WordWolf

Tough one. I know him from "Quark" (TV) and "Love at First Bite." I suspected he was in a movie, but IMdB says he wasn't in it.

A) Divine revelation. That's underscored by the absence of incidents and complaints against either the 12 OR the 70. Instead, there's zero complaints and accounts of them going around, performing miracles, then leaving. For that matter, that wasn't a full-year program to promote a class. That was a limited timeframe that ended quickly. B) Johniam, since you're determined to derail this thread (THREE, count them, THREE changes of subject IN THE FIRST PAGE from what the original poster asked) you should consider a separate thread where you can pose your issue, and let the original poster have their issue un-derailed. You've yet to even address the question the original poster asked. This was deliberate-since it was pointed out already and you haven't stopped. Frankly, you owe them an apology, but I don't expect you to rise to that level. Obviously, there's an attempt here to draw attention away from the method twi used to decide placements of both people and groups in their wow program. "You can stay as long as your money holds!"-vpw.

In this book adaptation(s), A short guy is convinced to leave his comfortable home/hole behind to go on an adventure to find a less-short person's missing brother, and ends up falling deep underground and discovering a subterranean realm. Supporting cast includes Ian McKellen and Brendan Fraser.

Although no system is 100% foolproof, reasonable expectations of quality control are to be met. So, it's highly doubtful either Jones OR Manson would have gotten far among the MANY steps between "average joe" and "priest." They wanted to be THE Authority. Facing the years and years only to start at the bottom of the authority ladder? Not worth the effort. That's why they started their own groups. That's what people do when they want to use religion to exploit others. Otherwise, they would have been through the process already described by dmiller: However, all of this is currently a DISTRACTION from the absence of quality control in the wow program, and the question by the original poster concerning what went on in choosing people and places- as I already mentioned. Any reason you want to draw attention from those 2 points? I think we all know the answer to that one....

Oh. Never saw that one. Thought you were sledding on thin ice, there.

How about some actual quality control? If Charles Manson and Jim Jones had completed pfal and came in with completed applications and the required fees, they would have been accepted. Real Christian groups are a LOT more selective about who they accept into programs representing them. That makes it a LOT easier to avoid disaster than asking for revelation as to whether or not your "family" got a rapist or child molester. However, that is completely NOT what the original poster is asking about. They asked about the processes that twi used to assign people and locations.

It kinda does, but Cruise (as he is normally) is way too tall for the role.

It's obviously Ghostbusters. The dogs-and-cats line's a running gag in some circles.

A short guy is convinced to leave his comfortable home behind to go on an adventure to find someone's missing brother, and ends up falling deep underground and discovering a subterranean realm.

"The Sound of Music Man"?

I'm sure there's a thread or 2 where the processes were discussed. It will take some time to find them, however. I'll need a few days to find something.

That's it.

This 1955 (1985?) movie has a student who pretends to be a boy in school to try to prove she's not taken seriously as a journalist because she's pretty and female. After graduation, she works in a mission to help drunks and gamblers- and a gambler contrives to take her to Havana-all hiding he's planning to use her as cover when setting up a big illegal game at the mission.

Forgot to chime in on the other one... Stripes Judge Reinhold Fast Times at Ridgemont High

One poster reported that they thought one staffer got in trouble for a conversation. He had said they settled differences on which of 2 places to send a group by coin toss. BTW, here's a link to a previous WOW thread...

Lou Reed's "Take a Walk on the Wild Side." You found lyrics in the song that won't offend someone or other. With that song, it's a bit tricky. :)

Is this "George of the Jungle Book"?

I am still waiting for you to acknowledge what I said had any merit, from a genetics standpoint. A few paragraphs about the substance of what was and was not said, and all you got from that was "Charges of "unfair, you are biased.." "you have an agenda here.."" What's the point of me even evaluating things, then posting a fair reply that actually reflects the science, when it's only going to be labelled and ignored? As far as I can tell, you're only responding to replies on the Youtube link, and those have justly earned reputations for being the bottom-feeders of actual dialogue regardless of the subject. Pending more information, I think the Hayflick Limit figures into genetics as a whole, but not this specific subject, this specific video. The speaker was making claims about a specific gene, and whether or not it's spliced, and what it means if it IS spliced.

Often they're right. However, they also repeated the urban legend that Charles Manson auditioned for Fleetwood Mac.

It was Ziggy Stardust. First time I ever heard of a "snow white tan" being a selling point. :) I'll wait a little before replying on your song.

Does this movie include a reference to "eggy in a basket"?

I agree. I do not support the teaching of "creation" in schools. I support "full disclosure" on evolutionary theory. There's lots of problems with the suppositions, but nobody teaches them in schools along with the theory. So, kids think the theory is unflawed. They're taught, for example, that peppered moths are proof of physiological changes in species in reaction to environment. The claim: their skin changed shades in response to their environment changing, so now they camouflage into pollution. However, the claims don't have any actual support. It is SPECULATED that they rest in those places. It is CLAIMED that this is proof of change. It is IGNORED that both types of peppered moths existed before pollution, both existed after pollution set in, and both types' populations rose and fell TOGETHER. This argues AGAINST theory-which says the lighter shades should be reproducing at smaller rates than the darker shades due to the shades increasing survival chances for the darker moths. The thing I find detestable is the actual staging of photos- where peppered moths were put against low parts of trees-where they NEVER rest- to show the darker ones camouflage better at rest and see how this matches our theories? In its own way, it's as vile as the Disney filmers shoving the lemmings to their deaths to support the claim that lemmings jump to their deaths. IF evolution with descent actually IS how all species got here, there's a LOT for science to explain before it can fill in all the blanks- and either way, it would be nice for all claims to reflect the actual EVIDENCE of science and not just the DOGMA of science.

As far as I see it, we should all have a chance to have a life and log in and respond in between events in it. You're making it sound like a few hours with no response means everyone is stymied. There's quite a few positions taken by people who believe the Bible is accurate. ONE is the "young earth creation" position. The one time I encountered a Christian who held this position, I did my best to correct him. Other than him, I've heard of people who've held it, but most of the time when I hear about it, it's from someone who doesn't believe it- who is saying "The Bible can't be true because the evidence supports an Earth being a LOT older than thousands of years-it looks like it's millions or billions of years old." Well, duh. The Bible doesn't give a year. Positions by most intelligent Christians all reflect that. Even the actual Scopes Monkey Trial had that in the testimony. (The real thing, not the movie that propagandized against Christians.) It is POSSIBLE that the Earth is young but was created to APPEAR old. All the evidence would match that. I reject it as less logical than the position that it actually IS that old. Hhowever, when someone claims the evidence doesn't show the Earth being that old, I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the science, and was just going by someone else's grasp of things (which wasn't a tight grasp either.) In fairness, any "good, SOLID" response would require me to both have access to the entire genome mapping of a number of animals, and enough of a background to read them as if I was skimming through a Greek-English Interlinear. I can point out what was NOT said, and unsupported claims by the speaker. I don't have access to sufficient evidence to completely overthrow his claim. (In a court of law, the other side would be required to provide it, in the US, under "disclosure.") First of all, the claim is that man and simians both evolved from proto-simians, not men from apes. (I refuse to mischaracterize his position and I refuse to allow mine to be mischaracterized.) Second of all, the key to proving a case would be COMPARISON. "Here you see the DNA sequencing of 10 sample humans. Here you see the sequencing of 10 sample orangutans...10 gorillas...10 apes....10 lemurs....10 domestic dogs...10 domestic cats... 10 birds...10 fish....10 frogs....10 crocodiles.... You can see that the humans and all these primates have the following sequences in common. You can see that all the other animals do NOT have them in common. Therefore, they are sequences exclusively in common to apes and humans-but not any other animals. This suggests common ancestry of humans and apes." We didn't get that. It's actually bad science. He didn't isolate his variables. He's GOT the information. He's GOT the training. If it's there, he CAN make such a presentation and back it up. That he did not, to me, weakens his case when he tries to say this is a closed case. Without it, any dissenter is free to point out that DNA sequencing has commonalities among LOTS of life-forms, so commonality of human to ape means both are life-forms. (For that matter, the social structure of human society does NOT most closely resemble the human- it resembles the wolf. I got that from animal biologists who actually believe in human evolution as claimed. However, it should raise an eyebrow that any of the characteristics of humans should LESS resemble primates than a non-primate in ANY way.) And, again, he's failed to explain WHY there would be an advantage to fused DNA. According to the concept of evolution with descent as the origin of species, all changes are the result of: A) random mutations B) that were able to be passed down genetically C) that were found to be advantageous once they existed D) that increased survivability of the individual E) and allowed that individual to breed and pass them down F) ensuring the random mutation was passed down So, if there was fused DNA, an intelligent design person would reply "So what?" as to the significance of fused DNA. If there's a fused DNA, there are 2 lingering questions he seems not to have asked, while celebrating he's not an intelligent design person: 1) what possible advantage was gained in fusing DNA? (He put forth that not knowing this was a weakness in the opposing viewpoint, so let's see him explain it.) 2) If fused DNA was a genetic advantage, then why did all the other supposed descendants of the proto-simians breed equally well WITHOUT the fused DNA? We should have seen a slow uptick of proto-human ancestors, concurrent with a slow extinction of proto-ape ancestors, and all that back in pre-history. Proto-human simians should have displaced proto-apes on the Earth- IF the fused DNA is actually genetically advantageous in the manner genetics states. If the fused DNA is NOT, then there's a lot of uncomfortable questions about genetics theory that need to be addressed before the next time someone claims it answers everything. Personally, I find that geneticists who know better ignore inconvenient truths. Darwin's still celebrated as a genetics genius when most of his preconceptions have proven to be speculation that contradicted the later discoveries. I mean, read "Origin of Species" sometime. The man was a Lamarckian! That stuff was debunked and almost laughed at when I was in high school.

This time, I'm not linking Downey. So, Jeff Bridges can't be linked out since we linked in with him. I'm blanking on other stuff with Terrence. I have a movie for Gwyneth, but not another actor from it. So eventually, I go with Jon Favreau DareDevil Ben Affleck

It IS the Partridge Family. Danny Bonaduce voiced himself, and Susan Dey did a little, but everyone else was a regular voice actor. If you see "PARTRIDGE FAMILY 2200 AD" (Partridge Family Twenty-Two Thousand AD", you'll think it was a Jetsons episode for a moment.