Raf

Correct. Pacino and DeNiro did not share a scene in Godfather II. In the scene above, Al Pacino (cop) is compelling Hank Azaria to cooperate with an investigation. Azaria's having an affair with Val Kilmer's wife (Ashley Judd), and Kilmer is one of the targets of the investigation. Azaria wants nothing to do with this, so he mutters, almost to himself... "Why'd I get mixed up with that b!tch!" The quote is Pacino's response.

Just one last appeal, one that doesn't rely on memory... Galen, can you check the tapes and let us know, for certain, whether Wierwille talks about that same kind/different kind stuff with allos and heteros?

Way Magazines never go over the same ground.

WordWolf, who's making a friendly takeover bid on this thread, responds to the charge that gscafe goes over the same old same old all the time...

This may be the GS Cafe Quote of the Year. It's certainly a nominee.

Hint: The movie featured two great contemporary actors who had co-starred in one other film together. That earlier film was arguably one of the best ever made. But in that film these two actors had no scenes together. They have two scenes together in this film.

Oh, it's a great line in a great... but long... movie.

:)-->

And BINGO was his name-o.

Hmm. Good guess. I've never seen that movie, but it does seem to describe the plot. It's not what I had in mind, though. Hint: put the emphasis on the last line.

Presumed Innocent Brian Dennehy First Blood

I heard that AOL comes with eight essential vitamins and minerals, but it won't save you any money on car insurance. Seriously speaking, I haven't the slightest idea what a router is, or if I have one. I'll assume based on my ignorance that I do not have one. No router. No AOL.

Thanks. It appears to me that he got his Bullinger definitions reversed. A huge "so what" in my book, but honestly, my memory of the filmed class fails me (and thank God for that).

I do not have A O L ok? :)-->

Then you're missing out. There are fantastic discussions going on about Biblical Universalism and salvation. And the discussions on dispensationalism are fantastic, too. I don't know how many minds are being changed, if any, but these are some of the best doctrinal dialogues we've had here in a long time. Paw, thanks for answering.

:)--> Memory is gone Those really are my children Yes, I did grow up

Ok, since nobody else is jumping in... Dirty Dancing Absolutely certain. "Because she's got a great foot!!! And you've got your head all the way up it! Ferocious, aren't I? When I think of an foot, a woman's foot... something comes out of me.

Gee, there's a thought. :)-->

Oh sheesh, Garth, I got rid of AOL two years ago! Don't you remember? I'm on bellsouth.net now. Thanks for the advice, all.

Does anyone else remember this? I don't. Either way, the article above has a citation (number 52) to a specific page in the PFAL book, which contradicts what the writer is saying (I'll say JM from now on, for Jueded-Morton). Unless there was an earlier edition that had these definitions, they goofed.

Ok, I just checked what I believe to be the references to allos and heteros above. Reference 52 is flat out wrong. BUT... There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer. He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list. See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle.

That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant.

Why not? I'm not always right. I'm not even often right!

Only on a couple of items, OM. I didn't refute the entire paper. Just a couple of items.

85% of your income > 100% of your income, even on the first of the month.