Raf

I should note also that someone used The Stand earlier. The Stand was a TV movie, not a theatrical. Since I didn't say it muse be theatrical, I'll let it ride. But henceforth, it must be theatrical. A Time to Kill Sandra Bullock Demolition Man

Top Gun Val Kilmer Heat

Whoops. I missed that. For future reference, you MAY check IMDB to verify the previous entry, but not to go the next step. For example, in this case, you would check The Jewel of the Nile to see if Diane Keaton was in it. Don't check Diane Keaton, because if she WAS in it, then you would have her filmography, which would be cheating. Then we'd have to figure out who goes next. Sigh. The person who caught the mistake goes back to the entry BEFORE the mistake. That means the game stops at Fatal Attraction and it's Hope's turn. She can, if she chooses, go with Michael Douglas and Jewel of the Nile, pick the next actor/actress, and then let the next person guess or take the next round. All entries after that one are null and void.

Sheesh, had to go back to the very same actor? :)--> Teri Garr Tootsie Bill Murray

A tad. Calling it "the truth" is calling the alternative viewpoint a lie or, at best, an untruth. It's an opinion, and I respect your right to hold it. My opinion is that there's nothing misleading or deceptive about the word "partner," especially since they tell you what they mean by it. Right. And if I decide to make the planning of a non-profit organization easier by pledging a predictable amount on a scheduled basis, I'll do it. It doesn't make me a manager or policy maker (show me one non-profit where it works this way). Nor does the program claim that I am becoming a manager or policy maker. So... where's the deception? Fair enough. Yes. Yes. Yes. ... Not fair. Steve, you should know better than use this line of argument. TWI's ABuSive donation scheme was not about donation but obligation. It was not free-will, it was debt. Criticize the program for what it is: I'll defend your right to do so. But comparing it to TWI's ABuSe is unfair and detracts from your case. They don't compare. No. Assuming the account to be true, I would have to say no. If I continue contributing KNOWING the money is being mishandled, I'd say accessiories. I know where my heart is in giving. I'm not naive: I know there's waste in the United Way, and I give more to them than to CES. Is the account Tzaia wrote representative of how they handle their money, or is it the extent of the mishandling? If the answer is the former, I don't want to give anymore. If it's the latter, I count my lucky stars. Which is it? At the moment, I don't know. :)--> I really appreciate what you're saying here. If I may offer a bit of public critique, sometimes your criticism of CES appears perfectly sound and well-reasoned, while other times it just seems overly critical and bitter. I think your concerns on doctrine are valuable. Your concerns on the meaning of partnership baffle me. But that's just me. Don't worry: if I don't agree with you on that point, it doesn't mean I'm not listening on the others. K?

Another star of From the Hip is John Hurt. The movie is mostly a riot, but gets semi-serious near the end. "You filed a motion on the admissibility of the word 'a-hole'?" :P--> Gene Wilder Stir Crazy Richard Pryor

Next time will be in June. I should be real busy for most of the trip, but I'll keep you posted. :)-->

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

Just a note: that point is speculation. Educated, reasonable speculation, but speculation nonetheless. It's never been established that this was one of TWI's demands. That doesn't mean I don't believe it. But there it is.

Steve, You have so many valid and important criticisms of CES, many of which have given me great pause and have me wondering how well I understand God's Word. It's a shame to see you ranting about something so inconsequential as the word "partner." A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done. I am not aware of CES changing anything you've brought up.

We'll let it slide, but in the future, you have to rely on your memory (see opening post). Brad Dourif was also in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I forget if he got an Oscar for it - he was that good.

Can I perform the ceremony? We can get littlehawk to be in charge of beverages!

Nonsense. Show me ONE PERSON who is deceived about the meaning of "partnership" in the CES partnership plan, and I MAY reconsider your point (after administering an IQ test to your find).

John Ritter Bride of Chucky Brad Dourif Hope, I was kidding. See?

Was Bette Midler in "Hope R." I don't remember that movie. Ruthless People Judge Reinhold Beverly Hills Cop

I didn't think he lurked here, but I do think Jeff and some other CES types do, so it doesn't surprise me that it got back to him. What I'd like to know is, if Mark is president of CES/STFI, why was JAL the one to try to smooth things over? Not that it's any of my business, but I'd like to know. Tzaia, I'm impressed by the class you've shown.

If there's a contention between them, it would be appropriate that the first (renewed) attempt to settle it would be private. I presume Tzaia's previous attempts to settle it did not meet with her satisfaction. I'd rather have him e-mail her privately than have him bully onto this forum and accuse her of being a disgruntled liar.

Someone took his time answering that one... This is the game that never ends...

Mark Harmon The Presidio Meg Ryan

We leave off at Passion Fish

Yep. The only ones not in the Broadway cast are Will Ferrell (as the guy who writes Springtime for Hitler) and Uma Thurman as Ula (for the name alone it's inspired casting).

Gene Hackman No Way Out Kevin Costner

It's called "partnership" because they want donors to feel that they're part of what CES is doing. The importance on their end is that they can have a much easier time making budgets if they have an idea of how much income will be coming in. Since they do NOT teach tithing and don't feel they can coerce donations, they came up with something whereby donors call the shots of when and how much they'll contribute. (These explanations of mine look at the non-profit organization as a business). I should note that my contributions to CES, while regular, don't amount to a whole heckuva lot of money. I would have to give the same amount monthly for 15 years to match ONE of my biweekly paychecks.

Steve, For heaven's sake, CES partnership is not entering into a legal relationship. Chill out. What I can do as a "partner" if they continue to teach something I think is hurtful to the body is stop giving. I have no illusions that I am a "partner" of CES in the sense that you describe. "Cash cows" is a pretty bitter way of saying "free-will regular donors." As a member of a non-profit board, I can tell you that the partnership program is an innovative way of ensuring cash flow, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The United Way takes money out of my paycheck every two weeks. It's the exact same principle. I don't review every decision they make, and the extent of my involvement with them is I can choose to stop giving any time I want to. They don't call it a Partnership Plan, but it's the exact same thing: a regularly scheduled contribution that the non-profit board can rely upon during budgeting. WordWolf: best as I can tell, Wierwille's antitrinitarianism falls under the definition of Socinianism, which is, oddly, not on the list.

Spoken like someone who's never been mugged. :)--> Money. Moneymoneymoneymoney.