Raf

The "nothing is written" line, and what comes after it, is both powerful and hilarious. you are correct.

"I can't make out whether you're a bloody madman or just half-witted." "I have the same problem, sir." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm promoting you Major." "I don't think that's a very good idea." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "What is your name?" "My name is for my friends. None of my friends is a murderer!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Nothing is written." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Truly, for some men nothing is written unless THEY write it."

dooooooooj

Really, you didn't get it? I understand that it was extremely complicated. I mean, jeez, how could anyone have figured out something so complex? Why, you need at least a second grade education to figure that out. Who's got the time?

"Be specific" means it's either a sequel or a remake, or an original that's had a sequel or remake. Some of the lines are somewhat familiar, while others are VERY familiar. So I'll go with... The Producers non musical version, the one with Gene Wilder and whatshisname.

That was LCM? I saw it on a T-shirt once at Shea Stadium during a Promise Keepers rally. ANNNNyway... easy one

Ah, it's the TYPE of shark. Ok... God/George/Burns Dish (This?) (The?) Mako John/Travolta/V/Jet/Engine/ (injun?) I'm no closer. LOL!!!!!! God Dish Mako Pilot God Is My co-Pilot That was a movie? If God is your co-pilot, SWITCH SEATS!

God/George/Burns Dish (This?) (The?) Shark John/Travolta/V/Jet/Engine/ (injun?)

They're all showing. I was just making funny.

I see a shark and a jet, but somehow, I don't think the answer is west side story.

I say Tom can take it if he wants to just continue the game, but he did not get it until the clue was supplied. He stumbled on it, but didn't realize what he stumbled on.

Calista Flockhart The Birdcage Hank Azaria

Benny and Joon Julianne Moore The Fugitive

I'm going to guess the episode that introduced species 8427 or whatever it was called.

Yes

The kids were mentioned in Season 2 and Season 3. They just didn't participate in those days' events. At the beginning of Season 2, Palmer is fishing with his son. Season 3, that politician who has a heart attack tells Sherri he helped make her children's father president of the U.S. No mention that I recall in Season 4, and as for Season 5, they were a little busy. The kids didn't figure into the plot, so no need to mention them.

Yup. Except Dooj should pick another film. That one was posted fairly recently, I'm sure.

Once you get the second one, it's easy. I didn't recognize the third pic, but figured very easily who is must be. S Cape Squeaky Fromme Gnu Susannah York (I'm guessing there, but she does look like Superman's mom). Escape From New York

What, no Asterix?

The more I think about it, the more I think my explanation makes sense. He knew what he was doing. Probably knew it was wrong, too. Simply didn't care. The question for the individual is whether he should have cared. If you're inclined to thnk of him as a teacher who wanted to get the word out, it doesn't bother you that he didn't care. If you're inclined to think of him as a manipulative predator who used God's people toward his own selfish ends, this is just another piece of evidence on top of a mountain of misdeeds that proves his fundamental dishonesty.

Yes, but they can't claim to have written it: not morally or ethically, or even legally these days, but that evidently wasn't an issue in Wierwille's time. I can copy Hamlet's soliloquy and put it on my door, on my web page, in the introduction of my book... I can do whatever I want with it, except say "Hamlet's soliloquy, by Raf." Once I do that, I am a liar. I would probably not get away with it when it comes to Shakespeare, but when it comes to lesser-known authors, I could easily get away with it. I'd still be a liar and, morally but not legally speaking, a thief.

I am sure there is plenty of non-plagiarized content in VPW's work. And I still hold to many of the things that were taught. Some of the things that were taught I no longer hold to, but I hold to something close (example: I no longer accept tithing as a principle, but I do accept generous giving from the heart; I don't accept a "law of believing," but I do see value in positive thinking). But that he plagiarized? Not even arguable, in my book (which is extensively footnoted). I guess copyright law fascinates you guys. Look: copyright and plagiarism are distinct issues. Something in the public domain has no copyright protection. THAT DOES NOT LIBERATE THE HONEST AUTHOR FROM THE NEED TO DOCUMENT HIS SOURCE WHEN QUOTING FROM SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. A dishonest author can do that at will.

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?