@fmf saidLashing Out sounds like a good title for a thread.
You were called out for plagiarizing the hung out on chains as a warning to space aliens thing from some Italian writer. It was not "innuendo". You were called out. You denied it. You lashed out. You finally admitted it. It was plagiarism on your part.
You were called out for plagiarizing the hung out on chains as a warning to space aliens thing from some Italian writer. It was not "innuendo". You were called out. You denied it. You lashed out. You finally admitted it. It was plagiarism on your part.
[My bolding]
Quote me where I finally admitted to plagiarism.
I recall I eventually indicated the book and paragraph which from which I derived some words.
Show me " I now admit to plagiarizing ". Or " Okay FMF and Divegeester, You're right. I plagiarized ".
Show me my admitting to your accusation.
Loosely referring to Robert Govette's book "Eternal Suffering of the Wicked and Hades." Published by Schoettle Publishing CO.
And I'll use other words from that book if I see fit again, or some other good book.
If I use the phrase "Justification by faith" are you going to accuse me of passing off an idea as if original?
If I use the phrase "rapture" or "substitution" or say "we are washed in the blood of the Lamb" or "God's perfect justice" are you going accuse usage of these as plagiarism ?
Fair Usage -
Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:
Read more at -
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
My conscience is clear for using some words Robert Govette wrote before me.
You made no formal complaint so YOUR conscience must inform you that you have a bogus case.
And you're too chicken liver-ed to prove your accusation could stick.
Schoettle Publishing Co.
https://www.schoettlepublishing.com/
In addition from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html [my bolding]
Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.
Please note that the Copyright Office is unable to provide specific legal advice to individual members of the public about questions of fair use. See 37 C.F.R. 201.2(a)(3) .
@sonship saidYou admitted that the words you used were not your own and that while they had been written by an Italian author, you had posted them here on this forum as if you had written them yourself. It was plagiarism. When you later revealed that, in fact, they were not your words, but had been written by someone else ~ and you provided the name of who had written them ~ that was when you stopped trying to disgusie the fact that you'd engaged in plagiarism.
@FMF
Quote me where I finally "admitted to plagiarism."
You admitted that the words you used were not your own and that while they had been written by an Italian author,
What I recall was your friend hounding me about plagiarizing Watchman Nee or Witness Lee.
And you stood by rooting for Dive and finally jumped in and one of you then came up with Govette paragraph.
I don't recall being forced to give you that information. I voluntarily supplied it.
You are patting yourself on the back like you backed me into a corner where I finally had to admit to your accusation of plagiarism.
What I recall was you guys hunting for a way to make the accusation stick.
you had posted them here on this forum as if you had written them yourself. It was plagiarism.
You would have to take that to court where on a case by case basis a court would decide.
I think Fair Usage would acknowledge that I was not plagiarizing.
I certainly was not trying to make any financial profit.
And I'll use some other people's words who I think express something I well again.
Try to stop me.
When you later revealed that,
in fact, they were not your words,
I never made a case about them being my original words. I used some words as plenty of us do.
Do I see you cry Plagiarism about use of the phrase "multiverse" or "natural selection" ?
This is original. FMF, you're full of crap. Well, I admit "full of crap" has been around for awhile. Don't know who to give credit to.
but had been written by someone else ~ and you provided the name of who had written them ~ that was when you stopped trying to disgusie the fact that you'd engaged in plagiarism.
Copy the post and send it with a complaint. And see if the publisher of Govette's book agrees with you.
https://www.schoettlepublishing.com/
Maybe Divegeester's mad because he couldn't prove the Son of God does not have an eternal office.
As his custom is of living in the past, he and his atheist helper drag out old stuff for a fresh attempt to slander away with red herrings to yet another failed argument.
FMF exaggerates that I wrote 10,000 pages about hell. This is slanderously used to influence readers that sonship must be morbidly obsessed with an unpleasant subject and loves to write about it.
Dive claims to be a Christian but has also plainly said no one here claiming to be Christian is his spiritual brother.
Whether he is or is not, I don't really care as far as defending the concept of the trinity.
What is going on is that a questionable Christian and an atheist are more strongly united by a mutual hatred for the teaching from the mouth of Jesus about eternal punishment, then the alleged Christian is with other Christians.
His bond with hell haters is stronger than his bond with other saved individuals.
I wrote about many things other than hell. Dive brings the conversations BACK to eternal punishment because he cannot stand that it be believed. Then when some of us defend that we are not sadistic to accept what Jesus spoke, it is made to appear that we love the doctrine and are eager for billions to be tortured.
One or two other Bible students here simply say that they do not believe in conscious punishment in eternity. And stating that fact they feel no particular need to raise it with a debate and slanderous name calling to accompany the debate.
"Here's what I believe." That's pretty much the end of it.
I don't write much to those folks because they are not making a polemic issue out of the matter.
And I have told Divegeester on a number of occasions that he is welcomed to have a different opinion about that matter. If he presses me with names and slanders, I will counter those arguments though. To a limit that is.
@sonship saidYou passed off the words of Robert Govette as your own. You were exposed. You now admit that weren't your words but were, instead, the words of Robert Govette. It was plagiarism.
@FMFYou admitted that the words you used were not your own and that while they had been written by an Italian author,
What I recall was your friend hounding me about plagiarizing Watchman Nee or Witness Lee.
And you stood by rooting for Dive and finally jumped in and one of you then came up with Govette paragraph.
I don't recall being forced to give ...[text shortened]... nd see if the publisher of Govette's book agrees with you.
https://www.schoettlepublishing.com/
@sonship said"Mutual hatred for the teaching from the mouth of Jesus"? divegeester just has different interpretations than yours. You believe divegeester exhibits "hatred" for Jesus? You sound like a Scientologist or Jehovah's Witness commissar trying to bully a dissenter from your group.
Dive claims to be a Christian but has also plainly said no one here claiming to be Christian is his spiritual brother. Whether he is or is not, I don't really care as far as defending the concept of the trinity. What is going on is that a questionable Christian and an atheist are more strongly united by a mutual hatred for the teaching from the mouth of Jesus about eternal punishment, then the alleged Christian is with other Christians.
@sonship saidReferring to your creed as "torturer god ideology" is not "slanderous name calling". You have described why you believe your god figure tortures billions and billions of people for not being adherents to your religion and you have a whole ideology built upon that demented, depraved and morally incomprehensible superstition.
One or two other Bible students here simply say that they do not believe in conscious punishment in eternity. And stating that fact they feel no particular need to raise it with a debate and slanderous name calling to accompany the debate.
