Being that you have such a flagrant disregard for the laws against plagiarism- I guess I shouldn't be surprised you have your own laws of logic too.
That's not the case, though. I have great respect for those laws. I was most impressed that they are highlighted in the U.S. Constitution! They are a product of the Enlightenment thinkers. They foster thought and invention that benefit society.
But misapplications of those laws to a single family, or to a small town church do earn my flagrant disrespect. I can respect the people who hold such erroneous grudges, but I don’t respect their stands.
The greatest misapplication of those laws is when God is the original owner of such ideas, but our law system is not equipped to recognize His ownership. When such an ownership conflict occurs, I’ll side with God and take the consequences from societies laws.But I do respect them, none the less.
Whatever category biblical research falls under. Thats supposed to be where his publications fit. I would think any research work would provide a reputable method to cite sources.
I'd say that biblical research, if it's being done by a small family, or a small town church need not meet academic or market standards. Then, if the owner (like if it's God) of the "borrowed" material gives permission, there is no foul.
When that biblical research reaches a large size then conforming to market and academic standards it most recommended. That would be the "decent and in order" thing to do. This kind of conformity Dr did do after the ministry started getting very large in the mid to late 70s.
This kind of conformity Dr did do after the ministry started getting very large in the mid to late 70s.
Never happened, Dude. Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin. So, he wasn't simply a plagiarist, he was a plagiarist with a nefarious intent. That's some bad chicken.
That's not the case, though. I have great respect for those laws. I was most impressed that they are highlighted in the U.S. Constitution! They are a product of the Enlightenment thinkers. They foster thought and invention that benefit society.
But misapplications of those laws to a single family, or to a small town church do earn my flagrant disrespect. I can respect the people who hold such erroneous grudges, but I don’t respect their stands.
The greatest misapplication of those laws is when God is the original owner of such ideas, but our law system is not equipped to recognize His ownership. When such an ownership conflict occurs, I’ll side with God and take the consequences from societies laws.But I do respect them, none the less.
Ok - I get it - you think that you and vpw are above the laws of our land…
AND since you seem intent on siding with wierwille the unabashed plagiarist, pathological liar and glory-grubbing thief
AND you have NOW openly stated you are willing to take the consequences of your choice
Then you should not complain like it’s a personal attack on you when someone criticizes the unscrupulous methods of the aforementioned unabashed plagiarist, pathological liar and glory-grubbing thief (aka wierwille).
Never happened, Dude. Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin. So, he wasn't simply a plagiarist, he was a plagiarist with a nefarious intent. That's some bad chicken.
Right waysider. And naming names such as Stiles, Bullinger, etc. isn't the same as citing references in books he wrote (plagerized). Mr. Wierwille didn't want us to know what he plagerized. He wanted us to think it was all his original work. What a joke.
At the risk of encouraging further ridiculous input and illogic from Mike, I offer the following, against my better judgement and waste of time.
Mike.....your entire rap is based on the acceptance of dictor paul's illogical, private interpretation and outright, abject, voluminous plagiarism in and throughout his entire phony "minus-tray". IMO, that is a completely false premise. Your ONLY evidence and back-up is based on the presumption that whatever dictor wrote was "revelation", or "godbreathed". It is a false presumption full of logical fallacies and confirmation bias on your part. You continue to delude yourself, after all these years, that everything dictor wrote was "written by the finger of God". That is simply untrue. Your illogic is filled with false equivalencies, straw man arguments, red herrings, and purely unprovable anecdotal "evidence". Your basic premises are false premises based on your own misguided interpretations of dic's alcoholic and drug induced misinterpretations and plagiarism of the works of Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon, Ralph Woodrow, Lamsa, Oswald Chambers, E. Stanley Jones, Glenn Clark, Rufus Mosely, Oral Roberts, Rosalind Rinker, Charles Welch, Norman Vincent Peale, Dale Carnegie, AA, Billy Graham, and the John Birch Society, to name a few. He was a drunk, suffering from malignant, paranoid, sociopathic, narcissistic personality disorder with the accompanying compulsive pathological lying. He was a Nazi and Aryan Supremacist. He was a misogynist. He was a serial sexual batterer and rapist. He was a gross lecher and pervert, along with being a child molester, including his own daughters. He was a thief and a charlatan, and from 1982 until he died in May, 1985, he was an opioid addict (codeine and morphine). He was a serial adulterer. He was severely and debilitatingly mentally ill. He was a low C student at his "academic" best. He was an academic fraud and scholastic charlatan. He died of metastatic melanoma, which, by his own definitions, meant he was possessed by debbil spurts. He had the intellect of a lava rock and the personality of a poisonous sea slug. Yet, YOU put him on the pedestal of Mr. "Revelation", the 20th century Apostle Paul. All false presumptions, and logical fallacies. All YOUR CHOICES. YOU choose to believe they're all "god breathed". YOU ARE GROSSLY MISTAKEN AND MISGUIDED IMO. Your entire "argument" is built on the shifting sands of illogic and private interpretation, along with a debilitating confirmation bias based upon your presumptions and personal prejudices.
Many of us here have heard all this before, ad nauseam. IMO, the fact that, after all these years you remain haplessly self-deluded in the false doctrines, wrong practices, and prideful, perverted delusions of a charlatan dead now for 32 years, is quite disappointing.
You are a peaceful man of wholesome character AFAIK. I've always known you to be a gentle soul, and a kind man. But, to see you so willingly and devotedly stuck on stupid is sad. I am not trying to insult you, or demean you, or disrespect you. I am honestly and forthrightly expressing my opinions and observations. I accept the possibility that I could be totally wrong. However, I honestly and humbly do not think I am.
Your rap is old and worn Mike. It is not only disinteresting, but frankly, really annoying. We have all been here before. I for one, have absolutely no interest or desire to revisit the fruitless and time consuming "discussions" with you based on all the illogic, and narcissistic devotion to a dead drunk. Honestly? I am amazed you still do. Peace to you Mike. I'm outta here.
You wrote: “Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin.”
No, he did not hide (see quotes below) but in the early days, when the ministry was tiny, gave citations in a non-academic scattered fashion that included SNS tapes. When the ministry grew he switched to more conventional citations for the newer publications.
***
T-Bone
You wrote: “Ok - I get it - you think that you and vpw are above the laws of our land”
No. I think God’s laws above the law of the land. However, in the spirit of conventional civil disobedience, accepting the law’s consequences if need be. Have you ever broken any laws?
***
JayDee,
You wrote: “Mr. Wierwille didn't want us to know what he plagerized. He wanted us to think it was all his original work”
Please look at the quotes below.
*************************************
I finally found the WLiL passage and its original posting by oldiesman replying to dmiller, but it’s a paste into my notes and the date and thread title were not included. I still have many more folders to look into for the original intact page. I can also see my memory of it was not accurate. I trust this to be accurate. It has some of my re-formatting and truncation in re-presenting the quotes). Oldiesman wrote most of it.
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whitesidepage 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
END OF OLDIESMAN'S POST
*************************
These posts were made close to each other on January 27, 2005. I think the thread title is “posts on plagiarism” but that may be wrong. My records are not clear.
skyrider posted:
BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68).
oldiesman posted:
God showed VPW these things via men of God scattered across the continent. His PFAL books say he learned from men of God scattered across the continent. I never heard he got PFAL independent of people. Maybe that's what you thought at one time?
Mike posted:
Oldiesman,
You're absolutely right. Dr often told us he collected it from places God guided him to.
Those grads who fell into the hero worship mode regarding Dr, but who never seriously worked the material he taught, were easily seduced and set up to believe he came up with it all, like a divine dictation, or that he researched it all out from scratch, whatever that means.
Those who bought the hero image are the ones most bitterly disappointed when he fell short of their expectations. Those who worked the material were properly impressed back then and will be even more impressed when they work it again.
*******************************************
And even earlier than 1972, in the PFAL film class VPW spoke these words
which we heard many times:
“Five records in the Word of God.You talk about questing,
researching?I ran all over the country.I must have spent, five
thousand, six thousand dollars in train fare, bus fare, air fare, motel
rooms, everything else, trying to receive the power of the holy spirit
into manifestation.Every place I ran, they told me -- some of them
told me it wasn't for me, others said it died with the apostles.Some
of them said, "Well, we can help you."But I never received, until,
one day, a man taught me the accuracy of God's Word and told me
that it was something that God had already put within me.
Well that was easy. I’ve heard much the same message many, many times and in many, many styles.
We all must bet our lives on something(s) and written PFAL is the best I know of.
We need some kind of God-breathed text, and this is the best candidate I’ve seen. Know any others? Preferably in English, dispensingwith the need for an “official” translation. Like JS predicted I’m doing well from my life’s selection of what to lean on most, as best as I can see.
From my point of view I’ve picked the one root cause thing that went right in our Way experience: God got His freshly written Word to us INSPITE of vpw’s foibles. That means to me that I can do a much better job for God than vpw if I am consistently honest with loving God, and keep my focus on ONLY vpw’s written works, not his personality and flesh. I think when he walked with God he blessed a lot of people. I was one.
I have done a thorough job in finding out whatDrsaid about all this. You and most here have not done a thorough job in finding out what I myself have to say here.
Your impression of my stand and attitudes is not accurate. You have no idea of how I have dealt (painfully) with Dr’s sin and its ramifications. I can assure you it’s not cavalierly. I went through many years of pain and confusion regarding all that. It STILL saddens me deeply, especially for the several women I’ve met and read here.
Here is another example of how you have missed my message. You wrote:
“You continue to delude yourself, after all these years, that everything dictor wrote was ‘written by the finger of God.’”
One of the most often passages quoted by me here is PFAL page 83. It’s almost identical to how he puts it in the film class. On that page we read:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed…”
Work the context. Work the phrase “not all.” Work the word “necessarily.”
I have done that and in the company of two of Dr’s editors.Most people here get completely tripped up on the grammar.
So, more accurately, it’s only certain written works of his that are God-breathed.
So Mike. In spite of all the clear and known evidence of veepees unconvicted crimes against members of the body of Christ, which is his church, you still cling to the notion veepee was God's man for our day and time? Is that about right? You can with a clear conscience overlook all of that sin? Has God overlooked it? You believe in the depth of your heart that pfal and the other stuff he compiled was/is God-breathed? Come on man. Say it ain't so. Please.
JayDee, haven't you ever noticed that you can be out fellowship and nasty one day, and the next day get it together and see that God has rebounded much faster and that you can do some good for someone? Have you ever committed the greatest sin? That is, not loved God first? Degrees of sin are a human burden. God forgives bigtime. Is that new to you?
JayDee, haven't you ever noticed that you can be out fellowship and nasty one day, and the next day get it together and see that God has rebounded much faster and that you can do some good for someone? Have you ever committed the greatest sin? That is, not loved God first? Degrees of sin are a human burden. God forgives bigtime. Is that new to you?
You didn't answer any of my questions. DWBH is right. I've heard enough to know now where you stand. Sorry, veepee is not my hero. Strawman, red herring, etc. Yup. DWBH got it right.
I have no intention of subscribing to the "pure bad guy" theme so many have bonded with here.
It's just as distorted a theme as the "pure good guy" theme that Wierwille worshipers held in the 70s and early 80s.
"These 3 types of common activity are the bookselling market, the academic community, and a small family of 2 parents and 4 children.
NOW, does anyone here remember this argument of mine?
I would not want to place the same requirements on that small family regarding intellectual ownership and how knowledge gets distributed. Would you? Parents have to put footnotes on what they teach their children? Not reasonable."
[It's ethically and morally responsible for the parents to cite their sources, even if it's not in an academic fashion. I do so when dealing with 1 child, and it's VERY reasonable.The kids get a sense of things having sources, and that they can learn from them also. It's NOT difficult nor cumbersome.]
"How about a much larger family of 4 sets of sibling parents and their 16 children? Would it be plagiarism to print out teachings and instructions to a large family like that? I’d still say no."
[If they were taking from the work of others, yes, it would be plagiarism. Most people wouldn't insist on legal measures at that level, but legally, it's plagiarism. Sorry your lack of understanding of plagiarism results in your misunderstanding of this.]
"When things started out with Dr's ministry they were just a small church in a small town. Should the collateral books been cluttered up with footnotes in that setting?"
[Trick question. When it was a small church in a small town, there WERE no collateral books because there was no CLASS for which to have collateral books. Later, when vpw ripped off Leonard's class and began teaching Leonard's class and saying it was his own, he never MENTIONED Leonard to the students. However, the early classes had NO collateral books. The collateral books began once 3 things happened:
1) vpw encountered Stiles' book and plagiarized that entirely, in essence retyping "Gift of the Holy Spirit" into "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (which was what he originally called Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" class. (The first White Book.)
2) Others transcribed parts of the class from audiotape to print, resulting in the first Orange Book once vpw added the introduction.
3) Others transcribed sermons on specific subjects touched on, resulting in pamphlets like "Studies in Human Suffering."
When those were done, there should have been footnotes or endnotes, and credit where it was due. The names "Leonard" and "Stiles" don't appear ANYWHERE there.
There's also this delusion you have that books with proper references are :"cluttered." Dig out your old copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion." The book "The Two Babylons" was in the public domain. So long as the sources are cited, it can be used in its entirety. Woodrow took that book and produced BMR. It's heavily, heavily end-noted. You might not even NOTICE that while you're reading, since it doesn't distract from the contents. I've mentioned this before, and you're still ignorant of this. Old news.]
"Dr showed his students Bullinger and Kenyon. There were no secrets about his sources."
[He kept the names "Leonard" and "Stiles" SECRET. He kept his most important sources SECRET. He mentioned Kenyon and Bullinger SOME of the time, but not others. He said HE worked all the occurrences of the word "spirit" in the New Testament. He said nothing about it being a book Bullinger wrote that the twi bookstore didn't carry. There were other instances with both writers. And he never mentioned that "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was basically 2 books of Bullinger's with some cosmetic differences. Their names don't appear in ADAN at all. His sources were USUALLY secret. And DWBH's mentioned a secret cache of books vpw kept around, from which he directly ripped off work. vpw showed him privately and didn't mention it to twi at large or even on-grounds.]
"But then the ministry started growing explosively around 1970, and as it started expanding out of its tiny family-size arena it started growing into the two similar arenas of the book market and the academy. Before 1972 Dr had Elena Whiteside record and quote him saying that he was NOT the originator of most of what he taught, but that mostly he had only “put it all together.” "
[Buried in a books most twi'ers neither owned nor read, over 100 pages in, was an off-hand comment about what he did not being original. A few people, determined to whitewash vpw's crimes, pretend that's an attempt to cite sources. All his books left sources out- then one obscure book mentioned something vague in passing, and we're supposed to believe that satisfies any reasonable standard for citing sources or giving credit where it was due.]
"Also, as the ministry continued to grow in the 70s and into the 80s FOOTNOTES and accreditation were added to the new publications. A strong example is the credit given to Dr. Martin from Pasadena, the one who cracked the code to the star of Bethlehem. In Volume 5 is another memorable citation where Dr quoted a page or two from Kenyon with proper academic credits. Again, these developments are never included in the plagiarism discussions. "
[Your ignorance is showing again. I MYSELF have discussed them- IN plagiarism discussions. (The Martin one, at least.) The interesting thing about this is how this worked out. The actual citations were the results of the actual writers. twi researchers actually did all the work, and cited their sources. That was the case in the scholarly works that didn't resemble the early books at all. This culminated in JCOPS and JCOP. Who were those writers? Hard to tell-their names don't appear in those books. The books read "By Victor Paul Wierwille." Not "edited by". vpw takes all the credit for THEIR work. vpw seemed unable to fully give credit one way or another. It resembles a pathology.]
"Oh, and surprise,surprise! "The Act of Creation" was written by someone we all know! He is Arthur Koestler of "The Thirteenth Tribe" fame. Actually he's much more famous for his many other books, than for these two. Thirteenth Tribe is way too political and Act of Creation is way too intellectual to be very popular. "
Oh, yes. "the Thirteenth Tribe's premise has been completely disproven.. Genetic tests showed his assertion that the Khazars REPLACED the Semitic Jews was incorrect. Jews share genetic markers with other Semetic peoples, and not with the Khazars. The book is still popular with various anti-Jew or pro-Nazi sympathizers, and people who whitewash vpw's reputation. Interesting grouping there.]
In the 50s Dr was making all kinds of waves in his church, making a lot of enemies. It's hard to imagine no one told Kenyon and the others that VPW was using those texts. In 1962 they started gearing up for a much larger non-obscure ministry. They filmed the PFAL class in Black and White. It had hand drawn charts and Dr's camera skills were terrible. I don't know how many segments were made, but I saw one. It was laughable. YET, they (many collaborators and financial contributors) kept pressing and got it all together. That 1967 color video still impresses me today. Obscurity was not at all in the plan. The audience was widened still by the Life and Time Magazine articles.
In the 50's, vpw was a cipher, except in the little community where he worked. It's hard for YOU to imagine nobody hearing of both vpw and Kenyon and being aware of the contents of Kenyon's books and having contact information for Kenyon-but that wasn't the internet age. Leonard was the only one known to have found out- and he made it clear he was offended by the theft that is plagiarism-he made that clear in writing. He was legally and morally in the right.
vpw WANTED to be a household name-but had to play a careful game. If "his" materials got too wide a dispersal, his rampant plagiarism might have been caught. So, he kept the tapes and collaterals under his grip.
“You continue to delude yourself, after all these years, that everything dictor wrote was ‘written by the finger of God.’”
One of the most often passages quoted by me here is PFAL page 83. It’s almost identical to how he puts it in the film class. On that page we read:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed…”
Work the context. Work the phrase “not all.” Work the word “necessarily.”
I have done that and in the company of two of Dr’s editors.Most people here get completely tripped up on the grammar.
So, more accurately, it’s only certain written works of his that are God-breathed.
Steve Lortz:
"Before proceeding, let's review the written material and its 5-senses meaning.
On page 83 of PFAL, this is exactly what Wierwille wrote, "It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, 'Search the scriptures...' because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
The 5-senses meaning of this passage, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same catagory as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this catagory are different from the words in the catagory called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other catagory will necessarily be God-breathed.
Let's start with the context and work inward. Chapter 6 of PFAL (pp 81-92), titled "That Man May Be Perfect", is about the function of God's Word. The chapter begins with a citation of II Timothy 3:16, and ends with a citation of II Timothy 3:16&17. The over-arching context of the paragraph on page 83 is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The first part of the paragraph on page 83 reads, "The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..."
The first sentence of the paragraph contrasts the written Bible ("All scripture" according to the over-arching context, II Timothy 3:16) with "every wind of doctrine or theory or theology."
The second, third and forth sentences contrast "This Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") with men, ideologies and opinions. Men, ideologies and opinions change, according to Wierwille, while "this Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") does not.
So the context within the first part of the paragraph sets up a series of contrasts between the written Word of God ("All scripture") and the products of men; winds of doctrine, theories, theologies, men, ideologies, opinions.
With the fifth and sixth sentences, Wierwille introduces a new citation, "Let's see this from John 5:39. 'Search the scriptures...'".
So the "this" of the fifth sentence refers to the contrast between the written Word and the writings of men. Wierwille is introducing John 5:39 to point up that contrast.
As we have seen above, in the rest of the paragraph under consideration, Wierwille continues the series of contrasts: the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Wierwille and denominations; the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Wierwille, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts.
The "Not all" that begins the last sentence of the paragraph is a contrasting allusion to the "All" that begins II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God-breathed..." ALL scripture is God-breathed, but NOT ALL that men write is God-breathed.
[u[In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places his own writings squarely in among the writings of the other men."
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Contrary to what you insist, Mike, this is not an absolution... it's an admission of guilt!
(After all these years and knowing what you know about his phony credentials, you still call him *Dr.*. That's sad, really sad.)
I'd say that biblical research, if it's being done by a small family, or a small town church need not meet academic or market standards. Then, if the owner (like if it's God) of the "borrowed" material gives permission, there is no foul.
When that biblical research reaches a large size then conforming to market and academic standards it most recommended. That would be the "decent and in order" thing to do. This kind of conformity Dr did do after the ministry started getting very large in the mid to late 70s.
You can rationalize it however u choise. A person who steals while leading a small town church is still a thief. But you are how i used to be. Blind to the simple truth that twi is, was, and will always be a sham.
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
<snip>
These posts were made close to each other on January 27, 2005. I think the thread title is “posts on plagiarism” but that may be wrong. My records are not clear.
skyrider posted: BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68).
oldiesman posted: God showed VPW these things via men of God scattered across the continent. His PFAL books say he learned from men of God scattered across the continent. I never heard he got PFAL independent of people. Maybe that's what you thought at one time?
Mike........the ONLY reason I am posting on another one of your delusional wierwille-adulation ramblings is..........you CHERRY-PICKED my quote to substantiate wierwille in a good light. Frankly, my post is THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Wierwille made bald-faced claims throughout his life. He was a serial, pathological liar.
He plagiarized wholesale from every available source he could scrounge. A pathetic loser and lazy charlatan.
Count me in the DWBH camp.......I have NO INTEREST in this discussion.
Mike is using the word "conformity" as if "market and academic standards" are a minor nuisance. Something he looks down upon, but can be manipulated when convenient.
VPW plagiarized because his will and life's journey was more important to him than the common suffering of the rest of humankind. His writings are not a discussion with the rest of us.
Mike, when you argue that the plagiarism is a non-issue you are asserting that your views on what truth is are more valid simply because you are you. To hell with everyone else.
Observe the definitions. Observe how references are set out. The references are RIGHT THERE in the text at the point where work is referred to, copied or quoted. The references point to footnotes, where the precise location of the original idea or phrase is noted. Sometimes these footnotes are placed right at the bottom of the page on which they occur (as in Wiki articles); sometimes at the end of each chapter in a book; and sometimes collected together at the end of the book under the different chapter headings. Everything is CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE.
Any student who has submitted a thesis for a first degree (Bachelor's degree) or an advanced degree (Master's or Doctorate) will have completed that thesis by referencing other people's work in this manner. Therefore, if VPW had indeed got (firstly) a bachelor's degree in some aspect of theology, and (secondly) a doctorate, he'll have learned to quote other people's work in this manner. Not to do so certainly would not fall within appropriate academic standards, and may lead to an accusation of plagiarism. And he will have been sternly warned about plagiarism, copying the works of others, without giving appropriate credit.
Quoting too much of someone else's original work (ie, what the original author writer has found out for him/herself, and building on the shoulders of the giants they have referenced and footnoted) will also lead to problems, this time of copyright infringement. It's only okay, if there is written permission from the author. I'll leave it to you to look up "copyright" in Wikipedia or some such.
In essence, both plagiarism and copyright infringement are theft of intellectual property. Theft of ideas, of thought processes. Potentially leading to loss of other people's financial rewards for their intellectual property. Plagiarism and breach of copyright are not victimless crimes.
VPW wanted us to think that he was a learned man. Why then didn't he act like a learned man, one deserving of academic respect? He wanted "his people" to act like learned students. Why not then give them the tools to do so? By that I mean, the appropriate references to reputable authors, their works, their research. It's not enough to sell The Companion Bible in the bookstore. CB was out of copyright, which is why VPW was happy to use it and let "his people" use it. Nevertheless, even then VPW didn't supply proper references. just pinched stuff wholesale from the careful appendices.
Any student who has submitted a thesis for a first degree (Bachelor's degree) or an advanced degree (Master's or Doctorate) will have completed that thesis by referencing other people's work in this manner. Therefore, if VPW had indeed got (firstly) a bachelor's degree in some aspect of theology, and (secondly) a doctorate, he'll have learned to quote other people's work in this manner. Not to do so certainly would not fall within appropriate academic standards, and may lead to an accusation of plagiarism. And he will have been sternly warned about plagiarism, copying the works of others, without giving appropriate credit.
Well, if VP had gone to a normal school for his doctorate, like the Catholic priest that taught my Pauline epistles class in college, rather than a send-in-your-ceral-boxtops-with-your-book-report college like the one that was run mail-order out of a house in Manitou Springs, Colorado where VP obtained his doctorate, then maybe he would not have been that lazy academically.
But I guess that's the point his critics make about his doctorate. If he was all about doing things the right way, he wouldn't have enrolled in the ceral boxtop book report college that wasn't accredited.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
110
64
43
37
Popular Days
Jun 4
69
Jun 1
51
Jun 5
33
Jun 8
32
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 110 posts
T-Bone 64 posts
waysider 43 posts
OldSkool 37 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2017
69 posts
Jun 1 2017
51 posts
Jun 5 2017
33 posts
Jun 8 2017
32 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
Greetings, ImLikeSoConfused! I would have responded to this thread sooner, but I had a heart attack on February 9th which landed me at the hospital DOA. The docs resuscitated me and I've spent th
Longhunter
I don't agree with a single word if this. Such a wild claim requires a big burden of proof. His theological claims are unsubstantiated, his Greek was lousy at best, and his Biblical studies were fra
WordWolf
He sounds a great deal like the last child of one that passed through here, the one that later claimed to be his own Dad posting here to support his own posts, sockpuppet style. The "making up stuff"
Posted Images
Mike
That's not the case, though. I have great respect for those laws. I was most impressed that they are highlighted in the U.S. Constitution! They are a product of the Enlightenment thinkers. They foster thought and invention that benefit society.
But misapplications of those laws to a single family, or to a small town church do earn my flagrant disrespect. I can respect the people who hold such erroneous grudges, but I don’t respect their stands.
The greatest misapplication of those laws is when God is the original owner of such ideas, but our law system is not equipped to recognize His ownership. When such an ownership conflict occurs, I’ll side with God and take the consequences from societies laws. But I do respect them, none the less.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'd say that biblical research, if it's being done by a small family, or a small town church need not meet academic or market standards. Then, if the owner (like if it's God) of the "borrowed" material gives permission, there is no foul.
When that biblical research reaches a large size then conforming to market and academic standards it most recommended. That would be the "decent and in order" thing to do. This kind of conformity Dr did do after the ministry started getting very large in the mid to late 70s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Never happened, Dude. Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin. So, he wasn't simply a plagiarist, he was a plagiarist with a nefarious intent. That's some bad chicken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ok - I get it - you think that you and vpw are above the laws of our land…
AND since you seem intent on siding with wierwille the unabashed plagiarist, pathological liar and glory-grubbing thief
AND you have NOW openly stated you are willing to take the consequences of your choice
Then you should not complain like it’s a personal attack on you when someone criticizes the unscrupulous methods of the aforementioned unabashed plagiarist, pathological liar and glory-grubbing thief (aka wierwille).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Right waysider. And naming names such as Stiles, Bullinger, etc. isn't the same as citing references in books he wrote (plagerized). Mr. Wierwille didn't want us to know what he plagerized. He wanted us to think it was all his original work. What a joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
At the risk of encouraging further ridiculous input and illogic from Mike, I offer the following, against my better judgement and waste of time.
Mike.....your entire rap is based on the acceptance of dictor paul's illogical, private interpretation and outright, abject, voluminous plagiarism in and throughout his entire phony "minus-tray". IMO, that is a completely false premise. Your ONLY evidence and back-up is based on the presumption that whatever dictor wrote was "revelation", or "godbreathed". It is a false presumption full of logical fallacies and confirmation bias on your part. You continue to delude yourself, after all these years, that everything dictor wrote was "written by the finger of God". That is simply untrue. Your illogic is filled with false equivalencies, straw man arguments, red herrings, and purely unprovable anecdotal "evidence". Your basic premises are false premises based on your own misguided interpretations of dic's alcoholic and drug induced misinterpretations and plagiarism of the works of Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon, Ralph Woodrow, Lamsa, Oswald Chambers, E. Stanley Jones, Glenn Clark, Rufus Mosely, Oral Roberts, Rosalind Rinker, Charles Welch, Norman Vincent Peale, Dale Carnegie, AA, Billy Graham, and the John Birch Society, to name a few. He was a drunk, suffering from malignant, paranoid, sociopathic, narcissistic personality disorder with the accompanying compulsive pathological lying. He was a Nazi and Aryan Supremacist. He was a misogynist. He was a serial sexual batterer and rapist. He was a gross lecher and pervert, along with being a child molester, including his own daughters. He was a thief and a charlatan, and from 1982 until he died in May, 1985, he was an opioid addict (codeine and morphine). He was a serial adulterer. He was severely and debilitatingly mentally ill. He was a low C student at his "academic" best. He was an academic fraud and scholastic charlatan. He died of metastatic melanoma, which, by his own definitions, meant he was possessed by debbil spurts. He had the intellect of a lava rock and the personality of a poisonous sea slug. Yet, YOU put him on the pedestal of Mr. "Revelation", the 20th century Apostle Paul. All false presumptions, and logical fallacies. All YOUR CHOICES. YOU choose to believe they're all "god breathed". YOU ARE GROSSLY MISTAKEN AND MISGUIDED IMO. Your entire "argument" is built on the shifting sands of illogic and private interpretation, along with a debilitating confirmation bias based upon your presumptions and personal prejudices.
Many of us here have heard all this before, ad nauseam. IMO, the fact that, after all these years you remain haplessly self-deluded in the false doctrines, wrong practices, and prideful, perverted delusions of a charlatan dead now for 32 years, is quite disappointing.
You are a peaceful man of wholesome character AFAIK. I've always known you to be a gentle soul, and a kind man. But, to see you so willingly and devotedly stuck on stupid is sad. I am not trying to insult you, or demean you, or disrespect you. I am honestly and forthrightly expressing my opinions and observations. I accept the possibility that I could be totally wrong. However, I honestly and humbly do not think I am.
Your rap is old and worn Mike. It is not only disinteresting, but frankly, really annoying. We have all been here before. I for one, have absolutely no interest or desire to revisit the fruitless and time consuming "discussions" with you based on all the illogic, and narcissistic devotion to a dead drunk. Honestly? I am amazed you still do. Peace to you Mike. I'm outta here.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappySpelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Waysider,
You wrote: “Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin.”
No, he did not hide (see quotes below) but in the early days, when the ministry was tiny, gave citations in a non-academic scattered fashion that included SNS tapes. When the ministry grew he switched to more conventional citations for the newer publications.
***
T-BoneYou wrote: “Ok - I get it - you think that you and vpw are above the laws of our land”
No. I think God’s laws above the law of the land. However, in the spirit of conventional civil disobedience, accepting the law’s consequences if need be. Have you ever broken any laws?
***
JayDee,You wrote: “Mr. Wierwille didn't want us to know what he plagerized. He wanted us to think it was all his original work”
Please look at the quotes below.*************************************
I finally found the WLiL passage and its original posting by oldiesman replying to dmiller, but it’s a paste into my notes and the date and thread title were not included. I still have many more folders to look into for the original intact page. I can also see my memory of it was not accurate. I trust this to be accurate. It has some of my re-formatting and truncation in re-presenting the quotes). Oldiesman wrote most of it.
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
END OF OLDIESMAN'S POST
*************************
These posts were made close to each other on January 27, 2005. I think the thread title is “posts on plagiarism” but that may be wrong. My records are not clear.
skyrider posted:BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68).
oldiesman posted:
God showed VPW these things via men of God scattered across the continent. His PFAL books say he learned from men of God scattered across the continent. I never heard he got PFAL independent of people. Maybe that's what you thought at one time?
Mike posted:
Oldiesman,
You're absolutely right. Dr often told us he collected it from places God guided him to.
Those grads who fell into the hero worship mode regarding Dr, but who never seriously worked the material he taught, were easily seduced and set up to believe he came up with it all, like a divine dictation, or that he researched it all out from scratch, whatever that means.
Those who bought the hero image are the ones most bitterly disappointed when he fell short of their expectations. Those who worked the material were properly impressed back then and will be even more impressed when they work it again.*******************************************
And even earlier than 1972, in the PFAL film class VPW spoke these wordswhich we heard many times:
“Five records in the Word of God. You talk about questing,
researching? I ran all over the country. I must have spent, five
thousand, six thousand dollars in train fare, bus fare, air fare, motel
rooms, everything else, trying to receive the power of the holy spirit
into manifestation. Every place I ran, they told me -- some of them
told me it wasn't for me, others said it died with the apostles. Some
of them said, "Well, we can help you." But I never received, until,
one day, a man taught me the accuracy of God's Word and told me
that it was something that God had already put within me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
DontWorryBeHappy,
I was writing my long post and did not see your most recent post.I’ll try to read it and catch up soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
No problen Mike! Take your time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
DontWorryBeHappy,
Well that was easy. I’ve heard much the same message many, many times and in many, many styles.
We all must bet our lives on something(s) and written PFAL is the best I know of.
We need some kind of God-breathed text, and this is the best candidate I’ve seen. Know any others? Preferably in English, dispensing with the need for an “official” translation. Like JS predicted I’m doing well from my life’s selection of what to lean on most, as best as I can see.
From my point of view I’ve picked the one root cause thing that went right in our Way experience: God got His freshly written Word to us IN SPITE of vpw’s foibles. That means to me that I can do a much better job for God than vpw if I am consistently honest with loving God, and keep my focus on ONLY vpw’s written works, not his personality and flesh. I think when he walked with God he blessed a lot of people. I was one.
I have done a thorough job in finding out what Dr said about all this. You and most here have not done a thorough job in finding out what I myself have to say here.
Your impression of my stand and attitudes is not accurate. You have no idea of how I have dealt (painfully) with Dr’s sin and its ramifications. I can assure you it’s not cavalierly. I went through many years of pain and confusion regarding all that. It STILL saddens me deeply, especially for the several women I’ve met and read here.
Here is another example of how you have missed my message. You wrote:
“You continue to delude yourself, after all these years, that everything dictor wrote was ‘written by the finger of God.’”
One of the most often passages quoted by me here is PFAL page 83. It’s almost identical to how he puts it in the film class. On that page we read:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed…”
Work the context. Work the phrase “not all.” Work the word “necessarily.”
I have done that and in the company of two of Dr’s editors. Most people here get completely tripped up on the grammar.
So, more accurately, it’s only certain written works of his that are God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
So Mike. In spite of all the clear and known evidence of veepees unconvicted crimes against members of the body of Christ, which is his church, you still cling to the notion veepee was God's man for our day and time? Is that about right? You can with a clear conscience overlook all of that sin? Has God overlooked it? You believe in the depth of your heart that pfal and the other stuff he compiled was/is God-breathed? Come on man. Say it ain't so. Please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
JayDee, haven't you ever noticed that you can be out fellowship and nasty one day, and the next day get it together and see that God has rebounded much faster and that you can do some good for someone? Have you ever committed the greatest sin? That is, not loved God first? Degrees of sin are a human burden. God forgives bigtime. Is that new to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
You didn't answer any of my questions. DWBH is right. I've heard enough to know now where you stand. Sorry, veepee is not my hero. Strawman, red herring, etc. Yup. DWBH got it right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
JayDee,
I have no intention of subscribing to the "pure bad guy" theme so many have bonded with here.
Edited by MikeIt's just as distorted a theme as the "pure good guy" theme that Wierwille worshipers held in the 70s and early 80s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"These 3 types of common activity are the bookselling market, the academic community, and a small family of 2 parents and 4 children.
NOW, does anyone here remember this argument of mine?
I would not want to place the same requirements on that small family regarding intellectual ownership and how knowledge gets distributed. Would you? Parents have to put footnotes on what they teach their children? Not reasonable."
[It's ethically and morally responsible for the parents to cite their sources, even if it's not in an academic fashion. I do so when dealing with 1 child, and it's VERY reasonable.The kids get a sense of things having sources, and that they can learn from them also. It's NOT difficult nor cumbersome.]
"How about a much larger family of 4 sets of sibling parents and their 16 children? Would it be plagiarism to print out teachings and instructions to a large family like that? I’d still say no."
[If they were taking from the work of others, yes, it would be plagiarism. Most people wouldn't insist on legal measures at that level, but legally, it's plagiarism. Sorry your lack of understanding of plagiarism results in your misunderstanding of this.]
"When things started out with Dr's ministry they were just a small church in a small town. Should the collateral books been cluttered up with footnotes in that setting?"
[Trick question. When it was a small church in a small town, there WERE no collateral books because there was no CLASS for which to have collateral books. Later, when vpw ripped off Leonard's class and began teaching Leonard's class and saying it was his own, he never MENTIONED Leonard to the students. However, the early classes had NO collateral books. The collateral books began once 3 things happened:
1) vpw encountered Stiles' book and plagiarized that entirely, in essence retyping "Gift of the Holy Spirit" into "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (which was what he originally called Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" class. (The first White Book.)
2) Others transcribed parts of the class from audiotape to print, resulting in the first Orange Book once vpw added the introduction.
3) Others transcribed sermons on specific subjects touched on, resulting in pamphlets like "Studies in Human Suffering."
When those were done, there should have been footnotes or endnotes, and credit where it was due. The names "Leonard" and "Stiles" don't appear ANYWHERE there.
There's also this delusion you have that books with proper references are :"cluttered." Dig out your old copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion." The book "The Two Babylons" was in the public domain. So long as the sources are cited, it can be used in its entirety. Woodrow took that book and produced BMR. It's heavily, heavily end-noted. You might not even NOTICE that while you're reading, since it doesn't distract from the contents. I've mentioned this before, and you're still ignorant of this. Old news.]
"Dr showed his students Bullinger and Kenyon. There were no secrets about his sources."
[He kept the names "Leonard" and "Stiles" SECRET. He kept his most important sources SECRET. He mentioned Kenyon and Bullinger SOME of the time, but not others. He said HE worked all the occurrences of the word "spirit" in the New Testament. He said nothing about it being a book Bullinger wrote that the twi bookstore didn't carry. There were other instances with both writers. And he never mentioned that "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was basically 2 books of Bullinger's with some cosmetic differences. Their names don't appear in ADAN at all. His sources were USUALLY secret. And DWBH's mentioned a secret cache of books vpw kept around, from which he directly ripped off work. vpw showed him privately and didn't mention it to twi at large or even on-grounds.]
"But then the ministry started growing explosively around 1970, and as it started expanding out of its tiny family-size arena it started growing into the two similar arenas of the book market and the academy. Before 1972 Dr had Elena Whiteside record and quote him saying that he was NOT the originator of most of what he taught, but that mostly he had only “put it all together.” "
[Buried in a books most twi'ers neither owned nor read, over 100 pages in, was an off-hand comment about what he did not being original. A few people, determined to whitewash vpw's crimes, pretend that's an attempt to cite sources. All his books left sources out- then one obscure book mentioned something vague in passing, and we're supposed to believe that satisfies any reasonable standard for citing sources or giving credit where it was due.]
"Also, as the ministry continued to grow in the 70s and into the 80s FOOTNOTES and accreditation were added to the new publications. A strong example is the credit given to Dr. Martin from Pasadena, the one who cracked the code to the star of Bethlehem. In Volume 5 is another memorable citation where Dr quoted a page or two from Kenyon with proper academic credits. Again, these developments are never included in the plagiarism discussions. "
[Your ignorance is showing again. I MYSELF have discussed them- IN plagiarism discussions. (The Martin one, at least.) The interesting thing about this is how this worked out. The actual citations were the results of the actual writers. twi researchers actually did all the work, and cited their sources. That was the case in the scholarly works that didn't resemble the early books at all. This culminated in JCOPS and JCOP. Who were those writers? Hard to tell-their names don't appear in those books. The books read "By Victor Paul Wierwille." Not "edited by". vpw takes all the credit for THEIR work. vpw seemed unable to fully give credit one way or another. It resembles a pathology.]
"Oh, and surprise,surprise! "The Act of Creation" was written by someone we all know! He is Arthur Koestler of "The Thirteenth Tribe" fame. Actually he's much more famous for his many other books, than for these two. Thirteenth Tribe is way too political and Act of Creation is way too intellectual to be very popular. "
Oh, yes. "the Thirteenth Tribe's premise has been completely disproven.. Genetic tests showed his assertion that the Khazars REPLACED the Semitic Jews was incorrect. Jews share genetic markers with other Semetic peoples, and not with the Khazars. The book is still popular with various anti-Jew or pro-Nazi sympathizers, and people who whitewash vpw's reputation. Interesting grouping there.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In the 50's, vpw was a cipher, except in the little community where he worked. It's hard for YOU to imagine nobody hearing of both vpw and Kenyon and being aware of the contents of Kenyon's books and having contact information for Kenyon-but that wasn't the internet age. Leonard was the only one known to have found out- and he made it clear he was offended by the theft that is plagiarism-he made that clear in writing. He was legally and morally in the right.
vpw WANTED to be a household name-but had to play a careful game. If "his" materials got too wide a dispersal, his rampant plagiarism might have been caught. So, he kept the tapes and collaterals under his grip.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Steve Lortz:
"Before proceeding, let's review the written material and its 5-senses meaning.
On page 83 of PFAL, this is exactly what Wierwille wrote, "It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, 'Search the scriptures...' because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
The 5-senses meaning of this passage, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same catagory as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this catagory are different from the words in the catagory called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other catagory will necessarily be God-breathed.
Let's start with the context and work inward. Chapter 6 of PFAL (pp 81-92), titled "That Man May Be Perfect", is about the function of God's Word. The chapter begins with a citation of II Timothy 3:16, and ends with a citation of II Timothy 3:16&17. The over-arching context of the paragraph on page 83 is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The first part of the paragraph on page 83 reads, "The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..."
The first sentence of the paragraph contrasts the written Bible ("All scripture" according to the over-arching context, II Timothy 3:16) with "every wind of doctrine or theory or theology."
The second, third and forth sentences contrast "This Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") with men, ideologies and opinions. Men, ideologies and opinions change, according to Wierwille, while "this Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") does not.
So the context within the first part of the paragraph sets up a series of contrasts between the written Word of God ("All scripture") and the products of men; winds of doctrine, theories, theologies, men, ideologies, opinions.
With the fifth and sixth sentences, Wierwille introduces a new citation, "Let's see this from John 5:39. 'Search the scriptures...'".
So the "this" of the fifth sentence refers to the contrast between the written Word and the writings of men. Wierwille is introducing John 5:39 to point up that contrast.
As we have seen above, in the rest of the paragraph under consideration, Wierwille continues the series of contrasts: the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Wierwille and denominations; the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Wierwille, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts.
The "Not all" that begins the last sentence of the paragraph is a contrasting allusion to the "All" that begins II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God-breathed..." ALL scripture is God-breathed, but NOT ALL that men write is God-breathed.
[u[In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places his own writings squarely in among the writings of the other men."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Contrary to what you insist, Mike, this is not an absolution... it's an admission of guilt!
(After all these years and knowing what you know about his phony credentials, you still call him *Dr.*. That's sad, really sad.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You can rationalize it however u choise. A person who steals while leading a small town church is still a thief. But you are how i used to be. Blind to the simple truth that twi is, was, and will always be a sham.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Mike........the ONLY reason I am posting on another one of your delusional wierwille-adulation ramblings is..........you CHERRY-PICKED my quote to substantiate wierwille in a good light. Frankly, my post is THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Wierwille made bald-faced claims throughout his life. He was a serial, pathological liar.
He plagiarized wholesale from every available source he could scrounge. A pathetic loser and lazy charlatan.
Count me in the DWBH camp.......I have NO INTEREST in this discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Mike is using the word "conformity" as if "market and academic standards" are a minor nuisance. Something he looks down upon, but can be manipulated when convenient.
VPW plagiarized because his will and life's journey was more important to him than the common suffering of the rest of humankind. His writings are not a discussion with the rest of us.
Mike, when you argue that the plagiarism is a non-issue you are asserting that your views on what truth is are more valid simply because you are you. To hell with everyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
FOR MIKE:
Please follow this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Observe the definitions. Observe how references are set out. The references are RIGHT THERE in the text at the point where work is referred to, copied or quoted. The references point to footnotes, where the precise location of the original idea or phrase is noted. Sometimes these footnotes are placed right at the bottom of the page on which they occur (as in Wiki articles); sometimes at the end of each chapter in a book; and sometimes collected together at the end of the book under the different chapter headings. Everything is CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE.
Any student who has submitted a thesis for a first degree (Bachelor's degree) or an advanced degree (Master's or Doctorate) will have completed that thesis by referencing other people's work in this manner. Therefore, if VPW had indeed got (firstly) a bachelor's degree in some aspect of theology, and (secondly) a doctorate, he'll have learned to quote other people's work in this manner. Not to do so certainly would not fall within appropriate academic standards, and may lead to an accusation of plagiarism. And he will have been sternly warned about plagiarism, copying the works of others, without giving appropriate credit.
Quoting too much of someone else's original work (ie, what the original author writer has found out for him/herself, and building on the shoulders of the giants they have referenced and footnoted) will also lead to problems, this time of copyright infringement. It's only okay, if there is written permission from the author. I'll leave it to you to look up "copyright" in Wikipedia or some such.
In essence, both plagiarism and copyright infringement are theft of intellectual property. Theft of ideas, of thought processes. Potentially leading to loss of other people's financial rewards for their intellectual property. Plagiarism and breach of copyright are not victimless crimes.
VPW wanted us to think that he was a learned man. Why then didn't he act like a learned man, one deserving of academic respect? He wanted "his people" to act like learned students. Why not then give them the tools to do so? By that I mean, the appropriate references to reputable authors, their works, their research. It's not enough to sell The Companion Bible in the bookstore. CB was out of copyright, which is why VPW was happy to use it and let "his people" use it. Nevertheless, even then VPW didn't supply proper references. just pinched stuff wholesale from the careful appendices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well, if VP had gone to a normal school for his doctorate, like the Catholic priest that taught my Pauline epistles class in college, rather than a send-in-your-ceral-boxtops-with-your-book-report college like the one that was run mail-order out of a house in Manitou Springs, Colorado where VP obtained his doctorate, then maybe he would not have been that lazy academically.
But I guess that's the point his critics make about his doctorate. If he was all about doing things the right way, he wouldn't have enrolled in the ceral boxtop book report college that wasn't accredited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Quite, Chockfull.
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.