WordWolf

Since this question was raised, I'd like to address it. I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and here's the conclusions I've drawn..... It's fairly easy to illustrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with plagiarism. Suppose, for argument's sake, that you saw a book on E-bay. The title is "The Ability to Live Abundantly", and the author goes by the pen-name WordWolf. In reading the excerpts, you see that its opening prominently quotes John 10:10. It follows this with "This verse literally changed my life. In my years in the Christian ministry, I've never manifested an abundant life. It seemed unbelievers were manifesting a more abundant life than Christians. Yet Jesus Christ said he came that we might have life and that we might have it more it more abundantly. Why are Christians failing to manifest even an abundant life?" The remainder of the book lays out keys for how to understand the Bible. There's a chapter on how to receive anything from God, including an anecdote about "fire-engine-red" curtains. Another chapter is called "The Battle of the Senses." You would easily recognize that "my" book was little more than a retyping of the Orange Book. If I were to take that book, slap a new title on it, change a few words around so that the quotes are not exact, could I really call myself an author (especially if I fail to give Wierwille credit for his work?) Could I, in good conscience, sell my book and take the profits? Victor Paul Wierwille was a serial plagiarist. He took the research of other men and passed it off as his own. He took their words and put his name on them. What should Wierwille have done? To be truthful, he should have cited Kenyon and Bullinger and anyone else he used as a source in compiling his teachings, classes and books. Wierwille joked that he had forgotten more about the subject of "holy spirit" than some of his critics would ever know. Apparently, one of the things Wierwille forgot was to give credit where credit is due. Wierwille implies books like Recieving the Holy Spirit Today, Power For Abundant Living, and Are the Dead Alive Now? were strictly the result of his personal research into the Bible. It was not. He claimed to throw away all his other texts and use the Bible as his only textbook and guide. This was dishonest. This was demonstrably false. It was a lie. Plagiarism is LYING. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely-qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of TRUST in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is NOT unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says "by WordWolf" to expect that WordWolf wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says "by Victor Paul Wierwille" to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it. Victor Paul Wierwille used other people's work to prop up his own "research ability," his own wisdom and understanding of God's Word. He used other people's work to exalt himself as The Teacher, The Man of God, Our Father in The Word. He did so knowing that the words "by Victor Paul Wierwille" were a lie. Plagiarism reflects on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers-by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction. Plagiarism hurts people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not "puff itself up". But what is plagiarism if it's not pretending to do something you did not do? We don't accept it from high school students. We don't accept it from college students. We don't accept it from news reporters, columnists, nor authors. We don't accept it from historians and researchers. Those are "the world's" professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God? And, one last question: Don't you get bugged when you see someone plagiarizing-attempting to pass off someone else's work as their own? Doesn't that dishonesty bother you?

Wayne's World Mike Myers Austin Powers: Goldmember

I imagine everyone here, like myself, expected that "Are the Dead Alive Now?", "written by victor paul wierwille", which he sometimes claimed was the most important book "he" had "written", was plagiarized from another writer or writers. He plagiarized everything ELSE, so it is only typical that he would have plagiarized THAT book, small though it is. So, I came across another of Bullinger's books the other day, "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?". It addresses that account better than vpw does, and covers the other references, including the Old Testament ones. (I forget if vpw covered the witch at Endor. THIS book by Bullinger skips that, but Bullinger wrote a different book JUST on that.) I figured you'd all like to know that. Carry on, everyone.

Sam Rockwell Galaxy Quest Tony Shaloub

Alien John Hurt From the Hip (Been a while since I got to sneak that movie in here. I was thinking of listing "Goblet of Fire" but I don't know if he's going to actually be IN the movie.)

You'll need to confirm the veracity of those. I know, for example, Beethoven was never totally deaf when he composed ANY of his works- that's a myth. Here's one link on what some people say about Lincoln's "failures": http://www.snopes.com/glurge/lincoln.htm ==== None of that negates the value of hard work and persistence. It's a well-known saying in the music business that it takes seven years of hard work to become "an overnight success". JK Rowling HAS mentioned that many publishers turned down her manuscript for Harry Potter. Here's one link on her website. The last 3 paragraphs are relevant. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/biography.cfm Here's a page that gives better examples: http://lbarker.orcon.net.nz/rejection.html

This grossly under-represents the people who left in the 80s. :D--> We had Region Coordinators (like D*b*fsk*) walk. That was the mid-80s, with vpw's death, the pop paper, and Schoenheit's Adultery paper being labelled possessed for saying adultery is wrong. A number of high muck-a-mucks left then, and it was enough of an event for Christianity Today to note the exits. ("Infighting trims branches at the Way International".) ======= In '89 when lcm demanded his oath of allegiance, 80% of the people PRESENTLY involved (not counting the previous exodus) all walked. That's 4 out of every 5 people. That includes Limb leaders and so on. In the case of NY state, more than 80% left, so I suppose more than 20% stayed in some other places. That also doesn't count 1990, when a number of people who stayed thru 1989 and just drifted off after that. From 1989 on, the group's overall numbers have continued to drop, as they experience "negative population growth." That means every year, some people get fed up and leave, and there are more of them than there are people who arrive and want what they have to offer. So, the group is dying a slow death. My main regret is the slowness.

I hope the next Sleeper quote would have been "Don't move-or the nose gets it" or "It's tobacco! It's one of the healthiest things you can put in your body!" :D--> ===== Wild guess on the current one: "Little Shop of Horrors"?

Correct. That line about killing's almost a giveaway. In other news, the kid whose only line is "Don't touch that dial", if memory serves, is Dweezil Zappa, Frank Zappa's first kid and the guy who's most famous song is "My guitar wants to kill your momma."

Of course the name is a misnomer. It's based on the original's name, and, for the life of me, I don't remember much about "Christian Family" in the "Christian Family and S*x" class. There was stuff on slang nicknames and a description of some weird stuff we've already discussed, there was something on the last chapter of Proverbs, which, to be honest, was one of the few things that BELONGED there. ====== The overly-sanitized version at least makes a few direct claims that contradict the practices of yesterday... then again, so did the class of yesterday, and the man who claimed that it was wrong for a man to "help himself" to a woman had no difficulty helping himself to women back then. But hey, what's a little cognitive dissonance when you're operating at that level of hypocrisy anyway?

Seems to be yet another thing that started out without rules, then got official, then became etched in stone as another "thou shalt not." vpw said that the "nightowls" started out unofficially. He and the mrs would sit out by the river to cool off in the summer, and people would just come over and hang out and talk God-stuff. So, they got to calling those "night-owls." He said they called them "hoot-owls" when they passed midnight. So, at least at THAT time, it was considered fine to do stuff after midnite.

Will we have access to the old forums at the same time, at least as a read-only? It would make it easier for, say, Triple Movie Links if we could just hand-copy over the last 2-3 steps. It would pre-emptively defuse claims of "you deleted my thread because of a conspiracy to keep me down" and the like as well....

Home Alone Daniel Stern Very Bad Things

"I'm warning you, I get sick-air sick, car sick. I'n gonna throw-up all over you. Go ahead. Won't show on this shirt." I think this is the way this next quote goes.... "Boy. You're lucky he didn't rape you. Or kill you. Or rape you, then kill you. Or kill you then rape you." "You know who I am?" "I've seen you before. You're the @$$h**e on TV." "That's funny, I was gonna say the same thing about you."

Nope.

Had to think of a movie first. You're not gonna get that with reruns of 'Gilligan's Island.' 'Gilligan's Island.' You know, dah-DAH-dah-dah...yeah, that's it. The one with the boat." "Don't touch that dial!"

We'll miss you both, but you two focus on what really matters. You're already clear of twi and have family to attend to.

Now we see the violence inherent in the system! That, of course, is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." :D-->

Dennis Quaid D.O.A. Daniel Stern

The same thing they did the last time Voldy was hit with the AK-at Godric's Hollow. They would keep his essence from being extinguished like a candle. The AK would then blow up his body instead, same as last time. Then, the horcruxes would keep him around "less than the meanest ghost" until he could work something out again. Bingo. A horcrux is specifically designed to do one thing: to preserve the lifeforce of the person of which they contain part. A horcrux is SPECIFICALLY to anchor the part that's in the person. So, "normally", one horcrux makes a person "indestructible"-as long as the horcrux is intact. That's why a horcrux is hidden away in a "safe" location. (Hm. Safe. I bet the cup is in Gringott's.) So, all 6 are supposed to preserve Voldy's "life", which is the 7th. The weakness that should exist is in his self-the 7th. He's got a lot less "self" than even a horcrux user is supposed to have. This should mean his magic is weaker and so on. Yes, this also means that, if the horcruxes are holding his magic intact by existing (his soul still having all the pieces SOMEWHERE), then each destroyed horcrux should remove 1/7 of his original strength. Now, on to the unicorn blood and the SS/PS. Voldy's main purpose until the end of Book 4 was to become solid again. Anything else was a secondary consideration. The purpose of obtaining a PS/SS would be so he could generate a physical body again ASAP. Since Voldy burned out all animals he possessed, it's likely he would have burned out Quirrell eventually also. So, I think the purpose of the unicorn blood was to keep QUIRRELL alive as well-so Voldy could use him. Voldy received a secondary benefit from it that I can't determine from here. I think we've run up against the limits of what JKR wrote on the subject, and anything after this is in the realm of fanfiction.

Ewan McGregor Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Jimmy Smits

Well, November 18th is so the Holiday traffic will see the movie. If I were to guess, it will be out for purchase at the end of April or sometime in May to utilize summer sales possibilities. This would mean it should come to premium cable by, say, early August.

Right. This happened TWICE so far- Book 1, Chapter 1,at Godric's Hollow, and again in Book 1 towards the end, at the Mirror of Erised. No-that was a particular ability of the Riddle diary. After Godric's Hollow, Voldy became non-physical, and "less than the meanest ghost" (Voldy's description, Book 4, the cauldron scene.) Voldy existed thru possession-of animals, and the back of Quirrel's head. Thru a means as-yet not fully understood (I think it relates to the snake Nagini), Voldy eventually grew a tiny homonculus-like body from that form- which, I say, is a huge improvement over being completely dead. I speculate he drew off biomass from something he inhabited (Nagini) to get that body. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=17 "..what would have happened if Ginny had died and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?" "I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably." == We KNOW the result would have been a solid "Riddle" and an incorporeal "Voldy" who was "less than the meanest ghost". Then what? It is my GUESS that the Voldy-ghostthing would have possessed the solid Riddle and skipped the entire Book 4 experience. He would have the Book as an intact horcrux, Hogwarts would have been closed, and Voldy would have been able to use the Chamber of Secrets/ Hogwarts as a staging area, and used the magics native to Hogwarts as resources. (According to Dumbledore in Book 6, Riddle applied-TWICE- to be a teacher at Hogwarts to try to get access to its magics. To take the meanings of horcruxes strictly-and to judge by myths which JKR herself drew from- it is THAT a horcrux exists that is important. The normally do not DIRECTLY contribute to the survival of the person in a physical, material way. They just maintain part of their soul/essence so that the person can live on. They are normally NOT meant to sustain a person past PHYSICAL destruction- just normal causes of death-like disease, organ failure, "natural causes", even massive damage (many organs destroyed because someone parked a truck on Voldy.) Consider the movie vampire, who, although he's been STAKED, is still "alive" until he's hit with sunlight. He can be chopped up and stuff, but someone can put the pieces back together and remove the stake and there he goes again. So, NORMALLY, a Horcrux sits in a remote location, left alone, and quietly does what it's supposed to do. So, if someone came along and exploded Voldy again ("Voldemort explodicus"), then he'd go back to ghost-form and eventually return, either like he did with Quirrel, or like he did at the beginning of Book 4. So, if even ONE horcrux survived, and Voldy was exploded, he'd come back like he did before. If Voldy was in ghosty-form, and the last horcrux was destroyed, Voldy would be stuck. He MIGHT survive like a ghost, but more likely he'd have nothing connecting him to the world. Then again, Voldy's scared of death, so he MIGHT be stuck forever as a ghost, subject to their rules. I'd argue against it because there's only 1/7 of him left TO become a ghost-I'd argue that's not enough to retain an identity. (He might become a ghost with no personality, or the ghost of Forrest Gump or something, if he made it to ghosthood.)

The Vanishing Sandra Bullock Speed (I like to hit to the middle of the court...)

I didn't say "Harry" was the 6th Horcrux, I said Harry's SCAR was the 6th Horcrux. Big difference.