Raf

It's more than a third, Allan. See you there!

I'm not sure Dooj got it. I am sure Topoftheworld got it. Dooj, you be the judge. I say, give it to topsy.

This is bad, but I wasn't expecting to chime in...

Yes. At least, I think it is.

And whatever happened to the middleman?

Actually, some of us think your message is just funny, by now.

There were three Terminator movies. But yes, it was Conan the Destroyer. I was thinking of using "And if you do not listen, then the HELL with you" from the first movie, but that would have been guessed in about 0.024 seconds.

LG, Thank you for your reply. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I no longer say outright that the 1942 snowstorm was a lie. I say I believe it was a lie, based largely on the fact that the man is proven to lie about snowstorms. I freely admit that there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the 1942 snowstorm did not happen, just as there is not a shred of proof that it did happen, beyond the single-witness testimony of a man who told at least one and likely two documented lies about nonexistent snowstorms.

Woohoo! Someone must have slipped another vote past Linda, and I've gone and tied it again! Nothing like a REAL close election for this South Floridian.

And I'll answer if George doesn't. That third pic is a flop. I would not have gotten that word from it in a million years.

Tom's quote is from the same movie. Why he doesn't just answer, I have no idea.

It is not Shrek 2. It is a sequel, though. "Why aren't they trying to kill us?" "Maybe they want to capture us, and torture us to death."

Very true, Oaks.

Sounds like a good person who is involved in her community and wants to help. More power to her.

I replied to something Mike said here, but it's really not worth the time or argument.

Mike, You need not master PFAL to see the depths to which you'll plunge to turn it into what it declares itself not to be.

I'll say it here: Mike, you are a zealot who has distorted the teachings of Victor Paul Wierwille.

Good point. Here's a picture of WordWolf:

WD, Why was your post addressed to me?

If I'm wrong, ignore this next quote: "I think we made the merchant angry." "Are you surprised?" "But we didn't steal everything he had!" "We didn't have time."

I can almost hear the voices, and at first was thinking "The Great Muppet Caper." On second thought, though, I'd have to go with "The Muppet Movie."

must....resist...

Regarding the Lie of Tulsa (I'm catching up), Mike's explanation defies logic for one simple reason: Wierwille never denied that he was confronted with the correct event on the correct date, and he never insisted that there was indeed a snowstorm. If I told you that it snowed heavily the day of the Little Chester Shoe Store incident in the Bronx, and you did research that indicated I was lying, my first response would be to tell you that you had your facts wrong. I was there. I was in that snowstorm. I got into a minor accident because of it. I have no doubt in my mind or heart, no doubt whatsoever. I would not say, "Well, shucks, angels must have shown me the snow." It's just plain common sense that if Wierwille believed there was a snowstorm that day, which he explicitly stated, and someone confronted him with evidence he was wrong, his first reaction would be to tell the researcher he's mistaken, period. He didn't, because he knew danged well there was no snowstorm that day. He knew danged well that he was lying. As for the localized snowstorm being witnessed: a Greasespotter has indeed made the claim that highly localized snowstorms have indeed taken place in Ohio, and that he witnessed it. I get the sense that this person understands a thing or two about the weather. Other than the Greasespotter's testimony, I've never heard of this phenomenon. Then again, I've spent exactly ten days in Ohio in my entire life, so I'm no expert. I do believe, however, that there is considerably greater evidence that Wierwille was lying about the 1942 snowstorm than that he was somehow telling the truth. First, we know he lies about snowstorms to punctuate his testimony (the Tulsa lie is as heavily documented as a lie can get: refusal to see it doesn't make it go away, and the second lie was recounted on this very thread. I've been given the names of other witnesses besides the Greasespotter who pointed it out here). Wierwille would have us believe the sudden 1942 snowstorm happened, at the latest, in early October. Could it happen? Don't know. I don't know the earliest recorded snowfalls in Ohio. Just strikes me as odd that one localized snowstorm the size of a football field could take place on a day when the weather was so much warmer such a short distance away. I'm not a weatherman, but I know a liar when I hear one. I'm counting one heavily documented snowstorm lie, one likely snowstorm lie, and the 1942 incident: I suspect all three are lies, and Wierwille's lack of integrity doesn't help his case in the slightest. Sure it has. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcente...nev-storm_x.htm

Mr. Heller, Interesting post in response to mine. I disagree with some of your conclusions, though. The verse I made reference to is a plainly obvious "do as they say, not as they do" statement. It makes no sense the other way. The word "but" is in the text, and it's fairly plain that it is setting what they say in contrast with what they do. It's also fairly clear that he's telling his followers to be critical of the scribes and Pharisees, and not to accept anything they say just because they are the ones to say it. I find it interesting that in 23:3, he says to observe and do "all" that they teach, then makes it pretty clear that "all" they teach is not good. I think (that's right, TWI, I THINK!!!!) "all" is an example of hyperbole, and what he's really getting at is telling his listeners to be critical thinkers when it comes to what is taught by the scribes and Pharisees. None of this has any bearing on what I think of VPW's character and his integrity as a leader. I will not accept anything just because he taught it. I will not reject anything just because he taught it. In fact, he's not a reference point for me at all in terms of what to believe and what not to believe. But I'm cool disagreeing on any of this with anyone here.