WordWolf

*rechecks the thread* I remembered the movie, as well. It's "Addams Family Values".

We're all DELIGHTED for all of you! *cues Mariachi band* As you know, their lives will only get better from here- after a short adjustment period something like learning to live in a foreign country.

Or she's really, really a fan of that album. Meanwhile, we have a different song this month, and I've probably never heard it.

Looks I should have taken one of my wild swings last night. Without one clue to point to, I was suspecting it was "Soap."

Was this one of those shows that brushed on supernatural law enforcement, like "G vs E" or something?

Jim Carrey Once Bitten Cleavon Little

Ah, I meant that the earlier post said nothing about that coming directly from an eyewitness, so it could have been speculation. Once you posted that it came from one, that was completely different- since eyewitness accounts carry much more weight than speculation. I wasn't asking for MORE information, I was wishing you'd said the second thing when you said the first thing, all in the same post.

Nice summary. Pretty straight-forward. Digression:As a point of interest, I'd like to mention that the textbook for my Intro to Philosophy class (taken long ago) said that the hero of the story was the serpent! It also ended any quoting abruptly, about 1/3 of a verse in. Basically, where you have him saying "Here you are, you're wise now" and calling that a victory, the end. "Philosophia" means "love of wisdom." Lots of people don't think Philosophy professors are that wise, or that the degree is useful for anything other than generating a paycheck at a university. Having seen it in action, I'm inclined to agree.

"I was told the information I posted by a very close and personal friend of Mrs. Wierwille who also was on her personal staff. " That changes a lot. You said nothing about where you got that from. It could have been opinion and speculation- since you didn't say anything about getting it from an eyewitness.

Do you really think any of us is a walking encyclopedia of movies? I'm actually pretty pitiful at this, but I keep playing because it's actually fun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://www.imdb.com/?ref_=nv_home Look up a movie with either website. Look up an actor with either website. I honestly know a few names of roles Pacino has played, and I posted none of them! I looked up his stuff on Wikipedia. There's a page dedicated just to his roles. (I prefer Wikipedia because it usually posts full names of roles, and sometimes IMdB skips part of a name.) Sometimes, if I'm blanking on an idea, I just look around Wikiquote. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page Honestly. Think of an actor. Look up the actor on Wikipedia and IMdB. Choose 3 roles he played that had names (preferably full ones) that are not instantly identifiable. We try to recognize the actor (or hit it with a good guess.) If we miss, post 3 more roles, possibly more famous. Repeat process until we guess it or until you're posting nothing but his best-known roles (or hers.)

http://web.archive.org/web/20020824081542/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/html-docs/homo-excerpt.htm I'm redacting some of his foul language. Follow the link for the excerpt without redactions.] "Remember, the Word says that homos are the "lowest of the people," and that is certainly true. You female [redacted}, called lesbians, might as well have dogs [redacted]l! You wimp-[redacted] men who still think that somehow you have the right to take the grace of God in vain might as well be [redacted]!" "You should be thankful you're not in the Old Testament times, because there are some of us who would gladly execute you." I left out most of his screed, but he went after men and women there.

One of the GSC documents was a letter lcm sent around, with a hateful screed against homosexuals. He made a separate paragraph just to scream at the women.

Probably "Mamma Mia-Here We Go Again."

Whatever the detail, the crime was High Treason- the betrayal of the legitimate monarch for an enemy of the state. We can discuss the details and agree or disagree but that's not the big picture. I'm surprised how people don't get symbolic language. All modern languages do it. We do it with English all the time. We call people a snake, a snake-in-the-grass, a serpent, the old sidewinder, (etc), a rat, a stool pigeon. a fox, a slippery eel, a pig, a hog, a dog, a jack@$$, etc. People understand what we mean with no further explanation. When Bloom County (comic strip) had a story on "Senator Bedfellow" in their newspaper, the article began :"Leaving a trail of slime wherever.." and I'm sure nobody really thought he was dripping slime. Usually, we comment when someone (like a child) doesn't understand it. Elroy Jetson: "That doesn't look like a crab's hand. Let's see you pinch pennies with it. My Dad says you do that all the time!" Robot maid:"Miguel says you like to suck the blood of widows and orphans. We don't have any in the fridge. May I offer you some coffee?" So, we have someone who's said to "slither", to be an untrustworthy "snake-in-the-grass", and they're going to sneak around, despised. They're called a "serpent." Well, yeah, what else do you call them? No, we don't expect them to have scales, etc.

Please join the game, by all means! We encourage new players! Several of these threads are games. "Name that" "Mash Up" "Before and after" "Triple movie links" are all games. The first post in such a thread explains the rules. You wandered in and took this round quite handily. Congratulations. Now it is your turn. What you do is, you think of either an actor who has had several roles (not truly obscure like Kevin Seal or something) or a role that has had several actors (voice actors count.) Since you're providing the clues, looking things up is expected- you need to give accurate clues. (Wikipedia and Imdb are good for this.) You post either 3 roles of the character, or 3 actors who played this role. Usually, you do NOT begin with the best-known roles. Personally, I like to pick actors who have many, many roles and post either 6 or 9 roles at a time, in sets of 3. (That's not required.) We do need to keep the thread moving, so after several days, the clues should become obvious, having arrived there in small steps. (When I posted Pacino, I eventually was going to get to Serpico, Tony Montana, etc if nobody got the less famous roles.) The rest of us try to guess. We are NOT allowed to look it up. If we look it up, we admit it and disqualify ourselves. (Otherwise, where is the game? Anyone can look this up, there's no challenge in that.) Please take the turn you earned fairly, and post 3 roles of an actor, or 3 actors for a role!

For the curious, Pacino had a lot of roles, some of which weren't the title character. Among those were: Sonny Wortzik in "Dog Day Afternoon"("ATTICA! ATTICA!") , Arthur Kirkland in "And Justice For All" ("YOU'RE out of order! I'M out of order!...") Ivan Travalian in "Author! Author!" , Frank Keller in "Sea Of Love", Lt Vincent Hanna in "Heat", Richard "Ricky" Roma in "Glengarry Glen Ross", Benjamin "Lefty" Ruggiero in "Donnie Brasco", and Tony D'Amato in "Any Given Sunday". (Plus others I didn't identify and still others I didn't use.) He's been around, that's for sure.

Yes, and nobody got your clues. Actually, the first clue was so cleverly concealed in plain sight that I missed it, and I knew the answer. :)

Here I go again...

Sonny Wortzik Arthur Kirkland Steve Burns Ivan Travalian Tom Dobb Frank Keller Richard "Ricky" Roma John Pappas Lowell Bergman Francis Lionel "Lion" Delbuchi Lt Vincent Hanna Benjamin "Lefty" Ruggiero Tony D'Amato Harry Levine This is one of the winners of the acting Triple Crown. (Oscar, Tony, Emmy.)

I think you have it backwards. Who said he was "INTROVERTED"? He was self-absorbed. Later, it was obvious he was narcissistic. In short, it was always ABOUT HIM. He hid in the woods because he was too good to do manual labor or chores. He was a center of attention when he was small, at home. When the traveling minister showed up and everyone paid attention, vpw told him he wanted to be like him. He was a show-off as an adolescent. If Old Man Wierwille had really been a control freak, normal people might want to get out from under his thumb. vpw wanted to be free to skip doing work and to make it all about HIS will being done, not his old man's will. I think vpw got the idea, early on, that it could always be about him, and he lived his life trying to grab attention and act accordingly.

Was that your guess, Human? BTW, before I post on a page, if I reload it, any new posts show up on the bottom where they belong. For some reason, when you first post on a page, you don't see it drop to its proper position, but reloading the page corrects that.

It should have been stated outright. The last round was "turned over" -the answer wasn't guessed, it was given out. With no person guessing correctly, and the clue-giver saying nothing about going again, that means it's a "FREE POST" and anyone can post the next one.

Sorry. Sonny Wortzik Arthur Kirkland Steve Burns Ivan Travalian Tom Dobb Frank Keller Richard "Ricky" Roma John Pappas Lowell Bergman

Since modcat5 posted but not in an official capacity, he should get in trouble. I'm notifying a moderator immediately.

Please forgive me for rambling. Occam's Razor says that-if we have competing explanations that fully explain something- we should accept the simpler explanation as correct until other evidence changes that. My chemistry professor in college said that there's a corollary to Occam's Razor that says that- if there are 2 or more competing explanations for something, and none of them FULLY explains it- then ALL of them are WRONG. (He said this in the context of explaining light. Was light a particle or a wave? Neither explanation FULLY explains light, and there's evidence AGAINST both as well as FOR both. Therefore, we still don't understand light.) I think that's sound reasoning. Subject change....I've noted that the Bible claims in at least one place that ONE prophecy referred to TWO different events, separated by time and space. If one accepts the Bible as authoritative in this (if not, then this won't matter to you or mean anything to you). then that's what happened. Perhaps one can consider the postulate- If a prophecy seems to explain 2 different events in the future, but neither perfectly, then it may refer to BOTH, it may be a prophecy of BOTH.