WordWolf

Actually, she uses self-rising flour, which has both mixed in already. We were watching a TV miniseries the other week that had someone demonstrate something like what you proposed. In England during the Victorian period (2nd 1/2 of the 1800s), they started to learn about germs and so on, and some people became obsessed with cleaning (while others were jammed together in squalor because the citizens all rushed into the cities all at once, overpopulating them until a LOT more housing could be built.) When they also learned about how yeast worked, part of the population was squicked at the idea of eating a baked product that relied on some kind of germ. So, someone invented a bread that didn't use yeast (before the baking soda/powder type was invented.) We saw a scientist demonstrate how it worked. He needed the carbonated water and something similar to a pressure cooker that forced the gas to remain dissolved. So, if all of that was correct- and I believe it was- then simply carbonated water shouldn't be enough to get the bread to rise significantly. Of course, you may just want it not to rise. Unleavened bread is still eaten to this day, and you can make pizza at home using all-purpose flour with nothing to make it rise. (I know because I ate some this week.)

Mrs Wolf uses self-rising flour instead for pancakes, with the same results. :) I'll pass along your thanks.

IIRC, it was dmiller who met Leonard and looked through his photo album. He found vpw's photo from "his" class. According to Leonard, vpw asked Leonard for permission to teach Leonard's class locally on a one-time basis. Leonard gave permission, and vpw sent a photo of that class to Leonard. According to vpw, the class he taught was HIS class on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", which just happened to have identical content to Leonard's class. It was years later when Leonard found out vpw had been plagiarizing him continually. BG Leonard's publishing house was CANADIAN CHRISTIAN PRESS. His examples in class included Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup and Henry Bellocco. Maggie Muggins was recognizable to a Canadian audience. vpw's publishing house was American Christian Press. His examples in class included Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, and exactly one mention each of Herman Bellocco and Snowball Pete. IMHO, Herman was a mistake when he meant to say Henry, and it stuck, and Snowball Pete was his weak attempt to say something different. "What Maggie Muggins Told us About Wierwille." Mrs W's book was "Born Again to Serve." it was supposedly written by her. The content includes some of her recollections as well as documentation from twi's records, but she didn't actually WRITE the thing, no matter who it says it was written by. It occasionally gave an inside look at something and revealed something they didn't really mean to reveal. There's some interesting threads on the subject, but I'm not sure if any directly address this question. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/14041-bg-leonard-attended-vpws-funeral/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/8966-vpws-plagiarized-sources/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/8645-vpw-on-the-sources-of-his-books/ I made a note somewhere that it's discussed in the thread "the way: living in wonderland" but I'll need to find the post where it was discussed. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/7363-the-wayliving-in-wonderland/ I'll get back with the specifics from that thread when I have time.

Got kinda tired packing and unpacking.

I, for one, am actually at home with LESS time on my hands. It doesn't make sense when you say it like that, but there's more to do here, and fewer moments with nobody around to interrupt something, and more cooking to do. (We can order a delivery, but we're waiting for a return to regular take-out, and are taking out from what few places are allowed to do that now.)

Waxit: "You and your group of people that agree with you are entitled to your own opinions." WordWolf: [Yes we are, and we can-and have- supported it. We're entitled to it either way, and you don't need to keep on posting "well, you're entitled to your opinion, even though it's error and you all walk in darkness" business, things along those lines. It won't convince anyone, and it just looks juvenile.] Waxit: "I have just been on gsc for a a few weeksor splinter group- (I dont give a hoot about TWI or any splinter goup) and you think you know everything about me just by reading a few posts- like i havent spend enough of time away from twi How do you know that???" WordWolf: I never said I "know everything about you." You inferred that from my posts. Either you really think I said that- which is error- or you know I didn't and are pretending I did- which is intentional and worse. I also didn't say you "haven't spend enough time away from twi." Besides, the issue isn't how much time away, but how much THINKING away. If you've spent the last 20 years out of twi but still use all their buzzwords, all their methods, all their paradigms, then you've barely left. If you've been out for a year and divorced from all of that, you've moved on. You're replying far too much on twi methodology for your own good. it leads one from cult to cult, or splinter group to splinter group.] Waxit: "I started a newwthread which invited a people to give me a bible scripture verse that shows 7th day sabbath keeping being insignificant which contracdicts Exodus 20:8-11 and nobody including yourself has done that". WordWolf: {As was already stated, you, personally, already made this thread specifically FOR that. Opening a second thread for the same exact reason is inappropriate in ANY forum. Furthermore, this thread was in the right place, the other was not. Nobody posted on the other except to say it was unnecessary. All the discussion on YOUR subject should all go here. BTW, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion on where you went off-track, but you're not even processing the SHORT, SIMPLE posts clearly, and are complaining when posts are lengthy even when they are CLEAR and ON-TOPIC. You're NOT ready for discussion of weighty matters, and you should at least admit it to yourself. Not everyone IS, but not everyone blames everyone ELSE for their inability to keep up, either.] Waxit: "and you stand on the sidelines barking away at my heels" WordWolf: {Sticks and stones, Waxit.] Waxit: "If you are so insistent in me discussing sabbath with people who are not interested, why dont you give me one bible verse that does show sabbath keeping to be insignificant." WordWolf: {A) You are the one who showed up and insisted on discussing it. Don't blame me for your inability to engage the public. B) Someone already beat me to it. In fact, I started a different thread on something you should consider FIRST- whether ANY rules EVER change- and you skipped that one. Your privilege, but you're the one who needs the discusion most.] Waxit: "I think you are afraid to learn the truth" WordWolf: [Sticks and stones, Waxit. I'd be offended, but it's amateur hour compared to some other insults I've gotten. Plus, it's far from the reality, and I know that (as do the others.) It's far lazier just to slap labels and insults on us than to see if maybe we see something you don't.] Waxit: "Listen i am not inerested in long theological debates and wasting time" WordWolf: It's clear now that you want short, easy-to-digest threads that agree with you. Anything disproving your position is "wasting time." Anything deeper and weightier than what led you astray is a "long theological debate." It's sad you can't see that.] Waxit:"The bible is very clear about the importance of sabbath keeping in the new covenant relationship with God" WordWolf:[No, it's very clear it was important to Jews in the Old Testament. It's also clear that's been made insignificant. (Someone else already posted the verses.) It's further clear that some people continued to observe a Sabbath they were not required to follow. That's fine with me, if that's what they WANT to do.] Waxit:"As i said i have got no hard feelings for those who disagree with me. You can stick to with what you want to believe one thing for sure - we will learn the trugh when we come before the judgement seat of Christ and it will be too late then" WordWolf: {I think you're the only one who doesn't see the "hard feelings" you just evidenced there.] Waxit:"I know that sometimes I repeat stuff but i do that because it's important." WordWolf: [And that's what people say who distribute propaganda and lies. Just because you repeat stuff, and because you THINK it's important, doesn't make it important. And you never made the case it WAS important- you just declared it was and repeated THAT. You don't get why that doesn't work, and I can't make it any simpler.] Waxit: "Havent you heard that repitition of vital truths is the mother of learning>" WordWolf: [Not at all. Do you have a chapter-and-verse for that? If we'd said it, you'd have insisted on those. Don't impose one set of rules on us and a different set on yourself.] Waxit:"Dont need to comment on what i said- which is what you will continue to do to highlight to everyone that you are right and i am wrong " WordWolf: [I'm not commenting to inform THEM, not primarily at least. You would get it if you tried, and you'd try if you cared. And the stakes are too high not to care.] Waxit:"I am not interested in what you think of me because you dont have a clue of who i am and the heart I have for people" WordWolf; [I know everything of you that your word has revealed. And having great heart and SINCERITY for people is no guarantee you're CORRECT. The flat earthers are sincere. The Pharisees that killed Stephen were sincere.] Waxit: "Enough of all this mud slinging to and fro, I challenge you to give me one bible that proves the insignificane of sabbath keeping" WordWolf:[Someone already did it. We can discuss those verses, but I know you're either going to either IGNORE them or DISMISS them without a discussion because otherwise you'd be refuted and shown to be wrong, as you've already done.] Waxit: "or you can reply on the new thread that i started" WordWolf:I already replied on that thread to inform you... never mind, you neither understood it on that thread nor will understand it now. After that failure of understanding simple text, why would anyone trust you to explain Scripture?]

This is strictly amateur hour compared to the Mike Wars. That ran so long I spent more than an hour a week just working up digests of the exchanges. I mainly stopped because nobody commented that they were appreciated or even read. (To me- they quietly told Paw they liked them, but I didn't hear about that for many months.) Furthermore, Waxit's really not getting much UNKIND posting. a few isolated cheap-shots, IMHO, but the posts overall have been civil or better.

"This character" was in quotes, so there's something odd about calling him a "character." WS wrote, in "Julius Caesar", that "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." I know you don't know lines from "Hamlet" nor "Romeo and Juliet", so I tried a different play. George is up!

I suddenly omitted the name of the author of the plays. (Why?) The plays are contemporary to the playwright who wrote them, of course.

Rowan Schlosberg played him on "Legends of Tomorrow." David Mitchell plays him in "Upstart Crow", which I think is a hysterical show. Patrick Stewart did the voice for a Will Shakespeare in "Gnomeo and Juliet." Joseph Fiennes was the "Shakespeare in Love." Robert "Mike Brady" Reed played him on "Fantasy Island"- he actually did quite a bit of Shakespeare in his day. And so on.

No. And I thought the A-Team's first few seasons got good ratings. Did I miss an A-Team sequel show? (Nowadays that's possible.)

YES!

This TV show seems to have done better in syndication than in its original run. It was popular enough to justify an attempt at a sequel TV show with the cast returning. One character always had a band-aid visible in each episode. One character almost never used his real name- but had lots of alternatives. One character saw combat in World War II- but you'd never imagine it looking at him on the show. One character never used his real name because he deserted the US Army during the Vietnam War- while in the field. Finally, there was a perfectly logical, real-world reason why the show had problems being rebroadcast years later.

Yes, Mrs Wolf thought he was the giveaway for anyone besides her and myself. BTW, if you examine the other 2 posts on this page where I did NOT list actors, you might be able to figure out "this character" without having even one actor's name. If you still can't name it, that's on you. The fault would lie not in your stars, but rather in yourself.

Gonna take a wild swing here..... Vin Diesel and Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson?

Still naming this role.... Rowan Schlosberg David Mitchell Colin Firth Rupert Graves Will Kemp Mathew Baynton Kenneth Branagh Laurie Davidson Tim Curry Rafe Spall Patrick Stewart (sorta) Gary Hailes Scott Ainslie Joseph Fiennes Robert Reed Reginald Gardner Clive Revill Jorma Taccone

Waxit: "Thanks pal for pointing me in the right direction and let me know the existing climate in gsc so I know the type of people I am mainly dealing with." WordWolf: {Boy howdy, does THAT ever sound like someone trying to sneak an insult past everyone. No, we're a lot more perceptive than Waxit thinks, even if that one would have fooled Waxit.] "To all people in this forum, I am sorry if I have hurt in anyway." [We've had a LOT more hurtful things said here, generally on purpose. (Like someone calling me "the devil") Usually that doesn't hurt, either. Disagreeing isn't the same as lashing out because one is hurt. I don't think you know the difference, but there's a big difference.] "I now know what the gsc forum is mainly for and how to handle negative reactions on doctrinal issues and not get defensive" [Actually, you DON'T know how yet, that's why the Ï'll just slip these insults under the radar" technique. The rest of us here have disagreed with each other and didn't have to get defensive or personal about it. We've each learned something, and can "agree to disagree." ] "I probably wont be posting here in regards to the word of God (bible) but you are welcome to contact me if you want to know how the 7th day sabbath fits into God's plan for the salvation f mankind." [We're pretty confident that the entire Bible says it no longer plays a significant role in regards to "God's plan for salvation." You've avoided discussion in lieu of making assertions. That's common among ex-twi that haven't spent enough time free of twi, or ex-twi that spend a lot of time in a splinter group (depending on the group.) You haven't actually made the case you THINK you did. Volume and repetition don't equal "making a case." ] "To all those who read my posts, I know you will not be interested- so that's ok with me- no hard feelings we are all personally accountable only to the Lord Jesus Christ on judgement day" [There goes the blithe accusation that we're comfortable being in error about God. Cheap shots that are factually wrong don't convince people, and they come off as juvenile. So, yeah, "no hard feelings", you chowderheads.] "God bless you all Regards Waxit" [Waxit, I hope you stick around and read around. You stand to learn a lot from previous threads, and from how to "argue" online, that is, how to present a formal "argument."]

I thought you were going to give us a recipe! Ok, let's see.... The rising of dough can be accomplished 3 ways I know of: 1) carbonated water and high pressure 2) adding yeast in the usual fashion 3) baking powder + baking soda = a rising dough. We were just explaining this to Wordpup earlier today. The yeast is a biological reaction, which means it's a SLOW chemical reaction. The baking powder plus baking soda is a chemical reaction that runs in seconds to minutes, rather than the hours yeast takes. So, you can add those 2 ingredients. 4) Use self-rising flour. That's the same as method 3, since it's flour that has the baking powder and baking soda already added. Mrs Wolf prefers using that to using all-purpose flour in general. When she makes oatbread or cornbread, she adds some self-rising flour to the mix to get it to rise somewhat. There will be some differences in flavor between the yeast/leaven and the self-rising flour/ baking soda and baking powder, but that's because the yeast eats some of the starches to produce what it produces, and the other process leaves the starches where they are. It's not a drastic change, but it exists. (We never use yeast, so I can't give specifics from experience I don't have.) That's all I've got, I hope it helps.

Any chance at all this is "SPLASH"???

"The thing though with you guys, it looks like in a clique, you are comfortable in protecting yourselves and when a new kid in the block comes is with something you don't like (which is quite clearly a commandment in God's word) he gets a hiding. Wait till you face Jesus Christ- and your face will turn pale for rejecting what is clearly a commandment of God. I have showed you in so many ways why it's an immutable commandment of God- and scriptures, left, right and centre- I dont have any hiddent agenda unlike TWI. But if you want to analyse yourself not to do God's sabbath keeping commandment -so be it- all the best-see you at the judgment seat- where I also will be examined It's like people on gsc gang up on me. I am not saying everyone is like this but most except for one other person I know and have stayed with and respect Contrary to what I think I have not be "torn" to pieces ( I laugh)- that's absolutely not true- "torn" is what you think- anyone can talk rubbish without focussing on bible chapter and verse and that's what's happeining. People cannot come back to me and point out what a verse is saying contrary to what I have been pointing out (I am not boasting- but what I have researched and know- I am to explain- If there is something I cannot explain I will gladly take time to research it and explain when it is clear to me) Most people dont do this - they go on about technical analysis- T-Bone would be the best example. If all you guys are interested in technical analysis rather than the word of God then go for it. The nay sayers wait for someone to give a reply then they pounce on an insignificant phrase which they can tear down and just chow down on it instead of focussing intently on scripture verses and learning the honest truth from the word of God." A) Everybody here has been new here at one time, and mis-stepped. I know I have. There are so many different points of view here that if it looks like EVERYBODY is disagreeing with you, you might reconsider if maybe, just maybe, you're so far off that NOBODY can agree with you. When they ALL agree on something, it's pretty rare. I mean, when me and Allen ALONE agree on something and disagree with a poster, that's rare and a big warning sign! :) B) If everybody here who respects the Bible AND believes it disagree with you, and you claim to do both as well- take it seriously. C) I know you THINK you've been logical, and represented the Bible fairly, and that anyone who raised a contrary point was disagreeing with the Bible. You're seeing a completely different version of the thread than everyone else is seeing. I know the easy way to approach it is to blithely claim ALL the other posters are hallucinating, hate God, are possessed, are dishonest, etc. I'd recommend the other approach- maybe, just maybe, everyone else sees something you don't. D) There's a lot you can learn from the posters here. However, you have to be ready to consider that people who disagree with you may have something before you can actually learn from the posters here. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears."

Luke 16:10-11 10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? ======================== Looks like Waxit is on to you, JESUS CHRIST. You sure fooled me. Your insistence that people won't trust you with real importance if you flub stuff with the unrighteous mammon, that sounded sensible to me. However, Waxit's certain it's not proper. I recall how sincere he is about the Bible and how dedicated he is. So, if he says one thing and you say the other, than Jesus Christ must be wrong and Waxit must be right.

Yeah, Twinky. Waxit can post mean things about T-Bone, but if you post them about Waxit it's wrong because "you may be influencing others negatively", and apparently, they can't read the same posts as you and make up their own minds and agree or disagree individually. What does it matter if we keep getting someone's name wrong even after being asked not to? It's only one letter? There were big rifts in Christendom over one letter. That's why "an iota of difference" may be small, but make a big difference (IIRC, it was "homouisis" vs "homousis" or something like that, with the difference being whether it was one word or the other, and the meanings varied between "of similar substance" vs "of the same substance" with the doctrine of the Trinity dividing up the sides.) "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." If you're flubbing the less important, people won't trust you with the more important. "If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"

What you posted is factually correct, but the others didn't play him. I can honestly say this is not ANY of the characters written by that author, for that matter. However, he is definitely a contemporary of those plays (Henry V, etc.)