Raf

Actually, I found it was a fairly easy task. The only difficulty is in your persistent denials that this task was accomplished within a week of your arrival. Mike, Yes it is.

Tref, :)--> Take a look at the opening post on the thread. That should explain it. Please, please continue. Molly Shannon My Boss' Daughter Ashton Kutchner (sp?)

I agree! Hear me out, though: My belief is that if we who still profess to be Christians decide to follow this advice, and honestly examine the scriptures, we will not have lost any "baby" in PFAL. We will, however, have lost ALL the bathwater. Not a bad exchange.

And why is PFAL so great if it, too, is riddled with errors (and it is)?

I haven't read everything and won't have time to right now, but to answer a coupole of things: 1. By fair/unfair, I meant that you deliberately compare my decision to give a certain amount with the compulsory/guilt tripping of TWI's ABuSe, which detracts from the value of your argument. 2. Making a pledge and following through on it is not even close to being told that giving less than 10 percent is ROBBING God, and anything above that is just peachy. They're not the same thing, and your comparison of them is ludicrous. Other points later. Off to dinner in NYC! :)-->

There's a mistake at the top of this page. Trefor Heywood's entry appears to be invalid. How did you get from Daniel Day Lewis to Brenda Fricker without a movie in between them? Daniel Day Lewis is where we leave off.

Cute. Only problem is, Jason Isaacs was in only ONE of the Harry Potter movies, so she could only have meant II. In the future, please indicate complete titles. :)-->

Buzzzz! That's the same movie. Also, sequels and/or prequels are not allowed if both actors are in both movies. (In other words, you can't use Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets because it's the same movie Jason Isaacs was in, and you can't use Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone because Alan Rickman and Richard Harris were in both movies). Since Jason Isaacs was only in one Harry Potter movie, Chamber of Secrets was the only possibility. Here's something that WOULD have been allowed: Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone Ian Hart Finding Neverland Why? Because Ian Hart was ONLY in the first Harry Potter movie (he played Prof. Quirrel). So if you're using sequels and prequels to get to an actor who's ONLY in one installment, that's okay. But not to get to actors in all the installments. Get it? Got it? Good. WE left off at Richard Harris. The Count of Monte Cristo Jim Caviezel Frequency

Hey, why isn't my logo coming up?

What we do on our time, stays on our time. Oh, and Steve! If you're going to shamelessly plug another website, do it with some style...

Here's an idea: delete all threads whose sole purpose is to ask another poster to look at his/her privates. Er, private topics. That ought to save about 9,000 or 10,000 posts right there.

All Hais Belle!

Maverick Mel Gibson The Patriot

Tim Robbins Mystic River Kevin Bacon And that's a long time between Kevin Bacon references!

Paul Newman The Hustler Jackie Gleason :D-->

I think judgment and logic are symbiotic. But what do I know? :)--> JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

Taking the name of THE in vein? I have never, EVER, injected the name of THE into my bloodstream.

Oh, all right. How about the archived birthday threads? And does this mean our post counts will drop (I don't have enough arguing left in me to get back up to 5,000).

please.... kill.... THE

Many words have more than one meaning. Partner is such a word. You're using it to mean one thing. They're using it to mean something else. The way they're using the word, there's absolutely no deception involved. I don't presume, because it's called the "partnership plan," that the principals of CES and I are homosexual lovers. However, partner is the word used of homosexual lovers. Words have meanings. Maybe they should avoid using that word so that no one will think they're implying that we're all lovers. I do not presume, because of the CES partnership plan, that I am a manager or policy maker of CES. This is neither stated nor implied in CES' use of the word partner," anymore than they are stating or implying that they are my homosexual lovers. You may decide all you want to focus on one meaning of the word partner, and call CES deceptive based on their failure to adhere to the meaning YOU'RE using, but if the meaning THEY'RE using is just as valid, what's the problem?

I should note also that someone used The Stand earlier. The Stand was a TV movie, not a theatrical. Since I didn't say it muse be theatrical, I'll let it ride. But henceforth, it must be theatrical. A Time to Kill Sandra Bullock Demolition Man

Top Gun Val Kilmer Heat

Whoops. I missed that. For future reference, you MAY check IMDB to verify the previous entry, but not to go the next step. For example, in this case, you would check The Jewel of the Nile to see if Diane Keaton was in it. Don't check Diane Keaton, because if she WAS in it, then you would have her filmography, which would be cheating. Then we'd have to figure out who goes next. Sigh. The person who caught the mistake goes back to the entry BEFORE the mistake. That means the game stops at Fatal Attraction and it's Hope's turn. She can, if she chooses, go with Michael Douglas and Jewel of the Nile, pick the next actor/actress, and then let the next person guess or take the next round. All entries after that one are null and void.

Sheesh, had to go back to the very same actor? :)--> Teri Garr Tootsie Bill Murray

A tad. Calling it "the truth" is calling the alternative viewpoint a lie or, at best, an untruth. It's an opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. My opinion is that there's nothing misleading or deceptive about the word "partner," especially since they tell you what they mean by it. Right. And if I decide to make the planning of a non-profit organization easier by pledging a predictable amount on a scheduled basis, I'll do it. It doesn't make me a manager or policy maker (show me one non-profit where it works this way). Nor does the program claim that I am becoming a manager or policy maker. So... where's the deception? Fair enough. Yes. Yes. Yes. ... Not fair. Steve, you should know better than use this line of argument. TWI's ABuSive donation scheme was not about donation but obligation. It was not free-will, it was debt. Criticize the program for what it is: I'll defend your right to do so. But comparing it to TWI's ABuSe is unfair and detracts from your case. They don't compare. No. Assuming the account to be true, I would have to say no. If I continue contributing KNOWING the money is being mishandled, I'd say accessiories. I know where my heart is in giving. I'm not naive: I know there's waste in the United Way, and I give more to them than to CES. Is the account Tzaia wrote representative of how they handle their money, or is it the extent of the mishandling? If the answer is the former, I don't want to give anymore. If it's the latter, I count my lucky stars. Which is it? At the moment, I don't know. :)--> I really appreciate what you're saying here. If I may offer a bit of public critique, sometimes your criticism of CES appears perfectly sound and well-reasoned, while other times it just seems overly critical and bitter. I think your concerns on doctrine are valuable. Your concerns on the meaning of partnership baffle me. But that's just me. Don't worry: if I don't agree with you on that point, it doesn't mean I'm not listening on the others. K?