WordWolf

Yes. November 18, 1978, fo be specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Taking at face value your offering of 2 hours of video for others, I have to ask the obvious- after pointing out the obvious. Before we just listen to 2 hours of YT video, we'd need a bit more to go on about WHY we should listen to 2 hours of YT video. What was it about, other than the title? What was the approach? What was the main assertion? What about it convinced you this was well-presented? Those of us who have SOME interest in the subject would want a bit more before killing 2 hours of video posted by a total stranger.

Not for me. *checks* Never heard of this song, nor the artist. I know plenty of 70s songs that have aired SINCE the 70s, but if they haven't, I haven't got a chance. I was listening to top 40 in the 70s.

Other than the previous clues I dropped, Mrs Wolf said to mention "THE GREEN FAIRY" (which is a nickname for something.) She got it from the first 3 names plus a guess- then again, she's been around me and hearing what made me think of this character/real person. For the curious, Peter Sellers played a character who dressed as him, and Mel Brooks played a character who intentionally did an "impression" of him.

Peter Sellers (sorta) Règis Royer Mel Brooks (sorta) (I didn't think this would be so hard to win.... )

"Privilege"..by any chance, was that straight from Rozilla? That's her standard response to complaints that thinks are done wrong. "You have many privileges with this that can easily be taken away." (Don't like how we're instructing you to do things? We can task you with making bricks without straw....) Subtle THREATS as a management style. Not what you'd expect from a religious organization...

We know he was interested in buying up all the adjoining farms. If he'd focused more twi-specific activities around NK, it would probably be de facto twi territory if not de jure. (Not legally theirs, but theirs in practice.) I think he had his sights set on bigger areas, mostly due to growth that H33fn3r and D00p had started- especially since he didn't have to lift a finger and was not expected to. He effectively claimed all those people on both coasts without any personal effort- which is what he wanted all along.

No. Not a Spaniard, and he wasn't painted as a nobleman in any version of him that made it to the theaters.

Bridget Moynihan Lord of War Ian Holm

Name the character. Jose Ferrer Vincent Menjou Cortes John Leguizamo (No, this one should not be easy, but I thought I'd try a short round in between some others.)

It's Raf's turn.

I'm thinking this was an Avengers movie, and one I've seen. "Infinity War?"

I believe in miraculous healings. I've seen miraculous healings. That doesn't mean I just swallow every claim I hear as legit. I've also heard stories that were completely made up about miraculous healings. At the very least, this story sounds "massaged." Something is exaggerated, or something important is being left out. If you want my opinion, I'm just guessing from what little you've said. If I HAVE to jump to a conclusion based on that little information, I'd have to say I'm disinclined to believe him. The entire story may be made up. Also, part of the story may be true, but large parts may be made up. This is 2019. The story took place about 8 years ago, in the US in the 21st century. If this story is 100% true, there's documentation of it SOMEWHERE. If this happened as you claim you were told, this was local news at the very least, or news around the hospital where it happened. As it is, it sounds a lot like vpw's claims about how he did lots of miraculous healings- but all in India where none of us could check into it (and where nobody begged him to return to do more miraculous healings ASAP.) Some people have this thing about inventing a fascinating past. Some people get a thing like that when they get older. I have no guarantee either happened here, but I have some suspicions about that.

I don't feel called to do this. If you feel called to do this, more power to you. Especially if you're not being pushy or confrontational. Sometimes someone needs a little reminder that God loves them at that moment- and later they need something bigger. The small moves are as important as the big shows, no matter what people like twi's lords over God's heritage think.

Hello, RW67! I hope you enjoy your visit. You're certainly welcome to stay. We have information to answer all sorts of questions, and we socialize as well. (Scroll down to the Games forum to see us hanging out.) I had some thoughts about some things you said, I hope you don't mind me responding to them. "I was first introduced to TWI in the early/mid-2000's in Bowling Green, OH at BGSU. I was invited to attend fellowship / bible study, but had no idea it was TWI. They didn't seem to like to call it that, or a church, etc. I noticed a lot of the people I was meeting were only close friends with other members. They had friends, but their closest friends were all members. " The time says a lot about the interactions. In the 70s into the early 80s, things were pretty much in their heyday at twi. Once we hit 1985, we got into "the fog years." In 1985, vpw died, and some leaders tried to speak up about abuses and corruption. That didn't get any results, so they took off. lcm- vpw's successor and President of the group at the time- described himself as wandering around in a fog for a few years. Around 1989, lcm drew a line in the sand, and demanded a personal oath of loyalty to himself from each twi leader. (One phoned him to say that it sounded like that was what he was demanding, and lcm more than confirmed it.) This resulted in about 80% of the group's leaders leaving or being kicked out for refusal to swear this oath, and about 80% of the group that was around a year before left with them, leaving twi a fraction of what it was before (20% and dropping.) lcm spent the next few years ineptly flailing around and thinking any fool thought he had was directly from God Almighty- leading to orders that made the group bleed money and hemorrhage more members. Eventually, he was kicked out by his wife and rfr for a number of reasons, most of them kept secret, and none of them actually explained to the rank-and-file. (They found out anyway by coming here.) The 2000s were pretty much the dry toast version of twi. rfr has no personality, and can't bring in someone WITH personality because she'd live in fear they would replace her. So, the place gets less skilled and less relevant, and more boring, every year. So, the 2000s was rfr era, micro-managing at hq, and boredom everywhere, while rfr lived off the ministry. twi'ers, by the 1990s, pretty much only associated with outsiders to recruit them or as needed, and socializing was kept to a minimum. By the 2000s, outside socializing was disapproved of, but some people flew under the radar. I think it's fascinating that they never wanted to use their group's name. I've seen that before, and, yes, it's a warning sign you're dealing with a cult, or a scam. But I repeat myself. "I noticed a couple things though. I felt like some of them didn't fully agree with everything, but they were too concerned about screwing up their group of friends all associated with TWI. " Involvement with twi, for much of its existence, can be characterized by what insiders are afraid of. They're always afraid of being kicked out and losing their only friends, their family, and what they're told is their only hope of pleasing God. So, they swallowed their disagreements and were able to stay in. "I remember "messing around" with a girl who was very involved in TWI. She was paranoid people in her "branch" would find out, so anything we did had to appear like it was innocent. The funny thing is, I messed around with another girl in TWI also, while one of my friends did as well. It was all the same. They were all doing things that went against their cohorts, and they were all keeping it secret from each other, even though they were all doing the same thing. " An ex-Mormon once told me a joke about how inviting a Mormon along to fish will mean they will drink all the beer- unless you invite TWO Mormons along, in which case neither of them will drink ANY beer because they'll be scrutinized by each other and unable to have a drink. twi seems to have developed to that point as well. Want any fun? Better have it in secret. "Eventually a guy I was working with at BGSU invited me to come along. It spooked me off though. They acted very open in public, but in the fellowship, it seemed like the views were a lot more strict and not as accepting of traditional beliefs. Then they spoke in tongues. That did it for me. I thought they were freaks and hypocrites. I didn't believe that BS. I remember feeling like they were watching me though. It always felt cult-like, but without being one of those obvious cults. They could plausibly deny being a cult through the ministry but the whole structure and conditions have all the hallmarks of being a cult." Being a cult makes it easier to pass for a cult. :) When socializing/ "witnessing", the group will try to pretend they're fun, alive, relevant. Once you show up at a meeting, you'll find it's more boring than any church you left (or, at best, just as boring.) Everyone there is scrutinized, and the meetings are rigid and dry. It amazes me how often twi'ers will refuse to advise people about "mannies" before they attend their first meeting (speaking in tongues, etc.) That backfires when people have no chance to get used to the idea before seeing it. But it makes sense if you don't see PEOPLE but only see recruits, and only see them as RESOURCES. BTW, whether "mannies" are of God or faked in some way is a subject we've discussed here a number of times, with people on both sides of the issue. (I was on the "it's real" side before the discussions, but changed positions when the other side made too much sense and had things to say for which I could not find a sensible refutation. But either position is permitted here- this is not a cult, after all. ;) ) I hope you enjoy your stay here, for however long that is.

A) "Liberty's Kids." B) "Where In the World Is Carmen Sandiego?" was the video game that inspired the game show. (It also inspired the game show "Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?") The game show inspired the cartoon series "Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego?", Rita Moreno provided the voice for Carmen Sandiego in the cartoon. (One drawing somewhere showed Carmen Sandiego meeting Waldo, and both thinking "Where have you been all my life?") D) "Hector Heathcote." It's almost forgotten, except by people who were fans during the few airings. It's been so long that those people remember little enough. (Several episodes are on YT, I discovered the other day.) BTW, some sources online claim HH himself was a time traveler. No, he was just some guy living in what was his present. His present changed based on the plot, so his continuity was anachronistic. He and his dog Winston stayed the same no matter when and where they were. Someone said the claim he was a time traveler was an attempt to capture some Peabody/Sherman fans as fans for HH. I suspect it was just an attempt to make his continuity make sense, along with dim memories failing someone. The first episode that aired was his attempt to become a "minuteman", and there is no suggestion that he's anything but a local man trying to make the cut- contrary to time traveler claims. C) "Histeria!" This show had some actual history in between lots of gags. It was made by the Animaniacs team, included many of the same voice actors, and hit the markets alongside Animaniacs when it aired. In fact, where I'm posting from, they both only aired together until fairly recently, so it was easy to confuse one for the other here.

I would accept any of these as a correct answer, on the grounds that 2 are close enough, and the other named something I already said I would accept. I will explain. (So, CORRECT ANSWER, YOUR TURN.)

That's the movie. The references to singing should have been some sort of clue. Lasparri ended up trying to sing onstage, and an audience member threw an apple at him while the crowd booed. Groucho played Otis B, Driftwood, and Sig Ruman (Sigfried Rumann changed his credits once WW 2 started and Germans were no more liked than Italians) played Gottlieb, who represented the NY Opera Company. Chico's story of how the 3 aviators came to America (they were impersonating the aviators) is rather well-known. The 2 best-known scenes are the contract ("The Party of the First Part in this contract shall be known as The Party of the First Part..") and the stateroom scene (crowding all the people into a tiny bedroom, we didn't get to that scene.)

Animaniacs did not teach history, nor was it intended to. (C) was intended to, and did. They did air in similar time-slots at roughly the same years, with roughly the same production teams and voice actors. In fact, Mrs Wolf saw them aired together and thought they were the same cartoon,

That's a shame, because there should be 2 best-known movies they made, and Raf named one- the one the Marx Brothers fans tend to prefer, The other is the one with the broadest market appeal- the movie that appeals the most to non-Marx Brothers fans because of its quality as a movie and a comedy, not just as a Marx Brothers vehicle. "Queen" named an album after it, decades later. It was the film that saved their careers- because "Duck Soup" was too zany for audiences at the time, and Zeppo left after that one but before this one.

*reads article* Hm. I've a few thoughts about it. In short, I'm reminded that nobody's as free of ideology as they would like to think, and that no one subset of any social science can show us a full picture (although it might show us great insights from one perspective.) -The writer is a fan of Richard Dawkins, and quotes him on the concept of memes, and other things. RD's a known hater of religious thought, so I would proceed carefully, watching for the presumption that all religious thought is de facto harmful. (BTW, when did a biologist become an authority on Psych theory? I missed something.) -The writer did NOT say that all religious thought is de facto harmful. "In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. " "As such, there are often good and bad variants of any given religion. For instance, there are moderate versions of Christianity and Islamthat promote qualities like a sense of community and a moral code that fosters ethical behavior. " Granted, he spent the rest of the article discussing the religions he considers harmful (all fundamentalist ones), but he is claiming there's beneficial religions as well as harmful ones. I appreciate that. -The article uses a biological analogy-actually, SEVERAL biological analogies- to support the writer's position. I didn't see any Psychological basis for it beyond the extended analogy, and i certainly didn't see any sociological thought at all. If we're discussing religions as group phenomena- which he brushed on as to how people convert (my term, not his)- them Sociology has more to offer us than Psychology. For that matter, he spent several paragraphs on how fundamentalism is a "parasite". How about a reference to a Psychologist who put this forth in accordance with an existing Psychological theory? I'd like to know where it fits in to Erickson or Adler or any existing Psychological paradigm. I remember wierwille used an extensive analogy about dogs on a hunt to "explain" his position on "no private interpretation"- which was later shown rather clearly to be an error. His answer was one he liked, but was not correct. He spent lots of work developing his ANALOGY when he should have actually studied the material. As such, I get suspicious whenever someone uses extended analogies-and NOTHING else- to explain something. I would have liked to have seen what a competent Sociologist would have made of all this. For that matter, I'd like to see a Psychology article on this subject. The most biased part of the article was this paragraph: "We also know that in the United States, Christian fundamentalism is linked to science denial. Since science is nothing more than a method of determining truth using empirical measurement and hypothesis testing, denial of science equates to the denial of objective truth and tangible evidence. In other words, the denial of reality. Not only does fundamentalism promote delusional thinking, it also discourages followers from exposing themselves to any different ideas, which acts to protect the delusions that are essential to the ideology." I'm aware there are SOME fundies who are into "science denial", and there are SOME fundies who like Science and study it. But the writer went with "fundy= denial of science." He then followed up with "science denial=denial of reality", which means "Fundy= denier of reality." He didn't use those exact words in that exact order, but that's where he went. He followed THAT up with "fundy thinking is delusional thinking" and :"fundies never expose themselves to any different ideas." I'm aware there's some people who consider themselves fundies that this could apply to- but there's plenty that this would NOT apply to. He finished up with some rather pointed terms to equate with fundamentalism: "harms", "parasitic virus", He finishes up with this: "When a fundamentalist ideology inhabits a host brain, the organism’s mind is no longer fully in control. The ideology is controlling its behavior and reasoning processes to propagate itself and sustain its survival. This analogy should inform how we approach efforts that attempt to reverse brainwashing and restore cognitive function in areas like analytic reasoning and problem-solving." So, to be a fundy is to be: -no longer fully in control of your own mind -no longer in control of your behavior -no longer in control of your reasoning processes -brainwashed, which needs to be reverses -in possession of cognitive function that needs restoring We have this on the authority of "THIS ANALOGY. " Forgive me, but my analytic reasoning is leading me to different conclusions than the writer. I also think my cognitive function is working just fine. Mind you, I think that the descriptions in this article could describe "waybrain" quite well, which WAS why it was linked here (I hope.) Frankly, I'd be more inclined to gloss over all its flaws if there WAS something defective in my reasoning skills.

Ok, another cartoon round. Name any to take the round. There have been some attempts to make cartoons to teach kids. A few have taught history. A) This cartoon followed 3 teenagers through the American Revolution, as they stumbled across all the key events. Voice actors included Walter Cronkite as Benjamin Franklin. B) This cartoon, inspired by a kids' game show which was inspired by a video game series, followed 2 teenagers across time and space as they pursued a criminal and her gang. (I will accept the name of the cartoon, the show, or the video game, as a correct answer.) C) This madcap romp by Warner Brothers did indeed teach some history- in between all sorts of gags of every kind. Father Time was one of the characters, as was the World's Oldest Woman. D) This Terrytoons series, all but forgotten, took place in history. The title character- and his smart, little dog Winston - dealt with bumbling through history on their own. The title character was known for wearing a blue, wide hat and was rather short. His nemesis was a big bully named Benedict (no, not Arnold.)

Is this "Kingsman" or something?

"No, this is a Marx Brothers movie." That is correct. "Don't know which one, though." That also appears to be correct." ;) "I would guess Animal Crackers or Duck Soup." Sadly, you would be mistaken. Go over the quotes, guys, there's some dialogue that should narrow it down even if all you know is the names.

It is NOT a Mel Brooks film.