WordWolf

Steve! may have gotten it from a comedian. One comedian once was sent to buy them, and, while he was in the checkout line, he saw a gay guy looking at him. "I was never so glad to be buying pads in all my life. Miss? Can we get a price check on these PADS? We all know they're not for ME..."

"Fish heads are never seen in cafes, drinking capuccino with Oriental women." -Barnes and Barnes. It's a line that stays with you.

Goey's recommended the Kerio firewall. I've been happy with ZoneAlarm. I can name other firewalls, but I don't have experience with them, so I'd go with Goey's recommendation. Since ZA doesn't work for you.

I'd have to go back and see if Leia meant Bail Organa's wife as her mother. Anakin Skywalker won the podraces and survived his first space battle in Phantom Menace. Rather good pilots would have managed neither. Interesting about the lightsabre. We'll have to wait and see. If you want to read some comments about giving Luke the last name Skywalker, and why he was on Tatooine, they're in "I, Jedi", by Michael Stackpole. Keiran Halcyon, at the Jedi Academy/Praxeum, offers his thoughts to Luke on that very subject. (It's more fun if you've read the Jedi Academy trilogy first, since this book references a lot of the events.)

There's a few reasons for this thread. The first one is so that new arrivals can see it. The second was so I could get a cross-section of things, and see what people thought would be vital to include, were they writing a thumbnail sketch of the guy.

What you called "Dream Deferred" is probably the poem by Langston Hughes, called "Harlem". "What happens to a dream deferred?..." It's quoted at the beginning of "Raisin in the Sun."

Hm. So, then, "spiritual anger" is anger from the OTHER kind of spirit........

Raf got it pretty quick. I didn't even use my follow-up quote, the much more recognizable "Kill him a lot!" or the "you threw a knife at me" scene. The first exchange was when one guy had just become a vampire, and his friend doesn't know-but his pal is floating outside his window. The second quote was the Principal, at the Senior Dance with all the senior vampires crashing. As they burst in, "I have a pocket FULL of detention slips-and I'm not afraid to use them!" After they're all killed, he walks up to each vampire corpse, drops a detention slip on it, and announces, "Detention...detention...detention..." Are you there, Pirate?

My God is not that small. If it weren't for Victor Paul Wierwille, my God would have found another way to show me the things I've learned. TF, to quote vpw, "If my God was as small as your God, I'd get me a new God."

While we're waiting, here's a semi-easy one.... "I'm HUNGRY!" "You're FLOATING!!" "Detention...detention....detention...."

That's ANOTHER crime to lay to his account! :D-->

I agree. Even if I didn't, I'd say "Pirate, next one please".

Marilyn Monroe Love Happy Raymond Burr (You guys don't know how tough it was resisting the urge to link to Harpo or Groucho this turn.... :)--> )

If someone who was new to twi/had been invited and was thinking of attending a meeting, or someone who was trying to figure out what the organization is all about, asked you to explain victor paul wierwille, what would you want to make sure they knew about him? What was his youth like, his pre-ministry days? What about his time from college-Vesper Chimes? All the stuff after that? What would be relevant if someone was writing a biography on him, or a "true stories", or whatever? Let's say you were asked to write a biographical sketch of the man so that others-who'd never heard of him-could understand him in one read. What would you write?

John Hurt Spaceballs John Candy

Molly Ringwald Breakfast Club Emilio Estevez

If I can pick up after Steve! (but mindful of that) I would say Bram Stoker's Dracula Gary Oldman Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

You're probably thinking of the guy who played "Bill S. Preston", but that wasn't Sean Penn. Please reboot, Trefor.

We did not "all go thru it" because there were hundreds of different "it"s. Some left during mass exoduses, and thus had a support network. Some left with their families, and thus brought their nearest and dearest. Some were in areas where they lived in the middle of nowhere and could drop off the radar. Some were in the military and twi couldn't pin them in place for a number of reasons. For some out on the field, to leave will mean they can't work for their current employer (they "work for believers"), they have to move immediately (they "rent from believers"), and, having been isolated from everyone they know OUTSIDE of twi, they're now isolated from everyone IN twi who are now saying horrible things about them. Yeah, go ahead, leave. You've been "living at a needs level" and thus have no savings and your most expensive possession is a beat-up car that will die sooner or later. But, buck up! You have no friends, no contacts, no job, no place to live, and no money. However, you have PLATITUDES! === Hiya folks! You say you lost your job today? You say it's 4am and your kids ain't come home from school yet? You say your wife went out for a corned-beef sandwich last week, and the corned-beef sandwich came back but she didn't? You say your furniture's out all over the sidewalk 'cause you can't pay the rent? And ya got chapped lips and paper-cuts, and your feets all swollen up and blistered from pounding the pavement looking for work? Is that what's troublin' you...fella? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up....*music stops*..that ship! Hey there, friend. You say your radiators didn't work all winter, and now that it's summer they've started up again and you can't turn it off? You say your wide sent your lightweight suits to the cleaners, and that means you'll have to wear your itchy tweeds this morning, when they say it'll hit 106, and ya gotta meet an important businessman in an hour, and your bridge just broke, and you pasted it together with bubblegum and ya hope it don't fall apart while you're doin' some fast-talkin' to this man. and.... and your shoelace just busted and you opened up a big cut on your cheek tryin' to even out your side-burns and your daughter's going out with a convict and your wife just confessed she gave your last $60 as a deposit on an airplane hanger? Is that what's troublin' you...friend? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up...*music stops*...that ship! Hey there, cousin. You say you can't pull your car out of the mud, and you're in the middle of nowhere, and it's pouring rain, and ya can't get the top back up, and your paycheck's all blurred, and your foot went right thru the gaspedal, and your girl's screaming bloody-murder she's scared of the dark, and a stroke of lightning splits your motor in half, and your suit's shrinking up fast, and you start up the windy road in foot, and 60 yards of barbed-wire hits you right smack in the face and a wild animal comes over and runs away with your shoes and your car blows up suddenly and your windshield wiper ends up in yer mouth and you can't move, and the mud's risin' up to yer nostrils, and yer sinkin' fast, and you don't hear yer girl screamin' any more? Is that what's on yer mind....cousin? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up..*music stops*..that ship! And now, this is the Old Philosopher saying, So long, folks! ===== As to people who are on grounds, their situation is detailed here http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html (he said, posting it AGAIN on the same thread.)

Aaaand, for the second time in the same thread to answer the same question by the same person, this link.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html

Page 6, this thread, April 15m 2005, 9:13am Eastern. Page 1, this thread, April 12, 2005, 4:56pm Eastern. There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.... (For those wondering, there were a few pages of answers to this, this actually being a DISCUSSION on that very subject. Those of you who READ the thread know this.)

Each day they are unable to decide, the smoke is black. The day they decide, the smoke is white. This won't take as long as it might, since JP II made changes that said that if nobody can get a 2/3 majority after several weeks, then whoever gets the simple majority gets the chair. My favourite anecdote about that was one century when they were deadlocked over 2 years, so those outside the sequester stopped sending in FOOD. After that, I think it was another 1-2 weeks of debate. (Well, I figure a week of supplies...)

Sorry then. I understood your previous comments- Saying "I agree" (I thought you agreed with me, since you quoted me when you said it) and agreeing with my comment that Ratzinger (or someone before him) squelched the reports and rewrote them in a fashion making Law look like some sort of victim of hysteria, rather than someone who deliberately facilitated the criminal actions of despicable criminals who sought to continue living in a free society and continue their despicable criminal acts. SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE along the line (I don't know precisely WHO) facilitated this, in each case. In some of the cases, Cardinal Law (ironic name) himself aided and abetted them in this, and engaged in conspiracy, both of which are criminal acts. (It was illegal to let them get away with it and only relocate them, and illegal to bury the reports.) We both DO agree that at Ratzinger's level, there's another step of burying the scandals and so on. I thought you agreed with me. I was saying that JP II was guilty of being "asleep at the switch"-being uninformed in situations where extensive information was called for, and this in its fashion helped facilitate the evil deeds. Personally, I think that, if he REALLY HAD known what we ourselves know, let alone the parties involved, then he would have acted decisively. I'd go so far to say that such a lapse is criminal at that level, and say thay he failed in his fiducuary responsibility as officer over all the cardinals, bishops and priests. He did so by failing to act, by failing to perform duties of his office, IMHO, and NOT by deliberately aiding their criminal acts. Sorry I misinterpreted you, Garth.

This is true. The judge himself said that a jury should decide the merits of the allegations. Let me repeat: the judge said a jury should decide the allegations. I feel comfortable that the judge is correct, that after hearing all the facts under oath, the jury decides. That's the proper way to judge a case. It would have been nice if you had read my ENTIRE post, instead of just scrolling until you saw your name. Although I'm not a legal expert either, I'm aware that a GOOD judge does not attempt to overstep his mandate, nor to deviate from the REQUIRED procedure. If you had READ MY POST, you would have seen that I pointed out WHY he said that instead of just making a pronouncement. At that step, the judge was to strip away whatever was outside the court's jurisdiction, and what was without merit, and issue a document recommending the remaining items proceed to trial. If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case lacks merit completely, it gets trashed at this step. If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case is "open and shut", then he does NOT just render a judgement at this step. He does exactly what the judge did here- he recommends it proceed to trial. Why doesn't he just say "the defendant is guilty" like Oldiesman seems to think is supposed to happen at this point? Well, the defendant is allowed, under the Bill of Rights (Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America) to a trial by JURY, even if the defendant's case is open-and-shut. So, the judge's response is that the prosecution's case had substance. At this stage, it would have been improper for the judge to influence the jury and make pronouncements as to guilt or innocence. (If he had, he would have given the defendant grounds for an appeal, just like that.) As I said earlier (and explained, both the judge and twi's lawyers took responses indicative of a belief that the plaintiff had a case with substance. THEIR professional opinions, therefore, were that such a response was the most appropriate response to the situation. Therefore, experts with all the facts took that position. Are you questioning THEIR appraisal of the situation? Actually, if I believed twi's case, I'd STILL say "the judge responded that the case has merit, which is all he COULD do at that point. The lawyers responded in a way that indicated THEY believed the case had merit and they could lose. Here's something that requires no degree to understand.... If a lawyer thinks the other side has NO chance to win, he will proceed to trial as swiftly as possible. If a lawyer thinks HIS side has NO chance to win, he will do everything he can to do prevent his case going to trial. He will find something to do to change the conditions. He will convince his client to change his plea, he will try to change the venue if he thinks the locality is biased, or, most commonly, he will OFFER TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT. This will allow his client to lose a FRACTION of the money and a FRACTION of the time. In this case, the DEFENDANTS OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT. How difficult does it have to be to see this alone suggests they're aware they can't win and are at-fault? Well, for folks who "have a predetermined mindset and unbalanced perspective", this might be difficult. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh, Oldiesman, you kill me sometimes! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Gonna act later like it never happened? It's been your usual gambit to date.... Frankly, based on your "ability" to "interpret" what IS public knowledge in this case, I'm thankful the parties are spared your curiousity. I'm fairly certain NOTHING would convince you the plaintiff had a case, and the only results would be you voyeuristically scrutinizing the personal details of an injured party, and "probing" questions like what their favourite sexual positions are.

HCW's previous quote was responding to Dmiller, who said