WordWolf

Here's another difference which SHOULD be obvious, which I'll include anyway. If "Are the Dead Alive Now" had numbers and endnotes in the book that referenced Bullinger's 2 books, then ADAN would have been perfectly legal. "Babylon Mystery Religion" did, and nobody claims that book was ruined by the presence of the legally-mandated endnotes existing. Since neither of Bullinger's (public domain) books were cited, it was a crime. So long as they were cited all the way thru, vpw could legally have rewritten Bullinger's books into ADAN, and been completely within the bounds of the law. He could even have printed a run of the 2 Bullinger books bound together as a single volume and made a profit off of them-so long as they were properly credited as being Bullinger's books.

WhiteDove, doesn't it strike you as fundamentally dishonest to keep doing this? You argued loudly that books in the public domain can legally be plagiarized, based on an awkward phrasing of one online dictionary that was specifically describing PUBLIC DOMAIN AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS. Now you're mixing-and-matching between disparate definitions from different dictionaries, all trying to get them to say what's already been disproven. (You've quoting PART of definitions from THREE different sources, all to make up one sentence.) A book in the public domain can be used PROPERLY in whole or in part by any person in any circumstance- but note that PROPER use REQUIRES CITATION of the source. CITATION has NOTHING to do with copyright. Further, Linda never addressed the letter of the law on this-she said that whether or NOT it was legal to not cite sources, it is still IMMORAL. I imagine that-now that we've seen documentation that it IS illegal, Linda might be more specific concerning the illegality of it. When vpw read books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights. When vpw used books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights. When vpw quoted books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights. When vpw left off citation and attribution of the books in the public domain, he broke the law.

Did Teddy Roosevelt say it was wrong to criticize? If one chops up his quote, one might give that impression. I used to see the quote hung up in college, when I went to play sports. It was hung up in the sports area. I also had/have a copy in calligraphy of the entire quote. Here is the entire quote, which is very easy to find online: ==================== “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” ~ Teddy Roosevelt ================= Now you can see why this was placed where the athletes could see it. This was a commentary on athletes who strived to perform their best, and others who put forth their best efforts. It was not a guarantee their "devotions" were correct just because they strove for them- it was an admonition to those who never put forth efforts yet found nothing BUT criticism for those who did. There is a right and wrong way to criticize, just as there is right and wrong criticism. If one only used 1/2 his quote, one might give the false impression that he meant ALL criticism is wrong. That would be incorrect, and not wholly honest.

So, one might ask, "Did wierwille know he what he was doing was plagiarism?" In high school, college, and grad school, this was brought up. By the time he was finished with college-unless it was a useless college- he had a lot of experience with citations, sources, etc. Princeton Theological Seminary is a respectable institution. It has ALWAYS taught that plagiarism is wrong, the same as all grad schools worthy of the name. So, he knew plagiarism was wrong, and what he was doing WAS plagiarism. One might ask, "What was his intent in committing a crime?" This is barely relevant, since no intent can excuse this CRIME. However, his intent was to set himself up as the sole source for these books. This can be seen as follows: Compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition, with the Preface in the 2nd edition. ===== Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in the 2nd edition, (pg-8): "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ======== Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition, the one most of us got to read: ====== "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." ====== Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture, no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit ("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook") for something that was exclusively the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove...") To any FAIR observer, this would demonstrate an intent to conceal the existence of Stiles, the anonymous Christian who wasn't even NAMED in the early editions. So, even if intent affected his CRIME (which became a FELONY when $2500 was exceeded), we can see his INTENT was to deliberately conceal his sources. Not that this would excuse his CRIME if he had a different intent...

Say it as slow or as often as you like, it will not BECOME true. You spoke in error. Works in the public domain must be cited when used. They may be quoted in any amount, but MUST BE CITED WHEN USED. Otherwise it is PLAGIARISM and a CRIME. The law still requires you cite your sources. You don't have to pay royalties for something in the Public Domain, you are not limited in how much you can quote, BUT YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES. Not citing the source of a Public Domain work is A CRIME AND a moral issue. If you haven't gotten this after the multiple mentions of this on page 1 of this thread, then YOU apparently can't read or don't wish to! I thought that on page 1 you were claiming incorrect information based on bad sources-which is why you claimed a bad source for your definition. I thought you had learned the difference, and wasn't going to belabour it. However, apparently I gave you too much credit. So, we have the imaginary snowstorm and sourceless revelation to excuse an act of plagiarism.Nice one. That's an IRONCLAD case for plagiarism. Side by side, some sections are identical, others have cosmetic changes. vpw's exposure to and possession of the works of the other authors is easily traceable, and blatant once seen. It is beyond guesswork or a REASONABLE doubt. (An UNreasonable doubt, of course, can conjecture all sorts of possibilities like divine dictation of vpw's books or other possibilities.) Unless he cited his source-which any HONEST Christian would have done- what we do know is that it was a CRIME. That there was an attempt to conceal can be seen comparing the front of the different additions. The anonymous Stiles drops out completely, and vpw becomes the sole source of the books. This was the 5th post on this thread. Apparently, some of us need a brush-up on the contents.

So, you're saying he did it, and it was unethical, and dishonest, and it was a crime, and that he was one of many criminals who expected to get away with it, which is a disgraceful commentary on many writers of the time, correct?

Well, I'm less confident now, since you didn't reply "If you don't mind", but I'm thinking this is "BENSON."

I think I know this one. Want me to get it?

Well, he owes me one for this, from the first post:

1broken1, my question was NOT rhetorical. It was an open challenge for CES/STFI to attempt to support their doctrine from Scripture in sight of their financial supporters, once its Scriptural accuracy was directly challenged. Your answer is the most I expect to get, since they're hoping this will all blow over, and they're pretending they didn't mean to post messages here. The major point is still unaddressed- that even a single error is enough to completely disqualify a prophet- and CES/STFI would rather disqualify GOD ALMIGHTY than THEMSELVES. That's why they say God can make mistakes and give incorrect prophecies. It's an insidious, UNgodly, craven act to commit, but, frankly, does that qualify as news now?

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" was a compilation of 2 of Bullinger's books: "The Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?" and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?" with some editing, and vpw's name on the cover. Both books were in the public domain. This means he would have been able to quote them extensively, so long as he cited them, or had them printed in their entirety and make a profit off the books. Instead, he put his name on them-which is a plagiarism, fraud, and a crime. Once he made more than $2500, it was a FELONY. Here's some links which some of you will find useful. http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm STOLEN GOODS-- HOW V.P. WIERWILLE PLAGIARIZED FROM OTHERS TO MAKE RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm WAS WIERWILLE A GREAT AUTHOR? http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm WIERWILLE BORROWS A Challenge to the Originality of His Teaching on "Receiving the Holy Spirit" All from the man who wrote the book on this subject. Literally.

Now, I've been told that it was not the crime of plagiarism. That's because the books themselves may completely fit the definition of plagiarism- and they do- but buried in a separate book, owned by a number of people but nothing compared to sales of the Orange and White Books, is this comment: ""Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it together so that it fit-that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped. Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach us healing and believing. But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me, I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it." Meanwhile, on the same page, he says this specifically about the White Book.... "TW:LIL, pg-209. "Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year. I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place." "We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It's a great piece of research." Supposedly, these comments are supposed to negate the acts of plagiarism across the Orange Book and the White Book.

The White Book was a compilation of JE Stiles' book, some material from Leonard, and one of Bullinger's books (now known as 'Word Studies in the Holy Spirit', an analysis of those 385 places in Scripture vpw sounded like he found on his own.) Citations of all 3 would be necessary, in many places, to avoid the crime of plagiarism. None are mentioned. Here's what he DOES say, the entire Preface. "======== "When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean missionary asked me, 'Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?' This challenge was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic 'originals', looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church. Finally I realized that the experience referred to as 'receiving the holy spirit' in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today. I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too, manifested. Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to put in written form the longings and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts' desires. I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now. Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from my years of questing and research among the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability, there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth. The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove. If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this live, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and comforted. For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a careful study of the introductions as well as the appendices in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 though 5 and enjoy God's great presence and power. "II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studies carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful." ========= Crime. When sales exceeded $2500, it became a FELONY. It is interesting to compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition, which I already quoted, with the Preface in the 2nd edition. ===== Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in the 2nd edition, (pg-8): "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ======== Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition, the one most of us got to read: ====== "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." ====== Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture, no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit ("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook") for something that was exclusively the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove...")

So, the Orange Book (PFAL) was a compilation of some of Leonard's class and Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." If he included material from EITHER and failed to cite the source (and he included MUCH material from BOTH), then he committed acts of plagiarism all through the book. So, the bibliography. THERE IS NO BIBLIOGRAPHY. There are no booknotes. No footnotes nor endnotes cite either author. That was plagiarism, and was a crime. Once his profit exceeded $2500, it became a FELONY. Here is the ENTIRE introduction. "=== "Introduction: the Abundant Life. Jesus' proclamation as recorded in John 10:10 is the foundational Scripture for this book. ...I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. This verse literally changed my life. My wife and I began in the Christian ministry, plodding ahead with the things of God, but somehow we lacked an abundant life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant. I was startled into awareness. As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church. Thus I earnestly began to pursue the question: 'If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a MORE ABUNDANT LIFE, then why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest even an ABUNDANT LIFE?' I believe most people would be thankful if they ever lived an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant. If His Word is not reliable here in John 10:10, how can we trust it anywhere else? But, on the other hand, if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant. This book, POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, is one way of showing interested people the abundany life which Jesus Christ lived and which He came to make available to believers as it is revealed in the Word of God. This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives. " =========== No other preface or whatever exists in the book. That was a crime. Literally. Now, what else did the Orange Book say about the origin of the Orange Book? "[pg-119-120.] ===== "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says."

I started a new topic specifically on plagiarism. Plagiarism 101. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=12755 I recommend at least a light brush-up for all the interested parties. Thank you all so much!

I disagree. Oldiesman, 11/18/05, 12pm, "the way:Living in Wonderland", emphasis yours: "Have anything that was lifted word for word? That is what we have agreed plagiarism really is... using someone else's writings and copying them word for word, without giving proper written acknowledgement." Mind you, that's not what everybody except vpw apologists say plagiarism is (unless they are insufficiently educated, which can be easily corrected, thus this thread.) Oldiesman, 11/22/05, 10:27am "Strange people vic wier went to for info" "Actually Wordwolf, I was beginning to have some sort of fixation on your concept of plagiarism (or your understanding of it) as you purport that most, or the vast majority of VP's writings were plagiarized, because he STOLE all his ideas from others. He didn't just believe what he heard/read and teach it;... no, he STOLE these ideas. Because he didn't leave footnotes where he initially learned the information or where he read it from another source." Mind you, plagiarism IS theft, as seen by most people and the US Government, as well as FRAUD. And not leaving footnotes, endnotes, or booknotes where he was directly quoting from- not just "where he INITIALLY learned" or however you are keen to reinterpret his actions- that IS how he would have avoided plagiarism. Oldiesman, 12/12/05, 11:16am, "OK, once and for all" "Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong ... I think our definitions of plagiarism vary, but I do think he plagiarized some. Some believe (I believe erroneously) that plagiarism is not noting or citing in writing, where someone got every single specific thought, idea or concept. Others believe it is a word for word extraction of specific written text, without giving proper written acknowledgement where the word for word extraction came from. I believe the latter is correct. If you believe as I do, then VP did plagiarize some paragraphs. WHY he didn't simply cite those few paragraphs he plagiarized, I don't know." So, here, you admitted that vpw did SOME plagiarism, and also said you disagree on the definition of plagiarism. Sounds like you disagreed on the "pure definition of plagiarism." I do note that at some times, you've admitted he plagiarized, and other times have reversed your position. Oldiesman, 10/10/05, 3:36pm, "Are the Dead Alive Now was plagiarized." " quote: You have a conscience only when it suits you and only when it facilitates your misdirection. The topic is plagiarism. Why can't you stick to it ? Oh because you know (though you won't admit it) that VPW was a plagiarist though you really,really hate to admit it. I already admitted he was, and so what?" Oldiesman, 10/10/05, 2:44pm, Are the Dead Alive Now was plagiarized." " quote: Even if you found a way to express Staffen's idea without using any of her original words, that would still constitute plagiarism. Sorry. If you're going to use someone else's words and/or ideas, you have to give them due credit. Mr. Babbie And so according to Mr. Babbie, VPW then plagiarized everything because he used others ideas and didn't give proper written acknowledgement. And I still say, so what?" Oldiesman, 5/14/04, 8:33am, "Sadistic Leadership" "Just summarizing: His godly side: He was a Christian with a tremendous ability to teach God's Word and convey upon the listeners, respect for the written word. His dark side: he engaged in sexual harassment and adultery, plagiarism, drinking/smoking; at various times with a mean and condescending demeanor." WhiteDove claimed that one is free to plagiarize the contents of books in the Public Domain, and that there is no legal difficulty doing so. Emphasis mine. WhiteDove, 1/2/06, 10:45pm "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." WhiteDove gave an incorrect definition of Public Domain. Emphasis his. WhiteDove, 1/2/07, 11:18pm "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." This is incorrect-as we saw, it can be copied but not used in ANY WAY THEY WISH, if that way includes absence of citation. Plagiarism of books in the Public Domain is still plagiarism, and thus is still THEFT. Citations are still required, else it is plagiarism. However, WhiteDove seems to disagree. WhiteDove, 1/3/07, 12:18am "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." So, vpw DID steal, he was still legally required to cite sources, was under legal obligation to cite sources, he did not act properly under the law, committed a crime, and from a legal standpoint he needed to document the source. We saw all that above. WhiteDove said the opposite, therefore WhiteDove is, at best, has "confusion" about the pure definition of plagiarism. WhiteDove, 1/3/07, 1:29am "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". Again, WD misunderstood what Public Domain means and what plagiarism means. WD repeated his error again, as if repetition would make it true. Emphasis his. WhiteDove, 1/3/07, 2:24am "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." And you, Oldiesman, responded to the quote of 1:29am I quoted above- which as we see was INCORRECT from a LEGAL standpoint. Oldiesman, 1/4/07, 10:05am " I can't believe how much in agreement we are." So, Oldiesman, it does indeed appear that, regardless of your perception, there is confusion as to the pure definition of plagiarism.

So, can you use works not under copyright? Of course. Musicians play classical music not under copyright all the time. And you can buy CDs of that. If you do, you'll notice they're a lot CHEAPER. That's because nobody's getting profits for owning the copyrights to the songs. If you try to use music that is protected by copyright, without obtaining copyright, the RIAA will be VERY interested in having a little chat with you. The Verve Pipe did that. They sampled an orchestral track the Rolling Stones did for their song "Bittersweet Symphony". The result? The courts granted ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the profits of the song to the Rolling Stones. The band got NOTHING. If they had obtained permission FIRST, there would have been no problem. ========= So, let's mention what you CAN and CAN'T do. You can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, so long as you cite the source. You can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, and use SMALL DIRECT QUOTES, so long as you cite the source. If your source is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, and use ANY SIZE QUOTES YOU WANT, so long as you cite the source. IIRC, Rev Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" is no longer protected by copyright. When Ralph Woodrow wrote "Babylon Mystery Religion", he lifted almost all his ideas from TTB, and used direct quotes whenever he wanted. However, he cited his source every single time. His book was completely legal. And, if you read it, you'll see that all the citations in no way made the book difficult to read. (He included them, chapter by chapter, as endnotes and booknotes, but not as footnotes.) THAT is a correct usage of material in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Some of Bullinger's stuff is in the Public Domain, and is perfectly legal to use in manners congruent with that. What does this mean? Here's some examples: Legal: Publishing "the Companion Bible by EW Bullinger" as a book, 100% of its original content. Illegal: Publishing "the Companion Bible by WordWolf" as a book, 100% of EWB's original content. Legal: quoting an entire Appendix of Bullinger's Companion Bible as a chapter in your book, SO LONG AS YOU CITE FULLY. Illegal: changing a few words, then rewriting an entire Appendix of Bullinger's Companion Bible as a chapter in your book, with no mention of the original book or Appendix. Legal: publishing a book compiling Bullinger's previous published works: "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and "Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?" as one book by EW Bullinger. Illegal: taking Bullinger's previously published works I just mentioned, rearranging the contents, and composing one "new" book by yourself, WITH NO CITATION OF BULLINGER. For most people, this is not difficult to understand.

Now then, Some people are under the impression that there is an exemption to plagiarism- that you can freely plagiarize works that are not protected by copyright. This is untrue, and either reflects an inadequate education on the subject of plagiarism, copyright, or on PUBLIC DOMAIN, which is the term for works not protected by copyright. I quote again... http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_faqs.html "Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism, provided you make proper attributions." Emphasis mine. (same source) "When do I need to cite? Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source." Seems to be misunderstanding or what Public Domain means. http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/glossary.shtml "Public Domain Works in the public domain may be copied, distributed, or sold without restriction or prior permission." http://www.lib.jmu.edu/gold/mod7ethics.htm "Whether an information source is copyrighted or in the public domain, you should cite it if you quote or paraphrase it in your paper or speech." (That's from James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Va.) Something being unprotected by copyright does not mean the sources should not be cited. Sources should ALWAYS be cited, and one should not need the force of law (which DOES enforce this) to see that this should be so. That's not what copyright was designed for. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html "It must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used." Neither of those means citations are required BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT. Copyright affects how much of the original source can be used, and the author's ability to recover damages legally if the law is broken. So, how does one plagiarize something in the open domain? Well, it does not have protections against how much can be used. It does not have the power for the author to recover monetary damages. HOWEVER, that does not mean the source is not LEGALLY REQUIRED to be cited. That's a crime against society, and the government can sue on behalf of the public, either as a misdemeanor or a FRAUD (if the publication earned more than $2,500), and FRAUD IS A FELONY. For those of you who will insist that there has to be an injured SPECIFIC person for there to be a crime, I'd like to point out that the law does not see it that way. If a single man who makes lots of money hires a high-class prostitute (call-girl) in the State of New York, he and she have committed a crime. Society is deemed to be the victim, regardless of the consent of all parties. (Don't like that? Write your congressman.)

Ok, so all of us who WISH to understand plagiarism- and not just excuse the plagiarist- can easily understand what plagiarism is and how it works, and why it's wrong. So, how does one AVOID plagiarism? Well, there is only ONE ANSWER, and ONLY ONE ANSWER. It is also very easy, both in understanding and execution. It is called either CITATION, or CITING YOUR SOURCES. Here's a little on what it is and how it works, courtesy of http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html What is citation? A "citation" is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source. It also gives your readers the information necessary to find that source again, including: information about the author the title of the work the name and location of the company that published your copy of the source the date your copy was published the page numbers of the material you are borrowing Why should I cite sources? Giving credit to the original author by citing sources is the only way to use other people's work without plagiarizing. But there are a number of other reasons to cite sources: Citations are extremely helpful to anyone who wants to find out more about your ideas and where they came from. Not all sources are good or right -- your own ideas may often be more accurate or interesting than those of your sources. Proper citation will keep you from taking the rap for someone else's bad ideas. Citing sources shows the amount of research you've done. Citing sources strengthens your work by lending outside support to your ideas. Doesn't citing sources make my work seem less original? Not at all. On the contrary, citing sources actually helps your reader distinguish your ideas from those of your sources. This will actually emphasize the originality of your own work. When do I need to cite? Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source. The following situations almost always require citation: Whenever you use quotes Whenever you paraphrase Whenever you use an idea that someone else has already expressed Whenever you make specific reference to the work of another Whenever someone else's work has been critical in developing your own ideas." That's why colleges, universities, and some high schools and businesses have their own policies concerning what they require concerning citation in ANY written work. If you have even ONE source, and a small usage of it, and you do NOT cite your source, you are guilty of plagiarism, and have committed a crime (a misdemeanor). If you have published your work, and received over $2500 for it in publication, you have committed a FELONY. If you have done it with no intention of making even a penny, it is STILL a crime (a misdemeanor.) If you have done it with the intentions of helping a lot of people, it is STILL a crime. If you have done it in ignorance, it is STILL a crime. Citation is the ONLY way to avoid the crime of plagiarism- you supply the sources of your material.

Requoting from the previous post, "According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own 2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source 3) to commit literary theft 4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward." ========== Greasespotters should have had little excuse on this subject, since it was addressed back in 2002. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm "First, let’s define our terms and look at some examples of what is and what is not plagiarism. To plagiarize, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is to take and use (the thoughts, writings … of another person) as one’s own. It’s a fairly straightforward definition, and it’s usually easy to detect. Sometimes, like the word “obscenity,” it’s not easy to define an actual infraction. Quoting from a published work without identifying it as a quote or giving credit to the source of the quote is plagiarism. Taking a previously published paragraph and changing a few words but retaining the basic structure and meaning of the original paragraph, without crediting the source, is plagiarism. Copying the structure of a book, using the same references in the same order, but changing a few sentences to account for theological differences, without crediting the source, is plagiarism." "Plagiarism is lying. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of trust in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is not unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says “by Rafael Olmeda,” to expect that Rafael Olmeda wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says “by Victor Paul Wierwille,” to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it. Plagiarism is stealing. In a world where books are published and sold, publishing someone else’s work steals revenue that should have gone to the original writer (or, more accurately, the holder of the original copyright)." " Victor Paul Wierwille used other people’s work to prop up his own research ability, his own wisdom and understanding of God’s Word. He used other people’s work to exalt himself as The Teacher, the Man of God, our father in the Word. He did so knowing that the words “by Victor Paul Wierwille” were a lie." "So what? That’s an important question. So what? Does it really matter that Wierwille plagiarized? Isn’t it more important in the grand scheme of things that more people have a better understanding of God’s Word as a result of Wierwille’s work? Yes, it is more important that people learn about God. Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth. But plagiarism matters. Plagiarism may not reflect on the accuracy of the information that’s stolen, but it does reflect on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers (by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction). Receiving the Holy Spirit Today should not be dismissed just because it was the result of plagiarism. There may be other reasons to dismiss it, according to some. But plagiarism is not a valid reason to dismiss the contents. Plagiarism does hurt people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not “puff itself up.” But what is plagiarism if it’s not pretending to do something you did not do? We don’t accept it from high school students. We don’t accept it from college students. We don’t accept it from news reporters, from columnists, from authors. We don’t accept it from historians and researchers. Those are “the world’s” professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God?" I wanted to quote that, because a number of important issues have already been addressed- and it seems de rigeur to pretend they have NOT been addressed.

Since there are a number of opinions in play here concerning plagiarism- and many of them are disseminating incorrect information concerning plagiarism- it seemed like a good idea to go over what everyone in the US who've never heard of vpw, pfal or twi say on plagiarism and the related subjects. First, What is plagiarism? http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html "What is plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own 2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source 3) to commit literary theft 4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward." Can it really be theft if it's ideas and words? How do you steal ideas and words? (same source) "But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file)." What are some examples of plagiarism? (same source) "All of the following are considered plagiarism: -turning in someone else's work as your own -copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit -failing to put a quotation in quotation marks -giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation -changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit -copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not" What if I change some words around and it's not an exact quote anymore? (same source) "Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized." "If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source? Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words." So, can I use the words of others at all without plagiarizing? (same source) "Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism." What if I didn't MEAN to plagiarize? (same source) "It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse." As is commonly pointed out in some circles, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. Further, ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with your car is still a crime, even if you had no intention of hitting THEM or ANYONE with your car. What's plagiarism like in the academic world? (same source) "Most colleges and universities have zero tolerance for plagiarists. In fact, academic standards of intellectual honesty are often more demanding than governmental copyright laws. If you have plagiarized a paper whose copyright has run out, for example, you are less likely to be treated with any more leniency than if you had plagiarized copyrighted material. A plagiarized paper almost always results in failure for the assignment, frequently in failure for the course, and sometimes in expulsion." What's plagiarism like in the professional world? (same source) "Most corporations and institutions will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. There have been a significant number of cases around the world where people have lost their jobs or been denied positions as a result of plagiarism." What's plagiarism like under the law? (same source) "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." http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?" Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.)" But, isn't it ok if this works as "free advertising" for the original work? (same source) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising." It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do." ======= In short, plagiarism is bad, very bad. It is a crime, and it is morally wrong, and it is easily avoided. It is also not a difficult concept to grasp. Unless one is trying hard to excuse it.

*studies* Ok, the writing is faint, but that's what it says, all right. So, the likelihood is that what was diagnosed first is what was acquired first. (It is possible his liver's warning signs went ignored until later. I'll need to review the turnaround time for liver cancer- if it's very short, then the eye is proven to have become cancerous first.) I can easily find sources saying that alcohol is a risk factor for liver cancer, which is what killed him, I think we all agree. (Seems to be what the Death Certificate says...) So, the only things we're disagreeing on are: A) whether the smoking increased his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically B) whether the studio lights increads his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically, or just hurt a lot

My copy of the death certificate has no mention of the cancer starting in the eye and proceeding to the liver, or vice versa-only that it was present in both places and was the cause of death. So, I'm STILL taking Linda at her word that it did not start in the liver. I did a quick check. Occupational UV light exposure is irrelevant to the discussion, since nobody's established that vpw was ever exposed to UV lights. Oddly, I DID see one study that said that they didn't find that normal outdoor exposure to sunlight increased the risk, which I would have expected. (UV light is UV light.) "Several" eye burns was also mentioned, but I'd need someone confirming "yes, when I said 'several eye burns', that could include bright studio lights." As for smoking, I expect it's thought of as in the "no duh" category. One quick search showed that cigarettes (with their lesser tobacco than cigars) are plenty carcinogenic themselves: "Tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens, including a number of known organ specific carcinogens, and compounds which assist with the formation of carcinogens within the body. Carcinogens and carcinogenic metabolites are carried through the body in the bloodstream, following absorption through the lungs. Smoking also affects metabolism and enzyme activity, which may affect carcinogenesis." So, tobacco giving you cancer of the ANYTHING doesn't sound unusual to me. It's most commonly connected with cancers connected to the respiratory system (and cigars with cancers of the lip or jaw), but it's been connected to plenty of other cancers: bladder, kidney, stomach, uterine cervix, vulvar, penis, anus, and pancreas. Cigarette smoke itself damages the eye directly: " Chemicals in tobacco cause damage to the macula (the most sensitive part of the retina, the back of the eye." That's all off http://mens-health.health-cares.net/smoking-cancers.php Another site with a laundry-list of how smoking damages the eye is http://www.bouldereyesurgeons.com/redeyes5.htm Alcohol is already known to be a risk factor for cancer of the liver. BTW, there's some disagreement whether the UV occupational exposure really is a risk factor or not- experts seem to not all be in agreement. I think I may want to put the question directly to an organization or two, asking them to spell out if tobacco is considered a risk for ocular cancer like it is cancer of so many other organs. Now, I'm curious, though. What is the proof the cancer started in the EYE and spread to the LIVER? Now that I've done some reading, it seems more common to start in the LIVER and spread to the EYE than vice versa.