WordWolf

Sounds like you're "Tangled Up In Blue" like Bob Dylan. I always thought he "was happening to be employed", but all the online lyrics sites have it grammatically correct. (No, I typed my answer in, THEN looked it up before hitting "Reply." It's no fun just plugging in an answer, I have to remember it...)

Let's say you were going to plan a movie festival for friends, or programming the movie list for a TV channel for Halloween, with the obvious theme of "horror film" in any reasonable sense of the word. (i.e. no adding "The Star Wars Holiday Special" to the list just because it's so awful.) What movies do you think should at least be considered for the list? 1) I'll start off with the original "Psycho."

"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Can only be "HIGHLANDER", with Christopher Lambert. (Personally, I like the TV show. Somehow, I never made it through the first movie all the way.)

I was tempted to link to Robert Downey Jr, but let's try something else. Burt Young Rocky Sylvester Stallone

Here's how the lines fell... "Two households, both alike in dignity In fair Verona, where we lay our scene. From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil blood makes civil hands unclean." The opening narration. In the version with DiCaprio and Danes, this was delivered as a televised news report. "'Peace?' 'Peace?' I hate the word. As I hate Hell, all Montagues, and thee." Hot-tempered Tybalt, starting a street-brawl with members of the Montagues, the house that he and the Capulets fight with all the time. (Naming one house in the quote.) "A plague on both your houses!" Mercutio, as he lay dying. (Mentioning both houses.) "What would you have with me?" "Good King of Cats, only one of your nine lives!" Tybalt and Mercutio, as they struggled. Tybalt is nicknamed "King of Cats" for no obvious reason, and that's mentioned in earlier dialogue. "By my head, here come the Capulets!" "By my heel, I care not." Benvolio and Mercutio, chatting. (And naming the other house.) For those unclear on the names, Romeo is a Montague, and their partisans include Benvolio and Mercutio. Juliet is a Capulet, and Tybalt is her cousin or something like that. --------------- Go, Trefor.

As such, either would be correct, which is why I'd accept either answer. Since you mentioned at least one specifically (Di Caprio was in "Romeo + Juliet" and no other version), you're down with a correct answer. So it's your turn.

I'm certain there's a problem. However, 75% is a ridiculous number, and twi members are fond of making up or passing along made-up "facts" and statistical numbers that can't be found anywhere as a reliable source. I heard quite a few of them when I was in (which wasn't a huge amount of time), and I've heard a number come from them since I left. lcm once claimed he heard of a certain type of person who AVERAGED (meaning some were MORE and some less) 1000 DIFFERENT sex partners a year. Stop and think that through. There's 365 days in a year. That means they'd have to AVERAGE more than 14 DIFFERENT sex partners every week. Even if you wanted to, who has TIME to do that, and who could find that many willing partners? (Maybe someone could set a perverted goal for a week and find 14 sex partners, but by the next week that's not so much fun anymore. By the end of the month, you'd think of taking up stamp collecting or some other hobby. It's like a diet of nothing BUT your favorite food-even if you could survive it, you'd get tired of it.) If there was some RELIABLE source, I'd consider the possibility. However, there's much more likely reasons for someone to be close to the Pope- A) hierarchical ambition. All groups have people with that. B) Zeal. A dedicated adherent to the Roman Catholic Church would consider working close to the Pope as holy a duty as they could perform. (It worked for small-time hustlers like vpw, it works in all religious groups.) C) Talent. The best people for different jobs were promoted to them. D) Favoritism. A friend of a Pope or Cardinal could be promoted up. People like to work with people friendly to them. All of those are common, obvious reasons. No need to invent all sorts of criminal accusations on someone just because they work for the Pope. In twi, besides making stuff up, making stuff up specifically to have an excuse to condemn other Christians is standard operating procedure, as is passing along empty rumors that do the same.

There's moral issues and legal issues. Consider what the standards are in the rest of cyberspace, and there's sensible reasons for this. For moral reasons, we have politeness. Every single thing you post can be found in a quick search. I participated in something innocent and harmless. So did a school teacher. Photos were posted afterwards, with some names included. Nothing that affected her job, the event was fine, but her students were able to search for her name and see what she does in her private life. So, some names were taken down. If someone comes here and uses their legal name, then it's fine. Otherwise, let them have their privacy. I prefer to keep my private life private. I participate freely online whenever and wherever I wish, but I don't use my legal name. Besides, who really needs my legal name? I'm the same guy no matter what I call myself. But I don't like having my legal name searchable and giving out my private life to anyone who wants to do an online search. Then there's legal issues, which the staff can answer. It's still fair game to use the names of twi's official Board- who those people are is a matter of public record. We violate no confidences and no privacies when everyone can find out who they are in seconds. (And if not, legally they should be able to, company board member names are NOT confidential.)

"Two householdss, both alike in dignity In fair Verona, where we lay our scene. From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil blood makes civil hands unclean." "'Peace?' 'Peace?' I hate the word. As I hate Hell, all Montagues, and thee." "A plague on both your houses!" "What would you have with me?" "Good King of Cats, only one of your nine lives!" "By my head, here come the Capulets!" "By my heel, I care not."

He is in the one George mentioned, which was an incorrect guess. Which has nothing to do with my movie.

No. Shakespeare is not a character in this movie.

"Two houses, both alike in dignity In fair Verona, where we lay our scene"

"I love it when you say my name, especially when you say 'yes'"

When it comes to "the way:living in love", I recommend the thread that discussed it in detail. That's "the way:living in wonderland." (There's also a thread, "vp and me in wonderland", which discusses lcm's behind-the-scenes look and shows what he interpreted as deep spiritual meaning was a lot of pettiness. When it comes to twi, if the person is already questioning twi because they're living a miserable life, then any sensible book is good. If the person is in full-on denial mode, no book will be opened, and any reading will just be a narrow cherry-picking, for excuses to dismiss the entire book. (We still get posters and readers who do that to this day, only some of whom are still in twi.) As for good books for any Christian, a sensible book I'd recommend is "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot. It's fairly basic, it's easy-to-read, and it's got more useful information than just about ANY current innie has on the subject (and more than most people who still revere vpw.) I'd recommend it as a good STARTING POINT on its topics, and a handy reference for any Christian. In fact, I'd consider it mandatory reading for any Christian who actually cares what the Bible says.

Police moving through an area is considered "harassment"? Ever been to a shopping mall? Ever been to a convention? Next time you are, take a look around and say hello to the nice police officers. It's in their best interests to have officers on hand wherever lots of people are congregating. If there's trouble, the police are right there. If not, it's a friendly reminder to avoid trouble- even if there's plenty of private security on hand and the people are cooperative.

Ahhh. That's "Fooling Yourself (Angry Young Man)", by Styx. Ahhh. That's "Fooling Yourself (Angry Young Man)", by Styx.

Ok, now I know why some of those sounded familiar. This is "The Shadow." I actually should have gotten it from the implosive-explosive line.

Jon Favreau was "Happy" Hogan, Stark's driver and "bodyguard." You may remember him more from when Stark went to catch a plane, and Hogan, in another car, had to chase him. "I thought I lost you!" "You did. I had to cut across Mulholland." Think dark suit and glasses. He has a more prominent role in the sequel. Meanwhile, I was trying to remember just that name. I keep confusing him with Jeremy Piven.... Ok, from Favreau, let's see.... linking to "PCU" would be a bit limiting. How about DareDevil Michael Clark Duncan The Island

Mustard sandwiches, with no cheese? I ate those with cheese for a short time, and then cheese with butter sandwiches for a short time. One of my friends actually switched to the mustard-cheese ones too, for a time. As a kid, I liked Smarties- and still do, when I find them. I haven't had them in a while, but I was introduced to "Willy Wonka's Everlasting Gobstopper (Jawbreakers)" when I started high school. They weren't truly everlasting, but they lasted about an hour if you didn't bite them. Then they started selling the "midgets" smaller versions. I liked those so much that I actually added a little pouch to my belt (shaped like a backpack) and kept some there for a time. Wow, haven't thought about that for a long time...

The numbers depend on who you ask, and specifically what you mean by the question. twi has been hemorraging members since the late 80s, and has undergone consistent SHRINKAGE since then. Technically, the group is still around, but it's been dying, and continues to die. the only thing that's keeping twi around right now is that the closing of the doors completely means the assets of the group can't be divided among the lovers of filthy lucre running the show. So, they have to keep the group existing on paper-which means they have to have some kind of physical group- while they live off the investments and current monies and privileges of twi. (How many of us have private cooks, maid service, a private boat with people upkeeping it for us for free, etc etc?) Apparently, Walter's still going to do it as long as he can manage. He's got a way to make a comfortable living, and he has fans. It's hard to turn away from something like that and either get a real job, or undergo more formal vetting and get credentials like more pedestrian Christian researchers. He probably thinks he's too old to try, and has no need to bother since people are still paying money for the current stuff. BTW, it should come as no shock to GSC'ers that terms like "moving the Word" and "body of Christ" effectively have different meanings when used by ex-twi'er groups and individuals. Here's how they are explained if asked: "moving the Word"- teaching the Bible "body of Christ"- all born-again Christians everywhere Sounds nice- but it's a sham. Here's how they are used IN PRACTICE: "moving the Word"- teaching the twi-type package of doctrine and practices. Thus, sola scriptura Christians around the world don't count as "moving the Word", only ex-twi'ers. "body of Christ"- those Christians associated, even tenuously, with ex-twi organizations. Thus, sola scriptura Christians around the world don't count when one is considering the movements in "the body of Christ." I remember when this was first pulled. The terms were CLAIMED to mean the former-but were in effect used to mean the latter. All ex-twi'ers were claimed to be in "the organization" called "the body of Christ" of whom the head was "Christ." And that's ALL that was said about organization. However, that was obviously denial even then. We were getting together on a statewide basis once a year. That was not a meeting simply of "the body of Christ" because almost NONE of the actual body of Christ in that state even HEARD about the meeting. Only those ex-twi'ers who were in the body of Christ heard of it, and so on. (Although, technically, nobody was refused attendance on that basis, AFAIK.) However, apparently, that's still going on decades later. Christians are separating themselves from virtually 100% of all other living Christians, while saying they're all in the body of Christ. Me, I'm happy to associate with other Christians so long as we can all get along and avoid fights. (And I'm happy to say that's worked out well when I wished it to, most of the time.)

Actually, Waysider, the majority of those examples are supposedly mortals incidental to a religion (like Adonis) who were claimed to have been made immortal for some purpose- and who is taken away to live amongst the gods immediately. So, no eyewitness accounts of people interacting with them- they exit the story and all evidence of any special treatment exits with them. In each of the cases, the actual historical existence of such a person who was granted immortality and came back to earth is not supported nor even supposed. The idea that someone (like Jesus) actually coming back and interacting with lots of eyewitnesses for over a month is controversial, and is singular in actually being supported by the eyewitnesses. We had people claiming to have personally interacted with him afterwards, who insisted on maintaining this account even when facing painful death for claiming it. It's difficult to find people willing to face certain death on account of supporting a claim they KNOW to be a lie (like "I saw him alive and interacted with him.) So, claims for similar people who are documented to have existed are pretty sparse. I imagine you can find a nut here and there, but not whole bunches of people all holding to such a story. Meanwhile, can we leave this discussion for the Doctrinal forum and return to this thread's subject?

An inability to distinguish from a singer and musician who gives the correct legally-required (and morally-mandated) credit to those whose work he uses from a man who plagiarized the work of others, put it forth as his own, and set himself up as the sole authority on understanding God in his time is forgivable, but sad. Presentation is not the issue, and never was. The whole idea that vpw was presenting the work of others is, generally, the truth. All the best of "vpw's" teachings were taken directly from the work of others. If that was stated at the beginning, we'd have been FINE with that. (I bought Bullinger's "The Two Natures" at the same time I bought V1nce F's booklet on the same subject, and bought both Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion" and Hislop's "The Two Babylons", from which it was taken.) So, there's moral and legal issues with how vpw presented himself as the source of the material. He said it was a collaboration between him and God Almighty and that he threw out all his other theological materials. Yet those were exactly where he got all "his" stuff. "That doesn't make him God." Where did that enter this conversation? He got that from Oral Roberts-whose work vpw sometimes derided (when he wasn't stealing from it), not Bullinger. Hard to keep track of all the people vpw ripped off sometimes, isn't it? The "Red Thread" was an Oral Roberts specialty. "So what?" Some friend of yours can do a fair job telling jokes, and says they're all his. Then you hear of George Carlin and realize he's doing all George's material. Would you be willing to pay to see your friend telling "his" jokes, and say "so what" when someone says Carlin's playing downtown? That's a subject as trivial as comedy. When it comes to the Bible, the stakes are much higher. Is your standard "clone the work of others and spit them back", or is it "make the material your own and actually understand it"? vpw made a number of fundamental errors as the result of just repeating what he heard or read, and not understanding it first. Are you going to settle for that in your OWN life? Sounds like a load of horse-manure to me. This "the only reason you ever listened to vpw was because you were brainwashed" thing is a fiction. Few, if any, ever made a claim anything like that. (There's always some nut on the fringe somewhere.) NONE of us ever CLAIMED it, but John can make it up to pretend we invented such silliness. And for an encore, a second fiction- "Do you really believe he was of the devil?" No, but it's odd for you to bring that up at all. Are YOU having doubts about that one?

Actually, it's a measure of inability to actually read what's written (and UNDERSTAND what's written) at the GSC that gets exposed here. It's been long known at the GSC-and it's come up quite a bit- that there have always been some people who drank the twi kool-aid so deeply that to this day they refuse to consider any other POV and still extoll twi stuff as the greatest ever produced. That anyone can read and post here more than a decade and not know this (or even understand how to use the Quote feature) is a sad statement, but true. Yet twi'ers can't tell what's broken and what isn't. Leonard's stuff wasn't "broken", and Bullinger's stuff wasn't "broken", but I've seen people post that they still insist vpw's ripoffs of both are superior to the originals. So, those weren't "broken", and yet vpw "had to fix them." What about what vpw actually taught? Supposedly, it was just said this wasn't "broken" and doesn't need "fixing." This is the same stuff that says that if a man announces that he's going to be dead at this time next year, that God Almighty will have to change the laws of the universe if He wants to prevent this. "Because it's a LAW." This is the same stuff that said "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king" in clear violation of the Mosaic Law. Do I need to keep going on about all the things that are OBVIOUSLY "broken" about twi dogma and vpw dogma and need "fixing"? And these are all WELL-KNOWN. Yet, "vpw said it, that settles it, I believe it." If vpw said it, then by definition it apparently CAN'T be "broken" and can't need "fixing." vpw's stuff is blatantly "broken", vpw's stuff blatantly needs "fixing", and those unable to see this are also "broken" and need "fixing." God's Word stands forever in spite of vpw's dogma contradicting it blatantly in some places and labelling it incorrectly in others. And to hear some people, vpw was the apex of understanding and sealed up the sum. To a few, he was "OVER-GIFTED" with "an overabundance of brains and brawn." Of course, this didn't happen overnight. People needed to be brought to this point SLOWLY, and in SMALL STEPS. Eventually, all the small steps got them to the point where vpw was an expert on everything, and no one else can teach the Bible better, and no one can overhaul his error-ridden theology because his error-ridden theology has no fundamental errors. Small steps, tiny increments, and people got there. Some still live there. That's not news, but it is sad.

for the original poster, I think that's your answer right there. I'll explain for the studio audience..... The original poster is looking for recommendations for books to offer to innies. This poster's all set to pass judgement on people even though he obviously doesn't know anything about them. That's the standard twi thing. Anyone not in twi-mode? Obviously, they are inferior to twi-mode people. What's the difference between us and them? They're glassy-eyed robots and close-minded. And don't explore their doctrine, do things the twi way only. lcm was fond of saying that people who served the devil (or served "the adversary", since twi couldn't call him the same thing anyone else did) frequently accused others of the things they themselves do. It's pretty much standard policy that twi'ers (and those in twi mode who learned twi mode from twi) that they do things, then accuse those who don't do them of doing them- while denying that THEY do them. In a practical sense, that means when someone in twi mode accuses others of never examing doctrine, but responding by going into glassy-eyed robotics, that means that person's all but admitting that's their standard operating procedure. twi mode people are very predictable, since independent thought leads to unpredictability. So, for the original poster, it's obvious that people who WANT to be in twi will be robotic in response. If he doesn't want to waste his money on such a book, he should give it to someone wbo's already willing to consider that twi's answers are grossly inefficient and directing them to drive their life straight into a ditch and keep it there. Otherwise, even the most brilliant written work won't be read, and if it's read, it will be by someone lacking understanding. Actually, I've found it's possible to take off-topic, pro-twi meanderings, and use them to address the current topic. Since pro-twi, off-topic meanderings are pretty much all variations on a few limited themes, if you've seen one, to a degree, you've seen them all. So, I found how to use them despite the intent of the meander-er. :)