WordWolf

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.

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.)

Ok,

so all of us who WISH to understand plagiarism- and not just excuse the plagiarist-

can easily understand what plagiarism is and how it works, and why it's wrong.

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.

Requoting from the previous post,

"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."

==========

Greasespotters should have had little excuse on this subject,

since it was addressed back in 2002.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm

"First, let’s define our terms and look at some examples of what is and what is not plagiarism.

To plagiarize, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is to take and use (the thoughts, writings … of another person) as one’s own. It’s a fairly straightforward definition, and it’s usually easy to detect. Sometimes, like the word “obscenity,” it’s not easy to define an actual infraction.

Quoting from a published work without identifying it as a quote or giving credit to the source of the quote is plagiarism.

Taking a previously published paragraph and changing a few words but retaining the basic structure and meaning of the original paragraph, without crediting the source, is plagiarism.

Copying the structure of a book, using the same references in the same order, but changing a few sentences to account for theological differences, without crediting the source, is plagiarism."

"Plagiarism is lying. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of trust in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is not unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says “by Rafael Olmeda,” to expect that Rafael Olmeda wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says “by Victor Paul Wierwille,” to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it.

Plagiarism is stealing. In a world where books are published and sold, publishing someone else’s work steals revenue that should have gone to the original writer (or, more accurately, the holder of the original copyright)."

"

Victor Paul Wierwille used other people’s work to prop up his own research ability, his own wisdom and understanding of God’s Word. He used other people’s work to exalt himself as The Teacher, the Man of God, our father in the Word. He did so knowing that the words “by Victor Paul Wierwille” were a lie."

"So what?

That’s an important question. So what? Does it really matter that Wierwille plagiarized? Isn’t it more important in the grand scheme of things that more people have a better understanding of God’s Word as a result of Wierwille’s work?

Yes, it is more important that people learn about God. Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth.

But plagiarism matters. Plagiarism may not reflect on the accuracy of the information that’s stolen, but it does reflect on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers (by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction).

Receiving the Holy Spirit Today should not be dismissed just because it was the result of plagiarism. There may be other reasons to dismiss it, according to some. But plagiarism is not a valid reason to dismiss the contents.

Plagiarism does hurt people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not “puff itself up.” But what is plagiarism if it’s not pretending to do something you did not do?

We don’t accept it from high school students. We don’t accept it from college students. We don’t accept it from news reporters, from columnists, from authors. We don’t accept it from historians and researchers. Those are “the world’s” professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God?"

I wanted to quote that, because a number of important issues have already been addressed-

and it seems de rigeur to pretend they have NOT been addressed.

Since there are a number of opinions in play here concerning plagiarism-

and many of them are disseminating incorrect information concerning plagiarism-

it seemed like a good idea to go over what everyone in the US who've never

heard of vpw, pfal or twi say on plagiarism and the related subjects.

First,

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."

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."

=======

In short,

plagiarism is bad, very bad.

It is a crime, and it is morally wrong, and it is easily avoided.

It is also not a difficult concept to grasp.

Unless one is trying hard to excuse it.

VP "wrote" 3 kinds of books.

+ plagiarized (stolen) material-- examples are given above in my earlier post; LOTS of it

+ chapters ghost written by other people for VP (which means he didn't write it himself)- like Chap 1 of JCNG, JCOP, etc. The intro of JCNG actually mentions the author of Chap 1, which was a real shock, because VP didn't like to credit others

+ stuff he made up on the fly. Most of the peripherals, magazine articles, plus much of JCNG were VP speaking off the cuff and people transcribing it for him. Really shallow stuff. For example, JCNG started as a tape (I think #295 or 299). If you listen to the tape, it's obvious he didn't put any research into it and was talking off the top of his head. If you read JCNG closely, it's also clear there (at least if you have any background in reading competent theological books) that it's really shallow and slipshod. There are very important passages that he sloughs off with just a couple of sentences. But listening to the tape is a real eye-opener. The tone of voice, the content, and everything are like a grade school kid telling his mom what he saw in the back yard that day, which is transcribed and passed off as a biology text. The shallowness on such a serious topic is disgusting. It's easy to produce voluminous "books" if you teach or preach a few times a week (as most pastors do) and have somebody to transcribe your teachings, preachings and/or ramblings.

Almost nothing is footnoted, except for some of the stuff other people wrote for him. The stuff VP babbled and plagiarized (which is most of it) has almost zero footnotes.

On another topic- it's true that VP got eye cancer first, and it spread to the liver. The death certificate can be found at www.abouttheway.org (it used to be www.abouttheway.com ) A friend of VP signed the certificate. While that may call into question its veracity, I would assume it is accurate nonetheless. In PFAL VP said that illness is caused by one's own negative believing. If VP's teaching on negative believing is true, then VP himself was a very negative believer and caused his own illness and death. I would have liked to see TWI be honest and either publically say that VP caused his own death (as VP said a mother caused the death of her child by being worried that he would have an accident), or else reject VP's teaching on this. But public honesty and transparency was never a habit of the upper levels of TWI.

johnj, you've put your finger on the source of much Way theology. VPW must have come to believe that his random musings were somehow imbued with an element of ex cathedra.

He'd come up with a thing, apparently off the cuff, then later assert that the Bible must support it. After that he'd entertain no word to the contrary, shouting down any thought that contradicted, much like he did in support of Martindale's ridiculous Athletes theology.

You're not reading the death certificate correctly, WordWolf. It cites "Metastatic Melanoma of the Liver" as the cause of death. To the right of that, it indicates that the liver cancer was diagnosed about 1 month prior to death. On the next line, it cites the ocular melanoma, and to the right of that indicates that it was diagnosed about 18 months prior to death.

*studies*

Ok, the writing is faint, but that's what it says, all right.

So, the likelihood is that what was diagnosed first is what was acquired first.

(It is possible his liver's warning signs went ignored until later.

I'll need to review the turnaround time for liver cancer- if it's very short,

then the eye is proven to have become cancerous first.)

I can easily find sources saying that alcohol is a risk factor for liver cancer, which is what killed him,

I think we all agree. (Seems to be what the Death Certificate says...)

So, the only things we're disagreeing on are:

A) whether the smoking increased his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically

B) whether the studio lights increads his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically, or just hurt a lot

It's on the death certificate.

My copy of the death certificate has no mention of the cancer starting in the eye and proceeding

to the liver, or vice versa-only that it was present in both places and was the cause of death.

So, I'm STILL taking Linda at her word that it did not start in the liver.

I suggest that you Google ocular melanoma risk factors. You won't find smoking or drinking listed. You will find fair hair, fair skin, occupational UV light exposure, and having had several eye burns.

I did a quick check.

Occupational UV light exposure is irrelevant to the discussion, since nobody's established that

vpw was ever exposed to UV lights. Oddly, I DID see one study that said that they didn't

find that normal outdoor exposure to sunlight increased the risk, which I would have expected.

(UV light is UV light.)

"Several" eye burns was also mentioned, but I'd need someone confirming "yes, when I said

'several eye burns', that could include bright studio lights."

As for smoking, I expect it's thought of as in the "no duh" category.

One quick search showed that cigarettes (with their lesser tobacco than cigars) are plenty

carcinogenic themselves:

"Tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens, including a number of known organ specific carcinogens, and compounds which assist with the formation of carcinogens within the body. Carcinogens and carcinogenic metabolites are carried through the body in the bloodstream, following absorption through the lungs. Smoking also affects metabolism and enzyme activity, which may affect carcinogenesis."

So, tobacco giving you cancer of the ANYTHING doesn't sound unusual to me.

It's most commonly connected with cancers connected to the respiratory system

(and cigars with cancers of the lip or jaw), but it's been connected to plenty of other

cancers: bladder, kidney, stomach, uterine cervix, vulvar, penis, anus, and pancreas.

Cigarette smoke itself damages the eye directly:

" Chemicals in tobacco cause damage to the macula (the most sensitive part of the retina, the back of the eye."

That's all off http://mens-health.health-cares.net/smoking-cancers.php

Another site with a laundry-list of how smoking damages the eye is

http://www.bouldereyesurgeons.com/redeyes5.htm

Alcohol is already known to be a risk factor for cancer of the liver.

BTW, there's some disagreement whether the UV occupational exposure really is

a risk factor or not- experts seem to not all be in agreement.

I think I may want to put the question directly to an organization or two, asking them to

spell out if tobacco is considered a risk for ocular cancer like it is cancer of so many other

organs.

Now, I'm curious, though.

What is the proof the cancer started in the EYE and spread to the LIVER?

Now that I've done some reading, it seems more common to start in the LIVER

and spread to the EYE than vice versa.

*lightbulb*

No, it's when they encountered some Borg sometime later,

and Seven of Nine went on the Away Mission, and found out the Borg Queen

wanted to assimilate her, but not as a drone.

This was a 2-parter.

We also saw flashbacks to her childhood aboard the SS Raven,

where her mentally-unstable dad was actively searching for borg,

even over refueling.

Which makes this "Dark Frontier."

VPW had ocular melanoma, which frequently metastasizes to the liver and, when it does, often causes death. It didn't start in his liver and spread to his eye, but vice versa. This is significant, because different types of cancers have different, specific secondary sites they spread to.

I'll take your word for it concerning where it started and where it spread.

A major risk factor for ocular (uveal) melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet light. I read one study in which welders, for example, were found to have a high rate of this particular cancer.

David Anderson, who is far, far from a VPW apologist, was involved in the filming of PFAL and attests to the fact that VPW's eyes were severely burned during the filming by the bright lights used on the set. People with blue eyes and fair hair, such as VPW, are also more vulnterable to ocular cancer.

Correlation does not equal causation.

We know he exposed himself to bright lights over a 2-week period,

that he smoked and drank a lot over a few decades,

and that he went to the bathroom on a regular basis.

We know he later got cancer and died.

Some, all, or none of those may relate to the cancer.

We can eliminate going to the bathroom as a cause, since it's not known to be one. (No pun intended.)

We can NOT eliminate over 20 years of smoking, since it's a known carcinogen.

As for vpw being genetically predisposed to ocular cancer if exposed to ultraviolet light,

I'll say "maybe". For the sake of the discussion, I'll even go with "sure".

That is not synonymous with saying "bright studio lights for 2 weeks in the early 70s is a

possible or even likely source of cancer a decade later."

If his eyes were THAT sensitive, they would have been endangered as much by the bright

sunlight on the farm. (I, personally, wore anti-UV sunglasses during the day out there.

Even on overcast days.)

He was exposed to bright studio lights for a period of 2 weeks.

If you have any studies suggesting bright studio lights are a cancer risk, please share.

I'm not aware of them giving off significant amounts of UV light unless your studio is

doubling as a tanning salon and uses UV bulbs (which are LESS bright in the visible

spectrum and are unsuitable for filming.)

I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that he hurt his eyes from bright studio lights.

I do NOT find it reasonable to believe that the same incident gave him cancer from

studio lights. Again, if you've got some hard science, please present it.

So,

perhaps he was vulnerable to eye problems in general regardless, due to a genetic

predisposition. Perhaps he might even gotten eye cancer and died before now even

if he'd lived an ascetic life as a farmer who never smoked or drank. Cancer doesn't

follow a neat formula.

However,

I stand behind my statement that he placed himself at needless risk for cancer by

exposing his immune system to large amounts of alcohol over a long period of time,

and to constant amounts of a KNOWN cancer-causing agent over a long period of time.

Would smoking cigars and cigarettes lead to an eye-cancer?

Sure. The tissues of the eye are pretty porous to substances in the air.

Continual exposure to particles WILL affect them.

And if his eyes were VULNERABLE, as you say, then they might get cancer from

exposure faster than the more usual targets of the lungs, larynx, and so on.

Someone without that vulnerability might have gotten cancer a bit later,

and had throat surgery or something.

So,

I consider eye injuries during pfal to be indicative of eyes vulnerable to damage,

not the moment they were exposed to a cancer-causing agent.

(Unless someone can find me where studio lights kill people-

and LOTS of people get LOTS of studio light time. There should be a body count

from these things in Hollywood.)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with defending VPW and everything to do with keeping the facts straight.

And I'm equally concerned with trying to keep the facts straight, but we seem

to be interpreting them differently.

WordWolf:

Guess he should have heeded some of his own speeches to the corps about

self-control, moderation or temperance. If he had, he would have taken in

far less tobacco and alcohol than he did,

which would have meant he wouldn't have caught cancer-

at least as young as he did-

and he might have lived to 90.

He was rather big on "do as I say and not as I do",

and was brilliant at manipulating his PUBLIC image.

That's why so many people who never interacted with him daily

remember him as FAR more dignified, far more temperate,

far less of an abuser of people, than others remember him-

those who DID spend time with him.

LG:

You've no grounds for that conclusion. You're applying the wrong risk factors to the wrong cancer.

I have strong grounds for that conclusion.

Do you really need documentation that alcohol use, in large amounts over

long periods of time, damages the liver and the body's filtration systems,

leaving it vulnerable to illness?

I thought that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by now.

Let me know if you need documentation.

Do you really need documentation that tobacco use, in large amounts over

long periods of time, exposes the body to cancer-causing agents (carcinogens)

and risks giving the user cancer?

The American Cancer Society issued warnings of this in the 1940s,

and hasn't stopped since!

I thought that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by now.

Let me know if you need documentation.

Do you need documentation that vpw drank large amounts of alcohol and

smoked large amounts of tobacco? All the people who worked with him

personally have testified to it. He held morning meetings with a "coffee mug"

with alcohol in it, and privately had a cigar or cigarette in his hand all the

time (basically, whenever that hand didn't hold a drink.)

Why do you think he ALWAYS had those breath-mints around?

It wasn't to cover eating 3-day-old burritos...

I thought that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by now,

and the documentation is all over these forums.

So, he weakened his liver and immune systems,

then exposed his body to cancer-causing tobacco.

And he got cancer of the liver.

You don't see this as logically proceeding one from the other?

Granted, I can't absolutely guarantee that the smoking and drinking

caused the tobacco, and weakened his body so it would have the

full damage it did. However, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, this is

the EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE of taking actions known to have

those results.

So, it is MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE that something else caused the

cancer. However, the logical conclusion of his stated actions was to

get cancer. He got cancer. The overwhelming likelihood is that he

got the cancer BECAUSE he did the things that GIVE you cancer.

This is not necessarily true of all people who get cancer.

However, you can DECREASE the odds of getting cancer by not doing

the things known to CAUSE cancer.

Don't want skin cancer? Don't tan in the sun.

And so on.

The man increased his odds to get cancer dramatically, and multiplied

it by weaking his immune system. If you consider it insufficient to say

that he set himself on a course TO get cancer, that's up to you, but

few educated adults who aren't trying to defend vpw would agree with

you. (Unless they work for a tobacco company.)

Personally, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. There are times, I must admit, when I stand in absolute and utter amazement at what he has written to us and for us in book and magazine form. It truly is the accuracy of God's Word.

It was all photocopied from the works of others.

Are you in awe of his xerox machine?

He warmed himself at a fire he did not burn,

and sold a product-taking credit for it- that he stole from others.

Yesterday was his birthday. Were he still living he would be 90 years old. Quess Uncle Harry was right. Life, even at the longest, is short.

self-control, moderation or temperance. If he had, he would have taken in

far less tobacco and alcohol than he did,

which would have meant he wouldn't have caught cancer-

at least as young as he did-

and he might have lived to 90.

He was rather big on "do as I say and not as I do",

and was brilliant at manipulating his PUBLIC image.

That's why so many people who never interacted with him daily

remember him as FAR more dignified, far more temperate,

far less of an abuser of people, than others remember him-

those who DID spend time with him.

Last evening, as I was grilling a steak and nursing a soda pop, I reflected on his life and mine. Thought about how thankful I am to once again be working the Truth of God's Word into my heart and life.

Is Jesus Christ God? Of course not!

Feel free to be thankful to be working God's Word.

And remember that God Almighty is greater than any book containing His Words,

and greater than any person, class, book, or recording medium used to teach it.

You also might want to check and see if people knew things you didn't.

Even lcm's own reports of vpw reveal him as abusive of others.

When it comes to VPW and plagiarism, it is easier to list what VP did not steal than what he did. The monograph by Juedes and Valusek "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?" quotes several examples of plagiarim, with the original author in 1 column and VP in the column next to it. Here are examples in addition to Stiles and RTHST:

+ EW Kenyon, the Father and His Family --- VP How to Be a Christian (New Dynamic Church)

+ EW Bullinger, Selected Writings , How to Enjoy the Buble --- VP, Are the Dead Alive Now

+ Bullinger, The Knowledge of God --- VP, The Counsel of the Lord (The Bible Tells Me So)

+ Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible --- VP, Rediscovering Figures of Speech (The Way Mag 1984)

+ Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible --- VP, Search the Scriptures (TWM 1984)

+ Bullinger, The Church Epistles --- VP, God's Magnified Word

+ Bullinger, The Giver and His Gifts --- VP, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from books like

""The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and

"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?",

complete with the question format.

In the case of RTHST, almost the whole book was stolen from Stiles and Bullinger. Juedes also wrote a parallel column comparison showing which chapters were stolen from which authors. RTHST "grew" as he found more authors to steal from, which is obvious if you compare early editions of RTSHT.

It's also clear VP plagiarized from the very beginning (1953 at least) to the very end of his life (1984), a life long lie.

Plagiarism isn't just "learning" from people. It's quoting or paraphrasing them in a book or article without citing the source. The lie is that people think you're an originator instead of a copier. He would have been fired from an faculty; instead he's admired and nearly worshiped by many.

Those of you who haven't read it recently should read this now...

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm

It should help those of you who actually care whether or not you're telling the truth

(which is not everyone, but is many people) what plagiarism IS and IS NOT.

Didn't Austin Powers use "judo chops" as well?

George

Honestly couldn't tell you, but someone else may know the answer.

Is that from the Schizoid Man?

=======

Oh, the 47s.

It started with a joke in college. One teacher claimed all numbers can eventually be

proven to equal 47. So there's a running gag at the college about it appearing everywhere.

Then one person who was in on the joke began dropping the 47s into Star Trek, and other

writers have picked it up. So, 47s appear every time a random number shows up in a

story. That's not the original series or the cartoons, but all the series from ST:TNG onward.

Here's some examples:

Rule of Acquisition 47: Never trust a man in a better suit than you.

Crew complement of a Defiant class vessel: 47.

Crusing speed of a Danube-class runabout: Warp 4.7

Captain's Eyes Only Secure Code: Code 47.

My favourite usage was when Sisko was wrongly anticipated to go meet Cassidy Yates.

He said he was going to Deck "Four?" "Seven."

Whenever there's a rescue operation, or emergency, you'll find 47 people in danger,

or 47 people recovered, or 47 still unaccounted for, or something along those lines.

Some of them are pretty well-hidden. The one I mentioned above was an example

of one of the really, really well-hidden ones.

Sometimes 2 numbers are mentioned, and the difference between them is 47 or

something like that. Or a run of 46 previous of something is mentioned, which makes

the current one we're watching the 47th.

Well, I'm waiting.

We have here a thread which is not dedicated to just insults or badmouthing.

It has provided entertainment, demonstrations, and Scripture.

It's also had a direct indictment of "personal prophecy" as claimed by

CES/STFI.

I'm still waiting.

Can anyone from CES/STFI offer a reasonable response DEFENDING this

so-called "personal prophecy" CES/STFI practices?

From what we've seen, it's easy to fake, and blatantly counter-Scriptural.

Can someone offer even a reasonable ATTEMPT to demonstrate otherwise?

I'd like to hear the other side of the story if there IS an other side.

As it stands, it looks like the answers here are the truth and CES/STFI

is hiding and hoping the answers will be silenced, and people won't read

them, or will forget them.

Is there any kind of answer to the charges in this thread?

An answer with more substance than "buy the book", "hear the tape"

or "don't read this thread"?

C'mon, ONE of you has got to know something...

I think that PM's should stay that way. I would only get involved if they get nasty or threatening.

I have the PM's for people to contact other posters without giving an email address, it gives an extra layer of anonymity. I have turned off the PM function if I feel it is being abused

I don't have any hard and fast rule. As an example, yesterday (which is what I am sure instigated this thread) i got a number of reports of abuse and threats in the PM's. I sent an email to the party originating the PM's and let her know that she no longer could use our PM system.

I suggest that if you have an extensive private exchange going and you trust the other individual, then take it up a level to emails back and forth

The PM system is not a substitute for email. It is a convenient communication tool within this forum.

If you need to have rules for PM, I would apply the rules of the forum.

This is pretty much how pm's are handled on boards all over cyberspace.

Almost all the pm's I ever received ANYWHERE have been nice notes, or at least neutral.

Very rarely-and to my recollection, not yet at the GSC- do I get an impolite one.

I reserve the right to alert a moderator and block someone from sending me pm's

at any moment, if I feel such a response is warranted.

I'd say less than 1/10 of 1% of all the pm's I ever received were ever considered

for such responses.

And my usual alerts to moderators, regardless of boards, tend to say something like

"please remind them how we handle disagreements on this board."

And usually if I complain about pm's, I get a note back from a moderator saying that

the SAME PERSON has been sending pm's that generated complaints to OTHER POSTERS.

Few people just single me out to make rude or offensive pm's.

The third quote makes me think it's a DS9 episode where all the main actors portray writers for a newspaper or magazine, circa 1955. Avery Brooks was a (black, obviously) writer trying to sell stories about a space station in the future commanded by a black man. Armin Shimmerman was the editor, I believe. It had one of those endings where you're left to decide if DS9 was the invention of this 50's writer, or if the 50's writer was a dream of Sisko's.

George

CORRECT!

It's the episode "Far Beyond the Stars."

Grandpa Joe Sisko played the minister on the corner, who quoted Scripture at least once.

In this case, II Timothy 4:7.

(Another example of the "47s" in Star Trek.)

Miles O'Brien played a writer who liked to write robot/technology stories.

Jake Sisko got to say the only usage of the word "nigger" in Star Trek to date.

(At least to that date.)

"Don't worry. I added king-size flippers.

Now it can carry a heavy load....

Even a FAT one!"

This was after Fred's initial tests of the Barneycopter showed he couldn't get lift, and he went

over a cliff, ignoring Barney.

"I love my dear sweet mother in-law. My mother in-law is a doll.

I love my dear sweet mother in-law. My mother in-law is a doll.

I love my dear sweet mother in-law. My mother in-law is a doll."

"Are you feeling alright, mister?"

"Huh? Yeah. Yeah, I'm okay."

"Good. Good. You just stay in here and rest. That hot sun out there is a killer."

"Poor guy, he must have been standing in it for hours."

Fred was trying to talk himself into liking his mother-in-law.

"Scoodly-wah-wah-wah!

Contact!"

Hot Lips Hannigan was in town, the old beatnik musician who was old friends with Fred.

"Whale on the beach! Whale on the beach! "

Fred took a swing at Barney and fell to the ground.

"It says here to fold in one egg.

*splat*

And I say it can't be done!"

"What do we need 2 tons of parsley for?"

"Don't you know anything?

You put a little on each customer's plate, so's the customer can t'row it away!"

Both of these are from when Fred and Barney tried to run the

Brown Turban (like the Brown Derby in Hollywood) Drive-In.

"Judo chops."

They were playing secret agent, and escaped by using judo chops on all the mooks.

AFAIK, this is the only place you'll ever hear judo chops mentioned.

That's because "ju-do" (translation:"the gentle way") has no punches, kicks OR chops,

and consists entirely of grapples, grabs, holds and throws.

So, every time they used a "judo chop", it was just another piece of fiction in

a fictional cartoon. ("A' judo, chop-chop-chop." )

sounds like The Flintstones to me

CORRECT!

"I have fought the good fight. I have finished the course. I have kept the faith."

"I like robots."

"Well I got news for you... today or a hundred years from now don't make a bit of difference – as far as they're concerned, we'll always be niggers."

"Don't worry. I added king-size flippers.

Now it can carry a heavy load....

Even a FAT one!"

"I love my dear sweet mother in-law. My mother in-law is a doll.

I love my dear sweet mother in-law. My mother in-law is a doll.

I love my dear sweet mother in-law. My mother in-law is a doll."

"Are you feeling alright, mister?"

"Huh? Yeah. Yeah, I'm okay."

"Good. Good. You just stay in here and rest. That hot sun out there is a killer."

"Poor guy, he must have been standing in it for hours."

"Scoodly-wah-wah-wah!

Contact!"

"Whale on the beach! Whale on the beach! "

"It says here to fold in one egg.

*splat*

And I say it can't be done!"

"What do we need 2 tons of parsley for?"

"Don't you know anything?

You put a little on each customer's plate, so's the customer can t'row it away!"

"Judo chops."

"The Word of God works with a mathematical exactness...?"

Why did it never occur to us that language is not exact? It is rich with nuances of meanings that are not always easily quantifiable.

Because if language can be treated as exact,

then we can plug in some formulas, and get

McBlessings in seconds.

That was one of the big draws of twi/pfal to a lot of people.

As someone else pointed out,

God gave a very simple standard-

and a very simple consequence-

for telling TRUE prophets and words from God,

from personal prophets and words from other-than-God.

Deuternomy 18:20-22.

(KJV)

" 20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

For those of you who missed it, here it is in the NASB.

" 20But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.

21You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'

22When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. "

This is very simple.

If a prophet speaks a prophecy, and ANY prophecy he speaks fails, he is a false prophet.

If 99.999% of his prophecies come true, and 1 in 100,000 fails, he is a false prophet.

What were they to do with false prophets?

They were to kill them a lot.

Thus, prophets whose prophecies "USUALLY" or "OFTEN" were accurate, but OCCASIONALLY

fail are false prophets and should be killed.

As we've all seen, even people trying to justify the utterances of the CES/STFI

"personal prophetess" have said she's not accurate 100% of the time,

which the Bible says makes her a FALSE prophet, and Israel was supposed

to kill those.

Fine, we don't kill them in the US. We don't even slap them in the face.

We can AT THE VERY LEAST follow GOD'S injunction and not respect them any more.

And I still want to know why their entire organization needs an anonymous outsider

like me to explain all this when they've had over a decade to work it out.

If I was a supporter of CES/STFI, I'd have some burning questions concerning

the management of the group, and just how well they really understand the Bible

if they could make mistakes of this magnitude.

Oh,

and someone wanted to know where to find "personal prophecy" in Scripture.

I direct you to "personal prophet" Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah.

He's in I Kings 22 and II Chronicles 18.

Here's the KJV on him in II Chronicles 18.

================

" 4And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day.

5Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand.

6But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?

7And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.

8And the king of Israel called for one of his officers, and said, Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imla.

9And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat either of them on his throne, clothed in their robes, and they sat in a void place at the entering in of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them.

10And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt push Syria until they be consumed.

11And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.

12And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their's, and speak thou good.

13And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak.

14And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand.

15And the king said to him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the LORD?

16Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace.

17And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil?

18Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

19And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

20Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?

21And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

22Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

23Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?

==============

Let's look it over.

" 4And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day.

5Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand.

6But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?"

Wow, 400 "personal prophets", and not one of the LORD among them.

"7And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. "

Ohh, what a bad boy that Michaiah is! He's always speaking all those negatives! He must

never have learned that Godly communications are REQUIRED to be all cheerful and light,

never saying anything bad, never warning about problems, never exposing evil,

and never confronting evil.

" 8And the king of Israel called for one of his officers, and said, Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imla.

9And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat either of them on his throne, clothed in their robes, and they sat in a void place at the entering in of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. "

Wow, they got the full act.

" 10And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt push Syria until they be consumed."

Zedekiah really knows how to wow an audience. He's got flair and drama in play

while he delivers his personal prophecy.

" 11And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.

12And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their's, and speak thou good.

13And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak."

That Micaiah is NOT a team player. He also doesn't know about tailoring his message

to the audience like the 400 other guys.

" 14And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand.

15And the king said to him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the LORD?

16Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace.

17And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil? "

Real prophets risk their lives giving messages they know the people won't want, and accept they

are set at naught and despised for it. REAL prophets don't get cushy jobs.

" 18Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

19And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

20Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?

21And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

22Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. "

So, we see there are 2 ways to be a personal prophet.

One is to speak words from one's own self and claim they are of God,

the other is to speak words from a lying spirit and claim they are of God.

" 23Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? "

That Zedekiah knows how to keep his stage-act up. Even exposed, he's trying to discredit a REAL

prophet and claim he HIMSELF speaks the truth.

========================