WordWolf

Billy Jack first appeared in "the Born Losers." The movie title I was looking for was "Billy Jack." Its song was "One TIn Soldier (the Legend of Billy Jack"), "The Born Losers" basically was made to fund "Billy Jack." And when I was taking TKD lessons, the instructor ALWAYS called that kick "the Billy Jack." (It looks cool but I'm not a fan of throwing it because I never felt it was an EFFICIENT kick except in surprising the receiver.)

Judges? (Oh, right, no judges.) That's close enough. It WAS Led Zeppelin, and it was "the Immigrant Song." http://www.public.asu.edu/~mharp/viking_kittens/VikingKitten.htm

If modern SIT produces actual languages because it's produced by a supernatural entity, you're wrong about SIT. If that's the case but some OTHER supernatural entity provides the utterance and not YHWH, then you're not disproven about God, as such. (Maybe the related answers would disprove you, but those would be other issues and technically not this one.

Pending some double-blind studies, I've noticed that twi survivors who leave Christianity later often (but not always) have a certain...vehemence...about Christianity- and I think they have a legitimate point. It could be observer bias, but I expect it's more the combination of the TYPE of emotions allowed in twi and the type of emotions felt once leaving. twi allowed people-only higher-ups but it was allowed- to express anger and outrage. Other emotions seemed forbidden. When someone leaves twi, often there's anger and other emotions that have to be dealt with, preferably soonest- although that depends on the specifics of the exit since not everybody left with anger-Raf and I did not seem to. Then when going further, there's lots of experience with anger and outrage, more than other emotions, to fall back on. So, things might come out that way for a number of reasons. I mean, look at ex-twi'ers (and alleged never-twi'ers) who show up here, find calm posts and calm posters- and immediately pronounce everyone as full of anger. They're used to people bottling up anger and expressing it passive-aggressively because they're not high enough to be allowed to rant and rave. As long as they don't deal with their own issues, they'll look around like that the rest of their lives. (We've seen posters here do that for decades and who are likely to carry that to the grave.) Then again, that's just my thinking. I haven't even done INformal studies on this.

*wild swing* Was this "Amazing Stories" ?

I'm unclear what you're trying to say here. Please rephrase yourself so I can reply accurately. (I was getting ready to reply when I realized what you posted could mean a few different things.)

You were going to say it, or you're saying it? (What are you, new in this country?) :)

Are you at least fans of the viking kittens?

Now, now, Penworks, don't give them any mind..... The screeds with blanket accusations about how the GSC is full of anger are always posted by people posting with lots of emotion, and serve to salve their feelings about why so many people disagree with them. "Oh, you can't take their opinions seriously-they're full of anger!" Then they go off, smug that their worldview is still unchallenged. http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?sel&TheFoxandtheGrapes2

No. Right era, had sequels, but otherwise no, and there is no titular character-nobody's named "Walking Tall" that I can find. (Although it SHOULD be in the category "Vigilante Film", nobody's put it there.)

It's probably down to irrelevance. We're not even having the same discussion. One discussion is "ARE they the same thing? Let's look at the evidence..." and the other discussion is "SINCE they're the same thing, the evidence doesn't matter..."

"This was a strange movie. It was neither the first, nor the last, appearance of the title character. (To date, would you believe he's appeared in 4 movies?) This movie managed to put together hippies, a reservation, and a martial artist. The title character used a signature kick-the Outside Crescent Kick- that was often nicknamed after the character among martial artists once this movie got around. Studios kept disassociating themselves from this movie. American International Pictures started with it, then pulled out. Fox finished the film but refused to distribute it. Warner Brothers distributed it, but refused to promote it and book it into theaters. The principal actor had to do that-after which, the film was actually a success if not a smash. "So he ASKED you to drive your car into the lake. And you OBEYED him?" When watching this movie, viewers often saw the title character's removal of his boots as a sign that a fight scene was about to happen. Depending on who you ask, this is a martial arts movie, or an anti-authority movie. Wikipedia's categories include "Hippie films", "Hapkido films", "Vigilante films," "Films about Native Americans." And with all that, all you MIGHT remember is the theme song-which describes the title character but does not name him (except in the sub-title.)

We're up on "Powerless", almost up on "Flash", and behind on "Legends" and "Arrow." I'm behind on "Supergirl". "SHIELD" will have to wait for some other season for us to catch up. Probably when I see "Iron Fist."

"So now you'd better stop, and rebuild all your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, in spite of all your losing." "How soft your fields so green. Can whisper tales of gore. Of how we calmed the tides of war. We are your overlords." "Hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new land. To fight the hordes and sing, and cry. 'Valhalla, I am coming!'" "We come from the land of the ice and snow, From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow." I see we have no fans of viking kittens around here.....

Did the "Guardians of the Galaxy" sequel hit the theaters, and is this it?

I've seen some excellent offers online for Staples and Best Buy. I've also bought in Best Buy and been happy with the results. My most important piece of advice is to figure out what you want/ need and don't want/need and work from there. (No point in paying for features you won't use. no point buying a computer that doesn't have what you plan to use. Since software's easy to get, that means making sure the hardware is up to your standards. I prefer a desktop to anything else, but there's a few options. Some people want a laptop they can carry around and use it for light computing. (For those who need REALLY light computing, there's netbooks, mini-netbooks and tablets, but those are all too light for you.) You can also consider a choice between laptop and desktop, the All-In-One. That's a PC that's all set up behind the monitor, so you have the monitor/tower and the keyboard and mouse and peripherals. For people who want light computing but don't actually need the thing to be laptop portable, I recommend those. I don't know if it will suit your purposes, but I've seen them in use, and for those who aren't planning on heavy use, they're an excellent choice. I suspect you want more muscle, however. For that, a desktop is better. I'm not that wedded to brand name, but I prefer a name that is unknown (I've heard they make computers) and then I look at the stats. The things I want to know, after Operating System, are the processor speed and the size of the memory. I'm more concerned about processor speed than anything else,because that affects the speed of operations and how many I can do at the same time. (Although dual-core is faster than single-core for the same speed.) If it's below, say, 2.4 GHz on the microprocessor, it won't have the "muscle" you're looking for, it will run slower. Also of consideration is how big the memory is. If it's less than 500 GB, they're trying to unload something on you. Modern PCs have that or up to 1 TB (or more, but you will NOT need more.) Personally, I'd prefer Windows 7 or 8 to 10, but that's up to personal preference. Some people prefer other operating systems entirely. It depends on what you'll do with the thing. I'm sure others will chime in with their suggestions.

From time to time, some of us discuss things. Some of those times, someone correctly invokes points of logic. Other times, someone INcorrectly invokes points of logic. One of the worst examples of a repeated error involves "Burden of Proof" and "Shifting the Burden of Proof." So, some basics. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof "Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true. " "If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it. The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis." "Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof "One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence " "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. However, Laplace writes: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[1] Also, David Hume wrote in 1748: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence", and "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."[2] and Marcello Truzzi says: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."[3] Either way, the phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere. The evidence put forth by proponents of such things as gods, ghosts, the paranormal, and UFOs is highly questionable at best and offers little in the way of proof. Even if we accepted what evidence there is as valid (and it is highly debatable if we should), limited and weak evidence is not enough to overcome the extraordinary nature of these claims." "Alice and Bob are two friends talking after school. Alice tells Bob that she watched a movie the previous evening. Bob believes her easily, because he knows that movies exist, that Alice exists, and that Alice is capable and fond of watching movies. If he doubts her, he might ask for a ticket stub or a confirmation from one of her friends. If, however, Alice tells Bob that she flew on a unicorn to a fairy kingdom where she participated in an ambrosia-eating contest, and she produces a professionally-printed contest certificate and a friend who would testify to the events described, Bob would still not be inclined to believe her without strong evidence for the existence of flying unicorns, fairies and ambrosia-eating contests. " =============================================================== So, where does the burden of proof lie? With a little practice, this is easy to determine. Find the original assertive claim. THAT is the statement that must be proven. If the supposed "original" claim is SKEPTICAL (it says something DIDN'T happen or is IMPOSSIBLE, for example), then look further back. THAT statement is challenging a preceding statement that something DID happen or CAN happen. THAT's the claim that needs to be proven. One does not definitively prove the NON-existence of something-one proves the existence of it. Example: A standing claim exists for a town that it was founded in 1491 by Don Rodrigo Diaz de Carreras. The entire town accepts this as fact. One day, someone comes along and loudly insists that this can't possibly be true-he was never anywhere NEAR that town! Who has the Burden of Proof? Someone claimed once that the person speaking up "first" or "LOUDEST" has the burden of proof. That's never been so. In this case, the Burden of Proof is on the townsfolk to provide SOME evidence for their claim. Do they have evidence Don Rodrigo was in the area, or documentation of their founding, or some other reason to believe their account other than "we're sure this is right"? If not, then they failed to meet the burden of proof. It's obvious the town exists, but they can't prove Don Rodrigo founded it. It's a separate issue of the new arrival can also provide evidence that the town was founded after Don Rodrigo's death and he was never on that continent, but that's not necessary under the burden of proof. If they want to consider that SEPERATELY ("The town was founded by COLUMBUS in 1942"), then that's a different question and now a different burden of proof must be met. Really, this isn't hard.

Oh, and if anyone out there can actually articulate to chockfull what I said, please do so. It's obvious chockfull's going to pretend I never took credit for my position change AND PUT ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY ON HIM- rather than claim I made up my mind approximately and he helped me feel more secure about my decision, to seal the deal. I'm getting tired of explaining it to him, and getting back that either I'm blaming him entirely or being inconsistent. I'm done with this point because it's useless and we're just circling.

I made exactly ONE TYPO. I owned up to it, and pointed out it was lack of sleep that led me to make that MISTAKE. The MISTAKE was that I said they didn't produce a language (and gave an example of an identified language.) What I MEANT TO SAY (AND CORRECTED MYSELF AS RIGHT AFTER THAT) was that they failed to produce an IDENTIFIED LANGUAGE. Everything else I said before and after that was consistent with that, and I made no attempt to defend the ONE ERROR I made. It's either SLOPPY (you didn't notice) or DISHONEST (you noticed but you pretended you didn't because it was to your benefit to pretend I was being inconsistent) to claim otherwise. For anyone else, there really shouldn't be any confusion or inconsistency.

"So now you'd better stop, and rebuild all your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, in spite of all your losing." "How soft your fields so green. Can whisper tales of gore. Of how we calmed the tides of war. We are your overlords." "Hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new land. To fight the hordes and sing, and cry. 'Valhalla, I am coming!'"

Was this the "Deadpool" movie? It sounds like a movie that acknowledges the 4th wall.

Obviously, there's a difference between what an anecdote is supposed to illustrate. If it's an eyewitness account ("then I saw him rip her shirt off") that can make a huge difference, but if it's a second-hand account, it might not be ("He said he saw the other guy rip her shirt off.") That's why courts of law have "cross-examination", which has been referred to as one of the most vital tools the court has to try to determine what the truth is in a case presented before it. There's also a significant difference in what we'd accept off a single eyewitness account, even if the person saw something himself. A person claiming to see someone approach a building and throw a burning molotov cocktail at a building an instant before a fire began is one thing. A person claiming to see another walk on water is something else entirely. There's few ways (or reasons) to fake the former, there's lots of ways to fake the latter. Then again, it's good to examine all accounts. I once stood with a bunch of smokers, and was seen to take out a lighter and a cigarette, light the cigarette, and take a puff out of it. (Close friends would have been VERY suspicious, since I avoid cigarette smoke.) I then held up the "lighter" and "cigarette", showing they were neither, and I had lit a Binaca spray with a flashlight and pretended to smoke it. I did it for amusement and because I actually had the right items at the right time to fake it. However, everyone around saw what they expected to see-despite seeing me light an unusually fat cigarette and blow invisible smoke in the air.

I probably am, but I thought this was a point that should at least be raised. It's come up on more than one thread. Someone considered "a friend-of-a-friend told me about this time" as "evidence" and was shocked that they're the only one who thought that. In case lots of people are having that problem (or even 1 lurker), I thought it was important to at least make an effort to set the record straight. Then again, there's an on-off discussion somewhere completely unrelated to the GSC about whether actual logic or evidence ever convinces people of anything, or if we should focus on style rather than substance. (It's partly political so it's off-topic here completely.)

When it comes to discussions of events-what CAN happen, what DID happen, and so on- it is common to hear ANECDOTES. Those are stories that people claim occurred a certain way. Often, someone will act as if a claim of an event, an anecdote is, in and of itself, proof of something. It is not. Why not? Others have explained it, some in layman's terms. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence "Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is usually used in contrast to scientific evidence, especially evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method." "In all forms of anecdotal evidence, testing its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence." "In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: "information that is not based on facts or careful study" [1] "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts" [2] "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers" [3] "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" [4] "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"" "Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation. " http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html " Testimonials and vivid anecdotes are one of the most popular and convincing forms of evidence presented for beliefs in the supernatural, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, testimonials and anecdotes in such matters are of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. Sincere and vivid accounts of one’s encounter with an angel or the Virgin Mary, an alien, a ghost, a Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, or a psychic surgeon are of little value in establishing the reasonableness of believing in such matters. Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy. Thus, stories of personal experience with paranormal or supernatural events have little scientific value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claim made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was interpreted correctly. If others can experience the same thing, then it is possible to make a test of the testimonial and determine whether the claim based on it is worthy of belief. As parapsychologist Charles Tart once said after reporting an anecdote of a possibly paranormal event: “Let’s take this into the laboratory, where we can know exactly what conditions were. We don’t have to hear a story told years later and hope that it was accurate.” Dean Radin also noted that anecdotes aren't good proof of the paranormal because memory “is much more fallible than most people think” and eyewitness testimony “is easily distorted”(Radin 1997: 32). Testimonials regarding paranormal experiences are of little use to science because selective thinking and self-deception must be controlled for in scientific observations. Most psychics and dowsers, for example, do not even realize that they need to do controlled tests of their powers to rule out the possibility that they are deceiving themselves. They are satisfied that their experiences provide them with enough positive feedback to justify the belief in their paranormal abilities. Controlled tests of psychics and dowsers would prove once and for all that they are not being selective in their evidence gathering. It is common for such people to remember their apparent successes and ignore or underplay their failures. Controlled tests can also determine whether other factors such as cheating might be involved. If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve." =============================== In short, accounts of what some friend-of-a-friend saw or experienced are unreliable and untestable. They are generally how claims of Bigfoot and other mythical monsters still perpetuate. However, with no ability to follow up with the original person and scrutinize the specifics, there is no evidence and so no conclusion can be drawn from them. If one wants to make a claim of something fantastical, the standard of proving it is not "because I say so" or "because I believe it", but is a LOT more stringent. If one happens where skeptics observe, if it is repeated in a lab and it is proven not to be some hoax, if a variety of people with a variety of opinions are party to the same event and all immediately agree on exactly what happened (which is rare no matter what event) and they agree with what the videocamera showed when it was rolling at the time- those are something else entirely. Even the skeptic has to sit up and take notice when stringent requirements are met. When none are met, it's no surprise if nobody believes someone just because they say something happened. They may be lying, or simply honestly mistaken. They may have wanted to see something-which affected how they interpreted what they saw. And so on.

I drew logical conclusions before addressing your posts on that thread. Cease guilt-tripping yourself. I felt a lot more secure about my conclusions after reading them, but I'd already drawn them. As I've said. If you read my posts the same way you read the studies, then I know why we disagree on the results. Oh, and "defending the truth" isn't how devout Christian cessationists would view it. Wait-you didn't read their work, which included their criteria, their "checklists"? That explains a lot.