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

A Reply to Leaf

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    Leaf, I guess I should reply to your criticisms openly and honestly from my perspective—just the way you like it! I guess I wasn t a member long enough in
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 29, 2007

      I guess I should reply to your criticisms openly and
      honestly from my perspective—just the way you like
      it! I guess I wasn't a member long enough in eckankar
      to have achieved the knowledge and insights that you
      have so perfected. Yeah, I'm tired of your criticisms, like
      my post on victim consciousness in which you rather
      condescendingly stated you agreed with some of it but
      didn't entirely and didn't want to take the time to write
      a discourse explaining how you differed with what I posted.
      But you know what—I don't really care whether you liked
      my post, agreed with it, in part or not, and I was glad you
      spared me your dissertation regarding it. However, I was
      just expressing myself—I wasn't going for a literary award!
      It doesn't matter what value it might have for you or others—
      that's up to the reader to give it merit or toss it in file 13! LOL!
      But I do think you sound pompous at times, but I also assume
      you don't intend this since you stated you didn't expect my
      reaction to your use of the word "defense." I guess I saw it as
      an intro for still another debate. I'm not into debating—took the
      course, and don't really care to partake of such activity. But I
      realize you thrive on it—good for you! I have enjoyed reading
      some of your debates over on A.R.E., but ESA is a discussion
      group, not a debating society . . . .

      Leaf's post with some inserts from me:

      "This post addresses Marla's treatment by the moderators of this
      group, as well as a few other issues. I do hope that open dialogue
      can result from this.]

      Hi Prometheus,

      As I see it, you've ignored the point of the post by Rowan (see the
      post, "Just an Opinion."

      ####Most likely there was a reason for this, or maybe a reply will
      be coming from Prometheus. After all, Rowan's message was
      posted, wasn't it? Plus, I don't think anyone has to respond to any
      and all posts, or do so immediately, to what satisfy your whims?

      Leaf wrote:
      "The issues regarding eckankar are not at all
      limited only to such things as Klemp's writings as you may define

      ####Duh! This really gets me, Leaf, because if you read the archives
      you would find that the discussions have been vast, especially,
      including Paul Twitchell and Darwin Gross, and more. So this is really
      a fallacious statement. Why you would think the discussions are
      limited only to Klemp is ridiculous. Actually a cheap shot—especially
      when you leap in here after a few months of absence. Maybe, you've
      missed a lot and operate on assumptions mainly when you want to
      analyze someone or something. Maybe you should do some more
      research before you leap to conclusions.

      Leaf wrote:
      "When a religion is based upon a foundation of false premises,
      the fraudulence reaches into all aspects of the group, including
      even personal psychology of the individual member as well as
      interpersonal relationships. As I see it, this is what Marla raised
      as an issue with her question to the group, and it is absolutely

      ##### Yes, her question had merit. She also asked the same
      thing on ET where I took the time to reply, and when she came
      over to ESA with the exact same post, I suggested she could bring
      my replies from ET as well. I didn't think I needed to repeat myself.
      Her question/topic has been addressed before on this site as well
      as other sites in the past. My post on victim consciousness was
      aimed to help anyone, including Marla, with troubles and issues to
      check out a link that I have found helpful in the past—that was the
      purpose of my post. It was not directed at you even though I did
      quote a portion of your post to link it to the discussion that
      was taking place. And I also pointed out in another post that we
      were not therapists, so in good faith, I also suggested that this
      might help her as well. I don't see that I was being insensitive to
      her at all.

      Leaf wrote:
      "Her question to the group (see her first post or two) was completely
      appropriate. You, as a moderator, as well as Liz, the co-moderator,
      to varying degrees tried to invalidate her experience in exactly the
      same manner that tends to occur in eckankar from the eckankar
      leadership. As I see it, you've both over-reacted to her posts, and
      responded with the same sort of callousness and lack of
      understanding so often encountered in the eckankar organization.

      I frankly find this appalling. While there are many examples of off-
      topic posts (I would consider some of the personal comments and
      petty squabbles from HU Chat that seem to flow over into this group
      sometimes falling into that category), Marla's post was certainly not
      of that nature. Marla is not an Eckist, therefore she is not entirely
      familiar with the jargon, attitudes, and world view of eckists (which
      apparently lingers on for awhile with some former eckists), so she
      would not know how to avoid the entanglements and dysfunctionality
      that may be encountered in the eckist psyche that may be still
      lingering. She would thus not phrase things as you might, and she
      might not have a well-developed sense of the odd form of "spiritual
      correctness" that certainly exists as part of the eckankar mind-set."

      #### Since I don't know Marla personally or the eckist ex boyfriend,
      I really wouldn't rush to such conclusions as you seem to be doing
      here. These are your assumptions really, but I can understand that
      you are basing them on your own personal knowledge of eckists.
      However, I don't really care to judge even this eck ex boyfriend of
      Marla's simply because I only know what Marla is saying here. I don't
      think that is fair. However, if you re-read my posts to Marla, I did
      attempt to answer her question.

      Leaf wrote:
      "She deserved better."

      ####I'm only replying for myself here. Again I don't really know
      her to make that judgment! Actually, I tend not to point fingers at
      who deserves what or not—seems kind of god-like to do so! : )

      Leaf wrote:
      "To give just one example, people seemed to misunderstand her
      comment about the condom in the wallet, which was completely
      mischaracterized and taken out of context.

      To quote an exchange between you and your co-moderator:

      Liz wrote: >Of course the subject title is integrity.... And I don't
      find anything wrong with a person having his / or her eck
      membership card in their wallet. Nor do I really care about the fact
      this individual has a condom right next to it! I think it is wise for this
      or any person to be using protection!<

      Promethius responded: >I also agree!<

      You're missing the point in this exchange. If my romantic partner
      found a condom in my wallet, she'd know that I was seeking sex from
      other women. (We don't usually use condoms, preferring to have a
      natural experience. Even if we did, I wouldn't generally carry one in
      my wallet, since we would have plenty on hand.) I think Marla's
      point was she knew the condom indicated her sixth initiate boyfriend
      was having sex with other women, which she felt violated the trust
      between them as a couple, and she expected more from someone who's
      supposed to be a High Priest. She was naturally hurt and felt

      #### You "think" you know what Marla was thinking regarding the
      condom in her boyfriend's wallet based on your own life story. Again,
      I can't judge this ex boyfriend on why it was in his wallet nor am I
      interested in this particular part of the story. And frankly I don't' care
      what you prefer regarding your sex life. However, now that I think of it,
      what was Marla doing looking in the guy's wallet? Who knows!!

      Leaf wrote:
      "So I think it was significant to her that the membership card, which
      indicates his status of being a high initiate, was in the wallet
      right next to the condom. I think you folks might call that a "waking
      dream" if this had been your own experience. Perhaps if Marla had
      used such jargon common to eckankar, you may have given her a pass.
      Its all about the way she wrote her post, rather than the underlying
      question she raised. You and Liz saw only the words, and failed to
      grasp her overall intent. You both reacted in the way I remember
      eckists behaving. It was extraordinarily callous."

      ####Leaf, maybe you think too much—thinking for yourself, thinking
      for others, thinking for everyone!!! Again, you are assuming what people
      are thinking and how they'd reacted and why--yada, yada!

      Leaf wrote:
      "You even proceeded to have a dialogue about her in the third person,
      as if she was a fly on the wall with little need for respect. You
      turned her into an object to discuss amongst yourselves. And of
      course, all this offended her, when she was obviously expecting a
      little more support from this ex-eckist site."

      #####I'm not sure about this; I'd have to revisit the posts. But I guess
      it wasn't any of my posts? However, it seemed that Marla was being
      rather redundant and it seemed to me that it might develop into some
      sort of soap opera—oh, yeah, didn't she title one post My Romance with
      an Eckist? It seemed like a one-sided drama, so basically, once I replied
      a couple times, I didn't have anything more to offer her. If she needed
      more, a few of us did suggest some professional help for her. That was
      sincere and caring!

      Leaf wrote:
      "Here's another example:

      Prometheus wrote: >Well, it does kind of fall under the "scorned
      woman" category in order to seek revenge for a bruised ego. And,
      afterall, he only claimed to have been with a "hooker."<

      She did not identify her boyfriend, so the assertion that she's
      seeking revenge is absurd, as well as extremely judgmental. Revenge
      implies hurting someone. How can she significantly hurt this fellow
      if he wasn't identified? You're worried that he'll have a bruised ego
      if he happens, however unlikey it would be, to read this site? My
      god, you folks speak ill of eckists like Cheryl and Rich all the
      time. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to assume her motives are less pure
      than your own? How on earth would you know what her motives were?
      And it even seems as if you're defending her boyfriend, as if you can
      somehow determine his statements of having been with a hooker
      were "only claims." This is ridiculous and rather strange.

      I think the most judgmental comment made to Marla was this one:

      Prometheus wrote:

      >BTW- Have you ever thought of changing your pseudonym to
      something else like Marlalaughing or Marlajumpingforjoy? What's with
      the "sobbing" because I'm not buying into a victim consciousness.<

      May I ask just who you presume yourself to be to suggest she is
      suffering from victimization of herself? Have you ever been through a
      break up of a relationship? Did it hurt, or are you so above human
      suffering and pain that you can judge others who might indicate they
      have been hurt from a relationship? This is the sort of callous,
      insensitive comment I would expect from Rich at
      alt.religion.eckankar, or from Harold Klemp. What gives you such
      moral and spiritual authority that you can make such a sweepingly
      judgmental comment to another person you don't even know? You know
      nothing of her history, nothing of her life experience, yet you
      believe you can weigh in with such psycho-babble? My god, how shallow."

      ####Leaf, you are being what you accuse others of doing, "making a
      sweepingly judgmental comment to another person(s) you don't even
      know!" I think you are being very unfair, and it makes me wonder why
      in the world, you have to come into this site and attack like this? If you
      see this as a bad situation, you have only made it worse with your
      pontifications and your holier than thou rant here! I wasn't an eckist
      very long, and you know what? I think that I was greatly spared the
      development of a super inflated ego—did your ego develop back then
      and just keep growing and growing? Or is this your post eckankar flaw?
      Talk about psycho-babble!!!

      Leaf wrote:
      "Another oddity in the last several days are some of the things
      alluded to regarding Zoey. I've read many of Zoey's posts, and I've
      found them to be intelligent and insightful, and I've often thought I
      could have written them myself."

      #### Nice pat on your back, Leaf—how humble! Oh, maybe I've
      misread this!! Maybe, it needed a better wording, so as not to be
      misconstrued? Well, those things happen, I guess! LOL!

      Leaf wrote:
      " Even before she left the group and
      posted her reply to Marla regarding Liz's attack on the eckankartruth
      site, there was this odd request from her from Mish, which was
      followed later by another possibly related statement from Liz:

      Mish wrote:

      >ps, you might have already posted about your eck experience
      on here or another site, but would you mind refreshing us? How
      many years you were a member and your level of participation?
      How long you have been out and why you dropped out? Just curious.

      #### I asked this because I forgot when and how zoey introduced
      herself to the group. She was asking a lot of questions about eckankar
      —specifically the recent one about Klemp's family, so I wondered what
      her experience and history might have been regarding these questions.
      It seems odd that she had lots of questions but little information from
      her end, even though she mentioned in her reply that she did keep
      abreast with eckists. Odd really and I was just curious. Seems that you
      have read too much into this. Zoey was asking questions to the group
      and in normal dialogue I asked her some—don't see the harm in that.
      I can get posters mixed up, so it helps to be refreshened sometimes.
      However, zoey was not being really true on this site.

      Leaf wrote:
      "Now, I realize this request could be completely innocent curiosity,
      but I began to wonder about it after reading this comment by Liz:

      Liz wrote:

      >How hard is it to create a fake ID, go to the ex eck chat groups, or
      a.r.e., read other peoples comments concerning eckankrap, then call
      it their own! Here is an example; Sharon from ET has shared how
      Cheryl Grundy doesn't know an SK quote, from a made up one. My point;
      Zoey came here to ESA not too many months ago claiming the very same
      thing, same story nearly word for word, or was that fishnik (?)
      however s/he spelled their fake ID? Or hey here is a scenerio, maybe
      Zoey is Sharon? ;-)))) Sharon I hope you are reading this!? LOL<

      So in this comment, Liz is accusing Zoey of being Sharon, which, upon
      reading this, I was reminded of Mish's odd request for a personal
      history from Zoey. Do some folks here really believe Zoey is Sharon???"

      #######My question to zoey was not odd, thank you! And no, I know
      zoey is not Sharon. Liz was just joking—didn't you see the smileys?
      Liz was pointing out that zoey used some of Sharon's stories from a.r.e.
      —same stuff, so maybe you should try to re-read what Liz wrote? Or
      maybe Liz will explain it to you? It looked like identity thief! LOL!

      Leaf wrote:
      "Liz also wrote:

      >So how is that workin for you Zoey_true? OR shall we call you
      Cheryl, or maybe it's Rich?<

      So now Liz thinks Zoey is Cheryl or Rich, who are two vocal staunch
      members of eckankar?????

      Liz also wrote:

      >By The Way Zoey, for your info I am one of the moderators of this
      group! So don't blame Prometheus for everything that goes on here!
      How's that workin for you Zoey? Oh, and before I forget; Welcome to
      the group Rowan_oak22...interesting that you just created your
      account the very day Zoey left us! See how spirit works? One leaves
      and we are replaced with another member. :-) Wonder if this is a
      waking dream?<

      I can only wonder what this comment means. Does she think spirit
      brought in a person to replace Zoey? As if spirit is choosing sides?
      Or is she hinting Rowan IS Zoey? And how does this make Rowan feel
      as a new member, with one of the moderators using the name of a new
      member of this group to insult a departing one?
      What a class act you folks have here. This is a circus.

      The attack of Marla's post, especially by your co-moderator, Liz, was
      entirely uncalled for, and should be addressed. There is simply no
      excuse for an attack upon an unsuspecting, innocent person who posts
      here. There are better ways to handle such posts, even when yopu may
      not think a post is appropriate. You, as the moderator, seem to be
      ignoring the significance of Liz's disruptive outburst, and in fact,
      you seemed to have supported it. I am beginning to question whether I
      would ever direct a friend to this site who may want a supportive
      group to help with leaving eckankar.

      Which begs the question, how long does it take for the eckankar
      indoctrination of a member to wear off after leaving eckankar? From
      what I observe in this little fiasco, it seems that many former
      members still work from under a cloud of indoctrination of which they
      may not be cognizant."

      ####Leaf, you, too, should look for your own cloud of indoctrination
      as well. Sometimes your writings remind me of the arrogance H.I.'s are
      prone to display, especially when they believe they can read other
      people's minds. Yes, this site is not perfect. I agree with that, and yes,
      it seems like a circus act going on here as well right now, and you have
      very generously contributed to it. I don't know who Marla is. I don't have
      a problem with her. However, I do know things about zoey now and well,
      I can't go there.

      Leaf wrote:
      "You can ignore this post as is your right, you can ban me from your
      list, but this really deserves comment. With what I've seen in this
      particular circumstance, I'm not sure this group is serving its
      purpose well.


      #### I think you have been way too critical of this group. I hope
      you appreciate that your post is up regardless of your accusations
      and chastisements. I also hope you feel better for it. Personally, I'm
      disgusted and appalled with you at the moment, so I guess there is
      some agreement,


      P.S. It doesn't really matter what your take on this will be like in
      the light of day. I think it has been discussed more than enough. I,
      for one, need a break from your disruptive speculations.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.