Raf

I disagree. I think calling it a law took a perfectly valid "positive thinking" principle and turned it into something that was not only easily disprovable, but a source of tremendous self-condemnation. I prefer to think of it as a proverb: often works, but don't make a law out of it. "Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." There's a statement straight out of the Bible. Often true. But it's not a law, and sometimes a child raised well goes astray anyway. It happens. It's called real life. Doesn't negate the principle, and doesn't mean a child should NOT be raised properly. It just doesn't always work out because it's NOT a law!

Planet of the apes?

:) Your move.

That would have been good. I'm tempted to accept it. But no. Here are some alternatives (any one of them could work):

Nope. You guys are going to kill me when you figure it out.

no one got it yet.

uhhh.... no.

I figured that show, too, based on "Lewis can." Would have guessed it if not for the fact that I'm fresh out of new ideas for the pictionary. :) By the way, I loved Parker Lewis Can't Lose (Buuuuuddy). It beat the heck out of that Ferris Bueller series they tried. Coolness.

You guys will be mad at this one, I'm sure.

Finally. Yer up

I honestly thought this was an easy one. "If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Frank Shirley, my boss, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, d---less, hopeless, heartless, fat-foot, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey s--- he is. Hallelujah. Holy s---. Where's the Tylenol?"

No, it's Serendipity. That was a movie. Sauron Dip Pit Tee Serendipity

Serendipity

Break it down: -- VPW plagiarized and it matters. -- VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter. -- The tooth fairy told me that VPW didn't plagiarize. Those are the only three sensible positions to take.

If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn't be more surprised than I am now.

BJ and the airheads. Ok, Brothers and Sisters makes more sense: I say Tom wins, but does he....?

George Carlin Dogma Kevin Smith

"Hallelujah. Holy s--t. Where's the Tylenol?"

Excie, This is not a new thread. The two questions are on page 1. :)

Shot duck survives 2 days in a refrigerator The Associated Press January 20, 2007, 3:10 PM EST TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- The duck wouldn't die. Wildlife officials said the feathered Lazarus had been shot by a hunter and put into his refrigerator for two days. That's when the hunter's wife opened the door and the duck lifted his head, giving her a scare. The man's wife ``was going to check on the refrigerator because it hadn't been working right and when she opened the door, it looked up at her,'' said Laina Whipple, a receptionist at Killearn Animal Hospital. ``She freaked out and told the daughter to take it to the hospital right then and there.'' [snip] The Rest Of the Story

No, Hamlet. Final answer.

I was going to say Hamlet. Now I'm not so sure. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead?

Not often. :)

The honest way to approach such a rewrite while still taking responsibility for the contents is to refer to your own writing as an adaptation of the earlier work. It gives proper credit to the source material while conveying that you are amending it for whatever reason. I'll give you an example: in an early edition of "Future Considerations" (Chris Geer's newsletter back in 1989-92 or so), there's an article called "The Cry of Triumph." I believe the byline on the article says "Adapted By Walter Cummins." I don't remember specifically. And, if I'm not mistaken, Wierwille was credited as well. This gave Cummins the flexibility to retain Wierwille's words whenever he wanted, as he was not claiming original authorship. Yet he could also change whatever he wanted to account for differences of opinion based on further research (or error, depending on whether you accept Cummins' re-write). I'm not sure how the adaptation model works legally: could Wierwille legally adapt something written by someone else when he does not hold the copyright to the original work? Don't know. Not every copyright violation is plagiarism.

It's not on Juedes' site, but it is something Juedes co-wrote. http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/way/eisegsis2.htm Quotes below are from the above article: LIAR!