I'll try to find one. Years ago I had all that stuff at arm's length, but no more.
Meanwhile, the series of editions to RHST is an example of tweaking. The original from Styles was tweaked in places, then RHST was tweaked in places, and so on for 7 editions. The other books got many minor tweaks, but they were called Printings instead of Editions.
Tweaked, is that what you call plagiarism, tweaking?
Here's another passage about receiving direct revelation:
"But there was a hunger in my heart and God said He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it, but I had to study, I had to work. And revelation begins--this is why I know this so well--revelation begins where the senses cease. What you can know by your senses, God expects you to know. He expects you to study the work that have already been worked out. Men like Bulinger; men like Stevie Ginsberg; God expected me to work those men and countless others. But, He taught me how to get the error out when there was any. And out of that process He taught me then, what was truth. And when there was no way of knowing it, and I'd researched to my fullest ability--tried to find out, then, if there is no other way, He showed it to me by direct revelation."
So how is what wierwille did NOT stealing and lying? Why couldn’t he have quoted a source giving the proper citation
that would have been the honest thing to do; so what you're telling me, Mike is that God endorses lying and stealing.
an excerpt from that citation link asks an important question –
“Doesn't citing make my work seem less original? Not at all. On the contrary, citing sources actually helps your reader distinguish your ideas from those of your sources. This will actually emphasize the originality of your own work. “
== == == ==
I think wierwille was so academically incompetent he actually introduced errors…his nonsensical twist on Bullinger’s chapter on keys to interpreting the Bible that he plagiarized was that the Bible interprets itself. Using II Peter 1:20, 21 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” ...wierwille emphatically claims that this means either no interpretation is possible or the Bible must interpret itself...so the Bible interprets itself? Really??!! chapter and verse please!…Bullinger said these verses in II Peter address the origin of scripture and not the interpretation of scripture.
How can a collection of books written over the span of thousands of years, by many different authors, in several ancient languages, in various cultures interpret explain, translate, or bring out the meaning of itself?
My take on wierwille’s nonsense was that it was one of the many deceitful tricks he used to lead folks astray and buy into his delusion of greatness – that he was God’s mouthpiece – had more of the rightly divided word than anyone else…yeah, some “fine job” he did of getting the error out of his plagiarized sources...I tend to think he usually made matters worse...
He had a great knack for obfuscating things to frustrate folks’ attempts at critical thinking – he probably banked on wearing people down, so after awhile they just gave up on any real thinking and merely absorbed without question his bull$hit.
That's the primary basis he cited as his source for PFAL. You even posted examples of it very recently.
Are you even thinking about this stuff before you post it?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
That long transcript shows that he first had to work the 5-senses research. The primary revelations regarded what to include and what to exclude. Tweaking little fixes.
Revelation?!
What revelation did he need to steal BG Leonard's class right down to Maggie Muggins, Johnnie Jumpup, and Snowball Pete?
Once again: when the ministry was simple farmers and townsfolk the citations of sources was informal and even personal.
When the ministry was hippies the level of citation increased a little.
When the ministry got a little more intellectual the citations increased a lot.
I'm glad I did not receive those little booklets all cluttered up with footnotes. I had no need for citations. Just NONE.
But haven't we been over this many times now? I'm tired of it.
I was hoping for some insights and brainstorming on creative thought: real or illusion.
A similar thing happened when I wanted to talk about proofs in general, and proofs others liked, but a vpw-free conversation was impossible there also.
But haven't we been over this many times now? I'm tired of it.
I was hoping for some insights and brainstorming on creative thought: real or illusion.
A similar thing happened when I wanted to talk about proofs in general, and proofs others liked, but a vpw-free conversation was impossible there also.
I can distinctly remember a time in late 1971 or early 72 where I heard someone complain the vpw stole the pfal class from Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." I had just gotten my first PFAL book and I looked at their copy of Bullinger's version. I was SO GLAD for the simplicity and easy read vpw's version was. TOTALLY a better presentation for non-scholars.
Once again: when the ministry was simple farmers and townsfolk the citations of sources was informal and even personal.
When the ministry was hippies the level of citation increased a little.
When the ministry got a little more intellectual the citations increased a lot.
Once again: all you stated above is about as important as a fruit platter is in a steakhouse.
Regardless of the ministry consisting of farmers and townfolk, Saint Vic, who's Parker Brothers degree was so important to him he insisted on being called "Doctor," should have known and followed the rules of citation.
I was versed on MLA the first year I was at the university. How much more practice should he have gotten if his degree was real? Heck, citation shoild have been second nature to him.
Quote
I'm glad I did not receive those little booklets all cluttered up with footnotes. I had no need for citations. Just NONE.
Just because you don't need something doesn't make it acceptable or unacceptable. It's plaigerism and that makes it wrong.
I can distinctly remember a time in late 1971 or early 72 where I heard someone complain the vpw stole the pfal class from Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." I had just gotten my first PFAL book and I looked at their copy of Bullinger's version. I was SO GLAD for the simplicity and easy read vpw's version was. TOTALLY a better presentation for non-scholars.
Once again: Your not the yardstick. It's plaigerism, plain and simple.
As far as hoping for some insights and brainstorming on creative thought: real or illusion, your getting it, you just don't want to accept it.
What did you think our response was going to be when you claimed Saint Vic "tweaked" a book rather than honestly saying he stole the text?
Didn't they teach us in grade school to state ideas in our own words?
Was it Einstein who claimed he saw farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants? Or was he quoting that? Or stealing it?
According to Wikipedia standing on the shoulders of giants has been attributed to several people and used by many but its basic meaning is “discovering truth by building on previous discoveries". Think of the advancements that have been made in the sciences, medicine, technology, etc. and how they continue to move forward at a brisk pace. Hold that thought and check out this article on why science is changing
an excerpt :
“Science changes due to several factors including technological innovations, societal concerns and increases of knowledge. Scientific information expands as humans disseminate research through peer-reviewed publications, collaborate on new projects and regulate studies through legislation…
Modern science expands its knowledge base when scientists review one another's research. That way, the scientific community checks itself by preventing rogue theories from becoming mainstream. When researchers have similar interests, experts collaborate on future projects to further scientific goals. In some instances like embryonic stem cell research, legislation and societal concerns can dictate how analysts move forward with new endeavors.”
== == ==
Note several factors in the above that are missing in wierwille’s body of work:
Disseminate research through peer-reviewed publications; wierwille’s books were promoted in a closed market – The Way Bookstore, "conveniently set up at the back of our PFAL class" – there was no peer-review – if his stuff was reviewed by real scholars he would have been exposed as a plagiarist...a fraud !!!
Experts collaborate on projects; The experts that wierwille “collaborated” with - if you want to call it that - were actually the sources he plagiarized.
Societal concerns dictating how to move forward with new endeavors; The social concerns that wierwille had were how to manipulate and exploit his cult following.
perhaps wierwille had a vision of how much farther he could go if he just claimed he stood on god’s shoulders
I thought that the Open or Doctrinal forums would be non-about-the-way and non-vpw.
What happened to Bolshevek? His ideas were turning me on.
I've heard others talk that way long ago. I've had some of the same thoughts.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
I thought this thread was in the Doctrinal forum, but I just noticed it’s Open. Either way, I’m more into the Philosophy being presented here, so I will limit myself to these remarks on vpw and the claim he hid his sources and deceived us into thinking they were his own.
In the earliest days the authors of his books were certainly known to the whole tiny ministry. Their books would be read and even sold there. Sometimes the authors were invited to HQ to speak.I feel there was a feeling of communal first century “ownership” of ideas afoot there, and it included the authors invited. It was an “all things common” thing. God was the real owner and they were all about doing His work, not in blowing their own horn. They were all advertising for each other in an intra-ministry network of cutting edge authors.
In 1965 on a SNS tape (transcript posted) he cited many of his early sources.He did this often on tapes.
In the 1972 book WLIV vpw cites more sources AND clearly explains (and has been often posted here) that he did NOT originate the ideas, and that he only put them together.
In the later 70s ad early 80s, as the ministry grew a little out from the early anti-intellectual mode, more formal citations were used in the new books. Songbook use was also brought in line to modern formalism.
The above is where you first posted, in this thread, about Saint Vic.
So, if you didn't want to discuss Saint Vic, why did you start discussing Saint Vic?
And, once again, you get the predicted response and you run everyone down. What did you think, you were going to present your everything belongs to God so its okay to steal intellectually, but wrong to steal physically arguement and nobody was going to challange it?
WoW! I just read the article. Interesting. Seems plagiarism is complicated enough to have an entire website!
I actually agree with most of the stated plagiarism ethics held forth here by posters.... when it comes to the marketplace of ideas and in the academies of learning which include science.
I think TWI wanted to graduate from local church/family to the marketplace, i.e. real bookstores, as well as the academy, i.e. accredited colleges. But it failed. It just barely came up to those two levels in 1985, and then it blew up. Many say it didn't even barely make it. You can see that corporate desire in the baby steps they took to line up with copyrights and citations.
But TWI actually, most of the time, was just a back woods church family. Plagiarism is not an issue here. There's no intellectual ownership in God's family, because God owns it. Of course, the market and the academy cannot recognize that. I can.
I liked it the way it was for the early books. I think the marketplace and the academy are too stuffy. I hob-knob with professors and scientists, but I don't want to be like them. I self publish my books to my micro-market. I give away my intellectual property on FaceBook. That's me. Shorthair Hippie.
This is the ENTIRE preface to the White Book, RTHST, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today...(3rd edition and later, which is when Stiles' name-but not his material- vanished from the book)
"When I was serving my first congregation, A Korean missionary
asked me, 'Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which
would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?' This challenge
was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining
different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic
"originals", looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early
Church.
Finally I realized that the experience referred to as "receiving the holy spirit"
in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today.
I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too, manifested.
Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to
put in written form the longing and fears that were mine regarding the receiving
thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking
to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the
answer of their hearts' desires.
I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available.
It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from
oh high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and
disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that
if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now.
Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries,
from the commentaries I studies, and from my years of questing and research among
the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability,
there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God.
I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth.
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had heard and thought
out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the
will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove.
If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book.
Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to
receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this
life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may
be edified, exhorted and comforted.
For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or
where, I suggest you do a careful study of the introductions as well as the appendices
in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 through 5 and
enjoy God's great presence and power.
II Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that neededeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt.
This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women
of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.
=================================================
The truth of the matter is that the contents of JE Stiles "Gifts of the Holy Spirit",
and content by Bullinger and Stiles form the ENTIRE contents of RTHST.
You SHOULD know that-you own a copy of Stiles' book!
That's COMPLETELY the opposite of what he said here.
None of their names appeared here.
He said he used "the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook".
The truth of the matter is that the early editions of the book used
Stiles' book as his handbook, guidebook, and contents.
The above is where you first posted, in this thread, about Saint Vic.
So, if you didn't want to discuss Saint Vic, why did you start discussing Saint Vic?
I thought if I stated that I was going to limit myself to answering a few vwp related comments prior to mine. I thought everyone was to limit their vpw talk in Open.
WoW! I just read the article. Interesting. Seems plagiarism is complicated enough to have an entire website!
I actually agree with most of the stated plagiarism ethics held forth here by posters.... when it comes to the marketplace of ideas and in the academies of learning which include science.
I think TWI wanted to graduate from local church/family to the marketplace, i.e. real bookstores, as well as the academy, i.e. accredited colleges. But it failed. It just barely came up to those two levels in 1985, and then it blew up. Many say it didn't even barely make it. You can see that corporate desire in the baby steps they took to line up with copyrights and citations.
But TWI actually, most of the time, was just a back woods church family. Plagiarism is not an issue here. There's no intellectual ownership in God's family, because God owns it. Of course, the market and the academy cannot recognize that. I can.
I liked it the way it was for the early books. I think the marketplace and the academy are too stuffy. I hob-knob with professors and scientists, but I don't want to be like them. I self publish my books to my micro-market. I give away my intellectual property on FaceBook. That's me. Shorthair Hippie.
From the earliest tapes and books, vpw's materials all carried a copyright notice. If vpw was claiming he could use anything freely, but others could not, he would be a rather blatant HYPOCRITE. If he said others could use his materials freely after slapping copyright notices on them, he would be a rather blatant LIAR. His actions do not hold up to your paradigm. Your previous answers to this were that one standard applied to vpw and one for everyone else:
A) everything belongs to God so vpw could plagiarize everything and it wouldn't count against him
B) of course vpw had to copyright everything and prevent people from using anything- otherwise they'd misuse it
From the earliest tapes and books, vpw's materials all carried a copyright notice. If vpw was claiming he could use anything freely, but others could not, he would be a rather blatant HYPOCRITE. If he said others could use his materials freely after slapping copyright notices on them, he would be a rather blatant LIAR. His actions do not hold up to your paradigm. Your previous answers to this were that one standard applied to vpw and one for everyone else:
A) everything belongs to God so vpw could plagiarize everything and it wouldn't count against him
B) of course vpw had to copyright everything and prevent people from using anything- otherwise they'd misuse it
I wonder if you still think those are valid.
Correction:
ALL of the SNS tapes and several other categories were NEVER copyrighted, and are now posted on the Internetarchive.org along with Bishop Pillai and a few other surprises. A TWI lawyer threatened to shut down the compilers of the set of mp3 recordings, but was backed off by the compilers' lawyer pointing out the lack of copyrights meant "back off." They backed off.
I think the film class was not copyrighted until 1982.
I would say both A) and B) are too distorted for me to endorse.
My analysis is more PLACE oriented than person oriented. Plagiarism is bad in the marketplace of books and in the University setting. Plagiarism is meaningless in the family of God, especially a rural country church. Within the family A) is adaptable.
I did hear some talk like B) when the film class finally was copyrighted.
I did hear some talk like B) when the film class finally was copyrighted.
That's trademark veepee self-justifying rationalization. Well, it really wasn't originated with veepee. But it's something he did frequently.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I thought that the Open or Doctrinal forums would be non-about-the-way and non-vpw.
Hmmm... where is there posted a rule saying that any discussion of Wierwille must be limited to the About the Way forum?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I think TWI wanted to graduate from local church/family to the marketplace, i.e. real bookstores, as well as the academy, i.e. accredited colleges. But it failed. It just barely came up to those two levels in 1985, and then it blew up.
"TWI" wanted? Really, Mike? Who dreamed up the motto, "Word over the World?" Wasn't it, as Socrates says, "Saint Vic?"
A) everything belongs to God so vpw could plagiarize everything and it wouldn't count against him
B) of course vpw had to copyright everything and prevent people from using anything- otherwise they'd misuse it
I wonder if you still think those are valid.
Then there's C) where the new TWI is hesitant to enforce their inherited copyright on the books because they don't want anything like A) to come out in the courts. Those books were digitized around 2001 and widely distributed in .PDF files so they are now a defacto public domain item. Also, the film class was posted on FaceBook and YouTube for a while.
But TWI actually, most of the time, was just a back woods church family. Plagiarism is not an issue here. There's no intellectual ownership in God's family, because God owns it. Of course, the market and the academy cannot recognize that. I can.
You've got a short memory. We've already proven this theory has more holes than swiss cheese and that makes it no gouda.
For example, God own everything in the physical universe. too. So what your telling me is that its acceptable to steal your PLAF book or someone's car. Previously, you've scoffed at this suggestion, but you've never explained why its acceptable to steal in one realm, yet not in the other,
The other obvious question is if what you say is true about the family of God, yadda, yadda, yadda, then why did Saint Vic copyright his materials?
55 minutes ago, Mike said:
Then there's C) where the new TWI is hesitant to enforce their inherited copyright on the books because they don't want anything like A) to come out in the courts. Those books were digitized around 2001 and widely distributed in .PDF files so they are now a defacto public domain item. Also, the film class was posted on FaceBook and YouTube for a while.
The real reason is when you sue your supposed to come to court with "clean hands," meaning you haven't broken any laws yourself. For example, you can't sue a drug dealer to get your money back if his product is bad,
In the case of PLAF, you can't sue for copyright infringement if all your works can be proven to be copyright infringement.
Plus TWI probably doesn't want it to come out in court that the works are copyright infringement.
No it proves Saint Vic stole other peoples work and he has no legal recourse which further re-enforces his theft.
I seriously doubt God would disrespect others efforts.
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why God says let him that steals steal no more, yet that only applies to the physical realm, not the intellectual realm.
I got a feeling I'm going to be waiting a long time, because there is no explanation which invalidates your point.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
138
52
45
Popular Days
Feb 28
62
Feb 26
51
Mar 28
47
Feb 25
42
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 73 posts
Mike 138 posts
waysider 52 posts
So_crates 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 28 2018
62 posts
Feb 26 2018
51 posts
Mar 28 2018
47 posts
Feb 25 2018
42 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, what are you talking about?? I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC. For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i
DontWorryBeHappy
Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to
So_crates
Tweaked, is that what you call plagiarism, tweaking?
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/22281-vp-plagiarism-documentation/
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
So how is what wierwille did NOT stealing and lying? Why couldn’t he have quoted a source giving the proper citation
that would have been the honest thing to do; so what you're telling me, Mike is that God endorses lying and stealing.
an excerpt from that citation link asks an important question –
“Doesn't citing make my work seem less original? Not at all. On the contrary, citing sources actually helps your reader distinguish your ideas from those of your sources. This will actually emphasize the originality of your own work. “
== == == ==
I think wierwille was so academically incompetent he actually introduced errors…his nonsensical twist on Bullinger’s chapter on keys to interpreting the Bible that he plagiarized was that the Bible interprets itself. Using II Peter 1:20, 21 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” ...wierwille emphatically claims that this means either no interpretation is possible or the Bible must interpret itself...so the Bible interprets itself? Really??!! chapter and verse please!…Bullinger said these verses in II Peter address the origin of scripture and not the interpretation of scripture.
How can a collection of books written over the span of thousands of years, by many different authors, in several ancient languages, in various cultures interpret explain, translate, or bring out the meaning of itself?
My take on wierwille’s nonsense was that it was one of the many deceitful tricks he used to lead folks astray and buy into his delusion of greatness – that he was God’s mouthpiece – had more of the rightly divided word than anyone else…yeah, some “fine job” he did of getting the error out of his plagiarized sources...I tend to think he usually made matters worse...
He had a great knack for obfuscating things to frustrate folks’ attempts at critical thinking – he probably banked on wearing people down, so after awhile they just gave up on any real thinking and merely absorbed without question his bull$hit.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Tweaked, you say?
Hahahahaha!
Okay, let me 'splain this in a very simple way:
Someone bakes a cake... Someone else comes along and puts some icing on it... Then, you decide to write "Happy Birthday" on it.
Do you then say, "Hey, everybody, look at the cake I made!"?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Revelation?!
What revelation did he need to steal BG Leonard's class right down to Maggie Muggins, Johnnie Jumpup, and Snowball Pete?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Once again: when the ministry was simple farmers and townsfolk the citations of sources was informal and even personal.
When the ministry was hippies the level of citation increased a little.
When the ministry got a little more intellectual the citations increased a lot.
I'm glad I did not receive those little booklets all cluttered up with footnotes. I had no need for citations. Just NONE.
But haven't we been over this many times now? I'm tired of it.
I was hoping for some insights and brainstorming on creative thought: real or illusion.
A similar thing happened when I wanted to talk about proofs in general, and proofs others liked, but a vpw-free conversation was impossible there also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Take a deep breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can distinctly remember a time in late 1971 or early 72 where I heard someone complain the vpw stole the pfal class from Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." I had just gotten my first PFAL book and I looked at their copy of Bullinger's version. I was SO GLAD for the simplicity and easy read vpw's version was. TOTALLY a better presentation for non-scholars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Once again: all you stated above is about as important as a fruit platter is in a steakhouse.
Regardless of the ministry consisting of farmers and townfolk, Saint Vic, who's Parker Brothers degree was so important to him he insisted on being called "Doctor," should have known and followed the rules of citation.
I was versed on MLA the first year I was at the university. How much more practice should he have gotten if his degree was real? Heck, citation shoild have been second nature to him.
Just because you don't need something doesn't make it acceptable or unacceptable. It's plaigerism and that makes it wrong.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
To this I say ...BALONEY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Once again: Your not the yardstick. It's plaigerism, plain and simple.
As far as hoping for some insights and brainstorming on creative thought: real or illusion, your getting it, you just don't want to accept it.
What did you think our response was going to be when you claimed Saint Vic "tweaked" a book rather than honestly saying he stole the text?
Didn't they teach us in grade school to state ideas in our own words?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
According to Wikipedia standing on the shoulders of giants has been attributed to several people and used by many but its basic meaning is “discovering truth by building on previous discoveries". Think of the advancements that have been made in the sciences, medicine, technology, etc. and how they continue to move forward at a brisk pace. Hold that thought and check out this article on why science is changing
an excerpt :
“Science changes due to several factors including technological innovations, societal concerns and increases of knowledge. Scientific information expands as humans disseminate research through peer-reviewed publications, collaborate on new projects and regulate studies through legislation…
Modern science expands its knowledge base when scientists review one another's research. That way, the scientific community checks itself by preventing rogue theories from becoming mainstream. When researchers have similar interests, experts collaborate on future projects to further scientific goals. In some instances like embryonic stem cell research, legislation and societal concerns can dictate how analysts move forward with new endeavors.”
== == ==
Note several factors in the above that are missing in wierwille’s body of work:
Disseminate research through peer-reviewed publications; wierwille’s books were promoted in a closed market – The Way Bookstore, "conveniently set up at the back of our PFAL class" – there was no peer-review – if his stuff was reviewed by real scholars he would have been exposed as a plagiarist...a fraud !!!
Experts collaborate on projects; The experts that wierwille “collaborated” with - if you want to call it that - were actually the sources he plagiarized.
Societal concerns dictating how to move forward with new endeavors; The social concerns that wierwille had were how to manipulate and exploit his cult following.
perhaps wierwille had a vision of how much farther he could go if he just claimed he stood on god’s shoulders
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well once again I was wrong.
I thought that the Open or Doctrinal forums would be non-about-the-way and non-vpw.
What happened to Bolshevek? His ideas were turning me on.
I've heard others talk that way long ago. I've had some of the same thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The phrase is also not relevent to the discussion as its old enough to have fallen into public domain.
The works Saint Vic stole from were not only much, much longer, they were also still copyrighted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The above is where you first posted, in this thread, about Saint Vic.
So, if you didn't want to discuss Saint Vic, why did you start discussing Saint Vic?
And, once again, you get the predicted response and you run everyone down. What did you think, you were going to present your everything belongs to God so its okay to steal intellectually, but wrong to steal physically arguement and nobody was going to challange it?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WoW! I just read the article. Interesting. Seems plagiarism is complicated enough to have an entire website!
I actually agree with most of the stated plagiarism ethics held forth here by posters.... when it comes to the marketplace of ideas and in the academies of learning which include science.
I think TWI wanted to graduate from local church/family to the marketplace, i.e. real bookstores, as well as the academy, i.e. accredited colleges. But it failed. It just barely came up to those two levels in 1985, and then it blew up. Many say it didn't even barely make it. You can see that corporate desire in the baby steps they took to line up with copyrights and citations.
But TWI actually, most of the time, was just a back woods church family. Plagiarism is not an issue here. There's no intellectual ownership in God's family, because God owns it. Of course, the market and the academy cannot recognize that. I can.
I liked it the way it was for the early books. I think the marketplace and the academy are too stuffy. I hob-knob with professors and scientists, but I don't want to be like them. I self publish my books to my micro-market. I give away my intellectual property on FaceBook. That's me. Shorthair Hippie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This is the ENTIRE preface to the White Book, RTHST, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today...(3rd edition and later, which is when Stiles' name-but not his material- vanished from the book)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I thought if I stated that I was going to limit myself to answering a few vwp related comments prior to mine. I thought everyone was to limit their vpw talk in Open.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
From the earliest tapes and books, vpw's materials all carried a copyright notice. If vpw was claiming he could use anything freely, but others could not, he would be a rather blatant HYPOCRITE. If he said others could use his materials freely after slapping copyright notices on them, he would be a rather blatant LIAR. His actions do not hold up to your paradigm. Your previous answers to this were that one standard applied to vpw and one for everyone else:
A) everything belongs to God so vpw could plagiarize everything and it wouldn't count against him
B) of course vpw had to copyright everything and prevent people from using anything- otherwise they'd misuse it
I wonder if you still think those are valid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Correction:
ALL of the SNS tapes and several other categories were NEVER copyrighted, and are now posted on the Internetarchive.org along with Bishop Pillai and a few other surprises. A TWI lawyer threatened to shut down the compilers of the set of mp3 recordings, but was backed off by the compilers' lawyer pointing out the lack of copyrights meant "back off." They backed off.
I think the film class was not copyrighted until 1982.
I would say both A) and B) are too distorted for me to endorse.
My analysis is more PLACE oriented than person oriented. Plagiarism is bad in the marketplace of books and in the University setting. Plagiarism is meaningless in the family of God, especially a rural country church. Within the family A) is adaptable.
I did hear some talk like B) when the film class finally was copyrighted.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That's trademark veepee self-justifying rationalization. Well, it really wasn't originated with veepee. But it's something he did frequently.
Hmmm... where is there posted a rule saying that any discussion of Wierwille must be limited to the About the Way forum?
"TWI" wanted? Really, Mike? Who dreamed up the motto, "Word over the World?" Wasn't it, as Socrates says, "Saint Vic?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Then there's C) where the new TWI is hesitant to enforce their inherited copyright on the books because they don't want anything like A) to come out in the courts. Those books were digitized around 2001 and widely distributed in .PDF files so they are now a defacto public domain item. Also, the film class was posted on FaceBook and YouTube for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You've got a short memory. We've already proven this theory has more holes than swiss cheese and that makes it no gouda.
For example, God own everything in the physical universe. too. So what your telling me is that its acceptable to steal your PLAF book or someone's car. Previously, you've scoffed at this suggestion, but you've never explained why its acceptable to steal in one realm, yet not in the other,
The other obvious question is if what you say is true about the family of God, yadda, yadda, yadda, then why did Saint Vic copyright his materials?
The real reason is when you sue your supposed to come to court with "clean hands," meaning you haven't broken any laws yourself. For example, you can't sue a drug dealer to get your money back if his product is bad,
In the case of PLAF, you can't sue for copyright infringement if all your works can be proven to be copyright infringement.
Plus TWI probably doesn't want it to come out in court that the works are copyright infringement.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You have explained my point C) accurately here.
I think it's cool it came out that way.
I imagine God had foreknowledge of it.
What a great (and humorous) way to inject His Word into the public domain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No it proves Saint Vic stole other peoples work and he has no legal recourse which further re-enforces his theft.
I seriously doubt God would disrespect others efforts.
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why God says let him that steals steal no more, yet that only applies to the physical realm, not the intellectual realm.
I got a feeling I'm going to be waiting a long time, because there is no explanation which invalidates your point.
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.