WordWolf

It reminded me of Eddie "Hudson" Hawk, also. It would help if I'd seen the "Mod Squad" movie, because "Link" might have been "Lincoln Hawk." *wild swing* Omar Epps?????

That's it.

Yes, I rattled that list off from memory. Charlie's had cameos since then. He was in the 3-part "Tales of the Green Lantern Corps" for a busy panel, and he's been assigned a sector with no life-forms at one point. He's had a few short stories, one in that sector. "Whatever Happened to Charlie Vicker?" showed him after Hal Jordan/Parallax depowered the GL Corps. Charlie was on a planet with a despot. He was using his acting skills to put on plays that inspired the natives to rebel. Lately, of course, he came back when the Corps was revived. With twice as many GLs now as when there were 3600, they had to grab every surviving veteran they could convince to return. Corey Reynolds pitched the idea of a trilogy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern_(film) "Actor-writer Corey Reynolds, a comic book fan of the John Stewart character, pitched Warner Bros. an idea for a trilogy, with him starring as John Stewart and performing screenwriting duties. Reynolds intended to introduce Hal Jordan, the Green Lantern Corps and Justice League in possible sequels."

I thought I'd written out Audrey Hepburn's name. That's funny.

So much for MRAP not having an "intent to judge." That had nothing to do with what Rocky posted. He posted some academic information which could be some good talking points, and some people will read them for themselves. I don't know what you HOPED to find in his post, but it sounded more like if it wasn't some sort of sermon, it was wrong in your eyes. That's not how it works here. (Or in most of life.)

Yes, but I would ask you write it as one word ("WordWolf") and I would capitalize "The Word.") The vast majority of Christians who have been through here have moved on with their lives-which is why I consider their exits "success stories." Also, if you want to discuss "The Word", you'll want to do it more here in "Doctrinal" because the fora as a whole is NOT meant as any sort of Christian anything. It's here so people can recover from twi or learn about twi so they don't NEED to get in, get out, and recover. To limit those discussions to Christians would limit their usefulness. Also, we have a long history of people who show up and immediately begin proselytizing. That never seems to go well. There's still a little interest. "About the Way", in particular, will be where you find posters who "want to bitch about the old times." So, if you don't want to, don't hang out there. "Doctrinal" is where you'd want to try. People don't come here for that-they leave twi and the GSC for that. Some people here are still open to it-they just don't come here for it. Ever consider the possibility that you've already passed judgement before announcing you're not here to judge?

I'll recap my thoughts briefly for the new guy, because I'm going to take the high road here. He, of course, is free to claim I'm not. Ok... We were all TOLD that what you were/are doing is the same thing that's in the Bible. Personally, I believe the thing in the Bible (I call it "Biblical SIT") was genuine, really happened, and was from God. (Some people disagree, but that's really a separate issue.) It describes something specific. Personally, I believe that there's overwhelming evidence that the thing that's done now (I call it "modern SIT") is completely different, and is a cheap counterfeit that anyone can be taught to do- and are, in acting classes every semester. It's CLAIMED that it's the same thing I mentioned before ("Biblical SIT") but the main resemblance is that people keep SAYING it's the same thing and they SAY it's resembling the other. If the "Biblical SIT" is "available" now, I don't know. I am confident I haven't seen it yet. I am confident I was never taught it. If it IS possible now, then getting fixated on a cheap imitation is a sure way to miss the real thing. If it is NOT possible now, getting fixated on a cheap imitation will waste your time and can give God a black eye because people lose confidence in the genuine if they can't distinguish between it and counterfeits. We're all (all positions) saying that what we were taught was "real" (it happened.) We disagree as to whether the label of the Pentecost thing is correct in describing the modern thing. So, is it "really" the Pentecost thing? Evidence examined all points to "no." Anecdotes are offered to claim it's "yes", but if that's the best one can offer, don't be surprised if nobody buys it. The other part is people getting ranty and claiming that to claim the modern thing is not the same as the Pentecost thing are casting doubt categorically on God and the Bible. No. My faith is in God, my faith is NOT in cheap fakes offered by people who CLAIM he's endorsing his actions. (Obviously, there are people who disagree with me on having faith in God-but that is not required to disagree with the modern practice of so-called "speaking in tongues." I occasionally DO still do the so-called "speaking in tongues" silently. I do it as a mental focus and am fully aware it's me doing it. I might do it more if I ever participate in another acting class.

Naked Gun 2 1/2-the Smell of Fear Leslie Nielsen Airplane 2-the Sequel

Ok, this is a proper triple (with three titles), but you'll see I cheated in how I linked them. In this movie, an impromptu fashion shoot at a book store brings about a new fashion model discovery in the shop clerk. She gets involved with an FBI agent willing to do anything to catch the criminal who killed his son- not even refusing a radical operation to change his own appearance. He retires after his desperate last case and enlists in the Navy, trying to graduate Navy Flight school with her help. Stars include Audrey and Fred Astaire, Nicolas Cage, John Woo directing, and Lou Gossett Jr playing a supporting role opposite Debra Winger.

Is that "Breaking Up is Hard to Do"?

There's been a number of Green Lanterns, as anyone who saw the movie that was released (or the cartoon from a few years back) could confirm, starting with Alan Scott in the 1940s, through Hal Jordan in the 1960s and all the members of the Green Lantern Corps. Counting only the Earth-origin human GLs, there's been Alan Scott (not from the Corps), Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner, Charlie Vicker, Kyle Rayner, and John Stewart. John Stewart was one writer's choice, but when they said they wanted Hal Jordan, they couldn't cast the same actors because John Stewart is black, and Hal Jordan is white. (It's like lists to cast for Tony Start/Iron Man and James Rhodes/War Machine.) The movie was written with more of a "space opera" feel than a superhero feel. That's not too shocking when you consider the Green Lantern Corps was inspired by EE "Doc" Smith's LENSMAN series. The comic writers have occasionally made references to it by naming some alien GLs after planets in the novels (Arisia, Eddore).

It's "Green Lantern."

This movie started as a spec script, as many do. In this case, the writer wanted to star in the movie as the title character. The studio liked the idea, but dropped the writer and his character because they wanted a different title character-and thus, a different actor. It could have been much worse-one earlier idea had the movie as a comedy, with the main character played by Jack Black. The version that hit the theaters has been described as more "space opera" than anything else.

*thinks* Is this the opening of "Presumed Innocent"?

Depending on the criteria you're examining, it can easily be said that all organizations of every kind demonstrate "signs" of being "cults"- certainly any organization can be made into one with enough work and the right ingredients. Ever see a school club become a cult? It happened, and there was later a book and movie about it. Politics is ripe for that sort of thing. (How do you think the KKK's managed to last as long as it has?) I don't find any irony in that, perhaps others do. All organizations have the potential for abuse. A news story about corrupt politicians hardly raises an eyebrow anymore, as "politician" and "white-collar crook" are often seen as synonymous, and have been for decades and probably centuries.

There's a wide variety of opinions represented here. A lot of posters have moved on to other things. I consider them GSC success stories. A few people have portrayed the GSC as a place where unpopular points of view result immediately in a dog-pile on the unpopular poster. I think it's true there's strong opinions in every direction, but painting that as a knee-jerk attack is both lazy thinking and a smear campaign meant to make dissenters feel better if they say something truly inflammatory and everyone replies and disagrees strongly. Some of us are still willing to discuss things we disagree with, providing we can make something resembling a respectful discussion on it. Feel free to give it a shot. Oh, and hello. Welcome aboard.

Ok, this is a proper triple (with three titles), but you'll see I cheated in how I linked them. In this movie, an impromptu fashion shoot at a book store brings about a new fashion model discovery in the shop clerk. She gets involved with an FBI agent willing to do anything to catch the criminal who killed his son. He retires after his desperate last case and enlists in the Navy, trying to graduate Navy Flight school with her help. Stars include Audrey and Fred Astaire, John Woo directs, and Lou Gossett Jr plays a supporting role.

I'm thinking.....

I was confident Raf wasn't referring to anything animated, but that last one kept reminding me of some animated shows where the main characters don't speak-I know of a few.

The last thing he saw was his heart, still beating, and flying away.... like a BAT OUT OF HELL.

That's it. The older folks didn't get that first?

Nuts-I knew I'd heard the other song, but couldn't come up with "Young Turks" without some part of the chorus.

John Goodman King Ralph Richard Griffiths

Admittedly, I haven't put in a study of how, historically, the practice of The Law was done. I was mulling over a perceived (as I saw it) disconnect- that is, a very harsh law on the books, which was nevertheless actually carried out that we were aware of. (Statistically, I'm confident it was carried out somewhere, sometime, but I'm skeptical it was COMMON.) That reminded me of something unrelated, which reminded me of the US legal system. What I was reminded of was a meeting I attended decades ago. An organization I was in was debating an increase in a fee for its members. The debate was briefly on the need for an increase, but was mostly about the proposed size. The proposal was something like double the current fee. Most of us were thinking some fraction of that would have been sufficient- 10% or thereabouts, not 100%. I was informed by someone with more experience that the amount in the proposal had to be deliberately higher than could possibly be needed or would be put into practice. That way, when the operations board handled it, they had the option of making the fee increase any amount, from zero up to the voted-upon limit, but no higher. In other words, the vote was for the highest amount they could discuss as the increase. The actual amount was their discretion, but we set the outside limit. As I am NOT an expert on US law by anyone's imagination, I can only speak to my understanding. By my thinking, a judge can impose a sentence for a crime- up to the limit of the penalties on the books. If a crime calls for a maximum sentence of 5 years, the judge can't just assign that particular crime a sentence of 19 years just because he wants to. (For multiple crimes at a time, he can impose multiple sentences and order they be served in succession rather than concurrent, but each crime has its own limit.) So, the law states the outside limit of what sentence can be imposed, subject to the ruling of a live judge. This makes sense, because a judge can look at the particulars of a case and lighten the sentence if there are mitigating circumstances that make this a less cut-and-dried case. I'm thinking that this sounds to me like what happened with The Law. The offical "books" state the maximum sentences and maximum penalties (death is pretty much "maximum" when it's imposed, other penalties would have their own limits of time or recompense), but those responsible for judging the legal incident would have the authority to assign a lighter load than was written-but not a heavier one. The system certainly makes sense to us now-which is why we use it- and I at the very least have a suspicion it worked the same way then. It certainly would explain the discrepancy between the practice and the official penalty. One problem with checking this is that it would be something understood by all, and rarely articulated if ever (I've never read anyone explain that the US does it, let alone why.) So, I don't know if there's anything that would specify that in black and white, let alone something we would have access to. So, I have a working theory, but I currently don't have something definite to confirm it-at least not now. Perhaps someone else here has something to confirm it (or refute it, for that matter, which would put my understanding back at Square Two.)

Or "It's About Time After Time".