Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2809Fwd: Re: More David Lane on Twitch Identity Theft and D Marm nonsense (Radhasoamistudies)

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    Aug 19, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck@yahoogroups.com,
      "mishmisha9" <mishmisha9@...> wrote:

      Hi, Non eckster!

      This is a great repost discussion regarding Twitchell's
      use of Identity Theft in creating his fraudulent religion!
      I don't understand why people are willing to hold onto
      the scam when it is so clear it is a scam--what's up with
      that??? People must enjoy being gullible??? LOL!

      Mish


      --- In X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck@yahoogroups.com,
      "Non ekster" <eckchains@> wrote:
      >
      > Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi Message List
      > Reply | Forward Message #133962 of 133963 < Prev | Next >
      > Re: Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi
      >
      > --- In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, "dougmarman"
      > <d.marman@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, neuralsurfer <no_reply@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > The more I ruminate about Twitchell's appropriations of REAL
      > LIFE
      > > > STORIES, where he cribs the narrative thrust but implants his
      > own
      > > > self-created Eck Masters, the clearer it becomes that plagiarism
      > > > only partially describes Twitchell's literary piracy.
      > > >
      > > > What is transpiring in several occasions is IDENTITY THEFT with
      > a
      > > > twist.
      > > >
      > > > Twitchell steals Jaimal's story or Kirpal's story, for
      > instances,
      > > > and then co-opts them as HIS OWN vis a vis his own Eckankar
      > masters,
      > > > thus gaining narrative coinage without identity baggage.
      > > >
      > > > He steals the story and then makes it sound like it HAPPENED TO
      > HIM
      > > > via his Vairagi lineage.
      > > >
      > > > Thus it is not merely words or ideas or syntax or structure that
      > > > gets appropriated (occasionally, word by word), but WHOLE LIFE
      > > > NARRATIVES.
      > > >
      > > > Don't people have the right to their OWN STORIES, without some
      > > > miscreant (like Twitchell) stealing their narrative thrusts for
      > > > dubious causes?
      > > >
      > > > Or, to put it more concretely:
      > > >
      > > > My father won the Nobel Prize along with James Watson for
      > > > discovering the double helix structure to DNA.
      > > >
      > > > Yea, I know the usual story is that Francis Crick won it with
      > Watson
      > > > and Wilkins, but see I don't want to get into any weird
      > > > entanglements with Crick so I just deleted his name (but kept
      > the
      > > > cool story) and replaced him with my dad, Warren.
      > > >
      > > > All for the "whole" truth, you see.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Yes, it is easy to follow your point. But the question is: What was
      > > Paul's intention?
      > >
      > > You are asserting that Paul was stealing the narratives of others
      > for
      > > dubious causes, but it is clear you are inserting your own idea of
      > > what Paul's purpose and intention was.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Yes, the dubious cause is front and center: Eckankar's vairagi
      > lineage.
      >
      > One doesn't have to stray away from his narrative.
      >
      > One can simply STICK WITH PAUL'S NARRATIVE.... and therein lies (pun
      > intended) precisely what he is doing.
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Let's take the example of your testimony in court. You gave one
      > > statement in your deposition. Then later in court, after hearing
      > that
      > > your first explanation would not help your case, you gave a
      > completely
      > > contrary statement.
      > >
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > You write, "AFTER hearing your first explanation would not help your
      > case, you gave a completely contrary statement."
      >
      > Do you make stuff up, Doug?
      >
      > I never heard that my "first explanation would not help" my cause....
      >
      > Be accurate and STICK with what was stated EVEN IN THE JUDGEMENT
      > against me.
      >
      > Here it is again:
      >
      > This is the crux of the contradiction:
      >
      >
      > 8. Defendant testified at trial that at the first meeting with
      > McWilliams, he made clear to McWilliams that he would not provide
      > him with any documents to assist him in his work, unless McWilliams
      > gave him full access to "use the information in the book" that
      > McWilliams was writing (R.T. at 72-73). According to testimony at
      > trial, defendant told McWilliams based on his prior experiences with
      > purported defecters from MSIA in the 1980's that he would not assist
      > McWilliams in the writing of McWilliams' book unless McWilliams
      > granted Lane an unrestricted right to use the book (R.T. at 25)
      >
      > HOWEVER [my emphasis], in his deposition, Lane testified as follows:
      >
      > Q. Did you specifically tell Mr. McWilliams that you wouldn't
      > cooperate with him unless he gave you permission to use the
      > resulting book in any way you chose?
      >
      > A. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Peter McWilliams who
      > volunteered that. It wasn't one of my conditions, but he was very
      > thankful for the research I had done, and because of that he wanted
      > to -- it was like a material consideration. I had done something for
      > him, and he was paying me back. Lane depo. tr., Feb. 18, 1998, at
      > 44.
      >
      > 9. In Exhibit 22, which was posted on the Internet in September
      > 1997, Lane claimed that McWilliams had given him unrestricted access
      > to Life 102 when McWilliams posted the book on the Internet, an
      > event that occurred in September 1995, more than one year after the
      > 1994 initial meeting. It is undisputed that Lane never asked
      > McWilliams to reduce this agreement to writing (R.T. at 69).
      >
      > 10. Thereafter, in September 1994, McWilliams sent numerous copies
      > of the book to defendant accompanied by a handwritten note. The
      > note, Exhibit 202, reads in part as follows:
      >
      > David-
      >
      > Tada!
      > Here it is in print form -- Life 102! Let me know if you need more.
      > Thank you for all your help. I couldn't have done it without you.
      > Yes, of course, put it on your web page, give copies to your class.
      > Whatever you want - just don't sell it. Again, thanks I owe you
      > several!
      > Enjoy-
      > Peter McWilliams
      >
      > __________________________________
      >
      > DOUG CONTINUES:
      >
      > > It would be easy for me to say that you clearly had lied to help
      > win
      > > your case, and this case proved you had been caught lying. I could
      > > then call you a liar and laugh at you when you tried defending
      > > yourself with wimpy excuses like you had forgotten.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > You can call me whatever you wish, Doug.
      >
      > That still doesn't GET TWITCHELL OFF THE HOOK.
      >
      > Whatever one thinks of my case (pro or con or indifferent) has
      > ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on Twitchell.
      >
      > While I understand that you think you have some pregnant analogy, I
      > am suggesting that a close look at the details of the trial indicate
      > that it breaks down.
      >
      > But that is false detour anyways.
      >
      > >
      > > However, the difference between me and you is that I am willing to
      > > accept your explanation that you never intended to lie, and that it
      > > was simply your memory that was in error. I do care about your
      > point
      > > of view and not just how it looks to me. In other words, I accept
      > you
      > > as the expert on your intentions. I may not agree with your
      > > philosophy, but this doesn't give me the right to insert my idea of
      > > your intentions onto you. That simply isn't fair.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Why should you merely accept my explanation? I don't think you
      > should.
      >
      > I think you should take lots of OTHER EXPLANATIONS into
      > consideration, including the lying hypothesis.
      >
      > I think you should take Peter's view, the judge's view, MSIA's
      > views, and the whole mix.
      >
      > While I might believe I am an expert on my own intentions, perhaps
      > others can see things clearer than I can..... even about my own
      > actions.
      >
      > I would argue the same goes for Twitchell as well. Take in as many
      > views as possible and then one can reason or hash out varying
      > alternatives.
      >
      > But there is no Sudar Singh or Rebazar Tarzs, as PHYSICALLY AND
      > HISTORICALLY described by Twitchell.
      >
      > And when we find that he replaces real people with fake ones (fake
      > in the sense of lacking any empirical referents that would withstand
      > normal scrutiny), then I don't see any problem with calling
      > Twitchell a bullshitter.
      >
      > Now, if he can muster up some sufficient evidence or you can or
      > somebody else can, then we can augment or change our views.
      >
      > As it stands, we have nada.
      >
      > So, yes, I definitely disagree with you.
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > All these things that you think about and get worked up about are
      > your
      > > ideas and opinions. They aren't a reflection of Paul's intentions.
      > > They are your assertions.
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Twitchell ASSERTS (not me) that he met Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs
      > in a PHYSICAL way and that they are REAL HISTORICAL CHARACTERS.
      >
      > When we test that assertion we find NOTHING of the sort.
      >
      > That's not me getting worked up, that's me TAKING TWITCHELL
      > SERIOUSLY.
      >
      > And when we take him seriously we find that he is bullshitting.
      >
      >
      > >
      > > That's why I say, get back to the facts. What do the facts actually
      > > tell us? If there are theories about Paul's intentions, then let's
      > > look at all of the theories and consider all possible guesses.
      > Some we
      > > can throw away, since the evidence contradicts them. Some we must
      > keep
      > > on our list of possibilities.
      > >
      > > The only real proof of intentions is when someone tells us what
      > their
      > > intentions were.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Huh? Given this logic, you could not possibly have a legal system,
      > Doug.
      >
      > Given this logic, you could not possibly adjudicate any matter.
      >
      > Yes, let's go to the facts.
      >
      > What evidence do we have that Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs ACTUALLY
      > EXIST AS DESCRIBED BY TWITCHELL?
      >
      > You see, it is ironic here, but when we take Twitchell SERIOULSY we
      > find that his stories DON'T HOLD UP.
      >
      > When we see this disconnect, you then want to go into
      > his "intentions", as some kind of escape clause.
      >
      > Look, he says X is Y and we look and we don't see any evidence to
      > support his equation and we then SAY SO.
      >
      > We look for Sudar, for instance, and we find NO EVIDENCE that such a
      > creature ever existed.
      >
      > Now I don't see anything wrong with simply saying, BULLSHIT.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > The rest are guesses. Sometimes the circumstantial
      > > evidence is compelling, but this is only fair if we consider all
      > the
      > > options.
      > >
      >
      > All options of what?
      >
      > Give me ONE piece of compelling evidence for Sudar's REAL HISTORICAL
      > EXISTENCE.
      >

      --- End forwarded message ---
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic