Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Plagiarism on the road to success


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I totally admit that in most cases nowadays, the way VPW collected together gems than helped thousands (including me) would not be acceptable. In the days he did this over 60 years ago, and in the place he did this I think it was acceptable. It was in God's family, far away from the marketplace of real books and academia. I see an exception there. Even if I'm wrong, I still benefit from the gems.

D'ya know what, Mike?  It wouldn't be acceptable a very long time ago.  I just googled "history of copyright law usa" and found this little gem in Wikipedia (my emphases in bold/underlined):

Quote

In 1783 several authors' petitions persuaded the Continental Congress "that nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries."

Thereafter follows a lengthy discussion of various copyright laws in the USA.   And this was being talking about then (1783 !!!) because the British Copyright Act 1710 (again, note the date) did not apply to the American colonies.

If folks, Americans, were concerned about this in the early 1700s, and definitely discussing it and petitioning about it towards the end of the 1700s, how can you say it didn't matter only 60 years ago? 

There's no exception, as you claim.

It's okay to say you still benefit from the gems.  I'm pleased for you that you do.  Just give credit where it's due.  (Big hint: no name with initial W comes anywhere near).

 

PS do note that I have cited the source of my info!  Not too difficult or confusing, was it?

Edited by Twinky
  • 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

50 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

think Romans 13 refers to the institution of government as established by God - and there's a lot to that chapter - please read the post I referred to previously - you can get there from -Bone, but I still managed to find the post, thanks

Thanks for the link T-Bone

The thread is long and alot to digest

Will have to do some chewing on that one, and Rom 13

But reading the first verse:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."

Looks like that introduction could be referring generally to both ecclesiastical powers (exousia - authorities) and civil powers (exousia - authorities)...

 

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

D'ya know what, Mike?  It wouldn't be acceptable a very long time ago.  I just googled "history of copyright law usa" and found this little gem in Wikipedia (my emphases in bold/underlined):

Thereafter follows a lengthy discussion of various copyright laws in the USA.   And this was being talking about then (1783 !!!) because the British Copyright Act 1710 (again, note the date) did not apply to the American colonies.

If folks, Americans, were concerned about this in the early 1700s, and definitely discussing it and petitioning about it towards the end of the 1700s, how can you say it didn't matter only 60 years ago? 

There's no exception, as you claim.

It's okay to say you still benefit from the gems.  I'm pleased for you that you do.  Just give credit where it's due.  (Big hint: no name with initial W comes anywhere near).

 

Actually, I found it enlightening. I had heard quotes like that before, and I agree with them. Indeed, the idea of copyrights and patents IS in the US Constitution, and NOT in the Amendments.

The oldness I was referring to on the timing of VPW's beginnings was NOT in regard to the sophistication of the age.

The oldness I was referring to was a simpler time and place, involving a tiny number of people. It's not at all the electronically  connected of today. The book market is global now, and so is academia. So many universities have their basic courses free on the Internet.

When rural farmers came to town and church in 1040s and 50s they were not thinking of city life and bookmarkets and academic officialness. They are thinking of spiritual nurture for themselves and family. Same with this old hippie in 1971. 

***

For all the Gamaliels out there, here's a comparison:

The only reason anything written in the first century survived is because some very small number of people cherished it during the first couple hundred years, and God cherished it, and it got passed it on against all odds.  Both rejections of Paul and then persecutions kept that number of people small.

If PFAL is as cherished out there by others as I say it is, then it too will get passed on. If not then not. 

 

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

The only reason anything written in the first century survived is because some very small number of people cherished it during the first couple hundred years, and God cherished it, and it got passed it on against all odds.  Both rejections of Paul and then persecutions kept that number of people small.

If PFAL is as cherished out there by others as I say it is, then it too will get passed on. If not then not. 

Once again, you invalidate your own argument.

What has survived from the First Century?

The bibical manuscripts we have are much more recent than that. They're copies of copies of copies of...

Manuscripts you claimed in previous posts were void of authority, or so your excuse for PLAF being God-breathe goes.

If they're void of authority, as you claim, what survived from the First Century? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoldStar said:

Well, you really shouldn't be lying under or over...

But no worries, you're forgiven, God told me to tell you....

I know it was him because I saw a snow plow

it was parked in front of a gas pump

giphy.gif

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

 

Actually, I found it enlightening. I had heard quotes like that before, and I agree with them. Indeed, the idea of copyrights and patents IS in the US Constitution, and NOT in the Amendments.

The oldness I was referring to on the timing of VPW's beginnings was NOT in regard to the sophistication of the age.

The oldness I was referring to was a simpler time and place, involving a tiny number of people. It's not at all the electronically  connected of today. The book market is global now, and so is academia. So many universities have their basic courses free on the Internet.

When rural farmers came to town and church in 1040s and 50s they were not thinking of city life and bookmarkets and academic officialness. They are thinking of spiritual nurture for themselves and family. Same with this old hippie in 1971. 

***

For all the Gamaliels out there, here's a comparison:

The only reason anything written in the first century survived is because some very small number of people cherished it during the first couple hundred years, and God cherished it, and it got passed it on against all odds.  Both rejections of Paul and then persecutions kept that number of people small.

If PFAL is as cherished out there by others as I say it is, then it too will get passed on. If not then not. 

 

How do you know what these rural farmers were thinking?

This is more Mike-hogwash.

And what do you know about anything written in the 1st century? And what do you know about textual research?

Sounds to me like you’re still pushing that same old bull$hit of wierwille’s  - the pursuit of that ever elusive “original god-breathed word”.

For those not familiar with Mike’s methodology – please be advised, Mike thinks very highly of wierwille’s second-third-and-fourth hand approach to get back to the "original manuscripts" – wierwille said to compare translations and versions! there’s well over 5,000 manuscripts in part or in whole of the New Testament…some as old as 350 AD…why couldn't he just do some research on these manuscripts that are still around? oh wait, wierwille lied about having studied biblical Greek through Moody’s correspondence courses   see Moody letter about wierwille 

sometimes wierwille would occasionally redefine Greek words to suit his own agenda -  like  pros   

You can read more details on this, the issues with wierwille’s approach and the challenges presented to Mike’s fantasy “thesis” which he has still not responded to in  this post   of mine on the is PLAF theopneustos god-breathed? thread.

Edited by T-Bone
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, So_crates said:

The bibical manuscripts we have are much more recent than that. They're copies of copies of copies of...

Manuscripts you claimed in previous posts were void of authority, or so your excuse for PLAF being God-breathe goes.

If they're void of authority, as you claim, what survived from the First Century? 

What survived were tattered remnants of the authoritative remnants.  To a greater degree, the change in cultures and change in languages make the original authoritative understanding difficult. The tattering of the remnants (from actual cutting, rotting, and burning of the materials) combine with this to degrade their authority.

Enough survived, though, to inspire others to look for more. They found lots and put lots together.

Much more accumulated by VPW's time, but there were many textual variations and many cultural and attitudinal changes that were so confusing and non-authoritative by 1942 that VPW wanted to quit the ministry. Someone needed to put it all together with the right attitude and perspective to get in sync with God like it hasn't been done since the first century, which is... authoritatively.

But I've been through this ten or eleven times now for 16 years now. 

I'm tired of typing all this out over and over.

The main reason I came onto  this thread was  Bolshevek's odd straying from the usual party line here. I thought maybe he was leading me on, or baiting me. If so, it worked.

I wanted to talk about new things here, where I can expand my knowledge.

This thread started off very different. Some of those opening ideas for a page or two were very fascinating to me. I'm very into how the brain and mind work. It's fascinating. original thought is a delicate idea.

Stealing a line from John Lennon: I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, once again, all of this stems from your manufactured solution to a manufactured problem. You keep laboring under the supposition that the Biblical documents we have nowadays are unreliable and remnants.  That's a gross misstatement of what was known when wierwille was in school- and he was a poor student of history but never made the claims you did. He claimed that we could study-"compare one word with another" and so on-HIS WORDS- and arrive at a position where we could say of the results "Thus saith the Lord."  I've noticed you've backed off that claim of wierwille's as well.  From what I've seen, most of the research that isn't just reading is checking a critical Greek text and seeing if the word in English is a fair translation of the Greek word (generally, when I get stuck, that's the reason I was stuck.)  There's similar solutions when checking the Hebrew (or the Syriac or Aramaic if you're so inclined.)   A websearch can show details of what reliable, old documents exist-and not a lengthy search, either.  vpw claimed the oldest documents extant were from the 4th century AD- which was error even when he said it. Documents go back a lot farther.  Truly dedicated researchers can compare the most ancient fragments with the less ancient fragments- and nearly everything corresponds with what we have now!  (Again, problems with awkward versions, but all off the same Texts and the Texts were accurate.)  The ancient Hebrew corresponds in an even more shocking manner despite the centuries.  (I'll make a thread about this when I have time, documenting the specifics.) 

So, there's no need for new original documents since the old original documents worked just fine.  If anything needed fixing, it was dependence on a 450-year-old version (KJV) when there were new versions that were superior to it, both in concept-for-concept and word-for-word.  Again, a manufactured problem since clearer versions are on sale in your local Barnes & Noble right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Word Wolf, the necessary nuances are missing in the versions.

I'm thinking of leading people into SIT, and nobody gets missed.  That was pretty much the standard for film classes; no one got missed.  Versions and the denominations that produce them are not able to do this, nor were they able to penetrate the hippie counterculture in 1970s.

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

But wait, so then every time someone quotes someone else in a comment, is that plagiarism....or not because there's no copyright notice ?

( Copyright GoldStar 2018 ) <- Just in case....

There's been threads specifically to outline what copyright is, and what plagiarism is.  Simply put, using the work of others without citing your sources is plagiarism. If it is word for word, it is plagiarism....and if it is NOT word-for-word, it is STILL plagiarism.  vpw moved a few words around and changed some synonyms from Stiles' book so that later printings of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today less directly resembled Stiles' book from which it was initially retyped, and it was STILL plagiarism.  At no point did vpw's book include a note saying ANYTHING was from Stiles (when all of the original was, and the later ones plagiarized also from Bullinger and Leonard, neither of whom is mentioned in it EITHER.) 

Even Public Domain books can be plagiarized if sources are not cited.  Homer's "the Odyssey" is in the public domain. I can print off a run of books titled "the Odyssey by Homer" legally- and there's plenty of public domain books in print, cheaper because they're public domain.  However, I can't print off the same book titled "the Odyssey by WordWolf" because that's plagiarism- the contents were from Homer.   There's even been Christians who've done this with books in the public domain.  VF wrote a book about "the Two Natures" largely restating Bullinger's book on the same subject with the same title. He cited his source.  And when VF did a print run of his book, he did a print run of Bullinger's (public domain) book, and sold them side-by-side. People bought them together.

This is NOT a difficult concept to get- but we always seem to circle back to it whenever someone defends vpw. Then suddenly that person (not you) doesn't understand what plagiarism is, reads over definitions and then claims that restating a few words excuses it, or an off-hand comment mentioning one person one time is a blanket clearance for failing to cite sources, etc. We get this periodically, depending on who's feeling like calling vpw a really nice guy that week instead of a plagiarizing rapist.

 

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/12755-plagiarism-101/

This was one of the threads where we actually had the definitions and explanations of plagiarism-followed by some people determined to misunderstand them. In case you're interested.

 

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

Word Wolf, the necessary nuances are missing in the versions.

I'm thinking of leading people into SIT, and nobody gets missed.  That was pretty much the standard for film classes; no one got missed.  Versions and the denominations that produce them are not able to do this, nor were they able to penetrate the hippie counterculture in 1970s.

Boy, did YOU miss some important discussions in the last decade....

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

Word Wolf, the necessary nuances are missing in the versions.

I'm thinking of leading people into SIT, and nobody gets missed.  That was pretty much the standard for film classes; no one got missed.  Versions and the denominations that produce them are not able to do this, nor were they able to penetrate the hippie counterculture in 1970s.

Well, first of all, people DID get missed. Did you ever run a class? People got missed. I guarantee it.

In addition, there are many modern denominations that have practiced speaking in tongues, many dating back to before Wierwille was even born. (see: Charles Fox Parham)

Lastly, regarding penetration of the hippy culture: You actually have that backwards. There was a very large "Jesus Freak"  movement afoot in the 1960's, before what became The Way as we came to know it. Jimmy Doop and Steve Heefner were very successful at promoting their message to the hippy culture. Wierwille abducted their ministries to form The Way International. You can find that history in detail on these GSC forums

Edited by waysider
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, waysider said:

Well, first of all, people DID get missed. Did you ever run a class? People got missed. I guarantee it.

In addition, there are many modern denominations that have practiced speaking in tongues, many dating back to before Wierwille was even born. (see: Charles Fox Parham)

Lastly, regarding penetration of the hippy culture: You actually have that backwards. There was a very large "Jesus Freak"  movement afoot in the 1960's, before what became The Way as we came to know it. Jimmy Doop and Steve Heefner were very successful at promoting their message to the hippy culture. Wierwille abducted their ministries to form The Way International. You can find that history in detail on these GSC forums

Yes, the Jesus Freak movement was large and prior. It was largely emotionalism I thought.  I couldn't trust them.

I was there in the audience in Rye NY when VPW accepted Heefner’s resignation, but I was months out of my first class. Later when I did my own research in 1888-1998 I called Steve and Sandy Heefner for details.  Then I also interviewed Jimmy Doop several times, and partied with him in San Diego, when he lived here in the early 90s. Long story there. He stayed with two of my grad friends here.

For all the classes I attended, and/or was the electronics button pusher for, I paid close attention to the few cases where someone did not SIT. Early on I made it my business to go to those people and offer help.  This happened approximately 8 times.

In half the cases I was successful in helping them SIT days later. In the other half I quickly heard from them that they desired to not do it for various reasons.  I respected their wishes. They had to WANT to do it. I took all this learning into volunteering to lead excellors’ sessions for the Intermediate class when it was run.

Memory Correction:  VPW accepted Heefner's request for a leave of absence, not a resignation.

 

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 12:37 AM, waysider said:

You've been watching too many Andy Griffith reruns.

The ministry version: Wayberry RFD (Really Foul Denomination) .

Edited by So_crates
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mike said:

 

I was there in the audience in Rye NY when VPW accepted Heefner’s resignation, but I was months ........

Memory Correction:  VPW accepted Heefner's request for a leave of absence, not a resignation.

 

Human memory, like human creative thought, is a fascinating thing.

I remembered still more of Steve Heefner's request for a leave of absence.

Steve told me in 1990 that he was broadsided by VPW's remark because he had made no such request for a leave of absence. What I saw from the audience in 1972 was VPW making this surprising announcement about Steve's leave of absence request, with Steve standing right there next to him. They then shook hands and Steve walked off the stage.

I had known, even though I was new in the Word, that there were tensions between the two. Lots of people knew that.  It was a pretty tough strong-arm tactic on VPW's part; powerful man versus powerful man.  But it looked friendly, and it had the open hope that Steve would return when their conflict cooled down. However, he never did return. Jimmy Doop did return... a couple of times.

 I saw the hippie element being slowly but systematically removed from the ministry almost right after the 1972 Rock of Ages.  I heard that a lot of the old timers were not happy with hippies, Rock music and such.

As a hippie (or a wannabe), I never felt exploited by the ministry. It provided a service to me until I could provide it for myself and others. Then it went downhill fast.

Edited by Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 10:27 PM, Mike said:

Well once again I was wrong.

I thought that the Open or Doctrinal forums would be non-about-the-way and non-vpw.

What happened to Bolshevek?  His ideas were turning me on. 

I've heard others talk that way long ago. I've had some of the same thoughts.

 

 

I originally was trying to be more general in this topic so I put it in Open.  Probably a tall order on my part.  Plagiarism is generally accepted and understood as wrong and yet there is likely some honest grayness there.  Why is that?

When it comes to VPW's "teachings" I find they don't work.  Plagiarism is just part of the explanation of why.  Nobody did any real work.  VPW was not some apex of bringing previously thought out ideas together.  Because it doesn't work.

Even if we give the plagiarism a pass, and take ideas as owned by the community, belonging to nobody, (or just to God), you've still got to demonstrate they are useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Even if we give the plagiarism a pass, and take ideas as owned by the community, belonging to nobody, (or just to God), you've still got to demonstrate proclaim they are useful.

Fixed that for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Proclaiming?  Like witnessing?

Proclaim = to say  something.

 

"These ideas are useful because I said so."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+-+

 

 -+

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...