WordWolf

In my experience, it can get them to take off, or to look at you differently. They obviously have SOME sort of notice about twi. Some of them expect a shouting match and take off, some think "Oh, cool, we can discuss the Bible" but they're in the minority. In this case, I suspect it was them at your door, but I can't guarantee that.

That works- basically, you're telling them that their organization made the deliberate decision to kick you out and declare you persona non grata, period. That's a relatively rare thing, and very deliberate. They can't talk to you or acknowledge you exist.

*A* IS "Gilligan's Island. Decades later, people began speculating, which is why there's room for disagreement. The placements usually go... Greed is Mr Howell, Lust is Ginger, Pride is the Professor. Then we get Mrs Howell for Sloth, and Envy for Mary Ann. As for the last 2.... The Skipper gets Wrath for always swatting Gilligan with his hat. Sometimes Gilligan gets Gluttony for his appetite, sometimes The Skipper is Wrath AND Gluttony because he's fat. In those instances, people say Gilligan wasn't a sin, they say Gilligan and his red shirt are the Devil, and that's why he always keeps them on the island. Early Fox and the early WB went through a LOT of television shows that lasted 1 season or less. Some might have worked, but they abandoned everything pretty quickly. Among Fox's early offerings was "Woops!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woops! A random handful of people survived World War 3 and found a farm, and try to re-establish civilization all over again. My favorite was Frederick Ross, who was a PATHOLOGIST no matter what people say now. He even said he claimed to miss the carve-the-person aspect of pathology in at least 1 episode.

That's the one. I challenged someone once to count how many cups of coffee he finished in the course of the movie, right before they sat down to watch it. When they got back to me, they just busted out laughing. In the first 10 minutes, he's stopped twice. Once, he's in a car that brakes heavily, and once someone shoots the cup out of his hand. The other attempts are a bit more subtle until the closing of the movie. The last line of regular dialogue is "Drink your coffee." He does and flips the cup over his shoulder as the narrator closes things out. So, your turn!

Ok, someone recently tried limited polling, but I thought this was worth a discussion. Let's suppose you could pick among the musicians of the past AND the present. (So, you could pick, say, "Psy right after he released his album" and not be stuck with picking any artist at the present or something.) So, let's say you could pick ANY musicians of the past AND present. For the ultimate tour, I'm thinking there should be 2 band members to handle each of the major positions, and a number of SINGLE musicians for instruments that are NOT considered major. So, this is going to be a rock-and-roll band, for some value of rock-and-roll, with lots of room for versatility. So, 2 vocalists, 2 lead guitarists, 2 bassists, 2 drummers, 2 pianists. There's room for at least 1 additional keyboardist, as well as 1 for any other instrument. Who would you recommend for this ultimate band, and for which positions? Obviously, there's room for disagreement and discussion, and there's no real wrong answer (it's about OPINION). I have some thoughts on some of those positions, but I'm curious who the rest of you will recommend. My personal thinking, for my purposes, is to consider all the quality candidates, then to select among them by virtue of versatility. This works for me, but it's not a rule and may not help you. It helps me resolve ties in my head, since I can usually rank versatility. Additionally, we can name this band anything we want. Any thoughts on the band name?

I'm feeling like taking a wild swing..... "Antonio Banderas"???????

Here's 2 shows. The latter is the ridiculously-difficult show. A) No matter what anyone says, there were never any plans to have the 7 main characters of this show represent the 7 deadly sins. B) The show I just mentioned inspired a one-season show back when the Fox network was new. This show was supposedly post-World War III, and was a sitcom.

Popeye Ray Walston Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Whatever happened to no one knows, other than God, what's in the heart of a person? Isn't that STILL you declaring judgment on a person for their words even when you don't know what's in their heart? "Attack? What attack? Wasn't I merely posting my opinion? Touchy much?" TLC caught you "posting your opinion" in an antagonistic manner to his opinion. If that somehow escaped you, it certainly didn't escape him- nor me. WordWolf: "I dislike people making up their own definitions for things. Ever see someone say they're a vegan but they eat meat? If someone claims to be a pacifist, I don't expect to see them starting fist-fights in the street. So, if someone claims they're a "Christian", it's expected that they believe Jesus of Nazareth is/was the CHRIST, thus the name. I mind less the person who's clear they don't believe the Bible than the person who doesn't but claims they do." Rocky: "Isn't that STILL you declaring judgment on a person for their words even when you don't know what's in their heart?" It's interesting I have to make this any simpler- as if you're being deliberately obtuse to clear points being made because you'd rather skip them and find something nearby on which to pass judgement. The person who claims the title "vegan" is using a term that has a specific meaning. If they choose to use it, I expect they will be essentially consistent with it. If a person claims they are a "pacifist", likewise. A practicing vegan may slip and eat some meat- nobody's perfect- but to just claim casually that they eat meat means they're deliberately misusing the language- they're making up their own definitions and REDEFINING words that ALREADY had a meaning. Likewise, a pacifist may find a reason to defend himself- if he feels he is forced to- but that's very different from someone looking to start physical fights. For someone to be that sort of person- which they can be, for all I care- but to claim the OPPOSITE, I object to that. "Isn't that STILL you declaring judgment on a person for their words even when you don't know what's in their heart?" I can only go by the words people speak, and the actions that they take, and what those tell me. If they're in conflict, that tells me something. If someone claims to be a pacifist, but seeks violence, that says something. If someone claims only to have a curiosity, but focuses it only on accusatory questions, that says something. And we all- yourself included- live our everyday lives doing exactly this, even if you feel like claiming otherwise. If you see a man running down the street, screaming, with a foaming mouth, and carrying a bloody knife, you don't know what's in his heart, either. However, you're certainly going to draw some conclusions based on his actions. Now, it's mathematically possible that this man's mouth is foaming because he overdid his Alka-Seltzer, it's possible he's screaming because someone stomped his foot wearing heavy boots, and it's possible he's got a bloody knife because he was working in a restaurant kitchen when he overdid his Alka-Seltzer and a deliveryman in boots stomped his foot. Anyone with an ounce of sense- and self-preservation- is going to stay clear of him and hide or remove themselves from where he is, and maybe call the police. The philosopher who decides to approach him, refuse to "declare judgement on a person" - as you put it- and tries to find out what's in his heart becomes another statistic in the murder stats of the day. What a noble thing he did! He didn't know what was in the man's heart, so he went to find out..... no,. what an idiot! And anyone who needs me to explain why that's idiotic won't understand the answer, or why the rest of us have little patience with sophistry. So, WordWolf, are you saying you have an opinion about Kristin du Mez' testimony? If so, why not just post it in terms of what your response is to her words? I have no opinion on her testimony. I don't remember the last time I've actually opened one of your video links. I open few of them on the GSC in general, and yours even less. I find that posting a link with little or no indication as to WHY it's posted looks like homework. I'm not sifting through 15 minutes or more of video just because someone else wanted me to. This is a DISCUSSION board, so I expect DISCUSSION, and if a video is posted, I don't just click on it devoid of DISCUSSION. "Fine, you don't like it. Fine, you "mind less..." but how does that impact what you believe your responsibility as a Christian would be to such people? Whether it's apparent incongruity about their salvation or anything else? I mean, come on... I'm not judging you. I'm just asking you to judge your words and your actions." I mind less people who judge me and are upfront about it than people who claim they don't, while they judge me in the process. You should have gotten that by now, it was simple enough to extrapolate from the other posts.

Just to clarify, what I meant by "basis in reality"... I dislike people making up their own definitions for things. Ever see someone say they're a vegan but they eat meat? If someone claims to be a pacifist, I don't expect to see them starting fist-fights in the street. So, if someone claims they're a "Christian", it's expected that they believe Jesus of Nazareth is/was the CHRIST, thus the name. I mind less the person who's clear they don't believe the Bible than the person who doesn't but claims they do.

One thing I've noticed, TLC, is people claiming they're Christian without any real basis in reality. I saw someone claim outright they didn't believe in the Bible AND didn't believe Jesus is/was the Christ/Messiah. I mean, it's right in the name! So, I brought that up, and someone came in loudly, saying they didn't need to justify their claim despite having their own definition for Christian. Hasn't happened often to me (that I've noticed), but it has happened.

"MY GENERATION," the Who.

That's him. About 1/2 the roles I listed were from SNL and about 1/2 were from different movies.

I've definitely heard the song before, but I can't remember anything but the title with its music. Obviously there was a whole song with that line, but I have no memory of the rest of it. Oh, well.

The title, which you posted (more or less), is "They're Coming To Take Me Away". Courtesy of Napoleon the 14th. Your turn.

Linda Richman Pat Arnold Donnie Shulzhoffer Stuart Rankin Kenneth Rhys-Evans Maurice Pitka Dieter Simon "Cucumber Jones" General Ed Fenech Charlie McKenzie Steve Rubell Tim Broderick Goldmember Ray Foster Paul Canterbury

"Remem-ber- when you ran- away and I- got on- my knees- and begged- you not- to leave- because- I'd go= berZERK?"

Was this "Bozo" or "the Howdy Doody Show"?????

Offering a sign of peace?

I would have. At that hour, I'm usually not carrying change in my pockets. During the day, I don't carry much change, and it generally isn't US coinage, obviously.

"Down on the Corner." At the moment, I don't actually have a nickel in my pocket, for reasons that should be obvious in hindsight. :)

I think I'd have recognized it if I knew this song, so I'm confident now that I don't know it at all.

You were all over the map there, but I'll count this as correct. The second one had the girl, Newt. She's the "her" in the line. She survived initial attacks that wiped out her colony.

Didn't mean to leave this hanging. Yes, that is correct. BTW, the unfinished sentence at the end was obviously going to be "Gentlemen, this will be the day you will always remember as the day you ALMOST caught Jack Sparrow" but events in the scene interrupted the line.

"Get away from her, you b!tch!"