Raf

Quick Primer: Mike and I are definitely two different people. I am heavily critical of Mike, who tends to let such criticism roll off his back. I have a unilateral non-aggression policy toward Mike now on the assumption our opposition to each other's views is very well known. I am a journalist. I used to be a reporter and was part of a team nominated for the Pulitzer Prize twice (for hurricane coverage in South Florida). My writing appeared in print for the better part of 12 years. I now assist other writers in getting their stories in print.

Larry, Stating one's opinion doesn't get us in trouble. For example, in my opinion, VPW was a lying, manipulating predator who abused God's people to satisfy his lust for power, sex and money. See, no trouble here. If someone wants to call him "the man of God," that's their dementia. More powerless to them!

Not true, Greg (welcome to GS). Analysis of a limited portion of either/both classes for the purpose of comparison is a specific exemption from copyright law. You're protected. That's why we can quote from the PFAL book with impunity, but we can't publish the book. No direspect intended, but if you're moving forward, why are you defensive about it? I mean, why go out of your way to call JJ a liar? You could have "moved on" by ignoring his site and any comments about it, but you chose instead to speak up because you felt an injustice had been done. That's fine. It's your right. But it's not a sign of "moving forward." It's a sign you've hit a snag that's holding you back, if just a little. Your instinct serves you well. ;) "I have a jack, WordWolf, but I'm not going to help you." Umm, did you mean to send that message? Cuz you sent it. Just some thoughts. I liked most of Geer's teachings in the early 90s, disputed some, but never had anger or hostility toward the man. When I learned what others said about him, I was saddened.

heh heh heh. good one!

Yes sir.

You are. Why do you ask?

When Latino guests show up one week and leave saying, "We neeed to comb bach to dees chursh."

All right, giveaway: "I'm here about the job." "Oh, I'm sorry. There must be a mistake. This job is for a housekeeper." "That's me, Mr. Goodmop!" "Well, my mother's screening everyone. Did you meet her?" "Yeah yesterday. She gave me the once over, kicked me in the tires, put me up on the rack..." "Well, she should've checked under your hood, 'cause you're the wrong sex." "Oh, wait a minute; she said that wouldn't be any problem." "My mother didn't think World War II was a problem."

Is it cheating just to read what's on his shirt? :) Shoot To kill

I actually ran across some kind of clip show or something, I don't know exactly what, but it had that quote about his dates on it. new clue: "Hey look at this nose. I fractured this nose three times and I can still smell." "Yeah! I broke my finger twice and I can still dial." "I once fractured my pelvis."

NCIS

Wilford Brimley Cocoon Steve Gutenberg

And if you were NOT to do that, you would also in essence be accepting one person's interpretation of that verse over another's. You can't avoid it.

Danny Aiello Do the Right Thing Spike Lee

I wanted to guess, but I came down with a severe case of acronymitis.

I would have thought the Truffle Shuffle was the giveaway. "The octopus was really scary." **** "Okay, this is the little boys' room, and that cave over there is the little girls' room. Brand, where're you going?" "This is the men's room." **** "Now, Rosalita, this is the attic. Mr. Walsh doesn't like anybody up here, ever. I guess that's why it's always open." (not a quote: the next person speaks in Spanish, supposedly translating what was just said above for Rosalita:"Never go up there. It's filled with Mr. Walsh's sexual torture devices." "This is my supply closet. You'll find everything you need - brooms, dust pans, insect spray... I would really like the house clean when they tear it down. Clark, can you translate?" [translation to Rosalita]"If you do a bad job you'll be locked in here with the cockroaches for two weeks without food or water." "You are so fluent in Spanish. That was so nice of you." "'Nice' is my middle name, Mrs. Walsh." **** "Pants and shirts go in the... oh, forget about it. Just throw everything into cardboard boxes. Clark, can you really translate all that?" "For sure, Mrs. Walsh. [in Spanish] The marijuana goes in the top drawer. The cocaine and speed go in the second drawer. And the heroin goes in the bottom drawer. Always separate the drugs."

HCW, Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I wanted to comment right now, if I could, on this matter (after I described the collaborative process that brought about JCOP and JCOPS, you said): I don't disagree. I was not complaining that this was how the books came about. Nor was I accusing VPW or anyone else of doing anything wrong here. I was simply trying to state and show that this was how the books came about. I was trying to show that this was not someone's opinion, but clear and documentable fact. I believe it would have been better for VPW to credit himself as editor or publisher of the books (and we can get into a discussion of what qualifies someone to the title "editor," but I believe it is entirely appropriate here) than as author. But I haven't lost a second of sleep over that issue. Others may feel differently. Anyway, you wrote "you may not like it...," and I wanted to clarify that I neither like nor dislike it. It's simply a fact, like the fact that the color of the blue book is, in fact, blue.

I don't think there was anything passive about Wierwille's quest for glory, as though it were something that sprung up around him and he was powerless to stop it. It was something he fostered, propping himself up as "The Teacher," etc.

Yes, sir. And that would be: Conan the Barbarian Ahnuld. The Terminator

Close enough. I'm sure they worked off The Word's Way, When Judas Hanged Himself and other written articles.

Before you got on this thread, I said there were only three logical positions to take: VPW plagiarized and it matters. VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter. The tooth fairy told me VPW didn't plagiarize. You appear to fall into that second group. While I disagree, I don't lose sleep over it. I don't have patience for people in the third group, whom I consider to be willfully ignorant on this topic. I didn't mean to be so coarse in saying I wasn't going to look for RG's posts. It's just that I read them ages upon ages ago, and it would take me a long time to find the particular posts in question: time I don't have. As for whether we're finished, that depends on you: do you now agree that at least two of Wierwille's books were a big collaborative process and that he was not as active in the writing as he was on, say, The Bible Tells Me So? That was the kickoff point of this discussion, no?

This was the person WordWolf talked about originally when you guys drummed up this discussion. I do not have his posts handy (nor am I about to go digging for them).

As for HCW as expert, my point was that you were not explaining what you were considering him an expert IN. You wanted testimony from someone on the research staff... to tell you what? I thought you wanted such a person to tell you whether some of Wierwille's books were a collaborative effort, a subject HCW did not address. He spent his time talking about copyright law (and, best as I can tell, getting some important info wrong in the process). I think Wierwille's account of how JCOP and JCOPS came to be carry at least as much weight as HCW's. I also think it's convenient of you to dismiss what Research Geek has said (he was on the research staff) while giving weight to HCW (and I'll need him to clarify whether he was on the editing staff or the research staff). A research staffer's comment would, by "legal court" standards, carry greater weight than someone not involved in the research process, no? Uh huh. So, generally speaking, as long as it's legal, it's moral? Like, oh I don't know, adultery in most states? Uh huh. Cursing at your parents? Yup. Plagiarism of works for which the copyright has expired? Sure. Dude, what are we TALKING ABOUT HERE? Forget the hypotheticals and get to the point of here: you know Wierwille plagiarized. You know it was wrong for him to do so. Bully for him that he didn't face legal consequences! But I don't need a jury to find him guilty to recognize that we he did was fundamentally dishonest.

Okay, so if I publish "The Iliad, by Raf" and sell it to you at Barnes and Noble and pretend that I wrote it, I've done nothing wrong? Come on, you know dang well that morality and legality are not the same thing.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, or even whether you're agreeing with HCW or not, but let's look at a couple of things (I wasn't going to get any further into HCW's postre, but since you did, and you appear to be giving it greater weight because he was there, I feel compelled). HCW's expertise appears to be in the area of his presence at HQ and in the publications area. Fair enough. This does not make him an expert in copyright law. This does not make him an expert in plagiarism. This does not make him an expert in non-profit exemptions to copyright laws. This does not make him an expert in anything other than in the things he saw and heard. I don't believe he is claiming otherwise. So let's look at some things that were said: Generally, I'll accept that firsthand testimony as self-evident, but at the very least in the cases of JCOPS and JCOP, they went to a higher standard.Next, HCW gets into copyright infringement, which I've already explained is not synonymous with plagiarism. He also makes the statement (and I can't tell if he's quoting someone or not) that "The LEGAL issue is not the copying of the copyrighted work but the damage the copier inflicts on the original author by PROFITING from the USE of the copy." Again, that is true. That is the LEGAL issue. It is not the moral issue. The moral issue is plagiarism, which, again, is not necessarily a copyright infringement. HCW then writes: "There is a 'Fair Use' provision under copyright law that allows that any copyrighted work can be used for educational purposes." Again, true, as far as it goes. However, fair use does not liberate you to lift someone else's words and pass them off as your own, which is what plagiarism is. Then HCW goes into the discussion of the concept of lifting "ideas," and follows up with this: "In short. ALL of the stuff you guys point out that VPW lifted were ideas contained in books." I don't know what HCW could have been thinking, but this is flat out untrue. SOME of the stuff people have pointed out falls into that category, but I almost NEVER talk about that. When I'm talking plagiarism, I'm talking of specific instances of taking the words someone else wrote and inserting them into your "work" and making like you wrote it all along. Thus we have VPW referring to people as "faith blasters who go about making statements that have no foundation in scripture," and lo and behold, Stiles ran into the exact same type of people and called them the exact same thing. That is NOT talking about "ideas." And it is not talking about "fair use" (which would entitle Wierwille, or anyone else, to quote that segment of Stiles' book, with attribution, without having to pay Stiles). Interesting, then, that either no one caught or corrected the flagrant plagiarism in Order My Steps in Thy Word. I would suggest that what HCW was told was stringent was not as stringent as he thought. Then again, Kenyon's family has been known not to care all that much that his work was plagiarized, even given flagrant examples. So the legal scrutiny may have persuaded TWI that they were legally safe. Fine and dandy. There was still flagrant plagiarism in that book. Not extensive, but painfully obvious. This, of course, proves absolutely nothing. Why would anyone be talking about plagiarism? No one suspected it. And those who did, didn't care all that much about it. But I notice HCW stops in the mid 80s, shortly before the 1987 publication of Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?, a book that undisputably documented numerous incidences of Wierwille plagiarism (along with some incidences that, imho, make little sense). Legally speaking, this is absurd. First, just because an organization has "non-profit status" does not mean it does not make a profit. Heck, if you make more money than you spend, you've turned a profit (aka, a surplus). The legal conclusion that "it was impossible for any damage from copyright violation" is patently absurd (sorry HCW). Non-profit status means that profit is not the reason for your organization's existence. It does not mean the organization does not turn a profit. Most businesses are in business to make money. Non-profits are in business for entirely different reasons. But they still strive to take in more money than they spend, thus ending the year with a surplus. If, through copyright violation, you are able to earn or enhance a surplus, or lessen a deficit, you've profited from that action. I'm not saying TWI profited from copyright violation. I am saying that its status as a non-profit organization does not somehow exempt it from copyright law under some (sorry) ridiculous notion that it can't profit of that action. Irrelevant distraction from the point: Talking about Stiles to a (very) limited group of people does NOT entitle a writer to pass Stiles's words off as his own! Whether his books were covered from legal violations depends on a number of factors: discovery of the infraction (which, given the limited exposure of Wierwille's works, was not likely); willingness to sue (which, given a Biblical prohibition against taking a brother to court, might have persuaded BG Leonard not to go with that approach and instead include an explicit warning against plagiarism on future editions of his books); concern that it has taken place (some authors have better things to do than chase down third rate cult leaders who steal their lines); talent of the legal defense; etc. If so, they were very bad lawyers. More likely, the legal dept might have been the ones to insist on changing specific wordings in later editions to obscure the very obvious plagiarism. And how does HCW remember "some talk about that stuff but not a whole lot of details," yet earlier says "I don't remember hearing ONE WORD about plagiarism"? Sorry, Wierwille was a rampant and unrepentant plagiarist. That he didn't get caught or sued probably had more to do with his limited influence than his legal expertise/rightness.