Larry, I'd like for you to post something that really says what you believe. I see a lot of posts that confuse issues and muddy the waters. I think that I see that you believed that VPW had a lot of truth in what he stated - but was led astray.
Am I right? If not, will you please make a concise statement that doesn't skirt the real questions. In the case of this particular post (mine) I'd like to see you really post a belief than post a snide quip on some side issue.
HCW, you make some excellent points, IMO. Thanks. As I was thinking again about the topic plagiarism, I took my temperature to see how hot the topic was for me and came up moderately cool.
I think it does say something about character and gives a view into the mind of a person who would work that way.
Having been at the Way Nash for so many years like you I think you've brought up a good point about the general feeling VPW had regarding ethical behavior. He talked a good game, but when push came to shove he did have sort of a *wink wink* approach to some things if it got what he wanted done.
VPW used to go off on these tangents a lot where he'd talk about all the years he'd done this or that, and how nobody understood how much of this or that he'd done, and how much work he did and had done, etc. Listening to some of that stuff, I always knew he was rounding the corners off some things, and would kind of roll my eyes - "how many times are we gonna hear THIS story again", kind of a thing. Then get on with whatever we were doing. I was there and onboard yes, but there was a lot of stuff that I accepted as normal for working anywhere. A lot of bosses BS a lot, and have over inflated opinions of themselves and what they do. In VPW's case there was some of that, he was "the man", pres and founder. What're you gonna do, it's his operation. I expected it to expand and diversify and it did to some extent, but not nearly enough to build something that would last IMO.
If he'd documented more things he'd have had to do the woe-is-me routine less. It would have been understood what he did and why.
Larry, I'd like for you to post something that really says what you believe. I see a lot of posts that confuse issues and muddy the waters. I think that I see that you believed that VPW had a lot of truth in what he stated - but was led astray.
Am I right? If not, will you please make a concise statement that doesn't skirt the real questions. In the case of this particular post (mine) I'd like to see you really post a belief than post a snide quip on some side issue.
Can you do that? Will you do that?
This will be the deciding factor...
I don't know why it should be "the deciding factor" but, I'll say in essence that you're right. It doesn't matter to me who speaks the truth or what they personally do in their lives. I questioned a lot of things VP said and did and that is as it should be. What I disagreed with I put aside but, what I determined made sense I kept. He may have had his agenda but, I had my own and when I felt I could no longer function in TWI in accordance with my own agenda I simply departed.
Now, if you would like to know anything else it might be better asked elsewhere.
VPW used to go off on these tangents a lot where he'd talk about all the years he'd done this or that, and how nobody understood how much of this or that he'd done, and how much work he did and had done, etc. Listening to some of that stuff, I always knew he was rounding the corners off some things, and would kind of roll my eyes - "how many times are we gonna hear THIS story again", kind of a thing. Then get on with whatever we were doing. I was there and onboard yes, but there was a lot of stuff that I accepted as normal for working anywhere. A lot of bosses BS a lot, and have over inflated opinions of themselves and what they do. In VPW's case there was some of that, he was "the man", pres and founder. What're you gonna do, it's his operation. I expected it to expand and diversify and it did to some extent, but not nearly enough to build something that would last IMO.
So. I'm NOT the only only one who noticed stuff like that. It kinda flies in the face of the "Vp had good intent but went bad along the way" theory, doesn't it?
When I look back sans the
"he was "the man", pres and founder. What're you gonna do, it's his operation."
he's the boss thinking and look at it like this:
"Just what if he WAS just a jerk, not "the MOG" who, (like we all) has his flaws."
Looking at it from that POV; the fact that when he put his name on books "he" wrote that contain material he lifted, he was legally "right" in that he was the author of the compiled material that made up said book, it seems all the more sinister what he did.
If he was just a jerk, then he was intentionally being a jerk when he went off on all those tangents that we got numb to. I mean he had to know he was telling us the story for the um-teenth time. He had to see all the eyes rolling & stuff like that. Truth be told, we got to the place where we just put up w/him. Remember how it used to be an event when Vp came home from "movin' the Word on the field?" Remember how we went from getting off work to line the driveway to welcome him home to, "Oh Vp's back..."? Where we once wanted to listen to his stories of what went on on his journeys with baited breath we'd be like, I can't go to the 10:30, I gotta work (or whatever).
I'm thinking that the plagurism issue just might be luke warm to folks like you & me because we knew WE were on the up & up in our areas of ministry & Vp didn't really have much to do w/ what we were doing...?
"Just what if he WAS just a jerk, not "the MOG" who, (like we all) has his flaws."
My problem with that isn't just that he was a jerk (or even my problem with lcm
was that HE was a jerk), but that vpw was the one promoting he was The MOG.
(As lcm later promoted of himself.)
Being flawed is no surprise, being a jerk, in and of itself, is not an outrage.
Looking at it from that POV; the fact that when he put his name on books "he" wrote that contain material he lifted, he was legally "right" in that he was the author of the compiled material that made up said book, it seems all the more sinister what he did.
My purpose in making this thread-before it was co-opted recently by someone who
thought it was useless because discussion had stopped-
was to compile in one place the explanations, meanings, definitions and examples
of what plagiarism IS, what plagiarism is NOT, why plagiarism is BAD,
and how to avoid plagiarism.
Pretty simple subject.
What bothers me the most about this is that a number of people STILL can't seem
to get many of those.
When vpw slapped his name as AUTHOR on JCOP and JCOPS, that was dishonest, and deceptive,
and fed into his self-promotion as MOG.
However, so long as the writers consented to this (and I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that they did not) this was perfectly legal.
I've liked the Destroyer book series. Almost all the books in it I liked were written by James
Mullaney. The covers say "Warren Murphy and Richard (Ben) Sapir" wrote them.
The latter is especially difficult, since Sapir died before most of them were written.
Mullaney (and others) ghost-wrote a lot of the series-most of the GOOD books, in fact.
Ghost-writing (paying someone else to write a book in your name) is legal-so long as they
consent to this usage of their writing.
So, JCOPS and JCOP were examples of the research dept's work, and of ghost-writing,
but NOT examples of plagiarism. Those whose words were used there consented to their use.
The White Book, by contrast, was Stiles' work with some of Bullinger's work added.
(Probably some of Leonard's, as well.) None of them gave consent for their work to be lifted,
and none of them are properly cited. Even if all of them were in the public domain-
which they were not- they would STILL need to be properly cited in order to be legal.
vpw was NOT "legally right" when he put his name on the White Book, nor the Orange Book,
which were unquestionably the work of others, recompiled with their names removed and
his name added. That's plagiarism, and legally, it's a crime.
Leonard was within his rights to sue-but he CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
(Perhaps because of one Christian standard of morality that says not to sue other Christians.)
We know he was offended because he later added an elaborate notice about plagiarism to
his books.
Perhaps vpw lied to himself and eventually believed he was entitles to plagiarize.
He knew what it was and that it was wrong because he went to high school, college,
and Princeton Theological Seminary. Each of those-and especially Princeton Theological Seminary-
would have taught what it was and why it was wrong.
(My junior high school, even, taught me that.)
Perhaps you believe he was entitled to do so.
However, it was illegal, and if he had been taken to court over it, he would have lost
(unless his lawyers were brilliant enough to snow the judge like Johnnie Cochran.)
he violated the LETTER of the law as well as its INTENT.
That it seems sinister THAT he broke the law is less of a surprise when you realize he
knew it was illegal, and broke the law, and just planned not to get caught.
Of course, WHY he broke the law has nothing to do with DID he break the law,
nor does it affect the contents of the book.
However, it reflects on the character of the plagiarist.
If he was just a jerk, then he was intentionally being a jerk when he went off on all those tangents that we got numb to. I mean he had to know he was telling us the story for the um-teenth time. He had to see all the eyes rolling & stuff like that.
In all honesty, (I WAS NOT THERE AND CAN ONLY SPECULATE)
I suspect he was not INTENTIONALLY a jerk, and missed all the glazed eyes.
My thinking is that he DIDN'T CARE ABOUT YOU.
If the story bored HIM, that would have been something else.
I don't think he noticed the inattentiveness, because it didn't matter so much to him
unless it was brought to his attention. Even if he kept you up late for no reason,
he wanted to, so what you wanted or what was fair to you didn't matter.
Similarly, I think when he plagiarized he DIDN'T CARE about the law, the authors,
the readers. He cared that he got to use the writing, and that he got the credit,
and that he got the profit from the book sales (although I think that came last).
What he wanted is what mattered, not what others wanted or what was even
fair to them.
Truth be told, we got to the place where we just put up w/him. Remember how it used to be an event when Vp came home from "movin' the Word on the field?" Remember how we went from getting off work to line the driveway to welcome him home to, "Oh Vp's back..."? Where we once wanted to listen to his stories of what went on on his journeys with baited breath we'd be like, I can't go to the 10:30, I gotta work (or whatever).
I'm thinking that the plagurism issue just might be luke warm to folks like you & me because we knew WE were on the up & up in our areas of ministry & Vp didn't really have much to do w/ what we were doing...?
I can only say why it matters to me. I won't speculate why it doesn't matter quite so much
to you. I'll take your word for whichever conclusions you draw for yourself.
“Similarly, I think when he plagiarized he DIDN'T CARE about the law, the authors, the readers. He cared that he got to use the writing, and that he got the credit, and that he got the profit from the book sales (although I think that came last). What he wanted is what mattered, not what others wanted or what was even
fair to them.”—Wordwolf.
That’s right.
Not to derail the thread further (Wordwolf I understand perfectly well and agree with the point of the thread…) But well I am…
Vp claimed to be teaching the Word like it hadn’t been known since the first century. He lifted the work of others for the content of what supposedly hadn’t been known. Ahem, someone knew it. Contemporary writers wrote it.
Vp lied about his credentials, he lied about the source of his knowledge (it wasn’t direct from God, it came from others), I could go on and on. You guys know this. He told these lies over and over in virtually every teaching. Bottom line, he pretended to be something he wasn’t over and over. Daily. He lived these lies as a lifestyle. Like an actor on a stage. Of course he didn’t care. Couldn’t have. Even pfal was geared to generate distrust in anyone else but him. He made himself out to be some great one (someone in the Bible springs to mind) using the work of others. He wasn’t. He was a liar in every possible way.
I didn’t arrive at this in one day…
Whether the content (the writing of others) is valid or not, is beside the point. And, considering it was collected and considered great by someone with no conscience, is worrisome to me personally. If I trust it without examining it, then I am relying on the judgment of someone who had no ethics. Scary, when we are talking about spiritual matters.
vpw was NOT "legally right" when he put his name on the White Book, nor the Orange Book,
which were unquestionably the work of others, recompiled with their names removed and
his name added. That's plagiarism, and legally, it's a crime.
Plagiarism is an ethical issue Wordwolf. I did some web surfing, dictionary digging, etc. after reading your post. All it did was confirm what I thought I already knew... plagiarism IS wrong, but it's not about law, it's about ethics.
Here's an example of some of MY research on the subject:
]British Student Says University was Negligent for Not Stopping His Plagiarism[/size] (must be subscribed to The Chronicle of Higher Education to access)
Michael Gunn, an English major at a British university, admits that he plagiarized throughout his academic career. In a few weeks, Gunn is scheduled to complete his degree, but the university is threatening to rescind his grades and withhold his diploma. Gunn states that he did not know that his "cut and paste" techniques were a problem, and he is suing the university for negligence. The university's response and additional information about this situation can be found in a Chronicle of Higher Education article published on June 4, 2004.
That's from part of my research on plagiarism. This kid was suing a university for not stopping an admitted plagiarist but not prosecuting the plagiarist.
Leonard was within his rights to sue-but he CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
You know BJ Leonard? just how do you know that he refused to sue Vp? Do you have a reason?
I'm not supporting Vp. I'm just pretty sure that If one breaks a LAW there are criminal penalties, not just lawsuits.
Above is a LIVING college student who, after admitting that he did the evil deed, is being THREATENED:
"We'll take away your grades and withhold your diploma (but you can still finish your degree)."
"Ouch!" says the callous, egocentric, morally bankrupt literary thief.
************************
Ok, so Vp lied. Vp stole other people's work. That was unethical. From what I see, those who are experts look at it as a matter of ethics. They penalize people who do it by censure, or, taking away any gains the thief my have gotten from doing it. On the list of big deal bad things a person can do, literary theft isn't even on it.
It seems to me like you are mad @ Vp out of proportion on this issue. WW, there is so much speculation in your post that IMO, your anger about this plagiarism thing points back to you. In MY mind, speaking about ME and MY thoughts, I can't get past luke-warm or even past room temperature in caring about THIS issue.
To me, its like saying that one who is a liar, lied about thus and so. To that my response is, "So... and your point is...???"
I couldn't muster up one iota of caring about ALL of the things the WORLD FAMOUS plagiarists stole. I found in a few minutes that here are reams of info on the topic and people who, in terms of "plagiaristic proficiency" (if there is such a thing) make Vp look like a rank amateur.
My emotional response to that is , "So, what else is new? Vp wasn't world class in THAT area either... that is just par for the course when it comes to him."
Now that I've spent a few days thinking about it. I think my tepid response to the plagiarism thing is rooted in the fact that I NEVER saw Vp's MOG status as something making him THE, MOG and me ( as Chevy Chase says [so as not to STEAL from HIM]) ... and me - - NOT.
To those of us who actually knew him... those of us who, in our hearts, were serving GOD faithfully at the center of the ministry, to us Vp was A man of God. I was just as much MOG as Vp ever was - in GOD's eyes. In fact, when it came to MY area of ministry I was THE MOG serving GOD at THAT position in the ministry and I was MORE MOG in what I did than VP was. I believed that GOD would tell ME what to do int MY job before he'd tell ANYONE else - including Vp.
As much as it may burst your "evil Vp" bubble. it was Vp, himself, personally and privately who taught me to be like that concerning himself.
I believed that way concerning socks, & respected him accordingly, as I did EVERY single HQ staff member; especially those who exhibited extremely GODLY talents, abilities and heart. AND when HQ was full of people who believed similarly - it was a wonderful place to live, work & raise a family.
It was as the ministry grew so quickly and more & more people came to HQ who didn't have that mindset that the ministry, deteriorated. Those of us who knew Vp, dismissed a lot about him and went on our daily tasks to move the word over the world. We were what was good about TWI. Problem is that while we were doing or thing, VP was doing his. Too many people emulated the bad in Vp. They soon outnumbered those who were emulating his good side.
The research guys had intimate knowledge of the weaknesses in Vp's teachings, they were about correcting it long ago. Yes, Vp, then LCM stood in their way.n HQ changed from a wonderful place to a place where constant fighting was going on. Many folks gave up & left seeing that they were fighting a losing battle. They took their ball & went home so to speak. The ball being what they felt they knew of the word & how to live it.
Basically, we didn't need no stinkin' Vp to do the ministry. HE, needed US.
I could go on but I feel I've made my point. Which is it seems to me, from what I've seen on this thread that the MOG thing is directly tied to how angry one feels about vp's lifting stuff. I'm cool w/that.
I'm a lot more mad about the whole issue of Vp & co. ruining MY ministry than some of the, less heinous stuff he, they did. At this point in my life there just isn't whole lot I can do about it, and/or my life now is more important to me & my children than my life then.
You know BJ Leonard? just how do you know that he refused to sue Vp? Do you have a reason?
and who knows or not if they struck a "deal"?
I think the whole point.. we don't know why the old mogster seemed to get away with murder right in the light of day..
reminds me of a theft at work a few years ago.. the guys had a whole set of washer, dryer, fridge at the back of the store, they went inside for three minutes before loading it.. and it was GONE. About two or three in the afternoon. The guys who simply loaded it up and left looked pretty "professional".. nice truck.. nobody said a single word or suspected anything. It was the biggest loss the store has ever had to date.
point is: the worst thefts seem to happen right out in the open.
I remember the mogster even appropriated other people's music from whatever source.. I remember being threatened with certain "death" if I didn't destroy the old blue sing along der vey's in my possession..
the brown book had almost an apology in it.. "to the best of our ability, we've endeavored to get the rights..(this time)"
Oh yeah. at work, they also lost a dishwasher, a complete set of some VERY expensive oak dining set.. and more.
I think it shows part of a PATTERN of theft, plagiarism and copyright infringement. In the case of the blue book, somebody called the vicmeister on it.
I remember some songs that went away.. apparently either der vey could not afford, or the copyright holders simply refused to have their works in a cult's publication..
the theme song for the corps was one of them if I remember correctly..
The idea that "we don't think, we read what's written" may sound noble, godly.. but I think it is another one of the one-liners that passed into vey vocabulary, because so many of us refused to think..
just a dry reading of almost ANYTHING, without understanding it in one's owns terms, is really kinda fruitless most of the time.
A few quotes I've come across from others - which while we're on the subject I felt were appropriate enough to use as comments.
Plagiarism is an ethical issue Wordwolf. I did some web surfing, dictionary digging, etc. after reading your post. All it did was confirm what I thought I already knew... plagiarism IS wrong, but it's not about law, it's about ethics.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H.G. Wells.
Here's an example of some of MY research on the subject:
That's from part of my research on plagiarism. This kid was suing a university for not stopping an admitted plagiarist but not prosecuting the plagiarist.
You know BJ Leonard? just how do you know that he refused to sue Vp? Do you have a reason?
I'm not supporting Vp. I'm just pretty sure that If one breaks a LAW there are criminal penalties, not just lawsuits.
Above is a LIVING college student who, after admitting that he did the evil deed, is being THREATENED:
"We'll take away your grades and withhold your diploma (but you can still finish your degree)."
"Ouch!" says the callous, egocentric, morally bankrupt literary thief.
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewritters. - Frank L. Wright
************************
Ok, so Vp lied. Vp stole other people's work. That was unethical. From what I see, those who are experts look at it as a matter of ethics. They penalize people who do it by censure, or, taking away any gains the thief my have gotten from doing it. On the list of big deal bad things a person can do, literary theft isn't even on it.
It seems to me like you are mad @ Vp out of proportion on this issue. WW, there is so much speculation in your post that IMO, your anger about this plagiarism thing points back to you. In MY mind, speaking about ME and MY thoughts, I can't get past luke-warm or even past room temperature in caring about THIS issue.
To me, its like saying that one who is a liar, lied about thus and so. To that my response is, "So... and your point is...???"
It's better to be quotable than to be honest. - Tom Stoppard.
I couldn't muster up one iota of caring about ALL of the things the WORLD FAMOUS plagiarists stole. I found in a few minutes that here are reams of info on the topic and people who, in terms of "plagiaristic proficiency" (if there is such a thing) make Vp look like a rank amateur.
My emotional response to that is , "So, what else is new? Vp wasn't world class in THAT area either... that is just par for the course when it comes to him."
I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right. - Credrick (II) The Great.
Now that I've spent a few days thinking about it. I think my tepid response to the plagiarism thing is rooted in the fact that I NEVER saw Vp's MOG status as something making him THE, MOG and me ( as Chevy Chase says [so as not to STEAL from HIM]) ... and me - - NOT.
To those of us who actually knew him... those of us who, in our hearts, were serving GOD faithfully at the center of the ministry, to us Vp was A man of God. I was just as much MOG as Vp ever was - in GOD's eyes. In fact, when it came to MY area of ministry I was THE MOG serving GOD at THAT position in the ministry and I was MORE MOG in what I did than VP was. I believed that GOD would tell ME what to do int MY job before he'd tell ANYONE else - including Vp.
As much as it may burst your "evil Vp" bubble. it was Vp, himself, personally and privately who taught me to be like that concerning himself.
I believed that way concerning socks, & respected him accordingly, as I did EVERY single HQ staff member; especially those who exhibited extremely GODLY talents, abilities and heart. AND when HQ was full of people who believed similarly - it was a wonderful place to live, work & raise a family.
It was as the ministry grew so quickly and more & more people came to HQ who didn't have that mindset that the ministry, deteriorated. Those of us who knew Vp, dismissed a lot about him and went on our daily tasks to move the word over the world. We were what was good about TWI. Problem is that while we were doing or thing, VP was doing his. Too many people emulated the bad in Vp. They soon outnumbered those who were emulating his good side.
The research guys had intimate knowledge of the weaknesses in Vp's teachings, they were about correcting it long ago. Yes, Vp, then LCM stood in their way.n HQ changed from a wonderful place to a place where constant fighting was going on. Many folks gave up & left seeing that they were fighting a losing battle. They took their ball & went home so to speak. The ball being what they felt they knew of the word & how to live it.
Basically, we didn't need no stinkin' Vp to do the ministry. HE, needed US.
I could go on but I feel I've made my point. Which is it seems to me, from what I've seen on this thread that the MOG thing is directly tied to how angry one feels about vp's lifting stuff. I'm cool w/that.
Copy from one it's plagiarism. Copy from two it's research. - Wilson Miznet.
I'm a lot more mad about the whole issue of Vp & co. ruining MY ministry than some of the, less heinous stuff he, they did. At this point in my life there just isn't whole lot I can do about it, and/or my life now is more important to me & my children than my life then.
Reading anything without thinking about what we are reading makes reading a rather "useless" activity on several levels IMO.
I think that's what makes the idea that "we don't bring anything to da word" flawed.
I think it is impossible to, to begin with. The only thing a person can do is beat down their previous knowledge and intellect. I think at that point, you're right where the Mogster wants you.
"You READ WHAT'S WRITTEN. If there's something wrong with it, I'LL TELL YOU.."
"No private interpretation". Then the mogster mutters under his breath, "not of it's own unfolding."
Syllabus said something like "not what it means, but how it came"..
But instead of "reading what's written", der mogster used the verse to beat the snot out of anybody who dared say "I think.."
I think if a person can somehow wean themselves from the habit of always having to be "right", always having THE answers, a lot of this hooie loses it's grip.
As far a plagiarism is concerned.. the mogster practically lifted Bullinger word for word on his definition of eiplusis in How to Enjoy the Bible. At least in the sylabus if I remember correctly. Why he bothered, I don't have a clue. He muttered over it, then went on a wild tangent about why we shouldn't think when we read da word..
One should never confuse aphorisms with ACCURACY or a LEGITIMATE POINT.
"A witty saying proves NOTHING."- Voltaire.
=================
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H.G. Wells."
Sure saves time if one presumes ALL indignation is jealousy, doesn't it?
The other day, someone struck a child with a car.
Rather indignant locals beat the driver to death.
Their moral indignation- "safe driving is paramount when driving" "always protect children"
resulted in their action- "punish the driver by beating him."
According to this witty saying, they were JEALOUS OF THE DRIVER.
I'm sure HG Wells would be less than pleased to see his words used to defend criminal acts
of vpw or anyone else.
====================
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewritters. - Frank L. Wright"
It is true that some people, when they express ideas, don't express ideas that are wholesome.
Sometimes they try to justify rape or other crimes, for example.
I consider the words of Alexander Pope to be more relevant to the printed word:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
That is, to learn A LITTLE is dangerous, to STOP LEARNING is dangerous.
To CONTINUE LEARNING and to GAIN KNOWLEDGE in larger amounts increases UNDERSTANDING.
===================
"It's better to be quotable than to be honest. - Tom Stoppard."
I suppose when one's contribution to the discussion consists of quoting others,
this is a laudable sentiment. However, other than that, it lacks relevance to the discussion
whatsoever.
===================
"I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right. - Credrick (II) The Great."
Here's another example where a LITTLE LEARNING is shown to be DANGEROUS.
The quote was from a tyrant who claimed that anything he COULD seize hold of and plunder,
he was ENTITLED to seize hold of and plunder.
Morality was irrelevant, since he could later find (or pay) people to turn his greed into a virtue,
and make it sound as if his self-centeredness, his greed, his apathy towards the rights of others,
his basic contempt for human morality, was all actually a virtue.
Hey- that's the connection here!
vpw performed a bunch of criminal acts because he COULD get away with them,
and people later (and NOW!) are 'demonstrating' his 'perfect right' to do so!
So, that WAS relevant, but not in the fashion HOPED FOR.
===================
"Copy from one it's plagiarism. Copy from two it's research. - Wilson Miznet."
Here's another example that a witty saying proved nothing.
Even after links to intelligent, well-documented information on what plaigiarism IS and IS NOT,
some still choose to proudly trumpet their ignorance of same and declare
that which plagiarism is NOT, IS plagiarism,
and that which plagiarism IS, is NOT plagiarism.
If you use one as a source, or two as a source, it's research.
If you copy from one, or copy from two, it's plagiarism.
(This is the difference over-simplified, but even the slow-witted should be able
Plagiarism is an ethical issue Wordwolf. I did some web surfing, dictionary digging, etc. after reading your post. All it did was confirm what I thought I already knew... plagiarism IS wrong, but it's not about law, it's about ethics.
I must disagree with you, HCW.
Plagiarism IS an ethical issue-
AND IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE.
When dealing with a plagiarist, one deals with someone unethical.
If they are in a position of authority (a religious leader) or trust (a student),
this demonstrates they are not worthy of the trust conveyed to them.
That is independent of the criminality of their actions.
THEFT is an ethical issue too- the thief can't be trusted with property.
AND IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE.
When it is the matter of a student in a class, the matter involves not one cent of money,
but is a violation of the school's policies.
IT IS STILL A CRIME.
However, a school is not a court of law.
A school can fail a student, expel a student, and otherwise affect their record with the school.
They are not in the business of criminal charges.
It is possible, and within the school's LEGAL RIGHTS, to sue a student in civil court for the
CRIME of plagiarism.
Why don't they do it?
Duh- why bother!
As they see it, the student was punished and probably learned his lesson.
If they asserted their legal rights, they have to pay for staff of the university to assemble the
court case, pay for the lawyer(s), send staff to court for the case,
and all the time understanding that even if they get a judgement against the student,
they will be unable to recover damages (the university did not suffer material or economic
harm), no money was involved (the student did not SELL the plagiarized work)
and any hope of punitive damages ("let's send a message to all students not to break the law")
would be minimal, at best.
They would never find the time and effort worth spending.
Financially.
True, it is a moral imperative for them to do so, but moral imperatives don't balance the finances
of any college.
So, a student who plagiarizes even a homework assignment is committing a CRIMINAL ACT-
but it is very unlikely he will be taken to court.
When is it likely?
When MONEY IS INVOLVED, and DAMAGES can be awarded.
"What's in it for me to sue?" "I'll get money for it!"
Most people who JAYWALK don't get charged with it, but it IS a crime, and they CAN
be fined for it at any time. Usually, the police don't bother with that, and focus on
"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."
Plagiarism is a misdemeanor, a crime,
except when it is a FELONY.
When $2501 or more are involved (like selling copies of a book as a textbook in a Bible class),
it is a FELONY.
Here's an example of some of MY research on the subject:
That's from part of my research on plagiarism. This kid was suing a university for not stopping an admitted plagiarist but not prosecuting the plagiarist.
Universities are not required to legally prosecute a student who commits any misdemeanor,
whether it is loitering, jaywalking, or plagiarism.
That makes it no less a crime because they didn't file a lawsuit.
(See above, I explained this.)
You know BJ Leonard? just how do you know that he refused to sue Vp? Do you have a reason?
BG Leonard knew, years later, of the crime committed, where vpw plagiarized his material.
That's come up a number of times here.
He was not aware of it when it was begun.
vpw didn't exactly notify him what he did.
The news had to trickle in later.
Let me know if you need me to find some of the examples.
You are certainly aware Leonard was aware of twi, and what they taught, at least in
the most general terms.
(Johnny Lingo met him visiting the farm at New Knoxville.)
How do I know that he refused to sue vpw?
He added elaborate notices in all his books decrying plagiarism as wrong.
Leonard had a modern education, and if he didn't know he COULD have sued, then he was an
idiot, AND didn't know anyone who knew he could have sued.
Leonard was aware he was wronged, and how he was wronged.
He was aware he had redress through the legal system.
Why, then, did he not prosecute?
Having not been able to ask him directly, I can't guarantee WHY.
My GUESS is that he considered his choices, considered the Biblical injunctions against
Christians suing other Christians, and elected to NOT exercise his right to legal redress.
However, his reasons for not suing-and even his AWARENESS of same-
are NON-ISSUES when looking at the CRIME of plagiarism-
which became a FELONY when it exceeded $2500 US.
I'm not supporting Vp. I'm just pretty sure that If one breaks a LAW there are criminal penalties, not just lawsuits.
Criminal penalties are assessed as the immediate result of imprisonment at an ARREST,
or in federal court once a lawsuit has been brought.
The police are not mind-readers.
They can't just get up one morning and arrest a man for plagiarism-
they have to know he committed the crime. How would they know? A vision of snow on the donut shop?
Even if they arrested him (I lack a knowledge of how an arrest goes without the presence of a violent
crime and will not pretend I do), the only thing they would do is read him his rights, book him,
and imprison him until his bail is paid.
Actual punishment for the crime would only result from the judgement in federal court.
And according to the law, if he didn't have a lawyer who was clever enough, he could have faced
the maximum penalty for this FELONY:
$250,000 in crimes, and 10 years in jail, which certainly would have been in prison.
Above is a LIVING college student who, after admitting that he did the evil deed, is being THREATENED:
"We'll take away your grades and withhold your diploma (but you can still finish your degree)."
"Ouch!" says the callous, egocentric, morally bankrupt literary thief.
Well, that's one option for the university. The student certainly was penalized for his actions.
************************
Ok, so Vp lied. Vp stole other people's work. That was unethical. From what I see, those who are experts look at it as a matter of ethics. They penalize people who do it by censure, or, taking away any gains the thief my have gotten from doing it. On the list of big deal bad things a person can do, literary theft isn't even on it.
It's not up there with, say, rape, but it is still a crime, and demonstrates a moral deficiency in
a man who put himself forth as a religious leader-which means as a MORAL LEADER. In this particular case,
it means he was a FRAUD, using the skills of others to prop up his own deficiencies,
and pretended they were his- and that he received the knowledge from GOD HIMSELF.
It was unethical.
AND IT WAS A CRIME.
It seems to me like you are mad @ Vp out of proportion on this issue. WW, there is so much speculation in your post that IMO, your anger about this plagiarism thing points back to you.
Please detail what I speculated on.
Leonard's been quoted to have been aware of what vpw did later in life.
Leonard added notes condemning plagiarism to his books.
Leonard was an educated, fairly intelligent man.
The only speculation I make is that he was aware he could sue someone who plagiarized his work.
That's a rather tiny jump, as any author should be aware of his legal rights, and usually are.
There is very, very little speculation, and, AFAIK, that was all of it just now.
I'm more bothered by the continual WHITEWASHING of his crimes-by people who keep doing it-
than I am at his committing the crimes, generally.
I find it shameful and WORTH anger that he assaulted and raped our daughters and mothers and sisters.
But the people who kept claiming his victims were liars, who claimed he'd never do that even when
confronted with many victims coming forth, who verbally attacked the women for stepping forth,
who tried to claim it was all consentual or all their own fault,
THOSE tend to earn more emotion NOW than the disgraceful criminal actions decades ago.
I can't go back and undo the rapes.
Similarly, I can't undo his plagiarism, and I consider it, generally, a closed subject that only
needs to be brought to the attention of people unaware of it.
I'd be done discussing it for weeks or months after that- except a handful of people
(I'm not thinking of you here) have continued to use a variety of methods - including lying and
deceptive use of selective information- to pretend vpw never plagiarized and intend to pretend
plagiarism is something other than it did.
However, the charge that I shouldn't care that others have committed crimes has been levelled
at me- as if there's something wrong with being offended by crime.
The "out of proportion" part comes in when I have to keep revisiting the same subjects I considered
closed because some people keep attempting to conceal crimes and otherwise pretend they never
happened or were never crimes. So I return to posting about them-since someone pretended
a crime was not a crime- and I'm accused of being obsessed with it. The people who are unable
to accept it, who keep concealing the crime- THEY are PERFECTLY HEALTHY, but for me to respond
to them is UNHEALTHY?
I find that unsupportable, illogical, and poor scholarship.
In MY mind, speaking about ME and MY thoughts, I can't get past luke-warm or even past room temperature in caring about THIS issue.
To me, its like saying that one who is a liar, lied about thus and so. To that my response is, "So... and your point is...???"
If those trying to conceal this would stop trying to conceal it, I'd similarly have little pathos on the subject.
When I describe vpw to people, I mention his plagiarism matter-of-factly, since it has a bearing on his character,
his research ability, and his approach, and then move on to other matters (including his far more offensive
rapes and so on, among other issues.).
I couldn't muster up one iota of caring about ALL of the things the WORLD FAMOUS plagiarists stole. I found in a few minutes that here are reams of info on the topic and people who, in terms of "plagiaristic proficiency" (if there is such a thing) make Vp look like a rank amateur.
My emotional response to that is , "So, what else is new? Vp wasn't world class in THAT area either... that is just par for the course when it comes to him."
"Lots of people break the law and are unethical, why should I care if vpw did so as well?"
I'm offended at ANY plagiarist, at ANY unethical behaviour, ESPECIALLY among Christians who profess
moral understanding and values. I've been offended at a number of televangelists and others over
the years. I don't think anything excuses any of them-including how often other people brake the
law or act unethically.
If that doesn't move you, and you're not offended by professed Christians who break the law and act
unethically, well, I think that's a shame, and that's all. I certainly can't change your mind on the subject,
and it's not my responsibility anyway.
Now that I've spent a few days thinking about it. I think my tepid response to the plagiarism thing is rooted in the fact that I NEVER saw Vp's MOG status as something making him THE, MOG and me ( as Chevy Chase says [so as not to STEAL from HIM]) ... and me - - NOT.
To those of us who actually knew him... those of us who, in our hearts, were serving GOD faithfully at the center of the ministry, to us Vp was A man of God. I was just as much MOG as Vp ever was - in GOD's eyes. In fact, when it came to MY area of ministry I was THE MOG serving GOD at THAT position in the ministry and I was MORE MOG in what I did than VP was. I believed that GOD would tell ME what to do int MY job before he'd tell ANYONE else - including Vp.
I'm perfectly fine with that.
As much as it may burst your "evil Vp" bubble. it was Vp, himself, personally and privately who taught me to be like that concerning himself.
As much as it may burst your
"WordWolf insists vpw was always evil through and through" bubble,
I've mentioned-when it came up-that you have posted as having had favourable experiences personally
with vpw, and posters should seek out your posts when looking for personal accounts of same.
That came up last month, IIRC, and I immediately responded by mentioning you.
I've never pretended you didn't have a number of positive experiences with him.
I've questioned the interpretation of a few instances here and there, but never claimed you didn't have
positive experiences as a whole. If he'd conducted himself more like he did with you, and less like
he did with some others, things would have been a lot better, he would have committed a lot fewer crimes.
Too bad he didn't.
I believed that way concerning socks, & respected him accordingly, as I did EVERY single HQ staff member; especially those who exhibited extremely GODLY talents, abilities and heart. AND when HQ was full of people who believed similarly - it was a wonderful place to live, work & raise a family.
It was as the ministry grew so quickly and more & more people came to HQ who didn't have that mindset that the ministry, deteriorated. Those of us who knew Vp, dismissed a lot about him and went on our daily tasks to move the word over the world. We were what was good about TWI. Problem is that while we were doing or thing, VP was doing his. Too many people emulated the bad in Vp. They soon outnumbered those who were emulating his good side.
Which is a shame. Too bad more staffers and corps weren't more like you and socks.
The research guys had intimate knowledge of the weaknesses in Vp's teachings, they were about correcting it long ago. Yes, Vp, then LCM stood in their way.n HQ changed from a wonderful place to a place where constant fighting was going on. Many folks gave up & left seeing that they were fighting a losing battle. They took their ball & went home so to speak. The ball being what they felt they knew of the word & how to live it.
Basically, we didn't need no stinkin' Vp to do the ministry. HE, needed US.
I could go on but I feel I've made my point. Which is it seems to me, from what I've seen on this thread that the MOG thing is directly tied to how angry one feels about vp's lifting stuff. I'm cool w/that.
I suppose I can agree with that, in and of itself, and I'm cool with it, too.
I'm a lot more mad about the whole issue of Vp & co. ruining MY ministry than some of the, less heinous stuff he, they did. At this point in my life there just isn't whole lot I can do about it, and/or my life now is more important to me & my children than my life then.
So. I'm luke warm about a LOT of TWI stuff.
later,
h-
I'm fine with someone feeling lukewarm about vpw committing the crime of plagiarism,
but I still object when someone either says he didn't, or that it wasn't a crime.
For me, the big picture is not about the fact THAT he plagiarized.
That's a foregone conclusion.
What bothers me the most is WHY he did what he did.
No, I don't know what thoughts ran through his mind but surely he must have had ulterior motives that involved satisfying his own personal agendas.
So often we see on the news where a pedophile will get a job teaching or coaching so they can create scenarios that will put them in a position to act out.
Likewise with people who create a financial facade to hide their plotting to defraud people of their money.
Ditto on people who knowingly create a false persona to generate adoration or sympathy.
Are any of these reasons applicable to understanding why he plagiarized?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
25
27
59
Popular Days
Jun 8
60
Jun 7
55
Jun 10
38
Jun 9
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
Jun 9 2007
18 posts
T-Bone
You've already done that in accepting VPW's interpretation of II Peter 1:20,21.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Larry, I'd like for you to post something that really says what you believe. I see a lot of posts that confuse issues and muddy the waters. I think that I see that you believed that VPW had a lot of truth in what he stated - but was led astray.
Am I right? If not, will you please make a concise statement that doesn't skirt the real questions. In the case of this particular post (mine) I'd like to see you really post a belief than post a snide quip on some side issue.
Can you do that? Will you do that?
This will be the deciding factor...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Tithing" might be a good place to start. (posting what one truly believes)
It's one common factor we have all shared in this TWI equation.
"Cancer= possession" might be another good starting point.
Just trying to address the issue of credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
HCW, you make some excellent points, IMO. Thanks. As I was thinking again about the topic plagiarism, I took my temperature to see how hot the topic was for me and came up moderately cool.
I think it does say something about character and gives a view into the mind of a person who would work that way.
Having been at the Way Nash for so many years like you I think you've brought up a good point about the general feeling VPW had regarding ethical behavior. He talked a good game, but when push came to shove he did have sort of a *wink wink* approach to some things if it got what he wanted done.
VPW used to go off on these tangents a lot where he'd talk about all the years he'd done this or that, and how nobody understood how much of this or that he'd done, and how much work he did and had done, etc. Listening to some of that stuff, I always knew he was rounding the corners off some things, and would kind of roll my eyes - "how many times are we gonna hear THIS story again", kind of a thing. Then get on with whatever we were doing. I was there and onboard yes, but there was a lot of stuff that I accepted as normal for working anywhere. A lot of bosses BS a lot, and have over inflated opinions of themselves and what they do. In VPW's case there was some of that, he was "the man", pres and founder. What're you gonna do, it's his operation. I expected it to expand and diversify and it did to some extent, but not nearly enough to build something that would last IMO.
If he'd documented more things he'd have had to do the woe-is-me routine less. It would have been understood what he did and why.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I don't know why it should be "the deciding factor" but, I'll say in essence that you're right. It doesn't matter to me who speaks the truth or what they personally do in their lives. I questioned a lot of things VP said and did and that is as it should be. What I disagreed with I put aside but, what I determined made sense I kept. He may have had his agenda but, I had my own and when I felt I could no longer function in TWI in accordance with my own agenda I simply departed.
Now, if you would like to know anything else it might be better asked elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
socks;
So. I'm NOT the only only one who noticed stuff like that. It kinda flies in the face of the "Vp had good intent but went bad along the way" theory, doesn't it?When I look back sans the
he's the boss thinking and look at it like this:"Just what if he WAS just a jerk, not "the MOG" who, (like we all) has his flaws."
Looking at it from that POV; the fact that when he put his name on books "he" wrote that contain material he lifted, he was legally "right" in that he was the author of the compiled material that made up said book, it seems all the more sinister what he did.
If he was just a jerk, then he was intentionally being a jerk when he went off on all those tangents that we got numb to. I mean he had to know he was telling us the story for the um-teenth time. He had to see all the eyes rolling & stuff like that. Truth be told, we got to the place where we just put up w/him. Remember how it used to be an event when Vp came home from "movin' the Word on the field?" Remember how we went from getting off work to line the driveway to welcome him home to, "Oh Vp's back..."? Where we once wanted to listen to his stories of what went on on his journeys with baited breath we'd be like, I can't go to the 10:30, I gotta work (or whatever).
I'm thinking that the plagurism issue just might be luke warm to folks like you & me because we knew WE were on the up & up in our areas of ministry & Vp didn't really have much to do w/ what we were doing...?
Edited by HCWLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
My problem with that isn't just that he was a jerk (or even my problem with lcm
was that HE was a jerk), but that vpw was the one promoting he was The MOG.
(As lcm later promoted of himself.)
Being flawed is no surprise, being a jerk, in and of itself, is not an outrage.
My purpose in making this thread-before it was co-opted recently by someone whothought it was useless because discussion had stopped-
was to compile in one place the explanations, meanings, definitions and examples
of what plagiarism IS, what plagiarism is NOT, why plagiarism is BAD,
and how to avoid plagiarism.
Pretty simple subject.
What bothers me the most about this is that a number of people STILL can't seem
to get many of those.
When vpw slapped his name as AUTHOR on JCOP and JCOPS, that was dishonest, and deceptive,
and fed into his self-promotion as MOG.
However, so long as the writers consented to this (and I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that they did not) this was perfectly legal.
I've liked the Destroyer book series. Almost all the books in it I liked were written by James
Mullaney. The covers say "Warren Murphy and Richard (Ben) Sapir" wrote them.
The latter is especially difficult, since Sapir died before most of them were written.
Mullaney (and others) ghost-wrote a lot of the series-most of the GOOD books, in fact.
Ghost-writing (paying someone else to write a book in your name) is legal-so long as they
consent to this usage of their writing.
So, JCOPS and JCOP were examples of the research dept's work, and of ghost-writing,
but NOT examples of plagiarism. Those whose words were used there consented to their use.
The White Book, by contrast, was Stiles' work with some of Bullinger's work added.
(Probably some of Leonard's, as well.) None of them gave consent for their work to be lifted,
and none of them are properly cited. Even if all of them were in the public domain-
which they were not- they would STILL need to be properly cited in order to be legal.
vpw was NOT "legally right" when he put his name on the White Book, nor the Orange Book,
which were unquestionably the work of others, recompiled with their names removed and
his name added. That's plagiarism, and legally, it's a crime.
Leonard was within his rights to sue-but he CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
(Perhaps because of one Christian standard of morality that says not to sue other Christians.)
We know he was offended because he later added an elaborate notice about plagiarism to
his books.
Perhaps vpw lied to himself and eventually believed he was entitles to plagiarize.
He knew what it was and that it was wrong because he went to high school, college,
and Princeton Theological Seminary. Each of those-and especially Princeton Theological Seminary-
would have taught what it was and why it was wrong.
(My junior high school, even, taught me that.)
Perhaps you believe he was entitled to do so.
However, it was illegal, and if he had been taken to court over it, he would have lost
(unless his lawyers were brilliant enough to snow the judge like Johnnie Cochran.)
he violated the LETTER of the law as well as its INTENT.
That it seems sinister THAT he broke the law is less of a surprise when you realize he
knew it was illegal, and broke the law, and just planned not to get caught.
Of course, WHY he broke the law has nothing to do with DID he break the law,
nor does it affect the contents of the book.
However, it reflects on the character of the plagiarist.
In all honesty, (I WAS NOT THERE AND CAN ONLY SPECULATE)
I suspect he was not INTENTIONALLY a jerk, and missed all the glazed eyes.
My thinking is that he DIDN'T CARE ABOUT YOU.
If the story bored HIM, that would have been something else.
I don't think he noticed the inattentiveness, because it didn't matter so much to him
unless it was brought to his attention. Even if he kept you up late for no reason,
he wanted to, so what you wanted or what was fair to you didn't matter.
Similarly, I think when he plagiarized he DIDN'T CARE about the law, the authors,
the readers. He cared that he got to use the writing, and that he got the credit,
and that he got the profit from the book sales (although I think that came last).
What he wanted is what mattered, not what others wanted or what was even
fair to them.
I can only say why it matters to me. I won't speculate why it doesn't matter quite so much
to you. I'll take your word for whichever conclusions you draw for yourself.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
“Similarly, I think when he plagiarized he DIDN'T CARE about the law, the authors, the readers. He cared that he got to use the writing, and that he got the credit, and that he got the profit from the book sales (although I think that came last). What he wanted is what mattered, not what others wanted or what was even
fair to them.”—Wordwolf.
That’s right.
Not to derail the thread further (Wordwolf I understand perfectly well and agree with the point of the thread…) But well I am…
Vp claimed to be teaching the Word like it hadn’t been known since the first century. He lifted the work of others for the content of what supposedly hadn’t been known. Ahem, someone knew it. Contemporary writers wrote it.
Vp lied about his credentials, he lied about the source of his knowledge (it wasn’t direct from God, it came from others), I could go on and on. You guys know this. He told these lies over and over in virtually every teaching. Bottom line, he pretended to be something he wasn’t over and over. Daily. He lived these lies as a lifestyle. Like an actor on a stage. Of course he didn’t care. Couldn’t have. Even pfal was geared to generate distrust in anyone else but him. He made himself out to be some great one (someone in the Bible springs to mind) using the work of others. He wasn’t. He was a liar in every possible way.
I didn’t arrive at this in one day…
Whether the content (the writing of others) is valid or not, is beside the point. And, considering it was collected and considered great by someone with no conscience, is worrisome to me personally. If I trust it without examining it, then I am relying on the judgment of someone who had no ethics. Scary, when we are talking about spiritual matters.
And, that’s even ignoring the adultery issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Here's an example of some of MY research on the subject:
That's from part of my research on plagiarism. This kid was suing a university for not stopping an admitted plagiarist but not prosecuting the plagiarist.
You know BJ Leonard? just how do you know that he refused to sue Vp? Do you have a reason?
I'm not supporting Vp. I'm just pretty sure that If one breaks a LAW there are criminal penalties, not just lawsuits.
Above is a LIVING college student who, after admitting that he did the evil deed, is being THREATENED:
"We'll take away your grades and withhold your diploma (but you can still finish your degree)."
"Ouch!" says the callous, egocentric, morally bankrupt literary thief.
************************
Ok, so Vp lied. Vp stole other people's work. That was unethical. From what I see, those who are experts look at it as a matter of ethics. They penalize people who do it by censure, or, taking away any gains the thief my have gotten from doing it. On the list of big deal bad things a person can do, literary theft isn't even on it.
It seems to me like you are mad @ Vp out of proportion on this issue. WW, there is so much speculation in your post that IMO, your anger about this plagiarism thing points back to you. In MY mind, speaking about ME and MY thoughts, I can't get past luke-warm or even past room temperature in caring about THIS issue.
To me, its like saying that one who is a liar, lied about thus and so. To that my response is, "So... and your point is...???"
I couldn't muster up one iota of caring about ALL of the things the WORLD FAMOUS plagiarists stole. I found in a few minutes that here are reams of info on the topic and people who, in terms of "plagiaristic proficiency" (if there is such a thing) make Vp look like a rank amateur.
My emotional response to that is , "So, what else is new? Vp wasn't world class in THAT area either... that is just par for the course when it comes to him."
Now that I've spent a few days thinking about it. I think my tepid response to the plagiarism thing is rooted in the fact that I NEVER saw Vp's MOG status as something making him THE, MOG and me ( as Chevy Chase says [so as not to STEAL from HIM]) ... and me - - NOT.
To those of us who actually knew him... those of us who, in our hearts, were serving GOD faithfully at the center of the ministry, to us Vp was A man of God. I was just as much MOG as Vp ever was - in GOD's eyes. In fact, when it came to MY area of ministry I was THE MOG serving GOD at THAT position in the ministry and I was MORE MOG in what I did than VP was. I believed that GOD would tell ME what to do int MY job before he'd tell ANYONE else - including Vp.
As much as it may burst your "evil Vp" bubble. it was Vp, himself, personally and privately who taught me to be like that concerning himself.
I believed that way concerning socks, & respected him accordingly, as I did EVERY single HQ staff member; especially those who exhibited extremely GODLY talents, abilities and heart. AND when HQ was full of people who believed similarly - it was a wonderful place to live, work & raise a family.
It was as the ministry grew so quickly and more & more people came to HQ who didn't have that mindset that the ministry, deteriorated. Those of us who knew Vp, dismissed a lot about him and went on our daily tasks to move the word over the world. We were what was good about TWI. Problem is that while we were doing or thing, VP was doing his. Too many people emulated the bad in Vp. They soon outnumbered those who were emulating his good side.
The research guys had intimate knowledge of the weaknesses in Vp's teachings, they were about correcting it long ago. Yes, Vp, then LCM stood in their way.n HQ changed from a wonderful place to a place where constant fighting was going on. Many folks gave up & left seeing that they were fighting a losing battle. They took their ball & went home so to speak. The ball being what they felt they knew of the word & how to live it.
Basically, we didn't need no stinkin' Vp to do the ministry. HE, needed US.
I could go on but I feel I've made my point. Which is it seems to me, from what I've seen on this thread that the MOG thing is directly tied to how angry one feels about vp's lifting stuff. I'm cool w/that.
I'm a lot more mad about the whole issue of Vp & co. ruining MY ministry than some of the, less heinous stuff he, they did. At this point in my life there just isn't whole lot I can do about it, and/or my life now is more important to me & my children than my life then.
So. I'm luke warm about a LOT of TWI stuff.
later,
h-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and who knows or not if they struck a "deal"?
I think the whole point.. we don't know why the old mogster seemed to get away with murder right in the light of day..
reminds me of a theft at work a few years ago.. the guys had a whole set of washer, dryer, fridge at the back of the store, they went inside for three minutes before loading it.. and it was GONE. About two or three in the afternoon. The guys who simply loaded it up and left looked pretty "professional".. nice truck.. nobody said a single word or suspected anything. It was the biggest loss the store has ever had to date.
point is: the worst thefts seem to happen right out in the open.
I remember the mogster even appropriated other people's music from whatever source.. I remember being threatened with certain "death" if I didn't destroy the old blue sing along der vey's in my possession..
the brown book had almost an apology in it.. "to the best of our ability, we've endeavored to get the rights..(this time)"
Oh yeah. at work, they also lost a dishwasher, a complete set of some VERY expensive oak dining set.. and more.
all it took was five minutes..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
my thoughts about the sinkalong der vey..
I think it shows part of a PATTERN of theft, plagiarism and copyright infringement. In the case of the blue book, somebody called the vicmeister on it.
I remember some songs that went away.. apparently either der vey could not afford, or the copyright holders simply refused to have their works in a cult's publication..
the theme song for the corps was one of them if I remember correctly..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
VPW was a sociopath.
If what he was doing was good for him, no matter how it affected anyone else it was right.
If what was being done in any way made him angry, feel bad, or not make him feel good, it was bad.
Very clear black and white logic
VPW good
Others bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And if you were NOT to do that, you would also in essence be accepting one person's interpretation of that verse over another's.
You can't avoid it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The real strength of literature, is based upon what the reader brings to it..
it's true basically for everything, math, science, fiction..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The idea that "we don't think, we read what's written" may sound noble, godly.. but I think it is another one of the one-liners that passed into vey vocabulary, because so many of us refused to think..
just a dry reading of almost ANYTHING, without understanding it in one's owns terms, is really kinda fruitless most of the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Reading anything without thinking about what we are reading makes reading a rather "useless" activity on several levels IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
A few quotes I've come across from others - which while we're on the subject I felt were appropriate enough to use as comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think that's what makes the idea that "we don't bring anything to da word" flawed.
I think it is impossible to, to begin with. The only thing a person can do is beat down their previous knowledge and intellect. I think at that point, you're right where the Mogster wants you.
"You READ WHAT'S WRITTEN. If there's something wrong with it, I'LL TELL YOU.."
"No private interpretation". Then the mogster mutters under his breath, "not of it's own unfolding."
Syllabus said something like "not what it means, but how it came"..
But instead of "reading what's written", der mogster used the verse to beat the snot out of anybody who dared say "I think.."
I think if a person can somehow wean themselves from the habit of always having to be "right", always having THE answers, a lot of this hooie loses it's grip.
As far a plagiarism is concerned.. the mogster practically lifted Bullinger word for word on his definition of eiplusis in How to Enjoy the Bible. At least in the sylabus if I remember correctly. Why he bothered, I don't have a clue. He muttered over it, then went on a wild tangent about why we shouldn't think when we read da word..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
One should never confuse aphorisms with ACCURACY or a LEGITIMATE POINT.
"A witty saying proves NOTHING."- Voltaire.
=================
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H.G. Wells."
Sure saves time if one presumes ALL indignation is jealousy, doesn't it?
The other day, someone struck a child with a car.
Rather indignant locals beat the driver to death.
Their moral indignation- "safe driving is paramount when driving" "always protect children"
resulted in their action- "punish the driver by beating him."
According to this witty saying, they were JEALOUS OF THE DRIVER.
I'm sure HG Wells would be less than pleased to see his words used to defend criminal acts
of vpw or anyone else.
====================
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewritters. - Frank L. Wright"
It is true that some people, when they express ideas, don't express ideas that are wholesome.
Sometimes they try to justify rape or other crimes, for example.
I consider the words of Alexander Pope to be more relevant to the printed word:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
That is, to learn A LITTLE is dangerous, to STOP LEARNING is dangerous.
To CONTINUE LEARNING and to GAIN KNOWLEDGE in larger amounts increases UNDERSTANDING.
===================
"It's better to be quotable than to be honest. - Tom Stoppard."
I suppose when one's contribution to the discussion consists of quoting others,
this is a laudable sentiment. However, other than that, it lacks relevance to the discussion
whatsoever.
===================
"I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right. - Credrick (II) The Great."
Here's another example where a LITTLE LEARNING is shown to be DANGEROUS.
The quote was from a tyrant who claimed that anything he COULD seize hold of and plunder,
he was ENTITLED to seize hold of and plunder.
Morality was irrelevant, since he could later find (or pay) people to turn his greed into a virtue,
and make it sound as if his self-centeredness, his greed, his apathy towards the rights of others,
his basic contempt for human morality, was all actually a virtue.
Hey- that's the connection here!
vpw performed a bunch of criminal acts because he COULD get away with them,
and people later (and NOW!) are 'demonstrating' his 'perfect right' to do so!
So, that WAS relevant, but not in the fashion HOPED FOR.
===================
"Copy from one it's plagiarism. Copy from two it's research. - Wilson Miznet."
Here's another example that a witty saying proved nothing.
Even after links to intelligent, well-documented information on what plaigiarism IS and IS NOT,
some still choose to proudly trumpet their ignorance of same and declare
that which plagiarism is NOT, IS plagiarism,
and that which plagiarism IS, is NOT plagiarism.
If you use one as a source, or two as a source, it's research.
If you copy from one, or copy from two, it's plagiarism.
(This is the difference over-simplified, but even the slow-witted should be able
to understand it if they wished.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Agree with him or not WW, he didn't use in text citation, but at least he CITED his SOURCES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I certainly can't argue with THAT...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It's plagiarism. PFAL is made out of plagiarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For me, the big picture is not about the fact THAT he plagiarized.
That's a foregone conclusion.
What bothers me the most is WHY he did what he did.
No, I don't know what thoughts ran through his mind but surely he must have had ulterior motives that involved satisfying his own personal agendas.
So often we see on the news where a pedophile will get a job teaching or coaching so they can create scenarios that will put them in a position to act out.
Likewise with people who create a financial facade to hide their plotting to defraud people of their money.
Ditto on people who knowingly create a false persona to generate adoration or sympathy.
Are any of these reasons applicable to understanding why he plagiarized?
I don't know.
It's certainly food for thought, though.
Edited by waysiderLink 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.