Raf

Thank you, dear Tom Strange-Taste-in-Movies. My head's still recovering from the bangin' I gave it last week. Raf, how 'bout we institute a rule of our own? If no one can answer in x number of days, you revert back to the post before the stumper was posted (in this case, Raquel Welch). Huh, huh? Otherwise I'm gonna be forced to c-h-e-a-t. Good rule. If no one can answer in FOUR days, you revert back to the post before the stumper was posted (in this case, Raquel Welch).

Hate to do this, but I've warned from way back in the beginning of the thread... Sharon's answer is disqualified, and everything after it doesn't count. You can't link right back to the same person or movie as the previous link. In the meantime, Tom, while "I love you Alice..." is a perfectly fair movie to use, you had to know it would stop the game cold. :)--> Please use a different flick.

Well done! Water Bout Bob What About Bob!

Okay, here's a hint... Pictures one and two go together, for two different words that won't make sense unless you put them together. The first picture suggests the first word and the first syllable of the second. The second picture is the second syllable of the second word. The third picture is a buoy, but what's more important is not what it is, but what it's doing.

This is a tough one...

Good night, Irene. TD 10 is out there... and it's a weak nothing. :)-->

The name Hugo has been retired. And it looks like this one may hit Greenland before it hits Florida.

:)-->

On top of which, I have trouble believing that someone who has no problem dredging up the centuries-old sins of the Catholic Church thinks there's somehow something unforgiving about recognizing the truth of 30-year-old sins.

Plagiarism is thievery: you treat it with "so what?" Whitewash. It doesn't matter. What difference does it make? Do you think God is going to give you extra points for knowing VPW's sins? blah blah blah... Dude, sin is sin. Pointing it out is not dwelling on it, and dismissing accounts of sin out of some self-pious notion of "righteousness" is not godly. "Take a chill pill" is whitewashing, by the way. And no, def, that was not directed at you. I was quoting it as one of the stupider things I've read here in a long time. "Take a chill pill" is not a godly response to someone who's the victim of theft.

Tom, With this game, it's harder to be certain what the cluegiver is thinking, so it's a bit more common to wait for verification. If we continue and the cluegiver finds out the answer given was incorrect, all sorts of explanations are needed. :)--> All right, Pirate, you're up.

That would be my guess. That, or The Aviator. But Airplane! would be my first guess.

Looks to me like they've got another winner.

My God preoccupies Himself neither with the sins of VPW nor the pathetic and disingenuous attempts to whitewash those sins. "So what?" indeed.

Your move, Tom.

Nope. He might do it because I wasn't a dishonest intellectual thief, though.

I knew that writing looked familiar.

What I do is, I go on google.com, under "images" and look for the pictures that will tell what I'm trying to tell.

Oh! I'd pick something from a site. Like this one I'm stealing from moviemistakes...

You can link to the url of whatever site you're picking from.

WordWolf... Since this question was raised, I'd like to address it. I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and here's the conclusions I've drawn..... [Note from Raf... conclusions you've drawn? Yeah, right.] It's fairly easy to illustrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with plagiarism. Suppose, for argument's sake, that you saw a book on E-bay. The title is "The Ability to Live Abundantly", and the author goes by the pen-name WordWolf. In reading the excerpts, you see that its opening prominently quotes John 10:10. It follows this with "This verse literally changed my life. In my years in the Christian ministry, I've never manifested an abundant life. It seemed unbelievers were manifesting a more abundant life than Christians. Yet Jesus Christ said he came that we might have life and that we might have it more it more abundantly. Why are Christians failing to manifest even an abundant life?" The remainder of the book lays out keys for how to understand the Bible. There's a chapter on how to receive anything from God, including an anecdote about "fire-engine-red" curtains. Another chapter is called "The Battle of the Senses." You would easily recognize that "my" book was little more than a retyping of the Orange Book. If I were to take that book, slap a new title on it, change a few words around so that the quotes are not exact, could I really call myself an author (especially if I fail to give Wierwille credit for his work?) Could I, in good conscience, sell my book and take the profits? Victor Paul Wierwille was a serial plagiarist. He took the research of other men and passed it off as his own. He took their words and put his name on them. What should Wierwille have done? To be truthful, he should have cited Kenyon and Bullinger and anyone else he used as a source in compiling his teachings, classes and books. Wierwille joked that he had forgotten more about the subject of "holy spirit" than some of his critics would ever know. Apparently, one of the things Wierwille forgot was to give credit where credit is due. Wierwille implies books like Recieving the Holy Spirit Today, Power For Abundant Living, and Are the Dead Alive Now? were strictly the result of his personal research into the Bible. It was not. He claimed to throw away all his other texts and use the Bible as his only textbook and guide. This was dishonest. This was demonstrably false. It was a lie. Plagiarism is LYING. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely-qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of TRUST in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is NOT unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says "by WordWolf" to expect that WordWolf wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says "by Victor Paul Wierwille" to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it. Victor Paul Wierwille used other people's work to prop up his own "research ability," his own wisdom and understanding of God's Word. He used other people's work to exalt himself as The Teacher, The Man of God, Our Father in The Word. He did so knowing that the words "by Victor Paul Wierwille" were a lie. Plagiarism reflects on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers-by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction. Plagiarism hurts people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not "puff itself up". But what is plagiarism if it's not pretending to do something you did not do? We don't accept it from high school students. We don't accept it from college students. We don't accept it from news reporters, columnists, nor authors. We don't accept it from historians and researchers. Those are "the world's" professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God? And, one last question: Don't you get bugged when you see someone plagiarizing-attempting to pass off someone else's work as their own? Doesn't that dishonesty bother you? Does it bother you? Does it gnaw at your insides?

Hey wait a minute! WordWolf, I've got a bone to pick with you!

Been terribly busy at work. Linda, can you try posting a clue?

Aw, bloody L already! :)-->