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

2815More David Lane on Twitch Identity Theft and D. Marman nonsense

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Aug 20, 2007
      Hello All,
      I thought this would be good to review once again
      since Rich posted info on Marman's new book.

      mish 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!
      "Non ekster" wrote:
      > >
      Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi Message List
      Reply | Forward Message #133962 of 133963 < Prev | Next >
      Re: Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi
      > >
      d.marman@> wrote:
      > > >
      In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, neuralsurfer 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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      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.
      > > >
      > >
      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:
      > >
      > >
      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!
      Peter McWilliams
      > >
      > >
      > >
      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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      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,
      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.
      > >
      > >
      Twitchell ASSERTS (not me) that he met Sudar Singh
      and Rebazar Tarzs in a PHYSICAL way and that they
      > >
      When we test that assertion we find NOTHING
      of the sort.
      > >
      That's not me getting worked up, that's me TAKING
      > >
      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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      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
      > >
      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,
      > >
      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

      *[ME] Let's not forget that unlike Rebazar - Sudar was
      supposed to be a "real human" living in a real physical body
      Klemp even sent ECKists to India to try and locate him (Sudar)!
      However, they came back empty handed. Now doesn't this
      make ECKists wonder why the MAHANTA can't locate
      an ECK Master by going to the INNER? What's wrong with
      this picture when the supposedly ALL-KNOWING Klemp
      isn't AT ALL KNOWING of what is expected of him via the
      claims he makes of the LEM/Mahanta (HK)!

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