WordWolf

The Cars, "Oh, Ho, It's Magic", or something like that.

One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. As it's already been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt- and all of that in plain sight- and you and all the posters and readers know that- your bald claims lack a lot. i noticed you had a chance to actually address how completely it's been disproven- which, frankly, is probably the biggest obstacle you actually face (as opposed to any obstacles you imagine), but you've steered clear. You're certainly free to do so, but it sends a clear message to people who see you can spend long stretches of time on any topic that interests you, but you have no words for a complete refutation of all your claims (and never have, always leaving such threads alone.) To anyone who hasn't already drunk your koolaid, it's a sign you've been refuted so thoroughly you're ducking each discussion and hoping they'll go away. Frankly, your insistence on avoiding any related discussion is quite telling. When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same.

Ok, this last song was from the one-hit wonder, the Verve Pipe, and it was their one hit, "FRESHMEN." I'll go back to 1985 and earlier. FREE POST!

"When I was young I knew everything. And she, a punk who rarely ever took advice. Now I'm guilt-stricken, sobbin' with my head on the floor. Stopped a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice, no. Can't be held responsible. She was touchin' her face. I won't be held responsible. She fell in love in the first place. For the life of me, I can not remember What made us think that we were wise and we'd never compromise." "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

I think it will save everyone some time and energy- including you, Bol- if we all (including you) accept that there is NO answer you will find acceptable as to what Waydale was and why it existed. Period. Lots of other people have come forth, explaining how Waydale or the GSC benefited them personally, and you don't see how any of them benefited. That's fine- their benefits are independent of your ability to perceive them. You were wronged by some idiots- and if other people doubted that, their doubts would not erase the wrongs. So, that's a conversational impasse, and will remain so because there's no "argument" that will change your mind, so there's no point in circling the same ideas. I'm not personally familiar with the parties involved in the lawsuit, but I'd be slow to accuse anyone of "whoring his wife for money" even if it were true (which, in this case, it isn't and is a gross misstatement of what happened.) I get that you're fine with insulting whoever and it doesn't matter to you, especially if it relates to Waydale. But you might put that past you by now. So far, you're the only person who ever came forth complaining of Waydale or the GSC that way. That suggests the problem wasn't with Waydale. Even if it had been, the site has been closed for more than 20 years. The most I've ever talked about it was in your threads recently. My suggestion is to find a way to let it go. harboring resentments for decades is not healthy.

Acts 9 KJV And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: -------------------------------------------------- I still get surprised when I run into people who don't get why Saul addressed Jesus that way, and what he meant by that. It's very simple. Really. Check a dictionary for a refresher on what "lord" means. Saul was traveling, and suddenly he saw a bright light hit him from the sky, and a voice accompanied it. "Saul, why do you persecute me?" Saul got up from the ground, and addressed the voice and light that came from the sky. "Who are you, lord?" Was Saul addressing him as God? Hardly- he had no idea whom he was addressing- otherwise he wouldn't open with "WHO ARE YOU?" He was addressing this complete stranger with respect. Our modern addresses might have said, "Who are you, Sir?" Saul addressed this being with deference and respect. Why? The man was knocked off his feet and landed on his @$$ by a being who showed up as a bright light and a voice from heaven. (I'd be shocked if the voice wasn't pretty loud, too.) Saul wasn't addressing him as God Almighty, The Savior, or anything else like that. "I don't know who you are, but I'm addressing you as 'sir' because you showed up, blew me off my feet, and surrounded me with a bright light and a voice. You're definitely more powerful than me and have more authority, whoever or whatever you are." So, "lord" here wasn't referring to God, and wasn't referring to Saul pledging his loyal allegiance to this mysterious person. Saul's loyalty wasn't that shallow. He didn't automatically switch his allegiance to this voice. But he gave his undivided attention and deference. Later, he DID switch his allegiance to Jesus, but only after finding out who was speaking to him, having more information from other Christians, and time to deliberate.

"When I was young I knew everything. And she, a punk who rarely ever took advice. Now I'm guilt-stricken, sobbin' with my head on the floor. Stopped a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice, no." "Can't be held responsible. She was touchin' her face. I won't be held responsible. She fell in love in the first place." "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

*wild swing* Alfred Pennyworth? (I'm just spitballing, here...) BTW, when giving hints, you should look up the answers so the clues are correct. If you are guessing, you are unable to look anything up, because that's cheating. If you feel you must look something up, you should announce you did and are out for the round. (If everyone is out, nobody can guess, so that's important.)

twi was and is always interested in controlling the microphone, and having only their POV be spoken, suppressing dissent whenever possible. With discussion on a website twi didn't control, suddenly, there was an opportunity to speak that wasn't controlled by twi. Those who had been hurt by them especially had something to say, and had been conditioned to keep silent- but now there was another option. People began to speak and give their points of view. Although many of those were supportive of twi (at least at first), twi hated their inability to control the discussion. So, it snowballed from then, with more and more speaking, and more and more speaking about how twi hurt them, and more women began speaking about how lcm "messed with" them. That last part would have been especially bad for twi if those women were subpoenaed to appear in court and tell what they know. They could have brought a class-action suit that would have EMPTIED the twi coffers. So, the lawyers insisted twi settle QUICKLY and QUIETLY with the A||3ns. Once people had gotten the idea it was ok to communicate freely, they did so. Having a site to communicate made it easy. twi's hated the idea ever since. BTW. that's why twi strong-armed their own follower into closing his pro-twi messageboard. Despite him being pro-twi and deleting posts that weren't RABIDLY PRO-twi and closing accounts for anyone who posted anything other than enthusiastic for twi, it wasn't under their direct control, so they leaned on him to shut it down.

Just to say I tried it, PRINCE BARAN?

IMHO, twi lost more because it had more to lose, and insisted on handling things only as quietly as their lawyers insisted. twi mgmt was used to handling everything in bad faith and getting away with it because they were bullies. That changed as soon as someone called them on it and brought in secular law. BTW, to answer an earlier question.... There were 2 ways to try to address this- as a federal case, and as a civil case. As a federal case, if lcm was found guilty, he'd probably go to prison, but the evidence had to pass a higher standard- guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With a civil case, they could sue for damages (a money amount), but the standard was simpler- the preponderance of the evidence. The suers went the simpler route- which was smart. They had a much better chance of winning the suit, and when they went public, other people started to speak up. At the advice of their lawyers, twi settled out of court rather than have all those people brought up on the witness stand. (Judges have been known to increase penalties in civil suits if they feel someone's getting away too lightly, although this is not common.) The suers won a settlement- but had to close their website as part of the settlement. However, people had begun to communicate freely, so another website was begun, and twi has dearly wished it would close- twi has hemorrhaged members and many of them point to the GSC as part of the reason they left. As for lcm, at the advice of their lawyers, twi jettisoned him as a liability. So, he didn't go to prison, but he was kicked off the pulpit and allegedly out of twi.

"When I was young I knew everything. And she, a punk who rarely ever took advice. Now I'm guilt-stricken, sobbin' with my head on the floor. Stopped a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice, no." "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

Actually, I might recognize a few songs from "Gorillaz." I might find the titles a little tricky but that's because some don't connect with the songs.

*reads* Yes, that is both additional and interesting. It is also long, so one should put aside some time to read it, since it warrants an uninterrupted read. In other news, hello, fredgrant.

That's it.

(Well, when we were at the Jekyll and Hyde, that mad scientist marked your shoulder blades for later, since he wanted them for an experiment, but apparently, he forgot and never collected them.)

I'll try this one. If it doesn't work, I'll go back to my usual rule of 1985 or earlier. "My best friend took a week's vacation to forget her. His girl took a week's worth of valium and slept. And now he's guilt-stricken, sobbin' With his head on the floor. Thinks about her now and how he never really wept. He said"

*sigh* [It's amazing how much can be invented around something really simple that was missed. Jesus' disciples weren't picked because they were the sharpest crayons in Galilee. At least once (when Jesus walked on water), they saw something they didn't understand, freaked out, and claimed it was some kind of phantasm. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. In this account, Jesus showed up again, and again their first response was to freak out. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. He went out of his way to make it clear he was a real person, physical, solid, and material. (Not some Gnostic, spirit-being "resurrection", a complete, bodily resurrection had been done.) How did he settle the issue? He had them take a blood sample, run it down to the CSI Jerusalem HQ, and when the results came back, then they knew it was him. Oh, come on! He did the simplest thing! Here, I'm solid! I have flesh! I have bones! I'm a real person! Anyone can go up and tell with a touch whether you have flesh and bones. They can see your teeth, they can feel your skeletal structure- skull, ribs, shoulder blades. (Except for Mark Sanguinetti, whose shoulder-blades were taken by a mad scientist for an experiment.) So, he showed them he had a human body. He let them physically touch him- I expect a few hugs were given and received, and so on. Jesus asked for food, and ate in front of him. He was solid to the touch. He had an apparent skeletal structure. He ate food. He carried on conversations. Seriously, wouldn't that settle any question of if he was real? Isn't that the most anyone would expect? He didn't mention his blood because it was completely irrelevant. If they were still not sure if it was Real Physical Jesus there, would they have been any MORE sure if Jesus grabbed a steak-knife, cut himself, and let them see the dripping blood? What would be the point of even bringing up his blood at the moment? I mean, he looked like a normal person. If he'd looked really pale, they might have suspected he was missing his blood or something, but he looked normal, and a normal person has blood circulating and giving their skin color. As for "his body hadn't changed", ridiculous! He was able to pass physically from place to place without passing through all the places in-between. That's obviously a physical ability, and one that he didn't have before and we don't have right now. (I'd sure love to have that ability right now!) He was also able to hide his identity from people when it suited him, and be obviously himself when it suited him. If you really want to break down how he did that, there's not enough information to say with any certainty. Did he transfigure his features to different ones, then transfigure them back? Did he cloud their perception slightly so his features weren't identifiable and they didn't think it was odd that they couldn't make them out? Was it something else? Nobody can TRUTHFULLY say which it was. So, that may have been a physical ability, or something else. But the translocational ability was obviously physical, as it affected his relation with matter and space. BTW, we don't know he "STILL WANTED FOOD." He ASKED for food and ate it. That, obviously, was for their benefit. He might have wanted a snack also, but that wasn't necessary to get from them. We don't know if he needed food- or how often now- or if he could somehow substitute some other energy source for his body than the usual biochemical processes. We don't know. It doesn't say, and anyone who insists they DO know is guessing right along with the rest of us.]

If it's by the Vines, the Hives, or the Killers, I probably have no chance to get it.

*looks it up* Possibly you and Nathan might know this. I've heard of this band, but it's one of the bands I've heard of but can't really name any of their songs.

Richard Roxburgh Kate Beckinsale Robbie Coltrane Hugh Jackman Shuler Hensley David Wenham

Robert Preston the Music Man Ron Howard

That's it. Bela Lugosi was in the beginning for about a minute. (He died right after some test shots- so the script was altered to use the test footage.) He was replaced by Ed Wood's dentist or something, who didn't resemble Lugosi and walked around with this cloaked arm up and looked over the cloaked arm at everything like the worst Dracula impression ever. The rest of the film does not improve.

Ok, addressing by the #s I added for ease of reply.... 1- I think everyone would agree with this, I expect I would. 2- It was vpw, but he took the behaviors he wanted, and tried to find them in a subculture. He recruited the members, and tried to adapt the behaviors into his denomination. He did slap religious language over it. Where he succeeded was in adding all of the "this is a secret" business, and in his local network. His local network helped him scout out women he was likely to be successful raping, helped him manage it, and watched for signs they were going to squeal- and had the woman thrown out and savaged her reputation as soon as it looked like she was going to sing. 3- You CAN murder and cite religious freedom. It won't WORK, but you can cite it. Where religious freedom works here is a general reluctance to dig into a religion's everyday practices, as well as vpw making up a subculture for twi that included ideas that helped him- making sex more permissive, and the "lockbox", and if you don't think something's a sin, then it isn't a sin. Religious freedom technically made it possible for vpw to try that- but it took a pervert like vpw to actually try it. 4= I agree, but that religion made the subculture easy to manufacture, plus it added the chance to demand a tithe and donations, and gave vpw pseudo- authority. 5- No, I think you're alone on that one. 6- Mostly no, although I suspect there's a reluctance to dig into claims against a religion because First Amendment rights can conflict with any investigation. 7-No, it's still illegal to drug, rape, molest, embezzle the "company funds", etc. First, someone has to blow the whistle. Then, someone has to initiate the investigation.

lcm's reality includes having been forced to "resign" at twi - and that was largely due to Waydale's contents, and what the lawyers would happen if the lawsuit went to court. He really felt the effects. 'Accountability via the internet" means that they now had a reputation on the internet, and it was a largely empty reputation. While anyone may post anything, that problem is generally self-correcting. Reputations grow and shrink, and discussions- news or otherwise- about a problem tends to publicize it- and in this case, more women, when they heard of the lawsuit, were prepared to speak up. The lawyers were worried this might lead to a "Class Action" suit, and cost twi a lot in expenses.