WordWolf

Being fair and logical, I'd acknowledge that you've acknowledged that you need to support claims and statements, and not just toss them out baldly. In any discussion, that's necessary. However, you didn't fulfill the minimum REASONABLE requirement. You dumped a bunch of verse citations, and said that they cover "the central message." Anyone reasonable would expect the following. [claim made] "This matches Hekekiah 8:42, which says "[verse quoted.] If it's a single verse, people might give you a pass on posting the text of the verse, especially if the meaning of the verse is obvious. If there's anything contestable, they're free to post the verse, point out the problem, and point out that failing to post the verse looks like you were trying to pretend there was a Scriptural basis for a non-Scriptural point, and used an irrelevant verse to conceal that, hoping nobody would check it. (vpw did that quite a bit when text-dumping- just look at his stuff on the manifestations in the Advanced Class, and you'll find a bunch without looking hard.) Even if I might agree with your points, or might match your thinking if I saw their basis, if you just make bald claims, then make bald claims that they have a Scriptural basis, I'm NOT going to take you seriously- and neither would most people. Don't think that's specific to either you, us, or this subject. That's pretty much what you find in MOST of cyberspace- providing it's a place of actual discussions. (Places where people trade insults and places where people just pat each other on the back won't look that way, either one.

Derek Lutz Jack Jericho Julian Wells Wolf Dangler Ralph Karr Albert Einstein Roger Baron Alex Finch Billy Covington

Another clue or something, please?

Star Wars Episode 3-Revenge of the Sith.

Only the name "Bullinger" was well-known. Kenyon was known to some, and Stiles and Leonard were actively concealed, even to their names and existences. vpw made a doctrine out of contrasting with :"world's wisdom"-but the hypocrite lauded to the skies any "worldly expert" who took pfal. Don't take vpw as an expert on anything but fleecing the public.

Yes, well and happy and hoping you are as well. (It sounds like you are.) Wordpup and Mrs Wolf are well and happy also [Bullinger.] This thread is a workaround to old documents: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24519-greasespot-cafe-documents-and-audio-archives/ That's to the Greasespot Cafe Documents and Audio Archives. The document you mentioned was not listed in "Waydale Editorials"- it was listed in :GSC Editorials. The menu for that is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20030402054832/http://greasespotcafe.com:80/main/editorial.htm The direct link for "Destruction of Self" is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20030306031357/http://www.greasespotcafe.com:80/editorial/destruction-self.htm

This is still a thread for reading some version of the documents and hearing the audio archives.

Since I have a few minutes, I'll take one shot while I can. (Mrs Wolf and I didn't have spare time for this.) "Turnabout Intruder" was the Original Series' finale. "All Good Things" was the finale for NextGen. I think "What You Leave Behind" ended Deep Space 9 (Mrs Wolf would know for sure.) That leaves 2 and 2. I think Voyager ended with a fight, which would suggest Voyager ended with "Endgame." I think Enterprise was the one that ended with all the quotes, so I suspect that was "These Are the Voyages..." Whether I'm right or wrong, carry on without me for now, I'm heading out on vacation.

*slaps forehead*

Sorry, folks, I'll be vacationing for a bit. I'll post when I return. Carry on without me.

Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine??????" Sorry, I can't tell what you mean. Are you asking the profit in the doctrine of twi, or why discuss it, or something else? "as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ..." Results vary depending on the churches local to you. And they're known as churches, generally, sometimes with a different name like "assemblies", but "church" is the name in common English, and that's what they're called. I've seen local churches that didn't seem particularly useful, and ones where lives where changed for the better-and that's only counting Roman Catholic Churches I've attended. In twi, I saw lives changed-generally for the worse if they stayed in twi for a decade or more. ".I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching" You might want to read up on what plagiarism is, what it isn't, and why it's a big deal. Only twi'ers and some ex-twi'ers seem to soft-pedal it, and only when discussing vpw- he's the only one excused for rampant plagiarism, and anyone plagiarizing HIM has no excuse. To answer your question directly, what you do specifically and how you do it makes a big difference. I once studied something, and came to a conclusion. When I checked, Bullinger made the same point, and improved on my work. If I had gone forward and presented Bullinger's work and claimed it was mine, it would have been plagiarism. If I had taught it and cited Bullinger, I would have done the right thing- which I did, and it only took a second to mention his name out of an entire teaching. If the sources you used didn't go in the direction you went nor made any of the same direct points, then there was no need to mention them if doing a teaching-but they should have been cited if you typed it out for reading. Of course, you could have cited them anyway, and that would have harmed nobody. If you read several sources and stitched the teaching together from their collective points, then citing them is the thing to do. (I did that once with 2 different things that, together, were more than either of my sources were by themselves.) Simply put, if you use someone else's work, you cite the source. That's morally correct (you're not claiming it's your work when it isn't) and it's legally correct (plagiarism is a crime, and it becomes a felony once $1001 US is involved, but it's a crime even if $0 US is involved.) Whether or not you're smart doesn't affect whether or not it's plagiarism if you don't cite your sources (it's plagiarism no matter how smart you are or are not. ) "..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll .." You really should make the effort to read what plagiarism is and is not, and understand it. Philip wasn't rehashing, say, Andrew's teaching on the same thing, he was teaching from his own understanding. ".nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4..." These glib references don't sound like you actually want to know where you're mistaken, Jesus actually CITED HIS SOURCES ALL THREE TIMES in Matthew 4. Each time, he made it clear he was quoting the Bible and not just speaking for himself. "also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone." Sounds like you're EAGER to accuse us of something. You don't sound "hesitant" at all. And Jesus gave that ruling about the stone one time, about a specific incident, where a woman was caught in the act of adultery (caught in the act, but the guy wasn't dragged out, just her. Obviously this wasn't about justice...) and those trying to get Jesus in trouble wanted her killed for adultery or Jesus caught contradicting Scripture (even though there were mitigations available, a canny spin-doctor could make it sound like Jesus was being unjust.) Jesus didn't invalidate the law, and Jesus didn't claim she didn't sin (he told her to STOP sinning), This was obviously never meant as a blanket "cover" for time someone was caught sinning. Jesus forgave THE REPENTANT often, but they actually repented. vpw went to his grave asserting he never did anything God Almighty would disapprove. (God Almighty disapproves of lies, rapes, molestations, and other things vpw did.) " How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now... " There's a common hypocrisy among vpw apologists. In one breath, they will condemn all sorts of things people from churches had done long before vpw was born, but give vpw a pass saying that it's in the past. If I were you, I'd consider whether that's what I was doing. As for vpw's evil works, some of them are still hurting people. So, people need to be warned before they're hurt. Other people are helped in their healing when they discover what they did NOT know about vpw's evil works.

Somebody who played for the New England Patriots. IIRC, Tony Collins was the one. Despite all the local leadership objecting (and lcm documented this himself), TC was given a WOW pin despite never having gone WOW nor even gone witnessing door-to-door. They all knew 'respect of persons" when they saw it. Baseball player Tony Phillips and hockey player Jim Schoenfeld also. Plus, Paula Smith, tennis player.

So it's not "The Obvious Song" either? I'm really off base, then.

Thanks, both of those are useful to me, for different reasons. :)

I can answer for TOS and TNG easily. I want to run this past Mrs Wolf before I try the others. I have some suspicions but not a lot of confidence the further we go.

I'm working on the artist. Is it Peter Frampton? I think the title of the song is self-evident (unless I have the wrong title in mind.)

Wait, that Randy's "The Wrestler"'s titular character? Because Ivan Vanko was Mickey Rourke's role in Iron Man 2. (Whiplash, the movie's Crimson Dynamo.)

I was curious if anyone knew the others. But, here they are. A) Was "Dinner Impossible.:" B) was "Cutthroat Kitchen." C) was "Guy's Grocery Games." D) was "Food Fighters", and that was on NBC. They're all watchable, but A & B should have a broad appeal. I suspect C was inspired by B.

(The actual line, IIRC, was "I'd just as soon kiss a wookiee!" "I can arrange that! You could USE a good kiss!!!" At least in the movie. George, go back over the scenes on Hoth. It's somewhere in there. IIRC, Han said Leia didn't want him to leave-she was worried he would leave without a goodbye kiss. Then came the exchange.)

Yes, "Dinner Impossible", Big British guy. Bulky, short hair, glasses.

In the movie, Solo replies: : I can arrange that! *storms off* YOU COULD USE A GOOD KISS!" In the comic book and novelization, Solo replies: "Believe me, Princess, there's no accounting for taste...." The movie and the books sometimes had minor script differences, often with Han Solo's lines.

Here's 4 cooking shows. Name ANY to take the round. A) Robert Irvine gets surprised with a new challenge where he has to cook an evening meal for a lot of people under unusually difficult circumstances. Sometimes he is unable to complete the mission in the allotted time. B) 4 chefs compete in making a dish- but can buy things that sabotage the other chefs to make their dish bad or harder to make. The Spanish language version is called "Sabotage in the Kitchen." (Sabotaje En La Cocina.) Alton Brown hosts this show. C) Guy Fieri takes over a huge supermarket, and 4 cooks have to try to cook a dish with the ingredients there, with whatever challenges he states for the round. D) A home cook brings their 5 top recipes, then competes against a professional chef at each one. As each chef is introduced, the home cook chooses which dish they will both attempt to make (ideally, something the professional is unfamiliar with.) The dishes in each round are judged by 5 normal people, with a majority determining the winner. The home cook wins money, the chef saves face.

*looks it up* Sadly, "Throwdown with Bobby Flay" does NOT match the description of (D). TWBF has a cook prepare ONE dish against ONE chef. (BTW< my description was awkward at the end. It should read "winning money of they beat the chefs at making the dish, as judged by a panel of normal folk."

Here's 4 cooking shows. Name ANY to take the round. A) Robert Irvine gets surprised with a new challenge where he has to cook an evening meal for a lot of people under unusually difficult circumstances. B) 4 chefs compete in making a dish- but can buy things that sabotage the other chefs to make their dish bad or harder to make. C) Guy Fieri takes over a huge supermarket, and 4 cooks have to try to cook a dish with the ingredients there, with whatever challenges he states for the round. D) A home cook brings their top recipes, then competes against a professional chef at each one, winning money if they can beat the judges at making the dish.

That's it. Once I realized the Spidey movie took place in Queens, I was inspired to post this round.