Raf

Ah, it's the TYPE of shark. Ok... God/George/Burns Dish (This?) (The?) Mako John/Travolta/V/Jet/Engine/ (injun?) I'm no closer. LOL!!!!!! God Dish Mako Pilot God Is My co-Pilot That was a movie? If God is your co-pilot, SWITCH SEATS!

God/George/Burns Dish (This?) (The?) Shark John/Travolta/V/Jet/Engine/ (injun?)

They're all showing. I was just making funny.

I see a shark and a jet, but somehow, I don't think the answer is west side story.

I say Tom can take it if he wants to just continue the game, but he did not get it until the clue was supplied. He stumbled on it, but didn't realize what he stumbled on.

Calista Flockhart The Birdcage Hank Azaria

Benny and Joon Julianne Moore The Fugitive

I'm going to guess the episode that introduced species 8427 or whatever it was called.

Yes

The kids were mentioned in Season 2 and Season 3. They just didn't participate in those days' events. At the beginning of Season 2, Palmer is fishing with his son. Season 3, that politician who has a heart attack tells Sherri he helped make her children's father president of the U.S. No mention that I recall in Season 4, and as for Season 5, they were a little busy. The kids didn't figure into the plot, so no need to mention them.

Yup. Except Dooj should pick another film. That one was posted fairly recently, I'm sure.

Once you get the second one, it's easy. I didn't recognize the third pic, but figured very easily who is must be. S Cape Squeaky Fromme Gnu Susannah York (I'm guessing there, but she does look like Superman's mom). Escape From New York

What, no Asterix?

The more I think about it, the more I think my explanation makes sense. He knew what he was doing. Probably knew it was wrong, too. Simply didn't care. The question for the individual is whether he should have cared. If you're inclined to thnk of him as a teacher who wanted to get the word out, it doesn't bother you that he didn't care. If you're inclined to think of him as a manipulative predator who used God's people toward his own selfish ends, this is just another piece of evidence on top of a mountain of misdeeds that proves his fundamental dishonesty.

Yes, but they can't claim to have written it: not morally or ethically, or even legally these days, but that evidently wasn't an issue in Wierwille's time. I can copy Hamlet's soliloquy and put it on my door, on my web page, in the introduction of my book... I can do whatever I want with it, except say "Hamlet's soliloquy, by Raf." Once I do that, I am a liar. I would probably not get away with it when it comes to Shakespeare, but when it comes to lesser-known authors, I could easily get away with it. I'd still be a liar and, morally but not legally speaking, a thief.

I am sure there is plenty of non-plagiarized content in VPW's work. And I still hold to many of the things that were taught. Some of the things that were taught I no longer hold to, but I hold to something close (example: I no longer accept tithing as a principle, but I do accept generous giving from the heart; I don't accept a "law of believing," but I do see value in positive thinking). But that he plagiarized? Not even arguable, in my book (which is extensively footnoted). I guess copyright law fascinates you guys. Look: copyright and plagiarism are distinct issues. Something in the public domain has no copyright protection. THAT DOES NOT LIBERATE THE HONEST AUTHOR FROM THE NEED TO DOCUMENT HIS SOURCE WHEN QUOTING FROM SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. A dishonest author can do that at will.

The best evidence we have, most favorable to the defence, is that Wierwille was an indifferent plagiarist: he knew what plagiarism was and knew he was engaged in it, but didn't care because he felt the content was more important. If that's your view, or anyone else's, it's nothing to be ashamed of. But this game of pretending that what he did was not plagiarism because it wasn't a crime is just flat-out ignorant and a waste of pixels. What he did was plagiarism because it was taking credit for something someone else wrote. Period. I don't know why this is so complicated for you. Dance around it all you want. He took credit, repeatedly, for words, paragraphs, chapters, specific concepts, chapter structures, etc. that were developed by other people, usually not giving credit where it was required and due (by required, I mean: the credit should be in the publication, not at a meeting in the BRC years before or after the item is published). If you want to say "so what?" then be my guest! If you want to argue that it wasn't a crime, be my guest. If you want to argue that it wasn't dishonest, then you're being woefully naive and ignoring the abundantly clear, established pattern. The guy plagiarized rampantly, from PFAL all the way to Order My Steps in Thy Word. It didn't stop until his breathing did.

Fine. Wierwille was dishonest, disingenuous, insulting your intelligence and holding men of God to a lower standard to men of the world, but he didn't commit a crime when he lied about his authorship of his books. How that makes you feel better, I don't know. Again, it distracts from the point, which is that "by Victor Paul Wierwille" was a lie. He quoted from a bunch of copyrighted works without giving credit. He quoted from non-copyrighted works without giving credit. You're not even arguing anymore, you're excuse-making. Spend a little time in a courtroom: If you were looking to convict him on this charge, then the pattern of behavior is most certainly admissible in any court. We have evidence that he plagiarized regularly. On the contrary, we have no evidence whatsoever except for your pure speculation that Stiles may have actually WANTED his works plagiarized without him getting any credit for it. WD, seriously, you're on stronger ground not caring that he plagiarized than you are pretending beyond reason (and your argument IS beyond reason) that no plagiarism has taken place in the Stiles matter.

Accidental, negligent... terms that just don't apply here. A man with a master's degree from daffy duck university knows what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. He was neither accidental nor negligent (in my mind, you can't be intentionally negligent. But what T-bone wrote about indifference is more like what I have in mind). If you're going to be charitable about it, the words to use are "unconcerned and unapologetic." That is, he simply didn't CARE about the plagiarism. He did it, such is life, get over it and what do you think of the CONTENT, never mind the origin. It's true or false based on what is on the page, not based on whose typewriter hit the letters first. When I refer to the "so what" argument, this is what I'm talking about. YES, he plagiarized. Left and right, right up to and including Order My Steps In Thy Word. So what? What about the content?

Precisely what I said. Well, more succinct, but the same point. I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that his intentions with Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles and others I may have overlooked were identical. That is, to cut and paste their works, with some alterations mainly to account for theological and/or style differences, not give them credit, slap his name on the cover as the author, and sell his product, which was not just a book, but himself as a godly authority on this earth. All of the actions described with regard to the works of the other men are plagiarism, period. They may not be violations of the law on a case by case basis, but one need not violate the law to commit plagiarism. This equating of plagiarism with a violation of the law is a distraction from the issue of whether plagiarism took place. The plagiarism took place whether people want to acknowledge it or not. As for legal violations, so what and who cares? Why is THAT the point? No one's trying to prosecute a man who's been dead 22 years (and if we were, we'd have better indictments than plagiarism!).

It's a guess?!?!?! That's like saying it's a guess whether there was serial murder in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. Gee, killed one and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Hey, boss, I think I see a pattern here! Maybe, but ONE of those killings may have been self defense, so we really can't be sure whether "serial murder" is the right term. Please. Stop letting the ghost of this man's legacy insult your intelligence. That you're able to come up with these distortions at all establishes that you're intelligent: you should also be smart enough to see how ludicrous it is to believe it!

Oh, come on! Look at the contortions you have to twist yourself into to defend this liar who insults your intelligence! He was wrong to do it to this guy, and it may have been illegal, and he may have been withing the law when he did it to THAT guy, but he clearly did not have that guy's permission, but he may have had this other guy's permission. Are you kidding? Your reasoning is not reasoning at all: it's twisted apologetics worthy of a dime store defense lawyer (and not a very good one at that). (edited to reflect an edit WD made to preceding post)

WD, you keep misrepresenting something and it needs to be cleared up: plagiarism as a moral issue is independent of copyright and public domain law. One has nothing to do with the other. You keep making it sound like because a work is in the public domain, an author can quote it extensively and pretend he wrote it, as Wierwille did, and not be guilty of plagiarism. That is simply wrong. If it's not what you're trying to say, fine. But it's the impression you're leaving. Copyright law, public domain law, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.

Let the ballots be for Gore Let the ballots be for Gore Let the ballots be for... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!! One, nothing wrong with me Two, nothing wrong with me Three, nothing wrong with me...

:) Not that much of a stretch! M was obvious * was less obvious, but perfectly fair. The others were obvious. And "age" for H is not THAT much of a stretch.