WordWolf

Mrs Wolf and I both agree Cold didn't tell Mick nor Lisa. (BTW, the Mrs stopped me when Cisco was getting hit on in the bar, and asked me if that was Snart's sister. I stopped, noted the same name and correct hair color, and we both figured this was the bad guys making a run on Cisco, or at least Lisa making a run on Cisco. The wig, BTW, makes sense since, in the comics, a brother and sister have radically different hair colors. In this case, that was due to a style decision and a wig. As for Flash's deal with Len Snart, we didn't like it either. The only time I liked such a deal was the excellent Epilogue to the awful "Hush" storyline. Riddler was in jail, and Batman visited him. Riddler had used a Lazarus Pit, and the bout of insanity allowed him to figure out Bruce was Batman. So, when Riddler threatened to tell others, Batman replied with "What time is it when an elephant sits on a fence?" Riddler said EVERYONE knew that one. Batman noted that the Riddler finds riddles worthless when everyone knows the answer. And, Batman was ready to let the League of Assassins know who partially used up one of their Lazarus Pits if Riddler talked. Since then, Riddler's lost that information.

That's not what was said. The article was not written by "the person that is behind the program", it was for "Gospel Herald." THAT article was based on something written on PANTHEOS, and THAT author mentioned twi, so the GH writer did, also. The GH article http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54867/20150324/the-way-new-faith-based-drama-coming-to-hulu-from-the-team-behind-parenthood.htm linked directly to the Pantheos one. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kateohare/2015/03/parenthood-creator-jason-katims-explores-faith-in-the-way-for-hulu/ The Pantheos one didn't require a lot of research. In fact, if they had done the following, they would have gotten the same result, so the MIGHT have done exactly this... A) Read about Hulu's new show. B) Noted the name of a religion called "The Way." C) Gone directly to Wikipedia and typed in "The Way". D) Gotten the disambiguation page for "the way" E) Read there that it was "an early term for early Christianity" and "a Christian denomination founded by Victor Paul Wierwille". F) Written both down, then clicked on the Wikipedia link for the Wikipedia page, then jotted down notes from the opening paragraphs. To those who are internet-savvy, that can be about 20-30 seconds of "hard research." The internet has made information that required hours of research available in seconds or minutes, often. I like that.

MRAP, while everyone's entitled to disagree with each other, and disagree strongly, it's not usually considered polite discourse, nor worthy of the GSC, for insults and cheap-shots. They may make the person slinging them feel better, and others may even agree with them, but they don't advance discussion. Despite having been on the receiving end of one, don't take that as an indication that it's typical, de rigeur, or expected here. (There may come a time where it is, but that time is not now.) So, please don't consider that typical, please don't respond in kind, please don't think that's a license to do the same to others even if you consider them complete chowderheads. (Even if they turn out to BE complete chowderheads, it's impolite to say so.)

That would work. I prefer my method, which, I suspect, is more common. When you're logged in, and if a thread isn't locked, all posts have a little link at the end marked "Reply." So, I log in, scroll to the post, then click "Reply" IN THE POST. (Not "add reply" in a little box underneath the thread-that's for replying to the thread without a quote.) What happens then is that a new post opens, with the entire post I replied to in it, with a header at the top and bottom that provide a link to the original post, and who posted it, when, and so on. Then I pick what I wanted to quote and respond to. Everything else, I delete, carefully. I put "(snip)" wherever I did a cut (before or after) to announce it was part of the whole post. For the full post, anyone can click on the link in the header to read the entire thing. (So, I'm being honest and open about it.) If I want to reply to different things, I type in the word "quote" before and after each section, in brackets, with a "/"in front of the one closing it. So, I type /quote when closing a quote, in these brackets- [ ] If I have a matching header of quote in brackets higher up, then everything between the two gets enclosed in the quote heading. If it seems like work, it gets a lot easier after it's done a few times, and, so long as you don't put a large amount of headers in a single post, it works fine. It also is the best way to be fully honest when quoting, since people can click to what you're quoting, and you separate what you quote from your own response. (At least one poster cronically refuses to do that when debating, and I find it objectionable on several levels, since it's obvious it's deliberate after over a decade of practice.)

No.

Paul Williams Orson Welles Telly Savalas Steve Martin Cloris Leachman Carol Kane Madeline Kahn Bob Hope Elliott Gould James Coburn Milton Berle Mel Brooks

Ok, we saw it. I don't know if Raf did. I was a little disappointed about the episode's method of handling time travel. It's inconsistent with what we already know from the series.

I'm not sure what you, personally, would feel you need to know. This entire subforum includes a lot about the entire tableau. Personally, I'd start by reviewing either the Momentus or Personal Prophecy fiascoes- both what happened, and, just as important- how they were dealt with. Momentus was a pop program, of dubious quality and shady practices- to which CES' leaders became hardcore-committed. They adopted its jargon, pushed for applications and attendance, and set up a tiered ministry where those who refused to enroll were seen as lesser members and suspect (suspect of what, I don't know, probably a lack of commitment), and where questioning the program at all was responded to in a hostile fashion. That continued until Momentus blew up in their faces. In private, JAL and others continued to advertise the thing years later. (For all I know, they may still advertise it secretly.) Personal Prophecy was the license for someone to come up, decide something about you, announce it, announce it was from God providing they made it sound like a dream, prophecy or prediction like Harry Potter's Divination teacher, and expect you to go along. To question any of that was announced to be questioning GOD ALMIGHTY and not simply a practice of an organization. Of course, when JAL started questioning it, that was a whole other thing entirely. JAl went from "thou shalt never question it" to "I began questioning it and a significant portion was error" in one step, and continued to insult the people who warned him about it for years because they questioned it AND his judgement. On one thread, we demonstrated Personal Prophecy, so don't think their practice was anything to be revered or even taken seriously. I enjoyed the thread and am quite proud to have participated in it.

No.

That's him/them. The Mel Brooks entry should have limited the field considerably, since he almost always appears in his own films, and his own films parody others but don't use the same names. That left 2 films of his where the characters appeared elsewhere. And Richard Benjamin didn't play Van Helsing himself, but a descendant who didn't use that name.

"Anybody can fly plane, now here: I'll check you out. Put your little hands on the wheel there. Now put your feet on the rudder. There. Who says this ol' boy can't fly this ol' plane? Now I'm gonna make us some Old Fashioneds the old-fashioned way - the way dear old Dad used to!" "What if something happens?" "What could happen to an Old Fashioned?" "If you can, give us your position. Who is flying the plane?" "What do you mean 'who's flying the plane'? Nobody's flying the plane!" "We're the ones with the Imperial, and we're running last?"

Paul Williams Orson Welles Telly Savalas Steve Martin Cloris Leachman Carol Kane Madeline Kahn

Mel Brooks Anthony Hopkins Sir Lawrence Olivier Peter Cushing Christopher Plummer Edward Van Sloan Richard Benjamin (kinda-sorta)

Is this "At the Hop"???

Nice to see you visit, Belle. *looks* My opinion is that it won't be INTENTIONALLY based on twi. twi's delusions of grandeur to the contrary, as we all know, Christians have used "the way" as a name for a very long time, with Bibles and all sorts of organizations using it. For that matter, others have used it too- that UFO-cult that killed themselves had a leader who called himself "Do"- which translates in English to "way" or "the way." I suspect this show will resemble a lot of twi here and there ACCIDENTALLY if it really tries to show cult life and a cult leader. We'll have to wait and see. Oh, and I hope twi makes a huge fuss over the show- they would provide all sorts of free advertising for it, of the type you can't buy.

There was another episode? Give us at least 24 hours. Apparently Agents of SHIELD aired one, also, so that's something else to add to my dance card after the Flash episode.

"Stir Crazy"?

Yes. If it hadn't been it, it should have been it. :)

No? Uh, "A Piece of the Action?"

Oh! "I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka."

Ok, having seen what it says in sufficient context to understand it, and taking as a given this was all factually accurate, let's summarize. The people saw Jesus perform another miracle. Some people were angry and told the Pharisses that Jesus was performing miracles. The Pharisees & friends were concerned that Jesus performing miracles would lead to Jesus becoming popular and a big deal, and that would lead to the Romans cracking down on what they currently looked at as a quiet, quaint, long-standing religion. No concern that all the miracles they couldn't produce being produced by someone else meant something concerning God Almighty, just political and social considerations. (I've seen people, and that sounds authentic to me-people are stupid, short-sighted, narrow-minded, and only hear what they expect to hear, much of the time.) The exception was the High Priest, Caiaphas. The prophecy he delivered was one that said “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” (I agree with him on both counts.) So, the prophecy was true, and could be taken to mean more than one thing. The actual meaning? Jesus dying for their entire nation (etc.) The meaning they took? It's better for Jesus to die than their nation to die. The result was their deliberate plan to murder Jesus being worked up, finalized, and executed. What was the question again? ("Should the Sanhedrin have infered from the prophecy that God was directing them to do the deed?") There's several possible directions to go with this, I'll try to answer them all. Did God Almighty tell them to murder Jesus? No-it was a statement of action and consequences, albeit only partly-informative. It didn't include pages of context that might have made them reconsider, MAYBE. Did the Sanhedrin think they were being directed to kill Jesus? Obviously-the result of that was them planning to do that very thing. Did the Sanhedrin think they were being directed BY GOD ALMIGHTY to kill Jesus? I seriously doubt it. This Sanhedrin's religious concerns were confined, at most, to the ceremonial, the traditional, and the sociopolitical, and excluded the sacred. (Big miracles are virtually absent for a long time, then in the space of a year, we see 2 prophets suddenly rise up and at least the latter performs big miracles. They didn't discuss the existence of miracles regardless of the eyewitnesses- they discussed the ramifications of people following someone who could perform the miracles but not the miracles themselves. I would expect they only saw the "high priest" as a religious counselor who expressed the will of religious people, and relaying their POV to the Sanhedrin. SHOULD the Sanhedrin think that they were being directed BY GOD ALMIGHTY to kill Jesus? That's actually the toughest question on the list, and the most open to interpretation and opinion. IF they thought it was a real message from God (and that such messages existed), then we go back to what, exactly, is being said. Based on that, I still agree they were know-nothings. But if they had been know-somethings, they STILL shouldn't have thought it was an official prophecy because it wasn't on official God Almighty letterhead. ("Hear the word of the Lord: " and so on.) It was phrased-deliberately I say- so that even if they HAD 2 brain cells to rub together between them, that they still wouldn't think there was a full-blown prophecy being spoken at that moment.

KJV John 11:47-53 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. ======================================== NASB John 11:47-53 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many [l]signs. 48 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he did not say this [m]on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. ======================================== NIV John 11:47-53 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

I think the "he was a mirage in the other episode" thing was cheating. (The other episode should have looked MUCH different.) She thinks the "we told the audience and now we're retconning almost all the episode so now the audience knows but not the character" thing was cheating. (Lazy writing, a little like a deus ex machina, in a way.) We knew there were 2 time travelers in the beginning. Actually, Mrs Wolf worked it out in the beginning with me keeping silent except for answering very specific questions. I consider time travel not to be an issue, providing we complete the loop. I think you thought I was saying the reveal on Wells was a retcon. No, we knew he was from the future. We weren't sure if he was the present Wells who had traveled in time more than once and was faking being his younger self, or someone imitating his ancestor after planning it and altering his appearance, then traveling back. (In the comic, Eobard Thawne, actually, DID alter his appearance and acquire powers deliberately before his first time trip. I won't post why in case, somehow, that's the reason he did it in the show.)

Mel Brooks Anthony Hopkins Sir Lawrence Olivier

"Well, yes, ma'am, I do... I mean, I got everything I need right here with me. I got air in my lungs, a few blank sheets of paper. I mean, I love waking up in the morning not knowing what's gonna happen or, who I'm gonna meet, where I'm gonna wind up. Just the other night I was sleeping under a bridge and now here I am on the grandest ship in the world having champagne with you fine people. I figure life's a gift and I don't intend on wasting it. You don't know what hand you're gonna get dealt next. You learn to take life as it comes at you... to make each day count."