WordWolf

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.

I don't remember the first quote, but I totally remember the 2nd and 3rd.

If you're sharing the supporting arguments, you're adding to the discussions. (Although if it's just the same post repasted in each thread- "See? I made the same point, so I made the same argument" or some such- I'd dislike it for that reason.) In the case of discussing wierwille and twi, I'm in favor of repasting for the specific purpose of informing the new posters and new lurkers what's been said for the past 17 or so years on their subjects of interest. Because the GSC exists "to tell the other side of the story", expose the hidden snares, and inform them of all the evil that they would want to know about, there will be repetition on that. It's necessary because that's the GSC's stated function. A little tiresome to the regulars, but absolutely necessary to attempt to fulfill the stated purpose of the GSC. Otherwise, I'm not in favor. So long as one isn't trying to suppress the discussion, disagreements IN a thread should not be a problem. When we discuss, we need not agree. When we discuss, we share ideas and interact. That has value in and of itself, independent of whether anyone changes and agrees with me afterwards. Again, all IMHO.

As a professional writer, you're more than capable of speaking clearly, supporting your positions, bringing in new perspectives to old topics, and at least making the same point using a novel approach and making it interesting. I think that if it's worth saying, it's worth the effort to say it well. You don't need to resort to posts that are effectively cut-and-pastes of each other.

Nice summary. I think that hit the mark.

"Give us the gate key." "I have no gate key." "Fezzik, tear his arms off." "Oh, you mean THIS gate key!" CORRECT. A movie with many great lines, and broad appeal. (It's a romance, it's a comedy, it's an action movie-successfully in each case.)

Here's my thinking on that, which of course is contractually binding on nobody, least of all me..... Providing the discussion is not in a place that prevents it (the GSC does not prevent it, but message boards specific to a belief may), simply joining a discussion and disagreeing with anyone or everyone's POV is not rude in and of itself. My one previous objection to this was in a discussion about Bible content where someone who disbelieved it posted on it repeatedly, saying they disbelieved it, and said nothing else. I felt that seeing this REPEATEDLY added nothing to the discussion (how about "I disbelieve the book of Hezekiah because blah-blah-blah" or something). I didn't object to someone posting and disagreeing as such. So, my thinking is that I would probably offer the following general suggestions (not even "guidelines") as to such posts. Ask yourself the following questions before posting it: A) Am I adding something to the discussion, in terms of information ("some scholars think this book was a total forgery", "This seems to contradict itself in alternating chapters", etc) or in terms of discussion ("What if one approaches this as if one were about to die in 10 minutes? Your entire perspective would change, for example...) Either of those would add to a discussion, even if everyone disagreed with it. B) If I'm just posting my opinion and not adding something (an absence of the previous point), am I being concise (i.e. am I spending 5 paragraphs to just say "I believe there is no god and no reason to think there is one". Have I posted the same opinion in this discussion already without adding something else in that post or this one? (Most active discussions don't need the same posts reposted, even if they're on-topic and agreed with.) C) Can I make the exact same point by phrasing myself more diplomatically or tactfully? If so, why not do so? We're mostly aware of who disagrees with whom, here. We don't have to be mean about our posts. (IMHO, of course. Others have said the opposite was welcome.) So, I consider the relevant points to be tact, contribution to the discussion by information or introduced perspective, and whether the same poster said exactly the same thing in the same thread already. It is my considered opinion we can all get along with a little effort to be polite if not respectful, and restrict ourselves to curt and not abusive when we feel unable to do that.

"Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something." " Get some rest. If you haven't got your health, then you haven't got anything." "Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!"

Since guesses are free, I'm taking a wild guess and trying "FOOTLOOSE."

It's definitely familiar. I'm not getting the answer yet.

"Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something."

Good. I remembered one, Mrs Wolf remembered the other. We would have been stuck to name the third.

How would you describe YOURSELF at this moment, Human? (Mrs Wolf likes that Jane Austen/ BBC stuff, so she's mentioned adapting "Emma" just like I mention adaptations of Shakespeare.)

I'm sorry, I can't do anything with the hints you've provided so far. I'm completely befuddled.

Here's how the clues went. "This movie was restored (with all scenes) in 1999. Plans to remake it completely in 2009 fell through, and the chosen director said in 2012 that it was probably better it not be remade. In 2012 and 2018, there were limited theatrical re-releases of this movie. (The 2018 one was chosen for its timing.) " The 2018 date was the 50th Anniversary. 1999 was the first time US audiences saw the scene where the Beatles met Sgt Pepper's Band, and the scene with "Hey Bulldog." "In 2016, Hot Wheels made a collectible of probably the most recognizable prop of the movie." Yes, "prop" not "car." They released the yellow submarine. "This was another movie whose soundtrack was very successful in addition to the movie's success." The soundtrack was all Beatles songs. ""Do you think they heard us?" "I hope not." "Ssssh." "What did you say?" "SSSHHH!" "Good plan." A sample of the humorous dialogue, from when the Beatles were hiding in Pepperland. "English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Hebrew, Greek, Swedish, Russian, Japanese, English, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, Swahili, Sanskrit, French, Hebrew, Swedish, Chinese, German, Japanese, English- that's the order at the end of the movie." The final song was the reprise of "All Together Now" had the screen show the phrase in those languages, in quick succession. "The guy who said he knew a thing or two about motors was correct. He'd worked as an apprentice electrician, and had plans to work with a mechanic- but his successful career took off and that was that." George Harrison. His brother was a mechanic. He was planning on joining his brother's business as his Plan B. "The Mrs and I just re-watched this. We began speculating that the PhD was actually related to some of the others. She speculated he stayed where they had lived and the others moved on, and I speculated that he may have fled the others and gotten lost and ended up where he did. " Jeremy Hilary Boob PhD was the Nowhere Man. (Said so on his cards.) He looked a LOT like the meanies. If the meanies had leveled their homeland, it would have ended up barren. If Jeremy had fled the meanies as they became mean, he might have ended up lost and "nowhere." BTW, Mrs Wolf asked me to ask you guys what you think of our idea that they're related- Jeremy and the meanies. "We also think this movie features one of the finest middle-management examples in cinematic history." Max. He immediately processes that he could only say "No" instead of "yes" but nod to indicate the meaning. When BBM was transformed at the end, he quickly adjusted to addressing him not as "Your Blueness" but "Your Newness" immediately, and instantly changed from "No" to "Yes" at the first reaction from BBM. We think Max was incredibly competent, and probably ran the meanies himself, with BBM giving overall orders and being the visible head. "Fred Astaire and Joan Crawford were the originals for the couple that ballroom-danced. They did that in "Dancing Lady"(1933)." They were rotoscoped for the "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" dance number,.

CORRECT!

Mrs Wolf said "Tomorrow Never Dies" was another of PB's flicks as JB. (TD did 2 of them.)

Sonny Wortzik Arthur Kirkland Steve Burns

This movie was restored (with all scenes) in 1999. Plans to remake it completely in 2009 fell through, and the chosen director said in 2012 that it was probably better it not be remade. In 2012 and 2018, there were limited theatrical re-releases of this movie. (The 2018 one was chosen for its timing.) In 2016, Hot Wheels made a collectible of probably the most recognizable prop of the movie. Also in 2016, Lego released a set of the movie. This was another movie whose soundtrack was very successful in addition to the movie's success. "Do you think they heard us?" "I hope not." "Ssssh." "What did you say?" "SSSHHH!" "Good plan." English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Hebrew, Greek, Swedish, Russian, Japanese, English, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, Swahili, Sanskrit, French, Hebrew, Swedish, Chinese, German, Japanese, English- that's the order at the end of the movie. The guy who said he knew a thing or two about motors was correct. He'd worked as an apprentice electrician, and had plans to work with a mechanic- but his successful career took off and that was that. The Mrs and I just re-watched this. We began speculating that the PhD was actually related to some of the others. She speculated he stayed where they had lived and the others moved on, and I speculated that he may have fled the others and gotten lost and ended up where he did. We also think this movie features one of the finest middle-management examples in cinematic history. Fred Astaire and Joan Crawford were the originals for the couple that ballroom-danced. They did that in "Dancing Lady"(1933).

No, it was Baz Lehrman's "Romeo + Juliet" which was LOADED with famous actors and actresses. Paul Sorvino played Fulgencio Capulet, Juliet's Dad. That's the one that was set in modern-day southern California, in the town of "VERONA." The dialogue was all straight Shakespeare, but the visuals all were updated. Example: "Put up your swords!" *closeup shows the pistols are "SWORD 9MM" * "Bring me my Long Sword!" (Fulgencio, putting his hand on a rifle) "I will send it post-haste." ("Post-Haste" delivery service trucks were seen at least once.)