Rocky

I voted that I had read it once. That, obviously, was decades ago (more than three and probably more than four) and wouldn't recall any of it without looking at a copy now..

Poor Mike. Woe is Mike. Unless you bullies stop posting to him, he won't get his taxes done and you will be to blame [/snark]

Look for the Donate button at the top of every page and every forum section. That will take you to PayPal.

It's not style, it's a question of substance or lack thereof. If you think you've accomplished anything on par with Superman, then I'd have to agree with DWBH about your state of mind.

Mike, it's NOT about anyone else's mistakes. YOU have made it about you. EVEN IF I were to "castigate" anyone else, it would do nothing. Your response (above in blue or purple, whichever it is) demonstrates that you are STILL resisting the notion that YOU and YOUR words are at issue. Calming down doesn't seem to be helping you read for understanding, be meek, or learn anything. When it’s not a battle, and not overwhelming volume, and I have lots of time, I can do better than what I have done so far. Help me reduce the volume of target shooting and maybe that can happen faster. NO Mike, you've completely missed the point. The "battle" is between YOUR EARS. When YOU reduce the volume of your resistance to listening to what people are trying to say to you, you MIGHT learn something. Only THEN will you "do better." Frankly those two sentences come across like you're trying to guilt me into bullying other GSC posters for you. IF you're genuinely open for more ideas, there's your answer.

That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message. My intent is to give you graceful a way out of the predicaments you put yourself in. [see Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part Four, chapter Five] One chapter title is "When you're wrong admit it quickly and emphatically." [Part Two, chapter three] IF your intent is to get people to take your message seriously, wouldn't you have to get honest about your communication mistakes and problems? You've recorded your "thesis" on GSC but you've refused all efforts to get you to clarify your points. Are you an expert communicator? Haven't you admitted that you're not? When you refuse legitimate feedback by saying the reader read you wrong, you're missing a wonderful opportunity to LEARN how to communicate better.

Mike, even though you repeatedly do not respond with integrity when caught in prevarication, if your intent were to convince unconvinced readers you lose because they can plainly see (and read) that when you are caught, you try to squirm out of responsibility for your words with variations on: 1) I didn't say that, or 2) blaming those who caught you for not understanding what you intended to say even though they don't pretend to read your mind. You squirm, but don't quite squirm your way out of it. Mike, by definition you're blaming the reader for YOUR failure to communicate. I've shown you the definition several times. Would you like me to again provide a link? At about 2:10 into the video at this link, "the sender needs to make sure the receiver understood the message." "The receiver's reply to the sender is called feedback." "Feedback allows THE SENDER TO ENSURE that the original message was interpreted correctly by the receiver." Bottom line, Mike, when you blame others for "not reading correctly," you're OFF THE BALL. Regardless of whether you ever get back on the ball, the messages you have posted remain on GSC as you posted them. IF you want to clarify, which is your responsibility, blaming the reader for not reading your mind or for not understanding the message as you originally intended it, misses the target.

Now you're rewriting your comment given that you were caught doing something you know you can't legitimately do? NO, you weren't speaking up for God. Had that been your intent, you'd have to say something to the effect of "my understanding of God's word is ________ , and I'm calling your attention to it." That's NOT what you did. Your claimed assumption, as stated above, is specious.

According to the definition of communication, you're not taking responsibility for your failure to communicate. Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ? Btw, Wierwille's comments to which you refer, contrary to your claim, do NOT indicate he was getting revelation (from God). Properly characterized, he would have been exercising his training in homiletics to claim (and get gullible listeners to accept) that he was getting revelation from God. But said comments were specifically NOT indications that he was getting any such thing from God, even in the event he may have been getting revelation from God to such an end.

From the link waysider provided: The next section compares Wierwille's 1972 and 1957 editions of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today and Stiles' 1948 edition of The Gift of the Holy Spirit. This shows that Wierwille obviously copied from Stiles' book in 1957, even though editing for later editions changed the wording a little and made the plagiarism a little less obvious.

Wierwille committed plagiarism. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today has passage after passage that is just copying someone else's work. Further, it may not be honest to say as you did in the second paragraph, "... which it is not plagiarism..." You have not made a valid argument that Wierwille is not guilty of plagiarism. I would be less inclined to pick at that expression had you written "... while it may not be plagiarism ..."

Mike should (but may not) give YOU credit for your concise statement of the spiritual reality at issue on this thread.

Please clarify. If Wierwille wanted (and apparently he did want) to look like he had figured it out all on his own, wouldn't that actually BE plagiarism, if he actually didn't figure it out all on his own (from God, without any human help)? And wouldn't that make it evident that he did intend to plagiarize rather than credit his human sources?

I suspect that in my comment above (where I quoted you and highlighted), you are projecting when you said "In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism." I get this from a composite reading of all of your posts/comments that I've read. You claim to be speaking for God. Isn't that presumptuous of you?

Mike... are you even in the same reality we are? You were not falsely accused. You seem to have recanted, that's not the same thing.

"Most non-religious people think of..." what's your source, Mike? You're defining fundamentalism by how comedian Dana Carvey (the correct spelling of his last name) comically and satirically portrayed a character based on his childhood experience? Or, "as it is known today?" Again, what's your source? Or are you defining fundamentalism by how you think "most non-religious people think of fundamentalists?" Either way, that's completely absurd and actually rebuts itself without me having to argue it further.

I disagree.

Poor Mike. Woe is Mike.

And it (the definition of fundamentalism) makes Wierwille and his subculture also fundamentalist.

Mike, Mike, Mike... I quoted where you called Penworks "dimwitted." That's something an elitist would say. Then, after quoting you, I asked you about your academic credentials. If you want to now not be an elitist, you'd have to take back your namecalling (dimwitted). I assure you, those here who would consider your content (your fundamentalist PFLAP dogma) to have integrity seem to be few and far between.

The first to record it as her/his discovery/work. In your scenario, it would be patented.

Well, that of course is a subjective argument. We can't quantify either one. But Twinky articulated Mike's position well. Probably far better than Mike ever could... at least far more succinctly.

So did I. :)