vpw said they are BASIC KEYS to understanding Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
The question is: did vpw LATER claim that they are man-breathed BASIC KEYS or God-breathed BASIC KEYS?
Documented are 22 of Dr's statements that they ARE God-breathed. I have found a total of 90.
Claiming them to be God-breathed DOES NOT mean that they ARE God-breathed BASIC KEYS, though.
But that's not the point here in this sub-topic of what did vpw say of his own works.
***
In the broader topic of this whole thread, IF they truly are God-breathed BASIC KEYS, then the plagiarism issue evaporates.
***
Now, stepping aside from my God-breathed thesis, I want to bring up another point that I think has not been made on this thread yet, although it has elsewhere. This is in line with socks posts on the ethics of doing the right thing.
Has anyone calculated how much BENEFIT has accumulated to the estates or the families or the authors of later-to-be PFAL material from Dr's popularizing of their ministries? How many books has Kenyon sold DUE TO him being promoted by the ministry? How many extra students did B. G. Leonard get to teach due to the free advertising he got from the whole deal? How many people would even know about Bullinger if it weren't for him being so abundantly promoted by the ministry? How many
people were blessed by their ministries since their exposure to us?
I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?
I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?
You know Mike, Wierwille and The Way International are relatively unknown.
How is it relevant that some folks found out about Leonard and others via Wierwille? How many early PFAL grads found out about Wierwille through the Evangelical & Reformed Church?
Has anyone calculated how much BENEFIT has accumulated to the estates or the families or the authors of later-to-be PFAL material from Dr's popularizing of their ministries? How many books has Kenyon sold DUE TO him being promoted by the ministry? How many extra students did B. G. Leonard get to teach due to the free advertising he got from the whole deal? How many people would even know about Bullinger if it weren't for him being so abundantly promoted by the ministry? How many
people were blessed by their ministries since their exposure to us?
I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?
I'm sure there is a name for this false argument - but I don't know it. It's impossible to know what "benefit" came to Kenyon et al because of VP's lifting of their work.
Conversely, what was the cost to these men? It's impossible to say how much more they would have benefited had vp left things in place and properly credited them.
The question is: did vpw LATER claim that they are man-breathed BASIC KEYS or God-breathed BASIC KEYS?
Documented are 22 of Dr's statements that they ARE God-breathed. I have found a total of 90.
Claiming them to be God-breathed DOES NOT mean that they ARE God-breathed BASIC KEYS, though.
But that's not the point here in this sub-topic of what did vpw say of his own works.
***
In the broader topic of this whole thread, IF they truly are God-breathed BASIC KEYS, then the plagiarism issue evaporates.
***
Now, stepping aside from my God-breathed thesis, I want to bring up another point that I think has not been made on this thread yet, although it has elsewhere. This is in line with socks posts on the ethics of doing the right thing.
Has anyone calculated how much BENEFIT has accumulated to the estates or the families or the authors of later-to-be PFAL material from Dr's popularizing of their ministries? How many books has Kenyon sold DUE TO him being promoted by the ministry? How many extra students did B. G. Leonard get to teach due to the free advertising he got from the whole deal? How many people would even know about Bullinger if it weren't for him being so abundantly promoted by the ministry? How many
people were blessed by their ministries since their exposure to us?
I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?
Mike, it's a totally moot point.
If you use Fromm's words, without citation, as if they were your own, that plagiarism.
If I then use your words, using Fromm's words,as if they were my own, without citation, that's plagiarism.
If someone else uses my words using your words using Fromm's words, as if they were their own, without citation, that's still plagiarism.
It's like painting a wall.
It doesn't matter how many coats you put on or what colors they are, the wall is still there beneath it all.
Wierwille was a two bit huckster.
A clever one, perhaps, but still a huckster.
Your "benefit" statement is purely fabricated speculation.
I propose you compile a complete list of these so-called God Breathed statements in one concise and easy to view format and then post it here for perusal.
Surely if they are God Breathed the whole World ought to have the right to see them.
Surely if they are God Breathed the whole World ought to have the right to see them.
The best I understand it, they are addressed TO US grads only.
***
The point I was making was LIMITED to the ethics issue socks brought up. It seems no one wants to consider the fact that Dr did benefit those people.
This one point I recently made has nothing to do with the God-breathed issue, it has nothing to do with the academics, it has nothing to do with the legalities. It's just the moral issue of whether they were harmed or benefited. I see only benefit going to them.
***
It's easy to see why stealing in the marketplace is wrong. That would be the copyright issue.
But can anyone tell me why plagiarism is wrong in the academic realm? I know it is wrong, and why. I'm asking if anyone else has though this one through? There is a strong reason, and it's stronger than the usual more trivial (by comparison) reason I have in mind. It's related to WHY the idea of copyrights came up in such a basic document as the US Constitution.
I just like looking into the reasons WHY the rules are there, not merely the breaking or keeping of the rules. It's a lot looking into WHY there are sex rules. Most people just know the rules and never ask why. It's a useful mental exercise to inquire into the deeper reasons to these things, but most people, I find, are into the social issue of the specifics in the breaking or keeping of the rules. It's the making of the rules that I like to look into because it seems to enable me to not get bogged down in the specifics if they are myriad, like in this thread.
***
Sorry, I just added a lot to this post in editing.
I don't think that kind of derailment would appreciated. It's really a totally different topic, and roughly 5000 posts have already been made by me on that.
I will answer with this. Do you know of ANY modern God-breathed documents in the world that were originally given in English? Any candidate even? Are you content with dead language barriers, ancient customs barriers, missing originals, and wide variations in copied manuscripts, and fragmented manuscripts, all between you and ancient God-breathed documents? I see a great NEED for modern English-given God-breathed text for our guidance. I see a great WANT for this also... not in many here, but in some I know the WANT is great. If these needs and wants are parallel... balanced... coordinated... THEN what?
I don't think that kind of derailment would appreciated. It's really a totally different topic, and roughly 5000 posts have already been made by me on that.
I will answer with this. Do you know of ANY modern God-breathed documents in the world that were originally given in English? Any candidate even? Are you content with dead language barriers, ancient customs barriers, missing originals, and wide variations in copied manuscripts, and fragmented manuscripts, all between you and ancient God-breathed documents? I see a great NEED for modern English-given God-breathed text for our guidance. I see a great WANT for this also... not in many here, but in some I know the WANT is great. If these needs and wants are parallel... balanced... coordinated... THEN what?
I think we can say for sure - two wrongs don't make a right.
"Ethically", wresting content from someone's book, using it, and then claiming some form of benefit for them is kind of like a surgeon throwing a knife at someone on the street and then saying they performed surgery.
Accidents didn't happen in this case. Dooja brings up a great point - postulate this, Mike - what would have happened, what did happen, when VPW asked BG Leonard is he could use part of his material in PFAL?
If he did....
When he did....
I would loved to have a tape of the conversations following that.
And Mike - no offense, but really - it's been several years and unfortunately it took most of that time for you to present your ideas (I still recall your original post to GS about it, and the promise of the premise) So....you're not doing anyone any favors at this point. I'm just speaking practically. I've suggested before - if online media is what you seek, start a website and put your stuff up. Start with a simple one-page essay that states your case, clearly. Can't be done? Do it - discipline your writing to the point that it's doable. Then add to it.
It's not wrong because it's copyright infringement.
It's not wrong because it's stealing.
It's not wrong because it takes money away from other people.
It's wrong because it's LYING.
Why do we have to make this so complicated?
Oh, I forgot, God told him it was okay.
Some people would rather call God a liar than admit VPW was less a man of God than a duplicitous wolf in sheep's clothing who abused God's Word and God's people to satisfy his personal lust for power sex and money.
God told me to tell you that it's okay to go ahead and lie.... ;)
*sigh*
Have you ever wondered about the spies that Moses sent to check out the Promised Land?
I have.
It seems that God told them to lie, in a sense. A spy must lie to accomplish the goal, right? Their whole presence is a lie: it's covert. How many military operations of Holy Spirit guided ancient Israel involved lying to the enemy with strategically placed misinformation?
***
Funny, my very first post here was on this. I think, socks, you may be misremembering my first post. It was on the incredible abundance of nuances attached with what might commonly be called lying. I spent 7 years studying and discussing the human brain with some of the world's top brain scientists. The subject of lying came up SO MUCH that they gave it a fancier name: confabulation. I can send a copy of that first post to anyone who want to see it, since it was lost in the days of pruning years ago. It's too long to post here.
This is a MUCH deeper subject than you can imagine.
Here's just one teaser: Is it an evil lie to have children believe in Santa Clause?
I've suggested before - if online media is what you seek, start a website and put your stuff up. Start with a simple one-page essay that states your case, clearly. Can't be done? Do it - discipline your writing to the point that it's doable. Then add to it.
I am experimenting with this right now with a few grads. It's slow going, but it's going.
As this gets up and running I am simultaneously downsizing the presentations of my thesis here. There are many other things to discuss here, but my passion is in what you have seen.
I spent 7 years studying and discussing the human brain with some of the world's top brain scientists. The subject of lying came up SO MUCH that they gave it a fancier name: confabulation.
You could use some information on the relativity of definitions.
In the realm of West Coast brain scientists (it's a school of thought out here), confabulation is used differently than it is commonly used. They use it in place of the word lie because many of the "lairs" they study are severe brain damage victims. For this limited group of people that's the way they use that word. They have decided to use the word in that way in their professional circles.
Sometimes a private definition of a word like this becomes so popular outside it original private setting that it gets "officially" entered into a dictionary or two. In 1969 I once sat in the office of a man who did this very thing. He actually invented a word for his professional discussions. I think I read once, or maybe he told me personally, that he used a term that had fallen out of use for many decades so he REDEFINED it the way he wanted to help him discuss the complex idea with which this new word was to be associated.
That word was "paradigm" and I literally saw it being born. I think the same thing will soon happen to the word "confabulation," given the stature of the scientists that use it this way. It will soon mean an idea that includes normal evil lying, but also will include many more items that do not have that moral baggage. When I say "many" I mean hundreds, literally hundreds.
You know Mike, Wierwille and The Way International are relatively unknown.
How is it relevant that some folks found out about Leonard and others via Wierwille? How many early PFAL grads found out about Wierwille through the Evangelical & Reformed Church?
It was relevant to what I limited it to: were Dr's teachers harmed or befitted by his using their material?
I do see much benefit to them, even beyond increased sales and respect. Outside of possible ego problems I can't see one bit of harm that came to them. Of course this idea wouldn't fly far in a human court, but that's because they can't see very well. But God can, and that's the limited relevance here. Did they suffer? I doubt it.
And how could the wonderful BG Leonard ever have ego problems? And certainly not the pure Kenyon! And Saint Bullinger could never have a shred of ego. No, these men were perfect, as all here agree I'm sure. Never a sin to their name....
Oops! I forgot about BG throwing that man not only out of his class but also down the stairs! That was probably only a one time event.
"Sometimes a private definition of a word like this becomes so popular outside it original private setting that it gets "officially" entered into a dictionary or two. In 1969 I once sat in the office of a man who did this very thing. He actually invented a word for his professional discussions. I think I read once, or maybe he told me personally, that he used a term that had fallen out of use for many decades so he REDEFINED it the way he wanted to help him discuss the complex idea with which this new word was to be associated.
That word was "paradigm" and I literally saw it being born. I think the same thing will soon happen to the word "confabulation," given the stature of the scientists that use it this way. It will soon mean an idea that includes normal evil lying, but also will include many more items that do not have that moral baggage. When I say "many" I mean hundreds, literally hundreds."
Looking for English Dictionary? Find exactly what you want today.
Yahoo.comParadigm & GTPro
Low cost software and free demo Get fundraising for under $3,000
www.exempt5.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
par·a·digm Audio Help /ˈpærəˌdaɪm, -dɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-dahym, -dim] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Grammar.
a. a set of forms all of which contain a particular element, esp. the set of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme.
b. a display in fixed arrangement of such a set, as boy, boy's, boys, boys'.
2. an example serving as a model; pattern.
[Origin: 1475–85; < LL paradīgma < Gk parádeigma pattern (verbid of paradeiknýnai to show side by side), equiv. to para- para-1 + deik-, base of deiknýnai to show (see deictic) + -ma n. suffix]
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
par·a·digm Audio Help (pār'ə-dīm', -dĭm') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
[Middle English, example, from Late Latin paradīgma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknunai, to compare : para-, alongside; see para-1 + deiknunai, to show; see deik- in Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: Paradigm first appeared in English in the 15th century, meaning "an example or pattern," and it still bears this meaning today: Their company is a paradigm of the small high-tech firms that have recently sprung up in this area. For nearly 400 years paradigm has also been applied to the patterns of inflections that are used to sort the verbs, nouns, and other parts of speech of a language into groups that are more easily studied. Since the 1960s, paradigm has been used in science to refer to a theoretical framework, as when Nobel Laureate David Baltimore cited the work of two colleagues that "really established a new paradigm for our understanding of the causation of cancer." Thereafter, researchers in many different fields, including sociology and literary criticism, often saw themselves as working in or trying to break out of paradigms. Applications of the term in other contexts show that it can sometimes be used more loosely to mean "the prevailing view of things." The Usage Panel splits down the middle on these nonscientific uses of paradigm. Fifty-two percent disapprove of the sentence The paradigm governing international competition and competitiveness has shifted dramatically in the last three decades.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
paradigm
1483, from L.L. paradigma "pattern, example," especially in grammar, from Gk. paradeigma "pattern, model," from paradeiknynai "exhibit, represent," lit. "show side by side," from para- "beside" + deiknynai "to show" (cognate with L. dicere "to show;" (see diction).
1. systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word
2. a standard or typical example; "he is the prototype of good breeding"; "he provided America with an image of the good father" [syn: prototype]
3. the class of all items that can be substituted into the same position (or slot) in a grammatical sentence (are in paradigmatic relation with one another) [syn: substitution class]
4. the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time; "he framed the problem within the psychoanalytic paradigm"
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Paradigm
Par"a*digm\, n. [F. paradigme, L. paradigma, fr. Gr. ?, fr. ? to show by the side of, to set up as an example; ? beside + ? to show. See Para-, and Diction.]
1. An example; a model; a pattern. [R.] "The paradigms and patterns of all things." --Cudworth.
2. (Gram.) An example of a conjugation or declension, showing a word in all its different forms of inflection.
3. (Rhet.) An illustration, as by a parable or fable.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Paradigm
Par`a*dig"ma*tize\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Paradigmatized; p. pr. & vb. n. Paradigmatizing.] [Gr. paradeigmati`zein. See Paradigm.] To set forth as a model or example. [Obs.] --Hammond.
The question is: did vpw LATER claim that they are man-breathed BASIC KEYS or God-breathed BASIC KEYS?
Documented are 22 of Dr's statements that they ARE God-breathed. I have found a total of 90.
[Having seen the way you process the threads we post on, and knowing you're HIDING your specifics,
I'm NOT impressed that you've "found" something.
Lots of people "find evidence" the US space program is faked, and so on.
Someone here kept claiming to "find" "proof" the Holocaust didn't include mass executions.]
In the broader topic of this whole thread, IF they truly are God-breathed BASIC KEYS, then the plagiarism issue evaporates.
[it's been shown beyond a REASONABLE doubt that vpw's "writings" were copies of the books of writers that
he had been exposed to before he "wrote" them.
That means he PLAGIARIZED.
Whatever his MOTIVE for PLAGIARISM is a separate issue entirely.
NOTHING makes PLAGIARISM (a FELONY when done at this level) "evaporate."]
Has anyone calculated how much BENEFIT has accumulated to the estates or the families or the authors of later-to-be PFAL material from Dr's popularizing of their ministries? How many books has Kenyon sold DUE TO him being promoted by the ministry? How many extra students did B. G. Leonard get to teach due to the free advertising he got from the whole deal? How many people would even know about Bullinger if it weren't for him being so abundantly promoted by the ministry? How many
people were blessed by their ministries since their exposure to us?
[Has anyone calculated how many times Mike has changed his story?
First there was no plagiarism, then they approved of the plagiarism, then GOD ALMIGHTY endorsed the plagiarism,
and shame on the authors for not wanting their books plagiarized.
First vpw kept us COMPLETELY in the dark as to the names of other authors -Stiles, Leonard-
because "he didn't want us distracted" by their names.
Now supposedly we heard about them, and they benefited from the exposure!
I think Mike missed his calling-politics is where this level of spin-doctoring is respected-
INTEGRITY is respected among Christians- at least Christians who've never heard of twi or vpw.
Leonard was never "promoted by the ministry."
He was HIDDEN, and Leonard, years later, discovered his work was stolen.
He added elaborate notices against plagiarism, and stopped being so trusting of his applicants.
Has anyone calculated the DAMAGE to Leonard's ministry by the personal hurt vpw dealt him by his ILLEGAL and IMMORAL dealings?]
I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?
Mike says a lot of things. Mike says they were given "revelations". Mike says God told vpw to plagiarize them.
Mike says the pfal/twi books supercede any Bible vpw ever claimed to teach from.]
(edited because I flubbed Leonard's name part of the time.)
Have you ever wondered about the spies that Moses sent to check out the Promised Land?
I have.
It seems that God told them to lie, in a sense. A spy must lie to accomplish the goal, right? Their whole presence is a lie: it's covert. How many military operations of Holy Spirit guided ancient Israel involved lying to the enemy with strategically placed misinformation?
***
[in other words, there's no fundamental difference between a spy engaged in a military operation,
and thus attempting to save lives of the people of his country,
and a supposed author claiming he wrote work that was copied from others, and lying and telling people "I wrote this."
That's Mikean thinking.
Is it the kind of thinking others here want?]
Funny, my very first post here was on this. I think, socks, you may be misremembering my first post. It was on the incredible abundance of nuances attached with what might commonly be called lying. I spent 7 years studying and discussing the human brain with some of the world's top brain scientists.
["SOME OF THE WORLD'S TOP".
I had enough of these "I just happen to know the top men in the world in that field"
from vpw, thanks.
I don't need another person engaging in less-than-honest statements of that type.]
This is a MUCH deeper subject than you can imagine.
[This is a MUCH simpler subject than you want people to understand.
It is wrong for a person to lie and say "this is my work" when it's someone else's work.]
Here's just one teaser: Is it an evil lie to have children believe in Santa Clause?
[in other words, there's no fundamental difference between letting (or telling) your small child believe in Santa Claus
and presenting the work of other authors to adults and saying "I wrote this."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
14
24
16
Popular Days
Apr 15
23
Apr 14
20
Apr 16
14
Apr 4
11
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 21 posts
Mike 14 posts
waysider 24 posts
JeffSjo 16 posts
Popular Days
Apr 15 2008
23 posts
Apr 14 2008
20 posts
Apr 16 2008
14 posts
Apr 4 2008
11 posts
Raf
Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing. You can plagiarize like a madman and not infringe on anyone's copyright.
Read all about it in my new book: "Romeo and Juliet," by Raf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The question is: did vpw LATER claim that they are man-breathed BASIC KEYS or God-breathed BASIC KEYS?
Documented are 22 of Dr's statements that they ARE God-breathed. I have found a total of 90.
Claiming them to be God-breathed DOES NOT mean that they ARE God-breathed BASIC KEYS, though.
But that's not the point here in this sub-topic of what did vpw say of his own works.
***
In the broader topic of this whole thread, IF they truly are God-breathed BASIC KEYS, then the plagiarism issue evaporates.
***
Now, stepping aside from my God-breathed thesis, I want to bring up another point that I think has not been made on this thread yet, although it has elsewhere. This is in line with socks posts on the ethics of doing the right thing.
Has anyone calculated how much BENEFIT has accumulated to the estates or the families or the authors of later-to-be PFAL material from Dr's popularizing of their ministries? How many books has Kenyon sold DUE TO him being promoted by the ministry? How many extra students did B. G. Leonard get to teach due to the free advertising he got from the whole deal? How many people would even know about Bullinger if it weren't for him being so abundantly promoted by the ministry? How many
people were blessed by their ministries since their exposure to us?
I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
How is it relevant that some folks found out about Leonard and others via Wierwille? How many early PFAL grads found out about Wierwille through the Evangelical & Reformed Church?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm sure there is a name for this false argument - but I don't know it. It's impossible to know what "benefit" came to Kenyon et al because of VP's lifting of their work.
Conversely, what was the cost to these men? It's impossible to say how much more they would have benefited had vp left things in place and properly credited them.
This is "predicting the what if" at it's worst...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike, it's a totally moot point.
If you use Fromm's words, without citation, as if they were your own, that plagiarism.
If I then use your words, using Fromm's words,as if they were my own, without citation, that's plagiarism.
If someone else uses my words using your words using Fromm's words, as if they were their own, without citation, that's still plagiarism.
It's like painting a wall.
It doesn't matter how many coats you put on or what colors they are, the wall is still there beneath it all.
Wierwille was a two bit huckster.
A clever one, perhaps, but still a huckster.
Your "benefit" statement is purely fabricated speculation.
I propose you compile a complete list of these so-called God Breathed statements in one concise and easy to view format and then post it here for perusal.
Surely if they are God Breathed the whole World ought to have the right to see them.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The best I understand it, they are addressed TO US grads only.
***
The point I was making was LIMITED to the ethics issue socks brought up. It seems no one wants to consider the fact that Dr did benefit those people.
This one point I recently made has nothing to do with the God-breathed issue, it has nothing to do with the academics, it has nothing to do with the legalities. It's just the moral issue of whether they were harmed or benefited. I see only benefit going to them.
***
It's easy to see why stealing in the marketplace is wrong. That would be the copyright issue.
But can anyone tell me why plagiarism is wrong in the academic realm? I know it is wrong, and why. I'm asking if anyone else has though this one through? There is a strong reason, and it's stronger than the usual more trivial (by comparison) reason I have in mind. It's related to WHY the idea of copyrights came up in such a basic document as the US Constitution.
I just like looking into the reasons WHY the rules are there, not merely the breaking or keeping of the rules. It's a lot looking into WHY there are sex rules. Most people just know the rules and never ask why. It's a useful mental exercise to inquire into the deeper reasons to these things, but most people, I find, are into the social issue of the specifics in the breaking or keeping of the rules. It's the making of the rules that I like to look into because it seems to enable me to not get bogged down in the specifics if they are myriad, like in this thread.
***
Sorry, I just added a lot to this post in editing.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Can you show me how you arrived at that conclusion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not briefly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Cut to the chase Mike.
Either post the 22 statements and why they are God Breathed or stop insisting we believe you "just because you said so".
If you're worried about copyright infringement, I would hope after all this time you would know how to handle that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't think that kind of derailment would appreciated. It's really a totally different topic, and roughly 5000 posts have already been made by me on that.
I will answer with this. Do you know of ANY modern God-breathed documents in the world that were originally given in English? Any candidate even? Are you content with dead language barriers, ancient customs barriers, missing originals, and wide variations in copied manuscripts, and fragmented manuscripts, all between you and ancient God-breathed documents? I see a great NEED for modern English-given God-breathed text for our guidance. I see a great WANT for this also... not in many here, but in some I know the WANT is great. If these needs and wants are parallel... balanced... coordinated... THEN what?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In other words, you can't do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think we can say for sure - two wrongs don't make a right.
"Ethically", wresting content from someone's book, using it, and then claiming some form of benefit for them is kind of like a surgeon throwing a knife at someone on the street and then saying they performed surgery.
Accidents didn't happen in this case. Dooja brings up a great point - postulate this, Mike - what would have happened, what did happen, when VPW asked BG Leonard is he could use part of his material in PFAL?
If he did....
When he did....
I would loved to have a tape of the conversations following that.
And Mike - no offense, but really - it's been several years and unfortunately it took most of that time for you to present your ideas (I still recall your original post to GS about it, and the promise of the premise) So....you're not doing anyone any favors at this point. I'm just speaking practically. I've suggested before - if online media is what you seek, start a website and put your stuff up. Start with a simple one-page essay that states your case, clearly. Can't be done? Do it - discipline your writing to the point that it's doable. Then add to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Plagiarism is fundamentally dishonest.
It's not wrong because it's copyright infringement.
It's not wrong because it's stealing.
It's not wrong because it takes money away from other people.
It's wrong because it's LYING.
Why do we have to make this so complicated?
Oh, I forgot, God told him it was okay.
Some people would rather call God a liar than admit VPW was less a man of God than a duplicitous wolf in sheep's clothing who abused God's Word and God's people to satisfy his personal lust for power sex and money.
Rise and shine, campers... it's COLD out there.
That's right, it's GROUNDHOG DAY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
God told me to tell you that it's okay to go ahead and lie.... ;)
*sigh*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"All men are liars and that's the truth."
-----------------Nick Lowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Have you ever wondered about the spies that Moses sent to check out the Promised Land?
I have.
It seems that God told them to lie, in a sense. A spy must lie to accomplish the goal, right? Their whole presence is a lie: it's covert. How many military operations of Holy Spirit guided ancient Israel involved lying to the enemy with strategically placed misinformation?
***
Funny, my very first post here was on this. I think, socks, you may be misremembering my first post. It was on the incredible abundance of nuances attached with what might commonly be called lying. I spent 7 years studying and discussing the human brain with some of the world's top brain scientists. The subject of lying came up SO MUCH that they gave it a fancier name: confabulation. I can send a copy of that first post to anyone who want to see it, since it was lost in the days of pruning years ago. It's too long to post here.
This is a MUCH deeper subject than you can imagine.
Here's just one teaser: Is it an evil lie to have children believe in Santa Clause?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am experimenting with this right now with a few grads. It's slow going, but it's going.
As this gets up and running I am simultaneously downsizing the presentations of my thesis here. There are many other things to discuss here, but my passion is in what you have seen.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Confabulation is not a "fancier" name for lying.
http://www.skepdic.com/confab.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You could use some information on the relativity of definitions.
In the realm of West Coast brain scientists (it's a school of thought out here), confabulation is used differently than it is commonly used. They use it in place of the word lie because many of the "lairs" they study are severe brain damage victims. For this limited group of people that's the way they use that word. They have decided to use the word in that way in their professional circles.
Sometimes a private definition of a word like this becomes so popular outside it original private setting that it gets "officially" entered into a dictionary or two. In 1969 I once sat in the office of a man who did this very thing. He actually invented a word for his professional discussions. I think I read once, or maybe he told me personally, that he used a term that had fallen out of use for many decades so he REDEFINED it the way he wanted to help him discuss the complex idea with which this new word was to be associated.
That word was "paradigm" and I literally saw it being born. I think the same thing will soon happen to the word "confabulation," given the stature of the scientists that use it this way. It will soon mean an idea that includes normal evil lying, but also will include many more items that do not have that moral baggage. When I say "many" I mean hundreds, literally hundreds.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It was relevant to what I limited it to: were Dr's teachers harmed or befitted by his using their material?
I do see much benefit to them, even beyond increased sales and respect. Outside of possible ego problems I can't see one bit of harm that came to them. Of course this idea wouldn't fly far in a human court, but that's because they can't see very well. But God can, and that's the limited relevance here. Did they suffer? I doubt it.
And how could the wonderful BG Leonard ever have ego problems? And certainly not the pure Kenyon! And Saint Bullinger could never have a shred of ego. No, these men were perfect, as all here agree I'm sure. Never a sin to their name....
Oops! I forgot about BG throwing that man not only out of his class but also down the stairs! That was probably only a one time event.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike has stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes a private definition of a word like this becomes so popular outside it original private setting that it gets "officially" entered into a dictionary or two. In 1969 I once sat in the office of a man who did this very thing. He actually invented a word for his professional discussions. I think I read once, or maybe he told me personally, that he used a term that had fallen out of use for many decades so he REDEFINED it the way he wanted to help him discuss the complex idea with which this new word was to be associated.
That word was "paradigm" and I literally saw it being born. I think the same thing will soon happen to the word "confabulation," given the stature of the scientists that use it this way. It will soon mean an idea that includes normal evil lying, but also will include many more items that do not have that moral baggage. When I say "many" I mean hundreds, literally hundreds."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From dictionary.com
6 results for: paradigm
Sponsored Links
English Dictionary
Looking for English Dictionary? Find exactly what you want today.
Yahoo.comParadigm & GTPro
Low cost software and free demo Get fundraising for under $3,000
www.exempt5.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
par·a·digm Audio Help /ˈpærəˌdaɪm, -dɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-dahym, -dim] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Grammar.
a. a set of forms all of which contain a particular element, esp. the set of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme.
b. a display in fixed arrangement of such a set, as boy, boy's, boys, boys'.
2. an example serving as a model; pattern.
[Origin: 1475–85; < LL paradīgma < Gk parádeigma pattern (verbid of paradeiknýnai to show side by side), equiv. to para- para-1 + deik-, base of deiknýnai to show (see deictic) + -ma n. suffix]
—Synonyms 2. mold, standard; ideal, paragon, touchstone.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
par·a·digm Audio Help (pār'ə-dīm', -dĭm') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
[Middle English, example, from Late Latin paradīgma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknunai, to compare : para-, alongside; see para-1 + deiknunai, to show; see deik- in Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: Paradigm first appeared in English in the 15th century, meaning "an example or pattern," and it still bears this meaning today: Their company is a paradigm of the small high-tech firms that have recently sprung up in this area. For nearly 400 years paradigm has also been applied to the patterns of inflections that are used to sort the verbs, nouns, and other parts of speech of a language into groups that are more easily studied. Since the 1960s, paradigm has been used in science to refer to a theoretical framework, as when Nobel Laureate David Baltimore cited the work of two colleagues that "really established a new paradigm for our understanding of the causation of cancer." Thereafter, researchers in many different fields, including sociology and literary criticism, often saw themselves as working in or trying to break out of paradigms. Applications of the term in other contexts show that it can sometimes be used more loosely to mean "the prevailing view of things." The Usage Panel splits down the middle on these nonscientific uses of paradigm. Fifty-two percent disapprove of the sentence The paradigm governing international competition and competitiveness has shifted dramatically in the last three decades.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
paradigm
1483, from L.L. paradigma "pattern, example," especially in grammar, from Gk. paradeigma "pattern, model," from paradeiknynai "exhibit, represent," lit. "show side by side," from para- "beside" + deiknynai "to show" (cognate with L. dicere "to show;" (see diction).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
paradigm
noun
1. systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word
2. a standard or typical example; "he is the prototype of good breeding"; "he provided America with an image of the good father" [syn: prototype]
3. the class of all items that can be substituted into the same position (or slot) in a grammatical sentence (are in paradigmatic relation with one another) [syn: substitution class]
4. the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time; "he framed the problem within the psychoanalytic paradigm"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Paradigm
Par"a*digm\, n. [F. paradigme, L. paradigma, fr. Gr. ?, fr. ? to show by the side of, to set up as an example; ? beside + ? to show. See Para-, and Diction.]
1. An example; a model; a pattern. [R.] "The paradigms and patterns of all things." --Cudworth.
2. (Gram.) An example of a conjugation or declension, showing a word in all its different forms of inflection.
3. (Rhet.) An illustration, as by a parable or fable.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Paradigm
Par`a*dig"ma*tize\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Paradigmatized; p. pr. & vb. n. Paradigmatizing.] [Gr. paradeigmati`zein. See Paradigm.] To set forth as a model or example. [Obs.] --Hammond.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Having seen the way you process the threads we post on, and knowing you're HIDING your specifics,
I'm NOT impressed that you've "found" something.
Lots of people "find evidence" the US space program is faked, and so on.
Someone here kept claiming to "find" "proof" the Holocaust didn't include mass executions.]
[it's been shown beyond a REASONABLE doubt that vpw's "writings" were copies of the books of writers thathe had been exposed to before he "wrote" them.
That means he PLAGIARIZED.
Whatever his MOTIVE for PLAGIARISM is a separate issue entirely.
NOTHING makes PLAGIARISM (a FELONY when done at this level) "evaporate."]
[Has anyone calculated how many times Mike has changed his story?
First there was no plagiarism, then they approved of the plagiarism, then GOD ALMIGHTY endorsed the plagiarism,
and shame on the authors for not wanting their books plagiarized.
First vpw kept us COMPLETELY in the dark as to the names of other authors -Stiles, Leonard-
because "he didn't want us distracted" by their names.
Now supposedly we heard about them, and they benefited from the exposure!
I think Mike missed his calling-politics is where this level of spin-doctoring is respected-
INTEGRITY is respected among Christians- at least Christians who've never heard of twi or vpw.
Leonard was never "promoted by the ministry."
He was HIDDEN, and Leonard, years later, discovered his work was stolen.
He added elaborate notices against plagiarism, and stopped being so trusting of his applicants.
Has anyone calculated the DAMAGE to Leonard's ministry by the personal hurt vpw dealt him by his ILLEGAL and IMMORAL dealings?]
Mike says a lot of things. Mike says they were given "revelations". Mike says God told vpw to plagiarize them.
Mike says the pfal/twi books supercede any Bible vpw ever claimed to teach from.]
(edited because I flubbed Leonard's name part of the time.)
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[in other words, there's no fundamental difference between a spy engaged in a military operation,
and thus attempting to save lives of the people of his country,
and a supposed author claiming he wrote work that was copied from others, and lying and telling people "I wrote this."
That's Mikean thinking.
Is it the kind of thinking others here want?]
["SOME OF THE WORLD'S TOP".
I had enough of these "I just happen to know the top men in the world in that field"
from vpw, thanks.
I don't need another person engaging in less-than-honest statements of that type.]
[This is a MUCH simpler subject than you want people to understand.It is wrong for a person to lie and say "this is my work" when it's someone else's work.]
[in other words, there's no fundamental difference between letting (or telling) your small child believe in Santa Claus
and presenting the work of other authors to adults and saying "I wrote this."
That's Mikean thinking.
Is that type of thinking healthy?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno..
Asuming one considers the bible to be the word of God, even God himself cites himself when he quotes himself..
"it is written, in the book of.."
or "that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet.."
Peter supposedly by "revelation" cites the book of Joel, Psalms..
even Paul cites his reference to the promise to Abraham.. in regard to seed and seeds.
but a half-baked huckster is somehow above the law of the land, not to mention God's law..
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.