Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

 

So Mike is arguing that plagiarism is okay because it was given by revelation?  That makes VPW's stealing different than the stealing we see everyday?

 

NO!   What I am saying is if God gave the revelations to VPW's sources then God owns them.

THEN, if God tells VPW to take this passage or idea, and not take that passage from Kenyon, that is NOT stealing at all.

The copyrighting Kenyon might have done makes it his in the 5-senses realm, but God really owns it, overruling the 5-senses ownership.  Of course the courts will not recognize this and it's not right there, and consequences might happen. But I'm not talking about what is right  in the strict 5-sense LEGAL ownership, I'm talking about what is right morally in the SPIRITUAL sense and in God's eyes.

None of what I'm saying would ever be recognized as right by a court. Consequences can happen there.  But likewise, the same court is incapable of recognizing the ownership of God for anything.  God can, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 551
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in

Mike, what are you talking about??  I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC.  For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i

Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to

9 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Mike, Mike, Mike... I quoted where you called Penworks "dimwitted." That's something an elitist would say. Then, after quoting you, I asked you about your academic credentials. If you want to now not be an elitist, you'd have to take back your namecalling (dimwitted).

I assure you, those here who would consider your content (your fundamentalist PFLAP dogma) to have integrity seem to be few and far between.

Oops!  Did I call HER dimwitted?   I can't find it now to see.   I've learned to say things like THE IDEA was dimwitted, and not the person.  Charlene, I apologize if I blew it there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOUND IT!

My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself."   I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here.  It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.

NOT GUILTY!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, waysider said:

That's exactly what Mike is arguing.

How many times do I have to clarify. Sorry, you got it wrong. Please read my post to Bolshevik, and after that, please read the same idea I've posted about 30 or 40 times in 17 years. This past 12 months it's probably there 8 times.

 

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Mike, Mike, Mike... I quoted where you called Penworks "dimwitted." That's something an elitist would say. Then, after quoting you, I asked you about your academic credentials. If you want to now not be an elitist, you'd have to take back your namecalling (dimwitted).

I assure you, those here who would consider your content (your fundamentalist PFLAP dogma) to have integrity seem to be few and far between.

Mike, I have never met Penworks, but she seems like a very, very sharp lady to me.  I love her posts; she is a very talented writer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rocky said:

And it (the definition of fundamentalism) makes Wierwille and his subculture also fundamentalist.

This is the third time I have agreed with you, with stated reservations.  Fundamentalism, as it is known today, is not so much characterized by it's definition as you make out.

Most non-religious people think of fundamentalists as experts in sin condemnation.  I'll be if you interviewed the man-on-the street they would think this way and have NO IDEA of the definition or the text. Definition fundamentalists are usually called Bible Thumpers. 

Can you remember anywhere Dana Carvy's churchlady ever made a big deal out of the Bible? NOT ME!  I  see her as a condemnation robot, and mostly sex.

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grace Valerie Claire said:

Mike, I have never met Penworks, but she seems like a very, very sharp lady to me.  I love her posts; she is a very talented writer.

I think similarly of her now, and I thought the same 40 years ago.  I was falsely accused of besmirching her.  I think some of her ideas, like yours, are dead wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Twinky said:

Bolshevik asked:

 

 

What he's arguing, Bolshevik, is that the information is God's, and God can give it to whomsoever he wishes.  And if someone (VPW) collates all the info (at God's direction) then that person isn't stealing or plagiarising the works, because the information didn't belong to the original writer whose publications were plagiarised. 

Hence, God revealed something to, say, Stiles; but the information was God's, not Stiles's; and VPW merely collated it and put it together with publications from, say, Bullinger.  Throughout, the information remained and remains God's property.

It doesn't explain, of course, why TWI should copyright material that, on this basis, isn't theirs to collate, since it's God's information.  Copyrighting would mean that this publication of God's information becomes less available to others to whom God might reveal information , or give instructions, to collate such material  with their own publications (should they so wish). 

PFAL material, you understand, is God's final written word about anything, and as such will not need to be added to or amended.  Not now, and not ever in the future, by generations 100 years down the line (should Christ's return be delayed that long).

Twinky, minus the sarcasm at the end, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!   :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rocky said:

Well, that of course is a subjective argument. We can't quantify either one.

But Twinky articulated Mike's position well. Probably far better than Mike ever could... at least far more succinctly.

THANK YOU also, THANK YOU also, THANK YOU also !

I try to say it differently each time so maybe more can get it.  I'm not exaggerating when I say I posted it MANY, MANY times and so many gloss over it.  I'll take anyone's help, more succinct than me or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried my best this evening to respond to everyone's more recent posts.  It took me a long time (5 hrs? 6 hrs?) and I wont be able to do it again. Tomorrow I start my taxes, and wont have the time or energy.

So_crates was absent this evening, so I should go back and see what I missed of his in the past 3 or 4 days. I'm too sleepy now. Good night all. Thanks for allowing me to post here.  No splinter group can claim this much willingness to consider differing opinions. 

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mike said:

FOUND IT!

My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself."   I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here.  It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule.

NOT GUILTY!

I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike said:

This is the third time I have agreed with you, with stated reservations.  Fundamentalism, as it is known today, is not so much characterized by it's definition as you make out.

Most non-religious people think of fundamentalists as experts in sin condemnation.  I'll be if you interviewed the man-on-the street they would think this way and have NO IDEA of the definition or the text. Definition fundamentalists are usually called Bible Thumpers. 

Can you remember anywhere Dana Carvy's churchlady ever made a big deal out of the Bible? NOT ME!  I  see her as a condemnation robot, and mostly sex.

"Most non-religious people think of..." what's your source, Mike?

You're defining fundamentalism by how comedian Dana Carvey (the correct spelling of his last name) comically and satirically portrayed a character based on his childhood experience?

Or, "as it is known today?" Again, what's your source?

Or are you defining fundamentalism by how you think "most non-religious people think of fundamentalists?" Either way, that's completely absurd and actually rebuts itself without me having to argue it further.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think similarly of her now, and I thought the same 40 years ago.  I was falsely accused of besmirching her.  I think some of her ideas, like yours, are dead wrong.

Mike... are you even in the same reality we are? You were not falsely accused. You seem to have recanted, that's not the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike said:

Sorry, but the complications are there already.

 

 

point # 1 :   There are lots of places where mis-copied texts, bad translations, and blinding tradition complicate the ancient scriptures. 

THAT's one way the Bible interprets itself. We can use the principle (if we believe it) that the originals were perfect, and that all contradictions are either in our understanding or in the transmission of the text. In that way the consistent parts help us iron out the inconsistent parts.  And the difficult verses are understood in light of the clear ones. And... there are several more  ways the Bible helps us fix errors and understand the original text. 

Penworks, IMO, used a broad brush to hide all that from her readers. I thought is was a serious weakness of bias right at the start of her work. I'll still read it, but it lowered my expectations that I'd see much.

***

You wrote: “I think one can infer from many passages that God does indeed help seekers to get a better understanding of his Word...”

 

point # 2:    I AGREE. One of the coolest ways He can do this is planting keys right in the text that sail through the adversary’s obfuscations.  What we can find in the text this way God expects us top find.  THEN, of course, He can also give direct revelation when needed.

I think the parts of the ancient scriptures that get the most sophisticated scrambling (lost originals, mis-translations, blinding tradition) are not the emotionally soothing parts (which most flock to) but the power passages that inform us how to EFFECTIVELY rock the boat on the adversary, and threaten his grip. 

 

point # 1 is an argument from repetition this argument has been used several times before on other threads and when it was challenged like here -  no evidence, proof, specific instances or examples are ever given. also lacks specificity - see point # 2 

point # 2: is an argument by faulty generalization and lacks any specificity 

Edited by T-Bone
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Mike said:

NO!   What I am saying is if God gave the revelations to VPW's sources then God owns them.

THEN, if God tells VPW to take this passage or idea, and not take that passage from Kenyon, that is NOT stealing at all.

The copyrighting Kenyon might have done makes it his in the 5-senses realm, but God really owns it, overruling the 5-senses ownership.  Of course the courts will not recognize this and it's not right there, and consequences might happen. But I'm not talking about what is right  in the strict 5-sense LEGAL ownership, I'm talking about what is right morally in the SPIRITUAL sense and in God's eyes.

None of what I'm saying would ever be recognized as right by a court. Consequences can happen there.  But likewise, the same court is incapable of recognizing the ownership of God for anything.  God can, though.

I think you just said no it's not plagiarism but yes it is but no it's not but yes it is but no, it's not. 

 

There's that one sentence there (in bold) that seems to me to transcend plagiarism itself.

You're stating God as a higher authority than people.  But you're using it as a way for people not to recognize each other as equals.  

Of course you'll argue God gave a person revelation, but how could anyone prove that except through blind acceptance?  

 

Edited by Bolshevik
more ramble
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

 

I think you just said no it's not plagiarism but yes it is but no it's not but yes it is but no, it's not. 

 

There's that one sentence there (in bold) that seems to me to transcend plagiarism itself.

You're stating God as a higher authority than people.  But you're using it as a way for people not to recognize each other as equals.  

Of course you'll argue God gave a person revelation, but how could anyone prove that except through blind acceptance?  

 

 

 

I'm arguing in this post ONLY from the logical perspective side where the origins of the material in PFAL were given by revelation, and then re-distributed by revelation.  If you can't hold onto that temporary assumption for the whole post, you will get confused and think my logical steps caused that confusion, and that I am confused.

But hold onto this temporary assumption, and it will clear up real quick. It looks like Twinky did this well.

I’m going to use the word “perspective” to refer to this assumption. Only one perspective is being discussed here for this post.

I’ll use a similar word “view” for how the end product of pfal APPEARS today, and there are two possibilities here. I’ll use the word “view” for this, and two views will be discussed in this post.

***

In the eyes of man (humans, courts, etc) what happened is definitely plagiarism. But this view is limited to the 5-senses and cannot see the ownership of God in originating the material.  They cannot be convinced by any proofs whatsoever.  So, from my side this view (of humans, courts, etc) is dead wrong, but will never to change.  Nothing can prove my assumption to them, ever.

In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism.  Those eyes know to whom He gave material directly to at one time  (like Kenyon, or Kenyon's teachers, or their teachers, etc back centuries), and those eyes of God can see to whom He wants to re-distribute same material at a later date. I adopted this view about 20 years ago, slowly and gradually from 1972.

Two views here: man’s and God’s.

These two views (from my side's perspective, which is all I'm considering here) will never be reconciled. 

I know that God (in the case of religious but spiritually blind copyright laws and procedures) can certainly see when and where unbelievers may try to interfere with His re-distribution plans, and can intervene to protect.  He artfully dodges any subpoena the blind religious copyright defenders may issue Him, and He just befuddles their efforts to interfere with His plans.  That's what happened with VPW. He clearly got away with it, scott free.  God won.

Bolshevik,   I think one reason so many cannot follow this simple argument of several simple steps is because they freak out (due to installation of Pure Evil model) before reaching the end of my simple argument, and can no longer hold onto the temporary assumption I  mentioned at the beginning of this post:  that the material was originally given by revelation, and the re-distribution was by revelation.

***

Summary:

 

Perspective A – God gave original material by revelation.

(I did not include Perspective B, where God did not originate the material.)

 

 

View #1 – There is no God and the owner of copyright owns the material.

View #2 – God owns all of what VPW published, lots of what Kenyon taught, lots of what Kenyon’s teachers taught.

 

 

All that said, maybe someone who is good at handling these kinds of things (I’m a newbie) can polish this up. If I were rich I’d hire Twinky. I know lawyers are trained to do this: enthusiastically take up a perspective they themselves do not believe.

It’s finally warming up outside enough for me to go to work. I sometimes revel in the utter simplicity of my work cleaning windows.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

I know that God (in the case of religious but spiritually blind copyright laws and procedures) can certainly see when and where unbelievers may try to interfere with His re-distribution plans, and can intervene to protect.  He artfully dodges any subpoena the blind religious copyright defenders may issue Him, and He just befuddles their efforts to interfere with His plans.  That's what happened with VPW. He clearly got away with it, scott free.  God won.

So your contention is that because Saint Vic got away with stealing others works, God's hand was in it.

Really? 

Your argument falls apart in more instances than I care to count. Here are a few:

Saint Vic also got away with forcing himself on how many women? Was that God winning too?

Jack the Ripper got away with murdering how many prostitutes? Was that God winning too?

Hitler got away with the systematic slaughter of how many Jews? Was this God winning too?

Stalin got away with killing how many Russians? Was that God winning too?

All four follow your law broken and they got away with it rationalization.

Edited by So_crates
Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Mikey, his addiction is scripture originally was perfect but sinful human beings purposely decided to pervert them, hence poor translations and not understanding Semetic mid-eastern culture, so radically different than Europe(Greek, Roman, Germanic, and British). Like VPW, he has no knowledge of History, church or secular

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

 

I'm arguing in this post ONLY from the logical perspective side where the origins of the material in PFAL were given by revelation, and then re-distributed by revelation.  If you can't hold onto that temporary assumption for the whole post, you will get confused and think my logical steps caused that confusion, and that I am confused.

But hold onto this temporary assumption, and it will clear up real quick. It looks like Twinky did this well.

I’m going to use the word “perspective” to refer to this assumption. Only one perspective is being discussed here for this post.

I’ll use a similar word “view” for how the end product of pfal APPEARS today, and there are two possibilities here. I’ll use the word “view” for this, and two views will be discussed in this post.

***

 

 

In the eyes of man (humans, courts, etc) what happened is definitely plagiarism. But this view is limited to the 5-senses and cannot see the ownership of God in originating the material.  They cannot be convinced by any proofs whatsoever.  So, from my side this view (of humans, courts, etc) is dead wrong, but will never to change.  Nothing can prove my assumption to them, ever.

 

 

In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism.  Those eyes know to whom He gave material directly to at one time  (like Kenyon, or Kenyon's teachers, or their teachers, etc back centuries), and those eyes of God can see to whom He wants to re-distribute same material at a later date. I adopted this view about 20 years ago, slowly and gradually from 1972.

Two views here: man’s and God’s.

 

 

These two views (from my side's perspective, which is all I'm considering here) will never be reconciled. 

I know that God (in the case of religious but spiritually blind copyright laws and procedures) can certainly see when and where unbelievers may try to interfere with His re-distribution plans, and can intervene to protect.  He artfully dodges any subpoena the blind religious copyright defenders may issue Him, and He just befuddles their efforts to interfere with His plans.  That's what happened with VPW. He clearly got away with it, scott free.  God won.

 

 

Bolshevik,   I think one reason so many cannot follow this simple argument of several simple steps is because they freak out (due to installation of Pure Evil model) before reaching the end of my simple argument, and can no longer hold onto the temporary assumption I  mentioned at the beginning of this post:  that the material was originally given by revelation, and the re-distribution was by revelation.

***

Summary:

 

 

 

Perspective A – God gave original material by revelation.

(I did not include Perspective B, where God did not originate the material.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

View #1 – There is no God and the owner of copyright owns the material.

View #2 – God owns all of what VPW published, lots of what Kenyon taught, lots of what Kenyon’s teachers taught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that said, maybe someone who is good at handling these kinds of things (I’m a newbie) can polish this up. If I were rich I’d hire Twinky. I know lawyers are trained to do this: enthusiastically take up a perspective they themselves do not believe.

It’s finally warming up outside enough for me to go to work. I sometimes revel in the utter simplicity of my work cleaning windows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It appears you are conflating "assumption" and "perspective".  

And I get what your view is.

But,

I know that God (in the case of religious but spiritually blind copyright laws and procedures) can certainly see when and where unbelievers may try to interfere with His re-distribution plans, and can intervene to protect.  He artfully dodges any subpoena the blind religious copyright defenders may issue Him, and He just befuddles their efforts to interfere with His plans.  That's what happened with VPW. He clearly got away with it, scott free.  God won.

VPW made a Christ-like "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" sacrifice by plagiarizing? 

This the hand of protection argument that was so common.  Smacks of The Law of Believing.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike said:

Oops!  Did I call HER dimwitted?   I can't find it now to see.   I've learned to say things like THE IDEA was dimwitted, and not the person.  Charlene, I apologize if I blew it there. 

If you'd just left it there, you'd have come off looking better than you did after a few posts trying to lawyer out the idea that you went too far with what you said. For a moment, it sounded like you actually cared about her as a person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike said:

You are right... in general.  But in my case there's more to consider than the courtesy factor you rightfully mention. 

I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me.  If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume  I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.

As I said, we all have lives so nobody's sitting with a stopwatch timing your replies.  If you want to participate in a thread, you have to read like everyone else. Read it the next day or the next week, but read it.  I'm not spending hours and hours rewriting the same post in different ways because you didn't pay attention to the original post.  Again, if there's something SPECIFIC you don't get, ask and I'll do my best to explain and restate THAT.  So, we have a thread on a specific subject.  If you have something to say on that subject, meet us on that thread.  Subject to time constraints (like all the rest of us), participate like posters all over this board and all over cyberspace.  

I appreciate your candor about being pompous here, but being pompous doesn't get you special treatment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mike said:

Sorry, but the complications are there already.

There are lots of places where mis-copied texts, bad translations, and blinding tradition complicate the ancient scriptures. 

THAT's one way the Bible interprets itself.

We can use the principle (if we believe it) that the originals were perfect, and that all contradictions are either in our understanding or in the transmission of the text. In that way the consistent parts help us iron out the inconsistent parts. 

And the difficult verses are understood in light of the clear ones. And... there are several more  ways the Bible helps us fix errors and understand the original text. 

Penworks, IMO, used a broad brush to hide all that from her readers. I thought is was a serious weakness of bias right at the start of her work. I'll still read it, but it lowered my expectations that I'd see much.

...(SNIP)

This quoted post reveals a cognitive bias   toward the plagiarized and mangled works of wierwille...the go-to false authority 

To state that the Bible interprets itself is   circular reasoning  and ignores the simple but necessary things involved in reading comprehension  

...saying that the difficult verses are understood in light of the clear ones is merely wishful thinking  …no adequate examples have been given to support this idea that is being forwarded...furthermore a verse could be considered “difficult” merely because it does not agree with one's theology. Besides the fact that there may be no solution to the problem. 

Perhaps there is a tendency by those who want to worship a book or who attempt to prove that their ministry has the answers that they must resort to elaborate explanations for discrepancies in the texts / recorded accounts and come up with Rube-Goldberg-teachings like "the four crucified with Jesus" to camouflage inconsistent issues in the four Gospels…besides the contradictions and flaws within the Bible there’s a whole other bugaboo to consider if one is wanting to prove the Bible is inerrant – you see,  the difficult-in-light-of-clear-verse theory does not address passages of the Bible that clearly contradict the things known by the various disciplines of science and history.

Personally – I don’t have a problem with the Bible being the way it is in all of its imperfections and glorious humanity…my faith is not based on a book but on a person. I mean, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. How human is that!

But you know – Bible-wise, you can base your faith on whatever you want…after all,  faith is something based on a supposedly spiritual or religious apprehension rather than any physical proof – in a religious context, faith is a belief in the supernatural anyway – that which is beyond any known and observable realms - and II Corinthians 5:7 does say we walk by faith and not by sight anyway.

Edited by T-Bone
formatting
Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...