WordWolf

I'm just going to quote what I'm going to comment on. Since this is from the post immediately proceeding mine, I don't expect this will produce outrage, since people can just scroll up. Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others. It amazes me that there's this impression still being held by some- in spite of documentation to the contrary- that you can negate plagiarism or any other phrasing of taking the work of someone else or some other source, by paraphrasing, or moving some words around. If cg retyped the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism. If cg paraphrased the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism. If cg took a PART of PART of the work of ONE person, and did not cite his SOURCE, that is plagiarism. The wigp has been claimed to be an improved version of pfal- and even you're admitting that- BUT PFAL IS NEVER CITED ANYWHERE IN WIGP. That's plagiarism. It's not "right" when ANYONE does it.

That jibes with what I remember of the fog years. Remember the mindset of the twi innie- which is true to this very day: "We are the only ones with The Truth in all the world. Other Christians just can't keep up, and don't have what we need." Therefore, if WE don't have it, NOBODY does. With that mindset, it's vitally important we don't lose what WE have, because we're "it." There IS nobody else. It's SUCH an ugly shock to meet other Christians and find resources so easy-to-get outside of twi. Barnes & Noble along either carries or can order almost the entire "research library" of an innie. (Everything not put out by twi itself.) Christian bookstores can do more than that, and often have similar books alongside. Not to mention books on subjects twi knows NOTHING on, like dreams. Finally, don't forget that God requires a class to convey his vital doctrine. At least in the twi paradigm.

rascal, shame on you! You MENTIONED Galatians 5, but didn't quote the verses! You know it's easier to pretend it doesn't sound anything like vpw if you're not actually READING THE VERSES! Here's Galatians 5:16-21 in the KJV. You're referring to 5:19-21. 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. ======== Here's Galatians 5:16-21 in the NASB. You're referring to 5:19-21. 16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Hello. A few people have made a cold evaluation and determined that EVERYTHING they learned from twi-official doctrines, teachings, and practices used at twi- were of no real use, and are no longer Christians. They're adults, and those are their decisions. As for those of us who are still Christians, usually we still agree with SOMETHING twi taught, whether or not we trust twi teaching on it. (For example, almost all the Christians here still believe Jesus is the Messiah, and so on.) Blanket statements like "ALL we have learned" tend to make me look twice, since things are usually NOT that simple- but they are when someone's accusing someone else of doing them, as in "why have you thrown away all you've learned?" I'm not saying you're doing this, necessarily, but it's an easy habit, and a bad habit, to get into. I would keep an eye out for it if I were you. (Since I'm not you, you are free to ignore this advice.) Well, since you asked....vpw's character is at the core of a number of issues, and the heart of how twi functioned and operated (and to a degree, how it STILL does both.) He claimed he, and he alone, had exclusive knowledge from God that Christians were missing for 2000 years, and that all other Christians reside in error, and are inferior Christians AT BEST. He claimed their leaders were untrustworthy. All of those were lies, carefully designed to get people to look to vpw as the finisher of our faith, and to seal themselves away from all other forms of Christian to avoid error. That error still applies whenever anyone ex-twi claims that "all other Christians and all other Christian leaders are petty, error-ridden, and selfish!" That's only the FIRST of many issues. In short, YOU care, because that's what was carefully taught to you. They carefully taught it to me, too, but I've had years to address this specific point. If I MUST pick a televangelist, then I shall say ONE of them is a true man of God- Billy Graham. HONEST inquiries into his life have shown a man who "walks the talk" and "talks the walk". However, I consider this a trick question for two reasons. A) this "man of God" thing, where one man has the Special Knowledge and is to be obeyed, that's reserved for Jesus Christ, and him ONLY- not ANY representative on the earth. All leaders have the respect of their organizations, but blind ANYTHING-trust, obedience- are completely wrong and DANGEROUS. B) The best men of God (and women of God) I've known have rarely gone on television. They follow their calling where they are at-and that usually means that instead of a television studio, they're in "the valley of human need", ministering to others. I agree with you about any one person-or group- having The Key to God. I can work with you and agree at any point, but I'm NOT just going where you point. As for the "baby" "bathwater" analogy, I wince when I hear it now. There's a saying I heard once: "Never mistake a slogan for a solution." (John Capozzi.) I've heard this analogy a lot over the years, and rarely is it a sign someone's thought the issue through-it's been used IN PLACE OF THINKING, very often. (Not that YOU necessarily have had this problem, but MANY people have.) I've seen it very common that twi'ers-both IN twi and OUT of twi- will avoid a difficult question-or a problem they don't want to face- by invoking some stock phrase and pretending that answered the question. (Not that YOU necessarily have had this problem, but MANY people-especially leadership types-have.) I prefer sayings like "prove all things, hold fast to what is good." HOW one will put them to the proof is up to them. It's often recommended to put aside the twi books, get a new, clean Bible (the New American Standard Bible is THE best Bible for ex-twi'ers looking for a new perspective, since it's got the italics, clearer language, and a stronger document history than the KJV, but you may use any version you wish, of course) and start over. If the Bible truly reflects something, it will be there. Of course, all the head-knowledge in the world won't help build a RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST. How about putting down the Bible and doing some acts of mercy with no hope of being recognized for them? How about finding some other Christians and building them up without putting the focus on you? These are at LEAST as important. Jesus never told his disciples that people would recognize them by their KNOWLEDGE, but by their LOVE. How will others see your love if you're not putting it in motion?

Anyone around here care to demonstrate their superior grasp of the rudiments of Christ by seizing the moral high ground and refraining from cheapshots against their fellow Christians, for whom Christ died?

I'll say I'D like to see that. What do the rest of you say?

Do you really think it's either fair or honest to characterize other posters as being grieved that anyone had a prayer answered, or saw deliverance, or received a blessing? Even the atheists and non-Christians wouldn't say that.... Do you think a good Christian should mischaracterize others, misrepresent them or express dishonesty about them?

One can argue that both ways-that some will immediately condemn any criticism of twi, pfal or vpw CATEGORICALLY. I think one of the new threads is addressing something related to this. Feel free to start a new thread if it's not addressing what you want to- I certainly do. Well, you've got me there.

I prefer that too, but the GSC doesn't work that way, and I can either adapt to that, ignore it, or complain each time it happens.

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?) Since you're not an attorney, forgive me if I reserve the right to disagree, pending an actual sourcesaying 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.) 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. I've provided the answers now- but I did ALREADY and am repeating myself. Others view it differently. 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?

*checks* http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm Both gnats and camels seem to have been "treif" or non-kosher.

You don't mean the Home Studies, do you? You mean the written test to take the Advanced or something, right?

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. 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.

By chance, I just caught the end of that commercial. Yes, he was imitating the reverb and sound off the speakers at a club.

[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 found benefits as well, and I posted about them on this thread pretty early on.(It's on page 2, if you're curious.)] [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.] [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.] [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."]

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....

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.

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.

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.

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