Where's Chris Geer?

[Deciderator]

The nuisance suit is an interesting angle, but could they sue him more than once for the same thing?

Do we know they have tried that approach?"

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the only ways one can sue twice for the same thing is

if: A) there was a MISTRIAL, which means the first case never finished

B) new evidence has come up that justifies another case (as agreed by the judge at the beginning)

C) one sued in federal court and again in civil court-

but those would have to be different charges to a degree.

That's why OJ was sued twice "for the same thing"- he won the federal suit for murder,

and lost the civil case for "violating the civil rights" of the victims

That possibility gets murky and probably needs a legal translator.]

I agree.

The way I understand it, the reason OJ could be put on trial twice is there were different parties offended.

If you play yor stereo too loud at night you break the peace and therefore offend the town you live in. Additionally, you irritate your neighbors, who have also been offended.

I recall from the OJ case that in a civil case it is easier to convict. Of course this may vary from state to state, but if that applies to this case, then it appears TWI has a weaker criminal case than its civil case, which apparently was weak as well.

And is there much difference to speak of between Mr. Juedes charge and those brought by TWI?

Deciderator:

"Your above post and the quote you provided show clearly that the charge of "piracy" to be incorrect, at least in terms of what we have been given."

I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one.

I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning,

nor meanings only referring to crimes,

nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy.

You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won,

therefore there was no "piracy."

Why yes, I have said that.

And we have pretty much agreed, with the understanding that we don't have all the facts and must, in good faith, use what we have been given.

More facts may emerge and so the gentlemanly thing to do is to allow each other the chance to revise our opinions to jibe with those facts,

You and I both know at this point in time, such a charge has no foundation.

So let's clink glasses and agree that the charge of "piracy" is unsupported by the facts we have at this point.

WordWolf:

"If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before

taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly

extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects.

(For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.)"

Good point.

In the case at hand, apparently TWI sued over theft of intellectual property, manifested by the unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products.

They failed, so there was no plagiarism!

No "piracy"

The court did not endorse plagiarism any more than it endorsed murder in the example you provided in parentheses.

Deciderator:

"I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the charge of "piracy" were true, then Mr. Geer would not just be charged with that.Look at what's been going on. Don't you think that besides "piracy" and "plagiarism," that charges of conspiracy could be brought?"

Again,

I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court,

nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court.

It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition,

it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism".

I think you need to check Black's Law Dictionary. There you will see "piracy" has more than one legal meaning, as you have asserted. Therefore, it would indeed be relevant to the case. The supposition that "plagiarism" and "piracy" charges would be brought are reasonable, given what we have to work with.

I know you don't want it to be so, but they fit neatly into what you and Mr. Juedes have been asserting.

It would not surprise me if twi tried to make "conspiracy" a charge.

Me neither.

Let's see ifthey can make a charge stick or abandon any attempt at proving it.

I see them as potentially getting him to pay money, but I don't see this as a "throw him in

prison" type of crime. (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.)

Again, we agree.

Simply winning a conviction and stopping Mr. Geer from doing what he has been doing for what, 15, 20 years now, would be enough.

But they haven't been able to, have they, in all those years?

Deciderator:

"No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds.

None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained.

Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer."

You're still making the supposition that "piracy" only means what you're saying it means,

I have not said what it means.

Neither has Mr. Juedes, to my knowledge.

I have looked it up in Black's Law Dictionary and the second definition is close enough to the one you use that I will not quibble.

We agree on the term.

Kinda neat we agree so much, eh?

AND that it's a crime,

AND that it entered into the events in the courtroom.

(At least 3 suppositions in a row.)

Expecting Juedes to conform to all those suppositions is not being fair to Mr Juedes.

It IS a crime,

what we have been given about the case closely matches what Mr. Geer IS being charged with by you and Mr. Juedes and therefore it would be strange to NOT press for that charge in court.

Mr. Jueds made the charge of "piracy," let him explain it in terms of what took place in court (that we have been given on the board here)

We can agree to disagree and just move on.

I prefer to look on the positive side, offer the next round, and propose a toast to all we do agree on!

Basically, Mr. Juedes' case was brought by TWI's bank of high-priced lawyers and it went down like the Hindenburg.

Right?

Edited August 12, 2007 by Deciderator

[johnj]

In the case at hand, apparently TWI sued over theft of intellectual property, manifested by the unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products.

The court did not endorse plagiarism any more than it endorsed murder in the example you provided in parentheses.

Mr. Jueds made the charge of "piracy," let him explain it in terms of what took place in court (that we have been given on the board here)

A few people have said things like those above... "aparently TWI sued... the court did not endorse... what took place in court."

But in fact NO ONE has ever produced actual evidence showing that any suit was ever filed, much less that a judgement was made. Speculation on what "must have" happened is no evidence at all-- it is only IMAGINATION.

So I challenge all of you to either: 1) produce actual evidence that any suit was filed (this would be public record and include the date, place of filing, the names of those who filed and who were filed against, etc) or 2) stop imagining things and presenting them as "evidence." Using terms like those above only mislead people and lead them to say to others "I heard that..." when all they heard was speculation.

In addition, arguments from silence are not valid either. TWI has never challenged anything on my web site which is critical of them and never filed a suit against me. So can we assume that they acknowlege that everything I say is valid?

Back when Canada kicked TWI out of Canada, Martindale boldly stated that they would sue Canada to stay. This was printed in The Way Magazine. Yet, to my knolwedge TWI never did so. So even if TWI threatened to sue anyone, this does not mean that they actually would or did.

[Larry N Moore]

<snip>

In addition, arguments from silence are not valid either. TWI has never challenged anything on my web site which is critical of them and never filed a suit against me. So can we assume that they acknowlege that everything I say is valid?

<snip>

No, John, we can't assume that. I could assume that the current leaders think you're not worth the effort but, lacking evidence it would be nothing more than assumption.

[WordWolf]

Deciderator:

"And is there much difference to speak of between Mr. Juedes charge and those brought by TWI?"

Yes.

twi sued for the materials themselves-a legal issue on who owned the copyrights.

Juedes wrote about plagiarism, which is independent of who owns a copyright.

Furthermore, he wrote in plain English, not specifically in legal definitions.

And in one place, he used the word "piracy", which has a number of meanings,

some of which are legal, some of which are not.

I really don't get this obsession with his single usage of the term,

and insistence it fits a specific definition in a Law Dictionary it was never claimed

to refer to.

WordWolf:

"I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one.

I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning,

nor meanings only referring to crimes,

nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy.

You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won,

therefore there was no "piracy." "

Deciderator:

"You and I both know at this point in time, such a charge has no foundation.

So let's clink glasses and agree that the charge of "piracy" is unsupported by the facts we have at this point."

That just illustrated the conceptual gap I was talking about.

You're still claiming twi sued on grounds related to "piracy",

and pretended I agreed with this.

Deciderator:

"In the case at hand, apparently TWI sued over theft of intellectual property, manifested by the unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products.

They failed, so there was no plagiarism!

No "piracy" "

There's the disconnect again.

I completely agree that twi sued over supposed theft of intellectual property

(still supposing all this is true, as Juedes points out-since we're sans proof)

manifested by unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products.

That's completely different from plagiarism.

In the first case, one is reproducing and selling what is not one's legal right to do so.

In the second case, one is engaging in an act of fraud-claiming the work of another is actually your own.

Completely different crimes-although both may involve books.

Example:

Violating copyright: printing up and reselling the Orange and White Books.

Plagiarism: rewriting the Orange and White Books with a different author's name.

Completely different crimes-although both involve books.

twi supposedly sued for the former, and supposedly lost.

Nobody ever claimed to sue for the latter- so nobody even claims the court had

to rule on plagiarism.

You're supposing twi's case = a case of plagiarism,

and a case of plagiarism = a case of piracy.

You're not supporting either claim, so we're just going in circles with you asserting this

"piracy" obsession has merit.

WordWolf:

"I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court,

nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court.

It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition,

it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism"."

Deciderator:

"I think you need to check Black's Law Dictionary. There you will see "piracy" has more than one legal meaning, as you have asserted. Therefore, it would indeed be relevant to the case. The supposition that "plagiarism" and "piracy" charges would be brought are reasonable, given what we have to work with."

No, they would not, and your continued assertions notwithstanding, you still

have provided no basis for supposing this.

Whether or not cg had legal rights for reprinting or reselling books "by victor paul wierwille"

has nothing to do with whether cg later committed an act of plagiarism.

Deciderator:

"I know you don't want it to be so, but they fit neatly into what you and Mr. Juedes have been asserting."

IF, IF, anyone ever sued cg for plagiarism- and there's still nobody even

SPECULATING this except you- that would be true.

It would fit the legal definition of "plagiarism".

Deciderator:

"No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds.

None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained.

Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer."

You're still supposing a charge of "piracy" was ever LEVELLED.

No charge of "piracy" was sustained.

No charge of spitting on sidewalks was. either.

Doesn't mean cg is innocent of either- since neither entered the courtroom.

But it's just as fair for you to say

"the courts determined cg is innocent of piracy"

and "the courts determined cg is innocent of plagiarism"

as it is to say

"the courts determined cg is innocent of spitting on sidewalks"

and "the courts determined cg is innocent of drugging women so vpw could rape them."

So long as the court never ruled on any of those, any claim they found cg "not guilty" lacks merit.

I really don't get what's so difficult about this.

Deciderator:

"It IS a crime,

what we have been given about the case closely matches what Mr. Geer IS being charged with by you and Mr. Juedes and therefore it would be strange to NOT press for that charge in court."

I explained this before. twi sues to make money or to intimidate.

In this case, there was no money to be made suing on plagiarism-

but they'd lose money pressing the suit.

They care more about the money than the morals, so they don't sue.

There's nothing strange about not suing when there's no way to "win."

(Spending money to not get it back no matter what, not even breaking even,

is "losing", even if you "won" the case.)

Deciderator:

"Mr. Jueds made the charge of "piracy," let him explain it in terms of what took place in court (that we have been given on the board here)"

And Juedes never said "the legal definition of 'piracy' applies here", but you're insistent

on putting words to that effect to his account.

His usage matches other usages in plain English (I posted examples from a collegiate

dictionary on this thread already.) Juedes never "made a charge of 'piracy.'

Deciderator:

"Basically, Mr. Juedes' case was brought by TWI's bank of high-priced lawyers and it went down like the Hindenburg.

Right?"

STILL wrong.

twi sued for who holds the copyrights.

Juedes-among other things- addressed plagiarism.

twi's case went before a court-supposedly.

Juedes' claims were never brought into a court.

If twi brought a case, I would say that case probably DID "go down like the Hindenburg."

But that case STILL has nothing to do with Juedes' comments.

=========

This is why I said

"I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one.

I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning,

nor meanings only referring to crimes,

nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy.

You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won,

therefore there was no "piracy."

This has been demonstrated, for all practical purposes, to be an impasse.

Can we declare this to be an impasse and move on?

I mean, Juedes is correct that none of this has even been proven,

so at best it's all an intellectual exercise, pending DOCUMENTATION.

So, at worst, it's a prodigal waste of time.

Edited August 12, 2007 by WordWolf

[Ham]

Back when Canada kicked TWI out of Canada, Martindale boldly stated that they would sue Canada to stay.

I never heard this, but it doesn't suprise me.

[doojable]

*Dooj - who happens to have some time and a Black's Law Dictionary handy , checks out "Piracy."*

Piracy.

Those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed on land, would have amounted to a felony. Brigandage committed on the sea or from the sea. Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life 18 U.S.C.A § 1651. See also Air piracy.

The term is also applied to the illegal reprinting or reproduction of copyrighted matter or to unlawful plagiarism from it; and, similiarly, to the unlawful reproduction or distribution or propery protected by patent and trademark laws. See also Infrigement. Plagiarism.

Plagiarism.

The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one's own mind. If the material is protected by copyright, such act may constitute an offense of copyright infringement.

To be liable for plagiarism it is not necessary to exactly duplicate another's literary work, it being sufficient if unfair use of such work is made by lifting of substantial portion therof, but even an exact counterpart of another's work does not constitute plagiarism if such counterpart was arrived at independently.

See also Copyright; Fair use doctrine; Ingringement.

OOOhhhhh! Now we see the reason for the "Snow on gaspumps story!"

sneaky, very sneaky.....

Edited August 13, 2007 by doojable

[Ham]

sneaky, very sneaky.....

No no no. It's "sneaky, wewy vewy sneaky.."

as in,

"be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting cwasses to pwagewize.."

edited for spellwing..

Edited August 13, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[doojable]

No no no. It's "sneaky, wewy vewy sneaky.."

as in,

"be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting cwasses to pwagewize.."

edited for spellwing..

You scwewy squwwel!

Edited August 13, 2007 by doojable

[johnj]

I never heard this, but it doesn't suprise me.

TWI put on a protest march which they said included 150 from TWI. Martindale threatened to sue Canada for excluding its personnel for TWI's Canadian location. Source: The Way Magazine, Mar-Apr 1983. It even had a photo. TWI was never short on bluster.

"Well behaved women rarely make history"

except for maybe Mary the mother of Jesus and Mother Theresa. But girls gone wild certainly get more attention.

"Well behaved women rarely make history"

except for maybe Mary the mother of Jesus and Mother Theresa. But girls gone wild certainly get more attention.

[doojable]

except for maybe Mary the mother of Jesus and Mother Theresa. But girls gone wild certainly get more attention.

Still pretty rare...

And Mary the mother of Jesus was not seen as well behaved by her neighbors.

Both women certainly went against the grain of what was expected of them by most.

[dmiller]

TWI put on a protest march which they said included 150 from TWI. Martindale threatened to sue Canada for excluding its personnel for TWI's Canadian location. Source: The Way Magazine, Mar-Apr 1983. It even had a photo. TWI was never short on bluster.

Amazing what a guy can do with a phone these days!!! ;)

(If one has the magazine in question).

[Kevlar2000]

TWI put on a protest march which they said included 150 from TWI. Martindale threatened to sue Canada for excluding its personnel for TWI's Canadian location. Source: The Way Magazine, Mar-Apr 1983. It even had a photo. TWI was never short on bluster.

Gosh, for all his supremely superior revelatory prowess, Rev. Martinschmuck forgot one thing:

Canada is not the United States of America.

With their own sovereignty and laws.

And if they don't want some damn foreigners there, they don't have to let you in.

Especially if they perceive you as some sort of threat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just gotta ask:

Did TWI ever try to sue Canada for this?

And if they did, what was the outcome (believe me, I can guess the outcome, but I havta ask anyway)?

[Ham]

"loy's a hundred and fifty man(?) march.."

I don't know quite how I missed this one.

[Deciderator]

*Dooj - who happens to have some time and a Black's Law Dictionary handy , checks out "Piracy."*

Piracy.

Those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed on land, would have amounted to a felony. Brigandage committed on the sea or from the sea. Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life 18 U.S.C.A § 1651. See also Air piracy.

The term is also applied to the illegal reprinting or reproduction of copyrighted matter or to unlawful plagiarism from it; and, similiarly, to the unlawful reproduction or distribution or propery protected by patent and trademark laws. See also Infrigement. Plagiarism.

Plagiarism.

The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one's own mind. If the material is protected by copyright, such act may constitute an offense of copyright infringement.

To be liable for plagiarism it is not necessary to exactly duplicate another's literary work, it being sufficient if unfair use of such work is made by lifting of substantial portion therof, but even an exact counterpart of another's work does not constitute plagiarism if such counterpart was arrived at independently.

See also Copyright; Fair use doctrine; Ingringement.

OOOhhhhh! Now we see the reason for the "Snow on gaspumps story!"

sneaky, very sneaky.....

Thanks, dooj.

Let's stay on topic.

Mr. Juedes' allegation has not been proven, indeed going by what we have been told, in, as far as I can tell was good faith, that related if not identical charges were brought in a lawsuit that failed.

TWI had what advantage there was - they had all the time they needed to prepare the case, they selected the venue for the case to be heard and thus could search for a sympathetic judge, and the timing for their filing was all in their control. I understand they do not pinch pennies when it comes to attorneys so it is doubtful the excuse of poor legal talent could be made.

Mr. Juedes needs to do some editing in order to honestly reflect the facts as they are known.

Intentionally, insistently posting false information has a way of tearing one's credibility down.

Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficult to restore.

[WordWolf]

Thanks, dooj.

Let's stay on topic.

Mr. Juedes' allegation has not been proven, indeed going by what we have been told, in, as far as I can tell was good faith, that related if not identical charges were brought in a lawsuit that failed.

A) There's been no proof there WAS such a lawsuit.

B) IF there was such a lawsuit, any connection between its substance and the substance

of what Juedes wrote is PURE SPECULATION.

Deciderator's allegation is that there is a connection.

Deciderator's allegation is not proven.

TWI had what advantage there was - they had all the time they needed to prepare the case, they selected the venue for the case to be heard and thus could search for a sympathetic judge, and the timing for their filing was all in their control. I understand they do not pinch pennies when it comes to attorneys so it is doubtful the excuse of poor legal talent could be made.

Any connection between what twi may or may not have sued over,

and what Juedes wrote, is still PURE SPECULATION.

One might as well speculate on the relevance of the OJ trial to Juedes' writings.

Mr. Juedes needs to do some editing in order to honestly reflect the facts as they are known.

Intentionally, insistently posting false information has a way of tearing one's credibility down.

Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficult to restore.

Deciderator needs to stop pretending his speculations are proven facts, or even

acceptably logical conclusions based ON the facts.

Intentionally, insistently posting false information- and going on some obsessive vendetta

to get others to believe it-

has a way of tearing one's credibility down.

Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficuly to restore.

I'd also expect he has a LOT more important things to spend time on.

[Deciderator]

A) There's been no proof there WAS such a lawsuit.

B) IF there was such a lawsuit, any connection between its substance and the substance

of what Juedes wrote is PURE SPECULATION.

Just going by what we have been given in the discussion. A number of times I have said that I am going by the facts we have been given in this discussion and that as new facts emerge we should be able to change our opinion to fit the new information.

When you posted in #261 -

The suit had everything to do with what twi saw as their exclusive rights,

and, as I see it, probably had to do with rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,

and to run them.

I think all the evidence supports that.

Furthermore, I think twi lost their suit, and didn't gain back any rights they had previously lost.

- you apparently believed there was not only a suit, but the substance of that suit was certain publishing rights.

Unsuccessful in that line of argument, you appear to be changing your tune as to whether there was a lawsuit and what it was about.

Deciderator's allegation is that there is a connection.

Deciderator's allegation is not proven.

Right.

I mean, what reasonable person would be crazy enough to think that a lawsuit about publication rights would have something to do with publication rights?

Any connection between what twi may or may not have sued over,

and what Juedes wrote, is still PURE SPECULATION.

One might as well speculate on the relevance of the OJ trial to Juedes' writings.

We have your speculation, above.

Deciderator needs to stop pretending his speculations are proven facts, or even

acceptably logical conclusions based ON the facts.

Can you please refer to a specific quote for that one?

Intentionally, insistently posting false information- and going on some obsessive vendetta

to get others to believe it-

has a way of tearing one's credibility down.

Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficuly to restore.

I'd also expect he has a LOT more important things to spend time on.

That's what I said in post #289, above..

While having you quote me is flattering, to fail to attribute the source of the quote, and then put it out as if it were your own words, is rather ironic, given the subject at hand, eh?

Mr. Juedes needs to edit and you need to learn to give credit where credit is due.

Perhaps Mr. Juedes can help you with that....

Edited August 26, 2007 by Deciderator

[WordWolf]

Deciderator,

I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt,

but it's obvious you're either skipping over posts and just pulling stuff out of context out of grand laziness,

or you're deliberately doing your best to misrepresent this,

and either way, I can't see a SENSIBLE reason for doing it.

You and I spent a few pages speaking PURELY THEORETICALLY-

and I labelled each of my posts accordingly-

concerning a lawsuit that may or may not have happened.

I can discuss theoreticals easily without confusing them for discussing the PROVEN.

We came to some disagreements on the theoreticals, even, and ended up at an impasse,

where you are almost certain there WAS a lawsuit, and have added

"plagiarism" to the charges based on a persistent, insistent misunderstanding of the details.

After pages where we discussed theoreticals- and I said as much, but not in every single sentence

because I don't think the posters here are f'ing morons,

you interpreted it thusly:

- you apparently believed there was not only a suit, but the substance of that suit was certain publishing rights.

Meanwhile, my posts keep saying the same thing:

IF there was a suit, it would have specifically been about the rights to print, publish and teach the twi/pfal materials.

PERIOD.

Somehow, you've succeeded in misreading the first part, that we discussed theoreticals

(accepting the premise "there was a lawsuit" purely for the sake of continuing the discussion)

as the opposite. Since I said as much in many posts, that's either intentional, or dreadful comprehension.

It's compounded when I KEEP correcting you over what I said twi WOULD sue over-

the rights to print, publish, and teach the twi/pral materials, and not "plagiarism" in any form.

So, what would be "apparent" to almost everyone else as the content of my posts is apparently NOT what's

"apparent" to you.

It's also intellectually-dishonest to claim I changed my position when I KEPT saying the same thing.

Unsuccessful in that line of argument, you appear to be changing your tune as to whether there was a lawsuit and what it was about.

Right.

I mean, what reasonable person would be crazy enough to think that a lawsuit about publication rights would have something to do with publication rights?

REASONABLE people accept that something that affects publication rights does not necessarily relate to EVERYTHING

that relates to ANY degree with publication rights.

You keep shoehorning in "plagiarism" into "rights to reprint",

and they're not the same thing to just about everyone except you.

We have your speculation, above.

Can you please refer to a specific quote for that one?

We could if I felt like reproducing a stack of posts in succession on this thread.

You keep making the same unsupported assertion-

1) there definitely was a lawsuit

2) twi definitely sued cg for plagiarism

3) twi lost suing cg for plagiarism

My response-that those are unsupported- are not an ASSERTION- they are an ANALYSIS.

Your claims are unsupported. That's not a speculation.

You took an unsupported claim OF a lawsuit, and to that, added the entire subject of plagiarism

and an entire legal judgement based on the subject you added.

I didn't "speculate" you did that, it's all over the last several pages and so are my posts pointing

that out. The evening news doesn't "speculate" what happened, it just announces it,

and occasionally offers analysis.

That's what I said in post #289, above..

While having you quote me is flattering, to fail to attribute the source of the quote, and then put it out as if it were your own words, is rather ironic, given the subject at hand, eh?

Either you're deliberately making a persistent effort to blind yourself about what plagiarism is,

or are determined to manufacture any attack you can, and try to pass it off as truth.

I shall demonstrate for the benefit of anyone honestly seeking to understand.

(Perhaps you will see this as well.)

You posted this in post #289:

Intentionally, insistently posting false information has a way of tearing one's credibility down.

Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficult to restore.

In post 290, the very next post, I QUOTED THAT, by name, with a link to your post, which was immediately above it

and plainly obvious to be the post I was replying to,

and directly below that, I posted the following:

Intentionally, insistently posting false information- and going on some obsessive vendetta

to get others to believe it-

has a way of tearing one's credibility down.

Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficuly to restore.

I'd also expect he has a LOT more important things to spend time on.

My point was, that your own post applied MORE to yourself than Juedes, as demonstrated IN your post.

In the process, I made it clear I was quoting, named the person, provided the quote, and did everything but

force the readers to reread your post to read mine. Any honest adult should have NO DIFFICULTY seeing that.

You, however, are insisting that all of that constituted

to fail to attribute the source of the quote, and then put it out as if it were your own words

rather than proper attribution documented more than one way.

Furthermore, since this demonstrates you either are clueless on the subject of plagiarism, or deliberately intent

on misinforming others on the subject of plagiarism while accusing me AND Juedes of the same,

I agree with your other comment that this

is rather ironic, given the subject at hand, eh?

Mr. Juedes needs to edit and you need to learn to give credit where credit is due.

Perhaps Mr. Juedes can help you with that....

Mr Juedes, I expect, could use a few updates, but your obsession with his usage of ONE English word

(how many posts, how many pages, how many weeks on this "pirate" thing have we seen?)

need not be HIS obsession.

I HAVE provided credit where credit is due, your insistence on creatively reinterpreting the facts notwithstanding.

ANYONE can scroll up and see it in black and white.

You CAN easily do so, but at THIS point I expect you are determined NOT to.

(I was expecting otherwise, and have been disappointed in my expectations of your intellectual honesty.)

You have a nice posting STYLE, but style =\= SUBSTANCE.

All the style in the world can't reform misinformation or faulty reasoning.

That was one of the problems with pfal, during the dramatic session on the "law" of believing.

===========

Since you're obviously not going to convince anyone except yourself of your position at this point,

and since your unsupported assertions are obviously going to be challenged,

can we end this circular discussion,

or need this persist for post after post after post still?

[Ham]

Soooo.. where is *mr* gear now..

maybe.

hmmm.. maybe..

maybe he's in Newport Rhode Island, busy finishing a real estate transaction, selling a piece of vacation property a mere fifty feet below the Atlantic Ocean.

Well, it would be more honest than selling a re-do of pfal..

[Ham]

"Hurry, hurry hurry.. special today, today onlay... one wet suit and air tank with each purchase.. hurry, hurry, hurry.."

[Ham]

I'm sure with the right kind of money, he could get the victors to lash out a little promotional tune..

*ahem, cough, cough, ahem..*

*I'm selling some land....*

*well under the tide......*

*I'll let it go cheap...*

*and then I'll go hide.. do do do do..*

[Ham]

Hmmmmm. I wonder where he is today..

Maybe he's trying to find his way out of a wet paper bag..

[Ham]

More likely though.. he is probably cleaning up hamburger all over the highway in Mystic, Connecticut..

[Bumpy]

Hmmmmm. I wonder where he is today..

Maybe he's trying to find his way out of a wet paper bag..

Dear Mr. Squirrel,

On behalf of the late Mr. Gear, I wish to inform you he departed this world to go to work with L. Ron Hubbard in 7th Heaven. They apparently have a “lost souls” business arrangement parked some where close to Las Vegas, Nevada!

I repeat, in Espanol, los dos tienen un negocio muy grande in LV. Ahora Rebajas!! Das ist alles!!

[doojable]

Bumpy,

Perhaps you should e-mail Chr*s Ge*r and invite him to vacation with you...

He just might like it in Senegal.

[Ham]

Sooooo.. I wonder where *mr* gear is this afternoon.. hmmm.

could be.. possible.

Perhaps he is on his forty eight trip around the parking lot at Wally Mart, "believing" for a front parking spot..