Discussion:
Monday Movie chat
(too old to reply)
Nick Danger
2004-02-16 17:31:34 UTC
Permalink
All right, for all those (everybody?) who think I only enjoy big
effects, shoot 'em up, and sex filled movies I offer up the following:

I watched two, count them two, character driven movies this weekend
and enjoyed them both.

Radio - A bit slow, but a nice little feel good movie and some pretty
nice acting by Cuba.

Under the Tuscan Sun - I sat there expecting a nauseating chick flick
and was surprised at how much I liked and enjoyed the movie. I was
also surprised at just how much an affect Diane Lane had on my pants.

Just to balance things out I ended the weekend with a viewing of The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I like it, natch.
--
ò.ó Nick
Danger
Dave Vander Ark
2004-02-16 17:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
Just to balance things out I ended the weekend with a viewing of The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I like it, natch.
Oh man I hated this one. Way too stupid of a premise, way too many
impossible situations. I like some comic book movies, but this one
sucked and blew at the same time.

Dave
Nick Danger
2004-02-16 17:56:25 UTC
Permalink
<Subject: Monday Movie chat>
Way too stupid of a premise, way too many impossible situations.
Sure, but I can park my sense of logic at the door and just enjoy the
trip for these kind of things. But I can easily see how some would
find it nearly un-watchable.

I can be easily amused.

Hey, look.. a paper clip!!
--
ò.ó Nick
Danger
Mark Jackson
2004-02-16 18:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
I can be easily amused.
Hey, look.. a paper clip!!
The new phone book is here! The new phone book is
here!

Bobby, you're bored: what movie is that quote from?

mark
aka fluffy
Dave Vander Ark
2004-02-16 18:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Nick Danger
I can be easily amused.
Hey, look.. a paper clip!!
The new phone book is here! The new phone book is
here!
Bobby, you're bored: what movie is that quote from?
I'm not bored and I'm not Bobby, but can I answer it? I'll paraphrase:

Look, my name is in it!

I was born a poor black child...

Dave
Bobby Warren
2004-02-16 18:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Nick Danger
I can be easily amused.
Hey, look.. a paper clip!!
The new phone book is here! The new phone book is
here!
Bobby, you're bored: what movie is that quote from?
The movie which was titled after me: "The Jerk"...
Edward Pulley
2004-02-16 19:06:30 UTC
Permalink
I don't need you...All I need is this lamp....and this chair....this lamp
and this chair are all I need...and this ashtray....but that is all I need,
this lamp, this chair and this ashtray...and maybe this magazine...

(:8())
---off work today and not quite getting those brain cells firing yet...


-----Original Message-----
From: Bobby Warren [mailto:Bobby4th-/***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:40 AM
To: nigglybits-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [nigglybits] Re: Monday Movie chat
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Nick Danger
I can be easily amused.
Hey, look.. a paper clip!!
The new phone book is here! The new phone book is
here!
Bobby, you're bored: what movie is that quote from?
The movie which was titled after me: "The Jerk"...



------------------------------------------
Sarah's Personal Bookmark:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nigglybits/
------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Michael Weston
2004-02-16 17:44:16 UTC
Permalink
On 2/16/04, Nick wrote:

Nick> Radio - A bit slow, but a nice little feel good movie and some pretty
Nick> nice acting by Cuba.

I'd heard it was a bit schmaltzy, but it's on the list. Cuba
is a very good actor. Ever see "Murder of Crows"? Fine
whodunnit.

Nick> Under the Tuscan Sun - I sat there expecting a nauseating chick flick
Nick> and was surprised at how much I liked and enjoyed the movie. I was
Nick> also surprised at just how much an affect Diane Lane had on my pants.

Julie saw this on the plane to St. Thomas and liked it. I
dozed, but the bits I saw without audio made it look
tolerable. Since she's seen it though, I don't expect to go
out of my way to see it myself.

Nick> Just to balance things out I ended the weekend with a viewing of The
Nick> League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I like it, natch.

Also on the queue.

We watched Donnie Brasco Friday. Very good mob movie, though
GoodFellas is a bit more entertaining. I like that it shows
how mobsters are really just thugs in a multi-level
marketing structure. You pay the guy above you, and you do
anything to get that money to him, including breaking open
parking meters. Talk about petty crime! And the whole cast
is at top of their form.
--
Michael

"Keep your eyes wide open before marriage,
half shut afterwards." - Benjamin Franklin
Frank Branham
2004-02-16 17:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
Just to balance things out I ended the weekend with a viewing of The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I like it, natch.
It wasn't a spectacularly awful action movie. Some of the scenes moved
and looked well, and there was quite a bit of visual coolness involved.

But the things that made the comics cool (namely Alan Moore's
obsessiveness with Victoriana, and manners, and the literature of the
period) were all thoroughly trashed to make the movie into an action
movie. What I can't figure out is why they rewrote most of the plot of
the comic....and removed the cool Fu Manchu villain.

Moo
Frank
Michael Chapel
2004-02-16 22:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Branham
and removed the cool Fu Manchu villain.
Moo
Frank
Fu Manchu was a racist depiction of the "yellow peril" mentality.
Which is why they probably pulled it out.

Mike C.
Bobby Warren
2004-02-16 23:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chapel
Fu Manchu was a racist depiction of the "yellow peril" mentality.
Which is why they probably pulled it out.
And how do you really feel?

Bobby -- who has read, and enjoyed, several of Sax Rohmer's novels...
Michael Chapel
2004-02-17 00:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobby Warren
Post by Michael Chapel
Fu Manchu was a racist depiction of the "yellow peril"
mentality.
Post by Bobby Warren
Post by Michael Chapel
Which is why they probably pulled it out.
And how do you really feel?
Bobby -- who has read, and enjoyed, several of Sax Rohmer's
novels...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't believe they should rake a story for
sake of being PC. Just stating that's probably why hollywood pulled
it out.

Mike C.
Bobby Warren
2004-02-17 04:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chapel
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't believe they should rake a story
for sake of being PC. Just stating that's probably why hollywood
pulled it out.
Do you really think so? Hasn't it been Hollywood that has
perpetuated stereotypes all along? Didn't they give us black face
and the "Rochester" stereotypes for black people? Didn't they
portray Mexicans as lazy, sleepy-eyed thieves? Much of Hollywood
seems to protest against stereotyping, except when they can make a
buck out of it...
Michael Chapel
2004-02-17 13:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobby Warren
Do you really think so? Hasn't it been Hollywood that has
perpetuated stereotypes all along? Didn't they give us black face
and the "Rochester" stereotypes for black people? Didn't they
portray Mexicans as lazy, sleepy-eyed thieves? Much of Hollywood
seems to protest against stereotyping, except when they can make a
buck out of it...
Yes that exactly what they have done, many many times. But not
todays hollywood, everything is practically sterilized anymore.
Just look at the passion of christ, a very touchy theme, even Mel
Gibson for the american release, gave in and pulled some scenes out
of the movie. You'll only see real controversial themes played out
on independent labels. But big labels like Columbia, Fox, MGM,
Disney/And many off shoots, PC as they come.


Mike C.
Mark Jackson
2004-02-16 18:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
I watched two, count them two, character driven
movies this weekend
and enjoyed them both.
Was there alcohol or banned substances involved? Was
this just a Valentine's Weekend thing to score points
with the wife?
Post by Nick Danger
Under the Tuscan Sun - I sat there expecting a
nauseating chick flick
and was surprised at how much I liked and enjoyed
the movie. I was
also surprised at just how much an affect Diane Lane
had on my pants.
Shari has this on on the netflix queue... I can't
imagine there's any way I would enjoy it. I figure she
can watch it while I get the five & dime stuff
finished.
Post by Nick Danger
Just to balance things out I ended the weekend with
a viewing of The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I like it, natch.
And I was disappointed... I liked how they added Tom
Sawyer (he's not in the original comic book) but there
was way too much OBVIOUS cgi effects & not all that
much character development. Plus, you lost the Blow Up
London angle from the comic book... and (I guess for
the good) the extraordinary dark spin that Alan Moore
put on the whole proceeding.

BTW, Stven's not hanging much in the Pub anymore (are
you?!) but on his recommendation, I re-read Prometha,
books 1-3. Still didn't like 'em.

Good book I just finished: UNGODLY: The Life, Passions
& Murder of Madlyn Murray O'Hair.

mark
aka fluff daddy
Brian Leet
2004-02-16 23:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
All right, for all those (everybody?) who think I only enjoy big
effects, shoot 'em up, and sex filled movies I offer up the
Under the Tuscan Sun - I sat there expecting a nauseating chick flick
and was surprised at how much I liked and enjoyed the movie. I was
also surprised at just how much an affect Diane Lane had on my
pants.

Likewise and likewise. This is a good movie that had completely
snuck under my radar.
Post by Nick Danger
Just to balance things out I ended the weekend with a viewing of The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I like it, natch.
I'm all for action and the like, but in my opinion this movie stunk.
Night quite Dungeons and Dragons stunk, but close. I was mostly
annoyed at how they took interesting literary characters and then
proceeded to completely disregard who they were. That and the lack
of plot, or logic, or terribly interesting use for the effects. I'll
stop now, but I don't want to.

Back to the topic of good movies: See Miracle, it is excellent.
Just like that particular game itself, you in no way need to be a
hockey fan to appreciate this film.


Brian
Paul Sauberer
2004-02-17 04:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Leet
Back to the topic of good movies: See Miracle, it
is excellent.
Just like that particular game itself, you in no way
need to be a
hockey fan to appreciate this film.
I was just going to post and ask if anyone had seen
this one.

I am a hockey fan and am not sure whether to actually
see it in the theater (which I don't do very often) or
wait until I buy the DVD (which I will undoubtedly
do.)

I am also wondering how many of the group are going to
see "The Passion of Christ." I am not sure whether it
will be too graphic for my tastes. I am not really
into blood and gore and this film evidently is full of
it.

Paul Sauberer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Brian Leet
2004-02-17 04:53:35 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
Post by Paul Sauberer
Post by Brian Leet
Back to the topic of good movies: See Miracle, it
is excellent.
Just like that particular game itself, you in no way
need to be a
hockey fan to appreciate this film.
I was just going to post and ask if anyone had seen
this one.
I am a hockey fan and am not sure whether to actually
see it in the theater (which I don't do very often) or
wait until I buy the DVD (which I will undoubtedly
do.)
Well, I don't know whether it was the theater I saw it in or the movie, but
the focus did go pretty soft several times during the film. So at that
level, there really aren't any big effects or visuals that you absolutely
must see on the big screen. On the other hand, there was something special
in seeing a movie like this in a packed theater, particularly realizing that
fully half the people there didn't remember the original event (we were at a
Sunday Matinee). I'd say, go see it.

Brian
Bobby Warren
2004-02-17 04:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sauberer
I was just going to post and ask if anyone had seen
this one.
I am a hockey fan and am not sure whether to actually
see it in the theater (which I don't do very often) or
wait until I buy the DVD (which I will undoubtedly
do.)
Terrific movie! I found myself rooting for the goals I KNEW was
coming. It really brought back watching the games in high school and
talking about them with my friends. None of us were hockey fans, but
we were drawn into the drama of the Lake Placid Olympics.
Post by Paul Sauberer
I am also wondering how many of the group are going to
see "The Passion of Christ." I am not sure whether it
will be too graphic for my tastes. I am not really
into blood and gore and this film evidently is full of
it.
I plan on seeing it. I'll have to brush up on my Aramaic before it
opens, though...
yatcher-/
2004-02-18 04:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobby Warren
Post by Paul Sauberer
I was just going to post and ask if anyone had seen
this one.
I am a hockey fan and am not sure whether to actually
see it in the theater (which I don't do very often) or
wait until I buy the DVD (which I will undoubtedly
do.)
Terrific movie! I found myself rooting for the goals I KNEW was
coming. It really brought back watching the games in high school and
talking about them with my friends. None of us were hockey fans, but
we were drawn into the drama of the Lake Placid Olympics.
Is it really worth seeing in the theater? I remember that game, and
how exciting it was, and shocking, and all, but wondered if a movie
could capture all that had happened. I mean, in this day and age,
when there's no longer "communist Soviet Union" (should that be a
capital "c"? I'm not sure...) and the Cold War, I wonder how much
of the rivalry can be captured.

Thanks!
Tami
Mark Jackson
2004-02-17 18:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sauberer
I am also wondering how many of the group are going
to
see "The Passion of Christ." I am not sure whether
it
will be too graphic for my tastes. I am not really
into blood and gore and this film evidently is full
of
it.
One of the college students in my congregation saw a
showing of it... and commented that it was:
a. incredibly moving
b. extremely graphic (violence-wise)

I'm looking forward to it - not in a "new action
blockbuster" kind of way, but in a "force me to think
clearly about the major Story of my life" kind of way.

I guess that's obvious, based on what I do to pay the
bills, but it's easy for ministers to get so focused
on getting stuff done that we blip over the heart of
why we're doing this.

mark
aka fluff daddy
not so fluffy today, eh?
Michael Weston
2004-02-17 19:00:46 UTC
Permalink
On 2/17/04, Mark wrote:

Mark> One of the college students in my congregation saw a
Mark> showing of it... and commented that it was:
Mark> a. incredibly moving
Mark> b. extremely graphic (violence-wise)

Mark> I'm looking forward to it - not in a "new action
Mark> blockbuster" kind of way, but in a "force me to think
Mark> clearly about the major Story of my life" kind of way.

Mark> I guess that's obvious, based on what I do to pay the
Mark> bills, but it's easy for ministers to get so focused
Mark> on getting stuff done that we blip over the heart of
Mark> why we're doing this.

I'm sure you've heard of Mike Warnke, pastor/comedian. He
had a moving sermon on tape that I heard years and years ago
that went through the last hours of Christ and really put
the torment into perspective, something I think can
sometimes be muted when all the crucifixes show an unbruised,
relatively unbloodied body. This film will definitely do
that for those who choose to see it. All faith and theology
aside, the very idea of someone who could undergo that level
of abuse and still say at the end "forgive them" is
powerful. To have the abuse visualized only adds to that.
--
Michael

"My ancestors were Puritans from England [who] arrived here
in 1648 in the hope of finding greater restrictions than
were permissible under English law at the time."
- Garrison Keillor
Mark Jackson
2004-02-17 19:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Weston
I'm sure you've heard of Mike Warnke,
pastor/comedian. He
had a moving sermon on tape that I heard years and
years ago
that went through the last hours of Christ and
really put
the torment into perspective, something I think can
sometimes be muted when all the crucifixes show an
unbruised,
relatively unbloodied body. This film will
definitely do
that for those who choose to see it. All faith and
theology
aside, the very idea of someone who could undergo
that level
of abuse and still say at the end "forgive them" is
powerful. To have the abuse visualized only adds to
that.
I'm with you 100%, Michael. That's part of my hope for
the film - that the focus will be not on "religion"
but on the person of Jesus Christ.

As for Mike Warnke, he was right in the tape you heard
but was/is NOT the poster boy for 'keeping it real'.
For the whole sad story, check out
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm


mark
aka fluffy
so NOT fluffy today
Michael Weston
2004-02-17 21:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Mark> As for Mike Warnke, he was right in the tape you heard
Mark> but was/is NOT the poster boy for 'keeping it real'.
Mark> For the whole sad story, check out
Mark> http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm

I had not heard of any of that, but it's not surprising.
Both. I mean. not surprising that I hadn't heard of it AND
not surprising that it was another con job. I'm always
amazed at the self-deception con artists can pull - conning
themselves, as it were. "We deserve this." "This is
right." "The truth is what I said it was (regardless of the
facts." How they can keep a straight face is beyond me. I
guess they do all their laughing in the back room as people
continue to send them money, even after they've been
exposed. What does truth matter as long as the gullible keep
sending you their money? Sheesh.
--
Michael

Pro is to con as progress is to Congress.
windopaene
2004-02-17 23:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
As for Mike Warnke, he was right in the tape you heard
but was/is NOT the poster boy for 'keeping it real'.
For the whole sad story, check out
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm
So which is sadder:

1) The fact that this evangelical Christian was lying and making stuff
up to pump up his career and make money?

2) The fact that when this liar was exposed, the Christian
organization/publication that did the exposing "took some flak"
because this scammer had been bringing people to Christ?, (so I guess
in the flak-givers minds that made his lying A-OK).
Eric Landes
2004-02-18 00:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by windopaene
1) The fact that this evangelical Christian was lying and making stuff
up to pump up his career and make money?
2) The fact that when this liar was exposed, the Christian
organization/publication that did the exposing "took some flak"
because this scammer had been bringing people to Christ?, (so I guess
in the flak-givers minds that made his lying A-OK).
Machiavelli is everywhere you look. You just don't know it yet.
Michael Weston
2004-02-18 01:26:02 UTC
Permalink
On 2/17/04, windopaene wrote:

windopaene> So which is sadder:

windopaene> 1) The fact that this evangelical Christian was lying and making stuff
windopaene> up to pump up his career and make money?

This makes him a con-man at worst or severely deluded at
best. In either case, he's no different than any con who
takes a little old ladie's money with a "guaranteed 1000%
return" investment scam. The religious angle just heightens
the hypocrisy, not the actual wrong.

windopaene> 2) The fact that when this liar was exposed, the Christian
windopaene> organization/publication that did the exposing "took some flak"
windopaene> because this scammer had been bringing people to Christ?, (so I guess
windopaene> in the flak-givers minds that made his lying A-OK).

Now this is more troubling. Yes, there are those for whom
the proselytizing and conversions are more important that
how those are achieved. In my mind it's same kind of person
who's busy trying to tell everyone else how to live a
"family values" kind of life, all the while maintaining a
mistress or falling behind on his child support payments.
Fortunately, as in most things, the mainstream Christian is
mostly less judgmental and better behaved, and of course not
in the spotlight because they don't typically cause any bad
news.

In politics, religion, whatever: always beware the zealots.
Especially all those freaks who are so zealous about
chocolate. They're the really dangerous ones.
--
Michael

It's better to be late at the golden gates,
than to arrive in Hell on time.
Paul Sauberer
2004-02-18 04:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Weston
In politics, religion, whatever: always beware the
zealots.
Especially all those freaks who are so zealous about
chocolate. They're the really dangerous ones.
You heretic!

Or at least apostate.

Anathema sit.

Paul Sauberer



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
bananamuncher9
2004-02-18 14:15:47 UTC
Permalink
The only problem with this is that it shouldn't matter what kindof
life the person lives, only whether their argument is valid.

So what if the person has a mistress? That makes him a hypocrite,
but it doesn't change his argument if it is valid. Just because a
heroin user is an adict doesn't mean that he can't make perfectly
valid arguments against drug-use. Heck, a priest could argue in
favor of orgies and bestiality (umm, ick), and as long as his
argument is sound, it shouldn't matter that he personally doesn't
believe a word he is saying.

There is a saying I heard somewhere which is popular amonst
some: "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". On a similar note, one
should "Analize the Message, not the Messenger."

(:8())
--apparently finding time to defend hypocrites early in the morning.
...In my mind it's same kind of person
who's busy trying to tell everyone else how to live a
"family values" kind of life, all the while maintaining a
mistress or falling behind on his child support payments...
--
Michael
Michael Chapel
2004-02-18 14:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bananamuncher9
The only problem with this is that it shouldn't matter what kindof
life the person lives, only whether their argument is valid.
There is a saying I heard somewhere which is popular amonst
some: "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". On a similar note, one
should "Analize the Message, not the Messenger."
I have a few qoutes of my own. "Those who live in glass houses should
not throw stones" or "And why do you look at the speck that is in
your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own
eye?" and "Do not judge lest you be judged".

Pretty much tells me practice what you preach, or don't preach!

Mike C.
Mark Jackson
2004-02-18 17:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by bananamuncher9
The only problem with this is that it shouldn't
matter what kindof
life the person lives, only whether their argument
is valid.
Well, sort of. How about saying it this way... "The
validity of a person's arguments can not be judged
solely by their lifestyle."?

Because it DOES matter how a person lives - but that
may or may not affect the validity of their argument.
Their lifestyle, of course, may undermine what they
are teaching/arguing (the gentleman in question, Mike
Warnke, comes to mind)...
Post by bananamuncher9
...as
long as his
argument is sound, it shouldn't matter that he
personally doesn't
believe a word he is saying.
While in a logical sense, I understand the "truth" of
your statement, I don't think you'll find it playing
out easily in real life. Marshall McLuhan said of
television that "the medium is the message" - which, I
think, applies here. The medium (the person speaking)
definitely affects the perception of the message.
Post by bananamuncher9
There is a saying I heard somewhere which is popular
amonst
some: "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". On a similar
note, one
should "Analize the Message, not the Messenger."
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a trite way to get
across a very important truth - people's actions do
not necessarily define their destinies. As a follower
of Christ, my job is to hate sin, because it's
destructive to the person committing it and the people
around them. I love them, because God is love. I never
forget that I'm one of them, too - a sinner. Someone
who screws up and causes pain & anguish. I need the
same love.

Of course, the reference I made that started all this
to Mike Warnke refers not simply to a man who taught
the basic truths of an evangelical Christian faith
(which he did) but also claimed things about his life
(being a Satanic priest with numerous followers) and
ministry (monies being used to feather his own nest
were supposedly "for the kids") that were patently
untrue. And, as all good con men do, he mixed the true
stuff (the basics of the Christian faith) with the
false stuff (the stories of his life) to create an
easy-to-swallow "sale" of faith in Jesus.

If it was simply about evangelical Christians fussing
at each other, I wouldn't have even brought it up here
in the pub. (As one who is solidly 'evangelical', I
don't mean that term in a perjorative sense.) However,
Mike's "story" of the inside workings of Satanism had
a profound affect on theories about MPD's (Multiple
Personality Disorders) & recovered memories, police
work involving occultic elements, and so on. Much of
what Mike said was taken as "the inside scoop" on
Satanic beliefs & practices by the church, the media &
the law enforcement community, when it was actually an
elaborate con. The insidious poision of his lies still
color discussion on these subjects inside & outside
Christianity.

Look, I know this is a whole lot deeper than we
normally get in here - and if you've read this far,
thanks. Mike Warnke's "exposure" back in '92 was hard
for me, as I'd listened to his records and used some
of his stuff in working with teenagers. I felt duped.
I was angry. Ticked at the game-playing, yes, but
moreover I was ticked at being played. Angry that my
own discernment hadn't caught on to the guy.

And I was thankful - thankful that there were folks
who would do the research and print the story, even
though they would get flack from those who believe
that "judge not lest you be judged" is a blanket that
covers all behaviors. (For the record, and going WAY
deeper than I intended, "judging" is not the same
thing as "confronting". In other words, I am NEVER to
dismiss Mike Warnke as a person - he has the
potential, like every one of us, to be someone
different than he is right now. But I am clearly "in
bounds" when I call him on the wrong things that he's
doing... when I call them 'sin'.)

1 Corinthians 5:12 (Living) It isn't our job to
judge outsiders. But it certainly is our job to judge
and deal strongly with those who are members of the
church and who are sinning in these ways.

Finally, for those of you who missed it, the link to
what I'm yammering on & on about:
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm

Thanks for your patience... I'm not sure what's got
into me today - probably a combination of "what I
believe & hold dear" and the "I don't get to go to
Gulf Games" blues.

mark
aka fluff daddy
Nick Danger
2004-02-18 17:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
The medium (the person speaking)
definitely affects the perception of the message.
You ain't just whistling Dixie there Fluff! I'm still trying to
figure out what to do with this gold plated caterpillar filet knife
Pamela Anderson talked me into buying late one night on The Home
Shopping Network.
--
ò.ó Nick
Danger
Mark Jackson
2004-02-18 18:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
Post by Mark Jackson
The medium (the person speaking)
definitely affects the perception of the message.
You ain't just whistling Dixie there Fluff! I'm
still trying to
figure out what to do with this gold plated
caterpillar filet knife
Pamela Anderson talked me into buying late one night
on The Home
Shopping Network.
Are you sure she "talked" you into it? I'm guessing
you didn't hear a word she said.

mark
aka fluffy
Nick Danger
2004-02-18 19:20:23 UTC
Permalink
<Subject: Freakishly Quiet>
Is it my imagination, Nick, or are you & I the only
folks left in the Pub this morning?
Part of the problem may be the lag time Yahoo is having ever since the
virus problem. Since you never know if the post you send will take 10
minutes or ten hours to arrive it takes some of the fun out of trying
to get any coherent discussion going. You're afraid that by the time
your post arrives the same point has been made five times.
I can usually count on my fellow barflies Bobby & Tami to chime
in...
Bobby's too busy trying to gather players for his online games and
Tami's got that new job.
Granted, the Gulf Gamers are beginning their pilgrimage today (so
Bayou Boy, Invisible Craig, Chris "I got's an opinion" Lohroff, and
others have flown the coop).
Yeah, these people need more problems in their lives to prevent that
kind of thing! It's a bad year for me game trip wise. I knew way ahead
of time that GoF was out for this year but had high hopes of making
GG, but that didn't happen either.

Thanks for helping me remember how depressed I am.

Excuse me while I go kick some co-worker.....
--
ò.ó Nick
Danger

TGM??
Icarus
2004-02-18 21:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
Yeah, these people need more problems in their lives to prevent that
kind of thing! It's a bad year for me game trip wise. I knew way ahead
of time that GoF was out for this year but had high hopes of making
GG, but that didn't happen either.
That's what ya get for getting invited to those sorts of things. It's
so much easier to make a decision whether or not to go when you aren't.

Rob
Bobby Warren
2004-02-18 21:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
Bobby's too busy trying to gather players for his online games and
Tami's got that new job.
Hey, I gotta find entertainment somewhere when the Pub is quiet...
Post by Nick Danger
Yeah, these people need more problems in their lives to prevent that
kind of thing! It's a bad year for me game trip wise. I knew way
ahead of time that GoF was out for this year but had high hopes of
making GG, but that didn't happen either.
Thanks for helping me remember how depressed I am.
At least you're young and you have your whole life ahead of you.
Post by Nick Danger
Excuse me while I go kick some co-worker.....
Film it, please...
Edward Pulley
2004-02-18 19:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Actually, I have always agreed that "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" is
trite, and have never really cared for the statement myself, but I thought
it somehow worked for the effect I was going for. Maybe not so much...

Yes, it does matter how a person lives. I probably share the same dislike
of hypocrites that everyone else here has, but that has no baring on an
argument. As an example, I could argue for or against abortion, and it
doesn't matter whether you know how I personally feel on the issue. What
matters in a logical debate is my argument. That is why the Devil's
Advocate exists, to make arguments that don't necessarily match up with the
arguer's personal beliefs.
And while the medium can effect how the message is taken, the message
ideally should be viewed on its own merits. Thomas Jefferson supposedly
believed that all men should be free, although he didn't release his slaves
until his deathbed (I am not a historian, so I will not state this as
anything but a story at this moment) If this were the case, does it make
his beliefs about men being free wrong, or does it just make him a
hypocrite? Time seems to indicate the latter. To view the message based on
it's presenter would be a mistake.

And I don't disagree with calling a person on the wrongs they have
committed. That is actually a separate argument. I in no way am defending
Mike Warnke. As a matter of fact, I was planning on reading a bit more
about him before thinking anything about him one way or the other. The
basics I have heard sound like they would be definitely 'wrongs' - lying
about the Satanism thing and the money issues. My only statement here is
that regardless of how he personally lived, was his message wrong? If his
message had been 'live a good life like I do' and he committed these acts,
then that would be wrong. But if he was teaching things like the 'golden
rule' and 'live a life of charity', then you have to judge whether his words
were wrong or not. Man has weaknesses. Some more than others. If he was
trying to have others live by his example, than his life would be his
argument, but otherwise you must take his words and argue their merit.

(:8())


-----Original Message-----
Post by bananamuncher9
The only problem with this is that it shouldn't
matter what kind of life the person lives, only whether their argument
is valid.
Well, sort of. How about saying it this way... "The
validity of a person's arguments can not be judged
solely by their lifestyle."?

Because it DOES matter how a person lives - but that
may or may not affect the validity of their argument.
Their lifestyle, of course, may undermine what they
are teaching/arguing (the gentleman in question, Mike
Warnke, comes to mind)...
Post by bananamuncher9
...as
long as his
argument is sound, it shouldn't matter that he
personally doesn't
believe a word he is saying.
While in a logical sense, I understand the "truth" of
your statement, I don't think you'll find it playing
out easily in real life. Marshall McLuhan said of
television that "the medium is the message" - which, I
think, applies here. The medium (the person speaking)
definitely affects the perception of the message.
Post by bananamuncher9
There is a saying I heard somewhere which is popular
amonst
some: "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". On a similar
note, one
should "Analize the Message, not the Messenger."
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a trite way to get
across a very important truth - people's actions do
not necessarily define their destinies. As a follower
of Christ, my job is to hate sin, because it's
destructive to the person committing it and the people
around them. I love them, because God is love. I never
forget that I'm one of them, too - a sinner. Someone
who screws up and causes pain & anguish. I need the
same love.

Of course, the reference I made that started all this
to Mike Warnke refers not simply to a man who taught
the basic truths of an evangelical Christian faith
(which he did) but also claimed things about his life
(being a Satanic priest with numerous followers) and
ministry (monies being used to feather his own nest
were supposedly "for the kids") that were patently
untrue. And, as all good con men do, he mixed the true
stuff (the basics of the Christian faith) with the
false stuff (the stories of his life) to create an
easy-to-swallow "sale" of faith in Jesus.

If it was simply about evangelical Christians fussing
at each other, I wouldn't have even brought it up here
in the pub. (As one who is solidly 'evangelical', I
don't mean that term in a perjorative sense.) However,
Mike's "story" of the inside workings of Satanism had
a profound affect on theories about MPD's (Multiple
Personality Disorders) & recovered memories, police
work involving occultic elements, and so on. Much of
what Mike said was taken as "the inside scoop" on
Satanic beliefs & practices by the church, the media &
the law enforcement community, when it was actually an
elaborate con. The insidious poision of his lies still
color discussion on these subjects inside & outside
Christianity.

Look, I know this is a whole lot deeper than we
normally get in here - and if you've read this far,
thanks. Mike Warnke's "exposure" back in '92 was hard
for me, as I'd listened to his records and used some
of his stuff in working with teenagers. I felt duped.
I was angry. Ticked at the game-playing, yes, but
moreover I was ticked at being played. Angry that my
own discernment hadn't caught on to the guy.

And I was thankful - thankful that there were folks
who would do the research and print the story, even
though they would get flack from those who believe
that "judge not lest you be judged" is a blanket that
covers all behaviors. (For the record, and going WAY
deeper than I intended, "judging" is not the same
thing as "confronting". In other words, I am NEVER to
dismiss Mike Warnke as a person - he has the
potential, like every one of us, to be someone
different than he is right now. But I am clearly "in
bounds" when I call him on the wrong things that he's
doing... when I call them 'sin'.)

1 Corinthians 5:12 (Living) It isn't our job to
judge outsiders. But it certainly is our job to judge
and deal strongly with those who are members of the
church and who are sinning in these ways.

Finally, for those of you who missed it, the link to
what I'm yammering on & on about:
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm

Thanks for your patience... I'm not sure what's got
into me today - probably a combination of "what I
believe & hold dear" and the "I don't get to go to
Gulf Games" blues.

mark
aka fluff daddy


------------------------------------------
Sarah's Personal Bookmark:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nigglybits/
------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Icarus
2004-02-18 19:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Pulley
My only statement here is
that regardless of how he personally lived, was his message wrong?
Yes, because in his case his message includes his life. He basically
has stated his beliefs and then added through his actions the statement
that "it's ok to lie and deceive people in order to get them to believe
the same as me".
Post by Edward Pulley
If his
message had been 'live a good life like I do' and he committed these acts,
then that would be wrong.
That really was a part of his message in essence.
Post by Edward Pulley
But if he was teaching things like the 'golden
rule' and 'live a life of charity', then you have to judge whether his words
were wrong or not. Man has weaknesses. Some more than others. If he was
trying to have others live by his example, than his life would be his
argument, but otherwise you must take his words and argue their merit.
I agree with your basic argument to a point. The point where I break
away from that is where deception or any other action which causes harm
to others comes in. When deception is used to get people to believe
your argument, then it just doesn't matter how strong your argument is.
If it's really that strong, someone else can come along and make it
without being deceptive.

Rob
windopaene
2004-02-18 21:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bananamuncher9
The only problem with this is that it shouldn't matter what kindof
life the person lives, only whether their argument is valid.
So what if the person has a mistress? That makes him a hypocrite,
but it doesn't change his argument if it is valid. Just because a
heroin user is an adict doesn't mean that he can't make perfectly
valid arguments against drug-use.
That's the "Rush Limbaugh" clause I think. "Drug addicts are scum and
should be locked up...(oh well, except for me)..."

Whether or not the point is valid isn't really the question, the
hypocracy is. If something is based on lies, it makes the end result
bad, regardless of whether the result is positive or negatives,
(that's the George W. Bush corrallary for those taking notes).

The end does not justify the means, especially when the means are
based on lies. This scammer was driving people to Chritianity out of
fear of "the terrible Satanists out there" and his unhappy "life" of
drugs, drinking, and debauchery when he was on that path. That's
bogus. Then he is exposed by this Christian publication/website, and
they are slammed for exposing a fraud, because he WAS bringing people
to Christ. What a disservice this is to other forms of Christians, as
their beliefs get tarnished by the behavior of over-zealous Evangelicals.
Matthew Frederick
2004-02-19 00:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by windopaene
Whether or not the point is valid isn't really the question, the
hypocracy is. If something is based on lies, it makes the end result
bad, regardless of whether the result is positive or negatives,
(that's the George W. Bush corrallary for those taking notes).
Out of curiousity, does this hold true for you when it comes to, say,
telling kids about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? About saying "Grandma is
in heaven now" even though you don't know if she made it or not? Are kids
different?

-- Matthew
windopaene
2004-02-19 03:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Frederick
Post by windopaene
Whether or not the point is valid isn't really the question, the
hypocracy is. If something is based on lies, it makes the end result
bad, regardless of whether the result is positive or negatives,
(that's the George W. Bush corrallary for those taking notes).
Out of curiousity, does this hold true for you when it comes to, say,
telling kids about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? About saying "Grandma is
in heaven now" even though you don't know if she made it or not? Are kids
different?
-- Matthew
I have never lied to my kids about Santa Claus. If the question is
"Daddy, is Santa Claus real"? our answer has generally taken the tack
of "well what do you think?". When they are young they think he's
real. When they get older, they pretty much figure it out. My 10 year
old pretty much forced my hand by delving into it at some length in
front of my 6 year old. I was able to get her out of the room and give
her the "cut" sign, so I think she got it.

The Easter Bunny doesn't hold much water in our house. They've seen me
planting the plastic eggs too often I think.

I wouldn't say "Grandma is in heaven now", so I can't comment on that.

However, yes I think kids are different and I think there is a big
difference between telling "little white lies" to protect a child from
harsh truths and telling them whopping big lies to coerce them into a
religious belief system.

But enough of this seriousness. My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them. He likes
it when his has more than mine...
Edward Pulley
2004-02-19 08:31:14 UTC
Permalink
So, do the different colors have different de-odorant smells?

(:8())

-----Original Message-----
From: windopaene [mailto:windopaene-/***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:38 PM
To: nigglybits-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [nigglybits] Re: Monday Movie chat

But enough of this seriousness. My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them. He likes
it when his has more than mine...
Nick Danger
2004-02-19 13:44:23 UTC
Permalink
<Subject: Monday Movie chat>
Post by windopaene
My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them.
When he starts collecting them, give me a call.
--
ò.ó Nick
Danger

Using up bandwidth with unwitty one liners since 5/13/01.
Paul Sauberer
2004-02-19 13:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
<Subject: Monday Movie chat>
Post by windopaene
My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always
counting them.
When he starts collecting them, give me a call.
Once, when I went to the play "Animal Crackers" at
Arena Stage in Washington, DC, during interemission I
used a urinal next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD).

Anyone else have any "scatalogical stories of the rich
and famous" to share?

Paul "not related to the senator nor one-time MD
gubernatorial candidate Ellen Sauerbrey even though I
am originally from MD" Sauberer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Nick Danger
2004-02-19 14:06:17 UTC
Permalink
<Subject: Urinal chat>
Post by Paul Sauberer
Anyone else have any "scatalogical stories of the rich
and famous" to share?
I once boarded a Hertz shuttle at LAX, sat down, and as it pulled away
I glanced across the aisle only to see Robin Williams sitting there,
with a ball cap pulled down and a wonderful "if anyone talks to me I'm
going to kill them" look on his face.
--
ò.ó Nick
Danger

Who had to bite his tongue to resist emitting a "Nanu Nanu" just to
asswhip him into submission.
windopaene
2004-02-19 17:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
<Subject: Monday Movie chat>
Post by windopaene
My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them.
When he starts collecting them, give me a call.
To compare with your collection?
Bobby Warren
2004-02-19 17:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by windopaene
Post by Nick Danger
<Subject: Monday Movie chat>
Post by windopaene
My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them.
When he starts collecting them, give me a call.
To compare with your collection?
That, or to open a buffet with...
Eric Landes
2004-02-19 17:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobby Warren
Post by windopaene
Post by Nick Danger
<Subject: Monday Movie chat>
Post by windopaene
My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them.
When he starts collecting them, give me a call.
To compare with your collection?
That, or to open a buffet with...
They work well as a bedding for caviar.
windopaene
2004-02-17 19:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Paul Sauberer
I am also wondering how many of the group are going
to
see "The Passion of Christ." I am not sure whether
it
will be too graphic for my tastes. I am not really
into blood and gore and this film evidently is full
of
it.
One of the college students in my congregation saw a
a. incredibly moving
b. extremely graphic (violence-wise)
I'm looking forward to it - not in a "new action
blockbuster" kind of way, but in a "force me to think
clearly about the major Story of my life" kind of way.
I guess that's obvious, based on what I do to pay the
bills, but it's easy for ministers to get so focused
on getting stuff done that we blip over the heart of
why we're doing this.
Well since I'm not "in the business", I have about zero desire to see
this film, however, when I saw a trailer recently it appeared to be a
really "well made" film. That is to say the images, camera angles and
shots all looked really well done. Very dramatic and well staged. But
Aramaic? I don't think so...

Brad
disliker of subtitles since....well pretty much forever.
Thompson, Lionel
2004-02-19 14:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Anyone else have any "scatalogical stories of the rich
and famous" to share?
-----------------------

When I was a teenager, I was using the urinal at a hotel. Out of the blue,
Milton Berle came in and used the one next to me. Even more impressive was
his compliment of my, errr, length and girth. I mean, for it to catch Uncle
Miltie's eye, wow!

Lionel, dazzling the ladies since 1986
Matthew Horn
2004-02-19 14:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Danger
Post by Paul Sauberer
Anyone else have any "scatalogical stories of the rich
and famous" to share?
I once boarded a Hertz shuttle at LAX, sat down, and as it pulled away
I glanced across the aisle only to see Robin Williams sitting there,
with a ball cap pulled down and a wonderful "if anyone talks to me I'm
going to kill them" look on his face.
IIRC, Jeremy Young at Uberplay urinated next to Robin Williams at the Lord
of the Rings Part 3 debut. In the bathroom, of course.

m
Matthew Horn
2004-02-19 17:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Landes
Post by Bobby Warren
Post by windopaene
Post by Nick Danger
Post by windopaene
My son has a big fascination with
urinal pucks, (not "cakes" BTW). He's always counting them.
When he starts collecting them, give me a call.
To compare with your collection?
That, or to open a buffet with...
They work well as a bedding for caviar.
Sort of redefines the concept of bed wetting.

m
gschloesser1
2004-02-28 15:08:32 UTC
Permalink
From: "Nick Danger" <email-O9GY+lnV0ey+XT7JhA+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: [nigglybits] Monday Movie chat
Post by Nick Danger
Under the Tuscan Sun - I sat there expecting a nauseating chick flick
and was surprised at how much I liked and enjoyed the movie. I was
also surprised at just how much an affect Diane Lane had on my pants.
I, too, was expecting a "chick-flick" when Gail and I went to see this
movie. However, that is not normally a bad thing, as I tend to enjoy these
types of films. Still, I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie. I
found the story to be entertaining, the acting fun and the Tuscan scenery to
be breath-taking. Having had the pleasure of visiting the Tuscany and
Umbria areas back in 1997, the film rekindled some wonderful memories and
occasional outbursts of "We saw that!"

If you liked Diane Lane in this movie, then you need to rent the movie
(whose name escapes me) she made with Richard Gere a year or so ago. She
received an Academy Award nomination for her performance. Just buckle your
pants on tight when viewing this one, Nick!

---
Greg J. Schloesser
The Westbank Gamers: http://www.westbankgamers.com
International Gamers Awards: http://www.internationalgamersawards.net
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...