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

Re: was Group FYI [My comments to Marla, post #2687]

Expand Messages
  • marlaprendergast
    Sorry, I thought your questions were rhetorical so I didn t answer them but I will do so now if you wish. 1) No, I have never gone to an eckankar yahoo group
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
      Sorry, I thought your questions were rhetorical so I didn't answer
      them but I will do so now if you wish.

      1) No, I have never gone to an eckankar yahoo group such as Hu-chat
      to ask these questions. I suppose I could, but its really not that
      important to me at this time. Maybe I will at some point.

      2) I know about the TV evangelical Christian who was exposed for
      hiring gay hookers and had previously claimed it was immoral and
      sinful. You asked if that that guy and my ex are the same. Yes and
      no. My ex has never claimed his errant behaviors were sinful.
      Rather, he feels they enhance his spirituality because he is not
      bogged down in conventional notions of morality. However, the two
      men are similar because they both claim to be highly spiritual yet
      they engage in morally questionable behavior. To me, paying for
      anonymous sex, or having anonymous sex with strangers for free is
      morally questionable. I suppose some people disagree with that, but
      that's just my belief.

      3) I won't comment about fake ids, changing personas, etc. because
      it doesn't apply to me and I've never done it. I guess you weren't
      directing that at me anyway.

      4) I never bought into Eckankar. I had never heard of it til I met
      my ex. I did not do any investigation really. I went to some eck
      events basically to accompany him. I thought it was interesting but
      I never really got it. I didn't break up with him because of
      Eckankar. I broke up with him because he was not the person he
      claimed to be.

      5) Again, I did go to Eck functions. I thought the people were a
      little weird but basically harmless. I really liked the ESA I went
      to. I never believed in Eckankar, I just learned about it through
      him and reading occasionally some stuff at his house. I've dabbled
      in several ideologies and this was just one I looked into but not
      very seriously.

      6) You asked how would I know how an HI is supposed to behave? I
      guess I just assumed that a person who claimed to be highly
      spiritual would show some semblance of spirituality.

      7) I did ask him to clarify his amoral eckist bahaviors. He doesn't
      consider his behaviors to be amoral. That was the problem. His view
      is, its just sex, it doesn't mean I love you any less, etc. etc.
      That was enough for me to get out.

      Hope I've answered all your questions.

      Marla Prendergast


      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth"
      <ewickings@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Marla,
      >
      > Please read message #2687 which I posted below, It was a reply to
      > you, along with questions I had for you. Maybe you missed this
      > particular message? At any rate, the questions were posted to get
      an
      > idea of your history from this ex HI bf.
      >
      > One thing I would really like to know is how the Eck members would
      > react if you had gone to an eckankar yahoo group such as Hu-Chat
      and
      > asked them the same questions? And if you do ask them (current
      > eckists) please share your experience. Anyway, it was my attempt
      at
      > having a conversation to clear the air, give you the chance to
      share
      > your story in more depth. My chance to ask questions that might
      allow
      > you the chance again to share your experience, and for me to
      listen.
      >
      > You will see I also responded to Zoey in this same post. As
      > Prometheus shared, he/she was sending private nasty messages to
      the
      > group, and privately. Neither Prometheus, nor I initiated any of
      > these private conversations with him/her, nor did we actually
      provoke
      > some of the posts that was sent to ESA and moderated, at least to
      my
      > knowlege. I went back and looked over my initial comments to
      his/her
      > 9Zoey's) questions, and apparently they were not read by him/her?
      > This individual got nasty first, on the skirts of posts made by
      you.
      >
      > Doing further research and comparing posts, IDs, and when an
      > individual signed up and joined / left the group, what type of
      > program was being used to mask the origination of posts privately
      and
      > to the group, (which were moderated) yes three differing IDs and
      > posters (which two of them being one person) did get addressed in
      one
      > post.
      >
      > I do appologise for including my comments to Zoey, or even Leaf in
      > the same post as the one to you. Not a good excuse I guess, but I
      am
      > rather busy and was attempting to make my life easier by only
      > presenting one message. I won't do that again.
      >
      > I do not feel the need to explain myself to Leaf, which is exactly
      > what I intended for him to understand. It was suggested to him by
      > Prometheus to contact us (me) privately, yet Leaf did not, and it
      > appears he also did not take what Prometheus shared with him
      > (privately) as enough proof to warrent how Zoey was handled.
      >
      > I also was an admirer of Leaf's excellent sage posts, but when an
      > individual DEMANDS anything of me, when it does not concern them,
      > they will come up against a brick wall.
      >
      > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
      > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
      > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
      ness
      > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
      > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
      > long time!
      >
      > Anyway, below is a copy of the questions I had concerning your
      post
      > about integrity. A portion of the post was directed to others
      > besides yourself, of which I explained the reasoning in this post,
      as
      > well in posts in answer to Leaf, Zoey and Rowan_Oak22. If Leaf
      > wishes to continue dialog with any of these individuals privately,
      > that is his business. But I do not feel the need to prove, provide
      or
      > justify myself to him!
      >
      > Again, please understand I am curious and the questions were with
      > good intent.
      >
      > Liz
      >
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      > Message #2687
      >
      > Sharon ;-) Re: integrity
      >
      >
      > --- In
      EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "marlaprendergast"
      > <kws11@> wrote:
      >
      > > You are completely missing my point. I came on this forum to find
      > > out if there was a pervasive pattern in Eckankar of people
      > > justifying dishonest sleazy behavior by claiming that it led to
      > > their "spiritual unfoldment."
      >
      >
      > *** I'll give you that much Marla... and then I would also ask you
      > this; Did you go to any of the Eckankar sites and ask this of their
      > members? There are several HIs that frequent Hu-chat, I bet you
      > could ask them that same question you came to the ex eck sites and
      > asked. :-) Let us know how that goes....
      >
      >
      >
      > > I was in an allegedly committed
      > > relationship with this person who claimed to be a spiritually
      > > advanced HI Cleric and he was cheating on me with paid hookers. I
      > > was curious as to whether he just a fake Eckist, or whether
      > Eckankar
      > > is fake.
      >
      >
      > *** It wasn't all that long ago when a well known TV evangelical
      > christian was exposed for hiring gay hooker / hookers, and had
      > previously claimed it was an immoral type of behavior and sinfull.
      > Now I ask you, what makes that guy, and your ex any different? It
      > happens all the time!
      >
      >
      > > Please don't comment on my integrity. You don't even know me.
      >
      >
      > *** I was commenting on my integrity.
      >
      >
      > And by the way, "Zoey" doesn't know me or any of my ex eck
      husbands!
      > (All 2 of them) That is because they were nobodies in the eck
      > community! Most all of the eckists in the community didn't know
      > them, since they (the ex husbands) very rarely (if at all)
      > participated in ANY functions! Dropping a name or a comment/s that
      > they think will give the impression they KNOW something about me or
      > my life, doesn't effect me in the slightest!
      >
      > 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 how is that workin for you Zoey_true? OR shall we call you
      > Cheryl, or maybe it's Rich?
      >
      >
      >
      > > I'm not sure what you are saying there. I don't believe in the
      > > mahanta, so I obviously wouldn't think that way, even as a joke.
      >
      >
      > *** I wasn't joking, I was pointing out how the HIs and eckies
      excuse
      > away their own behavior! I have even heard other eckies question
      how
      > on earth Harold could appoint so and so as an ESA, when all she was
      > was a slut, stealing other eck women's husbands. LOL The comment by
      > the RESA was, "well, maybe the LEM feels this position will teach
      her
      > an important lesson concerning her own behavior, or maybe she still
      > has some karma to work off in that area"! (I kid you not!)
      >
      >
      > > > "Marla PreTenderGasp"
      > >
      > > Please explain why you are mocking my name. Do you doubt my
      motives
      > > here?
      >
      >
      > *** Honestly? Yes. Especially the fact that you comment about your
      > ex keeping his membership card right next to the condom.... was
      that
      > important to you? The fact that the membership card is slipped in
      > with the condom? And if so, why does that particular point bother
      > you? How about sharing your history with this individual prior to
      > the break up.... how were you impacted by his being an eck member,
      > and why did you buy into thinking he was somebody special just
      > because he was an HI, and his membership card said so. Did your ex
      > boyfriend lead you to believe he was some super special person
      within
      > the organization? How did you come to understand what an HI even
      > represents, and did you look up to your boyfriend? Had you ever
      heard
      > of Eckankar prior to meeting your HI boyfriend?
      >
      > You wrote: I was in an allegedly committed relationship with this
      > person who claimed to be a spiritually advanced HI Cleric and he
      was
      > cheating on me with paid hookers. I was curious as to whether he
      was
      > just a fake Eckist, or whether Eckankar is fake.
      >
      >
      > *** Now why would you question whether Eckankar was fake? Did you
      > begin to buy into the BS? Did you do any investigating of the
      > teachings before breaking it off with your ex boyfriend? Or did you
      > break it off because of the comment he made about paying
      hookers.....
      >
      >
      > I wrote:
      > > If you felt so upset about this ex HI boyfriend,
      > > > and had information that he is / was frequenting hookers, don't
      > > you feel
      > > > some sort of obligation to the community of eckies, to at least
      > > report him
      > > > to the RESA of the State?
      >
      > [Note] this should have said in my original post,
      > You wrote:
      > >
      > > Again, I don't believe in Eckankar and have no reason to go to
      the
      > > RESA, whoever that is.
      >
      >
      > *** A question; If you were with this guy for a year, I assume you
      > attended eck functions? Got to know some of the members... did you
      > believe in eckankrap then, or just going along with it because you
      > cared about this guy?
      >
      >
      > I wrote:
      > > > I would even go as far as reporting this to the
      > > > Law Enforcement agency, so that they might set up a sting
      > > operation to
      > > > capture and take these people off the streets. In turn this
      just
      > > might get
      > > > your ex caught with his pants down....
      > > >
      >
      >
      > You wrote:
      > > I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
      >
      >
      > *** It is very self explanitory what I was getting at. The guy was
      > breaking a law! If you were that concerned about him having done
      this
      > to you, (and trying to find out if he is for real or if eck is
      fake),
      > report his actions to Law Enforcement and get these people off
      > the street! And in the process, they might catch him with his pants
      > down... in other words, in a compromising possition!
      >
      >
      >
      > > What I was sharing, which you apparently missed, is an experience
      > > with a person who buys into the bullshit Eckankar spiritual
      > > arrogance. And frankly I think that my story actually contributes
      > to
      > > the dialogue about "the truth behind the lies", because it
      > > exemplifies the disingenuous nature of a "religion" that
      justifies
      > > bad behavior under the rubric of spiritual growth.
      >
      >
      > *** So did you come to this conclussion before or after the ex bf?
      I
      > didn't miss your point, just wondering how you came to it? How
      would
      > you know how an HI is suppose to behave? I'm wondering what the
      wife
      > of that famous christian that got ratted out by his ex gay lover,
      > feels? Does she think he is still spiritual or higher than anyone
      > else? Did this guy have the same arrogance as your ex bf? It will
      > be interesting to hear her side of the story! Wonder if she will
      > attempt to fix her marriage, or research and bash him? "No
      disrespect"
      > here intended really, though I am sure Leaf can't wait to get ahold
      > of me! ;-) All these questions are intended to allow you the chance
      > to enlighten others of your experience.
      >
      >
      > You wrote:
      > > I don't need a counselor, thanks. But you might want to
      > > consult one to figure out why you felt the need to launch into a
      > > personal attack on an individual who was merely trying to
      > > understand her experience with an amoral Eckist.
      >
      >
      > *** Did you ask him to clarify his amoral eckist behavior? Did you
      > point out you didn't feel solisiting hookers was very spiritual?
      > Really, I would like to know what he may or may not have said to
      > these questions!?
      >
      >
      > You originally wrote:
      > > > -------Original Message-------
      > > >
      > > > From: marlaprendergast
      > > > Date: 6/25/2007 10:14:38 PM
      > > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: integrity
      > > >
      > > > My ex-BF is a cleric as well. He has a card in his wallet that
      > says
      > > > he's a clergy member. The card is right up against a condom he
      > > keeps
      > > > there for when he picks up hookers.
      >
      >
      > *** To be honest I am surprised he didn't claim he was paying these
      > hookers, so he could get them in a room and give them an
      introductory
      > talk on eckankrap! ;-)
      >
      >
      > 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?
      >
      > Liz,
      >
      > Who was a 6th, Initiator and ESA, and a member for over 30 years,
      > both parents work/ed at ESC and know Joan and Harold personally.
      BTW,
      > I was actually invited back to the teaching! ;-) So much for your
      > threats Zoey!
      >
      >
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      >
      > --- In
      EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
      > <prometheus_973@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Marla,
      > > Thanks for posting your comments to help clear the air.
      > > It was actually Zoey that was sending the nasty private
      > > e-mails. I, also, didn't appove a nasty post by Rowan (Zoey).
      > > See, how there was confusion as to who said what and to
      > > whom! I'm sorry about the confusion and anything else
      > > that was misconstrued.
      > >
      > > It is true that Eckists do view H.I.s as being Godlike, or
      > > even higher/greater than the 4th Plane "GOD" of all the
      > > other religions (excluding Eckankar's of course). And, this
      > > is why such conduct of cheating with a hooker and having
      > > a condom next to his Eck I.D. is shocking... I guess. Except,
      > > most Eckists know that this behaviour Does exist because
      > > they see it! The Eck "sisterhood" shares all of this information
      > > amongst themselves. However, this behaviour is rationalized
      > > like all other ones from a Religious/Dogmatic point of view.
      > > H.I.s are exempt from responsibility... they not only go with
      > > God... they are greater than God! But, just look around at the
      > > religious fundamentalists of other religions... they all see
      > > themselves as right and above others. Therefore, this arrogance
      > > and delusion of spiritual piety is growing in the world amongst
      > > its closed-mined holier-than-thou religious followers (It seems
      > > that there are more narcissists in the world too). At least Eck
      > > vahanas aren't murdering people that won't convert... now! LOL!
      > > However, what would happen if they had the power and numbers
      > > on their side?
      > >
      > > You see, it's all about conforming! This is what the religious
      > > fundamentalists want... (and the narcissists) they want to
      control
      > > people by having them believe in their way of thinking. I really
      > > don't see why Eckists aren't realizing this either! Look at
      those
      > > spoken and unspoken "rules" and all of those Guidelines. These
      > > are meant to keep Eckists under control and to have them all
      think
      > > alike by conforming to the religious dogma. The Irony is that
      most
      > > Eckists see themselves as Non-Comformists and free thinkers!
      > >
      > > Anyway, as far as why Liz responded to you as she did... I'll
      let
      > her
      > > explain that because I'm not sure what she thinks she saw or
      read
      > > that raised some doubt about the intent or value behind your
      post.
      > > Once again, Sorry, on my part!
      > >
      > > Prometheus
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > "marlaprendergast" wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Again, I feel I must correct the record regarding my presence
      on
      > > > this site, which apparently is considered controversial and
      > annoying:
      > > >
      > > > > Apparently, Marla
      > > > > thinks the anti-Eckankar sites are a good place to air the
      > > > > dirty laundry, to get even, to inform others of this bad
      > > > behaviour,
      > > > > or just vent her anger.
      > > >
      > > > No, that is false. I have stated repeatedly the reason I came
      on
      > > > this site was to discern whether the less than stellar
      integrity
      > of
      > > > my ex-BF was common to those who claim to reach a high level
      of
      > > > spirituality in Eckankar. I'm not going to rehash my reasoning
      > > > again. I'm rather tired of it. Go back and look if you are
      > curious.
      > > >
      > > > > Marla did take a positive suggestion and changed her
      pseudonym
      > > > > from marlasobbing to marlapretendgasp, although, I'm puzzled
      > > > > at the second choice.
      > > >
      > > > Again, this is false. This really amazes me. Can you not see
      that
      > my
      > > > name is "Marla Prendergast"? The phrase "Marla Pretendgasp" is
      > Liz's
      > > > attempt to mock my name, and now you are claiming that I chose
      > it? I
      > > > must add that I just found out that Liz is actually a
      moderator
      > of
      > > > this group. That just blows my mind. I expect random attacks
      such
      > as
      > > > hers from wayward members on forums who come in to rile people
      up
      > > > and spew nonsense. I had no idea she actually held a position
      of
      > > > responsibility on this site. Wow.
      > > >
      > > > Lastly, in the last few days there have been accusations of
      > abusive
      > > > private emails going back and forth between members. Both
      > prometheus
      > > > and liz have somewhat justified their critical posts by saying
      > they
      > > > are the victims of such emails. I don't know if they were
      > referring
      > > > to me as a sender of one of these emails, but I want to make
      it
      > > > perfectly clear that I have never sent a private email
      attacking
      > > > anyone here or on any site. I challenge anyone who claims I
      did
      > to
      > > > present it here.
      > > >
      > > > I would also again like to thank leafeater for his sage posts.
      He
      > > > has hit the nail right on the head.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • tomleafeater
      I will try once more to reply on this forum, and I post here with the understanding and expectation that my post will not be edited, abbreviated, taken out of
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 2, 2007
        I will try once more to reply on this forum, and I post here with the
        understanding and expectation that my post will not be edited,
        abbreviated, taken out of context, or changed in any way. If this
        can't be honored, then please do not reply to me on this forum. Don't
        write about my posts with your own comments unless you allow readers
        to see the post entirely verbatim.

        Readers here are directed to read my posts/replies at
        either "EckankarTruth" or "X-Eckankar, The Chains of Eck" forums to
        get an accurate read of my posts. I feel the cross-posting is
        necessary to insure integrity.

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck/

        Also, I privately told Prometheus in response to his private emails
        to me that all promises of confidentiality I made regarding his
        private emails would be rescinded if there were ANY further
        distortions or misrepresentations of ANYthing I have written.

        His and Liz's reference to those private emails and their
        characterization of them does, once again, come close to breaching
        confidences. If this continues, I will post the private emails
        verbatim, in order to let readers judge for themselves the content of
        those emails.

        Also, I am unlikely to respond to any future private emails from Liz
        or Prometheus, since there is a distinct possibility that my emails
        will be further characterized in a bad light.

        First, I'd like to respond to this statement by Liz:

        Liz wrote (see her complete post below for context):

        > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
        > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
        > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
        ness
        > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
        > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
        > long time!

        Leaf Replies:

        A post of mine, which was not allowed on the ESA forum, was responded
        to in a post by Liz, who has private access to pending posts by
        persons who have been placed on "moderated" status. The post was
        chopped up into fragments, sometimes without complete sentences, and
        replied to in her own post. The context of my post was changed, and
        thus what I communicated was distorted in the process. I can't make
        heads or tails out of some of my own words in her reply. I find this
        treatment to be highly unethical.

        In my view, there was nothing in the post that I wrote that was NOT
        entirely warranted. It was not "nasty."

        It is a violation of trust for Liz to make ongoing comments about the
        post, such as claim there was "nastiness" in the post, without
        posting it exactly as I'd written it, whole and unedited. As I see
        it, the "nastiness" assertion is being used to justify unnecessary
        censureship of comments not to their liking.

        It is also very disturbing to me that both Liz and Prometheus have
        the practice of continually alleging "lewd" or "nasty posts," while
        leaving no manner for the readers to see those posts and determine
        for themselves whether they deserve such epithets. The samples
        revealed to me by Prometheus in private emails do not warrant the
        hyperbole and exagerations made by Prometheus and Liz.

        Thus, as to Prometheus' and Liz's allegations about Zoey using
        pseudonyms and sending in "nasty" private emails, I can only wonder
        if there is any substance behind these allegations, since now even my
        own censured post is being described in exactly such a manner, and
        there have been hints that even I am using other pseudonyms
        besides "leafeater," which is absolutely not true.

        Another comment I'd like to address is this remark by Prometheus:

        Prometheus wrote (see below for complete context):

        "Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's
        neg. involvement. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and
        privately. There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was
        unable to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already
        formed an opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I
        didn't want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-
        moderator)read a pending message and replied to it in part. This
        created even more disharmony which became impossible to resolve."

        Leaf replies:

        My posts to Marla, as well as other related posts I've made
        concerning Marla, were not in any way prompted by anything concerning
        Zoey. Liz and Prometheus are conflating the issues they have with
        Marla on one hand, and Zoey on the other, which are two separate
        issues. My comments regarding Marla are regarding only Marla, and
        don't relate to Zoey. So the implication that I lacked information
        concerning Zoey which somehow led me to make incorrect statements
        concerning Marla makes no sense and defies rational thinking.

        Leafeater












        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth"
        <ewickings@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Marla,
        >
        > Please read message #2687 which I posted below, It was a reply to
        > you, along with questions I had for you. Maybe you missed this
        > particular message? At any rate, the questions were posted to get
        an
        > idea of your history from this ex HI bf.
        >
        > One thing I would really like to know is how the Eck members would
        > react if you had gone to an eckankar yahoo group such as Hu-Chat
        and
        > asked them the same questions? And if you do ask them (current
        > eckists) please share your experience. Anyway, it was my attempt
        at
        > having a conversation to clear the air, give you the chance to
        share
        > your story in more depth. My chance to ask questions that might
        allow
        > you the chance again to share your experience, and for me to
        listen.
        >
        > You will see I also responded to Zoey in this same post. As
        > Prometheus shared, he/she was sending private nasty messages to the
        > group, and privately. Neither Prometheus, nor I initiated any of
        > these private conversations with him/her, nor did we actually
        provoke
        > some of the posts that was sent to ESA and moderated, at least to
        my
        > knowlege. I went back and looked over my initial comments to
        his/her
        > 9Zoey's) questions, and apparently they were not read by him/her?
        > This individual got nasty first, on the skirts of posts made by you.
        >
        > Doing further research and comparing posts, IDs, and when an
        > individual signed up and joined / left the group, what type of
        > program was being used to mask the origination of posts privately
        and
        > to the group, (which were moderated) yes three differing IDs and
        > posters (which two of them being one person) did get addressed in
        one
        > post.
        >
        > I do appologise for including my comments to Zoey, or even Leaf in
        > the same post as the one to you. Not a good excuse I guess, but I
        am
        > rather busy and was attempting to make my life easier by only
        > presenting one message. I won't do that again.
        >
        > I do not feel the need to explain myself to Leaf, which is exactly
        > what I intended for him to understand. It was suggested to him by
        > Prometheus to contact us (me) privately, yet Leaf did not, and it
        > appears he also did not take what Prometheus shared with him
        > (privately) as enough proof to warrent how Zoey was handled.
        >
        > I also was an admirer of Leaf's excellent sage posts, but when an
        > individual DEMANDS anything of me, when it does not concern them,
        > they will come up against a brick wall.
        >
        > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
        > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
        > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
        ness
        > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
        > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
        > long time!
        >
        > Anyway, below is a copy of the questions I had concerning your post
        > about integrity. A portion of the post was directed to others
        > besides yourself, of which I explained the reasoning in this post,
        as
        > well in posts in answer to Leaf, Zoey and Rowan_Oak22. If Leaf
        > wishes to continue dialog with any of these individuals privately,
        > that is his business. But I do not feel the need to prove, provide
        or
        > justify myself to him!
        >
        > Again, please understand I am curious and the questions were with
        > good intent.
        >
        > Liz
        >
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > Message #2687
        >
        > Sharon ;-) Re: integrity
        >
        > Hi Non ekster,
        > It seems weird to me as well! It started with Marlasobbing
        > coming over here from ET. She, apparently, wanted to share
        > (with more people) her frustrations, anger, and some negative
        > information about her ex-6th Initiate boyfriend and that he
        > wasn't very "spiritual" since he carried a condom next to his
        > Eck I.D. card, and that he cheated on her with hookers! Of
        > course, I don't know how she really knew about the condom,
        > the cheating, or the hookers, but it was a juicy story about a
        > male H.I. misbehaving (which is really nothing new for either
        > gender for Eckists in general). She, also, mentioned how he
        > had taken her for an E.S.A. session and that she liked this
        > female H.I. and, basically, said that the E.S.A. was very
        > convincing with her silver tongue and friendly demeanor.
        >
        > I don't see that the term Victim Consciousness is always a
        > New Age term, especially, when it's applied to the wrong
        > "relationship" choices that we make. Sometimes the rejected
        > person will place all blame on the other person while not taking
        > responsibility for making a bad choice, seeing the signs, and
        > admitting they screwed up. Closing one's eyes to the truth and
        > then blaming the other person or someone else, to me, is a form
        > of Victim Consciousness. It's kind of like how some women will
        > choose "bad boys" and then not take responsibility for it or fail
        > to (and refuse to) look into the "why" and then taking the steps
        > to correct their destructive decision making processes. Life
        becomes
        > one long drama or soap opera for some people. Maybe they enjoy
        > the attention too! I'm not saying this was what Marla was doing,
        > but it seemed like it was possible and after awhile. It wasn't like
        > it was a super long relationship (one year) IMO. Plus, she still
        saw
        > it in a "romantic" way! That's why I agreed with Liz and said that
        > it was seeming like this was a one-sided version (of the truth)
        > from a woman scorned. I know that I should not have "talked about"
        > Marla nor made this observation or assumption, but then again it
        > reminded me of situations in the past where I saw others caught in
        > similar circumstances and one heard only one side of the
        relationship
        > story.
        >
        > Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's
        > neg. involvment. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and
        privately.
        > There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was unable
        > to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already formed
        an
        > opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I didn't
        > want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-
        moderator)
        > read a pending message and replied to it in part. This created even
        > more disharmony which became impossible to resolve.
        >
        > Anyway, it was an interesting learning experience. I admit that
        > there were mistakes made (people aren't perfect) and that it could
        > have been done better and kinder and there could have been more
        > tolerance and consideration given to one another. So for that, on
        my
        > part, I apologize to Marla and to everyone.
        >
        > Prometheus
        > p.s. I do appreciate Liz being a Co-moderator and taking care of
        > the sites while I am away. Thanks Liz!
        >
      • prometheus_973
        Hello All, FYI- Leaf s/Kent s real name is shown because that s how he posted it! Kent was banned under his other screen name and, therefore, he either
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 3, 2007
          Hello All,
          FYI- Leaf's/Kent's real name is shown because that's
          how he posted it! Kent was banned under his other
          screen name and, therefore, he either knowingly
          or unknowingly posted under his own address, OR the Yahoo
          server used his default settings (address) in order to be able
          to send the message to this site.

          BTW- There was a threat, by Kent, to expose some private
          e-mails sent to him. My purpose was to try and resolve our
          differences and to respond to his questions without an audience.
          Obviously this attempt to defend myself, answer questions, and
          to end the dispute via these private e-mails was unsuccessful.
          And, let me say, there is nothing in these private e-mails that
          would prove harmful to me. One's imagination can run wild with
          speculation, but there is nothing contained in them that I or
          any objective person would view as a problem. Therefore, the
          threat that the exposure of these private e-mails would prove
          harmful to me or my reputation is baseless.

          FYI To All Members/Posters: Private e-mails will not be shared
          or posted at any time... to do so would be unethical and show a
          lack of character.

          Prometheus






          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
          <kentaddleman@...> wrote:
          >
          > I will try once more to reply on this forum, and I post here with the
          > understanding and expectation that my post will not be edited,
          > abbreviated, taken out of context, or changed in any way. If this
          > can't be honored, then please do not reply to me on this forum. Don't
          > write about my posts with your own comments unless you allow readers
          > to see the post entirely verbatim.
          >
          > Readers here are directed to read my posts/replies at
          > either "EckankarTruth" or "X-Eckankar, The Chains of Eck" forums to
          > get an accurate read of my posts. I feel the cross-posting is
          > necessary to insure integrity.
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck/
          >
          > Also, I privately told Prometheus in response to his private emails
          > to me that all promises of confidentiality I made regarding his
          > private emails would be rescinded if there were ANY further
          > distortions or misrepresentations of ANYthing I have written.
          >
          > His and Liz's reference to those private emails and their
          > characterization of them does, once again, come close to breaching
          > confidences. If this continues, I will post the private emails
          > verbatim, in order to let readers judge for themselves the content of
          > those emails.
          >
          > Also, I am unlikely to respond to any future private emails from Liz
          > or Prometheus, since there is a distinct possibility that my emails
          > will be further characterized in a bad light.
          >
          > First, I'd like to respond to this statement by Liz:
          >
          > Liz wrote (see her complete post below for context):
          >
          > > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
          > > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
          > > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
          > ness
          > > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
          > > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
          > > long time!
          >
          > Leaf Replies:
          >
          > A post of mine, which was not allowed on the ESA forum, was responded
          > to in a post by Liz, who has private access to pending posts by
          > persons who have been placed on "moderated" status. The post was
          > chopped up into fragments, sometimes without complete sentences, and
          > replied to in her own post. The context of my post was changed, and
          > thus what I communicated was distorted in the process. I can't make
          > heads or tails out of some of my own words in her reply. I find this
          > treatment to be highly unethical.
          >
          > In my view, there was nothing in the post that I wrote that was NOT
          > entirely warranted. It was not "nasty."
          >
          > It is a violation of trust for Liz to make ongoing comments about the
          > post, such as claim there was "nastiness" in the post, without
          > posting it exactly as I'd written it, whole and unedited. As I see
          > it, the "nastiness" assertion is being used to justify unnecessary
          > censureship of comments not to their liking.
          >
          > It is also very disturbing to me that both Liz and Prometheus have
          > the practice of continually alleging "lewd" or "nasty posts," while
          > leaving no manner for the readers to see those posts and determine
          > for themselves whether they deserve such epithets. The samples
          > revealed to me by Prometheus in private emails do not warrant the
          > hyperbole and exagerations made by Prometheus and Liz.
          >
          > Thus, as to Prometheus' and Liz's allegations about Zoey using
          > pseudonyms and sending in "nasty" private emails, I can only wonder
          > if there is any substance behind these allegations, since now even my
          > own censured post is being described in exactly such a manner, and
          > there have been hints that even I am using other pseudonyms
          > besides "leafeater," which is absolutely not true.
          >
          > Another comment I'd like to address is this remark by Prometheus:
          >
          > Prometheus wrote (see below for complete context):
          >
          > "Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's
          > neg. involvement. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and
          > privately. There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was
          > unable to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already
          > formed an opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I
          > didn't want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-
          > moderator)read a pending message and replied to it in part. This
          > created even more disharmony which became impossible to resolve."
          >
          > Leaf replies:
          >
          > My posts to Marla, as well as other related posts I've made
          > concerning Marla, were not in any way prompted by anything concerning
          > Zoey. Liz and Prometheus are conflating the issues they have with
          > Marla on one hand, and Zoey on the other, which are two separate
          > issues. My comments regarding Marla are regarding only Marla, and
          > don't relate to Zoey. So the implication that I lacked information
          > concerning Zoey which somehow led me to make incorrect statements
          > concerning Marla makes no sense and defies rational thinking.
          >
          > Leafeater
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth"
          > <ewickings@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi Marla,
          > >
          > > Please read message #2687 which I posted below, It was a reply to
          > > you, along with questions I had for you. Maybe you missed this
          > > particular message? At any rate, the questions were posted to get
          > an
          > > idea of your history from this ex HI bf.
          > >
          > > One thing I would really like to know is how the Eck members would
          > > react if you had gone to an eckankar yahoo group such as Hu-Chat
          > and
          > > asked them the same questions? And if you do ask them (current
          > > eckists) please share your experience. Anyway, it was my attempt
          > at
          > > having a conversation to clear the air, give you the chance to
          > share
          > > your story in more depth. My chance to ask questions that might
          > allow
          > > you the chance again to share your experience, and for me to
          > listen.
          > >
          > > You will see I also responded to Zoey in this same post. As
          > > Prometheus shared, he/she was sending private nasty messages to the
          > > group, and privately. Neither Prometheus, nor I initiated any of
          > > these private conversations with him/her, nor did we actually
          > provoke
          > > some of the posts that was sent to ESA and moderated, at least to
          > my
          > > knowlege. I went back and looked over my initial comments to
          > his/her
          > > 9Zoey's) questions, and apparently they were not read by him/her?
          > > This individual got nasty first, on the skirts of posts made by you.
          > >
          > > Doing further research and comparing posts, IDs, and when an
          > > individual signed up and joined / left the group, what type of
          > > program was being used to mask the origination of posts privately
          > and
          > > to the group, (which were moderated) yes three differing IDs and
          > > posters (which two of them being one person) did get addressed in
          > one
          > > post.
          > >
          > > I do appologise for including my comments to Zoey, or even Leaf in
          > > the same post as the one to you. Not a good excuse I guess, but I
          > am
          > > rather busy and was attempting to make my life easier by only
          > > presenting one message. I won't do that again.
          > >
          > > I do not feel the need to explain myself to Leaf, which is exactly
          > > what I intended for him to understand. It was suggested to him by
          > > Prometheus to contact us (me) privately, yet Leaf did not, and it
          > > appears he also did not take what Prometheus shared with him
          > > (privately) as enough proof to warrent how Zoey was handled.
          > >
          > > I also was an admirer of Leaf's excellent sage posts, but when an
          > > individual DEMANDS anything of me, when it does not concern them,
          > > they will come up against a brick wall.
          > >
          > > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
          > > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
          > > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
          > ness
          > > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
          > > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
          > > long time!
          > >
          > > Anyway, below is a copy of the questions I had concerning your post
          > > about integrity. A portion of the post was directed to others
          > > besides yourself, of which I explained the reasoning in this post,
          > as
          > > well in posts in answer to Leaf, Zoey and Rowan_Oak22. If Leaf
          > > wishes to continue dialog with any of these individuals privately,
          > > that is his business. But I do not feel the need to prove, provide
          > or
          > > justify myself to him!
          > >
          > > Again, please understand I am curious and the questions were with
          > > good intent.
          > >
          > > Liz
          > >
          > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          > > Message #2687
          > >
          > > Sharon ;-) Re: integrity
          > >
          > > Hi Non ekster,
          > > It seems weird to me as well! It started with Marlasobbing
          > > coming over here from ET. She, apparently, wanted to share
          > > (with more people) her frustrations, anger, and some negative
          > > information about her ex-6th Initiate boyfriend and that he
          > > wasn't very "spiritual" since he carried a condom next to his
          > > Eck I.D. card, and that he cheated on her with hookers! Of
          > > course, I don't know how she really knew about the condom,
          > > the cheating, or the hookers, but it was a juicy story about a
          > > male H.I. misbehaving (which is really nothing new for either
          > > gender for Eckists in general). She, also, mentioned how he
          > > had taken her for an E.S.A. session and that she liked this
          > > female H.I. and, basically, said that the E.S.A. was very
          > > convincing with her silver tongue and friendly demeanor.
          > >
          > > I don't see that the term Victim Consciousness is always a
          > > New Age term, especially, when it's applied to the wrong
          > > "relationship" choices that we make. Sometimes the rejected
          > > person will place all blame on the other person while not taking
          > > responsibility for making a bad choice, seeing the signs, and
          > > admitting they screwed up. Closing one's eyes to the truth and
          > > then blaming the other person or someone else, to me, is a form
          > > of Victim Consciousness. It's kind of like how some women will
          > > choose "bad boys" and then not take responsibility for it or fail
          > > to (and refuse to) look into the "why" and then taking the steps
          > > to correct their destructive decision making processes. Life
          > becomes
          > > one long drama or soap opera for some people. Maybe they enjoy
          > > the attention too! I'm not saying this was what Marla was doing,
          > > but it seemed like it was possible and after awhile. It wasn't like
          > > it was a super long relationship (one year) IMO. Plus, she still
          > saw
          > > it in a "romantic" way! That's why I agreed with Liz and said that
          > > it was seeming like this was a one-sided version (of the truth)
          > > from a woman scorned. I know that I should not have "talked about"
          > > Marla nor made this observation or assumption, but then again it
          > > reminded me of situations in the past where I saw others caught in
          > > similar circumstances and one heard only one side of the
          > relationship
          > > story.
          > >
          > > Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's
          > > neg. involvment. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and
          > privately.
          > > There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was unable
          > > to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already formed
          > an
          > > opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I didn't
          > > want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-
          > moderator)
          > > read a pending message and replied to it in part. This created even
          > > more disharmony which became impossible to resolve.
          > >
          > > Anyway, it was an interesting learning experience. I admit that
          > > there were mistakes made (people aren't perfect) and that it could
          > > have been done better and kinder and there could have been more
          > > tolerance and consideration given to one another. So for that, on
          > my
          > > part, I apologize to Marla and to everyone.
          > >
          > > Prometheus
          > > p.s. I do appreciate Liz being a Co-moderator and taking care of
          > > the sites while I am away. Thanks Liz!
          > >
          >
        • ewickings
          Prometheus and all members, This is a very good point to make concerning private emails! FYI, if a person is really all that concerned about whether a
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 3, 2007
            Prometheus and all members,
             
            This is a very good point to make concerning private emails!    FYI, if a person is really all that concerned about whether a moderator edited or switched a poster's email or address once it gets approved, all one has to do is look at the post in question, to the right and below the date it will say:  "Show message option".  If you click the tiny arrow it will expand the area to show: "View Source", "Use Fixed Width Font", or "Unwrap Lines".    Click the one that says "Show message".  It will then open up the post at the left of the page, and before the actual message it will show who it is from, return path, Received.... Etc which for most people is hard to read let alone understand if you have no clue what you are looking for.  Down toward the bottom of all that strange stuff you will see From, Subject,  X-Yahoo-Group-Post: public or it might say member, if it says public, it means the person sending a post is not a member of the group.  The last line will show:  X-eGroups-Approved-By: either Prometheus or myself.  It will also show if anything was edited, and by which moderator.  This pertains to the message posted on ESA Re: Group FYI
             
            If this explaination is too difficult for anyone to understand, then I guess the point is not worth explaining further... This is not too difficult to prove to yourselves.  It is impossible to remove or change a person's message without it showing this within the "Show Message Option" as I referrenced.  Of course one way to accomplish doing any editing and posting, would be to forward one of these moderated posts from the original message, and post it yourself as a moderator.  Which in this case in question, was not how it happened!
             
            Hope everyone has an enjoyable July 4th Holiday week/end.   Liz
             
            Freedom is an empowering and sobering concept. It gives us the opportunity to succeed, and also to fail. Freedom allows us to make our own way in life. And it requires that we accept the responsibility for that.

            Freedom and responsibility simply cannot exist apart from each other. You can be truly free only by being totally responsible for your life and your actions.

            Though millions have died for it, and most would choose freedom over any alternative, freedom can at times be very frightening. It often imposes difficult decisions, and requires valiant effort to maintain. Though freedom is indisputably the best course, it is seldom the easiest. Yet freedom is worth the effort, for it is a human catalyst that has no equal.

            To be free means being your own person, with your own purpose, and passion, and integrity. And just as it has to thousands of communities and millions of people, true freedom can bring you greatness.

            Ralph Marston

             
                  
             
            -------Original Message-------
             
            Date: 7/3/2007 11:56:48 AM
            Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Group FYI [Response to Leaf]
             
            Hello All,
            FYI- Leaf's/Kent's real name is shown because that's
            how he posted it! Kent was banned under his other
            screen name and, therefore, he either knowingly
            or unknowingly posted under his own address, OR the Yahoo
            server used his default settings (address) in order to be able
            to send the message to this site.
             
            BTW- There was a threat, by Kent, to expose some private
            e-mails sent to him. My purpose was to try and resolve our
            differences and to respond to his questions without an audience.
            Obviously this attempt to defend myself, answer questions, and
            to end the dispute via these private e-mails was unsuccessful.
            And, let me say, there is nothing in these private e-mails that
            would prove harmful to me. One's imagination can run wild with
            speculation, but there is nothing contained in them that I or
            any objective person would view as a problem. Therefore, the
            threat that the exposure of these private e-mails would prove
            harmful to me or my reputation is baseless.
             
            FYI To All Members/Posters: Private e-mails will not be shared
            or posted at any time... to do so would be unethical and show a
            lack of character.
             
            Prometheus
             
             
             
             
             
             
            <kentaddleman@...> wrote:
            >
            > I will try once more to reply on this forum, and I post here with the
            > understanding and expectation that my post will not be edited,
            > abbreviated, taken out of context, or changed in any way. If this
            > can't be honored, then please do not reply to me on this forum. Don't
            > write about my posts with your own comments unless you allow readers
            > to see the post entirely verbatim.
            >
            > Readers here are directed to read my posts/replies at
            > either "EckankarTruth" or "X-Eckankar, The Chains of Eck" forums to
            > get an accurate read of my posts. I feel the cross-posting is
            > necessary to insure integrity.
            >
            >
            >
            > Also, I privately told Prometheus in response to his private emails
            > to me that all promises of confidentiality I made regarding his
            > private emails would be rescinded if there were ANY further
            > distortions or misrepresentations of ANYthing I have written.
            >
            > His and Liz's reference to those private emails and their
            > characterization of them does, once again, come close to breaching
            > confidences. If this continues, I will post the private emails
            > verbatim, in order to let readers judge for themselves the content of
            > those emails.
            >
            > Also, I am unlikely to respond to any future private emails from Liz
            > or Prometheus, since there is a distinct possibility that my emails
            > will be further characterized in a bad light.
            >
            > First, I'd like to respond to this statement by Liz:
            >
            > Liz wrote (see her complete post below for context):
            >
            > > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
            > > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
            > > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
            > ness
            > > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
            > > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
            > > long time!
            >
            > Leaf Replies:
            >
            > A post of mine, which was not allowed on the ESA forum, was responded
            > to in a post by Liz, who has private access to pending posts by
            > persons who have been placed on "moderated" status. The post was
            > chopped up into fragments, sometimes without complete sentences, and
            > replied to in her own post. The context of my post was changed, and
            > thus what I communicated was distorted in the process.  I can't make
            > heads or tails out of some of my own words in her reply. I find this
            > treatment to be highly unethical.
            >
            > In my view, there was nothing in the post that I wrote that was NOT
            > entirely warranted. It was not "nasty."
            >
            > It is a violation of trust for Liz to make ongoing comments about the
            > post, such as claim there was "nastiness" in the post, without
            > posting it exactly as I'd written it, whole and unedited. As I see
            > it, the "nastiness" assertion is being used to justify unnecessary
            > censureship of comments not to their liking.
            >
            > It is also very disturbing to me that both Liz and Prometheus have
            > the practice of continually alleging "lewd" or "nasty posts," while
            > leaving no manner for the readers to see those posts and determine
            > for themselves whether they deserve such epithets. The samples
            > revealed to me by Prometheus in private emails do not warrant the
            > hyperbole and exagerations made by Prometheus and Liz.
            >
            > Thus, as to Prometheus' and Liz's allegations about Zoey using
            > pseudonyms and sending in "nasty" private emails, I can only wonder
            > if there is any substance behind these allegations, since now even my
            > own censured post is being described in exactly such a manner, and
            > there have been hints that even I am using other pseudonyms
            > besides "leafeater," which is absolutely not true.
            >
            > Another comment I'd like to address is this remark by Prometheus:
            >
            > Prometheus wrote (see below for complete context):
            >
            > "Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's
            > neg. involvement. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and
            > privately. There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was
            > unable to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already
            > formed an opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I
            > didn't want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-
            > moderator)read a pending message and replied to it in part. This
            > created even more disharmony which became impossible to resolve."
            >
            > Leaf replies:
            >
            > My posts to Marla, as well as other related posts I've made
            > concerning Marla, were not in any way prompted by anything concerning
            > Zoey. Liz and Prometheus are conflating the issues they have with
            > Marla on one hand, and Zoey on the other, which are two separate
            > issues. My comments regarding Marla are regarding only Marla, and
            > don't relate to Zoey. So the implication that I lacked information
            > concerning Zoey which somehow led me to make incorrect statements
            > concerning Marla makes no sense and defies rational thinking.
            >
            > Leafeater
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > <ewickings@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Marla,
            > >
            > > Please read message #2687 which I posted below, It was a reply to
            > > you, along with questions I had for you.  Maybe you missed this
            > > particular message? At any rate, the questions were posted to get
            > an
            > > idea of your history from this ex HI bf.
            > >
            > > One thing I would really like to know is how the Eck members would
            > > react if you had gone to an eckankar yahoo group such as Hu-Chat
            > and
            > > asked them the same questions? And if you do ask them (current
            > > eckists) please share your experience.  Anyway, it was my attempt
            > at
            > > having a conversation to clear the air, give you the chance to
            > share
            > > your story in more depth. My chance to ask questions that might
            > allow
            > > you the chance again to share your experience, and for me to
            > listen.
            > >
            > > You will see I also responded to Zoey in this same post.  As
            > > Prometheus shared, he/she was sending private nasty messages to the
            > > group, and privately.  Neither Prometheus, nor I initiated any of
            > > these private conversations with him/her, nor did we actually
            > provoke
            > > some of the posts that was sent to ESA and moderated, at least to
            > my
            > > knowlege. I went back and looked over my initial comments to
            > his/her
            > > 9Zoey's) questions, and apparently they were not read by him/her?
            > > This individual got nasty first, on the skirts of posts made by you.
            > >
            > > Doing further research and comparing posts, IDs, and when an
            > > individual signed up and joined / left the group, what type of
            > > program was being used to mask the origination of posts privately
            > and
            > > to the group, (which were moderated) yes three differing IDs and
            > > posters (which two of them being one person) did get addressed in
            > one
            > > post.
            > >
            > > I do appologise for including my comments to Zoey, or even Leaf in
            > > the same post as the one to you. Not a good excuse I guess, but I
            > am
            > > rather busy and was attempting to make my life easier by only
            > > presenting one message.  I won't do that again.
            > >
            > > I do not feel the need to explain myself to Leaf, which is exactly
            > > what I intended for him to understand.  It was suggested to him by
            > > Prometheus to contact us (me) privately, yet Leaf did not, and it
            > > appears he also did not take what Prometheus shared with him
            > > (privately) as enough proof to warrent how Zoey was handled.
            > >
            > > I also was an admirer of Leaf's excellent sage posts, but when an
            > > individual DEMANDS anything of me, when it does not concern them,
            > > they will come up against a brick wall.
            > >
            > > And for the record, I didn't edit a post or the wording which was
            > > sent (but not approved) though I did use portions to answer Leaf's
            > > questions. The rest was left out due to the nature of the nasty
            > ness
            > > He can claim what ever he wishes, here or on ET. I have nothing
            > > further to debate with him. BTW, I haven't posted on ET in a very
            > > long time!
            > >
            > > Anyway, below is a copy of the questions I had concerning your post
            > > about integrity.  A portion of the post was directed to others
            > > besides yourself, of which I explained the reasoning in this post,
            > as
            > > well in posts in answer to Leaf, Zoey and Rowan_Oak22.  If Leaf
            > > wishes to continue dialog with any of these individuals privately,
            > > that is his business. But I do not feel the need to prove, provide
            > or
            > > justify myself to him!
            > >
            > > Again, please understand I am curious and the questions were with
            > > good intent.
            > >
            > > Liz
            > >
            > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            > > Message #2687
            > >
            > > Sharon ;-) Re: integrity
            > >
            > > Hi Non ekster,
            > > It seems weird to me as well! It started with Marlasobbing
            > > coming over here from ET. She, apparently, wanted to share
            > > (with more people) her frustrations, anger, and some negative
            > > information about her ex-6th Initiate boyfriend and that he
            > > wasn't very "spiritual" since he carried a condom next to his
            > > Eck I.D. card, and that he cheated on her with hookers! Of
            > > course, I don't know how she really knew about the condom,
            > > the cheating, or the hookers, but it was a juicy story about a
            > > male H.I. misbehaving (which is really nothing new for either
            > > gender for Eckists in general). She, also, mentioned how he
            > > had taken her for an E.S.A. session and that she liked this
            > > female H.I. and, basically, said that the E.S.A. was very
            > > convincing with her silver tongue and friendly demeanor.
            > >
            > > I don't see that the term Victim Consciousness is always a
            > > New Age term, especially, when it's applied to the wrong
            > > "relationship" choices that we make. Sometimes the rejected
            > > person will place all blame on the other person while not taking
            > > responsibility for making a bad choice, seeing the signs, and
            > > admitting they screwed up. Closing one's eyes to the truth and
            > > then blaming the other person or someone else, to me, is a form
            > > of Victim Consciousness. It's kind of like how some women will
            > > choose "bad boys" and then not take responsibility for it or fail
            > > to (and refuse to) look into the "why" and then taking the steps
            > > to correct their destructive decision making processes. Life
            > becomes
            > > one long drama or soap opera for some people. Maybe they enjoy
            > > the attention too! I'm not saying this was what Marla was doing,
            > > but it seemed like it was possible and after awhile. It wasn't like
            > > it was a super long relationship (one year) IMO. Plus, she still
            > saw
            > > it in a "romantic" way! That's why I agreed with Liz and said that
            > > it was seeming like this was a one-sided version (of the truth)
            > > from a woman scorned. I know that I should not have "talked about"
            > > Marla nor made this observation or assumption, but then again it
            > > reminded me of situations in the past where I saw others caught in
            > > similar circumstances and one heard only one side of the
            > relationship
            > > story.
            > >
            > > Leaf then came to Marla's defense while being unaware of Zoey's
            > > neg. involvment. Zoey (he/she) got very nasty on the site and
            > privately.
            > > There was also confusion with what was said to whom. I was unable
            > > to discuss this with Leaf privately because he had already formed
            > an
            > > opinion. I put Leaf on temporary moderated status because I didn't
            > > want to keep the discussion escalating. Unfortunately Liz (Co-
            > moderator)
            > > read a pending message and replied to it in part. This created even
            > > more disharmony which became impossible to resolve.
            > >
            > > Anyway, it was an interesting learning experience. I admit that
            > > there were mistakes made (people aren't perfect) and that it could
            > > have been done better and kinder and there could have been more
            > > tolerance and consideration given to one another. So for that, on
            > my
            > > part, I apologize to Marla and to everyone.
            > >
            > > Prometheus
            > > p.s. I do appreciate Liz being a Co-moderator and taking care of
            > > the sites while I am away. Thanks Liz!
            > >
            >
             
             
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.