WordWolf

I only try another site if Snopes doesn't have the answer.

I can believe that. It's also the correct answer. Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs did this song, and the Rolling Stones covered it later, and Bowling for Soup covered it around 2005 for the "Cursed" soundtrack. Sam the Sham's biggest hit was "Wooly Bully", which should ring a bell. ChasUFarley, your turn.

That might do me permanent damage. As a kid, I think I never recovered from the Star Wars Holiday Special despite suppressing the memory entirely. ======= Inspiration has hit. Ok, next song..... "Even bad wolves can be good"

All stage-magic is based on misdirection. You're paying attention to what has no bearing on the trick, and ignoring what's critically important. Watch it again-and note how he makes an elaborate show of supposedly picking someone at random out of the crowd. He refused the first person after picking them-because they were the "wrong height". But that can't be the reason- she was standing when he saw her, so he knew her height. She was only picked so he could refuse her and "randomly" pick someone else. Do you still need help, or can you figure it out now? I'd rather not really spell everything out for you.

If you knew a bit more about archery, you'd know this couldn't be correct. (I've never arched an arrow, but I'm familiar with it intellectually.) First of all, a bow with a strong pull needs more than one finger to pull. Typically, IIRC, the European draw-which is the draw used in this story- is done with a sort-of claw of the first 2 fingers drawing back the bow. (That's tough on the fingers, so the first 3 might be used, or an archery glove-thing worn.) Second, the Mongolian draw works just as well. That's an actual "plucking" of the bowstring, where the index finger and thumb pinch the string and draw. I gave this thought because Robert Wuhl told this story on a comedy special fairly recently. He ends it with the words "Is it true? Doesn't matter..." and explains why he thinks it doesn't matter. Of course, as soon as he admitted he didn't know, I snickered and let it slide.

*reviews the posts* *reviews the quote again* Ok, saw this once. Gotta be this song William Shatner did.. he's big on these spoken-word songs, and there was some tv show about him, and I think I saw him do this song there, now that I was prompted. (In between stuff on his horses.) So, I can name the artist, but not the title. Is that close enough, or will wasway have to fill us in?

I wanted to bring this thread back for the new people. BTW, it was "WOW pin or holy spirit dove on the LEFT lapel", and "nametag on the RIGHT lapel."

The OFFICIAL word on the subject, at least thru the 80s, was that speaking in tongues was evidence of salvation, not REQUIRED for salvation. In more than one PRACTICAL sense, more than one leader treated anyone who never did speak in tongues as unsaved, since they didn't have "proof" of the person's salvation, so they were guilty until proven innocent. A separate issue, of course, is that someone could have faked the thing. After all, vpw HIMSELF supposedly faked it at that conference before he met Stiles-according to vpw's own words on the subject. ====== Now, then, just because vpw taught it one way (in public) in no way means that EVERYONE taught it the same way in public. The sad fact that some people here have decided that deficiencies in some of the local teachers equals lies or errors on the part of the students is in itself error, but it's a COMMON error here, and a SYMPTOMATIC one. It's part of a larger error that says "I saw it this way- so EVERYONE saw it the same way, or they were WRONG." It's been often pointed out that experiences changed from year to year, location to location, and even town to town. Therefore, ONE person's experience never speaks to EVERYONE's experience here. Presuming to know the content of teachings one was never present for undermines one's own credibility. However, around here, that's old news.

Go to google. Type in the full email address, in quotes. Hit "Google Search". Example: Let's say you were looking for "goto", whose email address is "goto@hell.com". You'd type in "goto@hell.com" and see what came up. If there's many hits, some might be samples off of web-crawlers and so on. However, those where it's in a profile as an address, or a signature has it, or it's in a sentence like "you can reach me at..." and so on. IF he ever typed it anywhere, that may show it. No guarantee he did, or that he did in a place where a Google cache would pick it up.

Uh, are you sure this is a quote from the movie? We're SUPPOSED to be guessing from quotes off the movie. The person's supposed to post primarily those, and possibly supplement them with hints if multiple quotes aren't ringing any bells. Here's the rules, from the first post...

I'd be interested in seeing it. I'm taking it as a given that you'll be posting a rationale for each, and not saying "my opinion is correct and you'll agree or you're an idjit". I've seen that one before (I forget who did it) and I just skip those threads.

AFAIK, he got a Doctorate in Education. (AFAIK, your ABS money at work.)

If it's a question of the program that PLAYS the video, there's lots. I believe Windows Media Player and Real Player (and their copies like "Alternative") run movies. Furthermore, some movies (I think the first Harry Potter's one) include a program that will show the movie as well. I think it's called Interactive something. If that's not the problem, then try this. Go to each piece of hardware, one at a time, that might have the problem. Get its name and product# off the machine. Then go to the website of the manufacturer and download the latest drivers for that product. Even if that's not the problem gadget, that usually will improve performance a little. (Unless the pc memory is full.) Let me know if all of that doesn't fix it.

Don't forget that plain getting revelation eventually became an old wineskin. In pfal, vpw makes a special note that God will tell YOU FIRST on anything pertaining to you, and MAY tell someone else LATER to tell you if you're not listening. He gave examples of people supposedly relaying messages about running off to minister to people who he claimed God told to go THEMSELVES rather than tell HIM to go. He also gave the Paul-going-to-Jerusalem example (God told Paul, then people he ran into in passing, then sent in Agabus the prophet) on the same subject. lcm said that all decisions had to come down from leadership- that THEY would get revelation concerning everyone's personal lives, and not THEMSELVES. Of course, when you got in trouble for following their instructions, it was supposedly because NOW you were supposed to be listening for revelation and missed it-the leadership was NEVER to blame, no matter how stupid their instruction.

John Travolta Pulp Fiction Samuel Jackson

And the biggest commercial success. The next album, "Without a Net", was a LOT less successful. Correct-although the correct title of the song is "Throwing Stones". (Long song, too-I was prepared to post a LOT of quotes.) So, your turn, Chas.

vpw's version (which was someone else's version with vpw's name on it) also fit in with his teachings on number in Scripture (which was Bullinger's version with vpw's name on it.) 7 (Divine Perfection) to 9 (Judgement). Means judgement's at hand-which it has been since Pentecost. 6 (IMperfection) to 9 (Judgement). Means God didn't do it right the FIRST time, and now judgement's at hand. Probably stems from lcm's inability to understand nuance. According to the vp system, a prophet could exercise the manifestation of prophecy (which works like the modern one.) or could speak for God to God's people. If God was designating him to pass along such a message, then it was "word of knowledge" (or "word of wisdom", depending on content.) Despite the name connection, an OT prophet wasn't forced to ONLY use "prophecy"- he could use the gifts of healings, or any of the others (if they were around, which, apparently, tongues was not.) After Pentecost, they could use all 9. (Like Agabus, say, from Judea. After Pentecost, he could use all 9. Doesn't say if he DID use them, but he COULD.)

Hm. Let's see. There's a fear down here we can't forget. Hasn't got a name just yet. Always awake, always around,

Based on the discussion so far, I imagine it was something like a 2-person game of grabass or something. Nothing that would be considered pornographic by modern standards. Questionable to put on tv, but not more. The opposite of "put away"-which he was planning,- being "took unto him",meaning he married her. Makes plenty of sense, and one doesn't need to inject additional meanings into words. Unless one has an agenda requiring one to discuss sex, or one has a fixation with it. (Why WAS he showing deviant porn to teenagers? We never DID get a good answer to that...) "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom." "Master, we would see a sign from thee." As someone (Ralph D) pointed out once, if you're looking for signs, "Messiah-dead-on-a-tree" is not even on the list of possible good messages.

I felt all this was worth repeating. I DID want to point out, re: the film... Several posters say it was used, either in the CFS or in the ADVANCED CLASS. It was definitely MENTIONED in BOTH in the filmed version, but apparently the LIVE versions featured this during them. That reminds me... Since he charged for classes that featured this video, did he secure the rights to air it from the smut peddlers that made it? I'm sure it had the standard "authorized for private viewing" caveat, and technically he charged money to play it for the audiences. I'm just saying, here.

You guys couldn't think of any other movies with Eddie Murphy in them?

Ah, a rock song released in my lifetime! (AFAIK) That's "White Room", by Cream. ("In the white room, with black curtains...")

Aw-so CLOSE!

Same questions, from 2 different people. To save time, I'll answer them together. twi put forth that they had not only A true understanding of Scripture, but THE True Understanding of Scripture, that anyone who agreed with them had the incontrovertible truth, that anyone who disagreed with them were idjits who lived in error. They still push this. Among other things, they've put forth doctrines that are not allowed to be questioned- that are unable to be supported beyond "this is what I say so believe it"- and people questioning beyond that are told to just accept that leadership has examined it and concluded it to be true. (This is generally a lie-nobody "examined" it-it was declared by divine fiat.) Among the beliefs they taught/teach are some odd teachings concerning sex. The two subjects mentioned here were interrelated in their explanations- they propounded ONE odd belief to justify the OTHER odd belief, NEITHER of which seems to have a shred of BIBLICAL support. Mind you, even discussing or entertaining the notion that they might be wrong was forbidden in twi/IS STILL FORBIDDEN IN TWI. Even the messageboards of members face "sanctions" if anyone dares to initiate even a well-mannered discussion of same. So, this discussion has never taken place before. Furthermore, twi, AFAIK, STILL teaches this, and there are other people who teach this- since "if it was good enough for wierwille, it's good enough for me". So, the discussing of doctrines I find to be a healthy thing. The actual investigations, as we saw, were NEVER conducted in twi, and-I gather-were never done until now by ex-twi, either. So, this is technically new ground. Thus, I consider this unfinished business. Furthermore, sooner or later, someone's going to come in and claim these are true. (It happened with the other subject-about the oath-before.) Therefore, I'm saving time in refutation of it when it happens. I think the odd grouping of a number of teachings- unique to twi-all centering around sex or body parts- is suspicious and indicative of something. Up to you to conclude WHAT it is indicative OF.

In this case, I think WD has a valid point. Whether or not Samson's strength returned prior to, or independently of, his invocation of God when he collapsed the temple, was not established. That Samson had SOME natural strength, I think, is reasonable. (I think he was physically strong.) That Samson had a reputation based on history, I think, is beyond question. (Everybody knew at least SOME of the stuff he'd done.) That Samson's strength was connected to the Nazarite vow, I think, is clear when reviewing the incidents with his parents and following forward. Therefore, Samson refrained from things forbidden under the Nazarite vow, like the haircuts. Samson's hair was cut. This was a violation of the conditions of the Nazarite vow. That means either Samson's enhanced strength was either withdrawn due to breaking a contract, or Samson no longer believing he HAD that strength, or refusing to ask for it, due to having the conditions broken. (Either way, the result is the same.) Samson's hair grew back. Did that mean that the vow was considered reinstated by all parties? Did the strength enhancements return on that basis? Or was the previous vow VOIDED and a NEW vow necessary for any consideration? I think the latter is MORE likely-since Samson's prayer at the end sounds like Samson is requesting a special blessing-and restoration of the strength enhancement. Whether or not Samson actually HAD the strength at the time was not guaranteed by this. Did Samson have a partial enhancement as his hair returned? I do not think the verses make a convincing case for it, nor do I think they preclude any such return. So I say the conclusions are "inconclusive", or "maybe".