WordWolf

When you say it's gonna happen "now", Well, when exactly do you mean?

Probably the opening credits to "Holy Grail." (Or the instructions to the guards in the Tall Tower.) Although I have a soft-spot for the Cheese Shop sketch myself, and the interview of "Raymond Luxury Yacht." If you remember that one, you'll get this joke. A comic book, decades ago, had a splash page on someone's luxury yacht. If you look closely, its name was printed on the ship, "Throatwarbler Mangrove." Someone wrote a letter. "No, it's spelled 'luxury yacht'. It's only pronounced 'throatwarber mangrove'." Sometime during your life, you should see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." If you get the chance, you should also see "And Now For Something Completely Different", (which was one of their catchphrases) which is a compilation of many of their skits. (Although some-like the fresh-fruit skit, are much funnier in the original episodes, it's segueway into the Lumberjack Song can't be improved upon, IMHO.)

Sure took you long enough. That was almost 24 hours from the start of a discussion of vile activity on the part of vpw and ha and lcm, and the victims who suffered thru their predations, before you thundered in to take the emphasis off the evil premeditated actions of vpw and ha and lcm. Ok, as to your comments.. You are able to think on your own and form your own opinion. If you honestly want to take the emphasis off the premeditations, the preparations vpw made, the plans to victimize the women whom they carefully cultivated the trust of, hey, you are free to do so. No one challenged your abilities to do so. Neither did they claim you were or were not exposed to anything- they made the OPPOSITE point, actually. They didn't contradict the eyewitness accounts-they commented on them. Such horrific events in the lives of people are WORTH a little emotion and comment, most of us would agree. They took nothing away from the accounts. Making this about those who commented, however, cheapens the accounts-as if it's not about the ruined lives being rebuild after vpw, ha and lcm and others set aside to treat God's wonderful children as disposable objects, no more than a kleenex. As you demonstrated, YOU decide for yourself what offends you. That discussion of the offenses offends you when the offenses do NOT strikes me as unusual, but it IS your choice. I just got back from a funeral. During the entire proceedings, there were a number of discussions. There were plenty of "talking-points" where I could have used the matters discussed as a "springboard" to educate the attendees as to the truth of Scripture concerning different things. Having escaped both the physical and mental constructs of twi, I did not do so. In doing so, I would have felt like I demonstrated righteousness. After all, I'm supposed to "expound the Scriptures more perfectly" when I encounter error. I chose to let the "opportunities" pass. Was that because I'm a poor Christian. (If so, I'll let God judge that.) I made the conclusion that God would be better served if I didn't treat His people like machines, and instead treated them like people- people that can suffer and hurt, people who can feel pain and hesitations, people who bleed and breathe and have mucus in their noses, people who, in short, are human, imperfect, and nevertheless beloved of God. I elected to allow people to feel their pain as normal, and allow them to process it in ways that might have been mathematically improved upon, but were sufficient for the moment and WORKED. Now then, what did that have to do with this thread? Simply this: We're discussing suffering and victims. There's tense emotions here. When given the opportunity to mark off a checklist on posts- "you could have said this better", etc- I elect to leave them alone. These are humans, not machines, and the bigger issues are of importance. Now, then, you can, personally, choose to consider their posts inadequate or lacking in your own mind. You can even choose to say so (and you did.) However, I'd recommend considering the net effect. Did you minister grace to the hearers? Have they grown in knowledge? Or have you just demonstrated that hearts and lives are incidental to you when there's the letter of the law is at stake? What would most people say when seeing your post? Is that the message you MEANT to convey?

In hindsight, the reasons are obvious. A) THEY WEREN'T DOING THE WORK. It's easy to require all the M & Ms sorted by position in the rainbow when YOU'RE not the one handpicking them all. B) THEY HAD NOTHING BETTER TO DO. If they were REALLY on matters of consequence, they would have focused on THOSE. Since they dwelt on minutiae, it's obvious they have nothing more important to dwell on.

*lightbulb* Aaaagh! It's a Rod Stewart song! "Love Touch". I haven't heard that since I was last stuck in an elevator! What movie was that in?

The practical differences, as I see it, between IE builds and Mozilla builds: A) Mozilla builds tend to have fewer security exploits which are patched faster. B) Mozilla builds tend to be based on better code. C) Some websites are standards-compliant, but those that aren't are all built to work with IE. (That means IE works with just about everything.)

No problem! My usual rule is that-no matter the program-there's a free version that works at least as good (if not better) for my purposes, probably several. (And if this one isn't it, at least I didn't lose money on it.) The only trick is finding it. (Actually, there's several PDF programs, but I had that one loaded.)

'LG': "He got it from Bullinger, but he mixed up Bullinger's distinctions. He agreed with Bullinger regarding number, but not kind. Wierwille said that heteros indicated two of the same kind, whereas allos indicated different kinds." ===================== IIRC, in one place, vpw made that mistake (heteros of the same kind, allos of a different kind) and in another place, did NOT make that mistake (allos of the same kind, heteros of a different kind) In the same place he made that mistake, he used Bullinger's (incorrect) distinction of number. ===== Me, I always remembered them correctly referencing kind, and ignored his numerical explanation which seemed anomalous. The distinction was clear WITHOUT that, and adding numerical meaning fogged it needlessly. (Later study showed Bullinger just made it up OR SOMETHING.) I found the easiest way to keep them clear was in Galatians 1, where Paul chides them for turning to "another" (heteros) gospel which was not "another" (allo). In other words, they turned to a different gospel that was not of the same type. (Which is redundantly redundant, but that's fine in language, especially non-contemporary language.) ======= Oh, and that book would have been "How to Enjoy 'How to Enjoy the Bible' " with the additional markers to note we meant the other book. ==== I checked: part of the problem with HtEtB is the tiny print. I've read chapters online-after enlarging the text-and they're not as taxing to read like that. Then again, I still recommend a chapter at a time. ===== BTW, Bullinger's notes included a comment that he thought that some churches were built with a cross in each of the 4 corners, and that this was supposed to symbolize the 4 crucified. Supposing they WERE built that way, it might have simply been they were going to have 4 corners, then added a cross to each, period. There need not be any more detailed reason than that. Mind you, I'm just saying the 4 crosses in the architecture are proof of nothing. I'm not convinced one way or the other of one side's correctness, but I'm paying attention. (Mark, feel free to make your case, but please address the objections more specifically. You summarized things to briefly, which looks like you glossed over the objections. If you have a stronger case, it's better served with more detail-please elaborate when you have time.)

Nuts. I'm pretty sure I've heard this before.... ...and it's not "Heart of the Matter" and it's not "Misunderstood". Still trying to figure this out...

Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator are the basis for all other web browsers. All browsers, AFAIK, are variations of one or the other. IE2, now known as Maxthon, is a recommended IE ripoff. Mozilla is what the Netscape Navigator was based on. So, you have Netscape, and the current builds of Mozilla, and variations: Opera is a complicated Mozilla build. Mozilla minus the Opera frills was Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox. That's what I know offhand.

Well, my answer is a little longer than last time. I still have a strong internal identification with wolves. They protect their families, and don't plot amongst themselves, and their social structures are closer to humans than other animals are. In short, I wish more people I knew were more like them. (Except for the "killing to get dinner" part, of course- but it's effectively what we do anyway.) The "Word" part, I trust, needs no explanation. So, what's important to know about me? If you understand the screen-name, then you've got the basics. ========= As for the icon, it was made specifically FOR me by an artist. A wolf with The Word. It's actually part of a larger picture, but this is the part that can fit on an icon. Due to the size-limitation of the icons, I boosted the contrasts of the image to make it clearer. So it's sharper and harsher than the original.

One is CutePDF. http://www.cutepdf.com/

[WordWolf in boldface & brackets.]

The official references to her promotion called it "a battlefield promotion". It sounded very matter-of-fact, and, honestly, it sounded pre-fab and temporary compared to vpw and lcm and the ritual installation.

I like this one so much I'm going to fix the spellings... Plus, it bears repeating. 'themex': "A lot of people think that VPW was The Teacher of The Teachers, and Father in The Word- "The Man of God of Our Day and Time". But, he was not. He did good things and bad things. He is dead. Some of the splinters are making a cult around VPW and that is against the Word." By the way, themex, we formed the acronym "MOGFOT" and the acronym "MOGFODAT" on the phrases "Man of God For Our Time" and "Man of God For Our Day And Time" based on that error. Just thought you'd like to know.

Cocoon Don Ameche Coming to America

Now we're up to some easier-to-remember, and more recent times. vpw has died, PoP has been read, and there's the first sizeable migrations from twi. lcm wanders in a fog. twi loses and regains its tax-exempt status. (The NEXT thread will address his loy-alty letter and timeframe.) What did you see and hear in that timeframe? Oh, and since Schoenheit's paper condemning Adultery was 1986, this would be a relevant topic...

[WordWolf in bold & brackets again...] I did nothing of the kind, but that never stops you from dragging in non-sequiturs and commercials anyway... Without any documentation, and ONLY repetition, all that's accomplished is a sideshow act. You're peddling snake-oil, and we're not buying. For most, the advertisements are seen as exactly that. And I won't belabour the last comment again at the moment.

Oh, and, different people have different opinions, based of course on their own sources. One person's opinion, I thought, was worth quoting on this "tattered remnants" thing. ====== "To get the Word of God our of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'" That's vpw himself, pg-128 of the Orange Book. He, for one, thinks that this is an attainable goal. Plus, this was in the Orange Book, which a few people credit with Divine Inspiration. So, I'm unsure whether Mike is more fond of his "tattered remnants" doctrine, or his "pfal is inerrant and from God" doctrine, but in this instance right here, they're mutually-exclusive.

Mike, if you're going to discuss text, that's a good thing. I recommend you go away, check your sources, THEN post. Otherwise, the posts will waste everyone's time and you look like shooting from the hip is ALL you can offer. I'd like your position represented honestly. ======= Oh, and Dan? (Sorry to keep bugging you.) Sorry about this interruption to your thread. I hope you're at least getting entertainment value while this plays out... Thank you for your tolerance.