waysider

When I was in junior high school and beginning my journey into the higher levels of mathematics, I found myself completely lost. Oh,teachers would willingly offer to resolve any questions I had. I was so lost, though, that I didn't even know what questions to ask, much less how to articulate them. So, religion and philosophy are a bit like this. Not only about seeking answers but about finding the right questions to ask and learning to voice them. I stumbled on this audio cast recently that addresses this issue. It's quite a bit lengthy and I will understand completely if you pass on it. If you do happen to listen, please don't allow yourself to be intimidated by all the academic references. (I certainly am not familiar with almost all of them.) I don't think that's as important as trying to get a grasp of the total message being presented. I think it's appropriate for the discussion at hand. Your mileage may vary. HERE

We are star dust, billion year old carbon.

HERE ........HERE

The new guy has to buy everyone donuts and coffee.

It wasn't the new people who bought it. The established believers bought it and used it as a witnessing tool. I read it more than once while I was in TWI because I would try to read it at the same time as whoever I was undershepharding and then use it as a springboard to discussion. (I didn't reread it because I was so fascinated with the content.) edit: I wanted to add that it was customary to do this with the class materials, as well. (When your "babe" was in session 3, you read the same collaterals they read so you could discuss them.)

I still have a copy. In fact, I lent it to another poster here a couple of years ago who had never read it before. I have read it more than once but not recently, other than to reference particular sections. When it was first published, almost everyone in the local area bought a copy. Whether they read it more than once, I'm not sure. It wasn't too unusual to lend it out as a witnessing tool.

At one time, there was another session, as well, that dealt with the "unforgivable sin". This session taught that people could supposedly be born again of the seed of the devil. I'm not sure why it was discontinued but I would assume it was too far over-the-edge for most students. I'm not sure where this material came from but I would be willing to bet it didn't originate with Wierwile.

"Opportunity"... Them: "Sounds like you have an opportunity." Me: "No, what I have is a big freakin' problem."

Mike, give me a break. Point of view has nothing to do with it. It's right there in black and white. Did you even look at the comparisons? Wierwille clearly copied that material, almost word for word. Suppose the subject had been farm machinery or furniture repair, would it have been copying then or would that just be a "point of view"?

Sorry, Charley. This really is an accurate account of how it played out. The facts don't change simply because they don't suit your taste.

O.K., but only since you insisted. Wierwille heavily plagiarized other sources. Then, he lied about it and claimed the information he plagiarized hadn't been known for 2,000 years. Clearly it had. Otherwise, he would not have been able to copy it.What he did was unethical, illegal and contrary to how the scriptures suggest a man of the cloth conduct himself. You can dance around that with discussions of polygraphs and plant consciousness and conversations forgotten long ago. None of that in any way changes what actually took place. But, I'm glad you had an enjoyable day.

Well, it did take place in a rural setting so there's that.

I read those posts quite well. Quite frankly, I don't "see it". All I saw was your personal opinion, with which I happen to disagree. Plagiarism is wrong and it's illegal. Wierwille knowingly plagiarized multiple sources. What he did was both wrong and illegal. His motive is not relevant to that particular fact.

You're grasping at straws here, Mike. You have stated you used a device that would be considered electronic. Hence, you used electronics. It doesn't matter that you "did not use it to detect lies". You used it, despite saying you didn't use it. Is this how plagiarism works? You simply say you had good intentions when you plagiarized and that excuses it?

You have stated you measured changes in resistance. That involves using electronics. I'm just sayin'. OK, back to topic now.

How does plant consciousness and polygraph construction have any relevance to the plagiarism VPW committed?

This may well be the hardest part of the process, admitting to yourself you've wasted a valuable portion of your life. At least, it was for me. I had to take a cold, hard look at my time in The Way and admit to myself I had squandered my time on something of no consequence. It's the first step to moving forward.

I took "the class" in the summer of 1972 and instantly became as thoroughly involved as possible.. I had my first real epiphany about the dark side after graduating from Fellow Laborers. My exit is a little bit difficult to pin down. I was pretty much on cruise control for my last 10 years or so. GSC iced the cake for me.

I don't know what it's like now, but, when I was in The Way, you weren't supposed to say you created something. According to Way theology, to create is to make something out of nothing. Therefore, "Only God can create." It's a crazy world, where up is down and nonsense passes for wisdom.

Let's see. In 1972, Mike would have been in his early 20's. Unless he was pursuing a formal education of some sort, I highly doubt he gave much thought at all to the subject of plagiarism. There's no way to prove it, of course...but I'm still skeptical.

Nothing you have said here excuses the unethical, illegal plagiarism that Wierwille exercised

The United States is not a theocracy. "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."...Treaty of Tripoli (1796) Plagiarism laws are part of a legal system that has been carefully crafted over hundreds of years. It's not our place to now decide which of those laws to choose and reject, based solely on religious beliefs.

Looking at the subtle differences between Wierwille's version and Stile's version, it quickly becomes obvious that Wierwille's intent was to obscure the trickery. This is the level of incompetence you might expect to see on a middle school term paper, not from someone who held himself out to be an authority on a subject..

Not always the case. In fact look at THIS comparison John Juedes did, involving Wierwille and Stiles.