oldiesman

That is a proven fact, Belle. Do you remember when firearms were required in Kennesaw , GA? Crime plummeted. Must be a great place to live. :)

I am with you Rascal. Everyone who qualifies should be able to carry a firearm. I have a NY State carry permit, but I can't carry my weapon into NYC. Isn't that insane? And there ought to be state reciprocity. One permit for all the states, like a drivers license is good anywhere.

I would imagine (I am speculating) that JS and others are going to see if they can do it in a "kinder and gentler" fashion. ********************** Have a question, Is PP done only by permission of a person asking for it? For example, in twi, if one asked to be ministered to, someone would do it for you. Is PP like that? One has to ask for it first?

Doesn't look like they are. JS said they were examining the doctrine, but doesn't sound like they're getting rid of it. They should go back to the way we did it in twi, what was wrong with that way? :o :P

Actually knowing me, it probably caused me to fork over less mooolah.

I guess I should have DEMANDED to see it, but being only 20 years old, wasn't as near as obnoxious as I am today... :)

I have to listen to the tape to get the context. Can you mail me a copy?

You certainly are misrepresenting when you claim he copies whole books and put his name on the cover. Who are you kidding? I mean even Dr. Juedes isn't THAT extreme.

Wordwolf, I think you are mistaken. This is why I attempt to get things in writing, because people make mistakes.

Railroader II, this may surprise you, but Craig had nothing to do with that policy change as it happened way way back in the 70's. I like you, heard that it was possible to see twi's financials. So in July of 1976, I wrote hq to find out how I may see this. Here's the letter I got back from hq:

Nah. There was ooodles of times I felt very good about myself and still participated in twi-1. As someone once said, Feelings come and feelings go...

Belle I will examine your links. But not now. Having too much fun on da nile.

Dr. Juedes also said: "and what you do" AND I would add that if you look ONLY at the negatives and sins of an individual, your perception of that individual will be biased to say the least.

Well if some posters would just carefully read what I type, they may understand what I've suggested. Of course there are some sentences and paragraphs that were plagiarized. That's obvious. What I question and still do is the "intent" to lie and steal. I think that is much more difficult to prove. But I have no idea about 5%... that was just a wild guess. I suspect its a lot less.

I stand by my statement. If anyone can prove that there's as much as 5% "word for word" lifting (I think the figure is probably closer to less than 1%, but I could be wrong), then I will retract my statement that you are exaggerating. What is proof? Written texts compared one to the other. When one makes accusations of the nature you are making, you really do need written proof. You can't expect folks to believe you otherwise.

Right. Of all of Wierwille's books, how much of a percentage of word for word lifting do you think there is? if there is as much as 5% i'd be amazed. so yeah, making it bigger than it really is is exaggerating. The point can be made without exaggerating.

I suppose a relevant question to ask would be: is this way an improvement over what went down in the past? if part of staff benefits / salaries is to get your childrens college tuitions paid for, is that a good thing? perhaps. as long as EVERYONE's staffs childrens are paid for, and not just a chosen few...

Perhaps. But if I were an innie, I'd want to know that some money is going to college tuitions. At that point I could decide. Maybe what happened is this: TWI staffers got / get salaries on a needs basis. Is it possible that the college tuition donations were worked into the salaries of those staffers? Meaning, they had a "need" to send their children to college, thereby having twi send tuition monies to those colleges to be applied to the children of the staffers? That might explain all that and it be all legal. I do question the double standard of it all however.

Tom you're exaggerating. When one examines the totality of Wierwille's books there is some "word for word" plagiarism, but not near the amount hysterically misrepresented by some posters. I've seen a few sentences and paragraphs. That's "pretty much"? blaahhh A Peter Wade appearance!.... :o :) Love those oldie believers.

Danny, I am unaware of any VP statement claiming he learned everything from God only. You should get your facts straight bro. About Pat Robertson ... regarding his recent prediction, I hope to hell he's wrong. *********************** Well it's been wonderful debating you folks today, I bet it raised the view counts considerably. :D But as they say, all good things must come to an end ... I must leave you now and enjoy my day off tomorrow, and the weekend. Happy Weekend, one and all!

He said God said to him, "I'll teach you the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century, if you'll teach it to others" So by that statement you think Wierwille was saying that he didn't learn from other men, from God only? If you think that, you are mistaken. You need to add other facts in the mix which you are not doing.

I don't think there is any confusion about the pure definition of plagiarism. The debate exists when you apply it to VPW and add other facts in the mix. I know I know, let's not get confused with what he said at other times. It's besides the point.

Go back and read what WhiteDove wrote about this. It makes sense.

Potato, Your points would carry more weight if he didn't tell us "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". He told us lots of his stuff didn't come from his own study and he named who those were that he learned from. We know who he learned from. He told us who. Thieves don't usually tell people who they stole from. If you guys don't get what I'm saying by now then its deliberate (borrowed phrase from Raffy). :) Hi Danny, you are God's best.

There is no difference when it comes to supposedly having an "intent to lie and steal" which is what you believe of Wierwille. Maybe you consider them separate, but I consider his books as part of his teaching ministry, about which he plainly said, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". He did not claim, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original, but all my books are original" He also had written in the preface of some of those books that he learned "from men of God scattered across the continent". What did he learn? What was in the books, obviously. I know nothing of the kind. I do know that once in the distant past, you made a distinction between "the baby and the bathwater" of the blue book. But I have no reason to believe that you think him anything other than a liar, thief, and predator. You've said so! What am I supposed to think?