Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Mike

Members
  • Content Count

    4,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mike

  1. There’s no way I have the time to get involved in debate here, but I couldn’t help but notice two interesting items are missing here. The first missing item is what did VPW himself say about his use of other people’s material? His words on this topic are conspicuously missing here. Why is that? I also noticed this crucial information missing EVERY TIME the issue of plagiarism comes up. I think it dampens a lot of theories. Does anyone remember what he said? It’s in print. It was widely distributed, starting in 1972. I’ve posted this item about 10 times here (if not more) si
  2. And you also wrote: "It's obvious you don't bother to review your remarks before you post them. And I'm convinced it's because you're just too busy formulating the next ones already in your head --- that you don't stop to consider much at all before you post them! Hence, we see stuff just like this: 's like st (Go back and look...that's just the way you posted it!) And just what the hell is that, but the tell-tale marking of a man who just doesn't care a lick about what he's saying, nor how it might be taken by others?" Hi spectrum49, Thank you
  3. Please read my post to spectrum49 below. I am almost ready to post it. In there I explain that both my eyes ARE blind due to extreme ignorance on my part.
  4. Please read my post to spectrum49 below. I am almost ready to post it. In there I explain that both my eyes ARE blind due to extreme ignorance on my part.
  5. It was NOT a molestation, only a proposition, and she was and AC grad. You assumed the worst because you wanted to. I'm trying to get out of here, but it's like trying to stop a freight train. ******************** Late Addendum: Just reflecting on how I'm too sensitive to these things, I only used one word (victim) to describe that situation because it still bothers me today. A simple proposition (with him dutifully backing off from her refusal) is still horrific me. It bothered me a lot! Yet you, chockful, assumed the worst of both the situation and of me for blowin
  6. Thank you, Bolshevik for your refreshing contributions here.
  7. I was joking. Don't tell Johnny Carson it bombed, ok? Let's wrap it up here. I can say no more than I have. Where and how do I send money to Paw?
  8. If Bolshevik is similarly finished, maybe he would consent to close the thread here.
  9. I think me and my style are only a minor issue. Posting what has not been seen well here was the big issue to me. But for 3 posts now, I am willing to quote Superman and say "My job's done here." and fly away into Doctrinal after my taxes are done.
  10. To tell you the truth 49, I agree. I am repeating myself here. If Bolshevek comes up with any more gems, I can just read them. I doubt if I can say any more. Doctrinal sounds fine to me. I got to put some serious time into taxes also. Thanks for the idea.
  11. I thought this thread WAS in Doctrinal! I think it got moved. Maybe it was in Open. I don't mind posting in Doctoral. HEY! Maybe that would reduce the volume and I could get some polishing done. GOOD IDEA DWBH! Or was that MY idea? Gosh! Who's idea WAS it? Who might have the rights to it in a copyright court. I am NOT joking here. I am speaking by serious analogy. Attention: Bolshevek! I first noticed this oddity and some flimsiness in concepts of intellectual property and plagiarism when I was a Junior in High School. Several times someone would say something
  12. Hi Rocky, Your post is in black, my response in blue. That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message. Rocky, I appreciate your patience. I do try to do the kind of polished writing, and sometimes succeed. But most of the time here I am swamped with responses, lots of emotional hits, many spurious like sex on a plagiarism thread, and the urge to get my points down quickly overrules my desire to be polish
  13. I've hardly had time, this being a big family day, to even read all the posts of the past several days, but someday I will. If you have a burning point to make, please repeat it. Meanwhile I had some fun just now. There’s a certain warming rhetoric satisfaction when my opponents in a debate descend to ad hominem tactics like “liar liar pants on fire” and “you don’t write clear enough” and that I am wiggling about away from topic. Instead of addressing the ONE POINT that I made, which was that 1972 had some early, unemotionally charged discussions on plagiarism, the focus shifts
  14. My report on early 1972 discussions OF PLAGIARISM was displayed as not credible like my report on polygraphs. I defended my reports and my credibility. If you had read the posts (or read them better) you'd have seen that.
  15. You folks are quick to call me a liar and then when I show you to be wrong, you want to quickly get away, back to the topic. Interesting. Back on topic: The plagiarism issue was MOST DEFINITELY discussed at that early date of 1972, by me and others. Nearly EVERYONE read every page of WLIL, including where VPW TOTALLY admitted he did not originate the material. I saw someone try to dismiss that as an obscure book. Baloney! A lot here WANT it to be obscure because of that passage where VPW, point blank, said that what he taught he got from many others.
  16. I did not use any electronics to detect lies. I used it to entertain my friends by hooking it up to them and plants. At no point did I ever quiz them on possible lies. We all knew that lies could not be detected by such a simple setup. It measured changes in resistence well.
  17. Not enough for me. If you compare my expanded report immediately above, to your citation of my earlier abbreviated report, you can see they are consistent. I can now see HOW you made your wrong inference from the abbreviated one, given that you were groping for ways to discredit my credulity in my 1972 plagiarism report. You saw your chance in the close proximity of two two highly abbreviated sentences. Do you, at least, see this consistency, and from the detail of my expanded report that I really did engage in some exotic playing around with the entire field of polygraphs an
  18. It looks like you are calling me a liar while you distribute several falsehoods. You learned a lot at TWI. First point is you misread my posting. I never asserted nor implied that boredom is an emotion. You inferred it, and wrongly. I merely mentioned it as a condition. To me, boredom is akin to being emotionless. I was and still am interested in the phenomenon of lying, but I never once used any kind of electronics to pursue it. I used reading and thinking and observing for this. Popular Electronics had an article back then on how to do make a simple Galvanic Skin Res
  19. I do read your posts, and I am thankful for a slightly softer approach here in this one. It looks FROM MY VIEWPOINT that many of them in the past were designed to irritate and frustrate me. This one is still a little heavy on the number of topics you bring up. It’s difficult to figure out what to respond to, especially if I get that feeling you’ll just find some way to blow off my responses. So please pardon me if I pick and choose. It’s late and I’m tired after a couple hours of posting. I have no time to come close to responding to all that are here right now, but I chose yours to
  20. It's more speaking UP FOR God. Remember the assumption in the view I described is: God gave the revelations to VPW sources, then told VPW to go get them, shake the dust off them, and re-circulate them. If that assumption is correct, then it's people here who are forbidding God to do end runs around tradition and courts and copyright laws, as the real owner of the material.
  21. Right. I said that already, with the qualification that you adopt the view that the material was not God-breathed. That's the view the courts would take. Did you see me agree with your post before you posted it? If not, then you did not see that in the eyes of God, if He had given it first to VPW's sources and then VPW, the courts would simply be wrong due to inability to see God's ownership. Yes, in the eyes of unbelieving man there is no excuse for what he did. I said it again. Let's see how many don't see this second admission to join you in your ignorance on this point. No
  22. It WAS shrugged off by me and others in the early 70s because we were being so abundantly blessed. But I disagree with your earlier logic. If what we were given was God-breathed we would get blessed UNTIL the big battle began. Then the blessings wouldn’t be so free. Think it through logically and more fully. We are given the greatest tool in the world to threaten the god of this world. Next step is ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE to take it away from us utilizing MANY means, some false “blessing,” some great genuine agony. I often thing one of the reasons the Corps went so sour is that
  23. I disagree with your viewing VPW’s sources as primary. They ware also loaded with error. They also had things we did not need to advance God’s curriculum for us.
×
×
  • Create New...