WordWolf

You're kidding. No, I mean, of course it is! ;)

YES! The title for the storyteller was the Sirah. The "ugly cloud" was the Dal'Rok. One of my quotes was when O'Brien tried to tell the story without help. I thought it was worth noting the episode said humans STOPPED playing baseball, since we saw later episodes with humans playing baseball. :) Maddy, your turn!

Is this that new "21" movie?

This is very interesting, and brings up whole new avenues we haven't even considered. There's a few things I CAN say to this. A) A poster here said they'd seen vpw not long before the end, and was offended that they hadn't even bothered to make sure he had decently-fitting clothes. He'd lost a lot of weight in recent months, so his clothes no longer fit him. I don't know HOW thin MOST cancer patients get before the end, but he DID lose some weight. Perhaps it was a tiny amount by comparison to most-I wouldn't know. B) The business about cooking for vpw being such an overwhelming chore had nothing to do with vpw being a demanding diner. (Very little to do with it, anyway.) The thrust of that whole paper was that there wasn't anyone around who was in any way capable of doing ANYTHING right-so cg had to do it himself or it didn't get done. Therefore, he was the "only" one who could cook for vpw. On the other hand, cg had catered to vpw's whims before when he was vpw's driver, so maybe a lot of it really WAS "he knew exactly which parts of his buttocks that vpw wanted smooched and in which order" more than actually cooking a meal. As to the rest, I'm interested in hearing what our medical posters have to say on the subject, and possibly those who observrd him during this timeframe.

Unless they got several thousand new people, I'm of the opinion there's less than 5000 twi-ers nationwide, and that's including children. I'd guess the number closer to something like 3500 nationwide, supposing attrition hasn't completely stopped or reversed. As to the reputed 100,000, that was an inflated number, too. That was the WORLDWIDE total, of people who ever SIGNED UP for pfal. That includes the people who signed up and never showed up for Session 1, the Session 1 attendees who didn't complete the class, the pfal grads who left immediately after the class, and the pfal grads who only stayed for 1-3 months. Across the entire history of twi. I don't know about how many REAL twi-ers that translated to. As one example, when I took pfal, there were 8 people signed up, 7 people who showed up to Session 1, and THREE of us who completed Session 12. (However, all three were regulars who stuck around.)

As to what the Dr who signed the death certificate knew, I will say this much: The last time I posted, wondering about actions that particular Dr might have taken concerning vpw's final weeks, one of the posters-who considered him a friend or whatever- went after me rather vociferously, saying that he was far above the slightest HINT of inappropriate behavior. I don't know that for certain for myself, nor do I know for sure that any further speculation in that department will get another set of posts championing the reputation of that Dr, but I thought I'd mention that in case anyone would want to know.

Technically, it does not ADVANCE my theory, but it doesn't contradict it. If it went the other way, I would have an unbroken chain of evidence. Considering I'm doing this from my chair, decades later, with no expert witnesses, I think I got pretty far. And a lot of things are "a factor", but increased sun exposure has not been PROVEN in this "case"-it's being SUPPOSED, SPECULATED. And by "increased", I mean "more than the average similar person who WASN'T getting cancer." Lacking medical records or professional surveys of the locals, we can only SUPPOSE or SPECULATE as to whether there WAS or WASN'T "increased" sun exposure. As such, I didn't bring it up. Pure speculation with nothing to hang it on doesn't get very far. I'd hardly call it "thin air." You seemed to have skipped all the professionalinformation which I linked to and quoted, which went neatly in line with what most of us knew about smoking and drinking- they're really bad. Smoking damages all organs, and causes all sorts of cancers. Drinking damages lots of organs, including the liver, and renders one's immune system more vulnerable to cancer. The only thing I'm missing is a professional statement: "this specific cancer has been known to be caused completely by chronic smoking." Since ocular cancer is rare, I don't expect there's a definitive statement of any kind on it. (Linda pointed that out, too.) That's hardly "thin air." And I'm disappointed you interpreted it so. Is it possible that he succeeded in giving himself "flashburn" for the 14 days of shooting? Since he was able to open his eyes each day of shooting, I'd say he had less of an exposure than someone suffering from "snow-blindness." A La Prochaine posted about that once, and said you can't open your eyes in light for a while after that, since your eyes are sensitized. Perhaps if she's posting lately, she can chime in again. (Then again, I can see what I can find on "snow blindness".) Ok, if I understand correctly, we're currently off the track of "it was UV lights that gave him cancer" and now on "it was very strong conventional lights over 14 days that gave him cancer". Is there any evidence that exposure to bright lights over long periods of time ever leads to cancer? Please link to anything you can find on the subject-it would be news to me so far. What I've been able to find is that people who work with bright lights for months at a time for hours at a time (actors in theaters, crew in theaters) haven't come up as getting ocular cancer. Welding tools are much BRIGHTER, and much CLOSER than any conventional light, and THOSE are risks-that's been indicated by professionals. So far, there's no actual "evidence" saying "the lights did it", and no actual "evidence" saying "the smoking and drinking did it." Professionals seem to agree the smoking MIGHT do it-but haven't actually addressed the question "does smoking cause ocular cancer?" Whether or not professionals might say "bright lights MIGHT cause cancer", we haven't seen yet. So far, that's mostly been ideas on posts here. So, I'm not posting against "evidence" because there hasn't BEEN any- but what I've found so far can make a decent "case." I think that's REASONABLE-proceed from the general to the specific by what is known scientifically. Yes. I get that-to this day-we fundamentally disagree on something from months ago, and I thought we'd gone on with our lives like adults, but instead you're going to hold onto it forever and attack my posts in discussions for an indefinite period of time over it. It was a MUCH cheaper shot than I originally thought. I REALLY thought better of you than this.

Everything I read indicates that cancer in the liver and other places tends to go TO the liver FROM the other places, since the liver is part of the body's filtration system. It would be neater for my theory if it wasn't so, but I'm hardly going to cook the data to match my preferences. I had enough of that in twi for a lifetime.] It's sad because you can't PROVE a negative, which means a lot of ideas stay on the table becausethere's no "smoking gun" that proves they're 100% impossible. If we had a "smoking gun" either way, the discussion would essentially be over- I mentioned one strong possibility right there-farmers all getting eye cancer. That would help settle the issue-even if it settled it where I didn't think it's going. Actually, I have an OPINION. I was unable to find a strong case for the "he was staring into lights that gave him cancer over 14 days that came up a decade later", and I wasn't able to find an unassailable case for "his smoking and drinking gave him cancer and killed him." I was able to find a STRONGER case for the latter- which is why my OPINION is for the LATTER and not the FORMER. The latter proceeds from what we know (he smoked and drank a LOT for DECADES) while the former proceeds from what we speculate (the specific lamps used for 14 days were exactly the type that give cancer). If I found either result, I would go with the evidence. Please don't ignore all the scientific quotes simply because I formed an opinion that matches them.... And I didn't ask for "anecdotal evidence", I asked for "studies" to be produced. If someone had heard something that POINTED to a study, that would help find a completed study. Yet he claimed to have it, spread that story, and someone's claimed the evidence supports it.I don't think the evidence supports it. Why pretend there's NO scientific information, and that no conclusions can be drawn as to likelihood of causes? Nobody's said "this is absolutely 100% guaranteed to be exactly what happened", but conclusions can be drawn as to what is MORE likely and LESS likely. Why is this a problem? I think both Linda and I are quite done with this at the moment-we're agreeing to disagree. Why is this so particular with you? I agree with all of this. But I disagree with the cheap-shot that just HAD to be indulged here. I agree about 'Now I See's points, and about cult-leading being bad.

If someone includes the correct title in their answer, and ONE of the artists who performed it, it is correct. I had to check if that artist DID, since I was using Nilsson's lyrics, but I checked. ANY artist's cover of a song counts as a correct artist. And it gives people who heard different people cover a song over the decades a decent chance to name it.

"Listen to me, Sirah. You must return to bed. To be out here... in your condition..." "Your concern touches me, Doctor. But I'm in the hands of the prophets." "Instinct. The Ninth Rule of Acquisition clearly states "opportunity plus instinct equals profit." "Instinct." "That's not gonna help." "I think it does. Thank you, Nog." "Good. Let's celebrate." "Celebrate... ?" "I took one of my uncle's security rods." "What are we gonna do with that?" "I don't know.....We could swipe Odo's bucket." "Are you kidding?" "A bucket?" "We'll give it back." "Once upon a time, there was a Dal'Rok. He lived there...In the woods... and he hated the village... and all of the villagers... and wanted to see them destroyed. " "Nog, we've been sitting here over an hour. Let's go play some ball in the Holosuite." "No." "Why not?" "Because baseball is slow and boring..." "And you can't hit my curve ball." "It's a stupid game that even humans stopped playing hundreds of years ago." "Maybe. But you still can't hit my curve ball."

You got the title correct, and an artist correct. You drank it UP, not DOWN, though. So, yes, it is your turn!

"Said 'doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take?' I said 'Doctor, to relieve this belly ache,'

[i know you and I represent the two positions here on exactly what physical factors were the major contributors to vpw getting cancer. I don't mean any malice toward you, but I do feel the need to dispute some of what you said....] [i did. They showed some film-footage of vpw that was claimed to be him sending off the first wows. He wore sunglasses (which made sense) and sandals with dark socks (which was amusing.) I'm limited to how much film footage I ever saw of him outdoors during the day. You interacted with him live, and perhaps saw him a lot of time out-of-doors, without sunglasses. However, he DID wear them from time to time. Has anyone heard that lots of the local farmers ended up getting eye cancer? If someone can produce some studies on that, my position suddenly looks a lot weaker. Sadly, I can't use the absence of such a study as proof it didn't happen- you can't prove a negative.] [You didn't provide a link to the article. http://www.sickamongthepure.net/uvradiation/fluorescent.html I question just how close "close proximity" means here, and how long a time "long periods" means here. "Close proximity" to me means "I can pick up an umbrella and tap the light source". From the photos in "the Way:Living in Love", the distances were much greater-effectively across a large living room. And "long periods" to me means "at work across months nearly a year, or more than a year", if it doesn't mean more. I question whether 14 days across the room from a halogen or xenon lamp- which we still can't prove were in the room- would have produced the effect spoken of in this article. By comparison, I found this article about warnings. http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:11545460 "The analysis based on the job exposure matrix showed a significantly increased risk of ocular melanoma in occupational groups exposed to artificial ultraviolet radiation, but not in outdoor occupational groups exposed to sunlight. An elevated risk of ocular melanoma was seen among welders (odds ratio = 7.3; 95% confidence interval = 2.6-20.1 for men), and a dose-response relationship with job duration was observed." "CONCLUSION: Following the present study, the existence of an excess risk of ocular melanoma in welders may now be considered as established. Exposure to ultraviolet light is a likely causal agent, but a possible role of other exposures in the welding processes should not be overlooked." Being a WELDER for YEARS is a risk for ocular melanoma. That's a whole order of magnitude CLOSER to a light source which is BRIGHTER over MONTHS AND YEARS and not 2 weeks.] [Question.Positing the existence of a studio with lights that give off large amounts of UV light. Positing a man with fair skin and light eyes-supposedly more sensitive to UV light- works there. Positing he works there for 2 weeks, and receives large amounts of UV light, enough to hurt his eyes. Would not this same man be getting SUNBURN ON HIS FACE after several days of exposure? We've NEVER seen a story where vpw got SUNBURNED from filming pfal. On the other hand, we also know that exposure to bright lights that are NOT UV lights can result in feelings like this. Really bright, standard lightbulbs will result in burning and painful sensations, light sensitivity, and irritation-which means tearing. (I'm not sure about the foreign object thing, but that's pretty subjective anyway.)] [Technically true. We can't even say exactly what definitely WILL and definitely WON'T cause cancer. George Burns smoked cigars and lived to 100. Some children never smoke and die of cancer. However, we can address what will increase and what will decrease the chances for getting cancer.] [We live in a fallen world, in fallen bodies, and are exposed to dangerous things in the air we breathe, and the food we eat. All of those, I would trace, ultimately, to malefic causes. That's far from saying a demon is immediately present at every instance of cancer. And if vpw was 1/2 the man he was putting forth he was, he should have been radiating anti-demon presence for several feet around him. This should have made it nearly impossible for demons to enter the same ROOM with him. His "demonic activity causes cancer" idea is incompatible with the image he put forth of himself.]

His Death Certificate says the cause of death was "metastatic melanoma of the liver" and "ocular melanoma," which means the cause of death was cancer of the liver and eye. Here's what the experts known as the American Cancer Society say: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/ped_10.asp "Tobacco and Cancer. Smoking damages nearly every organ in the human body, is linked to at least 10 different cancers, and accounts for some 30% of all cancer deaths." So, tobacco is a known carcinogen (cancer-causing agent), and damages nearly every organ. That would include the eye, the liver, or both. In case someone needs that specified, however.... http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10150 "Although studies across the globe have examined the link between smoking and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common form of liver cancer, little research has been done in North America, where liver cancer is on the rise. Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine found that a history of smoking significantly increased the risk of liver cancer. Investigators compared the records of patients diagnosed with HCC to chronic liver disease patients who did not have HCC. Results showed that people who have more than a pack per day over ten years were more likely to develop liver cancer than their non-smoking counterparts who suffer from chronic liver disease." ""As with other organs in the body, the effects of tobacco can have damaging consequences on the liver, significantly increasing the risk of developing liver cancer," said Paul Kwo, M.D., of Indiana University and lead study author. "Smoking cessation is one major way that patients can be proactive in preventing liver cancer, especially if they already suffer from chronic liver disease." http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf Tobacco Smoking and Tobacco Smoke, Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation (International Agency for Research on Cancer The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).) There is now sufficient evidence to judge the association between tobacco smoking and liver cancer as causal." As for the eye.... http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaill...E&sub_cat=0 (courtesy of the American Academy on Opthalmology) They concern themselves with the occurrence of cataracts as a result of smoking, primarily. ====== What about chronic drinking of alcohol? http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/healthimmunesystem.htm "2. Excess alcohol Excessive alcohol intake can harm the body's immune system in two ways. First, it produces an overall nutritional deficiency, depriving the body of valuable immune- boosting nutrients. Second, alcohol, like sugar, consumed in excess can reduce the ability of white cells to kill germs. High doses of alcohol suppress the ability of the white blood cells to multiply, inhibit the action of killer white cells on cancer cells, and lessen the ability of macrophages to produce tumour necrosis factors. One drink (the equivalent of 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1 ounces of hard liquor) does not appear to bother the immune system, but three or more drinks do. Damage to the immune system increases in proportion to the quantity of alcohol consumed. Amounts of alcohol that are enough to cause intoxication are also enough to suppress immunity. " http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa15.htm "Alcohol can impair normal immune responses that protect the body from disease (6,7,8). Chronic alcohol consumption has been shown to reduce the number of infection-fighting white blood cells in laboratory animals (9,10,11) and in humans (12,13). Chronic alcohol ingestion or alcohol dependence can depress antibody production and other immune responses in animals (10,9) and in humans (14,15). Alcohol can suppress activities of certain immune system cells, called macrophages, that help keep the lungs free from infection (16,17). In addition, alcoholics appear to be more susceptible to bacterial infections and cancer than are nonalcoholics (18,19). Studies in animals and in humans indicate that consuming alcohol during pregnancy can decrease immune resistance in the offspring (20,21,22)." http://www.hiv.va.gov/vahiv?page=alc-01-01 "The organ in your body that alcohol and other drugs affect most is your liver. The liver rounds up waste from chemicals that you put in your body. Those chemicals include recreational drugs as well as prescription drugs, such as your HIV medications. A weaker liver means less efficient "housekeeping" and, probably, a weaker you." http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/c...bouts/liver.htm "You can reduce your chances of getting liver cancer by consuming alcoholic beverages only in moderation." =========== So, we know-from reputed sources like the American Cancer Society, and the US National Institute of Health, that drinking lots of alcohol, long-term, and smoking, long-term, are risk factors that make a person MUCH more likely to get cancer-including cancer of the liver, and cancer of the eye- than people who don't drink or smoke. This really shouldn't come as news to us-we should already know that both are bad for you, and can damage organs. So, what about bright lights? A few web-searches will show you there's almost no "hits" when looking at possible connections between "ocular cancer" and "bright lights" or even "halogen lamps" (which someone suggested MIGHT have been present since those supposedly have been claimed to cause SKIN cancer.) In fact, one of the few hits for either is the speculation on the GSC. Actors have spent decades on stage. I asked someone who's performed on stage and as a stagehand for DECADES, and he can't even remember hearing ONE actor came down with eye cancer. That's among people who spend hour after hour for week after week for SEVERAL MONTHS with bright lights. But I'm supposed to believe that a man who smoked for DECADES and drank for DECADES and then spent 14 days among bright lights-and those lights gave him cancer. I'd easily believe that the smoking and drinking gave him cancer, and the bright lights irritated weakened eyes in the early stages of ocular cancer. (Why was vpw the ONLY one who was recording at the time who was wearing ice on his eyes in-between filming?) Until someone can find some more actors who got eye cancer supposedly from bright lights, or from filming, I consider this speculation -and ridiculous speculation, when OBVIOUS causes are ALREADY PRESENT.

"I told you 158 times I cannot stand little notes on my pillow. 'We are out of corn flakes, F.U.' It took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Unger."- Walter Matthau, The Odd Couple. (Play and movie.)

Reminds me of Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes.

"Listen to me, Sirah. You must return to bed. To be out here... in your condition..." "Your concern touches me, Doctor. But I'm in the hands of the prophets." "Instinct. The Ninth Rule of Acquisition clearly states "opportunity plus instinct equals profit.""

Like some people's time in twi... "What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been", by the Greatful Dead. No, wait, it's called "Trucking", right?

*thinks* is this "Our Man Bashir"? Once again, a holo-program can kill people. But Bashir wins by losing and ending the program.

It reminds me of "Lost Boys", but Grandpa HAD a telephone.

The rules are: no cheating (if you're guessing, and you look it up, you're disqualified from guessing anymore) and correct guesser posts the next episode. All episodes from the original series, NextGen, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are fair game. However, Voyager and Enterprise clues usually will sit a lot longer, since fewer of us saw them. (We may never guess correctly, in other words.) Everything else is by preference. I prefer to post quotes in pairs, starting from tougher quotes that actually say something about the episode, to longer and more obvious quotes. I also prefer to post them about once a day, since more often means posters who don't live on this board don't get a chance if you post all your quotes in one day, and if you're TOO slow, the thread lags for weeks. So I consider once a day to be about right-until I've posted for a few days, then I'm looking to move it along and just get a correct guess. I try not to make it too obvious with the very first quote, but not impossible, either. Those are my preferences, you can use your own.

Hello! If you've been lurking for a while, you know where everything is. Remember to post friendly, and enjoy your stay. :)

Personally, I think this is at LEAST as likely as any other possibility. vpw loved to get to punctuate with drama, and showed a marked laziness in diverging from the source material of the Christians he ripped things off from. For all the material he used, the amount of change was VERY small. (Name of "administrations" and which times they covered, "gifts" became "manifestations", and that's most of it.) Retelling a dramatic point in Leonard's class as a dramatic point in his OWN class sound EXACTLY like something he would do. I think I have one from the 300s. The sound quality from the early ones blew chunks, but they're legible, so to speak. I don't think he mentioned this subject in that one. I would have noted it.

I do not question one word of your testimony. I question your final sentence-the interpretation of events- as the only possibility. IF vpw were a first-class scumbag who was all show and little substance, and someone called who had an urgent medical need, he would certainly advise them to trust those local doctors. After all, that just happens to be the answer with the least work for him. So, just that answer tells us nothing of his motives either way- it's the answer of the genuine AND the fraud. Similarly, if he was a charlatan who played a part, he would take the stage and "sell" sermons on Jesus' self-sacrifice. Charlatans do that, and any good actor could do the same. vpw DID maintain access to teachings from other Christians all through his career, and use THEM instead of mostly his own work. If he were a complete fraud, he could use THEIR work and sell it onstage. To a degree, he would even convince HIMSELF for a moment- the mark of an actor fully "in the moment." When Christopher Reeve played Superman, there was a scene in the first movie where he and Margo Kidder/Lois Lane fly above the city. The actors were suspended from a wire-frame in a green-screen studio (bluescreen actually) for the filming. At one point, Margot's frame was breaking, and she was going to fall. Reeve pulled her to him to support her. Afterwards, he said it was the WRONG thing to do-his frame wasn't build to support TWO people, and could have dropped them both. But at that moment, he really thought he was Superman, so his instant response was genuine to the character. Do I think he ever needed to LIVE the talk to do what he did speaking to you and when you saw him? No. Could it all have been genuine? Yes. Could it all have been a fraud? Yes. I believe the evidence supports either conclusion.

It's a VERY specific misspeak. We also know that vpw was a Trinitarian earlier in his career. He himself said so, and examples include using a Trinitarian opening to letters: i.e. "..in the name of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ" earlier in his career. If there's a timeframe showing when he no longer was a Trinitarian, I haven't seen it yet. So, you think his comment was more from HABIT, that he was going for drama and misspoke because he went to an old script rather than an update that reflected his current theology? Well, that's certainly possible. If he were doing one of his dramatic segment closings- and his rising voice-volume seconds before the segment ends suggests that- he could easily have done so. I think either could be the answer.