VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?
VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?
52 members have voted
-
1. VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?
-
God miracled a snowstorm for VPW1
-
God miracled a snowstorm in VPW's head1
-
VPW hallucinated a snowstorm3
-
VPW saw a freak hailstorm and interpreted it as a miracle2
-
VPW made the whole thing up37
-
None of the above8
-
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
112
54
80
44
Popular Days
Jan 26
65
Jan 9
58
Jan 7
56
Jan 13
52
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 112 posts
Ham 54 posts
waysider 80 posts
potato 44 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2009
65 posts
Jan 9 2009
58 posts
Jan 7 2009
56 posts
Jan 13 2009
52 posts
Popular Posts
potato
4 or 5 what? shots of whiskey, hits off the pipe, what?
Bolshevik
wow, I would have guessed more.
potato
it's reruns of seaspray, circa 2003.
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since God Almighty told us to obey man's laws, I'd say God Almighty agrees
the legal expectation of citation is "appropriate" credit/
FALSE.
That's easy for anyone who owns a copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion".
The ENTIRE BOOK was based on the (PUBLIC DOMAIN) book "The Two Babylons."
It's properly annotated all through the book- Woodruff credits Hislop
correctly in every case. And NO ONE ever claimed that was a problem to read.
Your opinion doesn't match the evidence OR any honest definitions.
(This should be no surprise by now.)
***
God can't contradict Himself. He told us to obey the laws of the land.
Where God's people defied authorities in their day, they expected to go to
jail-and they did. Look over Jeremiah's life to see what it's like for a man
of God to "buck the trend" like you suggest about vpw.
***
It's unoriginal and dishonest for you to keep saying this,
but what else is new?
First of all, vpw had classes of BG Leonard and Stiles' materials taught all over the US.
How often does he mention "I'm taking sessions 9-12 directly from Leonard and Stiles?"
We can all count to ZERO.
So, first of all, this "free publicity" is a fiction.
It's easy to see, since you claimed-in the SAME POST- that he left out the
legally-appropriate citations.
Second of all, plagiarism is illegal even IF you give it all sorts of
qualifiers. "No one was hurt" "He benefitted the people he plagiarized"
and various other lies don't change that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round
'round and 'round
'round and 'round"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
You mean like this?
Everybody's going around in circles about whether or not it was plagiarism or copyright infringement for VP to use the words/writings/ideas of others. Setting that aside for a moment, let us consider a more crucial question. Mike claims that God gave VP revelation as to what points he should keep and use, and what points he should reject from others' writings. I brought up a few very specific points which VP adapted, which are based on completely false statements. Not differences of opinion about theologies, but proven matters of FACT that he had wrong in his writings. If God gave him revelation as to what to use from other people's teachings, how did these get missed? Regardless of whether he "appropriately" credited his sources, the fact that he took statements from those sources without even checking to see if the FACTS were right, leads me to question whether indeed God revealed to him what parts to appropriate.
The points in question are in the Doctrinal Forum, BTW. The Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven question is in its own thread, and three others (Throughly vs. thoroughly, lambano vs. dechomai, and holy spirit UPON vs. holy spirit IN) are in another thread called More Blatant PFAL Errors. You don't need to get into a lengthy debate - they're simple questions. How do you deal with these things if PFAL is "God Breathed"? I don't see much difference between saying "Sure there are errors, but I close my eyes to them" and "I see no errors because I close my eyes to them."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, the topic of "ownership" applies to everything. Mike. On that we agree. As with a person who writes a book about the stars, he doesn't own the constellations, nor the information, he's simply learning and reporting. We've already gone through all this before, and it's all easy for the interested reader to draw their own conclusions.
A person doesn't need to fall on either side or inbetween on this topic to enjoy the blessings of the Word of God, be it in PFAL, directly at the source, the Bible or any work based on it and from it. Recognizing these issues for what they are doesn't change the information, that should be given an honest look by anyone who wants to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
your opinion on this point is irrelevant, as it is up to the original authors to determine what they believe is fair compensation BEFORE their work is copied, and up to the courts afterward. it's not up to you to decide that publicity is enough compensation. that argument is used far too often by ignorant people to excuse infringement on other's legal rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well I agree we're going round and round. Some of that is due to the fact that several people are involved and to some degree each round can be associated with each participant. I think some is due to some not wanting to accept what’s been set forth and trying again and again to ram it out of credence.
I'm about done here on this issue.
Just a small few points left.
I think everyone can see that IF revelation is involved, I have a consistent position. A lot of the discussion seems to center on the copyright issue disproving revelation, but the copyright issue is looked at from the position of non-revelation to begin with. What’s being “proved” has already been assumed.
On the matter of strict legality, God tells us to obey the laws of men as much as is possible. But, clearly, His set of laws prevail over man’s in case of a conflict, just like when there’s a conflict between State and Federal laws, and the Feds are constitutionally identified as having the upper hand.
Again, Mark, what is a factual error to you can be seen as not at all the case when you use differing methods to read the writings. This shouldn’t be too hard to see. We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right?
After that I see only one more point to be made. I’ve once posted on this before, so I may go and search for that, rather than re-compose it. It’s an interesting point as to why God would do it in this seemingly convoluted way. It has to do with copyrighting God’s Word and injection into the public domain, and it’s not been brought up here in several years. I’l be looking for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Differing methods?
What, pray tell, might be these "differing methods" one might use to explain the errors in genealogy that Ham pointed out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
that's why I pulled that thread up.. about 42 pages worth of it.. we could painstakingly go over each issue there not properly or logically addressed if need be.. starting with the genealogy issue..
this thread is supposed to be about the vicster's snow storm he tried pulling over our eyes..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
#1 One method would be meekness. I alluded to this before in my response to Mark in Post #633 when I said "We were shown how unbelieving scholars can read errors into the ancient scriptures by way of their methodology, right? " We were taught this in the class, remember? The assumption must be made before beginning that the text is right. Then you look for the answers on THAT side of the tracks, not on the side that you all are on, assuming that it's full of errors.
#2 Another would be being familiar with ALL the places in the writings where the target topic comes up. This takes years, and it must be done with #1 in mind.
#3 Word studies - key words that are employed in the target topic need to be defined in terms of how they are used elsewhere WITHIN the PFAL writings, not how they are defined outside the writings. This too takes much time, especially considering we don't have a concordance for the PFAL writings.
There are others. I've listed these here many times in years past, but thanks for not seeing them, cuz it gives me a chance to repeat them for newcomers.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
does anyone know the date of supposed snow on pumps event offhand? (my books are deep in storage)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
LOL - mine are in deep storage too - somewhere in a landfill...where they belong
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Excuse me, Mike
That's utter nonsense.
The genealogy errors are simply that----errors.
It shouldn't take "years" or a "PFAL concordance" to recognize that.
Approaching the text with an presumption that it MUST be right or wrong, is faulty research methodology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not necessarily.
If a researcher has ALREADY determined that the text is right from previous research, then current searches can use that previous result to help guide the work.
Similarly, if the text has previously been found by a researcher to be faulty, then the methods I suggested would not be used.
You're assuming that all research has as its goal finding the text right or wrong. That's not the case with me, and it's not the case with others here.
I start out with the assumption that the text is right, and an apparent error needs to be reconciled, so I keep searching until a satiffactory answer is found.
Others here start out with the assumption that the text is wrong, and they work it until they think they've demonstrated this by finding an apparent error, and that's where they halt their search.
It sounds to me that you've only thought this through from one side. It's like you're too emotionally invested with the idea that the text is wrong, and this prevents you from seeing the other possible side. That possibility offends you so much you don't give it enough time and brainpower to see what I'm talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Yeah but WS we gotta keep this thread going. I haven't had this much entertainment in a long time. Reading Mike's posts is like watching the Three Stooges build a nuclear submarine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You wrote: "What does offend me somewhat, though, is your constant insistence there must be something wrong with my ability to exercise 'brainpower.'"
How can I more politely suggest that I think you missed something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Simple
Show me what it is you think I missed and let that speak for itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think I did that already, so let's let the record speak for itself.
I gotta go to work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Wow, I just looked in on this thread after washing my hands of it; felt like I needed some humor.
No change here, since my last look.
The same old plagiarism arguments...
Arguments about copyrights...
Hey, nobody mentioned a BIBLIOGRAPHY, which reputable works of research almost always include in addition to the footnotes/copyright info.
(Just giving this merry-go-round another twiddle...)
Lest we forget-
this thread is about what we now believe about VPW's snowstorm story.
As far as I know, snowflakes are neither copyrightable nor patentable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Actually I mentioned both bibliography and footnotes quite some posts ago - Mike publicly posted that they were a waste of his time as he didn't want to take the time to read footnotes which [reworded by me] might have interfered with reading Vic's most holy drunken babbling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Sorry, RR, musta missed that. Got lost under a drift of copyright complaints.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not of man, many difficulties will disappear. We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author, namely, that He may quote, readapt or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations. Thus it obligates us to study the context, the paragraph and the section where the same word appears and where it was used previously, to see if its usage is in a new sense or not. RHST pg 223
Mike, doesn't this paragraph from Receiving the Holy Spirit Today essentially sum up, or describe, what we have in book and magazine form from the Way Ministry?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
defending plagiarism and copyright infringement because god is the author is about the dumbest argument in defense of theft that I've ever heard.
KJV is already public domain, as are many other versions of the bible. what is not public domain (owned by the people), nor owned by god is people's commentary and organization thereof that goes with the scripture they use when they write an article or book or class syllabus.
good heavens, by your arguments I could reprint any of twi's books and syllabi I want. wanna see how well that flies when their lawyers come after me?
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.