WordWolf

First of all, the phrase "ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES" is a contradiction in terms, like "IRONCLAD RUMOR." Someone's IMPLICATION can't be ABSOLUTE because to make something clear, let alone ABSOLUTE requires direct speaking, which is the antithesis of IMPLICATION. Second of all, the error there is obvious. He speaks specifically of 6. He says nothing of the rest there. In and of itself, this tells us nothing of what he thought about the other criteria. So, then we look at the other criteria. When we look at them, we see they don't tell us much. They don't match some. They match a few that also match gibberish. This really should surprise nobody who read the other thread because all the criteria were itemized and addressed at one point. In numerical order.

As to "no resemblance", I thought everyone would understand the difference between "no resemblance beyond that of producing sound" and "no physical connections." TECHNICALLY, yes, they produce sound, and audible languages do that. So do car horns and cat meows. So, TECHNICALLY, they share a common trait, all of them. As to the criteria that are met, they're ones, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, by gibberish as well as language. If you understood language studies better, you'd have gotten it when it was laid out in detail.

Yowza. Ok, waysider... You're currently the best-informed in the room about acting and theater. If you'd be so kind, can you please outline for everyone else how this works? I know chockfull is going to say it makes no sense, but for everyone else, it should be informative. The specialized training of actors gives them the experience and so on to do these sorts of things more easily, but they're trainable skills for most people to some degree. I can go into the socialization and culturalization a bit more, though.

I'm conservative in my language. Science taught me that. With everything we've seen so far, there's no resemblance. That means they seem to not resemble each other. Dishonesty does hinder progress. That much we agree upon. Until you can see the logic flaw in equating that you just demonstrated again, you're going to miss a lot. But thanks for laying it out for Mark and any late arrivals. I'd rather you see it too, and if you disagreed with me, it would be on better grounds. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of you having a scientific or logical background for the evidence or the arguments to appeal TO. So, the chances of either making sense to you from either perspective isn't so strong. I also can see which side's relying on "theatrics" and histrionics and which is letting the evidence speak. We agree on the last point that ultimately the subject is not affected by the posts. However, people can read all this and make up their own minds. I certainly did-primarily from reading the thread and following along. BTW, thanks for summarizing your position succinctly. It can be addressed succinctly now. That's not what it meant. Anecdotal evidence exists supporting a lot of things you dismiss casually- like UFO abductions. It's hypocritical to say anecdotal evidence of UFOs or Bigfoot don't carry weight, but anecdotal evidence of understood modern SIT is "evidence." That's one reason the thread isn't completing its progress. Mind you, I think the threads ARE making progress partly BECAUSE of the circling. I certainly became convinced of one side and left the side I wanted to be on after seeing the circling and the materials.

You misunderstand the difference between the situations. Anecdotes that, decades ago, some people other than the speaker claimed something about understanding something someone said that they supposedly didn't understand is not able to be scrutinized. We can't bring in the speaker and confirm they didn't know the language. We can't bring in the person who supposedly made off-hand comments about understanding it. In a court of law, that would be laughed out if someone tried to bring it as proof of anything. That's why socks, for example, didn't offer it, saying "You should consider this a refutation of your point." socks understood that-even IF every single thing he thought happened, and he reported it 100% accurately- (and we have no way to test any of it), it should convince us of nothing other than that it convinced socks at the time. socks wisely left it at that. As for me saying I lied and faked it, well, that's different. You only need one person's testimony- that of the liar and faker. Having an eyewitness would reinforce that. Each of us testifying we lied should be sufficient. (What would be sufficient proof we lied, supposing you believed there was such a thing?) Raf says he lied about it and faked it. He has an eyewitness to that- me. I saw him lie about it and fake it. I said I lied about it and faked it. I have an eyewitness to that-him. He saw me lie about it and fake it. Both of us were HONESTLY MISTAKEN. We didn't MEAN to lie. We did so UNINTENTIONALLY. So, you have both the liar and the eyewitness. In 2 directions. About multiple incidents over multiple years. In the previous examples, you have neither. And again, when this thread began, I was firmly thinking "I was doing what God wanted and didn't lie." In a court of law, my testimony that it was a fake would carry MORE weight because I didn't WANT to believe it. (It's like a man who hates another man, but steps forth with proof of the second man's alibi that he's innocent of a crime.) I don't expect you to get the difference. Everyone else will. Your experience is nonexistent. I'm speaking of a point that waysider made, and I also made. You lack experience and training in Theater. I don't know who waysider studied under. My limited education on the subject came under the late Kevin O'Connor. I have had further experience working with improvisational actors and theater students, in a few different contexts. Thus, my claim is that actors can produce both the sounds-referred to here as "free vocalization" but would mean the same thing without a name- and the speeches- referred to as "interpretation" or "prophecy" with a little practice and a little context. I've done scenes where "free vocalization" was done instead of dialogue. (In fact, O'Connor complimented me directly on how well I did in that scene.) Lots of others have as well. In fact, a more advanced exercise has actors switching back and forth between their native language and gibberish at an instant, on command. I've seen stand-up comedians with acting backgrounds do that one. waysider could probably tell you more about both. If you question what improvisational actors really CAN do, then ask to sit in on a class of them. If you like, I can design the "experiment" for you. You can choose the class. You can choose the day and time. You can personally observe the results. And it will look JUST like an old twig meeting's manifestation time. It's been established on this thread to a reasonable degree. It hasn't been established on this thread to your satisfaction- primarily because nothing would get us there short of Jesus Christ himself logging in, proving it was him to you, and certifying everything that was said. There's been realistic conversation and there's been evidence. Please stop exchanging the word "evidence" for the word "proof." There's enough EVIDENCE to weigh everything to one side. That the research showed you nothing in the way of evidence, we can't do anything about that, either. chockfull, with no background in Formal Psychology, you honestly can't speak with even lesser authority on how the subconscious and the conscious work. The entire subject of metacognition requires some formal education. (Or years of dedicated, independent study from formal sources.) That you've never had even an introductory level is obvious from the fact that you didn't recognize what the word "metacognition" meant- it comes up in university in the Introductory class, and is VERY introductory. (In fact, I accidentally re-invented the term in class once, which showed I understood the subject and hadn't read the assigned chapter which was CALLED "metacognition" before walking into class that morning.) So, when you explain to me how the subconscious mind and how the conscious mind work, I take that like I take correcting our resident poster (I forget who has the Mathematics degree) if I try to correct him on mathematics. He's studied it a LOT more than me and honestly should understand it a LOT more. On subjects you've studied formally that I have NOT, I'd expect you know them far better than I. Psychology is not one of them. Metacognition is a particular interest of mine, from all perspectives (including Biological, and Sociological influences on same.) So, when I say that I understand how the subconscious works and that's what happened, and you say "You're wrong and clearly don't understand how the subconscious works", well.... Exactly. We ALL meant well. No, in other words, like anyone else I'd like to believe I'm always right and never need to apologize or correct my positions on things. I'm just brutally honest with myself about that part. (Examining my own thoughts and how I get there has been a hobby for decades.) Given 2 choices, I'd accept being always right over being sometimes wrong. Since I prefer truth over ego, I'd accept correcting my errors over concealing them daily if necessary. (In fact, that ties into how I became a Christian. I knew I had to choose between brutal truths I despised, and lies I wanted to believe, and the answer would determine who I'd become.) So, I'm chagrined that I lied and faked it. I'm glad I can see that and face it now, and won't do it again tomorrow. I'm a tiny bit more truthful, a tiny bit improved for it.

I lost you about metacognition because you're making claims about metacognition NOW. The whole subject of how thinking works and what goes on, I've done work in it. So, I know what I know on the subject, and I know what I don't know on the subject. I've also done work in Theater, Human Communications, and Sociology. I can speak on each in limited capacities-and I'm aware of what I do and don't know in each. As to Sociology, any Sociologist (or competent undergrad student) could design a social structure for an organization that would have the participants, the members, taught that free vocalization was divine, and that if they trusted God, both syllables not connected to any language and lacking the structure of any language would be directly of God. They then could go on and teach the people that, if they trusted God, the people could "interpret" that, and that the words in their own language that immediately followed would be of God, and that God wanted them to. Then the only things needed would be some samples to acculturate the people so they "knew how it worked." That's exactly how the "slain in the Spirit" people work, and the people who "dance in the Spirit." They expect God to deliver, and they do something and expect God to provide the specifics. They sincerely believe that's how it works. Ok, so that's a framework that would provide the expectations. The only missing things would be the actual utterances. Any improvisational actor can produce free vocalization. If their instructions were clear, they could free vocalize and speak in their language after that, insisting that was the translation. With some preparation and samples to draw from, they could produce results identical to the twi experience- stand up, speak without a language, then speak in their language and sound EXACTLY like the expected interpretation. Any adult could do the same with some training. With the proper mindset, any adult could be taught to do that and believe it was all directly from God. As for "prophecy", that's even simpler. They'd just need a sampling to draw from, so they knew what it sounded like. Any improvisational actor could keep going as long as needed or instructed. Any non-actor who was convinced it was of God could do it all the time. So, COULD it all have been faked? Yes, it could all have been faked. We were taught it was real. We had expectations it was real. We expected that if we uttered syllables, God would provide meaning, and we had samples of what other people's speech sounded like. (I've noticed that most modern SIT in twi sounded the same no matter what state the speaker was from.) As for interpretation or prophecy, yes, with expectations raised, and samples to draw from, you'd get well-intentioned people who provided them and thought they were from God. The speakers were primed, the listeners were primed. Nothing was questioned, nobody WANTED to question it. If it was real, honest scrutiny would RE-ENFORCE THIS, not THREATEN IT.

Personally, I see the main problem in the lack of "progress", with this, why we circled the same handful of points ad infinitum, was due primarily to one thing. There are at least 3 propositions. A) Modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT. B) God's Power in the lives of Christians no longer applies entirely. C) Supernatural things happen all the time, and demonic demonstrations of power are very common. Those people who currently hold that -A- is true, disagree with -B- and disagree with -C-. The few who've been holding forth that -A- is false have been insisting that to agree to -A- means one AUTOMATICALLY agrees with -B-, and thus AUTOMATICALLY disagrees with -B-, while to agree with -B- means one MUST disagree with -A- and agree with -C-. Period. Thus, it's not purely a discussion about -A- at all. Someone has been determined to insist it's about -B- at times, and at other times has held that since -B- is false, there's no way -A- can be true- and has approached the entire discussion accordingly. In other words, no matter what the actual typed words are, the whole point of their posts, the subtext, the reasons, the motives, have nothing to do with -A- but rather with -B-. That makes it difficult to have a fair discussion on the subject and get places. But watching it unfold for page after page showed me one thing: I saw which side was making sense-and it wasn't mine. I saw which side was making rudimentary errors about science, content, and what everyone's posts said- and it was mine. So, I had a LOT more information supporting the idea that I needed to change my thinking. I'm certain that wasn't the INTENDED result.

That's it. You either got it by recognizing Durand Durand and an angel, or eliminated possibilities by saying "science fiction movie, older than the Star Wars Trilogy or thereabouts, with an angel, a female protagonist, and not a lot of concern for her wearing her uniform. I was cruising Wikiquote for ideas and saw that name, and I was pretty sure we'd never done this movie. For those curious about the movie, just find a summary of the story. It's really not worth sitting down to watch it if it's in front of you. (I wouldn't, anyway.)

"Our rendezvous point will be at 1600 hours. And our password will be… "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"." "Just a moment — I'll slip something on." "Don't trouble yourself. This is an affair of state." "I have no armies, or police… and I can't spare the Presidential Band. Besides, you're a five-star, double-rated astronavigatrix. Your mission, then. Find Durand Durand, and use all of your incomparable talents to preserve the security of the stars." "De-crucify the angel!" "What?" "De-crucify him or I'll melt your face!" Ok, the posters older than me and Raf should be able to figure this one out now. Or any trivia buffs who know where a certain 80s band got their name.

In other news.... Mark, I like you and I respect you. So, please take this at face value. We've been having a discussion about this. It's been contentious. I'd like to think your side is correct, but all the evidence supports the other side- that what we're seeing now is NOT what they saw THEN. We've also started from what we all already knew. So, I'm sure you can see that if you come at this SOUNDING like twi teachings, covering the same ground as twi teachings, then nothing new is brought to the table. You've done your own studies-there's no need to rehash what we all heard in twi and have already DISMISSED. The only results are frustration that we're recovering the same ground again or that someone SOUNDS like twi, which is annoying on its own. Also, if you're trying to convince us Paul SIT'd, you're wasting your time. None of us ever questioned that. We're saying that what Paul did-and they did and experienced- is not what we did and experienced. So, posting about that frustrates people who already agreed with that but feel like you're not listening to what they had to say. We'd LIKE a dialogue here. So far, we're not really getting a dialogue with the affirmative posters. A few other things should be obvious, but I'll spell them out. 1) We're serious and suggesting otherwise won't add something good to the discussion. 2) Flat claims by ANYONE that "they're the same" won't move us- not the Pope, not BG Leonard, not George Mueller, not vpw, and not any poster. So, saying "Organization X and Book Y are quite certain they're the same" won't sway any opinions. That's why I say, take your time, and bring your "A-Game" to the table. Let's see what you have that shows-from Scripture- that SIT there is the same thing as SIT in a modern twi-style meeting in a living room. If it REALLY can make a stronger case that it is, I'm open to changing my mind again. Being surprised won't change that.

A number of us have posted on the thread. I said rather clearly "I lied." I meant well, I didn't mean to deceive myself, but I did. Of course, you've already determined that nothing could possibly weaken your case, so either I'm lying about having lied, or I was never born again, or some other dismissive carp like that. If a professional in Cognitive Psychology chimed in with that one, I'd weigh it heavily. As it is, I know full well that messages that sounded just like the ones we regularly heard in fellowship can be constructed "on-the-fly" at conversational speed with a little practice, or an "excellor session." It's certainly possible that every single message like that I've heard was faked that way. People darned well CAN fake a message like that. (Personally, I think that at least a minority of those I've heard or spoken could POSSIBLY have been faked but were not. As to the majority, we meant to praise God, we meant to bring forth messages from Him, and we brought them forth from ourselves. That's how I see it.) This has got to be a joke. Look- everyone else has seen pages and pages explaining how it works. That's what I did when I attempted to SIT. When I meant to interpret or prophesy, I looked for a message to bless the people at hand, something God wanted them to hear. With no immediate revelation (in nearly every case, I think), I reached into my subconscious mind and into my experience WITH these messages in twi and produced ones that sounded like everyone else's. And I never MEANT to lie or fake it. I meant to serve God. I meant to bring forth messages at God Almighty's behest. I meant to do the right thing. Calling us "liars" when that's the case all around is not exactly fair. I mean, all men are liars at some point but we reserve the term for exceptional cases. The same goes for "fakers". But you did get one thing right- I would have been happier thinking I was doing God's will the entire time- if I actually HAD been. I'd rather face the truth either way, but I prefer my truths to be pleasant ones that make me look less foolish. You've never done studies in metacognition-I have. I'm no expert, but I can follow along when an expert explains things, and I know the basics.

I'd say, when I was in twi, that some 90% or nearly 100% of all messages were variations on about 6 messages we heard regularly. When I was a Roman Catholic, I found repeating the same Scriptures on schedule once a year, every year to be a bit repetitive by the time I was about 11. Hearing the same message twice a week was only inspiring because I was supposed to be inspired. (It was only partly effective.) And for the record,I think waysider has just strung 2 of them together, with 1 of them a bit shorter than normal.

Nothing that recent.

What, it's MY turn? Oops. "Our rendezvous point will be at 1600 hours. And our password will be… "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"." "Just a moment — I'll slip something on." "Don't trouble yourself. This is an affair of state."

Is it "Saturday Night", the Bay City Rollers?

We're agreeing with Paul. We'd also like to find real examples of what Paul spoke about- if any currently exist. We're not arguing with Paul, we're agreeing with him- and claiming the modern practice has been LABELLED the same thing but is not. I myself was hoping for some evidence to the contrary, but none has appeared that can actually sway me logically. (Would be nice, though.) But if you disagree, hey, cool. Jesus will settle all differences at the appointed time. Unless the Scriptures actually show that what Paul did is NOTHING like the modern practice we were all indoctrinated into in twi. Then those who still do it are sincerely mistaken and MEAN to pray and praise to God, but are doing something other than Biblical SIT at the time. Feel free to do a slow, good job and not feel rushed. We all have things to do.

It's not intentional, it's a side-effect. I'm trying to make a coherent story, and that seems to generally reverse the title orders. (I managed to reverse it with a description change once, as you recall, I'm sure.)

Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep as a couple who, decades into their marriage, try to spark things up all over again. I didn't remember the name partly because I heard more than 1 name for it, and partly because it shares a name with more than 1 other movie. It was released as "Hope Springs" in the US. (What Am I Going To Do With My Husband? was another title.)

That's it.

If I can name the male lead actor and the rough plot, can we move along?

*cough* RHODES Scholar *cough* http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/rhodes-scholar.html

A mad scientist turns out to have survived his supposed death. He agrees to help construct an artificial woman- who is then kidnapped and a kingdom framed for her kidnapping. Good thing her intended mate-a man in black who was previously constructed- arrives to thwart the 3 kidnappers. Then things really get complicated...

Well, it's something new to discuss and consider, at least. People exhibit crazy behaviour all the time. Many attribute it to religion- or write their religion around crazy behaviour. There were devout people in the Appalachias who handled snakes and sipped poison as part of their religious practices- and some still do. Lots of people know that, and lots have looked into it. Very few people signed on. There were sincere people who thought the Hale-Bopp comet was the signal a spaceship was going to pick them up. Their leader called himself "Do" (Japanese for "way", like in TaeKwonDO or AikiDO, which made me suspicious he was claiming he was some sort of Messiah, the way, truth and life.) Out of all the people they tried to recruit, relatively few signed up. That means relatively few committed suicide, expecting their spirits or souls or whatever to be beamed up to the mother ship or whatever. Manson claimed to be the Messiah, too, as did Jim Jones. People killed for them or committed suicide for them- but most people would have just walked or ran the other direction. Not everybody who got into twi would have been ripe for "throw yourself on the floor" Christianity. I certainly would have run the other way- even further from Christianity than I was. I needed a SENSIBLE approach, one that showed there was a LOGIC to Christianity that I'd never heard of before. (Other people had seen it, I had not, not that I had a wide range of experience.) Many others would have ignored it, too. My family for sure, and nearly everyone I ever invited to a Bible fellowship. At least a FEW people might have gone for it, though. SOMEBODY's doing the "smack in the head" and stuff.

He did. This thread's gone on for as long as it has partly because it's gone in circles. Raf posted something, and you disagreed. He explained, and you claimed to not get it. Any study was skipped over and parsed for things to jump on, not legitimate points to discuss. (If someone spent several paragraphs on a point, then made one sentence that was obvious in context but sounded like it went in the opposite direction, you jumped all over the sentence.) Just going from his posts, I'd say he's tired of repeating himself. Raf's claimed to have addressed everything (I'd add more than once.) You're claiming he hasn't addressed major points. Both of you are going to keep saying that. Both of you are going to keep meaning that. By definition, at least one of you is wrong. I'd have liked it to have been Raf. Yes, I've known him a long time- but the double-edged sword is that I hold him to a higher standard than I hold you. So, if he leaves matters unspoken, I'm more likely to call him on it, and would at least bring it up when asked. You asked now- he addressed everything. He's under no compulsion to keep on re-addressing it. You're also in error that HIS comments are "snide" or "namecalling." If you thought he was being rude, you could easily have complained. If I thought he was, I WOULD have complained. Earlier, I thought his tone was harsh, although I wouldn't say he was "namecalling." I mentioned it to him. Later, he was (as I perceive it) less harsh, so I dropped it. Later, I noted you were pushing things, while he was going out of his way NOT to. And I said so. I posted about it and let it go at that. Adults should be able to police themselves when they are asked. (I can be moderated effectively by simply being ASKED to be nicer and being reasoned with. That's why I don't get kicked out of places, and keep being offered moderation or staff positions on boards nearly everywhere I go.)

That's not what it said on his business cards....