Raf

What it shows is that the people running the corporation were not being led by the spirit when they made decisions for the corporation. They were acting according to the flesh and displayed the works thereof.

Oldies, What is the ministry? It's an organization with policies and principles. It's not just the "people." If it were up to the "people," PFAL would have been free. TWI's policy and principles and actions as a corporate unit were devoid of love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness... I can't say that about individuals within TWI. I didn't know them all. I can say that LCM exhibited a profound lack of many of those qualities. But I can't say that about everyone. But regarding the ministry as a corporate unit, it was lacking in every single one of the fruit of the spirit.

Can't speak for every leader, obviously. But the ministry itself? Love? Their love is a counterfeit: they call it agape, but it's got more filet-o than a McDonald's franchise. Joy? They chased joy out in favor of an artificial happiness. Peace? Not really. Longsuffering? That means patience, hardly a TWI attribute. Kindness? Again, hardly an attribute of the organization. Some people, yes, but not the organization. Goodness? Umm, no. Gentleness? Give me a break. Self-control? Others-control, maybe, but not self-control. So, yeah, the ministry either does not have or does not manifest the fruit of the spirit.

Is this tough? Hint: Jerry Maren represented the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild... So help me, par on this is 2!

Very good. Yes.

Haven't seen it yet. Planning to, maybe Monday.

Two things are getting mixed up here. First is the distinction between "claiming originality" and "plagiarism." Second is this nonsense about "intent to deceive." Oakspear is absolutely right about the originality claim: Wierwille tried to have it both ways by first claiming to have thrown out all those other books, then claiming that his work was not "original." The latter claim would lead you to believe he learned from other men and re-taught concepts he had learned from them. There's nothing wrong with that claim, except it puts the lie to the "I used the Bible as my textbook" claim. Clearly, he used many other books. He says he threw out 3,000 books. What he failed to say is that his library contained more than 3,000 books. :) As far as learning from other people and re-teaching what you've learned: Big fat hairy deal, man. Everyone does that. "Putting it together so that it fit, that was the original work." Okay, no problem. But it's STILL PLAGIARISM if you take sentences, paragraphs and chapters of what someone else wrote and claim that you wrote it. The "intent to deceive" argument is a distraction from the point. It's a grasp at straws to deny Wierwille's culpability. What you're trying to do is find one vague, nonsensical "confession" that Wierwille learned from other people, and turn that into a blanket excuse for plagiarism. You can believe that if you wish, but I'm not falling for it. Not for a second. You can accidentally plagiarize a sentence. But what Wierwille did was serial in nature. A sentence here, a sentence there, a paragraph here, a chapter there. Here's the groundwork Wierwille laid: If you change one word of the Word of God, you no longer have the Word of God. So he changed a few words of the writings he plagiarized and, using the same logic, he could say he "made it his own." Voila! No more plagiarism, because Kenyon used the word "banana" and Wierwille used "plantain"; because Bullinger said "pine tree" and Wierwille said "evergreen." Wasn't he just the cleverest thing? The fact that he made the subtle changes is, in and of itself, proof of intent to deceive, namely, proof that he knew what he was doing, and had not accidentally included other people's writings in his own notes (which happens to honest people). If you're going to do whatever is in your power to disprove the notion that Wierwille plagiarized, be my guest. No one's stopping you. But in the words of Judge Judy, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. (P.S. Big fat hairy deal is a little phrase I picked up from the Garfield comic strip. ;) )

Bette Davis is in Return From Witch Mountain with Christopher Lee. Lee is in Sleepy Hollow with Jeffrey Jones Jones is in Beetlejuice with Geena Davis. Warwick Davis/Jerry Maren. :)

What would it take for you to believe there was an intent to deceive? "I intended to deceive" written in the blood of his grandfather? And once again, since it doesn't seem to be getting through to you, saying that your idea is not original is NOT the same thing as lifting sentences and paragraphs that were written by someone else and passing it off as if you wrote it, which is what Wierwille did on many documented occasions.

I keep seeing this ridiculous notion that acknowledging a teaching is "not original" absolves one of plagiarism. Plagiarism is NOT the restatement of someone else's ideas, or everyone would be a plagiarist. Plagiarism is taking what someone else wrote, maybe tinkering with a few words here or there, at most, and then passing it off as if you wrote it. Wierwille did this plenty of times. Sometimes he did it on the sentence level, sometimes the paragraph level, and sometimes on the chapter level. He did it in the structure of the first PFAL class, evidently. The "originality" of his work is a distinct issue, and I agree with Oakspear in that he made contradictory statements on the matter. You can't get around the fact that he claimed to throw all these other works away and use the Bible as his textbook. He did nothing of the kind. He had plenty of other texts. He acknowledged some of them, derided others, and flat out lied about still others.

That is NOT a confession. It is a poor excuse for a confession. Once again, there is a big difference between "lots of stuff I teach is not original" and swiping the specific language and paragraphs of other writers without attribution. NONE of the stuff I teach is original. I come to conclusions based on what I read and what I deduce. But I do not plagiarize. Haven't done it since a really bad third grade book report. I daresay none of what you teach is original either. But I don't suspect you are a plagiarist. I hope you see the difference. This attempted exoneration of VPW based on the flimsiest of evidence is frustrating. I'm much happier when people just say "so what?"

He included a few of the books he "learned" from. But he excluded many others. It's like having a serial burglar confess to two robberies when he committed 50. Fine, give him credit for acknowledging the two. But there are 48 more that he never confessed to.

Cate is in The Aviator with DiCaprio DiCaprio is in Man in the Iron Mask with Malkovich Malkovich is in Hitchhiker's Guide with Warwick Davis Davis is in Ray with Jamie Foxx. Britney Spears/George Burns Par is 5, although I'm pretty sure it can be done in 4.

I got a rock.

Bogey was in The Harder they Fall with Rod Steiger Steiger was in The Hurricane with Liev Schreiber Schreiber was in Scream with Drew Barrymore Al Pacino/Carol Burnett Don't know the par. I looked it up. Par is 3.

Excellent! Sharon, the object is to cut the plot off before it starts, not just to summarize it. Example: West Side Story Tony and Maria meet at the dance. Tony: "Spic." Maria: "Wop." Sleepless in Seattle Meg Ryan sits in a car changing stations. "I hate talk radio. Wonder if the Flap Jackson show is playing any Pearl Jam." 24 Season One Jack: "Nina, can you take that meeting? I really need to get some sleep."

What's par on Humphrey Bogart/Drew Barryomore?

Indeed

My next one will have to wait until the morning. If someone else wants to jump in, feel free.

Woohoo! I may have done this one already, but what the heck, we're on page 74 already. :) "I pay for your life. My life makes your life possible.' "I resent that." "So do I!"

Independence Day

That does help. Actually, it makes it simple, even not knowing off the top of my head who the last pic is of. Pirates of the Caribbean

The Burning Bed is in. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is out, since only seven people saw it.

Let's try movies only. TV if you're totally totally stumped. Only major TV events count as movies (Roots, yes: Lifetime movie of the week that aired once in 1997, no).