Raf

The best evidence we have, most favorable to the defence, is that Wierwille was an indifferent plagiarist: he knew what plagiarism was and knew he was engaged in it, but didn't care because he felt the content was more important. If that's your view, or anyone else's, it's nothing to be ashamed of. But this game of pretending that what he did was not plagiarism because it wasn't a crime is just flat-out ignorant and a waste of pixels. What he did was plagiarism because it was taking credit for something someone else wrote. Period. I don't know why this is so complicated for you. Dance around it all you want. He took credit, repeatedly, for words, paragraphs, chapters, specific concepts, chapter structures, etc. that were developed by other people, usually not giving credit where it was required and due (by required, I mean: the credit should be in the publication, not at a meeting in the BRC years before or after the item is published). If you want to say "so what?" then be my guest! If you want to argue that it wasn't a crime, be my guest. If you want to argue that it wasn't dishonest, then you're being woefully naive and ignoring the abundantly clear, established pattern. The guy plagiarized rampantly, from PFAL all the way to Order My Steps in Thy Word. It didn't stop until his breathing did.

Fine. Wierwille was dishonest, disingenuous, insulting your intelligence and holding men of God to a lower standard to men of the world, but he didn't commit a crime when he lied about his authorship of his books. How that makes you feel better, I don't know. Again, it distracts from the point, which is that "by Victor Paul Wierwille" was a lie. He quoted from a bunch of copyrighted works without giving credit. He quoted from non-copyrighted works without giving credit. You're not even arguing anymore, you're excuse-making. Spend a little time in a courtroom: If you were looking to convict him on this charge, then the pattern of behavior is most certainly admissible in any court. We have evidence that he plagiarized regularly. On the contrary, we have no evidence whatsoever except for your pure speculation that Stiles may have actually WANTED his works plagiarized without him getting any credit for it. WD, seriously, you're on stronger ground not caring that he plagiarized than you are pretending beyond reason (and your argument IS beyond reason) that no plagiarism has taken place in the Stiles matter.

Accidental, negligent... terms that just don't apply here. A man with a master's degree from daffy duck university knows what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. He was neither accidental nor negligent (in my mind, you can't be intentionally negligent. But what T-bone wrote about indifference is more like what I have in mind). If you're going to be charitable about it, the words to use are "unconcerned and unapologetic." That is, he simply didn't CARE about the plagiarism. He did it, such is life, get over it and what do you think of the CONTENT, never mind the origin. It's true or false based on what is on the page, not based on whose typewriter hit the letters first. When I refer to the "so what" argument, this is what I'm talking about. YES, he plagiarized. Left and right, right up to and including Order My Steps In Thy Word. So what? What about the content?

Precisely what I said. Well, more succinct, but the same point. I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that his intentions with Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles and others I may have overlooked were identical. That is, to cut and paste their works, with some alterations mainly to account for theological and/or style differences, not give them credit, slap his name on the cover as the author, and sell his product, which was not just a book, but himself as a godly authority on this earth. All of the actions described with regard to the works of the other men are plagiarism, period. They may not be violations of the law on a case by case basis, but one need not violate the law to commit plagiarism. This equating of plagiarism with a violation of the law is a distraction from the issue of whether plagiarism took place. The plagiarism took place whether people want to acknowledge it or not. As for legal violations, so what and who cares? Why is THAT the point? No one's trying to prosecute a man who's been dead 22 years (and if we were, we'd have better indictments than plagiarism!).

It's a guess?!?!?! That's like saying it's a guess whether there was serial murder in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. Gee, killed one and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Hey, boss, I think I see a pattern here! Maybe, but ONE of those killings may have been self defense, so we really can't be sure whether "serial murder" is the right term. Please. Stop letting the ghost of this man's legacy insult your intelligence. That you're able to come up with these distortions at all establishes that you're intelligent: you should also be smart enough to see how ludicrous it is to believe it!

Oh, come on! Look at the contortions you have to twist yourself into to defend this liar who insults your intelligence! He was wrong to do it to this guy, and it may have been illegal, and he may have been withing the law when he did it to THAT guy, but he clearly did not have that guy's permission, but he may have had this other guy's permission. Are you kidding? Your reasoning is not reasoning at all: it's twisted apologetics worthy of a dime store defense lawyer (and not a very good one at that). (edited to reflect an edit WD made to preceding post)

WD, you keep misrepresenting something and it needs to be cleared up: plagiarism as a moral issue is independent of copyright and public domain law. One has nothing to do with the other. You keep making it sound like because a work is in the public domain, an author can quote it extensively and pretend he wrote it, as Wierwille did, and not be guilty of plagiarism. That is simply wrong. If it's not what you're trying to say, fine. But it's the impression you're leaving. Copyright law, public domain law, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.

Let the ballots be for Gore Let the ballots be for Gore Let the ballots be for... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!! One, nothing wrong with me Two, nothing wrong with me Three, nothing wrong with me...

:) Not that much of a stretch! M was obvious * was less obvious, but perfectly fair. The others were obvious. And "age" for H is not THAT much of a stretch.

He did say he learned things from these other men. Interestingly, he often did not say precisely what he learned from which men. And never did he say "when you read question 8 in the common fears chapter of RTHST, you should know that those words aren't mine: I lifted them right out of Stiles. After all, I just about never use the term 'faith blasters.' I would have said 'believing blasters' if I had written it." And there is a difference. Everyone learns from other people. Not everyone plagiarizes and then slaps their name on it, calling themselves "authors" when they know it is not true.

I would have answered that if the show had been Soap, or if you had written, "You want me to get that?"

Oh come now, there have been far more questionable logical stretches than "age" for H. And Asterisk was fair game! :)

Age

Please do.

VPW understood enough to put a copyright on his own books. Had he not, I would possibly agree with you. But he did. And he deceitfully gave the impression that he tossed all other books aside and made the Bible his guide and textbook. He LIED. I have no compassion for that act of deception.

I finally made the list! Thanks, Belle! (although I thought for sure I'd get in with "JAL doesn't see the profit in GS; that's fine because I don't see the prophet in CES").

I guess my name was thrown in there for fun. Umm, if that "dictionary definition" wasn't yours, I've got no problem with that. it's still either wrong or misinterpreted. Honesty, which you pretend to treasure unless the person in question is writing a book about God, dictates you cite your source. It's plagiarism if you don't, whether the work is in the public domain or not.

Just having fun with this...

It's not Endgame, is it?

I've actually requested the opportunity to edit some of what I wrote in that article, as i believe I was mistaken then in the same way Oldiesman is mistaken now (namely, that there's some point to "intent," when in fact there is not). Plagiarism is plagiarism whether it's intended or not. I was flat out wrong to say otherwise. Intent comes into play when you're assessing the motives of the plagiarist, not when you're assessing whether plagiarism has taken place.

In RTHST, Wierwille says he disregarded all other reading materials and used the Bible as his text and guide. I'm paraphrasing. This was a deliberate lie on his part. So much of that book was plagiarized it's not even funny. And he does not credit his sources in that book (and to avoid plagiarism, you cite the source where you quote it, not in the basement of a BRC surrounded by 0.0008% of the people who bought your book).

"Distant past..." What a bald-faced lie. You SHOW me where I retracted that!

Goodness, you provide the truth that dispels your lie, yet insist upon the lie. Unbelievable. no wonder you can't grasp a simple concept like plagiarism.

"All he is to you is a liar and a thief. And worse." Um, no, now you're lying about me. But you know that. He WAS a liar. Morally and ethically, he WAS a thief. He was also a manipulative predator and a disgrace. But for you to say that this is "all he is to" me is a deliberate distortion, because YOU KNOW BETTER.

There is a big difference between plagiarism and acknowledging that what you taught is not original. Very few people teach anything original. They don't resort to plagiarism. You're excusing a liar who insulted your intelligence so much that you are lowering your intelligence to meet his expectations.