WordWolf

.

I mentioned much the same myself, and I thought everybody else thought it didn't make sense. (I don't "SIT" for the reasons vpw gave because it isn't what vpw said it is. It has legitimate uses, so I use it other ways.) I thought that was just me.

Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield Allen Ginsburg Yossi Ghinsberg Sean Haggerty John Kipling Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard Alan Strang

What little we did hear was long ago, but a few years after he was pushed out of twi, and living in a rent-free house with a doctor there to oversee him, He did apply for a position as a personal trainer at a local gym that had personal trainers. His notice was typed in all caps and spent as much time in self-aggrandizement as in being relevant to the position. It's entirely possible for someone to turn around, but it would not surprise me if he did not. First, you have to be able to be humble and admit that YOU were the problem at least some of the time- and that seems beyond him. THEN he can get to how his many faults were used to manipulate and later oust him completely. There's potential for him to get humble, go to a local church as a parishioner, get involved at the lowest levels, and finally mature and grow from there- but I don't see him "getting humble" because I think he thinks he doesn't need to grow. That would sentence him to spending the rest of his life as he was.

"Avatar-the Last Airbender" spawned a live-action movie and at least 1 sequel (Legend of Korra.) I didn't know about 2 other sequels.

By "departure from the show's history", did you mean the Asian main character was played by a Caucasian? That sometimes causes fights, whether in a Broadway show or in a cartoon-made theatrical movie.

I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought this was actually beyond dispute and that Christians would stipulate to that without an argument. (No, we shouldn't, no it does not please God, no, it's not the right thing to do...) I made that clear by not putting my OPINION in quotation marks. Really, junior high school English rules should make that clear. ============================== As for Bullinger and definitions of "other" and "another", he's defined "heteros" and "allos" completely differently in 2 ways. A) "Heteros" means "another of a different kind" and "allos" means "another of the same kind." This is consistent through the Bible. (One usage is in Galatians 1, the warning against being drawn to "another gospel which is not another". "Another/heteros gospel which is not another/allo", or "a different gospel with is not of the same kind", which sounds redundant when rendered plainly. Then again, if you accept "pleonasm" as a legitimate figure of speech as Bullinger did, that's just fine.) The other usage was to say one was "another when there are exactly two" and the other was "another where there are more than two." That actually is not used consistently in Scripture, and that was pointed out here, long ago. (Someone said that the mention of cheeks should obviously refer to two since a person has exactly two, but the Greek word used was the other, and so on.) I haven't looked into that one for something like 20 years because that definition seemed both INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS. The usage of "same kind" and "different kind" was consistent, sensible, and easy to demonstrate. So, in other words, I say Bullinger was correct in his OTHER (heteros, different) definition, and not in this one. Since the definitions contradicted each other, it seems evident at as many as one could be correct (both could have been wrong, or one could have been wrong, but since they contradict, they couldn't both be right.) ================================== There's this thing that's actually pretty common among ex-twi splinter leaders. It's a false bifurcation that's based on over-compensation. They take one extreme position on something, see that there's problems with that extreme position, so they conclude that the polar opposite position must be true, and skip over the problems with that extreme position. We saw that when Geer attempted to reconcile God's Love and God's Omnipotence with the continued existence of evil. (This is a very old question, and smarter men than him have hit the reefs on it.) Time Magazine addressed this same problem once as their cover story. They claimed that any TWO of those could operate together, but that all 3 could not. If God was Omnipotent and evil existed, He wouldn't be Love because He'd be fine with evil existing. And so on. Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence. Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. He imposed that explanation on Scripture, and mangled Genesis 3 to claim it supported his assertion when it actually did the opposite. In this case, the problem was looking at vpw's proclaimed grotesque position that- once one is saved, one can sin with impunity without any significant consequences and God would just let it go because you have Eternal life and Incorruptible seed. Well, the seed won't corrupt, the life won't end, but that's hardly the same as saying there will be no consequences. I'm confident there will be severe consequences but that they won't end eternal life or rot incorruptible seed. If you like, we can get into this in a Doctrinal thread. Personally, I think it doesn't matter because of the results. If I'm planning on backstabbing God, the actual consequences won't scare me into a turnaround. And if I don't, then it doesn't matter what the penalty would be for doing so. (I don't care about the legal penalty for counterfeiting because I have no plans to ever counterfeit.) In other words, no, I don't think that we have "a guaranteed place in Heaven." I think we have "eternal life" and "incorruptible seed". None of that guarantees "Heaven." That was what vpw referred to (incorrectly) as "private interpretation" no matter how many people taught that in twi.

Really, thanks for the clarification. The group sounded VERY different before and after that little addendum.

A) Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk in love because it pleases God AND because it's the right thing to do (which is why it pleases God.) B) One of the great problems of twi survivors is this dependency on a version of the Bible that's 450 years old. This introduces 2 problems: 1) It doesn't correct various corrections that were made in the last 450 years (most weren't retro-fitted into the KJV, although a few were.) 2) The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS. vpw made a lot of bank on some of those, and exploited them. (Example: A page of explanation on "replenish" being used rather than "fill"- when the non-English texts translated INTO the KJV said "fill".) In this case, "creature" is not understood they way it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any of his contemporaries. It means, in simple modern English, "created thing." The sentence is making a very big point, and builds up to it somewhat from big to GIGANTIC. "I am convinced that neither what's dead, nor what's alive, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the things that EXIST, nor the things that DON'T EXIST YET, nor height, nor depth, nor ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." I agree with Paul here. I'm also convinced, but I can only speak for myself here. I obviously don't speak for Dan. We count as "created things". things in creation. So, we can't separate ourselves from the love of God either.

Ok, next round. Name the actor.... Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield

"Having answered one correctly, I have officially taken the round." True, and that should not be in dispute by anyone. "As much as I'd like to be able to guess the other shows, I don't think I'm going to be able to. (And Human and Raf are MIA.)" Well, we should close it out anyway. "(B) might be the name of some card in the Major Arcana, although there is no TV show "The Fool," and I'm not going to go through the other 21 cards." The card is "the Queen of Swords." Inspired by Zorro shows, but this show had a woman swashbuckler. It could have found an audience, but it didn't. "(C) clearly involves Musketeers. For some reason, I saw your note about "job title" and was thinking "show title." They were obviously swordsmen, but the only TV show with that name was Chinese." The show was "Young Blades." That also could have found an audience, but didn't. "(D) I haven't ignored the quotes; they just don't mean anything to me. "Eternal Thief"? Plus all of the references to spin-offs. I have no idea." George I showed Mrs Wolf just the 2 quotes, and she figured it was a spinoff of "Highlander." The giveaways were that it involved an "immortal", and the last quote ended with "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE", which is the "Highlander" franchise marker no matter where you look. When she glanced at the rest, she identified "Highlander-the Raven", the spinoff show that featured Amanda the thief immortal. (Played by Elizabeth Gracen.) It lasted a season, but it wasn't until they'd chased off almost all the fans that they made it less of a cop show and more like a "Highlander" show. If they'd started it that way, it could have lasted longer. By the time they fixed it, nobody was watching to notice it WAS fixed. And neither of the 2 main characters ever returned, despite movies that took place later, like "Highlander-Endgame." All these shows were short-lived, and featured swashbucklers. I think they were all pretty good (except H-tR when it began), but bad management kept them from getting an audience. Your turn!

No it didn't. Nor did he put something up and THEN ask for donations to keep it running. He put together a (free) Facebook page. Before spending $20 on all the costs of a webpage and domain, he wants to raise all $20 of it- or more, probably. Compare that to the GSC, where Paw put it all together out-of-pocket.

Ever hear what that was about? vpw made some offhand comment about how he broke the breath-mints he was using at the podium. So, someone decided that what vpw wanted was broken mints, so broken mints started showing up all over the place for him. Then he mentioned at one podium that all he could find were these little fragments. Someone replied that they were getting him the broken breath-mints like he used. "I mean I break them IN MY MOUTH!" vpw didn't want someone to pre-break his breath-mints. He was hiding breath heavy with alcohol and cigarettes, so he took a breath-mint in his mouth and bit it in half, releasing all the mintiness in a few seconds rather than slowly. (That's what you do to hide a really extreme reek.) But since he castigated people who asked him ANY clarifications (as if it was THEIR faults if HE communicated vaguely), and he put forth that his whims and "suggestions" should be taken as "commands", people were stuck trying to read his mind and determine his intent, then try to carry it out.

This was business as usual for all of them FOR DECADES. But NOW, we're supposed to believe that's all COMPLETELY changed. And they're UNREPENTANT of DECADES of what they did. Which is proof it hasn't changed.

If one is determined to only find the negative at the GSC, that's what one will find. It's not honest and lacks integrity, but this should come as no shock by now. It's really cute the way these splinters like to refer to the GSC and explain why they're not going to explain. Lots more people got deliverance here and got on with their lives than they've actually HELPED. Perhaps it's "deliverance envy". The GSC has a proven track record lasting more than 20 years, and they spent the last 20 years as drones to the twi cadre and hurting people whenever they were told to. Either they did that knowing they were hurting the people- and were fine with it because they kept it up for DECADES- or they hurt people for decades and had no idea they were ruining people's lives. Either way, that track record should disqualify them all from leading ANYTHING. But, no, they've silenced their consciences over the decades, so they see nothing wrong with what they did- only with someone pointing it out! Just like with vpw, where his rapes were forgivable, but bringing them to light was inexcusable!

So, you're saved as long as you do what I say. If you don't God Almighty will revoke your eternal life. Yes, that's certainly an EVIL doctrine. I bet that was quietly buried in the middle of some teaching where it was camouflaged nicely with some Bible verses.

(A) was defintely "ZORRO AND SON." I liked the show, and I was one of a handful of viewers. There's a memorable moment in the first episode where Zorro is still swashbuckling after he should have retired, and manages to escape capture, only partly-admitting he's not as acrobatic as he was 15-20 years ago. (It's on YT because I wasn't the only one who thought the clip was memorable.) By the end of the episode, his son (recalled to his Dad's side because his Dad's aide thought Diego might get killed) has put on the costume and appeared as Zorro (with Diego present as "Zorro" gets the job done.) I liked the concept, it was light, but it seemed to have too small an audience to survive. That and nobody seemed to have publicized it. Eiizabeth Gracen is ALLEGED to have had a one-night-stand with the Governor of Arkansas in 1982 or 1983. Kenneth Starr tried to subpoena her in 1998 about this. He was unsuccessful because she was out of the US filming a TV show at the time. Calling "the Musketeers" musketeers will always be a misnomer because they didn't use muskets and they rarely even used pistols (blunderbusses), so they're NOT known for using any kind of firearm (neither rifles NOR pistols.) Even their old guard never used them- and this show didn't follow the old guard with their weapons, it followed the not-old new arrivals with their traditional Musketeer weapons. (Come on, close your eyes and picture an armed Musketeer. What weapon is in his hand?) In other news, for (D), your insistence on ignoring the quotes is keeping you from figuring out almost everything about the show. (And it's STILL never included vampires nor any form of the undead.)

A musket is a type of rifle. What you said about (C) tracks very well. You might even guess or stumble upon the name if you work at it (which I'm not requiring but it would be neat.) Who said anything about who (A) is or is not about? None of the shows feature any vampire or vampires. But there WAS an actress who was reputed to have engaged in some Presidential hanky-panky. So, if (D) is not about vampires, what does that leave?

Russell and Victor were the modern aliases of Connor MacLeod and Kurgan. With flashbacks, there were scenes in different times and places, so different filming locations were called for. Peter Diamond played Iman Fasil here. Bob Anderson, former Olympic gold medalist fencer, spent decades teaching Hollywood to fence. He worked alongside Peter Diamond in Star Wars (Episode 4-ANH). Peter was a stuntman here and there, and was on camera there as a Sandperson/Tusken Raider. He's the one that attacks Luke and shakes his Gadaffi stick at him. Christophe Lambert had a crash course in English, specifically with no clear accent. So, Christopher Lambert stepped into the role as a man whose accent came from different places and times, which was a clever idea. Special effects attached car batteries to the swords- which is why they sparked when the swords clashed. The next 2 movies blew, but the TV show didn't- and that had sequel movies, some of which worked. Sean Connery played "Ramirez"- which wasn't the guy's original name, either. He was the one who was married to Masamune's daughter. Masamune is a legendary swordmaker, reputed to be the greatest swordmaker of all time. That last quote was of the end of The Gathering- when the last Immortals will fight it out for The Prize. Each Immortal gets the Quickening of every immortal he slays- basically his soul and his power- including that of all the Immortals that HE has slain. The final handful will each have hundreds of Quickenings each- and each of them will lose all of that to whoever beats them, until there's ONE Immortal with ALL the Quickenings and ALL the power. "IN THE END, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE."

Yes!

Some actors: Peter Diamond James Cosmo Jon Polito Sheila Gish Alan North Clancy Brown Roxanne Hart Some characters: Brenda Wyatt Lt. Frank Moran Det. Walter Bedsoe Iman Fasil "Russell Edwin Nash" "Victor Krueger" Some of the categories of this film, according to Wikipedia: Films set in NYC, films films set in Spain, films set in the 1780s. films set in the 1940s, films adapted into novels. The title character was played by a man who didn't really speak English when he was cast in the role, but he learned English to play the role. The actor was actually Swiss, but the character certainly was not. (He dubbed himself in the French audio translation of the movie.) This was a movie which featured Peter Diamond and Bob Anderson's work behind the scenes- with Peter Diamond acting at one point. (It wasn't the first time any of that was true.) Some of us fans would like to thank the special effects crew, and especially thank their car batteries, without whom a very specific visual would not have been accomplished. Repeat after me- the next 2 movies never happened. The TV show was the sequel, and any movies after that. " I am Juan Sánchez Villalobos Ramírez, Chief metallurgist to King Charles V of Spain. And I'm at your service. " "Her father, Masamune, a genius, made this for me " "When only a few of us are left, we will feel an irresistible pull towards a far away land... to fight for the prize. "

Can you tell me exactly what any of them are about, even if you don't have their names?

Ok, this is a round of short-lived "historical" shows, name any to take the round. A) This show was meant as a comedy, but actually made a lot of sense in terms of the story. This series showed a main character "passing the torch" to his successor/offspring, which was always part of the narrative when it was meant as serious stories. It lasted 5 episodes. It took place in California, and introduced a new character named Carlos. The title references 2 characters- one is a famous, established character and the other was invented for the series, AFAIK. B) This show also took place in California. The theme-song was sung by Jose Feliciano. It lasted for 8 episodes despite 22 episodes having been filmed and completed. A DVD version was later released in France under the title "Sous Le Signe de L'Épée." The main character/title character was female. A supporting character is a gypsy who reads Tarot cards a lot-and ends up naming the title character and thus the show. Tessie Santiago probably owes winning the role to dyeing her hair black before her first audition to conform to Hollywood stereotypes. C) This show took place in France. It lasted 13 episodes. One of the main characters was the son of a famous character in literature, the others were all new. The cast included Bruce Boxleitner, Michael Ironside, and Sheena Easton. Karen Cliche was in the principal cast-and played one of the title characters. Their job title is instantly recognizable. However, as always, it's a misnomer. None of them are sharpshooters-they use a different type of weapon. One twist is that Karen Cliche's character is impersonating someone else, for a VERY obvious reason to an even casual viewer(she's impersonating a guy, and can't keep the job as herself.) .As with the other shows, this is not focused on the old guard, but the sharp cookies that replaced them. D) This show spun off another show. It took place in modern times. The original idea was to introduce 5 different new characters into the parent shows, and spin off one of them, or all of them, into a new series. That idea failed, so they spun off a recurring character as the title character (singular.) With 2 main characters played by actors who disliked each other, any possible chemistry between their characters was doomed to fail. Add to that the lead actress' manager was a stalker AND she became convinced the CIA and President Clinton were after her. (OK, he wasn't, but at least she had a reason to think the sitting President MIGHT have had someone looking into her specifically.) The show was written-neither like the original show it spun off from nor the movie from which THAT was spun off- but began as another cop show, and had bad ratings that an interesting cliffhanger was unable to rescue- leaving the end of the series a big question mark for both of the main characters. Oddly enough, she never appeared again, although the character COULD have returned with some of the others. We never heard what became of him. The opening narration: " She is... immortal. A thousand years old, and she cannot die. A creature of legend, like the Raven. A thief, who stole the Sun and the Moon. They sent a warrior to bring her back. He found her. Together they brought back light to the world. I was a cop. To me she was just a thief. Another day on the job. But she wasn't. She changed my life, changed... everything. And both of us knew from that moment on, nothing would ever be the same." The final lines of the final episode: "Once, everything was clear. Good guys, bad guys. Life and death. Then you meet someone, someone you want to love, then it all changes. Death brings life, life brings death. What room is there for love, when there can be only one? "