WordWolf

Eh, is this "Mister Jones and Me", by Counting Crows? (Or "Mister Jones", I'm never sure.)

Gee, that guy hardly sounds like a Real Genius to me...

I don't see that to be the case, either. I didn't use any "academic techniques" with the Wheel of Time or Harry Potter. (I didn't go to any school offering a degree in either, but I've heard there's a school somewhere with at least a class on HP.) Again, it depends on how deep you want to go. The most elementary SWIMMERS can all hang out in the shallows, to go deeper into the water, you need to swim better than that. With any book, you can get some level of understanding by reading it no matter who you are, so long as you have something approaching an average level of reading comprehension. With any book, the more skills you have (the deeper your background), the more levels you'll understand the book at. Again, that's ANY book. With moderate skills, you'll see deeper and more profoundly than the D+ English student who read through it. With more dedication, you'll bring a broader range to the table, or a greater wealth of specialized knowledge, and you'll understand more. And if you really put in several years of work, you'll find things that the average person would think you made up. (Regarding Hamlet, I've found at least one teacher I had was INDIFFERENT and didn't seem to get a certain point Shakespeare made. So, attitude affects dedication, which affects how far you go or how hard you apply yourself. To very specifically address your point, ANYONE can read Proverbs and should be able to see it's got a lot of wisdom in it, and understand SOME of that wisdom, enough for their preferences. Not everyone could do a read-through of, say, Ecclesiastes and find it equally wise. Due to its handling of DEEPER issues, it can seem like nonsense to an indifferent reader, who might completely miss the points made all over the book. I got accused of polarizing the posts of others a few posts back. I think I'm getting that type of RESPONSE to my posts, however, and I'm not actually trying to make things either/or.

I disagree. Not even addressing matters of the supernatural and doctrine, I would disagree. When I read Hamlet, I come away with a deeper understanding than the high school and college students that read it each semester. (More than I did at both levels, and I understood it a lot at both levels.) That's interest, study, and familiarity. However, they get the basic story-they understand who does what and basically why. Anyone can read "the Wheel of Time" and get an entertaining read of a story they understand. Then there's people who "sleuth" the series, digging for all the nuances the author included for those who look VERY closely. Those people get a lot more out of each volume. When the Harry Potter series was coming out, I took time off sleuthing the Wheel of Time to sleuth HP. It was a LOT easier than sleuthing WoT, but a lot of the same principles applied. Lots and lots of people read the books, and many just got what was on the surface. Some sleuthed deeper, and many of those guessed wrongly because they didn't have enough experience with sleuthing books. I did, so most of my guesses were correct (and I was correct as to which ones were wrong that others proposed.) Anyone with a coherent Bible version that's fairly accurate can get a basic understanding of salvation in Jesus Christ and so on. The basics are of primary importance, and those come through. Those who approach it with a degree of historical knowledge, cultural knowledge, Koine Greek or other language knowledge, those people will be able to get more out of it. Those with a lot of that knowledge will see deeper yet. (That's why ex-twi'ers generally can only see but so deeply- we all had a limit on our education, and few went far beyond that. And I don't count myself among them.) So, I expect almost anyone can read the Bible and get a basic understanding. However, the deeper matters will need more dedication than the average person will devote. That goes for ANY group of adherents with ANY book they consider "holy". They will put in the time, they will be more dedicated, so they will get more out of it.

Because perception is SUBJECTIVE, and someone touchy on a subject can see an insult in it even when that insult isn't even there. US television writers have to tread a thin tightrope to produce scripts that won't result in SOMEONE starting a letter-writing campaign for the same reason. I left the entire discussion about inerrancy ALONE except for a specific instance where ONE poster posted ONE thing and said it was a contradiction and proof of contradictions. I rebutted that and pointed out I thought it didn't take a lot of work to see how that specific instance fit together. I don't like it when people jump to conclusions that fast- I find it sloppy, and altogether too common nowadays. (Just a reminder: I don't spend all my time on the GSC. Out in the big wide world are lots of people with sloppy logic who tick me off all the time.) That one poster thanked me for posting what I did, and said they'd follow up on their own. "The end", I thought, but a few OTHER posters seem to have seen themselves in what I said when I was specifically addressing ONE poster, and thinking of a bunch of people who've never heard of twi. I was even ASKED about that, I clarified my point, and STILL got someone interpreting my points as addressing them in a general way when I was addressing someone else in a SPECIFIC way. There's an assumption there that there was an assumption that ANY apparent contradiction can be worked out if you just asked someone else. Someone brought one up, I worked it out as if asked. If I'd been asked about it earlier, I would have posted it sooner. When I see an apparent contradiction, I look at it from all the angles I can find, and if that doesn't present a logical answer, I call in others for insight. Often they have access to resources or commentaries or whatever that I don't, or have pondered this very issue before, and can fill in all or part of an answer. I find that's a good strategy to follow. "In multitude of counsellors is safety." I don't know how that became universalized as a Thou Shalt rather than a "rule of thumb." Seems the contents of my posts are being read through a perception filter that's polarizing them. Sorry to hear that. I hate it when I can't find an answer and end up with a persistent question that lasts years. It feels like unfinished business or a discordant note. I suppose that could be annoying. Then again, if you find that lots of people are assuming that- and most of that is as substantial as me not even thinking about you and you deciding I was trying to "character assasinate" you, then there's a simple solution- stop thinking everything's about you. I used to ascribe a much greater importance to my existence in other people's discussions. Once I adjusted my perceptions closer to reality, I found it remarkable freeing. (Of course, it was a slight ego blow that I really wasn't in ANY discussions when I thought I was in a LOT of them, but in the long run, I much prefer it this way.) Just maybe, you're missing a nuance or two here, yourself. But I agree that a difference in perspectives could avoid bitterness in a disagreement here. I was quite surprised to discover I've apparently been in a heated argument for over a day. This is the first I've heard of it. Next time, I'd like to know sooner. Otherwise, I might miss the entire thing. This. I don't think I can add anything to this post, so I won't try.

I give up, why must it? I was pointing out that a SPECIFIC example, to me, looked nothing like what it was being described as, and THAT type of thinking bothered me. Just as when someone says "here's a contradiction" then uses that as their excuse to downgrade the Bible's utility. THAT's what I objected to, and I still do. For the most part, I've been leaving you guys alone about the inerrancy thing.

My point was that I think some people have made the easy decision, and just give up when they run into something they don't understand, as soon as they can't make heads nor tails out of it. (I've usually called in someone else to try to help me figure out what was puzzling me.) We just saw an example of that. Someone posted a pair of verses. I think a careful reading would make it clear, even without any special knowledge of Greek names or figures of speech. Heck, a look at other Bible versions could help work it out. A few seconds typing at Bible Gateway and I have the verses in 2 other versions, which seem to see the verses as I do. NASB 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. 5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. CEV 4 Don't make a fool of yourself by answering a fool. 5 But if you answer any fools, show how foolish they are, so they won't feel smart. It's possible- and was just done- to take the 2 verses, not bother using REASONABLE measures to try to understand them- and just turn around, announce they are contradictory, and use that as justification for downgrading the Bible as a guide for guidance, wisdom, etc. It's possible, and lots of people do things like that every day. However, it's not intellectually honest, and it lacks integrity.

I can pretty much tell I've got a successful post, whenever Johniam feels the need to misdirect people from it and pretend he can't read what's written. The first thing that makes it so obvious is that he refuses to post with the markers so you can read what he's quoting from. This allows him to remove things from their context, which makes it easier to lie about what they were saying. Here's the marker for the post he quoted: (You can read it for yourself.) Here's what it said in part: " An organization spends YEARS on each person in their leadership training program. By your own admission, MOST of those who COMPLETED the training and were considered success stories and sent on assignment were "ARSEHOLES." (Most people would say "grossly-incompetent leaders" or something similar.) If MOST of the "successes" of a program meant to produce TRAINED LEADERS instead all became TRAINED ARSEHOLES, what does that say about the program? Most people would call such a program a colossal FAILURE. Most organizations with a "success" rate like that would be horrified, and would halt and completely examine every inch of their program to see where the failures were. twi instead just kept moving things along. If someone had the money together, they were able to enter a program that has been proven to produce leaders who are grossly incompetent, By your own admission. What CREDIBLE organization would consider such an irresponsible course of action?" Here was Johniam's reply: "Would they? Enron had a "success rate" didn't they? Oops. Your selective cynicism can be very funny." So, I clearly pointed out that twi's way corps program has been described by a different twi SUPPORTER as having been a multi-year program for training leaders that, as he said it, produced "ARSEHOLES." How can an organization run a leadership training program that runs for 4 years and ends that time mostly with "ARSEHOLES"? Only if it's a poor excuse for an organization, one that is inept and doesn't actually CARE about the people that are supposed to be led, let alone the people taught to lead. This becomes a bit more obvious when it's seen that the only real part run by professionals is on SALES. (vpw arranged for someone to teach Dale Carnegie's sales techniques without paying Carnegie, which, of course is a violation of copyright and illegal, but typical of vpw.) To bring in Johniam's comment into the thing he was replying to... What LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM has ENRON been running? What was the "success rate" of ENRON's LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM? As John puts it, Enron obviously had or has some sort of LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM with a questionable "success rate" that can be compared to twi's "success rate" for their program-which mostly produces "arseholes" (to hear a twi SUPPORTER say it.) Looks like the only truly relevant part of John's reply was "Oops". His selective reading is sad, but remarkably PREDICTABLE. However, the blatant corruption of twi, the lies to their own people of twi, the criminal actions by those at the top of twi- NONE OF WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY STRESSING- those DO mean that ENRON and TWI are both worthy of being considered equally corrupt and wickedly deceitful. twi's Board has all the morals of a wickedly deceitful Board running a group like ENRON. So, bringing Enron into the discussion actually IS relevant, despite them having nothing to do with posts discussing LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS and how twi's fails miserably to benefit its people.

I'll address the glaring errors here in turn. However, I'd like to thank John for making an observation that I wouldn't have expected him to. When your supporters are likening your organization to ENRON, you KNOW your reputation for corruption and low morals is set. So, I agree with John that ENRON and TWI should be mentioned in the same category. Nice one.

If nobody minds, I'll link Julie Haggerty like this: Airplane! Lloyd Bridges Hot Shots

"We've got to catch those thieves red-handed." "What color are their hands now?"

I'm with Naten on this. I'd rather go with "I don't know" than be swift to say "the last word on this is that it's illogical and contradictory at its heart." (Although people can be so, I see God Almighty as ABOVE that and non-contradictory at the Ultimate Level and making perfect sense if we can see that deeply. In this case, I find the verses need no explanation. However, since I'm not holding a universally-held opinion, I'll explain it. This is an example of "antanaclasis", when the same phrase or word is used with 2 different meanings, with both being a grammatically-correct usage, and both meaning different things. We do this in English. "First things first." (Those things of primary importance will be addressed immediately.) "The more I think of it, the less I think of it." (As I give more consideration, my opinion and esteem of it drop further.) "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Attributed to Ben Franklin.) (We must cooperate, or we will all be killed individually.) So, the same deal is with these verses. "Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." "Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Don't answer the fool the same way he's ranting, because people won't be able to tell you apart if you're both sounding like raving idiots. "Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Answer the fool in accordance with the magnitude of his stupidity, so he can realize he's wrong and learn something. I didn't need any help to see this one- the first time I read this it seemed like the obvious meaning to me, and on further examination, I still find it is so. When considering whether I make sense and God Almighty does not make sense, or I am silly and God Almighty really makes sense, my money's on God making sense and me being too feeble-minded to see at his level. a child first learning how to play chess can't keep up with an adult chess master. The child may consider an individual move of the chess master to make no sense... right until the checkmate is performed.

"Clash of the Titans."

A) Moderating the political forum- which was completely unnecessary to the GSC's purpose and optional- was tiresome and emotionally-draining, to hear the mods say it. I avoided the thing almost completely because it LOOKED like that, and I have plenty of other venues if I want people to yell at each other and insult each other. So, we had a choice of no GSC, or a GSC with no political forum. Me, I don't miss the political forum, and I was missing the GSC before it was gone. Someone made up a separate forum specifically for political discussion. It's around somewhere. http://www.blueredusa.com/smf/index.php If you want to talk politics there, by all means, be my guest. B) There is a chat room. Scroll down your page. I just tried the chat room. It works fine. If you're having trouble seeing it, or entering the IRC channel, then either you need to update your web browser, or switch to a different web browser. (I'm using Firefox, and Opera should render it as well.) Now, whenever I wander through, I don't see anyone IN chat, but that's an entirely different question.

It's easy to tell it's still here. Supposedly, it was shutting down last Winter. There's Facebook pages and other ways to communicate between us, and "Ex-way vision" was set up for those who wanted to stay together. The short of it is that the political forum was too much work all by itself. Once that was gone, the GSC became manageable. From what us posters heard, and I believe it.

Here we have it. This sentence is basically the justification, the rationale, for lying about all other organizations to make them look so bad they're as poorly-run as twi. An organization spends YEARS on each person in their leadership training program. By your own admission, MOST of those who COMPLETED the training and were considered success stories and sent on assignment were "ARSEHOLES." (Most people would say "grossly-incompetent leaders" or something similar.) If MOST of the "successes" of a program meant to produce TRAINED LEADERS instead all became TRAINED ARSEHOLES, what does that say about the program? Most people would call such a program a colossal FAILURE. Most organizations with a "success" rate like that would be horrified, and would halt and completely examine every inch of their program to see where the failures were. twi instead just kept moving things along. If someone had the money together, they were able to enter a program that has been proven to produce leaders who are grossly incompetent, By your own admission. What CREDIBLE organization would consider such an irresponsible course of action? So, by your own admission, there's 2 twi's. A) the OFFICIAL twi, which gets all the money, misappropriates it at the top, has the top cadre consisting of corrupt people, and whose idea of years of leadership training produces horribly inept leaders who are a blight on any location they are sent (with a few exceptions that test that rule) B) the UNofficial twi, where a few local groups actually care about people, attempt to do things with completely opposite goals and results as the official twi, all while lending their credibility to the OFFICIAL organization and paying them for the privilege of providing nothing in return but the name of the organization. So, if twi vanished tomorrow, the people you credit with being great Christians would still do what you say is good for people. If you people vanished tomorrow, twi would have to retool itself through accounting trickery, and would continue to exist for the pleasure of the people at the top who are sucking the finances out of you, In other words, the OFFICIAL twi needs you, and you locals do NOT need them and are only hanging around for each other and out of a sense of "brand loyalty," I once owned a Commodore 64. Commodore went out of business long ago. I haven't stopped using computers since then. I use computers out now. I liked my Commodore 64. At the time, it was pretty spiffy. Now, I work without it, and am a LOT happier with the results. The new computers out-perform my old PC drastically. There are, however, a handful of people who actually still use old Commodore 64s they have refurbished and repaired. They're so spellbound by the wonderful "honeymoon" of when they first got a C-64 that they still think it's the best thing around, even now.

[A) When you were a teenager, you trusted them and didn't KNOW there was corruption and inappropriate actions being done. B)So, when the investigations were done, didn't all the people responsible GET IN TROUBLE? See, RESPECTABLE organizations aren't perfect, but when corruption is found, attempts are made to correct it, and the people responsible are ejected and handed over to the legal authorities. For example, you described FRAUD, which is a FELONY. Some people should logically have been sent to prison for committing it.] I know all about the ways in which tithe money can be used to churches. [From the context, it's obvious you're equating "the ways in which tithe money can be used to churches" with corruption and financing murderers. Most of the time, money collected by churches goes for operating expenses and other LEGITIMATE uses of funds- missionary work, soup kitchens, and so on. If someone finds out a church today is financing terrorists or whatever, that becomes MAJOR NEWS because it's an EXCEPTION. People don't just yawn and say "that's the third one this week" or whatever. Looks like you're considering conventional churches to be corrupt, vile villains so that twi can fit in without trying to hide all the corruption in twi, by making that just "business as usual" for churches.] [Ok, time for a recap and a quick history lesson. Through the magic of the internet, hours of research can be done in minutes while reading. "Today I am a member of a men's fraternity" Galen's referring to the Knights Templar. This is a modern organization with the same name and some shared goals as an organization of the same name that existed in Europe several centuries ago. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Knights_Templar "There is no clear historical connection between the Knights Templar, which were dismantled in the 14th century, and any of the modern organizations, of which the earliest emerged publicly in the 18th century, and are referred to as Neo-Templars by some authors. However, there is often public confusion and many overlook the 400-year gap. Also, no one can be commissioned as a Knights Templar since the organization was disbanded by the papacy in 1302." The existing Knights Templar who survived after 1302 either merged into the Knights Hospitlar, or went to Portugal and formed a new organization with a different name ("Knights of Christ.") This does not make Galen's men's fraternity any less noble or admirable, so long as they do noble or admirable work. However, they are NOT the same organization that was definitively disbanded in the 1300's. "who has been openly hunted by various governments at the bequest of the Roman Catholic Church." The original Knights Templar was unjustly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1300's, and it asked various governments to unjustly persecute them as well. That was centuries ago, and applied to the ORIGINAL, UNRELATED group. (The current RC Church freely admits the unjust persecution was unjust.) Galen has never had to consider, say, hiding in a basement because jackbooted stormtroopers were going door-to-door looking for Templars to haul them somewhere. "In fact as a US servicemember I served in a nation where my fraternity is 'illegal' and members who are discovered are subject to imprisonment." Galen, do you really think you would have been thrown in prison in a modern country because you belong to an organization that shares the same name as one that was disbanded in the 1300's and that the modern country actually CARES about that? Do you HONESTLY think that? If so, then I'm really concerned about your ability to reason. If not, then I'm really concerned about your honesty and integrity. "All thanks to the tithes of Catholics." Yeah, if this was the 1300's, I'd sure consider the Catholic money collections that went to hunt Templars to be spent unjustly. (It was financially profitable to seize the holdings of the Knights Templar, but it was dishonest, immoral and unjust.) To equate modern collection plates in a Catholic mass to the Templar persecution in the 1300's is just silly. But all this journeying into creative fiction isn't about history, is it? It's all justified to portray it as the truth- because anything that excuses twi for its corruption is justified, isn't it? [As 501-C charitable organizations, this is factually incorrect. Churches are NOT "businesses". Churches do NOT "operate on a bottom line", and they are not required to "show a profit" for any reason. And let's not lose "AS FAR AS I KNOW, EVERY CHURCH THAT TAKES TITHE IS LIKELY DOING EVIL WITH IT." Oh? You've been investigating local churches, and ALL of the ones you've investigated have been "doing evil" with the money they bring in? What were the last 5 you investigated, and what "evil" were they doing? Or, is all that actually just a supposition based on what you GUESS they're doing with money you haven't traced? And isn't the supposition and guesswork very convenient in that it allows you to pretend all of them are as corrupt at the top as twi? I disagree. This does not excuse twi of corruption (snip)

[Those co-existed during the same timeframes. The reason for that is that twi's methods of "vetting" candidates for anything has always been SLIPSHOD and ARBITRARY. As lcm himself documented, vpw's vetting for him for entry into the corps-the multiyear program of twi for training its titled leaders and other hierarchy- was simple... "YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOUR MONEY HOLDS!" vpw wanted to know he'd be getting money. There was never a question of "who among the interested candidates would make appropriate leaders, and who has to be refused because they would be a poor candidate." If they could PAY, they could get in. Nothing in the Corps application process was a realistic "brake" for the program-other than "can you get us the money?" In some cases, some excellent Christians were dedicated to God and entered that program and other programs, or served as local leaders. In some other cases, some unstable individuals or greedy and venal people entered that programs and other programs, or served as local leaders. So, your experience "on the field" could vary widely based on whether or not twi was passing along an excellent Christian or dumping a loose cannon on you because he paid his money. I've known of some excellent and some awful leaders in twi, some of whom were local, and some of whom were corps graduates. The corps program was so deficient that-if you went in as an excellent Christian, you may have come out as one, or you could have been ruined as one based on the bizarre teachings and practices vpw inflicted on them. On the other hand, if you were lukewarm or worse, there was nothing in the program to stop you, and nothing in the program to repair you and make you a better Christian. What does all that mean? It means twi's methods of acquiring and training leaders are greatly deficient and below what is considered an acceptable standard outside of twi. That a few people worked out is NOT something I credit to twi- since twi did nothing to make them so. In some cases, however, they adulterated good Christians into bad ones, and in other cases, they took poor Christians and dumped them on locales. I can't just shrug my shoulders about practices that ROUTINELY resulted in these.] [The odds of him finding any OTHER local fellowship that would apply to are slim at best, Everyone ELSE wants people to know their role and never challenge things. Also, as valuable as the Bible is, is the be-all and end-all of things really all "word studies" and scholarly study?] [Too convenient, and too easy. These people are-morally and legally- ACCOUNTABLE to you for their actions. In assuming the titles as the cadre of the organization, they have fiduciary responsibilities to do those "jobs" that accompany the titles and actually "lead", and to do so in a manner that actually gets things done that should be done while preventing other things from being done that should NOT be done. What's truly "INAPPROPRIATE" is to find corruption rampant in an organization- especially in its top tier- and to turn a blind eye to it and continue to support that corruption and actually provide a mask for it by doing "business as usual."]

I disagree with Galen's conclusions and some of his reasonings. That doesn't mean I don't respect him. I find many of the things he's done to be quite admirable. Mind you, they co-exist with me disagreeing with him strongly on a few issues, so someone might thing there's contradictions in there. I find that any organization that's fine with some of its leaders giving such sociopathic advice to be one I can't trust, support, or co-exist with in any substantial manner. In any respectable organization, someone's caught doing that, and there's a lot of trouble for the person doing that. Most Christian churches do a lot more "vetting" of its leaders before they're allowed to be called "leaders". I have a friend who's gone through YEARS of training and vetting that would find the process twi used/uses to be remarkably SLIPSHOD, INDISCRIMINATE and CLUMSY- in short, UNPROFESSIONAL and INSUFFICIENT.

I'll explain how Galen is an exception to things. vpw, among other things, was a petty, venal man who wanted accolades and adoration. He wanted the cachet of titles he didn't work up to. So, his vision of twi included lots of people applauding him, standing when he entered rooms, and so on. He admired the IMAGE of the military while lacking any familiarity with it. (We've all seen movies, but there's a reality beyond that.) So. vpw wished he could have people do what he THOUGHT the military was about- people who give orders, and people who follow orders without question. He mentioned that lots of times, and that IDEA was an inspiration when he formed the "Way Corps." Among other things, vpw seemed to have been a little spellbound by the mystique of the military whose service he avoided when he had the chance. (Again, he wanted the benefits without working for the rank.) So, whenever the subject of military personnel came up, vpw himself treated them as "hands-off" and was a LOT nicer to them all over the place. That trickled down at every level. So, if you were in the military in twi, you were spared the inner corruption and basic bs they often passed down. Galen is a further exception because of his TYPE of service. As a military officer, he of course went where assigned, and went to different places. In his case, he ended up a LOT of places, so it would have been a lot of work for twi to pin him down and pressure him. Whenever anyone started to apply the screws, well look at that, I'm being relocated. So, he had a milder twi experience than most, which makes it easier to apply the excuses and rationalizations about how it's really not so bad, and how everybody else is rotten, too, and so on...

Someone once pointed out that the "kindler and gentler" stuff is bleached clear of all the things that might make it actually INTERESTING. rfr wants everything micro-managed and doing EXACTLY what it's told. The people are not so much fellow humans as cattle to be herded or shrubs to be shaped.

Julia Roberts Hook Dustin Hoffman

The thing is, vpw WANTED parrots. twi WANTS parrots. The cadre wants people to repeat what they're told, and hand over their money. Even years after leaving twi, people were endorsing stupid things because someone higher-up said they were so, and when asked, they just repeated what the other person said- which didn't answer the question the FIRST time. I was strongly considering carrying packets of crackers, and handing them to people whenever they just parroted whatever leadership said without understanding it. If you know me, you KNOW I was preparing to do it, and to send some in the mail.

That's it. With Anthony Hopkins, Winona Rider, Gary Oldman, Keanu Reaves, etc etc. Hopkins, as Van Helsing, has all the best lines. It's worth watching just for Van Helsing. Ok, your turn.

Fairly recent as opposed to black and white, certainly, but it's not hardly new. WAM. I wouldn't expect the posters here to necessarily have seen it or been familiar with it. Unlike the movie I selected. I really thought the last set of quotes would be remembered.