J.E. Stiles The Gift of the Holy Spirit book

[Ham]

No brag, just fact.

I dunno.. I never saw vic jump over the barn..

Edited January 3, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[markomalley]

Cancer? Shmancer! Plagiarism? Nonsense!

Dr. Victor Paul Wiereille is one of the finest men I have ever met.

No brag, just fact.

Met many?

[WhiteDove]

What amazes me about most of the posts here from "the other side"- is the "right dividing" of all of the legal issues about plagiarism- "well, it wasn't REALLY plagiarism. It was public domain, he had the right to do it, its not the same as academics, or publication, or etc, etc"

Sorry to hear that it is amazing to you that some people have an interest in honesty. What is true is true what is not is not it's pretty simple. It amazes me that people are so careless with truth, as far as the other side I would submit you are incorrect, it is the center line, truth. You assume that means support for, it does not ,it simply means calling what is true, true. I see no one arguing that fact that books were plagiarized just in this case it appears not this one. I guess when all your intent is to see things in a negative light it makes it hard to see things as they really are. And yes rightly dividing is a fine line,hopefully if you are ever in the position of having your life assessed you will have someone around that understands that concept.

[Ham]

Well.. just because a Christian won't take you to court for stealing his work lock stock and barrel doesn't make it necessarily right.

If it is public domain, "they" could just fire up the presses and have at it- legally- PROVIDING THEY CREDIT THE AUTHOR.

Ah.. this little "detail" seems to elude "them"..

What I see here- in vic and crews brazen copying of other BRETHREN's material- LESS respect than secular writers treat their colleague's labors.

Well, it's just my brother, he won't care, it's for a good reason..

I thought we were supposed to be better.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[potato]

It amazes me that people are so careless with truth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! HAHAHA!!!

that is so hilarious, since what we've been talking about is how vpw standard was NOT telling THE TRUTH.

[WhiteDove]

Maybe JE did not care ...

[johnj]

Some writers seem to misunderstand what "public domain" means.

It means that you can reprint another's writings without their permission and without paying them royalties.

It does not mean that you can reprint another's writings with your own name on them. For example, you can reprint "King Lear" by Shakespeare with Shakespeare's name on it as author, but you can't print it with your name on it as author. It may be that doing so would not be illegal according to criminal law, but there may well be a case for civil action on the basis of fraud.

But even if it is not prosecutable, it would certainly be unethical and sinful. Probably 95% of sins are legal, including most of the 10 commandments. Christians, particularly Christian leaders, should be striving to live ethical and moral lives according to God's laws, not civil law.

Christian leaders are held to a higher standard yet (see qualifications for an elder in Timothy and Titus). One of these is to be of a good reputation. Even nonChristian society considers plagiarists to be of bad reputation (eg NY Times' Jason Blair and several other recent examples; he was fired and others had their books removed from market by their publishers). This and other moral failures (such as adultery and treating women as sex objects rather than as sisters) disqualify VP from being a Christian leader. If people followed NT commands, VP would have been removed from office and not allowed to teach years before his death. However, since TWI was authoritarian, with VP as Pres and his brother and friend as the only other trustees, he wouldn't have let himself be removed.

PS: I never met Stiles, but I did meet his son who is also a minister. He does not teach people to inhale the Spirit as his father did (something that VP took from Stiles), and considers it to be unnecessary if not silly.

[trumpeter]

"....God was always the prime mover." WWAY pg 6.

God was moving primarily in VPW during those days of yesteryear, when we really had (not that we don't now) a biblical research and teaching ministry. There were other men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability who were a part of Dr. Wiewille's quest to find the truths of the Word of God.

Remember the deal? 'I'll teach you if you teach others.'

Hint: 'find' is a synonym for discern/ascertain.

[rascal]

Maybe vpw was not the man that you thought he was trumpeter.

Maybe if you knew what he had done to your brothers and sisters in Christ you wouldn`t hold such respect/

Maybe :(

[oldiesman]

Again you assume it is plagiarism , not if the material is in Public domain. I defended his right to use public domain material in the manner it by law says you can. Thats all. I take issue with calling it stealing when the law says it is not

As to the other your reaching the context of that was in regard to not reading around the Word. Reading books to get your understanding for the Word as opposed to getting your understanding from scripture and then reading books.

I don't think he ever implied that he or anyone else should not read books. At that point he was reading to find understanding. If you believe his story then he read scripture for understanding then when reading books it supported the understanding he had gained from reading scripture. The key is "TIme" he said one day, one day when? one day before he had understanding from the bible he dumped the books then after understanding scripture he came across Stiles who taught him a deeper understanding of what he had learned from the scriptures not the books.

As far as Stiles I have a a disk where VP talks about how he taught him about the Holy Spirit it was never a secret to me that he did.

And I still believe that it is very possible that J.E. Stiles did not copyright his book because he was not concerned about his credit, or making money, but rather that people helped spred his message . I think it is very possible that was his intention, a good one at that.

WhiteDove,

Wow, well said. All of it. This is scary. I can't believe how much in agreement we are. :o

I hope you didn't lose any sleep over your persistence in explaining your views, but I'm sure glad you did. :D

[WhiteDove]

Not a wink Oldies! I had sheep to count anyway! Now where was I 52,497....52,498.....52,499

[Raf]

Again you assume it is plagiarism , not if the material is in Public domain.

There you go again. That is absolutely false, WD. It is plagiarism whether the work is in the public domain or not. The public domain issue may make the difference in whether or not something is legal, but it makes no difference whatsoever in establishing plagiarism. The plagiarism is a fact of VPW's work, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Sorry to hear that it is amazing to you that some people have an interest in honesty.

The GALL! Why are you not interested in VPW's honesty or integrity in taking credit for other people's work?

[oldiesman]

WhiteDove can answer for himself but I'll give my perception at the moment.

There are different levels of honesty and integrity. There are grey areas.

I think VP was careless in not giving proper written acknowledgement in his books. He could have done better if he wanted. Maybe he just didn't care.

But, because he didn't, does that carelessness rise to the level of having an intent to lie and steal? Maybe but maybe not. I certainly don't believe so, for all the aforementioned reasons to the contrary.

I could be wrong... I don't know what was in Wierwilles heart, his innermost being... but neither does anyone else except God.

[Ham]

It may be beating a long dead equestrian type animal.. but here goes..

From Indiana University Writing Tutorial Services, http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use

* another person’s idea, opinion, or theory;

* any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge;

* quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or

* paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.

Purdue resources: "The Owl", last full revision by Karl Stolley:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/

Summary: There are few intellectual offenses more serious than plagiarism in academic and professional contexts. This resource offers advice on how to avoid plagiarism in your work.

No excuses for anybody coming out of Purdue- they offer a how to do it manual..

How about Georgtown University?

From Honor Council page, http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/hc/plagiarism.html

Plagiarism is defined by the Honor Council document as "the act of passing off as one's own the ideas or writings of another." In the Appendix to the Honor Council pamphlet called "Acknowledging the Work of Others" (which is used by permission of Cornell University), three simple conventions are presented for when you must provide a reference:

1. If you use someone else's ideas, you should cite the source.

2. If the way in which you are using the source is unclear, make it clear.

3. If you received specific help from someone in writing the paper, acknowledge it.

Anderson University, Anderson Indiana: English 1120 syllabus, http://www.anderson.edu/academics/engl/wri.../1120Hsyll.html

"Plagiarism" is the inappropriate use of someone else's written work. If you ask someone else to write an assignment for you, or if y[ou re-copy and turn in as your own writing someone else's writing--in whole or in part--or if you start with someone else's writing and change the words around, you have plagiarized. Another form of plagiarism is the use of ideas, words, or phrases from published works without proper documentation, including purchasing and submitting essays from the Internet. In ENGL 1120, your instructor will teach you how to give credit in your own work to the work of others that you have read. Follow these instructions very carefully, for failure to document is plagiarism.

Plagiarism is dishonesty. A plagiarized paper will receive a grade of no credit (0), and that grade will count double the original value of the assignment. In accordance with the Anderson University plagiarism policy, if you plagiarize, your act of dishonesty will be reported to the Dean of the College. Two such reports may lead to your dismissal from the university.

Oh yes. Anderson is a Bible college..

I'd go on, and on, and on.. but I think Stanford, Georgetown, and at least one prominent BIBLE COLLEGE should be at least a LITTLE convincing.

"anybody who is somebody" in the world gets this stuff about academic honesty.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[Raf]

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.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Raf

[oldiesman]

IF he claimed all his stuff was original, you'd have a point there.

[Raf]

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.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Raf

[oldiesman]

Not beside the point.

If his intent was to lie and steal, he wouldn't have made known to people that lots of his stuff wasn't original.

Why did you change what you originally said Raffy?

[Raf]

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.

[oldiesman]

Now now let's not get personal.

You just don't seem to want to accept the fact that he acknowledged that lots of his stuff wasn't original.

He was honest when he said that, but you don't accept his honesty.

All he is to you is a liar and a thief.

and worse.

[Raf]

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.

[Raf]

"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.

[oldiesman]

There is a big difference between plagiarism and acknowledging that what you taught is not original. ...

There is no difference when it comes to supposedly having an "intent to lie and steal" which is what you believe of Wierwille.

Maybe you consider them separate, but I consider his books as part of his teaching ministry, about which he plainly said, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original".

He did not claim, "lots of the stuff I teach is not original, but all my books are original"

He also had written in the preface of some of those books that he learned "from men of God scattered across the continent".

What did he learn? What was in the books, obviously.

"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.

I know nothing of the kind.

I do know that once in the distant past, you made a distinction between "the baby and the bathwater" of the blue book.

But I have no reason to believe that you think him anything other than a liar, thief, and predator.

You've said so! What am I supposed to think?

[Raf]

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.

[Danny]

If VP (he never earn dr.) used the bible as his standard

that is a big IF.

He failed and broke Gods heart.

In my opinion he was nothing better than a lier and a thief.

He would never stand in the light of the standards set for

in his bible to be a minister.

Oldies can you give us one more sales job please for pfal

and the old gifter vicster.