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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
      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
      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 2 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
        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 3 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
          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 4 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
            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 5 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
              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 6 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                --- 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 7 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                  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 8 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                    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.