Raf

RAF: Psst. Hey, Craig, come here a minute. LCM: What's that in your hand? RAF: It's a Bible. I've opened it to Genesis 1:2. Can you read that? LCM: "And the earth was without form and void..." Hey, you know that should say "became" right? RAF: Well, that's irrelevant, but let's assume you're right. What did it become? LCM: What? RAF: I said, what did the earth become? LCM: Oh, easy. Without form and void. RAF: Thanks. What does "without form" mean? LCM: Ummm.... RAF: (Smacks him in the head with his Bible) It means no mountains, you idiot.

This from CKnapp on a thread about "The Unforgivable Sin"

Don't laugh, I've seen that sign. Well, close to it. The guy was outside Yankee Stadium. His sign read, "Why lie? I need a drink." I hear he made quite a chunk of change. I just looked that phrase up on the Internet. Seems a lot of folks decided on the honest approach. The guy I saw at Yankee Stadium may not have been the first to draw up that sign.

Which one was he?

I saw it in February (Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane were both performing in the leads). It was painfully funny. I mean, it was physically hurt, grab your sides and beg them to stop long enough for you to regain your composure funny. It was so funny that Broderick and Lane made each other laugh: so hard that they had to stop the show for a minute. This happened in the second act, when Lane's character suggests they kill the actors and Broderick responds, "YOU CAN'T KILL THE ACTORS! THEY'RE NOT ANIMALS!" For some reason, the two found this riotous and lost their composure. The audience, by now exhausted with glee, simply applauded, giving them enough time to get back into character and get back on with the show. The New York Times review of the show began (and I agree): "How do you point out the highlights in a forest fire?"

Of course it was extreme, and I was clear on that when I spoke to them. I gave them this as an example of some rules which are not rules at all: they are preferences which can be broken without doing harm to the English language. But it is essential, I said, to know what a rule is so that when you break it, you are doing it with wisdom and not out of laziness. Basically and essentially are overused. There's nothing wrong with them, and more often than not, they are used properly (grammatically speaking). But as a writer, I can tell you that each word should be used sparingly because they're just so danged convenient. People pepper their conversations with those words, which is fine in conversation, but on paper they become the equivalent of UMMMM, UMMMM, UMMMM. Another rule which isn't a rule (but is almost never broken by good writers), is that it's improper to start an article with the date. The only time it is appropriate, I said, is when you're reciting the opening of The Odd Couple (which none of those whippersnappers gaughed at). Split infinitives? They're fine, honest. And there's really no rule which says you cannot end a sentence with a preposition, although there are grammar-nazis who insist that prepositions are not for ending sentences with.

Touche, CKnapp. I think it's fairly well agreed upon that he's absent in some ways and present in others. He's my lord. Can't wait to see him standing in front of me, though.

Oh there it is.

The dancing figure will point to an x. When the tape stops, click on where the x was three times. A safe appears. One of the clues tells you the code for the safe. There's a screwdriver in the safe. GOOD LUCK GRABBING IT. To save my friggin LIFE it won't let me have the screwdriver.

You know, there's nothing fun about getting to the screwdriver, clicking it to grab it, and just ending up at the cd player again. It's one thing if you can't find the dang thing, but if you CAN find it but can't grab it, that's just rude.

Thanks D. Now, why can't I grab the screwdriver?

Can't find the battery! Argh!

Umm, before I kill someone or break something, what's the point of this danged room?

How do we define "largely plagiarized" or "mostly plagiarized?" I don't know how much of RTHST was plagiarized. I can point to a few egregious examples in that book, but I don't see, for example, any one other than Wierwille teaching that these are manifestations as opposed to gifts, or that these are 9 manifestations of one gift. I give him a lot of credit for that one, although those who believe they should be called gifts will obviously disagree. That, however, is a doctrinal question. It's clear to anyone paying attention that the portion of the PFAL class and book devoted to keys to Biblical interpretation owe much to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, but how much of that can accurately be called "plagiarized?" Am I not allowed now to teach keys to Biblical interpretation without quoting PFAL? The keys preceded both Bullinger and PFAL, didn't they? I believe Wierwille plagiarized. I believe it was even more extensive than I originally realized (someone on another thread threw a Wierwille quote at me, perhaps not realizing that Wierwille had plagiarized EW Kenyon word-for-word on that particular point). I was stunned to find that BG Leonard, not Wierwille, coined the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God." I am happy to say Wierwille plagiarized, because it is true. I would be hard put to say that he largely plagiarized, or that he mostly plagiarized. Ultimately, when I teach someone "how to become a Christian," I'm not going to come up with much that is different from every single other Christian teacher on the subject. So... what do you mean by mostly?

I think the point is that they're overused and that they take up unnecessary space. I told my writing class that I would take a full letter grade off any paper that contains the words "basically" or "essentially." I challenged them to come up with a single sentence in which those words were necessary (excluding the preceding sentence, of course).

The Plain English Campaign

I think it was better than mediocre and am grateful I took it. Far from perfect, of course. A lot of error? I think so. A lot of truth too. Hey Eagle, welcome. Coffee?

Thanks for posting, LLP. Even if we disagree. I think Mel hoped for a profit, but I would be hard pressed to argue that was his primary motive. He could have made huge profits on any number of projects, as he has in the past. For profit to be his PRIMARY motive, one would expect him to appeal to our basest tastes, not our most noble. Disagree with his decision to make such a bloody film? Fine. Everyone's entitled. But ascribe it primarily to profit? Gotta disagree with you there, buddy. Pleasure chatting with you.

Folks, In pirate's link, click on the words "Next Page." THAT's the letter we're all referring to. Oldiesman, Taken strictly at face value, one could see how you could conclude that the letter contained godly motivations. But it's your decision to take the words of LCM in that letter at face value. Everything he did subsequent to that letter speaks more loudly than the letter itself. Immediately subsequent to that letter he was the spiritual head of the ministry. DURING the time of that letter, the people supporting him said things like "I'm going to stand with the ministry that taught me God's Word" (as opposed to standing on God's Word, period). They said things like "God chose VPW and VPW chose LCAM by revelation, so if VPW was wrong to choose LCM, then God is stupid." This is what they were saying AT THE TIME. This wasn't about drawing a spiritual line in the sand. It was about drawing a corporal one. Of COURSE!!! they're going to claim to be offering the godly choice. And the thing you're saying that's right is that the other side was NOT necessarily being more godly (though some on the other side were). But that doesn't make Craig's motives godly, no matter what the letter says. No matter what the letter says, he was still forcing a choice between men. No matter what the letter says, it was still about control of the corporation, not about moving God's Word more efficiently. He obviously convinced himself that the control of the corporation WOULD move the Word of God more efficiently, but one would only need to look at what he did afterward to establish that this letter did not have God's glory as its motivation. I know this was a difficult decision for everyone, but that letter was not godly. The people who heeded it may have wanted to honor God, but their decision did nothing more than embolden a tyrant. This is not to say that those people are to blame for what happened. It is well established that the other side was not necessarily any less carnal. I'm simply saying that those who stayed got snookered by LCM, just as many who left got snookered by CCG and their local leadership. Just look at what happened afterward: most of those who left are glad they did. Most of those who stayed are sorry they did. That doesn't tell you something about the true motives of LCM?

Oldiesman, You can't get oranges from an apple tree. A good tree brings forth good fruit. Everything that happened after the 1989 letter branched off from that letter. Yes, from a worldly perspective, you get rid of those not loyal to the company. I agree. But take a step back: if you want to say it was impossible to know that at the time, that you made your decision and you thought it was the godly one, that's fine. No one can fault you for that. But stop ascribing these pure motives to LCM when everything he did at the time and afterward indicates his motives were self-glorifying, not to the glory of God.

Thank you, CC. You took the words right out of my mouth. LLP, I won't spare you any elevation of Mel Gibson's motive beyond profit. If you think that was his sole motive, then that opinion (not you, the opinion) is stupid. And yes, it's mean-spirited too. I guess "charity thinketh no evil" doesn't cover a producer making a movie to bring a story about the sufferings of Christ to the masses. Your later post is far more nuanced, and appreciated, for whatever that's worth. Gibson didn't have to make this movie. He didn't have to finance it with his own money. Was he hoping for a profit? I'm sure he was. But was that his top priority? Doubtful. So please spare me the insinuation that you don't find anything wrong with profit as his motive. Your "please spare me" exposed your sentiment. You don't need to see the movie if you don't want to. Jesus Christ Our Passover is just as graphic, without the disturbing visuals. This movie glorifies Christ. That's my experience, and just as I can't talk you out of YOUR experience in a freedom-choking cult, you can't talk me out of my experience in a Christ-glorifying film. So spare me.

Sorry to say I bought it too. I honestly did not see myself as standing with Geer because I went to ROA and opened up my earballs, as VPW would say, and I listened to those who did their best to convince me (and my friend) to stick with TWI. Their arguments were entirely carnal and easy to disprove with an open Bible. But with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I now believe POP was a bunch of self-serving hooey. Let's face it: choosing between LCM and CCG was like choosing between Bush and Gore: was there really a way to win? (that was a joke: please spare me the political bashing).

What evidence do you have that Donna misspoke? I have tons of evidence that shows rather conclusively that LCM thought of himself more highly than he ought to have thunk.

When someone calls someone else "the spiritual head of this ministry," you're danged right I'm surmising he's trying to usurp Christ's authority. And in case you missed the 90s, I was right about it.

My original reply here was emotional and inappropriate. Sorry.