...and the thing is...he could have re-written the stuff that he lifted...put it into his own words, rearrange it, and presented it as his own in a more credible way (many ex twi leaders have done that very thing...ie: "splinter groups")...For him to have used the names, Henry Baloko, Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup...shows that he had little or no imagination...or that he was incredibly lazy...if he thought that we would never find out indicates that he thought we were REALLY stupid to boot...
...What Wierwille did, you would expect from a highschool kid that was dishonest and lazy...and the highschool kid would get a big "F" for his efforts, not to mention disciplinary action...
...but this wasn't a highschool kid doing this...it was a middleaged "clergyman" with a family...and he was trying to pass it off so that he could be the man of God in the world!
The man's "works" have no credibility whatsoever and he himself, was a flim flam man.
...and lets not forget how he boasted of hauling all of his theology books down to the city dump...his claim of "working the word"...using the bible as his only reference...yeah right!...maybe he burned all of those books AFTER he copied them, hoping nobody would even find out...and he claimed to have spent what?...13 years or something doing nothing but "working the word"? Hell, I could have copied all that stuff down over a long weekend...What was he doing all that time?...getting drunk and chasing skirts?
Probably eating fermented grapes.. or the modern equivalent..
I met a couple of kids who had inhaled way too much glue.. they plain weren't there.
The one kid would just break the glass window on a drugstore.. and meander around, slowly finding the Valiums and other "goodies".. no hurry. Cops? What cops? Didn't make any difference. In his mind, the store was there.. the goodies were inside.. and, they belonged to him..
He was just mindless.
I wonder if that was vic's mentality, as he helped himself to other's works. He was shameless.
A little lost on your point here. (forgive me if I don't understand what your saying)
The Man of God whom God said He would teach the Word to like it wasn't known since the First Century, plagiarized.
Meaning,
he was not the Man of God
he was not taught by God
twi is not God's Will
the teachings of vpw are not "like hasn't been know since the first century"
we are free from the teachings of wierwille and twi.
indeed.
It means he plagiarized.
Whether he was/was not the MOG in no way changes this fact
Whether he was/was not taught by God in no way changes this fact
Whether TWI contains some or all of God's will in no way changes this fact.
The teachings of VPW HAD been known since the first century church by others--elsewise there would have been no one for VPW to plagiarze. If the ideas you learn are hitherto unknown in your generation and come directly from God then NO ONE else has them, or has published them.
As to being freeing of TWI and VPW and their teachings--that is a personal decision.
Again, Plagiarism is a well defined set of behaviors that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the plagairists spiritual life, other teachings, or other behaviors. The fact one is a plagiarist, may very well contribute to how others percieve your character and the reliability of other things you say, however, being a plagiarist is NEVER ameliorated by other acts. You plagiarize then you are a plagiarist--plain and simple. I wish people would stop trying to make it far more complicated than this in an effort to pretend it didn't happen.
Raf, believe it or not I'm generally a nice guy but, I do have my limits. In any case I don't anticipate having any more problems with WW since he's now on my ignore list. If he should happen to want to settle this matter between us my door (via PM) will remain open to him. Afterall -- that is the acceptable venue to do so according to the rules.
Now as regards the real substance of your post. I apologize to you if I wasted your time in trying to locate the information you alluded to earlier. Perhaps you didn't notice that Eyesopen has already "opened my eyes" (is that a close proximity to plagiarism? :)) on this subject. However . . .
I found the reference. It was in JCOP, acknowledgments (p. xiii-xv, first edition, seventh printing).
Wierwille says he did a bunch of research over the years into the subject of JCOP, but had not organized it. He gave the task to Walter Cummins in the 70s to check Wierwille's research "thoroughly and critically." After Cummins had done a bunch of work on it, Wierwille laid it all out to the research team in 1974. "From this seminar a working manuscript was developed, the embryo of this book." Note that he uses the passive voice, "a manuscript was developed," and not the active "I developed a manuscript," indicating a collaborative effort.
In 1978, there's another seminar "to again study and refine previous research." The wording there again indicates collaborative effort (Wierwille does not need to hold a seminar for other people if he's the only one who's going to be studying and refining the research). Then he goes into specific people and contributions made, and concludes with this paragraph:
. . . let me say this much. Seeing how TWI promoted itself as a "Research and Teaching" ministry I don't find it odd that VP would solicit the help of others to go over his own work and "refine" it. If anything this in itself should demonstrate that VP wasn't entirely a control freak. At least that's one conclusion a person can draw from it. I'm sure others wouldn't and that's understandable.
Furthermore, I've read -- what's his name -- Howard's account of what transpired on the editing/research staff and although I can't attest that everything he says is correct it nevertheless is exactly what I was looking for -- the testimony of someone who was there. It could be easy to dismiss him -- as it seems some are intent on doing but, absent a rebuttal by another member of the same editing/research staff his account -- at least in a court of law (which this certainly isn't) would carry more weight. If I'm not mistaken -- whenever one party presents "expert" testimony and the other party presents none -- a court will generally give more credence to that expert and rule in favor of that side. I applaud his balanced look and explanation of how it works, even if it's not true.
Furthermore, I've read -- what's his name -- Howard's account of what transpired on the editing/research staff and although I can't attest that everything he says is correct it nevertheless is exactly what I was looking for -- the testimony of someone who was there. It could be easy to dismiss him -- as it seems some are intent on doing but, absent a rebuttal by another member of the same editing/research staff his account -- at least in a court of law (which this certainly isn't) would carry more weight. If I'm not mistaken -- whenever one party presents "expert" testimony and the other party presents none -- a court will generally give more credence to that expert and rule in favor of that side. I applaud his balanced look and explanation of how it works, even if it's not true.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, or even whether you're agreeing with HCW or not, but let's look at a couple of things (I wasn't going to get any further into HCW's postre, but since you did, and you appear to be giving it greater weight because he was there, I feel compelled).
HCW's expertise appears to be in the area of his presence at HQ and in the publications area. Fair enough.
This does not make him an expert in copyright law.
This does not make him an expert in plagiarism.
This does not make him an expert in non-profit exemptions to copyright laws.
This does not make him an expert in anything other than in the things he saw and heard.
I don't believe he is claiming otherwise. So let's look at some things that were said:
Maybe expected, by academia, but we editied TWI pubs to a Jr High reading level and extensive footnotes, etc., are generally a higher reading level than we wrote to.
Generally, I'll accept that firsthand testimony as self-evident, but at the very least in the cases of JCOPS and JCOP, they went to a higher standard.
Next, HCW gets into copyright infringement, which I've already explained is not synonymous with plagiarism. He also makes the statement (and I can't tell if he's quoting someone or not) that "The LEGAL issue is not the copying of the copyrighted work but the damage the copier inflicts on the original author by PROFITING from the USE of the copy."
Again, that is true. That is the LEGAL issue. It is not the moral issue. The moral issue is plagiarism, which, again, is not necessarily a copyright infringement.
HCW then writes: "There is a 'Fair Use' provision under copyright law that allows that any copyrighted work can be used for educational purposes."
Again, true, as far as it goes. However, fair use does not liberate you to lift someone else's words and pass them off as your own, which is what plagiarism is.
Then HCW goes into the discussion of the concept of lifting "ideas," and follows up with this: "In short. ALL of the stuff you guys point out that VPW lifted were ideas contained in books."
I don't know what HCW could have been thinking, but this is flat out untrue. SOME of the stuff people have pointed out falls into that category, but I almost NEVER talk about that. When I'm talking plagiarism, I'm talking of specific instances of taking the words someone else wrote and inserting them into your "work" and making like you wrote it all along. Thus we have VPW referring to people as "faith blasters who go about making statements that have no foundation in scripture," and lo and behold, Stiles ran into the exact same type of people and called them the exact same thing. That is NOT talking about "ideas." And it is not talking about "fair use" (which would entitle Wierwille, or anyone else, to quote that segment of Stiles' book, with attribution, without having to pay Stiles).
VPW didn't edit his books. He had a specific editor who was not on staff @ HQ, and every word TWI published was reviewed and had to pass stringent legal scrutiny before it was published.
Interesting, then, that either no one caught or corrected the flagrant plagiarism in Order My Steps in Thy Word. I would suggest that what HCW was told was stringent was not as stringent as he thought. Then again, Kenyon's family has been known not to care all that much that his work was plagiarized, even given flagrant examples. So the legal scrutiny may have persuaded TWI that they were legally safe. Fine and dandy. There was still flagrant plagiarism in that book. Not extensive, but painfully obvious.
PLUS. With all of the intense scrutiny TWI underwent in the 70's & early 80's, I don't remember hearing ONE word about plagurism. That would have been an EASY target but it was just a non-issue.
This, of course, proves absolutely nothing. Why would anyone be talking about plagiarism? No one suspected it. And those who did, didn't care all that much about it. But I notice HCW stops in the mid 80s, shortly before the 1987 publication of Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?, a book that undisputably documented numerous incidences of Wierwille plagiarism (along with some incidences that, imho, make little sense).
And. TWI is non-profit. Therefore it was impossible for any damage from any copyright violation, if there were any AND, VPW's books were published as educational materials.
Legally speaking, this is absurd. First, just because an organization has "non-profit status" does not mean it does not make a profit. Heck, if you make more money than you spend, you've turned a profit (aka, a surplus). The legal conclusion that "it was impossible for any damage from copyright violation" is patently absurd (sorry HCW). Non-profit status means that profit is not the reason for your organization's existence. It does not mean the organization does not turn a profit. Most businesses are in business to make money. Non-profits are in business for entirely different reasons. But they still strive to take in more money than they spend, thus ending the year with a surplus. If, through copyright violation, you are able to earn or enhance a surplus, or lessen a deficit, you've profited from that action.
I'm not saying TWI profited from copyright violation. I am saying that its status as a non-profit organization does not somehow exempt it from copyright law under some (sorry) ridiculous notion that it can't profit of that action.
Fact remains that his books were covered from legal violations. And, were it not for his incessant speaking of the people he learned stuff from, how would anyone have ever read the "source materials" to find the "plagurism?"
Irrelevant distraction from the point: Talking about Stiles to a (very) limited group of people does NOT entitle a writer to pass Stiles's words off as his own! Whether his books were covered from legal violations depends on a number of factors: discovery of the infraction (which, given the limited exposure of Wierwille's works, was not likely); willingness to sue (which, given a Biblical prohibition against taking a brother to court, might have persuaded BG Leonard not to go with that approach and instead include an explicit warning against plagiarism on future editions of his books); concern that it has taken place (some authors have better things to do than chase down third rate cult leaders who steal their lines); talent of the legal defense; etc.
In fact, it MAY have been the legal dept that made the lifted material match the original so closely. I wasn't a part of that process only saw the results of it. I remember some talk about that stuff but not a whole lot of details.
If so, they were very bad lawyers. More likely, the legal dept might have been the ones to insist on changing specific wordings in later editions to obscure the very obvious plagiarism. And how does HCW remember "some talk about that stuff but not a whole lot of details," yet earlier says "I don't remember hearing ONE WORD about plagiarism"?
Sorry, Wierwille was a rampant and unrepentant plagiarist. That he didn't get caught or sued probably had more to do with his limited influence than his legal expertise/rightness.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, or even whether you're agreeing with HCW or not, but let's look at a couple of things (I wasn't going to get any further into HCW's post, but since you did, and you appear to be giving it greater weight because he was there, I feel compelled).
HCW's expertise appears to be in the area of his presence at HQ and in the publications area. Fair enough.
This does not make him an expert in copyright law.
This does not make him an expert in plagiarism.
This does not make him an expert in non-profit exemptions to copyright laws.
This does not make him an expert in anything other than in the things he saw and heard.
I don't believe he is claiming otherwise. So let's look at some things that were said:
Raf, I didn't mean to imply that HCW was a legal expert. I was using a analogy of a legal court to state that in light of what I originally requested -- testimony from someone who actually worked on the editing/research staff -- his being the only one I'm capable of considering and judging credible. The rebuttals of those were not actually members of that staff carries less weight in my estimation because it falls under the category of speculation. And hearsay evidence doesn't cut the mustard much better.
You speak of VP's plagiarism as a moral issue but, most laws (including this one) is based on precisely morality. So I'm not sure I can totally agree that a moral violation has occurred if no legal violation has.
Okay, so if I publish "The Iliad, by Raf" and sell it to you at Barnes and Noble and pretend that I wrote it, I've done nothing wrong?
:) Depends on whether I like your version better than Homer's.
Come on, you know dang well that morality and legality are not the same thing.
I did qualify my statement with the word "most" if I'm not mistaken. In any case -- off the top of my head -- the laws against theft and murder for example are based upon morality. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to murder? Society for whatever reason has said yes -- and codified those morals into laws. So, no, I guess I don't know "dang" well that they aren't the same thing.
As for HCW as expert, my point was that you were not explaining what you were considering him an expert IN. You wanted testimony from someone on the research staff... to tell you what? I thought you wanted such a person to tell you whether some of Wierwille's books were a collaborative effort, a subject HCW did not address. He spent his time talking about copyright law (and, best as I can tell, getting some important info wrong in the process).
I think Wierwille's account of how JCOP and JCOPS came to be carry at least as much weight as HCW's. I also think it's convenient of you to dismiss what Research Geek has said (he was on the research staff) while giving weight to HCW (and I'll need him to clarify whether he was on the editing staff or the research staff). A research staffer's comment would, by "legal court" standards, carry greater weight than someone not involved in the research process, no?
:) Depends on whether I like your version better than Homer's.
I did qualify my statement with the word "most" if I'm not mistaken. In any case -- off the top of my head -- the laws against theft and murder for example are based upon morality. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to murder? Society for whatever reason has said yes -- and codified those morals into laws. So, no, I guess I don't know "dang" well that they aren't the same thing.
Uh huh.
So, generally speaking, as long as it's legal, it's moral?
Like, oh I don't know, adultery in most states?
Uh huh.
Cursing at your parents?
Yup.
Plagiarism of works for which the copyright has expired?
Sure.
Dude, what are we TALKING ABOUT HERE?
Forget the hypotheticals and get to the point of here: you know Wierwille plagiarized. You know it was wrong for him to do so. Bully for him that he didn't face legal consequences! But I don't need a jury to find him guilty to recognize that we he did was fundamentally dishonest.
I also think it's convenient of you to dismiss what Research Geek has said (he was on the research staff)
I'm sorry. I must have missed his testimony. It wasn't an intential oversight/dismissal on my part. I just honestly didn't notice his. Would you please give me a link to his posts on this subject so I may consider what he says?
This was the person WordWolf talked about originally when you guys drummed up this discussion. I do not have his posts handy (nor am I about to go digging for them).
Forget the hypotheticals and get to the point of here
My point has always been -- even though I've been aware of VP extensive use of others work I never considered it a big deal because for me personally I was more interested in the contents of the books than who the heck was responsible for them (the contents). And as I made mention on previous occasion I was not surprised in the least that TWI would fall not long after VP's death since I had observed that many, many, many members of TWI placed VP upon a pedestal. Doing so was clearly unscriptual. Why few didn't recognize that I cannot tell.
(nor am I about to go digging for them).
Suit yourself Raf.
I thank you for the time you've put into this topic. I think we're finished with it, wouldn't you agree?
My point has always been -- even though I've been aware of VP extensive use of others work I never considered it a big deal because for me personally I was more interested in the contents of the books than who the heck was responsible for them (the contents). And as I made mention on previous occasion I was not surprised in the least that TWI would fall not long after VP's death since I had observed that many, many, many members of TWI placed VP upon a pedestal. Doing so was clearly unscriptual. Why few didn't recognize that I cannot tell.
Suit yourself Raf.
I thank you for the time you've put into this topic. I think we're finished with it, wouldn't you agree?
Is your view then that vpw is not at fault for being put on a pedestal? Did he get on a pedestal by accident? Are you saying it was everyone else who put him there?
I'm sorry. I must have missed his testimony. It wasn't an intential oversight/dismissal on my part. I just honestly didn't notice his. Would you please give me a link to his posts on this subject so I may consider what he says?
There's this really cool feature here at the cafe - it's called the "search function" and it can be found in the top right corner of the screen. If that's too hard for you, here's a link to the "advanced search" page.
OR, you can click on "Members" which is directly to the left of "Search" - Look up "Research Geek" and then go through his posts.
Amazingly, one can look up all sorts of information using those methods.
My point has always been -- even though I've been aware of VP extensive use of others work I never considered it a big deal because for me personally I was more interested in the contents of the books than who the heck was responsible for them (the contents). And as I made mention on previous occasion I was not surprised in the least that TWI would fall not long after VP's death since I had observed that many, many, many members of TWI placed VP upon a pedestal. Doing so was clearly unscriptual. Why few didn't recognize that I cannot tell.
Before you got on this thread, I said there were only three logical positions to take:
VPW plagiarized and it matters.
VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter.
The tooth fairy told me VPW didn't plagiarize.
You appear to fall into that second group. While I disagree, I don't lose sleep over it. I don't have patience for people in the third group, whom I consider to be willfully ignorant on this topic.
Suit yourself Raf.
I thank you for the time you've put into this topic. I think we're finished with it, wouldn't you agree?
I didn't mean to be so coarse in saying I wasn't going to look for RG's posts. It's just that I read them ages upon ages ago, and it would take me a long time to find the particular posts in question: time I don't have. As for whether we're finished, that depends on you: do you now agree that at least two of Wierwille's books were a big collaborative process and that he was not as active in the writing as he was on, say, The Bible Tells Me So? That was the kickoff point of this discussion, no?
Is your view then that vpw is not at fault for being put on a pedestal? Did he get on a pedestal by accident? Are you saying it was everyone else who put him there?
Could you clarify?
Briefly.
Hmm . . . I can speculate that VP was aware of the inflated image that believers had of him. I'm not sure what was in his heart concerning it. Why he would allow it would also be speculation but I'm of the mind that he either thought the end justified the means or he really didn't know how to address it because it had become so prevalent. Perhaps that's why he chose to step down as President (although I thought his choice of CM was a bad one). So, yes, ultimately it was his fault but, I think believers hold some accountability.
There's this really cool feature here at the cafe - it's called the "search function" and it can be found in the top right corner of the screen. If that's too hard for you, here's a link to the "advanced search" page.
OR, you can click on "Members" which is directly to the left of "Search" - Look up "Research Geek" and then go through his posts.
Amazingly, one can look up all sorts of information using those methods.
Thanks Belle. I'll keep your helpful and kind suggestion in mind in the future.
do you now agree that at least two of Wierwille's books were a big collaborative process and that he was not as active in the writing as he was on, say, The Bible Tells Me So?
Yes, I can stipulate my agreement that "at least two . . ." were a "big collaborative process" of working off his writings and producing the books.
Hmm . . . I can speculate that VP was aware of the inflated image that believers had of him. I'm not sure what was in his heart concerning it. Why he would allow it would also be speculation but I'm of the mind that he either thought the end justified the means or he really didn't know how to address it because it had become so prevalent. Perhaps that's why he chose to step down as President (although I thought his choice of CM was a bad one). So, yes, ultimately it was his fault but, I think believers hold some accountability.
He died when I was very young, so I didn't see "just the way it was." He was obviously a very weak person, or evil-minded person, to allow it.
I don't think there was anything passive about Wierwille's quest for glory, as though it were something that sprung up around him and he was powerless to stop it. It was something he fostered, propping himself up as "The Teacher," etc.
He died when I was very young, so I didn't see "just the way it was." He was obviously a very weak person, or evil-minded person, to allow it.
I understand that. I sorta "grew up" in TWI myself. Not in the same that you're implying. I've seen much -- both pain and joy in the lives of believers. The pain many experienced saddens me but, I've always thought God is a big enuf God to see them through it. How long it takes for them to come out on the other side of their pain will vary I'm sure and it's not my place to tell them -- "GET OVER IT!" for like dealing with death each must deal with it in their own way.
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
GrouchoMarxJr
...and the thing is...he could have re-written the stuff that he lifted...put it into his own words, rearrange it, and presented it as his own in a more credible way (many ex twi leaders have done that very thing...ie: "splinter groups")...For him to have used the names, Henry Baloko, Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup...shows that he had little or no imagination...or that he was incredibly lazy...if he thought that we would never find out indicates that he thought we were REALLY stupid to boot...
...What Wierwille did, you would expect from a highschool kid that was dishonest and lazy...and the highschool kid would get a big "F" for his efforts, not to mention disciplinary action...
...but this wasn't a highschool kid doing this...it was a middleaged "clergyman" with a family...and he was trying to pass it off so that he could be the man of God in the world!
The man's "works" have no credibility whatsoever and he himself, was a flim flam man.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Plus.. the people he chose to lift from- Stiles, Leonard, Bullinger.. with the exception of Bullinger.. who ever heard of Leonard? or Stiles?
Maybe he thought they were so far on the fringe, that no one would catch on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...and lets not forget how he boasted of hauling all of his theology books down to the city dump...his claim of "working the word"...using the bible as his only reference...yeah right!...maybe he burned all of those books AFTER he copied them, hoping nobody would even find out...and he claimed to have spent what?...13 years or something doing nothing but "working the word"? Hell, I could have copied all that stuff down over a long weekend...What was he doing all that time?...getting drunk and chasing skirts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Probably eating fermented grapes.. or the modern equivalent..
I met a couple of kids who had inhaled way too much glue.. they plain weren't there.
The one kid would just break the glass window on a drugstore.. and meander around, slowly finding the Valiums and other "goodies".. no hurry. Cops? What cops? Didn't make any difference. In his mind, the store was there.. the goodies were inside.. and, they belonged to him..
He was just mindless.
I wonder if that was vic's mentality, as he helped himself to other's works. He was shameless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
It means he plagiarized.
Whether he was/was not the MOG in no way changes this fact
Whether he was/was not taught by God in no way changes this fact
Whether TWI contains some or all of God's will in no way changes this fact.
The teachings of VPW HAD been known since the first century church by others--elsewise there would have been no one for VPW to plagiarze. If the ideas you learn are hitherto unknown in your generation and come directly from God then NO ONE else has them, or has published them.
As to being freeing of TWI and VPW and their teachings--that is a personal decision.
Again, Plagiarism is a well defined set of behaviors that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the plagairists spiritual life, other teachings, or other behaviors. The fact one is a plagiarist, may very well contribute to how others percieve your character and the reliability of other things you say, however, being a plagiarist is NEVER ameliorated by other acts. You plagiarize then you are a plagiarist--plain and simple. I wish people would stop trying to make it far more complicated than this in an effort to pretend it didn't happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I still believe it's a very big deal. It's an aspect of the whole MOG puzzle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Now as regards the real substance of your post. I apologize to you if I wasted your time in trying to locate the information you alluded to earlier. Perhaps you didn't notice that Eyesopen has already "opened my eyes" (is that a close proximity to plagiarism? :)) on this subject. However . . .
. . . let me say this much. Seeing how TWI promoted itself as a "Research and Teaching" ministry I don't find it odd that VP would solicit the help of others to go over his own work and "refine" it. If anything this in itself should demonstrate that VP wasn't entirely a control freak. At least that's one conclusion a person can draw from it. I'm sure others wouldn't and that's understandable.
Furthermore, I've read -- what's his name -- Howard's account of what transpired on the editing/research staff and although I can't attest that everything he says is correct it nevertheless is exactly what I was looking for -- the testimony of someone who was there. It could be easy to dismiss him -- as it seems some are intent on doing but, absent a rebuttal by another member of the same editing/research staff his account -- at least in a court of law (which this certainly isn't) would carry more weight. If I'm not mistaken -- whenever one party presents "expert" testimony and the other party presents none -- a court will generally give more credence to that expert and rule in favor of that side. I applaud his balanced look and explanation of how it works, even if it's not true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hahahahahaha...wait a minute...am I supposed to call my lawyer now? Ahhh to heck with it...that was funny...I don't care who you are!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, or even whether you're agreeing with HCW or not, but let's look at a couple of things (I wasn't going to get any further into HCW's postre, but since you did, and you appear to be giving it greater weight because he was there, I feel compelled).
HCW's expertise appears to be in the area of his presence at HQ and in the publications area. Fair enough.
This does not make him an expert in copyright law.
This does not make him an expert in plagiarism.
This does not make him an expert in non-profit exemptions to copyright laws.
This does not make him an expert in anything other than in the things he saw and heard.
I don't believe he is claiming otherwise. So let's look at some things that were said:
Generally, I'll accept that firsthand testimony as self-evident, but at the very least in the cases of JCOPS and JCOP, they went to a higher standard.Next, HCW gets into copyright infringement, which I've already explained is not synonymous with plagiarism. He also makes the statement (and I can't tell if he's quoting someone or not) that "The LEGAL issue is not the copying of the copyrighted work but the damage the copier inflicts on the original author by PROFITING from the USE of the copy."
Again, that is true. That is the LEGAL issue. It is not the moral issue. The moral issue is plagiarism, which, again, is not necessarily a copyright infringement.
HCW then writes: "There is a 'Fair Use' provision under copyright law that allows that any copyrighted work can be used for educational purposes."
Again, true, as far as it goes. However, fair use does not liberate you to lift someone else's words and pass them off as your own, which is what plagiarism is.
Then HCW goes into the discussion of the concept of lifting "ideas," and follows up with this: "In short. ALL of the stuff you guys point out that VPW lifted were ideas contained in books."
I don't know what HCW could have been thinking, but this is flat out untrue. SOME of the stuff people have pointed out falls into that category, but I almost NEVER talk about that. When I'm talking plagiarism, I'm talking of specific instances of taking the words someone else wrote and inserting them into your "work" and making like you wrote it all along. Thus we have VPW referring to people as "faith blasters who go about making statements that have no foundation in scripture," and lo and behold, Stiles ran into the exact same type of people and called them the exact same thing. That is NOT talking about "ideas." And it is not talking about "fair use" (which would entitle Wierwille, or anyone else, to quote that segment of Stiles' book, with attribution, without having to pay Stiles).
Interesting, then, that either no one caught or corrected the flagrant plagiarism in Order My Steps in Thy Word. I would suggest that what HCW was told was stringent was not as stringent as he thought. Then again, Kenyon's family has been known not to care all that much that his work was plagiarized, even given flagrant examples. So the legal scrutiny may have persuaded TWI that they were legally safe. Fine and dandy. There was still flagrant plagiarism in that book. Not extensive, but painfully obvious.
This, of course, proves absolutely nothing. Why would anyone be talking about plagiarism? No one suspected it. And those who did, didn't care all that much about it. But I notice HCW stops in the mid 80s, shortly before the 1987 publication of Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?, a book that undisputably documented numerous incidences of Wierwille plagiarism (along with some incidences that, imho, make little sense).Legally speaking, this is absurd. First, just because an organization has "non-profit status" does not mean it does not make a profit. Heck, if you make more money than you spend, you've turned a profit (aka, a surplus). The legal conclusion that "it was impossible for any damage from copyright violation" is patently absurd (sorry HCW). Non-profit status means that profit is not the reason for your organization's existence. It does not mean the organization does not turn a profit. Most businesses are in business to make money. Non-profits are in business for entirely different reasons. But they still strive to take in more money than they spend, thus ending the year with a surplus. If, through copyright violation, you are able to earn or enhance a surplus, or lessen a deficit, you've profited from that action.
I'm not saying TWI profited from copyright violation. I am saying that its status as a non-profit organization does not somehow exempt it from copyright law under some (sorry) ridiculous notion that it can't profit of that action.
Irrelevant distraction from the point: Talking about Stiles to a (very) limited group of people does NOT entitle a writer to pass Stiles's words off as his own! Whether his books were covered from legal violations depends on a number of factors: discovery of the infraction (which, given the limited exposure of Wierwille's works, was not likely); willingness to sue (which, given a Biblical prohibition against taking a brother to court, might have persuaded BG Leonard not to go with that approach and instead include an explicit warning against plagiarism on future editions of his books); concern that it has taken place (some authors have better things to do than chase down third rate cult leaders who steal their lines); talent of the legal defense; etc.If so, they were very bad lawyers. More likely, the legal dept might have been the ones to insist on changing specific wordings in later editions to obscure the very obvious plagiarism. And how does HCW remember "some talk about that stuff but not a whole lot of details," yet earlier says "I don't remember hearing ONE WORD about plagiarism"?
Sorry, Wierwille was a rampant and unrepentant plagiarist. That he didn't get caught or sued probably had more to do with his limited influence than his legal expertise/rightness.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Raf, I didn't mean to imply that HCW was a legal expert. I was using a analogy of a legal court to state that in light of what I originally requested -- testimony from someone who actually worked on the editing/research staff -- his being the only one I'm capable of considering and judging credible. The rebuttals of those were not actually members of that staff carries less weight in my estimation because it falls under the category of speculation. And hearsay evidence doesn't cut the mustard much better.
You speak of VP's plagiarism as a moral issue but, most laws (including this one) is based on precisely morality. So I'm not sure I can totally agree that a moral violation has occurred if no legal violation has.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Okay, so if I publish "The Iliad, by Raf" and sell it to you at Barnes and Noble and pretend that I wrote it, I've done nothing wrong?
Come on, you know dang well that morality and legality are not the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I did qualify my statement with the word "most" if I'm not mistaken. In any case -- off the top of my head -- the laws against theft and murder for example are based upon morality. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to murder? Society for whatever reason has said yes -- and codified those morals into laws. So, no, I guess I don't know "dang" well that they aren't the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As for HCW as expert, my point was that you were not explaining what you were considering him an expert IN. You wanted testimony from someone on the research staff... to tell you what? I thought you wanted such a person to tell you whether some of Wierwille's books were a collaborative effort, a subject HCW did not address. He spent his time talking about copyright law (and, best as I can tell, getting some important info wrong in the process).
I think Wierwille's account of how JCOP and JCOPS came to be carry at least as much weight as HCW's. I also think it's convenient of you to dismiss what Research Geek has said (he was on the research staff) while giving weight to HCW (and I'll need him to clarify whether he was on the editing staff or the research staff). A research staffer's comment would, by "legal court" standards, carry greater weight than someone not involved in the research process, no?
Uh huh.
So, generally speaking, as long as it's legal, it's moral?
Like, oh I don't know, adultery in most states?
Uh huh.
Cursing at your parents?
Yup.
Plagiarism of works for which the copyright has expired?
Sure.
Dude, what are we TALKING ABOUT HERE?
Forget the hypotheticals and get to the point of here: you know Wierwille plagiarized. You know it was wrong for him to do so. Bully for him that he didn't face legal consequences! But I don't need a jury to find him guilty to recognize that we he did was fundamentally dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I'm sorry. I must have missed his testimony. It wasn't an intential oversight/dismissal on my part. I just honestly didn't notice his. Would you please give me a link to his posts on this subject so I may consider what he says?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This was the person WordWolf talked about originally when you guys drummed up this discussion. I do not have his posts handy (nor am I about to go digging for them).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Suit yourself Raf.
I thank you for the time you've put into this topic. I think we're finished with it, wouldn't you agree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Is your view then that vpw is not at fault for being put on a pedestal? Did he get on a pedestal by accident? Are you saying it was everyone else who put him there?
Could you clarify?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
There's this really cool feature here at the cafe - it's called the "search function" and it can be found in the top right corner of the screen. If that's too hard for you, here's a link to the "advanced search" page.
OR, you can click on "Members" which is directly to the left of "Search" - Look up "Research Geek" and then go through his posts.
Amazingly, one can look up all sorts of information using those methods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Before you got on this thread, I said there were only three logical positions to take:
VPW plagiarized and it matters.
VPW plagiarized and it doesn't matter.
The tooth fairy told me VPW didn't plagiarize.
You appear to fall into that second group. While I disagree, I don't lose sleep over it. I don't have patience for people in the third group, whom I consider to be willfully ignorant on this topic.
I didn't mean to be so coarse in saying I wasn't going to look for RG's posts. It's just that I read them ages upon ages ago, and it would take me a long time to find the particular posts in question: time I don't have. As for whether we're finished, that depends on you: do you now agree that at least two of Wierwille's books were a big collaborative process and that he was not as active in the writing as he was on, say, The Bible Tells Me So? That was the kickoff point of this discussion, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Briefly.
Hmm . . . I can speculate that VP was aware of the inflated image that believers had of him. I'm not sure what was in his heart concerning it. Why he would allow it would also be speculation but I'm of the mind that he either thought the end justified the means or he really didn't know how to address it because it had become so prevalent. Perhaps that's why he chose to step down as President (although I thought his choice of CM was a bad one). So, yes, ultimately it was his fault but, I think believers hold some accountability.
Thanks Belle. I'll keep your helpful and kind suggestion in mind in the future.
Yes, I can stipulate my agreement that "at least two . . ." were a "big collaborative process" of working off his writings and producing the books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Close enough. I'm sure they worked off The Word's Way, When Judas Hanged Himself and other written articles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
He died when I was very young, so I didn't see "just the way it was." He was obviously a very weak person, or evil-minded person, to allow it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think there was anything passive about Wierwille's quest for glory, as though it were something that sprung up around him and he was powerless to stop it. It was something he fostered, propping himself up as "The Teacher," etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I understand that. I sorta "grew up" in TWI myself. Not in the same that you're implying. I've seen much -- both pain and joy in the lives of believers. The pain many experienced saddens me but, I've always thought God is a big enuf God to see them through it. How long it takes for them to come out on the other side of their pain will vary I'm sure and it's not my place to tell them -- "GET OVER IT!" for like dealing with death each must deal with it in their own way.
Link 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.