Raf

Shut out again. Whoops. That's not the winner's list. Click on the "2006" for this year's winners.

Ok, so now you've added California to the mix, but given no reasons Californians will flee from this movie as you believe New Yorkers will. So you still haven't made a compelling case about this. 1. Will NYC residents see it? Maybe. Maybe not. The focus of the movie is not what takes place in NY, although that plays a crucial role (obviously). This movie is not about how it felt to be on the streets of the city that day. 2. Will NYS residents see it? More likely than NYC. NYS residents feel connected in spirit to 9/11 without actually having been there. I expect the upstate crowd to turn out in big numbers. 3. Will California residents see it? That will depend more on the quality of the movie. 4. And here's the question you didn't ask? Will Florida see it. Will Washington DC see it. Will Philadelphia see it? Will Chicago see it? Will Toronto see it? Will Indianapolis see it? Will Minneapolis see it? Will Atlanta, Nashville, Phoenix, ... The notion that it's up to NYC to determine the fate of this movie is untrue. It will depend more on two things: marketing (which thus far has done a pretty good job) and the quality of the movie itself. If you won't see it, that's fine. But speak for yourself. "I won't see it, my fellow New Yorkers won't see it, and therefore it won't do well" puts your assertions far beyond what you can possibly know to be true. Well, if they're releasing it nationwide on the same day, that statement can't be true.

Yes. That's it exactly. Chicago Queen Latifah Bringing Down the House

What does anything have to do with THE?

It is a documented fact that if you put peeps on a THE thread, you no longer have a THE thread. I'm just sayin...

Succumbed to temptation? Maybe. I don't know how it started. To me, succumbed to temptation implies that he was the tempted and not the tempter. And maybe that's the case. But it's also likely that he was the initiator from the beginning, the one knocking on her door requesting a backrub. Which is it? I don't know. But I wouldn't discount either scenario.

April 17 is the announcement. We're hoping our paper gets it for one out of the three nominations.

Scream Neve Campbell Wild Things

Welcome back, Zix!

God: What have you done for me lately? sycophantic wannabeliever: I defended the honor of VPW against the people who told the truth about the way he preyed on your people. God: I'm sorry, maybe you didn't understand the question...

I still want to know why some people have more of a problem with those who expose what VPW did than they ever had with what VPW did in the first place. So what if he cynically interpreted the Bible for his own personal financial gain and cynically interpreted the Bible to prey on women who looked up to him? At least he's not like YOU people, talking about him doing those things.

If it were a matter of VPW sinning, I think no one would care. But it's a matter of VPW PREYING on the people who trusted him, and whether or not I can "forgive" that depends on first acknowledging it. VPW must have misunderstood that the Bible commands us to PRAY, not to PREY.

Let me know when you've returned from the mythical land of Metaphoria and are ready to rejoin us here in the real world, k?

tool: (n) A handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Like, for example, opening a lock. Leaving aside the self-evident fact that a key IS a tool, PFAL does not even claim to BE the basic keys: it only claims to set them forth.

Until last year, I do not remember ever even getting close to the R hurricane. THAT sure changed.

The explanation was that because we were taught wrong, our minds interfered with the interpretation, or discarded the interpretation outright, or that because we expected the interpretation to sound like a word of prophecy, a word of prophecy is what we brought forth. The SIT was still prayer and praise, but when it came time to interpret, we prophesied. That was the explanation, anyway.

I wasn't around when it was first taught, Belle, so I can't answer your question. I thought it was fascinating.

Belle, The explanation was that one of two things happened: either the interpretation was altered by the speaker to conform to what he thought it should sound like, or it was a word of prophecy and not an interpretation.

I said I'd see you there. I didn't say I'd be there! :)

And no one said "what" was a slam.

Actually, if it's past tense,, it's lay. If it's present tense, it's only lay if someone else is there and the two are engaged in... Well, engaged in.

I'm sure you meant that you lie awake at night. One assumes you're awake if you're laying at night, but it requires a partner, and wondering whether there's a dog while laying may inhibit performance. Just thought I'd let you know. Grammar man strikes again.

That's two huge presumptions: For all we know, the movie could do quite well in New York. But maybe you're right about that. Regardless, whether or not it does well in New York would have no bearing on decisions to show it elsewhere. Plenty of movies do well in New York and tank elsewhere, and vice versa.

This does not make sense.