WordWolf

Let's see if this works....

This is an old topic. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=960 This topic overlaps it. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=489 This post was from the "Don't ya just love it when" topic. Hope R said "When you tell someone you have a medical condition and they immediately tell you to go to the health food store and buy vitamins, or do the cleanse or take some other concoction when they no NOTHING about your illness. I have a chronic condition that I've learned to live with. If and when I tell people what it is, 9 times out of 10 they say "oh, my Grandmother had THAT! She stopped drinking milk and got better." or "you should think about doing the colon cleanse." OMG - the cleanse would probably just about KILL me! What I want to do is hand them all the books I've read and give them the links to the websites I've looked at regarding my medical disorder and say "read these, then come back and tell me what to do". Instead I just try to quickly explain what is wrong with me and how they've got it mixed up with something else, which is usually the case." This is from the "Good or Evil?" thread. Pirate1974 said "Looking back from over 25 years of being out, I can't say that I ever experienced anything that I could classify as "evil." Stupid, yes. Lots and lots of stupid. Of course, I was never in any kind of leadership position at all. I was just the nut on the way tree. I had no contact with New Knoxville except for an hour wandering around the farm at the ROA. If I had to describe most of the people where I was, they would be "nerds." Except for a few exceptions, good little boys and girls who never stepped out a line, especially in anything involving twi, no matter how hard I tried to push them. I enjoyed the twig meetings and coffeehouses, but I hated the pressure to take classes and witness and go wow and do the colon cleanse. If you didn't do those things, you weren't walking the walk. If they had just left me alone to be the nut on the tree, I might have stayed longer, but probably not because of personal stuff. When I was in, we were all supposed to aspire to the Holy Grail of the Advanced Class. To reach that pinnacle of spiritual success, one had to complete something called "home studies" a fill-in-the blank exercise in way doctrine. I did the first one, got marked down for putting a comma in the wrong place, threw it in the trash and never did another one. No spritual perfection for you!!! The only way corps people I ever met were some passing through on their way to somewhere else,like Bo Reahard or Randy Anderson. I've been told I met Martindale, but he must not have made much of an impression on me, because I have no memory of it. Our leaders were all college kids my own age or a little older. Even the limb leader was in his 20s, and this was one of the twi "hot spots" Greenville, NC. Different times, different places, different experiences. When I first discovered Waydale, it was hard to connect the stories that I read there with the collection of dorks and twerps that I knew. When I heard that Rosalie was president, I almost fell out of my chair. When I knew her, she could barely run a twig. That was my experience. Doesn't mean I don't believe what happened to other people just because I never saw it." That's what I found, anyway. I'd check those threads for discussions so far, but feel free to have a new discussion on it, especially since sometimes new stuff comes to light. (And even if it doesn't, enjoy your discussion. :) )

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface again.]

Last I heard, there was a time-period that the Watchtower Society (the JWs) forbade organ transplants, but they're ok now. The strictest Jew following the most strict interpretations of the Mosaic Law, and the Talmud and so on, WILL take a blood transfusion to say his life. Supposedly, the restrictions governing transfusions are from the Old Testament. If I understand correctly, the current restrictions say that blood is forbidden to eat, therefore it is also forbidden to transfuse to save a physical life, and dying is superior to accepting a transfusion of blood. Furthermore, a transfusion of blood is forbidden, but a transfusion of PART of the blood- such as plasma or the like- is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. Now, I didn't see a distinction in the eating blood thing, but apparently the Watchtower Society DOES. And it's a very SELECTIVE ONE. So, "eating blood = transfusing blood. No eating blood =no transfusing blood. Transfusing PART of the blood= acceptable to God. Transfusing ALL of the blood=\= acceptable to God. (Based on "no eating blood.) Eating nonkosher red meat=acceptable to God (despite containing blood, moreso than kosher red meat even.) Transplants=acceptable to God, and before transplants =\= acceptable to God, and that was based on this same rule of blood." This "rule" is needlessly capricious. It stops some lives from being saved, makes distinctions so fine as to gag a lawyer, and does not stay the same from year to year. Now that we've had time to discuss it, I'm almost surprised twi never assumed this ruletook when they were regulating everything else. ======================= "Do not pass 'GO'. Do not collect 10% of my income."

Correct! Personally, I try to confine my RECENT songs to nothing that didn't come out after 1985-1986 to give the older posters a chance. Personally, I'd prefer older posters try to make most of their songs ones that came out after 1970, to give the younger posters a chance. This wouldn't apply to all songs, just most, and is simply MY PREFERENCES. Anyone can post whichever ones they want in their turn. However, I think long stretches of obscure songs drive interest off the thread, which chases off occassional or new players, and I for one like to see all sorts of posters take a turn. =============== So, it's Bluzeman's turn. (Just to be official.)

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants!" "Vegetarian: from an old Indian word meaning 'bad hunter' " Although I'm aware there are very preachy and obnoxious vegetarians and vegans out there, they tend to leave me alone. In fact, I've eaten at the same time with them, and they've left me alone. I'm perfectly fine with adults eating whatever they want so long as it's not going to kill them immediately. Want to sit down to a plate of raw turnips? Fine with me. Fish eyes? Knock yourself out. I'll be eating this tuna over here. Dry wheat toast? Enjoy it. The ones that put in the time and eat nutritionally-balanced stuff? More power to them. I'll be eating this meat in moderation. The Surgeon General has determined that trying to take the food of my plate can be hazardous to your health.

I insinuated nothing about you. I agreed with Tom's points, thus disagreed with you they lacked merit. If you review my post, you'll see the word "rude" appears in quotes, right after a link. That's a link to a sticky at the forum, which gives advice. The main point was what I quoted and then repeated- that there's no consensus, no ONE opinion, of posters. ( I still recommend reading the sticky.) A number of times, new people arrive, decide we're all a homogenous lot, and pass judgement on us. Looked a lot like something that was happening here. Some might see Bumpy as doing exactly that. It's a situation common enough to have gotten tiresome here. You and Bumpy are entitled to your opinions. Mind you, some posters will rebut you if they think the facts disagree with you. That's what I did there. I also try not to gloss over anyone's posts when possible, which is another mistake that's easy to make.

Next song. "I'm not into your passport picture- I just like your nose."

Is this "Law and Order"?

Wow- an oldie I can get! Finally! This is "Chubby Clementine." As for an artist who performed it, I name DANNY AIELLO. See, when he hosted Saturday Night Live, he did sang this song in his monologue. Which is the only way I've heard the song.

For fun, here's a list of ideas JKR debunked on her own website, complete with links. Rumors menu: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours.cfm "Section: Rumours Harry will be asked to become Minister of Magic in book seven Seventeen is much too young to enter politics." Professor Lupin does not have a twin, Neville Longbottom was never Peter Pettigrew's son, Crookshanks is not an animagus-he's a 1/2 Kneazle, JKR has no prequels or sequels planned after Book 7, Lily was never a Death Eater, and Lily and James are definitely dead, neither Voldemort nor Dumbledore are related to Harry, Luna and Neville don't "hook up", Nicholas Flamel (alchemist) passed away after Book 1, "none of the characters in the books has returned from the future" (and thus Dumbledore is not Ron in the future sent back or anything), Mrs Norris (Filch's cat) is just a cat, Wormtail's silver hand will not be used to kill Remus Lupin, and Stubby Boardman is not Sirius Black. (Thus one is one I actually floated once, when challenged to come up with the silliest theory possible. I then realized I made it sound possible- as in "Sirius goes thru a Veil of TIME, and gets sent back to the past, assumes an alias and lays low until he's pronounced dead, then begins working behind the scenes...." I didn't REALLY think this would be how he returns-I expect him to return, but with different tools- but I would have gloated if it was correct.) Her LAST rumor busted.... Section: Rumours At the end of book seven, Harry and Voldemort will 'merge' to form a single persona who will command both the forces of good and of evil This is not really a rumour, more a lone theory on the net that the son of a friend of mine pointed out to me. He wants me to repudiate it, so I'm repudiating: Harry will NOT merge with Voldemort to become a single entity, nor would Harry ever wish to command Death Eaters/Dementors/Inferi. " Meanwhile, http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq.c...f=aboutthebooks here's the most useful of the FAQ answers... "Section: F.A.Q. (SPOILER WARNING) Why did Harry have to forget the mirror he had been given by Sirius in 'Order of the Phoenix'? I can’t give a full answer to this, because it is relevant to books six and seven. However, the short answer is that Harry was determined never to use the mirror, as is clearly stated in chapter 24: ‘he knew he would never use whatever it was’. For once in Harry’s life, he does not succumb to curiosity, he hides the mirror and the temptation away from himself, and then, when it might have been useful, he has forgotten it. The mirror might not have helped as much as you think, but on the other hand, will help more than you think. You’ll have to read the final books to understand that!" "Section: F.A.Q. Will you write more Harry Potter books after the seventh? If you mean more novels, then I think it highly unlikely. I’ve got enough story for seven books and I never planned to carry the story beyond the end of book seven. I might do an eighth book for charity, a kind of encyclopaedia of the world so that I could use all the extra material that’s not in the books... we’ll see!" "Section: F.A.Q. What did Dumbledore's Howler to Aunt Petunia mean? ('Remember my last'?) Well, it is a relief to move on after the Mark Evans fiasco. This time, two out of the three poll questions had interesting answers (or so I think) and thank goodness you chose one of them. So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that… Now let the speculation begin, and mind you type clearly, I'll be watching… P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :)" "Section: F.A.Q. What is the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the prophecy might have referred? Finally, I am answering the poll question! I am sorry it has taken so long, but let me start by saying how glad I am that this was the question that received the most votes, because this was the one that I most wanted to answer. Some of you might not like what I am going to say – but I'll address that issue at the end of my response! To recap: Neville was born on the 30th of July, the day before Harry, so he too was born 'as the seventh month dies'. His parents, who were both famous Aurors, had 'thrice defied' Voldemort, just as Lily and James had. Voldemort was therefore presented with the choice of two baby boys to whom the prophecy might apply. However, he did not entirely realise what the implications of attacking them might be, because he had not heard the entire prophecy. As Dumbledore says: 'He [the eavesdropper] only heard the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you.' In effect, the prophecy gave Voldemort the choice of two candidates for his possible nemesis. In choosing which boy to murder, he was also (without realising it) choosing which boy to anoint as the Chosen One – to give him tools no other wizard possessed – the scar and the ability it conferred, a magical window into Voldemort's mind. So what would have happened if Voldemort had decided that the pure-blood, not the half-blood, was the bigger threat? What would have happened if he had attacked Neville instead? Harry wonders this during the course of 'Half-Blood Prince' and concludes, rightly, that the answer hinges on whether or not one of Neville's parents would have been able, or prepared, to die for their son in the way that Lily died for Harry. If they hadn't, Neville would have been killed outright. Had Frank or Alice thrown themselves in front of Neville, however, the killing curse would have rebounded just as it did in Harry's case, and Neville would have been the one who survived with the lightning scar. What would this have meant? Would a Neville bearing the lightning scar have been as successful at evading Voldemort as Harry has been? Would Neville have had the qualities that have enabled Harry to remain strong and sane throughout all of his many ordeals? Although Dumbledore does not say as much, he does not believe so: he believes Voldemort did indeed choose the boy most likely to be able to topple him, for Harry's survival has not depended wholly or even mainly upon his scar. So where does this leave Neville, the boy who was so nearly King? Well, it does not give him either hidden powers or a mysterious destiny. He remains a 'normal' wizarding boy, albeit one with a past, in its way, as tragic as Harry's. As you saw in 'Order of the Phoenix,' however, Neville is not without his own latent strengths. It remains to be seen how he will feel if he ever finds out how close he came to being the Chosen One. Some of you, who have been convinced that the prophecy marked Neville, in some mystical fashion, for a fate intertwined with Harry's, may find this answer rather dull. Yet I was making what I felt was a significant point about Harry and Voldemort, and about prophecies themselves, in showing Neville as the also-ran. If neither boy was 'pre-ordained' before Voldemort's attack to become his possible vanquisher, then the prophecy (like the one the witches make to Macbeth, if anyone has read the play of the same name) becomes the catalyst for a situation that would never have occurred if it had not been made. Harry is propelled into a terrifying position he might never have sought, while Neville remains the tantalising 'might-have-been'. Destiny is a name often given in retrospect to choices that had dramatic consequences. Of course, none of this should be taken to mean that Neville does not have a significant part to play in the last two novels, or the fight against Voldemort. As for the prophecy itself, it remains ambiguous, not only to readers, but to my characters. Prophecies (think of Nostradamus!) are usually open to many different interpretations. That is both their strength and their weakness." BTW, the "Extra Stuff" section on the website is worth reviewing, even if only for some characters and scenes that never "made the cut". http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff.cfm Say, did anyone here take either of the 2 WOMBAT exams? What was your score? And are you planning on taking the third?

Thing is, James and Severus are constrained to act under the rules in HP as outlined by JKR, not by how you or I would call it. (In those cases, SS might owe NOTHING.) JKR had Dumbledore explain the situation, and HIS conclusion was that SS owed James for saving his life. DD may not be perfect, but he's as expert an expert on magic as the series has, and he often serves as JKR's mouthpiece. (Him or Hermione reading something in a book, as she's pointed out.) Furthermore, Wormtail owes Harry a life, as seen in Book 3. My personal theory: Voldemort owes Harry a life, based on Book 4 and the use of Harry's blood to return him to full life (or what passes for it.) If not, I still have no explanation for the "gleam of triumph" in Dumbledore's eye when Harry reported what happened. The stupidest possible explanation was that DD was working for Voldy and wanted him to win- I heard that one, if you can believe it.

Is this the episode that mentions "the wife of a Caesar"?

How many people here have noticed that this RELEVANT question (it affects the stance of the poster dramatically) has been dodged at least TWICE so far? Does anyone else think that's an answer in itself? As in "I refuse to confirm my beliefs because I'm not proud enough to declare my beliefs. I'm ashamed of my associations and will not speak of them. But you should agree with the doctrines I've gotten FROM them." I prefer not to jump to conclusions, but, in lieu of anything other than a DUCKING of the question REPEATEDLY, by golly, a refusal to answer is indicative of the answer....

I disagree on both counts. Furthermore, I'll add he had 2 legitimate points which were glossed over: A) some people arrive and are SWIFT to decide they know us all B) some people arrive and operate under a delusion there's a consensus here The main consensus is that there is NO consensus on virtually ANY issue. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 "There is no one single opinion of the posters. There is no universally-accepted opinion of the posters. (There are even a few people who are convinced vpw never wronged anyone.) Please try not to be accusatory, vicious or otherwise rude in posting." While I expect that some people would not accept it, I would be shocked if some people did NOT accept it- so long as it was perceived as coming from the heart, springing from sufficient reflection and full contrition of the will. No consensus here, remember?

[WordWolf responds in brackets and boldface again.]

That's just one reminder why I don't try to engage in rational discussions on this subject. I came to my conclusion, and posters on both sides are welcome to disagree with it, and I save a lot of time not trying to promote it-or attack either side. One of the drawbacks of open discussion on an open board is there's no quality control, so some of the excellent posts on this thread get mixed in with posts that aren't excellent. Just the cost of doing business....

So, how did the fire-engine red drapes and the woman who killed her child by believing a car to ram into him figure into this?

Some bookstores seem to be using that date as a guideline. However, that's the anniversary of the London Subway bombings in 2005. JKR is well aware of that, and change the reading she was going to do from the not-yet-released Book 6, since she was doing it just after the attack. She went from reading from Chapter 1, to later with Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes. I doubt she'd change it otherwise. All the date speculation seems based ENTIRELY on the idea that JKR is obsessed with 7s. (Which is odd, since 12s show up a lot in the series.) JKR has previously said never to believe anything about HP whose source was not JKR HERSELF, Scholastic (for the books) or Warner Brothers (for the films). I finally heard a speculation that I think may be true. Based on the discussions in Book 1, Chapter 1, she may release it on the anniversary of the Godric's Hollow incident in Book 1, which would be a few months later than 7/7. Besides, 7/7 makes for a VERY short timetable to write, edit, correct, print, and distribute the whole thing. I know. I'm fond of shooting down the majority, using direct quotes from JKR. Here's a quick answer to each question you asked, all in my opinion, which is not binding on JKR whatsoever. A) Snape is neither good nor bad. In Macchiavelli's "the Art of War", he mentioned Septimius Severus, a clever fellow who played one ruler off another, while being on neither's side. Likewise, I think Severus Snape is on his OWN side. I believe his actions at the end of Book 6 where specifically arranged between him and DD earlier in the book, during the obvious scenes. His avoidance of the Dark Arts-and even the DaDA job- has been likened to keeping an alcoholic from liquor, where he'd hate being FORCED to take a drink to accomplish some goal. I believe he's mostly been on the OotP's side, since he is the ONLY person who could have warned the OotP about the MoM raid in Book 5 (I can eliminate all other possible characters from sending it), and there is no reason to warn the OotP if he was working for the DEs. (With no notice, the DEs would have had The Prophecy, Harry, and hostages. Plus whatever else they could carry off-like that case of Time-Turners they destroyed instead.) SS has been constrained by owing James Potter his life-which was compounded when he passed on part of The Prophecy-not realizing he facilitated James' death. Some other people keep guessing he was sorry to see Lily Potter killed, but I think it was JAMES, for the reasons I just gave. SS thus still owes Harry for that. B) I believe Harry will win, and Voldy will be EFFECTIVELY killed, becoming a non-character without literally dying. I believe Harry will be seen raising a family in the last chapter. C) What news have I heard? That would take some explaining. JKR accidentally slipped, though, and confirmed Harry, Ron and Hermioned all survive. Petunia does NOT do magic, but someone else does unexpectedly. Speculation fingers Argus Filch. Stuff like that. D) It's my own personal speculation that Harry, Neville and Luna will enter a specific location at dusk on April 30, using Neville's mimbulus mimbletonia to activate the location's 2-way portal to the lands of the dead, enter it and rescue Sirius Black, and return by dawn, leaving behind the plant, but using the mirror to retrieve him, and just maybe trapping Voldemort in the lands of the dead instead.

Can we take it as a given that this entire thread is nothing BUT SPOILERS, for those who havent read Books 1-6? I'd like to warn them about that.... ALL OF YOU WHO HAVENT READ HP BOOKS 1-6, THIS THREAD WILL GIVE AWAY A LOT!!!!!!!

Ah, but there's the rub! See, "enlightened modern 21st century adults", as in "the people who always want to excuse any activity by telling you what year it is", supposedly are able to compartmentalize their emotions and lives, and pretend there are no consequences so long as nobody gets a disease and it's all consensual. Mind you, I think that's self-delusion, and that consequences WILL come back to haunt them. (Unless this is more the SYMPTOM of some earlier trauma, some coping mechanism, which would mean they have bigger problems than this.) I think many ex-twiers are already familiar with what happens when you pretend emotions can just be switched off. (And some more still think they can switch them off and everything's just peachy.)

I found this article just now when looking for references to Pathological Lying and the DSM-IV. (The DSM-IV is the current manual defining mental illnesses and their symptoms.) http://pn/psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/38/1/24 I'd like to point out that it defines confabulation differently than any previous article I've quoted on the subject, and this is relevant to the article. Here's some interesting quotes from it. " "In pathological lying, telling lies may often seem to be an end in itself . . . .the pathological liar may become a prisoner of his lies, [and] the desired personality of the pathological liar may overwhelm the actual one." " "Unlike other forms of lying, pathological lying appears to be unplanned and impulsive, he explained. "It is questionable whether it is always a conscious act and whether pathological liars have control over their lies." " " It can also be differentiated from confabulation, "a falsification of memory occurring in clear consciousness in association with organically derived amnesia. The patient attempts to cover exposed memory gaps with the confabulated materials," he said. There is no organically based amnesia propelling pathological lying. " "Pathological liars may admit the falsehoods they’ve told when confronted and often proceed to change their stories. As a result, it may not, however, always be simple to distinguish pathological lying from delusional disorders." "Some could confuse narcissistic personality disorder with pathological lying, but in the former "lies are told mainly for self-aggrandizement, and this is often obvious to the audience," he pointed out. " "One area in which the differentiation is not clear cut is borderline personality disorder, he said. "Pathological lying is not uncommon in patients with borderline personality disorder [in which] the core characteristics foster falsifications." Reality distortions common to this disorder, "along with lack of impulse control and the defense mechanisms of denial, idealization, and devaluation, are fertile grounds for pathological lying." " IIRC, we've previously discussed both Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and the differences between the types of lying and the reasons. (IIRC, this discussion didnt go far, either.)

“I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way: The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear, fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear.”- Edgar A. Guest. "I'D Rather See A Sermon by BRUCE CARROLL I'd see him go to church almost every Sunday He had invited me to go a time or two made no bones about the fact that he was a Christian And he seemed to know I was looking for some truth Never looked at me with eyes of condemnation though he knew I was uneasy when he pray he was always there to lend a hand and when he did he'd always say that the good Lord and his blessing are what made him act that way I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one anyday I'd rather one would walk with me than merely show the way Actions speak much louder than all the words can say That's why I'd rather see a sermon than hear one anyday There were times that I would see him from a distance and he didn't know that I was watching him he always took the time to love his children and he treated his wife like his best friend I got the call two weeks ago this Monday that the job I had ten years was at the end he was the first to call and show up on my doorstep and he said that he would be there till we got on our feet again I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one anyday I'd rather one would walk with me than merely show the way Actions speak much louder than all the words can say That's why I'd rather see a sermon than hear one anyday I never was much for religion too many double-standard people let me down but the message this man lived was very simple he showed me what I needed and he was there when I let Jesus turn my life around I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one anyday I'd rather one would walk with me than merely show the way Actions speak much louder than all the words can say That's why I'd rather see a sermon than hear one anyday That's why I'd rather see a sermon than hear one anyday"

And Frasier's had, like, a 10-year run, and I commented this show lasted a lot longer. SNL's had more than 25 years in its run so far.... Go, Raf!

Gotta be, and is.