All Activity

In Star Trek Strange New Worlds, Carol Kane plays a centuries-old alien (but very human-looking, and she's been on Earth for most of that time) as chief of engineering. She makes a number of references to Earth events, but in the season finale, she also dropped a hint about a "time-traveling Doctor",,, George

I just finished the third season, and it never failed to deliver. Lots of great story lines and characters. By this time, Scotty is a regular, and Jim Kirk (First Officer on the Farragut) is a frequent visitor, hanging with his brother occasionally but mostly developing ties with Scotty and Spock. One episode required (for a cheesy reason) to have several of the officers converted to Vulcans. They mock Spock for being only half Vulcan. Anson Mount's (Capt. Pike) Take seemed more Beldar Conehead than Vulcan, but it worked. Another episode with one officer trapped on a planet with a Gorn seemed a hybrid of the movie "Enemy Mine" with TOS episode "The Galileo Seven." As for Carol Kane's character, see the "I See What You Did" thread. George

Titanic. George

"Well, yes, ma'am, I do... I mean, I got everything I need right here with me. I got air in my lungs, a few blank sheets of paper. I mean, I love waking up in the morning not knowing what's gonna happen or, who I'm gonna meet, where I'm gonna wind up. Just the other night I was sleeping under a bridge and now here I am on the grandest ship in the world having champagne with you fine people. I figure life's a gift and I don't intend on wasting it. You don't know what hand you're gonna get dealt next. You learn to take life as it comes at you... to make each day count." "I'm king of the world!"

This show is not a current show. HOWEVER, a current show can be considered either a sequel or a spin-off of this show. If you're paying attention, there's at least one continuity error if you do, since two characters, in effect, switch ages, the older becoming the younger. The current show has had more than one season, and has had fast-food promos and tie-ins with it from one chain. The original show may be well-known, but it is NOT a recent show by any reasonable standard for "recent". The original show is famous. It has had at least two cartoon series', another live-action series, more than one theatrical release-and a Broadway musical. (Plus at least one TV movie.) It has never been published as a DC or Marvel comic book. It briefly appeared under Gold Key, but few people, if any, would remember that. As for animation, in addition to its own series, it's appeared briefly in a Scooby Doo mystery (when they had guest stars of every type), and a famous cartoon had a series of expies of the show's cast. (That is, they were characters who were not close enough to invoke copyright infringement, but they were close enough that everyone immediately knew on whom they were based.) Which show is the original show? (Or, which show is the current show, I will accept either answer.)

Sweet Home Alabama Reese Witherspoon Legally Blonde George

Okay. Time to give it away. A Study in Terror A Midsummer Night's Dream Wetherby Shakespeare in Love Chocolat The Importance of Being Earnest The Chronicles of Riddick Pride and Prejudice My Week with Marilyn J. Edgar The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel Victoria & Abdul Casino Royale Skyfall GoldenEye George

Saturday in the Park "I was feeling so bad, I asked my family doctor just what I had." George

And now Imelda. Also predicted to veer northeast and away from the continental US: George

goodness gracious, "Great Balls of Fire". "Another day in the park I think, it was the fourth of July"

I agree that people can be born into a cast system and live that way their entire life. Due to time and place they may, or not, be able to change their lot in life. The system might allow mobility or not, but that all ends at death. If one is a king or pauper it doesn’t matter after drawing their last breath. But, when it comes to eternal life, much happens at death. You go to heaven or hell. Let’s assume for argument that to be saved, Alluh must be your god. If you do not acknowledge Alluh, at death you will go to hell. That is all well and good if you have the opportunity to hear of him and choose to adher to his laws. But what about the people who have never even heard of Alluh, or choose not to believe in him? Perhaps they believe the name of Jesus will get them saved, that he died on the cross, and was risen from the dead on the 3rd day, but have never heard of Alluh. Should hell be their final place of residence? Should the Christian warrior who died for his faith be denied 72 virgins? How could that be fair? Because the Christian woman does not keep her entire body and face covered for life, and walks around without the escort of a related man, should she be cast into hell? Because Christians do not allow their 10 year old daughter to be married to a 60 year old man, should they be driven into hell? As you can see whatever your cast in life, it ends at death. But believing in, and following the will of Alluh, brings great opportunity or consequences at death. You can have 72 women hanging off your arms or burn in hell. You can have hundreds of young girls for eternity or rot in hell. You better make the correct choice and pray to Alluh 5 times a day or suffer hell. Just saying.

Thanks, Twinky Good lesson to be learned.

For those who were told by a certain leader that they should follow him blindly: Facebook

You shake my nerves and you rattle my brain.

That's it.

Watching the Wheels

Well, they give me all kinds of advice Designed to enlighten me"

It's greenlit for another season. It is airing, but not on commercial TV.

I think I figured it out. But I'm up on too many other threads. If I'm right, the current show is not being broadcast.

What are the 2 incorrect assumptions extracted from 1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2, which yield this faulty conclusion: The Rapture is “signless” because Christ is coming as a “thief”? The Day of the Lord: 1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2 “Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” First Incorrect Assumption: The Rapture is “signless” because Paul used the symbol of a “thief in the night.” Did Paul say, Now, brothers and sisters, about signs we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night? No, of course not. What exactly did Paul say? “Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” The figure of speech— “a thief in the night” —refers right back to the immediate context: “times and dates”—not the lack of signs. The first incorrect assumption is to equate “thief in the night” with a lack of signs. There is no scriptural justification in the immediate context to support this position—and this includes verse 3. 1 Thessalonians 5:3: “Sudden” “When they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape.” “Times and dates” and “sudden” refer to timing—not signs. The Day of the Lord: 1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2 Second Incorrect Assumption: “Christ” is coming as a “thief” at the time of the Rapture. This is simply a gross misreading/interpretation of the text. Did Paul say, Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that Christ will come like a thief in the night. No, of course not. What exactly did Paul say? “Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” Is the “Day of the Lord” “signless”? No, of course not. It’s the complete opposite. Peter: The Day of the Lord: Acts 2:19, 20/Mystery: Joel 2:30, 31 “And I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth below: blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and glorious day of the Lord comes.” *Paul—in Romans 10—quoted Joel, as did Peter in Acts 2, why? Answer this, and you will eliminate any lingering thoughts that Paul prophesied of a “signless” event. John: The Day of the Lord/Wrath: Revelation 6:12-17 “I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the rich men and the commanding officers and the strong and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?'” "Signless"? Zephaniah 1:14, 15: “The great day of the Lord” = the “day of wrath.” Thief in the Night: There is no scriptural justification in the immediate context to support equating “the day of the Lord” and “thief” with “signless.” And there is no scriptural justification in the remote context: Christ’s precedent and use of a “thief.” “Signless” is worthless. Deception. Next: Christ: The Precedent: the symbol of a “thief” and its visual representation. Peace. revvel

I don't know if there's a current Spider-Man show, but it did have a live-action show years ago, and a Broadway musical (not to mention cartoon series). The first paragraph has clues which I don't recognize. George

Isn't it good, Norwegian Wood. "People say I'm lazy Dreaming my life away"

"I once had a girl. Or should I say, she once had me."

This show is not a current show. HOWEVER, a current show can be considered either a sequel or a spin-off of this show. If you're paying attention, there's at least one continuity error if you do, since two characters, in effect, switch ages, the older becoming the younger. The current show has had more than one season, and has had fast-food promos and tie-ins with it from one chain. The original show may be well-known, but it is NOT a recent show by any reasonable standard for "recent". The original show is famous. It has had at least two cartoon series', and at least one theatrical release-and a Broadway musical. Which show is the original show? (Or, which show is the current show, I will accept either answer.)