Raf

WD wants proof. Do you have any rock solid proof. Not testimony from abused Christian after abused Christian, many of whom are turned off Christ forever as a result. No, testimony is not proof. He wants stains on dresses. He wants videotape. He wants to do a drug test that can pick up traces of laced drinks imbibed 35 years ago. Nothing short of that will consitute proof! Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!

Speak for yourself. Some of us are led to other conclusions. Such as: VPW could have left a signed confession with a videotaped addendum, and some people would still refuse to acknowledge that he was a predator who abused God's Word and His people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power. You only need to eat one person to be a cannibal, no matter how many people you met and did not eat.

"Okay you guys, listen up! People pay good money to see this movie! When they go out to a theater they want cold sodas, hot popcorn, and no monsters in the projection booth! Do I have to come up there myself?" **** "Fred, what we want is, I think, what everyone wants, and what you and your viewers have: civilization." "Yes, but what sort of civilization are you speaking of?" "The niceties, Fred. The fine points: diplomacy, compassion, standards, manners, tradition... that's what we're reaching toward. Oh, we may stumble along the way, but civilization, yes. The Geneva Convention, chamber music, Susan Sontag. Everything your society has worked so hard to accomplish over the centuries, that's what we aspire to; we want to be civilized. You take a look at this fellow here. (Shoots him in the head) Now, was that civilized? No, clearly not. Fun, but in no sense civilized. Now, bear in mind, none of us has been in New York before. There are the Broadway shows - we'll have to find out how to get tickets. There's also a lot of street crime, but I believe we can watch that for free. We want the essentials. Dinettes. Complete bedroom groups. Convenient credit, even though we've been turned down in the past."

Giveaway: "Fred, what we want is, I think, what everyone wants, and what you and your viewers have: civilization." "Yes, but what sort of civilization are you speaking of?" "The niceties, Fred. The fine points: diplomacy, compassion, standards, manners, tradition... that's what we're reaching toward. Oh, we may stumble along the way, but civilization, yes. The Geneva Convention, chamber music, Susan Sontag. Everything your society has worked so hard to accomplish over the centuries, that's what we aspire to; we want to be civilized. You take a look at this fellow here. (Shoots him in the head) Now, was that civilized? No, clearly not. Fun, but in no sense civilized. Now, bear in mind, none of us has been in New York before. There are the Broadway shows - we'll have to find out how to get tickets. There's also a lot of street crime, but I believe we can watch that for free. We want the essentials. Dinettes. Complete bedroom groups. Convenient credit, even though we've been turned down in the past."

Boston Legal

UMM! Is that the new "Duh for The"?

Now, bear in mind, none of us has been in New York before. There are the Broadway shows - we'll have to find out how to get tickets. There's also a lot of street crime, but I believe we can watch that for free. We want the essentials. Dinettes. Complete bedroom groups. Convenient credit, even though we've been turned down in the past.

Look, boil it down to this: "He did plagiarize, and it matters." "He did plagiarize, and it doesn't matter." "He didn't plagiarize." If you hold to the first statement, I agree with you. If you hold to the second tenet, I disagree with you, but I respect you for acknowledging the obvious. If you hold to the third tenet, I cannot say anything to you without violating at least 14 Greasespot rules forbidding personal attacks on your reading comprehension skills, understanding of vocabulary and astonishing lack of intelligence.

This is nitpicking, and it depends on how you define "passing it off as his own." Wierwille most certainly did credit people for their ideas. But he also plagiarized. The two ideas are not incompatible. In one chapter of Order My Steps in Thy Word, he spends several paragraphs plagiarizing Kenyon, then in the very same chapter providing an appropriately documented lengthy citation of Kenyon's work. The fact that he credited Kenyon with DEF doesn't change the fact that he plagiarized ABC. Saying your stuff is not original is not a blank check that permits you to plagiarize other people's work.

C. Thomas Howell E.T. (yes he was) Drew Barrymore

Still no one's got this? Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory I'm RIGHT! I WIN! Good DAY, sir!

Obama Ann Fore ??? C Suns A Man for All Seasons

Ugly Betty?

I don't know why this thread reminds me of this clip (ok, yes I do)...

I agree. As I said, Jeffrey Dahmer only ate a FEW of the people he met. Miniscule compared to the number of people he didn't eat. That makes him a non-murderer and non-cannibal FAR more times than he was a murderer and cannibal.

Again the VPW as David claim. And the basketball passes on. Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!

Denise Richards The World is Not Enough John Cleese

As I've often said, Jeffrey Dahmer ate only a miniscule percentage of the people he met in his life. Why, then, do we insist on calling him a cannibalistic murderer?

CAPITALIZATION IS NO GUARANTEE FOR TRUTH. The mastery that has taken place here is not a mastery of PFAL or the Bible. It's a mastery of dodging, distracting, etc. Whether you agree with the majority of PFAL or not, it is not "perfect." It is the flawed work of a (deeply) flawed man. That's plain and obvious for all to see, as long as they're not distracted by theories and questions that are designed with one purpose in mind: to lead you away from truths that would otherwise be obvious [that PFAL is the imperfect work of predatory charlatan]. Argue about VPW's character, argue about individual flaws in the person or the product, argue about all you want to argue about, and you will spend all your time counting basketball passes and missing the moonwalking bear [PFAL was, at best, the candy in "hey little boy, do you want some candy?"]

VPW was a fraud. A predator who used and twisted scripture to satisfy his own ends. THAT's the moonwalking bear. This whole argument is counting basketball passes.

Maybe, but you won't catch me scouring the works of L. Ron Hubbard for a "what's right with it, what's wrong with it" review.

Did he say it during the class or is it in the books? Did he say it in 1965 or 1973? Did he say it to Mrs. Wierwille or did he keep it from her? Do his contradictions actually complement each other? Is there a way to harmonize the written record in a way that makes apparent contradictions "melt away"? Are you relying on your knowledge of the written work or your memory of the audio or video class? Did Wierwille say it, or was it merely spoken by someone Wierwille trained? How many passes does the team in white make?

How to spot an error in PFAL (the book):

Yeah, that was largely my fault. Then I realized the futility of arguing with a wall and took all the fun out of the Mike wars. I also took the "no personal attacks" admonition a bit more seriously after trying to host my own message board. I truly admire Paw for all he's done, because it didn't take me nearly as long to chuck that whole endeavor.

Never ask a leper to lend you a hand.