VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[waysider]

But of course, if he had permission from the Author, then it would be a lot different. Right?

So now I suppose your spin will be that God was actually the author and he just lent it to Bullinger, Leonard, Stiles, etc., making it fair game for anyone, including Wierwille, to copy and use as they saw fit. Why did God bother with all these "middle men", Mike, when He theoretically could have cut Wierwille in on a wholesale deal?

The man was a snake in the grass, just waiting to lurch out and pounce on his prey.

Edited January 26, 2009 by waysider

[Mike]

So now I suppose your spin will be that God was actually the author and he just lent it to Bullinger, Leonard, Stiles, etc., making it fair game for anyone, including Wierwille, to copy and use as they saw fit. Why did God bother with all these "middle men", Mike, when He theoretically could have cut Wierwille in a a wholesale deal?

EXACTLY. I have said this often.

I'd say, though, not "fair game for anyone" because they'd need permission from the Author.

Why would God do it this way? I can think of lots of reasons. But then again, this is not a new idea to me. Give it time (and objectivity) and you will find reasons too.

I want to repeat a paragraph I posted here today because it is something that I consider key here.

"All this was above board and common knowledge in the early 70's. It was later lost in the verbal traditions that grew up in TWI that I call the TVTs. It was in the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) that Dr supposedly got "divine dictation" as to what to write. Those later grads who grew up in these traditions (or older grads who had forgotten the earlier originality disclaimers) were dismayed at hearing that Dr's teachers had similar material."

The shock and disdain that many express here regarding these trumped up plagiarism charges reflect a theme that I repeatedly come back to: that few paid good attention to what was happening back then. I often point out that many have gotten the wrong ideas as to what the teaching was because many details slipped by them unawares, or were forgotten.

This is the case with SO many items. It just keeps coming up over and over.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

dmiller,

I say the honor goes to the Author of the final written product, and that these writings are useful to us IN SPITE of the flesh failings of vpw. It's what got printed that I think is worth celebrating. It's the contents of the books, not the character of one of the men involved in producing them.

If you could see this fine distinction you'd be less upset. You choose.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Mike

[dmiller]

I say the honor goes to the Author of the final written product, and that these writings are useful to us IN SPITE of the flesh failings of vpw. It's what got printed that I think is worth celebrating. It's the contents of the books, not the character of one of the men involved in producing them.

If you could see this fine distinction you'd be less upset. You choose.

I chose a long time ago. Vpw was weighed in the balances, and found wanting.

[waysider]

I strongly disagree that it was "common knowledge" back in the 1970's.

In fact, the four crucified work that he plagiarized was used (by PFAL instructors, per direct instructions from HQ) to demonstrate that someone else had independently and coincidentally reached the same conclusion . We now know that there was nothing coincidental about it at all. It was deliberate. Your insistence that God told him to "borrow" this from the original source proves it was not coincidental but deliberate.

You stated:

It was in the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) that Dr supposedly got "divine dictation" as to what to write.

And yet, you had just finished stating that his claim to fame was that God told him what to copy and even gave him the specific order in which to present it.

I personally resent your constant implications that my memory (or that of many others here) must be defective.

My memory is just fine, thank you very much. You're not the only person here who sat through this "class" time and time and time again.

Plagiarism is not only a very big deal, it's against the law.

But I suppose you rationalize that by assuming Wierwille was above the law.

Even the fictional character, Harold Hill (The Music Man) was painfully aware he was not above the law with his own con games.

[dmiller]

No. I meant you choose in being upset with me or not over the fine distinction of my honoring the contents of the books as opposed to me honoring the character of vpw.

I already did that.

[waysider]

If it's any consolation to you, about 6 years ago some grads (not me or any of my friends) yanked that copyright right out from under TWI and distributed a CD with PDF files reproducing all of Dr's books. In effect they injected all the PFAL collaterals into the public domain.

It's irrelevant, Mike

Between the time Wierwille plagiarized them and the incident from 6 years ago that you cited, the copyright appeared on the materials. I own several copyrights myself. They have all been in Public Domain now for several years. If you had used my materials, claiming them to be your own, between the time I copyrighted them and the time they went into PD, you would have been a plagiarist no matter how noble your cause. Incidentally, once a work has gone into Public Domain, no one can copyright it again, not even the author. At least that is my understanding of how it works. So, if these works were in Public Domain when Wierwille "borrowed" them, he had no business copyrighting them in the first place.

edited for 2x post.

Edited January 26, 2009 by waysider

[Mike]

If it's any consolation to you, about 6 years ago some grads (not me or any of my friends) yanked that copyright right out from under TWI and distributed a CD with PDF files reproducing all of Dr's books. In effect they injected all the PFAL collaterals into the public domain.

It's irrelevant, Mike

If it's any consolation to you, about 6 years ago some grads (not me or any of my friends) yanked that copyright right out from under TWI and distributed a CD with PDF files reproducing all of Dr's books. In effect they injected all the PFAL collaterals into the public domain.

[mchud11]

It's irrelevant, Mike

Between the time Wierwille plagiarized them and the incident from 6 years ago that you cited, the copyright appeared on the materials. I own several copyrights myself. They have all been in Public Domain now for several years. If you had used my materials, claiming them to be your own, between the time I copyrighted them and the time they went into PD, you would have been a plagiarist no matter how noble your cause. Incidentally, once a work has gone into Public Domain, no one can copyright it again, not even the author. At least that is my understanding of how it works. So, if these works were in Public Domain when Wierwille "borrowed" them, he had no business copyrighting them in the first place.

edited for 2x post.

Not really jumping into the fray, just to say, I believe you are accurate Waysider, once you start writing, your work is a work in progress and is a copyright that just hasn't had the paperwork done, you do own it. And after something leaves copyright into the public domain, it doesn't get a copyright again on the material...

[socks]

Well, this topic makin' the rounds. dmiller notes it. For the record, again - the copyright laws of the U.S. are one of the foundations for the topic of pay-jerism. Again, a restatement of how the laws work-

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

How long does a copyright last? For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire (that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, depending on the date the work is published.

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

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

• Everything you want to know, already know and might want to check, from copyright.gov, the site.
  

• Including a history of the Copyright Office, established in 1790
  

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

And even yet another well written brief on the basic answer to the question "what does a copyright do" - here.

A bundle of intangible rights granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby, for a limited period, the exclusive privilege is given to that person (or to any party to whom he or she transfers ownership) to make copies of the same for publication and sale.

A copyright is a legal device that gives the creator of a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work the sole right to publish and sell that work. Copyright owners have the right to control the reproduction of their work, including the right to receive payment for that reproduction. An author may grant or sell those rights to others, including publishers or recording companies. Violation of a copyright is called infringement.

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

My bold, above.

The topic goes 'round and 'round but it's long lost it's merry. The issue IMO, simply stated is reflected in the known fact that VPW added copyright status to the books.

The benefit of doing so is clear. There are only certain reasons to do so, and if you do claim ownership by using the Big C then you claim to own the book as an original work.

The contents can contain the work of others- the copyright laws would apply to those works and their use.

The same as the copyright laws would be invoked for the work that uses them.

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

To borrow from Tolkein - "one law for all".

Or the bible - For The Word of God is...sharper than any two-edged sword...

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

When asked about paying taxes, Jesus said give to Caesar the things that are his, and to God the things that are His.

I would apply that generally to the laws of our society - if we live in and benefit from our society's laws and participate in the arenas they govern and in fact invoke their use for our own uses - we are obliged to honor them.

We aren't morally or ethically sound if we don't. God may "author". Nothing states we are required to invoke the laws of the land to support the Words of God. They stand alone, on their own and of their own merit. The things of God are God's - give to God, His.

If we do function by and within the laws of the land, we are bound to deal with such honestly and with truthfulness.

It's not that hard to understand.

Stating that VPW rewrote the bible according to a new revelation given by God, and thus was correct in copyrighting them for the purpose of protecting them doesn't stand up to scrutiny when we know that many of the portions of those writings were taken from the copyright protected work of others. Knowing another had written them first, it would be reasonable to assume that their work was the correct "original" and to be used appropriately - again, all of the copyright law applies once those copyright laws are invoked and used.

Mistakes were made and I doubt blindly or innocently. It's not any more difficult to state than that IMO. Why is really more interesting question, but of this topic - there's no question.

[Ham]

The movie Groundhog Day comes to mind

That's what I thought..

[waysider]

Thanks, Socks

That is a very comprehensive summary.

In my case, my copyrights involved music.

When I copyrighted the pieces in 1969-1971, music copyrights were for a period of 28 years with an option to renew with certain restrictions. I chose to simply allow mine to go into PD. That 28 years has since been extended to the writer's lifetime and then some, as you have stated. Mary Had A Little Lamb is a good example to use in understanding PD. The song itself is in PD yet SRV was able to copyright his particular arrangement. Whole other ball of wax. Still, even with something that is in PD, you must give proper citation.

Thanks for taking the time to search out all that info.

edit

It should be noted, also, that a person reading The Bible Tells Me So, for example, cannot be expected to know what was said in SNS# 214. Each work should have included its own list of citations.

Edited January 26, 2009 by waysider

[potato]

“For almost fifteen years, no one thanked me for what I taught. People did not accept much of my heart and life. When I shared with them what I had found in God’s Word, they would shout, “Heresy!” But Dr. E. E. Higgins told me one night after I taught at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago that I taught like Bullinger wrote. Then she took me up to her office in the hotel and gave me her copy of How to Enjoy the Bible. Back in the early 1900’s, Bullinger had found and seen many of the things in the Word that I was finding. Reading his book was like getting a drink of cool water from a desert oasis. I still have a great respect and love for the work of E. W. Bullinger, which will stand as a monument until the return of Christ.”

I can't remember off the top of my head when this was supposed to have happened. anyone know?

see, we're expected to believe vpw had never, ever been exposed to Bullinger before this point in his life. not at school, not in conversation, not in a library, not in the 3,000 books he took to the dump.

but, amazingly enough, vpw spoke just like Bullinger wrote... perhaps he was channeling?

[waysider]

It appears he was yanking Dr. Higgins' chain as well, by allowing her to think Bullinger was all new to him.

[Mike]

I can't remember off the top of my head when this was supposed to have happened. anyone know?

see, we're expected to believe vpw had never, ever been exposed to Bullinger before this point in his life. not at school, not in conversation, not in a library, not in the 3,000 books he took to the dump.

but, amazingly enough, vpw spoke just like Bullinger wrote... perhaps he was channeling?

Do some math, "almost fifteen" plus 1942 equals "almost 1957." It could have been any time before 1957. I think it's more likely to be in the late 40's or early 50's from other accounts of Dr Higgins.

Don't add words: he didn't say "spoke just like Bullinger wrote."

The article says she said he "spoke like Bullinger wrote."

The context, the preceding paragraph, which you did not include, was how he was teaching similar findings like the Wednesday crucifixion, not a similar style of writing "just like Bullinger" as you put it. Anyone can find these things if they work what scriptures survived with procedure and care. Similar and independent discoveries happen all the time in science, where procedure and care are employed.

***

Now here's a new twist. Everyone supposes that Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, etc all came up with their material independently and exclusively. Is this a KNOWN fact? How could it be a known fact? I'll be they had their sources and tips, and they too decided not to clutter their writings with all sorts of references.

I don't think originality in human thought is as viable a phenomenon as is often thought. I think the idea of originality is a convenience and an abbreviation for a far more complex set of phenomena. This was once taught in the AC, that all new ideas come from God. Anyone remember this?

Edited January 26, 2009 by Mike

[mchud11]

Well, this topic makin' the rounds. dmiller notes it. For the record, again - the copyright laws of the U.S. are one of the foundations for the topic of pay-jerism. Again, a restatement of how the laws work-

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

How long does a copyright last? For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire (that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, depending on the date the work is published.

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

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

• Everything you want to know, already know and might want to check, from copyright.gov, the site.
  

• Including a history of the Copyright Office, established in 1790
  

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

And even yet another well written brief on the basic answer to the question "what does a copyright do" - here.

A bundle of intangible rights granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby, for a limited period, the exclusive privilege is given to that person (or to any party to whom he or she transfers ownership) to make copies of the same for publication and sale.

A copyright is a legal device that gives the creator of a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work the sole right to publish and sell that work. Copyright owners have the right to control the reproduction of their work, including the right to receive payment for that reproduction. An author may grant or sell those rights to others, including publishers or recording companies. Violation of a copyright is called infringement.

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

My bold, above.

The topic goes 'round and 'round but it's long lost it's merry. The issue IMO, simply stated is reflected in the known fact that VPW added copyright status to the books.

The benefit of doing so is clear. There are only certain reasons to do so, and if you do claim ownership by using the Big C then you claim to own the book as an original work.

The contents can contain the work of others- the copyright laws would apply to those works and their use.

The same as the copyright laws would be invoked for the work that uses them.

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

To borrow from Tolkein - "one law for all".

Or the bible - For The Word of God is...sharper than any two-edged sword...

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

When asked about paying taxes, Jesus said give to Caesar the things that are his, and to God the things that are His.

I would apply that generally to the laws of our society - if we live in and benefit from our society's laws and participate in the arenas they govern and in fact invoke their use for our own uses - we are obliged to honor them.

We aren't morally or ethically sound if we don't. God may "author". Nothing states we are required to invoke the laws of the land to support the Words of God. They stand alone, on their own and of their own merit. The things of God are God's - give to God, His.

If we do function by and within the laws of the land, we are bound to deal with such honestly and with truthfulness.

It's not that hard to understand.

Stating that VPW rewrote the bible according to a new revelation given by God, and thus was correct in copyrighting them for the purpose of protecting them doesn't stand up to scrutiny when we know that many of the portions of those writings were taken from the copyright protected work of others. Knowing another had written them first, it would be reasonable to assume that their work was the correct "original" and to be used appropriately - again, all of the copyright law applies once those copyright laws are invoked and used.

Mistakes were made and I doubt blindly or innocently. It's not any more difficult to state than that IMO. Why is really more interesting question, but of this topic - there's no question.

Great, excellent, post, socks, thanks for your work and your thoughts, a lot of work went into this...michael

[waysider]

Do the math, "almost fifteen" plus 1942 equals "almost 1957."

Don't add words: he didn't say "spoke just like Bullinger wrote."

The article says she said he "spoke like Bullinger wrote."

The simile is still there whether or not you include "just".

The context, the preceding paragraph, which you did not include, was how he was teaching similar findings like the Wednesday crucifixion, not a similar style of writing "just like Bullinger" as you put it. Anyone can find these things if they work what scriptures survived with procedure and care. Similar and independent discoveries happen all the time in science, where procedure and care are employed.

***

Now here's a new twist. Everyone supposes that Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, etc all came up with their material independently and exclusively. Is this a KNOWN fact? How could it be a known fact? I'll be they had their sources and tips, and they too decided not to clutter their writings with all sorts of references.

I really don't give a rat's patooty where Bullinger, Leonard, Stiles or any of the others got it. I know where Wierwille got it. He stole it from them.

I don't think originality in human thought is as viable a phenomenon as is often thought. I think the idea of originality is a convenience and an abbreviation for a far more complex set of phenomena. This was once taught in the AC, that all new ideas come from God. Anyone remember this?

How could we, Mike? None of us were paying attention like you were and now our memories are defective to boot! <_<

Edited January 26, 2009 by waysider

[socks]

My pleasure, waysider. And mchud! :)

Bullinger was a product of his times and influences, as everyone is.

The issue being discussed isn't what they said or did, and where they got it. The topic at hand is where VPW got it and his actions and product are singular events. He didn't control where or how any of these other people got their material, he controlled his own actions.

Never once in my entire life around him did I ever once hear him even infer that Bullinger, B. G. Leonard or others of his primary source material had taken parts and pieces of others work and placed them in their own, directly and purposefully, with the intention of not crediting them. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but he never to my knowledge recited that reasoning in reference to his own actions.

Publicly he referenced these other people and their work as instrumental to his own. We're looking at the writings, the books, in this immediate context.

The real issue again - with copyright law - is not that the material was or wasn't his original material - it's that the use of the material wasn't appropriately credited to the known original and used with permission.

That's key - known original.

As noted elsewhere, VPW wrote the early books with little or no footnotes or credits in the text itself. This has been noted elsewhere for the reason he stated - it made for a cleaner, easier to digest read. That's fine.

In addition to that reason is a result, a by product of using that style - in using it, it appears as if all of the text is original and written by the author.

Getting a clean, easy to read text is fine - adding appropriate credits and footnotes for portions that were used from others writiings elsewhere in the work, like the end or beginning as an appendix, or preface would the the correct way to handle it.

VPW used these in many books, notably the RTHST book, to accomodate lists and verse references.

Whatever the reasons all of this is easy to understand because the books themselves exist - VPW's and the others. Whittling away at a lot of what-ifs and did-you-knows and coulda-beens is. It's a simple matter to conclude on.

In a way it doesn't really matter as none of this and none of it is from any of those whose work is involved. We're after the fact and unattached from any of the parties or their estates. If anyone wants to read the books, use them, value them, that's up to them, they exist as entities in and of themselves and can be evaluated for their own worth. But again, on the copyright issue, there's no argument, it's a done deal and anyone looking at the facts could and would see that. They might place different levels of value to the infringement that occured and what it's impact on the whole work was but not on this issue.

[RumRunner]

Aye and there ya go socks - VPW was a product of his times and influence - a Nazi drunken SCUM who raped women, sexually abused them, ripped money out of people's wallets in the name of god's guilt - or perhaps more like mafia protection - and went on to be the "MOG" unquestioned, unstoppable (oh until he got possessed with cancer) - just a scum with the same amount of god's "revelation" as a bag of hammers. And those who still worship him?!?!?!? Go rest with him.

My pleasure, waysider. And mchud! :)

Bullinger was a product of his times and influences, as everyone is.

<snip>

[mchud11]

My pleasure, waysider. And mchud! :)

Bullinger was a product of his times and influences, as everyone is.

The issue being discussed isn't what they said or did, and where they got it. The topic at hand is where VPW got it and his actions and product are singular events. He didn't control where or how any of these other people got their material, he controlled his own actions.

Never once in my entire life around him did I ever once hear him even infer that Bullinger, B. G. Leonard or others of his primary source material had taken parts and pieces of others work and placed them in their own, directly and purposefully, with the intention of not crediting them. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but he never to my knowledge recited that reasoning in reference to his own actions.

Publicly he referenced these other people and their work as instrumental to his own. We're looking at the writings, the books, in this immediate context.

The real issue again - with copyright law - is not that the material was or wasn't his original material - it's that the use of the material wasn't appropriately credited to the known original and used with permission.

That's key - known original.

As noted elsewhere, VPW wrote the early books with little or no footnotes or credits in the text itself. This has been noted elsewhere for the reason he stated - it made for a cleaner, easier to digest read. That's fine.

In addition to that reason is a result, a by product of using that style - in using it, it appears as if all of the text is original and written by the author.

Getting a clean, easy to read text is fine - adding appropriate credits and footnotes for portions that were used from others writiings elsewhere in the work, like the end or beginning as an appendix, or preface would the the correct way to handle it.

VPW used these in many books, notably the RTHST book, to accomodate lists and verse references.

Whatever the reasons all of this is easy to understand because the books themselves exist - VPW's and the others. Whittling away at a lot of what-ifs and did-you-knows and coulda-beens is. It's a simple matter to conclude on.

In a way it doesn't really matter as none of this and none of it is from any of those whose work is involved. We're after the fact and unattached from any of the parties or their estates. If anyone wants to read the books, use them, value them, that's up to them, they exist as entities in and of themselves and can be evaluated for their own worth. But again, on the copyright issue, there's no argument, it's a done deal and anyone looking at the facts could and would see that. They might place different levels of value to the infringement that occured and what it's impact on the whole work was but not on this issue.

I apologize for being of few words, at the moment..but what you are pointing out is, in my opinion, relevant. VPW did write without discipline, in my opinion, I would give him a D in citing his references, giving credit where credit was due. Most probably, its what I am hearing/understanding what Waysider has said, VPW being a product of his generation. Maybe formal writing was merely never VPW's goal, part of his background at the school(s) he attended. Its, getting late.. Maybe his approach was more along the line of getting out as much material, cutting the corners, so to speak to keep up with the growth of TWI, quantity rather than quality...

[Jim]

Socks knows whereof he speaks...

[potato]

Do some math, "almost fifteen" plus 1942 equals "almost 1957." It could have been any time before 1957. I think it's more likely to be in the late 40's or early 50's from other accounts of Dr Higgins.

Don't add words: he didn't say "spoke just like Bullinger wrote."

The article says she said he "spoke like Bullinger wrote."

The context, the preceding paragraph, which you did not include, was how he was teaching similar findings like the Wednesday crucifixion, not a similar style of writing "just like Bullinger" as you put it. Anyone can find these things if they work what scriptures survived with procedure and care. Similar and independent discoveries happen all the time in science, where procedure and care are employed.

jeez, now who's misquoting? don't change words, Mike. according to vpw, she said he "taught like Bullinger wrote". are we all good now?

again, my point is that I find it highly unlikely that during all those years he never heard of Bullinger until Dr. Higgins introduced him to the scholar's voluminous works. the preceding paragraph is irrelevant, except for your pointing out that procedure and care are employed and I don't think vpw employed either, based on the number of revisions it took to make his discoveries read less like the men he stole them from and more like his editorial team style.

[Mike]

The real issue again - with copyright law - is not that the material was or wasn't his original material - it's that the use of the material wasn't appropriately credited to the known original and used with permission.

That's key - known original.

I disagree.

The key is - appropriately

Who is to say what is and is not appropriately credited?

In the academic realm and in the market place, the meaning of "appropriately" is fairly well defined. In those settings there are authorities to answer my question as to what is appropriate.

But those were not the settings in which we were served that material. It was in the setting of a meal from our Father that we were served good food.

The credits were done rather inappropriately if they were to satisfy the academic community, and if the earlier authors were to have brought Dr to court over marketplace infringements, I would not be at all surprised if in that setting he be judged liable.

But on the table we were served, in the setting of a spiritual Father with His family, the earlier authors were IMHO appropriately credited... remotely and without distraction.

***

...and if revelation was involved (and I'm betting my life there was) then that would serve as permission... from the ultimate Author.

***

And a marketplace side note (AND THIS IS NOT A MINOR POINT):

I think every one of those earlier authors (and/or their estates) were more than compensated by all the free publicity they got from Dr's actions. There couldn't have been a better commercial promotional agent for them if they had tried to hire one.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Mike

[RumRunner]

Well Mike you just failed the appropriately test miserably as did the drunken rapist cheap a$$ed lying B/S MOG

I disagree.

The key is - appropriately

Who is to say what is and is not appropriately credited?

In the academic realm and in the market place, the meaning of "appropriately" is fairly well defined. In those settings there are authorities to answer my question as to what is appropriate.

[now I see]

Don'tWorry, thanks for answering those questions, it's amazing how much we were all bewitched by him and talked ourselves out of questioning what we were fed.  It is also surprising that Walter went to that infamous trip to Germany to view the early texts to prove what vpee already decided what the scriptures should mean, which is in direct contradiction to how vpee said we were to aproach the scriptures according to the Piffle class.  It also shows that Walter had no integrity in the research realm and in regards to doing vpee's bidding.  In reality, the greatest secret in the whole world was how vpee came up with his research. :)  The closer you look at vpee and his life's work, the more distorted, cracked and perverted the picture becomes. 

The copywrite laws of today have penalties for infringement, I wonder if that ever crossed Donna's or anyone else's minds at the time?

From what I recall, Chris Ge*r also used vpee's people when he was posthumously editing vpee's "writings" and doing his own "research" for his own books, publications, and classes.   I can't recall exactly, but I do recall it was either Donna or Bernita or both, and Walter who also helped geer with his research too.  Sure puts a new light on anything Geer produced(s) labeled as "research", no wonder he also instructed his followers concerning the evils of the computer and the internet, wouldn't want people to put two and two together.  

I remember hearing an old SNS tape where either uncle Harry or Rueben was speaking, and I remeber thinking how different vpee sounded from his brothers, the locals, and even from HA... vpee's syntax, diction and speech were far more polished and less rural, he certainly could fake his abilities through his personal charisma and homeletics training and education, he certainly did a good job in selling us his version of snake oil.  Thanks for replying DWBH, and for sharing your unique perspective...

  

Edited January 26, 2009 by now I see