WordWolf

Scourging alone produces some horrific damage. It won't KILL you as fast as it MUTILATES you, because it's designed primarily to TEAR SKIN and not PENETRATE FLESH so much. But being horribly beaten, at the time, was not as isolated as some people think or portray. (Not COMMON, but not unknown.) I came across some references a number of years back concerning their gladiator games. Some of them were man to man, weaponless combat, which is no less brutal for using fists rather than swords. Leather caps were instituted later to preserve ears from being bitten off. Anyway, one poet wrote of a fighter who came home so brutally beaten up that his own dog didn't recognize him. Whether literally true or not, the concept was at least feasible to them at the time.

Last I heard, twi owns the house where he lives, and he either lived with or currently lives with a twi doctor, who could keep an eye on him if needed. If they're laundering some cash and handing it to him in an envelope, we haven't seen proof of it. Perhaps some GSCer can get some video of it and put it on YouTube or something. THEN we'd have something on the subject.

I've been waiting until I had something to add before responding. All I can say is, Every time I think I've read the WORST thing vpw or twi people have ever done, someone else posts something WORSE that they were an eyewitness to.

The name Kivas Fajo is coming to mind here....

Gee, and I'd hoped Mike might have grown beyond this when he stopped shoehorning it into every thread. Mike, continue to derail this thread and I will start replying to your posts.

I'll save some time. He's referring to the "militant atheist" position that all religious belief is grounded in delusion and deception, whether self-deception or deception of other, and that society would be better served by eliminating all religion. It's different from what we were discussing on the rest of the thread, but you did ask.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/bloodymary.asp

I don't know THAT page, but if you go to YouTube and type in "ghost car ad" in the search bar, you'll get another screamer.

I still can't beat "If you're really Goths, where were you when we sacked Rome?" Then of course, there's Gallagher's observations. "Why do they call it a 'bust' when it stops just short of the thing it's named after? Shipments go by truck, cargo goes by ship, you wear a PAIR of panties but only ONE bra. Why is it called a television SET when there's only one of it?"

I was just coming back with another quote, too..... Yes, that was a quote from the Argument sketch of "MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS." Go ahead, wasway, your turn. You can post it right after you finish leaping from tree to tree as they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia.

Ok. It sounded like you WERE. Oh. Well, you could have just said that. "I find the jokes about vpw's plastic eye in poor taste, etc" I'd still disagree about removing the posts, but I'd agree they might be in poor taste. I'd keep them in anyway because that's one price for freedom in posting. When I find something in poor taste but not factually incorrect and not abusive, I just skip over it. Some people vented some anger concerning his many evils by making some statements I would not have made. I don't say they were necessarily wrong to do so, just that it doesn't match my taste. (snip) No, I can't. I also can't say John Wayne Gacy was evil through and through. He was considered by some to be a pillar of his local community, was a member of the Jaycees, and entertained children as a clown. He also was a serial killer, and killed a bunch of kids. That's the type of person you lock up for life or give a death sentence so they can't harm innocents anymore. Similarly.....

If you were asserting that the text illustrates it, I'd disagree. However, you're asserting you have an opinion. You are entitled to any opinion you wish, so I'm not going to bullyrag you on it. (Besides, I'd only repeat earlier posts, and you can read those anytime you wish.) So, are you asserting that, in your opinion, every perversion known to the Roman soldiers at that time were performed on Jesus in that instance?

My interactions with them have tended to be more laissez-faire, types, that is, they didn't judge me nor want my judgement. Other than that, they've been cordial, and occasionally evidenced notable mutual respect.

"I've had enough of this." "No, you haven't." "Oh, shut up."

"We're the Warner Brothers!" "Like the studio?" "Not really, but we don't have any choice..." Yakko, Wakko, and Dot Warner, the principal characters on "Animaniacs"- along with Pinky and the Brain, Goodfeathers,(pigeons that were "connected" and worked for the Godpigeon) Mindy and Buttons, (a demented Lassie ripoff) Rita and Runt (the musical numbers with a singing cat and slow-witted dog), and a few others. When they were dressed as Musketeers, they reminded Slappy Squirrel of a young Yippy, Yoppey, and Yahooey.

This was another of the "everything's about sex and the sex organs" teachings that twi floated...

As we saw, lcm said it, but the evidence is against him....

Nice try at changing the subject. YOU claimed there were exagerrations on this thread. More than once. I said to find them, even ONE. I noticed you've neither found one nor apologized for mistakenly claiming there WAS one. Instead, calling your "bluff" gets some names thrown at me. However, we've played this game before and can clearly see an attempt to change a subject and throw up a smokescreen. In other news, all the self-deprecating names you've aimed at yourself and placed in my mouth impress very few people here. However, it's a lot easier just to do that than to "call my bluff" (if I'm actually bluffing), and read around and see what vpw did, and why so many people lost all respect for him. "The man's dead." I agree. "Remove the posts." I DISagree, and gave my reasons. Pretending there's neither reason nor cause to make the posts or keep them up does not actually make reasons or causes vanish.... And if you think MY POSTS are "heated", you would have been slain dead in your tracks by a tongue-lashing from vpw if you were "privileged" enough to know him privately rather than just by his own carefully-managed public image. Compared to vpw and all those he trained personally, I'm an amiable sheepdog.

I'm really trying to give anyone else a chance to jump in here....

CORRECT! The idea was that the Stardates suggest this episode comes after the one where the Bynars "upgrade" the holodeck, and that's why this glitch happened. Did you catch the Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre homages in the episode? I'm also thinking the mysterious item Dixon Hill was supposed to have found was a statue of a bird..... I was going to add a quote about the aliens that had to be greeted in a few hours, to try to make this a bit fairer. And yes, he "lost a bet" and was wearing his Starfleet uniform. But the episode IS "the Big Goodbye." Are you warming up for a trivia contest or anything, perchance?

vpw taught the same at ROA '79, the next-to-last night, on "Believing:Hebrews 11". He taught that Hebrews 11:35 "Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:" meant- and you can easily see this is incorrect with a read on your own- that the "deliverance" they didn't accept was deliverance given by God, and that the "that they might obtain a better resurrection" meant they "got tired of the fight, quit believing and died." This is such an obvious mistake that even cg taught this verse correctly in "God's Roll-Call of Honour", tape one of PFVCL. I shall explain in my OWN words and understanding. The deliverance they didn't "accept" was the acquiescence to their torturers, a cooperation with their captors. They remained faithful even to the degree of becoming martyrs. Like when Shadrach, Mesach, and Abed-nego said "Since you asked, our God is able to deliver us from your furnace, but even if He doesn't, we STILL won't worship your gods, o king." In their case, they were rescued by God, others were not, and proved faithful regardless, and by remaining faithful obtained a better resurrection, which is yet to come, though their flesh rests in hope of that day yet to come. The only part I agree with vpw on there is that there's 2 resurrections, one of which is better than the other.

Yes- besides saying the Roman soldiers raped/molested Jesus, they said the Philistines raped/molested Samson, and that the oath of swearing on the thigh meant grabbing the guy's eh- "family jewels". A while back, I got a bee in my bonnet about those, and started threads on them. "Oath-hand under thigh" was discussed here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=243557 "Were Samson and Jesus molested" was discussed here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=243931 Something I'd like to point out here is that when some posters questioned why some of us cared enough to give our best attempt to learn what the Bible ACTUALLY said on the subjects, I said the following, after my general comments about finding answers:

Ok, I'll take you up on your "challenge." Find me an exaggeration on this thread. Please be specific, quote the poster exactly, and leave the quote-tags intact so it links back to the original post and proves it actually said that. Then we can see if it WAS an exaggeration or not. vpw needed to do the right thing-and he often did not, and that often involved his bed- and often it did not. THAT was not only "not right", it was obscene and vile. Once one actually is AWARE of the desecrations of his office, the felonies performed by vpw himself on his fellow Christians for whom Christ died, a little outrage is more than warranted. Meanwhile, the right thing for YOU to do is find out who vpw actually WAS. Here's a hint- it wasn't who he portrayed when the microphones were on and the cameras were rolling- which you and I both thought. I was quite surprised to read the accounts of eyewitness after eyewitness after eyewitness.