WordWolf

The answer to both of you, obviously, is of course they do! You can get all the details at the stand set up in the lobby of the theater.

Consider you may be missing their goals. Look at the people who did this. DECADES of PERSONAL involvement in the inner circle of twi, burying the bodies, hiding the truth, silencing truthful dissent, and so on, through decades of decay and stagnation at twi. They only jumped ship now they reached retirement age and had no recourse from twi. This isn't about a lasting group. This is about saying it's a lasting group and saying all the right things while covering a retirement and "running the clock." So long as there's sufficient freewill donations to cover them into the grave, it's all good just as it was all good to cover for the evil of twi for decades while everyone else who saw behind the circle jumped ship, whether from disgust or others with practical concerns. They just need a few hundred to cover expenses and feather their nests a bit while they retire. Oh, and they can talk pious about how NOW they're suddenly remorseful after DECADES and how they don't REALLY want to push for money. Let the money dry up and the message will change overnight.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6c9d86

Warren Has The Answers! As a late Christmas present for the GSC, I present "The Way of Warren Sanchez!" It's in Spanish with English subtitles. I'll be posting a transcript when I can.

It goes fairly well. I'm married, raising a kid, and feeling optimistic about the future- certainly more than a decade or so ago.

Thanks. The writing, at least, is actually somewhat sloppy and could use a little polish. It's good by internet standards but not quite up to publishing standards. As for brains, I've worked hard with what I have, and not everyone can say that. I makes a BIG difference, especially as you get older.

What you "heard" contradicts what vpw said happened, what Mrs w said happened, what both said about him, and what we heard from people who actually met him, interacted with him, and took his class. There's one CONSISTENT account of BGL (really nice guy-which is why vpw got away with what he got away with. Your story crashes hard into what happened. vpw HIMSELF said that he contacted BGL and was told the current class was in progress and not to show up. vpw then showed up and demanded to be let in anyway. BGL let him. Thar's TOTALLY not what vpw said to do with any pfal class, and not what vpw would have done. Sounds like you've constructed a vile, mean version of BGL that didn't exist to try to excuse vpw for being vile and mean. It's part of your "vpw gets a free pass on almost everything because it's all acceptable behavior", which it isn't and never was.

I had the benefit of having had a few months of exposure to the opposing point of view since ROA 88. I then had exposure to ROA 89. So, I was contrasting the two while running a fine-tooth comb over the ROA experience. Seriously- if you were already looking critically at twi when walking in to ROA 89, I'm sure you would have caught a lot of what we caught. BTW, do you remember the "anti-Bible protesters"? Any suspicions that they were 2-3 twi people stationed at the front with placards specifically to look foolish rather than 2-3 people at the front who drove an hour or more to a farm in the middle of nowhere to make a protest specifically against the Bible but not at all against twi with no car parked nearby to take them home when they were done instead of being walking distance to their homes? I bet that's coming back to you now.

Let's see... "lacking depth as do all intellectual inbreedings." We still represent more points of view than just the "praise vpw" "discussions" you prefer. "One is the supremacy of BG Leonard’s class. I heard that on production/market side it sucked, and that BG was an even bigger jerk than VPW. " You heard incorrectly. We heard from people who actually attended it. It was live so it was better "in production" than audio or video of vpw with errors left in. It was meant specifically for ministers and pastors, not the general public. It was meant so ministers and pastors could go bless their congregations. It was not meant as a source of revenue. BGL was a genuinely nice guy, and even vpw said so. He could have thrown vpw out when vpw was told the class was closed, then showed up to insist on being included in a class already in progress. He chose not to. He could have sued vpw when he found out about the plagiarism. but was so serious about Christian not suing Christian (based on the Bible) that he refused to, instead adding notices to his books on how plagiarism was wrong. And all the people who actually worked with him or took his classes said he was nice. "BG could have never marketed his product to the hippies and the baby boomers…. Just never!" It was never about marketing. He aimed his classes at pastors and ministers, to equip them to be better pastors and ministers. He succeeded there. "BG was in great error in that he taught SIT was a gift." He was not in GREAT error because his vocabulary referred to SIT as a gift, but his explanations and instructions all reflected a position that it was not a separate gift (all Christians were automatically entitled to it, etc.) Now, if twi and BGL are correct, this is actually a minor point because the practice taught doesn't reflect the poor vocabulary choice. If twi and BGL are both incorrect because the modern thing is not the SIT used at Pentecost, then he's less bad off than vpw, since BGL spent more time on healing, word of knowledge, etc, and vpw built up 2 whole classes on TIP. "And did you already forget about Oldiesman’s post on VPW admitting in writing that he was not into originality? I see zero references to it, even though I reposted it a few months ago here." Buried about 100 pages into one single book advertising twi which was never a collateral reading (The Way-Living in Love) was vpw's off-hand comment that "Nothing I do is original" and claimed his originality was in putting the class together. Anyone except someone desperate to exonerate vpw of rampant plagiarism would say that was nothing like an admission. He certainly never said that Leonard's class was the exact same class vpw taught, in every particular, a few months after taking BGL's class. THAT would have been an admission of something. It's a non-issue, because it wasn't an admission of anything, and WAS an evasion about the class already having been put together-which it had been. We've mentioned this lots of times, but someone around here forgets lots of stuff and doesn't admit it. ========================================== For those who arrived late to the party, this was Mike. Some of Mike's posts have contained the following: that vpw had an "OVERABUNDANCE of brains and brawn" and was "OVERgifted." When Jesus returns, he will have a copy of the Orange Book in his hands and be teaching you from it. He wasn't joking either. "Quite serious. I've seen him this way several times." He thinks the Bible is inaccurate, but has called the written pfal materials and twi materials "GOD-BREATHED." I swear, I'm neither making this up, nor exaggerating, nor changing his meaning by removing relevant context.

What was the use of going to fellowships at all? TO YOU, not much. It was meant to be a revenue and advertising source that benefited twi. Since it was in homes, there was zero costs. It brought in donations, taught tithing, and advertised twi's books, tapes, and classes, all of which were organized to turn a profit. So, they wanted you to show up. advertise for twi stuff, pay money, and go home. Actually helping you wasn't good for twi's bottom line. twi was never an actual ministry, it's always been a business designed to turn a profit. Other Christians might be concerned with a prophet, but to twi, there's only profit.

On the subject of pat answers, it's disgraceful for so-called leaders to rely on them like twi mandates/mandated. They are sloppy, lazy, and don't help people as much as silence people. But, it started from the top. pfal: vpw quoted the question "If God is All-Powerful, can He make a rock so big he can't lift it?" His answer in the class-which he had time to prepare, was "God is All-Knowing. He wouldn't DO a stupid thing like that." That's a pat answer and doesn't address the question. Maybe 2 years in (3 tops), I phrased my answer to that question. "God is Spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). So, the error is in thinking God has a body to lift with in the first place." Raf followed up by addressing how the question supposes 2 numbers with the value of infinity, with one number supposedly of a greater value of infinity. That's MATHEMATICALLY impossible, so the question makes no sense since it doesn't even work on paper. We were teenagers with little twi background and we had better answers than vpw. He was lazy and preferred pat answers. We were not and we did not.

As much as any human can be said to base decisions on logic, I left twi based on logic and personal observation. (I went to ROA 89 to see things personally before making any decision, so I had both sides represented.) I hardly think I was the ONLY person who did, although I imagine many did not. Social organizations work for several reasons, depending on the organization. If they don't serve social needs, they collapse or wither away, So, yes, making people feel unwelcome will drive off newcomers and chase off old-timers. And yes, like twi's been doing for decades.

Nicely summarized.

Technically speaking, I'd expect more than one sociologist says that, so technically "sociologists" say that. It's the brainchild of Dr Morris Massey, Sociologist, marketing professor, and maker of training videos. His statements just happen to make it easier to sell his training videos. (Useful to the hypnotherapist in the link, also-good for drumming up business.) When stripped of mysticism, the idea is simple-which is why it's not a cornerstone of PSYCHOLOGY (the study of the individual). (The man's degree was in sociology, which addresses the motivation of GROUPS- for which I have a respect but I accept the limitations of the field as I accept the limitations of Psychology.) As we all live, things happen. When some of those things happen, we have a moment to reflect, a moment to have an "aha", a moment to have a moment of clarity, under any of a number of names long preceding this guy. ANYTHING can trigger this, so long as it gets us thinking (or reacting), and it doesn't have to look significant to others to do so, provided we actually thinking (or reacting.) The moment where people get sick and tired of being sick and tired is one. In the parable of the prodigal son, there was no "instant" thing, but the youth had such a moment while doing his manual labor- that he was better off starting over than continuing what he was doing. But change doesn't have to be preceded by UPHEAVAL or anything dramatic. For many people, upheavals or dramatic changes CAN result in thinking, but that's not an equation. Most people tend to keep moving forward without a lot of self-reflection unless something changes-THEN they look around and think. Not everyone needs an "event" except in the most technical sense that tortures the meaning of the word ("I was pouring milk on my cornflakes one morning when it hit me...") Not everyone needs it to be "emotional", but things that can affect the emotion are more likely to get the attention of the average schmoe. And "significant", as I said, is HIGHLY subjective. Living through the tumult of a 9/11 may produce no "significant" emotional event for someone and they go on as they did before, while waiting at a traffic light may produce the moment. It's neither a cornerstone of Psychology (which studies these things) nor Sociology (which does not any more than, say, Linguistics does) that adults NEED some sort of tumult to change "big things in their lives." Some people may just keep plodding along until something big grabs their attention or prevents the usual, but that's no guarantee. Changing beliefs and changing support networks can change based on logic-and they certainly don't need upheavals to change. Granted, some people DO change after those. However, some people leave a burning building because they're carried out- and some just walk out or run clear. Not everyone will need to be carried out just because that's how SOME leave the building.

Technically, there's more details, but most people need to know the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg, not the name of the helmsman when it struck, or who was in charge of the lifeboats, and so on. There's a lot of little things that happened (not so little if they happened to you), and you might want to read around about some of them. Or you may not because it's not worth it to you. Either way, feel free to stick around!

The first usage of the word "remnant" in the KJV is Exodus 26:12. There it actually speaks of cloth. "12 And the remnant that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang over the backside of the tabernacle." Strong's specifies that the word translated "and the remnant" here means, literally, "a redundancy." In other words, it's the extra cloth that isn't needed. According to the pfal system of things, the first usage of a word has special significance to its usage all through Scripture. "the best part of a piece of clothing" is FAR from what the usage is "in the Biblical sense." In fact, Biblically, it's almost the opposite from the beginning, it's left over after the job is done. twi's job has been done. It's "faithful remnant" are the people left over after it's been made redundant by hundreds of Christian groups who get the job done better.

In the Bible, almost all the references in the KJV to the word "remnant" are specifically referring to Israel. In fact, the NT only uses the word six times. In Matthew 22:6, it's used in a parable about the kingdom of heaven. The remnant REJECTED the kingdom. In Romans 9:27, it specifies it speaks of a remnant OF ISRAEL. In Romans 11:5, it's in a whole passage talking about ISRAEL. In Revelation 11:13, it's a bit ambiguous who it's referring to (i.e., are they part of those who tortured the 2 prophets, etc.) In Revelation 12:17 it's positive. In Revelation 19:21, it's NEGATIVE- Jesus slays the remnant of the worshipers of the beast and false prophet, wiping them out.

You forgot "Laverne & Shirlley." Plus the cartoons of "Fonz And the Happy Days Gang" , and "Laverne & Shirley Join the Army."

Sometime in the 80s if not sooner, the idea of REREADING the twi books rather than actually doing your own research had made progress among leadership, About 1990, AFTER LEAVING,. a local leader was nervous about the idea of locals actually doing their own research and teaching it. He said it would be better to go over the collaterals. In the 1990s, lcm began saying the word "research" meant to "search again", that is, to keep covering the same ground ad infinitum the collaterals covered.

I was very disappointed about the refusal of people to call in all back-up. Once we had the exposition of what was happening. Standard speech:"Sorry to bother you, but Nazi-Earth is invading ours. If they succeed, they'll go after yours. Mind coming here and helping us stop them? Feel free to bring friends." Kara: Why not call in Clark, J'onn AND Monel? Sure, she's angry at Monel. Send him to work directly with Ollie or something. Even if someone has to stay on E-29, at least Jónn OR Clark couild accompany Monel. (Preferably J'onn.) Flash: Jessie Quick? Jay Garrick? Vibe: Gypsy, Breacher, and one or more members of their team? At the very least, Breacher would think it was sound to do all the fighting where their Earth wouldn't suffer, and would think the Earth-Xers would need to be stopped, so him and at least one other from his Earth. BTW, if this REALLY got into a war, I would have notified DeVoe about these Nazis. He wouldn't want them taking over his Earth. But, again, we got a full invasion ended in 4 episodes.

My answer? Lazy writing, and thinking the audience has to be hit over the head to get anything.

I would have preferred a Monel-X. Supergirl-X sees herself as SUPERIOR. Really, she went for a human with zero powers, whom she can powder with one hand? Seems inconsistent. There's lots of reasons to fight Nazis, just like there's lots of reasons to dislike bullying. I'm a little curious why the Ray went to possibly the least "tolerant" Earth possible. He does NOT show the signs of a zealot-someone who will live just to take down the Nazis, he would seem a LOT more driven, more obsessed, something like Win-X. We may never know. I have a quibble about some comic book-related things, but they're not directly germane to the show. I'm fine with Alex having some morning-after regrets, but the degree to which she freaks out strikes me as ridiculous. She's HOW old? She hasn't made any "Oh crap!" mistakes in her life before now? Then again, I don't know if it would have been worse if she tried to suggest something serious with Sara since they slept together. After all, she said guys avoid relationships, so by her internal logic, neither she nor Sara should be against the idea (until someone mentions it to Sara.) BTW, Alex is a trained SHOOTER. There were lots of chances at the wedding for her to grab a Nazi rifle- and she avoids grabbing one. I find that amazingly inefficient. On the other hand, Sara's use of a thurible as a thunder-hammer was rather clever, kudos to whoever realized the incense-burner resembled the chain-weapon. \ Oh, and the chick refilling Barry's drink before the ceremony. I'm pretty sure she's the Arrowverse equivalent of Jenny Ognatz, aka "XS", a future decendant of Barry and Iris who is also a speedster. Her entire scene reminded me of the end of the ST:DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations", when Sisko stopped to meet Kirk before going home.

Olver and Kara in a relationship, IMHO, was lazy writing. They wanted to confine the number of roles and actors, and keep it focused on the main characters no matter how silly that made the plot. (BTW, in the comics, MORE solar energy makes for a more powerful Kryptonian. Check out "DC One Million" and how Superman is after hanging out IN the Sun for centuries.) There's plenty of reasons to hate the Nazis. Mrs Wolf pointed out the enormous flaw in the setting. We have Nazis who have been doing their Nazi thing for DECADES. Yet, there's still young people wearing the symbols for Jews and others still around. Why? They're letting them live? And letting Jews have kids? I speculated on whether they had them alive for slave labor, but it doesn't explain the KIDS. It doesn't track for people who HATE a people to go out of their way to keep them around and reproducing, over decades. As to why there's still gays around, I'd have to check if Ray really was the only one around wearing the symbol, or if others were also kept around. For that matter, I'd wonder how they found out The Ray was gay if it was wildly illegal and rigidly enforced. I mean, in certain Muslim countries where they can be beaten up, they keep a VERY low profile. Was Ray TRYING to be caught? Lots of questions I suspect the writers never considered and we'll never know.

We were annoyed about Earth-1's Thawne showing up AGAIN. This is tiresome. Why not an Earth-X SOMEBODY? Wally? Jay Garrick? Jessie Quick? Thawne and Damien Darke, in our opinions, have long outstayed their welcomes in the continuity. And really, letting him just go away? There was no better solution? Ok, Earth-X's Cold. I figured it was something the actor requested-to make this version gay- and given the alternate Earths, was not a problem. Different versions of people are different. Winn in Earth-X is an Alpha Male, not an Omega, and so on. Where I had the problem there was in the writing. Both the Ray (why not Ray-X?) and Leo were portrayed in ways I might consider insulting if I was gay. I thought it would have been a LOT more effective as a "things are different, remember?" moment if Snart seemed EXACTLY the same as the Lenard we know right up until he started chewing on Terrill's face. As it was, it was NOT a surprise to EITHER of us. Mrs caught his comment about "partner" (which could have simply meant "teammate" because that word is used that way among others), but his tone of voice was higher, and he actually stopped in the middle of a firefight to discuss FASHION? THIS is the Cold whose plans never go awry even against a global army? (BTW, Pied Piper WAS a villain but is now nominally with Team Flash's reserve list.) On Firestorm, this IS a bummer. I'm glad we got to see Jax and the Steins actually grieve, but I was hoping we'd at least keep the Firestorm Matrix operational. (Mrs Wolf speculated that they're going to replace Firestorm with the Ray sometime this season, since they even used the same animation software for both flying.) I'd heard rumours that Garber wanted to leave, but was hoping things would unfold differently. It WILL be interesting to see Leo interact with the Legends- but I hope they make him seem more like Lenard than we're seeing in CoEX. On Alex and Sara,, I have mixed reviews, and they concern the whole series'. On Sara, they kept up lazy writing that matched the stereotype that bisexuals are some sort of sex maniacs that bed-hop (Sara kept nailing female characters off-screen when not with the team.) They seem to have lightened up on that the past few months, but not entirely. Considering her current attitudes, I'm not shocked she'd have a one-night-stand. I'm pleasantly surprised that the scripters seemed to remember that the character actually DOES have interest in men from time to time, if not 50/50- lately, it seemed as if they'd completely forgotten. On Alex, I have a long-standing complaint. She's supposed to be both SMART and COMPETENT (responsible enough to run the DEO at any moment, etc.) We're supposed to believe that she went thru college and grad school, and the subject of women liking women never came up? She was in college in the US! Especially when she was supposedly in school, it was trendy for women to "experiment" with women for different reasons- thus the terms like "lesbian until graduation" and "hetero-flexible" and so on. There's even girls who will kiss other girls in sight of guys in an attempt to excite the guys. Seriously, those were all "things" before she went to college, and were moreso when she went. (And if they weren't on Earth-29, then that Earth would be LESS cool with it than ours, not MORE. Everything affects everything.) So, she never even CONSIDERED whether she might like one or more females ever. I'd have trouble buying that if she was younger AND less smart AND less of a thinker. Furthermore, she just jumped completely into a relationship with someone (Sawyer) and never COMMUNICATED with her about what they both wanted. (A relationship with 2 women, no guys, and there's no communication? I can accept flying Kryptonians but some things are ridiculous.;) ) It's interesting that she's given LOTS of thought to wanting to raise a kid, worked out lots of little incidents in the kid's life, and has not even considered the possibility of what to do if she has a SON. (Listen to her talk to Kara about that. Kara never called her on it, either.) Would that have changed how she felt about raising a kid, in any way? I'm sure it would have changed SOMETHING of SOME kind. Ok, Alex is on the rebound and drinking. Supposedly, she's a responsible drinker and not in college. She gets SMASHED, completely HAMMERED. I'd think that people who are federal agents would not get THAT messed up EVER because they know they're never 100% off-duty, no matter what, and an emergency can strike at any time. (Applying for the position, you have to answer questions about how much drinking you do, and so on.) She apparently also never considered she might have a one-night-stand, and how she'd deal with it. Honestly, she reacts to all this like she's in college, not a full adult. The most FASCINATING thing was in her diatribe to Kara about what a horrible thing it is to have a one-night-stand. She mentions it's something guys do, and that guys avoid relationships. I'd mark that as an interesting statement about her state of mind, dropped into the middle of a horribly-written situation. So, as you can see, I think Alex is a problematic character, overall.

A leisure suit and a neckerchief or something similar. Honestly, el barfo, even then.