Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, HAPe4me said:

Let’s keep it simple, the assumption is false therefore the premise on which you built your life the last 15 years is also false

This may well be the hardest part of the process, admitting to yourself you've wasted a valuable portion of your life. At least, it was for me. I had to take a cold, hard look at my time in The Way and admit to myself I had squandered my time on something of no consequence. It's the first step to moving forward.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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

On 3/30/2018 at 5:36 PM, T-Bone said:

Is boredom an emotion? I am overcome with great boredom. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah I’m not buying that "slowly-and-unemotionally-way-back-in-'72-I-was-all-over-this-plagiarism-issue-way-ahead-of-you-guys" anymore then I would buy the old “I-built-crude-lie-detectors-to-study-the-phenomena-of-lying-and-the-consciousness-of-houshold-plants” routine.

 

It looks like you are calling me a liar while you distribute several falsehoods. You learned a lot at TWI.

First point is you misread my posting.  I never asserted nor implied that boredom is an emotion. You inferred it, and wrongly. I merely mentioned it as a condition.  To me, boredom is akin to being emotionless.

I was and still am interested in the phenomenon of lying, but I never once used any kind of electronics to pursue it. I used reading and thinking and observing for this. 

Popular Electronics had an article back then on how to do make a simple  Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) detector, which is one third or one forth of the "poly" in polygraph. 

It was a fairly good detector of micro changes in skin resistance, but lacking the other parameters (heart beat, blood pressure, breathing, etc) that made it very crude as a lie detector. Another crude element in this GSR detector was that its output was not a pen drawing squiggles on paper, but a tone generator that went up and down in pitch.

This tone sounded odd, like some kind of alien singing, and it generated lots of laughs among friends when I hooked it up to them and me. The electrodes I used were two silver dimes, with wires attached.  

When I hooked it up to house plants this “singing” was VERY startling, because we usually think of plants as inert. They are not.

I actually have strong doubts if polygraphs are real science.  Too much depends on subjective opinions of the polygraph operator for me. This issue is a fascinating one, and has lately been revived with different electronics of MRI that is much more objective than polygraphs.

Other technical magazines also had some info on polygraphs because it was in the news a lot then. The guy who started this plant consciousness idea, Cleve Backster, was written up in many, many magazines at that time.  The Popular Electronics article was very complete in that it had a parts list and everything. 

Inferring consciousness from this very surprising plant “activity” was a giant leap, that has been very well debunked by all who tried to duplicate Backster’s results.

Please check out how inaccurate some of your hunches here are, and then we can talk about the inaccuracy of your other wrong guess on my early concerns on plagiarism.

The Popular Electronics article had to be before December 1971, because shortly after my first fellowships I threw away all my plant research stuff.  You can do the work to disprove your post. I’m not interested in defending myself from your accusation any more than I just did.

If you find that Popular Electronics issue will you be honest about it and post your error?

 

 

Edited by Mike
It looks like you are calling me a liar while you distribute several falsehoods. You learned a lot at TWI. First point is you misread my posting. I never asserted nor implied that boredom is an emotion. You inferred it, and wrongly. I merely mentioned it
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

It looks like you are calling me a liar while you distribute several falsehoods. You learned a lot at TWI.

First point is you misread my posting.  I never asserted nor implied that boredom is an emotion. You inferred it, and wrongly. I merely mentioned it as a condition.  To me, boredom is akin to being emotionless.

I was and still am interested in the phenomenon of lying, but I never once used any kind of electronics to pursue it. I used reading and thinking and observing for ...(Snip)

Please check out how inaccurate some of your hunches here are, and then we can talk about the inaccuracy of your other wrong guess on my early concerns on plagiarism.....(Snip)

 

You actually already did the “work” elsewhere to prove my point. On “a couple of questions” thread you emphatically stated you did use electronic equipment.

See here

Enough with the misdirection - back to plagiarism - it’s wrong wrong wrong

Edited by T-Bone
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I never once used any kind of electronics to pursue it.

You have stated you measured changes in resistance. That involves using electronics. I'm just sayin'.

 

OK, back to topic now.

Edited by waysider
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

You actually already did the “work” elsewhere to prove my point. On “a couple of questions” thread you emphatically stated you did use electronic equipment.

See here

Enough with the misdirection - back to plagiarism - it’s wrong wrong wrong

Not enough for me.

If you compare my expanded report immediately above,  to your citation of my earlier abbreviated report, you can see they are consistent.

I can now see HOW you made your wrong inference from the abbreviated one, given that you were groping for ways  to discredit my credulity in my 1972 plagiarism report.  You saw your chance in the close proximity of two two highly abbreviated sentences.

Do you, at least, see this consistency, and from the detail of my expanded report that I really did engage in some exotic playing around with the entire field of polygraphs and lies?

I don't think me producing the Popular Electronics issue will convince you. I think your mind was made up long before I mentioned polygraphs, and its oddity appeared to you as possible evidence.

BTW,  this nostalgic review has me wondering if my GSR kit came from another source, and that I merely saw the Popular Electronics issue on the topic. For decades after I entertained my friends and family with the "singing" plants they would tell me about the latest appearance of Backster in the media.  In other words, the date on the issue may possibly be after Dec 1971, but only a couple of years max. 

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

You have stated you measured changes in resistance. That involves using electronics. I'm just sayin'.

 

I did not use any electronics to detect lies.  I used it to entertain my friends by hooking it up to them and plants. At no point did I ever quiz them on possible lies.  We all knew that lies could not be detected by such a simple setup. It measured changes in resistence well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You folks are quick to call me a liar and then when I show you to be wrong, you want to quickly get away, back to the topic. Interesting.

Back on topic:

The plagiarism issue was MOST DEFINITELY discussed at that early date of 1972, by me and others. Nearly EVERYONE read every page of WLIL, including where VPW TOTALLY admitted he did not originate the material. I saw someone try to dismiss that as an obscure book. Baloney!  A lot here WANT it to be obscure because of that passage where VPW, point blank, said that what he taught he got from many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're grasping at straws here, Mike. You have stated you used a device that would be considered electronic. Hence, you used electronics. It doesn't matter that you "did not use it to detect lies". You used it, despite saying you didn't use it. Is this how plagiarism works? You simply say you had good intentions when you plagiarized and that excuses it?

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

How does plant consciousness and polygraph construction have any relevance to the plagiarism VPW committed?

My report on early 1972 discussions OF PLAGIARISM was displayed as not credible like my report on polygraphs.

I defended my reports and my credibility.  If you had read the posts (or read them better) you'd have seen that.

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

I did not use any electronics to detect lies.  I used it to entertain my friends by hooking it up to them and plants. At no point did I ever quiz them on possible lies.  We all knew that lies could not be detected by such a simple setup. It measured changes in resistence well.

 

Interesting - now there’s a third version of the soap opera “as the lie detector spins”

or maybe that movie “Plants, Lies, and Friends”

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

The plagiarism issue was MOST DEFINITELY discussed at that early date of 1972, by me and others. Nearly EVERYONE read every page of WLIL, including where VPW TOTALLY admitted he did not originate the material. I saw someone try to dismiss that as an obscure book. Baloney!  A lot here WANT it to be obscure because of that passage where VPW, point blank, said that what he taught he got from many others.

Mike, the way living in love has been out of print for years and the way international acts as if they are embarrased by its contents as they should be. So yes, its an obscure out of print publication that is all but forgotten in the scope of vpw career as a huckster. 

One things for certain, twlil in no way ever served, or was ever meant to serve, as a bibliography for vpw's various plagaraized books. Its a shameless self promotional brochure written by a starry eyed young lady who interviewed a narciscistic plagairist, amongst other starry eyed young followers. The self promotion by wierwille in twlil is embarrasing to rosalie and company, you know, the ones who currently control his legacy and image.

Twi openly state that vpw learned from many others as God brought them to him. Then he took what he learned to the scripture and penned the results of his so called research. That is a blatant lie. John Juedes side by side comparisons show tbe truth:

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

I invite readers to follow any of the links on the page i linked to. Laters!

Edited by OldSkool
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mike said:

My report on early 1972 discussions OF PLAGIARISM was displayed as not credible like my report on polygraphs.

I defended my reports and my credibility.  If you had read the posts (or read them better) you'd have seen that.

I read those posts quite well. Quite frankly, I don't "see it". All I saw was your personal opinion, with which I happen to disagree. Plagiarism is wrong and it's illegal. Wierwille knowingly plagiarized multiple sources. What he did was both wrong and illegal. His motive is not relevant to that particular fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of another version - a funny spin on plagiarism...

Make it a sitcom...now what if we plagiarize from “Newhart” - I thought the finale could go something like this:

Bob Newhart’s character used to be in a cult  run by a big time plagiarist; he thinks he’s been a Vermont Innkeeper but now wakes up from a dream that felt like it was 8 years long - and in bed next to him is his former cult leader.

 

Naw...forget it...nothing funny about that...mmmm actually a little creepy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I thought of another version - a funny spin on plagiarism...

Make it a sitcom...now what if we plagiarize from “Newhart” - I thought the finale could go something like this:

Bob Newhart’s character used to be in a cult  run by a big time plagiarist; he thinks he’s been a Vermont Innkeeper but now wakes up from a dream that felt like it was 8 years long - and in bed next to him is his former cult leader.

 

Naw...forget it...nothing funny about that...mmmm actually a little creepy.

Well, it did take place in a rural setting so there's that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Mike: I concede your point. And why can I do that? Because God told me to by revelation: But not direct revelation, mind you --- but from the revelation already written down for us to simply read.

And just in case you're wondering what that is --- it's "agree with your adversary while you're in the way with him". And now that's out of the way (pun intended!) let's see what we've agreed upon together:

By revelation from God, Victor took many a man's wife for his own and fornicated with many women who weren't yet married. (And even as Hillary Clinton condoned Bill's adultery, Dorothea appeared to do the same because...at least to my knowledge...she sure never spoke up against it --- did she?) :nono5:

By Revelation from God, Victor stole many a man's intellectual property by coping (often verbatim!) from their work, giving them no credit. That sure puts a damper on what I read in the Bible: "the workman is worthy of his reward". So, I guess Stiles and Bullinger, et al, weren't worthy of any credit for their own work, huh? (excepting from Victor's viewpoint, that is!) :nono5:

(Besides: Why work for something when you can just as well steal it and pass it off as your own work --- and get all the credit you crave from the ignorant and gullible!)

By revelation from God, Victor deceived many people by attempting to hide his sins, even as Adam covered himself with a fig leaf. He failed to credit the authors he stole from, passing it all off as his own. (And he got lots of credit --- from many of his ignorant and gullible followers.) :nono5:

[Hmmm: Maybe that's my answer to his wife's position in all of this! Perhaps he told Dorothea to wear that fig leaf as well (conspiring with him to conceal his sin: by keeping the "sex-capades" a secret. And why? Probably for the overall good of his ministry...lest a scandal (and very likely, legal actions) would destroy his Way Thing!] (And btw: Such things didn't do LCM any good either, did they?)

SO: He committed adultery and fornication, stole others' work and intentionally deceived people. And that's just the tip of the sinful iceberg! Hmmm --- Ya know what? That sounds more like what the Devil would do, rather than a so-called, self-proclaimed man of God. :evildenk:

And again (simply declared, concerning the 10 commandments) here's the 9th: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Ex 20:16) Bearing false witness describes how he pawned many of his writings off as his own work:nono5:

AND #10: "Thou shalt not covet...any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Ex 20:17). Covet (simply defined) means to desire what belongs to another. And it's blatantly obvious that VP indeed coveted other people's manuscripts, to say the very least! (What about all those women!) :nono5:

Okay Mike: I admit now that I was just being sarcastic about conceding your point. In no wise do I agree with you that (in any way, shape or form) God Almighty sanctioned Victor to act just like the devil --- and get away with it! :evildenk:

And one day, he (and all others who rationalize the condoning of these sins of his) shall answer to God for himself. And when that happens, any rebuttals (like you post here at GS) will be futile before the righteous judge!

Edited by spectrum49
grammar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again: This sums up Mike’s thousands of posts here in the last 16 years. Quoting Bette Davis from my last post on page 11(sic!) of this thread: Mike.....”YOU are so full of shit!”! Mike has accumulated as much credibility the last 15 years here as the Defendants in Stormy Daniels’ case against you-know-who. Here’s a brief musical interlude so Mike doesn’t get too bored! LOL!

Okay. Back to our regularly scheduled post!

 

This BS will go on as long as Mike comes here for free babysitting, and to alleviate what may be a crushing loneliness, or dire need for validation. Or, it may just be a crazy game he’s playing for his own condescending satisfaction at toying with those “lesser”, intellectually and spiritually than he? Or, he may just be really bored??  Either way......Mike....even after all these years and thousands upon thousands of your posts.......YOU are still so full of shit!...........More than ever! LOL!...............peace.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214804932574770&set=a.10214089284524016.1073741830.1169468755&type=3

 

 

 

 

Edited by DontWorryBeHappy
Spelling
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Again: This sums up Mike’s thousands of posts here in the last 16 years. Quoting Bette Davis from my last post on page 11(sic!) of this thread: Mike.....”YOU are so full of dang!”! Mike has accumulated as much credibility the last 15 years here as the Defendants in Stormy Daniels’ case against you-know-who. Here’s a brief musical interlude so Mike doesn’t get too bored! LOL!

Okay. Back to our regularly scheduled post!

 

This BS will go on as long as Mike comes here for free babysitting, and to alleviate what may be a crushing loneliness, or dire need for validation. Or, it may just be a crazy game he’s playing for his own condescending satisfaction at toying with those “lesser”, intellectually and spiritually than he? Or, he may just be really bored??  Either way......Mike....even after all these years and thousands upon thousands of your posts.......YOU are still so full of dang!...........More than ever! LOL!...............peace.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214804932574770&set=a.10214089284524016.1073741830.1169468755&type=3

 

 

 

 

DWBH, finally someone says what many of us think!  Thanks!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike said:

I can now see HOW you made your wrong inference from the abbreviated one, given that you were groping for ways  to discredit my credulity in my 1972 plagiarism report.  You saw your chance in the close proximity of two two highly abbreviated sentences.

Mike, even though you repeatedly do not respond with integrity when caught in prevarication, if your intent were to convince unconvinced readers you lose because they can plainly see (and read) that when you are caught, you try to squirm out of responsibility for your words with variations on: 1) I didn't say that, or 2) blaming those who caught you for not understanding what you intended to say even though they don't pretend to read your mind. You squirm, but don't quite squirm your way out of it.

 

7 hours ago, Mike said:

If you had read the posts (or read them better) you'd have seen that.

Mike, by definition you're blaming the reader for YOUR failure to communicate. I've shown you the definition several times. Would you like me to again provide a link? At about 2:10 into the video at this link, "the sender needs to make sure the receiver understood the message." "The receiver's reply to the sender is called feedback." "Feedback allows THE SENDER TO ENSURE that the original message was interpreted correctly by the receiver."
 

Bottom line, Mike, when you blame others for "not reading correctly," you're OFF THE BALL.

Regardless of whether you ever get back on the ball, the messages you have posted remain on GSC as you posted them.

IF you want to clarify, which is your responsibility, blaming the reader for not reading your mind or for not understanding the message as you originally intended it, misses the target.

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

You folks are quick to call me a liar and then when I show you to be wrong, you want to quickly get away, back to the topic. Interesting.

Back on topic:

The plagiarism issue was MOST DEFINITELY discussed at that early date of 1972, by me and others. Nearly EVERYONE read every page of WLIL, including where VPW TOTALLY admitted he did not originate the material. I saw someone try to dismiss that as an obscure book. Baloney!  A lot here WANT it to be obscure because of that passage where VPW, point blank, said that what he taught he got from many others.

Hold on there, Don Quixote.   WLIL, although a meandering tale to impress a young woman, is important not because of some VP canonized God breathed statement in it, but it gives all the detail regarding how VP came to plagiarize JE Stiles material after being helped out at an Oral Roberts event.  This includes really verifiable BS like Vic's misogynistic mindset where he raised his opinion of JE Stiles when he spoke harshly to his wife.   Nowhere else is Vic's tall tales of fictitious snow on gas pumps recorded, which has long since been compared against weather records and debunked.

Nay young joust master, it is not a mere obscure book, it is a masterful tale of how a pervy old dude spins his own history to impress a young hippie chick.  

Every bit as God-breathed as the whiskey infused tales told young ladies around bars across the world on a weekend night.

Carry on joust master.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've hardly had time, this being a big family day, to even read all the posts of the past several days, but someday I will. If you have a burning point to make, please repeat it.

Meanwhile I had some fun just now.

There’s a certain warming rhetoric satisfaction when my opponents in a debate descend to ad hominem tactics like “liar liar pants on fire”  and “you don’t write clear enough” and that I am wiggling about away from topic.

Instead of addressing the ONE POINT that I made, which was that 1972 had some early, unemotionally charged discussions on plagiarism, the focus shifts to me being a liar and full of bs, everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at me.

At least there was one logical (but not factual) argument against my assertion. That was that WLIL was obscure and out of print, so VPW’s (constantly buried here) admission that he did not originate most of the material went unnoticed and doesn’t satisfy the GSC Commission on Academic Standards. Well, that obscurity did happen, but not in the 1970s, which was where my point was aimed.

I’m also warmed and happy that with all this scrambling to attack the messenger (even bringing in the heavy BeHappy troops), I found out that all the old issues of Popular Electronics are on-line and free.

http://www.ocsmag.com/2014/11/27/popular-electronics-all-issues-online-for-free/

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Popular-Electronics-Guide.htm

 

The second link has check shaped buttons that download a PDF file for each issue. It also has a search function, but somehow its single page PDF output is not as clear as the full issue buttons.

The PDF outputs they offer have pdf page numbers and paper page (pp) numbers must be sought on the screen.


 

Popular Electronics June 1970, pp 120, top right

This page has a small ad for a Backster kit GSR detector that had appeared in the Oct 1969 issue of Electronics World, a different magazine. I haven’t searched for this yet.

Popular Electronics June 1971, pp 63-67,93

This is a full article for building another version of a Backster kit GSR detector.  The article seems to indicate that an earlier issue had similar topics, and that this is the second article in a series.

 

I vaguely remember all three issues mentioned above, but the June 1971 article seems most familiar and I think I made my GSR detector from this article.  Try it yourself. It is a trip to see plants as active creatures. I no longer make the leap (since 1972) that this activity indicates consciousness.  Mosquitoes are active, but how conscious are they?

Boy! What a trip down memory lane!

 

 

 

 

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

If you have a burning point to make, please repeat it.

O.K., but only since you insisted.

Wierwille heavily plagiarized other sources. Then, he lied about it and claimed the information he plagiarized hadn't been known for 2,000 years. Clearly it had. Otherwise, he would not have been able to copy it.What he did was unethical, illegal and contrary to how the scriptures suggest a man of the cloth conduct himself.

 

You can dance around that with discussions of polygraphs and plant consciousness and conversations forgotten long ago. None of that in any way changes what actually took place. But, I'm glad you had an enjoyable day.

 

Edited by waysider
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, waysider said:

O.K., but only since you insisted.

Wierwille heavily plagiarized other sources. Then, he lied about it and claimed the information he plagiarized hadn't been known for 2,000 years. Clearly it had. 

Not accurate.  You are right that the information was out there, but it was mixed in with error, much in obscure academic places no frazzled hippies would ever find, and not in the order that we need it in to grow up spiritually.

Otherwise, he would not have been able to copy it.What he did was unethical, illegal and contrary to how the scriptures suggest a man of the cloth conduct himself.

The men of cloth at that time were abysmal bumblers and never going to reach us kids. We were fed up with religion and the establishment.  In war (which this was) the rules of man can be thrown away. Abraham Lincoln did it.  God was the owner so the horror of plagiarism was a man-problem, not a problem with God. I think He was holding His nose whenever He had to  work with those men of cloth.  I'm glad VPW broke man's rules here and not God's rules.

You can dance around that with discussions of polygraphs and plant consciousness and conversations forgotten long ago. None of that in any way changes what actually took place. But, I'm glad you had an enjoyable day.

.Thanks.  

Thank you MUCH for not throwing the kitchen sink and sex at me to befuddle things. GADS I'm tired of that!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Mike, the way living in love has been out of print for years and the way international acts as if they are embarrased by its contents (because of the many people mentioned that had left and opposed the ministry after 1986.) as they should be. So yes, its an obscure out of print publication that is all but forgotten in the scope of vpw career as a huckster. 

One things for certain, twlil in no way ever served, or was ever meant to serve, as a bibliography .( It did for me, and lots of other who had no academic needs but lots of spiritual needs) for vpw's various plagaraized books. Its a shameless self promotional brochure written by a starry eyed young lady who interviewed a narciscistic plagairist, amongst other starry eyed young followers. The self promotion by wierwille in twlil is embarrasing .(because of the members who left) to rosalie and company, you know, the ones who currently control his legacy and image.

.The ministry had a ongoing policy of purging all teachings and mentioning of any leaders who had left, as much as possible.

When I worked in Tape Duplicating every now and then we got an order to “pull” from the catalog a certain tape teaching. Every single time that happened it was a teaching from a recently departed leader. I think that’s why WLIL was pulled. It was LOADED with leaders who had left, their testimonies and pictures.

Twi openly state that vpw learned from many others as God brought them to him. Then he took what he learned to the scripture and penned the results of his so called research.

.What TWI openly stated there I’d like to see. Was it after 1985 per chance?   I see many here openly stating the he claimed to get what I call “divine dictation.”   In 1965 and in 1972 VPW said different.  If TWI fell into the same wrong lane as posters here continually do, I’d not be at all surprised.

That is a blatant lie. .Only if you adopt the view that it was not God-breathed material that ended up in the collaterals. If you adopt the view that it was war and that God had priority over academia and market plagiarism standards, the it is not a lie at all.  John Juedes side by side comparisons show tbe truth .(from man’s unbelieving point of view) :

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

I invite readers to follow any of the links on the page i linked to. Laters!

 

 

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...