WordWolf

I think we didn't see this show.

Please accept you stumped us and take another or make it a toss-up or whatever.

*blink*

I got some sleep.

It's GOT to be a "Lethal Weapon" movie.

For the sake of moving this along,

may I be permitted-this once- to use a scattershot guess,

and say

A) Lethal Weapon 2

or Lethal Weapon 3 or Lethal Weapon 4?

there is no option for mine. I marked and avoided THEM, not the other way around.

Ditto.

When lcm drew his "line in the sand"(1988-1989), I did my own investigating,

and-based on what lcm himself and his cronies said themselves,

I made tracks.

dear a la

i couldn't find what you're talking about ? thanks

can you point in the right direction

I couldn't find it either.

Can we get a link or something?

[WordWolf in boldface as usual.

I shall also shorten the original post. Feel free to jump back using the arrow or scroll up

for the original post in its entirety-I kept what was germane to my reply.]

(snip)

Even though "The Exorcist" has been classified as a horror flick, it is supposedly based on a true story. It is based on a 1949 exorcism Blatty heard about while he was a student in the class of 1950 at Georgetown University, a Jesuit and Catholic school.

According to Rev. Father William O'Malley (who played Father Joseph Dyer in the film), the events depicted in the film are approximately 80% true. He claims the big discrepancies between the movie and case it was inspired by were: it was a boy who was possessed, not a girl; the possession did not occur in Georgetown, but just outside DC in Cottage City, MD. In this case, the boy's head did not rotate 180 degrees, though he claims that nearly everything else in the movie actually occurred. The name of the boy who was subject of the "true" exorcism that inspired Blatty's novel was Ronald Hunkeler. After he was "cured" he went on to attend Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC, graduating in 1954. He was later a scientist with NASA. He refuses all interviews regarding his exorcism. At last account, he was rumored to be living in Laurel, MD. (From: Wikipedia) So apparently there is some credibility even in this horror flick.

[Thank you for citing your source-the Wikipedia article.

Whether or not there is "some credibility" in this movie (and its book) is dependent upon the

credibility of the source material, the writer, and whoever's "vetting it", in this case,

William O'Malley.

I'm not convinced-I've read contrary material through the years.]

(snip)

Just what are the two "biggest demons"people struggle with the most? Money and Sex. The reason we continue to struggle with these demons is because of the emotional attatchments we have to them. Now if you want to emotionaly incite someone, then these two demons are the best ones out there.

[i can see one saying some demons are connected with lust for money or lust for sex, but I

question muddying the discussion by calling either a "demon" itself.

"Love of money is the root of all evil."-I Timothy 6:10.]

(snip)

In Acts 19 we read how Demetrius a silversmith who made shrines for the goddess Diana emotionally incited a mob of people against the apostle Paul. How was he able to accomplish that? He first got them emotionally riled up by getting to "their pocketbook" - by telling the mob their craft was in danger. Here he first riles people with money.

[so what?]

Then he goes on to mention the Goddess Diana ... how she would be despised and her magnifiicence be destroyed ... (and note this) whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. (Acts 19:27) Even though we don't bow down and worship a goddess Diana, we still are worshipping what that goddess represents.

No we don't.

She represented the income for those people, and a nationalistic pride, first and second.

Their jobs were based on making her stuff, and their identification with their city was

based on her temple, one of the 7 Wonders of the ancient world.

If you wandered around geography and history, you'd find what she represented was

often CONTRADICTORY with what she represented in ANOTHER place and time.]

There are references to Diana in common literature. For example, in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, many references are made to her. Rosaline, a beautiful woman who has sworn to chastity, is said to have "Dian's wit". Later on in the play, Romeo says, "It is the East, and Juliet is the sun. Arise fair sun, and kill the envious moon." He is saying that Juliet is better than Diana and Rosaline for not swearing chastity. Diana is also a character in the 1876 Leo Delibe ballet 'Sylvia'. The plot deals with Sylvia, one of Diana's nymphs and sworn to chastity and Diana's assault on Sylvia's affections for the shepherd Amyntas. (Excerpt from: Wikipedia)

[in all of history, you found 2 references, one from Shakespeare, and one from a ballet.

THIS is how you support "we worship her"? Both references are over a century old.

We talk a lot more about, say, Franz Ferdinand than we do Diana of Ephesus,

and we don't worship HIM, either.]

What the goddess Diana represents is chastity -

[Not to the Ephesians-there she was a MOTHER GODDESS. Flip back and review the pictures

of her....

What was the purpose in dragging us into irrelevant passages of history,

to claim we worship a mythological figure?

Was it part of WTH's regular efforts to excuse vpw of wrongdoing, and

say it's ok to rape and steal, but wrong to expose raping and stealing?

Let's see.]

..chastity of course referring to the sexual behavior of a man or woman acceptable to the ethic norms and guidelines of a particular culture, civilization or religion. For example, within the scope of Christian ethic, Roman Catholics view sex within marriage as chaste, but prohibit the use of artificial contraception as an offense against chastity, seeing contraception as contrary to God's will and design of human sexuality. Many Anglican churches allow for artificial contraception, seeing the restriction of family size as possibly not contrary to God's will. A stricter view is held by the Shakers, who prohibit marriage (and sexual intercourse under any circumstances) as a violation of chastity.

[Then there's the Bible. In the Old Testament, as well as the new, the message on sex is

pretty clear. If you're going to have sex, have it with your ONE spouse, and nobody else.

Not married? Don't have sex.

If you need citations, I can link the Schoenheit article-he did a rather thorough job

documenting this....

The Bible's position is not a "CULTURAL" one, nor is it SUBJECTIVE-

not for people who claim they hold the Bible as sacred and as their STANDARD.]

Getting people emotionally riled up over the gods of money and sex (even chase sex) is nothing new.

[God getting riled over it, and God's people riled over it-is nothing new, either.

I Samuel 1-4 shows people and God Almighty offended that leaders of God's people-

who claimed to stand for God to the people- were stealing the money and using

God's people for sex. God said Hophni and Phinehas died for it, and their connections

didn't count for anything-they were the sons of Eli, a Judge.

Of course, people trying to silence the correct moral outrage against such

abusers, manipulators, evil men, THAT's nothing new EITHER.]

Demetrius himself did it back there in Acts 19. What was the response by the majority of the people? The response is still the same today - "And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." These two gods - money and sex still have a very powerful hold on people and God forbid people learn to despise these two gods?

All sin still comes down to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

(I John 2:16)

Taking money or sex out of its proper place-

like stealing money from God's people, or using a coersive method to get them to have

sex with you-

is sin, and falls under those categories, too.

Sin still has a powerful hold on people.

God forbid His people learn to accept sin!]

I thought that behaviour was a bit different, depending on if you were dealing with a brown bear

or a black bear. (Or a polar bear of course, but we're not talking about them...)

We also had to be up and "in the word" by 7:00 AM. My Wow brother (also the family coord) would occasionally throw open my bedroom door (a room I shared with my WOW sister) to make sure we were really awake. If we had fallen asleep, he would yell at us about our commitment. One morning he threw the door open to catch us and my WOW sister happened to be naked. He was mortified and never tried to catch us again. What a bonehead.

You're lucky he wasn't one of the "inner circle" types that learned vpw's "lockbox"...

he probably would have dropped in MORE to try to see nekkid wimmin....

But really, even though TWI never seemed to protect itself from liability suits by way of smart policies, maybe this was one area where they were trying to keep "the WOWs from getting hurt or into trouble". Statistically, more bad .... happens after midnight, than before midnight. So maybe that was what was behind that rule. I always believed that, and have been willing to accept that at face value...

I'd like a citation of these "STATISTICS."

My understanding is that crime goes DOWN from about 1am on into the morning,

and it also goes down on rainy nights.

Criminals don't bother staying up when fewer people are on the street.

I've cheerfully gone about my business all hours of the night, and walked the streets

of NYC at 2am, 3am, 4am, 5am, without problems. It's EARLIER than that that I've

ever had problems on the street.

Forgive me if I take years of my own experience at face value.

Men in Black?

CORRECT!

Here's how the quotes fit in....

"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy The White Album again."

Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) was briefing Agent J (Will Smith) on various alien technologies that were gradually

released as commercial products.

"You see this? Huh?! N-Y-P-D! Means I will kNock Your Punkass Down!"

Very early, with Will Smith as a policeman, catching a fleeing fugitive (an alien in disguise.)

"You here to make fun of me too?"

" No, ma'am. We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. May we come in?

"Sure."

Agent K and the woman at the house where that "bug" landed.

"Did he say anything to you?

"Yeah, that the world is coming to an end."

"Did he say when?"

"So what do you think?

"Whew! Very interesting. She got a whole 'Queen of the Undead' thing going on...

"What about the body?"

"Great body..."

"The dead body."

Agent K and Agent J at the coroner's office to retrieve a "dead" alien. Linda Fiorentino played the coroner.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

K explaining to J.

"Place projectile weapon on the ground."

"You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

"Your proposal is acceptable."

The "bug" and the guy whose truck he landed on.

GO, Raf!

"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy The White Album again."

"You see this? Huh?! N-Y-P-D! Means I will kNock Your Punkass Down!"

"You here to make fun of me too?

" No, ma'am. We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. May we come in?

"Sure."

"Did he say anything to you?

"Yeah, that the world is coming to an end."

"Did he say when?"

"So what do you think?

"Whew! Very interesting. She got a whole 'Queen of the Undead' thing going on...

"What about the body?"

"Great body..."

"The dead body."

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

"Place projectile weapon on the ground."

"You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

"Your proposal is acceptable."

Please explain OM.

I really find this interesting (read "laughably absurd").

If you read the ENTIRE site, nowhere does it give even a hint of what the participants will be doing or learning (- well - other than it looks like you're going to be expected to stack some dweeb's firewood for him - oooo, won't that be a learning experience).

What would possibly move you to think that this will be an "awesome" experience? If they've put as much thought into their program as they have their website, well, I wouldn't be expecting much.

I agree...there's no curriculum, not an inkling of what to expect...you shouldn't have to email for details in order to find out what it is that you are asking for details about.

And then there's this little gem from the home page of the website:

"If you are unable to do things that are outside of your comfort zone, then this is not for you." :blink: :(

WTF??? Sounds like a major red flag to me...

I thought that statement was awesome. They seem to be saying right up front that the participant will be very busy and therefore the experience is not for lazy people whose comfort zone will be challenged.

Actually, you completely READ THAT INTO what was said.

There's nothing about "busy" or "lazy".

The only thing we have to go on is what they said

"unable to do things that are outside of your comfort zone".

Does that mean "learn to chop firewood correctly"?

Does it mean "get up at 5am"?

Does it mean "ride rollercoasters without fear?"

Does it mean "risk life and limb hitchhiking to another state, where unqualified

climbers will lead you up a mountain"?

Does it mean "go into housing projects and go door to door preaching the Bible"?

Does it mean "eating substandard food, living in a closet, and performing manual labour

full-time while paying for the privilege of working for someone?"

There's nothing to indicate any of those is true-or false.

It's equally possible that it might be for some noble purpose-

"the person will be busy"

as it is for some ignoble purpose-

"it is a "hold-harmless" clause, and if anyone finds anything wrong with the program,

they are welcome to just leave it or shut up."

Since the phrasing is, in part, identical to some things that some of us saw some

INCREDIBLE harm done in before,

and the resemblances are INTENTIONAL, NOT ACCIDENTAL,

I think some caution is called for.

If snow is on the ground, the ground will be white with reflected light.

If the snow is in the air, the air will be white with reflected light.

If snow is in the air AND on the ground, the area will be bright with reflected light.

Even if there's no electrical sources of light, the area will be lit with reflected light.

I've gone camping in the winter. With snow on the ground, no snow in the air,

and no lights on. Late at night, it was still very bright.

I noted this, because it meant that practical jokers could not sneak around.

(Someone later recommended WHITE camouflage for snow, because, even

at night, that's more effective than trying to keep to shadows that aren't there.)

So, if he made the claim that there was "pitch-black" and heavy snow (and he saw

heavier snow than he'd ever seen at any other time by his 40s/50s),

I find that unsupportable.

If the sky was heavily clouded, but the air was carrying snow, the white snow EVERYWHERE

would make the sky look a LOT brighter.

======

As to any of this actually having been actually seen by vpw

(that is, that he actually saw physical snow, or actually saw a real vision),

we can test this without having been there.

See, he claimed this was given as PROOF he'd heard from God.

Therefore, if we test the promise he claimed was from God, and it's an invalid

promise, or it is not delivered, then we can dismiss the snowstorm-

since it was "proof" of something that didn't happen.

This supposed promise:

He (God) would teach him (Victor) His Word (God's Word)

like it had not been known since the 1st century,

if he (Victor) would teach it to others.

(This is the famous 1942 promise.)

BTW, he NEVER told anyone this promise IN 1942-he started telling them in the

early 1970s- Mrs W herself said he first told it to the early corps, and that means

the early 1970s.

Looking at the claim,

the claim was that God would teach vpw God's Word like it hadn't been known

since the First Century", which is a claim that is dependent upon the hearer being as

ignorant of "First Century" history as vpw was and presumed his hearers to be.

In the First Century AD- before Gutenberg invented his printing press-

God's Word as known was the Torah- the Old Testament.

It wasn't until the SECOND Century AD that enough handwritten copies of the

New Testament Gospels, Letters, Acts and Revelation were distributed for Christians

to "know" them. What vpw taught didn't reflect their lack of copies of the New

Testament. Either he invented that claim, or the promise came from an ignorant god.

vpw didn't teach the First Century church in ACTION.

REALLY look at Acts sometime.

They were SHORT on documentation. REALLY short on books.

There was a lot of prayer, considerable deliverance, and a level of NORMAL miracles

everyday such that the SPECIAL miracles with Paul went beyond them.

Authority was de-centralized, money was distributed among the poor as they

had need, everything was local, nothing was official, the few "leaders" travelled,

dealt with things in a "hands-on" fashion, and lived simply.

Compare that to twi.

HEAVY on reading, reading, reading. Deliverance levels painfully shy of Acts.

Authority was all concentrated to vpw, money funnelled to vpw- even when he had

to trash the Way East and Way West and stop local use of cash to do it.

LITTLE was local, EVERYTHING was official, the "leaders" stay in one spot

and enjoy their luxuries as you travel to them on your dime, and their

involvement is anything but personal- just a handful of verses, and some

micro-management.

Finally,

the supposed promise was predicated on the concept that there was information

that was UNKNOWN from 101 AD- 1943, and God Almighty would supply

that information to vpw.

Few people who've been at the GSC awhile can't trace the sources of vpw's

information. Some came from BG Leonard and his class, some came from

JE Stiles, his book and his direct teaching, some came from EW Bullinger's

books, some came from EW Kenyon and his books.

(If you used your initials, vpw would plagiarize freely from you.)

EVERYTHING HE TAUGHT WAS ALREADY KNOWN AS OF 1943.

So, this supposed "god" who promised him this should have known better.

Taking all this into consideration,

the promise vpw claimed he was given was a complete sham.

Either vpw was given a promise by an ignorant god,

or he was given a promise by a lying devil and couldn't tell the difference,

or vpw made the whole thing up.

Therefore, either the snowstorm came from an ignorant god, or it came from a devil,

or it never happened and vpw made it up.

I don't know who passed that story around, but it would not

surprise me if twi tried to make claims like that if they heard about them.

I just wanted to add something.

Don't worry about them not meowing to you.

If a cat hasn't been exposed to humans in its first 4 weeks of life,

(supposedly) it will never be much of a "talker."

Humans are MUCH more vocal than animals, and the cats pick up using their

voices to communicate that way. They may not be VERBAL (no words),

but they certainly can communicate a lot by being VOCAL (making sounds),

mostly their mood.

I've seen cats communicate a range of emotions with different meows,

ranging from an angry, upset "MYOW!" to "Meow?" which quite obviously

was a question.

In this case, they will communicate with you by body language. For now,

they need to learn-on their own schedule- to not be afraid.

I didn't hear anything about a BLACK snowstorm until sometime into discussions of Mrs W's book.

I'd heard of a miraculous snowstorm, but never that a colour was mentioned.

Since snowstorms are only 1 colour, I didn't think to ask.

Even a heavy blizzard looks WHITE.

And the worst snow conditions are called "WHITE-OUT".

Maybe this wasn't circulated where I heard it because I might have said

"wait a minute", and had an "AHA" moment over twi.

Remember, he wasn't a genius, but as a marketer and a con-man, he did an incredible

job- he adjusted his "advertisements" so the average "customer" wouldn't doubt the "product."

"Baby, baby...."

"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy The White Album again."

"You see this? Huh?! N-Y-P-D! Means I will kNock Your Punkass Down!"

"You here to make fun of me too?

" No, ma'am. We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. May we come in?

"Sure."

"Did he say anything to you?

"Yeah, that the world is coming to an end."

"Did he say when?"

"So what do you think?

"Whew! Very interesting. She got a whole 'Queen of the Undead' thing going on...

"What about the body?

"Great body...

"The dead body."

Talia Shire

the Godfather

Andy Garcia

"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy The White Album again."

"You see this? Huh?! N-Y-P-D! Means I will kNock Your Punkass Down!"

Even I should have figured that one out after a clue like that! :)

I thought you were being a gentleman and letting me get it since I was so close. :)

If this is Voyager, you can post the entire script and I still won't get it. I haven't seen

much of that series or Enterprise.

Sigourney Weaver

Trading Places

Eddie Murphy

Is a malamute/wolf mix even trainable? He definitely has a wild side to him.

Wolf/dog mixes are not trainable like dogs-they combine the wolf nature with an

unpredictable element from the dog.

This doesn't mean he's untrainable- no animal is untrainable. However, this

is not an easy task.

I would read up on wolves for some insight. If you can "see things from a wolf's

perspective", you can figure out what he wants, and maybe work something out.

From what you said, he wants his trophies. Possibly you can set up a wolf-den

for him, and socialize him to associate that with "his spot", where he can relax

and play with anything he wants. (Maybe he'd leave the rest of the area neater.)

I knew someone who "owned a wolf", and it socialized well- about as well as a dog.

That's an incredible exception-not a rule. (This wolf was allowed indoors in winter,

which should tell you how well he was socialized to that home.)

It's on my "To-do" list.

As soon as I can figure out when to see it.

Is this "Beverly Hills Cop II?"