WordWolf

*snicker* Oh, and there's no reason to leave blanks for the speakers, just don't name them, and end quotation marks so we know when the speaker changes.

Too easy with a quote that big. "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." From the end, when Charlie's tour ends abruptly.

I remember that stuff. I also remember having the teens pray. We got in prayers for everyone there, our families, the teens of the area, the ministry, and the community, in the time one of those really lengthy prayers.

Are you using Firefox? When I'm using IE, I see them, but not under Firefox. I think it's my Extensions/AddOns.

Correct, correct, and Zero Mostel. This was Mel Brooks' first movie. Bialystock was based on an actual producer- one who conned little old ladies out of money for his show-"Cash". Supposedly, each Mel Brooks movie has a reference to this one after- like Blazing Saddles playing the notes from "Springtime for Hitler", and Spaceballs mentioning Kafka (whose book "the Metamorphosis" was one of the scripts they rejected) and "metamophosis" together. Go, Raf!

Hint, hint: They threw out MRS WIERWILLE when that happened- what makes you think you have more influence than her?

Showoff! It's your turn! :)

I really like the idea of the other-coloured cards with "benefits" on one side.

"No way out. No way out. No way out. No way out. No way out." "Let's assume, just for the moment, that you are a dishonest man." "Assume away." "Ooh, I fell on my keys! " "About six months... but I'm on probation, so it's all good, baby!" "No, I mean, what do you do best?" "I can't do that here. That's why they put me away, baby! " "He who signs a lease must pay rent. That's the law." "You miserable wretch! How dare you take the last penny out of a poor man's pocket?" "I have to. I'm a landlord." "Oh, Lord, hear my plea; destroy him! He maketh a blight on the land!" "Don't listen to him; he's crazy. " I'm confident SOME of you saw it, and you've all heard of it. And remember to be specific....

" 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." "The only kinda parties we've ever been to are bring your own! "I like bringin' my own... then I know what I'm gettin'." "I'm telling you, flying is safer than driving! Nobody has ever crashed into a cloud!" "Yeah well nobody ever fell 40,000 feet from a DeSoto either."

I was thinking "as opposed to the tv show, which I know much better." ============== Ok, another movie, let's see.... "No way out. No way out. No way out. No way out. No way out." "Let's assume, just for the moment, that you are a dishonest man." "Assume away."

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.