WordWolf

As it turns out, I was just thinking of a movie, and I don't think we've done it yet. (At least not recently if we have.) "We'll be staying with Uncle Abram!!!!!!!" "'We'll be staying with Uncle Abram', 'We'll be staying with Uncle Abram', the whole world has to know our business!!!!"

For those arriving late, I shall enable the Help files for this one. Mike will consider ANY discussion to the errors in his doctrine to be attempts to "force" him to change, or being like lcm. Mike will refuse to even seriously consider the possibility his doctrine is wrong and nearly everyone else is right, period. Mike thinks that-since we don't embrace Mikean doctrine- that we all need his help, and that any discussionof the flaws in the Mikean doctrine are "bullying". Mike has indeed "DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO" the Mikean doctrine. Mike will make ANY sacrifice for his Mikean doctrine. When the insides of the books ARE the details of all that went wrong, Mike will then desperately "dodge" and "distract" and "never admit an error is an error." (Those are DIRECT QUOTES from Mike, BTW. He's since regretted admitting that he uses these strategies. He hasn't regretted USING them, however. And if someone else OPINION disagrees with Mike's OPINION, Mike has a problem with that.If someone else introduces FACTS that disagree with Mike's OPINION, Mike has a BIG problem with that, thus "dodge" and "distract". For those who arrived late, Mike's not the usual poster. On vpw, Mike's said he "had an overabundance of brains and brawn", was "OVERgifted" and "when he walked, the earth shook." On the Orange Book, Mike's said that "when Jesus returns, he will be holding a copy of the Orange Book and be teaching you from it." For those of you who, like myself, think he HAD to be joking and making a joke on himself, he said he was "Quite serious. I've seen him this way more than once." There's other quotes, but basically, he considers the modern Bibles to be devoid of any usefulness, and devoid of Godly authority. For nearly 2000 years, there was no book with any real Godly authority. Then, in 1942 and the years following, God-who bypassed centuries of Godly men-selects vpw as THE man to send forth His message to the people, writing the greatest Godly documents for nearly 2000 years. Oh, and Mike, please remember that I could make a MUCH more emphatic "case", but I'm taking it easy on you in this post. Gee, Mike's misinterpreted something he's read. Who would have guessed? Mike, if you agree to answer plainly the questions by-and communicate directly and clearly with this poster with whom I have no communication and know nothing about, I will cooperate by staying out of the discussion entirely for at least a week, longer if it seems profitable for the discussion for me to do so.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...160&hl=card The wonderful blessing in our lives known as Pawtucket..... Paw has provided a place for us to speak the truth and hear the truth. Paw allows us the freedom to heal at our own pace and in our own words, even when it means we squabble, yell, throw things and smack each other. (Within a few distant limits.) This places a greater burden on Paw, since he must occasionally pull apart kids who want "a good fistfight", and let things sort themselves out or eventually step in once there's a loud brawl going on. This is generally a thankless job, and Paw keeps on with it without uttering a peep of complaint, and shoulders the great FINANCIAL burden of the bandwidth and so on without being pushy and asking for a reasonable set of donations, let alone a stipend for the "work" he does maintaining things here. So, this one goes out to Paw. Paw, I thank my God on every remembrance of you.

A salesman was interviewed sometime after the Heaven's Gate cult all committed mass suicide. He said they had bought a high-power telescope from his store, and then brought it back for a refund. They complained it wasn't powerful enough to show the spaceship following the comment. He just processed the refund and let it go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult) "Heaven's Gate was the name of an American religious group led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The group's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced thirty-eight followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_religion "Members reportedly believed themselves to be aliens, awaiting a spaceship that would arrive with Comet Hale-Bopp. The suicide was undertaken in the apparent belief that their souls would be transported onto the spaceship, which they thought was hiding behind the comet. They underwent elaborate preparations for their trip, including purchasing and then actually wearing matching shoes; for a time, group members lived in a darkened house where they would simulate the experience they expected to have during their long journey in outer space. Heaven's Gate surfaced again in 2006 with another group of converts entitled "Heaven's Gate: The New Generation".

"Darling, you've got to let me know"

Ah, 80s rock! This is Billy Idol's "REBEL YELL." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_yell

Any chance this Doctor is Doctor Doolittle?

A) We can't have WTH actually admitting to a mistake, can we? It has to have been an INTENTIONAL error.... B) I saw it in the other post. However, if I responded to every single instance of something wrong, WTH would be furious and insist I was picking on him. Instead, I use most of my time more productively. (I let it slide, and that's no exagerration and no lie. I'm sure WTH will claim I didn't see the first one, but if so, he will be mistaken.) When he decided to make a significantly-lengthed post on it-especially one that included misinformation- I made a note to respond to it as soon as was convenient. (I didn't drop everything and respond.) So, all of WTH's speculation as to why I responded to a post several paragraphs long, when I left alone one that was 2 sentences long, was all incorrect. If he'd used Occam's Razor (and used it CORRECTLY), his first guess would probably have been the correct one. Sadly, he's still trying to make the case that pfal was correct in using a word incorrectly, and willing to torture the English language and make elaborate, empty, circumlocuitous posts to do so. He's certainly free to do so. He's also free to think he's actually fooling someone. And to think he'll get some sort of "atta boy" for doing so. Technically, he'll get the last, but from other posters who do the same, not from the only one whose opinion truly counts.//

FOR SHAME! HOW DARE THE ADVOCATES OF FAITHFULNESS TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF VPW SO DISTORT WHAT HE WROTE! Here is what pg-65 and 66 say in the Orange Book: "Every time 'all' appears, one must ask himself what the word 'all' means, because in the Bible the word 'all' is used in one of two ways: it is either all without exception or all without distinction." [italics courtesy of vpw!] "All without distinction means everyone in a certain designated class or group. If one wrongly considers the word 'all', he will never rightly understand the Word of God or get its full impact. John 12:32 And I {Jesus}, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Is that all without exception or is it all without distinction? The answer is obvious. We know that not everybody in our community is a Christian; therefore not all without exception have been drawn to Him. All who have believed, all without distinction, are the ones who have been drawn." Mind you, the double-bind is that vpw was WRONG in his explanation. We know that because he gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book. If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here, since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error, and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books. This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive. However, right now we're discussing what he actually SAID in the Orange Book, which was incorrectly quoted. This is a prime example where SOME of us add additional meanings to what we read. What the Orange Book says is NOT "Now that's what you're going to say...." It says at the bottom of pg-90 and into pg-91: "When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand the Word of God? People are constantly reading into it. Our minds project rather than read. It is basic that we read what is written. II Timothy 3:17 does not say 'thoroughly', it says 'throughly'. You may ask, 'What is the difference?' You see, I can wash hands thoroughly, but I cannot wash my hands throughly." There's nothing of him saying "Now that's what you're going to say" or "people still think these words mean the same thing today." Someone can think he wrote that, but that is a failure to read what is written. When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand it? Adding words, changing words is not reading what is written-it is what vpw called 'private interpretation.' Finally, let's address this unsupported assertion: "Perhaps they do [mean the exact same thing] in our modern-day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God." I'm glad we all agree that the modern words "thoroughly" and "throughly" mean the same thing, which pretty well eliminated the claim in the first place. However, someone's rather insistent on trying to find excuse after excuse not to learn better after reading an error. So, I'll go the extra mile (or at least a few meters.) Is there some sort of special meaning of "throughly" in the Word of God, such that it means an internal, an "inside job"? It's the Greek word "exartizo". Exartizo, when used IN the Word of God, carries the following meanings, in the following passages... (And these are ALL the other passages it's used in....) II Timothy 3:17 (the passage under discussion) KJV 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. NASB 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Acts 21:5 KJV 5And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed. NASB 5When our days there were ended, we left and started on our journey, while they all, with wives and children, escorted us until we were out of the city After kneeling down on the beach and praying, we said farewell to one another. Bullinger said, of II Timothy III:17, that it means "to fit out or equip fully, to be put in perfect readiness for, complete." (Definition of "furnish" pg-313, Greek Lexicon.) So, there is NOTHING in God's Word, concerning the word "exartizo", that either states, suggests, or implies that it is an INTERNAL or INSIDE JOB. (How did the disciples complete an INSIDE JOB on the calendar before leaving that city? Please spare me the wild rewriting of the English language or the sophistry it would take to change the meaning....) === In short, this post managed to misrepresent what the Bible said, while misrepresenting what vpw said AT THE SAME TIME. Quite a remarkable accomplishment....

He LEFT, reason unstated. The Greek word for what he did is "apostanta", from the same root word as "apostasia." Now, all ex-twi who believe in a "Gathering Together" before the Last Days, the Wrath, etc. should be able to tell you that they believe "apostasia" should properly be translated "departure." The word ITSELF literally means "moving away from" (stasia is movement, apo is the away from part.) Therefore, he LEFT. Rendering LEAVING as "DESERTION" or "QUITTING" is to add meaning and connotation that are not in the word "LEFT". This is what vpw referred to as "private interpretation."

I'm no expert, but there's 3 types of things you mentioned. A) things to numb the pain B) things to kill germs/infection C) things that do neither Please note the following on honey, pulled off the top of its wikipedia page: "Most micro-organisms do not grow in honey because of its low water activity of 0.6.[4] However, it is important to note that honey frequently contains dormant endospores of the bacteria Clostridium botulinum, which can be dangerous to infants as the endospores can transform into toxin-producing bacteria in the infant's immature intestinal tract, leading to illness and even death[5] (See "Precautions" below)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey There's interesting information under "modern use of honey" and "precautions". AFAIK, things to kill germs/infection, useful as they are, don't address the pain itself. So the amoxicillin (penicillin) you took was important, but didn't stop the immediate pain. Tylenol 3 is a stronger version of over-the-counter Tylenol. Mixing that with a DIFFERENT pain reliever worked for you, but I don't know if a doctor would have recommended mixing them like that. (At that moment, I'm sure you didn't care, though.) Vinegar/salt water would have been attempts to kill germs, hyodrogen peroxide, too. The Aleve/ibuprofen/acetominophen are the most directly effective things you took. Exedrin is an aspirin, but that's not so effective against pain that's not directly to the head, from my own experience. (I didn't try anything else until aspirin was ineffective against the pain of an injury.) Anbesol is a topical pain reliever. I'm a little surprised it was useless, but apparently it's not meant for pain as large as you were having. The alcohol-drinking falls in the "pain reliever" category, but only until you sober up. Mixing it with even over-the-counter drugs is NOT recommended. Although, I THINK, penicillin products are OK to drink with.

Here's what I do. If I only know part of the lyrics, I Google those in quotes, with the word "lyrics". In this case, that would have been "lyrics" "you can talk to me" If I know the artist, I add the artist's name, like "lyrics" "beatles" "you can talk to me". If I know the title and part of the song, but not the artist, I put that... "lyrics" "beatles" "you can talk to me." If I know the title and artist: "lyrics" "beatles" "hey bulldog" Please note that doing that to get an answer for this thread is cheating. If I'm posting the song, however, I should look it up so I know I'm putting the right words up. I should also check if more than one artist did the song. For example, when I posted the Smiths' "How Soon is Now?", someone posted the artist as "Everclear." I checked. Sure enough, Everclear did a cover of the EXACT same song. So, their answer was correct. If you go to YouTube, and put the title and artist's names in quotes, you often can find the song. Even if the artist never made a video of it, sometimes a fan has done so, using footage of the artist, or related footage, or something. I've found a number of songs like that. It's an easy way to pass along a song to someone-by passing along the link. Please note 2 things: A) NEARLY every song I've ever heard can be found this way. I know of songs that can't be found like this. I'd say 99% of all songs I've ever heard can be found this way. B) Just because a set of lyrics is posted doesn't mean every word is CORRECT. When I'm unsure, I check a few results, and note the differences. (And some pages copy the WRONG lyrics from other pages.) Every once in a while, I look for the lyrics to the old cartoon show "the Groovy Ghoulies." So far, I've never found a single hit that has the CORRECT lyrics.

"Hey, Bulldog", by 4 guys from Liverpool with funny haircuts. The movie "Yellow Submarine" originally had a scene with this song, which more recent released of it include. Thanks, waysider. I was wondering if I was going to have to post most of the song.

If you stick around, you'll see plenty of examples of both, and can decide which is easier.

"Some think that happiness is measured out in years. You don't know what it's like to listen to your fears." "Some kind of solitude is measured out in you. You think you know me but you haven't got a clue." "You can talk to me. You can talk to me. If you're lonely you can talk to me."

Not a bad idea. Myself, I'll stick to the GIMP. http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ You have to download GTK+ and GIMP, but it's stable, does a lot, and it's free. There's versions for Mac and Linux, too.

Do I believe the Bible? Yes. Do I regret spending time learning about it? No. Do I appreciate some of the time I spent in twi, in that I believe I learned about it at that place and time? Yes. Do I wish I could have learned the same stuff from someone without an agenda to advance personal lusts, like, say, BG Leonard or Peter Wade, or the House of Acts? HELL YEAH. The time I spent learning the slang words for body parts, the time others spent listening to vpw go into how important his family was, those were wastes of time. And the times I heard vpw state the HALF-TRUTH (LIE) that meant you could "do as you fool-well please" were times I was set up for doctrines that later would have been introduced that opposed Scripture directly- like "God's ok with adultery" and so on. This really isn't that difficult to understand.

Nothing like the old-fashioned "bait-and-switch" to bring back memories of twi. This is pretty simple. In the beginning, the corps were TOLD they were to complete their training, then had the OPTION of assignments after that. Whether or not they took on official assignments, they were corps grads (corps vets), and now had training they could use at their discretion. Does that mean I'm saying "they expected to take that training and could then leave and do WHATEVER THEY WANTED with it?" No, that is a distortion based on things nobody said. What corps-grads (most if not all) expected to do was to go in with their lives, now trained by twi and expected to apply what they learned, both in their lives and in twi. What does that mean in a practical sense? It means they could choose to work for twi, or they could choose to have a normal life. If they chose a normal life, they would serve God where they were, and support twi where they were. In other words, a corpse grad who was from Des Moines could return to Des Moine, and do things like run a twig, or run one, then run a branch, or host pfal or other classes, or otherwise support twi in action and teaching. They made an OFFICIAL committment for the length of the program, and from then on, they were at their discretion as to how they applied it. Does that mean they were expecting to leave twi with it? Again, this is a distortion of what's simple to almost everyone. THEY were to choose what capacity they would apply this in, based on what was available for them to do and what they WISHED to do. That's fairly simple. HOWEVER, what the student expected, and what twi later demanded, were 2 different things. A few people here have pointed out they signed up-in writing-for 4 years, where they paid for the training. What they were told several weeks in, was that they were now required to serve twi for life at the discretion of twi, which meant twi could make any sort of demand on them, and they would have to find a way to accomplish it, no matter how difficult. Since they were now manipulated by peer pressure and on grounds and couldn't just say 'this is not what I agreed to in writing" due to a variety of social and psychological stigmas (it was TECHNICALLY possible but PRACTICALLY impossible), twi then had the person right where they wanted them. twi managed-through trickery, psychosocial manipulation, peer pressure, and various forms of outright lying- to get at least a PARTIAL workforce, that PAID for the PRIVILEGE of being "standby slaves" for twi, expected to be told at a moment's notice to follow the whims of twi for the rest of their LIVES. (Unless they left twi completely, which, again, should be obvious that this was declared tantamount to being worthless and fit only to die.) Did vpw actually INTEND for a group of standby slaves? That he DID should be obvious if you look at EVERYTHING he said. He told the corps grads that they were REQUIRED to take time off from work wherever they were, and come to hq to set up the grounds for ROA every year. When some people DID do that, then returned home due to obligations with family, work or others, vpw got ANGRY and insisted they were required to stay a SECOND week and work MORE to PUT ON the ROA. "He reminded everyone of the commitments that they had made regarding a lifetime of Christian service. Every corps person needs to plan ahead one year or more so that they can be a part of these events. They need to be able to be a part of ROA and corps fellowship." So, vpw intended-at least early on-that "a lifetime of Christian service" would NOT mean "serve God the rest of your life as led by The Spirit, in the context of twi", but rather "serve God the rest of your life as defined by whatever vpw and twi tells you God's Will is."

I shall try to explain. You (like me) didn't have a traumatic twi experience, AFAIK. For US, the problems that needed to be addressed were more doctrinal than anything else- as well as learning that some things were were told were outright lies. Some of the "doctrine" was in how to treat people, and how to treat leadership (who, oddly enough, ARE people), and how to treat the Bible and other books. That takes some time to correct. Every once in a while, I STILL find some subject come up, and discover that vpw or someone else made up some gonzo explanation of something, and only the "thou shalt not question vpw" unwritten policy kept it from being corrected soon after it was introduced. After all, if it was from the greatest source of revelation from God in nearly 2 millenia, how could it be downright stupid? So, for you and me, the "so what" includes things that happen years later (decades, now.) For those with tougher stories, they have more fundamental things to fix- dysfunctional, learned patterns of reacting to things and so on, that can take decades to root out. Even when we know, intellectually, some things were wrong, to hear people use them ignorantly (as in ex-twi) or innocently (as in, never-been-way) can trigger hostile or otherwise bad responses. Those are obvious signs that it's more than "so what?" If this never happens to you, congratulations. It happens to lots of other people, and ranges from odd teachings through odd practices down to "Christian leaders who break the law should be allowed to do so if they have a Scriptural excuse....no, wait a minute..."

"Some think that happinness is measured out in years. You don't know what it's like to listen to your fears." "You can talk to me. You can talk to me. If you're lonely you can talk to me"

You are thinking correctly. It's also been suggested that the Borg had already been in Federation space before this, since a colony or something had had all its tech removed before, which fits the MO of the Borg when we meet them in this episode.

"Con permiso, Capitan. The hall has been rented -- the orchestra engaged -- it's time to see if you can dance." "We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished." "If you can't take a little bloody nose -- maybe you had better go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous -- with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross -- but it is not for the timid."

No, I didn't use the title as a quote. That was neither the title nor artist. ========= "You can talk to me" "If you're lonely you can talk to me"

"Con permiso, Capitan. The hall has been rented -- the orchestra engaged -- it's time to see if you can dance." "We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us. If you defend yourselves, you will be punished."