WhiteDove

I think I covered that here for the billionth time.

No Linda but ethics and honesty are moral issues not crimes and therein lays the difference and my disagreement. There are plenty of copyrighted books that one could use to make plagiarism arguments and that is a valid point .One that I have never disagreed with ,contrary to popular assumption from not reading what is written. 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.

You'll have to take the definition up with dictionary online Raf for public domain. It was not mine.

Not a wink Oldies! I had sheep to count anyway! Now where was I 52,497....52,498.....52,499

Maybe JE did not care ...

Sorry to hear that it is amazing to you that some people have an interest in honesty. What is true is true what is not is not it's pretty simple. It amazes me that people are so careless with truth, as far as the other side I would submit you are incorrect, it is the center line, truth. You assume that means support for, it does not ,it simply means calling what is true, true. I see no one arguing that fact that books were plagiarized just in this case it appears not this one. I guess when all your intent is to see things in a negative light it makes it hard to see things as they really are. And yes rightly dividing is a fine line,hopefully if you are ever in the position of having your life assessed you will have someone around that understands that concept.

Nope it may be a moral issue depending on who's morals you assume are the standard but if the law says you can use something then it is not theft period. Last I looked VP lived in the US which is why one would look at US law. Which says that if in PD he can use the material in any way that they wish. Period. public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work. The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. Your right I am focusing on the law thats the point what is legal if it is legal then it can not be a crime If it is free then it can't be thieved,stolen. Thats common sense. my point all along the moral issue is a seperate issue. right or wrong depending on your morals or someone elses. it does NOT change the law. If one goes to the store and the sign says free apples take as many as you want and do what you want with themthen you can't accuse someone of stealing when they do . if they then take the apples and throw them at cars it still does not make them accountable for stealing the apples only for their moral choice to throw them at cars.

And this relates to VPW how was he in school? The law says he can use it as he wishes he was not submitting a school paper. different venue, diferent rules apply.

David this is what I was talking about Dynamic pages they show up like this, as they are not allowed. http://www.bookmir.com/imageLN.asp?bid=1054947 I suspect that is why her picture did not post not her doing any steps wrong. But she still owes me and I'm collecting even if I have to go all the way to *@*# Canada where she lives to do so.

Again you assume it is plagiarism , not if the material is in Public domain. I defended his right to use public domain material in the manner it by law says you can. Thats all. I take issue with calling it stealing when the law says it is not As to the other your reaching the context of that was in regard to not reading around the Word. Reading books to get your understanding for the Word as opposed to getting your understanding from scripture and then reading books. I don't think he ever implied that he or anyone else should not read books. At that point he was reading to find understanding. If you believe his story then he read scripture for understanding then when reading books it supported the understanding he had gained from reading scripture. The key is "TIme" he said one day, one day when? one day before he had understanding from the bible he dumped the books then after understanding scripture he came across Stiles who taught him a deeper understanding of what he had learned from the scriptures not the books. As far as Stiles I have a a disk where VP talks about how he taught him about the Holy Spirit it was never a secret to me that he did. And I still believe that it is very possible that J.E. Stiles did not copyright his book because he was not concerned about his credit, or making money, but rather that people helped spred his message . I think it is very possible that was his intention, a good one at that.

No , which was my original question as it appears that according to the law it had to have a notice or it went into public domain my copy has none either. and pre law change that appears to have put it into public domain.

I agree I never said it was but it also does not mean that just because your idea or mine for that matter of morality makes someone a thief when they did what was legal. It is fine to say I have a problem with the morality of what he did based on my morals. It is another to imply that he committed a crime when the law says otherwise thats the point.

No I said to accuse him of stealing is not correct that's the point you can't steal what is free to use. the point is for people to stick to the truth once again....... and don't make s**t up to prove the point. It should read VP was free under public domain to use the material as he saw fit he did no legal wrong in using it. (ie was not stolen). that said however some would argue that he should have maybe mentioned that he got this info from a source. I might even agree. While that may have been a nice thing to do he is /was under no obligation to do so. Whether he did or did not has no bearing on the fact that he did have a right to use the material as he saw fit under the law. As such he committed no crime. As I said he may have assumed that since he was free to use the material as he saw fit from a legal standpoint, that he did not need to document the source. You assume that someone should have a moral issue for doing what the law says is perfectly fine. I don't! Either way you can't accuse him of a crime that he did not commit. He stole nothing he used what the law said he could. the moral issue is another one and has no bearing on the first.

Thanks Jonny I agree and I am in no dilusions about John Lynn either. But your point is a good one and one I have often made also . Perhaps if it is made enough some will get it. When you have no credibility because of the fact that you make s**t up and do not speak truth, then people will not come here for any help either.

I got your point The point is It is a matter of opinion, if their is no legal wrong there is no character flawno law was broken If you place a bowl of fruit on a table marked free to use then you can't condem those who eat it as having bad caracter or stealing the fruit after all it is free use. the same applies to public domain items free to use.

Groveling will get you nowhere...But I do have another option in mind... The picture/image you are wanting to post may not be an acceptable image you may have to try another one. If that does not work call me on my cell and we can work out an "arrangement"

Potato that is ridicules nonsense A bicycle is not public domain when parked. It is not protected as such under the law you are not free to use this under the law . Things in public domain are however. Here is a definition. public domain –noun Law. 1. the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work. The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. I think that about sums it up......

Sorry to confuse you Jonny I was agreeing with your conclusion. If you look back on page 10 you will see that some took issue with the fact that when speaking about himself (as most would by the way) John used the word " I" . From that we leaped to the fact that somehow proved he was a know it all.

Exactly Raf we have no case for any legal wrong. So what is left because we don't have a legal leg to stand on and still want to take issue is that we try to squeeze the moral issue into making the legal right. That is each to decide if it fits in their moral mode or not . Just to keep the facts straight. The judge follows the law he does not care if you personally think the law is moral or not. In this case VP had a perfect right to use the material, some may think he should have done this others maybe think he should have done that. It looks to me like he felt that it was free to use having no legal restrictions.

Cowgirl After clicking reply to post next to the smilies in the reply box is the button to insert image add the URL as you always have.

Well that might be part of the issue but the other part is was it legal to use the work? This comes into play when accusing someone of theft., which is as you pointed out a different issue than a moral one. . .. In 1988 Congress passed the Berne Convention Implementation Act, which eliminated the notice requirement completely for all works first published after March 1, 1989. However, prior to that Act the copyright issue would be controlled by the Copyright Act of 1909 (the '1909 Act')." Under the 1909 Act and prior to March 1, 1989, the Copyright Act required that each copy of a work distributed to the public be marked with a copyright notice. Furthermore, "Failure to do so would inject the work into the public domain." Once a work has passed into the public domain as a result of failure to provide adequate notice of copyright, it may freely be copied." This indicia requirement in the Copyright Act was not amended until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, which became effective March 1, 1989. Id. It was not until the Berne Convention amendments that the copyright notice became optional rather than mandatory. Perhaps the reason it was not copyrighted is that the author wanted it to be used in this case. If that is the case then I suppose we have no problem in this case.

Well Jonny what do you expect from people that had to debate what his motive for using I was when speaking in first person?

Surprise, I'd have to agree also