WordWolf

Sometimes it's easy to spot whenever someone's trying to misdirect discussion away from yet another thing that was vpw's fault. Some people, in fact, tend to telegraph that it's what they're doing, fairly consistently. It makes it easier for me to see it happening. Case in point: (all underlines are added by me for emphasis) Plain English-whether or not vpw himself taught it, if it didn't pass vpw's approval, it would have not been FILMED let alone copied and used. So, it wasn't that vpw thought it was one way and others came along and contradicted him- this was vpw's show no matter who was at the pulpit. So, this reflected vpw's understanding at different times- and the practices were the result of applying what vpw said and taught. Specifically, vpw thought they were making it better in quality by doing all that. It was even directly in the taped sessions. Yes, there were some docents of the practice sessions who were "gestapo" about it- but they were only following orders. The class itself showed taping and analysis, so they followed suit. This was fine with vpw who did nothing to curtail it. So, this was a natural consequence of the class that reflected vpw's doctrine and passed his approval. 'Raf' date='15 July 2013 - 03:46 PM: "Johniam, I guess what I'm saying is, if VPW signed off on Earl Burton's class, then what Earl Burton taught is quite likely what VPW wanted taught, thus superseding his earlier presentation of the same principle. In other words, VPW clearly signed off on the "interpretation should be generally as long as the tongue" idea. I don't think the class instructors got all gestapo on the students. I think VPW did, and it filtered down." It was a clear point, and a good point. Naturally, that means some people will immediately try to obscure it since it means vpw is to be blamed for something, and that's verboten for some people. 'johniam' date='17 July 2013 - 05:11 PM Raf: Yes, VP totally signed off on Earl's class, but I met Earl a time or 2 in the 70s and I've seen him recently. He never came off to me as abrasive in any way, in person or in his class, plus I don't recall anyone here on GSC ever calling him verbally or sexually abusive." That's not the point. The point was that vpw set up practices- and Earl delivered them via tape- that were used to get "gestapo" on people. So, the local jackboots didn't all just wake up one morning and-in sync- try to bulldoze things with a mechanized approach. That came down, in steps, specifically from vpw. Earl could be very nice personally, and still pass along doctrines and practices that others would utilize fully- and harass people in the process. Earl certainly MEANT well. So, Earl's niceness (or theoretical lack of same) is a non-issue as it does nothing to address the results. Johniam (ibid) Two things... 1) One complaint on GSC which has surfaced in multiple contexts is that many times, people in authoritative positions in twi were not trained to handle people problems at all, so maybe they actually did walk with God, maybe they lucked out, or maybe people got hurt on their watch. I'm not just talking about VP or Earl, I'm talking about twig cordos, wow cordos, class cordos, etc. The first time I took Earl's class, one of the excellor session leaders acted like you were out of fellowship forever if your tongue was 10 seconds and your interpretation was 9. Earl and VP never came off to me like that." But they were the ones that passed it all along, whether or not you saw EITHER of them practicing it. (vpw was VERY good at doing ONE set of things in private and teaching ONE set of things in private- then being completely different in public. Johniam (ibid) "Plus... 2) VPs class was in 1967 when the ministry was smaller. VP was only concerned that people did it back then. By 1980 or so, when Earl's class came, there were thousands of people still coming into twi. Then the concern was more on quality. I can see that, but IMO timing the interpretations and stuff like that did not improve the overall quality of anything; it just gave folks one more thing to grumble about." So, in your opinion, vpw changed things and added practices that didn't improve with the changes- and made it easier for the heavy-handed people to be even more heavy-handed with others. If it was all reflections of what God wanted and said, there would be no need for improvements because it would already have been given at the highest performance level, too. So, vpw set up changes and added practices that did nothing to help Christians-but rather hinder them instead. Not really news anymore-except to a handful. Here we have the change of subject- making the discussion about anything BUT vpw's culpability for his poor practices and errors. Nothing clear-just a vague statement so others have to try to interpret an abstraction. That WAS the point-for almost everyone. There's the point again. Also not defensible since only the vague stuff worked. Getting into specifics showed vpw as culpable. So, leaving before you're caught mangling the understanding of the situation.

[sorry, but that's not what he was doing at all.] [He was speculating, on his own, about what vpw MIGHT have said. That's nothing at all like a quote- with the obvious exception of the word "hookiepook"- which we all know vpw used and John was clear about that. I note the term is dismissive and demeaning, but other than that I have no problems with its use. If he wasn't serious, for that matter, he wouldn't have considered starting a new thread about it.] Johniam: [vpw used "hookiepookism" to refer to anything supposedly supernatural and not Christian. We know that, and nobody contests it. John did NOT speak about what you just claimed- as we can see. John claimed that the modern, accepted term would not be "hookiepookism", but "paranormal." I agree, and that term isn't loaded and pejorative like the other is. But then John, all on his own, speculated on what "paranormal" is, came up with a meaning entirely his own-which contradicts what experts on English said it means- and then took his invented meaning and began speculating on the implications on a definition he himself made up and nobody is agreeing with. You said he claimed vpw didn't let anything get at cross-purposes with what he taught, and that's what John was addressing when he used the word "cross purpose." John, however, was quite clear he was claiming the word "paranormal" implied that paranormal things were NOT at cross purposes with what is normal- which is in opposition to what the word actually means. I'd rather just let this go-nobody is perfect-but since you brought it back, I thought it was important to set the record straight and quote what John actually said.]

These are very peculiar lyrics. This must be a very strange song- and that's from someone who posts strange songs.

I've only seen parts, but I know a few people are in it. It's a Quentin Tarentino flick, and he plays one of the criminal brothers. The other is played by George Clooney. We have Cheech Marin as a barker, and one minor who's dragged into the story. I'll go with that actress. Juliette Lewis Cape Fear Nick Nolte

Too easy? Phillip Morris, the sponsor for the early seasons, ENCOURAGED them to smoke on camera. They could NEVER say Lucy was "pregnant"- she was "with child." And the episode where they all discovered it? "Lucy is Enceinte." Had to translate it to fool the censors. Looking back, it was actually a surprise, decades later, to realize there were several episodes where Ricky spanked Lucy on camera. (I can think of 3 where it came up, but there may have been more- Lucy Plays Cupid was one, and Ricky Loses His Temper was another. The third was one where Lucy was hanging over the stage during Ricky's performance, with Fred handling the guy-wires. I'm not sure which episode that was, I wasn't taking notes.) And they slept in separate beds. How did Lucy GET "with child" in the first place?

That's it. Maybe George hasn't seen it-I haven't, either. With the sequel coming out, however, I had to think about it. Oddly enough, the animated movie, in Latin America, is "My Favorite Villain." (In Spanish, of course.)

A criminal mastermind uses a trio of orphan girls as pawns for a grand scheme. A nice-guy cop with dissociative identity disorder chases after them, as the criminal is profoudly changed for the better by the girls.

Ok, you we'll encourage you to smoke on-camera, and spanking your wife is fine. But if you say the word "pregnant", we'll pull you off the air.

Star Wars: the Empire Strikes Back to the Future

NCIS???

Correct. You've gotten a Clue. Your turn.

Well, it's not "Murder By Death." However, Mrs Wolf recommends that movie for anyone who likes THIS movie. (I liked both but prefer this one. Although that one DID have a few good quotes.)

“ 'The female of the species is more deadlier than the male.'" "Well, what are you afraid of, a fate worse than death?” “No, just death. Isn’t that enough?” "Don't deny it." "What do you mean, "don't deny it"? I'm not denying anything." "Another denial." "Let us in! Let us in!" "Let us out! Let us out!" " I dont want a scandal, do I? We had had a very humiliating public confrontation. He was deranged. He was..a lunatic! He didn't actually seem to like me very much; He had threatened to kill me in public." "Why would he want to kill you in public?" "I think she meant, he threatened, in public, to kill her." "Oh. Was that his final word on the matter?" "Being killed is pretty final, wouldn't you say?" "...And, to make a long story short..." "Too late." "How did you know that?" "Can you keep a secret?" "Yes." "So can I." "Everything alright?" "Yep. Two corpses, everything's fine." "There's still one thing I don't understand." "ONE thing?" "Good evening, have you ever given any thought to the Kingdom of Heaven?" "What?" "Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." "You ain't just whistling Dixie." "Armageddon is almost upon us." "I got news for you: it's already here." ""How many husbands have you had?" "Mine or other women's?" "Yours." "Five." "Five?" "Yes, just the five. Husbands should be like Kleenex: soft, strong and disposable." "You lure men to their deaths like a spider with flies." "Flies are where men are most vulnerable." "What's going on around here? And why would you lock me in? And why are you receiving phone calls from J. Edgar Hoover?" "J. Edgar Hoover?" "That's right! The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation!" "Why is J. Edgar Hoover on your phone?" "I don't know, he's on everybody else's, why shouldn't he be on mine?" "It should be just off there." "That must be it!" "Why has the car stopped?" "It's frightened."

The second was clearly "The Empire Strikes Back." The first was said in both TESB and RotJ. (The scene where Han Solo was encased in carbonite, and the scene on the forest moon when Princess Leia draws her blaster.)

“ 'The female of the species is more deadlier than the male.'" "Well, what are you afraid of, a fate worse than death?” “No, just death. Isn’t that enough?” "Don't deny it." "What do you mean, "don't deny it"? I'm not denying anything." "Another denial." "Let us in! Let us in!" "Let us out! Let us out!" "He had threatened to kill me in public." "Why would he want to kill you in public?" "I think she meant, he threatened, in public, to kill her." "...And, to make a long story short..." "Too late." "How did you know that?" "Can you keep a secret?" "Yes." "So can I." "Everything alright?" "Yep. Two corpses, everything's fine." "There's still one thing I don't understand." "ONE thing?" "Good evening, have you ever given any thought to the Kingdom of Heaven?" "What?" "Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." "You ain't just whistling Dixie." "Armageddon is almost upon us." "I got news for you: it's already here."

"I love you." "I know." "Do or do not-there is no 'try'."

“ The female of the species is more deadlier than the male.'" "Well, what are you afraid of, a fate worse than death?” “No, just death. Isn’t that enough?” "Don't deny it." "What do you mean, "don't deny it"? I'm not denying anything." "Another denial." "Let us in! Let us in!" "Let us out! Let us out!" "He had threatened to kill me in public." "Why would he want to kill you in public?" "I think she meant, he threatened, in public, to kill her."

There are two correct answers for this. I will accept either. (Or both for fun.) "I love you." "I know."

I don't have time for a longer search now. Here's what I found so far, which probably won't help. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-editorials/what-was-the-original-sin.html http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-editorials/craig-martindale-research-coordinator.html

Is that "Ghost"?

Should be Jack in "the Shining."

Dogma Salma Hayek From Dusk til Dawn

That's it.

They might. Of course, the instructions were inconsistent. The Intermediate was VERY specific about the translations matching almost exactly- same number of natural breaking points, and the number of seconds being close to exact. That's contradictory with being a paraphrase into a slang, since the timing would vary widely. "I was very, very busy." "I was as busy as a one-legged man in an @$$-kicking contest." "I was nervous." "I was sweating like R Kelly at a Girl Scout Jamboree." This is obvious to anyone who's actually spent any time trying to translate anything from one language to another. For those who have not, they can take out any set of instructions from any modern electronic product, and compare the length of the instructions in each language. The printed sections will vary widely in text, with sentence and word structure determining changes. For example, German is similar to Greek in having compound words that translate into entire phrases. Any fan of "I Love Lucy" should recognize this. The episode "Paris at Last" (season 5, episode 18) has a scene where phrases are translated, in succession, from French to German to Spanish to English, or vice versa, in a translation chain. There's a considerable difference in the time it takes to say some of the phrases in French and German. (It's almost as if they're dropping whole sentences.) Actually, although I personally don't have a problem with the phrase "hookiepook" in the abstract, I'm well aware it is DEROGATORY and meant to BELITTLE and MOCK the subject. (Whether or not it is mock-worthy is a separate consideration.) So, it's not that "paranormal" is so much current or politically correct, it is more technical and "correct" in that it conveys information without adding editorializing than a phrase meant to belittle it. It's like objecting to the phrase "Asian" because one prefers to say "ching-chow" or "slope" or "gook" or "chink". Also, it's a bit disconcerting to see you develop a "private interpretation" of the English language. You injected a meaning into a definition that is not there. Parallel lines DO NOT MEET. Both the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (arguably the finest 2 dictionaries of English any person will encounter face-to-face) note the derivation of "para" in their coverage of "parallel." http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=parallel "[Latin parallēlus, from Greek parallēlos : para-, beside" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parallel "Origin of PARALLEL Latin parallelus, from Greek parallēlos, from para beside + allēlōn of one another, from allos … allos one … another, from allos other" "Para" as in "paranormal" is "beside normal." It does not meet what is "normal." Parapsychology is a supposed field of study that does not intersect with/ cross Psychology. I don't see a connection with "not at cross purposes with." I can point to "parallel" (I included the links) for formal definitions that say that there's no intersection/meeting. There's no formal connection to "not at cross purposes with", and I've never seen such a claim or usage until your post. The only thing "interesting" about that would be to explore the poster drawing a connection between disparate things and why.

Ok, so we're at Scarlet Johansson. The Island Michael Clark Duncan DareDevil