Raf

Trust John S as much as you want or don't want. But put all these things together: Undisputed article about how the books were put together. Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team. Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books. The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works. VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it). The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier). I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.

Not a big deal. If you write two posts in quick succession, they appear as one post. Not having been present at the time the photo was taken, and not being a member of the research staff, I don't know. But you seem to be taking a poster's shorthand (they wrote the book and slapped his name on the cover) too literally. If I may presume to speak for my friend here, no one is suggesting Wierwille wasn't involved in the "writing" of the book. I'm an editor. In my line of work, people write quite a bit, and I have very strong input into how the final work will appear. I make suggestions, corrections, deletions, additions, etc. But the actual writing of the articles comes from writers, not from me. My job is both easier and harder: try to spot flaws in logic or gaps in presentation, etc. In the end, it's the writer's name, not mine, that appears on the article. It appears to me, based on my understanding of what people have said, that the process with VPW's books was similar, except that in the end the book ends up with his name on the cover rather than the writer/writers. In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint. Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.

A couple of things I noticed in this renewed discussion. First, it's common knowledge that the books JCOP and JCOPS were more collaborative efforts than works of VPW authorship. If you need corroboration on this, give John Schoenheit a call. Seriously, just call him. Check out the STFI website for the number. Second, I am not aware of any accusations of plagiarism in those books, seeing as both were heavily footnoted. So the idea that the editorial team, not VPW, was guilty of plagiarism in those cases is without merit: those books are the ones where you're least likely to find examples of plagiarism. Larry, since you're not disputing the presence of plagiarism in VPW's writings, it's unnecessary to prove it. So I thank you for that. It was never stated by WW or anyone else that this editorial-collaborative process is true of all of VPW's books. RTHST and ADAN were Wierwille books, and the plagiarized content in those books is much heavier. JCING gets an asterisk for two reasons. First, I'm not aware of any plagiarism (with the possible exception of recycled body-soul-spirit stuff that may or may not fall into that category), and second, it does have an extensive bibliography, though it was published separately for some reason I still can't fathom. In other words, the more direct input VPW had in the writing of a book, the more likely you are to find examples of plagiarism in it. WW, I don't see Larry as trying to deny plagiarism. I think he's struggling to understand your point with the editorial collaborative process. The point of a question is not always to level an accusation or play "gotcha." It's often to spark a discussion or bring out the answer. The problem I see is that Larry interpreted you as saying these collaborative efforts were the case with ALL of VPW's books, which would exonerate him of a direct plagiarism charge. But since he's misunderstanding what you said, it's leading him to make statements that are untrue (that it was the team, not VPW, who plagiarized). But his statements are extensive questions, and the answer to them is that VPW wrote some stuff without the team and the team wrote some stuff for which Wierwille served essentially as editor (though credited as "author"). This make sense to anyone? This article has a good breakdown of three types of Wierwille writings: transcribed sermons, actual writings, and collaborative efforts: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm

Spider-man 2

Actually, 11 million people died. Six million were Jews.

Well now, THAT made it easy.

Oldiesman asked me to cite sources for this last year. My reply was rude, and I (belatedly) apologize. Since that time, this has been posted on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe Hope it helps.

WTH, My post was over a year ago. I am choosing not to revisit that post just to satisfy the curiosity of a dumbs*** like you. And no, I do not feel a need to "prove" to you that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. I do not feel the need to "prove" to you that George Washington was the first president of the U.S. or that man landed on the moon. If you are too dumbs*** to find that information for yourself, I'm not wasting the time you should have invested in grade school.

Yup. Tom is required. Using Judi Dench for M has become standard procedure on this thread, no? Besides, the alternative is "The DenchPyre Strikes Bach," which, I believe, has not been made into a movie yet.

Scientifically speaking, the name of our sun is Sol. Sol. Lid. Missy Gold (didn't anyone here watch Benson?). DOOOOJ!!!!!!

My thoughts: he learned from two places. 1. His teacher. 2. the god he served.

So, you're going out with my daughter, eh? Well, make sure you use protection!

Need a little science knowledge to get this one. Or you need to be bilingual. If you get the second and third, the first is unmistakable.

Six pics. Four word title.

Can't see the second pic, but I can guess based on the first, third and fourth pics... Jake and the Fatman

Idi Amin Vin Diesel Chin/Lift Goat/Kid The DaVinci Code ?

Sorry I neglected this. Yeah, googling is cool if enough time passes. Steve Zahn, by the way, is one terrific actor.

Well, it's pouring in Fort Lauderdale, but we need the rain further upstate, where Lake O is. Otherwise, we're going to make New Orleans look like a minor inconvenience.

WTH makes the assertion that Wierwille's critics called him a Johnny come lately. I say he/she made that up too. I know, WTH read it in an old piece of literature he can no longer find. WhatEVER. Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was.

Oh my GOD! Poor reading comprehension skills at work AGAIN! YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim. Can you even READ?

I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest. I'm saying you have poor to non-existent reading comprehension skills, are dishonest in your handling of this discussion and unworthy of another pixel.

Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling. Very mature.

Can I jump in on this question? John 8: 31 Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. 16 How can you say, 'You will become free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 A slave does not remain in a household forever, but a son always remains. 36 So if a son frees you, then you will truly be free. 37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham. But you are trying to kill me, because my word has no room among you. 38 I tell you what I have seen in the Father's presence; then do what you have heard from the Father." 39 They answered and said to him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. 40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this. 41 You are doing the works of your father!" (So) they said to him, "We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God." I don't know what translation that is, so forgive me. But here's the point: reading the substance of the argument, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that "they" were accusing Jesus of being illegitimate. Jesus had just challenged their legitimacy by accusing them of having a father other than Abraham. Going after Jesus' parentage would not answer his accusation against them. Their comment is defensive, not accusatory. They said exactly what they meant: they were not born of fornication.

No need.