WordWolf

"You're going to have to get the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone before it's too late." "To be precise, Commander, you ordered me to reach the Neutral Zone 'before it is too late.' I have computed the length of time the border outpost and USS Berlin can safely withstand a Romulan attack... deducted our time to destination at maximum warp speed. That leaves Doctor Crusher with forty-eight more minutes..." "Splitting hairs is a figure of speech I recognize, Commander. Speaking for those whose hair is soon to be split, forty-eight minutes may make a great deal of difference. Excuse me -- forty-seven minutes." "Bingo? I fail to see the relevance, Doctor. Is that not a reference to an ancient Earth game?" (And there's one of the famous "47s" which began appearing in scripts after the original series and the cartoon.) "I think I may sneeze." "A Klingon sneeze?" "Only kind I know."

"Family Guy"?

I don't know about a program you can BUY from Adobe for that. I have CutePDF. It's free. It's easy to install. I've only used it maybe twice, but it appears to have worked just fine. You might ask Raf-I think he's used it more than me. It's even Vista-ready. http://www.cutepdf.com/ " PDF Creation CutePDF Writer (Freeware) Create professional quality PDF files from almost any printable document. FREE for personal and commercial use! No watermarks! No popup Web advertisements! Now supports 64-bit Windows. Free Download Free Download (1.6MB) (Vista Ready) Selected as One of the "50 Best free downloads" by Computer Shopper "

No, Macbeth II: Banquo's Revenge.

A) Looks like "the purpose of his post" is to get a copy of the book "One God & One Lord that CES put out, without giving CES $29 directly. I may be wrong, but that seems pretty straightforward. B) If you're having nausea, there are a number of rather effective remedies on the market now besides Dramamine, and your local pharmacy should be able to supply you with one or more. C) He doesn't owe you an explanation of why he wants the book or why he doesn't want to give them money. And he never said he "trusted CES with the Word." He said he wanted that book. He never said WHY he wanted it or how he considers it. If you don't think that's enough of an answer to help him, then don't help him. Curl your lip in disdain, don't waste time posting, and just go on to the next thread. I find posts like this distasteful and religiously nauseating. Good thing I already went to my local pharmacy and stocked up on useful supplies.

This sounds like it might come in handy. Hello, Newcomer. You do realize that if you stick around, you'll no longer be new and we'll have to call you something else? :)

I still say "follow the money." The economy of the "slave states" was tied up in plantations-meaning it was based on the cheap labour of SLAVES. Freeing slaves means the plantation owner has less money. I doubt most of them were idealogically-enlightened enough to voluntarily free their slaves at the cost of making a lot less money. Of course, any plantation owner COULD free any slave on his plantation- or all of them. Yet slavery continued as an institution. Forgive my cynicism, but I think the PRIMARY reason for the Civil War was the secession of the Confederate States, and the PRIMARY reason for their secession was their ownership of slaves-which they wished to continue, and the PRIMARY reason for that was money. I stress PRIMARY because I believe that people who do not wield the power and have a vested interest in something can be tricked into supporting it against their own self-interest, if they are given a compelling sales pitch that gives them entirely unrelated reasons to support it. So, you have people who don't own slaves, who are told up and down "it's about states' rights!", and if they're told this enough times, they will say "this is all about states' rights", and they will support slavery almost accidentaly, in their attempt to support states' rights... which is what the slave-owners wanted, and THEY don't care about the non-slaveowners so long as they do what they're told.

[because you looked at some posts some of us have placed on a website, decided you knew all about our lives without actually knowing us, and then began making pronouncements. That strikes a chord in ex-twiers because we've met plenty of ill-trained, supposed leaders BEFORE who did this sort of thing. Nowadays, when someone tells us "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", we pull the curtain aside to expose the mortal man standing there pretending he's a big shot. "Once bitten, twice shy." We don't encourage people to decide they know all about our lives just based on a handful of posts and not getting to know us, then making pronouncements. That's it.] [That illustrated my point nicely. You decided that you knew everything there was to know on the subject and need not actually get to know us before deciding you knew all about us. Then you made a grand pronouncement about all of us from on high. But you left out the florid language like us being "under the ban" or "apostate" or something else. So, your judgements-your preconcieved notions phrased as judgements, really- will not change what is true either. If this is your idea of dialoguing, it's not going to encourage the active Christians here to chat with you as a friend, companion, respected equal, or what-have-you. Just to make it official, you have no idea what I do on my off-time. I don't come here and announce it, because I don't want to. That strikes me like sounding a trumpet when I pay alms-I don't want that reward- and frankly, I'm not in it for the rewards. Did you really think you could arrive, dictate how we interact with you, and get grown adults to just fall in line? Didn't you realize we already sat thru this movie? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."] Nice one, especially for a new arrival. Hello, sonofarthur. Pull up a chair, and enjoy your stay. There's a sticky with a guide for new arrivals, I hope you looked it over.

No, not this time. "You're going to have to get the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone before it's too late." "Splitting hairs is a figure of speech I recognize, Commander. Speaking for those whose hair is soon to be split, forty-eight minutes may make a great deal of difference. Excuse me -- forty-seven minutes." "Bingo? I fail to see the relevance, Doctor. Is that not a reference to an ancient Earth game?" (And there's one of the famous "47s" which began appearing in scripts after the original series and the cartoon.)

============= Ok, here's where the lines go in the movie/play. Hamlet, pretending to be insane, is approached by the clueless Polonius, who was trying to confirm his own guesses as to why. "What do you read, my lord?" "Words. Words. Words." "What is the matter?" "Between who?" "I mean, the matter that you read" King Claudius thinks Hamlet has no clue about his plans, as he sends Hamlet to England. "I see a cherub that sees them." Hamlet has the travelling performers enact a play similar to his father's murder-complete with a few lines Hamlet's added to complete the resemblance. (He then watches Claudius' reactions to the play-did Claudius murder Hamlet's father?) This is a line from his play. "In second husband let me be accursed- none wed the second but who killed the first!" Hamlet, on his relation-Claudius is his father's brother, and now his mother's husband. A little more than kin, and less than kind." Polonius, on how wonderful these players are. He spares no inflation in making them sound great. "These are the best actors in the world! Either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral. For the law of writ and the liberty... these are the only men." "My lord, you played once for the university, you say?" "That did I, my lord, and was accounted a good actor." "What did you enact?" "I did enact Julius Caesar. I was killed in the Capitol. Brutus killed me." "It was a brute part of him to kill so capital a calf there." Hamlet then engaged Polonius on his own turn as an actor. Hamlet's play- he had them enact "the Murder of Gonzago." (With a few added lines.) What do you call the play?" "The Mousetrap." Hamlet almost narrates the story as it unfolds. He's better than a Greek chorus for narration, he is... "His name is Gonzago. Wait, you shall see anon...how the murderer gets the love of Gonzago's wife." And that's when Claudius starts to lose his cool... Thought you guys had more of a head for the classics. Sir Lawrence Olivier, Mel Gibson, and Kenneth Branagh all did versions of this, and there was a version shown on MST3K. For me, there's nothing quite like sitting in front of a roaring fireplace with a book like "War and Peace." You know a big, fat book like that can feed a fire for 2 hours! (Emo Phillips.) Go, Raf!

Correct! I was about to start posting all the most famous lines.

"What do you read, my lord?" "Words. Words. Words." "What is the matter?" "Between who?" "I mean, the matter that you read" "I see a cherub that sees them." "In second husband let me be accursed- none wed the second but who killed the first!" A little more than kin, and less than kind." "These are the best actors in the world! Either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral. For the law of writ and the liberty... these are the only men." "My lord, you played once for the university, you say?" "That did I, my lord, and was accounted a good actor." "What did you enact?" "I did enact Julius Caesar. I was killed in the Capitol. Brutus killed me." "It was a brute part of him to kill so capital a calf there." What do you call the play?" "The Mousetrap." "His name is Gonzago. Wait, you shall see anon...how the murderer gets the love of Gonzago's wife."

That was WTH's reply to Oakspear's post. WTH didn't make it clear this is what he was doing. He was attempting to copy my style, but left out a critical detail. (That is, who is speaking when.) When you've experienced WTH some more, this won't surprise you. BTW, once the CFS class was on tape, vpw didn't always show the dog porn movie. The taped class DESCRIBES the movie, which is more information than I wanted. It also shows him amused with the thing as he describes it, rather than the disgust/distaste most of us would evidence on tape if forced to describe such a tape.

What The Hey: [As has been pointed out before, using vpw's own standards and tools to examine vpw's materialsis not the way to objectively examine or to most fairly evaluate the accuracy of the materials. There's a bias there, which will affect your results. Moreover, if you WANT to legitimize his stuff, that will further bias your results. That having been said, some people have examined his work, and concluded by the standards espoused in pfal, pfal falls short of its stated performance. That also having been said, I've seen what WTH considers sufficient for his own standards, and I'm not impressed. A lot of things could pass HIS standard that wouldn't come close to passing mine. There's also a selective memory in effect here- those who came up with conclusions contradicting vpw were NOT embraced by vpw, nor was their work studied to see if he could improve his own. vpw's position was retained, and the other person's was suppressed. That's why even the response to the "Adultery" letter wasn't so shocking- suppressing the "unpleasant news" was standard operating procedure at the way.] [Actually, your answer did nothing of the kind. Frankly, the Ted Patrick/Deprogramming things were a windfall for twi- vpw was able to use them to monger fear and get everyone to "circle the wagons" because those evil deprogrammers were out to get them. Also, the experience of any one person is irrelevant here-the consistent pattern of the criminal is what we're looking at. If he does not commit a crime Tuesday, and we're watching him Tuesday, that doesn't mean he's become a fine, upstanding citizen.] [some of the time, he taught some good Bible. Some of the time, he did some nice things for some people. Some of the time, he taught things that were very harmful. Some of the time, he did some despicable, evil things to some people. The times people needed him to be godly the most were the times he was in the middle of committing dark, corrupt acts, and compounded them by shrouding them in the legitimacy of a clergy title. THAT's when they "needed him the most." That's when he really should have made the effort a normal male does to try to "be the man he knows himself to be". To hide this is to facilitate evil by hiding or excusing it, and those are actions never sanctioned by Scripture. Calling evil "good" is roundly condemned. Of course, WTH can't see that evil actions deserve some outrage because they're wrong. That requires a working conscience. Instead, he can only conjecture why normal, healthy adults would be angry about vpw's crimes. No, we're not looking for sympathy. Most of us- especially the males- were never raped or drugged by vpw. (At least not physically.) We're outraged over crimes that were committed, and crimes labelled "acceptable" using a cloak of legitimacy by misusing clergy positions, and crimes covered up by a number of people- and still being covered up to this day-or at least attempted so. The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and He adds no sorrow to it. The blessings of vpw made a few rich, and added crippling sorrow to a few others. That's not acceptable to almost everyone, and if it wasn't vpw doing it, it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone. BTW, I think the above quote is a perfect example of the types of response one can expect from a dulled (seared) conscience when faced with suffering resulting from evil acts. No sympathy, just a rude joke. If WTH is the "after" picture, I feel confident that few people will be rushing to sign up for whatever program produces this.]

See, you can look at PART of the life of one guy, and say that MOST of the time, he was a good man. He was considered a pillar of his local civic community, a member of the Jaycees, and even entertained children as a clown. HOWEVER, character is not a "part of the time" thing. Most people would say that-although only a tiny fraction of the time John Wayne Gacy spent in his community was spent killing young boys- that tiny fraction of time was sufficient to erase any supposed good the community received when he wasn't kidnapping, imprisoning or killing. Character is what you are 100% of the time- not 25% or 50% or 75% or even 95%. If you are the scum of the earth, you can spend relatively little of your time killing, raping, molesting, and so on, and people will consider you scum. That's not an inordinate amount of focus on evil deeds. That's putting the focus on where it should be. When discussing anyone but vpw, just about everyone on the planet has no difficulty getting this.

Well, while we wait.... "You're going to have to get the Enterprise to the Neutral Zone before it's too late."

It amazes me that some people think plagiarism relies on many things that have nothing to do with plagiarism. A) Intent. "Until I see a confession that the person intended to plagiarize, I don't consider it plagiarism." Plagiarism is plagiarism whether the person admits to it (no crime's dependant upon a confession), and intent doesn't affect plagiarism. What makes this especially silly is that any high school student, let alone college or grad school student, is well aware of what plagiarism is and how wrong it is. So, "ignorance of the law" is not an issue here. Any high school graduate who plagiarized INTENDED to plagiarize. In this particular case, it is part of the complete picture, taken with what he DID say on the record, that demonstrates he set out to put forth that himself was some great one. B) Identical phrasing. "It's only plagiarism if the exact same words are used in the exact same order." Hogwash. If one says that initially, one demonstrates a lack of understanding of plagiarism. If one CONTINUES to say this, then one demonstrates a determined ignorance of plagiarism, a dogged persistence to ignore what plagiarism means and how it works, even faced with clear explanations of both. If a writer takes the exact words from another writer without citation, that is plagiarism. If a writer shuffles some of the words of another writer around, and swaps in some synonyms, maybe shuffles the paragraph around, and doesn't cite his source, it is STILL plagiarism. That's the same thing as the first case, with a few cosmetic changes to try to deceive his audience. Of course, one may see all the explanations of how plagiarism works for everyone except those trying to excuse vpw of plagiarism (99.9999 of the population or more, plus all the legal definitions, and the ones used in courts of law, all institutions of learning, and by virtually all Christians), and decide "well, I'm coming up with my own definition of what plagiarism is and whether it's a crime." That's about as legitimate as saying "I'm coming up with my own definition of what murder is and whether it's a crime." You'll end up with a definition that is meaningless to anyone but you and carries no force for any other English speaker.

Can we see a new face take a turn?

"What do you read, my lord?" "Words. Words. Words." "What is the matter?" "Between who?" "I mean, the matter that you read" "I see a cherub that sees them." "In second husband let me be accursed- none wed the second but who killed the first!" A little more than kin, and less than kind." "These are the best actors in the world! Either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral. For the law of writ and the liberty... these are the only men."

"What do you read, my lord?" "Words. Words. Words." "What is the matter?" "Between who?" "I mean, the matter that you read" "I see a cherub that sees them." "In second husband let me be accursed- none wed the second but who killed the first!"

I remember that now, they were the Jablonskis. According to Bud, the smart Kelly was frigid, too. I thought most people didn't pick up how funny that was. (Well, I thought it was funny. Whatever.)

I'd like to have a "new" person post one, not one of the usual 3-4 suspects. If not, I can post one, but let's see someone new take it!

Just bringing this up for the new folks. If someone's having trouble finding a new avatar, we might even be able to help out...

It's easy to look into SOME of the plagiarism that appears in that book. It's a combination of 2 of Bullinger's books: "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and "Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?" Note that the question format was stolen also. Now, the former of those books appears here in its entirety: http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/ (That site also has it available as a PDF.)