WordWolf

There's a rephrasing of your False Dilemma. Nobody said they expected that. (And there's been more than the few hundred more recent posts.) Nobody HAD "that cartoon naivete" that exasperated you-needlessly. This "Pure Evil" model is just as cartoonish AND IMAGINARY as that IMAGINED expectation. But to you, comparing your thought processes with those imaginary ones sure makes you look less the fool by comparison...at least, that's the intention.

Ok, sincerely offered explanation, sincerely accepted. I'll do my best to make this brief, simple, and relevant. ========================== What's a rationalization? A rationalization is a MASK. Someone wants to do something, so they PRETEND they have a rational reason for wanting to do it. They construct a fake reason that SOUNDS rational, and says that's why they want to do it. It's NOT rational, but it's trying to fake it. The point of a rationalization is someone wanting to do something and looking for an excuse to do it even though they don't have a sensible reason. What's a False Dilemma? A False Dilemma is a type of rationalization. Someone wants to do something, so they construct 2 things- 1) a mask for what they WANT to do, to make it sound much better than it is; and 2) a grotesque parody of realty that represents what they want all the other possibilities to look like- in order to make their choice look better by comparison. The next step is to pretend that there are exactly two-and ONLY 2- possibilities- the one they want, and the hideous option they invented to make their choice look better by comparison. In this case, Mike, you're offering exactly 2 options: 1) believe what you want to believe- which you're claiming is fantastic and only a fool would give it up for any reason; or 2) completely discard everything you believe all at once to embrace this "Pure Evil" construct you've invented and named that bears no resemblance to what anyone is actually SAYING. The obvious thing about this, Mike, is that it's a giveaway. It's a basic strategy for someone who has SQUAT. Every person relies on what they have going for them in a discussion. "If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts." Someone relying on making something up to contrast with their position just to look good is like someone who goes out to singles bars-making sure to bring along an acquaintance who's incredibly ugly to sit next to in order to look like a better option. You keep speaking of this "Pure Evil" mockery you've invented, and expect people to take you seriously. I once said "I disagree" to someone, and they began making up all sorts of things they IMAGINED I agreed with or condemned, like condemning mixed marriages (Mrs Wolf was amused to hear me tell her that one.) Do you think that person was taken seriously as someone ready to have a discussion? If you really want to discuss what different people here believe about vpw, for example, we CAN explain it briefly and clearly- and NONE of it conforms to your "PURE EVIL" construct.

"Clean shirt, new shoes And I don't know where I am goin' to. Silk suit, black tie, I don't need a reason why."

Ok, next one. Skip Tarkenton Mark Kendall Walter Getz Johnny Squares Wiploc Joe Wenteworth

The US ones included both versions of "Battlebots" (on Comedy Central, then ABC as well as cable), and "Robot Combat League". (SyFy.) There were some more shows in the UK or Australia or something, but I'm blanking on their names. FREE POST!

Raf may want to post a round, since it's his turn.

I think we're saying the same thing using different reasons. His narcissism was the reason he expected to own them for life. To a narcissist, they're not people, they're THINGS. Once he acquired the THINGS (the Christians), he expected he owned them for life- and was angry they wanted to live lives of their own, sooner or later.

I think it would be a great victory-for your sake- to get past this same FALSE DILEMMA that blocks your growth, but you seem determined to cling to it. Really, my offer to explain it to you is still a sincere one.

That was the thing. There were genuine Christians doing things, young and naive. vpw went and convinced them he was some great one and turned them into his recruiting arm. After that, he expected them to be his property for life. Otherwise, he'd have expected they'd all have to take care of their families as time passed (it's in the Bible, folks!) His absence of such thinking indicated he expected them to subordinate their entire lives to twi and whatever he wanted.

Some actors were easy to spot. Dom de Luise is lost in the swamp. James Coburn, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Telly Savalas and Carol Kane are ALL in the El Sleazo Cafe. Milton Berle runs the used-car lot. Mel Brooks plays the mad scientist who prepares the cerebrectomy (it turns the brain into guacamole.) Charles Durning was Doc Hopper. Cloris Leachman was Lew Lord's receptionist, and Orson Welles was Lew Lord. Jerry Nelson, Richard Hunt and Dave Goelz all operated Muppets- and snuck into the El Sleazo and the gunmen squad. Caroll Spinney was the actor for Big Bird for decades-who is hitchhiking to NYC to try to break into public television rather than go to Hollywood. Gonzo's dream was to move to Bombay, India and become a movie star. (But people go to Hollywood for that. Sure-if they want to do it the EASY WAY....) Kermit the Frog rode a Schwinn bicycle fairly early in the movie- a scene after the banjo scene. Fozzie drove the Studebaker. ("A bear in his natural habitat- a Studebaker.") Steve Martin sold ice cream- including some Dragonfly Ripple to Kermit. The soundtrack is fairly memorable- not terribly surprising considering Paul Williams worked on the songs. The most-remembered song, however, was "The Rainbow Connection" which deserves the recognition it gets. Some of us really like other songs as well-as named above.

True!

Definitely none of the above. I might be willing to explain in a pm, but I'm NOT willing to share it with all of cyberspace.

A Muppet riding a bicycle IS tough to pull off without CGI. Sadly, this round is not "the Muppets Take Manhattan." But really, you should have seen a few of them, especially if you've seen the classic TV show.

SHAME ON YOU! The very first one and the first of the new set were must-see. The first of the new set was "the Muppets", and IS the correct answer for this round. Seriously, see them both.

"Time", by Pink Floyd. Should have been obvious from the lyrics posted.

On the soundtrack..... "Movin' Right Along", "I Hope That Something Better Comes Along", "I'm Going To Go Back There Someday". "Can You Picture That", "Never Before, Never Again", "America The Beautiful". . Probably not the last movie to include a Ford Woody Wagon, but probably the only one where a used one was sold to a character for $11.95- meaning they got a nickel's change after their 2 trade-ins of $12.00 US. Almost certainly the only movie where "Dragonfly Ripple" ice cream appears. They didn't look like Presbyterians to me, either. "GO HOME! GO HOME! Bye-bye."

It would have been close to 40 years between that movie and this one.

There's the same FALSE DILEMMA again. My offer to help you was a sincere one. I think you really don't see it.

If not, literally, a ventriloquist, who else would OBVIOUSLY make that dedication? Seriously, are you doing this on purpose?

That came out in 1979. Jack Black would have been 10 years old.

Mike: "Has anyone thought through how stupid it would be if I dropped PFAL because of the posts here? The collaterals have worked fine for me all my life. How dumb for me to drop them and then ask for guidance as to what do I replace them with? Think it through. Pretend I repented of PFAL. What would you tell me next? What positives do you all have cooking?" WordWolf: Phrasing it as a FALSE DILEMMA is LAZY THINKING and doesn't absolve you of responsibility to think your own thoughts. Mike: "You could have looked at with a heart, like Rocky did. Second, you misunderstood my reason. It wasn't trying to advance my argument. It was heart. It's a difficult concept to Google well." WordWolf continues: I looked at it with a heart and a brain, as did Rocky. He chose not to call you on the FALSE DILEMMA, I chose to. Neither was incorrect. If you don't want to get called on posting FALSE DILEMMAS, don't post them. I only pointed out the FALSE DILEMMA accomplishes nothing. It seems you're not even aware of doing it. Do you need me to lay it out for you, enable the Help Files?

Phrasing it as a FALSE DILEMMA is LAZY THINKING and doesn't absolve you of responsibility to think your own thoughts.

So, Mike says the women were "practically" the technical property of the ,king rather than "legally" the technical property of the king. Seriously.

1) So, you're saying that all the women were not "legally" the technical property of the king, but they were "practically" the technical property of the king? All of this contorting to keep from admitting vpw was wrong. 2) Any sportscaster is the employee of his organization, and speaks for them in the broadcast. Thus, he's limited to what they'd want him to say and not say. (Step outside those bounds and there's trouble.) So, his "right to free speech" is limited by his legal limitations as defined by his contract, the laws governing broadcast, and so on. He can be sanctioned by his employers, the FCC, and so on, depending on whose rules he broke and how far he broke them. Seriously, all broadcasters of different types know this, and we know this. Why is this news to you? (Because it's part of the system that's used to prop up errors and pretend they're not errors.) 3) The David "incident" (the adultery, murder, coverup and taking of another man's wife) does show people were evil then just as now, but that's not the only lesson to come away with, especially when someone's claiming it's all about how "I'm sorry" made it all better and there weren't long-term consequences. Whitewashing responsibility for sin-and downgrading it from sin- are all part of a system to allow someone to get away with things and get a slap on the wrist if caught- or claim it was all right and get no penalty whatsoever.

Due to eccentricities on how the board software works now, when you hit "save" or whatever, it looks like the message posts out-of-order. Reload the page and it displays where it belongs. The rest of us saw it display after my post. Yes, other Christians consider themselves "superior" Christians, but twi adds more arrogance than non-cults. twi'ers think it's ok to call non-twi'ers all sorts of things like "empties" and from there, it's not hard to consider them worthy of being treated even worse than they treat each other- which is worse than most Christians treat other Christians from other denominations even.