WordWolf

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."

Ok, now.... The "misrepresenting" thing is an old charge of Mike's. He doesn't like what we say about him, so he claims we misrepresent him. I'm one of many who go out of their way to see he's represented HONESTLY-with his doctrines clear and visible. Here's what Mike HAS said previously about PFAL replacing stuff.... (6/15/03, 5:49pm, Eastern.) "I'd say it's not a replacement for the Bible but a replacement for the traditional SOURCES from which we can GET the Bible." Here's what Mike's said about the Bibles you can hold in your hand... (6/3/03, 12:18am, Eastern) "When I say 'unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants', I am referring to the MODERN hand-me-down versions of scripture, along with the usual suspects like Greek translators." Here's one comment on PFAL vs KJV: (ibid) "The REASON for the 1942 intervention and the PFAL writings was to make the perfectly renewed mind available for the first time in written form. This was a very new thing that happened in 1982. The perfectly renewed mind cannot be received from KJV study, but it can be received by mastering the PFAL writings, including its repetition of many KJV verses. Most of the KJV verses you all find most crucial are printed in the PFAL writings and given a rightful context and foundation for us in our time now. In a practical sense, mastering PFAL would INCLUDE mastering a very hefty portion of the KJV. There's nothing missing in the PFAL diet."

The following was posted by Goey, June 1, 2003, 2:12pm Eastern. ======= -------------------------- From PFAL- p83 "The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. WIerwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says "Search the scriptures..." because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures- they are God-breathed. -------------------- In think WIerwille put "necessarily" in there because he believed or wanted others to believe that it was "possible" for him to write from inspiration. Just as possible for him as it was for the others he mentioned, like Luther, Wesley, etc. I have no problem with that. It is certainly possible that God could inspire any one of us to write. In the last sentence, Wierwille uses a semicolon after "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." Then he lists these other folks but omits the word 'necessarily'. This, according to Bullinger, is the figure of speech-ellipsis or omission. We could add the word 'necessarily' before 'what Calvin said'-and not change the sense of the sentence. It would then read: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed, not [necessarily] what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures- they are God-breathed." In fact, you could rearrange the names in any order and not change the sense of what Wierwille was saying here. After he lists these men he then says 'but'. BUT! BUT! BUT!...IN CONTRAST to what all these men have written- it is the Scriptures that are God-breathed and it is the Scriptures that are to be searched (and mastered.) The thrust and point of WIerwille's message here is that the works of men- including Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc-and Wierwille himself; even though they 'could' be God-breathed (inspired)- are not scripture. They are not in the Bible and are not a part of the canon of scripture. And, rather than rely on the works of men, (Wierwille includes himself), we are to search the Bible (scriptures)- "so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology." Mike, it seems that because of your seeking for "hidden messages" and because of your presumptions necessary to support your theories, that you have missed the actual message that Wierwlle was really attempting to make. You got it exactly reversed from what Wierwille was trying to teach here in PFAL. ==================

This one shouldn't be too hard, either. At least, I've seen people quoting it... "Save your bullets-these men are MINE!"

Amazingly, I was just discussing this exchange with someone- and filling in the reply in harmony- a few hours ago. That's from ALIENS. A friend of mine and I were DEAD certain Vasquez was supposed to be a Puerto Rican from the Bronx. The actress who played Vasquez was Israeli, which means I think comparisons of Israelis and Puerto Ricans might have some merit after all....

That, in short, is the essence of the Mikean pfal doctrine, Part I. After the real Bible, the next real written Bible was given to vpw in the 20th century. The reason why you believed all the times vpw said his stuff WASN'T from God, and didn't notice that there were one or two places where the words can be isolated from their context to suggest the entire contents were from God was some failing on your own part. A "closed mind" means not wildly embracing Mikean pfal in its entirety, an "open mind" means ignoring the evidence, and making a snap decision rather than a cold analysis. BTW, HCW, if you have the time this week, can you go to page 83 or PFAL (I can post it in its entirety if you need it), and tell us what it meant when you wrote it? Mike's saying "Dr claimed PFAL is God-breathed." Mind you, we've already addressed this before (Goey, to be specific), but I'd like an EXPERT's insight, and INSIDER's insight, if I can get it. If you don't have time, or don't want to, I'll understand, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be thankful for your input on this.

[WordWolf in boldface again...]

Not sure how much was added to the story, but the underwear story happened in Alberta, Canada in March, 1985. http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/breath.asp