WordWolf

BUT... There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer. He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list. See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle. From what LongGone said, this was another place where vpw misspoke on the tapes, but it's corrected in the books. (Again, I find this was correctable, and should have been corrected, but that's a separate, and smaller, quibble.) As we discussed in the ACTUAL/REAL ERRORS IN PFAL discussions, vpw was all over the map here. I'm unsure if Bullinger also(Bullinger) was all over the map and vpw just parroted him, but I'd suspect something like that. Where vpw claimed that allos and heteros made a distinction between exactly two of something, that was error, period. (That's in the books.) Apparently, in the tapes, vpw claimed "heteros" meant "other of the same type" and "allos" meant "other of a different type", and the books say the opposite. The books are correct, as I see it. The fastest illustration I can see for this is Galatians 1:6-7. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto ANOTHER gospel, which is not ANOTHER;..." "unto another gospel" uses the word "heteros", "which is not another" uses the word "allo". Paul marvelled they removed to a DIFFERENT gospel, which was not OF THE SAME KIND. (Ok, Raf answered my question about Bullinger. vpw just xeroxed him as usual without realizing he contradicted himself in doing so.)

That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant. The writer was hasty in his criticism in a few places, this being one of them. vpw made several mistakes in the taped class due to improv. My favourite example was Paul going to Jerusalem, and one guy "I forget if it was Felix or Festus" said "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." He couldnt remember which one because it was NEITHER, it was AGRIPPA. (Felix and Festus show up later in the chapter.) I wouldn't claim THIS was a critical error, but it was correctable and sloppy. Similarly, the taped class has "anablepo" and the book has "eidon". The word in the text he referred to IS "eidon" and may carry the meaning he meant. He misspoke on the tape. (All of us good note-takers have notes that contradict the textbook at that spot.) To spend time on THIS dilutes the writer's point-it makes it look as though this is the BEST he can come up with to refute vpw-and that would make vpw look BETTER than he was.

I'm skipping over the old saw of twi that everything they have is "the best", like your Dad's letter, which was also "the best" because I wanted to note this little gem. I think this exposes a fatal personality flaw, the quote I pulled up. Read it again. Bob finds it distasteful to deal with things that don't conform to cold, rational numbers. Economics is dynamic and fluid, like dealing with PEOPLE. Mathematics is cold, like the bottom line. People don't add up, but numbers do. Worse, look closely, and review the connection between "unchanging" like mathematics, and "God's Word." What's this contrasted with? Fluidity and economics. Anyone else see the "economics vs God's Word" contrast, or am I the only one?

Does anyone know where it "clearly says" this? And, if this is so "clear", why was in-depth research needed?

Back in 1994-1996.....LCM ranted on and on that a mortgage was debt. According to twi's president, the research HAD ALREADY been done. In Bob's syrupy letter of 2001..... he states that "our biblical men are working on (it)".... is he just stringing Belle along here or is twi RE-considering their position????? Now, its 2005.......are they STILL "working on it" ????? I wouldn't doubt it. Unbelievable, Bob...........unbelievable !!!! --> Duh, he was stringing Belle along. twi tries very hard not to give a straight answer on anything it thinks it could get in trouble over, rather than just not say anything stupid. Therefore, they have a policy on debt, and they never had a policy on debt, and they've been studying it out for 20 years, and the research has all been done. It's like the story of the tall, fat, skinny little man.

No advice on buying, no. Just the usual when setting her up. Install Windows Service Pack 2 from an installer disk before connecting her to the internet, and connect thru your router to use her firewall, then proceed directly to download your security software. Since some pcs apparently come out of the box with spyware, adware or viruses, you'll want to scan for each first chance you get. But you already knew all that. That and defrag as soon as you're done downloading everything.

There's no point whatsoever in posting to JAL here. When he feels there's a public outcry, he makes a single post, then splits. He does not consider this forum a venue it is profitable for him to communicate on as an equal. That's why each post preremptorily attempts to silence FURTHER discussion with him HERE while leaving the door open for PRIVATE communication. Speculation as to why he would feel the need to control the medium of communication and paint us as "taking potshots" at him and his organization (I, for one, haven't posted on this thread until now) is strictly speculation. However, since he's refused to play with the other kids on equal terms, he can't say it comes as a surprise.

Bingo. The requiem Maleva says is over her son Bela (Bela Lugosi) when he's killed by with the silver walking stick, and at the end of the movie, when Larry Talbot faces the same end. Actually, the movie isn't bad if you can discount the special effects. Your turn, Pirate.

Technically, ONE movie, not several, although Raf seems to know of more than one where is was quoted. Its immediate sequel did not quote it. Oddly enough, its sequel was an early forerunner of those movies where the monster/villian gets killed and keeps coming back so long as there's money in the sequels. (Although this one at least made an effort to resolve that in the main plot.) As I mentioned, although Maleva is remembered having said that more famous quote, several characters say it at different points in that movie. So, what was that movie's rather simple name?

I'd say it is LIKE high-functioning autism. (All I know IS what I've gotten from online, but that's pages and pages.) It's easier to see the difference between autism and Asperger's when you think about the computer world and Asperger's. It's believed in some circles that Bill Gates is the most famous person with high-functioning Asperger's. He relates a LOT better to things than people. There are also jokes that Silicon Valley is Main Street USA for Asperger's, and the subculture there is optimized for the comfort of them. :)--> Something I found interesting was a Harry Potter fan's statement. She said that she's certain the character Luna Lovegood (From Order of the Phoenix) has Asperger's Syndrome, because HER daughter has Asperger's, and her daughter acts EXACTLY like Luna Lovegood. Asperger's has sparked some interesting discussions online. Everybody knows that autism, MOST of the time, is a disadvantage. However, some people with autism can demonstrate AMAZING abilities (Rain Man in Las Vegas, keeping track of ALL the cards in a 7-deck shoe.) Autism is determined by neurology-people with autism have it based on how they're "wired". So, under specific conditions, autism is an ADVANTAGE. Similarly, Asperger's is determined by neurology, and is a disadvantage in some circumstances, and an advantage in others. This has sparked discussions on alternately-functional neurology. You can be "wired" different, think different, act and react different, and yet it's not "bad" or "a problem". Your nervous system works to your ADVANTAGE in some situations. It's a little like how men and women are wired different (and how!) yet neither is wired "wrong". That's my contribution to this discussion. As I said, that can all be found online.

I'm looking for the "original" black-and-white, of course, where Maria Ouspenskaya gets to say the first quote-twice, including the close of the movie, and everybody except the extras gets to say the second quote. If you can, please finish the sentence as well. (For bragging rights.)

Oh, that one's easy, HCW. WTH here, unless he's changed positions, is a Mikean. Therefore, he despises the suggestion that vpw ever did ANYTHING wrong, and goes out of his way to discourage discusssions of vpw plagiarizing molesting/raping/slipping a Mickey Finn teaching error Today, he's focusing in that rather than trying to claim pfal is God-breathed. In doing this, he's attempted to claim that God disapproves of us exposing the evil deeds of men, and gone off at great length on subjects that have nothing to do with the GSC, with imaginary people who've never visited nor posted here. According to his imaginary people, my thinking processes are not sound. That strikes me as mildly ironic. He's also set himself up as an authority on honesty and integrity at the moment, and will make his points, even if he has to lie and wildly misrepresent what everyone says here while he lectures on honesty and integrity. Try not to follow his "logic" too hard-it only makes the head hurt after a certain point.

WordWolf references WTH's post 3/14/05 12:48am Eastern, responding to his own response.....and trims his responses and the original posts to minimize rambling... So, to sum up, WTH says that God says its wrong to expose error in pfal, and felonies by vpw and twi staff. All the times pfal failed you, it was your fault. To sum up FURTHER, WTH is trying to NOT say it was wrong when Jesus exposed error but it is wrong when WE do it, and that warning others of dangers is tantamount to poking thru the bushes looking for demons to shoo away. Finally, WTH is party to some lenghty ongoing problems with some bizarre Christians somewhere who are honest about lying to him, and lie to him to advance the truth. He might want to ditch them-most of us have sane acquaintances than that.

[WordWolf in boldface as usual...] So, to sum up, WTH says that God says its wrong to expose error in pfal, and felonies by vpw and twi staff. All the times pfal failed you, it was really your fault. WTH seems to spend his time offsite with hypothetical Christians who are upfront and honest with him about loving lies and telling them all the time. ======= Out of curiousity, does anyone offhand recognize what document or teaching WTH transcribed here in an attempt to sound wise? It is wrong of him to plagiarize, but to a degree, it's consistent. He thinks it was perfectly fine for vpw to plagiarize, and he thinks it's perfectly fine for himself to plagiarize.

Hm. Didn't mean to paralyze the thread. I posted the second most memorable quote from that old movie. The MOST memorable begins "Even a man who is pure at heart, and says his prayers at night...."

Here's the link for the original Nigeria scam.... http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/nigeria.asp Here's one Paypal scam.... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/paypal.asp Here's an example of "your credit card has already been charged"... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/moneynow.asp Here's one of the Citibank phishing scams... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/citibank3.asp Here's the "phishing" index... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/phishing/phishing.asp Forewarned is forearmed, and remember, something for nothing notices will cost you an awful lot of money....

[WordWolf comments again in boldface as usual.]

He's right. According to the coroner's report, Servetus choked on a sandwich. The confusion is that it was a GRILLED sandwich, so the SANDWICH was on fire. Moreover, it was a STEAK sandwich. So, the STEAK was burned, but Servetus wasn't burned at the stake. And that's why OJ's innocent. No, wait-what thread am I in?

[WordWolf responds in boldface as normal...]

You had the last correct answer, of course, but since you didn't post one, I'll post another, a bit more difficult.... "The way you walked was thorny, through no fault of your own...but as the rain enters the soil....the river enters the sea...so tears run to a predestined end. Your suffering is over. Now you will find peace for eternity."

Before I forget, Harrison Ford was given some advice after playing a bellboy in "Dead Heat on a Merry-Go-Round". "Sit down, kid. I just saw the film from yesterday. You're not going to make it. You ought to just forget this business." "Yeah? Why?" "I'll tell you a story. The first time Tony Curtis ever was on screen, he delivered a bag of groceries- a bag of groceries. You took one look at that guy, and you said, that's a movie star." "I thought you were supposed to think that was a grocery delivery boy." "Get out of here!" --- Barbara Walters: "And we never heard of that man again. Has he tried to hire you since?" "Not at current prices, no." ==== Figured you'd love to see that story. :D-->

I'll keep an eye out. If it was Lucas DIRECTING, though, I'm dubious. It was when others directed that characters felt more real. With Lucas directly managing a scene, Harrison Ford would NOT have gotten to utter his pimptastic line in "Empire".... Princess Leia: "I love you." Han Solo: "I know." Of course, we got to see the reprise of that in "Jedi", with them reversing lines. :)--> The script for "Empire" did NOT have Ford saying that-it was FORD's idea. There were a lot of little touches the actors got to inject into the scripts here and there in the original trilogy. Lucas seems to lack a humanizing touch.

Mike, 3/10/05, 3:52pm, Eastern. Mike, 6/15/03, 5:49pm, Eastern. Mike, 6/3/02, 12:18am, Eastern. Mike, 1/9/04, 1:19am Eastern. Mke, 2/22/05, 4:27pm, edited 2/25/05 2:19pm. (Eastern) Mike, 2/22/05, 5:43pm. Mike, 4/19/03, 1:44pm, Eastern. I think Mike keeps forgetting what he HAS said about pfal and about the Bible. A number of us know he was saying this years ago. When I tried to get Mike to make a clear, unambigious statement of his position, I offered the following summary of his posts... I offered that 6/20/03, 7:40am (Eastern) Mike's response? So, Mike does not want to SAY pfal replaced any Bible. Mike wants to put forth this doctrine without SAYING it. Mike also seems to forget he's pretty much said it anyway, several times, so the next time he says it is the first time and it deserves special attention as a special news bulletin. The posts eat their own tails; the contents form a circle and repeat.

BTW, kudos to HCW for noting that the teaching on "The Joy of Serving" was about "the joy of serving" and not about "now God has unveiled a new Bible."

Oh, and here's the passage from the Orange Book that says that the Mikean doctrine of the scriptures being essentially lost to us, (thus requiring the rewrite he claims happened from 1942 on,) contradicts the internal testimony of pfal.... Page 128. "Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century AD, how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out 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.' " Mike's doctrine claims that this is NOT possible-it MUST claim this, since it claims that it was necessary for got to issue new revelation, new holy scripture. Mike, 1/9/04, 1:19am, Eastern. "God's Word was LOST in the first century."