Raf

I suspect that denying a polling place because it is a church would be as much a violation of the First Amendment as requiring that polling places be at churches. Recall that the First Amendment does not say "separation of church and state," so using that phrase to frame the law doesn't always work (although it sometimes does). The amendment is that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a church building meets all the legal requirements of a polling place, then it cannot be denied simply because it is a church. (I don't know how polling places are selected, so please don't ask).

Reminds me of something I said a couple of years ago: we spent more time discerning the number of crosses on the side than the significance of the cross in the middle.

According to my avatar, I currently resemble a red x.

So if I become a judge, can I wear a robe that says "Black Power" on it while presiding over a trial involving a hate crime? Hmm?

18 of my 19 students passed their (standardized) grammar tests this semester! Woohoo!

Because you asked nicely. In most cases, any one of these would be insufficient to prove plagiarism. Taken as a whole, however, the evidence is devastating.

Steve is correct. Some obvious examples: "The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book borrows heavily, without citation, from Bullinger. The first chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today begins with rampant plagiarism from JE Stiles. The Q&A in the same book was modeled after Stiles' Q&A (perfectly fair) and included at least one question and answer block which was heavily lifted from Stiles (not fair). For those wondering, it's question 8. Order My Steps in Thy Word lifts liberally from EW Kenyon (interestingly, in the very same chapter, Wierwille credits Kenyon with a rather lengthy story. THAT was not plagiarism, but the passages that preceded it were clearly plagiarized). There are other examples, but the point's made, no?

What do you mean by "The Upper Room Theory"? That the 120 were in the upper room? I personally think Wierwille got that right (and have seen other, independent studies suggest the same thing).

Correct. You can also lie to your family and it's not perjury. It's still wrong, but it's not perjury. Using material by another author without crediting the other author is dishonest. "Hey, honey, I wrote you this poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." It's just plain old flat out lying. I'm not saying your personal letters have to come with footnotes. But dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what. Incorrect. It is plagiarism if you publish (aka, publicize) your work, regardless of whether you make a profit off it. You can plagiarize in a letter to the editor. They don't pay you for it, but they publish it, and that makes you a plagiarist. If you plagiarized for a pamphlet and gave it away on the street corner, that's still plagiarism. The level of profit is immaterial. 2. Yes it is. 1. Depends on what you mean by "simply using." I don't credit the inventors of the alphabet everytime I begin an article. But the moment I'm expressing someone else's ideas in their words, it's incumbent upon me to cite the source. You're missing the point. Any one of us can publish a King James Bible, as it's no longer copyrighted. However, if I were to distribute a Bible called "The King James Bible, by Rafael Olmeda" that contains nothing but the King James Bible text, I have committed plagiarism, even though the "original author(s)" are long dead. Depends in large measure on the uniqueness of the combination of words you're using. I am not foolish enough to believe that every word combination I've ever used is original, but if I ever try to pass off "I think, therefore I am" as my own saying, then I'd be correctly labeled a plagiarist. Correct. Incorrect. The analysis was riddled with error. Correct. This is more to the point of what Wierwille did than most other explanations. Correct.

This one is almost amusing. This dispatch from Mobile, Alabamie.

The title of this thread is screwed up. It says "A friend of mine thinks ExCathedra is hot." That implies it's a matter of opinion and that it may or may not be true. It should more accurately read, in the literal translation according to that's-the-fact-Jack, "A friend of mine acknowledges the undeniable truth that ExCathedra is hot." You'd better believe it.

Can't see it. Can someone offer a brief description?

I'm trying to remember my history. I found the CES site about the same time I found Waydale, but I think CES had a forum up before Waydale did. I eventually joined both, but was an infrequent poster on Waydale. I was more a CES site junkie (some GREAT stuff on that board). Then, of course, came the fateful day that THE CES board closed down, and I jumped on Waydale to tell everyone. We all know what happen THEn. After that I was into Waydale. I didn't jump to Greasespot until Waydale closed.

Thanks. I don't remember the Bayunga uprising being a part of POP. Then, I am grateful to say, I lost my copy of that rag ages ago and have not downloaded a new copy even though it's widely available.

Flat Stanley has arrived in sunny Fort Lauderdale (and it really is sunny, and cool). I took him to "Old Fort Lauderdale," our historic district, this morning. Our historic district consists of about five or six houses built between 1900-1920. Some history. Anyway, we're going postcard shopping later and then he's headed for Tampa.

Rick! Where've you been!?! E-mail me.

If Posh Spice was at the Nativity, I don't think anyone would have called her the VIRGIN Mary.

What predictions?

He's 84. There are nine cast members left. All munchkins.

I don't think I can do that (it's work product, property of my paper).

No, but I do have a tape of him singing the song. :)-->

I'll check my mail as soon as I get home. I haven't gotten it yet, but I haven't checked the mail for a few days (last week of the semester: tres busy).

I love my job. I just got back from an interview with Jerry Maren. He's the one in the middle.

:)--> Or as I've put it: Death is not caused when someone stops believing. It is caused when someone stops breathing.

Dave, and everyone else: Let's try a completely different approach. Make your cases without referring to Wierwille as a person (you may refer to what he wrote, but not to his motives, behavior, education, etc). Let's see if the framework of administrations really holds up to scrutiny, with or without Wierwille. Great start from VL in the post immediately preceding this one.