WordWolf

I was thinking of that too, but I decided against posting quotes from that. So, that's not this movie.

[Any true innovator has taken things in directions that defy "what they were taught." To say otherwise does a great disservice to them and belittles their accomplishments. Any person who learned through independent study went "beyond what they were taught" because there was no teacher. Anyone who learned "hands-on" through experience with nobody over their shoulder went "beyond what they were taught" because there was no teacher. On the other hand, one can go around REDEFINING what it means to be a teacher or to have a teacher. However, isn't redefining a term or concept just so it agrees with vpw an awfully long step to make just to justify another factual mistake? He said something that was technically incorrect. It was also self-serving, as in "I'm 'The Teacher' and you'll only go as far as I teach you." Accept it was an error and get past it. I recognized this decades ago and the most thought I've ever given it was explaining it now and dismay that some people would rather come up with creative reinterpretations of the common usage of words rather than accept vpw made mistakes and this was one of them.]

[You should remember to ask us. Ex-twi'ers who still drink the Kool-Aid tend to make the same few dozen mistakes, no matter who, down the decades. Several of those mistakes have been definitively disproven using simple Bible techniques that many ex-twi'ers should find familiar. This is one of them.] ============================ www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/page__st__120 Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two. He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text. Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning". www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/ Number 9 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels. In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels. ================================================= [so, what does that mean? It means that vpw was completely wrong on this. A) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime was for our learning. Therefore, the Gospels were for our learning. This fails because Genesis-Malachi were written aforetime. The Gospels were written after Pentecost and concurrently with the Epistles. So "written aforetime" doesn't apply to the Gospels, making them as relevant to Christians as the Church Epistles. vpw made a simple mistake that any Divinity School student should be able to avoid, let alone a supposed graduate. (Some people keep calling him some sort of "Dr" but he should be above elementary mistakes if he really was one.) B) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime was for our learning. Therefore, it's not for our doctrine, it's merely something we may learn from, and it wasn't addressed to us. This fails because vpw once again ignored an error in the KJV and based a doctrine on it. The phrase "for our learning" contains the word "learning", which is translated (poorly) from the Greek word "didaskalia." That's the same word consistently translated "doctrine" elsewhere in the Epistles. So, that sentence should read that what was written aforetime was "for our DOCTRINE." So, that verse didn't address the Gospels at all, and if it did, it would make the opposite point vpw claimed it made. The Bible is a united whole, so it's all profitable for the Christian, for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. ]

The word "research" was redefined by lcm. For those who aren't aware of it, lcm's academic credentials was his Bachelor's Degree in Psychology, and riding the bench on the football team. lcm declared (with no justification) that "research" meant the same as "re-search" or "search again", and that instead of academic "research", we were supposed to reread twi materials and whatever vpw said. I'd have to check my syllabus from the "Renewed Mind" class, however. I'm having the impression that it came up in that as well, and that Walter endorsed this foolishness long before lcm hit his "fog." ======================= https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Research "Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories, usually using a scientific method." www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research "Definition of RESEARCH 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject " www.experiment-resources.com/definition-of-research.html "In the broadest sense of the word, the definition of research includes any gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge." "Reading a factual book of any sort is a kind of research. Surfing the internet or watching the news is also a type of research. Science does not use this word in the same way, preferring to restrict it to certain narrowly defined areas. The word ‘review’ is more often used to describe the learning process which is one of the underlying tenets of the rigid structures defining scientific research. THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question. Finding a definitive answer is the central goal of any experimental process. Research must be systematic and follow a series of steps and a rigid standard protocol. These rules are broadly similar but may vary slightly between the different fields of science. Scientific research must be organized and undergo planning, including performing literature reviews of past research and evaluating what questions need to be answered. Any type of ‘real’ research, whether scientific, economic or historical, requires some kind of interpretation and an opinion from the researcher. This opinion is the underlying principle, or question, that establishes the nature and type of experiment. The scientific definition of research generally states that a variable must be manipulated, although case studies and purely observational science do not always comply with this norm. "

Sorry, George, you can't make 19 guesses at once. Wikipedia puts that at 20 Dracula movies if you count "Nosferatu" as one.

That is not the name of the movie I'm quoting. And the movie I'm quoting is better-known than that.

"I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." "Civilization, and syphilization, have advanced together." "Yet, we may still save her precious soul. But, not on an empty stomach! Jack!" "Yes, sir?" "Ah! I starve! Feed me!" "There is much to be learned from beasts." "Was she in great pain?" "Yes, she was in great pain. Then we cut off her head, and drove a stake through her heart, and burned it, and then she found peace."

I'd like to point out, for those who missed it, that Broken Arrow was speaking of people who included PhDs with Doctorates in relevant fields, and THOSE are the people who use sound reasoning and logic in this instance. I'd add they also use EVIDENCE. Dissent in this, in many cases, is done BY people WITH advanced degrees. ======================= On a different note, I'm familiar with a younger Christian who's getting a more conventional Christian education than any of us did in twi. He's non-judgmental (he's heard me out on many things) and yet has a level of knowledge and UNDERSTANDING of the Bible that puts him among the top echelon in ex-twi'ers. And he's still learning. (I'm judging this largely on his understanding "from the hip", when I would just bring up a passage out of the blue and he already knew all about it, including whatever "clever" point I was going to make.)

It's only easy when you know the answer. (I didn't find it easy.) Ok, next one. =================== "I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." "Civilization, and syphilization, have advanced together."

I prefer to say that "the Theory of Evolution" HAS NOT MADE ITS CASE. If it is true and correct, I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the major points that are claimed. Adherents to it tend to make "a leap of faith" and condemn the heretics who don't subscribe to it. One of the more fascinating things about the history of the idea is that it supposedly is based on Darwin's work- and Darwin has been proven WRONG on so many points. Darwin made a lot of suppositions that have been proven wrong- and it's on those suppositions that his entire framework was built! I mean, come on, the man believed in Lamarckianism! That's the thing that says that giraffes stretched their necks a lot, so their children had longer necks when they had kids. This is the same kind of thinking that says Arnold Schwarzenegger's kids should have been born all brawny and bulky. I'm open to dialoguing on what the actual evidence says, but I think it's more accurate to say that all extant theories as to "the origin of species" are as yet unsupported and unproven. I'm ok with someone presenting an argument for "Darwinism" but not ok with the presentation of it as definitive. I'm also aware that science is self-correcting. However, it can take any number of centuries before the establishment accepts one thing when it WANTS to believe something else. We had an amazingly long stretch of scientists who WANTED to believe in Steady-State, even though there was no evidence for it, and all evidence supported "the Big Bang." They found it PHILOSOPHICALLY acceptable, and the idea of an origin in space and time was so repugnant to them that they embraced a speculation with no evidence rather than truly use a scientific approach. We also had many centuries before geocentrism was rejected for heliocentrism. Personally, I think we may face centuries before this one is changed- like geocentrism- and only with kicking and screaming- like Steady State. Too many scientists take this subject PERSONALLY and approach it UNSCIENTIFICALLY as a result of their "faith". ================================ On the other hand, there are some ignorant people who are undereducated, and reject evolution because their pastor says its wrong, and not because they've truly examined the evidence, and wouldn't understand the evidence if they saw it. The earth and the universe APPEAR very old. The claims that the Earth has been around for only a few thousand years are either based on lack of understanding the evidence, or else a faith-based approach that says God made the Earth a few thousand years ago and made it so that it LOOKED very old. (I can't say He did not- the evidence supports either conclusion, but the latter is unable to be proven or disproven, as it's entirely faith-based.) Then there are the amazingly-ignorant. I missed lcm making wild claims about history, and that's a good thing. I can almost hear brain cells shutting down when I look over some of his exposition.

Uh, Meet the Parents?????

Stand and Deliver Andy Garcia the Untouchables

George was right, of course. As I said, I posted 3 different songs from the same artist. In order, they were "We Belong Together", "Donna", and "La Bamba." A lot of old fogies post here so I figured I was in good shape posting old songs since they rarely listen to songs from the 90s or later. :)

Kim Catrall Sex and the City Sarah Jessica Parker (I'm presuming they were both in the movie. I've never seen the series OR the movies.)

One episode revolved around him dying, and that was it for Kenny. We didn't see him for at least a season. Parker and Stone pointed out they wanted to work more with the ensemble, which actually was better for the stories. Then we saw him reappear one episode and he wasn't dying any more. And it was as if it never happened. (Almost. And the "almost" was, IMHO. where they should have ended the series, because once they told THAT story, there was no place to go but down.)

Ok, yet another song, same artist. If nobody posts now I know you're either not checking in or are messing with me. "Yo no soy marinero. Yo no soy marinero, soy capitan, soy capitan, soy capitan."

Ok, let's see... Q was taunting Worf. Was this the one where Riker's offered Q-type powers?

"Do you like scary movies?"

Clint Eastwood obviously, but which of his movies that I didn't see was it in? Was it "Sudden Impact"?

Well, I was going to link from Donal Logue to "Blade" but apparently we needed to move faster than that.... I thought he was responding to the movie being a cipher. (I had to look it up myself.)

"Since she left me I've never been the same 'Cause I love my girl" "Now that you're gone, I'm left all alone All by myself To wander and roam 'Cause I love my girl"

I can't post more lyrics, and I won't just drop it. So, same artist, different song. "Since she left me I've never been the same 'Cause I love my girl"

I keep wanting to post hits from the 90s or later, but you won't get them. So I went back instead to something from the '50s. Those of you who listened to music back then definitely heard this one.

"You're mine, your lips belong to me. Yes, they belong to only me for eternity. You're mine, my baby and you'll always be I swear by everything I own You'll always, always be mine."

All rules are mutually-agreed-upon conventions. So, let's try to follow them. (The "no cheating" rule is the most important one, however.) Robin Williams Dead Poets Society Ethan Hawke