WordWolf

" " 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?!

" 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!"

No, although Mrs Wolf thought it might have been also, with the reference to the union, and the singing of "Rawhide", But look a little closer at the lyrics that were sung...

That happens sometimes, but now you have the answer. Ah, "alternative" actually applies more to Cake, Weezer, and Talking Heads. Ramones is "punk" (as is "Offspring.") I have no idea HOW to categorize Gorillaz, I just listen to it when it plays.

There's stuff in the Documents section. I forget if there are both recordings of his as well as letters on the subject. One of the letters, however, mentioned that he'd be "happy" to kill gays in twi. (From the context, I can't clearly tell if that meant ONLY gays that considered themselves twi members, or all gays in general. I have speculation, but that's it.) Ok, what we had was documents on the subject, not recordings. But the one lcm himself sent out is available on PDF. Select "War declared on homosexuals with the way corps." You can download the PDF. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20060922182308/http://greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/pdf-docs/pdf.html Or just look at the excerpt. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20060622123001/http://greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/html-docs/homo-excerpt.htm I'll be redacting some of it, so you'll have to click on the link to get the explicit stuff. ========================================================= Excerpt from letter in July 1994 to the Way Corps declaring war on homosexuals. The author is Loy Craig Martindale - President of The Way International. I'd like to say to you "closet" homosexuals in the corps household that you'd better run, because you cannot hide! If I have to personally take on every Corps fellowship in this country and world to smoke this out, then I will. You will be exposed and embarrassed and flushed; so you might as well make up your mind to get out now. Even you who are genuinely convicted of your terrible behavior and finally and genuinely want help, you will probably still be dropped from the Corps household because you have lied to God and me and your Corps brothers and sisters for so many years to justify your insane thinking and sneaky behavior. However, that is not the end of the world if you genuinely want help.....we could still allow you to be a part of Way Ministry fellowships, although not in the Corps household; and perhaps somewhere down the road you could do the Corps again and do it clean and proper and pure in your thinking. Remember, the Word says that homos are the "lowest of the people," and that is certainly true. You female [REDACTED]! You [REDACTED] men who still think that somehow you have the right to take the grace of God in vain might as well be [REDACTED]! That's the way I feel about you and your thoughts and your repugnancy. You are an abomination to God and the household of The Way Corps and The Way Ministry. You are detestable and despicable and repugnant and worthy of death. You are so far beyond saltiness that you are the ultimate illustration of being worthless and not even fit for the dunghill. You are liars to God and His Word and a total disgrace to everything God did in Jesus Christ to bring the Corps training to you. I want these [REDACTED] out of the Corps household! If you Corps on the field and in leadership responsibilities, starting with the clergy and our Limb coordinators, can't do it, then I will personally have to do it myself; but it will get done down to my last breath if that's what it takes! How dare you take the grace of God in vain, some of you, to think that you can continue to harbor homosexual fantasies and passions in your mind and soul. Do you think you're fooling God? Do you think you can keep fooling me? Eventually your thoughts will lead to your behavior, and have already. Some of us walk by the spirit of God, and if you give us time we will smoke your sorry asses out and bring degradation to your lives so that you can't hurt anybody in The Way Ministry again. You should be thankful you're not in the Old Testament times, because there are some of us who would gladly execute you."

Strictly speaking, her renting a room to 2 lesbians who allegedly were "former" lesbians is proof of nothing in that regard. Strictly speaking, her choosing to travel with Donna on trips and choosing to share a room with exactly 1 bed is proof of nothing- but by itself, it should be enough to raise suspicions. However, the eyewitness account of one female poster a long time ago who walked in on them immediately "after" pretty much settles it. That completes the picture. If anyone's still questioning the situation after that, it's someone who REFUSES to consider what's before them.

CFF is the parent splinter group, and SOWERS seems to be hiding their connection to "Christian Family Fellowship." So, SOWERS might be considered to be a group that soon may be a splinter group that split off FROM a splinter group (CFF). It's probably to hide the fact that SOWERS is based on a handful of old farts who want to relive their glory years decades after the Jesus People movement was almost snuffed out by vpw. They're selling it as a group composed entirely of the young turks. If you have time, you can read through lengthier discussions that brought some of these points up as well as the more practical concerns about SOWERS. "Here We Go Again." "Legacy of the Way Corps Principles."

It's neither. :)

It's not "The Clash." Can you remember the chorus?

Next film: " 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 dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! "

In any legal sense, there is no corporate connection between twi and sowers whatsoever. They are organized by different people, and their paperwork reflects a complete distinction between the 2 groups. In the doctrinal sense, both sowers and their parent splinter group are an attempt by ex-twi'ers to clone the earlier twi days, based word-for-word on the earlier setup of twi, using the exact phraseology vpw did, in an attempt to relive their glory days. It can't possibly work because the twi numbers explosion was based ENTIRELY on vpw taking a legitimate movement in Christianity, subverting it, and turning an already-successful group of people into his recruiting arm. THEY did all the work. THEY convinced the people of the substance. And THEY had no way to know all the plagiarism and corruption behind the scenes- and neither did the people. Compare that to now. There's no group of young Christians ALREADY producing the big results that vpw wanted, there for sowers to subvert. The public can easily find out about all the corruption even if there WAS. And vpw KNEW he was a fraud and tailored his fraud accordingly. The sowers people still insist ALL of it was legitimate and of God- so they can't even get the successful CON going. But they've certainly ignored all the differences between THEN and NOW, and tried to make NOW look like THEN. They even convinced a guy named vpw- the grandson of the original plagiarizing rapist- to be the frontman of the organization. So, legally, this is not any twi. In a practical sense, it is a sad attempt to replicate twi from its early days-which is why it's of interest to a handful of people and will remain a handful of people until it fades into obscurity. It's of interest only to ex-twi. And ex-twi are getting fewer in numbers because there's nobody new joining twi in any numbers, and that means the population of both current twi and ex-twi are all dying off as they get older and are not numerically replaced by successors. This is a good thing. Ex-twi get on with their lives, mostly, and don't turn their families into twi clones. And those who do are in such small numbers that they are only slowing down the process of twi becoming completely irrelevant as opposed to almost-completely irrelevant.

You offered some nebulous "there might be another way to look at this" and "you might be wrong" and capped it off with "you're wrong and an idiot" with zero actual substance to it. It's like the much longer "Passing of the Patriarch" where cg went on for pages and pages as to how twi's bot failed but never getting into one actual thing the bot did or the bot failed to do. So, yes, the extent of my take away from that was the "you're wrong, biscuithead" thing. If there was something of substance OFFERED, something to actually CONSIDER, that would have been a different story. If you had substance, you didn't present it. I said I was an EXPERT in the subject? I've studied it on a number of levels, a number of times. I don't consider that an "expertise" in the subject, but I DO have a broader perspective than the average twi'er, for example. I've read books by non-twi'ers who also discussed delphia as well as the other mentioned words, for example. If you have something to offer, feel free to bring it to the table. (I offered a few links in passing.) How confident are you that I IMPLIED expertise, and you didn't actually INFER the implication? A) "Maybe you're wrong" isn't something of deeper substance. It's good to consider alternate viewpoints, but there needs to be some substance to support a position and not just its existence that makes it worthy of reflection. A poster here is CONVINCED Jesus Christ will appear and teach us out of the Orange Book. I'm NOT spending a lot of time reflecting on that one because there's nothing to say "wait-this brings something to the table, and that something is...." B) Getting me to consider the substance of something usually works when presenting the actual SUBSTANCE. Calling me "stupid" is not a successful motivational tool to get me to see things your way, no matter what. I don't know why it worked for you, but there's a LOT of people who get turned off when an ad hominem attack is dropped into an intelligent discussion. Does anyone else besides him see this big "expert" thing he's claiming I presented in the last few posts? Can someone quote exactly what I said and why it looks like I'm claiming to be an expert? If I'm an expert in something, I don't tapdance about it-I say so outright. So, if a third-party can see this, please chime in and show me what he's on about. Sure would be nice if the "alternate viewpoint" was presented with something of substahce to justify the viewpoint, otherwise it just looks like another unsupported claim. The GSC has seen MORE than its share of those. So, you refuse to provide something, but I'm supposed to? And I'm supposed to take it seriously? Really-if you had something and posted a link, I'd approach it with all the seriousness it warranted. (i.e a site quoting vpw gets less consideration than neutral parties showing their work, and so on.) If you think some verses APPEAR to show phileo and agapao as synonymous in usage, feel free to post them or at least cite them. THEN we have SOMETHING specific we can discuss. Even if we end up disagreeing afterwards, at least we'd have gotten somewhere and looked at something.

TLC: "Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?" If there IS a polite way to say it, you sure didn't try very hard to find it. Even the "vpw was God's prophet/apostle/everything" people usually aren't this overtly rude to me, and they have a vested interest in keeping me quiet. Interesting how you completely skipped that there's been lots of discussions about the differences between those and other related-but-different Greek words to say "you're wrong and you're stupid" for saying they're related-but-different words.

Ok, we have a Bond film. We have Blofeld. That limits the field considerably. George is a nice guy, so I'm thinking it's not the Lazenby film. Blofeld had no significant lines in "For Your Eyes Only" and was never really confirmed to be in the movie, IIRC. (So, he certainly never said his name.) What's left? If we hope that the non-Eon film was skipped (Connery in "Never Say Never Again"), we are left with-what's left? George eliminated "Goldfinger." We heard of no Russians, so maybe not "From Russia With Love." I think that leaves us with maybe 3 flicks. Is this "You Only Live Twice"?

"Just put me in a wheelchair get me to the show. Hurry hurry hurry before I go loco. I can't control my fingers I can't control my toes. Oh no no no no no." "Just put me in a wheelchair, get me on a plane. Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane. I can't control my fingers I can't control my brain. Oh no no no no no."

"Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't? " The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself. (Or the religious organization you consider to be authoritative and the last word on a subject.) In the case of "kingdom of heaven" vs "kingdom of God", the 2 things to consider more than any other are: 1) what is the literal meaning of the word/each word in the phrase, and 2) what is the demonstrated meaning of the word/phrase as used in the Bible? Example: "ekklesia". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "those called out". However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "assembly". Sometimes the construction of the word doesn't give you what it means. Example: "katabole". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "casting down." However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "foundation" (a foundation is cast down so it can support the building that is constructed next.) To take 2 phrases that are used interchangeably and insist they mean 2 things that are NOT interchangeable is irresponsible, and imposing your opinion on the text. That's not an honest way to do research, or to find answers. To imagine there MIGHT be another meaning- when the Bible does not offer one- is a fun exercise, but devoid of authority. An active imagination is a nice thing, but not when doing textual study.

Boy, I'll sure be glad when we make it off this page. This posting by multiple steps is tedious, especially if I want to reply with a quote. "BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape." Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas. Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.) However, if you want a side-discussion about people who talk about the different words for "love" and their corresponding Greek words, there's been lots of discussion about that by experts. We discussed that in Communications class when I was in college, and other people discussed it in Psychology. If you're actually interested, here's a pair of links to start with: https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relationship-issues/love-styles.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel_theory_of_love

Correct! CMS is the Riddler in "Gotham." John Astin was the 2nd of 2 Riddlers in the old Batman TV show. (We all remember Frank Gorshin, who actually looked like him. Even as a kid, it bothered me when they made another actor-who did not resemble the first- take a role of a villain with no explanation whatsoever. 3 Mr Freezes, 3 Catwomen, 2 Riddlers. All annoying. Robert Englund is an odd choice for voice actor- apt for the cartoon "the Batman", where the Riddler was odd, along with everyone else.

Next song. "Just put me in a wheelchair get me to the show. Hurry hurry hurry before I go loco. I can't control my fingers I can't control my toes. Oh no no no no no."

"Weird" Al Yancovic Conan O'Brien Cory Michael Smith Ted Knight John Astin Robert Englund

Fascinating. Now I can't hit "reply" on this thread on the last page, nor reply to a post there. So, I will improvise. I'm responding to the last post TLC made and it should be 2 posts before this one. Among other things, I said: "..The only justification is "if God meant one thing he would have used one word, not two", but this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or phrases that mean the same thing... " TLC replied: "There remains the distinct possibility that there is a difference, regardless of who can or can't see or recognize it! And this isn't the only example where there's 2 words or [similar] phrases that could (or might) mean the same thing.. but don't. Think agape and phileo are different? Or the same? " So, I reply here.... The thing is, if 2 words appear in Scripture, we compare the words. If they're demonstrated to be used differently (agape and phileo), then we say they mean 2 different things, and determine what each means and how, exactly, they differ. If they're demonstrated to be used interchangeably (krima and krisis), then we say they mean the same thing (and freak out the people who insist, despite the evidence, that 2 words in Koine Greek can't possibly mean the same thing despite there being synonyms in modern languages like, say, English and Spanish.) Unless, of course, our doctrine's more inviolate than our search for the truth, and we're not allowed to change our answers as we learn more. BTW, if the answer is "Bullinger said it, that settles, it, I believe it", then remember he was a Trinitarian all his life as well. This brings us back to the original point. 2 phrases are used interchangeably, and neither phrase is ever used in a context where the other was not used to say exactly the same thing. Any reasonable person would say they mean the same thing- given the evidence at hand. But that's not enough, because it MIGHT be possible that we missed something and all the evidence so far is actually wrong? Funny how we're all allowed to draw conclusions UNTIL THEY DISAGREE WITH SOME AUTHORITY (Bullinger or wierwille or some other liked authority), and then suddenly the rules change and we can't say anything for sure. Seriously, that's blatant, illogical, and sad. What any sensible person would say is- this is the sensible conclusion based on all we know, which is rather obvious and makes plenty of sense. And if, later, we find that somehow new evidence arrives and overrides everything we know now and makes more sense, THEN we CHANGE OUR MINDS in light of new information. Seriously, we don't ignore what's logical based on the idea that something MIGHT come along later and correct us.

*thinks* Did ELO do "Mr Blue Sky"????

"Weird" Al Yancovic Conan O'Brien Cory Michael Smith

Role Models Sean William Scott Dukes of Hazzard

Now I'm thinking it was a James Bond movie. Maybe something with Blofeld. Or maybe "GOLDFINGER."