Raf

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.

I HEAR YOU!!!

You're responding to a revised message, for which I apologize. It's COMPLETELY beside the point. He could have sold both books together as a package and it would still be plagiarism. Your ignorance on the subject at this stage is deliberate. I revised because I liked my revision better. Didn't think you'd reply so quickly.

No.

Like I said, otherwise intelligent people are choosing to lower their intelligence levels on this particular subject to excuse his deception, rather than acknowledge it for what it is.

Too bad the grammar test failed a math test. It's not possible to get 98% on a test with 13 questions (unless they're giving partial credit).

How you guys manage to see shades of grey in something so clearly black and white, something you'd NEVER look past if the perpetrator's initials were not VPW, is beyond me. Oh, what was his intent? His intent was to get you to believe he was the author of these works, when in fact he was lifting them in whole or in part from other people. His intent was to insult our intelligence. The effect is, otherwise intelligent people are choosing to lower their intelligence levels on this particular subject to excuse his deception, rather than acknowledge it for what it is.

There you go again. That is absolutely false, WD. It is plagiarism whether the work is in the public domain or not. The public domain issue may make the difference in whether or not something is legal, but it makes no difference whatsoever in establishing plagiarism. The plagiarism is a fact of VPW's work, whether you acknowledge it or not. The GALL! Why are you not interested in VPW's honesty or integrity in taking credit for other people's work?

Two-shay. Commander in Chief

By the way, on what are we basing the thought that these works were in the public domain? On Oldiesman's reprinted copies of the books? Not for nothing, but I wouldn't go to court with that defense. I'd do a LOT more homework. Regardless, plagiarism of a work that is in the public domain would still get you an F in any college course. But I guess real life and the word of the almighty God is less important than that. Lower standards for God, higher standards for man. Is that it?

'tis indeed.

Do you even HEAR yourself, WD? You are excusing dishonesty in a so-called man of God that you would never excuse in any other profession. What, because he spoke for God (aka, his belly), he can use all sorts of dishonesty, he can lie to you about his own words, and you think we're the ones who are wrong for calling him on it? Your priorities are twisted. Umm, no, that's not how it works. As I said earlier, if I released "Romeo and Juliet," by Rafael Olmeda, would you not call me a liar? VPW was a liar. That is not a matter of opinion. It is established fact. The matter of opinion iws whether you find it excusable or not. And clearly, you do. And integrity means integrity. It means truthfulness. It means honesty. I think that about sums it up.

"I'll never be a hero. I had a chance once. Janine's cat was drowning in the pool and I jumped in to save it. But when I realized I had to give it mouth-to-mouth, I threw it back in." ***** "Hi, Denise. Whatcha reading?" "It's a magazine article that uses the quantum theory to describe infinity." "Is it any good?" "Yeah, but it goes on forever." ***** "You insult my cooking. You insult my looks. You insult the way I dress..." "Did I miss something?"

Thanks FC.

Just posting this so that the number of posts no longer reads 666. Creeps me out. :)

heh heh heh

Arachnaphobia John Goodman Sea of Love

By the way, Linda, if it seems I'm being hard on you or overly antagonistic, I apologize. I actually respect that you write with logic and clear thinking, even when I don't agree with your conclusion. A tough argument deserves an uncompromising response. But I think you're great and I love to dialogue with you, even when we're not on the same side.

I don't think it was naivette. The man had a master's at the least, and supposedly had a doctorate too. If people want us to accept the doctorate as genuine, they cannot use "naivette" as an excuse for his poor documentation. Further, naivette makes it sound like he didn't know what he was doing. I submit that such a thesis simply CANNOT be true, on the grounds of the master's at least.

Apologetic nonsense. It may mean we have no LEGAL problem, but we have a problem of honesty and integrity. Which means more in a man of God? That he followed the law? Or that he told the truth?