|
Post by the reality on Jul 29, 2007 22:33:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by im a little dense on Jul 29, 2007 22:36:55 GMT -5
You lost me. Where is the proof? What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by to dense on Jul 29, 2007 23:49:17 GMT -5
Did you follow the links and read the related articles?
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 0:53:04 GMT -5
Did you follow the links and read the related articles? Nathan has all sorts of stuff on his site from other sources. I do believe he does provide the references for most of it. I still would like to have one Worker come forward and put their name on His website as an endorsement. I do not believe that will ever happen as there are to many things that Nathan promotes that the workers do not agree with.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jul 30, 2007 0:56:03 GMT -5
*sigh* Boy, Nathan, if one were to believe even HALF of what's written about you on this site.... Luckily, some don't. M.
|
|
|
Post by to janet on Jul 30, 2007 0:56:25 GMT -5
janet,
follow the links in the original post, then come back and revise your post, because you will certainly feel compelled to after reading the proof.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 1:06:25 GMT -5
janet, follow the links in the original post, then come back and revise your post, because you will certainly feel compelled to after reading the proof. Nope don't see any reason to change my post. Please be specific. Answer why you think I should?
|
|
|
Post by Difference on Jul 30, 2007 1:13:42 GMT -5
janet, follow the links in the original post, then come back and revise your post, because you will certainly feel compelled to after reading the proof. Nope don't see any reason to change my post. Please be specific. Answer why you think I should? How is what Nathan is doing any different from you posting a copied list regarding Cults without giving the credit to the source?
|
|
|
Post by to janet on Jul 30, 2007 1:21:46 GMT -5
Other than the plagiarized content, there is the incorrect information he presents. For example, he posts an erroneous date on this page: www.homestead.com/prosites-hobarker/letter1888.htmlOn that page he claims that Hazel Hughes says that 2x2s came to her family in 1888. However, in reality Hazel Hughes wrote that it was 1898. Nathan offers no primary documentation to back up his statement.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 1:31:01 GMT -5
Nope don't see any reason to change my post. Please be specific. Answer why you think I should? How is what Nathan is doing any different from you posting a copied list regarding Cults without giving the credit to the source? big difference. I make no claim that it was my information. Further I do not have a website. Please go back and read my post.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 1:37:31 GMT -5
Other than the plagiarized content, there is the incorrect information he presents. For example, he posts an erroneous date on this page: www.homestead.com/prosites-hobarker/letter1888.htmlOn that page he claims that Hazel Hughes says that 2x2s came to her family in 1888. However, in reality Hazel Hughes wrote that it was 1898. Nathan offers no primary documentation to back up his statement. OK I see that. I do not agree with his website, and I have seen enough to know that Nathan is a hard core apologist. So what else is new. I cannot change that. I believe the key issues are that not one worker is willing to put their name as an endorsement to Nathans website. On the other hand there are reams and reams of data supporting the information presented on the TTT. Let THE WORKERS DECIDE
|
|
|
Post by to janet on Jul 30, 2007 1:41:33 GMT -5
No argument on that point. Not one single worker has endorsed nathan's website. None. Zilch. Zero. Nobody.
Yet he pretends otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Jul 30, 2007 5:20:40 GMT -5
why would anyone go to the trouble of making such a site? many of you guys are are all mental. thats what i am beginning to think. seriously, i am totally serious, this is the first time i have ever suggested that on this board. sure i joke a lot, and shock, spill my guts, cry, laugh, try and make friends, act immature and make enemies, say things i shouldn't about people (trying to stop that), .......i do it all, but build a site aimed at somebody as a weapon? never crossed my mind. who are you people? i think i am the normal one here, in fact i am pretty sure..... there are other normal people here..... i'm not talking to you.... i think i'm normal, but its a sliding scale one more thing. the workers are going to be just fine. all of my cousins...from robin layman, lori layman, joseph layman, mark lotchspiech.... he's not a worker anymore, but still professing.... they will be just fine. they are happy every time i see them. and a future sister worker in law..
|
|
|
Post by Not so on Jul 30, 2007 5:41:32 GMT -5
How is what Nathan is doing any different from you posting a copied list regarding Cults without giving the credit to the source? big difference. I make no claim that it was my information. Further I do not have a website. Please go back and read my post. Whether you have a website or not is moot. You posted it under your name without mentioning it was anything but yours. That makes the claim.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 30, 2007 7:26:59 GMT -5
[Janet Wrote] big difference. I make no claim that it was my information. Further I do not have a website. Please go back and read my post.
Reproducing text in its entirety without crediting the source is considered a breach of copyright. International standards for fair use of any text maintain that one may only use up to 10% for personal use.
Janet reproduced a slab of text (which looked pretty complete to me), without so much as a reference to an external source, and probably without permission from the authors. I would suggest that Janet is in no position to lecture others about plagerism, particularly given her totally unscholarly comments on this board and inability to interact in any discussion in an objective way.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 30, 2007 7:34:35 GMT -5
[Janet Wrote] big difference. I make no claim that it was my information. Further I do not have a website. Please go back and read my post.It would appear that Janet lifted the text she reproduced from a webpage located at www.CARM.org, which is copyrighted to Matthew Slick. She cited, in its entirety without even the courtesy of acknowledgement, from the webpage: www.carm.org/cults/cultic.htm. This would be considered a breach of copyright in normal circles. Moreover, the copying policy on CARM is as follows:=============================================CARM's COPYING POLICY (http://www.carm.org/index/copy.htm) Periodically, I receive requests from people asking for permission to copy my material and use it at church, in newspapers, articles, bulletins, etc. If you wish to do this, then please feel free. However, please do not alter the material and please give the citation of where you found it. Where the usage is more formal, say a newspaper, bulletin, etc., a representative citation would be something like. . . "Basic Christian Doctrine" by Matthew Slick, www.carm.org/basicdoc.htm. If you are simply using the material for your private use, no citation is necessary. If, you are copying CARM material for use on another website, discussion board, guestbook, etc., please provide the proper documentation along with the quote. (Slick, CARM.org)=============================================It would seem, therefore, that Janet is in breach of Carm's copying policy, as well as general copyright niceties. As I said previously, she is in no position to criticise others for shoddy scholarship, references, or plagerism. She herself is an offender: let he without sin cast the first stone!
|
|
|
Post by refuting nathan on Jul 30, 2007 8:38:14 GMT -5
This is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Here goes... Didn't you read Joh's post on here recently. She has mentioned this several times now didn't you read her posts? she wrote that one of the workers in Oregon has told her to go to my website. This is strictly hearsay. It has absolutely no merit and cannot be interpreted as an endorsement. I tell people to go to your website all the time. Not because I'm endorsing it, but because I want them to learn about the deceitful tactics you use. Regardless of who told whom what, you still have ZERO endorsements from workers. I asked Joh the name of that senior worker in private and she told me who it was. Yes, this worker has helped me with my website. What does that mean to you? endorsement. Yes or No. No. This is all unsubstantiated and has no merit. If this supposed worker actually endorses your website, then their name has to be attached with the endorsement. That's how it works, nathan. Until then, you have ZERO endorsements. I know of different workers, ex-workers have given the friends and workers my 2x2 website because there are some of the articles which are very helpful to some people. Exactly. I give out your website address all the time so that others can learn how deceitful you are. I don't have to explain to them how you twist things up. They read it for themselves on your website. The workers themselves probably read the falsehoods on your site and just shake their heads out of pity for you. But still, you have ZERO worker endorsements. To anonymous: So your Zilch. Zero. Nobody. is incorrect! wouldn't you say? No. It's right on the nose. Precisely ZERO workers publically endorse your website. Not a single one. I have noticed most of the time the anonymous poster/s always say some wild, half-truth things about me. If you were to sign your "real name" with your posts then this way I will let you know you're right on the money or dead wrong. This way you'll be very careful in what you write or say about people. We want you to be held accountable for what you write or say about others on here. What's said about you is irrelevant to the fact that ZERO workers endorse your website. Your insistence that others be held accountable for their words is pure hypocracy since you do not hold yourself to such a standard.Anonymous, are you willing to do this? The sum total of workers who publically endorse your website is still ZERO. And you have never held yourself accountable for your own words. Even if I were willing to do this, neither of those facts would change.
|
|
|
Post by refuting nathan on Jul 30, 2007 8:58:11 GMT -5
Either my comments are truthful, or you really are deceitful. Everything I said was true yet you attack me personally.
Nathan, until you can post that worker's name on your website as having endorsed your website, you still have ZERO endorsements.
I realize you do not understand this. That's why I'm explaining it to you over and over.
|
|
|
Post by more than zero on Jul 30, 2007 9:23:29 GMT -5
Nathan, until you can post that worker's name on your website as having endorsed your website, you still have ZERO endorsements.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 10:11:06 GMT -5
[Janet Wrote] big difference. I make no claim that it was my information. Further I do not have a website. Please go back and read my post.It would appear that Janet lifted the text she reproduced from a webpage located at www.CARM.org, which is copyrighted to Matthew Slick. She cited, in its entirety without even the courtesy of acknowledgement, from the webpage: www.carm.org/cults/cultic.htm. This would be considered a breach of copyright in normal circles. Moreover, the copying policy on CARM is as follows:=============================================CARM's COPYING POLICY (http://www.carm.org/index/copy.htm) Periodically, I receive requests from people asking for permission to copy my material and use it at church, in newspapers, articles, bulletins, etc. If you wish to do this, then please feel free. However, please do not alter the material and please give the citation of where you found it. Where the usage is more formal, say a newspaper, bulletin, etc., a representative citation would be something like. . . "Basic Christian Doctrine" by Matthew Slick, www.carm.org/basicdoc.htm. If you are simply using the material for your private use, no citation is necessary. If, you are copying CARM material for use on another website, discussion board, guestbook, etc., please provide the proper documentation along with the quote. (Slick, CARM.org)=============================================It would seem, therefore, that Janet is in breach of Carm's copying policy, as well as general copyright niceties. As I said previously, she is in no position to criticise others for shoddy scholarship, references, or plagerism. She herself is an offender: let he without sin cast the first stone! No that article did not come from Carm. It was from another site which is noted in the fact that it does not have roman numerals. In fact that particular article is found in more then one place on the web. Why? It is valid and that is the point. So report me already for using an article without posting the references. I also do not care. If this turns your crank the turn it and crank it.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 10:14:27 GMT -5
[Janet Wrote] big difference. I make no claim that it was my information. Further I do not have a website. Please go back and read my post.Reproducing text in its entirety without crediting the source is considered a breach of copyright. International standards for fair use of any text maintain that one may only use up to 10% for personal use. Janet reproduced a slab of text (which looked pretty complete to me), without so much as a reference to an external source, and probably without permission from the authors. I would suggest that Janet is in no position to lecture others about plagerism, particularly given her totally unscholarly comments on this board and inability to interact in any discussion in an objective way. Could you please site where I did this? " I would suggest that Janet is in no position to lecture others about plagerism"
|
|
|
Post by observation on Jul 30, 2007 10:26:51 GMT -5
Nathan is a perfect little worker. Lies, deception, a pro at twisting words, absolutely NO accountability or taking responsibility. Deflecting everything back at the person TRYING to have a discussion with him. Why aren't you still in the "work" Nathan? You are perfect for the "job" ... There's is no point in discussing anything with him; it will just leave you frustrated and shaking your head over how can anyone be so dumb! He's a desperate man trying to prove he's right and all others are wrong. I gave up long ago reading his posts. In reading others responses to him on this thread brought me to these comments. FWIW
|
|
|
Post by to twisting nathan on Jul 30, 2007 11:11:15 GMT -5
nathan.
You do not have 1.
If you do, then name him/her.
|
|
|
Post by Would on Jul 30, 2007 11:50:52 GMT -5
nathan. You do not have 1. If you do, then name him/her. To annoymous:
I have three of the workers names and an ex-worker that I know who are helping and supporting my website.... and many different workers and friends around the world know and reading it.
Why? do you need to KNOW their names so you can SMEAR their names publicly? while you withheld your own identity and posting your potshots in the dark. I Don't think so.
3+plus NOT= ZERO!
CASE CLOSED! anonymous. Believe it or not is up to you since you can't do the Math. NO use to talk to someone who can't answer or do a simple math question. Would you please list there names here so that I may contact them to see if they support your mission. I don't think they would mind since they support you and endorse you. Names please Thank you
|
|
|
Post by he cannot on Jul 30, 2007 13:08:55 GMT -5
nathan cannot name any workers that support/endorse his website because there are none who will attach their names to it.
|
|
|
Post by solution on Jul 30, 2007 13:46:41 GMT -5
I have three of the workers names and an ex-worker that I know who are helping and supporting my website.... and many different workers and friends around the world know and reading it. Why? do you need to KNOW their names so you can SMEAR their names publicly? while you withheld your own identity and posting your potshots in the dark. I Don't think so. 3+plus NOT= ZERO! CASE CLOSED! anonymous. Believe it or not is up to you since you can't do the Math. NO use to talk to someone who can't answer or do a simple math question. img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/9/7/30/f_badthreadm_1978e4c.gif
|
|
|
Post by for nathan on Jul 30, 2007 13:47:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nada on Jul 30, 2007 16:22:00 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with math.
There simply are not any workers who will attach their name to nathan's website as a sign of support or endorsement.
None.
|
|