WordWolf

Well, let's take what we know, or at least what vpw himself said, first, then see where that takes us. According to TW:LiL (official twi book endorsed by vpw), when vpw grew up, he showed no signs of piety and devotion beyond a single comment made to a travelling minister who got accolades. It's likely that single comment accounts not for piety, but rather for interest in the accolades. (He didn't follow up the incident with any study, not even by his own claims.) When he went into seminary, everyone was surprised locally, since it was completely out-of-character for him. The only one who ever claimed vpw ever did preaching was "Uncle Harry", who admitted HE never saw it, but claimed that vpw was "preaching to the trees" when out of sight. Some people might consider that an interpolation of when Billy Graham did that as a student-to which there were witnesses. However, anyone should admit there isn't even Uncle Harry saying he SAW this. When vpw went into Princeton Theological Seminary (a respectable school unrelated to Princeton University) for his Masters, he had the option of fields of study like "Church history" or "Bible history" or "Bible languages" or anything relating to the actual Bible. Instead, he chose "Homiletics", or "preaching" or "how to put a teaching/sermon together", which is about the SOFTEST option to take in a place like that. In the years between then and he writing of TW:LiL, vpw claimed he took EVERY class Moody Bible Institute ever taught (as recorded in TW:LiL). However, Moody has NO record of him ever taking ANY course (one of our posters got that IN WRITING from Moody.) He said that the weekly sermons he did for his early pastorate "MADE" him go to the Bible regularly. (This means he wasn't voluntarily going there already.) His later teachings-those we've all ever heard- all can be traced to one or more "original authors"- Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles, and so on. Frankly, I can see a pattern of him AVOIDING Bible study when possible, and using "shortcuts" (other authors) whenever possible, completely relying on them more as time progresses. I can't find a timeframe where he put sizeable amounts of time in the Bible-except when he supposedly was starting out. That's the timeframe when he claimed that-twice- he was ready to give up on ministry. It also includes a time of at least a year where he was preaching but BEFORE he claimed he ever believed the Bible was God's Word. (Again, TW:LiL.) IF he was ever dedicated to Bible study- which would have to be between his claim to believe the Bible was God's Word and 1953- he seems to have completely abandoned his OWN study as soon as he had Leonard and Stiles' work to draw from. From there, he added more authors- Bullinger for example- but not his OWN study. I'm not claiming he never disagreed with Bullinger or others, but I DON'T think that was the result of vpw studying the subjects independently and disagreeing. I think it was the result of him reviewing what Bullinger did and deciding to go out on his own. Otherwise, he would have caught some gaffes like Bullinger claiming there was a difference between "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God", when the Bible uses them interchangeably. The differences included changing "dispensations" to "administrations" (personally, I prefer "stewardships" to either), changing Leonard's use of "gifts" to "manifestations" (but otherwise retaining the meaning), and adding increasing wordiness to the definitions later. Those look more like when an author takes HIS OWN WORK and makes changes in later editions, not like when an author reads the work of another, then goes off and makes a new work entirely.

Actually, it's easy to connect the dots if you have the right information in your hands. In this case, it's the Bullinger books "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" & "Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?" vpw said (in TW:LiL) that he read ALL of Bullinger's books. (Mrs W said the same in her book.) Here's the former of those books. http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/ (There's a link for its pdf and doc files there if you want.)

"Until the disturbance ends, we'll be forced to maintain the station with a skeleton crew." "I assume the Promenade is secure." "Yes sir. I've struck the sails and battened the hatches... so to speak."

Ok, just so we're clear on that.

Oh, then all interactions with you will be oriented on getting you to conform. See, first of all, you're supposed to cut all connections with people outside twi, since twi is THE sole source of all connections. There will be all sorts of justifications, and one event at a time, they'll want you to choose to spend each event with OTHERS, INSTEAD, with THEM. Slowly, they'll strangle your connections with others. Once that happens, they've got you. They will use any and all connections with you as LEVERAGE, as CLUBS to beat you over the head with. Please note this is CONSISTENT, and thus PREDICTABLE. So, maintain all your connections with family, friends, professionals, etc. Look, even if I'm 100% wrong, there's no loss in staying in touch, and it's good to stay in touch. If I'm right, you'll save yourself a lot of heartache. (You'll deprive them of one of their best weapons.)

The CLAIM is that they're concerned with truth over everything else. The REALITY is the actions of those in NOW and those in BEFORE belie that. Excuse after excuse comes out as to why it's all right to lie to people. Asking why any of various twi leaders was kicked out? You will get non-answers and avoidances of answers, and someone may completely lie to you. Why? "That the ministry be not blamed." Is someone lying to you to get you to take "the class?" Well, it's for your own good- to get you to take the class. etc. etc. If twi wants someone to, they'll lie or do worse. That's why some people left. It's also why some people did worse-one man blew his brains out because he couldn't reconcile his mind with "the president of twi is having sex with my wife" and "adultery is sinful" without reaching "the president of twi is practicing sin", and shot himself instead of leaving or shooting lcm. ===== The more connection you have with twi or those in twi, the more "leverage" they have over you. That means nothing-until you do what they don't want you to. Then all sorts of measures will be taken to get you to conform. You'll be disapproved of socially, made a pariah, have loved ones be told to avoid you, and all leaders will do everything they can to get you to conform. That means they will do everything they can to get you to agree to meet with them privately, behind doors that can be locked-which will, and then they will verbally abuse you, at conversation levels, then screaming at you, until you conform. They've done that to married couples, and once one spouse 'breaks', they will focus on the other. Think I'm exaggerating? A number of posters here, from different states and different years, reported that happened to them. You can find the posts here, or they can sing out again.

I noticed that WD's answers are different than the twi answers. In WD's answer, whether the information comes from God or not matters. Not in the twi answer. Here's what the Orange Book says on page 44. "What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law. Have you ever heard about people who set the time of their death? When somebody says 'Well, this time next year I will not be here', if you are a betting man, bet your money, you are going to win. If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." Here's some of the Blue Book. pg-43. ""You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe." pg-44. ""Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat." And the Beige Book (GMW) pg-79. "The great things of this world are available to men and women who know how to operate one of God's laws, namely the law of 'believing equals receiving.' And this law includes 'believing equals action.' Great accomplishments are not necessarily just for people with great intellectual ability; they are attainable by men and women who believe to receive. It doesn't hurt to have a few brains, but it doesn't help unless one operates this universal law of believing. Many operate the law of believing without even having a knowledge of God's Word, for this law of believing works for saint and sinner alike."

"The winds of change are always blowing. And every time I try to stay, The winds of change continue blowing And they just carry me away." "To all the girls who cared for me Who filled my nights with ecstasy They live within my heart"

Why in the world do I remember the Tongo game but not the main story? Bashir agrees to take Quark at Tongo, but Quark out-plays him by breaking his concentration. Worf and Jadzia go to pick up a spy, but Jadzia gets wounded, and Worf has to decide whether to complete the mission, or take care of her.

Originally? Eastman & Laird.

Is this GK Chesterton?

"The winds of change are always blowing. And every time I try to stay, The winds of change continue blowing And they just carry me away."

I'm too cheerful to get this one. :)

I'm pretty sure I've SEEN the episode.....

Yes indeed. Go, George.

That's Foreigner's hit, "Hot-Blooded". The album "Records" uses a live cut of this song, for some reason.

Mythbusters experimented on that one, and showed the air-bubble by simulating it underwater. Both the Mythbusters and I were quite surprised the tailgates up didn't lower mileage.

"The Way:Living in Love", pg-210. "She gave me my first copy of Bullinger'sHow to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first heard me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never met the man or even read his stuff.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/gastips.asp

Let's see. 2nd 1/2 of DS9's run. We have a Dax, Worf, probably Quark, probably Bashir, and Sisko at least speaking once. Is this when they visited Risa, and we got to see what Risa was like when the natural weather was allowed to run, as a reminder that they need to learn to deal with discomfort if they expect to defeat the Dominion?

"We'll be staying with Uncle Abram!!!!!!!" "Yes, Mama!" "'We'll be staying with Uncle Abram', 'We'll be staying with Uncle Abram', the whole world has to know our business!!!!" " As Abraham said, "I am a stranger in a strange land...”" "Moses said that." "Ah. Well, as King David said, "I am slow of speech, and slow of tongue."" "That was also Moses." "For a man who was slow of tongue, he talked a lot." "How is your brother-in-law? In America?" "Oh, he's doing very well." "Oh, he wrote you?" "No, not lately." "Then how do you know?" "If he was doing badly, he would write." '"You made many many poor people, I realize of course it's no shame to be poor, but it's no great honor either. Now what would be so terrible if I had a small fortune?"

It's not unusual for bfh to get the next turn for getting this correct! Go, bfh!

So, can you use works not under copyright? Of course. Musicians play classical music not under copyright all the time. And you can buy CDs of that. If you do, you'll notice they're a lot CHEAPER. That's because nobody's getting profits for owning the copyrights to the songs. If you try to use music that is protected by copyright, without obtaining copyright, the RIAA will be VERY interested in having a little chat with you. The Verve Pipe did that. They sampled an orchestral track the Rolling Stones did for their song "Bittersweet Symphony". The result? The courts granted ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the profits of the song to the Rolling Stones. The band got NOTHING. If they had obtained permission FIRST, there would have been no problem. ========= So, let's mention what you CAN and CAN'T do. You can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, so long as you cite the source. You can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, and use SMALL DIRECT QUOTES, so long as you cite the source. If your source is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, and use ANY SIZE QUOTES YOU WANT, so long as you cite the source. IIRC, Rev Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" is no longer protected by copyright. When Ralph Woodrow wrote "Babylon Mystery Religion", he lifted almost all his ideas from TTB, and used direct quotes whenever he wanted. However, he cited his source every single time. His book was completely legal. And, if you read it, you'll see that all the citations in no way made the book difficult to read. (He included them, chapter by chapter, as endnotes and booknotes, but not as footnotes.) THAT is a correct usage of material in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Some of Bullinger's stuff is in the Public Domain, and is perfectly legal to use in manners congruent with that. What does this mean? Here's some examples: Legal: Publishing "the Companion Bible by EW Bullinger" as a book, 100% of its original content. Illegal: Publishing "the Companion Bible by WordWolf" as a book, 100% of EWB's original content. Legal: quoting an entire Appendix of Bullinger's Companion Bible as a chapter in your book, SO LONG AS YOU CITE FULLY. Illegal: changing a few words, then rewriting an entire Appendix of Bullinger's Companion Bible as a chapter in your book, with no mention of the original book or Appendix. Legal: publishing a book compiling Bullinger's previous published works: "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and "Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?" as one book by EW Bullinger. Illegal: taking Bullinger's previously published works I just mentioned, rearranging the contents, and composing one "new" book by yourself, WITH NO CITATION OF BULLINGER. For most people, this is not difficult to understand.

I didn't think you'd log in this soon....

Now then, Some people are under the impression that there is an exemption to plagiarism- that you can freely plagiarize works that are not protected by copyright. This is untrue, and either reflects an inadequate education on the subject of plagiarism, copyright, or on PUBLIC DOMAIN, which is the term for works not protected by copyright. I quote again... http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_faqs.html "Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism, provided you make proper attributions." Emphasis mine. (same source) "When do I need to cite? Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source." Seems to be misunderstanding or what Public Domain means. http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/glossary.shtml "Public Domain Works in the public domain may be copied, distributed, or sold without restriction or prior permission." http://www.lib.jmu.edu/gold/mod7ethics.htm "Whether an information source is copyrighted or in the public domain, you should cite it if you quote or paraphrase it in your paper or speech." (That's from James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Va.) Something being unprotected by copyright does not mean the sources should not be cited. Sources should ALWAYS be cited, and one should not need the force of law (which DOES enforce this) to see that this should be so. That's not what copyright was designed for. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html "It must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used." Neither of those means citations are required BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT. Copyright affects how much of the original source can be used, and the author's ability to recover damages legally if the law is broken. So, how does one plagiarize something in the open domain? Well, it does not have protections against how much can be used. It does not have the power for the author to recover monetary damages. HOWEVER, that does not mean the source is not LEGALLY REQUIRED to be cited. That's a crime against society, and the government can sue on behalf of the public, either as a misdemeanor or a FRAUD (if the publication earned more than $2,500), and FRAUD IS A FELONY. For those of you who will insist that there has to be an injured SPECIFIC person for there to be a crime, I'd like to point out that the law does not see it that way. If a single man who makes lots of money hires a high-class prostitute (call-girl) in the State of New York, he and she have committed a crime. Society is deemed to be the victim, regardless of the consent of all parties. (Don't like that? Write your congressman.)