All Activity

To your point, Acts 2 seems to be xenolalia or xenoglossia.

Apparently the first spinoff of Man About the House was indeed about the Ropers, but it was called "George and Mildred." Joyce DeWitt, Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes are known mostly for their roles as Jack Tripper's roommates, Janet, Cindy and Teri. Priscilla Barnes later starred in Traxx. You're up!

"I just learned something very interesting." "'Pinocchio.' You risked our lives based on something you read in a children's book?" "Wait, it's a book? How about that? I got it from a movie." "I will return to you when it's safe. One day, right here, at sunrise, we'll be together again." George

Not DeNiro. Keep guessing

"Meeting an insurance agent the day your policy runs out is coincidence. Getting a letter from the emperor saying he's visiting is plot. Having your apartment eaten by a wrecking ball... is something else entirely. Harold, you don't control your fate". "If its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down... Oops, forgot my own rule". "You're the first - you're the first thing for so long that I've liked. The first person I could stand to be with. My whole life is such a waste. It's just nothing. I'm sorry. I'll take you home now". "Twenty-five seats, given to orphans. Perfect. Now my nightmare is complete". Could be right. Need confirmation from Human. George

Human is up. George

I know I've seen those lines before, but I'm not clicking on the movie. George

Still a FREE POST. George

Don't recognize it. George

WW is up. George

I imagine it was in Nashville somewhere, but I don't really know the show or the venue. George

Human is still up. George

Two's company, there's a crowd. You are correct

Sorry I didn't check in sooner. If I'm correct..... The original British show was "Man About the House." It spun off "the Ropers" and morphed later into "Robin's Nest" with the male lead (of the 3 leads.) The US show was "Three's Company." It spun off "the Ropers". It was unsuccessfully succeeded by "THREE'S A CROWD." (Jack Tripper was spun off unsuccessfully in that one.) John Ritter and Suzanne Somers had shows ("...Rules for Dating my Daughter", "She's the Sheriff") and John Ritter had some movies. Don Knotts ("Barney Fife") was brought in as Ralph Furley when the Ropers were spun off. Norman Fell (Mr Roper) was in the original "Oceans 11." The actress who played Mrs Roper starred in an episode of "Tales from the Crypt" ("Collection Completed.")

I moved recently, so my PFAL materials are still packed up. I'll see if I can get them back out this weekend.

Quick recap for anyone unfamiliar. Part of my deconstruction process involved a hard look at SIT, reaching the conclusion that if TWI was right about what it means Biblically to speak in tongues, then what they taught us to do in PFAL was not real Biblical tongues. I carefully went over all the usages of SIT and tongues in the New Testament to demonstrate that tongues were always languages. Blah blah blah, we all faked it, I concluded. Some of you agreed with me. Some of you beat me to it by years. Some of you disagreed. Life moved on. I'd like to take another run at the topic from a different angle. The careful review of SIT depended very much on the notion that all the writers of the New Testament were in agreement about SIT. Since only two are relevant, let's cut to the chase: What if Paul and Luke (whoever Luke was) disagreed about the meaning of SIT? It would help explain why Paul would say something like "no man understands" while Luke gives us the first instance of SIT, where everyone understands these babbling apostles. Is it possible that Luke meant known human languages, but Paul did not? It would be my position that Paul wrote his doctrine on SIT before the Acts 2 story was made up, which would be the simplest reason he didn't know about exceptions to the "no man understands" rule he laid down without hesitation. It would also make sense for Luke (or whoever concocted the Acts 2 story) to invent a practical reason God would have wanted his people to SIT in the first place, since Paul doesn't really give a coherent reason this "gift" or "manifestation" is of any use. Interested in other thoughts.

Ok, so you have a US comedy that stuck around long enough to wear out its welcome (eight seasons). Its stars are famous primarily because of their roles in this show. Two went on to star in other shows, so it's not like their careers just vanished. But still. They are remembered primarily for this one. One supporting star was famous before this show and is better remembered for his role in the earlier show. He was not an original cast member. He was brought in to replace two actors who went on to star in their own spinoff, which did not do well. The two actors he replaced are primarily remembered for this show. Of the original cast, there is one surviving member who is pretty much known solely for this role. Three title cast members survive. All are women. All are known primarily (if at all) for their role in this series. Only one of the cast members joined the spinoff. Now, once you realize the name of the series, the earlier clues should tell you the name of the spinoff even if you don't remember it.

Well that's a fine "so what?"

Let's try this chronologically. There was once a British TV comedy series. It was almost named for the second half of a well-known proverb (not a biblical proverb. Just a well-known expression, an aphorism, in the vein of "All's well that ends well"). So this British TV comedy ALMOST had the same name as the second half of this pithy saying. It ended up with a completely different name, and it was a hit. It eventually got a spinoff with another completely different name. The British spinoff was also a hit. In the US, they decided to adapt the original series for American audiences. To name this series, they turned to the same pithy expression that almost provided the original British series with its name. Instead of looking at the second half of the expression, they took the first half and tweaked it, turning it into a pun of its original meaning. So the US series was a huge hit, making stars of its entire main cast, many of whom are primarily known for their roles on this series to this day (one was quite famous BEFORE he was cast to replace a departing cast member, but the rest became famous for this series). Eventually, the series wore out its welcome, but the lead actor was still a popular star believed to be the glue that held the series together. So they gave him a spinoff with the same premise as the spinoff to the British series. To name the spinoff, they went back to the same pithy expression and took the second half, the same title that was first pitched for the original British series. Unlike the British spinoff, the American spinoff flopped. Name the American spinoff.

The Avengers (I can still hear that bass trombone). "Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip..." George

Hoping this one is easy. I'm looking for the name of a SPINOFF of a successful TV series whose name is a play on the first half of a popular expression. This spinoff's name IS the second half of that same expression. Both are comedies. The original series is actually an American adaptation of a successful British tv comedy. That comedy originally had the name of what would later become the American spinoff. The British version also had a spinoff with an unrelated name. Yes, the American spinoff was an adaptation of the British spinoff. However: The British spinoff was a big hit, while the American spinoff is routinely listed among the worst spinoffs of all time.

I need inspiration.... I need inspiration...... I got inspiration. "Mrs Peel! We're needed!"

So you know how they say you shouldn't argue with people on the Internet because no one changes their mind? Not exactly true. Sometimes people do change their mind (I mean, look at me), but more often, you'll be exposed to a new way of looking at an issue that you had not previously considered. For example, I tried to convey the thought in previous posts that a judgment can be subjective even if it is universally shared (like one actress being more attractive than another). Turns out there's a word for that, one that has been used on GSC before (but it's been about 16 years). Someone on threads tried to convince me that morality is objective because of something called "intersubjective objectivity." As first I thought he was babbling, but when I looked it up, I realized this perfectly articulated my feelings on morality: Intersubjective objectivity is when you have a subjective judgment and it widely, widely shared. Like, widely to the point where if someone disagrees, you have to question that person's sanity. Like, "E.T. was a better movie than Mac and Me," or "Celine Dion is a better singer than Yoko Ono." I mean, these are opinions, but you'd be hard pressed to find a sane person who disagrees. We treat such opinions as objective, even though they are not. That is "intersubjective objectivity," a term that I do not employ because I find it misleading (as it is not objectivity at all. It is an alternative to objectivity). I prefer to just call it what it is: Intersubjectivity. Morality is not objective. It is intersubjective. Murder and rape are not objectively evil. But the subjective judgment that they are evil is so pervasive that they might as well be objectively evil. They are intersubjectively evil. You may still find the odd person who disagrees. We call them sociopaths. We have a vested interest in protecting ourselves from such people.