WordWolf

Translation: I shall ignore what I have no answers for. And you've been wrong each time. The phrase he used is "simply stated", which you have CHANGED and DECIDED means "crudely approximated." When you changed the word of vpw, you no longer had the word of vpw. You had "private interpretation." Not ONE session says "This is the specifics on believing,which I call a law. This is how it works, and why it fails to work. If you follow these instructions precisely, you will get the results 100 times out of 100." If it HAD, there would have been a basis for making this claim. There, of course, WAS no such session because there IS no way to make believing work like a "LAW". You have to completely define ALL the conditions before even STARTING. THAT's not a "LAW". Under that type of "science", people "proved" Blacks had less cranial space than whites- until someone did tests that DIDN'T define all the conditions.... I'm not even going to address your misunderstanding of gravity. Feel free to have the scientists here try to explain it AGAIN. We HAVE discussed it before..... So long as your understanding REQUIRES all information conform to the false doctrine of the "law of believing", you'll waste your time. It fails on its own rules as stated in BOTH Session One AND the Blue Book. It's propped up by people like you who add all sorts of "exceptions". Translation: I wish everyone would agree with me for once and validate my false doctrines. All the people here, at all their IQ levels and education levels and experience with pfal, all refute my doctrine. Translation: I was refuted yesterday, so I'm going to try to ignore it and call for a do-over. Here's how I try to claim that the mother killed that boy in the hypothetical example-let's ignore all the real-world examples people brought up. God was innocent-the mother was a murderer. NO ONE SAID HE DID!We object to you calling the mother the murderer. Because the mother didn't murder her child. All mothers worry when their kids are out of their sight. All the made-up examples of any class don't change that.This does NOT guarantee the kids die-which means this "law" that means you kill your kid by worrying isn't a "law". A) It's a lie. B) It blames a mother for a death she had nothing to do with. C) It's based on a made-up example. Controlling your mind is a good thing. It does NOT mean that this woman killed her son. Translation: Yes, this woman killed her son, but don't condemn her for it. Aaaaannd, here comes the commercial! vpw said the woman killed her son. He was wrong.

Funny. I just re-read the exact same section that another Dr. of Theology had just read, and NO WHERE does VPW ever blame the mother herself for causing the death of her child. But he does blame her fear. "Bombs don't kill people-EXPLOSIONS DO." "Guns don't kill people-BULLETS DO." Someone gets the gun, loads it, points it, and pulls the trigger. If WTH was an attorney, he'd claim they weren't responsible for the victim dying from a gunshot wound to the head.

I brought up the ridiculousness of claiming believing was a law- and specifically, that the hypothetical mother murdered her hypothetical son by way of her believing and using the driver as the murder weapon (he had no choice-it was "A LAW". I pointed out how the survival of almost every child whose parents worry about them as a complete FAILURE of the so-called "LAW" which, apparently, fails more than 90% of the time. (Could you imagine if GRAVITY had a 90% failure rate?) Further, suffering comes to people who have NO people worrying about them. So, the response this person gave to all that was this... I don't believe that fact matters much to any parent(s) who lost their kid(s) at Columbine. As I recall there was a similar situation like that which occurred in MN not long ago. You might actually try READING my posts sometime. With understanding. Columbine proves my point. According to your so-called "LAW", the tragedy there was primarily due to great fear on behalf of the parents and students of the high school, which by far exceeded the fear of parents and students in the rest of the country. Only incidentally do the actual shooters become involved. Faith (doesn't matter if it is positive or negative .. Romans 10:17) comes by hearing. Faith, positive or negative still comes that way, even in 2005. You can SAY "negative faith" is in the Bible, but, amazingly, no concordance SHOWS this error-ridden phrase to appear in Scripture. Fear is not good, fine. Faith in God is fine. If you still think "faith" is independent upon the reliability of that which is believed, you're still thinking Session One, and you're STILL divorced from the Bible. Labelling what other people believe doesnt affect them. That's sociology, not Scripture. Now, THAT's what was taught in Session One. NO. WHAT is believed, and WHO believes it does NOT enter the picture. Adding those as factors is NOT what was taught. It is changing pfal. When you add to pfal, do you still have pfal? Why add to pfal? The failed "LAW" needs lots of excuses to explain its failure. When did "conditions" come up in the class? You believed and it HAD to come to pass, it was a "LAW." You added "conditions" to pfal. Why? Because you needed excuses to explain the failure of this "LAW". Jesus didn't teach an immutable "Law of believing"-he taught to trust God, pray, have confidence in God, and so on. No, we've seen this before and were scammedonce already. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Labelling us out of your ignorance of our lives STILL doesn't change us. Different than taught in Session One and by you? Yes-I agree. Quite a remark coming from someone who doesn't understand (or believe in) the law of believing and therefore rejects it. A) It's true.B) It was one rule for pfal's success. C) We "understand" the failed "law" of believing just fine. That's why we reject it. We reject the "flat earth" doctrine also. Well, you're the one who claimed they didn't. Make up your mind. Believing is not a law because it fails to produce the results as stated in pfal. When its incredibly high failure rate is brought up, dozens of excuses never introduced in pfal pop up like mushrooms after a rain. WHO's being "untruthful", and who's "pushing the lie"? Hint: someone keeps pushing something known to be untrue. {quote]But let's not find fault with them just because they are not being truthful. Let's not find fault with them because they're BLAMELESS. Let's find fault with the one calling them LIARS for confronting lies with truth. Here comes thefamous WTH sermons that have nothing to do with us.. Yeah-listening to vpw got us all in the soup for sure. Next thing you know, we're buying all kinds of lies without subjecting them to critical evaluation, like how a mother killed her child by worrying.

Albert Cliffe, spiritualist. http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lawbelieve.htm And E.W. Kenyon. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/posit.htm Where did Kenyon get it? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/461...faithtract.html

A semantic difference. The chart from Session I showed they were the same category, making large amounts of worry functionally equivalent to large amounts of fear, with both diametrically opposed to believing. That chart was in the sessions, the Orange Book AND the syllabus, and the Listening with a Purpose questions centered around it, making it cardinal to the understanding of Session I.

BTW, vpw showed a lot of students a pornographic movie with beastiality in it, and described it for tens of thousands who didn't see it. With more detail than was needed to make a point. BTW, did anyone see a specific point answered by the introduction of this pornographic movie or its description? If he was going somewhere with it, he took a wrong turn.

Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in the last episode of "Seinfeld." See, the top button..... Amazing. We've gone over this for YEARS. This segment is based completely on a false doctrine and perpetuates error. The hypothetical example given is a boy run over by a car. Was it God's fault? No-AND NOBODY CLAIMED IT WAS, duh. Was it the mother's fault? No-but vpw blamed her. He claimed it's a LAW that if you worry something bad will happen to your child, you are them RESPONSIBLE for MAKING something bad happen. That is a vile error, and it is a lie to perpetuate it. Every morning, millions of children are sent off to school. Every morning, millions of parents worry something will happen to their children. Every morning, millions of children get home alive and unharmed. Every day, millions of children CONTINUE to come home unharmed despite worrying parents. Every day, someone's hit by a car and suffers serious injuries. That's NOT because someone was in a panic that such a thing would happen to the person. That's because there are bad drivers, there's suffering and evil in the world, and we live in the world. Forcing them into a construct required by an erroneous doctrine does them a disservice. Some GSCers have pointed out they had parents who were TERRIFIED something would happen to them, and nothing happened. Other GSCers have had nobody worried about them, and bad things happened. ==== A child is struck by a car and killed. Was God responsible? No. Was his mother who wasn't there responsible? No. Maybe the DRIVER was responsible. did vpw blame the mother because the child was insufficiently socialized and lacked experience? No-although those MIGHT have helped-or they might not. Children cross the street with the light every day and are hit by drivers running red lights. vpw said the mother was responsible for the sole reason of FEAR, and keeping FEAR. vpw's construct didn't blame the DRIVER any-he was a humble pawn in the game- this mother's fear FORCED him to hit the child. If not for her fear, the driver would have driven safely. So, it's not his fault. What a vile, vile thing to say! To blame a victim! This is as sensible as saying that the people who worked in the Twin Towers and escaped had no fear, but the people in the upper stories who died were fearful. According to vpw's construct, the FEAR in the HEARTS of the people in the upper stories was the MAIN cause of their deaths, and the planned and orchestrated hijackings, and hitting the planes into the buildings, that was not only incidental, but the terrorists didn't have a choice any more than that DRIVER did! The believing of those people dragged them along and they were incidental, pawns under the FEAR of the people there. Of course, the Police and Fire Dept people who went in and were inside when they collapsed-despite their training, they must have been full of FEAR also, since they had insufficient believing to escape alive. Odd how trained disaster specialists were full of fear while some civilians were confident and escaped. This must also mean that Todd Beamer ("Let's Roll") and the others on his flight lacked sufficient believing to override the believing of a handful of terrorists on their flight. If they had believed enough, they could have prevented their crash as well. Blame the Victim, Blame the Believer. Session One.

Sometimes I think I must have just imagined that I heard that. Guess not. No, you didn't. And it bore repeating.

And to what you are to adamantly do your best to ignore and try to draw attention from.

James Earl Jones Coming to America Eddie Murphy

I keep thinking of "Take Me to the River," because they share a line, but it's not that old.

They would probably say the organization re-evaluated their listing after communicating with them and seeing they were legit. They would probably prefer to leave out the 'hefty donation' part.

*reads* *does a search* Thanks for posting that article. However, that is NOT the guy we discussed before. That was Dave Arneson, not David Sutherland. Steve Lortz said Zixar said So, the answer to your question is "probably not." I mean, he COULD have taken it, but none of us heard he did, and we heard about Dave Arneson.

I forgot about the "devil" reference. Actually, he's wrong. Sesame Street IS evil. At least, This guy is.... see?

It said her brain "had atrophied to the point that it was just half of normal size." That means that brain-damage was sufficient to "atrophy" the brain to 50% of its original mass. Her brain has wasted away 50% of its mass. Mind you, losing 5% of your brain-function is a crippling injury. Losing 50% probably is equal to or worse than death. I'd rather die from something than survive with 50% of my brainmass. What remains? The autonomic system? The cerebrum is less-protected, so the thing you think with probably rotted away FIRST. Next thing you know, I'll be hearing that nonsense about only using 10% of your brain or something.

Compaq's website. http://h18000.www1.hp.com/support/files/ That's the driver mainpage. Select "Printers and digital imaging" and go from there. It might or might not fix the problem. However, downloading the latest drivers certainly can't hurt.

I met and spoke with a man who was there. I saw the number he was branded with when they imprisoned him. He was not a Jew, but he never claimed the accounts were exaggerated, either.

If this on-line petition existed to INFORM it would contain INFORMATION. There's no link to proposed legislation (that stuff is ONLINE), and no specifics, like a bill#, a date, or a specific quote from proposed legislation. THEREFORE, the people behind this DO NOT WANT you to look this up. The absence of a specific date or year (like "the Spring 2006 session will be reviewing this legislation"), allowing this to pose as a general bugbear, something to link to year after year. According to this webpage, the organizations running this "primarily focus on education and advocacy on important national issues" (You LIE and we see that right on this page) "educates voters..." (You LIE and we see that right on this page) and " PRIMARILY HELPS MEMBERS ELECT CANDIDATES WHO REFLECT OUR VALUES." The operative phrase being "HELP ELECT CANDIDATES". Is this thing just to alarm? Well, besides being devoid of content, it says they will eliminate funding "STARTING WITH 'SESAME STREET'..." They will START by cutting funding to Sesame Street? There are people waiting with paperwork, eager to cut the funding to Sesame Street? Am I really stupid enough to believe you if you say "Yes, there are people eager to do that"? ============ Ok, so this is not about informing or stopping the cutting of funds. What is it about? Well, let's see what it does. The ONLY way it provides for you to help AT ALL is to provide your personal information and e-mail address. Its disclaimer-if you keep reading-says "We may, for example, provide compilations of petitions, with your comments, to the President and legislators... We may also make your comments, along with your city, state and country available to the press and public online. We will send you updates by e-mail." So, secondarily, it's to increase their mailing list. Primarily, it's to separate your comments from their context and use them for their own purposes. Didn't we have enough of this in twi?

Huey Lewis Back to the Future Crispin Glover

Riddle: "Why did Job have trouble sleeping?" "He had miserable comforters." ====== Job's miserable comforters saw a man suffering, having suffered financial disaster, loss of family, and physical affliction. What was their response? "Oh, you must have been a terrible sinner! It's your fault!" Kicked him when he was down. GOD said Job was "BLAMELESS." vpw said Job was to be blamed- it was Job's "failure to believe" that resulted in horrible things. vpw, lcm, pfal and twi as a whole have placed themselves firmly in the "miserable comforters" category.

Well, besides singing "Power of Love" on the soundtrack, Huey Lewis had a walkon role in the band audition scene of "Back to the Future". :)--> So, now someone can just link off another actor off the movie....

Here's the only other song I can think of that names 2 superheroes... You don't tug on Superman's cape, You don't spit in the wind, You don't pull the mask of the ol' Lone Ranger..."

In 20/20 hindsight, the mother now wants the violent dog put down. A TRUE knee-jerk liberal would NEVER say that. They would say the dog was following his nature and was right to kill the little boy. They'd say the dog has MORE right to be here than the little boy. Thankfully, there are relatively few true knee-jerk liberals. So, I say the political cheap-shot was not justified by the story. (I'm a moderate and distrust BOTH sides equally.)

The cheapest way to get that to work will be to buy her a new hard drive with Windows XP pre-installed, then swap out the old drive. As Igotout said, even a CHEAP hard-drive will have more memory than the one that machine's running on. Your other budget choice is to scrap using Windows for that thing. Switch to Red Hat Linux for an operating system and load Firefox or something for the web-browser. ======= You may have forgotten this, but older computers have a LOT less memory, and Windows XP may be stable, but it has a HUGE footprint. That machine she has may not have room to run XP and anything else.