WordWolf

Mark, up to you, but I think WTH's latest post-although incorrect-is of a better caliber than he normally posted, which I think is a good thing. I pointed out where I think it was wrong, but I think that the digression-at least for ONE post-was worth taking. After all, it illustrated the circular logic. Actually, Oakspear figured it out long ago and posted why, at least my main reason. I also find that this exposure to flaws in reasoning and pointing them out is good practice for those times I actually need the skills. How else am I supposed to practice finding examples of ad hominem attacks and so on? Finally, the audience loves the bread and circuses. If he's supplying so much grist for the mill, how can I refrain from grinding? Pm me if you want to discuss my main reason.

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

Fine. And those of us who, in accordance with standard practices all over the internet, challenge false, error-ridden, or foolish doctrines or posts, we'll meet you there as well. Whatever cheap pot-shots you were referring to can keep company with insightful valuable insights. :)

rascal, reminiscing on the "younger days, longer nights" thread....

Well, what I said was true- That it's easy to require meaningless, obsessive-compulsive tasks be performed when someone ELSE has to do them and not YOU. The example I gave-sorting 'M & M's by colour-was one I came up with to illustrate the kind of mindless, senseless, STUPID tasks these so-called "leaders" told people to do. (I was thinking of the old story about touring rock groups and the riders that show up in their contracts.)

I am the son and the heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar I am the son and heir of nothing in particular When you say it's gonna happen "now", Well, when exactly do you mean?

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface again.]

That was the Ministry of Silly WALKS. Shame on you! It was unrelated to the Ministry of 'Running up a Flight of Stairs Two at a Time, Throwing Open a Door and Shouting Ha-ha, Caught You Mildred".' How they determined the winner on that was worth the whole skit... ====== Remember that strange job interview? "Gooood Ni-ight, ding-ding-ding." *rings bell*

At this moment, we'll be looking at an example of how Mike is either unable to read what's written, or understand what's written. ========= Here's what dmiller said, and even Mike quoted it, so we know he read it: "Having worked in the publishing industry for 15 years, I am all too familiar with edits, type-space, etc. ____CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON??? ____NO --- YOU CAN'T. SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE, OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.” ========= Now, in case some of you are as lacking in background at this subject as Mike is, I shall clarify slightly. dmiller had previously pointed one problem with Mike's approach. Mike often sets GREAT store-and can go on for pages-on the specific placement of a specific word in a specific place in something vpw supposedly wrote. He claims that-given ALL those specifics-the meaning is different than if any of those were different, and is specific beyond normal usage of the English language. HERE, dmiller pointed out one reason WHY this is ridiculous. Mike does this will all sorts of publications where vpw's words are supposedly written. However, the exact order of the words, and the specific words chosen, are NOT the original words of vpw. They are the result of the words of vpw, which were then EDITED for CLARITY, SPACE and the preferences of the editor. Even a LIGHT editing determined to retain meanings will radically change the EXACT wording of a paragraph, and NO article ANYPLACE avoids even LIGHT editing. Therefore, anyone using the Mikean method will end up setting great store on the words and their placement-and will, more often than not, spend hours and hours on the deep, hidden meaning of a word the editors were fond of using, or that fit better in the page-count. Thus, dmiller points out that Mike CLAIMS to have "originals", but instead has "edited versions" in the case of EVERYTHING written-and supposedly, that's his highest authority. (Written over taped, etc.) So, dmiller pointed out that the placements on the page, and even light editing makes Mike's methods useless. Mike does not have the original manuscripts-ever. ========= Mike's response? "In both my PT’s last year and in the thread “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” I first posted the entire article and then I went into a focus on individual use of words. Maybe you glossed over the pristine posting of the article and only focused on my analysis. I’d be happy to send you the article (actually there were two) by regular e-mail to avoid the usual charges of hogging bandwidth, sometimes by a poster who doesn’t think twice about bandwidth in his quoting every word I post and then adding his own petty remarks that constitute nothing but a useless filibuster. Your complaint of my not supplying the total article is unfounded. I can send it to you and then you will have three chances to see it without my comments interspersed." ========= The casual observer will note that Mike's response completely MISSED what dmiller was talking about. dmiller said that, by the time Mike gets an article, it has been altered beyond Mikean methods, then sent to the printers. Mike then said "that's wrong-I posted entire articles." But those articles were already altered-which was dmiller's point. Mike's either displaying his inability to read what's written, a total ignorance of the origin of the articles he's basing his life on, or desperately trying to draw attention away from dmiller's completely legitimate point. Readers may take their pick. =============== What's almost funny is the next item Mike CHOSE to respond to. dmiller said: “I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear??” ===== Mike replied: "It’s never been not clear. What is not clear is that I too do not idolize the man; I worship the True God Who gave him revelation to write to and compile for us." ========= To those arriving late, Mike is the same man who said of vpw-the man he claims not to idolize- that he was "BORN with an OVERabundance of BRAINS AND BRAWN," and that he was "gifted, even OVERgifted". He's characterized vpw-who was an unremarkable student at EVERY level of study- as exceptional even among geniuses, and has absolutely NO evidence to support this, making this a "leap of faith". He's characterized vpw-who was a fairly talented athlete at the high school level, but unremarkable at any higher level- as at the level of a professional athlete despite his never playing or being drafted by any professional team. Supposedly, vpw was an exceptional athlete-and Mike's compared him to the famous Babe Ruth and his skills. Plenty of people-not exceptional-have distinguished themselves at the COLLEGIATE level athletically, which is something vpw never accomplished. (Ever see a varsity letter in basketball for him?) Mike has claimed that his view of vpw is not idolatry. However, most other people would claim that to laud the flesh and mind of any human who is not seated at the right hand of God is idolatry- especially when wild claims are added that he had skills he never demonstrated. Mike has said of vpw that "where he walked, the earth shook." Is that idolatry? Readers may judge for themselves. ========= Mike tried to defend his "hero worship" as follows: "I’ve often been criticized by churchianity adherents that I worship Paul because I spend more time in his epistles than in the 4 gospels, but that charge too is spurious." ========== Now, Mike's spent about as much time in the church Epistles in the last few years as I've spent as a lounge singer. However, this imaginary time is being compared to with his vpw "hero worship." Now, ignoring his usual slam against normal Christians with normal Bibles, he's trying to claim there's no difference between studying the Epistles in the Bible, and claiming that where vpw walked, the earth shook. NOBODY makes such claims about Paul-who actually WAS tapped for writing assignments by God Almighty. NOBODY claims Paul was "OVERgifted." So, this is a smokescreen for "hero worship." He also sneaks in his "pfal was given by God" here: " I worship that same God who gave Paul revelation as well as to Victor Paul. " Those of you who arrived late and thought we made up his claims, there's one right there.

When you say it's gonna happen "now", Well, when exactly do you mean?

Probably the opening credits to "Holy Grail." (Or the instructions to the guards in the Tall Tower.) Although I have a soft-spot for the Cheese Shop sketch myself, and the interview of "Raymond Luxury Yacht." If you remember that one, you'll get this joke. A comic book, decades ago, had a splash page on someone's luxury yacht. If you look closely, its name was printed on the ship, "Throatwarbler Mangrove." Someone wrote a letter. "No, it's spelled 'luxury yacht'. It's only pronounced 'throatwarber mangrove'." Sometime during your life, you should see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." If you get the chance, you should also see "And Now For Something Completely Different", (which was one of their catchphrases) which is a compilation of many of their skits. (Although some-like the fresh-fruit skit, are much funnier in the original episodes, it's segueway into the Lumberjack Song can't be improved upon, IMHO.)

Sure took you long enough. That was almost 24 hours from the start of a discussion of vile activity on the part of vpw and ha and lcm, and the victims who suffered thru their predations, before you thundered in to take the emphasis off the evil premeditated actions of vpw and ha and lcm. Ok, as to your comments.. You are able to think on your own and form your own opinion. If you honestly want to take the emphasis off the premeditations, the preparations vpw made, the plans to victimize the women whom they carefully cultivated the trust of, hey, you are free to do so. No one challenged your abilities to do so. Neither did they claim you were or were not exposed to anything- they made the OPPOSITE point, actually. They didn't contradict the eyewitness accounts-they commented on them. Such horrific events in the lives of people are WORTH a little emotion and comment, most of us would agree. They took nothing away from the accounts. Making this about those who commented, however, cheapens the accounts-as if it's not about the ruined lives being rebuild after vpw, ha and lcm and others set aside to treat God's wonderful children as disposable objects, no more than a kleenex. As you demonstrated, YOU decide for yourself what offends you. That discussion of the offenses offends you when the offenses do NOT strikes me as unusual, but it IS your choice. I just got back from a funeral. During the entire proceedings, there were a number of discussions. There were plenty of "talking-points" where I could have used the matters discussed as a "springboard" to educate the attendees as to the truth of Scripture concerning different things. Having escaped both the physical and mental constructs of twi, I did not do so. In doing so, I would have felt like I demonstrated righteousness. After all, I'm supposed to "expound the Scriptures more perfectly" when I encounter error. I chose to let the "opportunities" pass. Was that because I'm a poor Christian. (If so, I'll let God judge that.) I made the conclusion that God would be better served if I didn't treat His people like machines, and instead treated them like people- people that can suffer and hurt, people who can feel pain and hesitations, people who bleed and breathe and have mucus in their noses, people who, in short, are human, imperfect, and nevertheless beloved of God. I elected to allow people to feel their pain as normal, and allow them to process it in ways that might have been mathematically improved upon, but were sufficient for the moment and WORKED. Now then, what did that have to do with this thread? Simply this: We're discussing suffering and victims. There's tense emotions here. When given the opportunity to mark off a checklist on posts- "you could have said this better", etc- I elect to leave them alone. These are humans, not machines, and the bigger issues are of importance. Now, then, you can, personally, choose to consider their posts inadequate or lacking in your own mind. You can even choose to say so (and you did.) However, I'd recommend considering the net effect. Did you minister grace to the hearers? Have they grown in knowledge? Or have you just demonstrated that hearts and lives are incidental to you when there's the letter of the law is at stake? What would most people say when seeing your post? Is that the message you MEANT to convey?

In hindsight, the reasons are obvious. A) THEY WEREN'T DOING THE WORK. It's easy to require all the M & Ms sorted by position in the rainbow when YOU'RE not the one handpicking them all. B) THEY HAD NOTHING BETTER TO DO. If they were REALLY on matters of consequence, they would have focused on THOSE. Since they dwelt on minutiae, it's obvious they have nothing more important to dwell on.

*lightbulb* Aaaagh! It's a Rod Stewart song! "Love Touch". I haven't heard that since I was last stuck in an elevator! What movie was that in?

The practical differences, as I see it, between IE builds and Mozilla builds: A) Mozilla builds tend to have fewer security exploits which are patched faster. B) Mozilla builds tend to be based on better code. C) Some websites are standards-compliant, but those that aren't are all built to work with IE. (That means IE works with just about everything.)

No problem! My usual rule is that-no matter the program-there's a free version that works at least as good (if not better) for my purposes, probably several. (And if this one isn't it, at least I didn't lose money on it.) The only trick is finding it. (Actually, there's several PDF programs, but I had that one loaded.)

'LG': "He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds." ===================== IIRC, in one place, vpw made that mistake (heteros of the same kind, allos of a different kind) and in another place, did NOT make that mistake (allos of the same kind, heteros of a different kind) In the same place he made that mistake, he used Bullinger's (incorrect) distinction of number. ===== Me, I always remembered them correctly referencing kind, and ignored his numerical explanation which seemed anomalous. The distinction was clear WITHOUT that, and adding numerical meaning fogged it needlessly. (Later study showed Bullinger just made it up OR SOMETHING.) I found the easiest way to keep them clear was in Galatians 1, where Paul chides them for turning to "another" (heteros) gospel which was not "another" (allo). In other words, they turned to a different gospel that was not of the same type. (Which is redundantly redundant, but that's fine in language, especially non-contemporary language.) ======= Oh, and that book would have been "How to Enjoy 'How to Enjoy the Bible' " with the additional markers to note we meant the other book. ==== I checked: part of the problem with HtEtB is the tiny print. I've read chapters online-after enlarging the text-and they're not as taxing to read like that. Then again, I still recommend a chapter at a time. ===== BTW, Bullinger's notes included a comment that he thought that some churches were built with a cross in each of the 4 corners, and that this was supposed to symbolize the 4 crucified. Supposing they WERE built that way, it might have simply been they were going to have 4 corners, then added a cross to each, period. There need not be any more detailed reason than that. Mind you, I'm just saying the 4 crosses in the architecture are proof of nothing. I'm not convinced one way or the other of one side's correctness, but I'm paying attention. (Mark, feel free to make your case, but please address the objections more specifically. You summarized things to briefly, which looks like you glossed over the objections. If you have a stronger case, it's better served with more detail-please elaborate when you have time.)

Nuts. I'm pretty sure I've heard this before.... ...and it's not "Heart of the Matter" and it's not "Misunderstood". Still trying to figure this out...

Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator are the basis for all other web browsers. All browsers, AFAIK, are variations of one or the other. IE2, now known as Maxthon, is a recommended IE ripoff. Mozilla is what the Netscape Navigator was based on. So, you have Netscape, and the current builds of Mozilla, and variations: Opera is a complicated Mozilla build. Mozilla minus the Opera frills was Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox. That's what I know offhand.

Well, my answer is a little longer than last time. I still have a strong internal identification with wolves. They protect their families, and don't plot amongst themselves, and their social structures are closer to humans than other animals are. In short, I wish more people I knew were more like them. (Except for the "killing to get dinner" part, of course- but it's effectively what we do anyway.) The "Word" part, I trust, needs no explanation. So, what's important to know about me? If you understand the screen-name, then you've got the basics. ========= As for the icon, it was made specifically FOR me by an artist. A wolf with The Word. It's actually part of a larger picture, but this is the part that can fit on an icon. Due to the size-limitation of the icons, I boosted the contrasts of the image to make it clearer. So it's sharper and harsher than the original.

One is CutePDF. http://www.cutepdf.com/