WordWolf

No.

Mind you, I think they eventually WILL show a connection between UV light and ocular melanoma, but we don't have that definitively NOW. I still don't think that will affect vpw's story, since we still haven't found a way to connect the pfal lights with UV lights, but-in fairness- I wanted to point out I do THINK that UV light probably is ONE way to get ocular melanoma but that it's probably not the ONLY way. Someone brought up the idea that bright lights damaging eyes might predispose them to ocular melanoma, whether or not the lights are UV. It's an interesting idea, but I haven't seen any proven connection, nor can I necessarily connect it to vpw's story. Then again, I don't discount it, either. (More information's needed.) That IS twi logic. Then again, Raf said it best when he said it first: We don't die when we stop believing. We die when we stop breathing. Given how many of vpw's stories turned out to have been "tall tales" passed off as fact, it's now standard practice to disbelieve him until some reason can be found to believe him. It's just a healthier approach to what he claimed of himself. And more likely to be correct. Shocking to say that about a supposed "Man of God", but there you go. Of course, "Man of God" was one of those claims...

"Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker." "My advice to all who have the time or inclination to concern themselves with the international language movement would be: 'Back Esperanto loyally.'"

I read his article. A) He spends a lot of time pumping air into his POV, and denigrating the other POV. If his apologia is a lot stronger than the other side, it should be evident, and require little to "sell" it. B) I find he spent time being angry over the singular occurrence of the term "halal", and that he had no problem changing the word to "yahlal" without establishing this really is supposed to be the same word except on his say-so. Instead, he pronounced it didn't appear, and MUST BE another word. He skipped over the Rabbinical and Targum references to it where nothing had to be changed. (Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies mentioned them, but I'm not going to keep digging from there.) C) Despite his efforts to completely rewrite Ezekiel 28:14, he had to skip over "you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire", saying that was a reference-in effect, a parenthetical reference- to a cherub who was next to the mortal man "the King of Tyrus". So, everything except that applied ONLY to the mortal man, and ONLY that part that couldn't be rewritten referred to the cherub. I could swear vpw doesn't get a pass for saying anything in Scripture was a "parenthetical reference" and suddenly stops addressing the being the preceeding and following verses address. Maybe "Installment II" had better material, but this was flawed. Considering how much it was critical all of that had to AGREE for his POV to prevail, I find he failed to make his case on the weight of evidence.

Exactly-all that work to find his posts in a forum, but no time at all to examine raised questions about their own doctrine. The UNofficial motto was to agree with everything vpw said because he said it. No OFFICIAL statement was evermade aloud to that effect-but it was POLICY. They never claimed they were there to FIX anything. Furthermore, they didn't even understand what it meant to RESEARCH anything. Ever see when they said RESEARCH meant to REREAD submitted materials, to "SEARCH AGAIN" in them?

A) According to that linked article, IF there's a connection between OCULAR melanoma and UV light, it has NOT been established. "It is known that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays (either from the sun or sunbeds) increases the risk of developing melanoma of the skin. People whose skin burns easily are most at risk: typically, people with fair skin, fair or red hair and blue eyes. However, it is not yet known whether or not there is any link between UV ray exposure and the development of melanoma of the eye." B) All connections between UV light and the filming of the pfal class exist solely as speculations by posters on the GSC. I still want to know-if, supposedly, the lights in pfal just happened to be UV lights- why his eyes took all sorts of damage, but standing under what's been speculated to be UV FLOOD LIGHTS never tanned nor sunburned his face across the class. IF they were UV lights-and we STILL have only SPECULATION they were- they shouldn't just have singled out his eyes and skipped the rest of his face. I don't want to be a pain about this, but I think this keeps getting forgotten, and some posters keep thinking this was some sort of PROVEN POINT. (So far, no definitive proof for a specific cause has been found.)

Found on that page in the link.... "It is known that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays (either from the sun or sunbeds) increases the risk of developing melanoma of the skin. People whose skin burns easily are most at risk: typically, people with fair skin, fair or red hair and blue eyes. However, it is not yet known whether or not there is any link between UV ray exposure and the development of melanoma of the eye." It specifically stated that we don't know if UV light exposure is one cause.

Gee, only ONE VERSE about leaven? Matthew 16:6-12 (NASB) 6And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, "He said that because we did not bring any bread." 8But Jesus, aware of this, said, "You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9"Do you not yet understand or remember (J)the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10"Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11"How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of ========================== I Corinthians 5:1-13 (NASB) 1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. 3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. ======================= Galatians 5:9-16 (NASB) 9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves. 13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. 16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. ============= Not for nothing were we warned "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (I Corinthians 5 AND Galatians 5.) God wanted to let us know that perfectly godly stuff-with a small amount of adulteration- can be degraded so it's no longer what He wanted. (If one is to believe I Corinthians 5 and Galatians 5, anyway- I've seen someone argue against it while claiming they believe the whole Bible.) Do you know how little the amount of CYANIDE it took to turn the "Jonestown koolaid" (flavoraid) from a refreshing drink into a deadly poison? Not a lot. Probably didn't affect the taste, even. Take the ventilation system of a skyscraper, with ionized, filtered air. Clean and pure. Introduce a TINY amount of SARIN to the air, and the people will all suddenly drop dead. Why? Because when something pure has small amounts of something DANGEROUS and DEADLY added to it, adulterating its contents, the entire substance is compromised. Would you be willing to drink a liter of spring water that had a 1/2 ounce of arsenic added? If so, do so in the lobby of the hospital, or you'll never make it in time. ================== Leaven (1.) Hebrews seor (Exodus 12:15, 19; 13:7; Leviticus 2:11), the remnant of dough from the preceding baking which had fermented and become acid. (2.) Hebrews hamets, properly "ferment." In Numbers 6:3, "vinegar of wine" is more correctly "fermented wine." In Exodus 13:7, the proper rendering would be, "Unfermented things [Hebrews matstsoth] shall be consumed during the seven days; and there shall not be seen with thee fermented things [hamets], and there shall not be seen with thee leavened mass [seor] in all thy borders." The chemical definition of ferment or yeast is "a substance in a state of putrefaction, the atoms of which are in a continual motion." The use of leaven was strictly forbidden in all offerings made to the Lord by fire (Leviticus 2:11; 7:12; 8:2; Numbers 6:15). Its secretly penetrating and diffusive power is referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:6. In this respect it is used to illustrate the growth of the kingdom of heaven both in the individual heart and in the world (Matthew 13:33). It is a figure also of corruptness and of perverseness of heart and life (Matthew 16:6, 11; Mark 8:15; 1 Corinthians 5:7, 8). Reference - Easton's Bible Dictionary ================ What does that have to do with this discussion? So long as one holds on to the leaven of twi, whether it be 20, 30, 100 years ago, it is still a problem. Beware the leaven of vpw.

T0m M1tchell was not better off for his experiences in twi. He blew his brains out on twi grounds because he wasn't able to deal with the mog- in this case lcm- having sex with T0m's wife, and he wasn't able to stop it, or approve or accept it. He was NOT better off for his experiences there. ========== I find a bland, ridiculous comment was more along the lines of "let's see if I can change the subject again", and not a matter of "I have something to add to the discussion."

Being in utter denial of having been used is a legitimate position, but really isn't what the thread is about.

If you can remember any of the lyrics, even PART of a line, I might be able to find it. But you have to give me SOMETHING to work with. =========== BTW, folks? Those of you who don't post titles or anything, but just the hotlinks? Those of us with Javascript off, all we see in your post is a white box. Can you at least tell us what we're missing?

It is. And apparently it was a lot easier than I thought.

"Now, there's something I want you to do for me." "Never. I am a lady. Not if you were a hundred years old, not if I was a hundred years old..." "Calm down. I don't want to go to bed with you, lady." "Why not?" "Why - Why not? I'd be too frightened. God knows what parts of me you'd steal. I'd wake up with all sorts of things missing." "Lord... whatever I've done to pi$$ you off... if you could just get me out of this and somehow let me know what it was I promise to rectify the situation."

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,'