WordWolf

This movie featured a ballerina who is plagued by mental problems and dark hallucinations- and she begins to imagine she's on a prison transport ship marooned on a planet full of nocturnal predators during a long, full eclipse.

"When they came for me, I ran like a thief right into Grand Central Station. They trapped me in a pay toilet." "Beautiful." "Cost them four dollars in nickels to get me out." "I love a volunteer." This show had at least 2 actors play 2 different characters at 2 different times (with nobody mentioning how one character reminded them of the other, of course), and had the late Alan Arbus appear from time to time.

I never said your response was "angry." "If you actually knew what you were talking about" is a fine example of what I was saying you did already- this blithe dismissal of another point of view because you don't want to believe it. I "agree to disagree" with plenty of people rather harmoniously, without any of us saying the other side is composed of know-nothings. There were some rather fundamental assumptions that were visible in what was already said, which were enough to dismiss what he said as FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. So, to my satisfaction, I was able to make an initial investigation, conclude it was flawed, and move on. If I looked at the foundation of a building and found the support structures were rotted and ready to collapse, I would have no need to investigate further before concluding that buying the building to put things in it was a bad idea. (And yes, I can ready very fast when I want to, and no, that wasn't the only article I looked at before replying-it was just the first one I looked at. The internet has lots of resources available at a glance.) "Think they know it all because some old dead guy said some old book says so." It must be terribly freeing to never have to consider whether the other side might have a point you don't see, some insight you don't have, some information you aren't aware of, and just categorically dismiss anyone whose POV you disagree with because they are categorically unable to bring anything to the table. Me, I am driven to keep checking alternate points of view, even ones I think nearly everything's been said about, on the off chance there's some new insight before I can conclude something new brings no new substance to a discussion. No matter how fast I read, it takes a lot more time than just shrugging off the opposing POV. So far, I have yet to find anyone who dismisses anything I have to say simply because they disagree, who understands what we're disagreeing about as well as I do-generally for that reason. I've "agreed to disagree" with lots of people over the years and at least respected they knew SOME of what we were talking about. "Strong rush to protect" Hardly a "rush" when I read everything I read first, and hardly "strong" when I wrote so relatively little. I wrote enough to point out it was fundamentally flawed and too weak on which to sensibly base a position. "It might be you that is angry." Why does SOMEONE have to be "angry" ? Is it because an "angry" poster can be held to be illogical and we can ignore what they say? Oh, and making fun of my screen-name, mixed in with some pop psychology about why I have it. Much faster than looking up why I've used it for decades, especially when that wouldn't support the rush to judgement represented here. You examined your suppositions 13 years ago. I applaud that. I'd recommend RE-examining them anew periodically. I do that, and sometimes I change some things, and sometimes I find I understand some things more deeply. It takes work, though. And lots of reading-including reading opposing points of view and seeing what they have to offer. It also requires entertaining the notion that opposing points of view have more to offer than "magic." That might be a leap you're not ready to make at this time. "Book of Roman propaganda". If it's true, it certainly wasn't proven or supported by the author you linked here- embracing that is a much bigger leap of faith than the ones I make to believe the Bible. "Afraid?" I don't have infinite time so I haven't completed his book. However, I've read what's he's said and other pages supporting him enough to justify an initial finding that it's too flawed to waste any more time on- as I said the first time and you ignored. I didn't give infinite time to the guy who thought that vpw's work was God-breathed either. I gave him sufficient time to justify an initial finding that HIS work was too flawed, also. There's the blithe insult again. It's a shame, IMHO, that you keep resorting to those rather than checking if, just maybe, we saw something you're missing. Historical references were pointed out, documental references were made, but your way is much faster and much more comfortable, I suppose. Whenever someone lauds vpw, they vilify me among others. I generally refuse to even grammatically be correct and capitalize his initials. I've brought up things general and specific against him in a trove of contexts. And yet someone can still come along and make claims like this. And I am the one that gets accused of being dogmatic and intellectually lazy. Something's truly sad here, all right.

"When they came for me, I ran like a thief right into Grand Central Station. They trapped me in a pay toilet." "Beautiful." "Cost them four dollars in nickels to get me out." "I love a volunteer."

No, on the one hand, he's willing to save her, but on the other, he's saying his involvement wouldn't change anything. It's like how I'd stand up to defend my family against an attacking MMA champion- while knowing I was just buying them time and volunteering for a beating. It might be a bit metaphorical. Too bad-you've heard this song before. "You hear the door slam And realize there's nowhere left to run. You feel the cold hand And wonder if you'll ever see the sun. You close your eyes And hope that this is just imagination. But all the while You hear a creature creepin' up behind You're outta time." "Now is the time For you and I to cuddle close together, yeah. All through the night I'll save you from the terror on the screen. I'll make you see" "Night creatures callin' The dead start to walk in their masquerade. There's no escaping the jaws of the alien this time. They're open wide."

Exactly. Some Whitesnake stuff for Ian Coverdale, and that's it. I was surprised she did A movie.

I just hope you didn't stop your rethinking once you read Ehrman. It's not uncommon- especially among people who more recently left groups like twi, or among young people exposed to few ideas- to come across a very different set of ideas, expressed cleverly, then dogmatically embrace those with all the fervor of the previous ones. That's just trading one set of dogmatic beliefs for another. None of this means YOU did that, but it is possible, so I hope for your sake you're putting more thought into this.

This is based on a fairly old security problem. So long as there are people who will just open any old attachment they get, there will be people exploiting that to install malware on their computers.

Depends on the goals of the one designing the system. If the goal is lives that separate distinctly in quality, like substances in a centrifuge, then that system makes a great deal of sense. If the goal is perpetual homeostasis of the planet, then reincarnation makes the most sense. That has other problems, however. First of all, the planet is not designed for perpetual homeostasis, and neither is the Universe. Each had a definite beginning in space and time and each proceeds to a definite end in space and time. Reincarnation would work with a "steady state" model of the universe. However, that's been completely discredited because it contradicts all the evidence. This should be less of a shock to those people who learned that "steady state" was embraced dogmatically ("religiously") by certain atheistic scientists because it said what they wanted it to say- it denied an origin. So, they pretended there was evidence for it and embraced it dogmatically ("religiously") after making a leap of faith. Second of all, everything I've read states that the goals of reincarnation are to perfect the individual- that people progress up from lower life forms, return as slightly more enlightened humans for several cycles, then finally graduate out as above human. But statistics wouldn't bear that out. Some people, right now, are fine, upstanding individuals who enrich the lives of others whenever they can. Some people, right now, are embarrassments to the human race, exploiting others and disregarding the cost to others and living off them one way or another. The larger the sample size of lives, the more likely a person would simply end up circling as a human, and periodically coming back as more or less enlightened, with poor choices in one life cancelling out excellent choices in another. Or to put it another way, Mafiosos would have to spend several lifetimes as nuns just to break even, making up for all the harm they did. It's just applying the rather fundamental principle of Statistics called "regression towards the mean."

So, no matter what it's called, "free vocalization" is a normal, human ability that children can use, and adults can use-as long as they can disregard their adult hangups over looking silly. Theater students and acting students learn to do it all the time, and any poster or lurker hear can learn to do it as well. It is neither exotic nor unusual.

Looks like we found the fourth of the three friends. Job 32:3 (NIV) 3 He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him. We invoked history pointed out the original premise was weak, and had easy-to-find flaws. So, someone could look it over and change their mind and reject the original premise. Or SOMEHOW find a way to refute the refutations (I won't hold my breath.) Or just let it go. What did we get? "Hey, be cool, you ignoramuses and never grow." Found no way to refute us, and yet had condemned us. Really, the problem was in embracing something so silly and then publicizing it. What you do on your own time is your own business, but if it's here, it's open to discussion- and disagreement and attempted refutation. If it's flawed, that's likely.

"Now is the time For you and I to cuddle close together, yeah. All through the night I'll save you from the terror on the screen. I'll make you see" "There's no escaping the jaws of the alien this time. They're open wide."

It seems that anyone who never evaluated what was wrong with twi and what is right by contrast other places is like a "sleeper agent" in that decades later they can lash out and defend things they never examined but were taught and just swallowed.

I was waiting for you to confirm I was right. Which you haven't done yet, technically....but I'll move on. "There's no escaping the jaws of the alien this time. They're open wide."

It is, and it did. It is the only line some of us know from this particular movie.

Any chance this is "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"?

On a good day, I can get it just from that. And last week, I was listening to "She Runs Away", so this song wasn't too far from my thoughts. This is Duncan Sheik's "Barely Breathing."

Christian Slater Heathers Winona Ryder

"Every time I think I'm OUT- they pull me back in!"

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory Roy Kinnear Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo (Yes, there's a few famous actors in that movie.)

You'd be shocked how many people have quoted that line in different contexts. ================= In other news, both of those were Heath Ledger in "the Dark Knight".

That's it. Apparently, it was easier than I thought it might be....

This might be very easy, very hard, or somewhere in between. ;) This current (70s) television show features a team of operatives sent to investigate and resolve incidents around the US and around the world. The team's most prominent menbers are a pair of mimes, a man and a woman.

If you really want people to get this movie from one line, go with its most famous line: "Why so serious?"

The reasons all stem from one root reason and spread out from there: They want to rehabilitate victor paul wierwille's reputation and "rescue" it from the proven track record of rampant plagiarism, from the doctrinal errors stemming from his misunderstanding of Scripture and cobbling together doctrines of things he never understood but just copied over, from the eyewitness accounts of all the abuses of God's people he did of all sorts, from the eyewitness accounts of all the luxuries he wasted ministry money on, from eyewitness accounts of his all-day satisfying of vices like alcohol and tobacco while he told others to abstain, etc. vpw was a hypocrite, a liar, a thief, a plagiarist, a simonist, a rapist, a molester, and other things which escape me now. These people consider it critically important to bury all that. Exposing his evil deeds become secondary at best- they want a legend they can tap. Why do they want a legend they can tap? Some are doing some of the same he did- plagiarizing his materials and using it to make a comfortable living while saying, "Hey, everybody, listen to me!" Some of them are basing their entire private spiritual life on vpw and what he put forth, and they'd rather maintain an illusion that they were right all their time in twi- and the decades since, while maintaining the illusion- than to start over and seek genuine Christian experience and genuine Christians who don't have vpw's sinful baggage attached to their doctrine. It's uncomfortable and scary to go out there. In its own way, it's a spiritual version of something that's happening in much of the modern world with some young people, and most famously in Japan- the hikkomori phenomenon. It was seen in a more general way with "basement dwellers", but is a bit more refined now and studied in all our modern detail. The odd thing for outsiders is that hikkomori are generally all YOUNG people- people who faced life outside college and ran from it, hiding in the familiar at home and not going out to experience life anew. It's not a surprise for twi survivors because it's not news anymore that escaping twi's hold on one's thought patterns means one usually picks up IN MATURITY and EMOTIONALLY where they were before twi- and for most people, that's around college age. So, this is a delayed step in maturing and facing life. For some ex-twiers, it's a step that scares them too much to take. So, they enshrine their twi experience and teachings and associate only with others who do the same, which means they enshrine a career criminal and laud him to the skies as some sort of spiritual man instead of reject him as some sort of huckster and conman. All of that means they react with hostility whenever someone brings up how evil vpw was, and how they were victimized by him in small ways (or large ones.) They fear the truth, the outside world, so much that, even though far greater Christian experiences are out there surpassing what they started with, they'd rather chase off the rest of the world- and the rest of the Christians- and stay where they are. Ever see a small child so taken with how good Farina cereal is that they spend the next 10 years rejecting all real food because they don't want to lose what they've got instead of exploring all the superior food that the family is trying to feed him? No? Me neither. Small children have more sense than that as they grow up.