Mike

I've hardly had time, this being a big family day, to even read all the posts of the past several days, but someday I will. If you have a burning point to make, please repeat it. Meanwhile I had some fun just now. There’s a certain warming rhetoric satisfaction when my opponents in a debate descend to ad hominem tactics like “liar liar pants on fire” and “you don’t write clear enough” and that I am wiggling about away from topic. Instead of addressing the ONE POINT that I made, which was that 1972 had some early, unemotionally charged discussions on plagiarism, the focus shifts to me being a liar and full of bs, everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at me. At least there was one logical (but not factual) argument against my assertion. That was that WLIL was obscure and out of print, so VPW’s (constantly buried here) admission that he did not originate most of the material went unnoticed and doesn’t satisfy the GSC Commission on Academic Standards. Well, that obscurity did happen, but not in the 1970s, which was where my point was aimed. I’m also warmed and happy that with all this scrambling to attack the messenger (even bringing in the heavy BeHappy troops), I found out that all the old issues of Popular Electronics are on-line and free. http://www.ocsmag.com/2014/11/27/popular-electronics-all-issues-online-for-free/ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Popular-Electronics-Guide.htm The second link has check shaped buttons that download a PDF file for each issue. It also has a search function, but somehow its single page PDF output is not as clear as the full issue buttons. The PDF outputs they offer have pdf page numbers and paper page (pp) numbers must be sought on the screen. Popular Electronics June 1970, pp 120, top right This page has a small ad for a Backster kit GSR detector that had appeared in the Oct 1969 issue of Electronics World, a different magazine. I haven’t searched for this yet. Popular Electronics June 1971, pp 63-67,93 This is a full article for building another version of a Backster kit GSR detector. The article seems to indicate that an earlier issue had similar topics, and that this is the second article in a series. I vaguely remember all three issues mentioned above, but the June 1971 article seems most familiar and I think I made my GSR detector from this article. Try it yourself. It is a trip to see plants as active creatures. I no longer make the leap (since 1972) that this activity indicates consciousness. Mosquitoes are active, but how conscious are they? Boy! What a trip down memory lane!

My report on early 1972 discussions OF PLAGIARISM was displayed as not credible like my report on polygraphs. I defended my reports and my credibility. If you had read the posts (or read them better) you'd have seen that.

You folks are quick to call me a liar and then when I show you to be wrong, you want to quickly get away, back to the topic. Interesting. Back on topic: The plagiarism issue was MOST DEFINITELY discussed at that early date of 1972, by me and others. Nearly EVERYONE read every page of WLIL, including where VPW TOTALLY admitted he did not originate the material. I saw someone try to dismiss that as an obscure book. Baloney! A lot here WANT it to be obscure because of that passage where VPW, point blank, said that what he taught he got from many others.

I did not use any electronics to detect lies. I used it to entertain my friends by hooking it up to them and plants. At no point did I ever quiz them on possible lies. We all knew that lies could not be detected by such a simple setup. It measured changes in resistence well.

Not enough for me. If you compare my expanded report immediately above, to your citation of my earlier abbreviated report, you can see they are consistent. I can now see HOW you made your wrong inference from the abbreviated one, given that you were groping for ways to discredit my credulity in my 1972 plagiarism report. You saw your chance in the close proximity of two two highly abbreviated sentences. Do you, at least, see this consistency, and from the detail of my expanded report that I really did engage in some exotic playing around with the entire field of polygraphs and lies? I don't think me producing the Popular Electronics issue will convince you. I think your mind was made up long before I mentioned polygraphs, and its oddity appeared to you as possible evidence. BTW, this nostalgic review has me wondering if my GSR kit came from another source, and that I merely saw the Popular Electronics issue on the topic. For decades after I entertained my friends and family with the "singing" plants they would tell me about the latest appearance of Backster in the media. In other words, the date on the issue may possibly be after Dec 1971, but only a couple of years max.

It looks like you are calling me a liar while you distribute several falsehoods. You learned a lot at TWI. First point is you misread my posting. I never asserted nor implied that boredom is an emotion. You inferred it, and wrongly. I merely mentioned it as a condition. To me, boredom is akin to being emotionless. I was and still am interested in the phenomenon of lying, but I never once used any kind of electronics to pursue it. I used reading and thinking and observing for this. Popular Electronics had an article back then on how to do make a simple Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) detector, which is one third or one forth of the "poly" in polygraph. It was a fairly good detector of micro changes in skin resistance, but lacking the other parameters (heart beat, blood pressure, breathing, etc) that made it very crude as a lie detector. Another crude element in this GSR detector was that its output was not a pen drawing squiggles on paper, but a tone generator that went up and down in pitch. This tone sounded odd, like some kind of alien singing, and it generated lots of laughs among friends when I hooked it up to them and me. The electrodes I used were two silver dimes, with wires attached. When I hooked it up to house plants this “singing” was VERY startling, because we usually think of plants as inert. They are not. I actually have strong doubts if polygraphs are real science. Too much depends on subjective opinions of the polygraph operator for me. This issue is a fascinating one, and has lately been revived with different electronics of MRI that is much more objective than polygraphs. Other technical magazines also had some info on polygraphs because it was in the news a lot then. The guy who started this plant consciousness idea, Cleve Backster, was written up in many, many magazines at that time. The Popular Electronics article was very complete in that it had a parts list and everything. Inferring consciousness from this very surprising plant “activity” was a giant leap, that has been very well debunked by all who tried to duplicate Backster’s results. Please check out how inaccurate some of your hunches here are, and then we can talk about the inaccuracy of your other wrong guess on my early concerns on plagiarism. The Popular Electronics article had to be before December 1971, because shortly after my first fellowships I threw away all my plant research stuff. You can do the work to disprove your post. I’m not interested in defending myself from your accusation any more than I just did. If you find that Popular Electronics issue will you be honest about it and post your error?

I do read your posts, and I am thankful for a slightly softer approach here in this one. It looks FROM MY VIEWPOINT that many of them in the past were designed to irritate and frustrate me. This one is still a little heavy on the number of topics you bring up. It’s difficult to figure out what to respond to, especially if I get that feeling you’ll just find some way to blow off my responses. So please pardon me if I pick and choose. It’s late and I’m tired after a couple hours of posting. I have no time to come close to responding to all that are here right now, but I chose yours to try and get a better dialog going between us. *** I see plenty of room to fudge it in man’s law, PLENTY. I see zero room for Christ fudging it on God’s law He gave to Moses. I don't want to fudge any principles He strongly suggests for us either. It looks like you were merging a little the concepts of those two types of laws. *** You wrote: “…your either in fellowship or your not…” This is not on topic with any of this, but I can't resist this. Oddly enough, this was one of the first things I noticed when I came back to PFAL in 1998. The chapter “Fellowship is the Secret” is LOADED with degrees of fellowship besides in and out. This is one of the big things the TVTs glossed over. This is where I first plainly saw that I had forgotten lots of things that were written, or they had sailed over my head unabsorbed. I got excited and started sharing it with friends and immediately noticed they too had either forgotten it or never absorbed it. If anyone wants to see these many degrees, dust off your books and look. *** You wrote: “We are also commanded to obey the laws of men, like theft and plagerism. The only time we can disobey the laws of men is when the run contrary to the laws of God, for example, if there were laws against praying or attending church.” I think this shuffling around of God's modern revelations is in the last category you mentioned. I really do, and after 40 years of pondering it. I don’t think we were commanded in the scriptures to not plagiarize. That is a pretty new concept and didn't happen in the olden days. By the time the US Constitution was written it was becoming well recognized by those who had a financial stake in it, and the founding fathers shored up the flimsy idea of intellectual ownership, and made it fundamental law to financially motivate advances in thought and invention. Did you see my post (I think to Bolshevek) about the flimsiness of the ownership of things beyond objects? I thought several times he saw some of it and started this thread based on some of it.

It's more speaking UP FOR God. Remember the assumption in the view I described is: God gave the revelations to VPW sources, then told VPW to go get them, shake the dust off them, and re-circulate them. If that assumption is correct, then it's people here who are forbidding God to do end runs around tradition and courts and copyright laws, as the real owner of the material.

Right. I said that already, with the qualification that you adopt the view that the material was not God-breathed. That's the view the courts would take. Did you see me agree with your post before you posted it? If not, then you did not see that in the eyes of God, if He had given it first to VPW's sources and then VPW, the courts would simply be wrong due to inability to see God's ownership. Yes, in the eyes of unbelieving man there is no excuse for what he did. I said it again. Let's see how many don't see this second admission to join you in your ignorance on this point. No excuse in man's eyes; total excuse in God's eyes, IF it were given by God to them all. Now I said it a third time. This dovetails right into a Rocky post, coming next.

It WAS shrugged off by me and others in the early 70s because we were being so abundantly blessed. But I disagree with your earlier logic. If what we were given was God-breathed we would get blessed UNTIL the big battle began. Then the blessings wouldn’t be so free. Think it through logically and more fully. We are given the greatest tool in the world to threaten the god of this world. Next step is ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE to take it away from us utilizing MANY means, some false “blessing,” some great genuine agony. I often thing one of the reasons the Corps went so sour is that most forgot they were volunteering for the front lines, right behind the WOWs. First, they got falsely “blessed” to think they were ahead of the WOWs and everyone else, and they viewed the chummy comradery of the Corps meant they were better than us lowly grads. Then all hell broke loose to finish off the job. I think many grads who wanted to go farther than the fundamental class didn’t take the spiritual battle seriously. They got creamed. I know first hand that this happened to me and many others. It happened in the first century also.

I disagree with your viewing VPW’s sources as primary. They ware also loaded with error. They also had things we did not need to advance God’s curriculum for us.

These things are not all put in one place and amenable to such clear cut statements. To some degree, I had to put it together from some clear cut statements, putting together synonymous or nearly synonymous phrases, and logical connections. I have been putting the raw materials to do this in my brain ever since 1972, mostly by accident until 1998, when it became deliberate. I lived with and/or became close friends with, and was closely associated with at least 3 of VPW’s editors prior to 1998. I have many, many facts at close hand in mind when I talk about these things. One by one I have been posting these things for 17 years here. In that process I have seen that most posters can hold only one, two, or three of these things in mind for a few days as the dialog, not with, but against me. Hardly any care to understand these things but only refute them. That makes it impossible for them to “get it.” Hardly anyone studies ALL that I post, and many items I juggle in my mind when thinking on these things are ALL necessary to see some of these things. If you have not listened to and read the transcript to “Light Began to Dawn” you are missing too many facts to follow me. If you don’t yet know what “Light Began to Dawn” is, then you are an example of what I am talking about. I’ve posted the transcript here twice, and quoted from it at least a dozen times. If this is new to you, that means you have not even begun to heart it all, and missed one of the major highlights. I’d love to post the .mp3 here. Is that possible? VPW says there that he got “light” from certain sources. That’s an example of a synonymous phrase for revelation. Not all the time, but in the contexts that I juggle, it is. Here’s an example of a logical connection: VPW says that some of his writings are God-breathed (PFAL.p83), then at the end of his life he tells us twice to master the writings that come with the class. That’s a simple logical connection that the writings that come with the class are God-breathed. There are bunches of these things involved here that make this a bit of a detective job. I did not volunteer to be the gum shoe here, but it seems to have all dropped into my lap. It surprises me to this day. Another thing to consider is that this was a secret project of VPW’s that only he and God talked about, until he got green lights to let out little tid-bits, scattered over several decades. Mrs. Wierwille even was kept out of the loop. She even had difficulty with water baptism being out (CF&S) let alone her “difficult” husband coming up with God’s Word like it hadn’t been known since the first century. From what I heard here, she didn’t even hear that 1965 tape of “Light Began to Dawn.” Often VPW talked about keeping of secrets and all folks here can think of is sex. The BIG secret of VPW’s life was the light (revelation) God guided to and guided him to put it all together. How many of us would have signed a green card that had as one of the benefits: “Receive English language God-breathed texts” ??? I know I would have walked away, and so would have you. We just wouldn’t take the time to check it out, let alone try to discipline our lives to it. It had to be kept a SECRET as big as the Mystery revelation given to Paul. In the old, old SNS tapes one can often hear VPW giving out tiny comments indicating he was getting revelation to STOP TALKING. He threw out hints, and he camouflaged many statements so they sail over peoples’ heads, yet still get into the record for those who took the time to meekly search. No meekness means no seeking and no finding. I’m putting out an abundance of sledgehammer non subtle statements, and with the lack of meekness whipped up here it sails over everyone’s heads. Yet it’s in the record here (except for the pruned threads that might someday be restored) for meek digital archeologists to find someday.

I'm wondering if you ever saw the passage in the 1972 WLIL where VPW explains how he did not originate most of the material he teaches, and that he only put it all together. Have you read that long forgotten passage lately? I think you should read it. I have not recently put together my position as you guessed. Conversely, it’s grads here who “recently” put together their plagiarism position, and from my observations over 20 years most did it relativelyovernight in an emotional rush when they first got some of the data. I started putting together my position slowly and unemotionally in 1972 when I first saw Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” which I bought in the Way Bookstore. That same year I read the WLIL passage, and discussed the plagiarism issue with other grads then, WHILE WE WERE ALL BEING BLESSED by the material. As the years chugged by I became aware of many more sources of VPW, and in some of them I saw how VPW improved on them with God’s guidance. Have you heard the tape “Light Began to Dawn” from a 1965 SNS tape where VPW explains in a half hour narrative how he went from source to source? If not I can e-mail you the mp3 and I posted the transcript a few months ago here, and also 15 years ago here. If you are not intimately familiar with these two items from 1965 and 1972, then you have HARDLY BEGUN in “I'm beginning to know just a bit about you by now.” I think you are picking up more on what others are saying here about what I say than what I say. If you are familiar with those two items, what say ye of them?

VPW did.

If you’ve been able to see the perspective I described a few days ago then you can understand my response here. In that perspective I outlined two views: on man’s one God’s. Man’s view is limited and in general has no concept of God’s ownership of any revelations God gave to VPW’s sources. This means man’s view can be dead wrong at times, especially when God’s revelations are involved. This view says that VPW stole the material, and then the record (man’s) says he also got away with it. On this topic, this view is wrong. But within the view, yes, VPW stole it and got away with it. ** Now, are you ready to switch views, TEMPORARILY, even if it violates your religion? You’re not going to like this switch, but if you want to me to answer you must. Try and rise up to the challenge; it’s only temporary. In the view that God gave revelations to VPW’s sources and they mixed it in with their own material. God guided VPW to the sections HE wanted re-distributed and told him they were his to teach to others and incorporate into PFAL. This view says that VPW did NOT steal the material. It also looks like God protected him from legal difficulties. *** The answer to your second question is NO, not really. The reality was that God owned the revelations and He redistributed them as He saw fit. We who absorbed them benefited.

For those of you who are trying to at least UNDERSTAND my posts on this better, this might help. When I say that VPW’s sources got revelation (and VPW said so too) that does NOT mean that ALL the words and sentences and chapters and books of a source are given by revelation. What I have in mind is that any one of his sources had a mixed bag of God’s revelations to them, mixed in with things that were their own making in attempting to write and help people. Some of the revelation to VPW was to pick this author, but not that one. Then, in studying that author, the next revelation would be pick this book from that book and not that one by the same author. Then, in studying that book, the next revelation would be pick these chapters from those chapters and not that those. Then, on down to half sentences and individual words. Sometimes larger sections would selected by God for use to pass on to us. Then the order that VPW passed this on was the next revelation. VPW claimed in a circulated tape in 1965 and in a published book in 1972 that very little of his writings originated with him. He just put it all together in the right order with all the right pieces. *** I see posters struggling to get my points with notions that I am saying that each source of VPW had pure stuff. Some of VPW's sources were pure enough to sell some of their books in the bookstore. Some were invited to HQ as guest speakers. Some were cited in the 1965 and 1972 tape and book cited above. *** Has anyone found any evidence of my claim that BG Leonard attended the 1985 Rock of Ages? I mentioned 1986, but I think that's wrong now. I only heard this from one person, and even though I trust he was right, I'd like verification and more details. He also told me that BG said at that ROA the Way was cursed (or something) due to teaching that SIT was a gift. This would be one of those errors VPW had to filter out. VPW didn't steal BG Leonard's class; he fixed one of it's critically broken parts.

Oops! Sorry for that typo. I mean to say NOT being pompous. That will fit better twith the context now. Here is my paragraph again, corrected. I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am NOT being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me. If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.

I'm arguing in this post ONLY from the logical perspective side where the origins of the material in PFAL were given by revelation, and then re-distributed by revelation. If you can't hold onto that temporary assumption for the whole post, you will get confused and think my logical steps caused that confusion, and that I am confused. But hold onto this temporary assumption, and it will clear up real quick. It looks like Twinky did this well. I’m going to use the word “perspective” to refer to this assumption. Only one perspective is being discussed here for this post. I’ll use a similar word “view” for how the end product of pfal APPEARS today, and there are two possibilities here. I’ll use the word “view” for this, and two views will be discussed in this post. *** In the eyes of man (humans, courts, etc) what happened is definitely plagiarism. But this view is limited to the 5-senses and cannot see the ownership of God in originating the material. They cannot be convinced by any proofs whatsoever. So, from my side this view (of humans, courts, etc) is dead wrong, but will never to change. Nothing can prove my assumption to them, ever. In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism. Those eyes know to whom He gave material directly to at one time (like Kenyon, or Kenyon's teachers, or their teachers, etc back centuries), and those eyes of God can see to whom He wants to re-distribute same material at a later date. I adopted this view about 20 years ago, slowly and gradually from 1972. Two views here: man’s and God’s. These two views (from my side's perspective, which is all I'm considering here) will never be reconciled. I know that God (in the case of religious but spiritually blind copyright laws and procedures) can certainly see when and where unbelievers may try to interfere with His re-distribution plans, and can intervene to protect. He artfully dodges any subpoena the blind religious copyright defenders may issue Him, and He just befuddles their efforts to interfere with His plans. That's what happened with VPW. He clearly got away with it, scott free. God won. Bolshevik, I think one reason so many cannot follow this simple argument of several simple steps is because they freak out (due to installation of Pure Evil model) before reaching the end of my simple argument, and can no longer hold onto the temporary assumption I mentioned at the beginning of this post: that the material was originally given by revelation, and the re-distribution was by revelation. *** Summary: Perspective A – God gave original material by revelation. (I did not include Perspective B, where God did not originate the material.) View #1 – There is no God and the owner of copyright owns the material. View #2 – God owns all of what VPW published, lots of what Kenyon taught, lots of what Kenyon’s teachers taught. All that said, maybe someone who is good at handling these kinds of things (I’m a newbie) can polish this up. If I were rich I’d hire Twinky. I know lawyers are trained to do this: enthusiastically take up a perspective they themselves do not believe. It’s finally warming up outside enough for me to go to work. I sometimes revel in the utter simplicity of my work cleaning windows.

The jury is out. I'm going to bed.

I tried my best this evening to respond to everyone's more recent posts. It took me a long time (5 hrs? 6 hrs?) and I wont be able to do it again. Tomorrow I start my taxes, and wont have the time or energy. So_crates was absent this evening, so I should go back and see what I missed of his in the past 3 or 4 days. I'm too sleepy now. Good night all. Thanks for allowing me to post here. No splinter group can claim this much willingness to consider differing opinions.

CONTEXT ! I was not complaining. Just explaining to you why it wont change.

THANK YOU also, THANK YOU also, THANK YOU also ! I try to say it differently each time so maybe more can get it. I'm not exaggerating when I say I posted it MANY, MANY times and so many gloss over it. I'll take anyone's help, more succinct than me or not.

Twinky, minus the sarcasm at the end, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! :)

I think similarly of her now, and I thought the same 40 years ago. I was falsely accused of besmirching her. I think some of her ideas, like yours, are dead wrong.