WordWolf

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.)

I'm unplugged from a lot of the information overload items you mentioned there, partly for exactly that reason. They take up all your time, and do it on their terms. Technology can be a tool, but for many people it's a crutch. I've been a fan of William Shakespeare for quite some time. I've been a fan of reading a good book for quite some time. One thing I find interesting about books older than around WWII is that they're written for a FAR more selective audience. Many writers would have been shocked to think of interested laymen reading their books. I once saw someone criticize a book (now in public domain due to age) where the writer quoted Latin and didn't translate it. The critic claimed he did it to be pretentious. No, I've read a few books that were contemporary to it, and they do the same thing. It was expected your reading audience was familiar with Latin and didn't need a translation;. The idea of universal literacy appeals greatly to me, and offers the chance for everyone to educate themselves. Now, with e-books available for free for many classics/public domain books, reading them can be done for free. That having been said, the offer won't be taken up by a large swath of the population. That's a shame. For that matter, many of them are cheap to own in print form because they're public domain.

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

Raf said it first. I agreed with him.

Me neither- but I know it had Cruz and Cruise.

Movie based on a novel with a sequel. There's a few. Let's try "COCOON." If so, Raquel Welch was replaced by her daughter, Tawnee Welch.

"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