Raf

No, you love ham and pineapple on flatbread with tomato sauce.

Which is fine.

But it ain't a pizza. :)-->

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller:

...and I put pineapple on this pie shaped thing -- and call it PIZZA!!

:D--> :D-->

---

Ahem.

If it's got a pineapple on it, it's not a pizza!!!

Oh, and Frankee...

Yes, I saw it. Leo did do a terrific job (especially at the Congressional hearing).

There are two plane "crash" sequences, one of which is phenomenal and scary as hell.

The women were... not so good. Cate Blanchett parodies rather than captures Kate Hepburn (although there are moments of absolute brilliance in her portrayal). And I will be in love with Kate (what the hell) Beckinsale as long as I live, but she made a lousy Ava Gardner.

Happy birthday, Stranger. Glad you like the hat!

The swordfight was stuck in (no pun intended) at the scene where Christine visits her father's grave. In the stage production it's when the Phantom starts shooting cheesy looking fireballs at Christine and Raoul. The swordfight replaced that. It's not a great swordfight, but not an awful one either (my standards are low). It's just that the ending of the swordfight is utterly unforgivable. I mean, it's "I'm a-fixin' to walk out on this movie" bad.

Eye Yam Resolved No Long Er To Ling Er

Charmed by the world's D. Lite!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller:

quote:

---

I dont know any of the involved people but the innocent ones are in my prayers.

---

I second that. Thank you see me, for this thread and your courage for facing your convictions, and following through with them.

---

Well, I guess I'll have to be third then, or fourth, or...

See Me: you're an inspiration. Thank you for posting.

Oh my, I almost forgot!

WordWolf and I (and three others) saw the stage production once from the front row! You could actually see the Phantom spit as he sang (ewwww).

But there was no swordfight.

The Scarlet Pimpernel had a swordfight. Dang cool one, too.

Now THAT musical should be made into a movie.

Hees berfday ees on Triking Day? Kool!

Appy Berfday! And Appy Triking Day!

I believe someone requested this. I swiped it from a web site, but I've gotten it by e-mail many times too...

quote:

---

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

---

It's not even good enough to be on THAT list.

I exaggerate. Its one redeeming quality is the guy who plays Raoul. He's very good, very charismatic. Raoul, and Christine...

Its TWO redeeming qualities are Raoul and Christine, or more to the point, Christine's legs, which are cute. They would be more than cute, but she was underage at the time.

The Phantom himself, get this, could not sing. By this I mean he wasn't very good. The score had to be dropped an octave at certain points to accomodate his low voice: if you're going to immortalize Phantom of the Opera on film, for Pete's sake get someone who can sing the part!

There's a not-half-bad sword fight that ends SO RIDICULOUSLY that you want to just walk out on the movie right then and there.

Oh... my... God...

I liked the stage production. Didn't LOVE it. Just LIKED it. It was okay. Very, very classy ending.

This movie... how do I put this delicately? ...

SUCKED!

Even if she had shot everyone and then herself, no one would have gotten hurt. Has to actually have happened to hurt someone. This, alas, is an urban legend. And if, like me, you've seen a few episodes of Judging Amy, you might recognize this as something that happened to Tyne Daly's character.

It's not Jeff.

Do a whois search.

OneLove One God.

One post.

Welcome!

Jim,

He's heading to you in a couple of days. Sorry it took so long.

Raf

Thank you everyone.

I'm trying to think of something noble and heartfelt to say. I can't. Forgive me. But I thank you all so much.

If this Mal George "prophecy" is to be refuted, it must be done on TWI's terms.

Hypothesis: Mal George's prophecy proves nothing.

Evidence: Prophecy, assuming it to be real, can be interfered with by the understanding of the person speaking (which is why I Corinthians actually tells the prophets to check each other).

Evidence: The Intermediate Class not only taught, but SHOWED how a person's understanding can interfere with inspired utterances (remember the "muck and mire of the world"?)

THEORY BASED ON EVIDENCE: Mal George COULD have been speaking for God when he said what he did.

THEORY EQUALLY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE: Mal George's understanding, combined with grief and reverence for Wierwille, led him to (innocently and with sincerity) inject his opinion into this "prophecy."

Conclusion: Since the two theories are equally plausible, the statement Mal George made, in and of itself, proves NOTHING, and shame on anyone who suggests that refusal to accept Mal George's comment is a refusal to accept prophecy. It is no such thing.

I think the real question of dispensationalism comes in its end, so to speak.

The issue is not whether God dealt with different people in different ways throughout history. He did. Everyone knows that. And if we were to agree, say, that those different ways of dealing with man should not be called dispensations or administrations, the central controversy would be far from over.

Let's settle some things up front:

1. Before the fall of Adam, God dealt with man one way.

2. After the fall of Adam but before Noah, there didn't seem to be much of anything. "The Word in the stars" may be alluded to, but let's be honest, this time period was rather chaotic. Who was in charge, of anything, anywhere? Right. No one.

3. After Noah but before Moses, we see the concept of civil government instituted by God Himself. Seems to be His idea that men should actually have to answer to each other for the things they do. (2) and (3) are referred to by Wierwille as the "Patriarchal Administration," but even if that's wrong, I think we can all agree that there are differences in the Divine relationship with man between this period and period (1), not to mention the periods which follow. During these pre-Law periods, God can't very well accuse someone of, say, violating the Sabbath or failing to keep Passover, right? There's a distinction. The distinction is not defined by time, but it is marked by it.

4. The Law is given. We all agree that after the law was given, Israel was "under" the Law. Administration? Covenant? Ignore that question for now: it's irrelevant. It was the Law, either way, right? Even when Israel became a kingdom, the kingdom was under and subject to the Law, so the kingdom didn't affect the Law's pre-eminence in their society.

5. Christ is on earth. One year, three, whatever the length of time was. The Law, incidentally, is still in effect during this time period. Is it a separate "administration" or not. I don't know. I don't care. I know, and I think all will agree, that Christ was on earth and the Law was still in effect. At some point at or soon after Christ's crucifixion, the pre-eminence of the Law is gone. Was it when he said "It is finished?" Was it Pentecost? Don't know. But all will agree that the next time period, following the ascension, has different rules from the former. Is it a new dispensation/administration? A new covenant. Don't know. Don't care. We can all agree that it's a new something, because none of us are killing lambs on Nisan 14.

6. And now this post-Christ on earth period begins, and continues until...

WHAM! Here's our stumbling block. While most Christians will pretty much agree with everything that's been written thus far (save that which was intentionally left ambiguous), Christians vehemently disagree on what happens next. For many (not all) dispensationalists, this current time period ends with the rapture of the church. We're gone, bye-bye, seeya. Revelation, you may now begin.

But other dispensationalists, and covenant theologians, say "not so fast." There is no pre-Revelation (or pre-tribulation) rapture of the church (or "catching up," to use the proper Biblical term). No, we who live in this current age are an extension of what came before, not a "mystery" separate and apart from it. We are grafted onto Israel, not a different animal.

The pre-tribulation rapture rests squarely on the validity of dispensationalism. If dispensationalism should be disproven, there is no basis for a pre-tribulation rapture. And there's the conflict.

Never mind the thousands of years of common ground: the future is where the division is. The past is academic, almost, because we agree so much more often than not. But the possibility of being misled into accepting an anti-Christ doesn't exist for the pre-trib dispensationalist. The covenant believer is keenly aware of it (and is therefore vigilant, or paranoid, depending on your view. ;)--> ).

I'll say this: I don't know with absolute certainty whether dispensationalism is right or wrong. I don't know with absolute certainty whether there will be a pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib "catching up." I do know that I would rather be vigilant and wrong than be NOT vigilant and wrong.

I don't know if I've contributed to this discussion or needlessly prolonged it, but thanks for letting me say my peace.

I can't think of an example. A journalist who reads an article in one newspaper and "cribs" the idea for his own has not done anything wrong, provided that he does his own research, verifies the contents, writes in his own words, etc. In a case like that, it's only plagiarism if the reporter actually copies all or even part of the other article.

Example: I wrote about a man who killed a cop. I learned that the killer was once head of a minor political organization in Texas. I wrote about it. The following day, the Miami Herald wrote an article about the suspect and included the bit about the political organization, which was missing from their previous day's article. There's no question at all that they lifted the idea from my article. But it wasn't plagiarism. They called Texas, verified the fact, got their own quotes, and wrote about it in their own words. That's not only "not wrong," it's absolutely expected.

Two writers of Biblical issues discussing the same subject will write similar things. The CES book "One God and One Lord" was undeniably and irrefutably inspired by JCING and probably lifted many themes, but as a research work it was independent, and relied on sources well beyond Wierwille to make its case (in fact, if I recall correctly, JCING isn't even in the bibliography, which I consider a failing on the authors' part). Point is, One God and One Lord is not plagiarism, nor is the Herald's decision to verify what was in my article.

Scholars have been reprimanded publicly for lifting as little as one line without attribution (Doris Kearns Goodwin, for example). Wierwille did far more than that. But when we think about plagiarism, we should not be thinking along the lines of "Bullinger wrote about four crucified and Wierwille stole that from him." We should be thinking, rather, "Bullinger wrote ABDFGTZ and Wierwille wrote ABDFGTZ without noting that he was quoting Bullinger."

As I said, Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism. He also wrote plenty that was. In terms of the content of what's written, it makes no difference to me. In terms of Wierwille's integrity, I put it, in my mind, where I think it belongs.

I've never contended with anyone who doesn't care that Wierwille resorted to plagiarism. I only contend with those who deny it. It's not deniable.

It's posts she wants...

It's posts she shall have...

That's a great tale, Oak.

"Brought a tear to me eye" ("Oh shut up").

:)-->

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cindy!:

Way to Go, Reiki!!!! Time to play now!!!

hey raf..what'd you use to teach grammar? I'd like to look at it if I could

---

The only grammar book you'll ever need is called...

The Only Grammar Book You'll Ever Need.

And every writer I know has at least one copy of The Elements of Style.

:D-->

I wrote that because I've seen plagiarism denied most often by those who have no idea what plagiarism is, then get criticized (indirectly) for believing that Wierwille was nothing but a plagiarist, which I have never, ever said. I think Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism, and he wrote some that was. He lifted ideas from others, but by itself, that's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is reserved for when he was so lazy he didn't even muster the energy to hide the fact that he was lifting someone else's work without credit.

In the end, the question for us is "so what?" And the answer varies according to the value you place on the CONTENT. Plagiarism does not affect the content of the plagiarized material. It only reflects on the integrity of the writer.

Def,

Your question is valid, and as someone who has criticized the plagiarism, I appreciate the opportunity to make some points a bit more clear (if they were not already).