Larry N Moore

ummm... pecans..

Very well. Meet me at the tree (not the Way Tree but, the one farther away). :)

Well, what can I say.. at the end of the day, it's just the word of the squirrel..

I think I've got some nuts "squirreled" away. Would you like some? ;)

Is your view then that vpw is not at fault for being put on a pedestal? Did he get on a pedestal by accident? Are you saying it was everyone else who put him there?

Could you clarify?

Briefly.

Hmm . . . I can speculate that VP was aware of the inflated image that believers had of him. I'm not sure what was in his heart concerning it. Why he would allow it would also be speculation but I'm of the mind that he either thought the end justified the means or he really didn't know how to address it because it had become so prevalent. Perhaps that's why he chose to step down as President (although I thought his choice of CM was a bad one). So, yes, ultimately it was his fault but, I think believers hold some accountability.

There's this really cool feature here at the cafe - it's called the "search function" and it can be found in the top right corner of the screen. If that's too hard for you, here's a link to the "advanced search" page.

OR, you can click on "Members" which is directly to the left of "Search" - Look up "Research Geek" and then go through his posts.

Amazingly, one can look up all sorts of information using those methods.

Thanks Belle. I'll keep your helpful and kind suggestion in mind in the future.

do you now agree that at least two of Wierwille's books were a big collaborative process and that he was not as active in the writing as he was on, say, The Bible Tells Me So?

Yes, I can stipulate my agreement that "at least two . . ." were a "big collaborative process" of working off his writings and producing the books.

If that image exists in man then you should be able to see evidence of its existence even if you can't see the image itself. What evidence would we be looking for if it exists?

Breathing for one thing..

Can God breathe?

Forget the hypotheticals and get to the point of here

My point has always been -- even though I've been aware of VP extensive use of others work I never considered it a big deal because for me personally I was more interested in the contents of the books than who the heck was responsible for them (the contents). And as I made mention on previous occasion I was not surprised in the least that TWI would fall not long after VP's death since I had observed that many, many, many members of TWI placed VP upon a pedestal. Doing so was clearly unscriptual. Why few didn't recognize that I cannot tell.

(nor am I about to go digging for them).

Suit yourself Raf.

I thank you for the time you've put into this topic. I think we're finished with it, wouldn't you agree?

I also think it's convenient of you to dismiss what Research Geek has said (he was on the research staff)

I'm sorry. I must have missed his testimony. It wasn't an intential oversight/dismissal on my part. I just honestly didn't notice his. Would you please give me a link to his posts on this subject so I may consider what he says?

Okay, so if I publish "The Iliad, by Raf" and sell it to you at Barnes and Noble and pretend that I wrote it, I've done nothing wrong?

:) Depends on whether I like your version better than Homer's.

Come on, you know dang well that morality and legality are not the same thing.

I did qualify my statement with the word "most" if I'm not mistaken. In any case -- off the top of my head -- the laws against theft and murder for example are based upon morality. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to murder? Society for whatever reason has said yes -- and codified those morals into laws. So, no, I guess I don't know "dang" well that they aren't the same thing.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, or even whether you're agreeing with HCW or not, but let's look at a couple of things (I wasn't going to get any further into HCW's post, but since you did, and you appear to be giving it greater weight because he was there, I feel compelled).

HCW's expertise appears to be in the area of his presence at HQ and in the publications area. Fair enough.

This does not make him an expert in copyright law.

This does not make him an expert in plagiarism.

This does not make him an expert in non-profit exemptions to copyright laws.

This does not make him an expert in anything other than in the things he saw and heard.

I don't believe he is claiming otherwise. So let's look at some things that were said:

Raf, I didn't mean to imply that HCW was a legal expert. I was using a analogy of a legal court to state that in light of what I originally requested -- testimony from someone who actually worked on the editing/research staff -- his being the only one I'm capable of considering and judging credible. The rebuttals of those were not actually members of that staff carries less weight in my estimation because it falls under the category of speculation. And hearsay evidence doesn't cut the mustard much better.

You speak of VP's plagiarism as a moral issue but, most laws (including this one) is based on precisely morality. So I'm not sure I can totally agree that a moral violation has occurred if no legal violation has.

I don't think a person can see this image, in themselves.

If that image exists in man then you should be able to see evidence of its existence even if you can't see the image itself. What evidence would we be looking for if it exists?

He did create us in his image, did he not?

Even if that was true (in the sense that you're applying it) still, we have this from Romans 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen" As I understand it is a sin to worship the creation more so than the Creator.

Eagle, I'm trying to avoid reading your excerpts since I've already decided to buy your book. Even so I did take a quick peek at your latest installment -- won't comment on the contents 'cause it will definitely take more than just a quick peek to adequately address it even if I was inclined to do so. Anyways, I was just wondering if you had an editor/proofreader that worked on it prior to its publication 'cause I noticed a few trivial grammatical and spelling errors. Just curious, 'cause I thought they were being paid to pick up on such things.

Be nice, Larry.

Raf, believe it or not I'm generally a nice guy but, I do have my limits. In any case I don't anticipate having any more problems with WW since he's now on my ignore list. If he should happen to want to settle this matter between us my door (via PM) will remain open to him. Afterall -- that is the acceptable venue to do so according to the rules.

Now as regards the real substance of your post. I apologize to you if I wasted your time in trying to locate the information you alluded to earlier. Perhaps you didn't notice that Eyesopen has already "opened my eyes" (is that a close proximity to plagiarism? :)) on this subject. However . . .

I found the reference. It was in JCOP, acknowledgments (p. xiii-xv, first edition, seventh printing).

Wierwille says he did a bunch of research over the years into the subject of JCOP, but had not organized it. He gave the task to Walter Cummins in the 70s to check Wierwille's research "thoroughly and critically." After Cummins had done a bunch of work on it, Wierwille laid it all out to the research team in 1974. "From this seminar a working manuscript was developed, the embryo of this book." Note that he uses the passive voice, "a manuscript was developed," and not the active "I developed a manuscript," indicating a collaborative effort.

In 1978, there's another seminar "to again study and refine previous research." The wording there again indicates collaborative effort (Wierwille does not need to hold a seminar for other people if he's the only one who's going to be studying and refining the research). Then he goes into specific people and contributions made, and concludes with this paragraph:

. . . let me say this much. Seeing how TWI promoted itself as a "Research and Teaching" ministry I don't find it odd that VP would solicit the help of others to go over his own work and "refine" it. If anything this in itself should demonstrate that VP wasn't entirely a control freak. At least that's one conclusion a person can draw from it. I'm sure others wouldn't and that's understandable.

Furthermore, I've read -- what's his name -- Howard's account of what transpired on the editing/research staff and although I can't attest that everything he says is correct it nevertheless is exactly what I was looking for -- the testimony of someone who was there. It could be easy to dismiss him -- as it seems some are intent on doing but, absent a rebuttal by another member of the same editing/research staff his account -- at least in a court of law (which this certainly isn't) would carry more weight. If I'm not mistaken -- whenever one party presents "expert" testimony and the other party presents none -- a court will generally give more credence to that expert and rule in favor of that side. I applaud his balanced look and explanation of how it works, even if it's not true.

Larry,

<snip>

The general policy of this board is that we do not use full names of people unless they were or are on the board of trustees/directors.

There have been some exceptions: usually people who were, by their participation, unusually high profile. Examples include John Lynn, John Schoenheit, Walter Cummins, Chris Geer, Ralph Dubofsky, Vince Finnegan, Donna Martindale, John Linder, Claudette Royale and a bunch of the musicians.

But once you start having to explain who the person is, our practice has been to obscure the name (they may not want their association with TWI known to the general public performing a google search).

Thus, you might mention Bob Stanley, but if you were to mention anyone else in Acts 29, you would blur the name (B*b S*****y).

When in doubt, obscure the name unless it's a member of the BOT/BOD.

[Note: Other mods, please correct me if I've misrepresented the policy].

modcat5, seeing how you are a moderator I'll accept your word that this is the board policy and in the future will adhere to it. It is always my custom to check out the rules of any board I choose to register on before I post. So, I hope you can appreciate how I was unaware of your policy. It might be helpful for all parties if you would consider including this policy also in the statement of rules. And, for my inappropriate behavior towards WW I apologize.

Larry, right now I’m not impressed. Now if you rightly divided the yoke and did an extensive Greek word study on it, maybe. But really, you need to write a post complete with convincing proof before I can even consider it.

How fast did you eat? Did anyone besides your mother see you? Can you really say with any authority that you ate fast? How do you connect that to yoke on your face? Did you always eat eggs? I'm not following your logic.

That's ok, another spot. Half the time I can't follow my own logic.

The yoke's on Larry. (I don't get paid for my jokes...you get what you pay for.)

My mother always told me I ate too fast and because of that I usually got yoke on my face. ;)

Not to be too captious, but may I inquire as to what the yellow of an egg has to do with anything?

Everyone knows that's the part of the egg you dip your toast into.

Can you say with authority God never had a hand on Hitler's life?

No, I can't. Although, I probably could cite (perhaps inappropriately) Matthew 22:14 and say there has been no one untouched by God.

But that vpw came up with material, or that he was directed by the Almighty, is a lie, ain't it?

Can you say with any authority that God never had a hand on VP's life? I don't believe VP came up with much that was original. As has already been demonstrated, even VP credited the work of others for the books (under the current discussion) credited to his name.

Gee...and I thought the Ark of the Covenant was the Virgin Mary.

Before you laugh too loud, please go back to the OT and identify what 3 items were contained in the ark...

Why can't I laugh first and then go check?

Was the arc of the covenant housed in a temple made with human hands?

I'm not sure I understand your question. It was made by human hands and yet blessed by God. But it was just an object and as such it should not be worshipped.

What good came of it..

I don't know.

but having assessed the cost.. to myself, but especially to those less fortunate than myself..

for me, personally, I threw it all down the crapper.

If God wants me to have it, he'll find a different way to get it to me.

With all due respect Mr. Hammeroni, I find it difficult to imagine that the fact that VP's books were largely plagiarized had the greatest impact on the personal cost your association with TWI had in your life. What would have a greater impact would be believing the contents were true only to discover later it was all a lie. Who tells the lie doesn't matter. Believing the lie itself does. Or vice versa.

VPW made the choice to read others ideas and opinions about spritual matters.

VPW made the choice to accept some of those ideas and opinions as true

VPW made the choice to write his own books etc incorporating those ideas

VPW made the chioce NOT to cite the persons and sources from where he obtained those ideas and opinions thus committing plagiarism.

Does the act of plagiarism invalidate the ideas and opinions? NO

Does the act of plagiarism by persons other than VPW make VPW not guilty of plagiarism? NO

Plagiarism was committed, whether the outcome of the resulting printed materials was that those ideas and opinions were shared with people who might have never heard them otherwise is irrelevant to the question of whether plagiarism was commited.

Whether those ideas and opinions helped people who read VPW's works is irrelevant to whether plagiarism was commmited.

I have never understood why it is so difficult for many to understand this.

templelady, you make some valid points. I believe this touches upon the concept of "Does the end justify the means?" and on that point I would have to say you would have to ask those who profited from the knowledge obtained from the books. Personally, I never did care whose name was credited with the contents of the books. That might be difficult for some people to understand and probably why I seldom shared my thoughts on the matter earlier in my involvement with TWI.

Mine are still considered first edition just not first impression, point is they should all (yours and mine) have the same exact material in them.

You are exactly correct Eyesopen. In my hardcopy I have the section you quoted from. Why I might not have typed in the Acknowledgment section of JCOP on my electronic version (haven't checked the others yet) possibly was due to the fact that I probably didn't considered it important. There was enuf for me type without including that section.

As far as David goes perhaps it is a bit of both and maybe more. But God's forgiveness, even in the OT was dependant upon asking forgiveness. So to recieve His forgiveness David had to repent. Repenting meant that David was willing to return to God's favor and to do God's will. This would perhaps cause God to find that David's story was worth recording so that many generations could learn from David's mistakes and triumphs but mostly of his meekness and God's willingness to forgive even the worst of crimes if a person were to make themselves humble before Him.

That makes sense to me.

Curiosity...what dates are on your books?

Very true, David's misdeeds were recorded for all to see. Perhaps this is so because he repented.

My copy of JCOPS is dated 1982. I must have my copy of JCOP packed away. My copy of JCING is dated 1975. I believe all of my books (of that nature) were first editions.

I think you're probably right about David's repentance having something to do with it. Perhaps it has more to do with demonstrating the depths of God's love and forgiveness than David's repentance.

P.S. Ok I found JCOP. It's dated 1980

Aren't all things created by God holy?

Does godliness equal holiness?

1Timothy 2:2

for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Not exactly DrWearWord. Although Lucifer was originally "holy" I don't think he currently holds that distinction.