WordWolf

It's been a while since we discussed AOS. I figured some people missed that lcm ripped it off of Travolta. And missed the famous "ruptured chimpanzee" review.....

I noticed Mr "I-Dont-Going-Around-Insulting-People" wasted no time on the new thread insulting me. ====== Ok, we were discussing a few of Mike's greatest hits here... ====== Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am. "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm. "So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand." Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm. "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." ====== Now, Tom Strange asked him about these "more than once" times Mike has claimed to see Jesus. Mike asked what Jesus looked like when Mike saw him. Mike then went into a lengthy obfuscation where he did everything BUT describe what Jesus looked like, and talked a lot about the "spiritual" versus the "physical". So-while refusing to say so outright- which should be trademarked by Mike, who always hated answering questions directly- Mike INSINUATED-SUGGESTED- that those times he saw Jesus it was some sort of "spiritual" seeing of him, and he didn't actually lay eyes on him in any conventional fashion, not even a normal vision. Tom also asked how Mike-who won't say HOW he saw Jesus-knows he saw the REAL Jesus and not some sort of counterfeit. Mike's reply was typical Mike. Mike pretended Tom never asked him, and instead challenged Tom to tell how HE would identify Jesus if he saw him. In all that, supposedly, the reader isn't supposed to notice that Mikecompletely dodged Tom's question, and pretended this was HIS question. Most people can see the difference, however. Then, of course, came another round of dodging. This was Mike pretending that Tom's question wasn't under discussion already, and that Tom was dodging MIKE's question, rather than the other way around. Here he goes again... You, of course, note that ALL of that was STILL to avoidanswering Tom's question. Then comes the famous "I meant to do that" also from the classic Mike playbook. Aaand, more reasons why he won't answer the question... Here's what Tom occasionally refers to as Mike requiringhis approval so that we have access to his advanced abilities. I previously claimed I didn't see them per se, and it looks like Mike's proven me wrong on that one... Here's Mike pretending to answer Tom by addressing what Tom didn't ask him... Here's Mike's "non-insults" of me while I'm just going aboutmy own business. Notice how Mike objects to others "attacking" him, but is swift to use derogatory terms in reference to me? Not even something of substance, just insults. The reader's supposed to not notice that he's using an ad hominem attack rather than substance, to hide the weakness of his "case." And here's another... Generously answering what Tom didn't ask him... Hey- he never actually got around to answering it..... Unless his entire answer was the matter of the preposition, which we DID discuss once. (Making this an old answer to a question nobody's asking him now.) So, here's what Mike said originally: "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." Here's what Mike's later claimed he meant, in an incomplete answer... "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Dr told me so. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL." So far, Mike refused to explain the "Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL" part, as in "how does Mike justify this statement?" But the first part was explained as "I know vpw was appointed as Jesus Christ's spokesman, because when I read the PFAL books, I see vpw saying that Jesus Christ appointed him his spokesman." As to JC being "VERY interested in PFAL", that statement's still unexplained...

Someone asked about the ROA. Posts about a "whorehouse" are on the top of page 7.

There was a thread, "Memories of the ROA" a while back that-I think- mentioned this. To be specific, I think Jonny Lingo hit it here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=209276 or possibly it was one of the following posts...

Acts 16:16-18. (KJV) "And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." ==== Luke 4:9-11. (KJV) "And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

Oh, he's just throwing insults and saying that to attempt to hide the fact that tl posted official doctrine that says the OPPOSITE of what he did, and that they haven't endorsed polygamy for OVER A CENTURY, Allan notwithstanding. Allan either missed that, or has decided to disregard it and post the opposite afterwards.

Yes, that was my point.

Why is it almost always the same half-dozen posters who post and display an ignorance of the topic at hand? TempleLady, please give an official citation on the subject of polygamy.

vpw himself refuted the idea that benefits were necessarily God-breathed. He pointed out how some people get a good feeling off the Psychiatrist's couch.

And in the early 90s, I spoke to one of the "left in 89" ex-twi leaders, as he brought up the subject of helping out in the local community. He was telling me this like he was bringing up this subject I'd never heard of-since HE'D never heard of it. The incredible irony of the situation: at the time he'd mentioned this, I'd ALREADY logged HUNDREDS of hours of community service, in 40-hour blocks, not counting TRAINING and other RELATED subjects, all over New York City and OUTSIDE NYC. I just didn't do it IN TWI. Of course, if leadership training OR community service was not done with their approval and at their direction- which mine wasn't, this was the first he'd heard of it- then it was some sort of dirty secret I'd been keeping. Oddly enough, at the time, one of our local denominations, at the time-and I expect now as well- had people my age also doing community service AS A GROUP. What was revolutionary to twi-actually HELPING OTHERS, or-as JESUS would put it, being their neighbor- was old hat with them. (Luke 10:27-37) To them, this "go and do thou likewise" thing was more "we should do this" than a joke illustrating the foolishness of other Christians. (i.e. "Read a verse at random, and that's your guide for the day.")

When you get a chance, PLEASE post the list. Not everybody here ever got that list. Not everybody here STILL has that list. I'll reserve my opinion until I have a bit more information.

Actually, the original poster, from what I've seen, asked this MONTHS AGO as an honest question of genuine curiousity. (It's like when I asked about that robes thing.) Someone (CK) decided to drag the thread up just so he had a place to post an insult. Once in a while, the dates on a thread are relevant.

Acts 16:16-18. (KJV) "And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." ==== Luke 4:9-11. (KJV) "And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Ok, let's see... [WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

That's faster than my way. I entered the Search menu and specified the member name and that it had to be "exact match", and usually specified a forum and a searchword. My way does have its uses, but so does Belle's.

Your peeps have responded! And here they are! :)

I'll take a wild swing, and guess that this is an extended version of some kind, of Neil Young's "Ohio."

All browsers are either based on IE or Mozilla. Opera and Firefox are both Mozilla-based, and are considered the best Mozilla-based browsers. (Maxthon's touted as the best IE browser to-date.) The main differences between free Opera (there's pay versions and ad-supported versions) and Firefox is that Opera has all the extensions "it" wants pre-loaded, and Firefox allows you to pick the ones YOU want to load. So, if you want a fast, small, lean browser, you just add a few things. If you want lots of developer gadgets, you add those. If you want lots of news and the like, you add that. And so on. BOTH are fundamentally superior to IE in terms of lean code and security. Firefox has ANOTHER advantage in that it's continually under improvement. (Last time I checked, it was on 1.0 builds, now it's up to 1.5.) They tinker with possible improvements ALL THE TIME, thus the term "NIGHTLY BUILDS". Further, when a security flaw is detected, a patch is generally released within 2 days. (And that's not often.) Compare that to IE. When one flaw was announced to IE, they did NOTHING about it for MONTHS. When the Federal Government then made a suggestion that users consider using another browser until it was fixed, IE suddenly had a fix in 3-4 days. Me, I'd keep a version of IE handy as a backup, and use Firefox most of the time. I'd say "never use IE", but sometimes you need to access a Microsoft site-like for updates- and some sites were never standards-compliant, so the lazy designers just made them IE-compliant.

We have something called "the in-ter-net." We can use it 24/7 (that means 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, or "always", to look up anything we want. If we wanted to know what any church teaches, we can find the reference in less than a minute. (Or less than 10 minutes for some of us.) So, it was always "out in the open", but some of us who cared were too lazy to look it up. If they said that Allan was born less than 50 miles from a whorehouse,would that make a kind of sense as well? Hey-you were the one who said geography meant anything.... I'm sure templelady is aware of the perspective from which she's posting, and you are posting. So are the rest of us, and, so far, if all of Christianity was divided between "templelady's church" and "allen's church", and I had to pick one, I'd say I like hers a lot better. I can pass on the unfounded attacks and rudeness when I'm looking for people who claim to represent God. In fact, having been there and done that, I've no desire to go there and do it again. ======== As for the rest of you, if you see benefit in this thread and post friendly, hey, more power to you. I expect to be bowing out, but my conscience bade me make that post. (I reserve the right to return if attacked.)

Actually, I expected that your fundamental dishonesty would cause you to see NO DIFFERENCE between the two. So, I shall spell it out so that you have NO EXCUSE. See, Templelady minds her own business. Then Allan comes along and says "templelady believes in selling children!" Then templelady responds, with a quote from an official source saying "we deplore the vile practice of selling children! Sincerely, Manchester Jones." Then Allan comes along with "so you always believe what Manchester Jones says is equivalent to Scripture!" So, here was the process (spelled out for Mike's benefit.) 1) templelady minds her own business 2) Allan attacks templelady by making unfounded accusations about her beliefs 3) templelady responds by proving Allan's accusation was unfounded 4) Allan ignores that he was proven wrong and skips apologizing for his rude behaviour in step 2. He pretends the discussion just started and that he is given carte blanche to just attack anything she says, then he finds something, and makes any accusation he feels like, skipping any process like "logic" or anything along those lines. So, when this is pointed out, of course, Allan is unapologetic. (Might even be said to pretend it was never pointed out.) Now, let's compare this to Mike, since Mike is under the delusion that some comparison can be made. 1) Mike-rather than minding his own business, comes along and infects EVERY thread he can find a pretext to with his belief-system. His entire purpose for being here IS his belief-system. He continues this until the staff stops him to a degree. To make this simple (for Mike), is this what templelady did in Step One? No-she was minding her own business. 2) Mike now has entire threads dedicated to his belief-system. He's determined to keep using the GSC as his podium as long as he's permitted to. So, Mike posts his material, and others, seeing it as unrepresentative of reality, incorrect, and error-ridden, REPLY to his posts. To make this simple (for Mike), is this what happened in Step Two with Allan? No-Allan went out of his way to OPEN an attack on templelady, whereas Mike-who has already passed judgement on all the other posters-has presented his beliefs, which he asserts are superior to the beliefs of all other posters. Those beliefs-and those posts- are challenged the same as they would be ANYPLACE IN CYBERSPACE. (The exception being that Mike would have earned a kickban years ago on any OTHER board.) 3) Mike replies-usually-by calling his responders "unfit workmen" "crybabies" "a busload of bozos" and other terms that suggest they did not document their positions, and that Mike was somehow superior. He sometimes responds with responses to little points cherry-picked from larger posts with ironclad documentation. (Example: Mike said once that the "LAW" of believing was being misrepresented. So I myself included a LENGTHY set of quotes from the Blue Book. I then grouped the list of relevant sub-quotes FROM what I posted directly underneath for easy reference. (Look up, you see EVERYTHING, look down, you see the sentences that we discussed. Simple AND complete.) Mike's immediate response to the post? "Wasn't that set of quotes from PFAL great?" Several pages later, Mike made a reference to the same post, and claimed it was just a list of several sentences isolated from their context. This was true if you looked at the later list- but COMPLETELY IGNORES A PAGE-WORTH OF QUOTES DIRECTLY ABOVE THEM which gave their entire context. Honest reply to my post? Hardly. Then Mike keeps comparing himself to the lone voice crying in the wilderness, and the rest of us-quoting the Bible and quoting vpw's books and quoting vpw ABOUT his books, all showing that there's no comparison between the Bible and vpw's books, as unfit researchers. Again-in deference to Mike-I'll make this simple. Is that what happened to tl in Step 3? No-she simply responded to the unfounded attack that one poster went out of his way to make out of the blue. For Mike, let's see what a Step 4 looks like. Actually, I already outlined it- he misreads replies to him, attacks the character of the posters, and generally pretends he's the sole logical poster when his approach REQUIRES one ABANDON logic to even seriously consider it-as Mike himself has admitted. Was this what tl does? No. Other than Allan, she seems fine with the beliefs and the posts of everyone else here. tl doesn't mind that others disagree with her, and that she disagrees with others. She NEVER started threads saying "my position is the sole truth from God and all of you best agree with me!" Mike, however, exists entirely on such threads. Can a FAIR comparison be made between Mike and templelady? Hardly. Mike comes here to instigate and to prostelytize. templelady comes here to discuss, and NOT to prostelytize. Can a FAIR comparison be made between Allan and WordWolf? Hardly. Allan goes out of his way to instigate attacks against templelady. WordWolf waits until Mike has posted error before replying- and that with substance and logic- and even then, not ALWAYS replying to Mike. (Don't believe me? Check the CURRENT Mike thread and count how many pages-total-WordWolf has replied on.) ====== So, to summarize-to make this simple, in deference to Mike- For Mike to compare himself to a lady who is attacked out of the blue, and to compare the churl who goes out of his way to instigate attacks to people who reply to posts that Mike VOLUNTARILY has instigated- misrepresents himself, his message, his detractors, the lady, and her posts. It is ungentlemanly of him to suggest there's a comparison, and wrongs the lady. It is dishonest, as it ignores the differences that show one's nothing like the other. It is tacky, since he went out of his way to attempt to draw attention OFF the churlish behaviour of her attacker to try to imply that he was doing the right thing when he did the online equivalent of ambushing her. Repeatedly. In short, Mike's attempt to shoehorn in a similarity to himself and templelady is ungentlemanly, dishonest, illogical, and tacky. So, any later attempts to cut-and-paste my reply will have all the dishonesty of his isolations of individual sentences from entire books of vpw, claiming that didn't completely distort THEIR meaning. It's typical, dishonest Mike, which means I'm expecting him to do it eventually. (Which I would have even if he hadn't replied- except I expected him more to suggest it rather than cut-and-paste.) But, hey-that's Mike, so, whatever. =========== BTW, it is churlish to go out of one's way and instigate attacks on a poster's beliefs, on threads that had NOTHING TO DO with their beliefs. That's what happened here, and-if Mike meant to draw attention FROM it- I beg to differ.

Now that you've joined the ranks of us Firefox users, you'll discover that you can dramatically increase the fun by adding "EXTENSIONS." Those are add-ons to the browser that add all kinds of useful or fun things. Here's some of my personal favourites, and what they do. (Hit Tools->Extensions->Get More Extensions for the Extensions site.) IEView. This will allow you to open a page in IE that isn't working so well in Firefox. Nuke Image & NukeAnything. This allows you to click on an image or anything, and remove it from the displayed page on the screen. (This also affects any printout of the page as well.) AdBlock. Allows you to click on an ad and tell the browser never to display it. It's great avoiding blinking ads. Fasterfox. It allows you to tweak settings to speed up the performance of the browser. PDFDownload. Helps with downloads of PDFs. :) OpenDownload. Helps with normal program downloads. FlashGot. Helps with downloading Flash videos. Also adds a button to start Flash videos on the video (so it doesn't just start when IT feels like it.) ImageZoom. Allows you to "zoom" in on images. :)

Actually, since her DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you- you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack- I don't see why she should entertain endless permutations of your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything, it's ALWAYS an attack on her beliefs. That's dishonest, ungentlemanly, and tacky. But hey, that's you, so whatever.

The idea that we invaded Iraq for reasons involving OIL, thereby shedding U.S. blood, isn't that far-fetched and has some weight. The idea that we invaded Iraq because Dubya had something personal out for Hussein and Iraq, thereby shedding U.S. blood, isn't that far-fetched and has some weight. I'm sure there's other possible reasons as well. You pick that one as the MOST viable reason for invasion, and that's the ENTIRE rationale for your statement?