Raf

Why do you hypothesize everything about what Samarin would have done EXCEPT what Samarin tells you he would have done? It wasn't a trap to bait you. It was an effort to clarify your definition of xenoglossia in the context of this discussion. A person speaking in tongues and producing a foreign language would be exhibiting xenoglossia. You don't agree with that. I find your disagreement to be... let me find a word that you used; hang on a minute; ah, here it is... petty. And yes, Samarin might think you're a psychic. Or an alien. Or reincarnated. Or God-energized. He might think any of those things. Not as a linguist. Just as a person. He's completely open to all of it as far as being a scientist is concerned. But we'll never know, because none of the samples he reviewed before this paper or since turned up xenoglossia.

Yes. You are asking me to believe that Samarin would consider the speaking of a known language that the speaker did not otherwise understand to not be a sample of xenoglossia. I think that's absurd. Not to question your grasp of the facts any more than necessary, but 1968 was 44 years ago. I suppose I could sink to your level. Only that you're claiming things about the Bible that aren't true to the Bible, and if you're going to expect me to accept what you present as the Biblical truth to this, you need to get your facts straight. I never said your explanation was plausible. I never judged your explanation at all. And I still don't.

Ok, but postulate is the term YOU used. Just saying. I was using the term because you did. Stop using the word if you don't want me to repeat it. That's neither a postulate nor a hypothesis. It's conjecture. And you accuse me of not being faithful to the scientific method. Then stop doing it.

BUT WE DO HAVE A WAY TO TELL HOW HE WOULD REACT TO THIS! He tells us exactly what he would do! THE LOGIC THAT GOT ME THERE WAS YOURS! I agree that "glossa" is in the Bible. I agree that "laleo" is in the Bible. "Glossolalia" is not. That's not my opinion. The verse you cite does not contradict what I am saying. Glossolalia as a word was coined by those studying it. And you can emphasize the laleo part all you want, but you can't escape the glossa part. It means languages. Look, you're swinging wildly here and looking a little ridiculous. Take a breath. Do what I did yesterday. Walk away for a while, and come back when you've had time to think about it.

The notion of Samarin distinguishing examples of gibberish inserted into the samples he studied is a false re-reporting of SHERRILL's findings. They are not Samarin's. Samarin rejected gibberish because he considered them poor samples of glossolalia. It was presented to him AS glossolalia, and the speaker no doubt considered them glossolalia. But the obvious "gibberish" nature of it caused him to reject them. (I believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the account he gives on page 51). It was Sherrill who claimed to insert gibberish samples among the glossolalia samples and claimed the linguists easily spotted the difference. But as I've noted earlier, we do not know enough about Sherrill's approach to take it seriously at this time. That could change with more information. Did you order his book yet?

So if I spoke in Swahili but didn't understand it, it's not a language according to Samarin. You cannot escape my conclusion based on the premise you present, and the conclusion is ridiculous. "Glossolalia" does not appear in the Bible. It is a modern term coined to encapsulate the Biblical phrase that IS used. Because the postulate he proposes is perfectly reasonable, as has been demonstrated. It is absolutely consistent with free vocalization. I WANT to produce a foreign language. Therefore, I inject foreign sounds into my glossa. They had those things because the glossalist WANTED them to have those things, not because of anything supernatural and not because it was a real language. Sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, longer pauses for periods, shorter pauses for commas: all of those are encapsulated in phonological structure, which you said last night proves nothing.

I wonder why people who claim to SIT don't just go into James Randi's office, SIT, and collect their $1 Million. We can only go off the studies that have been done. I find your dismissal of linguists' ability to detect and identify language to be without basis. They have a way to do that. Phonetic structure. And the results keep coming back to the language of the speaker. That's as close to an objective standard for proof as you're going to get.

Oh, the word "glossolalia" appears in the Bible now? Do tell, where? Seriously, if you think there is no difference between your first definition of xenoglossia and your second, then you are forced, forced to conclude that I could speak Swahili in front of Samarin but because I do not otherwise "demonstrate a knowledge" of Swahili, even though it really was Swahili, he would dismiss it as meaningless glossalalia. That's not deceptive. That's just dumb. (Not you. You're smart. Your analysis, not so much).

As I said, if we disagree on that, the rest of the conversation is moot. Say hi to everyone for me.

By the way, I'm ignoring Waysider's contribution on the importance of syntax because my review of the material has not taken me there. My instinct tells me that it may be an unfair criterion to impose on a real, human language whose structure we do not know, but my instinct could very well be wrong. Waysider may have enough of an argument to state his case and cause me to change my ignorant mind. But I'm not inclined to dive into it on my own, respectfully.

Second time: I never said "end of story." Middle of story would be more correct. The story gives me the first half of a Scooby-Doo episode. You're asking me to believe a ghost haunted the museum based on the evidence presented thus far. But knowing that the end of the episode always reveals the curator trying to make everyone think there's a ghost, I'm not going to draw a conclusion until I see the end of the episode. Now, if you're not obliged to show me the end of the episode, fine. I am entitled to base my conclusion on the end of the episodes whose conclusions I have seen. Not a perfect analogy, to be sure. Backatcha.

Ok, I am going to start looking at Chockfull's latest post (post 1134) in pieces rather than as a whole, because the last time I tried to review a post as a whole, the site actually wouldn't let me and I had to break it up into three separate pieces (two of which were fused by GSC because they were posted too close together chronologically, something we've all experienced, I'm sure). And let me apologize in advance because some of what I'm about to write is not new to this thread. It's been said before and either ignored or (inadvertently, I'm sure) been misunderstood and therefore misrepresented. Anyway, let's start with the distinction between glossolalia and xenoglossia, as defined by Samarin and summarized by Chockfull. Chockfull originally wrote: Note that there is a definition, followed by an argument based on that definition. When I pressed Chockfull to clarify his understanding of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia, he came back with an accurate, in-context quote. Gladly. But before I do, let me ask folks to see if they can identify it for themselves. In the meantime, let me ask everyone a question: When you are among friends in casual conversation, how do you demonstrate a knowledge of English? Do you establish that you are aware of a considerable vocabulary, able to define each word you use, and have a working (though imperfect) knowledge of the rules of grammar, defending your use of gerunds and participles? Probably not. How do you demonstrate to your friends that you know English? You speak it. That's enough to demonstrate your knowledge of English, isn't it? And if I were to ask you how you came about your knowledge of English, you would answer some combination of (my terms here are not technical) social absorption, instruction, reading... learning, in essence. Speaking a language is sufficient to be labeled a demonstration of knowledge of that language. And that is the key and essential difference between Chockfull's first cited definition of xenoglossia and his second. The difference is so critical that it renders his argument, based on the first definition, invalid. Because people who speak in tongues most certainly claim to be demonstrating knowledge of a language: by speaking it. That's what speaking in tongues MEANS. If we're not going to agree on basic definitions, then every point we're arguing is moot. If I spoke Swahili in front of Samarin, he would ask me how I came to understand Swahili. If my answers could not satisfy him as a linguist, he would refer the case to a psychologist or (and I really regret his use of the term) a parapsychologist. Their goal would be to prove or disprove whether something supernatural happened, a search for truth beyond the scope of a linguist's professional interest. Samarin lays this out on page 53. I have said this before. It has been ignored. The effect of this distinction being ignored is a deceptive argument put forth by Chockfull, although I concede that it likely was not intentionally deceptive. No one is claiming that xenoglossia is a KNOWLEDGE of the foreign language, and no one is distinguishing between glossolalia and xenoglossia on that basis. At this point it is imperative, for the purposes of THIS conversation, to recognize that when Samarin talks about glossolalia, he is not talking about our definition of speaking in tongues. (Yes, I have already said this. Numerous times). He is giving a practical definition, not a doctrinal one. The heart of my argument is that the modern practice does not match the doctrinal. LONG before Samarin ever gets to Hockett's list of design features of language, he establishes that what he is putting through the "linguoscope" (I just made that word up) is not a foreign language. So Chockfull demands: Well, you got me. He never says that outright. The best I can say is that in the paper before us (his book, which he wrote later, should arrive in my mailbox in a few days) very strongly implies it in several places. I can give you THOSE page numbers: p. 52: "But xenoglossia and glossolalia are not identical [emphasis his]. A case of xenoglossia would reveal a natural language, but a glossa is never a natural language [emphasis mine], and it is like a language only in very limited ways. p. 55: "Having ruled out the possibility of charismatic xenoglossia [emphasis mine], we are left with untold thousands of cases of unintelligible verbal utterances." Unfortunately for my purposes, Samarin never lays out (in THIS paper) exactly how he arrived at that conclusion. Disappointing, I must admit. It appears to be a de facto argument. The proof at how he arrived at this conclusion is simply not addressed in the paper we're reviewing. My hope is that it is addressed in more detail in the book I have ordered, which was written four years later. What we do know from linguistics is that each language has a fairly consistent phonetic structure, and two languages can have very similar structures without being the same language. Spanish and Portuguese, for example, sound very similar to anyone who is unfamiliar with either language. Someone with only a passing familiarity with Spanish might believe an overheard conversation to be in Spanish when it is, in fact, Portuguese. But no fluent Spanish speaker would ever make the same mistake. A similarity in phonetic structure does not prove an identical language. What a linguist can do is compare the phonetic structure of a glossa to the phonetic structures of known languages to determine if there is a match. What they find is, in general, there IS a match -- usually to the native language of the speaker. Sometimes there are other phonemes (the units of a phonetic structure) thrown in, but those can usually be attributed to the speaker's exposure, however limited, to other languages. That's how I could throw the "ch" sound of "Chanukkah" into a glossa, even though that sound is not an English phoneme and I do not speak Hebrew. It's as simple as being exposed to the sound. But the existence of a foreign phoneme into the glossa doesn't suddenly make my glossa Hebrew. You see, a matching phonetic structure is not like a fingerprint. If two phonetic structures are a perfect match, that doesn't mean you've found the language. Remember how most glossa of English speaking charismatics match English phonemes? Well, that doesn't mean their glossa is English! Quite the contrary, in terms of English, the glossa is gobbledy-gook. The next thing to do is a very simple, objective test: find a speaker of the language for which it is a match and just ask them if it's the same language. [You can only do this once you have a match. If you don't have a match, you don't have that language. Doesn't mean you don't have another language. You have to keep comparing]. The more languages (or, more accurately, phonemes) a glossolalist has been exposed to, the more variety he can bring to his glossa. Some people are very good at it. It's almost as if they have been practicing by holding up an alphabet and mimicking the sounds while producing glossa. But that doesn't make their glossa a real, human language that someone somewhere on Earth can speak. As I review the studies (not just Samarin, but what little I can see of Goodman and some of the others), the basis for rejecting glossolalia as xenoglossia has EVERYTHING to do with phonetic analysis and nothing to do with Hockett's list of the design features of language. So the contention that Samarin allowed unrecognized languages to slip past him and then rejected those real languages as meaningless glossa is, considering these facts, a stunning and baseless accusation of incompetence. And even if one were to justify that accusation against Samarin, one would still have to contend with the other linguists who have also failed to recognize any actual, foreign language in a sample of glossolalia. In effect, the validity of the argument against my position seems to rest heavily on the accusation that all linguists who have reviewed glossolalia are incompetent to identify languages.

Correct

Btw, glad to see my methods have gone from Satanic to doubting Thomas. At least now I'm being compared to a disciple. You know what Jesus did to Thomas? He showed him exactly the proof he wanted to see. Is God a respecter of persons? Why does Thomas get his proof and I don't? What changed? You're going to have to answer those questions for me to even consider your position seriously. (no you aren't)

Chockfull, I picked Swahili because it is a language Samarin would have recognized. Could you answer the question as if Samarin recognized the language but determined that other than speaking it, I had no knowledge of Swahili. What would he have done with such a case?

Blatant lies and distortions exalting the life of a con man who preyed upon God's people to satisfy his lust for money, power and flesh is NOT "positive." It is pathetic. Not you. I'm sure you're a swell guy. So long as you're not emulating the man you admire. P.S. The conclusion of Mark 16 is a crock.

Let me just ask you to clarify your understanding of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia (which you have here misstated in a manner which I have previously corrected, and which correction you have ignored to dishonest effect, if not intent). The way you describe it, if I were to SIT in front of Samarin and produce perfect Swahili, yet I did not demonstrate any systematic understanding of that language's vocabulary or grammar, he would categorize my Swahili as glossolalia and declare it to be non-language based on Hockett's list. I think we can agree that such a hypothetical occurrence would be absurd, and thus I have to assume I am misunderstanding you. So before I critique what you have posted here, I'd appreciate the clarification.

You know, I'm going to cool down and reply later, or maybe tomorrow. I've tried to be patient with your distortions and misrepresentation of Samarin's work for days now, and it's just gotten beyond ridiculous already. I'm gonna go hug my babies and let your post sit as the last word for a few hours.

No, I say Samarin in general concludes SIT is not a language. But not using Hockett's list. Hockett's list allows us to draw no conclusions in the context of this discussion. If I have to say that one more time, I will be forced to conclude your misrepresentation is deliberate. You counter that Samarin wouldn't know a language if he had a recorded sample of it in his hands. "He found languages he did not recognize," you called it. Your evidence for this? Hockett's list. THAT notion has been debunked. Samarin rejects glossolalia as real human languages on the grounds that they are, objectively, NOT. If glossolalia were turning out foreign languages, then the necessary investigation would be into how the language was acquired (Biblical affirmation, possession by Xenu, reincarnation. He doesn't care. It's not interesting to him as a linguist). This whole exercise has been one humongous detour from the main point of this thread, because once we determine that linguists have consistently found that glossolalia is not xenoglossia, my work was done. You're the one who keeps demanding we investigate the ink on the counterfeit bills. And I'm the one accused of stating my opinions as fact? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about here. Seriously, what standard of proof did I propose that was so low that you are rejecting it? I have conceded all along that I cannot prove everyone is faking it. I have one standard of proof, and it's a high but exceedingly simple one: Show Me The Language. And the best you countered with is a couple of unverifiable anecdotes. That's a mighty low standard for proof. Such a low standard that at least one of the people who offered the account immediately recognized its inadequacy for that use. If anyone has a low standard of proof, it's you, suggesting that phonological structure (which can be faked very easily, convincingly and routinely) and uncorroborated anecdotes are stronger than the failure of any linguist to actually detect a language in a sample of SIT, regardless of the setting in which the sample was produced.

Sounds more snarky than plausible, to be honest.

I believe I have examined all 16 items and successfully refuted the absurd notion that the first five have any conclusive bearing on our discussion. Agreed. And agreed that this appears to not have taken place in any linguistic study of glossolalia. We should be done here. But you insist on analyzing the ink. So... By the way, it was Tom and Socks, not Don and Socks. This was not that long ago. You and I have already mixed up a handful of key details in their stories in such a short period of time. How many other details get mixed up, exaggerated, distorted by well-intentioned people after 40 years? Another reason not to take the stories at face value. Not to dismiss them, but to wait for further proof. I dismiss them only if further proof is not forthcoming. Let's also agree, please, that you cannot discount SIT as a language using Hockett's list. Whatever Samarin was doing in this section was either unfair to you or misunderstood by all of us. Or both. My vote goes with both. Ok, I've gone through Hockett's list item by item and I've showed exactly why, on each item, it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having. "Is not!" is not a reasoned response to my analysis. Please provide one. And on this front, we have no argument. My argument only holds if those preaching SIT insist it is a known human language (living or dead would qualify). If you do not insist it is a known human language, we have no ability to argue because we're not agreeing on basic ground rules. If THAT's what you're saying, you're right: can't be proved or disproved. Our disagreement becomes entirely doctrinal. That is both generous of you and questionable. Where do you get that SIT is phonetically indistinguishable from language? Not denying it, but asking you for the basis of that statement. Um, no, you can't, for the very reasons you described. But even more than that, testing interpretation is even a problem hypothetically. Unless the interpretation is a word-for-word translation, you cannot expect to find a one-to-one corollary between the tongue and the interpretation. It is by definition untestable. We all agree that fakery of interpretation and prophecy was widespread. Without a 100% confession rate, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to prove fakery was universal. You would also need them to test interpretation in each of the doctrinal ways in which it is taught. And even then, you can't eliminate the problem of the brain injecting meaning into glossa (do I subconsciously come up with "words" while I'm thinking of certain subjects or people? Has my repetition of this process over 40 years fused, in my mind, concepts like "God, love, faithful, powerful," etc. in ways that would appear to be translation but nonetheless originated in ways I made up? There is no way whatsoever to measure that, not even in theory). The only thing I'll add is that SIT, free vocalization (faking SIT) and language are similar phonetically. Next: responding to ASL not being vocal-auditory, but meeting EVERY OTHER design feature of language, you wrote: Again, you are mistaken by the standard Samarin describes. After providing Hockett's list, he writes: "Ten of these properties constitute a defining set for language." Then he lists them. Guess what's not on the list. Come on, guess. Please? One teensy guess?

And Take Three: Why thank you. Not with THIS list. Agreed. Accepted, with the caveat that everything you're applying to SIT also applies to free vocalization. Um, a response of "I don't believe them" is an ENTIRELY scientific, logical and reasonable response. Your dispute is that it's not a Biblical response. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a better argument than the one you're making. But no scientist, logician or person operating under the auspices of mere reason is going to take those accounts at their word without the ability to even verify who the participants were, whether they are credible, and whether they really heard what they claimed to hear. Don't make me pull out the UFO analogy again! We have ample evidence that fakery of this phenomenon was widespread. Make up your mind. Oh, so if there were scientific investigation of these accounts, and those investigations turned up that they were phony, you would accept that? Somehow, I don't believe you. You keep calling them firsthand accounts, so let's make sure we use our terms correctly. These are firsthand accounts of the fact that this was claimed by others in their presence. They are not firsthand accounts of the truth of those claims. They are secondhand accounts of the truth of the claims. If they claimed to BE the one who understood, that would be a firsthand account. A complete firsthand account? No. Because then we would need to find the other person to be able to determine THAT person's veracity. For example: Let's say Socks' Asians really DID understand what was spoken in a tongue. That would appear miraculous, but to make absolutely sure we HAVE a miracle, we need to make sure that the speaker had no knowledge of that language. So we need the other side to reach a reasoned conclusion. But let's say we ONLY have the speaker, and he assures us to everyone's satisfaction that he did not know the language. But we don't have the hearers. We do not have any independent verification that the hearers were telling the truth when they claimed to understand what was spoken in a tongue. Do we know enough about them to conclude that they were being truthful. Certainly not! We know nothing about them at all, except that they were Asian. So the story as presented is within the realm of possibly true, but as you duly noted, unverifiable. We can only examine evidence that is before us. Decades-old stories about a miraculous event that happened right before my eyes but I can't tell you who the speaker was and I can't tell you who the hearer was and I couldn't find either without a detective kit and GoogleEarth ... that's not proof. I never said "end of story." You said that. I said I don't believe them. More evidence, the IDs and accounts of the people who were actual participants, would be more helpful. You noted in an earlier post that they are under no obligation to report or defend their experience to me. I agree, wholeheartedly. By the same token and by the same logic, I am under no obligation to believe them. Can we move on?

Having trouble posting my full response to chockfull's first post. Need to take a few minutes between "takes" as it were. Take one: A lenghtier-than-necessary discourse on a part of this discussion not in contention. I never said the speaker understood the language. Patently false. Not only CAN we do this, we MUST. Otherwise, we are unable to process or synthesize information. Wierwille wasn't always wrong in his Biblical interpretations. Sometimes he was right on the money. Must one accept all of his theology just because one agrees with some of it? Not at all. There is nothing dishonest or illogical about that. I did it with Poythress and you had an objection to my conclusion, but not my process. The process is sound. I am not disputing Samarin's conclusions, by the way. What I am disputing is its application to THIS discussion. There are things Samarin discusses that have nothing to do with our dialogue (mediums, for example). I'm not spending my time analyzing them because they are irrelevant to this discussion. I made a judgment call early on that the criteria section, aka, Hockett's list, had nothing to do with our discussion here. I could very easily have been wrong about that. But it turns out I was absolutely correct -- to the benefit of your position, not mine. I would have LOVED to look at the list and use it as proof of my position. But it's not. It's not proof of either of our positions. It doesn't even begin to address our positions. It's irrelevant ... to our discussion. That doesn't mean he was wrong to bring it up. Just not in our context. (If he were having our conversation, this would be a fault. But he's not. So it isn't). Again, I am not the one who cited Hockett's list or demanded a review of it. We are not disagreeing here. Where we are disagreeing is in the application of Hockett's list in the context of THIS thread's discussion. Samarin is not having the same discussion we are. His use of Hockett's list is unrelated to the idea of whether SIT is producing (to put it in your terms) a language he does not recognize. He already dismisses that idea long before he gets to Hockett's list. Ok, now wait a cherry-picking minute. What's tediously pedantic is having to spell out for you every time Samarin discusses glossolalia, he has already eliminated foreign languages from consideration. That's the only point of this thread. We are discussing the ink on a counterfeit bill. If I sound repetitious, it's because you keep proceeding as if that point has not been made. Take Two: That is a tautology. Phonological structure does not prove something IS a language. It only proves that it SOUNDS like one, and that is because the speaker wants it to. Otherwise, it would be gibberish. Now who's employing the argument-from-authority fallacy. While you rely on "Samarin is a linguist," let's look again at Hockett's list and determine the 1/3 of it satisfied by glossalalia (am I the only one who noticed that we dropped from about 2/3 to about 1/3)? Glossalalia is like language in the following ways: * It employs vocal-auditory channels. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. In the context of the discussion we are having, this proves nothing. * It is directed from the speaker to the recipient. Just like language. Just like free vocalization (when employed as a fake SIT experience, the way I did). In the context of this discussion, this proves nothing more than that the SITter is sincere about wanting God to hear it, whereas the free vocalist knows on some level that he's faking it. Linguistically, it is no different). * Rapid fading: after you're done speaking, the sound goes away. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. In the context of this conversation, it proves nothing. * Interchangeability: Glossa does not fit in any real sense, but let's say it does. Anyone who speaks in tongues can hear someone else speaking in tongues. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. Proves nothing. * Complete feedback: The person speaking also hears himself (literally or figuratively doesn't matter. The wording is that the transmitter also receives the message). Just like language. Just like free vocalization. * Specialization: (looks like this means it doesn't require a whole lot of physical effort. Check me on that). Just like language. Just like free vocalization. Proves nothing. That's 6 of 16 items (37.5%) on Hockett's list. Neither SIT nor free vocalization meet any of the other standards, but dismissing either of them as language on that basis is patently unfair... TO YOU. It's unfair TO YOU. It is unfair TO YOUR SIDE for Samarin to use this list. I am agreeing with that. We should be on the same side here. What we see in those six items is that SIT is like real language in ways that prove absolutely nothing as to its legitimacy as a language. If you can use that list to say glossolalia has 1/3 of the defining characteristics of language (which sounds impressive until you look at the list), then I am equally justified in saying that FAKING glossolalia has 1/3 of the defining characteristics of language. And they are the same characteristics. If I were really trying to be a pain here, I would point out that this is further proof that SIT IS free vocalization. But that would be unfair, because while the list may be relevant to some point Samarin is trying to make, it is not relevant to the conversation we are having! I don't think this is my opinion anymore. I think I've demonstrated this ad nauseum. Right. And so is free vocalization, which also sounds like a language. That's why I fooled everyone for years. That's why (in MY OPINION) we ALL fooled EACH OTHER for years. But that's my opinion. I accept that you disagree, but give me some credit for basing my opinion on something firm here. Nothing in this study, or in the use of Hockett's list, suggests anything remotely resembling proof that SIT is language.

Wanted to add the link to Amazon's Lee Strobel page, in keeping with my own request. I also see that I confused Lee Strobel with Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict). Here's McDowell's page.

"When I was growing up in Bakersfield, my favorite thing in the whole world was to go to the movies on Saturday afternoons for the Chapter Plays." "Cliffhangers." "I know that, Mr. Man! They also called them serials. I'm not stupid ya know... Anyway, my favorite was Rocketman, and once it was a no breaks chapter. The bad guy stuck him in a car on a mountain road and knocked him out and welded the door shut and tore out the brakes and started him to his death, and he woke up and tried to steer and tried to get out but the car went off a cliff before he could escape! And it crashed and burned and I was so upset and excited, and the next week, you better believe I was first in line. And they always start with the end of the last week. And there was Rocketman, trying to get out, and here comes the cliff, and just before the car went off the cliff, he jumped free! And all the kids cheered! But I didn't cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn't what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair! HE DID'NT GET OUT OF THE COCK - A - DOODIE CAR!" "They always cheated like that in cl... chapter plays."