WordWolf

If you stick around, maybe review some of the past threads, and ask some questions politely (some people are willing to ask questions, but only in nasty, accusatory tones, then get surprised when people don't fall all over themselves trying to help), you can learn a lot. There's a sticky with a welcome and advice for new arrivals. I recommend it.] There were a LOT more problems than you were aware of, but you have a basis for seeingthere WERE problems, so it might not be the total shock it is for a lot of people. (It was a total shock for ME, for one...) If you REALLY want an answer to that last question, kindly make a NEW thread and make that the subject. Giving it the answer it warrants would derail this thread- and it's serving its OWN purpose. There's a lot of information about how you got the information in that class, all available in this forum and across this board. I recommend looking some of it over. There's a LOT of surprises.

We are a versatile community! We can accomplish BOTH, and more besides! For example, some of us are also playing games, and we have a lot of information compiled as well... :)

Too easy, I suppose....

Well, while we're waiting.... "You're both humble and lovable." "Bless you, sir."

In NYC, all those worth appointing as leaders took off by the '89 split if not sooner. Those that remained were relatively few in number, and were mediocre at best. "Mediocre at best" is how I categorize twi after '89. A number of the remaining wits took off before ROA '90, and I have to wonder if they remained before then as some part of a long-term exit strategy, i.e., "get everyone's contact info before leaving" or something.

I feel the need for a little reminder. vpw had no background in the military whatsoever. He claimed he wanted a program patterned after the military, but he had no exposure to the military, so any training in the corps was not based on any training IN the military. In fact, in TW:LiL, he said one corps student-who had been in the military- didn't know how to work, so he considered his program SUPERIOR to the military. So, what did he use for his military comparison? He gleaned some things from a handful of movies, and he liked the ceremonial aspects, the saluting, the obeying orders, the "yes, sir" to higher-ups. He came out with "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command", which never came out of any general's mouth. So, the so-called "military" aspects of twi came from a handful of fictional sources, style over substance, demands for loyalty, and a truckload of bs. This hardly should come as a surprise by now. vpw cherry-picked anything for an idea he liked, then troweled it into his structure with lots of manure for a fixative. THAT's why the corps was woefully inadequate compared even to basic training. vpw could hardly be bothered to learn the details- he was only interested in "his" results, which centered around loyalty and ceremony. Frankly, I think the only reason he never had a uniform issued was because he would have had to pay for it.

That's pretty much where my thinking's reached so far. I'm not asking the right questions, and I'm not applying the right data to get the answer. I'm not obsessed with this, but I'm still looking for a better QUESTION if not a better ANSWER. And Sudo, apology accepted. It didn't sound like your normal posts, anyway. (IMO.)

Here's how the quotes broke down: "What is it?" "The sound of treachery." Nemo, in response to Gray's actions. "We'll be at this all day." Dorian Gray, immortal, to Mina Harker, vampire, as they dueled, cut each other, and both healed instantly. I still keep picturing Johnny Depp as Dorian Gray. "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions." Gray, refusing the Fantom's offer to join his regime. "You're sweet... and you're young. Neither are traits that I hold in high regard." Mina Harker to Agent Sawyer. ""The empire is in peril." "You're probably too young to know, but the empire is always in some kind of peril." Alan Quatermain, responding to a panicked recruiting agent. "My dear girl, I've buried two wives- and many lovers- and I'm in no mood for more of either." Alan Quatermain, telling Mina Harker he wasn't flirting with her. (Nor wanting her as a teammate.) "They told me European women had funny ways." Sawyer, after Mina Harker takes out her attacker.

CORRECT! About the title, at least.

Starting to sound familiar, but I'm not connecting an episode yet.

"What is it?" "The sound of treachery." "We'll be at this all day." "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions." "You're sweet... and you're young. Neither are traits that I hold in high regard." ""The empire is in peril." "You're probably too young to know, but the empire is always in some kind of peril." "My dear girl, I've buried two wives- and many lovers- and I'm in no mood for more of either." "They told me European women had funny ways." No.

This movie was in the theaters more recently than that, whenever that was.

Mc Quade, here, have some butter and lemon. A proper "grilling" just isn't complete without some marinade or something, and you're definitely getting grilled.... You can find some across "About the Way", and in "My Story".Be prepared to look around. This site is more "organic" than "mechanical" so you can't just pull casefiles in seconds. *gets out the A-1 Steak Sauce* And people in the Corps "confronted the evil that was there" on a number of occassions. That's why lcm had 4 goons with him to "dialogue" with this guy. Standard policy at twi: crush dissent utterly, using fear and other methods.

I did you the courtesy of volunteering what I did. I'm not extending it any further. You were NOT where I am now. And I'm not sharing my biography online, so you may conclude whatever you wish, but consider this a closed subject.

I wasn't there. Depending on the source, the Groovy Christians started with the House of Acts/Haight-Ashbury Christians in 1967 or 1968. (TW:LiL says 1967, the official timeline says 1968, and is probably correct.) If they arrived in early 1969 in Rye, by late 1969 there would be enough of them to justify a class. 1970 was when Life Magazine ran their article, and the Groovy Christians were already a reality by the time they WROTE it, let alone RAN the article. If I were to make a guess, I'd guess 1969-1970 was the class.

"What is it?" "The sound of treachery." "We'll be at this all day." "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions." "You're sweet... and you're young. Neither are traits that I hold in high regard."

Some of the evidence I'm working with, you don't have access to. Therefore, our conclusions need not agree. If I were to try to reach an agnostic or atheist position, I'd need to discard too much evidence that can't be accounted for by either position. You, of course, may reach any position based on any evidence you've accounted for. The most extreme position I can adopt would still fall under a monotheist or a Deist position. You're putting me on. Really? Ever toy with the conclusion I ended up concluding?

I would agree with this. I would not discount God giving revelation at any PARTICULAR moment, as sometimes what seems like a trivial detail may later prove to have been critical (I'm thinking of my own life here, some time ago), but the idea that someone's "channelling" Heavy Revelation 24/7 is just plain preposterous. God gave you a brain to use. I mean, if something's up with the breakfast, He may say something, but otherwise, you and your shredded wheat are on your own.

I don't think I've chimed in yet. So, here's my current thinking, which is likely to anger ALL positions evenly. Fair's fair. ;) Ockham's Razor states that when seeking to select between 2 or more possible answers- like A) Jesus is God the Son, part of God and B) Jesus is the Son of God, a separate being one is to examine both answers. If both completely answer the question, then between the two, you select the most simple, straightforward of the two as correct. That's a rule of thumb, not an immutable "Law". Now, I've observed and studied for years, on and off, on this. I've seen that both positions have answers which I find less than satisfactory to settle specific questions that are raised to their positions. So, I proceed to a corollary on Ockham's Razor. I was unable to select either as COMPLETELY answering the question. One corollary states that if NONE of the answers FULLY answers the question, then ALL answers are WRONG and the CORRECT answer has not been raised yet. This came up when studying light. Is it a particle-photons? Is it a wave-lightwaves? It has attributes of both, and either fails to account for some of the evidence. Therefore, some people memorize answers like "it is a particle that travels like a wave", which, frankly, is a cop-out on admitting NEITHER answer really works COMPLETELY, and they ARE mutually-exclusive. Since I find neither position in this discussion to FULLY answer all objections to them in a manner I consider intellectually satisfying (meaning they ALL work on paper), based on the corollary to Ockham's Razor, I have concluded BOTH answers are WRONG. The answer is something that has not been discussed yet. Member of the Trinity? No. Began existence in Mary's womb and no sooner? No. So, what IS the answer? I wish I knew. I can perceive I'm not smart enough to find it at this time. I'll keep trying, but I probably WON'T know until we ALL know.

They can follow their own path.

I thought revisiting this for a moment might be fun.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 12: "Anything worth selling is worth selling twice."

No.

"What is it?" "The sound of treachery." "We'll be at this all day."

*checks* That would be HCW's thread there, "The L.E.A.D. accident. What happened?", http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=4877