WordWolf

Tom Tyler Jackson Bostwick John Davey Garrett Craig Burr Middleton Jerry O'Connell Zachary Levi Corey Burton Sean Astin Jeff Bennett Rob Lowe Chad Lowe David Kaye

"Looks" is the operative term. JAL is not ADVERTISING the points where he left twi because his audience is extwi. So, no blatant stuff about Momentus or PP or anything else he got into no matter how hard he's pushing it now. Perhaps he learned from vpw that you can pretend you don't do something at all if you never do it while the cameras are rolling.

I'm required to accept two answers as officially correct for this role.

Tom Tyler Jackson Bostwick John Davey Garrett Craig Burr Middleton Jerry O'Connell Corey Burton Sean Astin Jeff Bennett Rob Lowe Chad Lowe David Kaye

We'll move on in another day or so. I can't even name 1 actor from that movie- well, NOW I can name exactly 1 since George said Winkler was in it.

Outside of pfal, vpw claimed that it was impossible to be an "unbeliever"- and demonstrated it by changing the definition of "unbeliever." Whereas in other places, an "unbeliever" was one who did not believe Christian (or, more to the point, twi) doctrine, he made a different claim then. He said that an "unbeliever" was supposedly someone who didn't "believe" , and that was impossible because they believed that they didn't believe, which meant that they believed. To any person trying to make sense of that, he was saying that it was impossible to be an "unbeliever" because to think is to believe SOMETHING- that water is wet, that things fall towards the Earth, and so on. To any Bible reader (or anyone trying to be reasonable about it), an "unbeliever" is someone who does not believe what the Bible says, or what Christian doctrine says, or something along those lines. Interestingly enough, that contradicted what he plagiarized in pfal (more evidence he often didn't understand what he ripped off.) There, he said there were 2 types of unbelief- with 2 different Greek words- apistia and apeithia (from a-pistis and a-pathos.) He said that "apistia" referred to someone who hadn't heard and therefore didn't believe, and "apeithia" referred to those who knew enough to believe, but chose not to (as in, they had apathy towards it-my words, not his.) As time went on, attitudes towards "unbelievers" got colder and nastier. It's ok to lie to unbelievers and so on, provided leadership told you to lie. "God will cover", and obeying leadership was of paramount importance. If twi considers you an unbeliever, don't expect the truth from them. What kind of "Christian" organization recommends lying to non-members?

The path of JAL through those controversies- and others- can be traced through entire discussions we've had here, and they're NOT hard to find. It's peculiar to know to come here to discuss JAL but not know we've discussed any of those before.

I can't choose his life for him, but I wish he'd consider retirement. I'm sure he's completely sincere about his desire to help people, but his track record shows a less-than-stellar set of results. As someone said once of a fictional character, whenever he wants to help someone, he ends up hurting them, like a vicious Saint Bernard. Between the "personal prophecy" debacle and continuing to shill "Momentus" under-the-table while saying openly he wasn't, I think that's enough of a BAD track record to reconsider his choices. Instead, he's "doubled-down" each time.

I suggested that, but I forgot who played what. I know a different actor for that movie. Moving on.... Wesley Snipes Demolition Man Rob Schneider

Um, was this Elvis Presley singing "IN THE GHETTO"?

Next round. Tom Tyler Jackson Bostwick John Davey Garrett Craig Burr Middleton Jerry O'Connell

I learned how in Primary school, George. ;) (Let's see who gets it.)

Ah, you linked from PHANTOM MENACE to PHANTOM MENACE. Linking from there to Natalie Portman, and NP to "the Professional" were correct moves, but you need to add one other actor from that movie to complete the triple. The actor who played Leon is the obvious choice (at least it would be for me- I've never seen the movie and know exactly 2 actors from it, and you named one.)

As fans of SH, I speak for myself and the Mrs when I thank you for warning us away from this turkey. She dislikes Will Farrell to begin with, and doesn''t like O'Reilly, and the news just goes downhill from there.

Is this one of the "Mummy" films? I know there was a more recent Tom Cruise one or something, an attempt to use the Universal monsters for a shared universe.

All a bunch of Brits. Mark Gatiss works/ worked on Doctor Who and on Sherlock. Christopher Lee's done everything. the name "Rhys Ifans" rings a bell, faintly. Ok, the "most helpful actors" didn't include Jude Law and Martin Freeman, so I'm thinking this isn't John Watson. Likewise, I'd recognize the Sherlocks- Mrs Wolf is a bigger fan of SH than I am, so I at least can recognize a number of names of the Sherlocks. If Rhys Ifans worked/works on "Elementary" (which we stopped watching), that would explain why I've heard of him before. Stephen Fry definitely played MYCROFT HOLMES in "Sherlock Holmes- Game of Shadows." So, I'm thinking this is Mycroft Holmes, the brother to Sherlock Holmes, who works for the British Government, and is as smart as Holmes but a lot less excitable. This makes him valuable in government offices and in getting the work done, but both he and Sherlock freely admit he lacks the drive to chase down clues that Sherlock has (both a blessing and a curse, IMHO). (It's interesting, to me, to note that SH main characters don't seem to have kids. Sherlock and Mycroft seem confirmed bachelors and disinterested. John Watson doesn't seem to have had any despite at least 2 marriages- is that due to a wound he took in Afghanistan? Irene Adler, for all her marriages and whatnot, likewise seemed childless. One has to go far afield to find any canonical possibilities of a relative of SH making it to the present day. OTOH, Moriarity also seemed to have no kids.)

When I checked this morning, I had the button allowing me to post a question while logged out, and the thread showed the button allowing me to reply. So, in theory, someone can post a question to us without logging in, or reply to one. Obviously, the staff will be watching for potential vandalism, so this is (also obviously) an "experiment." There may be no problems, or one fool may ruin things for everyone as staff has to delete their stuff immediately. We'll all have to wait and see what happens.

Uh....there's this film that came out in the last few years, "in the tradition of the Kentucky Fried Movie", that is, filled with sketch comedy. I just heard about it the other day, in passing. Is that THIS movie, by chance?

Wild shot here.... "Finding Forrester"????

There's plenty of real horror stories among Momentus survivors. You are not overreacting. They're interested in filling all the seats and getting the money, not actually helping people.

If it's about practice and experience of faith, and not doctrine, with no preference for WHICH faith, how about "Walks of Faith" as a title? With a plural, there's no suggestion that this is about the One Right Walk of Faith, but the different paths followed by individuals.

Willow Warwick Davis Star Wars Ep 1- the Phantom Menace

Karate Kid 3 Pat Morita Spy Hard

*checks* Correct, on both title and artist! I was going to post Del Shannon's "Little Runaway," since "Running Down a Dream" mentioned it. Then I realized I could do a less obvious song, also from Del Shannon. Turns out both he and Dion DiMucci did "Runaround Sue". So, obviously, either was correct and it's George's turn. (I hope my internet's done being quarrelsome henceforth.)

My thoughts (which are probably worth what you paid for them) are along some simple lines. Perhaps this could be similar to the "Questioning Faith" subforum. That's meant to be a place to post in an agnostic or atheistic framework without getting static about that, so long as one is on-topic. Similarly, this could be a place to post in a theistic or monotheistic framework (depending on the focus, either for all faiths or more for "people of the Book" without getting static for that position, as long as one is on-topic. Naturally, people would have to agree to be courteous about other people's positions- no poking fun at someone who keeps a kosher table or sticks to halal, no cheap shots at those speaking in tongues (or not), and so on. This would at least provide a framework for discussions that left out, say, dragging off-topic to defend one's faith if that's not the topic (and that probably belongs in the main Doctrinal anyway), and would hopefully leave street corner rants and polemics in the main Doctrinal forum. I miss the Decaffeinated Politics forum because we could discuss things that were vaguely political but not prone to arguments (I posted on the anniversary of the Kent State 4 once.) Then again, that stuff might do just as well in Open now, depending on the subject. I went off-course. Anyway, I think dividing the discussions that way would encourage more discussions of that type. (Plenty of flame-wars certainly discouraged them in the past,)