Raf

Your mistake is thinking that there's a judgment call to be made here. This method of putting at least two of those books together is not subject to someone's judgment or opinion. It's history. It's indisputably how it happened. No one argues otherwise, because even Wierwille admitted it. Valid point. There's a slight difference in style between the red book (Order My Steps) and the blue book. I was making one point in conjunction with several other points, which you chose to pick apart rather than put together. No single point I raised is proof of anything, but the whole picture is what I was going for. Ah, but you missed something significant. Order My Steps, among the last books Wierwille wrote, definitely has plagiarism in it, which bolsters the point I made that the more direct hand Wierwille had in writing a book, the more likely you are to see plagiarism in it. So it's not a matter of improving. It's a matter of him having a direct hand or having a less direct hand in the writing process. You didn't look hard enough. I'll find it later, assuming I get a chance to dig these books out. But the presence of this paragraph is likewise indisputable, and it was in a book, not a magazine. Now, my memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I'm mistaken about the context of the statement. But if you have time (and the books handy), sheck the intros of all his books. The last paragraph of at least one will contain the statement I'm referring to. From there we can tell whether I've mischaracterized it (a distinct possibility). Again, the weight of evidence supports the article's statement about how certain books came about. I'm not trying to vigorously defend every statement made therein. You mistook my paraphrase for Juedes's words. Actually, Juedes's words were: "Use of a writing team expedites larger volumes and makes possible deeper treatments of a topic. However, to conform to the rules of scholarly practice, Wierwille should have listed himself as the general editor of these works, rather than author. One is left with the impression that the writing was done by him." My paraphrase was less absolute, reflective of the fact that while I see his point, I don't see it as the huge infraction he makes it out to be. WTH: Once again, I do not have time or patience to educate your seared conscience about what is and what isn't plagiarism. Arguing with you on the subject is like trying to argue the existence of the color blue to a blind man. Your stubborn unwillingness to see what happened and your decision to subject whether it happened to an arbitrary test does not impress me. I do not allege Wierwille plagiarized. I recognize it. It happened.

Would have to know what was considered profanity in his day. "Hypocrite" is unlikely to be considered profanity. Same with whited sepulchre. But I don't know either for a fact. I would hesitate to put it in the same category as the foul language LCM used. One is an accusation against character; the other a metaphor (or a simile. I don't have the verse handy). Then translation is an issue as well. I could see how someone could translate something literally and strip it of its profanity (sort of like calling someone an anus when "the original" had the word a******.

"Tell us everything! Everything!" "Everything. OK! I'll talk! In third grade, I cheated on my history exam. In fourth grade, I stole my uncle Max's toupee and I glued it on my face when I was Moses in my Hebrew School play. In fifth grade, I knocked my sister Edie down the stairs and I blamed it on the dog... When my mom sent me to the summer camp for fat kids and then they served lunch I got nuts and I pigged out and they kicked me out... But the worst thing I ever done - I mixed a pot of fake puke at home and then I went to this movie theater, hid the puke in my jacket, climbed up to the balcony and then, t-t-then, I made a noise like this: hua-hua-hua-huaaaaaaa - and then I dumped it over the side, all over the people in the audience. And then, this was horrible, all the people started getting sick and throwing up all over each other. I never felt so bad in my entire life." "I'm beginning to like this kid, Ma!" **** "That's what I said, booty traps." ***** "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."

Trust John S as much as you want or don't want. But put all these things together: Undisputed article about how the books were put together. Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team. Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books. The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works. VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it). The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier). I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.

Not a big deal. If you write two posts in quick succession, they appear as one post. Not having been present at the time the photo was taken, and not being a member of the research staff, I don't know. But you seem to be taking a poster's shorthand (they wrote the book and slapped his name on the cover) too literally. If I may presume to speak for my friend here, no one is suggesting Wierwille wasn't involved in the "writing" of the book. I'm an editor. In my line of work, people write quite a bit, and I have very strong input into how the final work will appear. I make suggestions, corrections, deletions, additions, etc. But the actual writing of the articles comes from writers, not from me. My job is both easier and harder: try to spot flaws in logic or gaps in presentation, etc. In the end, it's the writer's name, not mine, that appears on the article. It appears to me, based on my understanding of what people have said, that the process with VPW's books was similar, except that in the end the book ends up with his name on the cover rather than the writer/writers. In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint. Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.

A couple of things I noticed in this renewed discussion. First, it's common knowledge that the books JCOP and JCOPS were more collaborative efforts than works of VPW authorship. If you need corroboration on this, give John Schoenheit a call. Seriously, just call him. Check out the STFI website for the number. Second, I am not aware of any accusations of plagiarism in those books, seeing as both were heavily footnoted. So the idea that the editorial team, not VPW, was guilty of plagiarism in those cases is without merit: those books are the ones where you're least likely to find examples of plagiarism. Larry, since you're not disputing the presence of plagiarism in VPW's writings, it's unnecessary to prove it. So I thank you for that. It was never stated by WW or anyone else that this editorial-collaborative process is true of all of VPW's books. RTHST and ADAN were Wierwille books, and the plagiarized content in those books is much heavier. JCING gets an asterisk for two reasons. First, I'm not aware of any plagiarism (with the possible exception of recycled body-soul-spirit stuff that may or may not fall into that category), and second, it does have an extensive bibliography, though it was published separately for some reason I still can't fathom. In other words, the more direct input VPW had in the writing of a book, the more likely you are to find examples of plagiarism in it. WW, I don't see Larry as trying to deny plagiarism. I think he's struggling to understand your point with the editorial collaborative process. The point of a question is not always to level an accusation or play "gotcha." It's often to spark a discussion or bring out the answer. The problem I see is that Larry interpreted you as saying these collaborative efforts were the case with ALL of VPW's books, which would exonerate him of a direct plagiarism charge. But since he's misunderstanding what you said, it's leading him to make statements that are untrue (that it was the team, not VPW, who plagiarized). But his statements are extensive questions, and the answer to them is that VPW wrote some stuff without the team and the team wrote some stuff for which Wierwille served essentially as editor (though credited as "author"). This make sense to anyone? This article has a good breakdown of three types of Wierwille writings: transcribed sermons, actual writings, and collaborative efforts: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm

Spider-man 2

Actually, 11 million people died. Six million were Jews.

Well now, THAT made it easy.

Oldiesman asked me to cite sources for this last year. My reply was rude, and I (belatedly) apologize. Since that time, this has been posted on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe Hope it helps.

WTH, My post was over a year ago. I am choosing not to revisit that post just to satisfy the curiosity of a dumbs*** like you. And no, I do not feel a need to "prove" to you that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. I do not feel the need to "prove" to you that George Washington was the first president of the U.S. or that man landed on the moon. If you are too dumbs*** to find that information for yourself, I'm not wasting the time you should have invested in grade school.

Yup. Tom is required. Using Judi Dench for M has become standard procedure on this thread, no? Besides, the alternative is "The DenchPyre Strikes Bach," which, I believe, has not been made into a movie yet.

Scientifically speaking, the name of our sun is Sol. Sol. Lid. Missy Gold (didn't anyone here watch Benson?). DOOOOJ!!!!!!

My thoughts: he learned from two places. 1. His teacher. 2. the god he served.

So, you're going out with my daughter, eh? Well, make sure you use protection!

Need a little science knowledge to get this one. Or you need to be bilingual. If you get the second and third, the first is unmistakable.

Six pics. Four word title.

Can't see the second pic, but I can guess based on the first, third and fourth pics... Jake and the Fatman

Idi Amin Vin Diesel Chin/Lift Goat/Kid The DaVinci Code ?

Sorry I neglected this. Yeah, googling is cool if enough time passes. Steve Zahn, by the way, is one terrific actor.

Well, it's pouring in Fort Lauderdale, but we need the rain further upstate, where Lake O is. Otherwise, we're going to make New Orleans look like a minor inconvenience.

WTH makes the assertion that Wierwille's critics called him a Johnny come lately. I say he/she made that up too. I know, WTH read it in an old piece of literature he can no longer find. WhatEVER. Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was.

Oh my GOD! Poor reading comprehension skills at work AGAIN! YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim. Can you even READ?