Digest/Commentary re: propfal thread-Gen com.

[socks]

What the Hay, I absolutely do not believe that if I was quoting from another source that it would be difficult to decide if I needed to specifically credit the original author for any statements that I know came from, or were based on his writings. That's where we differ I think.

The difference is in 2 instances -1) specific sections of text and phrases that were written by authors that I would use word for word or with a few words changed and 2) pieces of others work that form the basis for my own work.

In 1) my point is a matter of personal honesty. If the law examined it and said "you're 2 words under the legal limit, it's different enough, you don't have to credit them", it wouldn't change the fact if I'd read and learned from that original author and used their words and ideas to do my own work. Morally the burden would still fall to credit them. I could squeez that, juggle my way out of it, but I'd know the right thing to do whether I did it or not.

2) is easier to see. If 2 people developed the same material independent of each other, that's one thing. VPW eluded to that with Bullinger, but not with others. He said that he was introduced to Bullinger by someone else who told him he reminded them of Bullinger. Then we see some sections, like 4 crucified, that are similar to Bullinger. So we have an explanation of sorts for similarities if the two have unexplained or uncredited work that's the same. VPW used Bullinger as a reference for figures of speech and grammar in his teachings to the Way Corps. The Bullinger Companion Bible was sold in the bookstore. VPW owned other of Bullingers books, that he brought out when I was in the Way Corps. In PFAL itself though the connection is made but it's vague outside of figures of speech where he says Bullinger is the person he knows who's done the most work on them. My impression of that topic when we studied it in the Corps was that VPW has some knowledge of them and a sense that the bible needed to be interpreted in light of them before he read Bullinger but it was Bullinger who gave him the massive reference to study with and work with.

If a person continued being exposed to Way teachings and classes they would hear more about Bullinger though and see the connections to specific parts, especially where Bullinger was used as a reference for translation of words and grammar, figured, structure, etc. In the Corps VPW used structure frequently in presentations, and often referred to Bullinger where he differed from his structures. Structure helped VPW in his understanding the contextual logic of the bible. Again, he said he has seen this in his own study but it was Bullinger's work that helped him to "put it all together".

Bullinger's books were presented in a form that allowed them to be used as a reference. He had exhaustive referencing, footnotes and cross referencing in the material itself. I think that speaks to the value of working that way. Look at what it allowed VPW to do and others like us later.

In the holy spirit sections of PFAL we don't have any specific references to others classes or material in relation to the written sections or the spoken sections in PFAL. The reader or student is led to think that work is VPW's own. So if we see pieces of VPW's work that occur in other's books and classes that VPW said he was exposed to it's a simple connection to make - he read those books, took those classes and now we see sections that are similar. It doesn't take a genius or a lawyer to see what's happened. But a genius or a lawyer could turn it enough ways to squeeze it. That wouldn't change the obvious facts though.

IMO VPW's statement that he "put together" and took from others and "put it all together" is a convoluted way of saying that he used others material and his own and came up with his own product and results. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how work gets done. At that point the simple honest thing to do is to give credit where credit is due in a way that lets the reader know what's going on.

He obviously felt that his own work made a signficant contribution to the end result. He felt ownership of his own work and seemed to have felt he discovered threads of thought in the bible that were scattered throughout the writings of other people as well as parts that had been hidden or lost. That's fine. But there's a vagueness to his attitude about crediting those people involved that makes it seem like there's something going on.

The question is "why wouldn't he?" rather than he didn't need to. 21 years of time in the Way told me that while VPW had some of his own ideas and work he also had been inspired by and used the work of many others. When you go back and look at the original stuff-PFAL and the Holy Spirit book you can see that. He would have been much better off to have set the record straight in the source material rather than a scattering of statements and stories in other media over many years. Make it plain, make it simple. It would be the most honest thing to do. Today there'd be no question if he had. And the questions don't come up from a few ne'er do wells, based on 3rd hand stories. They've always been there.

[Tom Strange]

very well put sen'or socks

[WordWolf]

Socks may have explained it well and clearly,

but some people (determined not to see the point)

might as well be hearing adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

Socks makes an excellent point, and some people just get

"Wah-WAH-wah-wah-wah."