WordWolf

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" "You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!" "I'm Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon. And assorted night classes at the Knoxville Tennessee school of faith healing." "You may be a little over-qualified for this job." "I'm sure that doctor's a very sweet man, basically." "Oh, thank you." "But don't you EVER tell me where you found him. EVER." " I'd like to welcome you all to an event that's sometimes been called the Automotive counterpart to the Bay of Pigs." "I just want to thank you for informin' them about us back in Missouri. You know, how we're flashers and sex maniacs." "Well, I was just repayin' you for what you and the chocolate monk did back in Ohio." "Oh, what is there to understand? I'm looking at my son, Seymour Goldfarb, Jr., son of Seymour Goldfarb, God rest his soul, and heir to the Goldfarb Girdles fortune. And what is he doing? Walking around, acting like he was some goy movie star named Roger Moore. And for this I sent you to the best schools? For this I'm spending eight thousand on orthodonture work? For this I'm going broke paying that Beverly Hills analyst?"

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 now you'd better stop, and rebuild all your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, despite of all your losing."

"To be accused multiple times on here of being a troll or making 2 accounts to troll is very ridiculous and unwelcoming for new members. Why do former the way members feel so special that I would personally waste my time to troll." Nobody mentioned trolling outside of the context of this Tim, which is why we mentioned him by name. Nobody accused you of trolling in any capacity. There's a marked difference between disagreeing or being honestly mistaken (at worst, how we think of you so far) and trolling (the Tim guy.) "Seems like everyone on here is paranoid from their experience with the way and take it out on new members. No I am not a troll and no I don't have multiple accounts on here to troll former damaged the way members. So drop the paranoia." Dropping the paranoia is good. You go first. :) After all, we talked about someone else (by name) and you got offended about how we referred to you when we did... " Instead some here hold hate in their heart for vp wierwille and for others from the way like john schoenheit who btw as rocky state has a good heart and good intentions. What more could one ask from someone than to have a good heart with good intentions unlike wierwille." I think we all agree that js MEANS WELL. What more can I ask for than good intentions? How about good conduct? If one means well and ends up hurting others, that's not good enough for me. If a man claims to teach about God and spreads content with easy-to-correct mistakes, I expect him to stop and improve. Just because he's not a sexual predator like vpw doesn't mean he's admirable. BTW, I think T-Bone did a good job of answering, so I'm going to quote him also. ======================================================== ILSC: Whether you agree or disagree with schoenheits work the fact is unless you can prove he is wrong then its no different than any other teacher out there, T-Bone: Some of Schoenheit’s work does have issues (stuff that is wrong) – you can read about it in the doctrinal forum; on that thread I pointed out how they deliberately deviated from the Greek text of John 1 STF's REV in doctrinal forum T-Bone: apparently Schoenheit and company think they are free to ignore the rules of grammar, syntax, etc. of biblical Greek so that they can craft a translation that supports their theology. wierwille did that too in his work – you can read about that in Undertow, the author who goes by Penworks when she posts here on Grease Spot was in TWI’s research department and had witnessed first hand the pressure wierwille put on them to twist and re-define words of the biblical Greek to agree with what he taught. Undertow ILSC: who we all have to make a decision to listen to or just follow no one and become an atheist which it seems a lot of ex-way members have become because of one evil person wierwille? T-Bone: You seem to be stuck in an all-or-nothing frame of mind. Where in the Bible does it say a Christian has to listen to or follow someone or else they become an atheist? Seriously, other than Jesus Christ, of course – can you suggest there’s someone else I should listen to and follow? ILSC: makes no sense to lose your faith because of one bad apple. T-Bone: again that's all-or-nothing thinking; I have not lost my faith; is wasn't until after I left TWI that I started to read and understand the simple message of the Bible without looking through wierwille's twisted doctrinal "reading glasses". It's a dangerous thing when a supposedly "christian" organization / followers become so enamored with their leader they put everything he says on par with the Holy Bible, or that the leader becomes the star of the show...that the leader becomes the gateway to a "deeper" understanding of the Scriptures....the leader becomes the head of the church - yikes! ILSC: Lets not forget wierwille was human and some of you here seem to have thought he was more than human perhaps because of his stories of it snowing in a hot month and state or because he healed an indian mans lame arm or because of his charisma. One fraud does not make what hes representing(the bible) a fraud at all. T-Bone: I doubt if you can find any indication that folks on Grease Spot thought wierwille was more than human; however, you will find stories by lots of folks (myself included) who thought he was an honest human being. BUT not only was he a fraud (plagiarizing the works of others, fabricating stories of miraculous feats, as well as being misleading in his credentials) but among other great acts of pretense - he deliberately deceived followers into thinking that his twisted doctrine – the things that he taught – and the Bible – were one and the same! wierwille was really into fraudulent misrepresentation – read all about it in Matthew 7. wierwille was a fraud and his work is fraudulent ! nothing worth holding onto. If you're a Christian and want something to hold onto - something you can put your faith in...try Jesus Christ. love and peace T-Bone

I said *I* wouldn't mind, I said nothing about anyone else minding....

AFAIK, this actor did not appear on either show.

No.

He sounds a great deal like the last child of one that passed through here, the one that later claimed to be his own Dad posting here to support his own posts, sockpuppet style. The "making up stuff" part's pretty obvious in spots. Remember how vpw claimed he "confronted" the church elders about money after they gave the newly-minted preacher ONE RULE and he made a policy of doing the exact opposite of what it was? Then he claimed they just went away after he spoke and he never had any consequences? Remember that pile of horse manure vpw peddled in "TW:LiL"? It's almost the same as the new claim of confronting people who just rolled over and took it with no consequences. Anyone who'd buy that one has never MET the people he's ALLEGEDLY confronted on MANY OCCASIONS.

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" "You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!" "I'm Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon. And assorted night classes at the Knoxville Tennessee school of faith healing." "You may be a little over-qualified for this job." "I'm sure that doctor's a very sweet man, basically." "Oh, thank you." "But don't you EVER tell me where you found him. EVER." " I'd like to welcome you all to an event that's sometimes been called the Automotive counterpart to the Bay of Pigs." "I just want to thank you for informin' them about us back in Missouri. You know, how we're flashers and sex maniacs." "Well, I was just repayin' you for what you and the chocolate monk did back in Ohio."

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes

A little accidental humor, but I wouldn't mind wrestling Marisa Tomei in the bedroom. I'd never heard there was a movie with that last name, however. (Reminds me of the Monty Python scene about what to tax to raise revenue for Great Britain. "I would tax the nude woman in my bed. No, not 'tax', what is the word? Oh, yes- 'welcome.' " )

The Muppets Jack Black Shallow Hal

I think we might have had it at Linus Larabee. It certainly rang a bell. Now it's obvious this is Harrison Ford.

Exactly. He faked that "sincerity" could mean that you were faking-that is, that a "sincere" person could be FEIGNING sincerity and it counts as "sincere." He taught that all around. In real life, sincerity IS no guarantee of truth, but the sincere person at least THINKS what they hold forth is true. They may be honestly MISTAKEN, but there is no attempt to con, to fool, to defraud. vpw held to the opposite, that one attempting to defraud MUST be "sincere." Benny Hill has made jokes on this subject, but vpw was serious. "The most important thing is sincerity. After you can fake that, you've got it made." -Benny Hill. "Always be sincere-even if you don't mean it. I would never knowingly tell a lie-unless it was absolutely convenient."- Benny Hill.

By his own standards, vpw was certainly SINCERE. Then again, he was quite negative about sincerity. "After all, the guy who tries to sell you the toothbrush with one bristle on it, he's got to be sincere!" "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth!" According to vpw, sincerity has neither a relation to truth, nor to reality. Naturally, vpw was WRONG about that. The 2 big collegiate dictionaries in English in the US are the Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage. Their online versions have definitions of "sincere", and they're very different from what vpw said it meant. ======================================= https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sincere a : free of dissimulation : honest a sincere interestb : free from adulteration : pure a sincere doctrine sincere wine 2 : marked by genuineness : true https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sincere 1. Not feigned or affected; genuine: sincere indignation. 2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true: a sincere friend. 3. Archaic Pure; unadulterated. ================================ If one takes the homiletician as some sort of English expert (Why? His degree was in homiletics), then there's a contradiction. The experts say one thing, he says another. The obvious conclusion is that he was wrong-but his definition was definitely self-serving. It made it sound as if one could be "sincere" during dissimulation, while feigning it, while in pretense, with hypocrisy. That's the opposite of what it actually means. Then again, does this surprise anyone at this point?

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!" "I'm Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon. And assorted night classes at the Knoxville Tennessee school of faith healing." "You may be a little over-qualified for this job." "I'm sure that doctor's a very sweet man, basically." "Oh, thank you." "But don't you EVER tell me where you found him. EVER."

You make me sad. Very well... MP&tHG. Oh, who said it? The Black Knight.

Anchorman-the Story of Ron Burgundy Christina Applegate the Sweetest Thing

That's Tilda Swinton, isn't it? I'm reasonably sure that was her in Dr Strange, at least.

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!"

"Evenings in Ecru Corduroy."

Semi-digression: Sometimes, I think about "language barriers." Those are where people don't share a language in common. In some cases, the confusion is in the lack of a corresponding word, a word that conveys the EXACT same thing. So, it's really an IDEA barrier. When it comes to idea barriers, I often think that when people "get" each other, very few words of an explanation need be given-if any explanation need be given at all. (Consider the married couple who automatically act to work on the same thing before one asks the other to do so...) When trying to explain how people seem UNABLE to understand each other, I sometimes rely on the AD&D Alignment Graph. This works for me, sometimes, when simply referring to 2 people's possible "alignments"-with that left as the end of the sentence and explaining why they don't understand each other. You can draw the graphic yourself, with a box of 9 squares, with space to write in each square, as well as above and below the set of 9 boxes. Ok, once you draw the 9 equal boxes, write "GOOD" above the top, "EVIL" below the bottom, "LAWFUL" along the left, and "CHAOTIC" along the right. Next, to the 9 boxes. The upper left box is LAWFUL GOOD, the upper right box is "CHAOTIC GOOD." The lower left box is "LAWFUL EVIL," and the lower right box is "CHAOTIC EVIL." The upper middle box is "NEUTRAL GOOD." The lower middle box is "NEUTRAL EVIL." The leftmost middle box is "LAWFUL NEUTRAL." The rightmost middle box is "CHAOTIC NEUTRAL." (The center square is "True Neutral", which I think works in fiction but not so much in reality.) Lawful Goods think that the greatest benefit to the greatest number lies in following the rules and laws, which are made for their benefit and should be amended if that is not the case. Think Superman and Captain America. Neutral Goods think that the greatest benefit to the greatest number can sometimes lie with the rules-but if not, look the other way and get the job done outside the rules. Think classic Star Trek's James T Kirk (not the Abrams version.) Chaotic Goods think freedom means someone is freer to do good, and laws only shackle the ability to help. Think Robin Hood. Lawful Neutrals live according to an order and organization, and think that's more important than anything else in conduct. Think Jean-Luc Picard or Frank Martin the Transporter. Chaotic Neutrals think only about themselves and their personal freedom, and avoid all rules if they can. Think Jack Sparrow. Lawful Evils think of power, and rely on "the system" to work to their benefit. Think Saruman of Lord of the Rings, or Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine (once he was Emperor.) Neutral Evils don't care about rules or ignoring them-so long as they benefit. Think Jafar from Disney's Aladdin. Chaotic Evils think of nothing but their personal freedom and using that to seize advantages over others, or doing them harm. Think Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Gollum. In those cases, ideas can be opaque when viewed from other parts of the graph. A Lawful Evil and a Neutral Good, for example, may not even be able to PICTURE how each other think, let alone empathize or agree. I tend to use that when explaining fiction-but people often think so differently that the same can be said of them. I've seen posters here (no current ones come to mind) that posted in discussions only to try to "trap"(their term) others in trick questions and score points in discussion- not to exchange ideas or put forth the most convincing position. I totally don't get that- and they obviously posted from a perspective elsewhere on the graph from me. Other people, I can understand even when I disagree-and that's possibly because I can understand their positions better-are we less far away on the graph? (Depends.) '' I got to thinking about it because I had an "obvious" (it was obvious to my thinking, which meant it was almost automatic) that there's an "obvious" answer to "why bother if there's no afterlife and there's only this life." Any "Lawful" might see a benefit to all from helping to keep society as a whole, and any "Good" might say that doing good for others and making their lives better is a goal in itself and a worthy accomplishment whether or not there's treasures in Heaven for it. It's just as "obvious" to some other people, I'd expect, that my points were useless nonsense. Well, it all depends on your place in the "idea spectrum."

As someone who's still a Christian, I found nothing in your posts to draw my interest-which is why I found nothing worth commenting on. What I found was some link-dumping (just a link with no real commentary), and some cheerful blurbing (boy howdy, this is some great stuff!) Since this is a DISCUSSION forum, I expect to actually DISCUSS things. People who show up with just links usually are members of an ex-twi group who are posting links to their ex-twi group....and sometimes they pretend they're not a member of the group. (On an unrelated Christian board, I once ran into a drive-by post by Jeff of CES who said, in effect, "Gee, I found this website with some unusual stuff on it. What do you guys think?" with a link to his own content from the CES website. I responded immediately and called him on it. He never replied. Either it was a true drive-by and he never visited again, or he cut his losses when he realized he was caught. So, your posts. They were vague comments about someone's content on YouTube. They didn't even have the direct links to the content. So, I would have had to look them up to find out about what you WEREN'T saying about it. On message-boards, playing coy (being vague and indirect) usually backfires in either the short or long-term. I don't know WHY you posted that way. I just know that it's a formula for keeping me DISinterested.

Reminds me of one often-repeated phrase that kept going around LEADERSHIP when "a Pivot Point in History" was disseminated, but before it was abandoned by that selfsame leadership. "What God knows, He knows. What God doesn't know, He doesn't know." In case you don't recognize it, that's an EVASION, and different people said it to me like it actually provided information. So, as you see it, that's what it means. What does THAT mean, and why is God Almighty limited to your definition?

We're looking at this from an entirely different question-which means, to me, your question phrases like a trick question. Isaiah 57:15a For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity Isaiah 46:9-11 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. So, we start from there. God "inhabits eternity" and "declares the end from the beginning." What does that mean, and what implications does that have on our concepts of God Almighty? Is God even Almighty? Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. I John 3:20b God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. We have some parameters here concerning God's knowledge. He knows all things, and understands all things. He knows the end from the beginning and inhabits eternity. What does all of that mean together? The conclusion we've been drawing is that God Almighty is more than 3-dimensional. Rather than existing moment-to-moment as we do, He "inhabits eternity" by existing in each moment simultaneously, so to Him, there's a perpetual present (or past or future.) Events that are in the future to us are ancient history to Him. That is consistent with Him "inhabiting eternity", "knowing all things", having an "infinite understanding", and "declaring the end from the beginning." Other models with a lesser god lack an explanation that covers the verses.