waysider

Maybe I'm missing something. What is there about the subject of plagiarism that precludes its discussion in a public forum?

Heart Of Worship-------Matt Redman Oops. Didn't see Socks' post.

Not that I know much about computers but don't most of the new ones come with a bunch of stuff already built in? Anyway, it was my pleasure to post that song. It's definitely in the "goosebump" category.

Hi, Roy It's always nice to hear from you. It won't be long before the landscape is teeming with blossoming flowers and the sweet fragrance of honeysuckle fills the evening air. The songs of spring peepers and tree frogs will sound like a symphony in contrast to the stillness of winter's dark and silent nights, signaling the birth of a new and bright spring. As for me, I think maybe that's what "the voice of God" is all about. Holy hugs to you, Bro. waysider

Well you know, Brushstroke, you can have the answers to all those questions and more. You do want answers, don't you? Just sign this "green card". Heck, when you've graduated from the PLAF class, you'll know that you know that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your pen or mine? Here's a thread that discusses the infamous "Green Card". http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=15335

I could be mistaken on this but it seems to me that I bought a replacement "Orange Book" or two directly from the TWI bookstore in the mid to late 1970's. Sale was limited to "grads only".

Here is a link to that book as well as other B.G. Leonard materials http://www.ctcoftexas.com/books.html

Hey, Oldies Have you ever bothered to even read some of the articles here that discuss discrepancies in how some of the scriptures in the foundational class were interpreted and used? Just wonderin'.

Begging your pardon, WTH That's really a wheel barrow full of vegetable nutrients. Plagiarism is not defined by whether or not you make any monetary gain. A monetary gain is only relevant in determining whether or not punitive legal action is warranted. One does not need to sell a high school term paper in the "marketplace", for example, for it to be considered plagiarism It only needs to satisfy the identifying criteria. Failure to make an improperly cited work available publicly does not absolve the writer of the impropriety. The knowledge in PFAL was not "common" knowledge. In fact, Wierwille's contention was that it promised to reveal "the greatest secret in the World today". The knowledge in PFAL was so UN-common, said Wierwille, no one had even known about it for 2,000 years until it was revealed to him. And, he said, it was only given to him on the condition that he teach it to others. Do you need to "teach" people that which is considered common knowledge? I doubt that many writers have difficulty recognizing whether or not something they have written is common knowledge. Another fallacy here is that Public Domain works are somehow "up for grabs'. Some of my own copyrighted materials have gone into PD as a result of the amount of time that has elapsed. You are free to use them. I can not control how you do that. BUT, you must cite them as Public Domain. But the really big issue with PD here is that, once something goes into Public Domain, no one can copyright it again, not even the author. If these works were in PD when Wierwille secured copyrights, he had no right to do so. Now, maybe some of these laws have changed over the years, I don't know. But I doubt they would have changed in favor of plagiarism.

Remember in PFAL(filmed in 1967) how VPW was teaching about the second coming and he finished the teaching with "He's coming back as King of King and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty!!"? In the instructors manual(circa 1971 or 1972) there were instructions to gloss over it and "spin" it by saying "He was so wrapped up in the emotion of the subject, he simply made a mistake." That's not the exact wording but it IS the general instruction we were given to deal with the situation. I recall someone asking why, if he made a mistake he didn't just redo the session once it was realized. The answer was that the teaching was a special one-time event and could not be duplicated "spiritually". HUH???

Is your confidence in God's ability really that shallow? If He really wants to "find" you, He doesn't need Wierwille or anyone else to show Him where you are.

It all kind of reminds me of a verse to a song I wrote a long time ago. Silk and satin in the night cater to the fool's delight. Sweet, enticing, vibrant sounds Lure him to the circus grounds. A hypocrite in all his might So wrong in that he thinks he's right. Still he hears not. Still he sees not. Will he? Public Domain

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Murphy's Law came via revelation from God Almighty. Anyway, calling Murphy's Law a "law" is a bit of cynical, ironic, sarcastic twist of words as the average person who has reasoning skills may recognize that the concept itself is doomed to fail when forced to fit the criteria for a "law". Hence, you will surely fail if you try to prove it to be a "law". You would have to. (It's Murphy's Law. )

Oh, my! How can this be possible? The collaterals were given by divine inspiration to Dr. Wierwille. Why, oh why did God give him a defective analogy? I mean, if you've been waiting 2,000 years to divulge a secret, you surely want it to be worded perfectly, no? Maybe that's the real "great mystery".

HaHaHaHa Oh yeah, The Lord's Prayer argument. Wierwille said it doesn't apply to us because: 1. It was for the Christ "administration" and this is the Grace "administation. Therefore, it's not written "to us". 2. Asking God to "Give us this day our daily bread" contradicts the Epistles where it says God has already blessed us with "all spiritual blessings", etc. Therefore, we don't have to ASK God for anything. We just tell him what we want and thank him in advance. "Just name it and claim it." OOPS! Almost forgot.-----Make sure you are "believing" when you do that last step. <_< ("Works for saint and sinner alike.")

I don't think anyone ever interpreted Wierwille as meaning it was a law in a "legal" sense. At least I never met anyone who did. He(VP) clearly stated that it was (in his words) a "law" in the same sense that gravity is a "law". Like a "law" of physics. The "laws" of physics are predictably and dependable. To say that the "law" of believing is on a parallel with the laws of physics is ridiculous. The laws of physics can be qualified and quantified in a laboratory. If believing is a "law" in the same sense, it should be possible to do the same thing with it. Wierwille's "law" of believing was but one variation of numerous other philosophies that were popular at the time. Some included God in the mix and some did not. Wierwille not only included God in the mix; he implied that God personally gave him this insight. I suggest that if we want to continue to take this discussion in this new direction, we move it to one of the many threads that already address this subject.

Hey George!!! Yer up!!!

Personally I like the line----- "Gee, I think you're swell."

I just watched this on youtube. (the bigger of the two productions) For what it's worth, I thought it was nicely staged. No goose bumps but nicely done. Nice arrangement.----beautiful individual vocal performances.-----lighting and costuming had a very soothing effect. Only thing I did not care for was the side to side movement. I found that a bit contrived and distracting. They might have been able to "wash" individuals with light or have them take a step or two downstage(or both) when they were featured, instead. But that's just a matter of my personal taste. Regarding the changing of the lyrics: What's the big deal? It's not like these lyrics are engraved on a Holy Tablet or something. It's just a song. What if it had been written that way to start with? Would there be a big push to change it to Jesus to make it "right on"? One thing that I really, really don't miss about TWI is having to always worry about whether this or that is "right on" according to TWI standards of the only true(cough) right dividing of The Word. Everything became focused on the mission of promoting TWI. No room for artistic license. Ever wonder why that early Way music knocked your socks off? It's because it came from what the artists themselves felt compelled to express. Once TWI stepped in and started dictating what needed to happen to make it "right on" it started to lose the emotional steam that drove it. That's my 2 cents.

We have a winner!!

Here's a little clue. The song is actually somewhat tongue in cheek. If you listen closely to the lyrics, you will find they are mildly poking fun at this particular genre. That becomes even clearer when you see the direction their careers took after this effort. Here's another snippet: "You're my pride and joy, etc."

What a great song! Written by Willie Nelson, BTW.

Sorry, Brush I never took the "New And Improved" series so I can't compare the two.