Raf

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.

He did say he learned things from these other men. Interestingly, he often did not say precisely what he learned from which men. And never did he say "when you read question 8 in the common fears chapter of RTHST, you should know that those words aren't mine: I lifted them right out of Stiles. After all, I just about never use the term 'faith blasters.' I would have said 'believing blasters' if I had written it." And there is a difference. Everyone learns from other people. Not everyone plagiarizes and then slaps their name on it, calling themselves "authors" when they know it is not true.

I would have answered that if the show had been Soap, or if you had written, "You want me to get that?"

Oh come now, there have been far more questionable logical stretches than "age" for H. And Asterisk was fair game! :)

Age

Please do.

VPW understood enough to put a copyright on his own books. Had he not, I would possibly agree with you. But he did. And he deceitfully gave the impression that he tossed all other books aside and made the Bible his guide and textbook. He LIED. I have no compassion for that act of deception.

I finally made the list! Thanks, Belle! (although I thought for sure I'd get in with "JAL doesn't see the profit in GS; that's fine because I don't see the prophet in CES").

I guess my name was thrown in there for fun. Umm, if that "dictionary definition" wasn't yours, I've got no problem with that. it's still either wrong or misinterpreted. Honesty, which you pretend to treasure unless the person in question is writing a book about God, dictates you cite your source. It's plagiarism if you don't, whether the work is in the public domain or not.

Just having fun with this...

It's not Endgame, is it?

I've actually requested the opportunity to edit some of what I wrote in that article, as i believe I was mistaken then in the same way Oldiesman is mistaken now (namely, that there's some point to "intent," when in fact there is not). Plagiarism is plagiarism whether it's intended or not. I was flat out wrong to say otherwise. Intent comes into play when you're assessing the motives of the plagiarist, not when you're assessing whether plagiarism has taken place.

In RTHST, Wierwille says he disregarded all other reading materials and used the Bible as his text and guide. I'm paraphrasing. This was a deliberate lie on his part. So much of that book was plagiarized it's not even funny. And he does not credit his sources in that book (and to avoid plagiarism, you cite the source where you quote it, not in the basement of a BRC surrounded by 0.0008% of the people who bought your book).

"Distant past..." What a bald-faced lie. You SHOW me where I retracted that!

Goodness, you provide the truth that dispels your lie, yet insist upon the lie. Unbelievable. no wonder you can't grasp a simple concept like plagiarism.

"All he is to you is a liar and a thief. And worse." Um, no, now you're lying about me. But you know that. He WAS a liar. Morally and ethically, he WAS a thief. He was also a manipulative predator and a disgrace. But for you to say that this is "all he is to" me is a deliberate distortion, because YOU KNOW BETTER.

There is a big difference between plagiarism and acknowledging that what you taught is not original. Very few people teach anything original. They don't resort to plagiarism. You're excusing a liar who insulted your intelligence so much that you are lowering your intelligence to meet his expectations.

I HEAR YOU!!!

You're responding to a revised message, for which I apologize. It's COMPLETELY beside the point. He could have sold both books together as a package and it would still be plagiarism. Your ignorance on the subject at this stage is deliberate. I revised because I liked my revision better. Didn't think you'd reply so quickly.

No.

Like I said, otherwise intelligent people are choosing to lower their intelligence levels on this particular subject to excuse his deception, rather than acknowledge it for what it is.

Too bad the grammar test failed a math test. It's not possible to get 98% on a test with 13 questions (unless they're giving partial credit).

How you guys manage to see shades of grey in something so clearly black and white, something you'd NEVER look past if the perpetrator's initials were not VPW, is beyond me. Oh, what was his intent? His intent was to get you to believe he was the author of these works, when in fact he was lifting them in whole or in part from other people. His intent was to insult our intelligence. The effect is, otherwise intelligent people are choosing to lower their intelligence levels on this particular subject to excuse his deception, rather than acknowledge it for what it is.