Raf

and add a little more drambuie.

What a shock. I got 'em all right.

On THE what?

By the way, my comments and quotes were from ROW's post, not CK's. Just in case there was a misunderstanding. I do not argue with CK any longer, any more than I argue with my butt. When it does what it needs to do, I accommodate it, clean up, and go about my business without thinking much about it afterward.

One of my favorite things about George: I like disagreeing with him as much as I like agreeing with him. You're a great mind. Luvya, man.

Xanadu Olivia Newton-John Grease

Oh, that's good. moore fizz rome ants I think you're right.

Ah yes, the old CES forum. I remember it like it was only yesterday. They shut it down, and i went over to Waydale to tell everyone, and, and... Shoot, the computer just hiccupped or something. Wonder what ever became of that? :)

Welcome to GSC.Not to start off on a bad foot, here, but that quote tells me you don't know what plagiarism is. It is NOT "teaching the same thing." It is taking what someone else wrote and pretending you wrote it. It could be a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter or a book. Most examples of plagiarism show some changes from the original work. That doesn't stop it from being plagiarism. It's fundamentally dishonest, in a field that highly values fundamental honesty. You can read all about it in my new book, Power for Abundant Living. You'd be amazed at how simple it is, and it rarely gets in the way. In one chapter of "Order My Steps in Thy Word," VPW excellently quotes and attributes the quote to EW Kenyon, even while plagiarizing Kenyon in the very same chapter! It's amazing: He does it blatantly while showing, for anyone who cares to see, that he doesn't have to do it!

Easy one: "Three weeks ago, one of our most *celebrated* ambassadors and advisors to Federation leaders for generations, disappeared. He left no word of his destination. Two days ago, intelligence reports placed him on Romulus, and I assure you it was an unauthorized visit." **** "A defection?" "If it is, the damage to Federation security would be immeasurable."

I'm not so sure. I think it would be just as wrong to disqualify the program BECAUSE of its religious content as it would be to disqualify the program for not having any religious content. I think it's an interesting constitutional question. It would be wrong for the state to require people to go through that program, but to penalize them for choosing that program over another one would be just as much a violation of the constitution. And I hope it goes without saying that the judge has no right whatsoever to assess a particular movement's compatibility with Christianity.

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of being judged as judgmental. "Excuse me, I don't mean to judge, but I think the pilot of that plane is heading toward that building. Not to question his motives or anything. But let's wait and see what happens before we say anything for sure. Holy cow, looks like I was right. Wow. Straight into the building. Hey, look, another plane ont he same flight path. Now, I don't want to judge, but..." BE SOBER AND VIGILANT!!! vigilant: alert to the possibilty and/or presence of danger. But of course, to call something dangerous is to judge it, no?

Descent ST: TNG Guest appearance by Stephen Hawking, the ONLY person in Star Trek history to play himself.

I say George said the name and it should be his turn.

Lorna, When I said Elizabeth is not on trial, I meant that whether she is "innocent" in what happened between her and JAL is not the point. I agree that it appears STFI intruded on her marriage, but the fact that there were other contributing factors is none of my business.

Matthew, welcome to GS.

Captain Crunch, thank you for clarifying the "sexual involvement" statement. You're right; it did look like there was an affair to cover up. If Mark is using his current ministry position to prey upon women and cover it up as godly, that's reprehensible. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. If Mark, 20 years ago, had a moment of weakness and was put in his place, I hope and pray he learned his lesson and has moved on, as we all should (as far as that incident is concerned).

I'm going to say this loud as I can: ELIZABETH LYNN IS NOT ON TRIAL. Comments about her "innocence" are, in my opinion, comPLETEly out of line. One thing I see that apparently is not in dispute is that a so-called prophetic ministry was used to undermine her marriage. Whether there are other reasons for their breakup is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT and between her and John alone. I feel the same way about any prior relationship that existed in the 1980s between two consenting adults who were not, at the time, in leadership positions in the church.

This is heart-wrenching. LG, George, Greasespot has given me some wonderful treasures, and I consider your fellowship among them. I would be honored to be able to call you my friend. I hope you're wrong about theism. I hope I was right when I embraced the concept of incorruptible seed. If I'm right, although you and I have never been in the same room, I know I will recognize you when we see each other face to face. Enjoy the coming months in peace. You have friends here. You honor us with your words and presence. For what it's worth, God Bless You, LG.

As I mentioned earlier, in my opinion (and again, I'm only speaking for myself), it appears Elizabeth wants her letter to John to be made public regardless of the personal content because it exposes corruption at the top levels of STFI/CES. I do not see any parallel reason to post Elizabeth's shortcomings or any other possible reasons for the Lynns' divorce. It's their business, not the church's. Anyway, that's my nickel. Keep the change.

[Edited by modcat5] ... Nonetheless, Elizabeth's letter is presented in the context of an organization exerting its influence in God's name. [Edited by modcat5] If I were still contributing financially to STFI/CES and felt they owed me some accountability for their stewardship, perhaps I would write to John and ask about the influence exerted by KAG. As it stands, I do not contribute, and John Lynn owes me no such explanation.

It's fairly clear that permission to post has been granted. I know Paw to be very concerned with ethical/legal issues. He's obviously participating in this thread. Yet no names have been xxx'ed out. Why is that? My guess? Permission granted. Do I know this for a fact (ie, have I seen the documentation)? No. But I know Paw's credibility enough to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. I agree, without Elizabeth's permission to post that letter, it would be a really terrible thing to post it. But consider: she wrote that opening letter to a general audience, so she must have at the very least anticipated that it would be made public.

I don't recognize that last pic, but I'll bet dollars to donuts his name is Billy.

Garth, I think that would be up to Elizabeth.

Finally read the prophecies. Glad I stopped giving money to that organization.