WordWolf

"I was told the information I posted by a very close and personal friend of Mrs. Wierwille who also was on her personal staff. " That changes a lot. You said nothing about where you got that from. It could have been opinion and speculation- since you didn't say anything about getting it from an eyewitness.

Do you really think any of us is a walking encyclopedia of movies? I'm actually pretty pitiful at this, but I keep playing because it's actually fun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://www.imdb.com/?ref_=nv_home Look up a movie with either website. Look up an actor with either website. I honestly know a few names of roles Pacino has played, and I posted none of them! I looked up his stuff on Wikipedia. There's a page dedicated just to his roles. (I prefer Wikipedia because it usually posts full names of roles, and sometimes IMdB skips part of a name.) Sometimes, if I'm blanking on an idea, I just look around Wikiquote. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page Honestly. Think of an actor. Look up the actor on Wikipedia and IMdB. Choose 3 roles he played that had names (preferably full ones) that are not instantly identifiable. We try to recognize the actor (or hit it with a good guess.) If we miss, post 3 more roles, possibly more famous. Repeat process until we guess it or until you're posting nothing but his best-known roles (or hers.)

http://web.archive.org/web/20020824081542/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/html-docs/homo-excerpt.htm I'm redacting some of his foul language. Follow the link for the excerpt without redactions.] "Remember, the Word says that homos are the "lowest of the people," and that is certainly true. You female [redacted}, called lesbians, might as well have dogs [redacted]l! You wimp-[redacted] men who still think that somehow you have the right to take the grace of God in vain might as well be [redacted]!" "You should be thankful you're not in the Old Testament times, because there are some of us who would gladly execute you." I left out most of his screed, but he went after men and women there.

One of the GSC documents was a letter lcm sent around, with a hateful screed against homosexuals. He made a separate paragraph just to scream at the women.

Probably "Mamma Mia-Here We Go Again."

Whatever the detail, the crime was High Treason- the betrayal of the legitimate monarch for an enemy of the state. We can discuss the details and agree or disagree but that's not the big picture. I'm surprised how people don't get symbolic language. All modern languages do it. We do it with English all the time. We call people a snake, a snake-in-the-grass, a serpent, the old sidewinder, (etc), a rat, a stool pigeon. a fox, a slippery eel, a pig, a hog, a dog, a jack@$$, etc. People understand what we mean with no further explanation. When Bloom County (comic strip) had a story on "Senator Bedfellow" in their newspaper, the article began :"Leaving a trail of slime wherever.." and I'm sure nobody really thought he was dripping slime. Usually, we comment when someone (like a child) doesn't understand it. Elroy Jetson: "That doesn't look like a crab's hand. Let's see you pinch pennies with it. My Dad says you do that all the time!" Robot maid:"Miguel says you like to suck the blood of widows and orphans. We don't have any in the fridge. May I offer you some coffee?" So, we have someone who's said to "slither", to be an untrustworthy "snake-in-the-grass", and they're going to sneak around, despised. They're called a "serpent." Well, yeah, what else do you call them? No, we don't expect them to have scales, etc.

Please join the game, by all means! We encourage new players! Several of these threads are games. "Name that" "Mash Up" "Before and after" "Triple movie links" are all games. The first post in such a thread explains the rules. You wandered in and took this round quite handily. Congratulations. Now it is your turn. What you do is, you think of either an actor who has had several roles (not truly obscure like Kevin Seal or something) or a role that has had several actors (voice actors count.) Since you're providing the clues, looking things up is expected- you need to give accurate clues. (Wikipedia and Imdb are good for this.) You post either 3 roles of the character, or 3 actors who played this role. Usually, you do NOT begin with the best-known roles. Personally, I like to pick actors who have many, many roles and post either 6 or 9 roles at a time, in sets of 3. (That's not required.) We do need to keep the thread moving, so after several days, the clues should become obvious, having arrived there in small steps. (When I posted Pacino, I eventually was going to get to Serpico, Tony Montana, etc if nobody got the less famous roles.) The rest of us try to guess. We are NOT allowed to look it up. If we look it up, we admit it and disqualify ourselves. (Otherwise, where is the game? Anyone can look this up, there's no challenge in that.) Please take the turn you earned fairly, and post 3 roles of an actor, or 3 actors for a role!

For the curious, Pacino had a lot of roles, some of which weren't the title character. Among those were: Sonny Wortzik in "Dog Day Afternoon"("ATTICA! ATTICA!") , Arthur Kirkland in "And Justice For All" ("YOU'RE out of order! I'M out of order!...") Ivan Travalian in "Author! Author!" , Frank Keller in "Sea Of Love", Lt Vincent Hanna in "Heat", Richard "Ricky" Roma in "Glengarry Glen Ross", Benjamin "Lefty" Ruggiero in "Donnie Brasco", and Tony D'Amato in "Any Given Sunday". (Plus others I didn't identify and still others I didn't use.) He's been around, that's for sure.

Yes, and nobody got your clues. Actually, the first clue was so cleverly concealed in plain sight that I missed it, and I knew the answer. :)

Here I go again...

Sonny Wortzik Arthur Kirkland Steve Burns Ivan Travalian Tom Dobb Frank Keller Richard "Ricky" Roma John Pappas Lowell Bergman Francis Lionel "Lion" Delbuchi Lt Vincent Hanna Benjamin "Lefty" Ruggiero Tony D'Amato Harry Levine This is one of the winners of the acting Triple Crown. (Oscar, Tony, Emmy.)

I think you have it backwards. Who said he was "INTROVERTED"? He was self-absorbed. Later, it was obvious he was narcissistic. In short, it was always ABOUT HIM. He hid in the woods because he was too good to do manual labor or chores. He was a center of attention when he was small, at home. When the traveling minister showed up and everyone paid attention, vpw told him he wanted to be like him. He was a show-off as an adolescent. If Old Man Wierwille had really been a control freak, normal people might want to get out from under his thumb. vpw wanted to be free to skip doing work and to make it all about HIS will being done, not his old man's will. I think vpw got the idea, early on, that it could always be about him, and he lived his life trying to grab attention and act accordingly.

Was that your guess, Human? BTW, before I post on a page, if I reload it, any new posts show up on the bottom where they belong. For some reason, when you first post on a page, you don't see it drop to its proper position, but reloading the page corrects that.

It should have been stated outright. The last round was "turned over" -the answer wasn't guessed, it was given out. With no person guessing correctly, and the clue-giver saying nothing about going again, that means it's a "FREE POST" and anyone can post the next one.

Sorry. Sonny Wortzik Arthur Kirkland Steve Burns Ivan Travalian Tom Dobb Frank Keller Richard "Ricky" Roma John Pappas Lowell Bergman

Since modcat5 posted but not in an official capacity, he should get in trouble. I'm notifying a moderator immediately.

Please forgive me for rambling. Occam's Razor says that-if we have competing explanations that fully explain something- we should accept the simpler explanation as correct until other evidence changes that. My chemistry professor in college said that there's a corollary to Occam's Razor that says that- if there are 2 or more competing explanations for something, and none of them FULLY explains it- then ALL of them are WRONG. (He said this in the context of explaining light. Was light a particle or a wave? Neither explanation FULLY explains light, and there's evidence AGAINST both as well as FOR both. Therefore, we still don't understand light.) I think that's sound reasoning. Subject change....I've noted that the Bible claims in at least one place that ONE prophecy referred to TWO different events, separated by time and space. If one accepts the Bible as authoritative in this (if not, then this won't matter to you or mean anything to you). then that's what happened. Perhaps one can consider the postulate- If a prophecy seems to explain 2 different events in the future, but neither perfectly, then it may refer to BOTH, it may be a prophecy of BOTH.

I don't remember the first quote, but I totally remember the 2nd and 3rd.

If you're sharing the supporting arguments, you're adding to the discussions. (Although if it's just the same post repasted in each thread- "See? I made the same point, so I made the same argument" or some such- I'd dislike it for that reason.) In the case of discussing wierwille and twi, I'm in favor of repasting for the specific purpose of informing the new posters and new lurkers what's been said for the past 17 or so years on their subjects of interest. Because the GSC exists "to tell the other side of the story", expose the hidden snares, and inform them of all the evil that they would want to know about, there will be repetition on that. It's necessary because that's the GSC's stated function. A little tiresome to the regulars, but absolutely necessary to attempt to fulfill the stated purpose of the GSC. Otherwise, I'm not in favor. So long as one isn't trying to suppress the discussion, disagreements IN a thread should not be a problem. When we discuss, we need not agree. When we discuss, we share ideas and interact. That has value in and of itself, independent of whether anyone changes and agrees with me afterwards. Again, all IMHO.

As a professional writer, you're more than capable of speaking clearly, supporting your positions, bringing in new perspectives to old topics, and at least making the same point using a novel approach and making it interesting. I think that if it's worth saying, it's worth the effort to say it well. You don't need to resort to posts that are effectively cut-and-pastes of each other.

Nice summary. I think that hit the mark.

"Give us the gate key." "I have no gate key." "Fezzik, tear his arms off." "Oh, you mean THIS gate key!" CORRECT. A movie with many great lines, and broad appeal. (It's a romance, it's a comedy, it's an action movie-successfully in each case.)

Here's my thinking on that, which of course is contractually binding on nobody, least of all me..... Providing the discussion is not in a place that prevents it (the GSC does not prevent it, but message boards specific to a belief may), simply joining a discussion and disagreeing with anyone or everyone's POV is not rude in and of itself. My one previous objection to this was in a discussion about Bible content where someone who disbelieved it posted on it repeatedly, saying they disbelieved it, and said nothing else. I felt that seeing this REPEATEDLY added nothing to the discussion (how about "I disbelieve the book of Hezekiah because blah-blah-blah" or something). I didn't object to someone posting and disagreeing as such. So, my thinking is that I would probably offer the following general suggestions (not even "guidelines") as to such posts. Ask yourself the following questions before posting it: A) Am I adding something to the discussion, in terms of information ("some scholars think this book was a total forgery", "This seems to contradict itself in alternating chapters", etc) or in terms of discussion ("What if one approaches this as if one were about to die in 10 minutes? Your entire perspective would change, for example...) Either of those would add to a discussion, even if everyone disagreed with it. B) If I'm just posting my opinion and not adding something (an absence of the previous point), am I being concise (i.e. am I spending 5 paragraphs to just say "I believe there is no god and no reason to think there is one". Have I posted the same opinion in this discussion already without adding something else in that post or this one? (Most active discussions don't need the same posts reposted, even if they're on-topic and agreed with.) C) Can I make the exact same point by phrasing myself more diplomatically or tactfully? If so, why not do so? We're mostly aware of who disagrees with whom, here. We don't have to be mean about our posts. (IMHO, of course. Others have said the opposite was welcome.) So, I consider the relevant points to be tact, contribution to the discussion by information or introduced perspective, and whether the same poster said exactly the same thing in the same thread already. It is my considered opinion we can all get along with a little effort to be polite if not respectful, and restrict ourselves to curt and not abusive when we feel unable to do that.

"Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something." " Get some rest. If you haven't got your health, then you haven't got anything." "Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!"

Since guesses are free, I'm taking a wild guess and trying "FOOTLOOSE."