WordWolf

Ok, we know who William Atherton is, we know who Robert Prescott is. We don't have a movie with them in common-that we are aware of. (2 movies for WA, 3 for RP).

Ha! Finally remembered an actual actress in it! Faye Dunaway the Thomas Crown Affair (new version) Pierce Brosnan

Ok, we just put our heads together. We figured this is probably: a British role, a historical role (otherwise, why on "Drunk HISTORY"?), a role famous enough to be nominated for an Oscar, let alone win (to say nothing of attracting some of these people.) Considering all that, and trying to picture TIMOTHY SPALL making the list means that we think we should start with RICHARD III.

It's been covered, but I'm pretty sure John Ford Coley was not in any band that's been known to have covered it, and was not in the original. (So, say, if he jammed in a club somewhere and did this, nobody knows but it's humanly possible.) I'll add more lyrics later.

The first post says this is for threads with "clues to a movie." Forgive me if I'm not at my best when the round isn't with "clues to a movie." I also hate looking anything up and will wait for some sort of follow-up clue since that actually allows me to play rather than look up.

I know William Atherton from 2 movies, but I can't tell if this is either movie, yet.

It could be, and is.

Was this "Brokeback Mountain?"

Shirley MacLaine George Raft Red Skelton Norman Fell Cesar Romero Angie Dickinson Clem Harvey Joey Bishop Patrice Wymore Richard Conte Akim Tamiroff

Wild guess..."No Country For Old Men"???

Played this song for Mrs Wolf to overhear earlier, so blame her for inspiring this round.... ;) "You know I love you, I always will. My mind's made up by the way that I feel. There's no beginning, there'll be no end. 'Cause on my love you can depend."

I keep forgetting to run this past Mrs Wolf, but I mentioned one role was played by both Timothy Spall and Gary Oldman and that didn't spark a memory. Let me run this list of Brits past her and see what she says.

Trick question. If you're asking if they need to CONTINUE to pay "emeritus corps" then it's a trick question because they would have to START paying them first. If you want to know if they meant "retire and START getting paid", I think that isn't the direction of the question. The question is meant as "Why can't the corps retire from being on twi's leash and continuously living at twi's beck and call. and instead just be normal retirees who might do something because they want to and volunteer and not because they're "volunteered" by twi?"

I thought part of the reason for Emporia was so vpw could rope his son Don back into twi by offering the Education student an educational facility to administer. And it worked.

I'm not ignoring this thread. I'm refusing to reply until I can sit down and treat this subject the way it deserves, and not with something off-the-cuff. I'll get to that as soon as I can.

Shirley MacLaine George Raft Red Skelton Norman Fell Cesar Romero Angie Dickinson Clem Harvey

Sure, hang on...

Nice one! Great White's "TWICE SHY." ("Once bitten, twice shy.") Had a cassingle of that once upon a time, IIRC.

Trying to remember ANYBODY from that movie besides the title character. I thought Robert Vaughn was in it, but he was in Superman 3.

* watches video* Ok, for the record, I disagree with the letter of what he said exactly. I do agree with him that there are Muslims and other non-Christians who DO seek God in one form or another, and I DO think that God Almighty has SOMETHING up his sleeve to cover that. I disagree with him that those in that category who don't know Jesus are in the One Body of Christians. I appreciate his trying to address an important issue, but think he fumbled on the 5-yard line and didn't get where he should have. He wasn't saying "everyone gets into Heaven" or any number of other things that vaguely resembled what he DID say. In short, I'd have corrected him on the subject but I wouldn't have defenestrated him over it. As always, YMMV.

Boy, did YOU miss some important discussions in the last decade....

There's been threads specifically to outline what copyright is, and what plagiarism is. Simply put, using the work of others without citing your sources is plagiarism. If it is word for word, it is plagiarism....and if it is NOT word-for-word, it is STILL plagiarism. vpw moved a few words around and changed some synonyms from Stiles' book so that later printings of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today less directly resembled Stiles' book from which it was initially retyped, and it was STILL plagiarism. At no point did vpw's book include a note saying ANYTHING was from Stiles (when all of the original was, and the later ones plagiarized also from Bullinger and Leonard, neither of whom is mentioned in it EITHER.) Even Public Domain books can be plagiarized if sources are not cited. Homer's "the Odyssey" is in the public domain. I can print off a run of books titled "the Odyssey by Homer" legally- and there's plenty of public domain books in print, cheaper because they're public domain. However, I can't print off the same book titled "the Odyssey by WordWolf" because that's plagiarism- the contents were from Homer. There's even been Christians who've done this with books in the public domain. VF wrote a book about "the Two Natures" largely restating Bullinger's book on the same subject with the same title. He cited his source. And when VF did a print run of his book, he did a print run of Bullinger's (public domain) book, and sold them side-by-side. People bought them together. This is NOT a difficult concept to get- but we always seem to circle back to it whenever someone defends vpw. Then suddenly that person (not you) doesn't understand what plagiarism is, reads over definitions and then claims that restating a few words excuses it, or an off-hand comment mentioning one person one time is a blanket clearance for failing to cite sources, etc. We get this periodically, depending on who's feeling like calling vpw a really nice guy that week instead of a plagiarizing rapist. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/12755-plagiarism-101/ This was one of the threads where we actually had the definitions and explanations of plagiarism-followed by some people determined to misunderstand them. In case you're interested.

So, once again, all of this stems from your manufactured solution to a manufactured problem. You keep laboring under the supposition that the Biblical documents we have nowadays are unreliable and remnants. That's a gross misstatement of what was known when wierwille was in school- and he was a poor student of history but never made the claims you did. He claimed that we could study-"compare one word with another" and so on-HIS WORDS- and arrive at a position where we could say of the results "Thus saith the Lord." I've noticed you've backed off that claim of wierwille's as well. From what I've seen, most of the research that isn't just reading is checking a critical Greek text and seeing if the word in English is a fair translation of the Greek word (generally, when I get stuck, that's the reason I was stuck.) There's similar solutions when checking the Hebrew (or the Syriac or Aramaic if you're so inclined.) A websearch can show details of what reliable, old documents exist-and not a lengthy search, either. vpw claimed the oldest documents extant were from the 4th century AD- which was error even when he said it. Documents go back a lot farther. Truly dedicated researchers can compare the most ancient fragments with the less ancient fragments- and nearly everything corresponds with what we have now! (Again, problems with awkward versions, but all off the same Texts and the Texts were accurate.) The ancient Hebrew corresponds in an even more shocking manner despite the centuries. (I'll make a thread about this when I have time, documenting the specifics.) So, there's no need for new original documents since the old original documents worked just fine. If anything needed fixing, it was dependence on a 450-year-old version (KJV) when there were new versions that were superior to it, both in concept-for-concept and word-for-word. Again, a manufactured problem since clearer versions are on sale in your local Barnes & Noble right now.

Joey Pantoliano Running Scared Billy Crystal

As has come up before, simply putting END-NOTES rather than footnotes eliminates your imagined problem of "clutter." NOBODY ever claimed "Babylon Mystery Religion" was cluttered, even you. That book had end-notes in every chapter, and documented EVERYTHING. BTW, "rural" people don't claim they're exempt from copyright, that's just something you've made up.