WordWolf

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.)

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?" Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.)" But, isn't it ok if this works as "free advertising" for the original work? (same source) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising." It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do." So, how does one AVOID plagiarism? Well, there is only ONE ANSWER, and ONLY ONE ANSWER. It is also very easy, both in understanding and execution. It is called either CITATION, or CITING YOUR SOURCES. Here's a little on what it is and how it works, courtesy of http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html What is citation? A "citation" is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source. It also gives your readers the information necessary to find that source again, including: information about the author the title of the work the name and location of the company that published your copy of the source the date your copy was published the page numbers of the material you are borrowing Why should I cite sources? Giving credit to the original author by citing sources is the only way to use other people's work without plagiarizing. But there are a number of other reasons to cite sources: Citations are extremely helpful to anyone who wants to find out more about your ideas and where they came from. Not all sources are good or right -- your own ideas may often be more accurate or interesting than those of your sources. Proper citation will keep you from taking the rap for someone else's bad ideas. Citing sources shows the amount of research you've done. Citing sources strengthens your work by lending outside support to your ideas. Doesn't citing sources make my work seem less original? Not at all. On the contrary, citing sources actually helps your reader distinguish your ideas from those of your sources. This will actually emphasize the originality of your own work. When do I need to cite? Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source. The following situations almost always require citation: Whenever you use quotes Whenever you paraphrase Whenever you use an idea that someone else has already expressed Whenever you make specific reference to the work of another Whenever someone else's work has been critical in developing your own ideas." That's why colleges, universities, and some high schools and businesses have their own policies concerning what they require concerning citation in ANY written work. If you have even ONE source, and a small usage of it, and you do NOT cite your source, you are guilty of plagiarism, and have committed a crime (a misdemeanor). If you have published your work, and received over $2500 for it in publication, you have committed a FELONY. If you have done it with no intention of making even a penny, it is STILL a crime (a misdemeanor.) If you have done it with the intentions of helping a lot of people, it is STILL a crime. If you have done it in ignorance, it is STILL a crime. Citation is the ONLY way to avoid the crime of plagiarism- you supply the sources of your material.

With most of the people still voluntarily in (and not in just because their family is in), what they "think" is whatever twi tells them to think. In short, ask one insider a bunch of questions, write down the answers, then ask a different insider the same questions, and you'll get identical (and identically-phrased) answers. So, the parents will probably recite the "buzz-words" that twi gave entirely. Don't expect there to be some independent thought-just memorized "buzz-words." (Some people did that even after they left, and some STILL do that NOW.) If you get into a "theological debate", their questions-and answers- will conform. Naturally, this also means they are predictable. (Seen one, you've seen them all.) They're not going to change just because I posted this because they'd need some competent theologians to do that-and they ran all of them off in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Whether or not they ASK you to join, you will be pressured to join. Here's one sample approach. First, they will be friendly, open, and non-pressuring. They will invite you places. Then, as time passes, you will NEED to pass certain standards to stick around. Social pressures will be placed on you (and others) if this doesn't work. (They used to kick people out if that didn't work.)

What is plagiarism? http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html "What is plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own 2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source 3) to commit literary theft 4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward." Can it really be theft if it's ideas and words? How do you steal ideas and words? (same source) "But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file)." What are some examples of plagiarism? (same source) "All of the following are considered plagiarism: -turning in someone else's work as your own -copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit -failing to put a quotation in quotation marks -giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation -changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit -copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not" What if I change some words around and it's not an exact quote anymore? (same source) "Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized." "If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source? Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words." So, can I use the words of others at all without plagiarizing? (same source) "Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism." What if I didn't MEAN to plagiarize? (same source) "It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse." As is commonly pointed out in some circles, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. Further, ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with your car is still a crime, even if you had no intention of hitting THEM or ANYONE with your car. What's plagiarism like in the academic world? (same source) "Most colleges and universities have zero tolerance for plagiarists. In fact, academic standards of intellectual honesty are often more demanding than governmental copyright laws. If you have plagiarized a paper whose copyright has run out, for example, you are less likely to be treated with any more leniency than if you had plagiarized copyrighted material. A plagiarized paper almost always results in failure for the assignment, frequently in failure for the course, and sometimes in expulsion." What's plagiarism like in the professional world? (same source) "Most corporations and institutions will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. There have been a significant number of cases around the world where people have lost their jobs or been denied positions as a result of plagiarism." What's plagiarism like under the law? (same source) "Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail. Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."

"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."

So, one might ask, "Did wierwille know he what he was doing was plagiarism?" In high school, college, and grad school, this was brought up. By the time he was finished with college-unless it was a useless college- he had a lot of experience with citations, sources, etc. Princeton Theological Seminary is a respectable institution. It has ALWAYS taught that plagiarism is wrong, the same as all grad schools worthy of the name. So, he knew plagiarism was wrong, and what he was doing WAS plagiarism. One might ask, "What was his intent in committing a crime?" This is barely relevant, since no intent can excuse this CRIME. However, his intent was to set himself up as the sole source for these books. This can be seen as follows: Compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition, with the Preface in the 2nd edition. ===== Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in the 2nd edition, (pg-8): "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ======== Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition, the one most of us got to read: ====== "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." ====== Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture, no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit ("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook") for something that was exclusively the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove...") To any FAIR observer, this would demonstrate an intent to conceal the existence of Stiles, the anonymous Christian who wasn't even NAMED in the early editions. So, even if intent affected his CRIME (which became a FELONY when $2500 was exceeded), we can see his INTENT was to deliberately conceal his sources. Not that this would excuse his CRIME if he had a different intent...

Hello. I'll call you Brushstroke. I highly recommend you avoid specifics on this messageboard. There were-and probably still are-people assigned by twi to read all the posts here, and assemble files on the posters they might want to go after. More than one person IN twi was kicked out once they pieced together who they were. We call the people who do that the WAYGB. :) As for the differences, there's the DOCTRINAL differences, official and UNofficial, and the PRACTICAL differences, official and-especially- UNofficial. When it comes to twi, you will be pressured to CONFORM or LEAVE, and spouses were ORDERED to divorce a spouse who they were planning on kicking out. In other cases, both spouses were kicked out, instead. Don't count on ever getting policy IN WRITING, so you can learn them and depend on it, either. They're fond of using unwritten rules and denying they used them. (They denied kicking people out, etc.) This messageboard has a Doctrinal section. If you want to have discussions on whether their Doctrines on the Bible are accurate, please start them there. Some of us are capable of mature discussion on them, and you can count on DIFFERENCES OF OPINION on each doctrine you ask about.

"You find it happens all the time- Love will never do what you want it to. Why can't this crazy love be mine?"

(wrong thread)

As it turns out, I was just thinking of a movie, and I don't think we've done it yet. (At least not recently if we have.) "We'll be staying with Uncle Abram!!!!!!!" "'We'll be staying with Uncle Abram', 'We'll be staying with Uncle Abram', the whole world has to know our business!!!!"

For those arriving late, I shall enable the Help files for this one. Mike will consider ANY discussion to the errors in his doctrine to be attempts to "force" him to change, or being like lcm. Mike will refuse to even seriously consider the possibility his doctrine is wrong and nearly everyone else is right, period. Mike thinks that-since we don't embrace Mikean doctrine- that we all need his help, and that any discussionof the flaws in the Mikean doctrine are "bullying". Mike has indeed "DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO" the Mikean doctrine. Mike will make ANY sacrifice for his Mikean doctrine. When the insides of the books ARE the details of all that went wrong, Mike will then desperately "dodge" and "distract" and "never admit an error is an error." (Those are DIRECT QUOTES from Mike, BTW. He's since regretted admitting that he uses these strategies. He hasn't regretted USING them, however. And if someone else OPINION disagrees with Mike's OPINION, Mike has a problem with that.If someone else introduces FACTS that disagree with Mike's OPINION, Mike has a BIG problem with that, thus "dodge" and "distract". For those who arrived late, Mike's not the usual poster. On vpw, Mike's said he "had an overabundance of brains and brawn", was "OVERgifted" and "when he walked, the earth shook." On the Orange Book, Mike's said that "when Jesus returns, he will be holding a copy of the Orange Book and be teaching you from it." For those of you who, like myself, think he HAD to be joking and making a joke on himself, he said he was "Quite serious. I've seen him this way more than once." There's other quotes, but basically, he considers the modern Bibles to be devoid of any usefulness, and devoid of Godly authority. For nearly 2000 years, there was no book with any real Godly authority. Then, in 1942 and the years following, God-who bypassed centuries of Godly men-selects vpw as THE man to send forth His message to the people, writing the greatest Godly documents for nearly 2000 years. Oh, and Mike, please remember that I could make a MUCH more emphatic "case", but I'm taking it easy on you in this post. Gee, Mike's misinterpreted something he's read. Who would have guessed? Mike, if you agree to answer plainly the questions by-and communicate directly and clearly with this poster with whom I have no communication and know nothing about, I will cooperate by staying out of the discussion entirely for at least a week, longer if it seems profitable for the discussion for me to do so.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...160&hl=card The wonderful blessing in our lives known as Pawtucket..... Paw has provided a place for us to speak the truth and hear the truth. Paw allows us the freedom to heal at our own pace and in our own words, even when it means we squabble, yell, throw things and smack each other. (Within a few distant limits.) This places a greater burden on Paw, since he must occasionally pull apart kids who want "a good fistfight", and let things sort themselves out or eventually step in once there's a loud brawl going on. This is generally a thankless job, and Paw keeps on with it without uttering a peep of complaint, and shoulders the great FINANCIAL burden of the bandwidth and so on without being pushy and asking for a reasonable set of donations, let alone a stipend for the "work" he does maintaining things here. So, this one goes out to Paw. Paw, I thank my God on every remembrance of you.

A salesman was interviewed sometime after the Heaven's Gate cult all committed mass suicide. He said they had bought a high-power telescope from his store, and then brought it back for a refund. They complained it wasn't powerful enough to show the spaceship following the comment. He just processed the refund and let it go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult) "Heaven's Gate was the name of an American religious group led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The group's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced thirty-eight followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_religion "Members reportedly believed themselves to be aliens, awaiting a spaceship that would arrive with Comet Hale-Bopp. The suicide was undertaken in the apparent belief that their souls would be transported onto the spaceship, which they thought was hiding behind the comet. They underwent elaborate preparations for their trip, including purchasing and then actually wearing matching shoes; for a time, group members lived in a darkened house where they would simulate the experience they expected to have during their long journey in outer space. Heaven's Gate surfaced again in 2006 with another group of converts entitled "Heaven's Gate: The New Generation".

"Darling, you've got to let me know"

Ah, 80s rock! This is Billy Idol's "REBEL YELL." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_yell

Any chance this Doctor is Doctor Doolittle?

A) We can't have WTH actually admitting to a mistake, can we? It has to have been an INTENTIONAL error.... B) I saw it in the other post. However, if I responded to every single instance of something wrong, WTH would be furious and insist I was picking on him. Instead, I use most of my time more productively. (I let it slide, and that's no exagerration and no lie. I'm sure WTH will claim I didn't see the first one, but if so, he will be mistaken.) When he decided to make a significantly-lengthed post on it-especially one that included misinformation- I made a note to respond to it as soon as was convenient. (I didn't drop everything and respond.) So, all of WTH's speculation as to why I responded to a post several paragraphs long, when I left alone one that was 2 sentences long, was all incorrect. If he'd used Occam's Razor (and used it CORRECTLY), his first guess would probably have been the correct one. Sadly, he's still trying to make the case that pfal was correct in using a word incorrectly, and willing to torture the English language and make elaborate, empty, circumlocuitous posts to do so. He's certainly free to do so. He's also free to think he's actually fooling someone. And to think he'll get some sort of "atta boy" for doing so. Technically, he'll get the last, but from other posters who do the same, not from the only one whose opinion truly counts.//

FOR SHAME! HOW DARE THE ADVOCATES OF FAITHFULNESS TO THE WRITTEN WORD OF VPW SO DISTORT WHAT HE WROTE! Here is what pg-65 and 66 say in the Orange Book: "Every time 'all' appears, one must ask himself what the word 'all' means, because in the Bible the word 'all' is used in one of two ways: it is either all without exception or all without distinction." [italics courtesy of vpw!] "All without distinction means everyone in a certain designated class or group. If one wrongly considers the word 'all', he will never rightly understand the Word of God or get its full impact. John 12:32 And I {Jesus}, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Is that all without exception or is it all without distinction? The answer is obvious. We know that not everybody in our community is a Christian; therefore not all without exception have been drawn to Him. All who have believed, all without distinction, are the ones who have been drawn." Mind you, the double-bind is that vpw was WRONG in his explanation. We know that because he gives the OPPOSITE explanation in a different book. If one were to actually think that vpw's books are God-breathed, one would be in a terrible bind here, since vpw claims God-breathed works are inerrant, are free of error, and there is a mathematical contradiction between two of his books. This means it is impossible for both statements to be correct-since they are mutually exclusive. However, right now we're discussing what he actually SAID in the Orange Book, which was incorrectly quoted. This is a prime example where SOME of us add additional meanings to what we read. What the Orange Book says is NOT "Now that's what you're going to say...." It says at the bottom of pg-90 and into pg-91: "When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand the Word of God? People are constantly reading into it. Our minds project rather than read. It is basic that we read what is written. II Timothy 3:17 does not say 'thoroughly', it says 'throughly'. You may ask, 'What is the difference?' You see, I can wash hands thoroughly, but I cannot wash my hands throughly." There's nothing of him saying "Now that's what you're going to say" or "people still think these words mean the same thing today." Someone can think he wrote that, but that is a failure to read what is written. When we do not read what is written, how can we expect to understand it? Adding words, changing words is not reading what is written-it is what vpw called 'private interpretation.' Finally, let's address this unsupported assertion: "Perhaps they do [mean the exact same thing] in our modern-day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God." I'm glad we all agree that the modern words "thoroughly" and "throughly" mean the same thing, which pretty well eliminated the claim in the first place. However, someone's rather insistent on trying to find excuse after excuse not to learn better after reading an error. So, I'll go the extra mile (or at least a few meters.) Is there some sort of special meaning of "throughly" in the Word of God, such that it means an internal, an "inside job"? It's the Greek word "exartizo". Exartizo, when used IN the Word of God, carries the following meanings, in the following passages... (And these are ALL the other passages it's used in....) II Timothy 3:17 (the passage under discussion) KJV 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. NASB 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Acts 21:5 KJV 5And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed. NASB 5When our days there were ended, we left and started on our journey, while they all, with wives and children, escorted us until we were out of the city After kneeling down on the beach and praying, we said farewell to one another. Bullinger said, of II Timothy III:17, that it means "to fit out or equip fully, to be put in perfect readiness for, complete." (Definition of "furnish" pg-313, Greek Lexicon.) So, there is NOTHING in God's Word, concerning the word "exartizo", that either states, suggests, or implies that it is an INTERNAL or INSIDE JOB. (How did the disciples complete an INSIDE JOB on the calendar before leaving that city? Please spare me the wild rewriting of the English language or the sophistry it would take to change the meaning....) === In short, this post managed to misrepresent what the Bible said, while misrepresenting what vpw said AT THE SAME TIME. Quite a remarkable accomplishment....

He LEFT, reason unstated. The Greek word for what he did is "apostanta", from the same root word as "apostasia." Now, all ex-twi who believe in a "Gathering Together" before the Last Days, the Wrath, etc. should be able to tell you that they believe "apostasia" should properly be translated "departure." The word ITSELF literally means "moving away from" (stasia is movement, apo is the away from part.) Therefore, he LEFT. Rendering LEAVING as "DESERTION" or "QUITTING" is to add meaning and connotation that are not in the word "LEFT". This is what vpw referred to as "private interpretation."

I'm no expert, but there's 3 types of things you mentioned. A) things to numb the pain B) things to kill germs/infection C) things that do neither Please note the following on honey, pulled off the top of its wikipedia page: "Most micro-organisms do not grow in honey because of its low water activity of 0.6.[4] However, it is important to note that honey frequently contains dormant endospores of the bacteria Clostridium botulinum, which can be dangerous to infants as the endospores can transform into toxin-producing bacteria in the infant's immature intestinal tract, leading to illness and even death[5] (See "Precautions" below)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey There's interesting information under "modern use of honey" and "precautions". AFAIK, things to kill germs/infection, useful as they are, don't address the pain itself. So the amoxicillin (penicillin) you took was important, but didn't stop the immediate pain. Tylenol 3 is a stronger version of over-the-counter Tylenol. Mixing that with a DIFFERENT pain reliever worked for you, but I don't know if a doctor would have recommended mixing them like that. (At that moment, I'm sure you didn't care, though.) Vinegar/salt water would have been attempts to kill germs, hyodrogen peroxide, too. The Aleve/ibuprofen/acetominophen are the most directly effective things you took. Exedrin is an aspirin, but that's not so effective against pain that's not directly to the head, from my own experience. (I didn't try anything else until aspirin was ineffective against the pain of an injury.) Anbesol is a topical pain reliever. I'm a little surprised it was useless, but apparently it's not meant for pain as large as you were having. The alcohol-drinking falls in the "pain reliever" category, but only until you sober up. Mixing it with even over-the-counter drugs is NOT recommended. Although, I THINK, penicillin products are OK to drink with.

Here's what I do. If I only know part of the lyrics, I Google those in quotes, with the word "lyrics". In this case, that would have been "lyrics" "you can talk to me" If I know the artist, I add the artist's name, like "lyrics" "beatles" "you can talk to me". If I know the title and part of the song, but not the artist, I put that... "lyrics" "beatles" "you can talk to me." If I know the title and artist: "lyrics" "beatles" "hey bulldog" Please note that doing that to get an answer for this thread is cheating. If I'm posting the song, however, I should look it up so I know I'm putting the right words up. I should also check if more than one artist did the song. For example, when I posted the Smiths' "How Soon is Now?", someone posted the artist as "Everclear." I checked. Sure enough, Everclear did a cover of the EXACT same song. So, their answer was correct. If you go to YouTube, and put the title and artist's names in quotes, you often can find the song. Even if the artist never made a video of it, sometimes a fan has done so, using footage of the artist, or related footage, or something. I've found a number of songs like that. It's an easy way to pass along a song to someone-by passing along the link. Please note 2 things: A) NEARLY every song I've ever heard can be found this way. I know of songs that can't be found like this. I'd say 99% of all songs I've ever heard can be found this way. B) Just because a set of lyrics is posted doesn't mean every word is CORRECT. When I'm unsure, I check a few results, and note the differences. (And some pages copy the WRONG lyrics from other pages.) Every once in a while, I look for the lyrics to the old cartoon show "the Groovy Ghoulies." So far, I've never found a single hit that has the CORRECT lyrics.