waysider

Gee, Mike, it seems like a pretty easy request. You say you have a different way to deal with actual errors. Fine. How does it apply to something extremely basic, such as "thoroughly" and "throughly"? It doesn't seem like "that would take a lot of time and energy". Then again, I haven't seen a demonstration, so I have no way of really gauging the complexity involved..

So, pick out an apparent error (lots to choose from) and demonstrate for the curious just how easy it is... if you don't mind. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In a previous post you said: "I approach it using different techniques and attitudes than you." Now you are saying that they are: "The same techniques we were taught to use with apparent discrepancies in the ancient manuscripts" Which is it? Same or different? I'm anxious to see a demonstration.

What are these different techniques? Maybe you could select one item from THIS old thread and demonstrate how your techniques are applied.

How can something so riddled with error be wonderful?

These Biblical comparisons are an exercise in flawed logic. They are begging us to draw an unwarranted conclusion. Now, by comparing him to Paul, you're asking us to believe that he was hand picked by God to (in essence) rewrite the scriptures. Do you have any idea how ludicrous this is?

Please stop comparing VPW to Biblical icons. He was not a Biblical figure, he was a small town preacher who stumbled on a scheme to vaunt himself above reality.

It's a stylistic difference, Mike. The sentence carries the same meaning either way., much in the same way that the two words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing, despite Wierwille's insistence they had different meanings.

Wierwille's Orange Book sat on the wall. Wierwile's Orange Book had a great fall. Something, something, something... SPLAT!

He wasn't a Dr. in any sense of the word. A Dr. is someone who holds a legitimate doctorate or has had one honorably bestowed upon them. His *doctorate* was issued by a degree mill. He did not do the necessary work that is associated with receiving a doctorate, nor was an honorable doctorate bestowed upon him by an accredited establishment. This is not an opinion. It's a simple and provable fact. Rather, he was a rural preacher who intentionally plagiarized the writings of authors whose works were too obscure for his targeted market to recognize. As to the divine nature of the contents of his works: His materials, including the often vaunted orange book, are abounding with provably inaccurate declarations, cold hard factual material that is simply incorrect. Why would God waste his time giving someone divine revelation that is filled with error? Even worse, why would He then encourage the recipient to disseminate the information on a large scale basis, such as the Word Over The World program? That should make absolutely no sense to anyone who cares to approach the issue with an open mind and logical line of thought. My conclusion is that recommending these books would be the result of resistance and failure to thinking logically, or, more generously, simply lacking an awareness of their true content. I don't think this specific scenario is about someone's unfamiliarity with the content. That leaves only one other option.

Over under sideways down,Backwards forwards square and round.Over under sideways down,Backwards forwards square and round.When will it end, when will it end?When will it end, when will it end? .......The Yardbirds

References please. BTW...He wasn't a Dr.

Contrary to what you insist, Mike, this is not an absolution... it's an admission of guilt! (After all these years and knowing what you know about his phony credentials, you still call him *Dr.*. That's sad, really sad.)

Never happened, Dude. Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin. So, he wasn't simply a plagiarist, he was a plagiarist with a nefarious intent. That's some bad chicken.

There are factual errors in PFAL, quite a few of them. These are not matters of opinion. Your opinion and my opinion can be different. Facts, on the other hand, stand on their own, without anyone's blessing or damnation. Why, if the PFAL material is divinely inspired, does it contain legitimate, factual error? You needn't respond. The question is rhetorical.

You do know the definition used in the Advanced Class were plagiarized, don't you? Even if they hadn't been, it would be a circular argument using the Advanced Class to prove its own validity.

There is a whole narrative that goes with the hook shot story. Wierwille apparently told this story to Way Corps at one of those nite-owl type events. There is a thread on it here somewhere. He also claimed to have had the original idea for McDonald's but the debuhl stole it and gave it to Ray Kroc. He also claimed to have played basketball at the pro level (minor league, I think). Lots of tall tales, as well, involving his credentials, which have since been shown to be bogus.

Yeah, I'm stymied, alright. Stymied by why you think an unrelated topic belongs on this thread. Start a new one or move on with the discussion at hand. .

The key to understanding why we put up with this is that leadership made it seem as if WE were the ones who were flawed, not them. We had to persevere to prove ourselves worthy. You probably had somewhat similar experiences in boot camp.

He was transcribing The Grapes of Rats.

As was one of those ignorant, idealistic youths, I resemble that remark.

It's still plagiarism. He didn't cite his sources...ever. Not only that, it's his admission he lied when he said *he took all his books to the dump and relied on what God told him to look at in the Bible. *(That was the point he was trying to make with his phony "snow on the gas pumps" story.)

Yeah, none of us do...which is why you should get to the point. Wierwille was a plagiarist, not just any plagiarist, a hardcore plagiarist. Quite a bit of what he plagiarized has been shown to be scholastically deficient. (That means wrong.) You know it. I know it. Lots of people know it. So, why do you continue to exalt and promote the works of a plagiarist? A brief synopsis will suffice, as I understand the time and energy factors first hand.

Let the records show: It is Mike's contention that Wierwille's books are the result of divine revelation. "Do you think there are any modern God-breathed documents given in modern English? " What I think about that particular concept has no bearing on the topic at hand. I suggest you start a thread that more specifically addresses that question.