WordWolf

The first movie is recent. I substituted it in place of an older movie because I found myself spending a paragraph trying to describe the first movie.

What do you have so far?

Here's one of my "stealth" triples, where you could technically make it a double, but I sneak in an overlapped title in the middle. (2 movies, 1 show.) In this sci-fi romp, a quiet, brilliant youngster is recruited and trained in an advanced military academy in outer space to prepare for a future alien invasion decades after their previous assault on Earth. Saving Earth is just the beginning, though.... Thinking his life post-war is boring, his brother drags him into a mysterious live-action adventure with unspoken rules, an unspoken "board" and so on, where winning is surviving, that integrates with his attempts to live day-by-day. Making it through that, he eventually becomes a major player in the struggle among the surviving low-tech humans to ascend the High Seat of what's left of the Earth, its surviving tribes/houses, and deal with the expected, oncoming colder weather. Stars include Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley and Abigail Breslin, Michael Douglas, Sean Penn, Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Emilia Clarke, Maisie Williams, Kit Harrington, and Sophie Turner.

The first movie in the set is a LOT more recent than all of you are thinking. Don't get too obsessed with my attempts to make this one coherent story by flavoring the description heavily. The last part (the TV show) is better known than the first 2 parts.

The die-hards will ALWAYS find a way to rationalize it to themselves. They get angry that someone will SPEAK about the evils a person does- rape, plagiarism, and so on- but never shed a single tear over the actual evils- and the lives destroyed or afflicted thereby. I find it comforting that the Internet Age means that vpw supporters and partisans and twi itself are quaint reminders of a bygone age, as dates as people who insist that Woodstock or Altamont was THE critical moment of history and dedicate their lives to being diehard hippies thereby. In fact, I think there's more young people claiming to be hippies now than are claiming vpw was the shiznit, or that twi has The Truth. Frankly, humanity's harmed less by Deadheads, IMHO, than by the partisans and flagwavers I mentioned.

That's him. You can tell a character's been used a lot when there's been so many characters based on him that spelling his name backwards on purpose results in a famous name.

Here's one of my "stealth" triples, where you could technically make it a double, but I sneak in an overlapped title in the middle. (2 movies, 1 show.) In this sci-fi romp, a quiet, brilliant youngster is recruited and trained to play a critical part in saving the Earth from the second wave of attacks by aliens bent on destroying the Earth. Saving Earth is just the beginning, though.... Thinking his life post-war is boring, his brother drags him into a live-action adventure with unspoken rules, an unspoken "board" and so on, where winning is surviving. Making it through that, he eventually becomes a major player in the struggle among the surviving low-tech humans to become the ruler of what's left of the Earth, its surviving tribes/houses, and the cooler weather (obviously the result of a minor "nuclear winter" scenario blocking sunlight and making everything cooler after the planetwide attacks decades earlier.

Supposedly, one character has had the most movies based on him. (If we only count feature films, that's probably right.) That character has also had 2 television shows based on him, each lasting 1 season. Name him and you name either series. What's the name?

Arnold Schwarzenegger the Expendables Sylvester Stallone

You are correct, sir! I named all the top actors in it except Bogey.

John Qualen Joy Page Dooley Wilson S.Z. Sakall Peter Lorre Sydney Greenstreet Conrad Veidt Claude Rains Paul Henreid Ingrid Bergman Dooley Wilson sings and plays an instrument in "his scene".

BZZT! You didn't do the link properly. If you're redoing the actor from "A Walk In The Clouds" (swapping Debra for Keanu), then that link goes Anthony Quinn A Walk In The Clouds Keanu Reeves and ENDS THERE. You proceeded to then do PART of the next triple, adding 2 more names: Devil's Advocate Charlize Theron Probably the best way to fix that is to truncate the turn where it would have ended- with Keanu.

John Qualen Joy Page Dooley Wilson S.Z. Sakall Peter Lorre Sydney Greenstreet Conrad Veidt Claude Rains Paul Henreid

That's being generous. If teaching is simply the MEANS TO THE END, and the "end"/goal is "a steady income", then what is taught is compromised to what will bring in the money. In this case, serving God gets sidelined and talking about serving God but nothing practical about ever doing it, that becomes the Main Course on the teaching plate.

It was called "sharing" because we were supposed to THINK we weren't just handing over money to vpw and twi. The idea was, we handed over money to them, and God Almighty (not financially accountable to twi) would reimburse us in financial ways and possibly other ways. So, they took, and someone else was supposed to reimburse. As for whether or not we were to give of "our livelihood", that's a matter of SEMANTICS. The "ABS" was a tenth/tithe that was called something else but was exactly that anyway. By not limiting the name to a "tenth", he set it up so that the tenth was MANDATORY and EXPECTED in twi, and MORE THAN A TENTH was expected but not ENFORCED the way the tenth was. "If you really are thankful to God, you'll give more." Who wanted to see themselves as unthankful to God-yet remain in twi? So, people were convinced to give more. lcm just codified a practice he'd seen vpw do off-the-record when he bumped the ABS requirement to 15%, to 20%, then "the revelation changed" and it was 15% again. (With social pressure to give more.) However, twi asked something respectable religious groups don't ask- they asked for everything that would go towards savings. Naturally, they made up a term for it. Based on a single account of a single incident that had nothing to do with it (of course), vpw coined "plurality giving." The concept was simple. Cover all your current expenses. ALL the money left over at the end of the pay cycle? HAND THAT OVER TO TWI. In a technical sense, that's not "giving of your livelihood" nor "giving until it hurts." However, it is still hurtful and harmful to the giver if done the way they did it (totally different from the Biblical account). Why is it hurtful and harmful? For the benefit of those unaccustomed to thinking about how vpw's policies were harmful, I'll spell out SOME of it. It allowed for NO SAVINGS. What's wrong with that? 1) EMERGENCIES. When there's an emergency, a normal person goes into the money they save for emergencies, and they have something to cover that. It can go for some medical expense, loss of work, damage to a car or other needed item that needs immediate repair or replacement, and so on. The faithful "plurality giver" has NOTHING where others have SOMETHING for emergencies. That's poor stewardship of funds. So, what did the faithful "plurality giver" do in an emergency? He was told God was supposed to supply it, and sometimes local twi Christians would voluntarily help. Naturally, someone's going to twist what I say and claim I said we aren't supposed to help each other nor trust God. So, I shall explain why THAT was wrong. twi was taking the money, and claiming it would be reimbursed if needed by God Almighty. He's not accountable to them,is not required to match THEIR promises (which weren't HIS promises), He never signed off on their promise, and He can't be held accountable if the money doesn't appear. It is good to trust God, it is foolish to remove prudent precautions and trust God for every type of protection. That's why we wear seat-belts and drive carefully, for that matter. Financially, it's no different. 2) Investment. Where's the money for retirement? twi veterans are SUPPOSED TO "work until they die." That's a quote from one of the higher-ups. Other people (smarter Christians, non-Christians) set aside some money so they have something for later. Not the "plurality giver." When he retires, the money to put aside, whether large or small, isn't with him, it's in a big pile twi accumulated from him. What did twi do with that money? They invested it so that when there's less money coming in, they still have money. In other words, twi convinces its people to take the money for retirement, send it in to twi, then refuse to retire because they have no money to retire- then twi made a Retirement Fund out of it and twi's living off of that now-while telling older Christians to just trust God for the money- or live off non-twi family they were told to spurn for decades for not being twi. 3) Nice things. EVER treat your family to something nice? Yes? Well, under vpw's system, that's a violation- since that wasn't a "need", you were supposed to send that money in as "plurality giving." If you're saying you NEVER treated your family, I'm calling shenanigans on that. Never had a nice dinner, gave a present for a birthday/graduation/Ho-Ho, never took them to a movie, bought a DVD, video game, never got cable TV, bought a nice toy, a piece of jewelry? If you're insisting that, you're not being honest. Anyone who was faithful to vpw's "plurality giving" was hurting themselves and their family in the ways I just explained. So, they did indeed "give till it hurt." vpw was fond of relabeling things so people did things while criticizing others for doing it- and he got away with it because people trusted him and didn't look closely enough to see he made cosmetic changes and otherwise left in practice what benefited him- when he wasn't instituting more practices like "plurality giving." It's interesting that vpw would say things against gambling, but had no problem himself visiting the racetracks. Perhaps we're supposed to believe he visited them because he liked horses and the ambiance. One standard for vpw, one standard for everyone else. Although what he said, if you're reporting it truthfully, was all technically correct. There's no Biblical pressure to "give till it hurts" nor for giving "of necessity." II Corinthians 9:7 (KJV) 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. This says BECAUSE God wants us to give cheerfully, we should neither give with reluctance NOR OUT OF REQUIREMENT. Why only cite part of a verse and not post it? The entire concept of a required giving, a required Tithe/Tenth/ABS for Christians contradicts this verse-when the entire verse is read. If lcm said once not to give with guilt, he certainly was a hypocrite, because he SCREAMED AND YELLED about people who were not choosing to give 15%, 20%, and berated them for not "plurality giving." He absolutely required people to give. Since vpw had a required 10% in practice as well as the "above 10%", I'd say both the Tithe/Tenth and the giving money to the ministry above that are both direct subjects of this thread.

It's a beautiful place. No version of twi nor any splinter group own it now. The details are both on its website and on its wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartmore_House http://www.gartmorehouse.com/about_us/history.html According to their own site, twi in GB bought it in 1987, according to the wikipedia page, it was 1985. If it is taken as a given that vpw actually did spend some of his final year of life on-site, he would have done so in 1985, which means it had to have been used either at the end of 1984 or the beginning of 1985 as cg moved in and began to renovate the site having refused all outside assistance. According to both sites, as of 1995, it was vacated by the splinter group, and the history of the site moved on.

A TEACHING MINISTRY was unprepared with the teachers and teaching materials despite the curriculum having been determined years before. A TEACHING MINISTRY was unprepared with their teaching venue despite having had the venue ahead of time and it being obvious they either needed more time, much more onsite workers, or both. This wasn't the first time twi'd run classes onsite. Since this was an insider to vpw, his complete ineptitude in finding and securing a site, in rushing and selecting an inappropriate site, in working with the available personnel to prepare the site, and inability to work with outsiders (not to mention poor incremental decisions along the way like "buy old and used and not new and functional" make it obvious they- and especially he- had no business TRYING to run things.

If your image is controlled carefully enough, and your exposure is limited, anyone can put forth an impressive facade. For those of us not allowed behind the curtain, he could look pretty together. Even with limited face-time with him and looking for flaws.

It's amazing that it's that simple, and there's people unable or unwilling to see it. [Portion deleted]

It is.

So, was the title "the Incredible Hulk"?

It seemed they lacked both sufficient Divine Revelation to avoid making monumentally-bad decisions, and capped that with poor business experience and poor decision-making skills. That all caught up to them in spades with the Gartmore acquisition and attempts to make the location work. It was a beautiful location, but one very poorly-suited for the tasks for which it was intended.

Here's one we haven't done. It qualifies and I'm NOT actually posting the title no matter what anyone thinks. :) "Roll out the barrel, we'll have a barrel of fun Roll out the barrel, we've got the blues on the run Zing boom tararrel, ring out a song of good cheer Now's the time to roll the barrel, for the gang's all here."

In virtually every instance, I've been refuting his positions and pointing out error. I have NOT been making it personal. John's going out of his way to make it personal. You think I'M the one that needs to be nicer here, the one actually going on the attack? I know he's entitled to his viewpoint. But if he's posting here with obvious pro-vpw error, I WILL call him on it. He's got a right to be wrong- but I have a right to point out he's wrong, as well. Moderator's Note: WordWolf is correct in what he's pointed out. He is also referring to posts that have since been deleted.

You're talking about David....something with a 'B', I'm sure about that...