-
Posts
21,657 -
Joined
-
Days Won
242
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by WordWolf
-
-
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*
Fox Almost Sues Itself
in Entertainment Archives
Posted
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.