2815More David Lane on Twitch Identity Theft and D. Marman nonsense
- Aug 20, 2007Hello All,
I thought this would be good to review once again
since Rich posted info on Marman's new book.
>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
> > >In email@example.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
> > > >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
> >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"
> >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!
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >Yes, let's go to the facts.
> >What evidence do we have that Sudar Singh
and Rebazar Tarzs ACTUALLY EXIST AS DESCRIBED
> >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
REAL HISTORICAL EXISTENCE.
*[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 ---
- << Previous post in topic