Scott Ainslie Joseph Fiennes Robert Reed Reginald Gardner Clive Revill Jorma Taccone

Waxit: "Thanks pal for pointing me in the right direction and let me know the existing climate in gsc so I know the type of people I am mainly dealing with." WordWolf: {Boy howdy, does THAT ever sound like someone trying to sneak an insult past everyone. No, we're a lot more perceptive than Waxit thinks, even if that one would have fooled Waxit.] "To all people in this forum, I am sorry if I have hurt in anyway." [We've had a LOT more hurtful things said here, generally on purpose. (Like someone calling me "the devil") Usually that doesn't hurt, either. Disagreeing isn't the same as lashing out because one is hurt. I don't think you know the difference, but there's a big difference.] "I now know what the gsc forum is mainly for and how to handle negative reactions on doctrinal issues and not get defensive" [Actually, you DON'T know how yet, that's why the Ï'll just slip these insults under the radar" technique. The rest of us here have disagreed with each other and didn't have to get defensive or personal about it. We've each learned something, and can "agree to disagree." ] "I probably wont be posting here in regards to the word of God (bible) but you are welcome to contact me if you want to know how the 7th day sabbath fits into God's plan for the salvation f mankind." [We're pretty confident that the entire Bible says it no longer plays a significant role in regards to "God's plan for salvation." You've avoided discussion in lieu of making assertions. That's common among ex-twi that haven't spent enough time free of twi, or ex-twi that spend a lot of time in a splinter group (depending on the group.) You haven't actually made the case you THINK you did. Volume and repetition don't equal "making a case." ] "To all those who read my posts, I know you will not be interested- so that's ok with me- no hard feelings we are all personally accountable only to the Lord Jesus Christ on judgement day" [There goes the blithe accusation that we're comfortable being in error about God. Cheap shots that are factually wrong don't convince people, and they come off as juvenile. So, yeah, "no hard feelings", you chowderheads.] "God bless you all Regards Waxit" [Waxit, I hope you stick around and read around. You stand to learn a lot from previous threads, and from how to "argue" online, that is, how to present a formal "argument."]

I thought you were going to give us a recipe! Ok, let's see.... The rising of dough can be accomplished 3 ways I know of: 1) carbonated water and high pressure 2) adding yeast in the usual fashion 3) baking powder + baking soda = a rising dough. We were just explaining this to Wordpup earlier today. The yeast is a biological reaction, which means it's a SLOW chemical reaction. The baking powder plus baking soda is a chemical reaction that runs in seconds to minutes, rather than the hours yeast takes. So, you can add those 2 ingredients. 4) Use self-rising flour. That's the same as method 3, since it's flour that has the baking powder and baking soda already added. Mrs Wolf prefers using that to using all-purpose flour in general. When she makes oatbread or cornbread, she adds some self-rising flour to the mix to get it to rise somewhat. There will be some differences in flavor between the yeast/leaven and the self-rising flour/ baking soda and baking powder, but that's because the yeast eats some of the starches to produce what it produces, and the other process leaves the starches where they are. It's not a drastic change, but it exists. (We never use yeast, so I can't give specifics from experience I don't have.) That's all I've got, I hope it helps.

Any chance at all this is "SPLASH"???

"The thing though with you guys, it looks like in a clique, you are comfortable in protecting yourselves and when a new kid in the block comes is with something you don't like (which is quite clearly a commandment in God's word) he gets a hiding. Wait till you face Jesus Christ- and your face will turn pale for rejecting what is clearly a commandment of God. I have showed you in so many ways why it's an immutable commandment of God- and scriptures, left, right and centre- I dont have any hiddent agenda unlike TWI. But if you want to analyse yourself not to do God's sabbath keeping commandment -so be it- all the best-see you at the judgment seat- where I also will be examined It's like people on gsc gang up on me. I am not saying everyone is like this but most except for one other person I know and have stayed with and respect Contrary to what I think I have not be "torn" to pieces ( I laugh)- that's absolutely not true- "torn" is what you think- anyone can talk rubbish without focussing on bible chapter and verse and that's what's happeining. People cannot come back to me and point out what a verse is saying contrary to what I have been pointing out (I am not boasting- but what I have researched and know- I am to explain- If there is something I cannot explain I will gladly take time to research it and explain when it is clear to me) Most people dont do this - they go on about technical analysis- T-Bone would be the best example. If all you guys are interested in technical analysis rather than the word of God then go for it. The nay sayers wait for someone to give a reply then they pounce on an insignificant phrase which they can tear down and just chow down on it instead of focussing intently on scripture verses and learning the honest truth from the word of God." A) Everybody here has been new here at one time, and mis-stepped. I know I have. There are so many different points of view here that if it looks like EVERYBODY is disagreeing with you, you might reconsider if maybe, just maybe, you're so far off that NOBODY can agree with you. When they ALL agree on something, it's pretty rare. I mean, when me and Allen ALONE agree on something and disagree with a poster, that's rare and a big warning sign! :) B) If everybody here who respects the Bible AND believes it disagree with you, and you claim to do both as well- take it seriously. C) I know you THINK you've been logical, and represented the Bible fairly, and that anyone who raised a contrary point was disagreeing with the Bible. You're seeing a completely different version of the thread than everyone else is seeing. I know the easy way to approach it is to blithely claim ALL the other posters are hallucinating, hate God, are possessed, are dishonest, etc. I'd recommend the other approach- maybe, just maybe, everyone else sees something you don't. D) There's a lot you can learn from the posters here. However, you have to be ready to consider that people who disagree with you may have something before you can actually learn from the posters here. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears."

Luke 16:10-11 10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? ======================== Looks like Waxit is on to you, JESUS CHRIST. You sure fooled me. Your insistence that people won't trust you with real importance if you flub stuff with the unrighteous mammon, that sounded sensible to me. However, Waxit's certain it's not proper. I recall how sincere he is about the Bible and how dedicated he is. So, if he says one thing and you say the other, than Jesus Christ must be wrong and Waxit must be right.

Yeah, Twinky. Waxit can post mean things about T-Bone, but if you post them about Waxit it's wrong because "you may be influencing others negatively", and apparently, they can't read the same posts as you and make up their own minds and agree or disagree individually. What does it matter if we keep getting someone's name wrong even after being asked not to? It's only one letter? There were big rifts in Christendom over one letter. That's why "an iota of difference" may be small, but make a big difference (IIRC, it was "homouisis" vs "homousis" or something like that, with the difference being whether it was one word or the other, and the meanings varied between "of similar substance" vs "of the same substance" with the doctrine of the Trinity dividing up the sides.) "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." If you're flubbing the less important, people won't trust you with the more important. "If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"

What you posted is factually correct, but the others didn't play him. I can honestly say this is not ANY of the characters written by that author, for that matter. However, he is definitely a contemporary of those plays (Henry V, etc.)

I'm unplugged from a lot of the information overload items you mentioned there, partly for exactly that reason. They take up all your time, and do it on their terms. Technology can be a tool, but for many people it's a crutch. I've been a fan of William Shakespeare for quite some time. I've been a fan of reading a good book for quite some time. One thing I find interesting about books older than around WWII is that they're written for a FAR more selective audience. Many writers would have been shocked to think of interested laymen reading their books. I once saw someone criticize a book (now in public domain due to age) where the writer quoted Latin and didn't translate it. The critic claimed he did it to be pretentious. No, I've read a few books that were contemporary to it, and they do the same thing. It was expected your reading audience was familiar with Latin and didn't need a translation;. The idea of universal literacy appeals greatly to me, and offers the chance for everyone to educate themselves. Now, with e-books available for free for many classics/public domain books, reading them can be done for free. That having been said, the offer won't be taken up by a large swath of the population. That's a shame. For that matter, many of them are cheap to own in print form because they're public domain.

Still naming this role.... Rowan Schlosberg David Mitchell Colin Firth Rupert Graves Will Kemp Mathew Baynton Kenneth Branagh Laurie Davidson Tim Curry Rafe Spall Patrick Stewart (sorta) Gary Hailes Scott Ainslie Joseph Fiennes Robert Reed

Raf said it first. I agreed with him.

Me neither- but I know it had Cruz and Cruise.

Movie based on a novel with a sequel. There's a few. Let's try "COCOON." If so, Raquel Welch was replaced by her daughter, Tawnee Welch.

"Spiderman- Into the Spider-Verse" was the animated movie, right?

"Hey, you guys!" - Spiderman appeared in the "Spidey Super Stories" segment of "the Electric Company." I had a classmate who swore up and down that Spiderman was mute because we had to read the word balloons. Never explained the 60s cartoon, which WAS being aired in our coverage area at the same time. Same one insisted that "colonel" was pronounced exactly as it's written. (BTW, in Spanish it's "coronel" and at least has the right letters in it. It's pronounced "coronel" as well as written that way, too.)

So, there was a movie called "Thirteen Days" and it was about JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Live and learn.

Captain America had a 70s show- that's why he had a motorcycle. He also didn't have enough movies. A contemporary show to his, however, was of a character that had cartoons, multiple movies, and at least one animated film release. That would be "SPIDERMAN".