Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3) to commit literary theft
4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."
Can it really be theft if it's ideas and words? How do you steal ideas and words?
(same source)
"But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file)."
What are some examples of plagiarism?
(same source)
"All of the following are considered plagiarism:
-turning in someone else's work as your own
-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
-copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"
What if I change some words around and it's not an exact quote anymore?
(same source)
"Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized."
"If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source?
Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words."
So, can I use the words of others at all without plagiarizing?
(same source)
"Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."
What if I didn't MEAN to plagiarize?
(same source)
"It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse."
As is commonly pointed out in some circles,
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
Further, ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with your car is still a crime, even if you had no intention
of hitting THEM or ANYONE with your car.
What's plagiarism like in the academic world?
(same source)
"Most colleges and universities have zero tolerance for plagiarists. In fact, academic standards of intellectual honesty are often more demanding than governmental copyright laws. If you have plagiarized a paper whose copyright has run out, for example, you are less likely to be treated with any more leniency than if you had plagiarized copyrighted material.
A plagiarized paper almost always results in failure for the assignment, frequently in failure for the course, and sometimes in expulsion."
What's plagiarism like in the professional world?
(same source)
"Most corporations and institutions will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. There have been a significant number of cases around the world where people have lost their jobs or been denied positions as a result of plagiarism."
What's plagiarism like under the law?
(same source)
"Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.
Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."
"Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.)"
But, isn't it ok if this works as "free advertising" for the original work?
(same source)
"It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do."
=======
In short,
plagiarism is bad, very bad.
It is a crime, and it is morally wrong, and it is easily avoided.
Amazing? I guess so.. you think you've solved the world's problems of ignorance, and lack of common sense (in MY opinion), then you get a post like this..
I don't think there is any confusion about the pure definition of plagiarism.
The debate exists when you apply it to VPW and add other facts in the mix.
More like "the debate (with some) exists when you apply it to VPW."
Cancer? Shmancer! Plagiarism? Nonsense!
Dr. Victor Paul Wiereille is one of the finest men I have ever met.
No brag, just fact.
and..
Personally, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. There are times, I must admit, when I stand in absolute and utter amazement at what he has written to us and for us in book and magazine form. It truly is the accuracy of God's Word.
I don't think the debate is specifically about plagiarism, with some people.. they would follow old vic out on a limb, over and down a precipice.
WordWolf, I thank you for the links. I briefly skimmed through them. However, I think what I was looking for were posts made by former members of the editorial staff.
I don't have those offhand. I think ResearchGeek was one of the ones who was on the research staff, and worked on either JCOP, JCOPS, or both.
Absent corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff I cannot give much (if any) credence to your accusation that they wrote either book and merely slapped VP's name on the cover giving him credit for having wrote them. This (your accusation) amounts to no more than gossip, which is malicious.
If I recall you stated it was they who wrote or re-wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of two).
I believe that misrepresents what I said.
I certainly wasn't trying to falsely misrepresent what you were saying. Thus, I posed a question to determine if I was misunderstanding you. Coupled with your other statements on this matter, this: "I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST," might impress upon your mind how I became confused as to what you were saying. And if it doesn't – then so be it.
Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered -- If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff.
Congratulations! You've presented the most original attempt to absolve vpw of the plagiarism that he intentionally committed that's been seen for at least a month, probably longer! (Whether you're doing that intentionally or not, I can't tell, but that is the net result.)
If my understanding of your comments proved out to be correct, then it would be logical to conclude that only those who actually wrote the books would be guilty of plagiarism. VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act.
Fwiw, I've known since my early days in TWI that much of the PFAL book (class) was borrowed from Bullinger's work -- I suppose that's why I always found Bullinger to be an interesting person and worth reading. Yet I had no more passion to promote him, then I did for VP. I considered both of them merely conduits/vessels and what really mattered was whether what they spoke was true.
I can believe that in part....but you're trying to absolve vpw of felonies that you either lack full understanding of (which happens here a lot) or you understand sufficiently and have no problems misrepresenting to claim vpw didn't commit them (which happens here a lot)
I'll presume it's the first and give you the benefit of the doubt (i.e. you neither understand the full meaning of plagiarism, nor the depth of what vpw did across many sources), and presume that you are at least partly interested in learning more. I was in that position at one point, and slow to believe vpw plagiarized, and QUITE surprised when the evidence began piling up. That's also true of a lot of people here. Perhaps it is true of you.
I'll presume you didn't understand the full import of what I was saying. To put it less ambiguous – I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI. I simply didn't care about the origin of his teaching. My focus had always been on the truth of what was said. I studied the writings of Bullinger as much as those writings of VP 'cause I was fascinated with the usage of figures of speech. It was during this time that I came across Bullinger's book "How To Enjoy The Bible." As for myself, I took to heart what VP said in PFAL:
Ephesians advises in chapter 6, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord . . ." It does not tell us to be strong in what a theologian may say or in what a Bible teacher may say. If the theologian says what The Word says, if the teacher says what The Word says, then you have to be strong in what they say because of The Word, not because of the men.
As I mentioned elsewhere – I had been saying (to a select few) long before the downfall of TWI that many would "fall away" from TWI when VP died simply because in my estimation very few actually understood what he was saying in the above. Many had elevated VP to god-like status in their minds and that was unscriptural. To this day I vividly recall an incident (during the 74 AC at HQ) where another believer attempted to make me feel guilty for what he perceived was an act of disrespect I had done towards VP – THE MOG. He was successful, for after considering it for a bit I approached VP to apologize and I'll never forget the look on his face – in essence it was the look of "What the hell are you talking about?"
In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true. But, unlike many I have no interest in proving it, for what really matters is whether what he taught was the right dividing of God's Word. If it isn't – then discard it. However – if it was -- then as he stated in the above quote – we should be ". . . strong in what they say because of The Word . . . ."
Absent corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff I cannot give much (if any) credence to your accusation that they wrote either book and merely slapped VP's name on the cover giving him credit for having wrote them. This (your accusation) amounts to no more than gossip, which is malicious.
You didn't look very hard for the accounts before jumping to a conclusion.
I mentioned one poster and one source in passing.
Apparently, you didn't check EITHER.
vp & me, lcm himself claimed that vpw objected to something in the manuscript of JCOP, and found out that
a man who had left THE TEAM working on it was supposedly the source of the attitude.
"He had been working extensively on it."
Whether or not there was such an attitude, whether or not such attitude was the result of
this man, it's evident vpw and lcm knew that the book was a GROUP EFFORT,
not "an author and a staff of proofreaders."
Knowing this, and comparing the early stuff-the SIALs- with JCOP and JCOPS, are you the only
person who sees that the style of writing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?
When one person writes, they demonstrate a writing style. When a pair of writers write,
they demonstrate a style. When the writers change, even secretly, those who WANT TO KNOW
can read the books and see the style has changed. The writing style of the Orange Book was different
from the writing style of the White Book, and both were entirely different from the style-
and it was a consistent style- of JCOP and JCOPS.
Completely different. Any objective observer would AT LEAST be suspicious that the same authors
were not writing each of them (except the last 2 together.)
Then they'd look further.
You're not even ready to compare the styles, nor see if there's evidence others wrote them.
Then you're willing to call someone who exposes the truth a
GOSSIPER when they're exposing truth that's hidden.
That's malicious.
I certainly wasn't trying to falsely misrepresent what you were saying. Thus, I posed a question to determine if I was misunderstanding you. Coupled with your other statements on this matter, this: "I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST," might impress upon your mind how I became confused as to what you were saying. And if it doesn't – then so be it.
Accidental misrepresentation is understandable, and forgiveable. It's still misrepresentation, and intent doesn't
change that. I DO wonder, given how eager you are to sweep the subject of plagiarism under the rug and
absolve vpw of his commissions of same, just how "accidental" it is that your HONEST attempt to
understand took a hard left turn. It may be you can't look at it WITHOUT the hard left turn.
If my understanding of your comments proved out to be correct, then it would be logical to conclude that only those who actually wrote the books would be guilty of plagiarism. VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act.
The Orange Book and White Book were plagiarized by vpw working by himself. I have no proof he had staff
working with him when he plagiarized ADAN. It also adds nothing to the books he stole ADAN from,
unlike JCOP and JCOPS, which add to their sources and properly document- like any REAL research book should.
JCOP and JCOPS DOCUMENT THEIR SOURCES. The Orange Book, the White Book, and ADAN do not.
In other words, JCOP and JCOPS were not "by victor paul wierwille", who slapped his name on the work of others.
That's DISHONEST, and that's a SHAME, and that's DECEPTIVE, and treats all the REAL writing and editing staff
SHAMELESSLY- which is immoral, and wrong to do, both for the staff, and for the reading audience.
I am not aware that it is a CRIME, depending on if the staff consented to have their work taken from them
and have vpw's name added to it. They may have all been so loyal that they were incapable of seeing
the wrongness of vpw's action, and consented. That may have qualified the books to have been
"ghost-written" in a legal sense- OR IT MAY NOT. I've never looked into that aspect.
As for the truly plagiarized books, those were vpw, his xerox machine, and his tape and scissors.
vpw was guilty of plagiarism. He took the works of others OUTSIDE OF TWI, and stole their work without
citation, in unlimited amounts. That's plagiarism, and that's what he did.
That's a FELONY, as well as deceptive, dishonest, and a shame.
He could have gone to jail for that one and served hard time.
I'll presume you didn't understand the full import of what I was saying. To put it less ambiguously – I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI. I simply didn't care about the origin of his teaching. My focus had always been on the truth of what was said. I studied the writings of Bullinger as much as those writings of VP 'cause I was fascinated with the usage of figures of speech. It was during this time that I came across Bullinger's book "How To Enjoy The Bible."
So, were you aware that he stole the White Book, and the pfal class?
Were you aware that virtually everything he claimed credit for, was taken directly from someone else,
including much of Bullinger's work that he never mentioned?
And when Bullinger DID come up, he claimed that Bullinger came to his conclusions
SEPARATELY from vpw- that vpw studied, then saw Bullinger found the same answers, and not
that he found the answers IN BULLINGER? He claimed his introduction to Bullinger was
"he writes like you teach", and claimed Bullinger's books as corroboration for what he taught-
which can only be true if it was not THE SOURCE of what he taught.
If you knew he committed FELONIES, and DIDN'T MIND AT ALL that he committed FELONIES,
DECEIVED everyone, and STOLE THE ROYALTIES due the holders of copyrights,
and didn't care or don't care now-
then say so outright-
"Yes, I'm well aware that he misrepresented himself to everyone, claimed he wrote books written
by others, taught classes taught by others, claimed they were all HIS WORK and not directly taken from
the work of others, stole the royalties, stole the credit, and avoided doing his own work,
even to putting his name on books written by a team of writers,
and I still don't care."
If you say that, then I can think that's morally wrong, but we certainly won't be disagreeing that
vpw stole the work, stole the credit, made out that himself was some great one,
and built up an image of himself that was the product of the quality work of others.
vpw plagiarized. Do you say "I freely admit he plagiarized and I don't care?"
That would be original. Everyone keeps trying to either say he didn't plagiarize or otherwise
absolve the wrong or crime from his plagiarism,
or says it was wrong when he did plagiarize.
As I mentioned elsewhere – I had been saying (to a select few) long before the downfall of TWI that many would "fall away" from TWI when VP died simply because in my estimation very few actually understood what he was saying in the above. Many had elevated VP to god-like status in their minds and that was unscriptural. To this day I vividly recall an incident (during the 74 AC at HQ) where another believer attempted to make me feel guilty for what he perceived was an act of disrespect I had done towards VP – THE MOG. He was successful, for after considering it for a bit I approached VP to apologize and I'll never forget the look on his face – in essence it was the look of "What the hell are you talking about?"
Falling-away from twi is really an issue if twi is not worth leaving in the first place. If it was built entirely
on lies, and the backs of the rank-and-file who were cheated by the lies, most of us say it's a non-issue and it
was WORTH LEAVING, and that twi FELL AWAY when it was founded on DECEPTION AND LIES.
In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true.
Are you admitting he himself personally plagiarized the White Book, the Orange Book, the pfal classes,
and ADAN, at the very least? If so, please say so clearly. I'll be very surprised to see it.
You'll certainly be the first.
But, unlike many I have no interest in proving it, for what really matters is whether what he taught was the right dividing of God's Word. If it isn't – then discard it. However – if it was -- then as he stated in the above quote – we should be ". . . strong in what they say because of The Word . . . ."
You looked like you were trying to DISprove it earlier, when you claimed that the writers of JCOP or JCOPS
were guilty INSTEAD- therefore that vpw is INNOCENT.
I can requote you if you want, and spell it out if you don't see it.
However, if that is what you really mean to say
"vpw plagiarized A LOT, and I don't care," please spell it out.
(I for one have no intention of haranguing you on that if you do, although I reserve the right
to discuss legality and rightness when it comes up.)
As many of us have said- and the vpw apologists keep pretending we DIDN'T say,
plagiarism has no bearing on the CONTENT of the plagiarized material,
on the accuracy of what's presented.
"Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth." -Raf.
An entirely separate issue is whether or not any of what he taught was truth.
This particular thread/discussion is on plagiarism, not on doctrinal accuracy.
There's been many threads on many things vpw, lcm and twi taught,
and whether or not they measure up and are actually true,
regardless of the source. There will be many more.
This is not those threads.
But we can point you to some of those threads if you want.
Break it down:
-- VPW plagiarized and it matters.
-- VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter.
-- The tooth fairy told me that VPW didn't plagiarize.
Those are the only three sensible positions to take.
You didn't look very hard for the accounts before jumping to a conclusion. I mentioned one poster and one source in passing. Apparently, you didn't check EITHER.
If I recall correctly, when this matter first came up, you linked to a discussion. A discussion where you were the primary contributer. What I had asked for -- and what you failed to provide is -- corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff that worked on the books. Your hearsay and opinion/speculation of what transpired has about as much weight in my mind as a canary feather.
On the issue of my pov with regards to VP's plagiarism. I think I made myself quite clear. I don't see the need to repeat myself. As to how you might consider it immoral on my part not to give a dang -- well -- I really don't give a dang about what you consider immoral either.
If I recall correctly, when this matter first came up, you linked to a discussion. A discussion where you were the primary contributer. What I had asked for -- and what you failed to provide is -- corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff that worked on the books.
You mentioned that 7/4/06, 11:16am.
WordWolf, I thank you for the links. I briefly skimmed through them. However, I think what I was looking for were posts made by former members of the editorial staff...
same thread, same page.
I replied 7/4/06, 11:40pm, same thread, same page.
I don't have those offhand.
I think ResearchGeek was one of the ones who was on the research staff,
and worked on either JCOP, JCOPS, or both.
Apparently, I left out the reference to "VP and Me", but THOUGHT I posted it.
My mistake.
Sorry.
I posted it NOW, though. Has lcm's admission changed anything?
Your hearsay and opinion/speculation of what transpired has about as much weight in my mind as a canary feather.
If you need some side-by-side comparisons of books vpw plagiarized alongside the results where
vpw plagiarized them, just ask. I thought they were easy to find.
I keep forgetting they're easy to avoid and pretend they don't exist, too.
I'll have to do something about that at some point....
On the issue of my pov with regards to VP's plagiarism. I think I made myself quite clear. I don't see the need to repeat myself.
Well, you said-TWICE- that it might not be vpw's plagiarism at all, but that of the staff.
"Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered -- If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff."
"VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act."
So, you were quite clear and made contradictory statements, once you posted this:
"I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI."
"In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true."
So, that's 2 for "vpw didn't plagiarize-the staff did",
and 2 for "vpw plagiarized."
In the same post, I might add.
(This thread, one page back.)
Clear and contradictory.
Please break the tie.
As to how you might consider it immoral on my part not to give a dang -- well -- I really don't give a dang about what you consider immoral either.
We haven't even gotten into that yet. We're still on whether or not vpw plagiarized. Apparently, someone
A couple of things I noticed in this renewed discussion.
First, it's common knowledge that the books JCOP and JCOPS were more collaborative efforts than works of VPW authorship. If you need corroboration on this, give John Schoenheit a call. Seriously, just call him. Check out the STFI website for the number. Second, I am not aware of any accusations of plagiarism in those books, seeing as both were heavily footnoted. So the idea that the editorial team, not VPW, was guilty of plagiarism in those cases is without merit: those books are the ones where you're least likely to find examples of plagiarism.
Larry, since you're not disputing the presence of plagiarism in VPW's writings, it's unnecessary to prove it. So I thank you for that.
It was never stated by WW or anyone else that this editorial-collaborative process is true of all of VPW's books. RTHST and ADAN were Wierwille books, and the plagiarized content in those books is much heavier. JCING gets an asterisk for two reasons. First, I'm not aware of any plagiarism (with the possible exception of recycled body-soul-spirit stuff that may or may not fall into that category), and second, it does have an extensive bibliography, though it was published separately for some reason I still can't fathom.
In other words, the more direct input VPW had in the writing of a book, the more likely you are to find examples of plagiarism in it.
WW, I don't see Larry as trying to deny plagiarism. I think he's struggling to understand your point with the editorial collaborative process. The point of a question is not always to level an accusation or play "gotcha." It's often to spark a discussion or bring out the answer. The problem I see is that Larry interpreted you as saying these collaborative efforts were the case with ALL of VPW's books, which would exonerate him of a direct plagiarism charge. But since he's misunderstanding what you said, it's leading him to make statements that are untrue (that it was the team, not VPW, who plagiarized). But his statements are extensive questions, and the answer to them is that VPW wrote some stuff without the team and the team wrote some stuff for which Wierwille served essentially as editor (though credited as "author").
This make sense to anyone?
This article has a good breakdown of three types of Wierwille writings: transcribed sermons, actual writings, and collaborative efforts:
same thread, same page. I replied 7/4/06, 11:40pm, same thread, same page.
Apparently, I left out the reference to "VP and Me", but THOUGHT I posted it. My mistake. Sorry.
Having never read "VP and Me" I can't comment on what CM said in it. If you have the book then simply quote what he said ON THIS SUBJECT.
If you need some side-by-side comparisons of books vpw plagiarized alongside the results where
vpw plagiarized them, just ask. I thought they were easy to find. I keep forgetting they're easy to avoid and pretend they don't exist, too.
I've already read them. In fact I have many of them stored on my computer for reference. Whether I became aware of them before you did or not is really irrelevant. The issue I have isn't over whether he plagiarized his writings from that of others but, rather over the issue of the editorial/research staff writing books and slapping VP's name on the cover. You claim that they did on at least two occasions. Where's your proof?
Well, you said-TWICE- that it might not be vpw's plagiarism at all, but that of the staff.
"Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered -- If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff."
"VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act."
So, you were quite clear and made contradictory statements, once you posted this:
I see nothing contradictory in my statements. I was simply making a statement based on my understanding of what you've been stating. At this point I'm not going to bother re-reading your posts to see if I'm misrepresenting or misunderstood what you were saying.
We haven't even gotten into that (issue of morality) yet. We're still on whether or not vpw plagiarized. Apparently, someone suggested the staff did, not vpw.
Hopefully, you won't get into a morality discussion with me. I'm quite confident you'll lose that argument. However, here again, you're saying someone suggested the staff did. Guess what. Someone on the staff also suggested God didn't exist. I don't need to prove they said it, do I? ;)
This make sense to anyone?
It does to me. I'll thank you (raf) for attempting to clear the air on the issue.
One photo in The Way Magazine showed his eight person research team working on a manuscript of Jesus Christ Our Passover (President's Newsletter, The Way Magazine, Nov.- Dec., 1979, pg. 28).
Raf, perhaps you might explain this to me. If the research team was photographed WORKING ON A MANUSCRIPT of JCOP whose manuscript was it if they concocted the whole book?
This system of adding a new reply sucks. I wasn't trying to edit my post and yet subsequent posts show up as an edited version of my original post. I'm wondering if the same won't happen when I hit the "Add Reply" button now. Sheesh!
Not a big deal. If you write two posts in quick succession, they appear as one post.
If the research team was photographed WORKING ON A MANUSCRIPT of JCOP whose manuscript was it if they concocted the whole book?
Not having been present at the time the photo was taken, and not being a member of the research staff, I don't know. But you seem to be taking a poster's shorthand (they wrote the book and slapped his name on the cover) too literally. If I may presume to speak for my friend here, no one is suggesting Wierwille wasn't involved in the "writing" of the book. I'm an editor. In my line of work, people write quite a bit, and I have very strong input into how the final work will appear. I make suggestions, corrections, deletions, additions, etc. But the actual writing of the articles comes from writers, not from me. My job is both easier and harder: try to spot flaws in logic or gaps in presentation, etc. In the end, it's the writer's name, not mine, that appears on the article. It appears to me, based on my understanding of what people have said, that the process with VPW's books was similar, except that in the end the book ends up with his name on the cover rather than the writer/writers. In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint.
Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.
In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint.
To that I can agree. The impression that WW was giving me is that VP wrote none of the book but simply endorsed what the staff came up with.
I'm on my way out to get a hair-cut. When I return I'll give the article from John more attention but, let me ask you something -- correct me if I'm wrong about John S being on the research staff. If John had something to do with the writing of the books in question and WW is saying the staff wrote the books then how can I possibly trust him (John) to be honest? It would be, in my mind at least, like him saying -- "I was lying to you before when I was a member of the research staff but, trust me -- I'm not lying to you now." His credibility becomes questionable. This is a quandary but, not something I'll lose any sleep over.
I thank you Raf, for your well-thought out responses.
Undisputed article about how the books were put together.
Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team.
Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books.
The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works.
VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it).
The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier).
I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.
Everyone keeps trying to either say he didn't plagiarize or otherwise absolve the wrong or crime from his plagiarism, or says it was wrong when he did plagiarize.
I for one have not been able to find a whole lot of legal information or insight as to exactly what that All rights reserved copyright clause would/could imply and cover. Copyright law can be a very complex issue even for the experts with degrees in copyright law. I highly doubt Mr. WordWolf or anyone else here has a degree in law - specifically copyright law or anyone else here qualifies in that regard. I believe many copyright lawyers prefer it to remain that way for various reasons that are quite obvious, i.e. big $$$ .
Well, that goes without saying. It's something we all do.
But put all these things together:
Undisputed article about how the books were put together.
This would tie into this . . .
Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team.
. . . and I would say the testimony of one former member of the research team is insufficient in making a judgment call.
Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books.
Everyone's writing style can go through changes. I know mine has over the years.
The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works.
All that would go to prove is it's possible to improve. Originally all the books of SIAL were small pamphlets which were later combined into the four books. It's understandable that others would help in the process of determining which pamphlets to include in which book and the order they would take therein.
VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it).
You mentioned this in your previous post and I took the time to check it out. I found no such statement. It's possible it's in one of the Way Magazines of that time period -- didn't check them.
The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier).
I'm still making my way through that article so I won't comment on what it has to say.
I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.
I think I can stipulate agreement with this. Although I would have to wonder why Juedes would say "it may have been . . ." rather than "he absolutely should have. . . ."
Look, VPW was at the root of all things a man who knew in his heart of hearts that there was no way he could live up to his self-promoted billing. He found himself in the predicament many of the rest of us have at certain times in our lives, when we overstated our abilities or accomplishments.
There comes a time when you have two choices in this situation, you can "come clean" and admit that you either bit off more than you could chew or that you exaggerated. This is a very humiliating position, and most of us hate being humiliated--but we end up facing the music because honesty seems the best way out for us even considering the initial pain involved.
VPW, took the other road, adding more untruths to the mix to sustain the original fabrications. Plagerism,in this case, was his only option. To admit that his ideas and teachings came from others was to admit that the pedestal he carved for himself, instead of being marble, was swiss cheese. Like most "sins" it was insideous--each act required more acts in that tangled web of deceit.
I often wonder if VPW had been content to be a country pastor without the need for a grandious image, how much good he could have done in his congregations life. He definitely had a gift for drawing people to him, and I think that there was in him a desire to know God, and a desire to help others. Too bad that he allowed the sin of pride to lead to that slipperly slope wherein much of the good he could have done was never allowed to come to fruition.
I often wonder if VPW had been content to be a country pastor without the need for a grandious image, how much good he could have done in his congregations life. He definitely had a gift for drawing people to him, and I think that there was in him a desire to know God, and a desire to help others. Too bad that he allowed the sin of pride to lead to that slipperly slope wherein much of the good he could have done was never allowed to come to fruition.
Well VPW did say at one time that if only 50 people believed the Word of God he taught, he would be thankful to God. Remember that? Now TWI might be rapidly approaching that number today, but I don't think that number guarantees anyone that 50 people will still believe the Word of God that VPW taught to them.
I often wonder if VPW had been content to be a country pastor without the need for a grandious image, how much good he could have done in his congregations life. He definitely had a gift for drawing people to him, and I think that there was in him a desire to know God, and a desire to help others. Too bad that he allowed the sin of pride to lead to that slipperly slope wherein much of the good he could have done was never allowed to come to fruition.
That's an interesting wonderment. I wonder if his "gift for drawing people" is something God gave him. I've read where some religious people think that even singing or writing or etc., etc., etc. are gifts from God. If God gave VP a "gift" -- I think it's called charisma -- then you have to wonder -- Why would God give such a man a gift like that if the end result was he was going to use it to deceive so many?
. . . and I would say the testimony of one former member of the research team is insufficient in making a judgment call.
Your mistake is thinking that there's a judgment call to be made here. This method of putting at least two of those books together is not subject to someone's judgment or opinion. It's history. It's indisputably how it happened. No one argues otherwise, because even Wierwille admitted it.
Everyone's writing style can go through changes. I know mine has over the years.
Valid point. There's a slight difference in style between the red book (Order My Steps) and the blue book. I was making one point in conjunction with several other points, which you chose to pick apart rather than put together. No single point I raised is proof of anything, but the whole picture is what I was going for.
All that would go to prove is it's possible to improve. Originally all the books of SIAL were small pamphlets which were later combined into the four books. It's understandable that others would help in the process of determining which pamphlets to include in which book and the order they would take therein.
Ah, but you missed something significant. Order My Steps, among the last books Wierwille wrote, definitely has plagiarism in it, which bolsters the point I made that the more direct hand Wierwille had in writing a book, the more likely you are to see plagiarism in it. So it's not a matter of improving. It's a matter of him having a direct hand or having a less direct hand in the writing process.
You mentioned this in your previous post and I took the time to check it out. I found no such statement.
You didn't look hard enough. I'll find it later, assuming I get a chance to dig these books out. But the presence of this paragraph is likewise indisputable, and it was in a book, not a magazine. Now, my memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I'm mistaken about the context of the statement. But if you have time (and the books handy), sheck the intros of all his books. The last paragraph of at least one will contain the statement I'm referring to. From there we can tell whether I've mischaracterized it (a distinct possibility).
I'm still making my way through that article so I won't comment on what it has to say.
Again, the weight of evidence supports the article's statement about how certain books came about. I'm not trying to vigorously defend every statement made therein.
I think I can stipulate agreement with this. Although I would have to wonder why Juedes would say "it may have been . . ." rather than "he absolutely should have. . . ."
You mistook my paraphrase for Juedes's words. Actually, Juedes's words were: "Use of a writing team expedites larger volumes and makes possible deeper treatments of a topic. However, to conform to the rules of scholarly practice, Wierwille should have listed himself as the general editor of these works, rather than author. One is left with the impression that the writing was done by him."
My paraphrase was less absolute, reflective of the fact that while I see his point, I don't see it as the huge infraction he makes it out to be.
WTH: Once again, I do not have time or patience to educate your seared conscience about what is and what isn't plagiarism. Arguing with you on the subject is like trying to argue the existence of the color blue to a blind man. Your stubborn unwillingness to see what happened and your decision to subject whether it happened to an arbitrary test does not impress me. I do not allege Wierwille plagiarized. I recognize it. It happened.
Your mistake is thinking that there's a judgment call to be made here.
That's no mistake, my dear Raf. That's the way we operate -- meaning it's human nature. Everything you see or hear involves making a judgment.
This method of putting at least two of those books together is not subject to someone's judgment or opinion. It's history. It's indisputably how it happened. No one argues otherwise, because even Wierwille admitted it.
Well, I've quite aware of how "history" can be revised or is influenced by bias. For instance: I believe there's a new movie out -- don't know the title -- which looks at WWII from the perspective of the Japanese. Do you think it will mirror what our (U.S.) historians write about the period?
Valid point. There's a slight difference in style between the red book (Order My Steps) and the blue book. I was making one point in conjunction with several other points, which you chose to pick apart rather than put together. No single point I raised is proof of anything, but the whole picture is what I was going for.
I appreciate and understand how it takes several pieces of the puzzle put together to see the "grand picture". However, I think I should make it clear that I'm not interested in nodding my head in agreement with what you or others say (even if I do agree). I'm more interested in challenging your opinions. Surely you don't object to that? If you do then, consider yourself just a carbon copy of leaders from TWI in that regard. Many of them, also, didn't like to be challenged. I know that from first-hand experience.
Ah, but you missed something significant. Order My Steps, among the last books Wierwille wrote, definitely has plagiarism in it, which bolsters the point I made that the more direct hand Wierwille had in writing a book, the more likely you are to see plagiarism in it. So it's not a matter of improving. It's a matter of him having a direct hand or having a less direct hand in the writing process.
OMSITW was one I didn't spend a lot of time digesting. You may be right.
You didn't look hard enough. I'll find it later, assuming I get a chance to dig these books out.
Well, I just let my computer do the work for me by doing a word search of VP's books. It found no matches for your assertion. But please do let me know if you find something. I hate it when my software doesn't work as I expect it to.
But the presence of this paragraph is likewise indisputable, and it was in a book, not a magazine. Now, my memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I'm mistaken about the context of the statement. But if you have time (and the books handy), sheck the intros of all his books. The last paragraph of at least one will contain the statement I'm referring to. From there we can tell whether I've mischaracterized it (a distinct possibility).
Again, the weight of evidence supports the article's statement about how certain books came about. I'm not trying to vigorously defend every statement made therein.
No, but you're making a fine effort (of defense) and I appreciate that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
25
27
59
Popular Days
Jun 8
60
Jun 7
55
Jun 10
38
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 26 posts
WordWolf 25 posts
Ham 27 posts
Larry N Moore 59 posts
Popular Days
Jun 8 2007
60 posts
Jun 7 2007
55 posts
Jun 10 2007
38 posts
Jan 4 2007
18 posts
Belle
Think - cough, cough - folks like vee pee caused so much reformation on the copyright laws?
OM, WD, still waiting for your input.
I know you've both been online since dmiller posted his situation and, hence, our questions.
Your silence is deafening.... care to explain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
darn, I said footednoted. that makes no darn sense.
yes Belle, I think folks like veepee made a direct contribution to the protection that authors presently enjoy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
It is just amazing that we are still talking about this subject. Guess people don't believe in absolute truth anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Amazing? I guess so.. you think you've solved the world's problems of ignorance, and lack of common sense (in MY opinion), then you get a post like this..
More like "the debate (with some) exists when you apply it to VPW."and..
I don't think the debate is specifically about plagiarism, with some people.. they would follow old vic out on a limb, over and down a precipice.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I believe it was Nick Lowe who sang:
"All men are liars-------and that's the truth."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Break it down:
-- VPW plagiarized and it matters.
-- VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter.
-- The tooth fairy told me that VPW didn't plagiarize.
Those are the only three sensible positions to take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Now it all makes sense..
Must've been right after the tooth fairy provided nitrous oxide, to facilitate removal of the tooth..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
As promised here.
Absent corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff I cannot give much (if any) credence to your accusation that they wrote either book and merely slapped VP's name on the cover giving him credit for having wrote them. This (your accusation) amounts to no more than gossip, which is malicious.
I certainly wasn't trying to falsely misrepresent what you were saying. Thus, I posed a question to determine if I was misunderstanding you. Coupled with your other statements on this matter, this: "I'm saying that vpw edited and "wrote" the first 2 editions of RTHST," might impress upon your mind how I became confused as to what you were saying. And if it doesn't – then so be it.
If my understanding of your comments proved out to be correct, then it would be logical to conclude that only those who actually wrote the books would be guilty of plagiarism. VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act.
I'll presume you didn't understand the full import of what I was saying. To put it less ambiguous – I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI. I simply didn't care about the origin of his teaching. My focus had always been on the truth of what was said. I studied the writings of Bullinger as much as those writings of VP 'cause I was fascinated with the usage of figures of speech. It was during this time that I came across Bullinger's book "How To Enjoy The Bible." As for myself, I took to heart what VP said in PFAL:
As I mentioned elsewhere – I had been saying (to a select few) long before the downfall of TWI that many would "fall away" from TWI when VP died simply because in my estimation very few actually understood what he was saying in the above. Many had elevated VP to god-like status in their minds and that was unscriptural. To this day I vividly recall an incident (during the 74 AC at HQ) where another believer attempted to make me feel guilty for what he perceived was an act of disrespect I had done towards VP – THE MOG. He was successful, for after considering it for a bit I approached VP to apologize and I'll never forget the look on his face – in essence it was the look of "What the hell are you talking about?"
In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true. But, unlike many I have no interest in proving it, for what really matters is whether what he taught was the right dividing of God's Word. If it isn't – then discard it. However – if it was -- then as he stated in the above quote – we should be ". . . strong in what they say because of The Word . . . ."
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You didn't look very hard for the accounts before jumping to a conclusion.
I mentioned one poster and one source in passing.
Apparently, you didn't check EITHER.
vp & me, lcm himself claimed that vpw objected to something in the manuscript of JCOP, and found out that
a man who had left THE TEAM working on it was supposedly the source of the attitude.
"He had been working extensively on it."
Whether or not there was such an attitude, whether or not such attitude was the result of
this man, it's evident vpw and lcm knew that the book was a GROUP EFFORT,
not "an author and a staff of proofreaders."
Knowing this, and comparing the early stuff-the SIALs- with JCOP and JCOPS, are you the only
person who sees that the style of writing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?
When one person writes, they demonstrate a writing style. When a pair of writers write,
they demonstrate a style. When the writers change, even secretly, those who WANT TO KNOW
can read the books and see the style has changed. The writing style of the Orange Book was different
from the writing style of the White Book, and both were entirely different from the style-
and it was a consistent style- of JCOP and JCOPS.
Completely different. Any objective observer would AT LEAST be suspicious that the same authors
were not writing each of them (except the last 2 together.)
Then they'd look further.
You're not even ready to compare the styles, nor see if there's evidence others wrote them.
Then you're willing to call someone who exposes the truth a
GOSSIPER when they're exposing truth that's hidden.
That's malicious.
Accidental misrepresentation is understandable, and forgiveable. It's still misrepresentation, and intent doesn'tchange that. I DO wonder, given how eager you are to sweep the subject of plagiarism under the rug and
absolve vpw of his commissions of same, just how "accidental" it is that your HONEST attempt to
understand took a hard left turn. It may be you can't look at it WITHOUT the hard left turn.
The Orange Book and White Book were plagiarized by vpw working by himself. I have no proof he had staff
working with him when he plagiarized ADAN. It also adds nothing to the books he stole ADAN from,
unlike JCOP and JCOPS, which add to their sources and properly document- like any REAL research book should.
JCOP and JCOPS DOCUMENT THEIR SOURCES. The Orange Book, the White Book, and ADAN do not.
In other words, JCOP and JCOPS were not "by victor paul wierwille", who slapped his name on the work of others.
That's DISHONEST, and that's a SHAME, and that's DECEPTIVE, and treats all the REAL writing and editing staff
SHAMELESSLY- which is immoral, and wrong to do, both for the staff, and for the reading audience.
I am not aware that it is a CRIME, depending on if the staff consented to have their work taken from them
and have vpw's name added to it. They may have all been so loyal that they were incapable of seeing
the wrongness of vpw's action, and consented. That may have qualified the books to have been
"ghost-written" in a legal sense- OR IT MAY NOT. I've never looked into that aspect.
As for the truly plagiarized books, those were vpw, his xerox machine, and his tape and scissors.
vpw was guilty of plagiarism. He took the works of others OUTSIDE OF TWI, and stole their work without
citation, in unlimited amounts. That's plagiarism, and that's what he did.
That's a FELONY, as well as deceptive, dishonest, and a shame.
He could have gone to jail for that one and served hard time.
So, were you aware that he stole the White Book, and the pfal class?Were you aware that virtually everything he claimed credit for, was taken directly from someone else,
including much of Bullinger's work that he never mentioned?
And when Bullinger DID come up, he claimed that Bullinger came to his conclusions
SEPARATELY from vpw- that vpw studied, then saw Bullinger found the same answers, and not
that he found the answers IN BULLINGER? He claimed his introduction to Bullinger was
"he writes like you teach", and claimed Bullinger's books as corroboration for what he taught-
which can only be true if it was not THE SOURCE of what he taught.
If you knew he committed FELONIES, and DIDN'T MIND AT ALL that he committed FELONIES,
DECEIVED everyone, and STOLE THE ROYALTIES due the holders of copyrights,
and didn't care or don't care now-
then say so outright-
"Yes, I'm well aware that he misrepresented himself to everyone, claimed he wrote books written
by others, taught classes taught by others, claimed they were all HIS WORK and not directly taken from
the work of others, stole the royalties, stole the credit, and avoided doing his own work,
even to putting his name on books written by a team of writers,
and I still don't care."
If you say that, then I can think that's morally wrong, but we certainly won't be disagreeing that
vpw stole the work, stole the credit, made out that himself was some great one,
and built up an image of himself that was the product of the quality work of others.
vpw plagiarized. Do you say "I freely admit he plagiarized and I don't care?"
That would be original. Everyone keeps trying to either say he didn't plagiarize or otherwise
absolve the wrong or crime from his plagiarism,
or says it was wrong when he did plagiarize.
Falling-away from twi is really an issue if twi is not worth leaving in the first place. If it was built entirely
on lies, and the backs of the rank-and-file who were cheated by the lies, most of us say it's a non-issue and it
was WORTH LEAVING, and that twi FELL AWAY when it was founded on DECEPTION AND LIES.
Are you admitting he himself personally plagiarized the White Book, the Orange Book, the pfal classes,and ADAN, at the very least? If so, please say so clearly. I'll be very surprised to see it.
You'll certainly be the first.
You looked like you were trying to DISprove it earlier, when you claimed that the writers of JCOP or JCOPS
were guilty INSTEAD- therefore that vpw is INNOCENT.
I can requote you if you want, and spell it out if you don't see it.
However, if that is what you really mean to say
"vpw plagiarized A LOT, and I don't care," please spell it out.
(I for one have no intention of haranguing you on that if you do, although I reserve the right
to discuss legality and rightness when it comes up.)
As many of us have said- and the vpw apologists keep pretending we DIDN'T say,
plagiarism has no bearing on the CONTENT of the plagiarized material,
on the accuracy of what's presented.
"Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth." -Raf.
An entirely separate issue is whether or not any of what he taught was truth.
This particular thread/discussion is on plagiarism, not on doctrinal accuracy.
There's been many threads on many things vpw, lcm and twi taught,
and whether or not they measure up and are actually true,
regardless of the source. There will be many more.
This is not those threads.
But we can point you to some of those threads if you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If I recall correctly, when this matter first came up, you linked to a discussion. A discussion where you were the primary contributer. What I had asked for -- and what you failed to provide is -- corroborating testimony from former members of the editorial/research staff that worked on the books. Your hearsay and opinion/speculation of what transpired has about as much weight in my mind as a canary feather.
On the issue of my pov with regards to VP's plagiarism. I think I made myself quite clear. I don't see the need to repeat myself. As to how you might consider it immoral on my part not to give a dang -- well -- I really don't give a dang about what you consider immoral either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You mentioned that 7/4/06, 11:16am.
same thread, same page.I replied 7/4/06, 11:40pm, same thread, same page.
Apparently, I left out the reference to "VP and Me", but THOUGHT I posted it.
My mistake.
Sorry.
I posted it NOW, though. Has lcm's admission changed anything?
If you need some side-by-side comparisons of books vpw plagiarized alongside the results wherevpw plagiarized them, just ask. I thought they were easy to find.
I keep forgetting they're easy to avoid and pretend they don't exist, too.
I'll have to do something about that at some point....
Well, you said-TWICE- that it might not be vpw's plagiarism at all, but that of the staff.
"Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered -- If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff."
"VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act."
So, you were quite clear and made contradictory statements, once you posted this:
"I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI."
"In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true."
So, that's 2 for "vpw didn't plagiarize-the staff did",
and 2 for "vpw plagiarized."
In the same post, I might add.
(This thread, one page back.)
Clear and contradictory.
Please break the tie.
We haven't even gotten into that yet. We're still on whether or not vpw plagiarized. Apparently, someone
suggested the staff did, not vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A couple of things I noticed in this renewed discussion.
First, it's common knowledge that the books JCOP and JCOPS were more collaborative efforts than works of VPW authorship. If you need corroboration on this, give John Schoenheit a call. Seriously, just call him. Check out the STFI website for the number. Second, I am not aware of any accusations of plagiarism in those books, seeing as both were heavily footnoted. So the idea that the editorial team, not VPW, was guilty of plagiarism in those cases is without merit: those books are the ones where you're least likely to find examples of plagiarism.
Larry, since you're not disputing the presence of plagiarism in VPW's writings, it's unnecessary to prove it. So I thank you for that.
It was never stated by WW or anyone else that this editorial-collaborative process is true of all of VPW's books. RTHST and ADAN were Wierwille books, and the plagiarized content in those books is much heavier. JCING gets an asterisk for two reasons. First, I'm not aware of any plagiarism (with the possible exception of recycled body-soul-spirit stuff that may or may not fall into that category), and second, it does have an extensive bibliography, though it was published separately for some reason I still can't fathom.
In other words, the more direct input VPW had in the writing of a book, the more likely you are to find examples of plagiarism in it.
WW, I don't see Larry as trying to deny plagiarism. I think he's struggling to understand your point with the editorial collaborative process. The point of a question is not always to level an accusation or play "gotcha." It's often to spark a discussion or bring out the answer. The problem I see is that Larry interpreted you as saying these collaborative efforts were the case with ALL of VPW's books, which would exonerate him of a direct plagiarism charge. But since he's misunderstanding what you said, it's leading him to make statements that are untrue (that it was the team, not VPW, who plagiarized). But his statements are extensive questions, and the answer to them is that VPW wrote some stuff without the team and the team wrote some stuff for which Wierwille served essentially as editor (though credited as "author").
This make sense to anyone?
This article has a good breakdown of three types of Wierwille writings: transcribed sermons, actual writings, and collaborative efforts:
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I've already read them. In fact I have many of them stored on my computer for reference. Whether I became aware of them before you did or not is really irrelevant. The issue I have isn't over whether he plagiarized his writings from that of others but, rather over the issue of the editorial/research staff writing books and slapping VP's name on the cover. You claim that they did on at least two occasions. Where's your proof?
I see nothing contradictory in my statements. I was simply making a statement based on my understanding of what you've been stating. At this point I'm not going to bother re-reading your posts to see if I'm misrepresenting or misunderstood what you were saying.
Hopefully, you won't get into a morality discussion with me. I'm quite confident you'll lose that argument. However, here again, you're saying someone suggested the staff did. Guess what. Someone on the staff also suggested God didn't exist. I don't need to prove they said it, do I? ;)
It does to me. I'll thank you (raf) for attempting to clear the air on the issue.Raf, perhaps you might explain this to me. If the research team was photographed WORKING ON A MANUSCRIPT of JCOP whose manuscript was it if they concocted the whole book?
This system of adding a new reply sucks. I wasn't trying to edit my post and yet subsequent posts show up as an edited version of my original post. I'm wondering if the same won't happen when I hit the "Add Reply" button now. Sheesh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not a big deal. If you write two posts in quick succession, they appear as one post.
Not having been present at the time the photo was taken, and not being a member of the research staff, I don't know. But you seem to be taking a poster's shorthand (they wrote the book and slapped his name on the cover) too literally. If I may presume to speak for my friend here, no one is suggesting Wierwille wasn't involved in the "writing" of the book. I'm an editor. In my line of work, people write quite a bit, and I have very strong input into how the final work will appear. I make suggestions, corrections, deletions, additions, etc. But the actual writing of the articles comes from writers, not from me. My job is both easier and harder: try to spot flaws in logic or gaps in presentation, etc. In the end, it's the writer's name, not mine, that appears on the article. It appears to me, based on my understanding of what people have said, that the process with VPW's books was similar, except that in the end the book ends up with his name on the cover rather than the writer/writers. In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint.
Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
To that I can agree. The impression that WW was giving me is that VP wrote none of the book but simply endorsed what the staff came up with.
I'm on my way out to get a hair-cut. When I return I'll give the article from John more attention but, let me ask you something -- correct me if I'm wrong about John S being on the research staff. If John had something to do with the writing of the books in question and WW is saying the staff wrote the books then how can I possibly trust him (John) to be honest? It would be, in my mind at least, like him saying -- "I was lying to you before when I was a member of the research staff but, trust me -- I'm not lying to you now." His credibility becomes questionable. This is a quandary but, not something I'll lose any sleep over.
I thank you Raf, for your well-thought out responses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Trust John S as much as you want or don't want.
But put all these things together:
Undisputed article about how the books were put together.
Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team.
Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books.
The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works.
VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it).
The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier).
I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I find it remarkable there were never any lawsuits (not a single one I am aware of) that were ever brought against VPW during his lifetime (or against TWI) for the things you allege and assert are plagarism, yet there was plenty of opportunity during his life for one to do so. If the rights of the authors of those works were infringed upon, I am aware any one of them could still seek legal redress as the copyrights of their works would still be in force, but none of those authors are seeking any legal redress. I am aware of lawsuits brought against VPW and TWI for many other things, but there is not a single one for plagarism. Why is that? Maybe it has something to do with that © 19xx by The Way, Inc. All rights reseverd - (that particular comment I put in bold) that is in all their publications?
I for one have not been able to find a whole lot of legal information or insight as to exactly what that All rights reserved copyright clause would/could imply and cover. Copyright law can be a very complex issue even for the experts with degrees in copyright law. I highly doubt Mr. WordWolf or anyone else here has a degree in law - specifically copyright law or anyone else here qualifies in that regard. I believe many copyright lawyers prefer it to remain that way for various reasons that are quite obvious, i.e. big $$$ .
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
. . . and I would say the testimony of one former member of the research team is insufficient in making a judgment call.
Everyone's writing style can go through changes. I know mine has over the years.All that would go to prove is it's possible to improve. Originally all the books of SIAL were small pamphlets which were later combined into the four books. It's understandable that others would help in the process of determining which pamphlets to include in which book and the order they would take therein.
You mentioned this in your previous post and I took the time to check it out. I found no such statement. It's possible it's in one of the Way Magazines of that time period -- didn't check them.I'm still making my way through that article so I won't comment on what it has to say.
I think I can stipulate agreement with this. Although I would have to wonder why Juedes would say "it may have been . . ." rather than "he absolutely should have. . . ."
Thanks for your reply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Look, VPW was at the root of all things a man who knew in his heart of hearts that there was no way he could live up to his self-promoted billing. He found himself in the predicament many of the rest of us have at certain times in our lives, when we overstated our abilities or accomplishments.
There comes a time when you have two choices in this situation, you can "come clean" and admit that you either bit off more than you could chew or that you exaggerated. This is a very humiliating position, and most of us hate being humiliated--but we end up facing the music because honesty seems the best way out for us even considering the initial pain involved.
VPW, took the other road, adding more untruths to the mix to sustain the original fabrications. Plagerism,in this case, was his only option. To admit that his ideas and teachings came from others was to admit that the pedestal he carved for himself, instead of being marble, was swiss cheese. Like most "sins" it was insideous--each act required more acts in that tangled web of deceit.
I often wonder if VPW had been content to be a country pastor without the need for a grandious image, how much good he could have done in his congregations life. He definitely had a gift for drawing people to him, and I think that there was in him a desire to know God, and a desire to help others. Too bad that he allowed the sin of pride to lead to that slipperly slope wherein much of the good he could have done was never allowed to come to fruition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Well VPW did say at one time that if only 50 people believed the Word of God he taught, he would be thankful to God. Remember that? Now TWI might be rapidly approaching that number today, but I don't think that number guarantees anyone that 50 people will still believe the Word of God that VPW taught to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's an interesting wonderment. I wonder if his "gift for drawing people" is something God gave him. I've read where some religious people think that even singing or writing or etc., etc., etc. are gifts from God. If God gave VP a "gift" -- I think it's called charisma -- then you have to wonder -- Why would God give such a man a gift like that if the end result was he was going to use it to deceive so many?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your mistake is thinking that there's a judgment call to be made here. This method of putting at least two of those books together is not subject to someone's judgment or opinion. It's history. It's indisputably how it happened. No one argues otherwise, because even Wierwille admitted it.
Valid point. There's a slight difference in style between the red book (Order My Steps) and the blue book. I was making one point in conjunction with several other points, which you chose to pick apart rather than put together. No single point I raised is proof of anything, but the whole picture is what I was going for.Ah, but you missed something significant. Order My Steps, among the last books Wierwille wrote, definitely has plagiarism in it, which bolsters the point I made that the more direct hand Wierwille had in writing a book, the more likely you are to see plagiarism in it. So it's not a matter of improving. It's a matter of him having a direct hand or having a less direct hand in the writing process.
You didn't look hard enough. I'll find it later, assuming I get a chance to dig these books out. But the presence of this paragraph is likewise indisputable, and it was in a book, not a magazine. Now, my memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I'm mistaken about the context of the statement. But if you have time (and the books handy), sheck the intros of all his books. The last paragraph of at least one will contain the statement I'm referring to. From there we can tell whether I've mischaracterized it (a distinct possibility).Again, the weight of evidence supports the article's statement about how certain books came about. I'm not trying to vigorously defend every statement made therein.
You mistook my paraphrase for Juedes's words. Actually, Juedes's words were: "Use of a writing team expedites larger volumes and makes possible deeper treatments of a topic. However, to conform to the rules of scholarly practice, Wierwille should have listed himself as the general editor of these works, rather than author. One is left with the impression that the writing was done by him."
My paraphrase was less absolute, reflective of the fact that while I see his point, I don't see it as the huge infraction he makes it out to be.
WTH: Once again, I do not have time or patience to educate your seared conscience about what is and what isn't plagiarism. Arguing with you on the subject is like trying to argue the existence of the color blue to a blind man. Your stubborn unwillingness to see what happened and your decision to subject whether it happened to an arbitrary test does not impress me. I do not allege Wierwille plagiarized. I recognize it. It happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, I've quite aware of how "history" can be revised or is influenced by bias. For instance: I believe there's a new movie out -- don't know the title -- which looks at WWII from the perspective of the Japanese. Do you think it will mirror what our (U.S.) historians write about the period?
I appreciate and understand how it takes several pieces of the puzzle put together to see the "grand picture". However, I think I should make it clear that I'm not interested in nodding my head in agreement with what you or others say (even if I do agree). I'm more interested in challenging your opinions. Surely you don't object to that? If you do then, consider yourself just a carbon copy of leaders from TWI in that regard. Many of them, also, didn't like to be challenged. I know that from first-hand experience.OMSITW was one I didn't spend a lot of time digesting. You may be right.
Well, I just let my computer do the work for me by doing a word search of VP's books. It found no matches for your assertion. But please do let me know if you find something. I hate it when my software doesn't work as I expect it to.No, but you're making a fine effort (of defense) and I appreciate that.
You're right -- I did.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink 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.