LG

And if you do it three times, then you will understand the mystery of the trinity. You will be enlightened. Or perhaps, you will be confused. Edit: Each of the above three lines was posted as a separate post. The three became one.

I saw it. It was pretty darn good. People who liked Firefly should like this a lot. People not familiar with Firefly may have trouble following parts of it, but if they like the genre, they'll probably like Serenity. I didn't even know about Firefly until two years after it had been cancelled. I'd have been ticked off if I had known what Fox did with that series, too. Apparently they didn't promote it much, ran it at odd times, and possibly most importantly, ran it out of order, starting with what was supposed to be episode 3 or 4, without ever having aired the pilot episode. With all that going against it, it's no wonder it didn't pick up enough of an audience for Fox to keep it going. I don't know if it would have anyway, but it never got a fair chance. That was a shame, because it had the potential to be one of the great SF-fantasy series. Wheadon had time to introduce and just begin to develop some potentially great characters, a "universe" with all sorts of interesting possibilities, and some fascinating story lines that could be developed. Of course there were some nits that could be picked, but that's true even with universally acclaimed classics. Back to the movie. Because I had seen Firefly, I had no trouble following it, but it seemed rushed. There was enough in the movie to provide a story arc for three good seasons of television. Although I enjoyed it, I also felt disappointed, because I'd much rather have seen the story told in a series, as had originally been intended. I can't say much about why, without giving out spoilers, so I guess I'll just shut up. I recommend both the Firefly DVDs and Serenity.

Each of Groucho's consecutive separate posts was made more than ten minutes after the previous one. Pawtucket said that after ten minutes, a new post would show up as a separate post, rather than as an addition to the previous one.

Allen, I haven't examined all your posts, but from what I've seen you are more likely to attack than to be attacked. And, BTW, you have no clue about who was or was not in TWI. Almost all posters here were.

Mike, your answer to my question fits with other posters' characterizations of you. Don't bother with another response. In turn, I won't trouble you by addressing you again.

I agree, but for most of us, there's nothing that can be done about it, except to live the best we can now and tell others who might be similarly deceived.

Rascal, on an emotional level, I understand what you're saying. But... (there's always one of those with me): I can't really speak to what was intended, but it was ALWAYS private property, and ALWAYS under the arbitrary control of a select few. No matter what they may have said, it never was yours, mine, or anyone else's, but the corporation's, of which only the trustees (now directors) were part. What was taken was your energy, love, money, etc. The property and "the ministry" never belonged to you. Of all the despicable things TWI did, those relating to the property were the least, in my opinion. Hell, I'd give them everything I own if I could get back the years I wasted with them, and I wasn't even one of those who was particularly hurt by them.

Mike, I don't normally pay too much attention to your posts, but occasionally, when I'm stuck at my desk waiting for a phone call, I read threads I don't normally follow. Anyway, a question comes to mind. What is it that you see in PFAL (all the writings) that you think is "gospel?" The whole collection is primarily exposition of a few parts of the Bible. In fact, most of the "Studies in Abundant Living" are just transcriptions of teaching sermons. Wierwille never claimed that his writings were "God's Word" or gospel. He claimed that they were essentially either keys to understanding the Bible or expositions of portions of the Bible.

Anyone seen it? My daughter says it's good. If I can get the time, I'm probably going to see it today. I saw the DVDs of the short-lived Firefly TV series. I thought it had lots of potential. If the movie is as good, I'll enjoy it.

I love these cool Autumn days. It's 11:31 AM here and the temperature is only 82 degrees, with a high of only 91 forecast. If this keeps up, my next electric bill might drop below $300.00.

It also shows if you just refresh the page after a quick edit. At least I think it did yesterday. Here's a quick edit to check. Yep, it doesn't show immediately after a quick edit but it does if you refresh the page. That's two little quirks I've noticed (as have others). The other one is that if you try to do a new post immediately following your own previous post, it gets appended to the previous one. The edit thing is just a bit odd. The inability to make two consecutive separate posts is irritating.

There are plenty of good reasons for TWI to restrict access to those woods. Regardless of whether or not they brought the animosity of others upon themselves, there are people who would vandalize the woods or other TWI property, or use access to them to otherwise cause disruption to or provoke a confrontation with TWI. Some have posted such intentions on Waydale, GreaseSpot, and probably other Internet sites as well. Also, though I have no knowledge of this, I feel almost certain that TWI has received quite a bit of hate mail expressing ill intent toward them and probably even including death threats. Why? It IS private property. Can you name a single person who has ever been denied access to the burial site of a relative buried on TWI grounds? That’s just plain ridiculous. I know nothing more about that matter than what I’ve read here or on sites linked from here, but I saw nothing honorable in his actions. All I saw was a guy seeking to provoke a confrontation. Completely different situation. It would seem that Ohio law says otherwise. I have no use for TWI but like any other organization or person, it has the right to protect itself and its property. The principles of private rights, whether individual or corporate, and equal protection of the law, even for the despicable, are more important than anyone’s personal beef with TWI. Any rights you would take from TWI could just as well be taken from any church, charity, private corporation, or individual, including you.

This is a test. Original post. Quick edit immediately after original post. The quick edit wasn't tagged as an edit on my screen right after I did it, but was tagged as an edit when I refreshed my screen, so apparently even an immediate quick edit gets tagged as an edit. Now that's really strange (no offense, Tom). The last paragraph of my previous post was supposed to be a new post, but was added to the other one. (Another quick edit: So was this one.) I don't like that.

My first thought is that I don’t care that much. What I think would be ideal would be for posters to be able to edit a post, but not completely delete it, for an hour or so after posting. After that, posters could add postscripts to existing posts, but not otherwise change them. That would allow for corrections or explanatory notes, without allowing the thread continuity problems that deletions and major edits long after the original post can cause, but I doubt that the forum software offers that feature.

He was referring to some pictures of vulgar gestures that were removed, one by the original poster and another by a moderator.

I suspect that most other people do also, to at least some extent. That could make for an interesting discussion topic, but I think that most people would be reluctant to go into it very deeply or be very open about it.

Unless a moderator removed them.

I'm not saying they guy made the "right" decision, and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have done it that way, but... Not necessarily. If the store's floors are carpeted, then the OSB could be made very sturdy, without relying on attachment to the wall, and with no trace left behind after it was removed. All that would need to be done would be to nail 2x4s to the floor several feet back, and use triangular bracing secured to them to support the OSB. The OSB could be made much more wind-resistant than if it were mounted on the outside. Afterwards, vacuuming the floor would hide the places where concrete nails had been driven through the carpet.

I'm not about to defend Mormon doctrine, but that's a false dichotomy. If you apply it to the Bible as I think you claim it purports to be (literally and entirely the infallible word of God, given by direct revelation), then either God made some errors or some of the writers were liars. In both cases, there are other possibilities that you exclude.

Nice dining room, Belle. But you really should clean those windows. It doesn't look like any sunlight could get through them. :)

It looks silly, and probably is, but plywood on the inside would provide almost as much protection to the glass as plywood on the outside, because the main risk is from wind pressure, rather than flying debris. Also, it would provide just as much protection to the contents of the store as plywood on the outside would. If the structure is such that the plywood could not be mounted securely on the outside, then mounting it on the inside would provide more protection than mounting it on the outside, both for the glass (a relatively minor concern) and for the contents of the store (the primary concern).

I've no quarrel with what you're saying, but I don't want to let vee pee weewillie's BS go by without comment. If it were true, then murdering every Christian in the world, destroying every Bible, and forcing everyone to swear loyalty to Satan would be no worse in God's eyes than having an "unclean thought" about some woman (or man). There's no Biblical or rational justification for such nonsense.

I knew a man above 20 years ago, who believed that revelation from God needed not to fit with the “mathematical accuracy and scientific precision” that some claimed it did. He thought that God, if he dictated His Word to others, could and likely did use the same sorts of literary devices that humans frequently use. He also believed that the Bible never claimed to be “the Word of God” in its entirety, but did claim to contain a portion of the Word of God, as well as words of men. This man also believed that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” referred to the origin of prophecy, not the understanding of it, so he would never carry on about people privately interpreting scripture. Even today, though he no longer believes that any of the Bible is revelation from God, this man thinks that Paul was talking about himself, rather than some other person.

I meant during the first week or so, laleo. You are right that many fine articles were later published, but by that time, much damage had already been done that likely will never be fully undone.

def, except for the risks associated with not having children, most of that list could be attributable to societal stigmatization of lesbianism, rather than lesbianism itself. Also, the list does not indicate that lesbians have a greater risk in many of those categories, but rather than they have the same risks as other women, but perhaps a lower liklihood of early detection, which the article seems to attribute largely to the first point I mentioned.