WordWolf

Larry Abbott Eugene Grizzard Dr Doug Ross George Caldwell Avram Belinski Letterman

Ok, name ANY of the game-shows to take the round. Obscure game-show time again. A) This game-show was inspired by a video game whose name it shares. Damon Wayans Jr is one of the hosts. It started out on Peacock (NBC streaming) but has appeared elsewhere in syndication. Contestants attempt to cross any of several "screens" (play areas) without "drowning" and "losing a life." Pairs of contestants try each area, with the better of the 2 moving on to the final round, where the best score comes from the most "hostages" (my term) rescued and the best time- but with a timer and with only one "life". The winner of each episode wins a fanny-pack full of money, and returns to try to make it to the series finale, for even more money. B) John Cena's one of the hosts of this show. It's another show where contestants risk "drowning" and getting knocked from places. It's NOT inspired by any video game or other source AFAIK. C) Don't fall under in this game-show or you're out, and your team has to manage without you! In this game, you have to traverse any of several "rooms" that are booby-trapped and make it to the end. If you go under, you're "dead" for reasons obvious to people who know this show's title. It's inspired by a children's game.

"And he's oh, so good, and he's oh, so fine. And he's oh, so healthy in his body and his mind. He's a Well-Respected Man-About-Town doing the best things so conservatively." I think THE KINKS did "Well-Respected Man."

Although he's also been lauded for his role as "Lennie" in "Of Mice and Men." An anthology "The Ultimate Werewolf" had an introduction that mentioned him. They included that lauding, and a story of his birth which LonChaney.com corroborates. (I don't know who they are, though.) According to the book, his birth was remarkable. As I remember the account, "Creighton Tull Chaney was born, stillborn, in a house on the shores of Belle Isle Lake. After attempts to revive him failed, his father grabbed him, ran out to the Belle Isle Lake, and plunged Creighton into the icy waters of the lake- which managed to trigger his breathing. I was surprised just now to find the story corroborated. (The website's run by his family.) He was also in an episode of The Monkees. "You ain't going no place!" Oddly, that character was ALSO called "Lenny."

"Tony Danza." "Hold me closer, Tony Danza." Reginald Dwight got a hit out of that one- remarkable since nobody knew who Tony Danza was at the time.

If the question is about the name of the movie (I can't find the actual question), then the original was "Night of the Living Dead" was accidentally released into the public domain. It was followed by George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead" (and possibly Afternoon Tea of the Dead.) Apparently, "Return of the Living Dead" (a sorta-comedy) was a sequel as well, with "LIVING" as the word that divides the sequels. If the answer was in the TV shows, George pointed out that the "Walking Dead" series are all inspired by them- "Fear the Walking Dead" included. The movies also inspired other movies like "Zombieland" and "Shaun of the Dead" (that one I watched and actually liked, somewhat. Zombie movies aren't my thing.)

When it comes down to it, one of the baldest claims left for a few is this: "I got some blessings when I was in twi. I saw some blessings when I was in twi. Therefore, twi must have been designed by God Almighty, twi must have been endorsed by and approved of God Almighty, and its leader must have been appointed by God Almighty, and everything he said must have been endorsed by Fod Almighty." For the sake of discussion, let's give the benefit of the first doubt. Many will say- with reason- that most-or ALL- of the blessings were PERCEPTUAL. That is, they were life just happening as normal with NO interference by any Being, but the observer pronounces all of them as A Blessing From God. In twi, things got so miserable that people were counting the finding of a good parking spot as Supernatural Involvement By God Almighty... as if it's impossible to find a good parking spot without Divine Intervention. If that's the level of the involvement of God Almighty, then it's small wonder that people would doubt there was a God. (Or not be impressed if that's the best He can do for His people.) So, let us give the benefit of that doubt. Let us suppose- for the sake of this discussion if nothing else- that one is NOT talking of that, one is talking of things far more noteworthy- healings in seconds or minutes of things that take days or weeks, or things MORE dramatic than that. (Actual results from an actual God.) IF one is getting actual blessings from God Almighty, and one is in a group like twi, with a leader like vpw, does it logically follow that God Almighty is marking out twi/vpw as anything special, that He is endorsing both or either? In plain language, what would it mean to get answers to prayers while being in twi?

For the curious, before there was the GSC, there was Waydale. As long ago as Waydale was material that disproved the ridiculous claim that pfal was "God-Breathed." According to pfal, for something to be "God-Breathed", it has to be free of errors. The Blue Book has a lot of errors. This should not be very shocking, because the Blue Book never claims the Blue Book was "God-Breathed."

According to the contents of pfal, it is possible to prove something written is NOT "God-breathed." When this standard was applied to pfal, it surprised nobody EXCEPT MIKE that pfal failed that test. Since it was never meant to be taken as "God-breathed" itself, that wasn't a problem, even for most of its fans. So, it's a DISprovable thing, and it was already disproven.]

"I feel that in all the classes there was that open possibility for passages being "almost straight prophesy" or "God-breathed" or "special." I first started thinking in the early 1970s of the film class in that way. " [Yet, one of his claims was that this was something Mike came to in later years. So, he BEGAN his experiences with the film class with this idea EARLY ON.] "Another thing to note, 20 years ago I said there was no way I could logically prove that the collaterals being God-breathed. " [Actually, it was logically proven that the collaterals were NOT God-breathed."] "Mike, your grammar is crazy on page 83” was what 49 out of 50 people would tell me here, and in splinter groups. But a few grammar experts would agree with me over the years on this page 83 debate, so I pressed on with it, even though no one believed me here…. until Nathan_Jr showed up late one night and reluctantly agreed with me, last September." [So, that's a standard few of us would emulate. 98% of the public disagreeing with you, and ONE PERSON agreeing with you, and declaring you're right and declaring victory. The possibility that the ONE PERSON might be wrong or honestly mistaken isn't even a possibility. ONE PERSON agrees with you, and even the Doctored experts on the subject who responded must be wrong. But one layman agreed with you, so he and you have to be correct on that. Anybody with those kinds of results who's being honest with themselves and the results knows exactly what it means.]

"Here is the logic:" [Well, we all know THIS isn't going to be sound, but let's see what it is.] "I post that VPW claimed PFAL God-breathed. Others post that he did not claim that." [Yes, that's correct.] "I post 20 such claims." vpw, following the pattern of other speakers because he lacked the originality to make up a completely new style himself, used the best phrases and expressions he could find, and pretended he either made them up, or used known ones for some humorous purpose, or so on. In an attempt to halt disagreement with him, a speaker who was teaching the Bible sometimes would claim "Don't blame me- I didn't write The Book." The meaning is clear- they are claiming to be teaching what THE BIBLE says, and by disagreeing with them, someone is disagreeing with what THE BIBLE says, and not their own opinion. There are other expressions where one claims separation from something to avoid people coming after them, but this one was common enough among Bible teachers, sermonists, homiletists, and so on. So, here comes vpw. He makes some claim, possibly a controversial claim, that he claims is in THE BIBLE. He forestalls a debate on the subject by claiming it's God's Idea, not his. "Don't blame me- I didn't write the book." Now, remembering that people who came later cleaned up vpw's tortured grammar, added punctuation, and added capitalization where they thought it belonged (vpw was too lazy to do it himself or even proofread the results), we know the expression was the same one, and a lack of capitalization wasn't in what he said because capitalization isn't spoken out loud. His transcribers added-or failed to add- them. So, vpw claims he didn't write THE BIBLE. What other book would he possibly have been referring to at the time? Time, Life, Look, Saturday Evening Post? Supposedly, vpw was entirely about THE BIBLE. When he spoke out loud, he was speaking of THE BIBLE. Could he have meant the Orange Book, the White Book, the Blue Book? That would have been a heck of a trick- they weren't done when he was first saying all that! There WERE no such books as he got into the habit of saying that. Only years later did they actually get printed- and his meanings didn't suddenly shift to them. When vpw tried to claim he spoke what THE BIBLE said, he claimed to disagree with him was to disagree with THE BIBLE, and thus to disagree with GOD ALMIGHTY. So, when vpw said "Don't blame me- I didn't write The Book!", its meaning was plain to everyone who took the classes for decades..... until Mike came along and, all by himself, began insisting that it never actually MEANT "THE BIBLE" when vpw said "THE BOOK" there. Even people who've never heard of twi, of vpw, all know The Book is "The Bible." (Back in college, I was waiting for something to start. Other early arrivals were also getting fidgety. I began reading. One of them asked me, "What book are you reading?" I showed them the leather cover. "Oh- THE Book." I went back to reading.) So, vpw uses that same catchphrase some 20 times, all to prevent people from arguing with him because he supposedly was just reporting the contents of THE BIBLE and he didn't write THE BIBLE. That's not hard to understand. To hear Mike say it, vpw was disavowing the writing of one pfal book or another. This would be coming from a man who slapped his name on the work of EVERYBODY whenever he got a chance- JCOPS, JCOP, books he barely prefaced, all with "BY VICTOR PAUL WIERWILLE" proudly displayed on the cover. Not "EDITED BY" or anything else. But somehow, he decided to keep his name on the cover of certain other books, that say "BY VICTOR PAUL WIERWILLE" on the cover, but he made some offhand comments that he didn't actually write them- despite their covers saying that for multiple printings long after he said that. It's easy to understand for everyone EXCEPT MIKE, who has proudly made up his mind.] "Then I post that the others' knowledge of PFAL is insufficient to criticize PFAL because they all missed the 20 claims due to (1) forgetting (2) not absorbing all of it when they heard it." [So, Mike invents a fake standard, where people who failed to MISread or failed to MISunderstand are somehow less astute because they understood EXACTLY what was being said. Mike, however, has the HIDDEN, OCCULTED meanings of the contents. This makes Mike special.] "Meanwhile everyone thinks I am trying to prove that PFAL is God-breathed, when I feel it can only be proved to be true by living it." [Meanwhile, pfal specified what it meant for something to be God-breathed, and this is testable for anything written, including pfal. When someone actually tries pfal's standard for "God-breathed" on pfal itself, it fails to hold up, falling FAR short of meeting that standard. Since pfal never claims pfal actually IS "God-breathed", this isn't a problem for anyone else BUT MIKE, the one person who insists that pfal was "God-Breathed." So, it can be proven FALSE easily enough- and was done so about TWENTY FREAKING YEARS AGO, when this was first brought up. Mike keeps skipping over that, of course. But Mike's said before, that the only way to prove him right or wrong is to ASSUME Mike is right, then spend several months living as if Mike is right, THEN seeing what one thinks. Well, DUH! if one spends several months BRAINWASHING themselves, at the end, they're going to be BRAINWASHED! Mike's offer generally doesn't get a lot of takers.]

In that thread, I also posted both the working links and pasted the contents of the pages in question. Since their author is a Mod here, I don't think there's any problem with reposting the entire content- if he doesn't like it, he can just delete the post with the paste job and leave the link post.

You had 1/2 of the links. I had to switch browsers because my other browser has support for that, so I don't have to do everything manually. So, the baby: https://web.archive.org/web/20030713171019/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue.htm the bathwater: https://web.archive.org/web/20031030051643/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue2.htm

He mentioned the "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/ The other thread actually predated all versions of the GSC, and was on Waydale (before my time.) That was his commentaries on The Blue Book (The Bible Tells Me So). However, someone reposted the contents to the GSC later. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4730-waydale-repost-rafael-olmedas-original-blue-book-commentary/ There was also "The Blue Book- The Baby and the Bathwater." I need to check that thread, since it links to a website no longer there. However, if I can find the content elsewhere, I'll link it on the thread. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/2746-the-blue-book-the-baby-and-the-bathwater/

"I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements." Circular reasoning makes this one easy. How do I know people are "wrong"? They're disagreeing with what I "know" to be true. So, since they disgree with me, they are wrong, and since "wrong" people are disagreeing with me, I am right." "I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say." "A lot of people seem annoyed at what I post, so it must 'strike a nerve.' " "A lot of people are refuting what I say and disagreeing with me, so they must be spending a lot of time and emotion on what I say, which means I must strike a nerve." Circular reasoning again, and making oneself look SO important, significant.....

Mike: "I’ve been honest and up front about this here, that written PFAL is my only rule for faith and practice, and that it, of course includes the Bible. No matter how often or how specific I am about this limitation, written PFAL, everyone here will forget it and see in their minds me idolizing VPW, the man. I am constantly correcting people on this. How many times now have I corrected YOU on this, that my “high regard for Wierwille” is a fiction you hold in your mind constantly, no matter how many times I tell you, no, it’s wrong, it’s just written PFAL that is special to me. How many days will you go before you are posting again that I idolize VPW in some way? Let’s count." =================== I'll save him the trouble. You're the same Mike that said that vpw was "BORN WITH AN OVER-ABUNDANCE OF BRAINS AND BRAWN." You said that he was "OVER-gifted" and that "WHERE HE WALKED, THE EARTH SHOOK." To anybody but Mike, those sentences reflect an idolizing as well as "a high regard" (to say the least.) Those were your own posts, not any "fiction"- you posted that. For those who are curious, we dug a bit into vpw's brains and brawn. His athletic skills were either EQUALLED or EXCEEDED by 60% of posters here. That's hardly a reflection of "gifted", let alone "OVER-Gifted." The man was on his high school basketball team, and that was the end of his athletic career. He was neither on a team in college, nor afterwards. He DID, however, INSINUATE he did both. He said he "played basketball all through college"- which he might have done if all he did was play a game of pick-up once a semester. But there's no mention of a TEAM, and his photos show his high school team photos and NONE of college, and NONE afterwards. He said he was "involved with" the Sheboygan Redskins- which people took to mean that he actually played on the team- which is what he wanted them to think. A complete roster of the entire history of the team is available- his name is not on it. Plus, again, no photos. What does "involved with" mean? Could mean almost anything, but he wasn't a team member. He also claimed to have invented the hook shot, which was invented long before he ever picked up a basketball. As for his intellectual accomplishments, they were no great shakes either. If not for his Dad pushing for it, he wouldn't have graduated high school or gotten into college. After college, he went to Princeton Theological Seminary- a legitimate school- and attained a Masters, with a focus on HOMILETICS. He studied PREACHING, how to give a sermon. No history, no languages, nothing. This is why his knowledge of both were so deficient. As for a Doctorate, he got it through an established degree mill at the time. Around here, there's plenty of people who completed Doctorates in credentialed schools, and plenty of people who have doctorates just as legit as vpw's. None of that made him special. His biggest source of inspiration, in fact, was the dovetailing of 2 things- the need to prepare a sermon every week, and his being hired to edit a magazine of Christian writers. That pretty much covered his need to actually prepare a sermon every week. Once he discovered Bullinger, Leonard and Stiles, he ripped off their works in toto, and the rest is history. He often made pronouncements that he INSINUATED were all by revelation, but were from the John Birch Society's phone. He lacked the wit to be able to tell that they were often NONSENSE. So, definitely no "abundance of brains OR brawn", let alone OVER-Abundance. Where vpw walked, the earth did not shake.

The TV show that always skipped a step- or left out something important- was "MAC GUYVER." They didn't want people to know how to make bombs, etc. One episode, he stopped a bomb or something with a chocolate bar. What they left out is that it would work if you had a lot of chocolate bars, one wouldn't make much of a difference.

Probably Creighton Tull C.

I'm not sure what's current where. With shows like "the Bates Motel" and so on, how about "Psycho"? That had sequel movies.

Every once in a while, in society and here, there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy. "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insisting I'm wrong." "If I wasn't right after all, people wouldn't be trying to say I'm wrong!" Since this comes up, I thought I'd give this its own thread. It's a logical fallacy, which is not unknown among ex-twi, and this specific one is the private turf of the self-appointed experts, the self-proclaimed voices in the wilderness, the ones sure they are MORE right BECAUSE people refute them all the time. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202006/the-galileo-gambit-and-appealing-ignorance The Galileo Gambit and Appealing to Ignorance The fact that you are probably wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right. When pseudo-scientists have been bested by the solid evidence and careful research of actual accredited experts (aka authorities on a subject), they will almost inevitably pull out this quote from Galileo: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." In their mind, they are like Galileo—the lone voice of reason, standing up for the truth against an onslaught of ignorant authorities. And this, more than anything else, in their minds, proves that they are right: “The mainstream laughed at Galileo when he said the sun was the center of the solar system; that flew against conventional wisdom too, but that turned out to be right. So my theory is right too.” But there’s a name for this: The Galileo Gambit—and it is a recognized and well-known fallacy. The Galileo Gambit The Galileo Gambit engages in many mistakes, but the main one is this: It’s a faulty analogy. The fact that two persons have one thing in common does not mean that they have everything in common—or even, another thing in common. Yes, the authorities thought Galileo was wrong, and they also think that you are wrong—but the fact that he turned out to be right doesn’t mean that you are. As Carl Sagan once put it: “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” And for every genius who bucked the system and turned out to be right, there are a thousand that bucked the system and turned out to be wrong. If you disagree with the experts, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be one of the Bozos. And disregarding all the times those who disagreed with the authorities turned out to be wrong, makes one guilty of even more fallacious reasoning: confirmation bias, availability error, and denying the evidence. Authority vs. Humble Reasoning With that clearly laid out, one might wonder why Galileo said what he said. Why would he think that the findings of one lone person could overrule expert consensus? Well, is that really what he meant? Let’s look at that quote again, and concentrate on a couple of words. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Notice that he doesn’t say a single person can override the informed consensus of experts. He said it can override the authority of many. But what authority would Galileo have been talking about? Who said he was wrong? It wasn’t scientists. It was the church! He's talking about religious authorities. So what he is saying is that a bunch of people claiming something on authority alone (i.e., without evidence, because of tradition, or “because the Bible says so”) is not worth much. It can be easily overridden. What’s more, he’s not saying that the fact that one lone person merely disagreeing with the authorities is a good reason to think that one lone person is right. He is saying that a lone person’s humble reasoning is better than mere authority. Authority alone cannot outweigh the evidence of just one person who presents a good and careful scientific argument. In the same way, however, he would undoubtedly agree that the humble reasoning of just one individual cannot outweigh the humble reasoning of 100, especially if they are all checking each other’s work for errors (i.e., peer review). Indeed — what could be less humble than thinking that you, alone, know better than all the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying a topic? So a lone genius can overturn the consensus if the consensus is just based on tradition, or authority, but not if that consensus was reached through the long arduous careful process known as the scientific method." (For the curious, it's a good article, and it does continue.)

Living Colour, "Cult of Personality." "Look in my eyes, what do you see? The cult of personality. I know your anger, I know your dreams. I've been everything you wanna be. I'm the cult of personality. Like Mussolini and Kennedy, I'm the cult of personality, The cult of personality, The cult of personality. Neon lights, Nobel Prize When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies. You won't have to follow me, Only you can set me free. I sell the things you need to be. I'm the smiling face on your TV. I'm the cult of personality. I exploit you, still you love me. I tell you one and one makes three. I'm the cult of personality. Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi, I'm the cult of personality, The cult of personality, The cult of personality. Neon lights, Nobel Prize When a leader speaks, that leader dies. You won't have to follow me, Only you can set you free. You gave me fortune. You gave me fame. You gave me power in your God's name. I'm every person you need to be. I'm the cult of personality."

FYI, although the book says "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover, he wrote an intro at most, and the research dept wrote everything of substance there. For a few books (Promised Seed, Passover), that was the pattern. For earlier books, either they were compilations of plagiarism of others (The Orange Book and the White Book) or transcriptions of teachings which may have been plagiarized from others (the Blue Book et al.) So, I'd expect JCOP and/or JCOPS to bless you more than other twi books despite "by vpw" on the cover. In case you were wondering why "his" writing style varies so heavily among books "he wrote". Naturally, some people insist that it was a good idea that he plagiarized some books, and a good idea he slapped his name on the books written by the Research Dept- even saying that's standard policy somewhere (not outside of twi, actually.)

This sounds familiar, but I'm having trouble coming up with an answer. It's the "current TV shows" thing that's throwing me worst. "Blade Runner"?? How about "MAD MAX"????

Right. It sounded like Merry and Pippin were killed along with the orcs, and all piled up and burned. Aragorn kicked an orc helmet and let out a howl, falling to his knees or something. After all the chasing, it seemed apt. Since Viggo had just broken his toe kicking the helmet, the scream was natural. A later fight in the same movie had VIggo chipping a tooth. The actors for Merry and Pippin have mentioned all the things they did, killing time waiting to be helicoptered from shoot to shoot. Most common were the endless rounds of "cup" they played. (Dominc Monahan and Billy Boyd, if memory serves.) Peter Jackson, of course, put himself in all 3 movies. In the first one, he's almost invisible, but easy to spot if you know where to look. The hobbits arrived in Bree, and were let in after dark. To the right, a shadowy figure stared briefly at them as they passed- that figure resembles Peter Jackson quite a bit. I forget where he was in the Two Towers. In LotR, he was very visible as the corsair pirate that Legolas FIRST shoots before the ships land.

Sarsgaard, Sarsgaard.... Skellen was in the Thor movies, Peter was promoting something else ..... "THE VIKING" ? "THE NORSEMAN???"