potato

he doesn't say anywhere in RHST that I can remember (don't have the book handy to verify) that it is a revision of the works of other authors. can't remember him doing that for any of the revised works he's published, works that have clearly been demonstrated to be authored by someone other than vpw by researchers on this board and elsewhere.

yep Danny, that's what he said. I sat through it somewhere between 15-20 times, and that's what he said.

actually, I'm the one who said vpw was a thief by intent, although the letter of the law may have said he wasn't. that's still open for debate, as far as I know no one has checked the copyright office to see if there's a copyright registered, for all we know the copies in circulation maybe have been unauthorized. we just don't know. neither do we know the intent of JE in allowing the book to be published without a copyright notice (if it was indeed his decision). WD's assumption that maybe JE wanted other people to republish his work with their name on it is ludicrous. there is no reason to assume that, although I think circumstantial evidence builds a strong case that vpw intended to dupe those taking PFAL into thinking he received the information written by Stiles by revelation and that RHST book was vpw's original work. and yes, oldiesman, it is scary how your thoughts are identical to WD's. shades of grey where there should be none. you excuse theft and dishonesty in vpw when vpw taught that the bible should be the only rule of faith and practice. bible says don't steal, don't lie. you say it wasn't a lie, it wasn't stealing because the letter of the law says so. bible also says something may be legal, doesn't make it good and honest. it comes down to intent. an honest mistake is an honest mistake even though the law still holds you responsible. vpw did not make a mistake. he lied somewhere along the way... either about his academic background, which would excuse his ignorance of theft of another's work, or he lied when he said it was his work.

CC, somewhere I think I still have notes on it, someday I might post some of them... I can't even remember who the couple was who taught it, but I know their faces well. it was plastic as hell... fresh of the press in 2005 when I was in my personal crisis, going through divorce, and that class was supposed to heal me... what it did was point out the extreme difference between the life I was discovering outside of twi where people expected me to be my real self, and the extremely narrow, judgmental treatment I was getting in twi, where I was expected to be that woman described in the class so I would fit in. Roy, that is what's important here. we're all different and our experiences in twi were different, and many (too many) of us experienced a lack of respect in twi. here we can be who we are and the "painted love" can be damned. it's plastic. not even honest, bright pink plastic, but camoflaged wood-grained plastic.

AG, I commend you for sticking up for your family. God bless all of you. shame on the twi goons. shame!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! HAHAHA!!! that is so hilarious, since what we've been talking about is how vpw standard was NOT telling THE TRUTH.

I have been wondering, and I'm glad you came back to let us know. I'm glad you recognize her behavior is unreasonable and will not let yourself be abused again. yes, they are programmed and only twi-sanctioned thoughts are flitting around up there. I was one of them once. you do what you need to, to survive, and try to convince yourself you're living the life "more than abundant". yep. yep.there's an approved short list of topics. do not stray outside the lines, do not research. yep. you probably didn't pass but they think if you take the class you can prove yourself. amen!!! I'm so glad to get my kids out of there.

100% here too, although I was veeeeerrrrry tempted to choose "your a idiot".

sorry, the class is actually called "Living God's Word as a Family". I think it was in that class that I started to realize I'd have to part ways with twi. it took all the fun out of life. I was was realizing I didn't want to be one of those women, so damned virtuous that I'd let my psycho husband run rough-shod over my heart, smile, and spread 'em in the dark. hell no, I went out and found a hot younger man outside of twi and learned about love... and respect, something I rarely got in twi. yuck, all the fake smiles still give me nightmares.

there is a moratorium on research. the research department, as far as I've heard, has disappeared. people on the field have been instructed to do no new research. the only approved topics are what is currently in print and on tape. seems like twi is just a teaching and fellowship ministry now. any new classes will be highly sanitized versions of what has gone before. the last class I took was the christian family class... it was drier than plain white wonderbread left on a counter for two weeks. boring, squeaky clean, and a waste of time and money. there was no research in it, just a few bible verses reinterpreted for an appearance of godliness without heart.

yes. he was a parasite. maybe that's why I started this thread. at one time I respected what I thought was his research although I could barely stand to sit through any of his teachings. I always thought he wrote better than he spoke (now I know why, it's because the written material was pretty much all done by others) but I actually thought the material was his. now, I understand ideas can't be copyrighted, but there's a huge difference between learning from others and incorporating their ideas, and pretending you came up with something by revelation from God. maybe some people heard him say he learned from others, but that stuff didn't get passed around as part of the culture. the most useful thread in this discussion has been the academic standard, since vpw passed himself off as a doctor and an academic. as an academic, he fails on all counts in the character department. of less importance is the information about copyright law, although that is also interesting. if I was at all acedemically pursuaded, I'd right a book quoting large passage of Stile's book and put a copyright on it and see how long it took for twi lawyers to write me a letter. that could be a fun experiment.

ramifications, Belle... hehe. bottom line is that genetic selection for color, size, milk production, fat ratio blah blah blah has been practiced for generations in livestock husbandry. the same principles are taken by those who want to recreate man in his own image, that's where ethics come in. sheep are sheep, people are people. sheep don't have a right to be gay. livestock who don't reproduce are sent to the slaughterhouse.

read what's been written... several people have asserted that vpw should know better regarding plagairism because of his pretended level of doctor... if he was a researcher, scholar, as he passed himself off to be, then he would adhere to the standards of academic circles, which he clearly did not. there have been many threads regarding plagiarism, and you've only focused on the US law version, which has been revised because it is flawed. there are other standards that could be adhered to, rather than the letter of the law. you are focused only on the law and ignoring other issues with his decision to, yes, steal another man's work and pass it off as his own. it's theft because of the intent, even if it's not theft by law.

university policy still typically considers it plagarism if the source is in the public domain. vpw seems like he didn't mind revising history as it suited him. from what I've been reading of narcissists, it's their way of dealing with inconvenient facts that don't fit in with their present reality. they expect everyone to get on board with it, and that's what good TWIts did.

I'm curious about something. earlier versions of the book didn't carry a copyright notice, but later ones did? my copy is really old, and doesn't carry the notice... which would have put the work in the public domain... but subsequent releases of the book did carry the copyright notice? perhaps the book was copyrighted, because once in the public domain, a work cannot be copyrighted. has anyone done the required research to see if it was on file with the copyright office?

I agree with you, Raf. just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should, and the subject at hand has every bearing on a person's integrity. go peruse the plagiarism policies of any major university. what you excuse as being ok, WD, would get any student dropped because, while legal, it is still unethical.

sigh... I'm making a point about character, not law. look at the context of my argument and you'll see that I didn't say a bicycle is public domain when parked. just read what I wrote and don't read into it.

Eagle, you shouldn't care what they think. I know it's a hard habit to break, but they don't validate you and you don't need their approval, regardless of what they'd like you to believe. I truly don't care what they think of me. I feel sorry for them for not having the option to think for themselves. (edited for inadvertant repetition)

even to putting his name on it as author when it was clearly written by someone else. his character begs examination and is found wanting. just because something looks like it's free to use doesn't mean you should.... like a bicycle parked on public property, unlocked. it could be abandoned... so I should just take it and call it mine?

my understanding was that the equipment was hired. maybe I'm not recalling the facts. does Dave recall if vpw sustained sunburn as well? that would have been a clear indicator that the lights were UV. I did a bunch of reading and couldn't find anything that indicated ocular melanoma is caused by regular eye burns. do you have any info on that? it was something that I'd read somewhere, where he asked someone "I gave my eye to the ministry, what have you given?" or something along those lines. I do not remember where I read it, so it could be one of those urban legend things. however, it bothers me to assume that his eye cancer was caused by filming PFAL, when there is nothing to indicate that was the cause. also, the lights weren't used just for movies, but also for tv filming. lots of people were exposed to the same kind of lights for much longer periods of time, and UV damage is cumulative.

it is a problem. if the works weren't copyrighted, then legally twi could have published the works with Stiles' name on it and sold them, and never given Stiles a dime. it's still plagarism to take another's work and pass it off as your own regardless of copyright. question... was the book published in Canada or the US without the copyright notice? if it was Canada, then US law doesn't apply.

does anyone know what kind of lights were used for filming PFAL? arc lighting was used from the 30s onward and the UV output was typically high. when tungsten balanced color film was introduced in the early 50s, 10 kw incandescent lights became common. they had much lower UV output but were bright enough to cause eye damage. I think if movie set lighting caused eye cancer, we'd hear about it a lot more. after all, lots of newscasters, actors and actresses from back in the day were exposed over much longer periods than vpw to lights with high UV output. apparently, old-time filming spot lights lights would give people a sunburn with too much exposure. vpw's eye burn wasn't necessarily a result of cancer causing UV. over-exposure to bright lights of other wave-lengths can cause eye burn: http://ncr101.montana.edu/Light1994Conf/4_...iney%20Text.htm this article suggests that sun exposure is a likely cause as well: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/cont...ract/50/18/5773 maybe he pointed a lazer pointer in his eye (lots of people do). maybe he used a tanning bed without eye protection. maybe he spent a lot of time outdoors. I don't buy the "I sacrificed an eye for the Lord" spiel.

once a work is in the public domain it cannot be copyrighted, even by the original creator.

metatastic melanoma of the liver means it spread from the primary location to the liver, so the liver cancer is what killed him (probably why it was listed first) but the source was melanoma in the eye.

you know, dooj... you point out exactly why I should have known better than to stay with twi... any organization that would require people to wear a suit, walk a quarter mile from their TENT in 90 degree plus weather then sit in a plastic chair for hours, should never have gotten my allegiance. looking back, I can't believe I thought that was acceptable. it's just pure dogmatic torture.