WordWolf

Gwyneth Paltrow Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow Angelina Jolie

Matt Damon Dogma Salma Hayek

Galaxy Quest For Fire.

Is this the Beatles's song "Anna"? If so, there was an entire episode of Married With Children where Al went nuts trying to name the song, with only one word and 3 notes to go by.

Is the Nostromo in this one?

I have it down to a franchise, but not a number. Is it T-3, Rise of the Machines?

I think the author communicated himself poorly, and was addressing something completely different than what you addressed, and left out what you were looking for. He (she?) was addressing the long-term consequences of surviving rape/abuse, and about learning to live with YOURSELF and not spend all day hating the rapist/abuser. On a different page, they said this: http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/inner_healing_101.php "Many times when a person is hurt from past abuse, they will begin to think that perhaps what happened to them, was deserved because of something they did or the way that they were. This is not true. Abuse is never acceptable, even if a child was being out of order. Parental love disciplines and corrects, but never abuses." He's not saying the abuser didn't harm the person, or that it was acceptable. "Abuse is never acceptable." He wasn't writing TO the abuser or rapist in either case, but about the survivor, the victim. I'm not saying I agree with this website or this writer, but there's a completely legitimate point there. I think rapists should face FAR worse punishments than US law permits. However, I also think that the survivor needs to get to a place of recovery where they're not eaten up with rage, anger, hatred, loathing (of self or others), and can live with healthy emotions. I've seen people whose lives seem to be centered around nothing but perceived harm from others-sometimes real, sometimes imagined. They're in as much bondage years later to their abuser/attacker as they were at the time of the attack/abuse. They need to survive their pain, their suffering, and learn to live again somehow, to get through "normal" days that aren't centered around what they experienced, where their thoughts don't continuously circle past suffering, past abuse, past attacks. There's the trauma of what was done (or perceived in some cases I've seen), and there's what happens in the person's head afterwards. Many people slowly rebuild themselves, and become stronger eventually. Some people refuse to and continuously revisit it- not to achieve closure, but to make the suffering an integrated part of their daily routine. They can't go back and reverse the abuse, but they don't have to reconstruct it into their emotional lives. In that respect, they will have to learn to forgive THEMSELVES for what they were not responsible for at all- but they may feel guilty for nonetheless, irrationally. It's like "survivor's guilt"- where some people do their best to survive, and some survive and some don't, and the survivors feel like they could somehow have caused the others to survive and feel bad about having survived. It's one thing to have lived through such an incident, and another to get past it and live life without it hanging over every minute of every day.

Me, I thought it was interesting that he went away for over a year and left a tiny child with family members but not Mom and Dad. I thought it was more interesting that he described that same trip as supposedly the first time a minister traveled there "with his WHOLE family". Apparently, that kid really didn't count with vpw. Probably too much work. Then again, this is the same vpw that said women were built differently- and used an example that women can hold a baby for a while but a man will hand them over after a few minutes- and claimed it was a difference in how their arms were constructed. Me, I think it's a difference in how his regard was constructed. If vpw actually CARED for his kids or LIKED them, he could hold them for a LOT longer than he's claiming. I can hold a kid weighing much more than that longer than he claimed- if it's my kid. In my arms, and not just on my shoulders, I mean, just like the people in his example. ====================== And yes, vpw had NO military experience whatsoever and based his "understanding" on MOVIES and TELEVISION and not REALITY. He never entered any leadership training programs, either. I had more leadership training in college than he had in his entire academic career, and I never pretended I fully understood everything.

[Apparently, either the goal of John's participation, or the Modus Operandi of John's participation, includes fogging the issues. In this example, a False Dilemma is offered where he supposedly is a reasonable person because he doesn't want to have his life "dictated" to him "by a special interest group that thinks he should devote the rest of my life to 'cult recovery'." Of course, nobody here claimed to want to "dictate" John's life to him. Nobody here wanted him to "devote the rest of his life to 'cult recovery.'" Is anyone here doing that themselves? No, but it's a tired old fiction that the posters here are doing that and have no lives outside of this board. John really can't tell the difference between what cults do and what the posters here do (who disagree with each other and are obviously the opposite of a lockstep cult), or what small towns do (like some Mayberry), and had been proud he doesn't and has no plans to understand the difference. It seems he's done all the growing in life he intends to.] [Well, we can see the HOW is to fog the issues and pass misinformation and remain "steadfast" in the face of contrary evidence, never changing his mind with a fanatic fervor despite reality and him having disconnects. I think part of the WHY is in that as well. That's a trademark- not of the devout- but of the fanatic.] [in John's mind, and he's had more than a decade to learn otherwise, there's no difference between the healthy processes you're advocating, and a fanatical zeal and life dedicated to exposing twi. John's fantasy puts you as a person who spends all his spare time coming up with anti-twi fictional propaganda and all your emotion hating twi and its adherents. But you're barely here- you live your life and visit here a few minutes here and there. John refuses to see the difference because it is inconvenient to him, repugnant to him. He MUST see you as unhealthy and your course as a nonviable option in living life.]

Well said, especially those last 2 sentences.

That was worth repeating. ================== As a more direct answer to the question, it's old news, among POLITICAL POWER groups and power groups that rely on violence and threat of force to stay in power, that the leader must continually watch themself. At the first sign of blood, the sharks circle the waters. They know their underlings can be trusted no more than THEY could be, and they sleep with one eye open, listening for gunshots and worrying tomorrow will bring a day when they walk into their office and someone else is sitting there and running things. Rosa-lie knows she was sneaking, conniving and backstabbing, and snuck into power that way. She was untrustworthy. She sees the world through the eyes of all of that, and lives in a world where no one can be trusted, where everyone will connive and backstab and sneak around if they're not observed. She may live with a lot of creature comforts, but that's ulcer territory. Worse-if someone succeeds, she may lose all medical coverage and all support from twi, and she's old, frail, and unsuited to actually work anywhere. So, she lives trying to manage the FEAR hanging over her every minute like the Sword of Damocles.

Was that a movie where the he's doing Weather and did some kind of talk/radio show or self-help thing before that?

Does that make this "FREE POST"? You didn't say if you were opening it up or trying again with a new round.

I can hum the song, but I don't know the name or the other lyrics.

[On the one hand, we have posters posting educated responses, first with quotes from degreed experts, then with discussion of the same. On the other hand, we have this opposing viewpoint....] [What did it add?] [Actually, he may have invented his own definition. Me, I think he was HANDED that definition and never questioned why reality clashed with it so dramatically. It was given to him-if it was given to him- to forestall any attempts by him to think this all through. Worked really well, too. He's deliberately skipping over everything refuting his belief and maintaining his convictions like any good zealot.]

I used to have a working definition that sounded a bit like that. Then again, I was a teenager at the time, in twi, and really didn't know how things worked (I was a teenager.) It's a little like people who say the difference between terrorists and a conventional military is the size of the group. No-that's a lie, and propaganda- made to salve the consciences of people who are sympathetic to terrorists, and WANT to think terrorism is correct. It's an excuse to STOP thinking and wonder if they're holding an opinion that is sound. For those who wonder, conventional military operates under certain rules, exemplified by the Geneva Convention and similar ideas. Terrorists do not. Soldiers wear uniforms, terrorists specifically dress as civilians so they can't be identified as soldiers. Soldiers confine their targets to military concerns- terrorists will hit civilians as often as soldiers, in fact, they hit them more often because military targets are defended and civilians often are not in defensible positions. Soldiers attempt to prevent "collateral damage"- they don't WANT civilians hurt if they can accomplish their goals without hurting them, and harming civilians is a big deal for soldiers. Terrorists are perfectly happy blowing up a school and killing expectant mothers and children-often, they'd consider that a noteworthy goal to accomplish. But someone who wants to sympathize with terrorists can recite the claim that the only differences between terrorists and soldiers is cosmetic, and hide behind that excuse to stop thinking. Similarly, this thread alone has had some clear, documented differences between churches and cults, but it's possible for someone to hide behind some clever saying or platitude and ignore the differences.

Here's what we know..... We know that Donna decided she was going to marry someone in twi who was a rising star. We suspect that vpw "knew" her. We know that lcm went to vpw when he decided he should get married, but didn't have a prospective wife in mind. Later, lcm tells vpw he decided on Donna. (Based on the above, it is my SPECULATION that Donna heard lcm was looking and made her move then. She was overheard once saying that-once she heard lcm was really going to be it in twi, she focused on him.) vpw went off immediately afterwards to talk to her. Most of that was from lcm's recollections, "VP and Me." It's obvious, when reading this, it wasn't a marriage based on love in EITHER direction. We also know, based on eyewitness accounts, Donna had relations with women on campus, and off-campus, she shared hotel rooms with one bed with Rosalie. =================== My knowledge is limited on some things. I know his knee-jerk reactions often centered around "dumb jock", so it would be no surprise to see lcm turn into a bully or freak out at homosexuals while dismissing other sinful behaviors and not giving them a second thought. I've heard he liked to watch women get it on. Unless he was a LOT stupider than I think he was, he had to know about Donna's proclivities. Did he think he'd get to watch? Did he get to watch? I can guess, but that's just a guess. When lcm was undermined before he was kicked out, it was Donna and Rosalie who were backstabbing him. Did that affect his thinking? lcm seemed to harp on homosexuality a lot-but so far, we've heard no accounts that he actually engaged in homosexual activities. Speculation that the SOLE reason he raged about it at length was because he was harboring latent homosexual impulses are just that-speculation. Since we have an absence of evidence to support the idea- no eyewitness accounts of any type- we should look to other answers unless something turns up.

Groundhog Day Brian Doyle Murray Wayne's World

I posted the link to move this along. Please proceed as normal, with a cast member from that version of "Hamlet", excepting, of course, Branagh since I linked IN to the movie with him.

Ok, some time, I recommend seeing it. I know this is not a big group on watching Shakespearean plays. However, Hamlet- the good versions- is worth seeing. Mel Gibson's version is worth seeing and is an abridged version. Kenneth Branagh did the uncut version-all of it. I have pluses and minuses for both versions, since I really like the play and feel both were faithful to the original in some ways and less so in others. (So far, I'm waiting for a truly accurate version of Laertes' duel in any format, anywhere- live, DVD, whatever.) With 2 exceptions- one travelling actor and Kenneth Branagh casting himself as Hamlet- I thought the casting for Branagh's version was excellent. It also featured a LOT of recognizable names. Here, you'll recognize some names. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116477/fullcredits

We're both showing our ages. I didn't know it was a cover. I used to listen to a block of really moving songs every Friday after 5pm, and that was a regular song in the block known as the "5 o'clock whistle." ============================= "I woke up in a Soho doorway The policeman knew my name. He said, "You can go sleep at home tonight If you can get up and walk away."

Is it Bruce Springsteen's "DEVIL WITH A BLUE DRESS ON"?

[We all get to decide that. We don't all get to force others to agree with our opinions, however. That's one reason we have spirited discussions here. You're one person who takes particular advantage of that. Minority opinions are disagreed with here, often called-out, often refuted, and so on, but they are permitted here and so your posts are not suppressed. If it wasn't for some posters eventually refusing to post within civil levels of discourse (which happens everywhere eventually), everyone who ever posted here would be welcome to continue to post here.] [No it isn't. Examples of other places were given before you posted this. You might want to actually READ the posts of others rather than just comb over them for something to pick out and disagree with on general principle. There's been other boards where dissenting opinions were deleted and user accounts deleted. There's been other boards where they were shut down because the powers-that-be couldn't completely control the discussions. There's been other boards where you were not permitted to sign up until you proved you were solidly an active member of the group. THOSE places were a LOT more one-sided than the GSC. Here we have pages and pages of minority opinions and posters disagreed with, whether because they were posting silliness or posting already-refuted claims, or spewing hatred with no real content, or any other reason they weren't posting what everyone else was.]

[it sounds like propaganda to me too, but you're the one who invented it, and you did it QUICKLY and OVERTLY. Worst of all, you didn't even realize you DID IT. There was a breakdown of 4 different dimensions of control, and you completely discarded that and pretended it said something like "pov contrary to mainstream opinions." You really don't understand the difference between polite society and civilization, and controlling cadres, do you?] [Answered my question pretty fast. You CAN'T tell the difference between, say MAYBERRY (your example) and control groups like Jim Jones' Jonestown (where people committed suicide on command) Charles Manson's "the Family" (where people committed murder on command) David Koresh's Branch Davidians (where people let their leader have sex with their underage daughters and wives) "Heaven's Gate" (where people committed suicide on command) ]

[The normal way does it just as well, and has several advantages over your way. The rest of us will post "(snip)" when we make partial quotes so it's obvious there's more but we don't consider it relevant to what we are responding to. With the quoteback, anyone can confirm we're fairly quoting someone by looking at the original quote.] [it IS, but it's also used to be deceptive and lazy- if not by you and not in this post. It prevents an efficient method-already in effect- to go back and read the entire post. If the discussion is active, we may have to hunt for PAGES to find JUST what you're talking about. How are we to know if anybody DID say it or if you're fairly representing what was said in your quote? Some quotes will fairly represent what's said, some will not. ("The Bible says 'There is no God.'") At the GSC, it's not uncommon for someone to selectively quote something, complain that the poster never addressed a problem, and leave the source-post vague... and when someone finds it and reads it, the problem WAS addressed-and answered. If you have actual issues with using the very simple button, you could always do what I do when I think the quote thing is not working. I put the thread name (or say "this thread" if it's the same thread), the page#, the post#, the poster's name, and the date/time of the post. Anyone can check up fairly easily and see if I'm representing what they said fairly.]