Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Bolshevik

Plagiarism on the road to success

Recommended Posts

On 12/26/2017 at 2:40 PM, Raf said:

I think he would have been MORE successful, as it would have shown that he was separating the baby from the bathwater, as it were.

Not if his audience was the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2017 at 9:29 PM, Rocky said:

I think you both are correct. Dictor wanted to project a credible (intellectual) persona... but he only tolerated anti-intellectuals among his followers. Once anyone developed a sense of cognitive dissonance and said so out loud, he banished them.

Rocky, we have a winner!  Good post, and so true!:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 7:43 PM, Bolshevik said:

Probably.

Would his followers have respected him more, or less, for citing sources?  

At least it would have been more honest than claiming originality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2017 at 8:17 PM, So_crates said:

On the contrary, Saint Vic wanted to appear uber-intellectual. Why else insist everyone refer to him as "Doctor"?

Because they thought he was a Time Lord?:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2017 at 7:17 PM, So_crates said:

On the contrary, Saint Vic wanted to appear uber-intellectual. Why else insist everyone refer to him as "Doctor"?

 

Yeah the sarcastically redefined  title of “doctor “ according to his plagiaristic abuse - is “doctor-it-up” wierwille ....

 

Dat’s riiiiight....just look it up in “The Lexicon for Folks Who are Really Really Really Disgusted with wierwille’s Bull$hit” 

doctor-it-up: To alter, and perhaps falsify, something in an attempt to improve his credibility.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, T-Bone said:

doctor-it-up” wierwille ...

Hah!  You cracked it, T-Bone.  So we can legitimately call him "doctor" W. :jump:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 7:53 AM, Bolshevik said:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/nov/23/comment.stephenmoss

Somewhere on these threads the "truth is truth" argument is presented.  If an idea is stolen, does that make it a bad idea?

I believe stealing of ideas is commonplace in all fields.  Pick any well known name, just start digging and you will find grayness.

After all, great ideas will outlive their discoverer.  All people will be forgotten.  If ideas are lost, they will be re-discovered.  Maybe?

 

Bravo!

These thoughts by Bolshevik reflect a lot of mine.

Before I got into the Word I was reading Arthur Koestler's "Act of Creation" and how mechanical some (or a lot of) creative thought actually is. 

Here's how Wikipedia presents it:

The Act of Creation is a 1964 book by Arthur Koestler. It is a study of the processes of discovery, invention, imagination and creativity in humour, science, and the arts. It lays out Koestler's attempt to develop an elaborate general theory of human creativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 8:24 AM, waysider said:

Yeah, sure, nothing is ever completely original. And, that's good fodder for a philosophical discussion. But, when someone knowingly takes the work of someone else and misrepresents it as their own, they've ventured into a land where cold, hard reality trumps the esoteric.

More philosophy I'd like to applaud here.

On another thread I might have inquired into "misrepresents" but not here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 9:02 AM, Bolshevik said:

I don't think it's esoteric.  What objects are you using now, where ideas were not stolen?

What lands?

 

Was it Einstein who claimed he saw farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants? Or was he quoting that?  Or stealing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 12:13 PM, Bolshevik said:

Okay, I was not referring to coincidence.  That would be philosophical.  Often, for example, scientific discoveries are made by multiple people in different times and places.  But history typically rewards one person above the others.  Often, they had friends in power or just better marketing opportunities.  Perhaps it is therefore wrong to credit anyone and just remember the discovery. 

 

Bingo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 3:45 PM, Bolshevik said:

TWI to my knowledge is composed of anti-intellectuals.  Practically chanting "Uneducated Lives Matter"

It sounds like VPW played to his market, so he didn't want to look too intellectual.

Also to my knowledge, much of the names like Stiles and Bullinger, people he plagiarized from, were well known in TWI.

 

E-gads, Bolshevik!  I'm agreeing with you almost too much!

 

***

I thought this thread was in the Doctrinal forum, but I just noticed it’s Open. Either way, I’m more into the Philosophy being presented here, so I will limit myself to these remarks on vpw and the claim he hid his sources and deceived us into thinking they were his own.

In the earliest days the authors of his books were certainly known to the whole tiny ministry. Their books would be read and even sold there. Sometimes the authors were invited to HQ to speak.  I feel there was a feeling of communal first century “ownership” of ideas afoot there, and it included the authors invited. It was an “all things common” thing.  God was the real owner and they were all about doing His work, not in blowing their own horn. They were all advertising for each other in an intra-ministry network of cutting edge authors.

In 1965 on a SNS tape (transcript posted) he cited many of his early sources.  He did this often on tapes.

In the 1972 book WLIV vpw cites more sources AND clearly explains (and has been often posted here) that he did NOT originate the ideas, and that he only put them together.

In the later 70s ad early 80s, as the ministry grew a little out from the early anti-intellectual mode, more formal citations were used in the new books. Songbook use was also brought in line to modern formalism.

 

***

 

Now back to the FASCINATING philosophy involving creative thought.

 

 

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I accept that you sincerely believe this to be the case, it simply does not reflect reality.

Wierwille made a VERY BIG deal out of promoting the idea that God was giving him, by way of personal revelation, information that had been hidden for 2,000 years. He went into detail about how God had spoken to him in an audible voice, how he had taken all his Biblical materials to the dump and relied solely on the Bible and divine inspiration to arrive at the conclusions he presented in PFAL. .This is, for the most part, what he actually said, not my personal interpretation.He made this point quite clear in the opening sessions of PFAL. Anyone who still has access to the materials can verify this for themselves quite easily. It's unfortunate you refuse to accept this but the choice, of course, is yours.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, waysider said:

Anyone who still has access to the materials can verify this for themselves quite easily. It's unfortunate you refuse to accept this but the choice, of course, is yours.

I have access and will check.

But I'm MUCH more interested in the idea of creative thought in general.

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFAL p. 119,120

The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is “Study.” The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide The Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word. If we are ever going to rightly divide The Word, we have to study The Word and not what people say about it.

For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr. so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word – its integrity, its meaning, its words.

That’s from the book. The film class may have differed a bit.

It looks to me there was only one type of book he burned. The orthodoxy of his education and church upbringing. I think he was discouraged by them in 1942 when he realized there was no authoritative text or translation anywhere.

He mentions other books later in his search that helped him. I think Bullinger, Styles, Kenyon would fit here.

 

***

 

But we've argued these points endlessly here. Let's get back to ORIGINALITY. 

 

 

Edited by Mike

Share this post


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

PFAL p. 119,120

The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is “Study.” The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide The Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word. If we are ever going to rightly divide The Word, we have to study The Word and not what people say about it.

For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr. so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word – its integrity, its meaning, its words.

That’s from the book. The film class may have differed a bit.

It looks to me there was only one type of book he burned. The orthodoxy of his education and church upbringing. I think he was discouraged by them in 1942 when he realized there was no authoritative text or translation anywhere.

He mentions other books later in his search that helped him. I think Bullinger, Styles, Kenyon would fit here.

 

***

 

But we've argued these points endlessly here. Let's get back to ORIGINALITY. 

 

 

I'm curious why you don't classify Bullinger, Kenyon and Stiles as theological works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, waysider said:

I'm curious why you don't classify Bullinger, Kenyon and Stiles as theological works.

We've heard here that they were mavericks.  I think they got revelations. I think they were cutting edge and outside the orthodoxy.   

I think it was the official professors and the established church positions that he dumped and burned. 

Years later his search brought him to these other "non-theological"  authors.

Edited by Mike

Share this post


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

I think it was the official professors and the established church positions that he dumped and burned. 

You're free to think that if you want...It's not what he said, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, waysider said:

You're free to think that if you want...It's not what he said, though.

 

What he said verbally and privately was different. He could be totally wrong also. What he committed to tape and print was a lot different.

If you search GreaseSpot for “SNS Tape #214” you’ll find a long transcript on this towards the end of page 10 of the thread “The Wierwille Legacy: Who Will Write The Book?”


That transcript is the 1965 tape I mentioned above. You can see the two kinds of author in his depictions there. Here is but one:

“And so I'd read the Word; I'd read it--I'd read it. Then I'd work, start looking--start working, and as we began working this Word of God, is when light began to dawn. And wonderful things that God did for us, He brought men and women across our paths who came just at the right time to help us in our light--men who had gone so far, but no further. But God brought these men so that we could go further because these men brought light. Men like Rufus Mosely; men like E. Stanley Jones; men like Albert Cliff; men like Star Daley; God brought all of these men and others--many of them, across our pathways, just at the right time to add to this revelation and enable us to walk on the Word and understand it.”

 

The early academic orthodoxy get a totally different depiction.

 

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, waysider said:

You're free to think that if you want...It's not what he said, though.

Here's another passage about receiving direct revelation:

"But there was a hunger in my heart and God said He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it, but I had to study, I had to work. And revelation begins--this is why I know this so well--revelation begins where the senses cease. What you can know by your senses, God expects you to know. He expects you to study the work that have already been worked out. Men like Bulinger; men like Stevie Ginsberg; God expected me to work those men and countless others. But, He taught me how to get the error out when there was any. And out of that process He taught me then, what was truth. And when there was no way of knowing it, and I'd researched to my fullest ability--tried to find out, then, if there is no other way, He showed it to me by direct revelation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use what he expressed in public forums, such as the PFAL class, as the basis of my assertion, as only a  few of us here were privy to what he expressed in private conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can vaguely remember Word Wolf bringing up contradictions in vpw's stories, involving train trip timing and maybe also book burnings or at the dump.   That can happen with anybody. 

As far as revelations go his public record is that it was skimpy.  I knew old timers who said he talked a little privately about some visions.  But his personal revelations were not a prominent part of his teaching, like they are with some preachers.

 ***

I wonder if all true original creative thinking is given by revelation.   Or is it just some, and the rest is mechanically cranked out?

From  many scriptures the glory of man and the grandeur of man's intellect is portrayed as illusory.  I wonder if we can really think creatively in this sense.

 

Share this post


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

But his personal revelations were not a prominent part of his teaching, like they are with some preachers.

Excuse me???

That's the primary basis he cited as his source for PFAL. You even posted examples of it very recently.

Are you even thinking about this stuff before you post it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, waysider said:

Excuse me???

That's the primary basis he cited as his source for PFAL. You even posted examples of it very recently.

Are you even thinking about this stuff before you post it?

That long transcript shows that he first had to work the 5-senses research.  The primary revelations regarded what to include and what to exclude.  Tweaking little fixes. 

He said that some of his sources also got revelation. What kind did they get? Origination type of divine dictation? Or sorting through prior sources like vpw?  I don't know.

Share this post


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

The primary revelations regarded what to include and what to exclude.  Tweaking little fixes. 

Would you mind citing a reference for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 10:53 AM, Bolshevik said:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/nov/23/comment.stephenmoss

 

Somewhere on these threads the "truth is truth" argument is presented.  If an idea is stolen, does that make it a bad idea?

I believe stealing of ideas is commonplace in all fields.  Pick any well known name, just start digging and you will find grayness.

I agree with you: ideas are often recycled. I say recycled because you are free to use ideas of someone else as you see fit. Ideas are not copyrighted.

Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story are basically the same idea. How many versions of Dickens A Christmas Story will we see on sitcoms this yule season? 

However,  "line by line and word by word" copying is a no-no. This is the type of stealing Saint Vic did.

Saint Vic not only stole paragraphs, but often whole sections of anothers work.

That's known as theft and plagiarism

Below are links showing how Saint Vic stole others works:

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm

 

Edited by So_crates
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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...

×
×
  • Create New...