WordWolf

That's interesting. Can I look this up anywhere you have handy? (I like to corroborate this stuff.) It looks like there's suspicion on BOTH of the only 2 mentions of "prayer and fasting" in the Bible. (The other may simply say "prayer".)

Strictly speaking, he didn't QUOTE Freud, since he didn't cite a source. (He PLAGIARIZED Freud.) Ok, seriously, though.... This isn't STRICT Freud. He borrowed some FROM Freud and added it to his own neuroses to form this. Strict Freud would place castration anxiety in the framework of the Oedipal Complex. In short, Freud claimed that all boys sought to have sex with their mother, and that they saw their father as a rival, with the potential thread from that rival being his possible castration BY his father. Thus, the castration would be LITERAL, and the castrator would be the father. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration_anxiety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex It wouldn't surprise me if lcm forgot where he heard that from, and, frankly, I'd half-expect him to think he originated it, or at least claim he did. (Remember who his role-model was.)

This is right out of Sigmund Freud's silly "castration anxiety" ideas. No sensible Psychologist has considered it for the past CENTURY. As a student who had to hear it in college (he got his Bachelors in Psych), he heard this. As a major dipstick, he didn't dismiss it, but actually used it as some sort of answer for the feelings he had. (He did reformulate it a bit, since the classic version doesn't support his ridiculous ideas, but what else is new?) Besides, at the time he was saying this, he WAS effectively the puppet of women- Donna and Rosa-lie-- letting them make all the decisions, and arrange for him to get food and sex- not from either of THEM, of course, but they arranged for others to provide both. This was lcm's own neuroses and inadequacies, writ large and extrapolated to refer to ALL men and women-and not just the dysfunctional ones causing the problem. (All 3 of them were/are sick, just in different ways, IMHO.)

Deciderator: "And is there much difference to speak of between Mr. Juedes charge and those brought by TWI?" Yes. twi sued for the materials themselves-a legal issue on who owned the copyrights. Juedes wrote about plagiarism, which is independent of who owns a copyright. Furthermore, he wrote in plain English, not specifically in legal definitions. And in one place, he used the word "piracy", which has a number of meanings, some of which are legal, some of which are not. I really don't get this obsession with his single usage of the term, and insistence it fits a specific definition in a Law Dictionary it was never claimed to refer to. WordWolf: "I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one. I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning, nor meanings only referring to crimes, nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy. You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won, therefore there was no "piracy." " Deciderator: "You and I both know at this point in time, such a charge has no foundation. So let's clink glasses and agree that the charge of "piracy" is unsupported by the facts we have at this point." That just illustrated the conceptual gap I was talking about. You're still claiming twi sued on grounds related to "piracy", and pretended I agreed with this. Deciderator: "In the case at hand, apparently TWI sued over theft of intellectual property, manifested by the unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products. They failed, so there was no plagiarism! No "piracy" " There's the disconnect again. I completely agree that twi sued over supposed theft of intellectual property (still supposing all this is true, as Juedes points out-since we're sans proof) manifested by unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products. That's completely different from plagiarism. In the first case, one is reproducing and selling what is not one's legal right to do so. In the second case, one is engaging in an act of fraud-claiming the work of another is actually your own. Completely different crimes-although both may involve books. Example: Violating copyright: printing up and reselling the Orange and White Books. Plagiarism: rewriting the Orange and White Books with a different author's name. Completely different crimes-although both involve books. twi supposedly sued for the former, and supposedly lost. Nobody ever claimed to sue for the latter- so nobody even claims the court had to rule on plagiarism. You're supposing twi's case = a case of plagiarism, and a case of plagiarism = a case of piracy. You're not supporting either claim, so we're just going in circles with you asserting this "piracy" obsession has merit. WordWolf: "I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court, nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court. It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition, it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism"." Deciderator: "I think you need to check Black's Law Dictionary. There you will see "piracy" has more than one legal meaning, as you have asserted. Therefore, it would indeed be relevant to the case. The supposition that "plagiarism" and "piracy" charges would be brought are reasonable, given what we have to work with." No, they would not, and your continued assertions notwithstanding, you still have provided no basis for supposing this. Whether or not cg had legal rights for reprinting or reselling books "by victor paul wierwille" has nothing to do with whether cg later committed an act of plagiarism. Deciderator: "I know you don't want it to be so, but they fit neatly into what you and Mr. Juedes have been asserting." IF, IF, anyone ever sued cg for plagiarism- and there's still nobody even SPECULATING this except you- that would be true. It would fit the legal definition of "plagiarism". Deciderator: "No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds. None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained. Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer." You're still supposing a charge of "piracy" was ever LEVELLED. No charge of "piracy" was sustained. No charge of spitting on sidewalks was. either. Doesn't mean cg is innocent of either- since neither entered the courtroom. But it's just as fair for you to say "the courts determined cg is innocent of piracy" and "the courts determined cg is innocent of plagiarism" as it is to say "the courts determined cg is innocent of spitting on sidewalks" and "the courts determined cg is innocent of drugging women so vpw could rape them." So long as the court never ruled on any of those, any claim they found cg "not guilty" lacks merit. I really don't get what's so difficult about this. Deciderator: "It IS a crime, what we have been given about the case closely matches what Mr. Geer IS being charged with by you and Mr. Juedes and therefore it would be strange to NOT press for that charge in court." I explained this before. twi sues to make money or to intimidate. In this case, there was no money to be made suing on plagiarism- but they'd lose money pressing the suit. They care more about the money than the morals, so they don't sue. There's nothing strange about not suing when there's no way to "win." (Spending money to not get it back no matter what, not even breaking even, is "losing", even if you "won" the case.) Deciderator: "Mr. Jueds made the charge of "piracy," let him explain it in terms of what took place in court (that we have been given on the board here)" And Juedes never said "the legal definition of 'piracy' applies here", but you're insistent on putting words to that effect to his account. His usage matches other usages in plain English (I posted examples from a collegiate dictionary on this thread already.) Juedes never "made a charge of 'piracy.' Deciderator: "Basically, Mr. Juedes' case was brought by TWI's bank of high-priced lawyers and it went down like the Hindenburg. Right?" STILL wrong. twi sued for who holds the copyrights. Juedes-among other things- addressed plagiarism. twi's case went before a court-supposedly. Juedes' claims were never brought into a court. If twi brought a case, I would say that case probably DID "go down like the Hindenburg." But that case STILL has nothing to do with Juedes' comments. ========= This is why I said "I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one. I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning, nor meanings only referring to crimes, nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy. You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won, therefore there was no "piracy." This has been demonstrated, for all practical purposes, to be an impasse. Can we declare this to be an impasse and move on? I mean, Juedes is correct that none of this has even been proven, so at best it's all an intellectual exercise, pending DOCUMENTATION. So, at worst, it's a prodigal waste of time.

So, there was this guy coming off the wow field, right? And his last few days on the field, he didn't really have accomodations or anything. So, he prayed, and put it in God's hands. According to him, one prayer changed his plane ticket-the one in his hand at the time. Anyway, he gets on a plane over 24 hours before the ROA, and just figures he'll loiter in the airport for 24 hours and see if he could catch a shuttle to the ROA. As it turns out, exactly one other person on that plane was going to the ROA- especially since it was the day before it started. That person was seated right next to him. They offered him a ride to the ROA. and so on. How do I know this? I was the other person. And I watched the other people leaving the plane-they went for connecting flights once they debarked- not going for the exits.

Just going from this account, here's what I see. A) Person needs deliverance, and has no control over themself. B) Jesus just goes and casts out a demon almost instantly, sorta "from the hip". C) the demon is successfully cast out D) Jesus said the only way to cast out this type of demon is "prayer and fasting". Since we saw neither Jesus nor the demonaic praying nor fasting before the deliverance, I see that Jesus-unless lying- was saying that he prayed and fasted BEFORE THERE WAS A CRISIS. Jesus REGULARLY prayed and fasted, and as a result, was able to cast out the demon pretty fast and without ceremony. That's not the part I'm wondering about, though. I'm wondering if "and fasting" belongs in the accpunt at all, or if it was added by a well-meaning Christian who came along later.

Yes, and they got letters and things complaining about that scene. Mel Brooks said he never could accept cowboy movies where they ate beans and drank black coffee and NOBODY ever had gas...

Yes. And I had you going for a second, considering how well you old-schoolers remember it....

No, and you're not close. :)

A) Often, it's what keeps me going. B) I think the most direct reading of this is that someone expecting Christ to return at any time, with that immediacy fresh to them, they will act like they expect him to return at any time, and certainly not act like they want him to return at the moment they're doing something they shouldn't be doing- they want each moment to reflect a walk worthy of Jesus Christ's calling.

WordWolf: "Those would be, as I said, "rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them." That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target." Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking, or even if it was either of those possibilities.)" Deciderator: "Thank you for your reply and quoting what you had posted. I think we are very close to agreement here. The nuisance suit is an interesting angle, but could they sue him more than once for the same thing? Do we know they have tried that approach?" I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the only ways one can sue twice for the same thing is if: A) there was a MISTRIAL, which means the first case never finished B) new evidence has come up that justifies another case (as agreed by the judge at the beginning) C) one sued in federal court and again in civil court- but those would have to be different charges to a degree. That's why OJ was sued twice "for the same thing"- he won the federal suit for murder, and lost the civil case for "violating the civil rights" of the victims That possibility gets murky and probably needs a legal translator. ============ Deciderator: "Your above post and the quote you provided show clearly that the charge of "piracy" to be incorrect, at least in terms of what we have been given." I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one. I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning, nor meanings only referring to crimes, nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy. You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won, therefore there was no "piracy." We're just repeating the same arguments over and over on this one. It's at an impasse, and without a translator, I see this as just wasting time right now. WordWolf: "No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time. It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities. Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did." Deciderator: "Good point. Like, if he was bouncing checks to the supermarket, getting speeding tickets or jaywalking, those issues would not be a part of it. In this case, we can only guess for sake of argument in good faith as to what TWI would sue for. Would they sue just over Mr. Geer redoing PFAL, for example, but nothing else? What can we reasonably guess -for sake of argument - what TWI would sue for?" As I see it, if twi's being typical twi, they focused all their energies on all the legal rights to pfal, the tapes, and the books (including all the collaterals.) They wanted to say only THEY were the legitimate source for any of them, no matter what. twi's been concerned with "illegal classes", but-AFAIK- never seemed interested in any of the "classes" that sprang up anywhere- and there were a number- that basically cloned pfal materials under another name. These were hardly secret, either. twi just seemed disinterested in any of them- or didn't think there was a basis for a lawsuit, one or the other. (All of this supposing, for discussion, all the previous is true, of course.) WordWolf: "If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is- then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action. They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints." Deciderator: "Do you think it possible the phrase "not guilty" was heard in the courtroom?" I'm supposing there was a case, that the case was over legal rights to reproduction, sales and presentation, and that the case ended with the phrase "not guilty" being spoken in re: cg, yes. WordWolf: "If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects. (For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.)" Deciderator: "I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the charge of "piracy" were true, then Mr. Geer would not just be charged with that.Look at what's been going on. Don't you think that besides "piracy" and "plagiarism," that charges of conspiracy could be brought?" Again, I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court, nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court. It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition, it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism". It would not surprise me if twi tried to make "conspiracy" a charge. Deciderator: "How about interstate transportation of stolen merchandise? Why, that one could involve the FBI, couldn't it? If they had a strong case, in other words they could prove they had the various rights, they could take their case to a prosecutor and have Mr. Geer cuffed and stuffed, right?" Depends on what you mean. If they could make the fundamental charge stick of cg using materials THEY had rights over, THEN other RELATED charges might stick- like transporting merchandise. If they could not, then he was exercising his legal rights concerning the merchandise, and their transport was perfectly legal. I see them as potentially getting him to pay money, but I don't see this as a "throw him in prison" type of crime. (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.) Deciderator: "No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds. None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained. Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer." You're still making the supposition that "piracy" only means what you're saying it means, AND that it's a crime, AND that it entered into the events in the courtroom. (At least 3 suppositions in a row.) Expecting Juedes to conform to all those suppositions is not being fair to Mr Juedes. Like I said, I think we've reached an impasse. You're going to keep making the same statements A & B, and I'm going to keep making the same statements ~A & ~B. We can agree to disagree and just move on.

"Anything you might say has already been taken down in evidence against you." "I'm quaking, but I don't know whether it's with laughter or terror." "Straw would taste better than his meat, and water a hundred times better than his brandy. Nothing has any taste to it at all." ""No! I won't have this! I haven't dismissed you yet! Stop it! I won't have this!"

"It's amusing that the roast beef is the same price as an Oldsmobile." "I love you too... Rosenthal." "A man should be treated better than his luggage." "Yeah, well, my luggage was sucked out the door. Luckily my radio is frozen to my wrist." "You're a phony. You're a phony. Yes, you are! And you know what, you can't even sing. Your voice was dubbed." " What are you doing here?" "A very brief cameo." "Me too." "Maybe we could jump PARTWAY."

Correct- it isn't reflected in Mr Juedes' charge. In any way, including in the CHARGE. twi was suing on something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to what Juedes was talking about- at least as any court of law would see it. Please stop confusing what twi supposedly sued over (rights to duplicate books/tapes, and rights to sell books/ run classes, with what Juedes was talking about.

I'll have you know, I checked with God, and He agrees with me completely.

"Some more beans, Mister Taggart?" "I think you boys have had enough!"

Mark 9:28-30 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? 29And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. 30And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it. Matthew 17:20-22 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. 22And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: Those are the only references to "prayer AND FASTING" in the KJV. Here's Mark 9:29 in the NASB. "29And He said to them, "This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer." The fasting isn't mentioned! Before I dig in, I wanted to see what the rest of you have to say, and what your own resources show.

George Santayana. "He is perhaps best known for the oft-misquoted remark, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana One of our posters' signature reads "The lessons repeat until they are learned," which expresses much the same sentiment.

Simba: Going back means I'll have to face my past. I've been hiding from it for so long... (Rafiki whacks Simba on the head with his stick) Simba: OW! Geez, what was that for?! Rafiki: It doesn't matter! It's in the past! [chuckles] Simba: Yeah, but it still hurts. Rafiki: Oh, yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or... learn from it. (Rafiki swings his stick, but Simba ducks) Rafiki: Aha! You see? So what are you going to do? Simba: Well first, I'm gonna take your stick.

All "common sayings", especially in twi, should be examined critically. It's not unheard-of (and in twi it was COMMON) to confuse a SLOGAN for a SOLUTION or a REAL ANSWER. If someone can't even TRY to articulate an answer, that's often a sign that there either IS no answer, or no answer that sounds good (like "he drugged them so he could do whatever he wanted with them"), or they don't KNOW the answer and they're covering it up. "You're not spiritual enough to understand" ranks up with "Why do you want to know this?" for "how twi suppressed independent thinking and honest questions." And yes, some people still use it- although it's not so common in the cafe. YES. lcm claimed there was such a thing as "spiritual anger." Doing whatever you wanted and slapping the word "spiritual" in front of a noun to make it sound like God endorsed it was not unheard-of under vpw, but lcm, trained under vpw and two-fold the child of hell his teacher was, raised it to standard operating procedure. In the Bible, it's rare when a true Godly-minded person shows anger. (Except the prophets, and it was their job, and they were often getting in trouble for it.) In the church Epistles, anger is seen as a BAD thing, and there are no occurrences of the phrase "spiritual anger" in the KJV (nor any version I'm familiar with.) IF he ever gets it. twi was a place where you would supposedly get your answers at the next level up, and then it was told that it would be the NEXT level, and the NEXT level, and if you questioned THAT, it was "why do you want to know?" or "Why are you questioning the mog?" Not PHRASED that way, of course....

No it's not, and no it's not. And I agree with Phil Farrand- this "airing the trial live on tv" thing is just begging for a defendant to say something subversive on tv. (We know that was live, since the judge changed his tune as soon as he saw Sisko waiting in the wings, obviously with the evidence.) But it's not that trial.

I didn't go WOW. However, I thought I'd add a little something I picked up. If you look through the book "the way:living in love", you'll see a book that was written not long before the institution of the WOW program, and it includes some photos, which are labelled. One photo shows a WOW holding up the hand-sign for it, which, apparently, never caught on.

Once you start a thread anywhere- ESPECIALLY the GSC- you have no control over its direction. (You can ask nicely, and that's about it, unless you're the Admin.) Sometimes a thread generates no interest, and just sinks. Sometimes a thread gets a little interest-but not the kind you wanted. Sometimes a thread gets a lot of interest-but not the kind you wanted. Sometimes a thread gets a lot of interest-the kind you wanted. You'd be surprised how informative the "threads that got away from you" can be, depending on the thread. ============ Sometimes, I liken the threads to "Stone Soup." That refers to an old folktale that's made the rounds, in many variations. Here's one that refers to what I'm talking about. I got it from http://www.storybin.com/sponsor/sponsor116.shtml ======== Three soldiers trudged down a road in a strange country. they were on their way home from the wars. Besides being tired, they were hungry. In fact, they had eaten nothing for two days. "How I would like a good dinner tonight," said the first. "And a bed to sleep in," added the second. "But that is impossible," said the third. On they marched, until suddenly, ahead of them, they saw the lights of a village. "Maybe we'll find a bite to eat and a bed to sleep in," they thought. Now the peasants of the place feared strangers. When they heard that three soldiers were coming down the road, they talked among themselves. "Here come three soldiers," they said. "Soldiers are always hungry. But we have so little for ourselves." And they hurried to hide their food. They hid the barley in hay lofts, carrots under quilts, and buckets of milk down the wells. They hid all they had to eat. Then they waited. The soldiers stopped at the first house. "Good evening to you," they said. "Could you spare a bit of food for three hungry soldiers?" "We have no food for ourselves," the residents lied. "It has been a poor harvest." The soldiers went to the next house. "Could you spare a bit of food?" they asked. "And do you have a corner where we could sleep for the night?" "Oh, no," the man said. "We gave all we could spare to the soldiers who came before you." "And our beds are full," lied the woman. At each house, the response was the same -- no one had food or a place for the soldiers to stay. The peasants had very good reasons, like feeding the sick and children. The villagers stood in the street and sighed. They looked as hungry as they could. The soldiers talked together. The first soldier called out, "Good people! We are three hungry soldiers in a strange land. We have asked you for food and you have no food. Well, we will have to make stone soup." The peasants stared. The soldiers asked for a big iron pot, water to fill it, and a fire to heat it. "And now, if you please, three round smooth stones." The soldiers dropped the stones into the pot. "Any soup needs salt and pepper," the first soldker said, so children ran to fetch salt and pepper. "Stones make good soup, but carrots would make it so much better," the second soldier added. One woman said, "Why, I think I have a carrot or two!" She ran to get the carrots. "A good stone soup should have some cabbage, but no use asking for what we don't have!" said the third soldier. Another woman said, "I think I can probably find some cabbage," and off she scurried. "If only we had a bit of beef and some potatoes, this soup would be fit for a rich man's table." The peasants thought it over, then ran to fetch what they had hidden in their cellars. A rich man's soup, and all from a few stones! It seemed like magic! The soldiers said, "If only we had a bit of barley and some milk, this soup would be fit for a king!" And so the peasants managed to retrieve some barley and milk. "The soup is ready," said the cooks, "and all will taste it, but first we need to set the tables." Tables and torches were set up in the square, and all sat down to eat. Some of the peasants said, "Such a great soup would be better with bread and cider," so they brought forth the last two items and the banquet was enjoyed by all. Never had there been such a feast. Never had the peasants tasted such delicious soup, and all made from stones! They ate and drank and danced well into the night. The soldiers asked again if there was a loft where they might sleep for the night. "Oh, no!" said the townfolk. "You wise men must have the best beds in the village!" So one soldier spent the night in the priest's house, one in the baker's house, and one in the mayor's house. In the morning, the villagers gathered to say goodbye. "Many thanks to you," the people said, "for we shall never go hungry now that you have taught us how to make soup from stones!" =========== Personally, I think that's the principle that's governed Waydale AND the GSC.

Jay Leno?????

"Anything you might say has already been taken down in evidence against you." "I'm quaking, but I don't know whether it's with laughter or terror."