WordWolf

Hm....... In the movie "the Solid Gold Cadillac", a company drove another company out of business-before someone realized it was one of their subsidiaries.

I agree on "the Exorcist". We knew this one guy who saw it 150 times. I don't know what possessed him.... The Director's Cut is out. I also think the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie qualifies. Part 3 is not bad as a sequel. How about "Young Frankenstein"? "Dracula: Dead and Loving It"? ("Is she dead?" "She is..nosferatu." "She's ITALIAN??")

....don't do drugs or drink..... ..don't split up..... ..don't say "I'll be right back, because you won't.... ...don't run up the stairs when you should run out the door.... ..don't say "Who's out there?"..... ...the killer must be killed three times.... ...when he calls you, he is usually inside the house... ...beware the moon, stick to the road... ...don't stand with your back to an open window....

Oh. Johniam, where appropriate, scratch out what I said and fill in what Trefor just said. Hey, I posted what I THOUGHT was Trefor's position. Sounded to me like he was saying it had no authority. Ok, people, nothing to see here....

Johniam, Trefor's decided the Bible's just some book. With that in mind, he's reveiwed the materials one uses to try to invalidate its accuracy, its historical consistency. etc. (In that one aspect, he and Mike are in agreement-the Bible's an inferior tool, devoid of authority.) I'm not going to make any claims about the accuracy of Trefor's position-simply declare it. Since you are coming from the opposite position, you're using a reference book Trefor does not consider canonical. Therefore, if you feel the need to continue this subject, you will need to invoke other sources- psychology, biology, sociology, etc. Personally, I think there's no chance at all either of you will change your position, but hey, you post what you want to post.

*adjusts his Archbishop robes* Hey! Both of you play nice. I don't see the point in making up whole denominations over this. WordWolf. Archbishop of the First Global Church of the Werewolf.

I don't know where you took it where it didn't have pictures. The taped ones I took had pictures. It's impossible to forget- one person on the crew bore a passing resemblance to one of the people in the pictures and he took a LOT of ribbing for it. (As if, 20-some-odd years ago, he looked like that.)

Dot, Wolves protect their pack and care for them. I ask that you not put them in the same category as sex perverts, molesters, rapists, etc. ========= BTW, as anyone can tell from looking at a good collegiate dictionary (as I did), the definition of "testimony" taught at twi, like so many things, was bull-kaka. The word is derived from the Latin "testari" or "three". That's because a "witness" is a "neutral third party". Go ahead-look it up. I suspect worship and preoccupation with your johnson could lead to explanations like the one we were taught. At least, that's what Freud would have said.

Man, I hardly know what to comment on... "What kind of intense emotional testing of a woman CAN be done outside of sex requests?" "I'll bet the best tests on men were ego-crushing scenarios." I'll just take these two... Let's see-you can't think of any intense way to test a woman emotionally without molesation-attempted or performed? I can think of several related to work or other projects, off the top of my head. Ego-crushing scenarios are good tests? According to WHOM? WHO claimed EITHER of these were healthy? Boot Camp doesn't even do either of these! Oh, sometimes Boot Camp is portrayed as being stressful, but it does NOT go for crushing self-esteem, and even the toughest drill sergeant watches his troops, and knows when to lighten up and help a trainee. Plus, Boot Camp is a few weeks, not years and years of humiliation. =========================================== BTW, if your father molested my sister, you could be as indignant as you wanted, while accompanying his hospital and wondering if they can repair his damaged trachea from when I found out. If MY father molested someone, they'd be trying to repair him in the ambulance. Calling it "righteous indignation", however, is mislabelling, to say the least. Your "father in the Word", btw, was a serial molester, an adulterer, dishonest, and a ruiner of lives. Go ahead and tell me to go wherever you wish.

Yes. The internal inconsistency with saying it was ok NOW when it was supposedly responsible for the fall of man ONCE is one I had difficulty repeating at all, let alone with conviction. (I told ONE person, and that without sounding like I was firmly agreeing.) Rottie, the answer to your two questions was exactly the same answer. The "mirror" thing probably came up because even in the taped class, vpw said that women, at some time when they're alone, should look at themselves in a mirror, that most women don't. (That's one reason I may not remember any comment about any woman's body part being ugly, "cognitive dissonance". Besides, I wouldn't have believed it.) We DID cover some verses. About 1 class' worth of it, maybe, was Scripture. The other 6 would then have been "Bible-optional." And, again, we did cover ONE time, in ONE session, how extramarital sex was bad. It DID come up. However, that's a poor showing for a "Christian" organization. I'm sure a lot of differences happened between the live and taped classes. Mine sounded a LOT less vulgar than the live ones. Somewhere on a thread, some people said vpw had SHOWN that video with the dog, in one class. I don't remember if it was CF & S, or Advanced class. I'm STILL trying to figure out the relevance.

Seriously, though.... A) It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus. That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance. B) It's the only class I ever took where I was embarrassed of the name. "I have to head out-I have a Bible study class tonight." "Really? What on?" "Um, Christian Family." C) The "original sin", Proverbs 31:10ff was covered, as was I Corinthians 7:1ff was also covered. How he could read I Corinthians 7:2, commit adultery many times, and look himself in the mirror is beyond me. D) Everyone remembers the session with all the slang terms. It seemed to relax us a little, since you can't be embarassed while laughing, but other than that, wasn't necessary. E) It was largely a Sex Ed or "Hygiene" class. Complete with photos and illustrations. F) I honestly don't remember vpw's comments mentioned above. I do remember (and even back then, others had commented) how beautiful he thought a woman's funbags are. (Funbags, you know, Thelma and Louise.) G) I remember him saying a few things here and there about various sex topics. The most off-the-wall ones will stay with me till I die. Like, how a man wants a woman who's a bit of an angel and a devil- an angel in public, and a devil in the bedroom. Or, concerning one position I have no intention of trying, "ever couple probably tries it at some point". To which, I say, "Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew." If someone out there has tried it, DON'T TELL ME. I do NOT want to know. And of course, in my class, he described-but did NOT show- that pornographic video with 2 women and a dog. He said the dog was trying to get away from the women, which showed it had more sense than they did. THANKS FOR SHARING. WHY did I need to know ANYTHING about that video? Was that instructive in some way? H) One of the main points, one that was repeated in several sessions, was the destigmatizing of sex as "dirty". Oddly enough, the proper place of a sex life in a MARRIAGE and not as OUTSIDE a marriage seemed not to be repeated in several sessions. Strange sorting of priorities for a Christian class. I) Of course, the one thing that I still find TRULY bizarre was that wierd "casualwear" outfit he wore teaching that class. I can understand getting out of the suit, but was that thing actually worn in PUBLIC? That thing was uglier than a leisure suit! J) The hero of that class was Tick. Anything else you want to know? Kudos to whoever managed a session breakdown-my goal was to just get thru it.

It was about seven sessions.

Does that error Mike helped me find the other month count? It's in the Burnt Umber Book, the Word's Way. Paul goes from the guy who KNOWS a guy caught away to the third heaven and earth, to the guy who's caught away, himself. It's in the collaterals....

I think you covered it all. This is a social arena, where regulars DO interact, old friendships are renewed, and new friendships start. However, IMHO, the most vital functions of the GSC are its role in assisting people in leaving twi, or in never getting involved in twi, and in offering a place to communicate, and possibly assistance in recovery, for those who successfully escape twi. As I see it, everything else, fun though it is, is a secondary consideration.

Megan: That's one idea among many. I'd LIKE to believe it. IS there any EVIDENCE cited to try to make the case, or is this just another writer declaring their opinion is "the truth" by fiat?

Am I the only person here following the "Hush" story arc? If so, I'll spare everyone my speculations. If not, who do you think is behind it all and why? Bonus if you've already gone down the "official" list of suspects. :)--> I've got it down to 6 official suspects, with two of them the front-runners.

*sketches this in the air a moment* Let's see if I understand that last news item correctly. She's tied down to the bed. Ok. I can picture that. He enters the scene, dressed as Batman. Now, what's Batman doing in this scene? Since she's not dressed as either hero or villain, I'm supposing he's 'rescuing a prisoner' (hey, SOMEBODY tied her down.) Ok. I've got the basic scenario here. One question, though. Why the HECK was he trying to swoop down on her? That's not how he did it on the tv show or the movies. I've never seen him swoop DOWN on a VICTIM in any cartoon or comic book. I wonder what he was basing that maneuver on. Obviously he didn't do the math before attempting this little maneuver. (I'm not even going to wonder WHY a Batman costume or anything else.) ----------------------------------------------- Comedian Yakov Smirnoff, prior to the fall of Communism, on life in the U.S. after growing up in the Soviet Union. "You have freedoms here I never even imagined. I was in the store. I saw a sign that said 'New Freedom'. What a country! Freedom in a box. I bought 15. I bought 'super-maxi', because I figured I should get as much freedom as possible. When I got them home, I was trying to figure them out. The box said 'sanitary napkins'. So, I put them out at the dinner table. I figured they were good napkins-they were expensive. People would go 'yuck'..*pushes away*,,,but no one would tell me what they were. "

Go to "my space", then "private topic" and look-you can do that anytime.

A) Yes, this is not Mike's show. We can post anywhere we want, keeping in mind the next item. B) Yes, this is PAWTUCKET's site. Mike is using bandwidth and memory Paw is PAYING FOR to compensate for his own refusal to make his own website and messageboard. C) So long as Mike continues to push his contraBiblical doctrine on the GSC, people will show up on the threads no matter WHERE they are. D) Yes, I'll do a "Cliff Notes" on the new stuff once I catch up to it. People avoiding his threads to avoid full exposure can keep up on those.

What do you think about the phrase "to the ages of the ages"? That's how I read some of the Greek when passing thru...

That's what I always thought it meant. The sentence is nonsensical if that word means something other than God's authority, power or entitlements.

Mike, So, you quoted Hamlet's "hoist on your own petard" line without reading it in the context? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a trap laid for Hamlet. When the 3 of them arrive in England, they are to hand a message to the King of England-"Kill Prince Hamlet. Love, Claudius, King of Denmark." Hamlet outsmarts them, and plans on using their own package to catch Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead of himself. That's what he meant by saying he would "delve an inch deeper, and blow them at the moon." Their own 'petard' (landmine) would blow up in their faces. Hamlet succeeds, too. He switches their message for one that reads "Kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Love, Claudius, King of Denmark". Thus, they are hoist on their own petard. Just thought someone somewhere would like the context of the quote. (from William Shakespeare's "Hamlet".)

Mike, are you saying that, in all the time you were in twi, and supposedly, exposed to other Christians' doctrines after that, you have NOT experienced intelligent discussions on what you called the "Broken Windshield" scenario? I heard discussions about that when I was IN, and there are plenty of discussions of the subject by Christians all over the world, let alone all over the net.

Rafael, please post the WHOLE quote. Some people never got to see it...

Gee, you never looked up the books he DID cite when he cited them, but you would have looked up the ones he DID cite? What are the odds? Very few probably would have bothered to look them up, rather than, say, keep reading vpw's books as a new student. Perhaps some would as they progressed- Advanced Class grads and so on. ============================================ Yes, thank God we never had to separate truth from error in reading any books as students while in twi. *rolls eyes*