Raf

I'd start TWI II at the reading of POP. The entire mood changed. Instead of people leaving, entire movements were leaving. A TWI I attitude and POP were incompatible.

Family Tradition! Hank Williams Jr?

Yeah, it's generally a good idea NOT to do that. :) The other thing is to look for something SIMILAR to the word you're looking for, but not identical. Something that suggests what you're looking for. For example, when looking for the word "Bout," I searched for images related to "boxing match."

If that's the explanation, then I'm mistaken (ugly American!!!!)

I think that ER was WAYYYYYY too obscure.

Wait a minute: How did the pictures spell out "Buster." I mean, Bust is obvious, but ER?

I can't get past the first pic. :)

The first time, it was an old man and a yellow lab. Old+Yellow was easy. But I didn't answer it (for the reason that when I get these things too quickly, I sometimes want others to have fun). But then you changed it to the current two pics, and I had ZERO idea that it was the same movie. Yes, a very good debut.

The list at the bottom of GS sid it's No Member's birthday today! Happy Birthday, No Members!

Thanks. Cutepdf is the one I was looking for!

Funny, because that's what I guessed from the original clue, but then marypoppins changed it, and I was baffled. :)

Sorry I missed it alfakat. I'm not big on the birthday threads, but I'm trying to do better. So happy... belated? birthday!

WordWolf, The movie was Legal Eagles, starring Robert Redford, Debra Winger and Daryl Hannah.

Oh my! Is that right? (checking) Bullinger's writing never was very clear. (I used to joke that the easiest way to fall asleep is reading "How to Enjoy the Bible." WordWolf and I were going to write a follow-up: "How to Enjoy How to Enjoy the Bible").

Ah. So it comes from Bullinger, who used it to prove the same "four crucified" teaching for which Wierwille used it. Any other non-Bullinger sources?

On "the four crucified" and the gospel of John, Wierwille's point was that the word "one" (on either side one) was not in the text. On that he appears to have been correct, from the few interlinears I've seen.

So, here we go. Here's the list of hurricane/tropical storm names for 2006. You'll note that my name is on it. :) Alberto Beryl Chris Debby Ernesto Florence Gordon Helene Isaac Joyce Kirk Leslie Michael Nadine Oscar Patty Rafael Sandy Tony Valerie William

Mark, In fairness to VPW, I don't recall him mentioning the punctuation difference in the gospel of John. That was just me. The use of the five crosses pic always bugged me. After telling us not to rely on art to prove our points, TWI relies on art to prove Wierwille's point. Now we know the truth: the monument was never intended to be a representation of the crucifixion. It's not even one monument! Good catch. By the way, on the heteros v. allos issue: has anyone ever found any scholarship indicating heteros means only two involved while allos means more than two? I mean, aside from Wierwille? Genuine question. I'm just curious to know where he got the definition from.

Happy Birthday, Tom! And God Bless Texas!

I'm actually not sure where the singer is from. It's a song that had very little staying power. It was a huge hit while it was a hit, but since then you almost never hear it. It's from the 80s It's from a movie It's peppy Just give me a chance to let me show you how much...

The theorems of PFAL have also been proven false, repeatedly. Mike, you're exalting a flawed document about the Word of God that document is trying to point you to. You've been doing that for years, to the point that it's seared your brain. You're now unABLE to consider that you might be wrong. If that's your position, fine. To say what I want to say next would be a shot too cheap even for my feelings toward you, so I will stop here and not respond to any more of your nonsense.

Amen. My note was tongue in cheek, so no, I definitely do not recommend sending it, and yes, a little more tenderness would be appropriate. :)

All I have to do is adopt your point of view for a little while and I'll see things your way? No thanks. I haven't actually taken you off ignore. I simply read when there's the possibility that you're responding to something I said. Your postulate has already been proven false. To continue to try to prove it true when it's already been proven false is known in science as futility, and known in rhetoric as insanity. I'm sure if YOU would adopt the objective approach for which you compliment ME, you would see that.

Mark, I'm saying ... that is the discrepancy pointed to by Wierwille: In Matthew the two are crucified after the passage of some time. In Luke the two are led with him at the same time. Unless there are four people, there appears to be a discrepancy. I'm not saying that is my position. I'm actually undecided on it. I am saying that this was Wierwille's position. Right. I left that out. Thanks, Mike.

Because I want to be good to you. I didn't mean to be bad.