In "Mike's" initial post on his new thread he wrote, "Well actually, I most definitely AM sensitive to Pawtucket's wishes, and his hint yesterday, hidden in a pretty good joke, has prompted the idea for me starting this thread."
In his post of 01/20/05, 13:47, on page 1 of that same thread, Pawtucket responded, "I wasn't joking."
(So much for "Mike's" sensitivity to Paw!)
Obviously, there was some exchange taking place on another, earlier thread, but those of us who haven't been reading EVERYTHING have no clue as to what was going on.
Can you shed any useful light for us, say, at least a reference to the thread and post where we can read Paw's original thought that "Mike", in his exquisite sensitivity, misapprehended as a joke?
"vpw stated at ROA '79-and this is on the tapes-that he completed the
requirements for his Doctorate before he completed the work for his
Masters. The obvious implication of this is that it was easier to
complete the Doctorate, which means it had easier requirements."
It's not at all obvious to me that the implication you draw is the only one. But I won't bother with that. I think your memory of that section of Dr's teaching at ROA '79 is off. You might want to wonder how may other memories have dimmed and distorted with time.
Here is a transcript of that passage in tape #2 from that ROA:
"And it is only by God's multiple grace upon grace that I stand here at this teaching platform tonight declaring to you that the Word of God is the will of God, that it means what it says and that God says what He means and He has a purpose for everything He says where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, when He says it. Because, ladies and gentlemen, there was a time I did not believe the words "holy" or "Bible" on the outside cover. And I was born and raised in a great Christian family, right here on this location. Great father and mother. Well what brought me to the time that I disbelieved the Bible? My teachers. That's how you get there. Can't go beyond your what? That's right. And so through the years as I was attending theological seminaries I got talked out of the Word. At the University of Chicago Divinity School, they just hashed the Word of God to pieces. Had nothing left. They talked about interpretations, they talked about miths, they talked about the five arguments for the existance of God. You know, the tealogical, the cosmological, all of that stuff. And so I came to the place that I had severe doubt about the integrity and accuracy of God's Word. And then, finally, after I graduated from Princeton with my masters degree...and it's sort of neat. Do you know that I had my masters in theology before I had my bachelor of divinity? How could you pull that one off? Oh he did. But I had finished all my work for my bachelors and I'd gone on and finished my masters and it just happened at Princeton we graduated a week earlier with my masters before I went back to Lakeland Seminary up there to get that diploma they handed out."
I haven't checked this transcript out with the tape. I received it from a friend, and one whom I trust to get it accurate. If it's not accurate I'll stand corrected and let him know as well. In the meantime I'll place my bet with this transcript over anyone's memory, including my own.
Look at the beginning of this quote, too. It's just one of the many places where Dr admitted that he didn't deserve to have the job God gave him.
Yes, I realize a lot of this. I think you're really grabbibing at straws. It looks desparate to me. You're jumping all over the place.
Research Geek and his wife actualy WENT to the place, Pikes Peak, and collected first hand data. He posted it here. If you can't find it let me know and I'll link you.
I'm not interested in that link you posted. I don't trust those people at all. I don't even think they're grads. Plus I can only handle so much at onece.
In the ROA transcript post above you Dr handles the college taught errors he LATER rejected. Again, it seems you are not reading the other items I post. You're missing tons and expecting me to re-post everything just for you in responses to you. Please get some reading under your belt. You're not making your self look good in all that your're missing right under your nose.
Actually, Mike, I believe it's you who have missed something:
If Wierwille did indeed obtain his BD in 1940 and his masters in 1941, then the story he told in your post is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a flat out lie. You seemed to gloss over that part.
Why do we care? That already been answered on the other thread.
It's a question of integrity, WTH.
You see, if Wierwille's work was God-breathed, then stealing from the not-God-breathed works of men would be unnecessary. You and Mike are dancing with the devil on any front possible to deny that what Wierwille did was plagiarism, or stealing, and that is your right. But to those of us who care about integrity, Wierwille's plagiarism is proof positive that the work is not of the God-breathed nature that Mike claims. Doesn't mean the content is to be discarded or dismissed, but it reveals PFAL as the work of man, not the Word of God.
In a similar vein, the existence of actual errors proves not that PFAL is a worthless piece of junk (I've never said that) but only that it's not God-breathed (according to PFAL's own standard of the characteristics of the God-breathed Word).
There is a valid question of "so what" associated with the plagiarism charge. If you don't care about the man, only about that which is taught, the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism need not bother you (just as the fact of plagiarism in the novel Roots doesn't take away from the fact that it's a well-told tale).
What I find amusing is the lengths to which people will go to deny that plagiarism is, in truth, what has taken place here. You could just as easily say "I don't care" and there would be nothing left to argue about, imo.
quote:In a similar vein, the existence of actual errors proves not that PFAL is a worthless piece of junk (I've never said that) but only that it's not God-breathed.
a big TEN 4, hold, damn how many neon lights does it take to change a light bulb?
Just look up the definitions and you get this from the government site:
Definition of a copyright :
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.
What copyright protects :
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.
Who can claim copyright :
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author.
Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author.
What can't be copyywritten? a brief statement:
Ideas or concepts. Copyright protects the expression of the idea, but not the ideas themselves. This is easier to understand if you remember the goals of our Founding Fathers – to reward creations, but protect the free flow of ideas and information.
This information isn't new, it's been kicked around in these discussion about plagarism before, but I think they bear looking at. Here's some things that come to mind:
If - we define the "biblical truths" on which a class or book that teaches about them draws from as being the "ideas and information" then those truths being expounded aren't copyrightable. This follows with Mike's interpretation of VPW's work and approach - the information itself is owned by "God".
And if - we define the expression of those ideas and information as being inspired and "authored" by God then they aren't copyrightable by anyone else. Not me, Mike, VPW or anyone. If the truths are God's and the "reissuing" of those ideas in the written and spoken forms of PFAL are God's, I can't claim copyright.
But if - I did copyright them or invoke copyright protection in any form, it would indicate I claim ownership of the expression, either whole or in part.
So if - I did, it would also indicate that I am claiming that that specific form of expression for which I claim copyright is "original" and is mine.
If VPW had the same concept of ownership that Mike does, would he ever have claimed copyright to PFAL?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.
Copyright law does state that limited portions of another's work can be included in a new work. How much is legal depends. If challenged, it can be settled in court.
I personally think that VPW knew very well that he was lifting portions of other's work and putting it in his. He may have felt it was the best way to state it and so he would use it. I think that's why explicit, clear recognition of the source material would be absolutely necessary if he was going to claim copyright on his new work. It would be the most honest thing to do and would allow his own work to stand on it's own. If what he did was pull together various pieces of other's work and "put it all together" it might have actually qualifed to be a "compilation" in the same way a packaging of certain songs or stories can be put in to a new collection. The collection is copyrightable but the original works contained in it are recognized as owned by the original authors.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
23
55
Popular Days
Jan 22
41
Jan 24
17
Feb 1
16
Jan 31
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
def59 22 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 55 posts
Popular Days
Jan 22 2005
41 posts
Jan 24 2005
17 posts
Feb 1 2005
16 posts
Jan 31 2005
14 posts
Raf
I feel like the cab driver in Superman II:
Man, this is gonna be good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
WW
I applaud you for taking the time to do this thread.
I have always appreciated your ability to cut through the mustard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Where am I?
-->
.
.
My head is spinning!
:(--> Is that against the rules?
.
.
Hey!
What are you guys doing on MY thread? 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oops!
.
.
.
.
I must have made a wrong turn somewhere back there.
-->
.
.
.
Sorry!
.
.
.
:D-->
.
.
Actually... I meant to do that!..
.
.
.
Yeah! That's the ticket!
.
.
.
Now where did I put that thread??????
-->
.
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
All I can say, WordWolf, is... I gotta love ya, for taking on the task!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Mike - your head is spinning? completely around, like in the movie "The Exorcist"?
Qu'elle surprise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf - Perhaps you can help me with this:
In "Mike's" initial post on his new thread he wrote, "Well actually, I most definitely AM sensitive to Pawtucket's wishes, and his hint yesterday, hidden in a pretty good joke, has prompted the idea for me starting this thread."
In his post of 01/20/05, 13:47, on page 1 of that same thread, Pawtucket responded, "I wasn't joking."
(So much for "Mike's" sensitivity to Paw!)
Obviously, there was some exchange taking place on another, earlier thread, but those of us who haven't been reading EVERYTHING have no clue as to what was going on.
Can you shed any useful light for us, say, at least a reference to the thread and post where we can read Paw's original thought that "Mike", in his exquisite sensitivity, misapprehended as a joke?
Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
(Paw):
"YoPhoto,
I would like to talk to you about a trade. You take Mike for 3 posters
of your choosing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Re: vpw's multiple acts of plagiarism...
First,
What is plagiarism?
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml
http://science.widener.edu/svb/essay/plagiar.html
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html
http://hnn.us/articles/514.html
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/usemplagiarism.html
http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/plagiarism.htm
http://www.piercecollege.edu/faculty/kudlers/termpaper.html
Citing sources:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/about/what.html
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html
http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/citing.htm
Ok, so, now we know what plagiarism is, and how to avoid it,
a few things to remember.
A) All HIGH SCHOOL students are taught to avoid plagiarism.
B) All COLLEGE students are taught to avoid plagiarism.
C) All candidates for a MASTERS degree are taught to avoid plagiarism.
D) All candidates for a DOCTORATE are taught to avoid plagiarism.
Hm, flashback.
vpw stated at ROA '79-and this is on the tapes-that he completed the
requirements for his Doctorate before he completed the work for his
Masters. The obvious implication of this is that it was easier to
complete the Doctorate, which means it had easier requirements.
So, did vpw know what plagiarism is, why it's wrong, and how he should
avoid it? That should be beyond question.
So, remembering all that, why do we care?
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Is this the first time you've heard that vpw wildly plagiarized?
If so, then proceed immediately to
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
"vpw stated at ROA '79-and this is on the tapes-that he completed the
requirements for his Doctorate before he completed the work for his
Masters. The obvious implication of this is that it was easier to
complete the Doctorate, which means it had easier requirements."
It's not at all obvious to me that the implication you draw is the only one. But I won't bother with that. I think your memory of that section of Dr's teaching at ROA '79 is off. You might want to wonder how may other memories have dimmed and distorted with time.
Here is a transcript of that passage in tape #2 from that ROA:
"And it is only by God's multiple grace upon grace that I stand here at this teaching platform tonight declaring to you that the Word of God is the will of God, that it means what it says and that God says what He means and He has a purpose for everything He says where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, when He says it. Because, ladies and gentlemen, there was a time I did not believe the words "holy" or "Bible" on the outside cover. And I was born and raised in a great Christian family, right here on this location. Great father and mother. Well what brought me to the time that I disbelieved the Bible? My teachers. That's how you get there. Can't go beyond your what? That's right. And so through the years as I was attending theological seminaries I got talked out of the Word. At the University of Chicago Divinity School, they just hashed the Word of God to pieces. Had nothing left. They talked about interpretations, they talked about miths, they talked about the five arguments for the existance of God. You know, the tealogical, the cosmological, all of that stuff. And so I came to the place that I had severe doubt about the integrity and accuracy of God's Word. And then, finally, after I graduated from Princeton with my masters degree...and it's sort of neat. Do you know that I had my masters in theology before I had my bachelor of divinity? How could you pull that one off? Oh he did. But I had finished all my work for my bachelors and I'd gone on and finished my masters and it just happened at Princeton we graduated a week earlier with my masters before I went back to Lakeland Seminary up there to get that diploma they handed out."
I haven't checked this transcript out with the tape. I received it from a friend, and one whom I trust to get it accurate. If it's not accurate I'll stand corrected and let him know as well. In the meantime I'll place my bet with this transcript over anyone's memory, including my own.
Look at the beginning of this quote, too. It's just one of the many places where Dr admitted that he didn't deserve to have the job God gave him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Hey Mike,
Acccording to http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_vcchap1-2.htm, vpw got his BA 1938, B Div in 1940 and THEN went to Princeton Theological Seminary and got his masters in 1941.
The Pike's Peak doctorate didn't come until 1948.
So which version is right?
P.S. You realize Princeton TS is not the same school as the Ivy League college. Separate schools, similar roots.
And that PTS is a trinitarian school, so vpw must have rejected his instruction, so why brag about a school you no longer agree with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I realize a lot of this. I think you're really grabbibing at straws. It looks desparate to me. You're jumping all over the place.
Research Geek and his wife actualy WENT to the place, Pikes Peak, and collected first hand data. He posted it here. If you can't find it let me know and I'll link you.
I'm not interested in that link you posted. I don't trust those people at all. I don't even think they're grads. Plus I can only handle so much at onece.
In the ROA transcript post above you Dr handles the college taught errors he LATER rejected. Again, it seems you are not reading the other items I post. You're missing tons and expecting me to re-post everything just for you in responses to you. Please get some reading under your belt. You're not making your self look good in all that your're missing right under your nose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, Mike, I believe it's you who have missed something:
If Wierwille did indeed obtain his BD in 1940 and his masters in 1941, then the story he told in your post is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a flat out lie. You seemed to gloss over that part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I do have to draw the line somewhere.
I get tired, or bored, or other things take a higher priority.
At least I admit it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Huh? What kind of non-answer is that?
Oh, of course, I almost forgot. How did it go again? Dodge, distract...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Why do we care? That already been answered on the other thread. (My post on: 1/21/05 at:13:33)
Why do you care?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
that's why YOU think other people care,
or the reason you wish to attribute to why they care.
Paraphrased,
they care whether he lied and deceived because they're eeeevvvviiilll
like that.
I think the reason is better explained elsewhere.
This is why we care...
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Def59,
please check your links. When you added the comma in the sentence,
it altered the URL you typed.
I moved it over in this reply so people can see what you linked
to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's a question of integrity, WTH.
You see, if Wierwille's work was God-breathed, then stealing from the not-God-breathed works of men would be unnecessary. You and Mike are dancing with the devil on any front possible to deny that what Wierwille did was plagiarism, or stealing, and that is your right. But to those of us who care about integrity, Wierwille's plagiarism is proof positive that the work is not of the God-breathed nature that Mike claims. Doesn't mean the content is to be discarded or dismissed, but it reveals PFAL as the work of man, not the Word of God.
In a similar vein, the existence of actual errors proves not that PFAL is a worthless piece of junk (I've never said that) but only that it's not God-breathed (according to PFAL's own standard of the characteristics of the God-breathed Word).
There is a valid question of "so what" associated with the plagiarism charge. If you don't care about the man, only about that which is taught, the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism need not bother you (just as the fact of plagiarism in the novel Roots doesn't take away from the fact that it's a well-told tale).
What I find amusing is the lengths to which people will go to deny that plagiarism is, in truth, what has taken place here. You could just as easily say "I don't care" and there would be nothing left to argue about, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
a big TEN 4, hold, damn how many neon lights does it take to change a light bulb?
as usual i make no sense either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Ok ww, thanks for the tip.
Mike
I am not grabbing at straws. You were making the point about vpw bragging about one thing, when the record says otherwise.
So its OK to disregard a source if you don't like them? Well I'll follow that logic and junk vpw's teachings because I don't like him.
You can't have it both ways. Either he lied about his academic record to make himself look good or he didn't.
The challenge is on the table, you can run but you can't hide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Couple points about copyrighting that I think could bear on this topic:
The PFAL syllabus of 1968 says this on the cover sheet:
"Power for Abundant Living with Dr. Victor Paul Weirwille
Copyright, The Way Inc., 1968
No part of this work may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher
The Inc. Box 328 New Knoxville, Ohio 45871 U.S.A"
The oldest PFAL book I received says on the inside:
© 1971 The Way Inc. All rights reserved Published 1971
Just look up the definitions and you get this from the government site:
Definition of a copyright :
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.
What copyright protects :
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.
Who can claim copyright :
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author.
Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author.
What can't be copyywritten? a brief statement:
Ideas or concepts. Copyright protects the expression of the idea, but not the ideas themselves. This is easier to understand if you remember the goals of our Founding Fathers – to reward creations, but protect the free flow of ideas and information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This information isn't new, it's been kicked around in these discussion about plagarism before, but I think they bear looking at. Here's some things that come to mind:
If - we define the "biblical truths" on which a class or book that teaches about them draws from as being the "ideas and information" then those truths being expounded aren't copyrightable. This follows with Mike's interpretation of VPW's work and approach - the information itself is owned by "God".
And if - we define the expression of those ideas and information as being inspired and "authored" by God then they aren't copyrightable by anyone else. Not me, Mike, VPW or anyone. If the truths are God's and the "reissuing" of those ideas in the written and spoken forms of PFAL are God's, I can't claim copyright.
But if - I did copyright them or invoke copyright protection in any form, it would indicate I claim ownership of the expression, either whole or in part.
So if - I did, it would also indicate that I am claiming that that specific form of expression for which I claim copyright is "original" and is mine.
If VPW had the same concept of ownership that Mike does, would he ever have claimed copyright to PFAL?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.
We could argue an esoteric view that "God" doesn't deal with copyrights or plagarism, that those things are the product of man's views of ownership but that would mean that a person who holds to that view simply wouldn't cite copyright-they'd never use the © in relation to their works. Using it says that there is some recognition of it being an original work owned by the person.
Copyright law does state that limited portions of another's work can be included in a new work. How much is legal depends. If challenged, it can be settled in court.
I personally think that VPW knew very well that he was lifting portions of other's work and putting it in his. He may have felt it was the best way to state it and so he would use it. I think that's why explicit, clear recognition of the source material would be absolutely necessary if he was going to claim copyright on his new work. It would be the most honest thing to do and would allow his own work to stand on it's own. If what he did was pull together various pieces of other's work and "put it all together" it might have actually qualifed to be a "compilation" in the same way a packaging of certain songs or stories can be put in to a new collection. The collection is copyrightable but the original works contained in it are recognized as owned by the original authors.
Given his description of himself as someone who "put all of this together" that would have worked fine. By invoking © he had an obligation to reconcile his work and his position on the source material in it I think, clearly and directly.
Edited by socksLink 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.