Raf

Was anyone else in that movie? Candice Bergen Carnal Knowledge Jack Nicholson

There are certain things I want to know. I want to know why "onomatopiea" doesn't mean anything like it sounds. I want to know why "palindrome" is not spelled the same way backwards and forwards. I want to know if anyone has ever actually said the word "hegemony" out loud. Any why. I want to know why the verb "effect" means "to cause."

Gun Bee! Just kiddding. Ummm...

10 posts, eh? What'll it take to make it 9? Maybe we should ask Chatty Kathy?

Now why, after three blissful months, would you want to bump THIS thread up? Hmmm, I wonder.

Happy Daze, uh, Days is correct.

Nope. The first face expresses the first word. The second face expresses the second word. If you get the first, the second's pretty easy. Tough to get the second on its own, though.

"What's a marketing report?' "Exactly."

Take it away, WW!

European Vacation

Perry Mason

Snoring, boring, the play is confusing Lay back, way back, soon I will be snoozing... **** Dough, some cash -- a wad of cash Ray, a guy who fixes cars. Me, the one who takes out the trash Far, the distance to the stars. So, a word that goes with "well" LA, a city where we dwell Tea, with honey it tastes swell And that brings us back to... Dough!

But it makes us hap-peeeeee.

"Okay Lady." "Not 'Lady.' "Mom.'" "Okay, Lady, I love you, buh-bye."

Lifted Up: I think we're getting semantical in the distinction here: the end result is the same. If I reject everything VPW taught and evaluate what I'm going to let back in, or filter out everything VPW taught and keep only those things I think are valuable and worth keeping, the end result is identical: I keep what I think is right and reject what I think is wrong. It's the NEXT STEP in both cases that makes the two options identical. REJECT ALL: Re-admit some. REJECT SOME: Retain some. Either way, the same stuff ends up rejected and the same stuff ends up retained. Pick your method. Whatever makes you happier. What DIFFERENCE does it make, so long as you're being honest with yourself?

Dude, stick to one analogy at a time. You've got a fraudulent piece of artwork hanging in your living room and you're talking about lunch. How about going to MacDonald's for a Fillet-o-fish. It's boneless.

It was often that funny, but no, no Marx Brothers. MUCH more recent.

Victor Paul Wierwille taught truth mixed with comically bad and tragically bad error. The Mona Lisa doesn't have a mustache. Her hair was not red. The painting you have in your living room is a fake. You're pointing to it as great art. You can't even SEE that it's a forgery. Here's my suggestion: Toss it, and begin a new search for the Mona Lisa. You'll be glad you did. Everything in the fake that was worth salvaging will be in the real Mona Lisa that you find.

Thanks for providing the link. I stand by what I said then and it doesn't conflict with what I say now. They're perfectly consistent. "Better to reject..." The word "better" means I'm comparing one method to another. What are the methods? Starting a search from scratch compared to using VPW as a reference point. What would be better? Starting from scratch. However, that does not conflict with what I said earlier, that "starting from scratch" is not something that's particularly practical. Hey, if you can do it, great, it would be better. But I can no more unlearn what VPW taught than I can unlearn how to ride a bicycle. So I emulate "starting from scratch" by disregarding VPW as the author/writer/presenter of whatever doctrine I happen to be reviewing. the effect is the same: I have rejected him as an authority, and resume my search for the truth disregarding his input. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research he was right, to God be the glory. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research that he was wrong, to God be the glory. And I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with taking my entire VPW collection to the town dump and lighting a match to it. I no longer feel any need to pore over his presentations for any valuable purpose, because any value that comes from "his" books or tapes will come from elsewhere. However, I also see no particular need to take all his stuff to the dump either. It's valuable to me in evaluating my own thought process to go over what has influenced my thought process in the past. So: toss out all his stuff and start from scratch. Go through all his stuff and weed out what you want to keep and what you want to toss. End result is the same: you've removed VPW as an authority. Bad analogy. Try this instead: If you had what you thought was the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years, then you find out that the person you bought it from was actually not DaVinci but D'Olmeda, and that the real Mona Lisa did not have red hair and was not missing a tooth, and that the background of the painting should not have a Warner Bros. watermark, would you still value the painting as a priceless work of art?

Could I get a link to where I said that last year? I want to check the context before I respond. I will say, however, that I never claimed to be God-breathed and can certainly adjust my thinking. I can also say that both statements I made are true. They do not contradict each other at all. Just because it would be better to do one thing doesn't mean it would be ineffective to do something else. Frankly, I can no more erase the existence and teaching of VPW from my head after accepting it in general for more than a decade than I can erase my ability to ride a bike. I learned it. Now, I can learn more, and adjust and adapt, but I can't unlearn something. I can forget something I've learned, but not intentionally. I can "reject" what I've learned, but that would require replacing it with something else in most cases. Whatever.

Wanna hear a knock-knock joke? Ok. Knock-knock. Who's there? Max. Max who? Max wants to come in an' go crazy. See, that's not funny because it's not really a joke. It is if you know Max. But I DON'T know Max. If you did you'd be laughin'. ***** "Um, it's not that we wouldn't like to take your survey..." "It's more like we'd rather have dental surgery." ***** "Folks, we'll paint your ceiling for only $19.95. Right. How do we do it? No overhead. When we're done, you'll have nothing overhead. You hire us, you have nothing in your head. We paint ceilings, ceilings, and only ceilings. We don't do floors 'cause they're beneath us." ***** "There you go, that's our solar system." "You forgot Uranus." "Good NIGHT, everybody."

That was right?

Obviously something with time travel. I'd guess Voyagers

Yeah. For years I was in the "so what" crowd, and to a large extent (this will shock many) I still am. I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. In seeking to be a better Christian, I read a bunch of stuff and I try to discern prayerfully what fits and what doesn't. I question, I debate, I discuss: I try to learn. But I pay little attention to authorship until and unless it becomes an issue; then I try to follow Biblical directives to watch out for "wolves on sheeps' clothing." Was Wierwille a wolf in sheeps' clothing (no offense intended toward wolves)? Yup. I think his behavior proved that. I admire some of the clothing, though. Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere. :)