WordWolf

Everything up to this point is statement of fact. All of these are documented. "Conscious deception (lying)" is a fact. (That's rephrasing what was already said.) "He didn't slip, he made an early choice, and future lies like the non-existent Tulsa snowstorm showed he continued to make that conscious choice"- conclusions based directly on the facts. (He made a number of decisions across the years, including the mentioned ones- that indicate those were his conscious choices, and CONSISTENT conscious choices.) That the conscious deceptions "show a desire to promote himself at others' expense" is a direct conclusion based on the initial quoted facts. (He lied about being the source of the materials, rather than naming the sources, and promoted himself at others' expense. That's because he wanted to. For most people, this is not that hard to see.) "Arrogant and self-serving" is an interpretation of the facts. (He promoted himself at others' expense- why? Arrogance and self-serving desire. That's technically conjecture, but hardly drawn from thin air. It's a conclusion based on what was already known.)

twi has had series' of tapes, and regular releases. Series' included classes and so on. There were three regular releases. The Sunday Night Tapes (SNT's) were taped each Sunday and mailed out, say, Wednesday. If you were on a phone hookup, you already knew what was on the SNT. The Tape of the Month (TOM) was a more selective tape, on a specific topic, which often veered dramatically off of it if lcm was teaching. (Then again, that was true of ANY lcm teaching.) The Gartmore Weekly Tapes (GMTs) were like Sunday Night Tapes, but taped at Gartmore instead of hq or wherever the SNT was taped that week. Down in "Greasespot 101", the thread "Way-Speak and Greasespot-speak" runs through this.

Wrong genre again. And if you mean the 70s SF comedy "Quark", then you're FAR, FAR too far back...

No, but interesting guess. Wrong genre of show.

A) There's been no proof there WAS such a lawsuit. B) IF there was such a lawsuit, any connection between its substance and the substance of what Juedes wrote is PURE SPECULATION. Deciderator's allegation is that there is a connection. Deciderator's allegation is not proven. Any connection between what twi may or may not have sued over,and what Juedes wrote, is still PURE SPECULATION. One might as well speculate on the relevance of the OJ trial to Juedes' writings. Deciderator needs to stop pretending his speculations are proven facts, or even acceptably logical conclusions based ON the facts. Intentionally, insistently posting false information- and going on some obsessive vendetta to get others to believe it- has a way of tearing one's credibility down. Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficuly to restore. I'd also expect he has a LOT more important things to spend time on.

"I just had one of those "what the hell are we doing" moments!" "If I had any dignity, that would have been humiliating." "Come, Silent Walrus, let us storm the castle! I will don my safety gear." "Frank, why are you standing so far away?" "Because I wanna continue to live." "So then the next question is, why am I standing so close?" "How hard can it be to blow up a room full of gasoline?" "We made something blow up!" "Any day we create that much shrapnel is a good day." "It just goes to show, do not grab the third rail with both hands and p1$$ on it from 3 inches away!" "The police officer said you need to drink more." "You know, my Doctor was also telling me that I'm not getting enough tar…so, I need to start smoking again!" "Quack, damn you!" "Don't mess with me, duck." "I can't help but notice that IT'S NOT ON FIRE YET!" "Our death ray doesn't seem to be working right. I'm standing right in it, and I'm not dead yet." "This is the show. It's like four minutes of science and then ten minutes of me hurting myself." "I just did the math. I need him to weigh 25 pounds." "So you're saying that he needs to be built out of depleted uranium." "Do you have some? Is it under 'D' or 'U' over here?" "That means the first stop is a hay store." "Uh, otherwise known as a farm." "Ah, the hay store."

"How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot. For those interested in Bible history, it's a neat introduction to more information than we were ever exposed to in twi. For those not interested in Bible history, it's all you'll ever need to know on the subject, AND it's interesting. Darwin's Black Box," by Michael Behe. For those interested in science, it's an interesting, accessible treatise on molecular biology, and some problems with the current models.

I'm still amazed at the timing. Good thing you posted your request when you did.... I mean, you had the disc for about a week before you had the catastrophic crash. Glad it was able to rescue you in time.

"I just had one of those "what the hell are we doing" moments!" "If I had any dignity, that would have been humiliating." "Come, Silent Walrus, let us storm the castle! I will don my safety gear." "Frank, why are you standing so far away?" "Because I wanna continue to live." "So then the next question is, why am I standing so close?" "How hard can it be to blow up a room full of gasoline?" "We made something blow up!" "Any day we create that much shrapnel is a good day." "It just goes to show, do not grab the third rail with both hands and .... on it from 3 inches away!" "The police officer said you need to drink more." "You know, my Doctor was also telling me that I'm not getting enough tar…so, I need to start smoking again!" "Quack, damn you!" "Don't mess with me, duck."

When vpw did that- saying that Jesus was a "thing" based on Luke 1:35- he was indulging in an activity he did quite a bit when he was teaching. For all his speeches about "I wish you could see it in the original", he relied EXCLUSIVELY on the King James English often to support his positions. In Genesis 3, vpw made a LOT of fuss about the word "replenish" and what it means in "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth", but that word is "FILL" in the Hebrew, not the "replenish" of the KJV. Most modern Bibles render that "holy thing" as "holy one." That's because it's "holy one" in the Greek. In fact, it's the same word that's in plural form as "saints" in the Epistles. The "thing" position was based entirely on a MISTRANSLATION that was easy to correct by just opening an interlinear and looking it over. Of course, some people weren't in the room when he taught that. Some of those people will say "I wasn't there for that," and others will say "Since I didn't hear him say that, he never taught it, and now I will insult you." That's the level to which they can rise, so they do. And of course, since some people weren't there when lcm said it..... etc.

Ok, I'm sure we haven't done this one before. "I just had one of those "what the hell are we doing" moments!" "If I had any dignity, that would have been humiliating." "Come, Silent Walrus, let us storm the castle! I will don my safety gear." "Frank, why are you standing so far away?" "Because I wanna continue to live." "So then the next question is, why am I standing so close?"

Explains why I thought he looked like Bruce Campbell.... Personally, I don't think "Jack of Swords" was given a decent shot. If it had been put out now, it definitely would have survived on a cable channel. Then again, I felt the same about "Wolf Lake".

"It's amusing that the roast beef is the same price as an Oldsmobile." Kermit, looking at the menu in the restaurant. (Actually, it was more of a supper club...) "I love you too... Rosenthal." Miss Piggy, framed for the theft, and in jail, addressing her lawyer, Rosenthal. (Kermit in disguise.) "A man should be treated better than his luggage." "Yeah, well, my luggage was sucked out the door. Luckily my radio is frozen to my wrist." In the plane at the end, returning home. "You're a phony. You're a phony. Yes, you are! And you know what, you can't even sing! Your voice was dubbed!" Miss Piggy to the thief, when she realized he was framing her (and not long after he "sang" a song. " What are you doing here?" "A very brief cameo." "Me too." Peter Ustinov and Oscar the Grouch. "I suggest we jump." "Are you crazy? There's about 100 feet." "I didn't say it was a good suggestion." "Maybe we could jump PARTWAY." "I've got some hot mustard-maybe that can eat through the bars." On the roof, looking down at the fabulous Baseball Diamond, wondering how to get through the bars, and down to the floor uninjured. "I'd like to try this without a balloon." "Try what? Plummeting?" "Yeah." "I suppose you could try it once." Kermit and Fozzie at the beginning. They have some great lines while the opening credits are superimposed. "Do you think anyone reads all these?" "Oh, sure! All these people have families." "What's your room number?" "What?" "I don't know, but we're on the second floor." "Oh, I'm sorry. I can only take you as far as the lobby." Beauregard the cab driver, taking Kermit, Fozzie and Gonzo back to the Happiness Hotel, where he also lived. "But I hate pepperoni!" The security guard, distracted by "the Pizza Twins" with a pizza while the others slipped in. He kept saying this. " 'Look, Mother. It's my life. OK. So if I want to live on a beach and walk around naked...' *looks around* Oh." Janice, when everybody was talking at once-but all stopped when Kermit stopped them and she kept talking.

Correct! I was going to post that soon if there were no signs of success.

Just so you know..... This rule was agreed-upon for the same reason the "you can't look up a song while you're guessing" rule came up. If you look it up, you're not trying to guess-you're measuring your ability to look up online. That's not challenging, and it's not this game. It's a fairness rule for the guessers. (And if you look it up, you can't guess any further, since you now know the answer.) As for airplay, it's a fairness rule for the posters. There's a lot of songs we all like, and many of them never got airplay. Without picking a song that got airplay, you're requiring the guessers own the album, which is pretty restrictive. I've got a number of songs I like that, AFAIK, never got airplay, so in fairness, I don't post them. Otherwise, I'm trying to frustrate the players- in all games, players should have a reasonable chance to win. ("Reasonable" varies with the specific game, of course.)

"It's amusing that the roast beef is the same price as an Oldsmobile." "I love you too... Rosenthal." "A man should be treated better than his luggage." "Yeah, well, my luggage was sucked out the door. Luckily my radio is frozen to my wrist." "You're a phony. You're a phony. Yes, you are! And you know what, you can't even sing! Your voice was dubbed!" " What are you doing here?" "A very brief cameo." "Me too." "I suggest we jump." "Are you crazy? There's about 100 feet." "I didn't say it was a good suggestion." "Maybe we could jump PARTWAY." "I've got some hot mustard-maybe that can eat through the bars." "I'd like to try this without a balloon." "Try what? Plummeting?" "Yeah." "I suppose you could try it once." "What's your room number?" "What?" "I don't know, but we're on the second floor." "Oh, I'm sorry. I can only take you as far as the lobby." "But I hate pepperoni!" " 'Look, Mother. It's my life. OK. So if I want to live on a beach and walk around naked...' *looks around* Oh."

Looking at the pic, I'm getting a vague recollection of something with "Brisco" or "Briscoe" in the name. "Adventures of Brisco County" or something. That's as close as I'm probably going to get.

Give me a week. Today isn't a good day for me to dig into this, but I raised the question so that others can address it as well. (I like to learn from many sources whenever possible, rather than few.) This has been bugging me since about 1990, and I think NOW is when I'm finally going to get some sort of answers on this one.

That's interesting. Can I look this up anywhere you have handy? (I like to corroborate this stuff.) It looks like there's suspicion on BOTH of the only 2 mentions of "prayer and fasting" in the Bible. (The other may simply say "prayer".)

Strictly speaking, he didn't QUOTE Freud, since he didn't cite a source. (He PLAGIARIZED Freud.) Ok, seriously, though.... This isn't STRICT Freud. He borrowed some FROM Freud and added it to his own neuroses to form this. Strict Freud would place castration anxiety in the framework of the Oedipal Complex. In short, Freud claimed that all boys sought to have sex with their mother, and that they saw their father as a rival, with the potential thread from that rival being his possible castration BY his father. Thus, the castration would be LITERAL, and the castrator would be the father. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration_anxiety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex It wouldn't surprise me if lcm forgot where he heard that from, and, frankly, I'd half-expect him to think he originated it, or at least claim he did. (Remember who his role-model was.)

This is right out of Sigmund Freud's silly "castration anxiety" ideas. No sensible Psychologist has considered it for the past CENTURY. As a student who had to hear it in college (he got his Bachelors in Psych), he heard this. As a major dipstick, he didn't dismiss it, but actually used it as some sort of answer for the feelings he had. (He did reformulate it a bit, since the classic version doesn't support his ridiculous ideas, but what else is new?) Besides, at the time he was saying this, he WAS effectively the puppet of women- Donna and Rosa-lie-- letting them make all the decisions, and arrange for him to get food and sex- not from either of THEM, of course, but they arranged for others to provide both. This was lcm's own neuroses and inadequacies, writ large and extrapolated to refer to ALL men and women-and not just the dysfunctional ones causing the problem. (All 3 of them were/are sick, just in different ways, IMHO.)

Deciderator: "And is there much difference to speak of between Mr. Juedes charge and those brought by TWI?" Yes. twi sued for the materials themselves-a legal issue on who owned the copyrights. Juedes wrote about plagiarism, which is independent of who owns a copyright. Furthermore, he wrote in plain English, not specifically in legal definitions. And in one place, he used the word "piracy", which has a number of meanings, some of which are legal, some of which are not. I really don't get this obsession with his single usage of the term, and insistence it fits a specific definition in a Law Dictionary it was never claimed to refer to. WordWolf: "I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one. I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning, nor meanings only referring to crimes, nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy. You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won, therefore there was no "piracy." " Deciderator: "You and I both know at this point in time, such a charge has no foundation. So let's clink glasses and agree that the charge of "piracy" is unsupported by the facts we have at this point." That just illustrated the conceptual gap I was talking about. You're still claiming twi sued on grounds related to "piracy", and pretended I agreed with this. Deciderator: "In the case at hand, apparently TWI sued over theft of intellectual property, manifested by the unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products. They failed, so there was no plagiarism! No "piracy" " There's the disconnect again. I completely agree that twi sued over supposed theft of intellectual property (still supposing all this is true, as Juedes points out-since we're sans proof) manifested by unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products. That's completely different from plagiarism. In the first case, one is reproducing and selling what is not one's legal right to do so. In the second case, one is engaging in an act of fraud-claiming the work of another is actually your own. Completely different crimes-although both may involve books. Example: Violating copyright: printing up and reselling the Orange and White Books. Plagiarism: rewriting the Orange and White Books with a different author's name. Completely different crimes-although both involve books. twi supposedly sued for the former, and supposedly lost. Nobody ever claimed to sue for the latter- so nobody even claims the court had to rule on plagiarism. You're supposing twi's case = a case of plagiarism, and a case of plagiarism = a case of piracy. You're not supporting either claim, so we're just going in circles with you asserting this "piracy" obsession has merit. WordWolf: "I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court, nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court. It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition, it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism"." Deciderator: "I think you need to check Black's Law Dictionary. There you will see "piracy" has more than one legal meaning, as you have asserted. Therefore, it would indeed be relevant to the case. The supposition that "plagiarism" and "piracy" charges would be brought are reasonable, given what we have to work with." No, they would not, and your continued assertions notwithstanding, you still have provided no basis for supposing this. Whether or not cg had legal rights for reprinting or reselling books "by victor paul wierwille" has nothing to do with whether cg later committed an act of plagiarism. Deciderator: "I know you don't want it to be so, but they fit neatly into what you and Mr. Juedes have been asserting." IF, IF, anyone ever sued cg for plagiarism- and there's still nobody even SPECULATING this except you- that would be true. It would fit the legal definition of "plagiarism". Deciderator: "No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds. None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained. Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer." You're still supposing a charge of "piracy" was ever LEVELLED. No charge of "piracy" was sustained. No charge of spitting on sidewalks was. either. Doesn't mean cg is innocent of either- since neither entered the courtroom. But it's just as fair for you to say "the courts determined cg is innocent of piracy" and "the courts determined cg is innocent of plagiarism" as it is to say "the courts determined cg is innocent of spitting on sidewalks" and "the courts determined cg is innocent of drugging women so vpw could rape them." So long as the court never ruled on any of those, any claim they found cg "not guilty" lacks merit. I really don't get what's so difficult about this. Deciderator: "It IS a crime, what we have been given about the case closely matches what Mr. Geer IS being charged with by you and Mr. Juedes and therefore it would be strange to NOT press for that charge in court." I explained this before. twi sues to make money or to intimidate. In this case, there was no money to be made suing on plagiarism- but they'd lose money pressing the suit. They care more about the money than the morals, so they don't sue. There's nothing strange about not suing when there's no way to "win." (Spending money to not get it back no matter what, not even breaking even, is "losing", even if you "won" the case.) Deciderator: "Mr. Jueds made the charge of "piracy," let him explain it in terms of what took place in court (that we have been given on the board here)" And Juedes never said "the legal definition of 'piracy' applies here", but you're insistent on putting words to that effect to his account. His usage matches other usages in plain English (I posted examples from a collegiate dictionary on this thread already.) Juedes never "made a charge of 'piracy.' Deciderator: "Basically, Mr. Juedes' case was brought by TWI's bank of high-priced lawyers and it went down like the Hindenburg. Right?" STILL wrong. twi sued for who holds the copyrights. Juedes-among other things- addressed plagiarism. twi's case went before a court-supposedly. Juedes' claims were never brought into a court. If twi brought a case, I would say that case probably DID "go down like the Hindenburg." But that case STILL has nothing to do with Juedes' comments. ========= This is why I said "I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one. I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning, nor meanings only referring to crimes, nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy. You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won, therefore there was no "piracy." This has been demonstrated, for all practical purposes, to be an impasse. Can we declare this to be an impasse and move on? I mean, Juedes is correct that none of this has even been proven, so at best it's all an intellectual exercise, pending DOCUMENTATION. So, at worst, it's a prodigal waste of time.

So, there was this guy coming off the wow field, right? And his last few days on the field, he didn't really have accomodations or anything. So, he prayed, and put it in God's hands. According to him, one prayer changed his plane ticket-the one in his hand at the time. Anyway, he gets on a plane over 24 hours before the ROA, and just figures he'll loiter in the airport for 24 hours and see if he could catch a shuttle to the ROA. As it turns out, exactly one other person on that plane was going to the ROA- especially since it was the day before it started. That person was seated right next to him. They offered him a ride to the ROA. and so on. How do I know this? I was the other person. And I watched the other people leaving the plane-they went for connecting flights once they debarked- not going for the exits.

Just going from this account, here's what I see. A) Person needs deliverance, and has no control over themself. B) Jesus just goes and casts out a demon almost instantly, sorta "from the hip". C) the demon is successfully cast out D) Jesus said the only way to cast out this type of demon is "prayer and fasting". Since we saw neither Jesus nor the demonaic praying nor fasting before the deliverance, I see that Jesus-unless lying- was saying that he prayed and fasted BEFORE THERE WAS A CRISIS. Jesus REGULARLY prayed and fasted, and as a result, was able to cast out the demon pretty fast and without ceremony. That's not the part I'm wondering about, though. I'm wondering if "and fasting" belongs in the accpunt at all, or if it was added by a well-meaning Christian who came along later.

Yes, and they got letters and things complaining about that scene. Mel Brooks said he never could accept cowboy movies where they ate beans and drank black coffee and NOBODY ever had gas...