WordWolf

Hey, Human! I've got this new invention. I call it "the seed drill." Think you can help me file the patent?

No. Review your lines of reasoning again. You had all the legwork already worked out. Not counting CoIE, this is someone who has appeared in more shows than Supergirl, and certainly has had more of her own shows than Supergirl! However, she has had fewer theatrical releases. (AFAIK.)

No, AFAIK. This is not something for which you can train, you crazy mover. Think it over and try again.

Just in case- and to prevent anyone veering off wildly- I'll state outright that the correct answer this round is not any version of Batgirl, Barbara Gordon, Josie Mc Coy, or Josie the lead singer of the Pussycats. Since you'd named both, I would have accepted the posting as a correct guess, had it been the correct answer even if said inadvertently.

Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.) A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. In this case, they even serve in the manner one would expect of what's referred to as a "Greek chorus" (despite there being nothing "Greek" about this film or its source material.) This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie. There were comedic moments, and dramatic moments, and suspenseful moments, and action moments in this film. Most people would probably call this film a dramatic film, but an argument could be made for calling it a tragedy. Personally, I thought this would have been a good film for watching a few years ago... but they removed the sub-plot of a town quarantined. When this film was made, I imagine they never thought that would become a current concern or even a talking-point in the news, and they were focused on making a film that was current and accessible to the current audiences. Although it wasn't a perfect film, I for one would have liked to have seen it inspire some similar films afterwards- films with the same intent, produced much the same way. In the broadest sense, we've gotten that, but we have not gotten it in a more direct, literal sense.

You know, if you read your post slowly, and use that as a guide, then review the clues, I think you (you George) have enough to get to the answer already.)

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside."

"This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me! Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus." [Any time someone invokes a document they can't present or cite precisely, but upon which their entire argument hinges, I've found it was nothing but hot air. Some overheard something from someone else. "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. It is true that experts can learn things, but it's not the same to say that an expert MUST be correct BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXPERT. If an expert is correct, they have all sorts of resources they can access- and, more to the point, present- to strengthen their case and DOCUMENT their case. Those who try to SHUT DOWN THE DISCUSSION are all but admitting they've got nothing, and just want to distract from that. We had lots of that in twi, and the ex-twi communities still have large amounts of that, depending on the community.] "Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus." [Horse manure. The ex-twi people would lift that thing high like a banner if that was the case. The photograph in the Companion Bible was shown everywhere- and that didn't make the case, no matter what Bullinger thought. He was mistaken. He saw 5 old stone crosses sitting together, and jumped to the conclusion that it could only have been to support his claim. If that were the case, they would have been made as a set. Instead, they were mixed and matched. Someone collected stone crosses from different sources, possibly sparing them destruction out of respect, possibly for any of a number of other reasons. They were proof of nothing except that people used to make different kinds of stone crosses. There is no such variant. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It is to be accepted to be nonexistent until evidence is presented to show it actually exists. ] "Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating circus clowns were crucified with Jesus." "Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating Jesus died from slipping in a tub." [See how that works? Anyone can claim anything. On the internet, there's always someone ready to claim the most RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. A claim means NOTHING. By the way, there's a reason there's "critical" Greek texts. Centuries later, people came along and wrote fanfics, whether for entertainment, to advance their agenda, or with noble intent. If you look hard enough, there's texts out there that were written MUCH later with NONSENSE. It would not surprise me to find a "text" from the 20th century asserting 4 crucified.. None of that, BTW, means definitively 4 were NOT crucified, just that the case can't be made that way. I remain flexible on the subject due to a lack of consistent evidence.] "A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either. " [That's old news, and I'll fill in the blanks for you for free. 1) The word "one" was added to the English by a translator who thought that it needed to be there to make the English grammar make sense. He was wrong. If the word was apt, the sentence made as much sense without it, and if the word was not, then he inserted a concept that wasn't in the text- which is a bad thing. What was there in the Greek was the phrase "enteuthen kai enteuthen" (excuse my spelling if it's off), meaning, word for word, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THIS SIDE", or, to adjust for English grammar, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THAT SIDE." So, two, on this side and on that side. The argument that the English word "midst" makes a difference here is dishonest because the English meanings of the words are irrelevant when studying the Greek. 2) The other point made was that, when they removed the crucified ones, and went to kill them by breaking their legs, they killed one, then another, and then got to Jesus. If one is going efficiently in a line, that makes Jesus the third in a line. There's some shuffling about the word "other" in the Greek there, as to whether it means something different if there are exactly two in a group, or if there is more. Bullinger asserted there was, but he never supported his claim. It comes out of nowhere, and just happens to support the case he felt the need to make. But we have no guarantee that they went in a straight line. Perhaps they started with the noisiest prisoners and silenced them to stop the screaming. Maybe they cared more about highway robbers than political prisoners, and made sure the most dangerous criminals were dead first. Or any of a number of things of which we could have no knowledge. We suppose we have a lot more answers than we do about their culture. Nuances can vary widely. 3) A third point made is that one account has 2 thieves (or robbers) and another 2 "evildoers". In one, both join the crowd in reviling Jesus, in the other, one does, the other does not. The most common explanation is that there were 2 guys, and both reviled Jesus but one reconsidered and changed his tune. They were up there for hours, he had lots of time to think, it's not illogical. 4) Finally, the order of things is sometimes given differently. 2 of the guys were said to have been led out with Jesus, and it sounds like the other 2 were not. But, really, aren't we squeezing the text? We're approaching texts from another part of the world, many centuries ago, with a modern thinking process. We're expecting a CNN news feed with a minute by minute breakdown, when that was never the point in the first place. How badly were the first century disciples concerned with making every minute fit precisely? It was a few centuries later that anything resembling a "harmony of the Gospels" was made. That was from Greek to Aramaic, and I'm not convinced it wasn't more to try to spare the scribes hundreds of hours of hand-translating and hand-copying Greek texts long before the printing press was around. Frankly, the harder I look at it, the weaker is the case for "4 crucified." I'm open to the possibility, but they'd have to make a strong case that could answer all objections before I'd change positions. That's not impossible- I reversed my position in the past, and I'm willing to change again if there's a strong enough case for it. Ultimately, it matters not in the plan of salvation. It mattered to vpw, because he could present this and pretend he had access to esoteric, secret knowledge. It matters to certain ex-twi people for exactly the same reason.]

Can you narrow SOMETHING down? Can you limit the possible answers in some way, to some category, or some author?

No. Has she really been getting her own television shows while I wasn't looking?

YOU ALMOST HAD IT, you crazy mover you!

All right, I don't think I've done this one before. Some characters become more famous than others, and some are longer-lasting than others. In this case, I'm thinking of a specific character. They first appeared in the 1960s in someone else's comic book, intended as a one-off character. They were brought back as a recurring character before getting their own comic book. Before the 60s were over, they had made guest appearances in someone else's cartoons, and did so again in the early 1970s (in completely unrelated cartoons) before getting their own cartoon. (Personally, I watched the second series and not the first nor their own cartoon.) Those cartoons may all be remembered dimly after all this time, but I'm not done. This character's comic book continued, and the character returned to television. (Other than the 80s being all comics, they have appeared on television in one form or another each decade, not counting the current one.) There's been a variety of cartoons (naturally, they all contradict each other, since obviously can't be in continuity with each other; the character would easily be in their 70s by now. As for live action, they've appeared in their own series for several seasons and 2 networks, not counting syndication. There were rumors of an appearance guesting in an existing show to result in a backdoor pilot for an alleged spinoff series, but they elected to just start the new series alongside an existing one. (Odd, since, at the time, they probably would have fit in perfectly with the other series.) Besides their own series, they did eventually guest on the other series. So, we have a long-lived character, who keeps getting their own cartoons and their own television shows, and also guests on the cartoons and shows of others- often exactly the SAME "others" regardless of decade. Who is this?

Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.) A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.

(In the English language, I would expect.)

I'll wait briefly. I want to see if George somehow gets this one.

"Baba O'Riley" (The Who.) (They meant to use his biorhythms ran through a synthesizer, but the result wasn't musical enough.)

These are easy quotes? *wild swing* "Sling Blade"?????

Spitballing here.... Teddy Roosevelt??????

That's it! CORRECT! (I'm fairly confident Audrey Hepburn SAW this movie, at any rate.)

Hm. This movie enters the public domain in a few years. By the way, something in this movie is a lot more famous than the rest of this movie- exactly one word in this movie is very famous. I saw it referenced in a novel (a novel completely unrelated to this movie) a few years before it became even more famous (for reasons unrelated to this movie) due to a different movie. Also, the only existing source material for this movie includes a scene with a number of splices in it- which is distracting when you try to watch the scene, especially for the first time.

"You sing high, huh?" "Yes,I have a falsetto voice." "My grandmother, she's got a falsetto teeth." "I love good music." "So do I. Let's get out of here!" "This is the first time I've been out in a canoe since I saw The American Tragedy." "Oh, you're perfectly safe, Professor, in this boat." "I don't know. I was going to get a flat bottom but the girl at the boat house didn't have one." "Well you know, Professor, I could go on like this, drifting and dreaming forever. What a day! Spring in the air." "Who, me? I should spring in the air and fall in the lake?" "Oh, Professor, you're full of whimsy." "Can you notice it from there? I'm always that way after I eat radishes." "Last week at this same hour I told you that Mrs. Moskowitz was expecting a blessed event. Well, last night, Mrs. Moskowitz had twins. O-kay, Mr Moskowitz!" " As you know, there is constant warfare between the red and white corpuscles. Now then, baboons, what is a corpuscle?" "That's easy. First is-a captain, then is-a lieutenant, then is-a corpuscle." "That's fine. Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out? We now find ourselves among the Alps. The Alps are a simple people who live on a diet of rice and old shoes. Beyond the Alps lies more Alps, and 'the Lord Alps those that Alp themselves.' We then come to the bloodstream. The blood rushes from the head down to the feet, gets a look at those feet, and rushes back to the head again. This is known as Auction Pinochle. Now in studying your basic metabolism, the first thing we do is listen to your heart's beating. And if your Hearts are beating anything but Diamonds and Clubs, it's because your partner is cheating - or your wife." "Let us examine the circulatory system. Here is the liver." "What- no bacon? I'd send that back if I were you." "The liver, if neglected, invariably leads to cirrhosis. Of course, you are all familiar with the symptoms of cirrhosis." "Sure. So-roses are red. So-violets are blue. So-sugar is sweet. So-so are you." "Now here is a most unusual organ. The organ will play a solo immediately after the feature picture. Scientists make these deductions by examining a rat, or your landlord, who won't cut the rent. And what do they find? Asparagus!" "Dad, let me congratulate you. I'm proud to be your son." " My boy, you took the words right out of my mouth. I'm ashamed to be your father. You're a disgrace to our family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible. What's all this talk I hear about you fooling around with the college widow? No wonder you can't get out of college. Twelve years in one college! I went to three colleges in twelve years and fooled around with three college widows!" "Members of the faculty, faculty members, students of Huxley and Huxley students - I guess that covers everybody. Well, I thought my razor was dull until I heard this speech. And that reminds me of a story that's so dirty I'm ashamed to think of it myself. As I look over your eager faces, I can readily understand why this college is flat on its back. The last college I presided over, things were slightly different- I was flat on my back. Things kept going from bad to worse but we all put our shoulders to the wheel, and it wasn't long before I was flat on my back again. Any questions? Any answers? Any rags? Any bones? Any bottles today? Any rags? Let's have some action around here. Who'll say 76? Who'll say 17 76? That's the spirit! 1776!"

Again, Audrey Hepburn does NOT appear in this movie. Audrey Hepburn was not in the cast of this movie. She is still not in the cast of this movie, and she will not be in the cast of this movie. (If there's any confusion about that now, I don't know how it happened, I did my best to be clear and unambiguous.)

waysider's up, and announced a FREE POST.

"You sing high, huh?" "Yes,I have a falsetto voice." "My grandmother, she's got a falsetto teeth." "I love good music." "So do I. Let's get out of here!" "This is the first time I've been out in a canoe since I saw The American Tragedy." "Oh, you're perfectly safe, Professor, in this boat." "I don't know. I was going to get a flat bottom but the girl at the boat house didn't have one." "Well you know, Professor, I could go on like this, drifting and dreaming forever. What a day! Spring in the air." "Who, me? I should spring in the air and fall in the lake?" "Oh, Professor, you're full of whimsy." "Can you notice it from there? I'm always that way after I eat radishes." "Last week at this same hour I told you that Mrs. Moskowitz was expecting a blessed event. Well, last night, Mrs. Moskowitz had twins. O-kay, Mr Moskowitz!" " As you know, there is constant warfare between the red and white corpuscles. Now then, baboons, what is a corpuscle?" "That's easy. First is-a captain, then is-a lieutenant, then is-a corpuscle." "That's fine. Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out? We now find ourselves among the Alps. The Alps are a simple people who live on a diet of rice and old shoes. Beyond the Alps lies more Alps, and 'the Lord Alps those that Alp themselves.' We then come to the bloodstream. The blood rushes from the head down to the feet, gets a look at those feet, and rushes back to the head again. This is known as Auction Pinochle. Now in studying your basic metabolism, the first thing we do is listen to your heart's beating. And if your Hearts are beating anything but Diamonds and Clubs, it's because your partner is cheating - or your wife." "Let us examine the circulatory system. Here is the liver." "What- no bacon? I'd send that back if I were you."