WordWolf

That's her (them.) Who gave it away?

Ok, another character to guess. Jane Webb Shannon Farnon Connie Caulfield Betty Jean "B.J." Ward Susan Eisenberg Dakota Fanning (really) Vicki Lewis Margaret Denise Quigley "Maggie Q" Grey DeLisle Cathy Lee Crosby Lucy Lawless Keri Russell Vanessa Marshall Michelle Monaghan Cobie Smulders Rosario Dawson Kari Wahlgren Laura Bailey

"Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins." Actually introduced me to the character, Remo Williams, aka "the Destroyer." It wasn't until 1989 that I found any of the books. I later picked up a few of the earlier books in the series, either as reprints or as used books. Here's an exerpt from one of the most recent books. ===================================================== A locked steel door was the only exit to the rear alley. Remo sensed no explosives wired to the door. In a spray of mortar and falling bricks, Remo tore it from its hinges. The door was not wired to explode because there were five men inside guarding it. Remo used the door to crush two against the wall of the basement hallway before they could even finger their triggers. The remaining three, seeing their comrades turned to mushy central masses possessed of human arms and legs, and seeing the figure of legend who had killed them, threw down their guns and threw up their hands. “We surrender!” Remo cast a cold eye over the three cowering figures, men who would gleefully murder innocents in the name of their cause, now quivering before him. “Which one of you is Mohammed?” Remo asked. Three shaking hands were raised. “Him too,” one of the terrorists said, pointing toward a mangled corpse. “Okay, which one of you is Mustafa’s brother?” Two hands lowered. “Mustafa who was busted before he could fly a plane into the White House in 2001?” Remo asked. The terrorist had to think for a moment. “Did you say 2001?” he asked. Remo nodded. “Oh.” The terrorist lowered his hand and shook his head. None of these was the man he was after. “I will let all of you live if just one of you knows the meaning of the word mercy,” Remo said coldly. The three startled terrorists huddled like game show contestants. When they had decided on an answer, their spokesman turned hopefully to Remo. “It means ‘thank you’ in French.” Remo left the bodies near the alley door and headed for the basement stairs. ====================================================================== There's hope for a new movie, "the Destroyer." Hope is mixed. It's been speculated that Hollywood can't handle a character like the one in the above excerpt without making him a villain.

No. AFAIK, Maggie Q played her, but nobody else on this list.

One of the biggest things was the Aura of Inerrancy around vpw. vpw put for that himself was some Great One, and that he had a Special Connection with God Almighty. So, his shortcomings and failings had to be glossed over. This was especially true of things vpw didn't understand. In pfal, vpw made a passing comment that the Book of Revelation wasn't difficult to understand. Later, in private, he mentioned not wanting to try to tackle it because it was difficult. But his passing claim in pfal made him sound really knowledgeable- how he even had no trouble with the Book of Revelation. So, what he didn't understand had to be covered over and explained away. As for his magical believing, he borrowed from a number of sources, some Christian and some not. From EW Kenyon, he borrowed both the Word of Faith movement, and prosperity theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology He also learned some of it from Glenn Clark and Albert Cliffe http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lawbelieve.htm Albert Cliffe, in particular, attributed his learning to his work as a psychic medium for the dead. Glenn Clark was a promulgator of New Thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought Albert Cliffe was a guest of wierwille's during the years he was on his congregation's payroll, looking to set up his own organization.

Just checking if I'm logging in lately? You probably remember I'm a fan of the books....

Ok, another character to guess. Jane Webb Shannon Farnon Connie Caulfield Betty Jean "B.J." Ward Susan Eisenberg Dakota Fanning (really) Vicki Lewis Margaret Denise Quigley "Maggie Q" Grey DeLisle

I thought he was competent in "Jumper", even though I couldn't remember the jumper's name. And the plot there was certainly no Oscar-bait.

Heyden Christensen.

Joey Pantolione Running Scared Billy Crystal

Since John's gone back to "I'm replying without reading what I'm reply to" mode (no surprise there), I'll point out he ducked the question while pretending to answer it. Furthermore, if one wanted to draw a parallel between someone in the Bible and vpw, no honest comparison points to David. A much fairer comparison (and still complimentary to vpw) is Balaam and vpw. Otherwise, one is rather overtly skipping over vpw's other felonies, misdemeanors, and general poor conduct and claiming he messed up exactly ONCE like David did. (The entire incident is treated as one enormous blunder, with a punishment at that level.)

I'm not even triggering a vague sense off this one.

Is this the 2nd Austin Powers movie?

It probably sounds like it because it IS "The Blues Brothers." Hit it!

The only time I remember seeing something the weekend it opened was, IIRC, "Lord of the Rings-Fellowship of the Ring." That was by accident. I had gotten off work and walked past a movie theater. There was no crowd and no line waiting to buy tickets. (There were people waiting but hardly a crowd.) I checked. In a few minutes, the midnight showing was going to start (which would let out something like 3:30am) and most people wanted to get home earlier than that or not stay up all the way till the end. So, I shrugged, got a ticket, hit the concessions, and enjoyed the movie, with only a few yawns once we hit 3am. (I was a serious nightowl.) Otherwise, I can wait for a less-crowded matinee during the week or something. And even moreso nowadays when I'm less interested in the latest offerings, most of the time.

"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."

Is this "Eight is ENOUGH!" with a mix of the TV show "Eight is Enough" and the J-Lo movie "Enough!" mixed in?

I've encountered this exchange somewhere, somewhen. That's all I've got so far.

"Robin Hood-Prince of Thieves." (Sounds like it would have been more appropriate for "Men in Tights," though, doesn't it?)

Sadly, I do not. The closest I have are excerpts that were posted on skyrider's thread, "Outreach beyond vpw's congregation." I would have liked more quotes, myself, but I thought what we had there did say quite a bit.

Twinky's a waybrained pontificator now? Wow-that was a leap. I'm sure that's news to Twinky, for sure. I've had posters, at times, claim I was going after them angrily, posting with hate or anger in post after post. In each case, I was cool and dispassionate when I posted- or I logged off and returned when I COULD post cool and dispassionately. In at least 1 case, I think the person was looking for an excuse to disagree with me. In at least 1 case, however, I think the poster legitimately thought my posts were emotional and hot-tempered and all sorts of things- whether or not that reflected the content. (Other posters even replied how they saw the posts as calm and not heated.) However, to that person, it APPEARED as though I was antagonistic to them, and emotional in opposing them (as opposed to disagreeing and disputing their posts.) I bring this up because ANY poster can do this, and I've been suspecting the recent firestorm was accidentally manufactured- you mistook what someone said, posted hostilely to them, then they responded in kind, then after that it was all Hatfields and McCoys. But whether that's true or whether that's simply my own impression and I'm actually incorrect, I don't see any reason to go after Twinky.

Thank you you for the "kind" words. Thanks for noticing. I thought I made that clear in the second sentence when I said exactly that. My opinion is my own, and I am entitled to it. I opened this discussion to open a dialogue with the other posters about their opinions and my own. I mentioned that in the first 2 sentences. As for the mission of the GSC, by all means, let's discuss it. Was I incorrect? Where did I err? Do you plain disagree? Exactly what is the point of divergence where we disagree? You yourself posted recently that the GSC has always existed "to tell the other side of the story." I thought that was common knowledge, and not open to dispute. For that matter, that there IS to be SOME degree of decorum, at some level, is stated outright, and not by me. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum." Now then, if you disagree as to WHY we tell the other side of the story, by all means, let's discuss that. I posted why I think we tell the other side of the story. Why do YOU say we tell the other side of the story? I know better, which is why I never said that. (Some might characterize that misrepresentation of what I said as an "ad hominem attack", but I'll start from the position that it's a misunderstanding. I hold every single poster responsible for what they post and for how they post. In general, when posters disagree, I ask for BOTH SIDES to post with kindness rather than saying "You who started it first-cut it out first." We're all adults here. Just as peace and accords can begin with one person, decorum can also. You left out the poor, little LURKERS also. They CAN speak on their own behalf. However, if they're under the impression that this place is hostile and unwelcoming, how many of them will post to try to set us straight? Very few have-and those usually have been the ones who were even MORE hostile than the ones they objected to. Those threads were moved to the Soap Opera forum. I think their "inability" (their UNWILLINGNESS, as I see it) to address us IS the fault of the posters here. Those who post in a hostile manner scare them off-and if we say nothing against it, we suggest we support that as the status quo, since "silence implies consent" is a well-known maxim. I was thinking of specific posters in the past-the "hypothetical" is that present and future lurkers and posters would appear in the manner that others appeared. For that matter, when I arrived, a hostile environment would have encouraged ME to leave promptly. I never said that referred to "all new or long-time members here." As for my opinions actually being opinions, yes, I believe I was the first one who pointed that out. I also asked for the opinions of others-which are also opinions and not fact- if we need to keep mentioning that. That they are not the governing rules of this site is rather clear from their being my opinions. (We're rephrasing that a lot.) I might argue that everyone's opinion is not LITERALLY valued here equally, but that's a different discussion, and I'd rather continue this one than get side-tracked to that one, at least for now. I'll keep that in mind if I ever HOLD those opinions. I'll take it as axiomatic, then, that you'd say that my actual opinions are equally welcome (or equally unwelcome, as the case may be.) I never argued that "style" or "decorum" was MORE IMPORTANT than "delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic" nor MORE IMPORTANT THAN "the other side of the story." I have always maintained (for almost my entire posting history back thru the ezboard days) that "the other side of the story" is the reason we are here- and I said so to begin with. I consider this ANOTHER False Dilemma- Choice 1- Tell The Truth and Facts about twi, vpw and so on in any manner whatsoever, even if it drives off posters and lurkers Choice 2- Remain silent about the Truths and Facts about twi, vpw and so on-but be courteous to posters. If the goal is "telling the other side of the story to people", then I reject BOTH positions as inferior. To drive off posters and lurkers means they're not present to HEAR the other side of the story. To remain silent but welcoming denies the lurkers and posters the information they need. So, I would say: Tell the other side of the story. Deliver the truths and facts on vpw, twi and all things related- but remember that the people we're telling ARE PEOPLE, and getting personal with them, or just plain being rude to posters, sends a message to them just as clearly as the INTENDED content, if not clearer. Actually, that's what I want to discuss. ARE we duty-bound to post with kindness? The rules DO clearly say "please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal." BTW, who said that courtesy and politeness were my personal preferences? I can appreciate making it personal and letting someone have it as much as the next person. More-if they were never a New Yorker, probably. I've been thinking about my OWN culpability in this over the years, and the effect lots of posters- including myself and including you- have had on lurkers especially, whether or not it's affected posters. Again, this is a discussion forum. Two of us have said our peace on this subject. How about the rest of you? What do YOU think?

I'd like to discuss the general tone of discussions here at the GSC. As a participant, I'm entitled to discuss and state my opinion, and open a discussion with the other participants. I think we, as a whole, are going in the wrong direction. Does the GSC have a purpose? I believe we all agree with the statement that the GSC "exists to tell the other side of the story." But let's continue from there. WHY tell the other side of the story? To inform others so they can make informed decisions. WHAT decisions are we informing them for? The decision to leave twi if they are in, the decision to leave twi-spinoffs if they are in, the decision to leave twi-doctrine if it is in them. Those people can then either participate directly here, or lurk while they inform themselves and consider things. I believe, other than "we're also here to hang out", that covers why the GSC exists, and why we post. That's why I think we need to reconsider our tone. Granted, we have a freedom to speak our minds here, and a freedom to disagree here, that is unheard-of in twi and in twi-clone circles. However, we have a duty to use our freedom RESPONSIBLY. If the MOST important things about the GSC are to be accurate information sources so that innies and those immersed in twi doctrine can be delivered from twi structure and doctrine, then we need to consider HOW we can accomplish this- and how we can FAIL to accomplish this. We have had a LOT of people lurk at the GSC, and then post and speak their minds. We have had considerable numbers lurk, pm a few people at most, then take off. From what I'd heard, many of the people who lurked then ran were people who chose not to post because they thought the fora were not safe places to post. Should they have thought the fora were safe places to post? That really depended on who was posting and why they were posting. A number of women never posted because vpw apologists accused women who were molested or raped by vpw of being the villains of the piece. Just like some women won't go to trial by charging a rapist because they'd be depicted as a slut on the witness stand, we had non-posters who remained non-posters for similar reasons. (We have had regular poster women mention getting those pm's and being given those reasons as to why the women were refusing to participate.) Some of us thought (I still do) that this was actually an intended purpose for some people. They wanted to silence the women before they spoke by making them feel unsafe-thus preserving the image of the rapist vpw instead as a non-rapist rather than a sexual predator and felon. So, they made the environment here "TOXIC" and the women stayed away-rather sensibly, IMHO. The problem then was there was no easy answer. To simply eject those predatory posters was to open the GSC of claims of censorship and being twi-like in silencing dissent. To say nothing was to provide them an unrestricted platform to attempt to reform vpw's image back to his manufactured one and not who he was behind the scenes. To respond in kind meant the threads got heated and looked antagonistic-mainly because they were. So, in fairness, I can't say there's an undisputed manner in which they SHOULD have been handled. Most of the time now, we don't get people with their own personal soap-boxes, here to use the GSC as free advertisement. (We still get some of them some of the time.) So, I don't think that issue is a current one, but I am aware of the side-effects it had for the people we MEANT to help. So, now, we get our regulars, we get occasional new arrivals, and we get lurkers who don't post. We can choose the tones of our posts, we can choose the tones of our discussions. Which tones will best serve with each type of person? Shall we just be strident-handle everyone with the same approach as dealing with a vpw apologist? That might make the posters feel good about themselves, and it might make some other posters feel good about "letting him have it." But is that a good enough reason to swing the 2 x 4 in every post? When regulars discuss with regulars, I think it is boorish and beneath us to resort to that with all but isolated, extreme posts. Regular discussions with all parties just attacking freestyle aren't good for ANY participants- hurt feelings go all around (except, perhaps, for the poster who is the exception and is the sole spewer of bile while others post with kindness. He can feel powerful while free of others giving him "a taste of his own medicine.") The situation is a LOT worse when dealing with the other 2 scenarios. Let's say we get a new person who was raised in twi, had parents who only taught him the party line, still has family in twi, but is having a few doubts now. Like other youngsters, he goes online for information, and in this case, discovers the GSC. His initial posts are going to sound a LOT like the party line of twi. Mind you, twi has been clear in telling its people that "out here" is worse than "in there." If he comes off with posts that echo the party line, it is SO easy to just whack him hard as soon as he arrives, then make our arms sore patting ourselves on the back on teaching a lesson to another twi drone. But did that help? He WASN'T a twi drone. He needed some compassion, some information, and some discussion. He needed to see that there's life outside twi-and it's better than life in twi, which already IS mean. If we show him it's JUST as mean here- or even meaner- then we chase him away from the information he needs, and we legitimize the scare tactics of twi, where he was told we'd just attack him if he showed up here. But hey, we "told the other side of the story." We also "told him the truth." "He's responsible for what he believes and how he responds." All of that is true- and yet, it's STILL wrong because we were LAZY and COLD-HEARTED because it was a comfortable fit for us. Then we got to relax and feel superior than those drones still in twi. How much of twi dogma still runs us if this is acceptable behaviour? Is this really the legacy we want to leave for the next poster who reads our posts? Oh, and things are even WORSE for the gun-shy, sensitive lurker. They look around, see others post in a familiar way and get shouted into submission, and then they take off. They're already hurting and beaten, they know another beating when they see it, and they're not going to volunteer for it. We have a lot to offer. We have exactly the information some people desperately need-and we offer it for free. Why shouldn't we make a little effort to make them at least a tiny bit welcome, and make the GSC a place that won't send them fleeing in fear?

A) I don't know what started this pi$$ing contest between you and TLC. I do wish you 2 ADULTS would let it go. B) Whatever started between you and TLC doesn't justify going after Twinky. It looks like Twinky committed the crime of possibly disagreeing with you, and that's enough to get them included in this shooting gallery. That makes me wonder if the line hasn't been crossed from "opinionated" and "strident" to "mean" and "bullying." It also makes me wonder if the very next post will include me in the gun-sights for daring to bring this up.

Volume 1, yes. The third verse inspired the opening scene- and the song opened Volume 1. Your turn!