WordWolf

The gentleman is accusing Chris Geer of "piracy" - stealing - for which we have laws and a system for dealing with such crimes.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

"piracy:2 the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception,

especially in infringement of a copyright."

US law considers citing sources to be ALWAYS necessary in any usage of another's written works.

Therefore, all usages where one fails to cite sources-whether through ignorance or through intent

(whether you mean to, or are ignorant of the law is no excuse),

you are using sources in an unauthorized fashion.

cg's materials have always had a COPYRIGHT NOTICE on them- he's well aware of the basics of the law

concerning this, in case someone wants to claim this qualifies as news.

According to my collegiate dictionary (which is acceptable up through college, which is why it's a COLLEGIATE

dictionary and is only exceeded by an UNABRIDGED dictionary), the term "piracy" IS CORRECT in this usage.

Again, however, I don't see the reason for this obsession with ONE WORD Juedes used.

(vpw uses a lot of plagiarized words, that's fine,

cg uses a lot of plagiarized words, that's fine,

Juedes uses a noun in a fashion you don't like, that's cause for outrage.

THIS is considered healthy?)

It's not stealing or "piracy" if the person gives you something freely or you have rights to it. If what you said is the case, there was no crime of "piracy."

saying otherwise. I quoted a source-you're welcome to post a source rebutting it.

(As in, a lawyer saying "refusal to cite sources should never be considered 'piracy',

not a dictionary failing to include a definition, since inferior dictionaries will of course exclude definitions.)

Given the situation between Mr. Geer and TWI, it is reasonable that if Mr. Geer was making money with the intellectual property of TWI then TWI would sue or at least issue a cease-and-desist order.

There's where your supposition lies- that piracy/breaking the law REQUIRES "making money with the intellectual property

of twi."

cg is engaging in FRAUD and PLAGIARISM, but the only parties that could sue are:

-himself, holding part of the copyright

-twi, holding part of the copyright

-the public, holding the public domain rights on Bullinger's works.

- Leonard's copyright holders

He's not going to sue himself.

twi can sue him, but can't recover damages since he holds part of the copyright. Therefore, they can waste tens of thousands

or hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to pour them down a hole and never recover them. They're not THAT stupid.

They also don't care about what's right enough to spend lots of money with no hope of recovering it.

Now, the public could do so- but someone would have to be willing to sue on behalf of the public, and waste hundreds of thousands

of dollars to get him to stop using Bullinger's works without citing the sources.

Leonard elected to not sue vpw, and his copyright holders are unlikely to wrangle in court with similar results mentioned above.

Court is EXPENSIVE.

A court could not only award money the classes have made, but additional damages as well if there's a case.

They have not and I have seen no reasonable explanation why.

I've provided the answers now- but I did ALREADY and am repeating myself.

This puts a great big torpeda in Mr. Jeudes boat, in my view.

As for the rest, it is not up to me to coin phrases or expressions for someone elses posts.

You objected to his usage of a word-which, as I showed, is consistent with acceptable English as demonstrated

in a collegiate dictionary. (That's as authoritative as one can reasonably get in a living language.)

If you feel it's objectionable, feel free to provide a more appropriate-in your opinion- term.

Or, is this really about something other than proper English?

just a point of "accuracy" here..

:)

I think camels were an unclean animal, as far as their diet was concerned..

*checks*

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

Both gnats and camels seem to have been "treif" or non-kosher.

I was wondering if anyone out there had a copy of the PFAL test? Foundational, Intermediate, Advanced? Please let me know. Thanks.

You don't mean the Home Studies, do you?

You mean the written test to take the Advanced or something, right?

WW, let me clue you in on something which may or may not stop you from trying to educate me on the dynamics of boardieland.

I started out as a moderator of a religious/philosophy discussion board at which I eventually advanced to the position of an Administrator. From there I became the owner and administrator of not one -- but three separate discussion boards.

So please spare me (and save yourself some time) trying to educate me on board dynamics. It's a waste of bandwidth.

Well,

you WERE the one who raised the issue of "why has the initial poster stopped posting?"

I posted to address that.

You might have appreciated a refresher.

Especially since this board operates differently from every board I'VE admin'ed or mod'ed, which makes it likely you could say the same.

The "rules of engagement" are from a different "playbook."

It's not like I drafted a lengthy letter or anything.

You're welcome.

I was definitely released learning that we don't go to heaven right when we die. From the age of 12 I had contimplated suicide because why should we all be living down here in misery when we could be in heaven -- and then why did other's get to enjoy it longer? Thessalonians taught in the class made perfect sense to me -- as well as spiritual issues. I am happy I know what I know.

So am I.

If no sorrow was added to others while I was receiving benefits of knowledge, that would really have been noteworthy, at least to me.

Shame it didn't happen like that.

I don't have a TV, but was able to watch it thanks to David. I see it as the 3rd guy was imitating the sounds the DJ at the club he dreamed about was making and the ahhhh at the end meant he had a great date with Sunny.

By chance, I just caught the end of that commercial.

Yes, he was imitating the reverb and sound off the speakers at a club.

Basically, I would have to say that the thread was derailed by those who are still angry at VPW who is dead and gone.

[Actually, there's been posters on this thread- not any of the usual posters-

who saw the direct relevance of the turn of discussion into a direction not anticipated

in the initial post. They explained how they saw the connections. Perhaps there's a legitimate

way to see this as part of the same discussion-since they certainly saw it that way, and a number

of people have said they do, as well. Perhaps there's a legitimate point of view here that's

not Jonny Lingo-specific. Perhaps it's worth considering.]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. I liked many of the things I learned in PFAL. I believe many of those things to be true to this day.

(It's on page 2, if you're curious.)]

The Thread title asked; "What do I still believe?" And, I shared (typed) the things that are still a blessing to me. But, here comes those who are still angry at VP (for justified reasons-don't forget I said that-I do not deny them!), and derail the thread because they are still angry at a corpse who has gone the way of all flesh. He is dead. He **** e d up royally, hurting perhaps thousands, but, this thread is (or was) about "things in PFAL that we still believe".

[Discussions of reasons pfal doctrines and practices were DISCARDED ARE on-topic for this thread,

based on the initial question. That covers a lot of ground.]

Sorry folks, but it just gets under my skin that a thread can't stay on track without all of those still angry at Wierwille taking away any positive thing that a person may have experienced during those days...

[Then again, have you seen what it generally takes to have a serious thread critical

of vpw and pfal without posters trying to change the subject and negate the thread?

From your post, it would sound like there's one type of thread that never gets interrupted,

and a different type that always gets interrupted. Every substantial thread gets interrupted,

especially the opinionated ones. It's not just the threads YOU like.

Oh, and BTW, I once STARTED a thread specifically for the benefit of people who ONLY

wanted to talk about PRO-vpw and PRO-pfal matters, since some people were complaining

they couldn't get a break. It languished from disuse- and much of the use it did get

was COMPLAINTS from the pro-vpw and pro-pfal people, which struck me as a little odd.]

Sorry. I learned to read from a wicked 1st grade teacher. But, I am thankful that she taught me to read. And, I am still a voracious reader. Could I have learned from another teacher how to read? Shore! (sure!), But, I give the credit to Mrs. Storm for sending me off into the world of literature at an early age. And, that's the way I feel about VPW and my quest for biblical knowledge....

[Others feel differently, and think the comparison is not a fair one, and have explained why.

There is such a thing as "agreeing to disagree."]

Well now. If you don't like it when someone derails an already derailed thread, then don't derail it in the first place. For, it just makes you look stupid...

Are you planning on a new argument- who derailed the thread, when, and with what weapon?

I'm just curious-it looks like you are here, and I just wanted to know.

Goey!

I hope you're sticking around for some coffee and pie....

That is a reasonable possibility.

It fits with the facts I am aware of.

It also puts a great big torpeda in the side of JohnJ's boat where he claims "piracy."

If someone gives you something, it is hardly a case of theft.

I know you're really keen on his usage of the word "piracy"- which, apparently, is some sort of

controversial term for reasons I'm not aware of, but he's using it correctly in English.

cg has failed to cite his sources, which, as I've pointed out plenty of times, including in

this thread, is a legal requirement he is still bound by.

For him to fail to do so-and he most assuredly failed to do so- is both illegal

(even works in the public domain must be cited, if they are sources)

and unethical

(by appropriating the work of others and giving no source, he's saying

"I did this" and hiding the actual sources. This is willful deception and a number of

other things.)

The main thing he's insulated from is lawsuits, since the main purpose of a lawsuit would

be to RECOVER DAMAGES. Since he has legal rights over much of the source material

in use, nobody can sue to RECOVER DAMAGES- there are no moneys to "return".

Therefore, he can certainly be sued- at least on behalf of the public for where he

failed to cite Bullinger's public domain materials, if under no other basis.

However, lawsuits aren't cheap. They cost money, lots of money. Apparently, nobody

with a lot of money cares enough to direct a lawsuit against cg for his actual breaking

of the law- which is a felony when practiced at that level.

That having been said, do you have a more APPROPRIATE term for what Juedes described?

He was speaking of the plagiarized materials and the variety of practices and doctrines

taken without attribution from others, primarily vpw,

and about some related concepts.

I'm sure if there was a more appropriate term for what he described, John would have no

problem with adjusting his site. This, of course, presumes there IS a more appropriate

term, and not just a more euphemistic, less harsh-sounding one.

Thanks for the cup of coffee! Still learning my way around and trying to find old friends from TWI.

There's a sticky at the top of this forum that you might find of some use.

(Or you might not, but we meant well.)

The Friend-Finder forum is specifically for finding old friends, if you're specifically

looking to do that.

Of course, you're welcome to participate in any threads you see fit, whether serious, or

frivolous, regardless of forum.

Hmm . . . maybe that explains why doreen has abandon her own thread.

A) Once any of us has started a thread here, the thread belongs to the entire board,

whether we wish it to or not. (Technically, it belongs to the admin, but he doesn't

get possessive of the threads.) We can ASK posters to cooperate, but if they do not,

or if the thread takes a direction we didn't anticipate or even didn't WANT, we can't

enforce our will past asking again, nicely.

(The staff reserves the right to make exceptions, of course.)

B) Since she last posted on page 2 of the thread, when discussion was still along the

lines of what she asked, I'd say she got as much as she was going to get from this

thread, and then saw no need to post any further. I don't see the situation as her

"abandoning a thread". Posters are not required to continue to post on a thread,

or to post at all on any thread. Without her saying so one way or the other, any

reasoning (including mine) as to why she's not posting on the thread any further

is simply speculation- and speculation largely independent of any evidence to base

a speculation on, for that matter.

Nuthin' like a lil' "MOG mystique" to blatantly open ones self up for lawsuits.

Any idea why TWI never sued Geer?

JJ is a bit shy on the question...................

Or he might not have answered because I already did- last post, previous page.

Cause Geer got lcm to sign over the copy rights or something to the way of great brittain if I remember properly. That was when lcm was agreeing with geer about everything.

This is the short version of what I said a page back.

Someone beat me to it.......

Yeah, have a happy everything.

I've come to the conclusion that knowledge is really good, but is not the MAIN thing.

(Yes, that's coming from me, so that should tell you something.)

To quote a comic-book character,

"I've found it's more important to be One-Who-Cares rather than One-Who-Knows."

Obviously a Q episode.

Was this one "Deja Q"? The Q-less Q?

Okay finally finished the book and here's my thoughts - let's see what you think, WordWolf and you other Muggles out there...

I loved the info about Harry's parents and the chapter about Godric's Hallow but it wasn't easy to follow when Bathilda Bagshot was being used like a puppet by Nagini/Voldy. I take it she was turned into nephari (sp?)... but it took some reading and re-reading to get there...

I think you meant an "inferi." We saw inferi at the end of Book 6, in the locket's cave. They appear to be mindless zombies.

Bathilda Bagshot's situation was never explained, but she was definitely not "mindless". She had a programmed personality,

and had Nagini implanted in her. No explanation was even suggested as to how that would work, not in any book,

(including "'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them' by Newt Scamander")

nor her website, nor any interview.

What exactly happened at King's Cross - was that just inside Harry's head?

perceptions.

It's a little different from the beginning of the third Matrix movie in that respect, but otherwise similar in that it

had the hero temporarily stranded between life and death at a train station.

I was disappointed in some of the characters who had "crossed over" to Voldy's side - i.e. X. Lovegood.

He didn't SEEM like the kind to cave in normally, did he? Then again, he was trying to save his daughter.

I found it very interesting when Snape died that something silver came out his face/mouth that Harry was able to collect in a bottle and later on we find out that it was a memory. I don't recall that happening in any of the other books. But it did provide an interesting memory for Harry & Co to explore to discover the truth about Snape and DD's murder/assisted suicide.

and captured in bottles. We saw the strands in Book 4 (Dumbledore trying to divine the mystery before him, using the Pen-Sieve),

Book 5 (Snape separating some memories when "teaching" Harry Occlumency)

and Book 6 (Slughorn's memory.)

We saw memories in a bottle all through Book 6, during Dumbledore's private sessions with Harry.

I took the non-strand aspect to be Snape struggling to pass them along before he died-rather than the wand-technique used in the other books.

It was rather sad to read about the torch that Snape carried for Lilly - no suprise there, as it was hinted about in previous books.

I thought the supposed hints could have been taken either way, and found there was insufficient support to back them

without the memories in Book 7.

The hints WERE discussed by fans, and the ones I discussed were two:

A) Why was "Snape's worst memory" his WORST memory? (Book 5)

The argument FOR was him driving off Lily.

The argument AGAINST was the abject humiliation Snape was suffering.

B) Book 5, "Dudley Demented." When Harry was explaining about the attack by the Dementors, Vernon Dursley asked what a Dementor was.

Petunia immediately rattled off "The guard the wizard prison Azkaban" (I may have paraphrased slightly.)

When everyone stared at her in shock, she explained she had overheard "that horrid boy" explain that to Lily.

The question was: was Snape the "horrid boy" instead of James Potter?

The argument FOR was that James doesn't seem like a "horrid boy", and why else would Snape be horrified the Potters were killed?

The argument AGAINST was that Petunia was negative on all magic, so ANY wizard would be "horrid", and there's no reason to suppose

Snape ever MET Lily outside of Hogwarts or interacted with her in there, even. (In "Snape's Worst Memory", a stranger might have

told James to stop bullying Snape, since it was wrong.) Further, Snape owed James a life-debt, and then was responsible for his death.

Personally, I don't think there was much substance to the hints. They're obvious if you know exactly what information is critical and

which to ignore, which is to say, almost-coincidental.

I also think that it made no sense for Snape to insult Tonks for her Patronus changing shape to correspond to the person she loved,

when his had been so for years. The argument for him saying that is that Snape can be a real a-hole sometimes, but I find that

SPECIFIC barb out-of-character. Finally, the only things connecting Lily with a doe is that she was married to Prongs. This meant

he needed to know about Prongs, first of all, which he seemed to be, at least by the time of the series.

(Book 3, his comments to Lupin about the parchment by Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. "I think he got that parchment

FROM THE MANUFACTURERS." He seemed to know he was addressing one of them...)

However, of all things, Snape hated James, loved Lily, and defined Lily in terms of her marriage to James?

I find that inconsistent. If there was some direct connection between Lily and the doe, that would be different.

However, we have no reason to suspect she was also an Animagus, especially since it was so difficult, they are so rare,

and her strength was in CHARMS, like her wand, while James' was in TRANSFIGURATION, like his wand.

I would have liked more information about the Dept of Mysteries, like WordWolf wrote about - I found that to be a little disappointing...

I LOVED how Molly Weasley opened up a can of whoop@$$ on Bellatrix.

Also liked it when Greyback got OK'd - couldn't stand that character!

Fenrir Greyback and Bellatrix Lestrange were the sickest followers of Voldemort, and HAD to go.

Wondered about how George Weasley got on without Fred - wish there had been more on that in the "19 years later" chapter...

More to post but hubby wants the 'puter... :-)

Ron Weasley joined George as proprietors at Weasleys Wizarding Wheezes.

She mentioned that in one of the interviews.

I was with Dr. and Mrs. Wierwille for a month, back in June of 1984 on a 6,000 mile motorcycle trip. This was about a year before his death. At that time, he had his glass eye; he seemed calm and serene, not having such evil power described here. Perhaps he was at a point in his life, closing in on his death, when he repented and asked God for forgiveness. I don't know. All I know is, this is the Victor Paul Wierwille I experienced and remember. I'm sorry some folks experienced a disgusting part of him.

Oldies,

I'd leave this alone,

except we've seen this happen before, so I shall ask you a simple yes-or-no question or two.

Whether or not you answer it, and if your answers are in simple yes-or-no format, will, I think,

indicate a lot as to where your thinking is at this time.

I shall begin.

1) Do you believe that the testimony of all the victims, all the people that knew the victims, the twi authority figures,

and the people currently running twi, indicate that the overwhelming likelihood is that at least some of the

rapes and other sexual crimes vpw has been said to have been committed, were in fact committed by him?

(Yes or no: do you think the weight of the evidence says "vpw did it-he committed these sexual crimes?)

2) If so, do you believe it was wrong of vpw to have carefully set up places to commit sex crimes, and set up a

structure of persons to facilitate this, and use the "from birth to the corps" papers to select his victims,

and commit these sex crimes regardless of intent to "heal" or whatever justification was used,

and to have women monitored afterwards, with their reputation savaged and them made pariahs if they looked

like they were going to tell someone what he did?

(Yes or no: do you think it was wrong of vpw to have committed these sexual crimes?)

3) Do you think that those who were victims of sexual crimes by vpw should go silent, so as to keep others from

thinking negative about vpw, even if their testimony is the truth?

(Yes or no: do you think it is wrong for vpw's victims to tell their stories now?)

4) Do you think that the proper response to all the victims of vpw's sex crimes is to claim that they were all willing

participants, that they must have wanted it if they didn't immediately run to the police?

(Yes or no: Is it right to think all his victims were consensual if they didn't go straight to the police?)

5) Do you think that the sole opinion of all aspects of twi should be reflected by the sex crimes of its founder?

(Yes or no: Do vpw's sex crimes pose the beginning and end on all matters twi?)

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

(I added the last as a softball.)

See,

the reason I ask these questions is simple.

From time to time, there's been a "moment of enlightenment", a "turning point" of "but now I see",

and then months later, the reset button was pressed, and it's like that whole conversation never happened.

So, I ask outright.

Please speak plainly, and answer in a yes-no fashion, using as many words as you need, but including a

clear, unambiguous, unequivocal yes-no answer that any normal English reading adult could see means

yes or no.

If you wish, once you've done that, I'll do the same for 5 questions of your own.

And if I find myself unable to on any question, I shall explain plainly, in detail, and give the answers related

to it that I CAN give plainly.

Fair is fair.

=======

Oh,

and if you elect NOT to address these questions, of course,

that will tell the reading audience something in and of itself.....

Johnj, I can not prove Wierwille told Geer to revise the foundational class and I don't think you can prove he did not.

Given the enmity between Geer and TWI, it is reasonable to conclude that had Geer nothing to show he had this authorization, that TWI would take legal action.

It would be reasonable IF it hadn't been common knowledge that cg had wrangled rights over the pfal class from

the bot when they all agreed they killed vpw at the close of POP.

After all, as I pointed out, "piracy" is a serious crime.

or a legal crime so small the public thinks it's not a big deal

(music piracy, pirating videos).

On the other hand, it can refer to robbing ships at sea, which IS a serious crime.

(Ever hear of plans by ship-pirates to sue the music industry for diluting their trademark on piracy

by connecting teenagers with a pc with robbery on the high seas? :) )

Of course you can not claim to know why TWI allows this class to be offered, but how about a reasonable informed guess? One that reflects the relationship between Geer and TWI as well as the laws regarding piracy.

Myself, I would guess-based on the reasonable informed information-that the relationship between Geer and TWI at the time

they gave him rights over pfal was the direct cause of them granting him legal rights over pfal,

after which he was able to use pfal as he saw fit.

When it comes to "why didn't they sue when he made it again under a new name", I'm not a copyright lawyer, and

would guess that there is a murky ground there where his granted rights might grant him the rights to use the material.

Thus, there was no point suing someone when they weren't going to win.

At twi, it's currently all about the money. Follow the money.

And where did you say that Christian believers and leaders carried on this sort of sustained attack on other believers in the Bible?

Like, where do we read, "...and for years afterward Paul went out through all the land preaching against the errors of Barnabas, warning everyone about his false doctrine..."?

B) Barnabas wasn't violating any copyrights, whether de jure OR de facto.

And if VP didn't originate it, then aren't you trying to get Geer to ascribe authorship to the wrong person?

Why would you want him to do that?

Non-issue.

It was wrong for vpw to entirely take material originated by others, and intentionally refuse to give due legal credit

for the original sources. That's plagiarism, and copyright violation, and those are FELONIES at the amounts they

were practiced personally by vpw.

Likewise,

it was wrong for cg to entirely take material originated by others, and intentionally refuse to give due legal credit for

the original sources. That's plagiarism, and copyright violation, and those are FELONIES at the amounts they were

practiced personally by vpw.

Why wasn't cg sued? He held part of the copyright, so it was a crime, but the injured party can't sue him for

damages, since HE held the legal rights, so LEGALLY, he was the injured party.

That means that what he did was MORALLY wrong, and LEGALLY wrong, but no one could sue on behalf of

society under current laws-they'd have to sue on behalf of the ones with the LEGAL rights,

which he cleverly held.

Legally, he's still required to cite sources, but I don't know how a lawsuit could proceed to force him to comply.

So,

it was wrong for cg to take material from others and not credit them- whether that source was vpw (who took the material

from others HIMSELF) or the originals, BG Leonard, EW Bullinger, EW Kenyon, and so on.

WHICH person he stole from is secondary to the issue THAT he stole from them.

TECHNICALLY, those holding the rights to the originals- Leonard's work, Kenyon's work- CAN sue where he stole their

material. Bullinger's work is now in public domain- which does not free him from citing his sources, but would

allow him to quote to any degree he wanted. Leonard, for one, elected not to sue another Christian, which was

his choice, and his legal right- but he added a lengthy caution about plagiarism to the beginning of his books,

which shows he WAS aware. Leonard, I expect he didn't know about vpw, but so many other people plagiarized him

that vpw and cg are probably low on the list for recovering damages.

And yes, it was wrong, immoral AND illegal every time someone plagiarized Kenyon-

whether or not the material was error or truth.

If Geer was ever pressed with the charge of piracy, I imagine all he would need do is counter with the claim that the majority of material in his class was actually derived from Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" which is safely in the public domain.

Any supposed, unique contributions by Wierwille may be extremely minor by comparison. So few as to arguably fall within the perimeters of "fair use".

.....but he's still required to CITE SOURCES on those, Dan-

both for Bullinger AND for vpw, where each is supposedly the source.

'Deadwood'?

Well, I haven't seen it, but Raf's interjection, along with the calibre of humor in the clues, compels me to guess "Beavis and Butthead do America." (or whatever it was called).

George

Correct!

I particularly like that there's a few quotes that say what fine young gentlemen they are....

Go, George.

"You exemplify a fine new crop of young Americans who will grow into the leaders of this great country."

" This desert is stupid. They should put a drinking fountain out here. "

"Hey Baby. Are we gonna do it?"

"You have 2 seconds."

"Uh, is that gonna be enough time?"

" I'm sorry, how many Hail-Marys?"

"A thousand! And I want you to hit yourself! Right now!"

"Um, now?"

"Yes, do it!"

"Agent Hurley, I want you to give this scumbag a cavity search! I'm talking Roto-Rooter! Don't stop until you reach the back of his teeth!"

"Are you threatening ME?"

"It's so nice to meet young men who are so well-mannered."

vpw implied it and never said so outright.

Prevarication- suggesting something while maintaining plausible deniability because

"I never said that"

has a longstanding tradition in twi, and is still popular among vpw's apologists.

Supposing-just to humour Oldiesman- just supposing he was completely sincere-

"I genuinely want to bless you by drugging you and having sex with you when you lose consciousness,"

is this something that should be considered legal or moral behaviour?

Is it ok to drug and rape a woman IF ONE HAS GOOD INTENTIONS?

Or is that only ok if The Man Of God For Our Day And Time drugs and rapes a woman?

IS IT POSSIBLE that this is anything but unacceptable behaviour, ALWAYS?

IS IT POSSIBLE that he was a sick sexual predator who should have been put in prison for his crimes against women?

PFAL was the launch pad for a whole "lotta" learning for me, as it was for many of you.

The dust was certainly cleared from the Bible.(incorrectly or not..NOT MY subject right now)

I loved it

And yes ,I grew to love the man that taught it to me

Things change

A positive thread ,for me, is refreshing.

I believe I understand the need for both sides .I may be wrong

I don't think anyone claims that every minute in twi was bad.

I, for one, Love reading

a great experience

something funny

great blessings

awesome times

answered prayer

and many more things that happened for people within (and despite of) twi

now,onto the topic of the last few pages of this thread... OMG

MARSHA,MARSHA,MARSHA

this "aint no" Brady bunch story

eyewitness accounts??

why did she go back to the motorcrotch??

place herself "in harm's way??

what was she thinking? (would any of YOU have had a clear head?)

She did it to herself ??

Drugged or not??

HERE'S MY PERSPECTIVE

to all those who STILL blame her...30YEARS LATER (insert your own name ,I won't)

I was there that year. you weren't

I saw what Marsha went through as a result of it.

FIRST HAND

You didn't see her have to deal with being TRASHED byALL the people she looked up to and loved

We were all told she was possessedlike it was all her fault

I lived with her every day after the motorcrotch visits. you didn't.

This poor girl's ENTIRE belief system had been turned on it's ear

Bad enough that it happened But fromHIM Thatman!. THE TEACHER!!! (?)

Betrayal to the verycore of her soul

Many of you treat people, and their stories, no better than the "MOGS" you bitch about all day long.

I believe that constantly bringing up all the tiny,intricate details of this story for debate is DISGUSTING

It sounds a little like blaming a small girl who takes candy from a strager. I guess she should just accept her responsibility too ? After all...she DID take the candy right? She HAD it comming ?????? She's just a dumba$$

SHAME ON YOU

I have the unique perspective of being one of Marsha's wow brothers that year

The other girl in the motorcrotch was a wow also, from another family. It was that girl's birthday as I recall. That's why she got the honor(?) of going to the motorcrotch too.The fact that she was GORGEOUS didn't hurt either I'm sure

Ok,yeah. that WAS speculation on my part. "My bad

Did I SEE vp stick it in her ? no. (graphic sorry)

So I guess anything I say ,on the topic, has no value ???

BS !!

I'm sure that Marsha "loosing her marbles" RIGHT after a visit to the motorcrotch was COMPLETELY A COINCIDENCE

Did any of us know what reallyhappened (at that time) ? no

She never said at the time.

Sadly, I believe she thought she was protecting us from the sh1t storm

Do I hAVE photographic EVIDENCE . NO.

Do I believe it anyless ? HELL NO

I saw what happened to her after

FIRST HAND

I think some of you need to be a little less "villagers with torches" when it comes to discussing certainsubject matter.(again, insert your OWN name ONLY if this applies to you

We are talking about a woman's WHOLE LIFE here

side note. yes ,you can leave home and go wow @17 I did it and yes, I had to have my parents permission

I appreciate the effort, but do you really think you can hit a little target like their consciences when

the choices are between an unpleasant truth and their devoted adoration of "the good old days"

and "vpw was a great Christian leader"?

Even Are The Dead Alive Now?, the book VP was sooooooooo pleased with his research on, quite possibly has lifted passages in it.

To say nothing of the parts that were lifted entirely from 2 of Bullinger's books:

A) The Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?

http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/

B) Saul and the Witch at Endor: did the dead arise at her bidding?

While studying at The University of Chicago, Dan McCxnaughy found a book with strikingly similar ideas and concepts. Dan told me that he noted that this volume had also been in the library when VP studied there. He wondered if VP had used it while researching the subject of the dead. He copied the book and sent a copy of it to VP. VP wrote some notes in it and sent it back to Dan. Geek has a photocopy of it. When he stops having to work 12 and 15 hour days, he wants to re-read it and compare it line by line with ADAN. Then we will be able to know if he also stole ideas from this book. Because there are no footnotes for this book in ADAN.

Is it possible he read the information in that book, never took good notes on what he learned, but incorporated the information into his ADAN book without crediting his source because he forgot where he learned it? Quite possibly.

Would that be plaigarism?

Absolutely.

For instance, while writing a paper last year, I thought of a particular comparison that really brought home a point I wanted to make, and I put it in the paper. I had read maybe 20 volumes, each about 200-400 pages each in doing my work. As I re-read my paper before turning it in, I started to have doubts about whether I had actually come up with that comparison on my own, or read it in another book. I started remembering a certain book that I might have gotten that comparison from. Started looking through it to see if I could find it where I thought I might have seen it. But it was a 3 inch thick book, and I had only a few hours before the deadline to turn in my research. I didn't have time to document that comparison properly. So I rewrote my paper to take it out, even though it was valid, and would have made a profound point. Why?

Because if I had included it on the hopes that it really was my own work, and it wasn't, and a professor knew where that idea came from, I COULD BE DISMISSED FROM THE COLLEGE FOR PLAGIARISM.

Plagiarism can be due to intentional deceit, or it can be due to sloppy notetaking.

VPW was guilty of both.

IN ADDITION TO BEING A SEXUAL PREDATOR.

And you guys want to revere this man for his "INTEGRITY"?

BTW-- Got an A+ on that paper............