WordWolf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalopes "Escalopes (also spelled as escallopes) are pieces of boneless meat which have been thinned out using a mallet, rolling pin or beaten with the handle of a knife, or alternative, combined with, or merely 'butterflied'. The mallet breaks down the fibers in the meat, making it more tender, while the thinner meat cooks faster with less moisture loss, producing a dish that that cooks faster and is moister and more tender." "The most famous recipe using veal escalope is "Veal Cordon Bleu"". It wasn't the hardest null cipher to crack, but I did want to make an example. Back when I used to read a magazine that had puzzles, they included ciphers of different types, including a page of null ciphers once. The format and coded message here was one they used, but I made it a bit more obvious. For those who really want a hard cipher, I'd recommend looking into Baconian ciphers. They even hid one of those into an illustration on the page containing Baconian ciphers. One reader figured it out and sent a reply illustration based on theirs. The rest of us had no idea there was a message TO find.

"Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die!" "STOP SAYING THAT!"

Come on, people. Just because you've heard this in a musical doesn't mean it has not been recorded and gotten airplay on the radio....

Your answer included the correct name, "FIRE", so that counts as correct. Go.

My rule of thumb for this thread has been: If a person who's never seen the movie can guess correctly, then it's a good quote. I've guessed a number from movies I've never seen. In the past page, we've gotten some quotes where people who know the movie well can get them, but the movie is NOT remembered FOR THAT LINE. As a fan of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, I can recognize Gene Hackman's line...especially since I rewatched it for Halloween. I liked "Pulp Fiction", but I need reminders of the discussion of Big Kahuna Burger to remember it at all. I know it's more challenging to come up with such lines, but that's the challenge of this particular game- to come up with such lines.

"Move over, Rover, and let Jimi take over!" "You say your mum ain't home, it ain't my concern, Just play with me and you won't get burned. I have only one burning desire"

For fun, I thought an example of a null cipher would illustrate what happens. What would you think if someone had this shopping list in his pocket when he was picked up for questioning, under suspicion of being a terrorist? dill pickles yams (1 can) nectarines (1 bag) apples (1 bag) mangoes (2 bags) ice cream (preferably Neapolitan) toaster strudel eggs (1 dozen) bacon (Canadian if available) relish instant ramen dates (1 pack) granny smith apples (if in season) egg nog tahini oranges (1 bag) niguri (if fresh) instant coffee tomato paste escalopes

You're really oversimplifying the process of just moving back and forth between 2 languages. The words often don't directly correspond, so the translations often have to change a lot or they won't translate correctly. Example 1: English has the expression "man and wife." Spanish has an expression "marido y senora", "husband and lady." The idea is much the same but the wording is different to get there. Example: I met someone who spoke almost no English. They wanted to ask how old my grandmother was. They said "How many years does she have?" That's how you ask the same question in Spanish-"How old is she?" So, they DIDN'T do that, the code-talkers. They translated WORD FOR WORD even when that made little sense-because their goal WAS to be confusing to listeners. The new phrases were not new WORDS, they were new PHRASES- "iron fish" for "submarine" and "black street" for "squad." The phrases were new, but composed of existing words. That's right from the military link you posted. Perhaps that's how it was in the movie-but Hollywood changes things. Again, from the military link, they explained how a Navajo listener wouldn't hear anything like that-which happened (according to the Wikipedia link, a Navajo POW was unable to make sense of a recording.) Here's what the military link says: "When a Navajo code talker received a message, what he heard was a string of seemingly unrelated Navajo words. The code talker first had to translate each Navajo word into its English equivalent. Then he used only the first letter of the English equivalent in spelling an English word. Thus, the Navajo words "wol-la-chee" (ant), "be-la-sana" (apple) and "tse-nill" (axe) all stood for the letter "a." One way to say the word "Navy" in Navajo code would be "tsah (needle) wol-la-chee (ant) ah-keh-di- glini (victor) tsah-ah-dzoh (yucca)." Most letters had more than one Navajo word representing them." The simple translation from English to Navajo would not have been an unbreakable code. What made the code so hard to break was the 2 steps of coding- both substitution AND null ON TOP of translating. If God wants to make a cipher of each message, He can easily do so. If you think He would do so, and does do so, that's your business. I think many things He CAN do, He won't do, and this is one of them.

I can hear Jimi in my head with that lyric, too. I said the SONG was wrong, but I said nothing about the artist. (It was a conspicuously specific correction.) But it wasn't the Hendrix song you named.

God CAN do whatever He wants. It is POSSIBLE for God to take, say, ancient Etruscan, do a substitution with it, and make an "unbreakable" code. If anyone COULD speak Etruscan, they'd translate to something like "nitwit oddment blubber tweak", but the cipher would switch the words to something in sentences. I don't buy it either, but that's how it would have to work. ============== A few words on codes/ciphers. Codes/ciphers fall into 2 basic categories: substitution and null. (Or uses both.) A substitution cipher switches one letter for another (A means B, B means C), or a number for a letter (1 means A, 2 means B), or one word or phrase for another ("IRS" means "vampire", "hitler" means "boss"). A null cipher is a LOT longer than the original message. The original message is relatively short, but is surrounded by information that is NOT part of the message to hide the message. The result can be a jumble and incoherent, or can look like something NOT a secret code. One example of both is a song I've heard. The title is a null cipher, and the lyrics are a substitution cipher, where each PHRASE is substituting for another PHRASE. (In each case, the same phrase.) The song is about something simple, but gets past the censors all the time because it's not in plain English. However, we should all be able to break the code. The title is "Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo." For the sensibilities of the classier posters here, I'll just link to the lyrics. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bloodhoundgang/foxtrotuniformcharliekilo.html I was working on an example of a null cipher and accidentally deleted my work. I'll redo it later.

That's only a PARTIAL description of the code-talkers. The code was DESIGNED to be hard to break. They did FOUR things to do this. 1) They used English as the base language 2) They used direct translation into Navajo 3) They invented new terms not existent in Navajo specifically to confuse things 4) They also used a "null cipher" on top of that. Just going from plain English to a null cipher can conceal a lot of information. That's when a code is used where most of the text is NOT the message, and a part IS. That's why, in this case, an actual Navajo listened to the messages, and had NO IDEA what was being said. He could pick up individual words in Navajo, but they seemed jumbled. They didn't form sentences like I'm doing now. So, the code-talkers used deliberately concealing translation, new, unfamiliar phrases, and an actual code ON TOP of the languages. Just knowing Navajo was not enough to "break the code."

"It's so nice to be back home where I belong."

"Move over, Rover, and let Jimi take over!" "You say your mum ain't home, it ain't my concern, Just play with me and you won't get burned."

BZZT! Sorry, wrong song.

Explains why I couldn't remember which of them did it. U-2 did a cover as well, on "Rattle and Hum", IIRC.

"All Along the Watchtower."

That's it.

IIRC, Darren and the nosy neighbor were both changed. Dick Sargent & Dick York were Darren, and Agnes Moorehead was the SECOND actress in her role. I recall no cross-over, so that was the wild guess. IIRC, the voice of Wilma Flintstone was also Maw from the Hillbilly Bears. I'm confident this is not that cartoon.

"Move over, Rover, and let Jimi take over!"

Wild guess here based on actors replacing actors in the same role- "Bewitched"?

Cardinal Richelieu has his men grab a NYC subway, and make hostages out of the passengers. It's up to a few of the king's swordsmen (and 1 hot-blooded Gascon wannabee) to stop him!

I think the idea is that, generally, Sola Scriptura is a subset of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism might be seen as "Gimme that old time religion." It's considered the antithesis, often, of modern movements, and is a matter of getting back to basics. However, getting back to basics and "old time religion" are not the same as ditching everything that isn't Sola Scriptura. There's Fundamentalists who consider other things as Fundamental. On the other hand, Sola Scriptura doesn't NECESSARILY mean "discard anything that isn't in a verse." Anything that isn't in a verse is completely optional and is devoid of authority. If a verse suggests it, it has that much, but no more. (So, a Sola Scriptura person is not required to discard using a computer, for example.) So, they're not the same thing, but there's an overlap, and some people may consider them the same. When you have someone who takes the Bible "literally", as in, historically accurate and so on, they're called "Fundamentalist."

"There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold"

What? Aw, man, they had the best fruit pies! *checks* Well, Tasykakes and Little Debbie are still around. With openings in the market, both can expand with new products to fill demand.

In the same class, EB taught what vpw taught in other places and times- that the vocabulary of the speaker affected the phrasing but not the content- which is why Amos, a shepherd, was less poetic than educated John's poetic Gospel opening. So, if Amos used a phrase like "muck and mire" rather than, say, "filth", vpw and EB would have endorsed it. Also in this class was EB playing the recording and saying that we can tell which were the interpretations with additions, because they took extra time. The idea was-if the words in tongues took 11 seconds (for example), then the interpretation into English (for example) should take 11 seconds (for example.) Someone who's multilingual reminded me to just tell people to pull out any set of instructions anybody has, for some electronic device. Look for where the instructions are in different languages. Compare the lengths of the sets against each other. Those are all supposedly real words in real languages all saying the same thing. Myself, I found a particular "I Love Lucy" episode as a good example. ("Paris At Last".) At the end of the episode, Lucy is in Paris, and trying to explain where some counterfeit French francs came from. The Police Desk Sergeant only spoke French. One of his officers spoke French and German, and was socializing with a tourist who spoke German and Spanish. So, Ricky arrived, and translated from Spanish to English to tell Lucy what the Desk Sergeant said. Lucy replied- which was translated to Spanish, to German, then to French. (I watched it with someone who understood some of each language, who confirmed it was all correct.) The scene is funny, and plays out with each person passing along emotion and tone along with the translation. Watch the scene, and pay attention to how long each set takes as it passes each person. Languages like German are a LOT briefer than languages like French, so the first step often shows a BIG gap between the "tongue" of French and the "interpretation" in German. BTW, Raf? Did the atheist control group of 1 have any theatrical training or experience?