WordWolf

I've found that simply adding the "Flashblock" AddOn to my Firefox sped up page loading a lot. That substituted a clickable button for the actual video. Then I can click it if I want the video. Then again, NoScript will also speed it up for the same reason. For those of you using Firefox, that's a cinch. For those of you using something else, I recommend using Firefox! :)

If you're using Windows XP, I'd recommend Firefox instead of Internet Explorer 8. I tried Internet Explorer 8, and it didn't seem to work with my XP. It froze up until Data Execution Prevention closed it. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html I don't use it daily, but I HAVE been known to drop in from time to time, and have chatted with some of our rarer posters who checked in at the time also. If there's an option for chat that doesn't cause hardship, I'd recommend we use it. (There's always IRC, and someone mentioned something else, I think.)

I'll go with "Trust no one" being an X-Files quote.

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

"A Few Good Men."

I didn't hear it used in twi either..... ...but in "Lifelines", that was attributed to vpw like everything else. "God is first, others second, I am willing to be third." Which is rather rich to attribute to a man who was never willing to be SECOND, let alone THIRD. To him, serving God was equated with making vpw first. Never in such direct terms, however...

By this time, we might reasonably suppose nobody who's seen it is checking in...

I'm glad people are checking behind me. This shows you how long ago it was that I looked this up. I ignored the nagging voice that says "check before you hit "reply" "earlier, as you can tell.

Walter's DwtA class covered Masada. I never saw any reason for it to COVER Masada, but it did.

This was probably a lack of education. Real writing uses different styles, each with their advantages. I'm not the MOST educated person there, but my own writing style, I think, is effective, and it's as idiosyncratic as they come. (In other words, people don't wonder if I copied over someone else's work, as nobody SOUNDS like me.) Of course, I could still have pulled a vpw and rephrased someone else's work to my own, but as a point of pride, and a point of honesty, I always did my own writing. Besides, most people's writing reflects a "regression towards the mean", it's "average." Copying an "average" paper, or in the case of this thread, an "average" style, will limit you. It's laziness, and it started with vpw, who copied the work AND the style of others entirely. It's sad but true that many ministers copy the STYLE of others- I consider that laziness rather than developing your OWN style. But to copy the SUBSTANCE over is laziness as well as a crime. If the Corps and the College Division REALLY measured up to the hype vpw and lcm gave them- the academic claims, at least- then the graduates would all be good communicators, having learned to write effectively. However, both programs were designed with lazy shortcuts, and the material never rose to the level of community college. Some of the students did anyway- but there will be those who rise above their education no matter what the education is. ================= The wordiness and expounding on minutiae, I'd expect, would be more a reflection of lcm than vpw. vpw copied- entirely- the work of competent writers and communicators. (He plagiarized their level of communication with the material.) lcm, on the other hand, always seemed to think that adding words to anything was an improvement. Look at the corps principles and the definitions of the manifestations. Under lcm, both got a lot wordier, sometimes doubling in length. I've noticed that my own style of preparation for a live teaching requires a minimum of 5 hours to prepare the material to my minimum expectations. I generally prepared a minimum of 6 hours, and each hour after the 5th SHORTENED the teaching, tightening the wording, cutting out wasteful comments, focusing the subject more precisely in the wording, and so on. In other words, I preferred a shorter, focused teaching on a subject rather than a long one, if I could manage it. ================== EDIT: This also applies to the "literal translations according to usage" and "expanded literal translations according to usage" lcm used. For those wondering, the "literal translations according to usage" seem to have been plagiarized from other Bible versions. The "expanded translations" were incredibly long-winded additions to a verse where lots of personal opinion was inserted. Example of a "literal translation according to usage": Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." "Literal translation according to usage": "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses inner strength into me." (I can't even type it without humming it, anymore.) Amplified Bible: "I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me (I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him Who infuses inner strength into me; I am self-sufficient in Christ's sufficiency)." Anyone who thinks this MIGHT have been a coincidence, I have one question for you: If twi actually did their own work, why did "Christ" become "Him" when the Greek clearly says "Christ" but the Amplified says "Him"? Is it just an amazing coincidence?

Now that someone asked, I recall having had some fun with a lot of repetitive "justs" and "Fathers". Specifically, I began counting visibly on my fingers when someone would pepper a prayer with one or the other. :) I also asked once if people thought God had a short attention span or something, with someone trying to get his attention every 10-15 seconds with all the "Father" stuff. Locally, we also got a lot of "any given situation" during mannys, and I for one was certain the word "given", at least, was added out of habit, as it was a superfluous word, and the sentence had the same meaning without it.

RR was correct, so we're waiting for RR to post one. RR, on the other hand, was waiting for confirmation he posted the correct answer. Which he did. So, I'm hoping RR posts soon. Maddy's post was the one RR guessed. QED, women are as welcome in this game as in all the others. In other words, mind the rules, and by all means, join in. (Always check the first post and first page for any rules.)

YES!!!! Hoagy Carmichael did it first, and it's been covered since then, by many artists, like Rod Stewart http://www.chinavbox.cn/show/HQB5KTIN.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC7_COd6kgc Sara Vaughn http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48cg2_sarah-vaughan-the-nearness-of-you_music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPiscuocxko Frank Sinatra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr_8KjDR4Gc Norah Jones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eIH-7qq-WA "Its not the pale moon that excites me, that thrills and delights me, oh no-t's just the nearness of you. It isn't your sweet conversation that brings this sensation, oh no-it's just the nearness of you. When you're in my arms and I feel you so close to me, all my wildest dreams come true. I need no soft lights to enchant me if you'll only grant me the right to hold you ever so tight And to feel in the night the nearness of you." =================================== =================================== You're turn, Krys!

I say there's 3 types of people regarding this. A) People who admit they could never have done that. B) People who are in denial that they could never have done that. C) People who lie through their teeth and claim they could have done that.

If you think "ALL" the comments are negative, you're not looking at ALL the posts. For one thing, spend some time in the Reading Room, where we're playing games. None of the games are negative. A number of threads have been neutral- either discussing non-twi subjects, or twi subjects in more of a historical aspect (collecting remembrances.) A number of threads have been humorous. We have a forum for those. Plus, we've had a "drinking game" and a round of "twi Mad Libs" before.

Everyone's allowed their voice here. (Except, of course, when it's an attempt to silence the voice of another or punish them for speaking.) Some of the discussions can get a little rough- but that's true over most of cyberspace. I've posted lots of places. Many have been much more civil. A number have been a lot rougher. Even when some, many, or most of us think you're a chowderhead, you're still welcome to come back tomorrow and post some more chowderhead stuff. Free speech is well worth the rough-and-tumble, in my opinion.

Scarface ============ Next movie: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

For me, there's 2 different issues. 1) What DID he say? 2) IF he said "Why have you forsaken me" (which is still under contention, but can be discussed separately for the sake of discussion), what, EXACTLY, did that mean? That is, Was it an accurate statement-of-fact of the reality of that moment? Was it a technically inaccurate statement that reflected exactly how he was feeling at that moment? Was it an intentional quote from Psalms- and, if so, why was it quoted? (This brings us another branching of discussion...) I think it would be perfectly acceptable to be screaming in pain, angry at God, and feel forsaken if one was tortured to the standards of the day, then crucified by the standards of the day. I have no guarantee this is WHAT HAPPENED, but I see it as a reasonable possibility. This would mean he FELT that way, but-if his logic was functioning at all- he would have been the first to say that was not an accurate report of the situation.

"Its not the pale moon that excites me, That thrills and delights me, oh no" "It isn't your sweet conversation That brings this sensation, oh no" "When you're in my arms and I feel you so close to me All my wildest dreams came true. I need no soft lights to enchant me, If you'll only grant me the right To hold you ever so tight" A number of different singers have covered this song.

When in doubt, always look to the first post- or the first page of posts- for the rules of a thread. Me, I think we should give RumRunner another chance, but if anyone feels otherwise, fine. Let's just keep this thread moving, shall we?

Run, Forrest, run! It's "Forrest Gump!" Next movie. "We're puttin' the BAND back together!"

"Its not the pale moon that excites me, That thrills and delights me, oh no" "It isn't your sweet conversation That brings this sensation, oh no" "When you're in my arms and I feel you so close to me All my wildest dreams came true"

Ok, that's got to be "Risky Business." I've never actually seen it start to finish, but I recognize the line anyway- which is pretty much the benchmark for this thread. (Recognize it even without the movie.) ======================== "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?"

"Its not the pale moon that excites me, That thrills and delights me, oh no" "It isn't your sweet conversation That brings this sensation, oh no"

I can see how this MIGHT be the case. I can follow the reasoning. I'm slow to say "this IS the case" without some verses saying this was so outright. One verse saying "And Jesus was separated from The Father for us" or "the Messiah will be separated from the LORD for us" would, I think, pretty much close the case on this. I agree with this: "I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience" but, so far, disagree as to WHAT the experience was, fundamentally. I think one need not go any farther than the understanding of the physical reality was more than enough to cover it. I think that Mel Gibson was correct in his supposition behind filming "the Passion of the Christ", that is, that it is far too easy to soft-pedal the sufferings Jesus endured BEFORE the cross, and the sufferings Jesus endured ON the cross, just considering what man did. Of course, my "argument" isn't unassailable, but it is SUPPORTED. Feel free to support yours from Scripture. Hey, if I'm actually wrong, I'd like to learn better. If Scripture says "A" and I say "not-A", I want to know.