WordWolf

Recapping. A) "Princeton" rather than "Princeton Theological Seminary" is a rather specific mistake. I'd like to see a link to the original post to see if RG really posted it that way. Everybody who hears "I went to Princeton" will think that meant they enrolled in and took classes in Princeton University and not Princeton Theological Seminary. PTS is a real school, and there is no need to pad the account by trying to conflate the 2 schools (which twi did lots of times, and was right from vpw's playbook when he prevaricated and insinuated he did stuff he never did.) B) The comments about the graduating class are equally obscuring. "There were a number of people in his class." 3 is a number. 4 is a number. 10 is a number. 25 is a number. Leaving it like that is a deliberate decision to make it vague and INSINUATE greater numbers. (Again, make a vague statement which is not a complete lie but suggests the opposite of the truth, and show you learned that trick as well as vpw did it. We've seen it documented before-and again the other day.) C) Pike's Peak was UNACCREDITED. It did NOT attempt to meet the minimum standards for accreditation that prove it's worth it to pay them a single dollar or work for their degree. Therefore, they have as much degree-granting authority as Schlotsky's Deli. vpw had one unaccredited doctorate. I have 3 unaccredited doctorates, and I definitely have written out an awful lot if one only counts 1/10th of my output HERE. Yet no respect for my degrees? I've triple the doctorates he had! "Putting in the time" for an unaccredited doctorate tells us nothing- except that they put in less time than for an accredited one. vpw's curriculum and coursework was handled BY MAIL. Naturally, there's no way to tell how much of that was from him and how much ripped off from someone else since it was BY MAIL. That's why accredited schools don't handle doctorates by mail. D) "VPW not only earned his doctorate, but he performed far beyond what any PhD has ever done. He brought us God's light like it hasn't been seen in 2000 years. In my book that earns him credit far beyond a doctorate." No he didn't. That's supposing the 1942 promise wasn't already proven a failure AND a fraud beyond any REASONABLE doubt. His ability to make a grandiose claim like that earns him no doctorates in anything but chutzpah.

Irrelevant. Fogs the issue. Nobody questioned that Princeton Theological Seminary is legit. I even posted that a few days ago. A separate issue is how "Homiletics" is a very soft option to take in a school with many RIGOROUS programs one could take instead. It was a legitimate Masters from a legitimate school in a subject with questionable value. His DOCTORATE was unaccredited and not worth the paper it was printed on. THAT is what's brought up.

But vpw (who had no military experience other than watching movies and TV) wanted it like the imaginary military, where he could bark orders and everyone would fall in line. He taught lcm, who applied his own experience as a jock which were at least realistic experiences of athletics- even if they were completely irrelevant to a Christian organization by any name.

I see I'm not the only person who made that point.

Some of it, yes. vpw did plenty of it in the 70s in-house. It didn't just begin with AOS. He taught lcm that the yelling was approved and recommended. What vpw did in private, lcm did in public. What was in the 70s was out of whack also.

I supported that position the first time he showed up. Perhaps he will make his case this time and actually drop any substance- if there is any. Past experience is indeed a guide, and every time we danced this dance, his posts had sound and fury.

Prior experience shows he will do nothing of the kind- just label us for not bowing our knee to his premise. BTW, if you want to look at some good examples of Mike going on for pages and pages about how we didn't deserve him to get to his point or how we had to earn it, do a search on him talking about his "Table of Challenge." It goes on, and on, and on, and on...all with no substance from Mike. He missed his calling as a political speechwriter. But no, don't expect Mike to examine his thinking. According to him, he's done all the re-examining he needs, and it all ended with concluding twi documents of pfal were holy writ. It's only us that have to rethink anything.

If prior experience is any guide, he will do neither. Just pages and pages of him talking about there being proof, about his having proven it, about having proof that we don't deserve, and so on. Then, later, how he proved it before. All without actual attempts at proof.

Thanks. I've had one in mind, on and off. "You were caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom, blown on the steel breeze. Come on you target for faraway laughter..."

I disagree with them as to whether it counts as a spinoff under 2 specific circumstances. A) The show changes name- that is, "All in the Family" turning into "Archie Bunker's Place." B) When a character's first appearance is in a single episode of a show-and their second appearance is a pilot of a new series that never interacts with the original show. So, I think it's fine to say Joey Tribbiani from "Friends" spun off into "Joey", and Frasier Crane and the Tortellis spun off "Cheers" into their own shows. All those characters either were regulars or appeared several times. IIRC, Matt Le Blanc appeared ONCE on "Married With Children" as Kelly's boyfriend, then his second appearance as that character was in the series pilot "Top of the Heap." If I'm correct, I don't count that as a "spin-off." The character was introduced briefly into one show, then their own show was introduced. Nobody counts DC's Arrowverse shows as spinning off each other. Barry Allen appeared in a 2-parter in "Arrow" before "the Flash" began, and that's not counted as a spin-off. "Legends of Tomorrow" began with most of the principal cast having been introduced in "Arrow" or "Flash", and that's not counted as a spin-off- and those characters were recurring or regulars. The whole point of the one-appearance "spin-off" is to introduce the character to the viewing audience of a show before the new show airs. Their existence there doesn't impact on either show in the long run. Contrast that, say, with "Angel" spinning off "Buffy". Even when the casts don't meet up, there's references back and forth, and telephone calls where we only hear one side (which saves money on actor salaries.) All of that, of course, is me disagreeing with them.

I think there was a movie, "The Eyes of Laura Mars" in the early-to-mid 1970s. That's all I've got.

"The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Quest for Fire." I'm sorry, everyone, I've been a bad influence on George.

Sebastian the crab.

Can we "void" this and move on?

Dr Who didn't count as a British TV series? I question the validity of naming all of those "spinoffs." We had characters appear as regulars in a show then go off for their own show (Joey from Friends, Frasier and The Tortellis from Cheers, etc.) Both "Mork and Mindy" and "Out of the Blue" were introduced in "Happy Days" in crossover episodes, then continued with their own shows without any further mention of "Happy Days" (M&M's pilot episode did but not the rest.) "All in the Family" became "Archie Bunker's Place"-that was a change, not a spinoff.

According to Wikipedia, Italian sandwiches ("heroes") were sold by Italian immigrants in the US (in NYC and other places) starting in the 19th century. with NYC ones becoming "heroes" around 1937. Then again, they also say they were invented after that in 1903, so make of that what you will. (See the beginnings of the entries for "submarine sandwich" and "Italian sandwich.") Lots of places have had people make fast food to buy and eat while working or traveling, throughout history. Empanadas have their traditional crimp on one side from the original purpose of eating them with one hand while at manual labour (so I've been told.) Again, there's examples across the centuries, across the continents.

He said it lots of times, some of them to Corps members, including those with military service backgrounds (they do more work before 9am than most people do all day...) Uncle Harry said it was due to their German upbringing (check TW:LiL for the exact quote, but he said that.) The hypocrisy of vpw saying it was that he skipped his chores on the farm all the time. His own Dad was quoted as having said so (TW:LiL). We know vpw vanished in the woods for hours at a time. Harry-who did not see him during those times- seemed to have confused him with Billy Graham. He said vpw was preaching to the trees. BG rather famously addressed his own nervousness at crowd-speaking by preaching to trees and altar calls alone in the woods. (Uncle Harry plagiarized too. This was a plagiarizing family. Plagiarizing and farming were the family businesses.)

Again, claims you have something without providing it, then saying the only REAL proof is to ASSUME you're right and spend months or years doing it your way in the hopes that you're right despite no evidence supporting it whatsoever. Still finding it hard to find converts? Still making the same mistakes.

It also allows you to fill pages without substance, claim you have substance, fill the pages, then later claim you provided the substance in those pages. You pulled that with your claims of "proving" pfal was god-breathed before. Want to find you claiming you did it? I'm sure you can. Finding you doing it would be a lot harder....

You are of course aware that this means you're confident that the law of believing works consistently- but only in the things that can't be shown, measured, or traced to actual operation of a physical law of believing, and where there would actually be space to show something, you're admitting you can't. Not only does that dovetail with the view you've got squat, but it contradicts all those times vpw talked a good game like it was easy to believe for all sorts of physical things like the unbelievers did SUCCESSFULLY all the time.

A chance to go on for pages DISCUSSING proof while offering none, then later claiming you did? I'll bet you'd love another one of those (discussions around something that never actually touch the subject.) .

I honestly don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if he came out with that. This same man claimed to never have a sick day or headache IN HIS LIFE.

This will go on for pages. Then he will eventually vanish. Later, he will claim he answered everybody and provided proof and nobody could dispute him. I don't think he even does it on purpose. He's not seeing the same reality most people are. So, where you see him stall for pages, he "remembers" he actually answered lots of questions. If you want to know what that's like, watch "Lord of the Rings-Fellowship of the RIng", and follow the ring in the scene where Bilbo is supposed to leave it behind as a gift for Frodo. I've shown that scene to people, prefacing it with "follow the ring in this scene", and periodically pausing and asking "Where is the ring now?" to make sure they realize Bilbo's not quite experiencing the reality he thinks he is, at that point. Don't expect Mike to have learned anything, either. He once made a claim about the Bible. I refuted it verse by verse, and ended with a comment that he would probably make the same disproven claim again 6 months later. Sure enough, 6 months later, he did.

It's fascinating sometimes what he wanted to take credit for, and compare it to reality. vpw claimed to have gotten the original idea for fast food. Chock Full O'Nuts (among other companies) claims to have a piece of that history. During the Great Depression, they switched from a gourmet nut shop (useless in a Depression) immediately to a sandwich and coffee shop, and because of that, claim to have invented fast food. (They used to claim it, I'm unsure if they do now.) Plenty of others claim to have invented it sooner, however. In the UK, in the 1800s. a rise in rail travel helped fuel a boom in fast food- specifically resulting in fish-and-chip shops where the travelers could grab food before continuing. A look back at different countries in different centuries will show people buying food quickly on the street to eat walking or to take home. Rome during the Roman Empire had that. China had that around the Middle Ages, as did European cities like London and Paris. It's likely that large urban centers, especially, have had them at least as far back as Rome, and almost continuously in major cities continuously since then. After many centuries of people serving fast food, vpw was born. He later claimed to have had the original idea for fast food.

Actually, I'm pointing out that his great IGNORANCE of Church history has led to him claiming he got a promise from God Almighty that was STUPID Just as he claimed angels lied to hm rather than admit a fraud, I'm sure he'd blame God Almighty for that than admit his fraud.