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

Re: Twitchell Info on ECKANKAR.org Shows Dec...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.