WordWolf

"Spiderman- Into the Spider-Verse" was the animated movie, right?

"Hey, you guys!" - Spiderman appeared in the "Spidey Super Stories" segment of "the Electric Company." I had a classmate who swore up and down that Spiderman was mute because we had to read the word balloons. Never explained the 60s cartoon, which WAS being aired in our coverage area at the same time. Same one insisted that "colonel" was pronounced exactly as it's written. (BTW, in Spanish it's "coronel" and at least has the right letters in it. It's pronounced "coronel" as well as written that way, too.)

So, there was a movie called "Thirteen Days" and it was about JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Live and learn.

Captain America had a 70s show- that's why he had a motorcycle. He also didn't have enough movies. A contemporary show to his, however, was of a character that had cartoons, multiple movies, and at least one animated film release. That would be "SPIDERMAN".

Still naming this role.... Rowan Schlosberg David Mitchell Colin Firth Rupert Graves Will Kemp Mathew Baynton Kenneth Branagh Laurie Davidson Tim Curry (Yes, Laurie Davidson is a guy, as are all the others.AFAIK, no female's played him, although I'd have to check to be 100% sure.)

NONE have appeared in the TV series? Then I'm swapping out my next guess, and going with "SUPERMAN." (BTW, I find that DVD's options for subtitles and alternate audio tracks are quite useful for me. Additional material like deleted scenes are also appreciated.)

No. Wrong era. And not as well-known as the "character" we're looking for.

Cruz + Cruise = Vanilla Sky.

So, a lot of movies in the franchise (or franchises.) They were all theatrical releases (not TV or direct-to-video.) Most of them had the same title character. That limits the scope considerably, and James Bond is out for not having his name appear in the titles. I have a few guesses, I will run them one at a time. Is this "Friday the 13th" and Jason Voorhees? (BTW, his old run of movies here aren't Fri 13, but " Jason the Killer." )

I suspect Mrs Wolf will get it just from "David Mitchell." He's a British comedian who doesn't usually act. I'm fairly confident you saw Rowan Schlosberg play this very role in 2020, even if you have no idea who that actor is.

*studies the first 2 quotes* The latter might refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and/or Mutually Assured Destruction. With 2 good brothers mentioned, this might be a reference to.... "JFK".

That last one sounds familiar, but I can't place it.

Ok, next one. Rowan Schlosberg David Mitchell Colin Firth Rupert Graves Will Kemp Mathew Baynton

I can't shake the feeling that I knew the answer but can't remember it right now.

Rowan Atkinson Hot Shots Part Deux Charlie Sheen

skyrider? Lifted Up did NOT use the word "openly" in his post. On this page, that word only appears (so far) in your response (and will appear in this post when I post it.) He did say "MOST" of the corps, and you can object to that and discuss percentages, but SOME of the corps were NOT taught this and some WERE, so "all" and "none" would not be correct to use.

Actually, under a "covenantal" framework, they could be part of one or more covenants but excluded from one or more. So, "dispensationalism" could suggest it applied for a certain time, and " covenantal" could suggest it applied to a specific group of people.

Wow. Shaun Toub played Yinsen. I kinda thought he'd played Erskine as well. I actually have a lot of trouble recognizing "STANLEY TUCCI" for sure in his roles. I keep picturing "Muerte"/"Morty" when I picture him. But when I pictured Johnny now ("That's the same spot he did Johnny. He must love that spot"), I thought it was him.

In contemporary US society (and others?), there's double standards about men and women. One is that women can't rape. Another is that men can't be raped, especially by a woman, and if he was, it wasn't a crime even if it was non-consensual, or that a guy can't refuse to consent. or some similar nonsense. It's in the same barrel of drivel as saying that a woman who is sexually active with a lot of men is to be scorned but a man who is sexually active with a lot of women is to be congratulated. In twi, people on the inside were taught to be callous and not care about others. That came from modelling behavior after vpw, who viewed people as THINGS and was probably a sociopath. So, copying the predatory behavior of a psychopath made for unhealthy, exploitative practices in twi. I don't know if this is news to anyone anymore.

I suspect everyone else, no matter their positions which vary widely- thinks this is obvious in a way you're missing. I'll try to make it a clear question. What are these "10 commandments that was given by God to all christians" of which you speak? You've jumped to the ASSUMPTION that everyone is on board with you on this, and you might be entirely out on your own here. So, please speak directly to the question. BTW, it's a completely legit question, and I'm asking it to discuss the answer, so please don't suppose I didn't want an answer, and please don't toss down a glib answer that ducks the question.

BTW, Nobody questioned whether or not Christians moved a Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Wasting your energy to "prove" that may make you feel like you got somewhere, but you didn't. As to if they celebrated a Sabbath, well, that's equally irrelevant to discuss. I think we all agree that many if not most celebrated a Sabbath. "That is as interesting as it is irrelevant." Now, were they SUPPOSED to celebrate A Sabbath? THAT is the relevant question. They did it. They thought it was right to do so. Did God say it was necessary for them to do so? You're actually derailing your own discussion when you don't focus there, and when you start getting personal with the other posters. Don't think you're fooling anyone into thinking you're addressing any points when you get personal. We've all seen it before, and it didn't work then. (Me, I was labelled "Satan" once when I dared to point out one of vpw's many harmful policies, and that he had no excuse for having it and for supposed ignorance it was harmful. For example.) Please take a few deep breaths, and approach this thread FRESH. If you were trying to make a point, I think it's gotten completely lost. Please find your points and focus there. Thank you.

Waxit, some things.... 1) Stop posting emotionally, and stop taking things personally. The idea is that we DISCUSS. When we discuss, we will, sooner or later, disagree. That's normal, and expected in a discussion forum. What do we do when people disagree with us? We don't declare we're right and they're wrong. We can BELIEVE that's true and hold convictions that's true, but our BELIEF that it's so doesn't change anything. There are plenty of people who BELIEVE in things like a flat earth, and that vpw was some super-believer, but their CONVICTION doesn't make it so (and they may be fanatical about that.) We can declare what we believe, just not that it's "obviously the truth" because it's not "obvious" if there's disagreement. We can try to present our "case" so that others will agree with us. We can also pay attention, because we may discover that someone else was right all along, and we may find that the truth was something else, even something we didn't WANT to believe. (I'm speaking from personal experience- I've had others come to agree with me, I've changed to match what I believe was actually the truth even if it reverses my position.) 2) Declaring something's true by fiat STILL doesn't work. In a DISCUSSION forum, we DISCUSS. We can present our case that something is true. Perhaps someone else will add something that makes it a stronger case. More often, they'll point out flaws. Those can be flaws of communication (you MEANT something but SAID something else), of fact (you explained the Greek word used here, but you named the wrong Greek word) , or other problems. These can be addressed, and result in either a stronger case, or the discovery that you can't answer the important questions and may be wrong. 3) Don't type angry. Rather than type angry, get up from the computer, and do something else. Come back in a few hours (or a day), when you can approach things calmly. Whenever I find someone's accusing a CALM poster of being angry, it's usually been because THEY were posting angry and didn't have anything logical to say to refute the other guy's point. So, accuse them of something and pretend you addressed some imaginary flaw in their "argument".

Wait....they paid 20 million dollars to stop Raquel Welch from doing a nude scene?

Ah, Billy Drago was Nitti in "the Untouchables" (with Costner as Ness). Was this him?

Craig was trying to justify his "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word" thing.