actually, I'm the one who said vpw was a thief by intent, although the letter of the law may have said he wasn't. that's still open for debate, as far as I know no one has checked the copyright office to see if there's a copyright registered, for all we know the copies in circulation maybe have been unauthorized. we just don't know.
neither do we know the intent of JE in allowing the book to be published without a copyright notice (if it was indeed his decision). WD's assumption that maybe JE wanted other people to republish his work with their name on it is ludicrous. there is no reason to assume that, although I think circumstantial evidence builds a strong case that vpw intended to dupe those taking PFAL into thinking he received the information written by Stiles by revelation and that RHST book was vpw's original work.
and yes, oldiesman, it is scary how your thoughts are identical to WD's. shades of grey where there should be none. you excuse theft and dishonesty in vpw when vpw taught that the bible should be the only rule of faith and practice. bible says don't steal, don't lie. you say it wasn't a lie, it wasn't stealing because the letter of the law says so. bible also says something may be legal, doesn't make it good and honest. it comes down to intent. an honest mistake is an honest mistake even though the law still holds you responsible. vpw did not make a mistake. he lied somewhere along the way... either about his academic background, which would excuse his ignorance of theft of another's work, or he lied when he said it was his work.
Thieves don't usually tell people who they stole from.
he doesn't say anywhere in RHST that I can remember (don't have the book handy to verify) that it is a revision of the works of other authors. can't remember him doing that for any of the revised works he's published, works that have clearly been demonstrated to be authored by someone other than vpw by researchers on this board and elsewhere.
Raf.. anybody that would side with a half-bit grifter over EVERY high school in the U.S., EVERY seminary, Purdue, Yale, Harvard, Georgetown, Indiana University, and EVERY other reputable institution of higher learning, not to mention a member of a Pulitzer nominated team :)
I don't know what to say.
Looks like the grifter did his job quite well.
The cult mentality lives on, over twenty years after his death.
I dunno.. I think anybody who would side with a half-bit grifter over EVERY high school, EVERY Seminary, EVERY institution of higher learning, a literal ARMY of lawyers and other legal types..
this kind of story belongs on a milk carton, or poster.
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).
while plagiarism branches off, I want to also point out that copyright law isn't as clear-cut the simple lack of copyright notice. certain people here assume vpw came by his duplication of Stiles' work honestly. if vpw actually ran a copyright search to see if he could legally copy the work (which hasn't at all been established under the former copyright laws) then he deliberately set out to defraud another man of credit for his work, which even for a public domain work can be illegal.
Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
so... if we assume Stiles' work was public domain when vpw... uh... copied it (just to give him the benefit of the doubt, we won't hold him to any biblical or academic standard and I'll refrain from using the words that make some people so uncomfortable... STOLE and PLAGIARIZED) the act of putting his name and copyright notice on material owned by the public is an act of fraud... if he had properly cited the portions of his work that were in the public domain, there would be no crime.
no matter how you look at it, a crime was committed.
I haven't had time to keep up with this thread, so don't anyone think I'm ignoring you if you made a comment to me.
White Dove and Oldies:
I only know one other way to put this so you might get it.
What if I presented this:
And signed my name to it, as the artist?
Would that be ethical and honest?
No Linda but ethics and honesty are moral issues not crimes and therein lays the difference and my disagreement. There are plenty of copyrighted books that one could use to make plagiarism arguments and that is a valid point .One that I have never disagreed with ,contrary to popular assumption from not reading what is written. I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
69
62
127
Popular Days
Jul 6
142
Jul 4
63
Jul 2
54
Jul 5
48
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 47 posts
Bolshevik 69 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 62 posts
rrobs 127 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2017
142 posts
Jul 4 2017
63 posts
Jul 2 2017
54 posts
Jul 5 2017
48 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"I find it interesting that everybody here attacks me personally. Nobody address the things I say about the word. You keep wanting to make it about VP. Nobody here really knows my thinking on VP or th
Grace Valerie Claire
Robs, I think you should STFU.
waysider
OOPS!
potato
actually, I'm the one who said vpw was a thief by intent, although the letter of the law may have said he wasn't. that's still open for debate, as far as I know no one has checked the copyright office to see if there's a copyright registered, for all we know the copies in circulation maybe have been unauthorized. we just don't know.
neither do we know the intent of JE in allowing the book to be published without a copyright notice (if it was indeed his decision). WD's assumption that maybe JE wanted other people to republish his work with their name on it is ludicrous. there is no reason to assume that, although I think circumstantial evidence builds a strong case that vpw intended to dupe those taking PFAL into thinking he received the information written by Stiles by revelation and that RHST book was vpw's original work.
and yes, oldiesman, it is scary how your thoughts are identical to WD's. shades of grey where there should be none. you excuse theft and dishonesty in vpw when vpw taught that the bible should be the only rule of faith and practice. bible says don't steal, don't lie. you say it wasn't a lie, it wasn't stealing because the letter of the law says so. bible also says something may be legal, doesn't make it good and honest. it comes down to intent. an honest mistake is an honest mistake even though the law still holds you responsible. vpw did not make a mistake. he lied somewhere along the way... either about his academic background, which would excuse his ignorance of theft of another's work, or he lied when he said it was his work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
And he said very plainly in his pfal.
I threw all those books away and started from just the bible.
I I I I I I did this I did that.
And God showed me.
His intent was right in front of those that have eyes to see.
He lied. He stole even the very class that he made all these claims in.
Ole poor Vic why oh why do yall pick on him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Potato,
Your points would carry more weight if he didn't tell us "lots of the stuff I teach is not original".
He told us lots of his stuff didn't come from his own study and he named who those were that he learned from.
We know who he learned from. He told us who.
Thieves don't usually tell people who they stole from.
If you guys don't get what I'm saying by now then its deliberate (borrowed phrase from Raffy). :)
Hi Danny, you are God's best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yep Danny, that's what he said. I sat through it somewhere between 15-20 times, and that's what he said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Go back and read what WhiteDove wrote about this. It makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
he doesn't say anywhere in RHST that I can remember (don't have the book handy to verify) that it is a revision of the works of other authors. can't remember him doing that for any of the revised works he's published, works that have clearly been demonstrated to be authored by someone other than vpw by researchers on this board and elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Raf.. anybody that would side with a half-bit grifter over EVERY high school in the U.S., EVERY seminary, Purdue, Yale, Harvard, Georgetown, Indiana University, and EVERY other reputable institution of higher learning, not to mention a member of a Pulitzer nominated team :)
I don't know what to say.
Looks like the grifter did his job quite well.
The cult mentality lives on, over twenty years after his death.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Why oh why would I want to go back and read
WD who she/he is as blind as you to see the truth.
I sat at his feet I heard with my own ears.
He said in his class out of his class I came to these great
truths by God and his wonderful word showing me.
Just like old Pat Robinsons hurricanses last year.
His intent was very clear.
And the worms ate him to.
Broke Gods heart.
God put in his writings what will happen to
ministers that decieve.
Even in the stupid paper we had to write to graduate the Corpse(what a joke)
We had to cite where we got the work from.
HE wouldn't let us do what he did himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
One night sitting right there with him .I was in the first row.
My last name starts with b. He was at Rome City. Teaching his line of bull crap.
His Corpse night he said I know what the original says can't find the text but
I know what it says. Thats how he did his research.
Formed a conclusion and found the verse or script or people (poor walter)
to back it up.
He was a dishonest person and showed others to do the same.
Why you think those poor slobs in CES on in the mess?
I would put some of that on vp.
He and I will have to answer.
I much rather be me than him. The fire will be hot.
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. I think anybody who would side with a half-bit grifter over EVERY high school, EVERY Seminary, EVERY institution of higher learning, a literal ARMY of lawyers and other legal types..
this kind of story belongs on a milk carton, or poster.
"Don't join cults, this could happen to you".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
He said God said to him,
"I'll teach you the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century, if you'll teach it to others"
So by that statement you think Wierwille was saying that he didn't learn from other men, from God only?
If you think that, you are mistaken.
You need to add other facts in the mix which you are not doing.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
And you are a fool sorry to inform you if you thik God said that to him.
That was the hook to validate his lies just put God in there.
Oldies answer one thing for me what do you think of Pat Robinson?
God would show him What? vp stole from bullinger. where in the mix does that stuff fall since the
first sentry?
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
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).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Danny, I am unaware of any VP statement claiming he learned everything from God only.
You should get your facts straight bro.
About Pat Robertson ... regarding his recent prediction, I hope to hell he's wrong.
***********************
Well it's been wonderful debating you folks today, I bet it raised the view counts considerably. :D
But as they say, all good things must come to an end ...
I must leave you now and enjoy my day off tomorrow, and the weekend.
Happy Weekend, one and all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Nothing like side stepping your view.
I have all my facts straight. He looked in my eye.
Debate hardly. You like him came to a conclusion and
found all the facts to back it up. Its dishonest.
Debate ha ha ha ha
ONLY you added a word. Sir you are dishonest.
By doing that to me and your other brothers and sisters is wrong.
You call it debating by trickery. That my friend is a sin.
My words and other well meaning here will not cleans your eyes till you want that.
Judgemental yes I am. i guess you just use your words as intertainment.
They (your words) and me (my Life) has no value. You hurt Gods heart to.
You hurt others.
I pray God looks down at you with pity.
You have learned well from your mentor. You blow at debating.
May God have mercy on us all.
My life became so much less confusing when I put away my
clouded glasses.
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I started a new topic specifically on plagiarism.
Plagiarism 101.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=12755
I recommend at least a light brush-up for all the interested parties.
Thank you all so much!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
while plagiarism branches off, I want to also point out that copyright law isn't as clear-cut the simple lack of copyright notice. certain people here assume vpw came by his duplication of Stiles' work honestly. if vpw actually ran a copyright search to see if he could legally copy the work (which hasn't at all been established under the former copyright laws) then he deliberately set out to defraud another man of credit for his work, which even for a public domain work can be illegal.
here's a good primar:
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
and for those who think there was no crime:
Copyright Act Section 506©:
Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
so... if we assume Stiles' work was public domain when vpw... uh... copied it (just to give him the benefit of the doubt, we won't hold him to any biblical or academic standard and I'll refrain from using the words that make some people so uncomfortable... STOLE and PLAGIARIZED) the act of putting his name and copyright notice on material owned by the public is an act of fraud... if he had properly cited the portions of his work that were in the public domain, there would be no crime.
no matter how you look at it, a crime was committed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A hypocrite in all his might
So wrong in that he thinks he's right
Still he hears not
Still he sees not
Will he?
Permission to quote has been granted by author.(copyright 1970)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I haven't had time to keep up with this thread, so don't anyone think I'm ignoring you if you made a comment to me.
White Dove and Oldies:
I only know one other way to put this so you might get it.
What if I presented this:
And signed my name to it, as the artist?
Would that be ethical and honest?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
no BUT if you signed VPW, they might go for it.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No Linda but ethics and honesty are moral issues not crimes and therein lays the difference and my disagreement. There are plenty of copyrighted books that one could use to make plagiarism arguments and that is a valid point .One that I have never disagreed with ,contrary to popular assumption from not reading what is written. I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
And there was snow on the gas pumps to.
WD
This is about Stiles works.
So if we took out each book he coped from (lied about)
would you concede that vp lied.
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Stiles aside, WD, how about all the others he stole from? Did they also allegedly give permission to steal and profit from their own hard work?
Are you basically just saying, "Yeah, so he stole, plagiarized, lied and pretended to be something he's not to profit, but so what?"
I've moved this post to the Plagiarism 101 thread.
I'd really like to know what you think over there, WD, as there are a few more questions. :)
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.