WordWolf

Twinky's a waybrained pontificator now? Wow-that was a leap. I'm sure that's news to Twinky, for sure. I've had posters, at times, claim I was going after them angrily, posting with hate or anger in post after post. In each case, I was cool and dispassionate when I posted- or I logged off and returned when I COULD post cool and dispassionately. In at least 1 case, I think the person was looking for an excuse to disagree with me. In at least 1 case, however, I think the poster legitimately thought my posts were emotional and hot-tempered and all sorts of things- whether or not that reflected the content. (Other posters even replied how they saw the posts as calm and not heated.) However, to that person, it APPEARED as though I was antagonistic to them, and emotional in opposing them (as opposed to disagreeing and disputing their posts.) I bring this up because ANY poster can do this, and I've been suspecting the recent firestorm was accidentally manufactured- you mistook what someone said, posted hostilely to them, then they responded in kind, then after that it was all Hatfields and McCoys. But whether that's true or whether that's simply my own impression and I'm actually incorrect, I don't see any reason to go after Twinky.

Thank you you for the "kind" words. Thanks for noticing. I thought I made that clear in the second sentence when I said exactly that. My opinion is my own, and I am entitled to it. I opened this discussion to open a dialogue with the other posters about their opinions and my own. I mentioned that in the first 2 sentences. As for the mission of the GSC, by all means, let's discuss it. Was I incorrect? Where did I err? Do you plain disagree? Exactly what is the point of divergence where we disagree? You yourself posted recently that the GSC has always existed "to tell the other side of the story." I thought that was common knowledge, and not open to dispute. For that matter, that there IS to be SOME degree of decorum, at some level, is stated outright, and not by me. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum." Now then, if you disagree as to WHY we tell the other side of the story, by all means, let's discuss that. I posted why I think we tell the other side of the story. Why do YOU say we tell the other side of the story? I know better, which is why I never said that. (Some might characterize that misrepresentation of what I said as an "ad hominem attack", but I'll start from the position that it's a misunderstanding. I hold every single poster responsible for what they post and for how they post. In general, when posters disagree, I ask for BOTH SIDES to post with kindness rather than saying "You who started it first-cut it out first." We're all adults here. Just as peace and accords can begin with one person, decorum can also. You left out the poor, little LURKERS also. They CAN speak on their own behalf. However, if they're under the impression that this place is hostile and unwelcoming, how many of them will post to try to set us straight? Very few have-and those usually have been the ones who were even MORE hostile than the ones they objected to. Those threads were moved to the Soap Opera forum. I think their "inability" (their UNWILLINGNESS, as I see it) to address us IS the fault of the posters here. Those who post in a hostile manner scare them off-and if we say nothing against it, we suggest we support that as the status quo, since "silence implies consent" is a well-known maxim. I was thinking of specific posters in the past-the "hypothetical" is that present and future lurkers and posters would appear in the manner that others appeared. For that matter, when I arrived, a hostile environment would have encouraged ME to leave promptly. I never said that referred to "all new or long-time members here." As for my opinions actually being opinions, yes, I believe I was the first one who pointed that out. I also asked for the opinions of others-which are also opinions and not fact- if we need to keep mentioning that. That they are not the governing rules of this site is rather clear from their being my opinions. (We're rephrasing that a lot.) I might argue that everyone's opinion is not LITERALLY valued here equally, but that's a different discussion, and I'd rather continue this one than get side-tracked to that one, at least for now. I'll keep that in mind if I ever HOLD those opinions. I'll take it as axiomatic, then, that you'd say that my actual opinions are equally welcome (or equally unwelcome, as the case may be.) I never argued that "style" or "decorum" was MORE IMPORTANT than "delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic" nor MORE IMPORTANT THAN "the other side of the story." I have always maintained (for almost my entire posting history back thru the ezboard days) that "the other side of the story" is the reason we are here- and I said so to begin with. I consider this ANOTHER False Dilemma- Choice 1- Tell The Truth and Facts about twi, vpw and so on in any manner whatsoever, even if it drives off posters and lurkers Choice 2- Remain silent about the Truths and Facts about twi, vpw and so on-but be courteous to posters. If the goal is "telling the other side of the story to people", then I reject BOTH positions as inferior. To drive off posters and lurkers means they're not present to HEAR the other side of the story. To remain silent but welcoming denies the lurkers and posters the information they need. So, I would say: Tell the other side of the story. Deliver the truths and facts on vpw, twi and all things related- but remember that the people we're telling ARE PEOPLE, and getting personal with them, or just plain being rude to posters, sends a message to them just as clearly as the INTENDED content, if not clearer. Actually, that's what I want to discuss. ARE we duty-bound to post with kindness? The rules DO clearly say "please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal." BTW, who said that courtesy and politeness were my personal preferences? I can appreciate making it personal and letting someone have it as much as the next person. More-if they were never a New Yorker, probably. I've been thinking about my OWN culpability in this over the years, and the effect lots of posters- including myself and including you- have had on lurkers especially, whether or not it's affected posters. Again, this is a discussion forum. Two of us have said our peace on this subject. How about the rest of you? What do YOU think?

I'd like to discuss the general tone of discussions here at the GSC. As a participant, I'm entitled to discuss and state my opinion, and open a discussion with the other participants. I think we, as a whole, are going in the wrong direction. Does the GSC have a purpose? I believe we all agree with the statement that the GSC "exists to tell the other side of the story." But let's continue from there. WHY tell the other side of the story? To inform others so they can make informed decisions. WHAT decisions are we informing them for? The decision to leave twi if they are in, the decision to leave twi-spinoffs if they are in, the decision to leave twi-doctrine if it is in them. Those people can then either participate directly here, or lurk while they inform themselves and consider things. I believe, other than "we're also here to hang out", that covers why the GSC exists, and why we post. That's why I think we need to reconsider our tone. Granted, we have a freedom to speak our minds here, and a freedom to disagree here, that is unheard-of in twi and in twi-clone circles. However, we have a duty to use our freedom RESPONSIBLY. If the MOST important things about the GSC are to be accurate information sources so that innies and those immersed in twi doctrine can be delivered from twi structure and doctrine, then we need to consider HOW we can accomplish this- and how we can FAIL to accomplish this. We have had a LOT of people lurk at the GSC, and then post and speak their minds. We have had considerable numbers lurk, pm a few people at most, then take off. From what I'd heard, many of the people who lurked then ran were people who chose not to post because they thought the fora were not safe places to post. Should they have thought the fora were safe places to post? That really depended on who was posting and why they were posting. A number of women never posted because vpw apologists accused women who were molested or raped by vpw of being the villains of the piece. Just like some women won't go to trial by charging a rapist because they'd be depicted as a slut on the witness stand, we had non-posters who remained non-posters for similar reasons. (We have had regular poster women mention getting those pm's and being given those reasons as to why the women were refusing to participate.) Some of us thought (I still do) that this was actually an intended purpose for some people. They wanted to silence the women before they spoke by making them feel unsafe-thus preserving the image of the rapist vpw instead as a non-rapist rather than a sexual predator and felon. So, they made the environment here "TOXIC" and the women stayed away-rather sensibly, IMHO. The problem then was there was no easy answer. To simply eject those predatory posters was to open the GSC of claims of censorship and being twi-like in silencing dissent. To say nothing was to provide them an unrestricted platform to attempt to reform vpw's image back to his manufactured one and not who he was behind the scenes. To respond in kind meant the threads got heated and looked antagonistic-mainly because they were. So, in fairness, I can't say there's an undisputed manner in which they SHOULD have been handled. Most of the time now, we don't get people with their own personal soap-boxes, here to use the GSC as free advertisement. (We still get some of them some of the time.) So, I don't think that issue is a current one, but I am aware of the side-effects it had for the people we MEANT to help. So, now, we get our regulars, we get occasional new arrivals, and we get lurkers who don't post. We can choose the tones of our posts, we can choose the tones of our discussions. Which tones will best serve with each type of person? Shall we just be strident-handle everyone with the same approach as dealing with a vpw apologist? That might make the posters feel good about themselves, and it might make some other posters feel good about "letting him have it." But is that a good enough reason to swing the 2 x 4 in every post? When regulars discuss with regulars, I think it is boorish and beneath us to resort to that with all but isolated, extreme posts. Regular discussions with all parties just attacking freestyle aren't good for ANY participants- hurt feelings go all around (except, perhaps, for the poster who is the exception and is the sole spewer of bile while others post with kindness. He can feel powerful while free of others giving him "a taste of his own medicine.") The situation is a LOT worse when dealing with the other 2 scenarios. Let's say we get a new person who was raised in twi, had parents who only taught him the party line, still has family in twi, but is having a few doubts now. Like other youngsters, he goes online for information, and in this case, discovers the GSC. His initial posts are going to sound a LOT like the party line of twi. Mind you, twi has been clear in telling its people that "out here" is worse than "in there." If he comes off with posts that echo the party line, it is SO easy to just whack him hard as soon as he arrives, then make our arms sore patting ourselves on the back on teaching a lesson to another twi drone. But did that help? He WASN'T a twi drone. He needed some compassion, some information, and some discussion. He needed to see that there's life outside twi-and it's better than life in twi, which already IS mean. If we show him it's JUST as mean here- or even meaner- then we chase him away from the information he needs, and we legitimize the scare tactics of twi, where he was told we'd just attack him if he showed up here. But hey, we "told the other side of the story." We also "told him the truth." "He's responsible for what he believes and how he responds." All of that is true- and yet, it's STILL wrong because we were LAZY and COLD-HEARTED because it was a comfortable fit for us. Then we got to relax and feel superior than those drones still in twi. How much of twi dogma still runs us if this is acceptable behaviour? Is this really the legacy we want to leave for the next poster who reads our posts? Oh, and things are even WORSE for the gun-shy, sensitive lurker. They look around, see others post in a familiar way and get shouted into submission, and then they take off. They're already hurting and beaten, they know another beating when they see it, and they're not going to volunteer for it. We have a lot to offer. We have exactly the information some people desperately need-and we offer it for free. Why shouldn't we make a little effort to make them at least a tiny bit welcome, and make the GSC a place that won't send them fleeing in fear?

A) I don't know what started this pi$$ing contest between you and TLC. I do wish you 2 ADULTS would let it go. B) Whatever started between you and TLC doesn't justify going after Twinky. It looks like Twinky committed the crime of possibly disagreeing with you, and that's enough to get them included in this shooting gallery. That makes me wonder if the line hasn't been crossed from "opinionated" and "strident" to "mean" and "bullying." It also makes me wonder if the very next post will include me in the gun-sights for daring to bring this up.

Volume 1, yes. The third verse inspired the opening scene- and the song opened Volume 1. Your turn!

Some people here think exactly that. Others think the "conflict" between the two is a False Dilemma. They might say their salvation doesn't REQUIRE any good works, but they do good works out of thankfulness FOR it. YMMV.

No, but you're thinking there's a logic to it-which is a good line of thought. Here's the lyrics. ================== I was five and he was six We rode on horses made of sticks He wore black and I wore white He would always win the fight Bang bang, he shot me down Bang bang, I hit the ground Bang bang, that awful sound Bang bang, my baby shot me down. Seasons came and changed the time When I grew up, I called him mine He would always laugh and say Remember when we used to play? Bang bang, I shot you down Bang bang, you hit the ground Bang bang, that awful sound Bang bang, I used to shoot you down. Music played, and people sang Just for me, the church bells rang. Now he's gone, I don't know why And 'til this day, sometimes I cry He didn't even say goodbye He didn't take the time to lie. Bang bang, he shot me down Bang bang, I hit the ground Bang bang, that awful sound Bang bang, my baby shot me down...

"Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)"

After this many days, looking it up is allowed. If I'm going to do it, I'll make it count. So I play Eli Wallach The Magnificent Seven James Coburn

DWBH, I have to make 2 corrections. Not about vpw's money-grubbing, nor his sociopathic nor narcissistic behaviour, nor his extra-marital affairs, nor his rampant plagiarism. I'd like to mention that his own admissions said that he'd completed his education and been working for a year as a minister and preaching weekly-before believing the Bible was the Word of God (which raises the question of what he was doing all that time.) That's an addition, not a correction, however. There's a smaller and a larger correction. That's the first thing, and it's minor for this subject. The ALLEGED blizzard-because all weather reports showed MILD WEATHER that never got close to freezing for the days of the event he attended, and all accounts completely contradicted that there was even one flake of snow on the ground or in the air. When asked about the discrepancy, vpw's response was not that the person must be in error because he was there and was in a blizzard-anyone who's ever experienced a heavy snowstorm knows very well what they are like. He IMMEDIATELY switched his story to say that angels lied to him, answered the phones, put hallucinations of snow when he looked out the windows, and so on. So, the correction was the addition of "ALLEGED" to "blizzard", because this blizzard only existed in vpw's account and not in reality. I had to respond to this. When vpw told his legendary pile of something to Elena W, he DID include some information. We discussed it in the thread, complete with the page#s. On page 178, he said it was September of 1942. ""After I met Rosalind Rinker in Indiana, I invited her to visit us in Payne, and she came for a week that summer of 1942. Maybe it was August. I remember it was near the end of summer..." "Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were back in school already. It must have been September. I was sitting in my office, an old dentist's office just around the corner from the church where I prayed-I'll show you that too when we get there. I bet you it's still there, though I haven't been back here since I left. I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." On page 180, he returned to the account. ""Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself-maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I can really know, so that I can believe.' The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." On page 181. ""That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how. And when I opened my eyes, it was snowing so hard I couldn't see those gas pumps right there." He points to the pumps a dozen yards or more from the window." Naturally, there's several problems with this account. 1) In Mrs W's book (ghost-written with some input by her), the account mentions that he never told anyone about this until shortly before he told Elena W for this book. Not even his wife. Wife of a minister, this happened, and he never mentioned it to her at the time. She had to hear it 3 decades later with everyone else. 2) His account changes there also- the account he told Mrs W said the thick snow made the skies appear BLACK in the middle of the day. The account he gave Elena W said the thick snow made the skies appear WHITE in the middle of the day. If this event actually happened and changed his life, he'd reliably remember whether it made the sky look WHITE or BLACK or left them unchanged. 3) The promise claimed to receive was meaningless. The things he learned were not lost since the First Century AD. He learned them all from people alive in the 19th and 20th centuries-which means all the information was available before he started. It was based on a lack of understanding of a student who didn't know his history. Not a surprise if an indifferent student like vpw made it up-but completely inexplicable if GOD ALMIGHTY made errors of that magnitude. However, I'm going off-topic. My point was that he never specified the date, but he had it down to the month and year. As for the location, I'd have to check whether it was Payne or Van Wert or it kept changing, but he specified the window he looked out of in Elena's book. Correction: Found it. Page 196. "after the day that God spoke to me in that old dentist's office in Payne" It occurred, allegedly, in the old dentist's office in Payne that he was using as an office external to the church and his home.

Worse- by changing "Thy will be done" to "I'll do Thy will", there's a subtle but important distinction being made where I become the important one in the sentence, and the critical one in how events unfold. I have an important part to play, but I don't have a CRITICAL part to play. I'm not excused for poor conduct or failure to act, but I'm not the one upon which the entire tableau revolves. vpw's "me-centered" theology struck again.

Bravo! Nicely reasoned. Hermione impersonated 3 characters successfully- Harry Potter, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Mafalda Hopkirk. So the actor/actresses for those roles played Hermione for those scenes-with Emma Watson providing the voice. I grouped them together to suggest the context was the same-which it was. Hermione's also been spoofed lots of times. Mrs Wolf figured it out eventually from seeing the SNL scene of Lindsay Lohan as Hermione (funny script, poorly acted), but might have gotten it from Noma Dumezweni. There was a LOT of kerfluffle over a black actress cast for Hermione for "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child." Instead of just saying "it's theater, just go with it", JKR actually said that, since Hermione's race was never mentioned, it wasn't a contradiction of any kind. Then there's the other parodies. Crista Flanagan was in "Epic Movie." Miranda Richardson ("Rita Skeeter") was Hermione in "Harry Potter and the Secret Chamberpot of Azerbaijan". Nigella Lawson (yes, the chef) was in "Louis Potter and the Philosopher's Scone." Of course, there were only 7 Harry Potters in the 7 Potters scene, so if you cared enough, you could have narrowed it down more by dredging your memory. 1 WAS Potter, so that makes 6 fakes. 2 were Weasley twins. 1 was Mundungus Fletcher-who gave himself away. 1 was Ron. 2 were female- Hermione and Fleur Delacour. If I tried to make a round based around guessing Clèmense Poèsy's character, I would be burned in effigy-and deservedly so.

Ok, name the character: Nigella Lawson Miranda Richardson Crista Flanagan Daniel Radcliffe (technically) Helena Bonham-Carter (technically) Sophie Thompson (technically) Noma Dumezweni Lindsay Lohan There's a giveaway actress, but I'm hoping not to post her. Noma Dumezweni was in the news over controversy when she was cast for this role, so you might remember that. BTW, parodies with the same name count, whether or not the owner of the copyrights endorsed them. And there's a perfectly good reason all those "technical" names are listed together.

He was doubtless referring to the snack in the Harry Potter-verse, as bought on the Hogwarts Express train on the way to the school. For the record, I consider the soul to be a function of the body, and to relate to the consciousness, but I'd be more likely to refer to it as the life-force, or the animation of the body. I'd consider that anything BUT supernatural. Of course, I'm sure my usages are not only non-standard, but we'd disagree as to specifics even if it sounded like we agreed on terms. We'd agree, more or less, that the "soul" would be the "self", for some value of the word "self" or another.

Ok, name the character: Nigella Lawson Miranda Richardson Crista Flanagan Daniel Radcliffe (technically) Helena Bonham-Carter (technically) Sophie Thompson (technically)

*thinks* *leaves and comes back* *thinks* "The Karate Kid"? I THINK that's the song during the montage of the All-Valley Tournament.

Just to clarify, since your phrasing got peculiar there... Your basic position is that the "soul" is the "consciousness", and does not exist beyond that as something thought of as uniquely "soul", correct? (Otherwise, it sounded like you were saying you don't believe in "consciousness".)

CORRECT! The other was "the Cotton Club."

"Minnie the Moocher." (There's 2 possible answers-I will accept either.)

Happy Anniversary!

That's it. Everything from "he ends up in jail" onward was from "Man of La Mancha."

In this movie, a car salesman is at risk of losing his job, and defaulting on a loan to a Mafia don. He ends up in jail. His fellow inmates hold a mock trial for him. His defense takes the form of a play, with him taking the role of an old man who lost his mind and thinks he must go forth as a knight-errant in Spain, battling imaginary giants. Stars include Robin Williams, Tim Robbins, Fran Drescher, Peter O'Toole, Sophia Loren, and James Coco.

"The Wizard of Oz."

That's it. Supposedly, when adjusted for inflation, it's the #3 movie of all time in overall ticket sales. As for the gazebo, that reminded me of a story of a different gazebo. The Tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo. https://dndshallneverdie.blogspot.com.ar/2007/11/from-dread-gazebo-part-of-blackhammers.html BTW, Austrians don't care about the edelweiss- it's a SWISS symbol. Julie Andrews had just finished filming "Mary Poppins." It was in the can but had not been released yet. Julie sang some of the songs for the kids in this movie. They thought she invented "Supercalifragil..." for them.

I doubt it's with an agenda. Contrary to what vpw said, it's possible for 2 words to be, in effect, synonymous. "krima" and "krisis", in the Koine Greek, appear to be so, at least from what I found. The first question is: are psuche and pneuma synonymous? I believe they are similar concepts, but not identical-and the differences can be profound when that's the case. If he's saying they are synonymous, I believe he believes that, and is in error believing so. It's not a shock to me that a pastor, preaching for a living, can make rather elementary errors when trying to understand the Bible. I don't think a lot of them have good study habits or understand how to read the Bible for what's on the page. They're trained to preach, and any other training might be light or missing completely.