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

Fwd: Re: More David Lane on Twitch Identity Theft and D Marm nonsense (Radhasoamistudies)

Expand Messages
  • mishmisha9
    ... mishmisha9 wrote: Hi, Non eckster! This is a great repost discussion regarding Twitchell s use of Identity Theft in creating his
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 19, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck@yahoogroups.com,
      "mishmisha9" <mishmisha9@...> wrote:

      Hi, Non eckster!

      This is a great repost discussion regarding Twitchell's
      use of Identity Theft in creating his fraudulent religion!
      I don't understand why people are willing to hold onto
      the scam when it is so clear it is a scam--what's up with
      that??? People must enjoy being gullible??? LOL!

      Mish


      --- In X-Eckankar_The-Chains-of-Eck@yahoogroups.com,
      "Non ekster" <eckchains@> wrote:
      >
      > Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi Message List
      > Reply | Forward Message #133962 of 133963 < Prev | Next >
      > Re: Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi
      >
      > --- In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, "dougmarman"
      > <d.marman@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, neuralsurfer <no_reply@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > The more I ruminate about Twitchell's appropriations of REAL
      > LIFE
      > > > STORIES, where he cribs the narrative thrust but implants his
      > own
      > > > self-created Eck Masters, the clearer it becomes that plagiarism
      > > > only partially describes Twitchell's literary piracy.
      > > >
      > > > What is transpiring in several occasions is IDENTITY THEFT with
      > a
      > > > twist.
      > > >
      > > > Twitchell steals Jaimal's story or Kirpal's story, for
      > instances,
      > > > and then co-opts them as HIS OWN vis a vis his own Eckankar
      > masters,
      > > > thus gaining narrative coinage without identity baggage.
      > > >
      > > > He steals the story and then makes it sound like it HAPPENED TO
      > HIM
      > > > via his Vairagi lineage.
      > > >
      > > > Thus it is not merely words or ideas or syntax or structure that
      > > > gets appropriated (occasionally, word by word), but WHOLE LIFE
      > > > NARRATIVES.
      > > >
      > > > Don't people have the right to their OWN STORIES, without some
      > > > miscreant (like Twitchell) stealing their narrative thrusts for
      > > > dubious causes?
      > > >
      > > > Or, to put it more concretely:
      > > >
      > > > My father won the Nobel Prize along with James Watson for
      > > > discovering the double helix structure to DNA.
      > > >
      > > > Yea, I know the usual story is that Francis Crick won it with
      > Watson
      > > > and Wilkins, but see I don't want to get into any weird
      > > > entanglements with Crick so I just deleted his name (but kept
      > the
      > > > cool story) and replaced him with my dad, Warren.
      > > >
      > > > All for the "whole" truth, you see.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Yes, it is easy to follow your point. But the question is: What was
      > > Paul's intention?
      > >
      > > You are asserting that Paul was stealing the narratives of others
      > for
      > > dubious causes, but it is clear you are inserting your own idea of
      > > what Paul's purpose and intention was.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Yes, the dubious cause is front and center: Eckankar's vairagi
      > lineage.
      >
      > One doesn't have to stray away from his narrative.
      >
      > One can simply STICK WITH PAUL'S NARRATIVE.... and therein lies (pun
      > intended) precisely what he is doing.
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Let's take the example of your testimony in court. You gave one
      > > statement in your deposition. Then later in court, after hearing
      > that
      > > your first explanation would not help your case, you gave a
      > completely
      > > contrary statement.
      > >
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > You write, "AFTER hearing your first explanation would not help your
      > case, you gave a completely contrary statement."
      >
      > Do you make stuff up, Doug?
      >
      > I never heard that my "first explanation would not help" my cause....
      >
      > Be accurate and STICK with what was stated EVEN IN THE JUDGEMENT
      > against me.
      >
      > Here it is again:
      >
      > This is the crux of the contradiction:
      >
      >
      > 8. Defendant testified at trial that at the first meeting with
      > McWilliams, he made clear to McWilliams that he would not provide
      > him with any documents to assist him in his work, unless McWilliams
      > gave him full access to "use the information in the book" that
      > McWilliams was writing (R.T. at 72-73). According to testimony at
      > trial, defendant told McWilliams based on his prior experiences with
      > purported defecters from MSIA in the 1980's that he would not assist
      > McWilliams in the writing of McWilliams' book unless McWilliams
      > granted Lane an unrestricted right to use the book (R.T. at 25)
      >
      > HOWEVER [my emphasis], in his deposition, Lane testified as follows:
      >
      > Q. Did you specifically tell Mr. McWilliams that you wouldn't
      > cooperate with him unless he gave you permission to use the
      > resulting book in any way you chose?
      >
      > A. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Peter McWilliams who
      > volunteered that. It wasn't one of my conditions, but he was very
      > thankful for the research I had done, and because of that he wanted
      > to -- it was like a material consideration. I had done something for
      > him, and he was paying me back. Lane depo. tr., Feb. 18, 1998, at
      > 44.
      >
      > 9. In Exhibit 22, which was posted on the Internet in September
      > 1997, Lane claimed that McWilliams had given him unrestricted access
      > to Life 102 when McWilliams posted the book on the Internet, an
      > event that occurred in September 1995, more than one year after the
      > 1994 initial meeting. It is undisputed that Lane never asked
      > McWilliams to reduce this agreement to writing (R.T. at 69).
      >
      > 10. Thereafter, in September 1994, McWilliams sent numerous copies
      > of the book to defendant accompanied by a handwritten note. The
      > note, Exhibit 202, reads in part as follows:
      >
      > David-
      >
      > Tada!
      > Here it is in print form -- Life 102! Let me know if you need more.
      > Thank you for all your help. I couldn't have done it without you.
      > Yes, of course, put it on your web page, give copies to your class.
      > Whatever you want - just don't sell it. Again, thanks I owe you
      > several!
      > Enjoy-
      > Peter McWilliams
      >
      > __________________________________
      >
      > DOUG CONTINUES:
      >
      > > It would be easy for me to say that you clearly had lied to help
      > win
      > > your case, and this case proved you had been caught lying. I could
      > > then call you a liar and laugh at you when you tried defending
      > > yourself with wimpy excuses like you had forgotten.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > You can call me whatever you wish, Doug.
      >
      > That still doesn't GET TWITCHELL OFF THE HOOK.
      >
      > Whatever one thinks of my case (pro or con or indifferent) has
      > ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on Twitchell.
      >
      > While I understand that you think you have some pregnant analogy, I
      > am suggesting that a close look at the details of the trial indicate
      > that it breaks down.
      >
      > But that is false detour anyways.
      >
      > >
      > > However, the difference between me and you is that I am willing to
      > > accept your explanation that you never intended to lie, and that it
      > > was simply your memory that was in error. I do care about your
      > point
      > > of view and not just how it looks to me. In other words, I accept
      > you
      > > as the expert on your intentions. I may not agree with your
      > > philosophy, but this doesn't give me the right to insert my idea of
      > > your intentions onto you. That simply isn't fair.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Why should you merely accept my explanation? I don't think you
      > should.
      >
      > I think you should take lots of OTHER EXPLANATIONS into
      > consideration, including the lying hypothesis.
      >
      > I think you should take Peter's view, the judge's view, MSIA's
      > views, and the whole mix.
      >
      > While I might believe I am an expert on my own intentions, perhaps
      > others can see things clearer than I can..... even about my own
      > actions.
      >
      > I would argue the same goes for Twitchell as well. Take in as many
      > views as possible and then one can reason or hash out varying
      > alternatives.
      >
      > But there is no Sudar Singh or Rebazar Tarzs, as PHYSICALLY AND
      > HISTORICALLY described by Twitchell.
      >
      > And when we find that he replaces real people with fake ones (fake
      > in the sense of lacking any empirical referents that would withstand
      > normal scrutiny), then I don't see any problem with calling
      > Twitchell a bullshitter.
      >
      > Now, if he can muster up some sufficient evidence or you can or
      > somebody else can, then we can augment or change our views.
      >
      > As it stands, we have nada.
      >
      > So, yes, I definitely disagree with you.
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > All these things that you think about and get worked up about are
      > your
      > > ideas and opinions. They aren't a reflection of Paul's intentions.
      > > They are your assertions.
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Twitchell ASSERTS (not me) that he met Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs
      > in a PHYSICAL way and that they are REAL HISTORICAL CHARACTERS.
      >
      > When we test that assertion we find NOTHING of the sort.
      >
      > That's not me getting worked up, that's me TAKING TWITCHELL
      > SERIOUSLY.
      >
      > And when we take him seriously we find that he is bullshitting.
      >
      >
      > >
      > > That's why I say, get back to the facts. What do the facts actually
      > > tell us? If there are theories about Paul's intentions, then let's
      > > look at all of the theories and consider all possible guesses.
      > Some we
      > > can throw away, since the evidence contradicts them. Some we must
      > keep
      > > on our list of possibilities.
      > >
      > > The only real proof of intentions is when someone tells us what
      > their
      > > intentions were.
      >
      >
      > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
      >
      > Huh? Given this logic, you could not possibly have a legal system,
      > Doug.
      >
      > Given this logic, you could not possibly adjudicate any matter.
      >
      > Yes, let's go to the facts.
      >
      > What evidence do we have that Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs ACTUALLY
      > EXIST AS DESCRIBED BY TWITCHELL?
      >
      > You see, it is ironic here, but when we take Twitchell SERIOULSY we
      > find that his stories DON'T HOLD UP.
      >
      > When we see this disconnect, you then want to go into
      > his "intentions", as some kind of escape clause.
      >
      > Look, he says X is Y and we look and we don't see any evidence to
      > support his equation and we then SAY SO.
      >
      > We look for Sudar, for instance, and we find NO EVIDENCE that such a
      > creature ever existed.
      >
      > Now I don't see anything wrong with simply saying, BULLSHIT.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > The rest are guesses. Sometimes the circumstantial
      > > evidence is compelling, but this is only fair if we consider all
      > the
      > > options.
      > >
      >
      > All options of what?
      >
      > Give me ONE piece of compelling evidence for Sudar's REAL HISTORICAL
      > EXISTENCE.
      >

      --- End forwarded message ---
    • prometheus_973
      Hello All, I thought this would be good to review once again since Rich posted info on Marman s new book. ... Hi, Non eckster! ... This is a great repost
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 20, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello All,
        I thought this would be good to review once again
        since Rich posted info on Marman's new book.


        mish wrote:
        >
        Hi, Non eckster!
        >
        This is a great repost discussion regarding Twitchell's
        use of Identity Theft in creating his fraudulent religion!
        I don't understand why people are willing to hold onto
        the scam when it is so clear it is a scam--what's up with
        that??? People must enjoy being gullible??? LOL!
        >
        Mish
        >
        >
        "Non ekster" wrote:
        > >
        Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi Message List
        Reply | Forward Message #133962 of 133963 < Prev | Next >
        Re: Identity Theft: Twitchell's Modus Operandi
        > >
        "dougmarman"
        d.marman@> wrote:
        > > >
        In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, neuralsurfer wrote:
        > > > >
        The more I ruminate about Twitchell's appropriations
        of REAL LIFE STORIES, where he cribs the narrative thrust
        but implants his own self-created Eck Masters, the clearer
        it becomes that plagiarism only partially describes Twitchell's
        literary piracy.
        > > > >
        What is transpiring in several occasions is IDENTITY THEFT
        with a twist.
        > > > >
        Twitchell steals Jaimal's story or Kirpal's story,
        for instances, and then co-opts them as HIS OWN
        vis a vis his own Eckankar masters, thus gaining
        narrative coinage without identity baggage.
        > > > >
        He steals the story and then makes it sound like
        it HAPPENED TO HIM via his Vairagi lineage.
        > > > >
        Thus it is not merely words or ideas or syntax or
        structure that gets appropriated (occasionally, word
        by word), but WHOLE LIFE NARRATIVES.
        > > > >
        Don't people have the right to their OWN STORIES,
        without some miscreant (like Twitchell) stealing their
        narrative thrusts for dubious causes?
        > > > >
        Or, to put it more concretely:
        > > > >
        My father won the Nobel Prize along with James
        Watson for discovering the double helix structure to DNA.
        > > > >
        Yea, I know the usual story is that Francis Crick won
        it with Watson and Wilkins, but see I don't want to get
        into any weird entanglements with Crick so I just deleted
        his name (but kept the cool story) and replaced him with
        my dad, Warren.
        > > > >
        All for the "whole" truth, you see.
        > > > >
        Yes, it is easy to follow your point. But the question is:
        What was Paul's intention?
        > > >
        You are asserting that Paul was stealing the narratives
        of others for dubious causes, but it is clear you are inserting
        your own idea of what Paul's purpose and intention was.
        > >
        > >
        DAVID LANE REPLIES:
        > >
        Yes, the dubious cause is front and center: Eckankar's
        vairagi lineage.
        > >
        One doesn't have to stray away from his narrative.
        > >
        One can simply STICK WITH PAUL'S NARRATIVE.... and therein
        lies (pun intended) precisely what he is doing.
        > >
        Let's take the example of your testimony in court. You gave one
        statement in your deposition. Then later in court, after hearing
        that your first explanation would not help your case, you gave a
        completely contrary statement.
        > > >
        DAVID LANE REPLIES:
        > >
        You write, "AFTER hearing your first explanation would
        not help your case, you gave a completely contrary statement."
        > >
        Do you make stuff up, Doug?
        > >
        I never heard that my "first explanation would not help"
        my cause....
        > >
        Be accurate and STICK with what was stated EVEN IN
        THE JUDGEMENT against me.
        > >
        Here it is again:
        > >
        This is the crux of the contradiction:
        > >
        > >
        8. Defendant testified at trial that at the first meeting
        with McWilliams, he made clear to McWilliams that he
        would not provide him with any documents to assist him
        in his work, unless McWilliams gave him full access to
        "use the information in the book" that McWilliams was
        writing (R.T. at 72-73). According to testimony at
        trial, defendant told McWilliams based on his prior
        experiences with purported defecters from MSIA in the
        1980's that he would not assist McWilliams in the writing
        of McWilliams' book unless McWilliams granted Lane an
        unrestricted right to use the book (R.T. at 25)
        > >
        HOWEVER [my emphasis], in his deposition,
        Lane testified as follows:
        > >
        Q. Did you specifically tell Mr. McWilliams that you wouldn't
        cooperate with him unless he gave you permission to use the
        resulting book in any way you chose?
        > >
        A. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Peter McWilliams
        who volunteered that. It wasn't one of my conditions, but he
        was very thankful for the research I had done, and because
        of that he wanted to -- it was like a material consideration.
        I had done something for him, and he was paying me back.
        Lane depo. tr., Feb. 18, 1998, at 44.
        > >
        9. In Exhibit 22, which was posted on the Internet in
        September 1997, Lane claimed that McWilliams had given
        him unrestricted access to Life 102 when McWilliams posted
        the book on the Internet, an event that occurred in September
        1995, more than one year after the 1994 initial meeting.
        It is undisputed that Lane never asked McWilliams to reduce
        this agreement to writing (R.T. at 69).
        > >
        10. Thereafter, in September 1994, McWilliams sent
        numerous copies of the book to defendant accompanied
        by a handwritten note. The note, Exhibit 202, reads in
        part as follows:
        > >
        David-
        > >
        Tada!
        Here it is in print form -- Life 102! Let me know if you
        need more. Thank you for all your help. I couldn't have
        done it without you. Yes, of course, put it on your web
        page, give copies to your class. Whatever you want -
        just don't sell it. Again, thanks I owe you several!
        Enjoy-
        Peter McWilliams
        > >
        __________________________________
        > >
        DOUG CONTINUES:
        > >
        It would be easy for me to say that you clearly had
        lied to help win your case, and this case proved you
        had been caught lying. I could then call you a liar and
        laugh at you when you tried defending yourself with
        wimpy excuses like you had forgotten.
        > >
        > >
        DAVID LANE REPLIES:
        > >
        You can call me whatever you wish, Doug.
        > >
        That still doesn't GET TWITCHELL OFF THE HOOK.
        > >
        Whatever one thinks of my case (pro or con or indifferent)
        has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on Twitchell.
        > >
        While I understand that you think you have some
        pregnant analogy, I am suggesting that a close look
        at the details of the trial indicate that it breaks down.
        > >
        But that is false detour anyways.
        > >
        > > >
        However, the difference between me and you is
        that I am willing to accept your explanation that
        you never intended to lie, and that it was simply
        your memory that was in error. I do care about your
        point of view and not just how it looks to me. In
        other words, I accept you as the expert on your
        intentions. I may not agree with your philosophy,
        but this doesn't give me the right to insert my idea
        of your intentions onto you. That simply isn't fair.
        > >
        > >
        DAVID LANE REPLIES:
        > >
        Why should you merely accept my explanation?
        I don't think you should.
        > >
        I think you should take lots of OTHER EXPLANATIONS
        into consideration, including the lying hypothesis.
        > >
        I think you should take Peter's view, the judge's view,
        MSIA's views, and the whole mix.
        > >
        While I might believe I am an expert on my own
        intentions, perhaps others can see things clearer
        than I can..... even about my own actions.
        > >
        I would argue the same goes for Twitchell as well.
        Take in as many views as possible and then one can
        reason or hash out varying alternatives.
        > >
        But there is no Sudar Singh or Rebazar Tarzs,
        as PHYSICALLY AND HISTORICALLY described
        by Twitchell.
        > >
        And when we find that he replaces real people
        with fake ones (fake in the sense of lacking any
        empirical referents that would withstand normal
        scrutiny), then I don't see any problem with calling
        Twitchell a bullshitter.
        > >
        Now, if he can muster up some sufficient evidence
        or you can or somebody else can, then we can augment
        or change our views.
        > >
        As it stands, we have nada.
        > >
        So, yes, I definitely disagree with you.
        > >
        All these things that you think about and get worked
        up about are your ideas and opinions. They aren't a
        reflection of Paul's intentions. They are your assertions.
        > >
        DAVID LANE REPLIES:
        > >
        Twitchell ASSERTS (not me) that he met Sudar Singh
        and Rebazar Tarzs in a PHYSICAL way and that they
        are REAL HISTORICAL CHARACTERS.
        > >
        When we test that assertion we find NOTHING
        of the sort.
        > >
        That's not me getting worked up, that's me TAKING
        TWITCHELL SERIOUSLY.
        > >
        And when we take him seriously we find that
        he is bullshitting.
        > >
        That's why I say, get back to the facts. What do the
        facts actually tell us? If there are theories about Paul's
        intentions, then let's look at all of the theories and
        consider all possible guesses. Some we can throw away,
        since the evidence contradicts them. Some we must
        keep on our list of possibilities.
        > > >
        The only real proof of intentions is when someone
        tells us what their intentions were.
        > >
        > >
        DAVID LANE REPLIES:
        > >
        Huh? Given this logic, you could not possibly have a
        legal system, Doug.
        > >
        Given this logic, you could not possibly adjudicate
        any matter.
        > >
        Yes, let's go to the facts.
        > >
        What evidence do we have that Sudar Singh
        and Rebazar Tarzs ACTUALLY EXIST AS DESCRIBED
        BY TWITCHELL?
        > >
        You see, it is ironic here, but when we take
        Twitchell SERIOULSY we find that his stories
        DON'T HOLD UP.
        > >
        When we see this disconnect, you then want to go
        into his "intentions", as some kind of escape clause.
        > >
        Look, he says X is Y and we look and we don't see
        any evidence to support his equation and we then SAY SO.
        > >
        We look for Sudar, for instance, and we find
        NO EVIDENCE that such a creature ever existed.
        > >
        Now I don't see anything wrong with simply saying,
        BULLSHIT.
        > >
        The rest are guesses. Sometimes the circumstantial
        evidence is compelling, but this is only fair if we consider
        all the options.
        > > >
        All options of what?
        > >
        Give me ONE piece of compelling evidence for Sudar's
        REAL HISTORICAL EXISTENCE.

        *[ME] Let's not forget that unlike Rebazar - Sudar was
        supposed to be a "real human" living in a real physical body
        Klemp even sent ECKists to India to try and locate him (Sudar)!
        However, they came back empty handed. Now doesn't this
        make ECKists wonder why the MAHANTA can't locate
        an ECK Master by going to the INNER? What's wrong with
        this picture when the supposedly ALL-KNOWING Klemp
        isn't AT ALL KNOWING of what is expected of him via the
        claims he makes of the LEM/Mahanta (HK)!



        --- End forwarded message ---
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.