WordWolf

This must be the "easy-to-be-entreated-love-of-God" Mike claims to have. Some highlights from ONE of his latests posts, counting only the replies and not the quotes he's replying to... "You have beaten me to the punch at being rude by a longshot!" Hardly, Mike. This post seems to have been dedicated ENTIRELY to "being rude." I'm sure everyone else can see the irony of spending an entire post on insults- which contains the quote "You are just demonstrating for all that you have no logical response to what I post so you resort to trivialities, and illogical ones at that."

Sometimes that's exactly what you feel. Other times, you may feel up for a light chat. Neither is wrong for that situation. (Now, make a doctrine where either is MANDATORY, and...)

I'm fine with ANYONE going, at the moment... preferably without anything requiring cheating/checking online...

Fine, then I'll do it. I could only think of 2 offhand, and that was one. Good Will Hunting Ben Affleck DareDevil There's one or two good possibilities from there...

The last one's obviously "Finding Forrester." Never saw it, and I know the book quote and "You're the man NOW, DAWG!" are from it...

Correct. Actually, LOTS of books have done that. I've got 3, all decent to excellent reads. If Dan Brown had just left it as a work of fiction, that would be one thing. However, he's put forth that the historical details of the book are all correct, and even the easy-to-check-with-Google stuff (like when the Olympics started and WHY) are incorrect. The truth of the matter is the book is completely invented from whole cloth. Had Brown claimed that, I'd just move on. There's been no lack of refuting his claims, both in a small way and in a large way. Worse, at least one writer had a book already out-of fiction-that this seems to almost rewrite- "the DaVinci Legacy"- which is here. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...DDGB45S7JV1.DTL Some of the refutations: http://www.irr.org/da-vinci-code.html http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Sk...aVinciCode.html http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040618.html http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp In case you're wondering, yes, I've read each, and saved the links a while back because I thought they were worth reading. They're shorter and cheaper than the books, anyway, and I have a few of those.

What can I say about him... We never hung out socially. I have my own observations and those of others. Here's what I have. I have never seen him use the podium to bullyrag. In the cases of vpw and lcm, they both (lcm mostly) had times when they yelled when they had the microphone. I've never seen cg yell at the podium, nor claim hatred for others or delight in harm coming to them. Nor have I seen him make political commentary. cg believed/believes that it is possible to improve on pfal, which means he did not believe that pfal was by "divine dictation" or anything like that. cg believes/believed that pfal in and of itself as the class of that name is/was not holy and required, since he made his own class with a different name. Since cg's class is largely cloned FROM pfal and is simply an ITERATION of it (pfal with tinkering), cg obviously thinks that a class LIKE pfal is important and useful, and should be disseminated. Based on his marketing of it (he gets paid before the classes even roll), it's obvious he knows it can be a moneymaker, and teaching the information to others is neither his SOLE nor his PRIMARY concern. It's more along the lines of "I'm performing a valuable service here. You are free to agree or disagree. If you agree it is valuable, then I expect to receive compensation accordingly." cg's personality largely seems organized around expectations of conspiracy (he was one of THE prime conspiracy pushers AND believers at twi), and obsession with minutiae (he was seen spending many times the practical time and energy doing something HIS way when it would have been more practical to do it ANOTHER way which was just as effective.) That applied to both physical details (working with equipment) and organization-level details (he claimed he was the only man in all of Europe in twi who was of any use in setting up their UK hq, even for cooking, wiring, etc), and class details (he "improved" some things beyond accuracy in his nonstop "tweaking".) Do I think he can be an effective teacher? Sometimes I think he can be EXCELLENT. Other times, he's come out with full-scale boondoggles. The fact that he previously had no problem considering ANYTHING justifiable if it was for vpw (situational ethics to the extreme), including drugging women for vpw's sexual enjoyment, and he has never come out with a public statement that such things are VILE and ABHORRENT (reversing his position if not admitting any involvement) is possibly an indication of LACK OF REMORSE, at least of sufficient to do something about it. Now that HE is in the big seat- where vpw was justified all those things- is he above claiming them for himself? I can't say. I AM aware we have the internet now, and if he tried a fraction of what vpw did back when, he'd be nailed to the wall like vpw would have been if we'd had the internet when he was alive. Perhaps that has nothing to do with it. That's what I know, what I consider reasonable to suppose, and the things I wonder about.

Sometimes I even wait until the next time I'm logged on and see if it still seems like it should be said. I'll accept that-but that's what was SAID anyway.It was not MEANT to say it, but the wording should have been reviewed before the "ADD REPLY" button was clicked. That usually saves ME from having to explain or defend my comments, and I recommend it for all posters not currently doing that. Looks like 4 simple steps would radically reduce the stress one poster is feeling: 1) Don't post angry. Take a break FIRST. 2) Reread the post before submitting. Others will read the post and not your mind. Was what they will READ what you meant to SAY? 3) Ease off off all-inclusive terms, language and concepts. All people eat, grow old, and go to the bathroom. Beyond that, most things are in the category of "MOST PEOPLE" and not "ALL". 4) Remember to turn off the computer and live. Life is neither the internet NOR any one board. If your self-esteem derives from one board (or several), time to take a break from the internet and just LIVE. In case anyone's wondering, these are among general tips on the internet. I've posted these elsewhere before, in fact. (Although I've rephrased myself.)

By taking a few sentences out of their context from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi WTH was able to suggest the opposite of the article. The evidence IS there. It's even IN THE ARTICLE. "The Jews who are Jews share genetics with the Jews who you say are not Jews, proving that Wierwille was wrong." Correct, Raf, and the proof is right in the SAME ARTICLE, if WTH was willing to read down to "ETHNIC DEFINITION" and didn't stop at the "RELIGIOUS DEFINITION" and pretend it spoke for CULTURAL and ETHNIC definitions as well. According to "ETHNIC DEFINITION", "Human geneticists have identified certain haplotypes in Y-Chromosome and mitochondrial studies that have high frequencies among Ashkenazai Jews, but not in the general European population." Hm, look at this-they CITE THEIR SOURCES. Imagine that! Further down, we see "DNA CLUES", which is the direct refutation of wierwille AND WTH. "A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al found that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews was of Middle Eastern origin, containing mutations that are also common among Palestinians and other Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced primarily to the Middle East." It also addresses the other side, the mitochondrial DNA. "A 2006 study by Behar et al, based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA, suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four 'founder lineages' were 'likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool' originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE." (More information pending as more studies are done...) If he looked at "POPULATION GENETICS", he'd see the list of genetic disorders that are more common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Genetic disorders, aka hereditary diseases, increase when you LIMIT THE GENETICS OF THE POPULATION. That there are any AT ALL is direct evidence that the population is NOT homogenous with the whole of society. If he'd just read thru "ETHNIC DEFINITION", he'd have seen that one of the concerns OF Ashkenazi Jews is the limited genetic variety as the result OF being what he claims they're NOT, and why artificial insemination cases AMONG the Ashkenazi Jews SPECIFICALLY seek out non-Jewish donors in an effort to avoid genetic disorders that Ashkenazi Jews are already prone to. Of course, he would have needed to evaluate the implications of what he read, which seems beyond the skills of our specialist at cutting and pasting. ===== BTW, the reason WTH is obviously not posting any refutation of the EVIDENCE AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of the historical FACT that MILLIONS of JEWS were killed by NAZIS in WORLD WAR II in an attempt to deliberately kill Jews, is that he can't find any to cut-and-paste. So far, he's cut-and-pasted from Answers.com and Wikipedia. Neither of them has listed any nonsense indicating the Holocaust, aka the Shoah, never existed.

It helps to note he's just cutting and pasting lines from the wikipedia entry for "Ashkenazi Jews" right now. Without attribution, which means, of course, that he's plagiarizing their entry. As usual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi If WTH actually wanted to LEARN about the Ashkenazi Jews, he could have just FINISHED READING THE ARTICLE HE COPIED FROM, rather than just picked out what he thought would defend his position. He might have noted that the rest of it REFUTED HIS POSITION in general, but quibbled over specifics.

ACTUALLY, we had a single discussion directly relevant to the HOLOCAUST and the FACTS of the HOLOCAUST themselves when you introduced a SECOND discussion into the mix.... on page 1. One might think you were trying to draw attention away from the main discussion and the irrefutability of the deaths of millions of Jews in WW II as systematically planned and executed by Nazi Germany....

If I explain dmiller's post, (as I am now), I am perforce offering my opinion as to its contents and the MEANING of said contents. My opinion, by definition, is my OWN opinion (unless I'm just parroting what vpw/someone said). My opinion is therefore my own PERSONAL opinion, or, to put it differently, my PRIVATE opinion. I don't think dmiller went far afield on this one. I dunno, Shellon. ricky made some claims and Georgio gave counter-examples from PERSONAL TESTIMONY. I suspect the PERSONAL TESTIMONY he gave is "what's going on" in the incidents and locations he's mentioning. Looks like "what's going on" to me.... (Emphasis mine.)

I trust and respect you, and will play by the rules you require, but I reserve the right to disagree on a case-by-case basis with you. When she spoke on her own experience, she spoke for herself. That was not made an issue. When she took HER experience, and extrapolated from it, she expressed an opinion. Had she applied it to SOME people, she almost certainly would have gotten a caveat, that is "of course there are lots of people this did NOT apply to, and this should not be used to claim it was true of all people by anyone seeking to tar VICTIMS-whom this does NOT apply to." However, she made no attempt to limit the scope of her claim- which means she was saying "this was true for me, and is true for everyone". When she said "it was true for me", that limits the room for disagreement. As soon as someone applies a rule to EVERYONE, that's tantamount to inviting disagreement. Watch the difference between these 2 statements. "I didn't vote for him. I know he's a crook." and "I didn't vote for him. Everybody who didn't vote for him knows he's a crook." How about "I work full-time. I feel the taxes on big business should cover all the government's expenses so that citizens should not have to pay tax." and "I work fill-time. Everyone who works full-time feels that taxes on big business should cover all the government's expenses so that citizens should not have to pay tax." In both cases, I'd expect the exceptions to begin replying immediately. The reason I usually don't get this complaint about MYSELF is that I try to avoid "all-encompassing" words and expressions, by suggestion, implication or direct statement. There will almost ALWAYS be exceptions to ANY generalization. I also often reread before I hit the "Add Reply" button. Some people would be surprised how much that one step would improve one's posts. This was an exception case. The attitude is "protect the victims."Always was in the GSC (in my experience, since after ezboard, anyway), and remains so today, for the usual suspects. Why did they all react? This post went at cross-purposes to that, and suggested that the VICTIMS were not VICTIMS, but willing participants in ALL CASES. Why be surprised that was challenged? Frankly, I didn't join in because it was already said. ============= Entirely different situation. I saw no reason to react the way some people did. I didn't join in on that one because I saw no reason to agree or prolong the digression. I wouldn't blame them for not returning, but I don't see the reason for running them off, either. The people I'd recommend running off go after posters in an antagonistic fashion, and neither of those posters did anything of the kind. Nor did they even warrant any sort of warning or caution. Watch their posts? Sure. Watch mine while you're at it. Always a good idea. Posting with civility beats the alternatives.

I've run into a number of Christians who don't lose sleep over the issue. Then again, I've also had one scream at me in the street. So, I'd call that "a mixed bag of responses." Offhand, I think that's about as extreme a set of responses as I could expect-indifference vs screaming in public. ====== Frankly, I suspect the TRUE answer might be in NEITHER position as stated, but somewhere in the middle. (A corollary to Ockham's Razor states that if NONE of the possible answers FULLY explain something, then all of them are WRONG.)

Fine with me-take it, Chas!

One of the myspace guys DID say that twi would answer if asked but no one asked. That was incorrect for several reasons. One, people asked. Lots of posters here asked. Two, they were not given straight answers. Answers were actually questions-"Why do you want to know?" or accusations "Why are you questioning God's One True Ministry?" "Questioning twi is doing the devil's work", et al.

Not quite... Correct....

NuqDaH yuch daPol?

Here's the recap. Almost the entire New Testament was written first in (Koine) Greek. We're debating whether some of the Gospels were in Aramaic first, but everything else is pretty solidly documented as Greek first. vpw said it was first in Aramaic-specifically the Palestinian Aramaic dialect used in Palestine (duh). Twi used the EASTERN Aramaic dialect for research- specifically the Peshi++a text, which featured Estrangelo script. IIRC, the sole reference to any of this was one mention in the Orange Book which makes several errors concerning the historical documents of Scripture, but DID correctly identify "Estrangelo" as a lettering style and not a dialect. However, vpw never reinforced this anywhere else, so the entire corps (excepting a few in the research dept) all learned it wrong- that "Estrangelo Aramaic" was a dialect like "Eastern" or "Palestinian." ===== Those of you who wonder what lcm taught should go back and re-listen to his old tapes. Tape 1055: "Believing Images of Victory" was the one where he said "I'd like to close in Romans, chapter 8, reading the entire chapter, in Estrangelo Aramaic." *waits while audience chuckles* As you can tell from the structure of the sentence, (and the following one, where he suggests Bernita might actually do this later), lcm was pretty clear that "Estrangelo" wasnt just a style of writing, because that would NOT affect reading it ALOUD.

I just wanted to add a few things. A) I recommend this book heartily, particularly the 3rd edition mentioned here. B) I bolded the part that mentions what Mark and I said, that is, that part of the gospels was probably written first in Aramaic. My position is not based on "twi said it", but partly on looking around OUTSIDE twi. I found a copy of "the Aramaic Origin of the 4 Gospels" in my college's library, back when. (The thing looked old and dog-eared, and I don't know if it's been reprinted since the 1950s or earlier.) If that is true-that at least one of the Gospels was written first in Aramaic, it explains certain problems with the text that are resolved if they were just a mis-read from Aramaic. (The camel/rope thing, and the Samaritan/devil thing.) I've never seen evidence to support a position that "the New Testament was written first in Aramaic", unless you count "vpw said it, I believe it" as "evidence".

I can tell you how I'd feel NOW-with my CURRENT mindset- if I was at a meeting with all the Christians I'd want to meet currently living- if lcm was there. (I can make a hypothetical based on CURRENT mindset.) I would just avoid him, neither approaching nor acknowledging him unless I ended up face-to-face with him. I'd care about others, but be indifferent to him. Anything else, I'll have to wait and see.

"I have misjudged you." "Join the club. We've got jackets." "They just want to give us their blessing." "Oh, great! Now I need their blessing?" "Well, if you want to be part of this family, yes." "Who said I want to be part of this family?" "Uh, YOU did? When you married me?" "Well, THERE's some find print for you." "Working hard, or hardly working?" "Today, I repay my debt." "You got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo." "...we are in pursuit of a white bronco..." "..Whatever happens, I must not cry...you cannot make me cry..."

I disagree about "in twi." Remember, getting yourself out of twi, for some of us, was 20 minutes and the bum's rush out the door. However, getting twi out of YOURSELF can take YEARS. (And for a few of us, it will take divine intervention to finish the job.)

Millions of people-some Jews, some not-were killed horribly for the "crime" of existing. Your lack of humanity will cripple you all your life- until you overcome it, possibly thru having your life destroyed, and receiving compassion from the "lesser" Christians you scorn. Once again, you think incorrectly.We actually examined the evidence, the testimony, and so on. Ever meet someone who was THERE, who was tattooed with one of the numbers, and listened to them? I have. On the other hand, you're ready to believe the most ridiculous notions, discard the most ironclad of evidence, all on the say-so of a man who's been proven to lie, exaggerate, and do sloppy research all the time. Make up your mind-I thought they supposedly controlled all the money. The US was SOLELY responsible for the current Israel? I'm sure the other Europeans who fought in World War II would disagree with you. In fact, I'm sure the Russians-who fought the Nazis long before we did-would disagree strongly. In some areas of Russia, they lost 75% of their population during World War II. You've never heard that, I'm sure. There are villages with markers for that to this day. So, you'd prefer the holocaust have been allowed to continue until all Jews were killed? Largely where they are now, just more persecuted,with Middle Eastern countries vowing to obliterate them. You're discarding all proof of the numbers-including the records the Nazis themselves kept-all because vpw said so, right? You might try thinking for yourself. It's underestimated.

...and sang the song IN the Blues Brothers movie, as well. I once saw a Betty Boop cartoon posted online, featuring this song and a VERY young Cab Calloway shown singing it briefly before the cartoon proper began. Your turn, wasway.