WordWolf

If you hadn't picked the chorus, I think I would have been stumped.

Yes. Too easy?

Yes. "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl." The Stratford Inn had a historical significance, but not one they'd hoped for. That was tricky when women came to celebrate its designation as a historical site- because their mothers had worked there, whatever it was at the time....

-This movie features a song with connotations of national pride. It was made up for the movie, and the country it was made up for doesn't really know the song. That's possibly because it uses a symbol a DIFFERENT country connects with connotations of national pride. -One actor was trying to get a sense of his character. So, he went to the Salzburg mountains to ask his nephew what he was like. According to the nephew, he was the most boring man he'd ever met. -The principal actress almost turned the role down. At first glance, she thought the role was too similar to her (eponymous) character in the film she had just finished. -When this film was first released on home video, it stayed on the charts for over 250 weeks, almost five years.

Tom Petty, and I THINK the title is "You Don't Know How It Feels."

I'm thinking of 2 possible actors. I'm going with "PETER O'TOOLE."

The Green Hornet Cameron Diaz The Mask

-In this show, there was a sort-of economy of names. Out of the ensemble, two of them- who appeared in the same scenes- had the same name. -One of the primary locations of the show turned out to have a history- during the time of the American Revolution, it was used as a house of ill-repute.

"Superman II."

I think it's cute that opposition to this thread is confined to "I refuse to read the thread or post a rebuttal on a thread whose subject interests me greatly, but I want to debate a factual point. Not any that actually matter, I want to call into question what year Mrs W said vpw first claimed the 1942 promise." Nothing on any significant point, not on anything that's beyond any reasonable refutation. Usually, that means the rest of the points are unassailable. Why else would someone FIXATE on the exact year vpw began expounding his lie, and not whether or not it was a lie, and why it's so obvious it's a lie? But this way, someone can PRETEND they refuted something of substance, and flee the thread, never acknowledging the rather obvious point that they're now basing their life on something PROVEN to be a lie. "I'd rather have an ugly truth rather than a pretty lie." - Me.

*staggers in with a lampshade on his head* Wow, now THAT was a party! Oh, sorry Twinky. I didn't realize you'd posted again, since you said you weren't interested, so I thought the thread never updated. Since I have a multi-national family, I've got a few teams to root for- up to 3 of them, depending on who qualifies for the World Cup. If all 3 qualify, then the first week gets really, really busy. If they all make the round of 16, it can stay busy, too. Worse, if they play each other, then we watch on separate TVs then celebrate whichever team moves on. In answer to your question, both the US and England moved on to the round of 16, washing out Wales in the process. It used to be said that "Americans will never embrace Soccer." I think that's been changing over my lifetime, especially the last 20 years. The US' soccer league is looking serious, and we now have US players who have been scouted to Europe, and normally play on European leagues. So, each World Cup, the US seems to be doing better, which I'd expect with more of them playing in the European league (since the US league is still improving.) Over the next several World Cups, I'm expecting the US to provide some excellent matches, and to work their way into the round of 8, at least, possibly the final 4.

I'll get back to this soon. In the meantime, have a happy...whatever.

Wild swing here... "The Saint"????? I've read several of the books, but the movie was only vaguely inspired by the book series.

I should have jumped in with Geena Davis, but I've been running around like crazy. Especially the last 14 hours or so with all the partying. So, the neighborhood has settled down, I've gotten some sleep, and can answer. In this case, let's see... The Producers Will Ferrell Anchorman-the Legend of Ron Burgundy

Based on the "same clothes so footage could be reused", I'm going with the live-action show "The Adventures of Superman." (That black-and-white one.)

Christopher Plummer?

It also played to his strengths. You can plagiarize your way into faking a TEACHING ministry, but you can't plagiarize your way into a HEALING ministry. He could take the work of others, stand up, and with the skill of the barker fake a teaching ministry because it looked like he was really a teacher. He couldn't use the skills of a barker and plagiarizing the writings of others to fake HEALINGS. That's often been a weakness of twi, and some point to that as why its founder wore glasses when he supposedly could believe for perfect eyesight, and he died YOUNG of extensive cancer as the result of decades of chain smoking and heavy drinking when he supposedly could believe for perfect health.

This may be a new idea TO YOU, but it's an old idea to nearly 100% of everyone who ever took a pfal class, because they all left twi and did something else. Many left to join smaller, decentralized groups, if only for a time. So, let the people who care more about the organization than about what God said and what the Bible ACTUALLY said have the buildings and pay the rent, and the rest went off to serve God somewhere else. This is an old idea that goes all the way back to the book of Acts and the School of Tyrannus.

Who is my neighbor? Jesus explained that one with a parable about a Jew who needed help, and, of all people, one of those stinking, lousy, no-good, low-down SAMARITANS was the person who helped him. Jesus made it clear that SAMARITAN was the one who "was neighbor" to the Jew who needed help. It was such a noxious concept that the Jew who asked him couldn't bring him to say "the SAMARITAN who helped him", but said "the one who showed mercy on him." Jesus, having told the parable of the Good Samaritan, said to do like that guy. "Go and do thou likewise" is how the KJV renders it. So, who's your neighbor? According to Jesus, you can't exclude that Muslim, that Jew, that Black guy, that Asian guy, that Pakistani, that African dude, that redneck, that smug anti-Christian, that Pastafarian, etc. Jesus set the standard very high, and said to do that.

In short, if you love God with everything you've got, and love your neighbor like you love yourself, nobody has to tell you not to steal, not to kill, etc,- BECAUSE YOU'LL AVOID DOING THEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC RULES. vpw's own rule was different: "If you love God, and you love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please." He started with loving God and neighbor, but changed that you would follow the rules automatically (which is interesting because he mentioned that quickly in passing.) Why the difference? vpw went in small steps from what the verses said, to what he WANTED the verses to say. He went from "If you love God and love your neighbor, you'll follow the whole law automatically" to "so long as you love God and love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please" to "anything done with the love of God is pure" "to the pure, all things are pure" etc. In small steps, he went from "obey the law out of love" to "you can do whatever you want and it's fine". Why did he want that? He wanted to justify doing whatever he wanted and wanted to pretend God Almighty was fine with that. It's no different than when he told Jim D00p that God Almighty was fine with ORGIES and tried to use a verse to justify it. For those who wonder where you've seen the small steps before, it's a very old technique. Someone went from "Has God said 'you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" step by step to go from "you shall surely die" to "you shall not surely die". Whose techniques did vpw copy? BTW, did vpw do that knowing enough about the Bible to know whose work he was copying (knowing he was copying the devil's playbook to rationalize the sin he himself wanted to do) or was vpw that deficient in the meaning of Scripture that he ripped off the devil's own techniques, techniques mentioned right in pfal, out of ignorance? It was either one or the other. (Usually, when there's a conundrum like this, where all possible answers are bad, someone makes a personal attack on me, so it's probably time for that very thing now, for those arriving late.)

"Why VPW would cheat at research? I figured then, no one's perfect. But I was sad about it. Then 1998 rolled finally around two decades later and I got my answer. I was stunned at what I found, when I considered the possibly deeply that the 1942 Promise actually happened. I had treated it as an exaggeration, or a figure of speech or something. I figured he was only 26 then, so no big deal. I just didn't know until 1998. Now I understand." ==================== But the 1942 Promise has been scrutinized from several angles, and has been proven to NOT have happened beyond any REASONABLE doubt. It was never meant as an exaggeration, nor a figure of speech. It was something said by someone, who knew it was not true, who intended that people believe it. In other words, IT WAS A LIE. The several angles are quite easy to review- for anyone who isn't afraid of what they might find. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/

Jacob tried to marry Rachel, and her father agreed- but when it was time for Jacob to marry Rachel, Dad offered Leah instead. Jacob married her and then eventually convinced Dad to let him marry Rachel. So, Jacob had 2 wives- Leah (whom he didn't want to marry) and Rachel (whom he wanted to marry). Jacob/Israel had 2 sons of Rachel- Joseph and Benjamin, and all the rest from Leah. Joseph was his favorite- and when the others faked Joseph's death and sold him into slavery, Jacob/Israel's favorite was then BENJAMIN. Why it was cool with everyone that all of that business between Jacob, Dad, Rachel and Leah was never explained.

That guy took a lot of liberties with his numbers, then "concluded" that 1 in 5 women are in a polygamous relationship, whether they know it or not. Normally, when you end up with a conclusion that's THAT far off reality, a sensible scientist will go back and review all their steps, looking for where error was introduced.

The real thing was a LOT more exciting than you're picturing it. "The huge, stupid, nostalgic error of Paul" was consenting of Stephen's DEATH, and planning to have all the Christians rounded up and imprisoned, including women and children. There's also no guarantee any elder was "possessed". We know one had sons who were really messed up, but otherwise, their problems could all have been greed, pride, and corruption. The banning of the research paper that condemned adultery was completely an attempt to cover up the adultery. By preventing (they thought) any discussion and any thinking on the subject of adultery, they thought they could keep getting away with it- and some of them DID. I Corinthians 13:6 KJV. "6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;" It means that I should not join in when someone suggests that orgies are fine with God and tries to twist the meaning of a verse to allow that. It also means that I should take my joy in actually knowing the truth on sexual morality and base my OWN actions on the truth. There's a great, big world out there. There's lots of opportunities to apply the verses of the Bible, not just the opportunities endorsed by Mike. There's lots of people who need God's Love. There's a lot of hearts that need healing. There's a lot of bodies that need healing. There's a lot of lives to effect. There's a lot of differences to make. In many of them, people welcome the chance to change or get God's help. We don't need to confine our efforts to a handful that have already been resistant to any such help- but if they show themselves ready, we CAN offer them a hand up if it seems to us the time is right- and that's only by our sole estimation.

Somehow I get the feeling the answer is going to remind me of someone successfully making boogie robots and a fart gun.