WordWolf

If prior experience is any guide, he will do neither. Just pages and pages of him talking about there being proof, about his having proven it, about having proof that we don't deserve, and so on. Then, later, how he proved it before. All without actual attempts at proof.

Thanks. I've had one in mind, on and off. "You were caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom, blown on the steel breeze. Come on you target for faraway laughter..."

I disagree with them as to whether it counts as a spinoff under 2 specific circumstances. A) The show changes name- that is, "All in the Family" turning into "Archie Bunker's Place." B) When a character's first appearance is in a single episode of a show-and their second appearance is a pilot of a new series that never interacts with the original show. So, I think it's fine to say Joey Tribbiani from "Friends" spun off into "Joey", and Frasier Crane and the Tortellis spun off "Cheers" into their own shows. All those characters either were regulars or appeared several times. IIRC, Matt Le Blanc appeared ONCE on "Married With Children" as Kelly's boyfriend, then his second appearance as that character was in the series pilot "Top of the Heap." If I'm correct, I don't count that as a "spin-off." The character was introduced briefly into one show, then their own show was introduced. Nobody counts DC's Arrowverse shows as spinning off each other. Barry Allen appeared in a 2-parter in "Arrow" before "the Flash" began, and that's not counted as a spin-off. "Legends of Tomorrow" began with most of the principal cast having been introduced in "Arrow" or "Flash", and that's not counted as a spin-off- and those characters were recurring or regulars. The whole point of the one-appearance "spin-off" is to introduce the character to the viewing audience of a show before the new show airs. Their existence there doesn't impact on either show in the long run. Contrast that, say, with "Angel" spinning off "Buffy". Even when the casts don't meet up, there's references back and forth, and telephone calls where we only hear one side (which saves money on actor salaries.) All of that, of course, is me disagreeing with them.

I think there was a movie, "The Eyes of Laura Mars" in the early-to-mid 1970s. That's all I've got.

"The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Quest for Fire." I'm sorry, everyone, I've been a bad influence on George.

Sebastian the crab.

Can we "void" this and move on?

Dr Who didn't count as a British TV series? I question the validity of naming all of those "spinoffs." We had characters appear as regulars in a show then go off for their own show (Joey from Friends, Frasier and The Tortellis from Cheers, etc.) Both "Mork and Mindy" and "Out of the Blue" were introduced in "Happy Days" in crossover episodes, then continued with their own shows without any further mention of "Happy Days" (M&M's pilot episode did but not the rest.) "All in the Family" became "Archie Bunker's Place"-that was a change, not a spinoff.

According to Wikipedia, Italian sandwiches ("heroes") were sold by Italian immigrants in the US (in NYC and other places) starting in the 19th century. with NYC ones becoming "heroes" around 1937. Then again, they also say they were invented after that in 1903, so make of that what you will. (See the beginnings of the entries for "submarine sandwich" and "Italian sandwich.") Lots of places have had people make fast food to buy and eat while working or traveling, throughout history. Empanadas have their traditional crimp on one side from the original purpose of eating them with one hand while at manual labour (so I've been told.) Again, there's examples across the centuries, across the continents.

He said it lots of times, some of them to Corps members, including those with military service backgrounds (they do more work before 9am than most people do all day...) Uncle Harry said it was due to their German upbringing (check TW:LiL for the exact quote, but he said that.) The hypocrisy of vpw saying it was that he skipped his chores on the farm all the time. His own Dad was quoted as having said so (TW:LiL). We know vpw vanished in the woods for hours at a time. Harry-who did not see him during those times- seemed to have confused him with Billy Graham. He said vpw was preaching to the trees. BG rather famously addressed his own nervousness at crowd-speaking by preaching to trees and altar calls alone in the woods. (Uncle Harry plagiarized too. This was a plagiarizing family. Plagiarizing and farming were the family businesses.)

Again, claims you have something without providing it, then saying the only REAL proof is to ASSUME you're right and spend months or years doing it your way in the hopes that you're right despite no evidence supporting it whatsoever. Still finding it hard to find converts? Still making the same mistakes.

It also allows you to fill pages without substance, claim you have substance, fill the pages, then later claim you provided the substance in those pages. You pulled that with your claims of "proving" pfal was god-breathed before. Want to find you claiming you did it? I'm sure you can. Finding you doing it would be a lot harder....

You are of course aware that this means you're confident that the law of believing works consistently- but only in the things that can't be shown, measured, or traced to actual operation of a physical law of believing, and where there would actually be space to show something, you're admitting you can't. Not only does that dovetail with the view you've got squat, but it contradicts all those times vpw talked a good game like it was easy to believe for all sorts of physical things like the unbelievers did SUCCESSFULLY all the time.

A chance to go on for pages DISCUSSING proof while offering none, then later claiming you did? I'll bet you'd love another one of those (discussions around something that never actually touch the subject.) .

I honestly don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if he came out with that. This same man claimed to never have a sick day or headache IN HIS LIFE.

This will go on for pages. Then he will eventually vanish. Later, he will claim he answered everybody and provided proof and nobody could dispute him. I don't think he even does it on purpose. He's not seeing the same reality most people are. So, where you see him stall for pages, he "remembers" he actually answered lots of questions. If you want to know what that's like, watch "Lord of the Rings-Fellowship of the RIng", and follow the ring in the scene where Bilbo is supposed to leave it behind as a gift for Frodo. I've shown that scene to people, prefacing it with "follow the ring in this scene", and periodically pausing and asking "Where is the ring now?" to make sure they realize Bilbo's not quite experiencing the reality he thinks he is, at that point. Don't expect Mike to have learned anything, either. He once made a claim about the Bible. I refuted it verse by verse, and ended with a comment that he would probably make the same disproven claim again 6 months later. Sure enough, 6 months later, he did.

It's fascinating sometimes what he wanted to take credit for, and compare it to reality. vpw claimed to have gotten the original idea for fast food. Chock Full O'Nuts (among other companies) claims to have a piece of that history. During the Great Depression, they switched from a gourmet nut shop (useless in a Depression) immediately to a sandwich and coffee shop, and because of that, claim to have invented fast food. (They used to claim it, I'm unsure if they do now.) Plenty of others claim to have invented it sooner, however. In the UK, in the 1800s. a rise in rail travel helped fuel a boom in fast food- specifically resulting in fish-and-chip shops where the travelers could grab food before continuing. A look back at different countries in different centuries will show people buying food quickly on the street to eat walking or to take home. Rome during the Roman Empire had that. China had that around the Middle Ages, as did European cities like London and Paris. It's likely that large urban centers, especially, have had them at least as far back as Rome, and almost continuously in major cities continuously since then. After many centuries of people serving fast food, vpw was born. He later claimed to have had the original idea for fast food.

Actually, I'm pointing out that his great IGNORANCE of Church history has led to him claiming he got a promise from God Almighty that was STUPID Just as he claimed angels lied to hm rather than admit a fraud, I'm sure he'd blame God Almighty for that than admit his fraud.

So, because vpw introduced people to some of Bullinger's work, he gets a pass on plagiarizing OTHER works of Bullinger? Sorry, doesn't work that way. BTW. I've noticed that vpw apologists TALK a good game. When was the last time you fed the poor? "Churchianity" does that regularly. They may not use all the proper Greek words you like, but many of them actually get the job done even using a different vocabulary....

A counterfeit can look very convincingly like the real thing- depending on the skill of the counterfeiter and what he has to work with. A money counterfeiter, if he has the right machines, can make a counterfeit that all but an expert would pass. So, "uneducated observer" to dismiss the comment is not valid, per se. "Delivering good." If you want to really hook someone, you need to use the right bait- which means you have to deliver good to them-for a short time.If you're subtle enough, they won't notice when you shift things slowly, eventually making everything one-way so they're giving all and you're giving none. Oh, and lots of people were harmed trying to follow pfal writings until they stopped. How's that Law of Believing working out for you? Got actual prosperity and a rich life with happy wife and kids? Or a reinterpreted life bereft of each of those but rich because your doctrine insists you're rich?

Smooth attempt to dismiss vpw's rapes, dude. But "everybody does it" is not an excuse. We can find rapes all over the place. We can find theft all over the place. We can find murders all over the place. "Everybody else does it, why can't we" doesn't fly in a court of law. And finding a few of each crime every place doesn't mean everyone's doing them or that they're COMMON anyplace.

We've been hearing those claims for decades, from the same handful of posters. I can count them all with my fingers from about the last 20 years. We've had opportunities to see the unhealthful POVs of the people who want to excuse vpw or give him a free pass. My favorite was the one who tried to justify wife-beating if she's nagging her husband. I've never been afraid of an uncomfortable truth, and my personal history of my entire adult life reflects that-as does my posting history here.

If charges were brought, both twi and the other group could be prosecuted and found guilty. Laugh if you like.

Mike MET him. Mike did not "know him personally." Mike's image of him mentally is like the teenagers who "know personally" the celebrities of which they are fans. The reality would take longer to find. I met cgeer and he seemed fine- for the time I met him, and I was looking closely during that time. He wasn't- but in those windows of time, he could fake it. After all, a rapist is only raping PART of the time.... AGAIN we get this "he was pure evil" thing that only exists when someone's trying to excuse vpw. "I saw him do good." People saw Al Capone do good. Lots of people saw John Wayne Gacy look good. Neither was "pure evil" but both were criminals who deserved prosecution for a lot of crimes. Really get a rounded education!

It's been suggested that vpw was in some way impressive intellectually, that he was above average in some intellectual fashion. Let's take a look at the evidence at hand, shall we? vpw was never known to be any sort of honor student. All claims about him and hard work seem to be people saying he DIDN'T do hard work. That's a negative- but when vpw was proud to trumpet his smallest achievements, a telling one when he has none to wave at others. vpw finished college, and did a Masters at Princeton Theological Seminary. In a place where there's lots of RIGOROUS fields of study, he chose HOMILETICS- how to preach- which is undoubtedly the softest option possible. (One can learn to preach without going to school for it, just by working with preachers. Fields like Church History would take some real study time.) It was a real school, but he took the softest degree there. His last stop was a degree mill to get a Doctorate from an unaccredited institution. What does that mean? It means he got a Doctorate from a source lacking accreditation, a vetting process that guarantees the degree is worth the paper it's printed on. What's the difference? I have THREE unaccredited degrees. That makes me TRIPLE the fake "Doctor" that vpw was. None of our "degrees" guarantees any level of intellectual skill or even accomplishment. So, that's it for his academic career. So, he has an actual Masters from a real school, in a really soft option. Academically, that's his highest point. After school, he preached, and complained about having been :"MADE" to go to he Bible and study each week to prepare a sermon each week. What a remarkable way to refer to it! He wasn't HAPPY to spend hour after hour there, excited when new insights arrived. (I've been there, and I wasn't a preacher.) He did it because he had no other choice in doing his job as a preacher. He also served as a proofreader and editor at a Christian written publication. He really liked to skip over that one. Why? He was exposed to the complete research of LOTS of young Christian teachers and researchers. Quite a useful thing to have access to. If he wanted to skip reading the Bible for himself- which he accidentally let slip he did- he could just plagiarize all those writers from the pulpit, and they'd never find out. What- do you think someone just wakes up one morning and his career switches to plagiarist? No- he was plagiarizing for some time before he discovered Stiles and Leonard. That's why he didn't have a crisis of conscience before plagiarizing them. What was vpw's entire goal in BECOMING a minister? He once told a minister he wanted to be one like him. Someone preached and he said that. He obviously didn't mean the part about LEARNING because he never pursued that. He wanted to preach and be in charge. In one of his accounts of his supposed 1942 promise (which was all an exposable lie), his first reaction was not that his congregation would be blessed- his first thought was that EVERYONE WOULD LISTEN TO HIM. Whether this incident happened or not, his own claim is that this would be his first thought. Small wonder vpw relied on sermons, invented stories, and outright plagiarism to make a name for himself. He was in it solely for the adulation and the steady work. The plagiarism was unapologetic because without it, he'd have to actually work and think. He preferred to lie and cheat instead.