Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by sonship
Who owns this then ?

You'll have to study copyright law. The writer of John, presumably got many of his ideas from elsewhere. When someone translates or makes commentary on John's writing, the result is a blend of John's material and new original work.

Who owns that truth ?
Your insistence on calling it 'truth' is a dishonest attempt to draw away from the actual truth of the topic. That you feel the need for such dishonesty suggests you are not confident in your claims.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You'll have to study copyright law. The writer of John, presumably got many of his ideas from elsewhere. When someone translates or makes commentary on John's writing, the result is a blend of John's material and new original work.

[b]Who owns that truth ?
Your insistence on calling it 'truth' is a dishonest attempt to draw away from the actual t ...[text shortened]... topic. That you feel the need for such dishonesty suggests you are not confident in your claims.[/b]

You'll have to study copyright law. The writer of John, presumably got many of his ideas from elsewhere. When someone translates or makes commentary on John's writing, the result is a blend of John's material and new original work.

Should I pay attention to what John's aspirations were about what he wrote ?
Should I consider what were the intentions of Jesus who spoke the words conveyed on to the world by the recorder John ?

" ... these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (See John 20:31)

Maybe scribal copyists deliberately eliminated explicit instructions not to reproduce these writings without express written permission from the Apostle John or Jesus Christ, huh ?

Who owns that truth ?
Your insistence on calling it 'truth' is a dishonest

No it isn't. Its honest.
Maybe you cannot tell honesty when you're confronted with honesty.

Okay, you can say I honestly believe it.
I honestly believe what is true.

attempt to draw away from the actual truth of the topic. That you feel the need for such dishonesty suggests you are not confident in your claims.

The author of these words had more integrity demonstrated in His whole life then anyone else you might suggest, I am pretty sure.

An honest acting man spoke the honest truth.
Maybe you've been in the dark so long you're afraid of the light.
Maybe you have, post modern style, just despaired of truth being in existence.

You'll have to study copyright law.

Watch me do the same thing.

You dishonestly do not specify exactly whose copyright law should be studied.
US? South African? German? Ancient Greek? Ancient Roman? Israeli ?

See it is easy for me to charge you, if I wanted to, for dishonesty in your statement.

I told you before - disagreement with you does not constituted dishonesty.

Originally posted by sonship
Should I pay attention to what John's aspirations were about what he wrote ?
Should I consider what were the intentions of Jesus who spoke the words conveyed on to the world by the recorder John ?

That depends on what your intention is.
If you are going to pass it off as your own work, then I really don't see why is aspirations are particularly relevant. If on the other hand, you plan to publish his work, giving full credit to him, then it seems reasonable to consider whether he would approve of such use.

No it isn't. Its honest.
Maybe you cannot tell honesty when you're confronted with honesty.

Okay, you can say I honestly believe it.
I honestly believe what is true.
Its not about whether you believe it, it's about what this thread is really about.
Is it your argument that because a statement it true, copyright no-longer applies? Or is the truth of the statement incidental to your argument? Either way, why not simply state your case clearly rather than spamming the thread with 'THIS IS TRUTH' claims which you know are likely to be disputed so you can then start a side argument about that and avoid the original issue?

The author of these words had more integrity demonstrated in His whole life then anyone else you might suggest, I am pretty sure.
Does this have any relevance to anything I said? Or is this merely an attempt to insult me?

An honest acting man spoke the honest truth.
Maybe you've been in the dark so long you're afraid of the light.
Maybe you have, post modern style, just despaired of truth being in existence.
Yep, just rudeness because you don't like what I had to say.

Originally posted by sonship
Watch me do the same thing.

The same thing as what?

You dishonestly do not specify exactly whose copyright law should be studied.
US? South African? German? Ancient Greek? Ancient Roman? Israeli ?
Presumably the law that applies to you, wherever you live. In what way was I 'dishonest' by leaving that out?

See it is easy for me to charge you, if I wanted to, for dishonesty in your statement.
But not so easy to defend it.

I told you before - disagreement with you does not constituted dishonesty.
And I have not claimed that my disagreement did constitute dishonesty. I specifically stated what I thought was dishonest - AND IT WASN'T DISAGREEMENT. Merely stating that someone is dishonest without making any sense is what you do above. It is not similar to what I did.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The same thing as what?

[b]You dishonestly do not specify exactly whose copyright law should be studied.
US? South African? German? Ancient Greek? Ancient Roman? Israeli ?
Presumably the law that applies to you, wherever you live. In what way was I 'dishonest' by leaving that out?

See it is easy for me to charge you, if I wanted to, for di ...[text shortened]... one is dishonest without making any sense is what you do above. It is not similar to what I did.

Explain the personal characteristics of Jesus Christ by which you deem what He spoke to be dishonest.

I repeat a lot what Jesus Christ taught.
I'm primarily a repeating messenger.


What so strongly gives you pause to think Christ did not speak the truth ?
Is there something about Jesus compared to you that you consider dishonest ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The same thing as what?

[b]You dishonestly do not specify exactly whose copyright law should be studied.
US? South African? German? Ancient Greek? Ancient Roman? Israeli ?
Presumably the law that applies to you, wherever you live. In what way was I 'dishonest' by leaving that out?

See it is easy for me to charge you, if I wanted to, for di ...[text shortened]... one is dishonest without making any sense is what you do above. It is not similar to what I did.

Presumably the law that applies to you, wherever you live.

In the world I live.
Maybe you failed to notice the universality of the teachings of Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
Explain the personal characteristics of Jesus Christ by which you deem what He spoke to be dishonest.

This is the sort of dishonesty I always complain about when engaged in a conversation with you.

I NEVER ONCE IN THIS THREAD SAID ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JESUS CHRIST OR HIS WORDS!

To imply that I did is a blatant lie.

Originally posted by sonship
In the world I live.
Maybe you failed to notice the universality of the teachings of Jesus.

Maybe you are having difficulty understanding English.

What does the word 'copyright' mean to you? To me, its a legal term. As such, it only makes sense in a legal setting. You appear to have understood that above, but now you are acting like you have forgotten that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The same thing as what?

[b]You dishonestly do not specify exactly whose copyright law should be studied.
US? South African? German? Ancient Greek? Ancient Roman? Israeli ?
Presumably the law that applies to you, wherever you live. In what way was I 'dishonest' by leaving that out?

See it is easy for me to charge you, if I wanted to, for di ...[text shortened]... one is dishonest without making any sense is what you do above. It is not similar to what I did.

And I have not claimed that my disagreement did constitute dishonesty. I specifically stated what I thought was dishonest - AND IT WASN'T DISAGREEMENT. Merely stating that someone is dishonest without making any sense is what you do above. It is not similar to what I did.

Dazzling.
I cannot figure out what it is in all these years you say is dishonest about my writing.
Other than you insist I make admissions of wrong doing just based on your opinion and demand apologies.

To the question of Who owns the truth, I agree with the saying "All truth is God's truth".

Since no one took the bait begging you to enumerate these worst behaviors of mine than the falsly accused plagiarisms, what are these WORSE crimes I have committed here on the Forum ?

Ignore some of your questions that I consider a waste of time?
Not say " I'm very sorry" when I feel I have committed no offense?

Do these far worst acts merit an admonition from the webmasters of chessatwork.
To my recollection, in all my participation I can recall no warning from chessatwork.

So maybe these "far worse" or "worst" or whatever you wrote, behaviors, are just in your mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe you are having difficulty understanding English.

What does the word 'copyright' mean to you? To me, its a legal term. As such, it only makes sense in a legal setting. You appear to have understood that above, but now you are acting like you have forgotten that.

I'm a composer. I have a reasonable understanding of what "copyright" means.

Now, I do not intend to go off arguing with myself or reading your mind.
If getting explanations from you becomes like pulling teeth, never mind.

But one closing question. In the last ten years which thread that you have substantially participated in would you say, you made the most contribution to the general subject of Spirituality ?

Would it be in some thread denying that there is a spiritual dimension to human life perhaps ?

Originally posted by sonship
Dazzling.
I cannot figure out what it is in all these years you say is dishonest about my writing.

Odd that you have never asked for clarification.

Other than you insist I make admissions of wrong doing just based on your opinion and demand apologies.
Untrue.

Since no one took the bait begging you to enumerate these worst behaviors of mine than the falsly accused plagiarisms, what are these WORSE crimes I have committed here on the Forum ?
One, is your tactic such as above, where you falsely imply I made a claim I most definitely did not make.
Another is just blatant lying such as the time you accused me of not wanting to discuss something when the reality was that it was you who was running away.

Not say " I'm very sorry" when I feel I have committed no offense?
I recall at least one time where you admitted to committing an offence but still felt no apology was necessary because it was 'evil for evil' and thus OK in your eyes.

Do these far worst acts merit an admonition from the webmasters of chessatwork.
To my recollection, in all my participation I can recall no warning from chessatwork.
I have never said, nor implied that your offences had anything whatsoever to do with the webmasters of chessatwork.

So maybe these "far worse" or "worst" or whatever you wrote, behaviors, are just in your mind.
That was a remarkably quick conclusion. You didn't even wait for me to list them.

Originally posted by sonship
I'm a composer. I have a reasonable understanding of what "copyright" means.

I am quite sure that you do. which makes your above comments where you pretend that you don't all the more obviously dishonest.

But one closing question. In the last ten years which thread that you have substantially participated in would you say, you made the most contribution to the general subject of Spirituality ?
This too is the sort of despicable behaviour I was referring to. An obviously irrelevant question aimed purely at closing down a discussion you know you are losing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is the sort of dishonesty I always complain about when engaged in a conversation with you.

I NEVER ONCE IN THIS THREAD SAID ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JESUS CHRIST OR HIS WORDS!

To imply that I did is a blatant lie.

I NEVER ONCE IN THIS THREAD SAID ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JESUS CHRIST OR HIS WORDS!

"IN THIS THREAD" ?

What about in threads where you trumpet the Jesus mythers that argue that Jesus may never have existed like Richard Carrier ?

That you argue a characteristic of Jesus Christ is that there was none - you never cozzied up to that concept ?

I recollect when asked for you to put forth your couple best evidences that Jesus never existed ( or likely never existed) you bowed out drawing attention to my bad behavior.

So you can SHOUT

I NEVER ONCE IN THIS THREAD SAID ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF JESUS CHRIST OR HIS WORDS!

But you once warmed up close to the NONEXISTENCE in history as a characteristic of Jesus Christ.

Does anyone remember and agree with me?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am quite sure that you do. which makes your above comments where you pretend that you don't all the more obviously dishonest.

[b] But one closing question. In the last ten years which thread that you have substantially participated in would you say, you made the most contribution to the general subject of Spirituality ?
This too is the sort of ...[text shortened]... obviously irrelevant question aimed purely at closing down a discussion you know you are losing.[/b]

This too is the sort of despicable behaviour I was referring to. An obviously irrelevant question aimed purely at closing down a discussion you know you are losing.

You're despicable.
Yea close down the discussion on your side.
Strut and brag about winning on the way out.