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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Twitchell Info on ECKANKAR.org Shows Dec...

Expand Messages
  • ewickings
    ... even write. Things that we didn t edit, revise, or even publish. I say let the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      >   You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we didn't
      even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I say let
      the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
      something to what we already know.

      Etznab
       
      Eckankar has placed a gag order on these individuals, that is why Gail's book, or anyone else with the real knowledge will not be allowed to speak up until they are dead!
       
      Liz

      FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
    • ewickings
      ... sponsored by me. That doesn t mean I haven t preserved it for my own future reference. In fact I still add to it. Etznab And this is really too bad! Did
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
         
         
        >   So there is no more Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline page online that is
        sponsored by me. That doesn't mean I haven't preserved it for my own
        future reference. In fact I still add to it.

           Etznab
         
         
        And this is really too bad!  Did it get too difficult, you can't appease everyone, so maybe it is better to just let it rest?  Yes I see you will still add to it privately for your own benefit.  So who got to you?  Doug, Rich....   Eckankar?   Actually Etznab, your timeline does a service to eckists and non eckists.  But I suspect that most eckists would rather Richard just stop!  ;-)
         
        Another thought, maybe you are just brain tired and need a break from all of this BS?  Life does have a lot to offer if we are willing to venture out and explore it.   I hope 2007 is a good year for new adventures and moving forward.....   It's all about moving forward!  ;-)
         
        Liz
        FREE emoticons for your email! click Here!
      • etznab@aol.com
        Gee Liz. Thanks for the input. I think (how do you type a frown?) Etznab
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Gee Liz. Thanks for the input. I think (how do you type a frown?)

          Etznab
        • etznab@aol.com
          Liz, I like the free emoticons attached to your message. They reminded me about a favorite cartoon with a sheepdog and a coyote. It is so ironic. The two go at
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Liz,

               I like the free emoticons attached to your message. They reminded me
            about a favorite cartoon with a sheepdog and a coyote. It is so ironic. The
            two go at it all day long as if it were their jobs to do (and it was), but at the
            end of the day they clock out at the tree without animosity.

               It was not one of my favorite cartoons, but it did leave an impression.

               I might need to get some emoticons myself. It's too bad Yahoo won't
            let us post html code that would allow for graphic smile faces, etc. The
            word <smile> just doesn't do the same for me as an actual image.

               Hey, if you had to be a cartoon character (don't have to answer) which
            one would you be? I know which one I might be. That little dog that kept
            showing up no matter how many people tried to get rid of him. What was
            his name? The one who spoke with a drawl?

            Etznab


             
          • ewickings
            Don t take it personal, it was meant more for those eckists keeping track here on ESA. :-) I actually love what you do Etznab, and that is the
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Don't take it personal, it was meant more for those eckists keeping track here on ESA.  :-)
               
              <frown>  <wink> 
               
              I actually love what you do Etznab, and that is the honest truth! 
               
              Hugs, and happy new year.
              Liz    :-/    
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              Date: 1/1/2007 12:00:49 PM
              Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Twitchell Info on ECKANKAR.org Shows Dec...
               
              Gee Liz. Thanks for the input. I think (how do you type a frown?)

              Etznab
               
              FREE emoticons for your email! click Here!
            • ewickings
              I use Incredimail the free version, but will most likely switch to the premium in a day or so.... Removes the advertising. Favorite cartoon character that I
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I use Incredimail the free version, but will most likely switch to the premium in a day or so....  Removes the advertising. 
                 
                Favorite cartoon character that I relate to is the Roadrunner...  Bleep bleep  ;-)  
                 
                Liz  <smile, wink>
                FREE emoticons for your email! click Here!
              • prometheus_973
                Hi Etznab, The topic was the PT info provided on ECKANKAR.org of Twit being 27 in 1935 and the Timeline of him lying to get into Who s Who in Kentucky and
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Etznab,
                  The topic was the PT info provided on ECKANKAR.org
                  of Twit being 27 in 1935 and the "Timeline" of him lying
                  to get into Who's Who in Kentucky and supposedly being
                  in India to meet Sudar at this same time and later Rebazar.

                  Let's not lose track of the topic being discussed and
                  replied to, or the emphasis on this TIMELINE.

                  Timelines seem to be as important to you as the Truth
                  is to me.

                  In the future perhaps this statement by you here (below)
                  can be applied as the Answer to every Question that you
                  might have involving Timelines. Whether the DG info or
                  anything else comes up again your below response should
                  apply and, therefore, make any response by others a moot
                  point. What's the point if everything is "speculation?"

                  Since you are unwilling to take that next step to towards
                  Truth and state or admit that this PT info (Timeline) or
                  "facts" don't make sense when it is glaring back at you-
                  then there is no need to continue any discussion on
                  "Timelines." Just refer to your statement below and save
                  your breath - I know that I will!

                  Let's face it - the Timeline-Truth of this Twitchell
                  information is just more proof, for me, that I made the
                  right decision to leave ECKANKAR by recognizing the
                  deception. It's like putting a 3,000 piece puzzle together
                  in order to finally see the big picture. However, at some
                  point (different for each of us) we all begin to recognize
                  and see the big picture of the puzzle-just not all of the
                  details. Some Souls, however, don't have the patience,
                  time, etc. to put together such puzzles, or see the need
                  or point. They are happier with the 300 piece puzzles.
                  The puzzle pictures can be of various topics and sizes,
                  however, the key is in which ones interest us as individuals
                  and what do the pictures mean for each one of us?

                  Anyway, please don't take my words on future Timeline
                  discussions as being too harsh. I just don't see the point
                  since, it seems, there can never be a resolution or agree-
                  ment that you as a current ECKist could admit. As long as
                  you remain loyal to your religion you must also defend it
                  or avoid criticizing it. Although, when I was a Catholic
                  many of us and our Priests criticized the Mother Church.
                  If followers remain silent the corruption increases!


                  Prometheus





                  etznab wrote:
                  >
                  > Prometheus,
                  >
                  > Yeah, I've read through those parts before. The point in my last
                  > response is that I am not in the position to do anything about what
                  > the organization writes up as history. You know there are other
                  > points besides the ones listed that also qualify as conflicting info-
                  > mation.
                  >
                  > I myself can't change what is given on eckankar.org with regard to
                  > history. Neither do I have access to or know all of what they know. So
                  > the best I can do is speculate about the reasons behind some of what
                  > has been illustrated as history.
                  >
                  > Etznab
                  >
                • etznab@aol.com
                  In a message dated 1/1/07 3:21:31 PM Central Standard Time, ... Prometheus, Thought I already responded to you on that question at least once. I admitted that
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 1/1/07 3:21:31 PM Central Standard Time, prometheus_973@... writes:


                    Since you are unwilling to take that next step to towards
                    Truth and state or admit that this PT info (Timeline) or
                    "facts" don't make sense when it is glaring back at you-
                    then there is no need to continue any discussion on
                    "Timelines." Just refer to your statement below and save
                    your breath - I know that I will!


                       Prometheus,

                       Thought I already responded to you on that question at
                    least once. I admitted that it was conflicting information:

                    Yeah, I've read through those parts before. The point in my last
                    > response is that I am not in the position to do anything about what
                    > the organization writes up as history. You know there are other
                    > points besides the ones listed that also qualify as conflicting info-
                    > mation.


                       Here I have underlined it. When I said "other points besides
                    the ones listed" I was referring to the topic that you mentioned.
                    Not only that, but I indicated that IMO there were other points
                    of conflicting information besides. It wasn't a sidestep to the
                    topic, but I understand my admission may not have been the
                    words you were looking for.

                       I see the topic and it does look conflicting. You want me to
                    admit that it's a bold-faced lie (historically speaking) that part
                    you refer to that is given on the main website?

                       You're right, I'm not going to admit that because I didn't write
                    that history about Paul. However, this much was "admitted" by
                    me on the form of a timeline with alot of other "admissions" as
                    well that were even more conflicting.

                       One example is the use of pseudonyms to replace the identity
                    of certain individuals. I myself know how disturbing that use of a
                    pseudonym can be. Believe me.

                       So, I guess I'm not clear on why you think I was avoiding the
                    topic unless the way I answered it was not direct enough. But
                    no, I'm not going to take responsibility for conflicting information,
                    misleading, or even false information with regard to recorded
                    history. An exception would be typos that may exist in the comp-
                    ilations of history that I have worked on. I'm sure there are more
                    than a few.

                       Etznab

                    P.S. In my last post about the Swami, I wasn't taking a stand for
                    or against Eckankar. At least I tried not to comment.






                  • prometheus_973
                    Hi Etznab, Thanks! This response gives a better explanation and is more as to what I was looking for. I appreciate it. Prometheus
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Etznab,
                      Thanks! This response gives a better explanation and is
                      more as to what I was looking for. I appreciate it.

                      Prometheus


                      etznab wrote:
                      >
                      > In a message dated 1/1/07 3:21:31 PM Central Standard Time,
                      > prometheus_973@... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      > > Since you are unwilling to take that next step to towards
                      > > Truth and state or admit that this PT info (Timeline) or
                      > > "facts" don't make sense when it is glaring back at you-
                      > > then there is no need to continue any discussion on
                      > > "Timelines." Just refer to your statement below and save
                      > > your breath - I know that I will!
                      > >
                      >
                      > Prometheus,
                      >
                      > Thought I already responded to you on that question at
                      > least once. I admitted that it was conflicting information:
                      >
                      > Yeah, I've read through those parts before. The point in my last
                      > > response is that I am not in the position to do anything about what
                      > > the organization writes up as history. You know there are other
                      > > points besides the ones listed that also qualify as conflicting info-
                      > > mation.
                      >
                      > Here I have underlined it. When I said "other points besides
                      > the ones listed" I was referring to the topic that you mentioned.
                      > Not only that, but I indicated that IMO there were other points
                      > of conflicting information besides. It wasn't a sidestep to the
                      > topic, but I understand my admission may not have been the
                      > words you were looking for.
                      >
                      > I see the topic and it does look conflicting. You want me to
                      > admit that it's a bold-faced lie (historically speaking) that part
                      > you refer to that is given on the main website?
                      >
                      > You're right, I'm not going to admit that because I didn't write
                      > that history about Paul. However, this much was "admitted" by
                      > me on the form of a timeline with alot of other "admissions" as
                      > well that were even more conflicting.
                      >
                      > One example is the use of pseudonyms to replace the identity
                      > of certain individuals. I myself know how disturbing that use of a
                      > pseudonym can be. Believe me.
                      >
                      > So, I guess I'm not clear on why you think I was avoiding the
                      > topic unless the way I answered it was not direct enough. But
                      > no, I'm not going to take responsibility for conflicting information,
                      > misleading, or even false information with regard to recorded
                      > history. An exception would be typos that may exist in the comp-
                      > ilations of history that I have worked on. I'm sure there are more
                      > than a few.
                      >
                      > Etznab
                      >
                      > P.S. In my last post about the Swami, I wasn't taking a stand for
                      > or against Eckankar. At least I tried not to comment.
                      >
                    • ctecvie
                      ... *** In my view, it is HK or whoever runs Eckankar Inc., or the Inc. itself. It was published under Eckankar, or wasn t it? So who else s responsibility
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                        --- snipped ---->
                        > Some of the reasons for mentioning Patti is that she was close
                        >to Paul
                        > at one time. She wrote at least two books about him. And she was the
                        > Publications Director after Paul was no longer living, but when a
                        >number
                        > of his books were getting published. How can we know for certain
                        >about
                        > any edits or revisions made to books under the Paul Twitchell name
                        >that
                        > Paul would not have necessarily made himself? I don't think we can.
                        >And
                        > it is possible that Gail (and even Darwin) might have done some
                        >editing.
                        > Is Harold or Eckankar Inc. responsible for this?

                        *** In my view, it is HK or whoever runs Eckankar Inc., or the Inc.
                        itself. It was published under Eckankar, or wasn't it? So who else's
                        responsibility should it be?
                        >
                        > Well, where is Patti? Where is Gail? Where is Darwin? Do they
                        >still
                        > belong to the organization?

                        *** Darwin is the leader of A. T. O. M. It's their choice to come out
                        with their records of their eckankar time or not. So, why ask those
                        questions? They won't bring either of them forward.

                        > If not, I wonder why not. Has Darwin written
                        > a book about Eckankar since he left?

                        *** My husband joined eckankar under Gross's regiment. DG was a
                        musician - my husband said that he had written one book "Your right
                        to know", and that it was terrible to read. So, he just isn't an
                        author. Why then should he write a book?

                        > Has Gail? Has Patti? Why not?
                        *** Why should they?

                        > You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we
                        >didn't
                        > even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I
                        >say let
                        > the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might
                        >even add
                        > something to what we already know.

                        *** If they want to come out, that is. And this is their choice, they
                        can't be forced. A good part of history always remains speculation,
                        and written records don't change that at all. And it seems to me that
                        you started to ask (good) questions Etznab. So why complain about
                        speculation now?

                        Ingrid
                      • ewickings
                        Actually I should have said, Eckankar paid for a gag order.... Money can buy anything, (it will silence) if the price is right. ... even write. Things that we
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Actually I should have said, Eckankar paid for a gag order....  Money can buy anything, (it will silence) if the price is right.
                           
                           
                          ------------------------------------------------
                           
                          >   You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we didn't
                          even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I say let
                          the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
                          something to what we already know.
                          Etznab
                           
                           
                          >Eckankar has placed a gag order on these individuals, that is why Gail's book, or anyone else with the real knowledge will not be allowed to speak up until they are dead!
                           
                          Liz

                           
                        • etznab@aol.com
                          In a message dated 1/2/07 7:28:34 AM Central Standard Time, ctecvie@yahoo.com ... OK. I can see your point. And your right. It is their choice. Etznab
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 1/2/07 7:28:34 AM Central Standard Time, ctecvie@... writes:


                            *** If they want to come out, that is. And this is their choice, they
                            can't be forced. A good part of history always remains speculation,
                            and written records don't change that at all. And it seems to me that
                            you started to ask (good) questions Etznab. So why complain about
                            speculation now?

                               OK. I can see your point. And your right. It is their choice.

                            Etznab
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.