WordWolf

Next movie. "It's amusing that the roast beef is the same price as an Oldsmobile." "I love you too... Rosenthal." "A man should be treated better than his luggage." "Yeah, well, my luggage was sucked out the door. Luckily my radio is frozen to my wrist."

Robert's Rules of Order, and other rules of Parliamentary Procedure, were designed for such. We call it, at the GSC, "disagreeing without being disagreeable", in action. If you ever read through a book on Robert's Rules, you might see something in the Introduction that answers the very question you raised- you debate the ISSUE, not the PERSON. Most of the people here I disagree with most strongly are (as I consider them) my brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether or not the are, as a Christian, it is worth reminding MYSELF if no one else that strong disagreement does not mean they are any less valuable as a person. When I was in college, I posted a photocopy of part of an ad, and taped it to a partition in the Intervarsity Christian office. (I found it in an issue of Christianity Today, and I wish I still had the thing.) The copy read "Even when Christians disagree, they should all share the same position." The photo was of a man kneeling in prayer. It was left up for a long time, since it quite succinctly articulated something all of us needed to see, sometimes often. Ok, when that happens, that's getting into the person him/herself. (Me, I save those for truly rare occasions, and truly outstanding posts. I don't think I've done that in 2007 yet.)

Incorrect. Plagiarism is always a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony. Whether or not someone is legally prosecuted for it or not is no measure of whether or not it's a crime. Similarly, jaywalking and speeding are often not legally prosecuted, but they're still crimes when that happens. http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html ""Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail. Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail." So, plagiarism in itself IS illegal.

Not so far no, but neither has anyone claimed he's been taking over ships and robbing the passengers. It means he has not successfully been sued on anything for which he might be successfully be prosecuted. It means twi might have used incompetent tactics, or sued on unwinnable grounds rather than winnable ones. Mainly, it tells me only what it does at face value- cg has not been convicted of any crime. Look, Al Capone continued to do what he did in the United States, unimpeded by legal action, in spite of the best attempts of the Dept of the Treasury, until someone finally got him on INCOME TAX EVASION. That does NOT mean he was innocent of any wrongdoings before that, nor that the only wrong thing he did was not pay his taxes. Likewise, it didn't mean he wasn't or didn't, either.

Those would be, as I said, "rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them." That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target." Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking, or even if it was either of those possibilities.) No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time. It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities. Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did. If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is- then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action. They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints. If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects. (For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.

The suit had everything to do with what twi saw as their exclusive rights, and, as I see it, probably had to do with rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes, and to run them. I think all the evidence supports that. Furthermore, I think twi lost their suit, and didn't gain back any rights they had previously lost. I see all of that as having nothing whatsoever to do with cg rewriting parts of pfal, in whole or in part, into a similar class with subjects directly taken from pfal. Nor do I see any reason twi would even have thought of that, or filed anything to that effect.

Well, the other one SHOULD have been called "Q-Less".....

Steve Gutenberg Cocoon Don Ameche

vpw REGULARLY criticized the work-ethic of anyone else. Right in "the way:living in love", he said (page 234) that the kids "would rather read than work." Mind you, they went there specifically TO read (to learn the Bible), so that's what they expected. Meanwhile, vpw himself would lecture the kids and say HE knew how to work because he grew up on a farm. However, growing up on a farm didn't teach vpw to work. His own father testified to that (page 77) when he said "You haven't even learned to work well on the farm." "Uncle" Harry said vpw was frequently missing for hours at a time when he was supposed to do farm chores. As vpw grew up, he specialized in mugging for attention, and went straight from school into preaching. He never seems to have HELD a real job, done actual labour of some kind or another. He also criticized some of the corps grads. See, they took time off of work, travelled to hq on their own money, and performed manual labour for free, setting up the materials for the ROA during the preceeding "Corps Week." Some of them, after working for a week, went home during part of the ROA. That's almost certainly due to other committments- work, family, etc. vpw criticized them for not working the entire ROA as well. No "thank you for the week's labour you did and paid to arrive to perform", or anything like that. It occasionally came as a surprise to those people who never actually WORKED for a living (vpw went straight from school into pastoring, lcm went straight from school into the way corps), but REAL jobs have REQUIREMENTS and RESPONSIBILITIES. All these people made arrangements for a VACATION WEEK from work (for some of them, this was their ONLY vacation, or was unpaid leave), paid to travel to hq on their own from all over the country, and WORKED for a week, unpaid. Now vpw had the nerve to say "Not good enough-work MORE for free!" NO! These people have families to support, jobs to perform, and lives to maintain. If they leave, it's because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to, simp! At the very least, you owed them profound thanks. To insult them after they worked for free is lacking in character, lacking in integrity, and lacking in Christian values.

Reminds me of the gospel account by that fountain, where supposedly the first person who arrived would get healed. I know it's been suggested that was an addition- they BELIEVED in that, but it was not a literal account of what happened. Maybe some digging will show something.

Ok, I'm done waiting. These are from "Lord of War." (Actually, they say 'warlord'.) (Thank you, but I prefer it my way.) That movie has a LOT of quotable quotes.

Ok, this one's obviously the Q episode on Deep Space 9. "I'm not Picard" was probably a really-anticipated line for Avery Brooks. I wonder how many people expected Q as soon as Vash appeared onscreen. Why didn't we ever see that Assay Office again? And why were items catalogued by description instead of a video clip? I'm presuming there was also an automatic tricorder scan with each item.

The Great Day of Wrath is outlined in Revelation 6. Are you claiming that's completely separate from any "tribulation" at that time? Frankly, there's plenty of tribulation nowadays. I used to suspect the Book of Revelation's countdown would start in the 1990's.Since we're still here, I appear to have been wrong. Do you have sources for these complaints?

20/20 had some fun with that one, that I saw. I'm aware that vpw's Advanced Class often claimed that various things WERE "spiritual" that arguably were not. I'm under the impression that he pronounced a LOT of scam magic tricks as legitimate demonic activity. Anyone who took that class- can you confirm or refute that?

Having not read Woodward, I really can't speak on what he includes or leaves out. (You have, and you have.) For the rest, I'll see if I can flag down our writer and see if he can make sense out of practice. That's more than a few people say. Glad we agree on some things. First of all, I'd like to make a distinction I made earlier, especially since it seemed so emotionally-charged when it was answered. I never questioned WhiteDove's word- which is that he was told various things regarding a court case. I believe he was told those things and reported accurately what he was told. Therefore, I believe he was telling the truth-he was told these things. Whether those things THEMSELVES are true is a different question, and has nothing to do with WD. For argument's sake, I can take their word, as reported by WD's word, which I think was the point you were trying to make. Second, twi had a specific agenda, and approached their case with that agenda in mind. I see no reason to think that their court case included cg and plagiarism. (It's so rampant in twi that they probably don't admit it's wrong to most people, including court.) I see no reason to believe twi reported he had used materials without attribution- which he did, and which IS plagiarism, and which IS a crime. What was an insurmountable hurdle is the crimes they TRIED to make stick. Therefore, if all of the above is true, I can see believing twi was unable to grab rights back from cg, but I find it unsupportable to claim that this proved he could not have been found guilty of matters never brought before the court, or any claim that it WAS brought before the court.

If there's an anonymous source, that's one thing- but in that case, there's acknowledgement that there IS a source. Any further explanation I'd defer to our poster who makes his living in writing, since he knows all about this subject. It is also possible to write a non-fiction book and not use a source, BTW. Or to identify all sources right at the quote in the text rather than footnoting or endnoting. Glad we agree on that.Plagiarism is a moral issue (the honest do not pretend they wrote what they did not) as well as a legal issue (if even a student does it on a school paper, it's a misdemeanor whether or not charges are file, and it's a felony when its income exceeds $2500.00 US. It's a big deal. Schools usually don't notify the police, but they will penalize a student caught doing it. Business will fire workers who do it. All it takes to show the intent NOT to plagiarize is to cite sources. If one still wholesale used the words of another at that point, most people will look for reasonable solutions like "rewrite and resubmit this, leaving out the copied text." The word "piracy" has more than one meaning, and not all of them specify "crime." Please don't insist Juedes specifically HAD to mean that when he did not need to. (If you found him saying "this was a crime", that's a different story.) Besides, I think this discussion has gone far afield from what he meant in the first place. Clearly a court decided what was brought before them was legal. (I'm still presuming something WAS brought before them.) We have no proof that what you're suggesting was approved was ever discussed, let alone subject to a court ruling. More likely, twi wanted the rights entirely 100% theirs again, and anything else was either glossed over or never discussed. (Then again, that's my best guess as well.)

They MUST have seen some documents before rendering a verdict or judgement. If we had a copy, that would be great. It would answer a lot of questions. I SUSPECT what some of the contents are, but it's an educated guess, at best, without the actual documents.

Johnny, It's possible to take some "time off", recharge the batteries, then await events. You may later-once rested- feel a call to do something different and unexpected.

IIRC, that happened when Dionysus was syncretized with Zagreus. Zagreus was one of those "ripped to pieces and eaten" guys. *checks* Hm, I remembered better than I thought. Zagreus, Dionysus, and Bacchus (Roman name for Dionysus) are all the same character, more or less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreus http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/ar...es/zagreus.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphism_%28religion%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysian_Mysteries (That last link is a big article, but the section with the word "sparagmos" is relevant. That refers to the "ripped to pieces and eaten" practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maenads

Actually, you weren't, but you won't get the differences no matter what I say, so I'll save myself an exercise in futility.

Don't discourage her! Do you know how long it takes to summarize a page and do it right?

(I've been looking forward to saying this...) I agree with WTH.

Hello. In a general sense, I advise you to look over an introduction to this messageboard, which is here... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 I would also recommend looking over the thread with all the terminology and jargon on it, which is here.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=4734 I would also recommend putting in some real time over the next month or so, and get an overview of the site-the documents, twi's history, and so on. Feel free to ask questions.

Deciderator, I think I've got this figured out. If I understand correctly, this is your position: A) cg did not cite his sources when he made wigp, class and materials. B) cg was not sued for not citing his sources. C) Therefore, cg was perfectly within his legal rights to not cite sources in wigp. D) cg used materials from pfal to make wigp. E) cg is still using wigp. F) twi loves to sue. G) twi was aware cg used materials from pfal to make wigp. H) Therefore, either twi was UNABLE to sue cg over wigp, or the DID sue and they lost their case. I believe this is what you've either agreed to, or stated. (Please correct me if any of that is incorrect.) So, as I see it, your one assumption that's a problem is the one that having rights over material allows you to do ANYTHING YOU WANT with that material. There are laws governing the use of written works as well as audio and video. There are things you CAN legally do, and things you can NOT legally do. If you have rights over a class or a book, you can reproduce that class or book, and resell them or run them. If a class or book is in the Public Domain, the public as a whole ALL has rights over it. That means we can ALL reproduce a class or book, and resell them or run them. Therefore, if cg has rights over pfal (I have no PROOF he does, although I think he does to some degree or other), he can reproduce the class or book and resell or run as he sees fit (or as limited in the terms of whatever contracts are on record- there may be all sorts of codicils I don't know about at all.) That even means (unless the paperwork excludes this) that he can use pfal-books and class- as source material, and completely rewrite them and rename them- SO LONG AS HE CITES HIS SOURCES. Similarly, he can use Bullinger as a source and quote part or 100% of any Bullinger book, or even print a run of any one of them-or all of them, since they are in the Public Domain. HOWEVER, if he uses them as source material AND DOES NOT CITE HIS SOURCES, then that is plagiarism, and that is illegal. Yes, you can plagiarize materials you have rights to-IF YOU DON'T CITE YOUR SOURCES. See, if you leave out a source, you are claiming that you originated the work or part of the work that you cited no source on. That's deceptive- and it's also called FRAUD, which is a FELONY. To be specific, the TYPE of FRAUD is PLAGIARISM. That's why he COULD be sued for refusal to cite his sources. If someone with enough money to sue cared to do so, they could easily sue- and win. They wouldn't make any money off the case- and would lose all the money they put into the case- but the law is the law, and the right of the law is that you must cite a source, even if you own 100% of the rights to the source, or it is Public Domain. Sources must ALWAYS be cited- otherwise, it is Plagiarism. Plagiarism is a crime, and when the sold plagiarized materials exceed $2,500.00 US Dollars, it becomes a FELONY. (Like Petty Larceny becomes Grand Larceny at a certain level.) Again, the law limits what you can do with materials you have the rights to- even if you have all the rights to them, or if we all have the rights to them (Public Domain.) In the instances of Public Domain and anything you have all the rights to, you can do anything you want in the materials you developed from them- or even just sloppily paraphrase them in their entirety- SO LONG AS YOU CITE YOUR SOURCES. Otherwise, that is criminal in the eyes of the law. That's true even if no one catches you, or if nobody cares to enforce that law, or take you to court.