WordWolf

Ok, that one's the original M*A*S*H* movie.

Nope. " A Society gentleman would only go out with you for one reason. To have a good time a few laughs and a little vo-deo-do-do." "I dont vo-deo-do-do!" "You vo-deo-do-do." "I don't vo-deo-do-do." "You vo-deo." "Once. I was going steady a whole year." "I am going to mold you. How does that make you feel?" "Like old bread."

" A Society gentleman would only go out with you for one reason. To have a good time a few laughs and a little vo-deo-do-do." "I dont vo-deo-do-do!" "You vo-deo-do-do." "I don't vo-deo-do-do." "You vo-deo." "Once. I was going steady a whole year."

The quote about the olives sounds very familiar, but I can't place it yet...

So was it "Benson"?

I've recognized a few, but THOSE get named immediately.

I agree with you. The point I was TRYING to make was that this was not meant as a blanket dismissal of ALL critics, and ALL criticism, at ALL times. However, if one only reads the opening, one may get a false impression of that. When someone is in their giving it their all, just sitting on the sidelines with a microphone falls far short of their endeavour.

Seems someone's forgetting the contents of other threads as soon as they leave them. Here's something from the Plagiarism 101 thread specifically concerning Public Domain and citation. ============= 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 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.)

Here's another difference which SHOULD be obvious, which I'll include anyway. If "Are the Dead Alive Now" had numbers and endnotes in the book that referenced Bullinger's 2 books, then ADAN would have been perfectly legal. "Babylon Mystery Religion" did, and nobody claims that book was ruined by the presence of the legally-mandated endnotes existing. Since neither of Bullinger's (public domain) books were cited, it was a crime. So long as they were cited all the way thru, vpw could legally have rewritten Bullinger's books into ADAN, and been completely within the bounds of the law. He could even have printed a run of the 2 Bullinger books bound together as a single volume and made a profit off of them-so long as they were properly credited as being Bullinger's books.

WhiteDove, doesn't it strike you as fundamentally dishonest to keep doing this? You argued loudly that books in the public domain can legally be plagiarized, based on an awkward phrasing of one online dictionary that was specifically describing PUBLIC DOMAIN AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS. Now you're mixing-and-matching between disparate definitions from different dictionaries, all trying to get them to say what's already been disproven. (You've quoting PART of definitions from THREE different sources, all to make up one sentence.) A book in the public domain can be used PROPERLY in whole or in part by any person in any circumstance- but note that PROPER use REQUIRES CITATION of the source. CITATION has NOTHING to do with copyright. Further, Linda never addressed the letter of the law on this-she said that whether or NOT it was legal to not cite sources, it is still IMMORAL. I imagine that-now that we've seen documentation that it IS illegal, Linda might be more specific concerning the illegality of it. When vpw read books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights. When vpw used books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights. When vpw quoted books in the public domain, he was exercising his legal rights. When vpw left off citation and attribution of the books in the public domain, he broke the law.

Did Teddy Roosevelt say it was wrong to criticize? If one chops up his quote, one might give that impression. I used to see the quote hung up in college, when I went to play sports. It was hung up in the sports area. I also had/have a copy in calligraphy of the entire quote. Here is the entire quote, which is very easy to find online: ==================== “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” ~ Teddy Roosevelt ================= Now you can see why this was placed where the athletes could see it. This was a commentary on athletes who strived to perform their best, and others who put forth their best efforts. It was not a guarantee their "devotions" were correct just because they strove for them- it was an admonition to those who never put forth efforts yet found nothing BUT criticism for those who did. There is a right and wrong way to criticize, just as there is right and wrong criticism. If one only used 1/2 his quote, one might give the false impression that he meant ALL criticism is wrong. That would be incorrect, and not wholly honest.

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

Say it as slow or as often as you like, it will not BECOME true. You spoke in error. Works in the public domain must be cited when used. They may be quoted in any amount, but MUST BE CITED WHEN USED. Otherwise it is PLAGIARISM and a CRIME. The law still requires you cite your sources. You don't have to pay royalties for something in the Public Domain, you are not limited in how much you can quote, BUT YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES. Not citing the source of a Public Domain work is A CRIME AND a moral issue. If you haven't gotten this after the multiple mentions of this on page 1 of this thread, then YOU apparently can't read or don't wish to! I thought that on page 1 you were claiming incorrect information based on bad sources-which is why you claimed a bad source for your definition. I thought you had learned the difference, and wasn't going to belabour it. However, apparently I gave you too much credit. So, we have the imaginary snowstorm and sourceless revelation to excuse an act of plagiarism.Nice one. That's an IRONCLAD case for plagiarism. Side by side, some sections are identical, others have cosmetic changes. vpw's exposure to and possession of the works of the other authors is easily traceable, and blatant once seen. It is beyond guesswork or a REASONABLE doubt. (An UNreasonable doubt, of course, can conjecture all sorts of possibilities like divine dictation of vpw's books or other possibilities.) Unless he cited his source-which any HONEST Christian would have done- what we do know is that it was a CRIME. That there was an attempt to conceal can be seen comparing the front of the different additions. The anonymous Stiles drops out completely, and vpw becomes the sole source of the books. This was the 5th post on this thread. Apparently, some of us need a brush-up on the contents.

So, you're saying he did it, and it was unethical, and dishonest, and it was a crime, and that he was one of many criminals who expected to get away with it, which is a disgraceful commentary on many writers of the time, correct?

Well, I'm less confident now, since you didn't reply "If you don't mind", but I'm thinking this is "BENSON."

I think I know this one. Want me to get it?

Well, he owes me one for this, from the first post:

1broken1, my question was NOT rhetorical. It was an open challenge for CES/STFI to attempt to support their doctrine from Scripture in sight of their financial supporters, once its Scriptural accuracy was directly challenged. Your answer is the most I expect to get, since they're hoping this will all blow over, and they're pretending they didn't mean to post messages here. The major point is still unaddressed- that even a single error is enough to completely disqualify a prophet- and CES/STFI would rather disqualify GOD ALMIGHTY than THEMSELVES. That's why they say God can make mistakes and give incorrect prophecies. It's an insidious, UNgodly, craven act to commit, but, frankly, does that qualify as news now?

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" was a compilation of 2 of Bullinger's books: "The Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?" and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?" with some editing, and vpw's name on the cover. Both books were in the public domain. This means he would have been able to quote them extensively, so long as he cited them, or had them printed in their entirety and make a profit off the books. Instead, he put his name on them-which is a plagiarism, fraud, and a crime. Once he made more than $2500, it was a FELONY. Here's some links which some of you will find useful. http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm STOLEN GOODS-- HOW V.P. WIERWILLE PLAGIARIZED FROM OTHERS TO MAKE RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm WAS WIERWILLE A GREAT AUTHOR? http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm WIERWILLE BORROWS A Challenge to the Originality of His Teaching on "Receiving the Holy Spirit" All from the man who wrote the book on this subject. Literally.

Now, I've been told that it was not the crime of plagiarism. That's because the books themselves may completely fit the definition of plagiarism- and they do- but buried in a separate book, owned by a number of people but nothing compared to sales of the Orange and White Books, is this comment: ""Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it together so that it fit-that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped. Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach us healing and believing. But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me, I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it." Meanwhile, on the same page, he says this specifically about the White Book.... "TW:LIL, pg-209. "Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year. I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place." "We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It's a great piece of research." Supposedly, these comments are supposed to negate the acts of plagiarism across the Orange Book and the White Book.

The White Book was a compilation of JE Stiles' book, some material from Leonard, and one of Bullinger's books (now known as 'Word Studies in the Holy Spirit', an analysis of those 385 places in Scripture vpw sounded like he found on his own.) Citations of all 3 would be necessary, in many places, to avoid the crime of plagiarism. None are mentioned. Here's what he DOES say, the entire Preface. "======== "When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean missionary asked me, 'Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?' This challenge was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic 'originals', looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church. Finally I realized that the experience referred to as 'receiving the holy spirit' in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today. I believed to receive the gift of holy spirit and I, too, manifested. Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to put in written form the longings and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts' desires. I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now. Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from my years of questing and research among the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability, there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth. The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove. If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this live, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and comforted. For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a careful study of the introductions as well as the appendices in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 though 5 and enjoy God's great presence and power. "II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studies carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful." ========= Crime. When sales exceeded $2500, it became a FELONY. It is interesting to compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition, which I already quoted, with the Preface in the 2nd edition. ===== Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in the 2nd edition, (pg-8): "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ======== Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition, the one most of us got to read: ====== "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." ====== Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture, no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit ("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook") for something that was exclusively the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove...")

So, the Orange Book (PFAL) was a compilation of some of Leonard's class and Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." If he included material from EITHER and failed to cite the source (and he included MUCH material from BOTH), then he committed acts of plagiarism all through the book. So, the bibliography. THERE IS NO BIBLIOGRAPHY. There are no booknotes. No footnotes nor endnotes cite either author. That was plagiarism, and was a crime. Once his profit exceeded $2500, it became a FELONY. Here is the ENTIRE introduction. "=== "Introduction: the Abundant Life. Jesus' proclamation as recorded in John 10:10 is the foundational Scripture for this book. ...I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. This verse literally changed my life. My wife and I began in the Christian ministry, plodding ahead with the things of God, but somehow we lacked an abundant life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant. I was startled into awareness. As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church. Thus I earnestly began to pursue the question: 'If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a MORE ABUNDANT LIFE, then why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest even an ABUNDANT LIFE?' I believe most people would be thankful if they ever lived an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant. If His Word is not reliable here in John 10:10, how can we trust it anywhere else? But, on the other hand, if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant. This book, POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, is one way of showing interested people the abundany life which Jesus Christ lived and which He came to make available to believers as it is revealed in the Word of God. This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives. " =========== No other preface or whatever exists in the book. That was a crime. Literally. Now, what else did the Orange Book say about the origin of the Orange Book? "[pg-119-120.] ===== "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says."

I started a new topic specifically on plagiarism. Plagiarism 101. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=12755 I recommend at least a light brush-up for all the interested parties. Thank you all so much!

I disagree. Oldiesman, 11/18/05, 12pm, "the way:Living in Wonderland", emphasis yours: "Have anything that was lifted word for word? That is what we have agreed plagiarism really is... using someone else's writings and copying them word for word, without giving proper written acknowledgement." Mind you, that's not what everybody except vpw apologists say plagiarism is (unless they are insufficiently educated, which can be easily corrected, thus this thread.) Oldiesman, 11/22/05, 10:27am "Strange people vic wier went to for info" "Actually Wordwolf, I was beginning to have some sort of fixation on your concept of plagiarism (or your understanding of it) as you purport that most, or the vast majority of VP's writings were plagiarized, because he STOLE all his ideas from others. He didn't just believe what he heard/read and teach it;... no, he STOLE these ideas. Because he didn't leave footnotes where he initially learned the information or where he read it from another source." Mind you, plagiarism IS theft, as seen by most people and the US Government, as well as FRAUD. And not leaving footnotes, endnotes, or booknotes where he was directly quoting from- not just "where he INITIALLY learned" or however you are keen to reinterpret his actions- that IS how he would have avoided plagiarism. Oldiesman, 12/12/05, 11:16am, "OK, once and for all" "Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong ... I think our definitions of plagiarism vary, but I do think he plagiarized some. Some believe (I believe erroneously) that plagiarism is not noting or citing in writing, where someone got every single specific thought, idea or concept. Others believe it is a word for word extraction of specific written text, without giving proper written acknowledgement where the word for word extraction came from. I believe the latter is correct. If you believe as I do, then VP did plagiarize some paragraphs. WHY he didn't simply cite those few paragraphs he plagiarized, I don't know." So, here, you admitted that vpw did SOME plagiarism, and also said you disagree on the definition of plagiarism. Sounds like you disagreed on the "pure definition of plagiarism." I do note that at some times, you've admitted he plagiarized, and other times have reversed your position. Oldiesman, 10/10/05, 3:36pm, "Are the Dead Alive Now was plagiarized." " quote: You have a conscience only when it suits you and only when it facilitates your misdirection. The topic is plagiarism. Why can't you stick to it ? Oh because you know (though you won't admit it) that VPW was a plagiarist though you really,really hate to admit it. I already admitted he was, and so what?" Oldiesman, 10/10/05, 2:44pm, Are the Dead Alive Now was plagiarized." " quote: Even if you found a way to express Staffen's idea without using any of her original words, that would still constitute plagiarism. Sorry. If you're going to use someone else's words and/or ideas, you have to give them due credit. Mr. Babbie And so according to Mr. Babbie, VPW then plagiarized everything because he used others ideas and didn't give proper written acknowledgement. And I still say, so what?" Oldiesman, 5/14/04, 8:33am, "Sadistic Leadership" "Just summarizing: His godly side: He was a Christian with a tremendous ability to teach God's Word and convey upon the listeners, respect for the written word. His dark side: he engaged in sexual harassment and adultery, plagiarism, drinking/smoking; at various times with a mean and condescending demeanor." WhiteDove claimed that one is free to plagiarize the contents of books in the Public Domain, and that there is no legal difficulty doing so. Emphasis mine. WhiteDove, 1/2/06, 10:45pm "Exactly Raf we have no case for any legal wrong. So what is left because we don't have a legal leg to stand on and still want to take issue is that we try to squeeze the moral issue into making the legal right. That is each to decide if it fits in their moral mode or not . Just to keep the facts straight. The judge follows the law he does not care if you personally think the law is moral or not. In this case VP had a perfect right to use the material, some may think he should have done this others maybe think he should have done that. It looks to me like he felt that it was free to use having no legal restrictions." WhiteDove gave an incorrect definition of Public Domain. Emphasis his. WhiteDove, 1/2/07, 11:18pm "public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish." This is incorrect-as we saw, it can be copied but not used in ANY WAY THEY WISH, if that way includes absence of citation. Plagiarism of books in the Public Domain is still plagiarism, and thus is still THEFT. Citations are still required, else it is plagiarism. However, WhiteDove seems to disagree. WhiteDove, 1/3/07, 12:18am "No I said to accuse him of stealing is not correct that's the point you can't steal what is free to use. the point is for people to stick to the truth once again....... and don't make s**t up to prove the point. It should read VP was free under public domain to use the material as he saw fit he did no legal wrong in using it. (ie was not stolen). that said however some would argue that he should have maybe mentioned that he got this info from a source. I might even agree. While that may have been a nice thing to do he is /was under no obligation to do so. Whether he did or did not has no bearing on the fact that he did have a right to use the material as he saw fit under the law. As such he committed no crime. As I said he may have assumed that since he was free to use the material as he saw fit from a legal standpoint, that he did not need to document the source." So, vpw DID steal, he was still legally required to cite sources, was under legal obligation to cite sources, he did not act properly under the law, committed a crime, and from a legal standpoint he needed to document the source. We saw all that above. WhiteDove said the opposite, therefore WhiteDove is, at best, has "confusion" about the pure definition of plagiarism. WhiteDove, 1/3/07, 1:29am "Again you assume it is plagiarism , not if the material is in Public domain. I defended his right to use public domain material in the manner it by law says you can. Thats all. I take issue with calling it stealing when the law says it is not". Again, WD misunderstood what Public Domain means and what plagiarism means. WD repeated his error again, as if repetition would make it true. Emphasis his. WhiteDove, 1/3/07, 2:24am "public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish." And you, Oldiesman, responded to the quote of 1:29am I quoted above- which as we see was INCORRECT from a LEGAL standpoint. Oldiesman, 1/4/07, 10:05am " I can't believe how much in agreement we are." So, Oldiesman, it does indeed appear that, regardless of your perception, there is confusion as to the pure definition of plagiarism.