WD? OM? Come on - one of you has to be on the day shift! What's the answer? Are you going to support Potato putting his name on David's music and copyrighting it?
WD, would you support and defend musicians who recorded DMiller's non-copyrighted music and didn't give him proper credit, but rather put their own name on it?
Belle, WD will have to defend them to be consistent.
hey dmiller, I want copies of your non-copyrighted songs so I can reprint them with "by potato" on them. after all, they're public domain, right? I want something to inflate my ego and stroke my vanity, that seems like an easy way to do it... then I can distribute the printed music to a bunch of musicians and get a name for myself as a composer, and it will be OK because it's not a crime.
Well it looks like Oldiesman did not show up for work all week.
As to your question Belle I would support anyone using public domain items in the manner which the law allows. If they do so it is not a crime. Ethics and Morals are another issue and subject to personal opinion and do not constitute crime.
As to your example it is hypothetical and therefore lacks the facts required to make a proper judgment. Not to mention it has no relation to the subject here for comparison. It has no record of Godly intervention as in Stiles case where he was told to go to Tulsa and there is no record of snow on any gas pumps seen by either party. There are circumstances involved with Stiles that do not hold true with others such as Kenyon,Bullinger and others, that I am willing to consider which is why I said originally "in this case." Stiles may have considered the words he wrote inspired by God, and as such not his to copyright, or own , thus he did not. He may have agreed that since they were not his to govern he had no problem with others using them as they were not his but God's
God told me to take your music and publish under my name. amazing, huh! God sure works in mysterious ways. he knows how badly I want to bless people with music (never mind that I never learned how to write it). I just know you won't mind, because God told me it was ok.
pee-puhl, you'll all be blessed soon to see my songs in print!! you can play them too as much as you like, but you gotta pay me. any resemblance between MY copyrighted music and dmiller's public domain music is God's responsibility because God called us both here so I could use dmiller's work.
Not Exactly what I said but then again I wasn't expecting a fair interpretation of my words. But That's the result when you have a agenda to keep up..
God told me to take your music and publish under my name
Just for the record and because I have nothing else to do today I'll point out "God told Me to tell you" is vastly different from God telling the author of the work to do something as he did in Stiles case. But of course what's a few small details to get in the way of our agenda? we will just change those.
but you gotta pay me.
Really? did you write a check for payment to VPW for anything? Last I looked that's how you would pay someone. At least that's how I like my checks to be made out, to my name, when someone is paying me. Of course if one had an agenda they could overlook this small item as well.
Back in the late '60's I wrote tons of music, most of which is now out of style and dated. I still have the copyright certificates. Because copyright law at that time allowed me to claim ownership for a limited time of 28 years, these songs have long since entered public domain. If someone wanted to use this music I would be thrilled. If, on the other hand, they wanted to not only use it but also claim authorship, I would be NOT thrilled. Formal copyrights are simply one avenue of proving ones' claim to authorship. Just because Stiles did not have formal copyright certificates on this work does not mean it was "up for grabs". It simply means Stiles had one less avenue to prove authorship if he desired to do so. Accessability is also a factor in proving authorship. In other words, if someone in New Zealand claimed to have coincidentally written the same song I did in America, whether or not they had accessability to my work would be a factor that would come into play in proving authorship. I think it is clear that VPW had access to much of the work he claimed to be his own, including that of Stiles. If you want to use my music, you need only ask but don't look for loopholes that will allow you to claim authorship and for goodness sake don't say God gave it to you.
People are STILL fighting to this day over the controversy, though history finally credited Newton AND Leibniz independant development of the calculus.
Both Newton and Leibniz were damaged in the fight. It appears that Leibniz did indeed have access to some of Newton's material before publishing his findings..
Seems documentation and plagiarism have always been an important issue among educated people..
I can't see why religion should be an exception.
My opinion- documentation and citing makes a produce BETTER, not worse.
"I found it in an old document somewhere, can't remember what it was, can't find it since.."
can hardly be a solid foundation to base one's faith. Questionable, at best, destructive, at the worst.
Just for the record and because I have nothing else to do today I'll point out "God told Me to tell you" is vastly different from God telling the author of the work to do something as he did in Stiles case.
so, what did Stiles say God told him to do?
Really? did you write a check for payment to VPW for anything? Last I looked that's how you would pay someone. At least that's how I like my checks to be made out, to my name, when someone is paying me.
usually when I buy a book, the payment is made to Amazon or Barnes and Nobles. I can't remember the last time (if ever) I paid an author directly. the method generally used is you pay the bookstore or other end distribution point, who pays their distributor, who pays the publishing house, who pays the author. pretty neat, huh???
I don't want to stray too far from the topic at hand(J.E. Stiles,etc.) so I will try to be brief.
There seems to be some degree of misunderstanding of "public domain".
When a work is in public domain, no one can claim ownership of said work.
Take"Mary Had A Little Lamb", for example. You can not copyright this song because it is in PD.
You can,however devise your own version and copyright your recording of said song.
Stevie Ray Vaughn did this with "Mary Had A Little Lamb".
You, too, can record this same song in your own version and copyright that recording.
Now, your songs are not truly in the public domain because someone could ,in fact, copyright them and claim ownership. While I understand that you would be delighted to have someone think highly enough of one of your works that they would choose to use it, I doubt it would
please you to find someone had been granted a copyright and declared the legal owner.
This would take on even greater importance if they then used the work in a manner you
strongly disagreed with.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject but I think your best course of action would be to obtain copyrights. If you then choose to allow people to freely use your material,
it is being done because you gave permission not because someone took liberty with your creativity.
Now, your songs are not truly in the public domain because someone could ,in fact, copyright them and claim ownership. While I understand that you would be delighted to have someone think highly enough of one of your works that they would choose to use it, I doubt it would please you to find someone had been granted a copyright and declared the legal owner.
This would take on even greater importance if they then used the work in a manner you strongly disagreed with.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject but I think your best course of action would be to obtain copyrights.
once a work has been given to the public (inserted into the public domain) it cannot be copyrighted, even by the original creator. it has been gifted, just like signing the copyright of a famous song over to someone else, who then gets to collect royalties. the original owner cannot then say "oops".
and, just because ownershipt has changed (either individual to individual, or individual to public) it does not mean the author has changed. public rights do not include the right to claim authorship.
now, that said, it would be difficult for dmiller to defend a claim of copyright in court over a song he wrote if he publicly stated that he was placing it in the public domain, but you are correct he could record and copyright his version of it (which would be protected by that insane outfit you told me about, dmiller). it would also be difficult for someone else to put their name on it as author and copyright it if there was general knowledge that dmiller wrote it, so a fraudulent copyright suit would not stand up in court if the defendent could prove dmiller wrote it and put it in the public domain (as long as we can keep that insane watchdog organization out of the situation, which can only happen if no one registers a recording with them... I'm just talking printed music here).
It has no record of Godly intervention as in Stiles case where he was told to go to Tulsa and there is no record of snow on any gas pumps seen by either party. There are circumstances involved with Stiles that do not hold true with others such as Kenyon,Bullinger and others, that I am willing to consider which is why I said originally "in this case." Stiles may have considered the words he wrote inspired by God, and as such not his to copyright, or own , thus he did not. He may have agreed that since they were not his to govern he had no problem with others using them as they were not his but God's
Mind you, the claim Stiles was told to go to Tulsa by God Almighty and "record of snow" is based on an
account purely from vpw and no other source:
page 198, "The Way:Living in Love":
""So I left the meeting, slipped out, went to my hotel and called the airport. I was all set to check out. But a funny thing had happened-
there was a blizzard in Tulsa. All the planes were grounded, So I couldn't get a plane. I tried the trains-they were all snowed in. The buses-same thing. The city was snowbound. I just couldn't get out!
Well, I called back the airport, and they said they could put me on standby for the night. I asked the girl on the phone, 'Does this happen all the time?' She said, 'No, this is the first time.' "Doctor punctuates his story with a rumbling laugh. He continues his account, pointing the car squarely towards the widening patch of blue sky."
"The next morning, I still hadn't left town. I went to breakfast at the hotel, sat down next to a straight guy. He looked me over and recognized me. He began, 'Aren't you the Evangelical and Reformed preacher who spoke in tongues last night?' I said, 'Yes, but it was a da*n lie.' Then he said he knew I was dam*ed because I cussed. That ended our conversation. Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need. Meet me at 9am.' I thought,
'Women never tell the truth.' But then I reconsidered, since I was stuck in town anyway. So I decided to meet her. I got to the place she said at 9am, and there she was. She introduced me to a man named J.E. Stiles. He'd come in from the West Coast. A few days before, God had told him to go to Tulsa to minister the holy spirit to one man. We talked for a few minutes, and he suggested we gointo the rally to hear Oral Roberts and then meet for lunch. So that's what we did. At lunchtime Stiles came in with his wife and the pianist. I just remember thinking to myself,
'There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.'"
Now, concerning this blizzard in Tulsa, we also know this...
"The Tulsa Tribune notes that the temperature that day was 60 degrees [Farenheit], and the overnight
low never even got down to freezing. December 1951 records in 'Climatological Data for Oklahoma'
show only 5/10 an inch of snow in Dec 8 and 6/10 inch on Dec 20. NEITHER date concurs with
Wierwille's visit, and neither records anything near a blizzard which could stop ALL BUSSES AND TRAINS.
Way Corps graduate Barries Hill later confirmed that the rally was the Divine Healing Convention,
December 11-13, 1951, sponsored by 'the Voice of Healing' magazine, and that Wierwille stayed
at the Hotel Tulsa (which was razed in 1973.) Hill notes that the weather bureau, newspapers and airport
do NOT record a snowstorm at that time. When she mentioned this to Wierwille, he dismissed these facts
by suggesting that the blizzard was "a phenomenon" or that he "spoke with angels" when he called
the airport, train station and bus station. (Wierwille conveniently blames holy angels for LYING to him
about the weather rather than admit his fabrication!)"
we know for a fact that the blizzard itself was a complete lie, a fabrication, a falsehood,
but we're supposed to believe that the man who was caught lying about the blizzard
told the absolute truth about Stiles hearing from God that he was supposed to be in
town SPECIFICALLY to meet with the proven liar.
Having seen vpw BLATANTLY lie concerning the day and circumstances of his meeting Stiles,
we're supposed to take him at his word concerning the OTHER details of that day.
Now,
if any OTHER person was caught lying to you about an incident on the parts you could check,
would you believe them on that incident when they said things you couldn't check?
If it was ANYONE BUT VPW, you would NOT trust them like that.
(If you would-let me know; I can find some people looking for people that gullible.)
Just for the record and because I have nothing else to do today I'll point out "God told Me to tell you" is vastly different from God telling the author of the work to do something as he did in Stiles case. But of course what's a few small details to get in the way of our agenda? we will just change those.
(snip)
Apparently, we ARE supposed to accept vpw's word on something after he's been caught lying
about the exact same incident!
vpw always tells the complete truth-except where he's been undeniably caught lying.
vpw WAS, after all, caught lying about the reason he supposedly was in town,
and a blizzard grinding the city's transit to a halt.
But of course, what's a few small details to get in the way of our agenda?
Maybe someone else will remember, but I think the spin was that Dr. Wierwille had discovered all this stuff through his own research, and then found validation in the works of Bullinger who had seen the same things in the Word a generation or two earlier.
Maybe someone else will remember, but I think the spin was that Dr. Wierwille had discovered all this stuff through his own research, and then found validation in the works of Bullinger who had seen the same things in the Word a generation or two earlier.
That was the line I first heard in 1965.
Peter
...and how convenient (and an Amazingcoincidence) that he then wrote it down pretty much WORD FOR WORD exactly as Stiles, Bullinger, et al had...
I repeat - alleged VERBAL credit given to a small group of people does not absolve the man of plagiarism. What he said or didn't say has no bearing on the fact that he stole work from others and put his name on it.
...and how convenient (and an Amazingcoincidence) that he then wrote it down pretty much WORD FOR WORD exactly as Stiles, Bullinger, et al had...
...it must be a miracle!
Tom you're exaggerating.
When one examines the totality of Wierwille's books there is some "word for word" plagiarism, but not near the amount hysterically misrepresented by some posters.
I've seen a few sentences and paragraphs. That's "pretty much"? blaahhh
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
69
62
127
Popular Days
Jul 6
142
Jul 4
63
Jul 2
54
Jul 5
48
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 47 posts
Bolshevik 69 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 62 posts
rrobs 127 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2017
142 posts
Jul 4 2017
63 posts
Jul 2 2017
54 posts
Jul 5 2017
48 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"I find it interesting that everybody here attacks me personally. Nobody address the things I say about the word. You keep wanting to make it about VP. Nobody here really knows my thinking on VP or th
Grace Valerie Claire
Robs, I think you should STFU.
waysider
OOPS!
Belle
WD? OM? Come on - one of you has to be on the day shift! What's the answer? Are you going to support Potato putting his name on David's music and copyrighting it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Belle -- (pssssssst! -- Potato is a she (If I recollect correct)! :)
Regardless --- The basic premise is the same -- be it music, or *biblical research*.
I've DELIBERATELY never copyrighted my tunes. As I stated earlier ---
I consider them a gift to me, for others, who may happen to enjoy them.
For the most part -- they have never been heard, outside of this (my local) area.
Most folk's have never heard them played -- except by me.
Musician's come to this (my area) for the jam sessions we have here, which are quite good.
(Not unlike others travelling to a ((cough!!)) distant area, for a bible class).
Upshot of it is -- there were some famous/prominent/ whatever/ musicians who came to our jam sessions.
Some of my tunes were played those evenings, and they liked them enough to learn them, then and there.
When the time came for them to record a new CD, and they thought to include one of my tunes on it ---
I'VE ALWAYS GOTTEN A PHONE CALL --- ASKING PERMISSION (because they knew the composer).
None of them have (yet) dared to put my stuff out there as THEIR WORK.
Having spoken with all the groups involved -- they knew that my stuff was NOT copyrighted.
But they had the DECENCY to contact me for permission.
I always gave it. It wasn't hard to give, nor was it hard for them to ask.
Now -- (this is another IMO) ---- docvic coulda done the same, given the same set of circumstances.
(I'm assuming that Stiles wanted his work out there --for others to teach).
But from what I DO know -- (and granted it IS LIMITED), docvic never had the courtesy ---
to place the phone calls, like I received.
Selah. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
OMG! Potato, I'm soooo sorry!! Thank you, David, I knew that - dunno why I typed "his".
Dunno why OM and WD are avoiding answering either.... <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Cause you got em Belle!
What is there to say? The *w* word? Don`t hold your breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
well, potatoes are sort of androgynous, and it's not like I talk about giving birth to my tater tots all the time.... so it's totally ok
at least no one calls me a him IRL. that would suck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I'm just not that sweet... I'm kind of crusty on the outside, like I was dipped in batter and fried.
but, you can look at my picture and see the mrs. in front of my name
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well it looks like Oldiesman did not show up for work all week.
As to your question Belle I would support anyone using public domain items in the manner which the law allows. If they do so it is not a crime. Ethics and Morals are another issue and subject to personal opinion and do not constitute crime.
As to your example it is hypothetical and therefore lacks the facts required to make a proper judgment. Not to mention it has no relation to the subject here for comparison. It has no record of Godly intervention as in Stiles case where he was told to go to Tulsa and there is no record of snow on any gas pumps seen by either party. There are circumstances involved with Stiles that do not hold true with others such as Kenyon,Bullinger and others, that I am willing to consider which is why I said originally "in this case." Stiles may have considered the words he wrote inspired by God, and as such not his to copyright, or own , thus he did not. He may have agreed that since they were not his to govern he had no problem with others using them as they were not his but God's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
wow.
hey, dmiller:
God told me to take your music and publish under my name. amazing, huh! God sure works in mysterious ways. he knows how badly I want to bless people with music (never mind that I never learned how to write it). I just know you won't mind, because God told me it was ok.
pee-puhl, you'll all be blessed soon to see my songs in print!! you can play them too as much as you like, but you gotta pay me. any resemblance between MY copyrighted music and dmiller's public domain music is God's responsibility because God called us both here so I could use dmiller's work.
anyone with problems, ask excathedra what to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not Exactly what I said but then again I wasn't expecting a fair interpretation of my words. But That's the result when you have a agenda to keep up..
Just for the record and because I have nothing else to do today I'll point out "God told Me to tell you" is vastly different from God telling the author of the work to do something as he did in Stiles case. But of course what's a few small details to get in the way of our agenda? we will just change those.Really? did you write a check for payment to VPW for anything? Last I looked that's how you would pay someone. At least that's how I like my checks to be made out, to my name, when someone is paying me. Of course if one had an agenda they could overlook this small item as well.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Back in the late '60's I wrote tons of music, most of which is now out of style and dated. I still have the copyright certificates. Because copyright law at that time allowed me to claim ownership for a limited time of 28 years, these songs have long since entered public domain. If someone wanted to use this music I would be thrilled. If, on the other hand, they wanted to not only use it but also claim authorship, I would be NOT thrilled. Formal copyrights are simply one avenue of proving ones' claim to authorship. Just because Stiles did not have formal copyright certificates on this work does not mean it was "up for grabs". It simply means Stiles had one less avenue to prove authorship if he desired to do so. Accessability is also a factor in proving authorship. In other words, if someone in New Zealand claimed to have coincidentally written the same song I did in America, whether or not they had accessability to my work would be a factor that would come into play in proving authorship. I think it is clear that VPW had access to much of the work he claimed to be his own, including that of Stiles. If you want to use my music, you need only ask but don't look for loopholes that will allow you to claim authorship and for goodness sake don't say God gave it to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Here's what can happen when the same thing is developed independantly by two parties..
People are STILL fighting to this day over the controversy, though history finally credited Newton AND Leibniz independant development of the calculus.
Both Newton and Leibniz were damaged in the fight. It appears that Leibniz did indeed have access to some of Newton's material before publishing his findings..
Seems documentation and plagiarism have always been an important issue among educated people..
I can't see why religion should be an exception.
My opinion- documentation and citing makes a produce BETTER, not worse.
"I found it in an old document somewhere, can't remember what it was, can't find it since.."
can hardly be a solid foundation to base one's faith. Questionable, at best, destructive, at the worst.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- (I know -- that's a deep subject for a shallow mind, and all that) ---
I'd like to add a bit to what I've already said (if I may).
First of all -- I agree with WhiteDove about crime versus ethics and morals.
If someone uses any of my tunes (within the law of public domain), I've got no beef with them.
They are free to do so. And as Waysider said -- I've cut off an avenue for "proving authorship".
But that is/ was my choice. Were I to do a CD of my own -- I'd get them copyrighted.
But since I have no aspirations to do a CD (and go *public*), they'll remain public domain.
Now -- were an artist (or a group) to take my stuff, and pawn it off as their own,
I'd have some serious issues with them, but would be able to do little (legally).
And in a nutshell -- I think this is what docvic did to Stiles.
Remember the teaching that docvic did about teaching error, then practicing error,
then finally making that error (both taught and practiced) DOCTRINE??
In a convoluted sense -- I think docvic did just that with the works of others.
He took the works of others (PD - therefore legal) -- and taught them. (Teaching).
He taught the other's work and put HIS name to it instead. (Practicing)
.
He finally copyrighted the other's work IN HIS NAME, not theirs. (Doctrine).
Docvic might have started out *legal*, but sure as hell ended up "guilty as sin".
I think this is the point WhiteDove has been trying to make,
and for what it's worth -- it's the point I was trying to make about my tunes.
There's *sharing info*, and then there's a line that can be crossed as well.
Perhaps docvic "crossed that line" early on -- I don't know.
But I think he probably started out *legally*, and went downhill fast from there.
That was the point I was trying to make about me and fiddlistic's.
Perhaps I did it poorly.
If so -- I apologize for adding confusion to the topic at hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
so, what did Stiles say God told him to do?
usually when I buy a book, the payment is made to Amazon or Barnes and Nobles. I can't remember the last time (if ever) I paid an author directly. the method generally used is you pay the bookstore or other end distribution point, who pays their distributor, who pays the publishing house, who pays the author. pretty neat, huh???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
dmiller
I don't want to stray too far from the topic at hand(J.E. Stiles,etc.) so I will try to be brief.
There seems to be some degree of misunderstanding of "public domain".
When a work is in public domain, no one can claim ownership of said work.
Take"Mary Had A Little Lamb", for example. You can not copyright this song because it is in PD.
You can,however devise your own version and copyright your recording of said song.
Stevie Ray Vaughn did this with "Mary Had A Little Lamb".
You, too, can record this same song in your own version and copyright that recording.
Now, your songs are not truly in the public domain because someone could ,in fact, copyright them and claim ownership. While I understand that you would be delighted to have someone think highly enough of one of your works that they would choose to use it, I doubt it would
please you to find someone had been granted a copyright and declared the legal owner.
This would take on even greater importance if they then used the work in a manner you
strongly disagreed with.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject but I think your best course of action would be to obtain copyrights. If you then choose to allow people to freely use your material,
it is being done because you gave permission not because someone took liberty with your creativity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
once a work has been given to the public (inserted into the public domain) it cannot be copyrighted, even by the original creator. it has been gifted, just like signing the copyright of a famous song over to someone else, who then gets to collect royalties. the original owner cannot then say "oops".
and, just because ownershipt has changed (either individual to individual, or individual to public) it does not mean the author has changed. public rights do not include the right to claim authorship.
now, that said, it would be difficult for dmiller to defend a claim of copyright in court over a song he wrote if he publicly stated that he was placing it in the public domain, but you are correct he could record and copyright his version of it (which would be protected by that insane outfit you told me about, dmiller). it would also be difficult for someone else to put their name on it as author and copyright it if there was general knowledge that dmiller wrote it, so a fraudulent copyright suit would not stand up in court if the defendent could prove dmiller wrote it and put it in the public domain (as long as we can keep that insane watchdog organization out of the situation, which can only happen if no one registers a recording with them... I'm just talking printed music here).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mind you, the claim Stiles was told to go to Tulsa by God Almighty and "record of snow" is based on an
account purely from vpw and no other source:
page 198, "The Way:Living in Love":
""So I left the meeting, slipped out, went to my hotel and called the airport. I was all set to check out. But a funny thing had happened-
there was a blizzard in Tulsa. All the planes were grounded, So I couldn't get a plane. I tried the trains-they were all snowed in. The buses-same thing. The city was snowbound. I just couldn't get out!
Well, I called back the airport, and they said they could put me on standby for the night. I asked the girl on the phone, 'Does this happen all the time?' She said, 'No, this is the first time.' "Doctor punctuates his story with a rumbling laugh. He continues his account, pointing the car squarely towards the widening patch of blue sky."
"The next morning, I still hadn't left town. I went to breakfast at the hotel, sat down next to a straight guy. He looked me over and recognized me. He began, 'Aren't you the Evangelical and Reformed preacher who spoke in tongues last night?' I said, 'Yes, but it was a da*n lie.' Then he said he knew I was dam*ed because I cussed. That ended our conversation. Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need. Meet me at 9am.' I thought,
'Women never tell the truth.' But then I reconsidered, since I was stuck in town anyway. So I decided to meet her. I got to the place she said at 9am, and there she was. She introduced me to a man named J.E. Stiles. He'd come in from the West Coast. A few days before, God had told him to go to Tulsa to minister the holy spirit to one man. We talked for a few minutes, and he suggested we gointo the rally to hear Oral Roberts and then meet for lunch. So that's what we did. At lunchtime Stiles came in with his wife and the pianist. I just remember thinking to myself,
'There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.'"
Now, concerning this blizzard in Tulsa, we also know this...
"The Tulsa Tribune notes that the temperature that day was 60 degrees [Farenheit], and the overnight
low never even got down to freezing. December 1951 records in 'Climatological Data for Oklahoma'
show only 5/10 an inch of snow in Dec 8 and 6/10 inch on Dec 20. NEITHER date concurs with
Wierwille's visit, and neither records anything near a blizzard which could stop ALL BUSSES AND TRAINS.
Way Corps graduate Barries Hill later confirmed that the rally was the Divine Healing Convention,
December 11-13, 1951, sponsored by 'the Voice of Healing' magazine, and that Wierwille stayed
at the Hotel Tulsa (which was razed in 1973.) Hill notes that the weather bureau, newspapers and airport
do NOT record a snowstorm at that time. When she mentioned this to Wierwille, he dismissed these facts
by suggesting that the blizzard was "a phenomenon" or that he "spoke with angels" when he called
the airport, train station and bus station. (Wierwille conveniently blames holy angels for LYING to him
about the weather rather than admit his fabrication!)"
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/quz_itulsasnow.htm
So,
we know for a fact that the blizzard itself was a complete lie, a fabrication, a falsehood,
but we're supposed to believe that the man who was caught lying about the blizzard
told the absolute truth about Stiles hearing from God that he was supposed to be in
town SPECIFICALLY to meet with the proven liar.
Having seen vpw BLATANTLY lie concerning the day and circumstances of his meeting Stiles,
we're supposed to take him at his word concerning the OTHER details of that day.
Now,
if any OTHER person was caught lying to you about an incident on the parts you could check,
would you believe them on that incident when they said things you couldn't check?
If it was ANYONE BUT VPW, you would NOT trust them like that.
(If you would-let me know; I can find some people looking for people that gullible.)
Apparently, we ARE supposed to accept vpw's word on something after he's been caught lying
about the exact same incident!
vpw always tells the complete truth-except where he's been undeniably caught lying.
vpw WAS, after all, caught lying about the reason he supposedly was in town,
and a blizzard grinding the city's transit to a halt.
But of course, what's a few small details to get in the way of our agenda?
We will just let vpw change those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Wade
That was the line I first heard in 1965.
Peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
...and how convenient (and an Amazingcoincidence) that he then wrote it down pretty much WORD FOR WORD exactly as Stiles, Bullinger, et al had...
...it must be a miracle!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I repeat - alleged VERBAL credit given to a small group of people does not absolve the man of plagiarism. What he said or didn't say has no bearing on the fact that he stole work from others and put his name on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tom you're exaggerating.
When one examines the totality of Wierwille's books there is some "word for word" plagiarism, but not near the amount hysterically misrepresented by some posters.
I've seen a few sentences and paragraphs. That's "pretty much"? blaahhh
A Peter Wade appearance!.... :o :)
Love those oldie believers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
"a few sentences and paragraphs"? You've been reading with your eyes closed, haven't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Right.
Of all of Wierwille's books, how much of a percentage of word for word lifting do you think there is?
if there is as much as 5% i'd be amazed.
so yeah, making it bigger than it really is is exaggerating.
The point can be made without exaggerating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.