Raf

I only have one thing to say to all this: If any self-appointed CES/STFI prophet tries to interfere in my marriage or engagement, they can kiss my disenchanted ...

Not to malign CES as a cult, but you do not need a charismatic leader to have a cult. Most JW's would be hard pressed to name their "leader."

Very funny. :) Anyway, no guesses on my movie? It's an easy one, I think.

Lotsa spoilers in this thread, but really, if you're worried about spoilers in a 26-year-old movie, I don't know that I can help you all that much. ;) If you don't know the back story, here it is. Superman and Superman II were supposed to be filmed back-to-back, the way Lord of the Rings was done. But the original director was fired before everything was done, and the new director changed some things around for part 1 and, with more impact, for part 2. This movie, now available on DVD, attempts to give the "vision" of the original director for Superman II. If I had known this would have been the end result, I would have barged into the Warner Brothers offices and cried out, with passion, NO! DON'T DO IT! THE PEOPLE! This movie is a mess. I'm not even talking about the worst of the worst scenes (the confrontation between Lois and Clark at the honeymoon suite is taken from two different screen tests, with Christopher Reeve looking dramatically different from shot to shot. The result is nothing short of jarring, even if you're willing to forgive the fact that they never got around to shooting the scene with high production value). The real travesty in this edition is the fact that for some reason (arrogance? stupidity?), Richard Donner felt he had to fix things that weren't broken. Result? Punch lines with no set up. For example, Clark promises to get Lois orange juice, "freshly squeezed." But the previous scene, in which Lois explains her newfound obsession with orange juice, is not in this edition. So there's no gag in the "freshly squeezed" line. And the Lois/Superman romance is gone. I'm not saying the fact that they are in love is gone. I'm saying the chemistry has simply vanished. There's a poignant moment in the original where Lois says she's in love with him, and he responds, "We'd really better talk." Gone. The fact that these two are ridiculously in love with each other is not apparent until he's with her in the fortress of solitude. And what's a woman to say when Superman comes onto her at his home in the north pole? Looked like a classic case of date rape to me. Which brings us to our villains. Most of their work is the same (though there's a MUCH cooler explanation about how they broke free from the Phantom Zone). The beginning of their terrorism at the small town of East Houston, Idaho is not shown. I'm going to say that again: They don't show the scene where they first get into fights with locals in town. No arm wrestling sequence. No tossing someone out the front window. No shot of Non trying to figure out how heat vision works. You DO get the scene where Non figures OUT heat vision and uses it successfully. He's got the same smirk on his face, the one that says "look what I did!" But, like the freshly queezed orange juice scene, it's got no setup. Dumb. Simply dumb. And someone, I don't know who, turned the volume on the music down real, real low. This is most evident in the scene where Superman makes his triumphant return. Well, it seemed triumphant in 1980. This time around, it just seems matter of fact. Hey, look, he's back. And why, dear God, why did they ruin (that is, omit), one of the best lines in the movie? "General, would you care to step outside?" Gone. The. Line. Is. Gone. Unforgivable. Replaced with, "General, haven't you ever heard of freedom of the press?" Not a bad line, but really, the 1980 line is so much better because it's a real, honest to God, let's throw hands NOW challenge! Now, how does Superman get Lois to forget who he is? Simple: he presses the rewind button and takes us back to the beginning of the movie. Dear God, I'm not kidding. He turns back the clock. Never mind that the events of the movie are about to happen again (perhaps now according to the original film's superior execution). For curiosity's sake, this is an interesting movie to have. But the original release is the better one. At least in that one, unlike the Donner cut, Lois and Superman will always have Paris.

I'll have to figure out what to do with my websites. In the meantime, I'll put a placeholder pic up.

I'm one of the few people who did not hate Rocky 5. I mean, it was not a great movie by any stretch, but it was watchable and a lot more true to 1 and 2 than the fourth one was. Rocky 4 was a cartoon. I like the third one, too. Haven't seen this last one yet, but I will...

CK, What you have is not commitment or even something as gentle as a closed mind. You have a seared conscience, one that does not know love, God or Christ. On top of that, you have written by far some of the dumbest posts on this message board. Since you will not listen to reason or reproof, the best any honest Christian can do with you is shake your grimy, muddy crap off their shoes and walk away from you. May the power of God in Christ someday break through to your closed, dank and demonic heart. The only thing you have in common with Christ is the letter C in your name.

Mike knows that I have little to no respect for him, that I think he espouses a dangerous and hateful doctrine. I say that because I would rather spend a year with no one to talk to but Mike than spend a few minutes having to deal with ck. Of course, if I ever have a choice like the one outlined above... put the bullet... right here ---> :blink:

Don't know when I'll get another chance to post. Maybe in the morning. Maybe not until Tuesday. So might as well say it now... MERRY CHRISTMAS To All The Customers at the GREASESPOT CAFE!

If I may offer a slightly different perspective... If I'm CES, I'm thinking that there are maybe 10 posts on this thread, 15 at most, that are actually of value to people. The rest are gossipping, backbiting, and the same unhealthy cynicism that has haunted the ex-Way community and kept us away from GSCafe for years. Not saying I agree with the above perspective. Just that if you're in defensive mode, that's the position you're going to embrace.

Steve Lortz is back!

Thank God.

That's what I thought. Blue Hawaii

That's not Roger Rabbit. Wrong guesses are for kids.

Jesus did look about people in anger, but NEVER in hate. You have just exposed and confessed your rebelliousness agains God in Christ. Wwwwwwiiiiiipe... FFFFLLLLLUUUUUUSSSHSSHSHSHSHSHSSSSSHHHH!!! Ok, I'm done.

Actually, I'm looking forward to this. Post here if you saw it. And I don't think there can be a spoiler in a Rocky movie, but just in case, if the ending is unexpected, please don't spoil it.

Deciding whether to call Wierwille Apostle or Lord is like deciding whether to call Angelina Jolie a Man or a Wheelchair.

For the record, that's neither a dance nor an air guitar. It's a "YYYYES!!!!"

As I've said, as someone who is no longer in the STFI/CES community, I do not feel these guys owe me any explanation of anything. If anyone is still giving to CES or considers himself/herself a part of it, feel free to "plagiarize" my questions. I won't sue.

Same purpose as a colon. To get rid of things the body no longer has any use for. What comes out of there may not smell too good, but it's a good thing you're getting rid of it, even if it means you have to put up with the smell every now and then.

WW, They could also think none of this should be public and none of this should be anyone's business. They could think that Elizabeth was wrong for making a public letter out of a private letter she sent to John. They could think that to answer publicly would be a disservice to Elizabeth because of some of the things they'd say about her (we've already seen a hint here of people discussing Elizabeth's lack of "innocence" in how their marriage fell apart). As a great man named Sarek once said, "It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question." So what is it we would even WANT the folks at CES to say? IF I were to consider giving to CES again, my questions would be: 1. Does STFI/CES think it is appropriate for its "prophets" to meddle in the marriages of its followers? 2. Does STFI/CES value "personal prophecy" and the prophetic to such an extent that when someone who delivers a prophecy says it's NOT about Elizabeth, STFI/CES will say it's about Elizabeth ANYWAY, based on the word of a different prophet? 3. If I were to become an STFI/CES partner, what assurance do I have that the meddlers who call themselves prophets won't try to inject their garbage into MY marriage? 4. How and why did you fail to heed the multiple warnings presented to you about the dangerous road you were taking regarding the prophetic? Should it not have been a MAJOR warning bell to you when you started teaching that God could be "wrong" about a prophecy rather than recognizing that you're "wrong" in either your doctrine and practice of the same? Do you not recognize that calling your personal opinion or vain imagination a "prophecy" or a "word from the Lord" is simply a way of stifling debate about what you're saying? After all, now someone's not arguing with you or your interpretation of Scripture, but with the ALMIGHTY now! And if the prophecy is wrong, heck, it's not your fault, it's God's! None of these questions has anything to do with the Lynn marriage, and one need not divulge personal information about the Lynns or anyone else to answer them. That's what i would ask, if i felt they owed me an explanation. But they don't.

Guys, You're arguing with points raised by CK. Want to talk about lack of integrity? I trust my cereal more than I trust this guy.

Good, goofy fun.

Oh please.