I'm just going to quote what I'm going to comment on. Since this is from the post immediately
proceeding mine, I don't expect this will produce outrage, since people can just scroll up.
I thought I would respond as best as I could to John's questions as well as some others. To the best of my knowledge along with some documents that I referred to as well this is what I can tell you , of course I'm not claiming to be an eyewitness or anything as I was not on the scene nor am I verifying anything with the exception of that which I have written documentation for.
Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others.
First the classes - The subject of reworking the Advanced Class was brought up in the November 17th -19th 1987 meetings which were attended by the way trustees as well as several others at Gartmore House to my knowledge it has never been disputed by the way to this day. The foundation class revision came about later due to reworking the Advanced Class material
( I know john thinks that it was just copied but the truth is that is not the case it was studied)
It amazes me that there's this impression still being held by some- in spite of documentation
to the contrary- that you can negate plagiarism or any other phrasing of taking the work
of someone else or some other source, by paraphrasing, or moving some words around.
If cg retyped the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg paraphrased the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg took a PART of PART of the work of ONE person, and did not cite his SOURCE, that is plagiarism.
The wigp has been claimed to be an improved version of pfal-
The wigp has been claimed to be an improved version of pfal-
and even you're admitting that-
BUT PFAL IS NEVER CITED ANYWHERE IN WIGP.
That's plagiarism.
It's not "right" when ANYONE does it.
You forgot what you posted in post #197:
Cause Geer got lcm to sign over the copy rights or something to the way of great brittain if I remember properly. That was when lcm was agreeing with geer about everything.
Mr. Geer had the right to do what he did.
This is supported by the fact that none of you is able to get around, and that is if Mr. Geer "pirated" someone else's (TWI) intellectual property and even after "The Fog" lifted, NONE OF THE SO-CALLED "VICTIMS" OF THIS THEFT ARE ACTING LIKE VICTIMS!
* No one is calling the po-lice or FBI
* No one who holds the rights to PFAL is crying foul
* No restraining or cease and desist orders have been issued
* No lawsuits have been launched
This does not fit with long entrenched TWI zealousy toward PFAL and other books and tapes, nor does it fit with allegations of them going after those who trouble them, nor does it fit with the enmity between Geer and TWI which should have caused them to pull out all the stops to prevent what Mr. Geer has been doing for a looooooong time now.
Nope.
Time to put this "piracy theory" out to pasture............................
The class was released while Chris was still employed by the Way in Great Britain it was that first class that was supposed to take place at Gartmore House that was the downfall or fall out. the intent was that The Way in Great Britain was to be the first licensee. Not all of the trustee's saw it that way and the fight ensued. I don't think he was expecting to be leaving the employ of The Way in Great Britain at that point.
Good information.
It doesn't surprise me he redid it - for whatever reasons or under whatever circumstances.
It doesn't surprise me that he sells it, either. Or sold it at one time, here in the U.S. of A.
It's no surprise either that he wouldn't put credit in the material as to it's source.
Honestly, I've just seen so much warped thinking over the years from people who enter "religious" endeavors, efforts they claim God has called them to, nothing surprises me anymore. It's why I stay out of it for the most part. It makes "Shark Week" on the Discovery Channel look like "The Care Bears Picnic Adventure".
Actually, you're adamant in ignoring SOME of what I posted,
and are quoting PART of what I posted to draw an incorrect conclusion.
This is supported by the fact that none of you is able to get around, and that is if Mr. Geer "pirated" someone else's (TWI) intellectual property and even after "The Fog" lifted, NONE OF THE SO-CALLED "VICTIMS" OF THIS THEFT ARE ACTING LIKE VICTIMS!
You know, there's been a LOT posted about plagiarism on this messageboard,
including many links to messageboards by people in the legal profession or literary professions
where their abilities to determine what is legal use and what is NOT legal use is critical to
their financial survival.
I know, you arrived recently, and have not seen these threads recently.
I shall take that into account, and help you out.
* No one is calling the po-lice or FBI
* No one who holds the rights to PFAL is crying foul
* No restraining or cease and desist orders have been issued
* No lawsuits have been launched
This does not fit with long entrenched TWI zealousy toward PFAL and other books and tapes, nor does it fit with allegations of them going after those who trouble them, nor does it fit with the enmity between Geer and TWI which should have caused them to pull out all the stops to prevent what Mr. Geer has been doing for a looooooong time now.
Nope.
As someone just posted on another thread, twi actually DID sue over this, quite a bit. They just didn't WIN.
They kept this information under wraps, and didn't tell people. Standard polict for twi.
Furthermore, you seem to have this bad habit of skipping every single time I've explained
why suing-in this circumstance- doesn't work, even thought the crime of plagiarism has
been committed.
I have already posted the following- which you seem to have missed completely, on this thread:
"When it comes to "why didn't they sue when he made it again under a new name", I'm not a copyright lawyer, and
would guess that there is a murky ground there where his granted rights might grant him the rights to use the material.
Thus, there was no point suing someone when they weren't going to win.
At twi, it's currently all about the money. Follow the money."
"Why wasn't cg sued? He held part of the copyright, so it was a crime, but the injured party can't sue him for
damages, since HE held the legal rights, so LEGALLY, he was the injured party.
That means that what he did was MORALLY wrong, and LEGALLY wrong, but no one could sue on behalf of
society under current laws-they'd have to sue on behalf of the ones with the LEGAL rights,
which he cleverly held.
Legally, he's still required to cite sources, but I don't know how a lawsuit could proceed to force him to comply."
"cg has failed to cite his sources, which, as I've pointed out plenty of times, including in
this thread, is a legal requirement he is still bound by.
For him to fail to do so-and he most assuredly failed to do so- is both illegal
(even works in the public domain must be cited, if they are sources)
and unethical
(by appropriating the work of others and giving no source, he's saying
"I did this" and hiding the actual sources. This is willful deception and a number of
other things.)
The main thing he's insulated from is lawsuits, since the main purpose of a lawsuit would
be to RECOVER DAMAGES. Since he has legal rights over much of the source material
in use, nobody can sue to RECOVER DAMAGES- there are no moneys to "return".
Therefore, he can certainly be sued- at least on behalf of the public for where he
failed to cite Bullinger's public domain materials, if under no other basis.
However, lawsuits aren't cheap. They cost money, lots of money. Apparently, nobody
with a lot of money cares enough to direct a lawsuit against cg for his actual breaking
of the law- which is a felony when practiced at that level."
"There's where your supposition lies- that piracy/breaking the law REQUIRES "making money with the intellectual property
of twi."
cg is engaging in FRAUD and PLAGIARISM, but the only parties that could sue are:
-himself, holding part of the copyright
-twi, holding part of the copyright
-the public, holding the public domain rights on Bullinger's works.
- Leonard's copyright holders
He's not going to sue himself.
twi can sue him, but can't recover damages since he holds part of the copyright. Therefore, they can waste tens of thousands
or hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to pour them down a hole and never recover them. They're not THAT stupid.
They also don't care about what's right enough to spend lots of money with no hope of recovering it.
Now, the public could do so- but someone would have to be willing to sue on behalf of the public, and waste hundreds of thousands
of dollars to get him to stop using Bullinger's works without citing the sources.
Leonard elected to not sue vpw, and his copyright holders are unlikely to wrangle in court with similar results mentioned above.
Court is EXPENSIVE. "
Time to put this "piracy theory" out to pasture............................
Actually, it's time to put this obsessing over the word "piracy" out to pasture.
First of all, the word I would use-and DO use- is PLAGIARISM, since that's a legal term and we can
all see (whether we WISH to see) that vpw AND cg plagiarized.
Second of all, the usage of "piracy" is legitimate.
As I already posted....
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
"piracy:2 the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception,
especially in infringement of a copyright."
US law considers citing sources to be ALWAYS necessary in any usage of another's written works.
Therefore, all usages where one fails to cite sources-whether through ignorance or through intent
(whether you mean to, or are ignorant of the law is no excuse),
you are using sources in an unauthorized fashion.
cg's materials have always had a COPYRIGHT NOTICE on them- he's well aware of the basics of the law
concerning this, in case someone wants to claim this qualifies as news.
According to my collegiate dictionary (which is acceptable up through college, which is why it's a COLLEGIATE
dictionary and is only exceeded by an UNABRIDGED dictionary), the term "piracy" IS CORRECT in this usage.
Again, however, I don't see the reason for this obsession with ONE WORD Juedes used.
(vpw uses a lot of plagiarized words, that's fine,
cg uses a lot of plagiarized words, that's fine,
Juedes uses a noun in a fashion you don't like, that's cause for outrage.
Actually, you're adamant in ignoring SOME of what I posted,
and are quoting PART of what I posted to draw an incorrect conclusion.
Are you taking that part back?
Or do you believe Mr. Geer had the rights to the material?
"You know, there's been a LOT posted about plagiarism on this messageboard,
including many links to messageboards by people in the legal profession or literary professions
where their abilities to determine what is legal use and what is NOT legal use is critical to
their financial survival.
I know, you arrived recently, and have not seen these threads recently.
I shall take that into account, and help you out."
I'm looking forward to the part about it being illegal to publish what is rightfully yours to publish.
"As someone just posted on another thread, twi actually DID sue over this, quite a bit. They just didn't WIN.
They kept this information under wraps, and didn't tell people. Standard polict for twi."
Yeah, I saw that after my post went up.
More evidence that Mr. Geer has been within his rights all along.
"Furthermore, you seem to have this bad habit of skipping every single time I've explained
why suing-in this circumstance- doesn't work, even thought the crime of plagiarism has
been committed."
Alleged.
"I have already posted the following- which you seem to have missed completely, on this thread:
"When it comes to "why didn't they sue when he made it again under a new name", I'm not a copyright lawyer, and
would guess that there is a murky ground there where his granted rights might grant him the rights to use the material.
Thus, there was no point suing someone when they weren't going to win. "
Because he was not breaking the law all along.
Your guess is the same as mine, that Mr. Geer has a right to do what he has been doing. That's at least twice now you have said so.
"At twi, it's currently all about the money. Follow the money.""
TWI sees money going to Mr. Geer that, according to you is rightfully theirs.
Suddenly TWI is no longer all about the money, eh?
""Why wasn't cg sued? He held part of the copyright, so it was a crime, but the injured party can't sue him for
damages, since HE held the legal rights, so LEGALLY, he was the injured party.
That means that what he did was MORALLY wrong, and LEGALLY wrong, but no one could sue on behalf of
society under current laws-they'd have to sue on behalf of the ones with the LEGAL rights,
which he cleverly held."
Fancy that - suing someone for doing something legal after claiming that publishing material you have the rights to is MORALLY and LEGALLY wrong.
"However, lawsuits aren't cheap. They cost money, lots of money. Apparently, nobody
with a lot of money cares enough to direct a lawsuit against cg for his actual breaking
of the law- which is a felony when practiced at that level."
"There's where your supposition lies- that piracy/breaking the law REQUIRES "making money with the intellectual property
of twi." "
Why not call the po-lice or FBI?
If they have title to the property then let them have him busted for theft of intellectual property, fraud, racketeering, interstate transportation of stolen goods, etc.
Then upon conviction in this open-and-shut case ask the court for damages.
"Actually, it's time to put this obsessing over the word "piracy" out to pasture."
"Piracy" is the charge made by Mr. Jeudes.
You can look it up - it's right there in the title of his article.
"First of all, the word I would use-and DO use- is PLAGIARISM, since that's a legal term and we can
all see (whether we WISH to see) that vpw AND cg plagiarized.
Second of all, the usage of "piracy" is legitimate.
As I already posted....
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
"piracy:2 the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception,
especially in infringement of a copyright." "
You don't seem to be aware that "piracy" is also a legal term.
For future reference, instead of going to Webster's for a legal definition, the accepted source for legal definitions is Blacks Law Dictionary. Then you won't make embarrassing statements like:
" According to my collegiate dictionary (which is acceptable up through college, which is why it's a COLLEGIATE
dictionary and is only exceeded by an UNABRIDGED dictionary), the term "piracy" IS CORRECT in this usage. "
Although yes, "piracy" may be used thusly.
"Again, however, I don't see the reason for this obsession with ONE WORD Juedes used. "
Because it is not "piracy" if you use material you have the authority to use.
You and several others have said Mr. Geer has the rights to publish what he has published.
Still waiting for an explanation of why the victims aren't acting like victims....
Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others.
Except for the documents that would be true as I indicated Couldn't agree more in fact that was my point all along on the PFAL thread see on every other topic as I also pointed out when non eyewitness accounts are brought up this is the reaction not documentable of course some subjects just leap out of that perimiter and don't followthe rules of logic. Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story.
It amazes me that there's this impression still being held by some- in spite of documentation
to the contrary- that you can negate plagiarism or any other phrasing of taking the work
of someone else or some other source, by paraphrasing, or moving some words around.
If cg retyped the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg paraphrased the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg took a PART of PART of the work of ONE person, and did not cite his SOURCE, that is plagiarism.
The wigp has been claimed to be an improved version of pfal-
and even you're admitting that-
BUT PFAL IS NEVER CITED ANYWHERE IN WIGP.
That's plagiarism.
It's not "right" when ANYONE does it.
I don't think I spoke to the issue of plagerism one way or another I was only pointing out that the trustees never challenged the account that was sent out in printed form only later did they try and regain what they lost and they never claimed in court that they had not given it away. That seems to offer more than hearsay they wanted the rights back if they could have claimed that they never gave it over in the first place they would have started there they did not.
The only reason I'd see to "obsess" over the word "piracy", is that it paints *mr* gear as a PIRATE.
I think that is a weak description of his true nature, based on what several posters have experienced with this character.
Plus, he reduced the then "trustees' to tears, believing that they were primarily resposible for ole "doc" vic's death.. really- that their "unbelief" was what KILLED the "master"..
sent loy off on a fit on unheard of insanity..
I wonder if der vey could make the claim that they were not mentally capable at the time to be responsible enough to sign..
Plus, he reduced the then "trustees' to tears, believing that they were primarily resposible for ole "doc" vic's death.. really- that their "unbelief" was what KILLED the "master"..
I bet it would have made his "teacher" rather darn proud.. learned the lessons quite well.
Can you even imagine.. even with all of vic's training, they swallowed their very own kool-aide..
what a con man..
now I could really imagine the old mogster stroking out,, watching "the *man* who came after" him, leaping about in very tight tights..
The only reason I'd see to "obsess" over the word "piracy", is that it paints *mr* gear as a PIRATE.
I think that is a weak description of his true nature, based on what several posters have experienced with this character.
Plus, he reduced the then "trustees' to tears, believing that they were primarily resposible for ole "doc" vic's death.. really- that their "unbelief" was what KILLED the "master"..
sent loy off on a fit on unheard of insanity..
I wonder if der vey could make the claim that they were not mentally capable at the time to be responsible enough to sign..
Dear Mr. Squirrel
I hate to break your bubble but Craig was quite well on a fit of insanity long before Chris entered the picture.
I agree that lcm was insane long before geer...so much for wierwilles in depth spiritual perception n awareness...not to mention just good old fashioned common sense.
Most people could see without God`s help the cut of craigs cloth.
I hate to break your bubble but Craig was quite well on a fit of insanity long before Chris entered the picture.
true perhaps. But what about the rest of the organization? There's howie, and then vice pres don.
They ended up signing some stuff claiming how bad boys they were, how unfaithful.. that they'd try to do better.. as far as gears suggestions were concerned. I think don had the most sense of the three though.
Were they all nuts?
That would make sense.. an "institution" with the "patients" in charge.. still are I think.
It took some, say what.. almost TWENTY YEARS to realize that they were following a madman?
I'm thinking of A*en L*cht, and others. "We finally realized we were following a madman."
The rest of the "trustees" never got it. Stood with loy to the edge of civil proceedings flavored with the hint of legal ones..
"Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others."
WhiteDove:
"Except for the documents that would be true as I indicated Couldn't agree more in fact that was my point all along on the PFAL thread see on every other topic as I also pointed out when non eyewitness accounts are brought up this is the reaction not documentable of course some subjects just leap out of that perimiter and don't followthe rules of logic. Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story. "
So, except for the documents you didn't see, this is hearsay, meaning, this is what cg told you,
which IS what I said, which you somehow took offense over.
"Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story."
No, now you're using poor reading skills and inventing offenses where there are none.
cg told you "this is what happened" and didn't show you signed documents.
I pointed out "of course, you haven't seen the documents, so this is only reporting that cg told you this,
and there's no guarantee he told you the truth."
You interpreted that into "WhiteDove's lying" rather than
"WhiteDove is truthfully reporting this is what he was told",
which IS what I said.
I also didn't trash your story- I only pointed out its obvious limitation- that you can only report what you
know-which is that cg made these specific comments. Why you take offense at a simple statement of fact
"Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others."
WhiteDove:
"Except for the documents that would be true as I indicated Couldn't agree more in fact that was my point all along on the PFAL thread see on every other topic as I also pointed out when non eyewitness accounts are brought up this is the reaction not documentable of course some subjects just leap out of that perimiter and don't followthe rules of logic. Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story. "
So, except for the documents you didn't see, this is hearsay, meaning, this is what cg told you,
which IS what I said, which you somehow took offense over.
"Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story."
No, now you're using poor reading skills and inventing offenses where there are none.
cg told you "this is what happened" and didn't show you signed documents.
I pointed out "of course, you haven't seen the documents, so this is only reporting that cg told you this,
and there's no guarantee he told you the truth."
You interpreted that into "WhiteDove's lying" rather than
"WhiteDove is truthfully reporting this is what he was told",
which IS what I said.
I also didn't trash your story- I only pointed out its obvious limitation- that you can only report what you
know-which is that cg made these specific comments. Why you take offense at a simple statement of fact
is beyond me.
Please stop reacting to what ISN'T there.
Except I did see some documents and I also talked with two people who were there as eyewitnesses.
Glad you got the point WW and I was doing the same regarding the abuse stories except somehow that leaps out of the real of logic that you pointed out here which was the point by the way. Just making the same stupid claims that others made.
Wordwolf, go into any bookstore and you will find books in the non-fiction section where the author does not cite sources.
Bob Woodward is an example of a guy who has no footnotes in his books.
Where another work is quoted from, I like to see footnotes, too.
Rather than try to put my position into your own words, just leave them as I wrote them and you'll get a better sense of my opinion, rather than a reinterpretation of it.
I'll be glad to amplify or explain anything I have said.
Mr. Juedes made a charge of "piracy," - a crime.
The issue was apparently settled in court, where both sides presented their cases. TWI lost, showing Mr. Jeudes' charge of a crime to be rejected in a court where issues of criminality are settled.
It's easy to sling around charges on the internet where talk is cheap but quite another to make actual criminal complaints and follow through in the court system.
Clearly a court has decided that what Mr. Geer is doing is legal.
My further point about TWI not acting like a victim otherwise still stands.
And with TWI bringing the case, they would have had plenty of time to get their case together and look for the most advantageous venue.
I imagine it is also fair to say the court did not bring to the table the biases you, I, Mr. Juedes and the rest of us here have.
Mr. Juedes' article needs a new title as well as some revision.
I have not had Mr. Geer's WIGP class, but I have seen the results of two major research projects on the verses regarding the usage of pnuema hagion and pistis. I think it is fair to assume that the new work done in those efforts would be reflected in the class.
Oh, and on the tapes and in the written presentation in Future Considerations, mention was made of Mr. Wierwille and how this new research reflects growth in the field, which Mr. Wierwille expected.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
30
77
30
Popular Days
Jun 28
31
Aug 6
25
Aug 4
24
Jun 15
16
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 30 posts
WhiteDove 30 posts
Ham 77 posts
Deciderator 30 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2007
31 posts
Aug 6 2007
25 posts
Aug 4 2007
24 posts
Jun 15 2007
16 posts
WordWolf
I'm just going to quote what I'm going to comment on. Since this is from the post immediately
proceeding mine, I don't expect this will produce outrage, since people can just scroll up.
Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others.
It amazes me that there's this impression still being held by some- in spite of documentation
to the contrary- that you can negate plagiarism or any other phrasing of taking the work
of someone else or some other source, by paraphrasing, or moving some words around.
If cg retyped the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg paraphrased the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg took a PART of PART of the work of ONE person, and did not cite his SOURCE, that is plagiarism.
The wigp has been claimed to be an improved version of pfal-
and even you're admitting that-
BUT PFAL IS NEVER CITED ANYWHERE IN WIGP.
That's plagiarism.
It's not "right" when ANYONE does it.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Deciderator
You forgot what you posted in post #197:
Mr. Geer had the right to do what he did.
This is supported by the fact that none of you is able to get around, and that is if Mr. Geer "pirated" someone else's (TWI) intellectual property and even after "The Fog" lifted, NONE OF THE SO-CALLED "VICTIMS" OF THIS THEFT ARE ACTING LIKE VICTIMS!
* No one is calling the po-lice or FBI
* No one who holds the rights to PFAL is crying foul
* No restraining or cease and desist orders have been issued
* No lawsuits have been launched
This does not fit with long entrenched TWI zealousy toward PFAL and other books and tapes, nor does it fit with allegations of them going after those who trouble them, nor does it fit with the enmity between Geer and TWI which should have caused them to pull out all the stops to prevent what Mr. Geer has been doing for a looooooong time now.
Nope.
Time to put this "piracy theory" out to pasture............................
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Good information.
It doesn't surprise me he redid it - for whatever reasons or under whatever circumstances.
It doesn't surprise me that he sells it, either. Or sold it at one time, here in the U.S. of A.
It's no surprise either that he wouldn't put credit in the material as to it's source.
Honestly, I've just seen so much warped thinking over the years from people who enter "religious" endeavors, efforts they claim God has called them to, nothing surprises me anymore. It's why I stay out of it for the most part. It makes "Shark Week" on the Discovery Channel look like "The Care Bears Picnic Adventure".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, you're adamant in ignoring SOME of what I posted,
and are quoting PART of what I posted to draw an incorrect conclusion.
You know, there's been a LOT posted about plagiarism on this messageboard,
including many links to messageboards by people in the legal profession or literary professions
where their abilities to determine what is legal use and what is NOT legal use is critical to
their financial survival.
I know, you arrived recently, and have not seen these threads recently.
I shall take that into account, and help you out.
As someone just posted on another thread, twi actually DID sue over this, quite a bit. They just didn't WIN.
They kept this information under wraps, and didn't tell people. Standard polict for twi.
Furthermore, you seem to have this bad habit of skipping every single time I've explained
why suing-in this circumstance- doesn't work, even thought the crime of plagiarism has
been committed.
I have already posted the following- which you seem to have missed completely, on this thread:
"When it comes to "why didn't they sue when he made it again under a new name", I'm not a copyright lawyer, and
would guess that there is a murky ground there where his granted rights might grant him the rights to use the material.
Thus, there was no point suing someone when they weren't going to win.
At twi, it's currently all about the money. Follow the money."
"Why wasn't cg sued? He held part of the copyright, so it was a crime, but the injured party can't sue him for
damages, since HE held the legal rights, so LEGALLY, he was the injured party.
That means that what he did was MORALLY wrong, and LEGALLY wrong, but no one could sue on behalf of
society under current laws-they'd have to sue on behalf of the ones with the LEGAL rights,
which he cleverly held.
Legally, he's still required to cite sources, but I don't know how a lawsuit could proceed to force him to comply."
"cg has failed to cite his sources, which, as I've pointed out plenty of times, including in
this thread, is a legal requirement he is still bound by.
For him to fail to do so-and he most assuredly failed to do so- is both illegal
(even works in the public domain must be cited, if they are sources)
and unethical
(by appropriating the work of others and giving no source, he's saying
"I did this" and hiding the actual sources. This is willful deception and a number of
other things.)
The main thing he's insulated from is lawsuits, since the main purpose of a lawsuit would
be to RECOVER DAMAGES. Since he has legal rights over much of the source material
in use, nobody can sue to RECOVER DAMAGES- there are no moneys to "return".
Therefore, he can certainly be sued- at least on behalf of the public for where he
failed to cite Bullinger's public domain materials, if under no other basis.
However, lawsuits aren't cheap. They cost money, lots of money. Apparently, nobody
with a lot of money cares enough to direct a lawsuit against cg for his actual breaking
of the law- which is a felony when practiced at that level."
"There's where your supposition lies- that piracy/breaking the law REQUIRES "making money with the intellectual property
of twi."
cg is engaging in FRAUD and PLAGIARISM, but the only parties that could sue are:
-himself, holding part of the copyright
-twi, holding part of the copyright
-the public, holding the public domain rights on Bullinger's works.
- Leonard's copyright holders
He's not going to sue himself.
twi can sue him, but can't recover damages since he holds part of the copyright. Therefore, they can waste tens of thousands
or hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to pour them down a hole and never recover them. They're not THAT stupid.
They also don't care about what's right enough to spend lots of money with no hope of recovering it.
Now, the public could do so- but someone would have to be willing to sue on behalf of the public, and waste hundreds of thousands
of dollars to get him to stop using Bullinger's works without citing the sources.
Leonard elected to not sue vpw, and his copyright holders are unlikely to wrangle in court with similar results mentioned above.
Court is EXPENSIVE. "
Actually, it's time to put this obsessing over the word "piracy" out to pasture.
First of all, the word I would use-and DO use- is PLAGIARISM, since that's a legal term and we can
all see (whether we WISH to see) that vpw AND cg plagiarized.
Second of all, the usage of "piracy" is legitimate.
As I already posted....
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
"piracy:2 the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception,
especially in infringement of a copyright."
US law considers citing sources to be ALWAYS necessary in any usage of another's written works.
Therefore, all usages where one fails to cite sources-whether through ignorance or through intent
(whether you mean to, or are ignorant of the law is no excuse),
you are using sources in an unauthorized fashion.
cg's materials have always had a COPYRIGHT NOTICE on them- he's well aware of the basics of the law
concerning this, in case someone wants to claim this qualifies as news.
According to my collegiate dictionary (which is acceptable up through college, which is why it's a COLLEGIATE
dictionary and is only exceeded by an UNABRIDGED dictionary), the term "piracy" IS CORRECT in this usage.
Again, however, I don't see the reason for this obsession with ONE WORD Juedes used.
(vpw uses a lot of plagiarized words, that's fine,
cg uses a lot of plagiarized words, that's fine,
Juedes uses a noun in a fashion you don't like, that's cause for outrage.
THIS is considered healthy?)"
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For the late arrivals, here's a few links on plagiarism.
I'll spare the exposition for now, but reserve the option to include it should it prove necessary.
The sites speak for themselves, and some people prefer I post shorter, even when it's
direct quotes.
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_faqs.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deciderator
Are you taking that part back?
Or do you believe Mr. Geer had the rights to the material?
"You know, there's been a LOT posted about plagiarism on this messageboard,
including many links to messageboards by people in the legal profession or literary professions
where their abilities to determine what is legal use and what is NOT legal use is critical to
their financial survival.
I know, you arrived recently, and have not seen these threads recently.
I shall take that into account, and help you out."
I'm looking forward to the part about it being illegal to publish what is rightfully yours to publish.
"As someone just posted on another thread, twi actually DID sue over this, quite a bit. They just didn't WIN.
They kept this information under wraps, and didn't tell people. Standard polict for twi."
Yeah, I saw that after my post went up.
More evidence that Mr. Geer has been within his rights all along.
"Furthermore, you seem to have this bad habit of skipping every single time I've explained
why suing-in this circumstance- doesn't work, even thought the crime of plagiarism has
been committed."
Alleged.
"I have already posted the following- which you seem to have missed completely, on this thread:
"When it comes to "why didn't they sue when he made it again under a new name", I'm not a copyright lawyer, and
would guess that there is a murky ground there where his granted rights might grant him the rights to use the material.
Thus, there was no point suing someone when they weren't going to win. "
Because he was not breaking the law all along.
Your guess is the same as mine, that Mr. Geer has a right to do what he has been doing. That's at least twice now you have said so.
"At twi, it's currently all about the money. Follow the money.""
TWI sees money going to Mr. Geer that, according to you is rightfully theirs.
Suddenly TWI is no longer all about the money, eh?
""Why wasn't cg sued? He held part of the copyright, so it was a crime, but the injured party can't sue him for
damages, since HE held the legal rights, so LEGALLY, he was the injured party.
That means that what he did was MORALLY wrong, and LEGALLY wrong, but no one could sue on behalf of
society under current laws-they'd have to sue on behalf of the ones with the LEGAL rights,
which he cleverly held."
Fancy that - suing someone for doing something legal after claiming that publishing material you have the rights to is MORALLY and LEGALLY wrong.
"However, lawsuits aren't cheap. They cost money, lots of money. Apparently, nobody
with a lot of money cares enough to direct a lawsuit against cg for his actual breaking
of the law- which is a felony when practiced at that level."
"There's where your supposition lies- that piracy/breaking the law REQUIRES "making money with the intellectual property
of twi." "
Why not call the po-lice or FBI?
If they have title to the property then let them have him busted for theft of intellectual property, fraud, racketeering, interstate transportation of stolen goods, etc.
Then upon conviction in this open-and-shut case ask the court for damages.
"Actually, it's time to put this obsessing over the word "piracy" out to pasture."
"Piracy" is the charge made by Mr. Jeudes.
You can look it up - it's right there in the title of his article.
"First of all, the word I would use-and DO use- is PLAGIARISM, since that's a legal term and we can
all see (whether we WISH to see) that vpw AND cg plagiarized.
Second of all, the usage of "piracy" is legitimate.
As I already posted....
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
"piracy:2 the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception,
especially in infringement of a copyright." "
You don't seem to be aware that "piracy" is also a legal term.
For future reference, instead of going to Webster's for a legal definition, the accepted source for legal definitions is Blacks Law Dictionary. Then you won't make embarrassing statements like:
" According to my collegiate dictionary (which is acceptable up through college, which is why it's a COLLEGIATE
dictionary and is only exceeded by an UNABRIDGED dictionary), the term "piracy" IS CORRECT in this usage. "
Although yes, "piracy" may be used thusly.
"Again, however, I don't see the reason for this obsession with ONE WORD Juedes used. "
Because it is not "piracy" if you use material you have the authority to use.
You and several others have said Mr. Geer has the rights to publish what he has published.
Still waiting for an explanation of why the victims aren't acting like victims....
Edited by DecideratorLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others.
Except for the documents that would be true as I indicated Couldn't agree more in fact that was my point all along on the PFAL thread see on every other topic as I also pointed out when non eyewitness accounts are brought up this is the reaction not documentable of course some subjects just leap out of that perimiter and don't followthe rules of logic. Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story.
It amazes me that there's this impression still being held by some- in spite of documentation
to the contrary- that you can negate plagiarism or any other phrasing of taking the work
of someone else or some other source, by paraphrasing, or moving some words around.
If cg retyped the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg paraphrased the work of others and did not cite his sources, that is plagiarism.
If cg took a PART of PART of the work of ONE person, and did not cite his SOURCE, that is plagiarism.
The wigp has been claimed to be an improved version of pfal-
and even you're admitting that-
BUT PFAL IS NEVER CITED ANYWHERE IN WIGP.
That's plagiarism.
It's not "right" when ANYONE does it.
I don't think I spoke to the issue of plagerism one way or another I was only pointing out that the trustees never challenged the account that was sent out in printed form only later did they try and regain what they lost and they never claimed in court that they had not given it away. That seems to offer more than hearsay they wanted the rights back if they could have claimed that they never gave it over in the first place they would have started there they did not.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The only reason I'd see to "obsess" over the word "piracy", is that it paints *mr* gear as a PIRATE.
I think that is a weak description of his true nature, based on what several posters have experienced with this character.
Plus, he reduced the then "trustees' to tears, believing that they were primarily resposible for ole "doc" vic's death.. really- that their "unbelief" was what KILLED the "master"..
sent loy off on a fit on unheard of insanity..
I wonder if der vey could make the claim that they were not mentally capable at the time to be responsible enough to sign..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deciderator
So you're saying they're going to claim they had a case of the vapors?
Good point WhiteDove - why would they try to get something back if they never gave it away in the first place?
So far we have several GSpotters who have posted they believe Mr. Geer had the rights toi the material - and apparently still does.
I'm still waiting to hear why the vicitms haven't acted like victims.
And why does Mr. Jeudes want Mr. Geer to assign credit to PFAL when he knows that credit lies elsewhere?
Edited by DecideratorLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
You know, it just HAS to be a spur in rosies side that somebody is probably making more off of pfal than her "precious" organization..
I can see her grimacing, sweat running down between her ears, because they are so close together..
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD... oops, wrong administration.."
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I bet it would have made his "teacher" rather darn proud.. learned the lessons quite well.
Can you even imagine.. even with all of vic's training, they swallowed their very own kool-aide..
what a con man..
now I could really imagine the old mogster stroking out,, watching "the *man* who came after" him, leaping about in very tight tights..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Dear Mr. Squirrel
I hate to break your bubble but Craig was quite well on a fit of insanity long before Chris entered the picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
the old man shoulda had the victors lash out this one..
* I'm building a bridge...*
* not a dance floor... *
* loy don't wear tight tights....*
* lest I show you what for.. do do do do.. *
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I agree that lcm was insane long before geer...so much for wierwilles in depth spiritual perception n awareness...not to mention just good old fashioned common sense.
Most people could see without God`s help the cut of craigs cloth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
true perhaps. But what about the rest of the organization? There's howie, and then vice pres don.
They ended up signing some stuff claiming how bad boys they were, how unfaithful.. that they'd try to do better.. as far as gears suggestions were concerned. I think don had the most sense of the three though.
Were they all nuts?
That would make sense.. an "institution" with the "patients" in charge.. still are I think.
It took some, say what.. almost TWENTY YEARS to realize that they were following a madman?
I'm thinking of A*en L*cht, and others. "We finally realized we were following a madman."
The rest of the "trustees" never got it. Stood with loy to the edge of civil proceedings flavored with the hint of legal ones..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf:
"Of course, as John already pointed out, this means this is hearsay. It may be that NONE
of it is true, only REPORTED as true to you and others."
WhiteDove:
"Except for the documents that would be true as I indicated Couldn't agree more in fact that was my point all along on the PFAL thread see on every other topic as I also pointed out when non eyewitness accounts are brought up this is the reaction not documentable of course some subjects just leap out of that perimiter and don't followthe rules of logic. Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story. "
So, except for the documents you didn't see, this is hearsay, meaning, this is what cg told you,
which IS what I said, which you somehow took offense over.
"Of course using the same standard you are calling me a liar Wordwolf and trashing my story."
No, now you're using poor reading skills and inventing offenses where there are none.
cg told you "this is what happened" and didn't show you signed documents.
I pointed out "of course, you haven't seen the documents, so this is only reporting that cg told you this,
and there's no guarantee he told you the truth."
You interpreted that into "WhiteDove's lying" rather than
"WhiteDove is truthfully reporting this is what he was told",
which IS what I said.
I also didn't trash your story- I only pointed out its obvious limitation- that you can only report what you
know-which is that cg made these specific comments. Why you take offense at a simple statement of fact
is beyond me.
Please stop reacting to what ISN'T there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Deciderator,
I think I've got this figured out.
If I understand correctly, this is your position:
A) cg did not cite his sources when he made wigp, class and materials.
B) cg was not sued for not citing his sources.
C) Therefore, cg was perfectly within his legal rights to not cite sources in wigp.
D) cg used materials from pfal to make wigp.
E) cg is still using wigp.
F) twi loves to sue.
G) twi was aware cg used materials from pfal to make wigp.
H) Therefore, either twi was UNABLE to sue cg over wigp, or the DID sue and they lost their case.
I believe this is what you've either agreed to, or stated.
(Please correct me if any of that is incorrect.)
So, as I see it, your one assumption that's a problem is the one that
having rights over material allows you to do ANYTHING YOU WANT with that material.
There are laws governing the use of written works as well as audio and video.
There are things you CAN legally do, and things you can NOT legally do.
If you have rights over a class or a book, you can reproduce that class or book, and resell them or
run them.
If a class or book is in the Public Domain, the public as a whole ALL has rights over it.
That means we can ALL reproduce a class or book, and resell them or run them.
Therefore, if cg has rights over pfal (I have no PROOF he does, although I think he does to some degree
or other), he can reproduce the class or book and resell or run as he sees fit
(or as limited in the terms of whatever contracts are on record- there may be all sorts of codicils I don't
know about at all.)
That even means (unless the paperwork excludes this) that he can use pfal-books and class-
as source material, and completely rewrite them and rename them-
SO LONG AS HE CITES HIS SOURCES.
Similarly, he can use Bullinger as a source and quote part or 100% of any Bullinger book,
or even print a run of any one of them-or all of them,
since they are in the Public Domain.
HOWEVER,
if he uses them as source material
AND DOES NOT CITE HIS SOURCES,
then that is plagiarism, and that is illegal.
Yes, you can plagiarize materials you have rights to-IF YOU DON'T CITE YOUR SOURCES.
See,
if you leave out a source, you are claiming that you originated the work or part of the work that you cited no source on.
That's deceptive- and it's also called FRAUD, which is a FELONY.
To be specific, the TYPE of FRAUD is PLAGIARISM.
That's why he COULD be sued for refusal to cite his sources.
If someone with enough money to sue cared to do so, they could easily sue- and win.
They wouldn't make any money off the case- and would lose all the money they put into the case-
but the law is the law, and the right of the law is that you must cite a source, even if you own 100% of the rights
to the source, or it is Public Domain.
Sources must ALWAYS be cited- otherwise, it is Plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a crime, and when the sold plagiarized materials exceed $2,500.00 US Dollars,
it becomes a FELONY.
(Like Petty Larceny becomes Grand Larceny at a certain level.)
Again,
the law limits what you can do with materials you have the rights to- even if you have all the rights to them,
or if we all have the rights to them (Public Domain.)
In the instances of Public Domain and anything you have all the rights to,
you can do anything you want in the materials you developed from them-
or even just sloppily paraphrase them in their entirety-
SO LONG AS YOU CITE YOUR SOURCES.
Otherwise, that is criminal in the eyes of the law.
That's true even if no one catches you, or if nobody cares to enforce that law, or take you to court.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Except I did see some documents and I also talked with two people who were there as eyewitnesses.
Glad you got the point WW and I was doing the same regarding the abuse stories except somehow that leaps out of the real of logic that you pointed out here which was the point by the way. Just making the same stupid claims that others made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
soooo.. where's Gear..
Maybe now, just maybe..
he's busy witnessing door to door and in malls in Hackensack, New Jersey, trying to put together a new class..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, you weren't, but you won't get the differences no matter what I say, so I'll save myself an exercise in futility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deciderator
Wordwolf, go into any bookstore and you will find books in the non-fiction section where the author does not cite sources.
Bob Woodward is an example of a guy who has no footnotes in his books.
Where another work is quoted from, I like to see footnotes, too.
Rather than try to put my position into your own words, just leave them as I wrote them and you'll get a better sense of my opinion, rather than a reinterpretation of it.
I'll be glad to amplify or explain anything I have said.
Mr. Juedes made a charge of "piracy," - a crime.
The issue was apparently settled in court, where both sides presented their cases. TWI lost, showing Mr. Jeudes' charge of a crime to be rejected in a court where issues of criminality are settled.
It's easy to sling around charges on the internet where talk is cheap but quite another to make actual criminal complaints and follow through in the court system.
Clearly a court has decided that what Mr. Geer is doing is legal.
My further point about TWI not acting like a victim otherwise still stands.
Edited by DecideratorLink to comment
Share on other sites
Deciderator
Apparently a court of law saw some documents, too.
Unlike here, both sides presented their arguments and the issue was settled, legally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
They MUST have seen some documents before rendering a verdict or judgement.
If we had a copy, that would be great. It would answer a lot of questions.
I SUSPECT what some of the contents are, but it's an educated guess, at best,
without the actual documents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deciderator
And with TWI bringing the case, they would have had plenty of time to get their case together and look for the most advantageous venue.
I imagine it is also fair to say the court did not bring to the table the biases you, I, Mr. Juedes and the rest of us here have.
Mr. Juedes' article needs a new title as well as some revision.
I have not had Mr. Geer's WIGP class, but I have seen the results of two major research projects on the verses regarding the usage of pnuema hagion and pistis. I think it is fair to assume that the new work done in those efforts would be reflected in the class.
Oh, and on the tapes and in the written presentation in Future Considerations, mention was made of Mr. Wierwille and how this new research reflects growth in the field, which Mr. Wierwille expected.
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.