WordWolf

Ferris Buehler's Day Off Charlie Sheen Hot Shots!

The actual life of Jesus is written in the Gospels- the accounts of the life of the man we're supposed to be adherents of if we ARE Christians. vpw soft-pedaled the Gospels and pushed the Epistles. Someone introduced to twi after vpw was dead and right around when lcm was drawing his line in the sand heard lcm going off in his brash, shouting fashion, and commented. He talked about when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, and said they should do the same. He said that, if lcm could get himself to where he could wash the feet of the disciples, he'd be all right. I've often thought about how that can apply, to some degree, to everyone who ever had time in twi. Sometimes I thought of it more literally in terms of washing off sneakers people were wearing, but I've also thought about things like washing people's toilets, stepping forward to help the homeless, the poor and hungry. A real Christian is supposed to have compassion- like Jesus did/does- and the actions of the compassionate seem diametrically opposed to the actions of the arrogant and prideful. Some of us could use a little time now and again doing the acts of the compassionate. Even if one isn't compassionate while doing it, I think there's a trickle-up effect where one starts to develop compassion while there in the middle of things. Hm. Compassion can be trained and grown.

Oh, good. It seemed amusing to me when I came up with it.

Ok, I much prefer you coming right out and being your mean, vicious self openly, rather than hide behind "weasel words", and just say what you're really thinking. Then people can agree or disagree openly. "control freak"- I refused the offer to moderate when it was offered. A control freak would have JUMPED at the chance. Swing and a miss. "Hubris" - I've OPENED discussions with people I thought were wrong just in case I might learn something new, and I've changed my mind when following threads here, and that's just counting time I've spent here. Swing and a miss. "Thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here." No, I actually leave a LOT of threads alone. When I see something that I think is wrong and needs a response, THEN I respond. It just so happens that a lot of your posts have logic errors and other things I think need to be challenged. Any post, any place, they can all be challenged, and the person can try to support their claims or post. "Actually, I was correct because...." With you, the responses in this thread don't relate to the actual topic (abuse of power, victims) but about the person who called you on it. (Ad hominem, personal attacks.) If you want your statements to just sit there unchallenged, you have to put them someplace private, where others aren't ALLOWED. Go to the vpw cheerleader locations and post them there, where you're preaching to the choir. Any place else, and they're free game to be REFUTED. (Refuting successfully is not a crime, even if it's you that's refuted.) Swing and a miss. "Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". You posted. You were refuted. I disagree with LOTS of posters and "agree to disagree" with most of them on most subjects. So, most people who don't "track" with me (whatever that's supposed to mean when you're using it) are left alone. This "possessed" thing is a common claim for people who cling to vpw and his doctrines, but I didn't even make those claims when I was young, naive, and in twi. "Marked and avoided." I didn't advocate for that when lcm started it, either. So, we're getting knee-jerk reactions with stock phrases from twi and ex-twi, none of which actually relate to me. Swings and misses. "There, is that insinuating enough for you?" You objected to me calling you on being "insinuating" and didn't even bother to find out what "insinuating" means before trying to use it in a sentence. This is the internet. You could have found it in seconds without getting up from your chair. And I know you didn't look it up because you used it incorrectly here, and I know you didn't use it ironically (and correctly) here because you would have written it differently if that's what you meant. All this over me catching you ignoring proven victims (the people who were kicked out were victimized by the school) while siding with the alleged victimizers, and proclaiming the internet as a location for smears rather than a place for "the other side of the story." Could only see how some people thought the alleged attackers should have been punished (not stated if any investigation should have proceeded first, so it looked like they wanted them lynched), and could NOT see how those who stepped forth were punished without any investigation. Also automatically accepted the official statement even when it clashed with events. Gee, it's a sore point that the internet (the GSC and other places) have been "the other side of the story", and how an establishment can act against the best interests of the people, and that, since certain people were never charged in court, he can claim that nobody can recount personal experiences that reflected negatively on them because they were never charged with a crime- as if that was the measure of truth or falsehood. I get that. But when caught on it, you could have either accepted it, or let it go. Instead, we get the typical "attack the dissenting voice and try to intimidate, make cheap shots when possible, and silence them if possible." That's such an old strategy. It was used, pre-internet, with great success in twi, and post-internet, has been seen on all the ex-twi messageboards every time a victim said "this happened to me." They were called liars, they were told they were accomplices, they were told they wanted it, they were told the fault was theirs- all as a smokescreen, and all to attempt to silence them, to attempt to fog the issues, to attempt to take the emphasis off who actually did what.

I thought he was misnaming the older movie, since I didn't know there WAS a newer movie. But, let me see what I can come up with... In this TV movie, the 7 survivors of a shipwreck discover they've ended up stranded near a lab where a scientist has been genetically manipulating humans and animals.

We've talked about the connections between "Castle" and "Firefly" more than once, IIRC, so I'm hoping this isn't a reference to "Firefly."

Throwing out a guess based on knowing 2 Butches, "Pulp Fiction."

That's the greasy thing about INSINUATIONS. People refuse to just state outright what they think or mean, and cover it up by speaking indirectly. There's a subtext in play that colors what they said- so that it means something other than just what's written. I resent that more than if it was just said outright because I can agree to disagree honestly, but I find insinuations inherently dishonest since they are deceptive. He objected to precisely 2 things, and left everything else alone. When called on it, he didn't say "I was misunderstood, here's what I was thinking..." and address how the accusers were made into victims by the establishments whether or not they were victims of the accused. (If they are, they were victimized twice, if they were not, they were punished without any investigation nor due process.) If he didn't have a history of relying on insinuations and zero pathos for possible victims, I'd suspect he somehow missed commenting on equally important points rather than very specific ones that match his usual position (accusers make things up, accused are innocent, establishments don't abuse their power and don't lie or deceive.) Psychologically, it's fascinating how consistent that's been, but it's really not my place to get into that, especially since he hasn't hired me as any kind of professional to do so. As I said earlier, INVESTIGATING before any action is taken is sensible. However, the school in question did nothing of the kind. They AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED the accused was innocent- then penalized the accuser without any investigation before doing so. The accused was left alone. However, the accused was automatically punished. BTW, seems Broken Arrow agreed with me, since they quoted my longer post and didn't seem to add to it. So, there's differences of opinions as to whether it was appropriate and on-topic (for those who thought it was not). Meanwhile, it does seem part of the human condition that there will always be social structures, and some people will use them to abuse others and be bullies, and cover their tracks if caught. Yes, that is disconcerting (I would say 'dismaying'), and it is a strange comfort to know it wasn't just us and the people we knew who were victimized by the one corrupt group out there...there's lots of other victims who were never abused and used by vpw and his criminal cadre.

"The Picture of Dorian Gray's Anatomy." I was informed the other day of what TV show had Dr Mc Dreamy.

I'm also aware that, when certain posters suddenly change the subject- often with ad hominem personal attacks or cheap shots, like this one- that it's as good as an admission that A) they didn't like what we were talking about B) were unable to refute what we were saying, not with evidence nor logic Really. It's a consistent set of flaws in posting that are as good as coded messages once someone knows how to read them. (Know the code, and all the subtext might as well be plain text.) In this case, the translation works out to "Well done! You have made a strong, logical case for your position and shown the opposing one to be error-ridden and flawed!" In response, I say "Thank you for the kind words, even if they were accidental."

I generally know that, when I see these unlinked, partial sentences quoted by certain posters, that it's a sure sign the full sentence said something important that got dropped in the partial quote, akin to quoting the Bible as saying "there is no God" when the full sentence is "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'". Here's what the sentence read a post or so up: So, John's insinuating-once again, refusing to state his opinions outright, but slyly suggesting them without the courage to state them outright- John is insinuating that the administration acted appropriately in what they did and did not do. John INSINUATED that it would have been wrong to have "punished" the alleged perpetrators, and that the remaining actions and halts were appropriate....which would mean he thinks it's just fine that the school refused to investigate when matters were brought to their attention- and that it was totally appropriate for the school to have SHAMED AND EXPELLED the alleged victims when they came forth. Most schools would have taken a different tack. They could have turned the entire matter over to local law enforcement, and that would have been fine. They could have conducted their own investigation, taken limited action, and THEN turn the entire matter over to local law enforcement. Instead, they just sat on the reports. In the case of the second claim, we don't have a lot of information to go on, so, until more information is presented, it's premature to go into a lot of detail as to what the best specific actions would have been. However, in the case of the first, there was a witness who was a school staffer- a security guard who was required to have reported what he observed- which was an obvious aftermath of a rape or similar crime (pending confirmation by police investigators who should have been called in immediately.) The alleged victim went to the hospital, where the details of her report and their treatment were logged- and she went to the police, where the details of her report were logged. At that point, there's a curious disconnect, since the school never said "We have a potential crime scene. We don't know if a crime happened here or not. You're the experts, so you find out." The school SAT on their end of things. Then, when the student returned to school, complete with black eye and broken arm, the administration expelled her. So, she was expelled- "punished"- automatically because she REPORTED a crime. So, according to John, it's awful if someone is automatically punished if accused of anything- but it's also preferred for accusations to be quietly buried, and the ACCUSER is AUTOMATICALLY punished if accusing anyone of anything. That's conducive to an environment that shames the victims, empowers the victimizers and felons, and covers the tracks of the felons so they can escape consequences and commit more felonies down the road. Since it does that, there's also an environment present that encourages other possible felons to commit felonies- since they will face no consequences. Civilized society is supposed to work a lot differently. Why would an ex-twi'er and vpw supporter find it acceptable for an institution to bury felonies, punish and expel victims, and allow felons to escape consequences? It's also the bright light that gets shined on stories where victims were expected to just accept being shamed, punished, and expelled, and institutions and individuals just expected them to fade away. When abuse of power is done, the internet gives victims and eyewitnesses the voice they were denied- so appropriate action can be taken. Naturally, once an institution had tried to silence and punish victims- a clear abuse of their power- while refusing to investigate claims- a clear violation of their responsibilities- it's in their best interests to later LIE once everyone's been made aware something happened, and claim this is the first they'd heard of it. It's obvious, it's transparent, and few people would actually be fooled by their claims- generally people who had a vested interest in automatically assuming any official statement would be nothing less than the unvarnished truth.

I'm slow to just endorse anything that anybody says/writes. I am reading all the posts. I have no problem with you posting more- in fact, I'd rather you post more than leave it at that. You didn't post the substance-you just made statements. Perhaps they are all well-documented....but darned if they are for all we know. In your particular case, I'm specifically aware that a prevalent danger is to get too wedded to a fascinating theory or set of ideas, and end up so far out in left field a helicopter has to be sent to retrieve you. (Saw it happen once, in fact.) I know every approach has its own pitfalls no matter what, so I'm keeping an eye out for yours when you post. (When you don't post, I don't monitor you, of course.) Since we're both honest and sincere in our approaches, the net result of our interactions should (at least in theory) be a benefit overall- if to the others only but probably to us as well. :) (Note: Yes, with Tertullian you made a start on the explanation, later. But we could use more if you want us all on board, or at least me.)

That's it.

Shanghai Surprise Sean Penn Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Here's part of an imaginary conversation to pitch a show..... "Wait, so is she a vampire or a fairy?" "I guess you'd say both." "You mentioned a werewolf, too?" "Not exactly. Look- we'll represent the 2 courts of fairy." "Oh, so we'll have the Summer Court and the Winter Court?" "Yes, but we won't call them that." "You're messing with me! Get out of my office!"

Yes. Too easy?

"Hi, I'm Amanda Buckman. Why are you dressed like that?" "Like what?" "Like you're going to a funeral. Why are you dressed like somebody died?" "Wait." "So... you still desire me after all these years? The old ball and chain?" "Forever!" "I'll get them!"

I'm waiting to see where he goes with this. That was a lot of sizzle-I'm waiting to see the steak come out of the kitchen.

Seriously, ebay. It's been done plenty of times. While those books may seem less than useless to you (since they contain misinformation), there's a handful of pigeons out there who are eager to get your copies, and will pay through the nose to get them. In case that wasn't clear, I'm saying to jack up the price a bit, they're collectibles and there's people who want them.

That's it. I usually prefer to combine 2 movies, since that's how inspiration strikes me (usually.) Although once I combined 2 shows (same principle in my head, I suppose.)

"Loaded Weapon 1"?

You would have had it already if you went just a tiny bit more obvious. You came SO close.

The only hope for a girl trying to return home is a small-time magician who arrived a generation before her- the survivor of a power struggle between 3 sorceresses.

Mrs Wolf said it's some sort of spoof of "Silence of the Lambs." So, is this one "Silence of the Hams"???

The only hope for a girl trying to return home is a small-time magician who arrived before her- the survivor of a 3-way power struggle.