WordWolf

This is the End of the Innocence, title cut for the Don Henley album of the same name. (I liked it, but liked the previous album more.) I don't know the connection, but if I were to guess, I'd say Bruce Hornsby was somehow connected with Poco, since he contributed the melody for this song. (If you compare the melody for "Valley Road" and "End of the Innocence" in your head, you'll see the connection.) And in all fairness, it was Raf, long ago, who told me Hornsby contributed it.

I keep misremembering Keanu's dialogue as including him saying "Whoa" in the movie, even though they didn't go THAT far-including him was enough of a shock. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing stole all his scenes, IMHO. He played a blase scientist, jaded to the horrors of what he dealt with, to the hilt. The quintessential scene he did, for me, was when he was eating dinner. I included the quote above. He's eating a very rare steak, which is bloody as he's eating, and he casually discusses Lucy's end while eating. Eventually, Winona Ryder's character runs from the table and throws up in reaction. As for the current movie, I'm hoping some new faces wander in. I'm really not that strong on most movies- rather, the ones I've seen, I tend to remember fairly well.

It's been done before, but I don't know if it was more than once.

"Everyone feeds on death, even vegetarians." "Computer – this is a Class A Priority Directive: Compute, to the last digit, the value of pi."

Wasn't all this supposed to be a BIBLE program, how to apply the Bible and apply Christian principles?

Thank you, but unless they're on CD, I still have the cassette.

Matthew 5:29-30 (NASB) "29"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell." Here Jesus warned them-and us- of the dangers and severity of sin. Jesus warned us that-if something is an occasion to sin for us, makes it likely we will sin- we should GET RID OF IT, we should REMOVE IT FROM OUR LIVES. If drinking leads to poor judgement, which leads to sin in a person's life (like drinking and having one-night stands and anonymous sex), then the person is to STOP DRINKING and avoid sin. If going to a certain building leads to a person sinning, they are to AVOID THE BUILDING and avoid sin. What's the opposite of this? Instead of taking steps to avoid sin, that would be taking steps to make sin EASIER, to FACILITATE sin. For example, setting up a specific location to sin (like an office or motorcoach), furnishing such a location for sinning (like, say, with alcohol or drugs), and so on. Much of sin-especially the sin that hurts others- is based around steps of sin where one makes decisions one after another, each leading to the sin. If one quotes George Carlin, it becomes easier to see steps and decision points. Speaking of his Catholic upbringing, and its view of sin to him as a youth, "It was a sin to WANT to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to PLAN to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to figure out a PLACE to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to TAKE Ellen to the place to feel her up, it was a sin to TRY to feel her up, and it was a sin to feel her up. There were six sins in one feel, man!" Some will miss the point, likely, and consider this just another excuse to hate the Catholic Church. The point, however, is that each decision, and each action, led up to the sin. At any point, that sinner could have stopped before the sin was committed. Similarly, an adulterer- or an adulterer who teaches his students that having sex with him isn't wrong- has MANY decision points before the actual sin takes place- but he chooses to embrace the sin anyway. On the other hand, Jesus would tell him to discard any item, any location, any action, that leads to sin. It's not so hard at some of the smaller steps. "Sin no more." Ok, how? Start by eliminating plans to sin, and continue by making plans for alternatives, then carrying them out. Oh, and thanks for highlighting Matthew, those verses were worth discussing!

Technically, I posted SOME of them-about a page's worth. I probably left out a lot. Probably hadn't read it all yet, anyway. They probably wanted to start with the link, then didn't think to scroll down and see if we'd discussed how it died later.

I think of it more as Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, featuring Gary Oldman as Dracula, and so on. But yes, that's this one. I figured posting my 3 favourite quotes would make it obvious. Since you narrowed it down to Dracula, I didn't have to make the quote the one about the children of the night. Your turn, George!

It worked when she posted it, but apparently, when it got traffic coming from THIS site, they deleted it. That's why I revived some of the data and posted it directly further down the page. That's what Belle thanked me for posting.

Personally, I much preferred "Diane and the Ephesians" to the "Spiritual Shades" album. At ROA '88, I bought every nonofficial thing I could get my hands on. Not that I was avoiding the official things, but I could buy those ANYTIME. Turns out I underestimated how hard it would be for me to get them the next year-which was after lcm drew the line in the sand, and virtually all the sellers took off.

"Everyone feeds on death, even vegetarians."

"I want you to bring me before nightfall a set of postmortem knives." "An autopsy? On Lucy?" "No, no. Not exactly. I just want to cut off her head and take out her heart." "Mr. Morris, your bullets will not harm him. He must be beheaded. I suggest that you use your big Bowie knife." "Well, I wasn't plan on getting that close, Doc." "How did Lucy die? Was she in great pain?" "*continues eating* Yes, she was in great pain! Then we cut off her head, and drove a stake through her heart, and burned it, and then she found peace."

Bela Lugosi was not in this movie.

Ok, let the others had a chance to answer it. This is the series premiere for Star Trek: Deep Space 9, "Emissary." The episode where Picard atrociously mispronounced "Bajor".

Ok, no one else has said it, so I'm going to. Please note this isn't a personal judgement on you as a person. If you went out for a walk and found a nest in use, why not return the nest to where you found it and let them keep your nest? The wasps built it on their own, they weren't on your property, and they were minding their own business. I know you're a human and all that, but would it be fair if some superintelligent alien race (supposing one exists) grabbed your house with you in it, and planned on killing you off to make a museum-piece of your house?

Actually, disagreeing with them produces reactions, and always has. Never produces open dialogue-it produces attempts to suppress instead. Write a paper saying "adultery is wrong"? The powers-that-be say "anyone who reads it will get possessed!" Point out they're kicking out Mrs W from the home she lived in, after twi got her farm and her lifelong devotion? NOW they want to make an official response- but before they wanted to do it secretly... http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/tapping.asp This story, which probably isn't true, is where the British get the saying "tapping the Admiral".

I suspect you've seen it, and just aren't thinking of it. Which is peculiar at the moment....

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." I... love you too much to condemn you." "I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks upon this earth is the one who finds... True love?" "Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me." "When my time comes, will you do the same to me? Will you?" "No." "Take me away from all this death! " "Last week he wanted to marry her. Now he wants to have her committed." "Hear me out, young man. Lucy is not a random victim, attacked by mere accident, you understand? No. She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple."

Good. (Not the suffering it part.) That's the first step in understanding what many people, mostly women, went through both PERSONALLY from vpw and generally under vpw's regime as he taught others to do what he did and facilitate what he did. Whether or not YOU are, there certainly are people who DO call her a liar.We've gotten people calling the women who stepped forth ALL liars. We've had people who added to their testimony called liars. We've had people who insisted there was never any sexual wrongdoing at the bod/bot level. We've had people who insisted lcm never did anything. We've had people who insisted vpw never did anything. Then we've had people suggest vpw had sex with women FOR THEIR BENEFIT- either to toughen them up spiritually, or to give them sexual healing. Then we've had people who seem determined to paint the rapist (vpw) as the innocent victim (he's in his RV on his bed innocently minding his own business when women came in, gave themselves alcohol, and threw themselves at him.) Finally, after having made a major production of things- by challenging every eyewitness, victim account, everything people personally saw or did- and having them all speak up in response- they claimed that all this time spent on vpw's evil deeds shows the ones exposing them have an unhealthy obsession with vpw. Whether or not you're any of those parties, that's gone on for maybe a DECADE between WayDale and the GSC. There's a LOT of information, both women who've come forth as direct victims offering testimony. There's people who were part of vpw's criminal gang who've admitted, ashamed, they were in on it. There's official court records that lcm admitted to wrongdoing. Then there's all the information around what's directly known from participants-willing and nonwilling- and posted here and elsewhere. There's a complete, VERY consistent picture. Feel free to look up some of it. Even 10% should be enough to remove "a reasonable doubt." I myself began from the position that vpw was innocent of wrongdoing. However, the wealth of the evidence was sufficient for me to change my mind.

Larry, I suspect you may be the only person here who missed the irony in using condescending and arrogant speech to claim someone else is being condescending and arrogant. I really recommend you review the previous situation, where you were determined to perceive condescension and arrogance where none was offered, and responded "in kind", which meant you responded to civil posts with uncivil replies.

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." I... love you too much to condemn you." "I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks upon this earth is the one who finds... True love?" "Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me."

Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 10:12 AM BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376036 Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 01:06 PM Groucho, you and others are correct, I am not a spokesman for all men and should not have written that. My apologies to all, for the blanket statement "any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay." Sorry, please forgive. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376116

Ok, went back to discussions where we interacted. The first one was the "holy thing" discussion. The thread started here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=14337 The discussion had many people agreeing and disagreeing, some using verses of Scripture, some not. At one point, I posted this: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337336 You responded here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337622 Saying that my explanation-with verses- didn't support the conclusion with the verses. So, I said I'd lay it out again in plain English shortly. Which I did, verse by verse, and point by point, here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337794 Which took a considerable amount of time, was simple and straightforward, and addressed your concerns IN GOOD FAITH. Your response was that you couldn't see my position supported in the posts. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337841 Since it seemed to me that you were deliberately being obtuse, I asked what YOU get from those SAME verses. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337879 Jean and I, BTW, had disagreed on a number of specifics. She and I were disagreeing rather politely on the thread at the same time. She also attempted to clarify your points. In the process, you gave a link with some text- which was UNSOURCED. ANYONE can make a statement and not SOURCE it-which is what that person did, which means none of us can check whether it was a reliable statement or just hearsay, because we can't check their SOURCE. I pointed that out, and not in an impolite fashion, right here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338246 Your immediate response to that was here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338256 Where you said there was "a limit to your patience", to something that was fairly neutral posting. I posted-again with manners-replying to it here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338260 Your reply to THAT was to tell me to get off my high horse, here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338266 At that point, I couldn't figure out what questions you supposedly had unanswered. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338402 I pointed out that whatever they were, they seem to have gotten lost, and a recap might be good-which was what I'd do for you. I also pointed out you claimed I didn't cite anything except myself, despite the fact I'd gone verse-by-verse through 2 different versions, and cited them properly. You then said you weren't going to recap your questions, and were going to instead explain where you got me on a high horse. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338422 Which I explained in the next post. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338424 Once I explained in detail, your only response was that you felt you were dealing with a teenager. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338427 Things then settled down for several pages between us. (Other posters had their own issues.) Until you posted some people's names fully, and I told you a standing policy against that. I said "please." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=339856 Your reply was to change the name, and add "Don't you have anything better to do?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=339856 You also seemed angry I mentioned that, but some names made it fine. So, a moderator stated the rule. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=340046 So you dropped it rather sensibly. The rest of the thread went as amicable as threads generally go. ========= "YOU happen to be one of the first ones I've engaged here that treated me in a condescending and discourteous fashion. Of course you don't see it that way, but if you were to take dan's suggestion and re-read my posts from the beginning" Ok, did that. "you (or others) might see where I just got tired of your arrogant and condescending tone in your responses to me. So I slapped you back." Others might interpret it differently, but I just reread them, and it STILL doesn't look that way. I do recall (but can't lay my hands on the post at this moment) that you later claimed you equated LONG posts with NONSENSE posts, that you objected to posts on the basis of their length rather than their content. Since some of my posts need room to explain something in detail, I noticed that would mean you would object to my posts with no regard to the content. That means a short, illogical post could be embraced while a long, clearly-stated, well-documented post would be rejected, just because it was longer. (Although the length was what made it more useful, more clear, more logical.)

One of the more consistent things here is you can always count on WTH not retaining any knowledge posted here on the GSC. We discussed how the specific-HOW the people were killed by the Nazis is secondary to THAT they were killed by the Nazis, and that even WHO was wiped out was secondary to THAT many people were wiped out, but WTH's fixated. Either it's a discussion of crematoriums or he might as well not be in it.