WordWolf

Ok, next round. Name the actor. Lieutenant T.M. Landry Chandler Jarrell Vernest "Quick" Brown Marcus Graham Inspector Scott Roper Rayford "Ray" Gibson

Next one. The category is "old cartoons." A)One cartoon spinoff of a live-action show sent the ensemble into space. B) One cartoon spinoff of a live-action show sent the ensemble into time. C) One cartoon spinoff of a live-action show portrayed the show as set in the future. Name any TWO shows, or all three for bragging rights.

James Tiberius Kirk.

There ARE some tech wizards who started out as nerds and geeks, and now are on top- society has shifted somewhat over the decades. Bol was pointing out that the school-level stuff often does not- where the assertive, alpha jock is celebrated, and is excused if he breaks the rules, even at the expense of the nerd, who is ignored since he's not socially- exceptional, and ends up surviving his encounters with a bully rather than having recourse. Some places have changes written down that show zero-tolerance for bullies, but in practice, it's still done, often in front of adults, with adults excusing it as "rough play" or other names when they ignore it. I think there have been SOME changes, but in some places, it's exactly the same as it was a generation ago.

In case there's still anyone wondering why this sort of thing happens FAR from twi and not NEAR (as in, not from splinter groups), twi damages the members in a number of ways. One is in what it teaches as practice and what it demonstrates by doing. By showing no compassion for others (the top cadre sometimes get some pathos, everyone else has to "renew their mind" or something) and by exerting no effort for those who are hurt, they show that we are to treat people like machines, and not like people. That can affect twi survivors in lots of ways. As for ex-twi who fancy themselves leaders, it helps harden their hearts. They can even NEED compassion themselves (like when twi kicked them out or when they left), but they fail to understand the lesson they need to learn, which is that THEY will need compassion at points, and so will everyone else. So, they treat people like REVENUE SOURCES, and NOT like people who may suffer and need prayer, compassion, a shoulder to cry on, a sympathetic ear, someone to bring over dinner or help write a resume, or SOMETHING. All the actual "ministering" to people, helping them and so on, all of that is done TO the alleged "minister". The "minister" never actually MINISTERS. He preaches some Bible, but when someone needs some help, it's the "minister" who gets some, never him lending a hand for the congregant. That's why we get endless mailing lists as ex-ministers hop from group to group as they wear out their welcome, ignorant and unrepentant as to why everyone thinks they have a heart of stone. They'll go to their graves and never get it.

Is this a "JUSTICE LEAGUE" cartoon? (JLU, etc.)

JT!

I looked up the author's name and the book title online, and got that quote. Often, I'll do a search with the author's name and "quotes". Example: "George St George" "quotes" to get results with pages specifically compiling quotes from George St George. (There are very few books I could quote from memory for a whole paragraph.) And yes, I cut and pasted what became the clue.

Yes, Grace VC got it correct. Only guesses on this thread would count, of course. You're the only person who's posted since the quote was posted. The quote was from "The Tell-Tale Heart." If nobody got it, I was going to enlarge the quote with the lines preceding and succeeding it.

Next author. "When I had made an end of these labors, it was four o'clock --still dark as midnight. As the bell sounded the hour, there came a knocking at the street door. I went down to open it with a light heart, --for what had I now to fear? There entered three men, who introduced themselves, with perfect suavity, as officers of the police. A shriek had been heard by a neighbour during the night; suspicion of foul play had been aroused; information had been lodged at the police office, and they (the officers) had been deputed to search the premises. I smiled, --for what had I to fear? I bade the gentlemen welcome. The shriek, I said, was my own in a dream. The old man, I mentioned, was absent in the country. I took my visitors all over the house. I bade them search --search well. I led them, at length, to his chamber. I showed them his treasures, secure, undisturbed. In the enthusiasm of my confidence, I brought chairs into the room, and desired them here to rest from their fatigues, while I myself, in the wild audacity of my perfect triumph, placed my own seat upon the very spot beneath which reposed the corpse of the victim."

I recognize the 2nd and 4th names there. I'm not sure about what show I've seen the name of the actress in. Phil Lamarr is a voice actor when he's not getting shot in the face by Travolta. Katey Segal does the voice of Leela in "FUTURAMA" so I doubt this is that show. I'm wondering if she plays the Mom opposite Peter Deluise in "Wizards of Waverly Place." *very wild swing* Is this "ELENA OF AVALOR"?????

Ok, wild guess time, maybe. I know MOLLY RINGWALD played a "Claire" in "The Breakfast Club" and has done some TV shows and movies.

Yes, I was pointing out that, if you were posting for others to guess, it had to be a quote from some famous written work, either some famous book or an incredibly famous speech or something. No book I've ever heard of had a line like "Does anyone know what play Lincoln was watching when he was killed in 1865?" As a line, it actually COULD have been from a book (it sounds like it could be a line of dialogue from a movie or TV show.) However, if it was not a line from a book, it wasn't a proper turn. (And the turn was on Raf, who had already posted.) BTW, the quote from Mercutio before was TOTALLY a proper quote from a book.

" What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!" "Look, she's not seeing any clients today. Okay? "That's okay, buddy. We're from the union." "The union?" " Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Rawhide! Line 'em up, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Rawhide! Knock 'em out, Pound 'em dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! " "TGIF, eh, buddy? Workin' hard or hardly workin', eh Mac?" "Thank you, gentlemen! Someday, I will repay you. Unless, of course, I can't find you or if I forget." "I hate Mondays." "The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom..." "Bet my bottom??" "...I'm coming Elizabeth!" " Be... good." "It's gonna be champagne wishes and caviar dreams from now on!" "Oh, you got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo!" "All right, let's crash this party!" "Are we there yet? " "For five minutes, could you not be yourself? FOR FIVE MINUTES?! "Let's not sit here with our tummies rumbling. Everybody dig in." "Don't mind if I do, Lillian!" "Do you still know the Muffin Man?" "Sure, he's down on Drury Lane. Why?" "Because we're going to need flour. Lots and lots of flour." "I say we take the sword and neuter him right here. Give him the Bob Barker treatment!" " I'm sorry, Lillian. I just wish I could be the man you deserve." "I don't care whose fault this was, just get this place cleaned up! And could someone please bring me something deep fat fried and smothered in chocolate! " "Today, I repay my debt... EN GARDE!" "Hey! Isn't we supposed to be having a fiesta?" "Where is he Mum? I shall render his head from his shoulders! I will smite him where he stands! HE WILL RUE THE VERY DAY HE STOLE MY KINGDOM AWAY FROM ME!" "Oh, put it away, Junior! You're still going to be King. We just need to work out something smarter, that's all. " "Thumbelina, no! Hansel and Gretel, no! The Golden Bird, the Little Mermaid, Pretty Woman... no, no, no, no, NO!" "There's just one problem - that's not my husband. I mean, look at him!" "Yes, he is a bit different, but people do change for the ones they love - you'd be surprised how much I changed for your mother... " "*Change*? He's completely lost his mind!" "Oh, no! That's the old Keeblers place! Let's just walk away slowly. "

Carrie Fisher the Blues Brothers Dan Ackroyd

Stephen King, The Dark Tower, Volume 1, "The Gunslinger." (For the record, I didn't even find that thing when I moved.)

I'm not familiar with which book this is from, so I certainly have no idea who the author was.

I may well know this song, but no memory is sparking. I'm reminded of a song by Frampton or Will To Power, but it's not that one.

Even when I was in, I didn't find this book particularly insightful.

You really needed US to point that out? Doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't that concern you at all? (If it doesn't, that's REALLY something to be concerned about.)

Something I find interesting about this is remembering what vpw himself said about this. There was a tape set "the Heart of the Way Corps." It was a compilation of 7 teachings addressing the WC from different perspectives. 2 were by vpw addressing them, In one of them, he said that he came up with the 5 principles "in about ten minutes" originally and that they hadn't been changed. Even when I was in, I thought that was an awfully short time to come up with something that fundamental to a program and then have it never change. Furthermore, he also complained about the first principle: "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness." He claimed it really should say "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness OF THE WORD." He made fun of the idea that this "in-depth spiritual perception and awareness" would be applied to anything else, which I thought at the time was particularly odd. I thought the point was learning stuff to apply it all the time, not just when reading. So, when you encountered life, you'd understand more because you knew more. This becomes particularly odd when you see that vpw said the complete opposite other times! In "vp and me", lcm documented that "Horse Sense is probably the greatest part of Corps Principal 1." Further, he gave supposed examples of this where vpw pointed out things that needed preventative maintenance and so on. That's completely the opposite of what vpw said elsewhere- he was claiming the importance of something he mocked at other times. This would be confusing concerning the average person. Most people are fairly consistent- unless one is possibly comparing them after a span of time, time to change their positions on things. (In this case, the tape and the book covered the same span of a few years, twi after it's big boom began but before vpw was too sick to do stuff.) In the case of vpw, this makes sense because we know he went around and taught different things to different people at the same time. He could teach a CFS class and say that a man wasn't supposed to help himself to a woman and to only do stuff with your spouse (the meaning of "let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband") and turn around a few hours later and tell someone "who was spiritual enough to take it" that God Almighty was fine with sexual adultery and someone "meeting the needs" of some married minister sexually and keep it quiet (his "lockbox" doctrine, very private.) He told the pfal audience that he started over with his Bible as his sole source of information, but turned around and mentioned a few books here and there like Bullinger's Companion Bible (leaving out that his "sole source of information" claim was a complete lie because "his" class was an amalgam of Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon, and a handful of others with virtually NO original content.) So, the idea that vpw would make contradictory claims actually should be no surprise- he did it all the time if you kept track if who he told what. That's a bad sign for someone supposedly honest, but twi has been run like a political entity than a religious entity at the top for a long time.

" What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!" "Look, she's not seeing any clients today. Okay? "That's okay, buddy. We're from the union." "The union?" " Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Rawhide! Line 'em up, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Rawhide! Knock 'em out, Pound 'em dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! " "TGIF, eh, buddy? Workin' hard or hardly workin', eh Mac?" "Thank you, gentlemen! Someday, I will repay you. Unless, of course, I can't find you or if I forget." "I hate Mondays." "The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom..." "Bet my bottom??" "...I'm coming Elizabeth!" " Be... good." "It's gonna be champagne wishes and caviar dreams from now on!" "Oh, you got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo!" "All right, let's crash this party!" "Are we there yet? " "For five minutes, could you not be yourself? FOR FIVE MINUTES?! "Let's not sit here with our tummies rumbling. Everybody dig in." "Don't mind if I do, Lillian!" "Do you still know the Muffin Man?" "Sure, he's down on Drury Lane. Why?" "Because we're going to need flour. Lots and lots of flour." "Give him the Bob Barker treatment!" " I'm sorry, Lillian. I just wish I could be the man you deserve." "I don't care whose fault this was, just get this place cleaned up! And could someone please bring me something deep fat fried and smothered in chocolate! " "Today, I repay my debt... EN GARDE!"

Rrobs, presuming everything you posted was serious, you're running into some very elementary and very obvious problems. 1) You do not know where you are. The GSC exists specifically to "tell the other side of the story" with twi, and sometimes with its offspring, the offshoots. That means that, not only is it NOT a vpw admiration society, it is the opposite of that, and people have told about the many felonies for which vpw would have gone to prison if he had been caught, and if he hadn't been as thorough as he had been in covering his @$$ when raping women and making sure they wouldn't tell on him. So, posts extolling his brilliance, or ignorant of the rather fundamental flaws of pfal and twi materials, will reflect poorly in this crowd. (vpw plagiarized and often didn't really understand what he plagiarized, so he reproduced correctable errors entirely, and sometimes quoted incorrectly and contradicted himself, and sometimes added a few things to make himself sound like he was walking around getting revelation when he was using hidden sources for his (often wrong) claims, and occasionally adding a bit of charlatan showmanship to make it look more convincing.) 2) Furthermore, posts which reflect a vocabulary centered around twi-speak that also include claims that the poster examined vpw's work independently and thoroughly expose a rather marked lack of thoroughness in that department. 3) The GSC exists to "tell the other side of the story." It is not a Christian messageboard, nor does it need to be. There's no universal consensus on doctrine among posters that represent a variety of Christian positions, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, etc. So, expecting everyone here to agree on the Bible as THE standard is not effective, even if it's not as volatile as trying to get them to agree on twi materials as THE standard. 4) Because there's such a variety of posters, there's no one official consensus. However, you'll notice that nearly all the posters agree about vpw's plagiarism having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and about his rapes and molestations having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's because they're so well-documented and tracked after the fact that people from greatly-differing perspectives agree on them. 5) If what you're looking for is "the cheerful posts", the GSC is not the best forum for you. It's here to INFORM. Do you look to the evening news for your daily dose of sunshine? Furthermore, there's threads that are fairly cheerful. They're NOT in the forum where we discuss vpw's felonies. 6) Much of the time, we don't need to rehash the same felonies here- except when someone arrives and announces they didn't happen or that they were exaggerated or that it's fine that vpw was a plagiarist and rapist or whatever. THEN we have to get into the same old horse manure all over again. 7) The fact that we've informed people about vpw's felonies and so on does not mean we spend all our free time being depressed, negative people. We all have lives, and they're not on this board. The blithe dismissal of people with fantasies that this is how they spend their off-time is trite, and one defense mechanism of those who desperately want to imagine vpw was half the man he claimed he was. 8) If you really want to get into Doctrine, post in Doctrinal. If you want some light-hearted fun, we have gaming threads. in the Movies/Music forum. If you just want to repeat how wonderful vpw was and twi was without finding out why we disagree so strongly, this is the wrong messageboard for you. There's closed communities online that do little else but that very thing. They welcome another poster parroting the party line and would love to have you. If that's NOT what you want, then pay a little attention and consider changing your approach here. All the wayspeak, posted here, is a lot like someone showing up to a Holocaust Survivor panel in a Nazi uniform and playing the jackboot.

Very few people nowadays make a claim of "operating all 9 all the time." It's an outrageous, ridiculous claim. You rattled it off like nothing when you arrived. To the rest of us, that told us a lot.

I'm highly in favor of sticking to the facts, and labeling anything as appropriate- speculation, supposition, guess, and so on. (I also think this is beating a dead horse, but you revived the post, so...) We KNOW that vpw died of cancer, and that this cancer that killed him was from the liver. We know this cancer began in the eye and spread to the liver. (We all agree on this because his death certificate says much of that, and it's common enough for the cancer to spread to the liver from the eye, and not vice versa.) So, the cause of death is not debated. We KNOW (or should know) that chronic exposure to both alcohol and tobacco are damaging to the body, including damage to the eye (tobacco, that's known) and damage to the liver (alcohol, that's also known.) So, we know that vpw's chronic drinking and smoking did damage to his liver and eye. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and eye- and, if so, what connection was that? We KNOW that vpw exposed his eyes to bright lights for a period of about 2 weeks in the 1960s when filming pfal. We know he had sore eyes as a result of the bright studio lights, and they hurt a lot during the filming. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and/or eye- and if so, what connection was that? It has been shown that CERTAIN exposures to light can damage the eye and increase the risk of cancer. To be specific, it's been shown that WELDERS have an increased risk and they have eyes that are exposed to brilliant UV sources inches from their eyes over a period of years. It has not been shown (I await a specific source) that other types of bright light, over a period of less than a month, are a cancer risk. Since vpw was NOT exposed to the level of light of a welding torch, at the proximity of a welding torch, with the wavelengths of light of a welding torch, for the periods of time in which welders are exposed, I'm HIGHLY skeptical it's connected in any way. So, the only study I've seen with an increased risk factor for bright light in ocular cancer is IRRELEVANT. If there's a different one, with the same kinds of light, time exposure and light proximity, that would be a different story entirely. For that matter, we're "cherry-picking" here if we insist that bright studio lights MUST cause cancer because they're bright. I had a small chat with someone who did DECADES of stage work. He's a minor actor, who acts as a hobby. In relevance to the discussion, he's been either on the stage or a stagehand for hundreds of shows at dozens of venues of different types. He's had the bright stage lights and studio lights pointed at his eyes lots of times. He's assisted in lots of productions where the bright stage light and studio lights were pointed at other people's eyes. He's known lots of actors in passing, and spoken to lots of actors. He was legitimately puzzled at the suggestion that bright studio lights might cause cancer. I asked him. He gave it some thought. He's known actors who died, but none who had ocular cancer. He also never HEARD of an actor who ended up with ocular cancer. Granted, that's hardly authoritative. However, what is interesting is that there's no report. IF bright studio lights were a significant cancer risk, IF bright stage lights were a cancer risk, then SOMETHING would have been reported. There's no warning by doctors that news anchors should consider early retirement, or amateur actors should do the same, or that soap opera/telenovela actors are coming down with ocular cancer into their retirement. So, we not only have no proof that bright studio lights are a cancer risk over LONG PERIODS, we have an ABSENCE of cases and warnings about that. We've had warnings about tobacco and lung cancer since the 1940s. So, pending ANY contrary evidence, it's irresponsible to SPECULATE that LONG-TERM exposure to studio lights would cause cancer. I'm sure vpw hurt his eyes, but that's proof that he hurt his eyes. If someone's got a link that says that injuring they eye in general with bright light is a risk factor for cancer, please post the link, it's certainly news to mem and nobody's posted that. (Let's have some facts on that rather than speculation and name-calling, I say.) One thing which should NOT be overlooked is that hurting his eyes like that would make him more "sensitive" to complaining about eye pain later. (If his eyes hurt, he would be more likely to complain, and would not hesitate to claim his later eye pain was connected to this one even if there was no reason to think so, just because this was when his eyes hurt before.) We KNOW that tobacco is a carcinogen. We probably know that wierwille carried some sort of risk factor for cancer (it's unreasonable to presume Don's death from cancer was a remarkable coincidence, and Don didn't have behavioral risks like chain-smoking or alcohol that we are aware of- at least to the degree of chronic user vpw. People saw vpw smoking and drinking constantly but not Don.) We know that cancer can't be predicted with mathematical certainty. (This genetic factor plus this exact behavior = cancer and this other behavior plus the same risk factor does not, etc.) So, what can we say with any reasonable certainty? A) Bright studio lights over 2 weeks will hurt your eyes. Bright studio lights over periods of a few months over a lifetime are NOT shown risk-factors for cancer. Bright studio lights over even shorter periods should be less so, not moreso (thus, are also not shown to be a risk-factor.) B) Welding tools used over long periods are known risk-factors for eye cancer. vpw did not use welding tools over long periods. C) Cigarettes are known to damage the eyes of the smokers, especially over long periods. Tobacco use is a known carcinogen, and has been shown to be a risk factor for all sorts of cancer. I'm not aware of any study to determine definitively if eye cancer should be in the list. vpw smoked a lot over decades, and introduced carcinogenic smoke to his body over long periods, in addition to damaging his eyes with the same smoke. D) Alcohol is known to both damage the immune system (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer), and damages the liver specifically (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer). E) The accounts that the bright studio light usage over a few weeks causing eye cancer were NOT documented by medical experts. The sole source of this story was vpw, who is known to have been a habitual liar who spent his life inflating his own image and framing himself as some noble person. If the eye cancer was the result of his chronic smoking and drinking and he knew that, he would certainly have lied and said it was due to his "noble sacrifice" of filming pfal for 2 weeks over a decade before. If that was the cause and he didn't know the cause, he would do exactly the same thing. In short, the only account claiming this is why he got cancer was from the mouth of the biggest liar of whom we're all personally acquainted. ====================================== If any definitive conclusion can be drawn with no new information introduced, it would be the following: vpw spent a few weeks exposed to bright lights which hurt his eyes and did no carcinogenic damage. vpw spent decades before and after this damaging his immune system and introducing carcinogens to his body in general. vpw had a genetic risk for cancer. Sometime later, vpw was diagnosed with eye cancer which spread to his liver. vpw, a known liar, spread a story about how his eye cancer was the result of his "sacrifice" of being exposed to bright lights "for the benefit of God and others." It is true, that no ABSOLUTE conclusion, mathematically, can be drawn as to EXACTLY why he got cancer. We do, however, know what the KNOWN risks are. We also know what vpw CLAIMED the known risks are-and the medical professionals disagree with vpw on that one, imagine that! So, I think there's little REASONABLE doubt (pending new, clear data) that vpw was factually wrong and the story that goes around was factually wrong, and that the known carcinogens did what carcinogens do all the time, and- added to his risk if exposed to them- caused vpw to die of cancer. Pending some reliable studies or reliable sources that say otherwise, I really think this has been discussed into the ground and would prefer to move on to other things. Which is why I let it drop before.