WordWolf

Why, so he did! How about that! This would be a great opportunity to jump in, for anyone who hasn't posted in a while, who just wants to jump in anywhere.....

I had the same problem, and it was on AVG's end. So, I went back to using Avast!. I figured if I was going to have to reinstall antivirus, I'd rather install a BETTER antivirus, with a smaller footprint. It looked to me like AVG was trying to push their pay version by giving the free version problems. There's too many GOOD, free antivirus programs for this to make me consider it.

"It's close to midnight"

Perhaps I was unclear. The only thing I disagreed with was the "draw a gun" scene being when he was "a'thinking." That was from the card game. "Gin Rummy's mah game, Sam." *shuffles* "Cut the cards." *Bugs chops with machete* "Not that-away ya durned galoot!" Since Sam lost the game- "GIN! You lose!" he was supposed to go on the train-until they saw all the women on the train to Miami Beach. Bugs got past him and got on. "So, long Sammy! See you in Miami!" "Hair-Raising Hare" WAS the mad scientist episode-and you described the opening scene. I got the lines exact from that one because I quoted them directly off the captions. Sam was trying to sketch a gun with the soundtrack doing a playing of piano keys in the background. As he drew, the notes played slowly, and miskeyed when he made a mistake, and sped up when he did. I forget which cartoon that was, but he WAS challenged to "draw a gun." Bugs played a number of card games with different bad guys. I forget if the two pairs was in the same episode he won at BlackJack after drawing one card- a 21. ================= Now, I'm pretty sure hiway posted another movie?

We're STILL supposed to pray even for our ENEMIES, so if they qualify all the way into "enemy" territory, we're STILL supposed to pray for them.

Bon Jovi, "You Give Love a Bad Name".

"Escape from New York"?

I think part of the reason compassionate, loving Christians are slow to rise in organizations is that they're not trying to climb the ladder- they're too busy loving people and showing compassion to care if someone wants to give them a title for doing it.

My understanding-which may be corrected by those who were there and is based on the posts here- is that to really count twi attendance and "fellowship", one has to start counting after vpw went to Haight-Ashbury and the House of Acts and began hijacking the hippies. The early 1970s had the membership composed almost entirely of hippies and young folk, and it was very relaxed and low-key. The organization of the home fellowships started a few years later, when vpw had the young folk coming to him for "training", and they started walking around in suits and carrying briefcases. L0nnie Fr1sbee was named as one of the early people who changed that way, and it's been cited as the beginning of replacing those early, no-rules groups with regimented, orderly "twigs." If that's true, it certainly dovetails with how things went. The more time passed, the more people who were trained by vpw (and twi in general) on-site, and the more the rules were spread with them when they left, and the more the rules were made into practice, then policy. Now, the group's so rules-oriented compared to the early 1970s, the original twi'ers would barely recognize the group, and that's across a few scant decades. Sounds like the guy learned to dish it out....

It is "mischaracterization", and it is "annoying". I'll even add "tiresome", although I usually reserve that term for when I have to keep dealing with the SAME mischaracterization over and over, ad nauseum. That having been said, once the foreward's completed and you're actually reading what the author said, how have you found the book?

Hey- ever hear of another place-show or movie-that ever mentioned Sinestro? I imagine he meant HAL JORDAN specifically, and not any OTHER Green Lantern, despite there being several for Earth alone, plus a GL Corps that currently number MORE THAN 3600, since the most manic GL fans only count Hal. Despite, you know, him going crazy, destroying the Corps, killing the Guardians, and absorbing the power of the Central Power Battery ("Emerald Twilight"), then trying to rewrite all of time his way ("Zero Hour"), then dying to save Earth from the Sun-Eater ("Final Night"), then coming back and spending years as the Spectre ("Day of Judgement"), only to return as Green Lantern due to editorial fiat to satisfy the rabid fanboys on staff. (None of that was Hal's fault, a big, yellow bug did it.)

IIRC, the "I'm a'thinking" was when they were playing cards like in the old Westerns, with the loser getting out of town. Sam was considering what card to put down. The ink WAS from when Sam thought he was shot-and thought the ink was blood. The "being watched" was from the cartoon with the Peter Lorre-spoof scientist, I think it's "Hair-Raising Hare." It's a LOT more recognizable comment, since it's commented on in the cartoon. And yes, the "little slice of heaven" was when Bugs was trying to leave. "Well, goodbye!" He packs suitcases of someone else's stuff, makes the comment, then runs off, leaving the luggage (and hat) scattered behind him. However, the "series" was all correct, of course.

"Don't rush me- I'm a'thinking. And my head hurts." "Why did you pour ink on my head?" "Did you ever have the feeling you was being watched?" "And don't think it hasn't been a little slice of Heaven...'cause it hasn't!"

No.

Admittedly, I haven't been polling years of posters and ex-posters. I am aware at least SOME posters leave because of the squabbling-which usually centers around this SPECIFIC ISSUE, unless it's in the Political forum which I don't visit. I'm under the impression that a number of posters held off on posting, or withdrew, when under fire from the "it didn't happen until you provide proof." The staff would know better than me about that. When a bunch of people all get fed up about something, I suppose that can be labelled a "mob rule mentality." Groucho's angry, and one other poster's feeling defensive. Other than that, exactly how many of us are being irrational or shouting down the opposing viewpoint? Do I count as part of this "mob" because I agree that things have gone too far? It looks to me like some new posters arrive hurting, and some CAN'T be thick-skinned. It looks to me like WD has decided he's not going to self-moderate, and stop being hurtful when people tell their stories. (He's determined to be ignorant that he's doing this, and that he can make his points known WITHOUT hurting people.) So, we're at an impasse. We can choose the new posters, or we can choose WD, or we can refuse to choose either, which becomes a choice for WD. I don't see any other results as likely, given the situations.

Possibly both, but showing them was OBVIOUSLY meant to intimidate. Displaying a loaded (or unloaded) firearm like that IS "brandishing", and IS a criminal offense.

No. "Don't rush me- I'm a'thinking. And my head hurts." "Why did you pour ink on my head?"

I had a reply, and I'm using it as the first clue for the next one. "Don't rush me- I'm a'thinking. And my head hurts."

Here we go again.... He has a right to his opinion, and if there's factual errors in what he says, we have rights to point that out and discuss them. (Or, if he was correct, rights to agree.) The error we were addressing this moment was the "false dilemma" of his categorizations. EVERYONE you can get information on twi about- except him and his organization- are either -the media (which he pronounces "much of that false") -other Christians (which he pronounces "much of that false") -and DISGRUNTLED former followers (which he pronounces "much of that true, some of it false"). So, he's declaring right out that the only place to get non-false information is HIM and his organization. Further, if former followers speak up at all, he's CATEGORICALLY labelled them "disgruntled". That's why Raf replied: "Nice. Nice. Those are the only three categories listed. The Media Other [presumably non-Way] Christians Disgruntled former followers How about this for a category, JAL: Former followers. Not disgruntled. Shun the judgmental adjective. You have NO RIGHT to refer to me or anyone else as disgruntled, a word you use to dismiss the valid complaints being made by those who have every right to stand up to treachery of VPW." Don't you realize what his categorization has done? You've spoken about twi. According to JAL, since you're not a member of the Media, and not a non-twi Christian, you're "DISGRUNTLED". So's Mike. Now, Mike has objected to being called "disgruntled." Don't YOU? Stop and listen to Mike for a moment! Mike said: "A person should be considered gruntled until proven disgruntled." We think it is not. "Some criticism"? Yes-depending on the form of criticism. If he came here and said "I consider you 'disgruntled', I'd discuss whether or not it applied. But we objected the BLANKET LABEL, the CATEGORIZATION, that to be ex-twi and to speak on it is to be "disgruntled". For that matter, I'd object to ANY blanket label or categorization, and I think the others would as well. As to "the arena", I'll take my criticism "in the arena" from those there, thank you. Let's have open dialogue. HAHAHAHAHA!Ever consider doing a lounge act? Mitch Hedberg's dead, so there's the vacancy for a good observational comic out there... If JAL were to DISCUSS here, he'd be granted every benefit of polite discourse here. He'd even be allowed to NOT reveal who he is, to wear an alias, an internet handle, and speak, and let the strength of his words, and his logic, carry weight- or FAIL to carry weight, as the case may be. If JAL were to come here and just announce "everyone who posts here is disgruntled", he'd receive the recompense of his blanket accusation, which is deserved. That's because HE would have arrived and MADE IT PERSONAL. "I've just arrived. The rest of you are illogical, angry, emotional and hurtful." In case you missed it, he ALREADY made it personal in his letter-but he didn't mention us by name. Feel free to think that if your name isn't mentioned, you're not being referred to- but, you know, you've concluded the opposite to that before, and objected to labels nobody said they DEFINITELY meant for you, you've read the descriptions and context- as we did here- and drew what you thought was the logical conclusion... Here's a novel idea- how about JAL NOT make it personal ANYWHERE- at least outside any place that made him a leader- and just deal with us as siblings under God? JAL's letter was posted on the internet, at the ces/stfi website. JAL HAD to have given his approval for that. JAL's been giving his approval for a few of his public statements down the years- and his responses, GENERALLY (not counting the very beginning of CES, when there was an active messageboard with civil discussions) he's insisted on controlling the microphone. It's as honest as the politician who takes questions from the audience- but to get IN the audience, you had to be a supporter of his to begin with.... JAL's taken shots at us before, safe behind his "I don't go on messageboards" podium. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. And we have a right to CALL him on it when he's being arrogant.

Yes, how convenient...

No, it was all the things he was afraid of.

No, it does not. No, we have not. Glad I could straighten that out for you. ============= I take it you're unfamiliar with messageboards outside the GSC. Virtually all messageboards, and virtually all organizations, no matter how inclusive, have policies and procedures for ejecting someone from the room, or dismissing them from the organization. That's necessary, because eventually, someone will engage in disruptive behaviour, either in a small way, or in a large way. Messageboards with NO such policies either are chaotic free-for-alls where insults and noise are the order of the day (compared to them, this is afternoon tea with nobles), or are abandoned entirely by the posters, as they become overrun with trolls. The differences are in where you draw the line. If you use enforcement when someone is being DISRUPTIVE, then you're inclusionary. If you use enforcement when someone asks questions (without using them as an excuse to be disruptive), then you're exclusionary, like twi. The GSC allows for discussion of virtually any topic, with virtually any position, so long as the post is polite and CIVIL.