WhiteDove

We did not get the ice as bad as your way Rhino but we did get some. I think I could get out and around but doubt I will. Power and heat are fine. Just put on a pot of vegetable soup to cook ,some bread in the machine, and some logs on the fire. I will enjoy the next couple of days of reading, watching movies, playing on the computer, and of course drinking coffee with Irish Cream. I figure I could do alright for about three weeks to a month if I had to. I doubt I will need them but I dug out the propane stoves and coffee pot as well as the portable propane shower. Hope all are staying well and warm.

I believe that Kurt is still in Wichita. I'll send you the last contact info I have. If that does not work Last I knew he was involved with CES they could put him in touch with you.

Exie I think you would be a monkey's Aunt.........

Not Exactly what I said but then again I wasn't expecting a fair interpretation of my words. But That's the result when you have a agenda to keep up.. Just for the record and because I have nothing else to do today I'll point out "God told Me to tell you" is vastly different from God telling the author of the work to do something as he did in Stiles case. But of course what's a few small details to get in the way of our agenda? we will just change those. Really? did you write a check for payment to VPW for anything? Last I looked that's how you would pay someone. At least that's how I like my checks to be made out, to my name, when someone is paying me. Of course if one had an agenda they could overlook this small item as well.

Well it looks like Oldiesman did not show up for work all week. As to your question Belle I would support anyone using public domain items in the manner which the law allows. If they do so it is not a crime. Ethics and Morals are another issue and subject to personal opinion and do not constitute crime. As to your example it is hypothetical and therefore lacks the facts required to make a proper judgment. Not to mention it has no relation to the subject here for comparison. It has no record of Godly intervention as in Stiles case where he was told to go to Tulsa and there is no record of snow on any gas pumps seen by either party. There are circumstances involved with Stiles that do not hold true with others such as Kenyon,Bullinger and others, that I am willing to consider which is why I said originally "in this case." Stiles may have considered the words he wrote inspired by God, and as such not his to copyright, or own , thus he did not. He may have agreed that since they were not his to govern he had no problem with others using them as they were not his but God's

Belle it is difficult to offer an honest opinion on a group with out background involvement. Those here that have it offered some fair assessments I think. God and bad straight across the board have done so with informed opinions. Though your opinion I see nothing to indicate that they are heading in the direction of CES and I keep informed on what both are doing. Do you? What facts do you base this assumption on? Their class is not foundational to their ministry in the sense of like it was in the way. The class is available in their bookstore to purchase ,own, use, I have heard of some fellowships listening together to it but they should not be charging any money to do so beyond the purchase price if they agree to buy it together. Again you assume that there is some wrong lesson that she has not learned. Translation we have not been involved, and have no first hand experience with this group but we are an authority on what they will be like soon, and what lessons you should have learned that we assume these people are doing and have not learned. Based not on any facts so to speak but what we have decided is true (our Opinion) you need to learn the lessons that we think.

Hey Cowgirl Something tells me it won't be a rats a** that they will be hunting for today. It looks like you'll be getting some cold wind up there in the North Country starting about Oh ..... NOW! To all those who made honest assessments from experience Thanks, the rest is conjecture.

I have not seen either of them since they came here to stay with us on their interim year

:wub: But your still not gettin the Big Teddy

I omitted the ones that had nothing to do with the subject at hand like the ones that deal with land, money, the army ,invaders and so on ect. so as not to further clould the issue. and actually they seem to support your view as well as others. I did note of course that nowhere was the section found about "as long as they don't pretend to own it" that you added to your version of the definitionn.

Ok two more things Not Exactly Belle but it was a nice guess. Sorry you only get to pick from the booby prize's would you like the finger pull or the flying disk? I know you had your heart set on the Big Teddy but better luck next time Step right up three balls for a quarter hit the dove win a prize

Oh and one more thing before I go. I thought I'd just as well make this point before someone else does. In relation to the issue above I am well aware that VPW published a booklet on The Life-style of A Believer A prolegomenon on Christian Ethics and I would also agree that he was last person on earth that should have done so. One does wonder how he wrote such lines such as these: To suggest that a sexual pervert is more to be pitied than blamed, and that, by nature,he has a right to live his own life by his own natural instincts,is in itself a perversion. Perhaps it would be wise to treat him as insane, as we would treat a homicidal maniac or kleptomanic. With support like this for my God who needs enemies right Danny?

No I listed three definitions for appropriate I noted and agreed that due to the definitions it appears to agree with what Linda and I believe also you have said. *to take or make use of without authority or right *implies a lack of concern for fairness *to take or make use of without authority or right take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission Linda said Regardless of the legality/illegality of lifting someone else's writing verbatim without citing the source of that specific writing, it is WRONG. It's unethical. Period. It is, at the very least, sloppy workmanship and, at the worst, dishonest I believe that you said dishonest also . I never said she addressed the letter of the law only that the definitions* lack of concern for fairness, *to take or make use of without authority or right or*to take or make use of without authority or right take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission seem to support and agree with your and Linda's view. Another words they are saying the same thing with different words. This addresses the moral, or ethical issue I have no disagreement there. The legal side is another issue and one I'm not convinced of at this point, that's not to say you are wrong or right but as of this point I am not convinced. I did notice that I misplaced my ( ) on one line the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right), often without permission by anyone. It should have read the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right, often without permission) by anyone. I was attempting to reflect the definitions I added in parenthesis for "appropriation" into the definition. not combine them together. Sorry if it appeared that way What I meant to imply was take your pick of any of the three it makes no difference which or all for that matter that you use it still comes out the same conclusion which is that it agrees with your and Linda's view of moral and ethic wrong. Which I agreed with. Thanks I'll consider the info you have provided and let you know when I am convinced about the legal side of the issue. Well I have to go now my shift is almost up and my other personality has the weekday gig Oldiesman. ;)

Good job Piggie! What a face....... I'm glad Mugsy will find a happy home. I was getting worried that he might end up with some pig name like sloppy,or mud pie for the rest of his life. I know he is wrinkle dog but I'd hate to see him called Bacon for all of his days.

Before anyone gets too happy about as long as they don't pretend to own it . I might add I missed that in the definitions Thanks I did from the sources you prefer. it appears the opposite not granted authority ,but without authority appropriate (appropriate for achieving a particular end; implies a lack of concern for fairness) WordNet 2) appropriate. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. ...take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it. Middle English appropriat,... Merriam-Webster 3 : to take or make use of without authority or right So your Webster definition on public domain reads Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1. land owned directly by the government 2. the realm or status of property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to "appropriation" (to make use of without authority or right), often without permission by anyone. It would appear that is what VP did, appropriated public domain property and made use of it either (with) or without permission. which is what public domain property is for by definition.. This seems to support Linda's view .So call it somewhere in between unfair, dishonest, and sloppy workmanship. Not admirable qualities maybe , a moral issue, but as I said not criminal either which was the point. Raf it makes sense to me too..... and in this case, No I don't care for the record, he was using public property and used it (appropriated it) as such. And If as I suspect he had permission, and granted it may be a big if ,then all the better I see no moral problem. edited for typo's

Raf I am willing to consider your ideas on plagiarism ,being in closer proximity to your line of work I am willing to defer at least for now to you on that subject I am and will consider the difference between the definitions that we arrived at mine being from what I considered a valid dictionary source. I have a couple of lawyers as clients I may just run this by them and see what they think as to this issue if they have time. perhaps they can provide some case work to see if in fact anything other than an ethical crime was committed. I have not disputed the other claims for a case on plagiarism, only this one for reasons stated. I qualified it with a may. I'm willing to look at possibilities, others dislike VPW so it does not matter ,say whatever you like is the standard. right or wrong who cares? He did so and so else, so that makes him guilty of this also . In one sense you are correct there are enough issues that are without doubt provable to discredit his work if that is the intention. I find it telling that nothing with even a possibility of good can be left to stand. Every dog has his day,

I did not guess at anything once again you failed to read what is written. I said I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now. The difference is I am willing to be open to the possibilities but then again I don't have a predisposed agenda that corrupts my decision. May is not absolute last I looked, you however seem to want to definitively guess with assurance in your presentation. You have no way of knowing his intent 100% just as I do not. Which is why I correctly said may and you incorrectly said he did.

I do! If you don't want to tread that territory then don't use words like theft which is a crime by the way and as such then brings into play legal discussions.

So? People do not always follow patterns, Sorry it's not proof. We are fallible by nature and that may usually run true but every once in a while we surprise ourselves and break the pattern . I can't disregard that is/may be a possibility in this case. It's inconclusive ,unless of course you wish to disregard the facts due to predisposed decisions based on emotional dislike. Reasonable doubt!

Not exactly there has been some disagreement by definition what public domain is. I see nothing established. only opinions to what source is correct.

Not exactly! Belle He may have had permission in which case you can't really steal what is given to you. But your reasons are yours to own. Fine by me. Just remember our reasons are not necessarily truth.

Belle - Ok and that has nothing to do with the subject at hand which is Stiles, which is why these posts go on and on because rather than offer argument to the matter at hand it is easier to confuse the issue which again for the record is J.E Stiles and his book The Gift of Holy Spirit not B.G. Leonard And with that kind of sloppy deductive reasoning Danny I'll trust your input say about 0 Love the VP is your God quip so typical when you have no real input. You might wanna check if I ever said anything remotely like that. Here is a tip the answer is no!

I'll say this real slow again for the billionth time .The discussion was about Stiles and his book not any other author my comments were directed at such not any other author. As I said for the also about billionth time but apparently some cant read or don't wish to! Moral issues are moral issues not crimes, What is free to have you can't steal. I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now. Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess. I would not be inclined to add Stiles in this group as I think it is possible that it was questionable. As I said No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now. Regarding SO What? your point is unclear as to your meaning, but to me knowledge I never said So What in any of my posts so I would conclude that no that is not what I am saying or have said.