WordWolf

Yours probably weren't, but that was a general reminder for everyone to play nice, not just whoever got sent to the "time out corner." I'm fine with not knowing who it was for sure, myself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_12 " The Thing from Another World (1951)" Known as The Thing. Starred James Arness as The Thing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt "The Thing (1982) " http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/?ref_=tt_rec_tt " The Thing (I) (2011) " Yes, they're all films of the same story.

The boldface type indicated that particular text was a clue. Since you seemed to know the answer but didn't post it, I figured you made the choice not to answer for some reason. Normally, one of us will do that if we think someone else knows it and we had a turn recently and we want to let someone new take a stab at it. In this case, I thought that would have been really optimistic.

"The Thing." (I would have guessed that from the quote either way, but knowing it was remade gave me more confidence.)

Ghostbusters Sigorney Weaver Working Girl

"Man on the Moonstruck."

Yes, I made a typo. We know he was NOT originally a Trinitarian because we have seen documents where he used a Trinitarian formula long before he met Lamsa and Leonard. Between Lamsa and Leonard, he had to POVs that differed from the standard POV concerning the Trinity.

Was it "Role Models"?

Reminds me of an old complaint about a certain type of Christian. Would you like some gum? I don't need gum-I have Jesus! When posters have already come forward and said they personally benefited from the types of posts you're complaining about, (same thread, 1 page back) and you can turn around and claim you can't figure out where the benefit is, nothing else I can say will help you. Actually, the truth is totally beyond you. A) Nobody said the post was "ALL ABOUT" the large errors you posted on your blog. You made more than one factual error and were called on it. The context of the errors doesn't change that they were factually inaccurate. That kept coming up, and you insisted they were true. You insisted that vpw came clean publicly and confessed some of his perversions and felonies. He did no such thing. You insisted that "Passing of the Patriarch" was a letter specifically addressing that. It was no such thing. In fact, you kept insisting that even after people posted links to the document so you could read it for yourself. You were going to people who'd read the document, and insisting that its contents were completely different than what they were. Rather than thanking them, or even quietly correcting yourself, dusting yourself off, and moving on, you've chosen to respond with verbal attacks and insults to those people who committed the crime of being right when you wanted to be right instead. So now you're accepting that the contents of POP were different than you were previously insisting they were. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if you could have done that without insulting and attacking others and making it all about you, we would be on-topic on the topic you interrupted. If you want to discuss POP, make your own thread for it. I'm skipping the classless comments. Some people were lied to about the contents of POP. Some people-imagine that if you can- were mistaken about the contents of POP. Truth has a value in and of itself, especially when dealing with an organization that attempted to handle its affairs secretly. A number of posters have felt enriched for gaining in that knowledge. It enhanced their understanding, and they felt better-off for it. If you don't see any benefit of any of the GSC content, you do not need to read it. It neither has to be something I see the benefit to, nor does it need to be something you see the benefit to. I've been factually correct about you each time. You didn't like that, so you've invented lies like the ones I quoted above to draw attention from that and do other things. I have every right to step in and set the record straight. Hopefully, we are.

Is this that movie with the guy that looked like Marvin Hamlisch?

The man was fond of making all sorts of CLAIMS. The man was not fond of actually doing work. So, he was all talk when it came to doing good. If helping you would inconvenience him, he wouldn't do it and he'd berate you for being selfish. vpw was oblivious to the hypocrisy that defined much of his life. He passed along style and substance of others, and never thought there was anything wrong with being a hearer or teacher of The Word who was NOT a DOER of The Word. He taught others how to behave rightly, sometimes, but never taught it BY EXAMPLE. As a sociopath, there's an abrupt disconnect in his life which is explained by him having no conscience. So, inconsistencies never bothered him if they weren't a direct inconvenience to him.

I think it's a common, but harmful, thing for people to get PROVINCIAL in their thinking and exposure to ideas. They save a lot of time by not considering the opposing points of view, but they limit their abilities to think and reason by limiting their exposure to ideas and knowledge. There is a lot of things that are known many places now that I am unaware of. Every day, new things are learned or discussed. I feel my life is richer for being at least passingly-familiar with many of them, and aware of what I'm not exploring further. Sadly, this is common enough across all parts of all societies. I've seen people use the excuse of religion to do it, and I've seen people antagonistic of religion condemn the religious for doing it- and do it even worse than the people they complain about. Limiting one's exposure to other Christians limits one's exposure to the lessons other Christians have learned, which limits the ways God can reach you with what you need to know. My approach to Christianity has been "eclecticism" for a very long time, and I find it's a good approach to much of life.

Many, many times, Christians don't see the results of our prayers. I realized that back in college. Sometimes you pray for someone and never see them again. I had that happen in college with a non-Christian. I ran into them over a year later, at a distance. I waved. They waved back, and called out a Christian greeting. Another Christian picked up where I left off. But what I did, small though it may seem, was to set up things so they could hear when the next Christian came through, and think things through. I liken these things to when police "share a collar." Bringing in a criminal is sometimes the work of several police doing different things- but what is important is that the criminal is brought in. To Christians, the salvation of others is-or at least should be- far more important than whose congregation they attend (so long as they don't join an abusive or toxic group, at least.)

The discussion about Wh1tes1de's book was in "the way:living in wonderland." The discussion about lcm's book was in "vp and me in wonderland." There was a discussion about the supposed history book but I have to find it. There was also a discussion about "spiritual carjacking" but I'll have to find that as well, but it sounded relevant to your thinking right now.

Only 4 animals are capable of producing an actual roar. The cougar cannot-and is not native to Europe, Asia, or Africa. There are the lion, the tiger, the leopard and the jaguar all capable of the roar. The jaguar is a native solely to the Americas. That leaves the other 3. Much of the tiger's roar is sub-sonic to what humans can hear, so they sound less impressive to us- and they use it to communicate with other tigers. Leopards can roar, but use them less than even tigers, since they are solitary animals. The English versions I have call it a lion, and that is probably a correct translation. If someone's got a research book handy, they can add more to that.

It was in "the Way:Living in Love" long before that. page 177 "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, and she used to dog me on the Bible being the Word of God. She talked to me about getting my own life in alignment and harmony with the Bible. She was the one who had me make out lists of the good things I'd done, that was about half a page, and all the bad things, that amounted to 10 or 12 pages. She was off on that part, but the Bible as the Word of God, she really pushed that one. And I'd never heard that in all my years of school-not believing it anyway." vpw had been a pastor for over a year before this time. He'd completed work for his masters and his doctorate, and served for over a year as a pastor. And, according to vpw, during all that, he never believed the Bible was the Word of God. On what was he basing all his work- his papers, his sermons?

"Batman" (with Michael Keaton as Batman.) ========================== "Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb."

Ok, let's move this along. It's Human's turn for naming the artist. The first song was "The Spirit of Radio", and the second one was "Tom Sawyer." Both are fairly well-known songs from classic rock. At the moment, they're not fairly well-known among the posters at the GSC, apparently. Go, Human.

The short answer: we don't know for certain, but I think so. The longer answer: We can say with confidence that vpw was a lazy and indifferent plagiarist. We do know that he originally was not a Trinitarian because we've even seen old correspondence of his that included a Trinitarian salutation in the letter. Obviously, sometime after that, he changed what he thought and taught. We do know that he basically cobbled together collections of thoughts of other men and presented them-even when he didn't fully understand them. (Rare exceptions seem to include his "God Almighty is ok with orgies" thing.) We do know that Lamsa was not a Trinitarian. We know that vpw interacted with Lamsa in person before his change in doctrine. We know that vpw ripped off some of Lamsa's stuff and part of his style. So, it seems to me the evidence all points in that direction.

"I feel the need, the need for speed!"

You're with me so far. "Modern-day warrior, mean, mean stride" "Though his mind is not for rent, Don't put him down as arrogant. His reserve, a quiet defense Riding out the day's events. The river. What you say about his company Is what you say about society. Catch the mist, catch the myth. Catch the mystery, catch the drift. The world is, the world is Love and life are deep Maybe as his skies are wide." "He gets high on you And the space he invades He gets by on you. No his mind is not for rent To any god or government. Always hopeful, yet discontent. He knows changes aren't permanent... But change is. What you say about his company Is what you say about society. Catch the witness, catch the wit Catch the spirit, catch the spit The world is, the world is Love and life are deep Maybe as his eyes are wide." "He gets high on you. And the energy you trade He gets right on to the friction of the day."

Is that what I actually said? Let's see.... So, you asked about how knowing lcm was working at UPS or whatever enhanced anyone's eternal salvation. It was a stupid question, so I said so in a nicer way. lcm's job at UPS is a non-issue cocnerning people's eternal salvation. DUUUUUHHH. I can't tell if you're legitimately that slow, but you seem fairly able to communicate properly, so it seems you're doing that DELIBERATELY. In discussions about lcm's job, discussing eternal salvation of complete strangers to him is a non-issue and off-topic. In discussions about eternal salvation, discussion lcm working at UPS is a non-issue and off-topic. But, then, you brought up BOTH on a thread about NEITHER and blamed me for them being non-issues. I really was willing to let it go, and be the adult and leave you alone about your foolishness. What we saw before: Ralph D, once upon a time, reported about a number of incidents- which we have documentation on this website which people can read, and have discussed in detail, which he has even discussed here- and you mistakenly conflated them into ONE incident. Then you reported that "Passing of the Patriarch" was about something it had nothing to do with, because you didn't know any better. Someone corrected you. You got hostile and insisted you were correct. People linked you to the document so you can read it yourself- instead of being someone who never read a document who was telling people who read it what it said-and getting it all wrong. You refused, and we dropped it. I figured you'd later read the thing and were embarassed you had been so incorrect and yet so strident about it and being wrong, that you would rather just never mention it again than admit you'd made such an elementary mistake. Being an adult, I was willing to just let that go. I was wrong about that-I thought too much of you. Apparently, you still haven't read it, and instead of the fault being yours for misunderstanding something, the fault is ours for pointing out you made a big mistake. THIS is why we post. We keep saying that. You keep missing that. Why bother coming here when it so offends your sensibilities?

I once had a conversation with someone who was confusing "the Incredibles" with "The Incredible Mister Limpet." I still have no idea how that happened. But this movie is obviously "the Incredibles." What?

Correct, just to make it official.