WordWolf

*reviews the opening post* *studies the end of the post* So he did. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

In fairness, I think this thread has become about 2 things. A) One person's rejection of free vocalization as an innate human ability. B) One person's conflation of 2 subjects into one, namely, 1) the possible rejection of an innate human ability as not supernatural, (if it is logical that modern SIT is free vocalization AND that free vocalization is an innate human ability) 2) the possible rejection that God Almighty performs miracles or anything supernatural whatsoever if the modern SIT is not the Biblical SIT but rather an innate human ability. The second subject keeps on being introduced by the one person who claims the first can be rejected. (I wrote "the one person who wants the first to be rejected" but erased that because I myself WANT to reject the first but can't because I don't have any evidence pointing where I WANT the evidence to point.) ========================= Just to restate something..... God Almighty is still on the throne and acts in miraculous fashions all the time, even if all of modern SIT is hokum and wishful thinking and completely false. Any fakery on behalf of humans, well-intentioned or no, does not invalidate God one whit. No one has claimed it has. (For those who are convinced God Almighty doesn't act in miraculous fashions all the time, I'm speaking from my own convictions there about that and the existence of God Almighty. I'm doing it because the subject of the thread gets muddied when mixed with the other subject.) ======================== BTW, how would waysider and Raf feel about starting a new thread in Open or someplace, specifically to get into "free vocalization" in all its forms and why they're all the same thing, then maybe how words and terms get invented?

Then I'm happy for you, subject to that being a true story. I have one I experienced involving rapid healing that I'm quite thankful for experiencing. However, neither story or anecdote has anything to do with the current subject. Then our stories represent veering off the main discussion. No law against that, or against a thread completely changing in focus. However, it should never be mistaken for staying on-topic. Whether or not anyone ever produced an actual language during "modern SIT" is completely a different topic from "has anyone ever received a miraculous healing". However, it seems to me you keep lumping them together and saying that one has to believe BOTH or reject BOTH, which is patently an error. Wonderful. Which doesn't mean it has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not anyone speaking with "modern SIT" has ever produced an actual language. Nobody requested "outlandish stories." (If they did, I missed it-please quote and link.) However, if you're calling claims of people speaking in an actual, understood language when claiming to SIT nowadays "outlandish stories", I'm coming to think you have something there. Hey, I didn't go that far, but it seems you did. Me, I think "outlandish" overstates things. ================== In other news, can we just have this discussion on the other thread? It's open and everything.

YES! Go.

IIRC, it was waysider who posted before me about having been in acting classes or the equivalent and performing "free vocalization" without it being called that. If it's all right with you, can we reiterate the acting part about that for those in the studio audience who just tuned in? With some context so those who never did the exercise can get a sense of what it looks like? I'll join in, of course. I expect my own experience is shallower than yours. (I may be wrong on that.)

I can't ever see Terrence Stamp in anything without hearing him demanding people kneel. Not once I know it's Stamp.

"As if men don't desire strangers! As if... ohh, I refuse to speak of disgusting things, because they disgust me! You understand, boy? Go on, go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with MY food... or my son! Or do I have tell her because you don't have the guts! Huh, boy? You have the guts, boy?" "Shut up! Shut up!" "No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! Ha! You think I'm fruity, huh? I'm staying right here. This is my room and no one will drag me out of it, least of all my big, bold son!" And the $40,000? Who got that?" "The swamp." "Do you have any vacancies?" "Oh, we have 12 vacancies. 12 cabins, 12 vacancies." " It's sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn't allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..." "

You are correct. George figured he was missing something obvious. I was shaking a few clues at him- Kato as a side "Kick" and a "Beauty" of a car, especially. Al Hirt playing "Flight of the Bumblebee" can often make people recall the series if they watched it. In the TV show, the GH used a sonic "sting" and a gas gun. The Lone Ranger was invented by Fran Striker, as was the Green Hornet, both as radio characters first. The Lone Ranger's nepher was Dan Reid. The Green Hornet was Britt Reid, the son of Dan Reid. The connection is sometimes downplayed due to different companies having the rights to the characters. However, there have been nods to the connections here and there. Go!

This OTHER hero is a relative of the Lone Ranger. Really. And had his own television show. And a side-Kick. And a mask-a little like the Lone Ranger, on TV. And cool gadgets...including a sonic one and a gas one. And a really Beauty of a car. And a cool theme song-mostly Al Hirt on trumpet playing a version of Rimsky-Korsakov. If George can't get this now, he needs black coffee or something.

Cool World Kim Basinger Batman

The 13th Warrior has the warriors face Grendel. Readers of Beowulf may recall the story had 3 monsters. Decades later, an elderly Beowulf faces a dragon. In the relevant part of the story, the part I read in school twice (in different schools), Beowulf faces Grendel and Grendel's mother. In Friday the 13th, who were the monsters? ;)

That's it. Amazingly, there's a thematic connection between the bad guys in both movies. I didn't think about that until later. (I'd post spoilers to explain.)

Antonio Banderas stars as an Arab in the 10th century AD who comes to the aid of some Norsemen who return to their homeland to fight supernatural horrors- starting with an indestructible murderer who was seen killing teenagers at a Crystal Lake. (I got slightly symbolic there, but I think that one's still clear enough. I did it to make the story sound a little less "Wait-what???")

"As if men don't desire strangers! As if... ohh, I refuse to speak of disgusting things, because they disgust me! You understand, boy? Go on, go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with MY food... or my son! Or do I have tell her because you don't have the guts! Huh, boy? You have the guts, boy?" "Shut up! Shut up!" "No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! Ha! You think I'm fruity, huh? I'm staying right here. This is my room and no one will drag me out of it, least of all my big, bold son!" And the $40,000? Who got that?" "The swamp."

I really should have stopped and "done the math." Once we got this post, I had enough information to know this was going to go nowhere as a discussion.... There we had it. 1) Burden of Proof, according to chockfull, is a "FALLACY." 2) Burden of Proof is based, not on the actual claims, but on who spoke first. 3) Volume actually matters as part of the discussion. It was so demonstrably false I just posted a correction, and never thought what it means when a poster can actually post that and mean it. Someone who doesn't understand Burden of Proof- and refuses to understand it now even after it's explained- is NOT in the discussion to exchange ideas and examine evidence. They're in for other things. And reasoned discourse is going out the window. I don't know. I'll have to read Pete's post carefully. Maybe he can bring something to this discussion that it's been lacking until now.

You thought Mr Ed was a relative of the Lone Ranger, or of Silver? ;) This OTHER hero is a relative of the Lone Ranger. Really. And had his own television show. And a side-Kick. And a mask-a little like the Lone Ranger, on TV. And cool gadgets...including a sonic one and a gas one. And a really beauty of a car. And a cool theme song.

"As if men don't desire strangers! As if... ohh, I refuse to speak of disgusting things, because they disgust me! You understand, boy? Go on, go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with MY food... or my son! Or do I have tell her because you don't have the guts! Huh, boy? You have the guts, boy?" "Shut up! Shut up!" "No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! Ha! You think I'm fruity, huh? I'm staying right here. This is my room and no one will drag me out of it, least of all my big, bold son!"

Look, this is easy. A new term is made up when someone has a concept that doesn't have a term. That's so we can discuss it. (Examples: Astronaut, internet, computer.) Someone was examining a phenomenon and called it "free vocalization." The name comes from it being a vocalization, and it not following any language or formal structure. It is unrestricted by pattern and logic. (Free as in speech, not as in beer.) When examining different things, they share qualities with each other and all match the usage of the phrase "free vocalization." Small children playing a game do it. Actors in training do it. Conmen do it. Witch doctors do it. Christians who "SIT" do it. How do we know it's the same thing? All the things that define it, they share in common. What is different about any of them is irrelevant to the definition. (Age of speaker, intent of speaker, props used) We've seen that. Many of us have seen children or actors do it personally-or been the actors. Some of us who did "modern SIT" and seen children or actors do it have said it is the same. How can we know they're not the same thing? Someone would have to bring in at least one credible example that didn't match the pattern. So far, we've seen lots of things matching the pattern, and vague anecdotes that supposedly don't, but we can't examine them. With thousands of Christians doing it daily and more doing it weekly, there should be a legitimate example SOMEWHERE that breaks the pattern- IF THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. Based on the evidence we've seen, modern SIT IS free vocalization. Modern SIT is free vocalization done by people who love God, want to serve God, and have been misinformed that this act is the Biblical SIT that they would rather do. God is still in Heaven, and appreciates their hearts, miracles happen despite these Christians making a consistent mistake, and eventually Jesus Christ will correct all the parties involved. Based on the evidence we've seen, the "argument" against it goes as follows: "The modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT. Its unable to be understood like the original because its in languages of angels-despite those languages matching the patterns of languages as studied by experts because God doesn't cooperate with experts. Sometimes it DOES produce a spoken, earthly language- but it's incredibly rare and all accounts possible come from unconfirmable anecdotes. Sometimes people produce real languages that exist around the earth but are doing so by possession or devil influence- despite no linguist confirming THAT either." I'm unclear whether today's position will be -There's no such thing as free vocalization-it's all spirit-produced -it's a coincidence that all accounts seem to match free vocalization or something else. I'm still amazed that "charlatans have faked speaking in a language" keeps getting distorted into "there's no power of God ever, everyone's a charlatan." It's dishonest, unfair, and damages the speaker's credibility. But, there we go.

It's also not what's happening here. Nobody's "automatically assuming" anything except you. We keep hearing the most casual of anecdotes is a reliable reflection of what actually happened. Someone claimed to bring forth a message from God Almighty? That must be what happened. Someone claimed to bring forth a message from some spirit? That must be what happened-even if they got the spirit's category wrong. Someone claimed to do something supernatural? That must have happened. That's no kind of "research" at all, that's jumping to a conclusion without even trying. I noticed you condemned me for agreeing with a fellow Christian who is an expert stage magician who wrote a book and drew some conclusions. I stated I have an opinion- which is pretty specific. He had an expert background on the 2 disciplines he discussed. I read his book, I went over his conclusions AND HOW HE GOT THERE. Your response? We're wrong because you can't separate "those guys at one place and time were charlatans" from "everyone at every time is a charlatan." I'd correct you about the book itself but what would be the point? You've condemned an entire viewpoint by lumping all kinds of things together, and keep constructing rationalizations to pretend you got there through logical steps. I've been reading the thread. You formed your opinion and THEN BEGAN to look at everything, and everything has been interpreted selectively through your CONCLUSION. I've really wanted you to give me a reason to think I was overlooking something and there was a reason to think that SOME of the modern SIT is legitimate. I really wanted that. You've given me no reason to think that. In fact, since the strength of your position lies in a leap of faith and an insistence on discrediting anything you disagree with, and then pretending that's not what you did, for me, you've made a rather strong case that you're wrong. One side of the discussion has evidence, presented it, and is reflecting what it says accurately. One side has no evidence and has been guessing, misinterpreting, speculating, and pretending that's not what they're doing. I can't possibly support that.

Ultimately, no program is a panacea, a cure-all. If you're dedicated, even a bad program will help somewhat. If you're not trying, even a good program will be of little use. In between is everything else. I'm sure there's many stories of people in AA/NA and so on who have been helped greatly. I'm sure there's many stories of people who went into the same programs and have been no better off, and many stories of people who were worse off. (I'd be shocked if the last 2 categories were equal in number to the first one, as ultimately I think AA/NA etc help a lot more people than they don't.) One difference between twi and 12-Step groups is that twi refuses to risk helping people. If you have a problem, you're kicked out fast. If you're married to someone who has a problem, you're kicked out fast. If your kid has a problem, you're watched and encouraged to kick out your kid from your house. (How's THAT for "Christian compassion?") 12-Steps programs, by definition, are risky for the reputations of the people involved. I was briefly associated with a church that was actively helping the local community. One time, there was a mildly embarrassing incident that involved a recovering person who acted up a bit during an event. Rather than condemn him and kick him out (the twi way), the church sought to help him more. Did I mention they were/are Roman Catholics? (Surprised me, too.)

This OTHER hero is a relative of the Lone Ranger. Really. And had his own television show. And a side-kick. And a mask-a little like the Lone Ranger, on TV. And cool gadgets...including a sonic one and a gas one. And a really sweet-looking car.

We should keep this moving. If AHAT doesn't post by the end of day, please do so. (I have one also.)

(I'm pretty sure it was "Get away from her, you b%tch!" The line became a running thing in a few obscure circles.)

Ok, since no 1's jumping in... Misery. Rosie O'Donnell once said she was in a little hospital after getting bruised up on location. A nurse said to her... "You're that big woman....You're that big woman who hurt that guy." "..................No, wait, that was Misery-I wasn't IN that movi--" "All I know is, when you hit him with that hammer, you scared the hell out of me..."

That nicely highlights the gullibility issue. The wise thing is to rule out all mundane answers before considering a supernatural answer. Any competent actor can dress up in a funny costume, announce they have a funny name, announce they are going to contact a spirit guide, perform a ceremony, then begin speaking with voice and accent changes. Many competent con artists can draw from the same skills and do the same. None of that invalidates the existence of actual, supernatural events. HOWEVER, most of the things with that label slapped on them, from what I've seen, are mundane things with lots of window-dressing. I don't need to suppose all of them are supernatural to believe there's supernatural events. I believe in the existence of US dollar bills in $10,000 denominations, with Salmon P. Chase's face on them. That doesn't mean that, if someone claims to have one and will sell it to me for $1000, that I will automatically believe theirs is a real bill. There's genuine, and there's counterfeit. And the counterfeit relies on the gullibility of the public to work.