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

Re: D.M. Does Not Have Current High Profile EK Reviewers

Expand Messages
  • Non ekster
    ...Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term truth in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of Twitchell.... Very funny! LOL What
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 23, 2007
      "...Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
      "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
      Twitchell...."

      Very funny! LOL What unscrupulous humans do to hold on to DELUSION. I
      wonder what state of senility some of these people are in. I want some
      current pictures. 30 to 40 years can do a lot to show up a persons
      real character. Twitch obviously got burned out by the yeck force,
      otherwise known as advanced aging. Interesting that the eck masters
      seem to appear eternally youthful, but not Twitch, Gross or Klemp.
      Actually, David Lane probably could have done a better job of passing
      himself off as an eck master, but he is obviously too honest for that.
      Maybe that is Marman's secret ambition here, to align himself with
      Twitch. Maybe he is a bit jealous of Klemp. lol

      Nonekster ; )

      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
      <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
      >
      > Why doesn't Marman have current high profile ECKists
      > writing reviews for his new book? Instead, Marman has
      > the Science Fiction writer Brad (B.S.) Steiger, and former
      > EK 8th Initiate (and Gross supporter) Patti Simpson
      > writing supportive reviews.
      >
      > And, let's not forget good old Gail Twitchell who was
      > the Co-founder of ECKANKAR! She, also, supports
      > and defends Marman's distorted view of her and
      > Paul's (their) ECKANKAR Scam. It is obvious why she
      > wrote a glowing review. However, Why isn't she following
      > or supporting the current Mahanta Klemp? Why isn't Patti?
      >
      > So, once again, Why aren't there Current High Profile
      > ECKists supporting Marman's book with glowing reviews?
      > Why doesn't Peter, Bob, Don, Doug, Marge, Mary, Debbie,
      > Carol, Elmo, Joan, or the great Harold Klemp write some
      > glowing book reviews like the ones that Brad, Patti, and
      > Gail have written?
      >
      > Liz brought up a good question. Why isn't ECKANKAR
      > publishing this historical book on the "Whole Truth"
      > of Paul Twitchell, unless, the book isn't truthful or factual!
      > Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
      > "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
      > Twitchell.
      >
      > However, Marman is a hypocrite! He can dish out criticisms
      > of David Lane's and Ford Johnson's works for not crossing
      > their t's or dotting their i's, but when DM does the same
      > (and worse) Doug's excuse is that the "whole truth" about
      > PT now becomes too elusive and, thereby, unattainable,
      > and that Twitchell, basically, dealt in half-truths anyway.
      >
      > Therefore, this fact makes the title of Marman's book as
      > inaccurate as its contents. Thus, Marman's mindless exercise
      > becomes a pointless display of ignorance because the
      > whole of the information ("whole truth") of Twitchell's
      > scam will never be fully known. This can be said of anyone,
      > and anything - can fiction really be disproven, especially,
      > with so many gullible and ignorant people wanting and
      > needing to believe in things "magical" and mysterious!
      >
      > This is why Facts, Past Behaviours, Logic, Common Sense,
      > Intelligence, Awareness, Empathy (History too) and, especially,
      > Critical Thinking are used to piece together an overall view of
      > the "Truth."
      >
      > Actually, all one needs to do is to look at the words and
      > behaviours of the U.S. President G.W. Bush and his Vice-
      > President "Dick" Chaney and many/most can NOW see
      > their distortions of truth without needing to see the "whole
      > truth" of their obvious lies, let alone, the behind the scenes
      > scam. We (mostly) know enough NOT to trust these men.
      > The same applies to Marman's books and opinions, to all
      > of Twitchell's works, and to anything Klemp has to say!
      > Sometimes it just takes awhile for others to see as others
      > point out the flaws and distortions. Sometimes one is able
      > to see behind the curtain and the facade of what others
      > claim as truth, but to do so means one has to STOP being
      > a follower!
      >
      > However, ECKists shouldn't feel bad for having been fooled
      > for so long. For most of us this has been a good lesson, and
      > has taught us Not to be fooled again by other "experts" or
      > "guru/Masters." Spiritual Seekers Do Not Need to become
      > followers of men or of their religions or of "their" ideals.
      > Soul is a Law unto Its Self and to Spirit. Soul needs no
      > middlemen and yet we are all "teachers" to one another
      > without one being "above" another!
      >
      > Prometheus
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > prometheus wrote:
      > > >
      > > > 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 ---
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Ingrid
      Good theory non-ekster! :-) Well it s easy to pass off non-existing eck masters as eternally youthful. None can check if this is true - oh, I forget! Of course
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 23, 2007
        Good theory non-ekster! :-)
        Well it's easy to pass off non-existing eck masters as eternally youthful. None can check if this is true - oh, I forget! Of course eckists get it on the inner! LOL! Klemp looks like every year of his 62 or 63 years of age - actually, he looks older. But oh, of course - he's the "karma tank!" Another thing that cannot be checked - but, of course, ekkies get it on the inner again! LOL!
        Ingrid

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Non ekster <eckchains@...>
        To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:30:02 AM
        Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: D.M. Does Not Have Current High Profile EK Reviewers

        "...Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
        "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
        Twitchell... ."

        Very funny! LOL What unscrupulous humans do to hold on to DELUSION. I
        wonder what state of senility some of these people are in. I want some
        current pictures. 30 to 40 years can do a lot to show up a persons
        real character. Twitch obviously got burned out by the yeck force,
        otherwise known as advanced aging. Interesting that the eck masters
        seem to appear eternally youthful, but not Twitch, Gross or Klemp.
        Actually, David Lane probably could have done a better job of passing
        himself off as an eck master, but he is obviously too honest for that.
        Maybe that is Marman's secret ambition here, to align himself with
        Twitch. Maybe he is a bit jealous of Klemp. lol

        Nonekster ; )

        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAn onymous@yahoogro ups.com, "prometheus_ 973"
        <prometheus_ 973@...> wrote:

        >
        > Why doesn't Marman have current high profile ECKists
        > writing reviews for his new book? Instead, Marman has
        > the Science Fiction writer Brad (B.S.) Steiger, and former
        > EK 8th Initiate (and Gross supporter) Patti Simpson
        > writing supportive reviews.
        >
        > And, let's not forget good old Gail Twitchell who was
        > the Co-founder of ECKANKAR! She, also, supports
        > and defends Marman's distorted view of her and
        > Paul's (their) ECKANKAR Scam. It is obvious why she
        > wrote a glowing review. However, Why isn't she following
        > or supporting the current Mahanta Klemp? Why isn't Patti?
        >
        > So, once again, Why aren't there Current High Profile
        > ECKists supporting Marman's book with glowing reviews?
        > Why doesn't Peter, Bob, Don, Doug,
        Marge, Mary, Debbie,
        > Carol, Elmo, Joan, or the great Harold Klemp write some
        > glowing book reviews like the ones that Brad, Patti, and
        > Gail have written?
        >
        > Liz brought up a good question. Why isn't ECKANKAR
        > publishing this historical book on the "Whole Truth"
        > of Paul Twitchell, unless, the book isn't truthful or factual!
        > Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
        > "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
        > Twitchell.
        >
        > However, Marman is a hypocrite! He can dish out criticisms
        > of David Lane's and Ford Johnson's works for not crossing
        > their t's or dotting their i's, but when DM does the same
        > (and worse) Doug's excuse is that the "whole truth" about
        > PT now becomes too elusive and, thereby, unattainable,
        > and that Twitchell, basically, dealt in half-truths anyway.
        >
        > Therefore,
        this fact makes the title of Marman's book as
        > inaccurate as its contents. Thus, Marman's mindless exercise
        > becomes a pointless display of ignorance because the
        > whole of the information ("whole truth") of Twitchell's
        > scam will never be fully known. This can be said of anyone,
        > and anything - can fiction really be disproven, especially,
        > with so many gullible and ignorant people wanting and
        > needing to believe in things "magical" and mysterious!
        >
        > This is why Facts, Past Behaviours, Logic, Common Sense,
        > Intelligence, Awareness, Empathy (History too) and, especially,
        > Critical Thinking are used to piece together an overall view of
        > the "Truth."
        >
        > Actually, all one needs to do is to look at the words and
        > behaviours of the U.S. President G.W. Bush and his Vice-
        > President "Dick" Chaney and many/most can NOW see
        > their
        distortions of truth without needing to see the "whole
        > truth" of their obvious lies, let alone, the behind the scenes
        > scam. We (mostly) know enough NOT to trust these men.
        > The same applies to Marman's books and opinions, to all
        > of Twitchell's works, and to anything Klemp has to say!
        > Sometimes it just takes awhile for others to see as others
        > point out the flaws and distortions. Sometimes one is able
        > to see behind the curtain and the facade of what others
        > claim as truth, but to do so means one has to STOP being
        > a follower!
        >
        > However, ECKists shouldn't feel bad for having been fooled
        > for so long. For most of us this has been a good lesson, and
        > has taught us Not to be fooled again by other "experts" or
        > "guru/Masters. " Spiritual Seekers Do Not Need to become
        > followers of men or of their religions or of "their" ideals.
        > Soul
        is a Law unto Its Self and to Spirit. Soul needs no
        > middlemen and yet we are all "teachers" to one another
        > without one being "above" another!
        >
        > Prometheus
        >
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > prometheus wrote:
        > > >
        > > > 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 ---
        > > >
        > >
        >




        Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
      • Elizabeth
        ... Now hold on Ingrid, Isn t there such a thing as a Dip stick to check the karma tank? ;-) Or some sort of Rod one could prod the old tankster with?
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 23, 2007
           
           
          > Klemp looks like every year of his 62 or 63 years of age - actually, he looks older. But oh, of course - he's the "karma tank!" Another thing that cannot be checked -
           
           
          Now hold on Ingrid,   Isn't there such a thing as a "Dip" stick to check the karma tank?  ;-)  Or some sort of "Rod" one could prod the old tankster with?
          Liz
           
        • prometheus_973
          Hi Ingrid and All, Actually, according to my calculations, Klemp is 66 years old (1941) and Gail is 65 years old (1942). I have no idea of Joan s age, but I
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 23, 2007
            Hi Ingrid and All,
            Actually, according to my calculations, Klemp is 66 years old
            (1941) and Gail is 65 years old (1942). I have no idea of Joan's
            age, but I would put her somewhere up there with Harry and Gail!

            Klemp gives Twitchell's year of birth at 1908, but I'm thinking
            that the Twitchell family Bible stating 1910 was probably more
            accurate. Therefore, PT was 61 (almost 62) when he died on
            09/17/71 (Gail was 29 years old). Gail was told by Paul that he
            was born in 1922 and that would have made him 49 years old
            when he died! Gail must have been shocked that an ECK Master
            would die of a heart attack at age 49! It's bad enough for ECKists
            to know that their LEM/Mahanta was only 61 (1910) or 63 (1908)!

            I wonder Why Klemp (the greatest Mahanta ever - LOL!) didn't
            choose to be born on October 22 (the date that the Rod of EK
            Power is passed to the new LEM/Mahanta) like Twitchell did?

            Or, did Twitchell create the Passing of the Rod of Power date
            (for all LEM/Mahantas) to correspond to his birthday - after
            the "fact?"

            And, if Klemp WAS born on October 22 I kind of doubt that
            he would be hiding this fact! Actually, HK would be promoting
            this! I wonder - How many ECKists have been born on Oct. 22?

            On another note: Regarding a 1910 birth year for Twitchell -
            according to Klemp (on Eckankar.org) HK states, basically, that
            PT was lying about everything at age 27 to get into Who's Who
            in Kentucky. This puts the year at 1937. Therefore when Klemp
            later in the same PT info states that PT met Sudar Singh in 1935
            on his FIRST trip to India we can plainly see that this is also an
            'exaggeration' and the 'twisting of facts' since this puts PT's age
            at 25 and two years prior to his Who's Who lies. Even when we
            use the 1908 date that Klemp gives this puts PT at age 27 in
            1935. Klemp states that Twitchell had never traveled far from
            home from home... not until PT joined the U.S. Navy in 1942 at
            the age of 32 or 34 (1908).

            Prometheus



            Ingrid wrote:
            >
            > Good theory non-ekster! :-)
            > Well it's easy to pass off non-existing eck masters as eternally youthful. None can check
            if this is true - oh, I forget! Of course eckists get it on the inner! LOL! Klemp looks like
            every year of his 62 or 63 years of age - actually, he looks older. But oh, of course - he's
            the "karma tank!" Another thing that cannot be checked - but, of course, ekkies get it on
            the inner again! LOL!
            > Ingrid
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message ----
            > From: Non ekster
            >
            > "...Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
            > "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
            > Twitchell... ."
            >
            > Very funny! LOL What unscrupulous humans do to hold on to DELUSION. I
            > wonder what state of senility some of these people are in. I want some
            > current pictures. 30 to 40 years can do a lot to show up a persons
            > real character. Twitch obviously got burned out by the yeck force,
            > otherwise known as advanced aging. Interesting that the eck masters
            > seem to appear eternally youthful, but not Twitch, Gross or Klemp.
            > Actually, David Lane probably could have done a better job of passing
            > himself off as an eck master, but he is obviously too honest for that.
            > Maybe that is Marman's secret ambition here, to align himself with
            > Twitch. Maybe he is a bit jealous of Klemp. lol
            >
            > Nonekster ; )
            >
          • mishmisha9
            Hi, All! In reading some of the posts on other sites, like A.R.E. & HuChat, it appears that Doug Marman is quite controversial even among his fellow eckists.
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 23, 2007
              Hi, All!

              In reading some of the posts on other sites, like A.R.E. &
              HuChat, it appears that Doug Marman is quite controversial
              even among his fellow eckists. Some are really eagerly
              grasping onto his spin, his new book, while others are
              obviously annoyed by it. Perhaps, the current high profile
              ek reviewers are trying to "act as if" the book "The Whole
              Truth" doesn't even exist, so there is no yea or nay
              comments coming from the higher ups including Klemp.
              They are turning a blind eye so to speak??? But behind the
              scenes, what commotion is really there--is Doug headed for
              some trouble from the Klemp camp?? That would be
              interesting to know seeing how Klemp reacted to Ford Johnson
              and Graham Forsyth.

              Anyway, it seems that Rich (Cybersailor) and some others
              really like the book; hence, Rich wanted to post the link here
              on ESA--bravo, Rich, for the courage that took!! Especially in
              light of the silence regarding the book from Minnapolis and the
              problems some of his fellow online eck chatters have with it! LOL!

              From HuChat, recently posted, here's some portions of the
              book discussion taking place there:

              Joe Homsey wrote and Steve R replied:

              > Gail Twitchell and Brad Steiger have also complimented
              > Doug Marman's "The Whole Truth".
              >
              > If I'm not mistaken, Gail Twitchell was quoted saying
              > something along the line, "Someone finely got it right
              > about Paul Twitchell."

              I sure am glad that none of us is resorting to an appeal to
              celebrity or authority here. <g>

              With all due respect to Gail and Brad, I do not know whether
              either of them is working within Eckankar today or with the
              current Living ECK Master. Of course both are great primary
              sources, as is Patti Simpson, regarding the particulars of
              Paul's life. Sometimes the endorsement of authorities can be
              meaningful. But as far as I am aware, none is currently an
              active ECKist. I may be mistaken too (It has happened before.)

              Sri Harold has written quite a bit about Paul, much of which is
              posted on the main Eckankar website. I wonder if Gail includes
              what Harold has had to say about Paul in her statement about
              someone finally getting it right. I have thought that Harold pretty
              much got it right. But then do I want to rely on him as an
              "authority" or do I want to rely more on my own experience? I
              believe that Harold himself would defer to personal experience.

              With Love in ECK,

              Steve (end of HuChat post)

              Also, here's some comments from Mark Alexander in his
              post on HuChat:

              Mark is telling "Cheryl, I don't know if I'm reading this right,
              but if you read me as using Doug as an authority, you misread me.
              I was pointing to Doug as an example of how much work it takes
              to make a thorough case to counter dubious authorities like David
              Lane who easily sway those who respond merely to authorities."

              ME HERE: Now I found Mark's comment rather intriguing because
              he is saying that Doug is not an authority; yet he calls David
              Lane a "dubious" authority who obviously troubles Mark because
              David Lane is able to impact those who read what he (David) writes.
              LOL!

              Mark Alexander further wrote: "By the way, Patti Simpson and
              Fred Foos (of Fred and Anya Foos fame) have both weighed in on
              Doug's book as well:

              http://spiritualdialogues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemi
              \d=28#jc_writeComment

              HU Mark"

              Steve R then replied to Mark with this:

              "I would not use the word 'culminate'. Lane already has a very
              large website as a response to Doug. Personally, as Lane cites me
              by name on the first page, I would have preferred that Doug had
              focused on Paul rather than Lane. Even better, I would have
              preferred that he let sleeping dogs lie."

              ME HERE: So, it seems some view Doug's new book as
              re-opening of a can of worms. Some see it as going back to
              square one in the debates with David Lane and of course, this
              will focus once again seekers' attentions onto the controversial
              arguments regarding the scam, lies and deceit that is all a big
              part of the made-up fake religion called eckankar! I think that
              Klemp is not so happy with Doug Marman right now as it surely
              brings back all the old discussions that are still easily found
              in searches on the Internet! Klemp just can't control the big
              world of Cyberspace even though Klemp has stated in his
              book "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," that as the Mahanta,
              "he is the highest state of consciousness known to the
              chronicles of mankind." LOL!

              As Steve R. suggested, it would be better to let sleeping dogs
              lie regarding David Lane for sure, and especially Ford Johnson
              (a former RESA and spokesman for eckankar), as well! : )

              So in answer to the question:
              "Why aren't there Current High Profile ECKists supporting
              Marman's book . . . ?"

              The answer is Doug M. not only questions the factual
              existence of Rebazar, but he has also stated that the eck
              initiations are mostly myth. One can go to the Links page on
              this site and look at the first link to read Doug's comments on
              these subjects. And as some eckists suggest they'd rather sleeping
              dogs lie (David Lane & Ford Johnson). And finally, Doug is not
              following Klemp's point of view regarding PT's half truths--Doug
              is contradicting the present mahanta's spin! How dare
              he do that! : )

              Mish


              --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
              "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
              >
              > Why doesn't Marman have current high profile ECKists
              > writing reviews for his new book? Instead, Marman has
              > the Science Fiction writer Brad (B.S.) Steiger, and former
              > EK 8th Initiate (and Gross supporter) Patti Simpson
              > writing supportive reviews.
              >
              > And, let's not forget good old Gail Twitchell who was
              > the Co-founder of ECKANKAR! She, also, supports
              > and defends Marman's distorted view of her and
              > Paul's (their) ECKANKAR Scam. It is obvious why she
              > wrote a glowing review. However, Why isn't she following
              > or supporting the current Mahanta Klemp? Why isn't Patti?
              >
              > So, once again, Why aren't there Current High Profile
              > ECKists supporting Marman's book with glowing reviews?
              > Why doesn't Peter, Bob, Don, Doug, Marge, Mary, Debbie,
              > Carol, Elmo, Joan, or the great Harold Klemp write some
              > glowing book reviews like the ones that Brad, Patti, and
              > Gail have written?
              >
              > Liz brought up a good question. Why isn't ECKANKAR
              > publishing this historical book on the "Whole Truth"
              > of Paul Twitchell, unless, the book isn't truthful or factual!
              > Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
              > "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
              > Twitchell.
              >
              > However, Marman is a hypocrite! He can dish out criticisms
              > of David Lane's and Ford Johnson's works for not crossing
              > their t's or dotting their i's, but when DM does the same
              > (and worse) Doug's excuse is that the "whole truth" about
              > PT now becomes too elusive and, thereby, unattainable,
              > and that Twitchell, basically, dealt in half-truths anyway.
              >
              > Therefore, this fact makes the title of Marman's book as
              > inaccurate as its contents. Thus, Marman's mindless exercise
              > becomes a pointless display of ignorance because the
              > whole of the information ("whole truth") of Twitchell's
              > scam will never be fully known. This can be said of anyone,
              > and anything - can fiction really be disproven, especially,
              > with so many gullible and ignorant people wanting and
              > needing to believe in things "magical" and mysterious!
              >
              > This is why Facts, Past Behaviours, Logic, Common Sense,
              > Intelligence, Awareness, Empathy (History too) and, especially,
              > Critical Thinking are used to piece together an overall view of
              > the "Truth."
              >
              > Actually, all one needs to do is to look at the words and
              > behaviours of the U.S. President G.W. Bush and his Vice-
              > President "Dick" Chaney and many/most can NOW see
              > their distortions of truth without needing to see the "whole
              > truth" of their obvious lies, let alone, the behind the scenes
              > scam. We (mostly) know enough NOT to trust these men.
              > The same applies to Marman's books and opinions, to all
              > of Twitchell's works, and to anything Klemp has to say!
              > Sometimes it just takes awhile for others to see as others
              > point out the flaws and distortions. Sometimes one is able
              > to see behind the curtain and the facade of what others
              > claim as truth, but to do so means one has to STOP being
              > a follower!
              >
              > However, ECKists shouldn't feel bad for having been fooled
              > for so long. For most of us this has been a good lesson, and
              > has taught us Not to be fooled again by other "experts" or
              > "guru/Masters." Spiritual Seekers Do Not Need to become
              > followers of men or of their religions or of "their" ideals.
              > Soul is a Law unto Its Self and to Spirit. Soul needs no
              > middlemen and yet we are all "teachers" to one another
              > without one being "above" another!
              >
              > Prometheus
              >
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > prometheus wrote:
              > > >
              > > > 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 ---
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • prometheus_973
              Hi Mish, I think that the real sleeping dogs lie are the three lying EK Mahantas beginning with Twitchell. Isn t it interesting that many ECKists overlook
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 24, 2007
                Hi Mish,
                I think that the real "sleeping dogs lie" are the
                three "lying" EK Mahantas beginning with Twitchell.

                Isn't it interesting that many ECKists overlook
                and are forgiving of the imperfections of Twitchell,
                but Not of Gross. And, ECKists definitely overlook
                the imperfections of Klemp! They think his goofy
                behaviour and simple-minded stories and jumping
                around when giving a talk are due to his quirky or
                eccentric nature and reflect upon his huge intellect
                and spiritual consciousness. LOL!

                Most ECKists NEED to imagine that HK is "ALL THAT"
                and more! They imagine that he is juggling all kinds
                of unimaginable things (beyond our limited comprehensions),
                as well as, Soul Traveling simultaneously to multiple
                Inner worlds while glancing at his note cards and giving
                his stupid little hellos and simple-minded seminar
                stories. <smile>

                See, Klemp has to be more than the PERFECT GOD of all
                of the other religions because Klemp states that this GOD
                is only a 2nd or 4th PLANE GOD or SATAN (KAL). Page 385
                of Klemp's "Autobiography of a Modern Prophet" states
                this as do the Holy Books (Shariyats) of ECKANKAR.
                Just look up SATAN in the index and one will see that it
                refers to the KAL who rules the LOWER WORLDS.

                Once again, Where's Rebazar? RT NOW seems to be
                showing up in the dreams of deluded chelas more that
                ever before! However, Rebazar DID NOT appear in Gail's
                dream after PT's death. Instead PT "appeared" to Gail
                (she claims) and told her that Gross was to be The Chosen
                One (over Klemp)! This was her dream which indicated her
                ambition to continue the scam with her new found lover.

                And Gross, or the Black Magician according to Klemp,
                chose Klemp after 9-10 years as LEM/Mahanta to replace
                himself (See Ch. 7, Soul Travelers of the Far Country).

                It WAS NOT Rebazar that chose Klemp! Therefore, BOTH
                Gross and Klemp ARE NOT valid LEM/Mahantas! Twitchell
                was the only "Mahanta" with a direct connection of Initiation
                to Rebazar Tarzs (he claimed)!

                Isn't it, also, interesting that Rebazar (supposedly) gave
                Twitchell ALL of his Initiations (except for Kirpal's) while
                Gross got 2 or 3 initiations from Twitchell and 2 or 3
                approved/from the ECKANKAR Board of Trustees. DG
                skipped at least the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th
                WHEN Rebazar (supposedly) gave Gross the 12th within
                a matter of days! Later, RT (supposedly) gave Gross the
                13th and 14th Initiation while SUGMAD gave him even
                more! Therefore, how could a 12th like Klemp, and the
                ECKANKAR Board know what the plans of SUGMAD were
                for Gross (the Mahanta) and for ECKANKAR? Yet, they
                saw the "physical" evidence and made their emotional
                assumptions and removed Gross in a most underhanded
                way. They used lawyers!

                To make another point: Klemp received the 1st, 2nd, 3rd
                and maybe the 4th initiation from Twitchell. However, HK
                received the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th,
                and 14th from Gross!

                Anyway, where's Gail now? Without her Gross and even
                Klemp would never have been chosen to replace Paul!

                Gail was the Co-Founder of the ECKANKAR Church and
                today she isn't even a member! Or, do some ECKists think
                that she might be an ECK Master working with the Mahanta,
                or outside of ECKANKAR working with the Nine Silent Ones?

                Is Gail working with the Mahanta? If so, I wonder which one?!

                If Gail is recognized as an ECK Master then she could start
                her own Sect apart from ECKANKAR couldn't she? I wonder.
                Did Gail sign a Non-Competition Clause with ECKANKAR?!
                Hmmmm.

                Prometheus


                STEVE R. then replied to Mark with this:

                "I would not use the word 'culminate'. Lane already has
                a very large website as a response to Doug. Personally,
                as Lane cites me by name on the first page, I would have
                preferred that Doug had focused on Paul rather than Lane.
                Even better, I would have preferred that he let SLEEPING
                DOGS LIE." [MY CAPS]


                *****************************************************************
                mishmisha wrote:
                >
                > Hi, All!
                >
                > In reading some of the posts on other sites, like A.R.E. &
                > HuChat, it appears that Doug Marman is quite controversial
                > even among his fellow eckists. Some are really eagerly
                > grasping onto his spin, his new book, while others are
                > obviously annoyed by it. Perhaps, the current high profile
                > ek reviewers are trying to "act as if" the book "The Whole
                > Truth" doesn't even exist, so there is no yea or nay
                > comments coming from the higher ups including Klemp.
                > They are turning a blind eye so to speak??? But behind the
                > scenes, what commotion is really there--is Doug headed for
                > some trouble from the Klemp camp?? That would be
                > interesting to know seeing how Klemp reacted to Ford Johnson
                > and Graham Forsyth.
                >
                > Anyway, it seems that Rich (Cybersailor) and some others
                > really like the book; hence, Rich wanted to post the link here
                > on ESA--bravo, Rich, for the courage that took!! Especially in
                > light of the silence regarding the book from Minnapolis and the
                > problems some of his fellow online eck chatters have with it! LOL!
                >
                > From HuChat, recently posted, here's some portions of the
                > book discussion taking place there:
                >
                > Joe Homsey wrote and Steve R replied:
                >
                > > Gail Twitchell and Brad Steiger have also complimented
                > > Doug Marman's "The Whole Truth".
                > >
                > > If I'm not mistaken, Gail Twitchell was quoted saying
                > > something along the line, "Someone finely got it right
                > > about Paul Twitchell."
                >
                > I sure am glad that none of us is resorting to an appeal to
                > celebrity or authority here. <g>
                >
                > With all due respect to Gail and Brad, I do not know whether
                > either of them is working within Eckankar today or with the
                > current Living ECK Master. Of course both are great primary
                > sources, as is Patti Simpson, regarding the particulars of
                > Paul's life. Sometimes the endorsement of authorities can be
                > meaningful. But as far as I am aware, none is currently an
                > active ECKist. I may be mistaken too (It has happened before.)
                >
                > Sri Harold has written quite a bit about Paul, much of which is
                > posted on the main Eckankar website. I wonder if Gail includes
                > what Harold has had to say about Paul in her statement about
                > someone finally getting it right. I have thought that Harold pretty
                > much got it right. But then do I want to rely on him as an
                > "authority" or do I want to rely more on my own experience? I
                > believe that Harold himself would defer to personal experience.
                >
                > With Love in ECK,
                >
                > Steve (end of HuChat post)
                >
                > Also, here's some comments from Mark Alexander in his
                > post on HuChat:
                >
                > Mark is telling "Cheryl, I don't know if I'm reading this right,
                > but if you read me as using Doug as an authority, you misread me.
                > I was pointing to Doug as an example of how much work it takes
                > to make a thorough case to counter dubious authorities like David
                > Lane who easily sway those who respond merely to authorities."
                >
                > ME HERE: Now I found Mark's comment rather intriguing because
                > he is saying that Doug is not an authority; yet he calls David
                > Lane a "dubious" authority who obviously troubles Mark because
                > David Lane is able to impact those who read what he (David) writes.
                > LOL!
                >
                > Mark Alexander further wrote: "By the way, Patti Simpson and
                > Fred Foos (of Fred and Anya Foos fame) have both weighed in on
                > Doug's book as well:
                >
                > http://spiritualdialogues.com/
                >
                > HU Mark"
                >
                > Steve R then replied to Mark with this:
                >
                > "I would not use the word 'culminate'. Lane already has a very
                > large website as a response to Doug. Personally, as Lane cites me
                > by name on the first page, I would have preferred that Doug had
                > focused on Paul rather than Lane. Even better, I would have
                > preferred that he let sleeping dogs lie."
                >
                > ME HERE: So, it seems some view Doug's new book as
                > re-opening of a can of worms. Some see it as going back to
                > square one in the debates with David Lane and of course, this
                > will focus once again seekers' attentions onto the controversial
                > arguments regarding the scam, lies and deceit that is all a big
                > part of the made-up fake religion called eckankar! I think that
                > Klemp is not so happy with Doug Marman right now as it surely
                > brings back all the old discussions that are still easily found
                > in searches on the Internet! Klemp just can't control the big
                > world of Cyberspace even though Klemp has stated in his
                > book "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," that as the Mahanta,
                > "he is the highest state of consciousness known to the
                > chronicles of mankind." LOL!
                >
                > As Steve R. suggested, it would be better to let sleeping dogs
                > lie regarding David Lane for sure, and especially Ford Johnson
                > (a former RESA and spokesman for eckankar), as well! : )
                >
                > So in answer to the question:
                > "Why aren't there Current High Profile ECKists supporting
                > Marman's book . . . ?"
                >
                > The answer is Doug M. not only questions the factual
                > existence of Rebazar, but he has also stated that the eck
                > initiations are mostly myth. One can go to the Links page on
                > this site and look at the first link to read Doug's comments on
                > these subjects. And as some eckists suggest they'd rather let
                > sleeping dogs lie (David Lane & Ford Johnson). And finally,
                > Doug is not following Klemp's point of view regarding PT's
                > half truths--Doug is contradicting the present mahanta's
                > spin! How dare he do that! : )
                >
                > Mish
                >
                >
                > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                > "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Why doesn't Marman have current high profile ECKists
                > > writing reviews for his new book? Instead, Marman has
                > > the Science Fiction writer Brad (B.S.) Steiger, and former
                > > EK 8th Initiate (and Gross supporter) Patti Simpson
                > > writing supportive reviews.
                > >
                > > And, let's not forget good old Gail Twitchell who was
                > > the Co-founder of ECKANKAR! She, also, supports
                > > and defends Marman's distorted view of her and
                > > Paul's (their) ECKANKAR Scam. It is obvious why she
                > > wrote a glowing review. However, Why isn't she following
                > > or supporting the current Mahanta Klemp? Why isn't Patti?
                > >
                > > So, once again, Why aren't there Current High Profile
                > > ECKists supporting Marman's book with glowing reviews?
                > > Why doesn't Peter, Bob, Don, Doug, Marge, Mary, Debbie,
                > > Carol, Elmo, Joan, or the great Harold Klemp write some
                > > glowing book reviews like the ones that Brad, Patti, and
                > > Gail have written?
                > >
                > > Liz brought up a good question. Why isn't ECKANKAR
                > > publishing this historical book on the "Whole Truth"
                > > of Paul Twitchell, unless, the book isn't truthful or factual!
                > > Marman does a nice little Chicken Dance around the term
                > > "truth" in order to justify his inaccuracies and the lies of
                > > Twitchell.
                > >
                > > However, Marman is a hypocrite! He can dish out criticisms
                > > of David Lane's and Ford Johnson's works for not crossing
                > > their t's or dotting their i's, but when DM does the same
                > > (and worse) Doug's excuse is that the "whole truth" about
                > > PT now becomes too elusive and, thereby, unattainable,
                > > and that Twitchell, basically, dealt in half-truths anyway.
                > >
                > > Therefore, this fact makes the title of Marman's book as
                > > inaccurate as its contents. Thus, Marman's mindless exercise
                > > becomes a pointless display of ignorance because the
                > > whole of the information ("whole truth") of Twitchell's
                > > scam will never be fully known. This can be said of anyone,
                > > and anything - can fiction really be disproven, especially,
                > > with so many gullible and ignorant people wanting and
                > > needing to believe in things "magical" and mysterious!
                > >
                > > This is why Facts, Past Behaviours, Logic, Common Sense,
                > > Intelligence, Awareness, Empathy (History too) and, especially,
                > > Critical Thinking are used to piece together an overall view of
                > > the "Truth."
                > >
                > > Actually, all one needs to do is to look at the words and
                > > behaviours of the U.S. President G.W. Bush and his Vice-
                > > President "Dick" Chaney and many/most can NOW see
                > > their distortions of truth without needing to see the "whole
                > > truth" of their obvious lies, let alone, the behind the scenes
                > > scam. We (mostly) know enough NOT to trust these men.
                > > The same applies to Marman's books and opinions, to all
                > > of Twitchell's works, and to anything Klemp has to say!
                > > Sometimes it just takes awhile for others to see as others
                > > point out the flaws and distortions. Sometimes one is able
                > > to see behind the curtain and the facade of what others
                > > claim as truth, but to do so means one has to STOP being
                > > a follower!
                > >
                > > However, ECKists shouldn't feel bad for having been fooled
                > > for so long. For most of us this has been a good lesson, and
                > > has taught us Not to be fooled again by other "experts" or
                > > "guru/Masters." Spiritual Seekers Do Not Need to become
                > > followers of men or of their religions or of "their" ideals.
                > > Soul is a Law unto Its Self and to Spirit. Soul needs no
                > > middlemen and yet we are all "teachers" to one another
                > > without one being "above" another!
                > >
                > > Prometheus
                > >
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > prometheus wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > 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 ---
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • mishmisha9
                Hi, All! It seems that Steve R would like us to believe that he is interested in reading Doug Marman s new book after all! Here s Steve R s reply to Michael
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 26, 2007
                  Hi, All!

                  It seems that Steve R would like us to believe that he is
                  interested in reading Doug Marman's new book after
                  all! Here's Steve R's reply to Michael concerning "The
                  Whole Truth", post # 60882 from HuChat, posted on
                  Aug. 26, 2007. Steve explains that Doug's book gives
                  credence to the eck teachings and history while Harold
                  Klemp, who is listed in the International Who's Who of
                  Intellectuals Ninth Edition, fails to do this with his eck
                  books? So while reading this consider that Steve R is
                  saying that Marman is the better writer and that he knows
                  more than the living eck master/mahanta! LOL! I love
                  these spins that H.I.'s like Steve R conjure up in defending
                  the eck teachings and making the fake religion with all its
                  controversy more easy to swallow by the gullible chelas.

                  As to the Steve R being unable to afford to spend $20 for
                  Marman's book delaying his purchase right now, well,
                  perhaps, if Steve truly wanted to read the book, all he would
                  need to do is not buy his one week supply of Krispy Krème
                  donuts. He'd probably have more than enough money to
                  buy the book! : )

                  Here's the post beginning with Michael's comment:

                  Re: [HU-Chat] Re: Global Warming and Junk
                  Science

                  Michael W wrote:

                  > I must say, what has been left with me after reading
                  Doug's book is the sense of Paul unlike what I have
                  received through any other ECK publication.>

                  Steve R wrote:

                  I still have not read Doug's book, and I do plan to as soon
                  as I can afford the $20. I have heard lots of really good things
                  about it, and I am featured, if not in the book, at least in
                  Lane's response to it (ugh).

                  Phil Morimitsu spoke at our regional seminar last month and
                  part of his talk was about the process of working with the
                  Living ECK Master in writing his books for Eckankar. It was
                  a fascinating illustration of just one of the ways in which the
                  Master teaches and of the care that he
                  puts into anything that is published by Eckankar. His first
                  book just flowed. His second ECK book took him five years
                  and many versions. Harold kept rejecting them, but never
                  told Phil precisely why. So he learned quite a bit during those
                  five years. Kind of like Milarepa or the Karate Kid <g>.

                  I have also known a few ECKists who have written some very
                  good books on their own. Sometimes, if there is a spiritual
                  subtext to the work, I have heard chelas refer to the book as
                  an "ECK book". On several occassions I have heard the
                  authors later lament this development. On several other
                  occassions the author has ended up leaving Eckanakr to
                  start their own teaching.

                  In the case of Doug's book, I seem to have the impression
                  that he wrote the book independently so as to give it greater
                  academic creedence than would a book published by
                  Eckanakar (Doug, please correct me if I am wrong.). Even
                  though Doug is an ECKist, he is presenting his own
                  research, independently from the Eckankar organization.
                  Perhaps this will give the book greater credence in academic
                  circles - hopefully.

                  Comparing Doug's book with "other ECK publications" can
                  give the impression that it is itself an "ECK publication",
                  which it is not. Although from what I hear, it is a very good
                  book. It's purpose is just very different from that of ECK
                  publications.

                  With Love in ECK,

                  Steve

                  ###
                  End of Steve R's post! So there you have it—Harold Klemp's
                  books (and other authors of eck books) fail the test in academic
                  circles yet Klemp is listed in the International Who's Who of
                  Intellectuals? Certainly, Harold Klemp cannot write worth a
                  damn, but I didn't think a high profile H.I. like Steve R would
                  actually say this on a BB! It seems like Steve R is stumbling
                  around all over the place—perhaps, he's the one who should
                  have let sleeping dogs lie! : )


                  Check out what Steve R originally wrote that shows his
                  180 turn around regarding "The Whole Truth", in the post
                  below:

                  --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                  "mishmisha9" <mishmisha9@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi, All!
                  >
                  > In reading some of the posts on other sites, like A.R.E. &
                  > HuChat, it appears that Doug Marman is quite controversial
                  > even among his fellow eckists. Some are really eagerly
                  > grasping onto his spin, his new book, while others are
                  > obviously annoyed by it. Perhaps, the current high profile
                  > ek reviewers are trying to "act as if" the book "The Whole
                  > Truth" doesn't even exist, so there is no yea or nay
                  > comments coming from the higher ups including Klemp.
                  > They are turning a blind eye so to speak??? But behind the
                  > scenes, what commotion is really there--is Doug headed for
                  > some trouble from the Klemp camp?? That would be
                  > interesting to know seeing how Klemp reacted to Ford Johnson
                  > and Graham Forsyth.
                  >
                  > Anyway, it seems that Rich (Cybersailor) and some others
                  > really like the book; hence, Rich wanted to post the link here
                  > on ESA--bravo, Rich, for the courage that took!! Especially in
                  > light of the silence regarding the book from Minnapolis and the
                  > problems some of his fellow online eck chatters have with it! LOL!
                  >
                  > From HuChat, recently posted, here's some portions of the
                  > book discussion taking place there:
                  >
                  > Joe Homsey wrote and Steve R replied:
                  >
                  > > Gail Twitchell and Brad Steiger have also complimented
                  > > Doug Marman's "The Whole Truth".
                  > >
                  > > If I'm not mistaken, Gail Twitchell was quoted saying
                  > > something along the line, "Someone finely got it right
                  > > about Paul Twitchell."
                  >
                  > I sure am glad that none of us is resorting to an appeal to
                  > celebrity or authority here. <g>
                  >
                  > With all due respect to Gail and Brad, I do not know whether
                  > either of them is working within Eckankar today or with the
                  > current Living ECK Master. Of course both are great primary
                  > sources, as is Patti Simpson, regarding the particulars of
                  > Paul's life. Sometimes the endorsement of authorities can be
                  > meaningful. But as far as I am aware, none is currently an
                  > active ECKist. I may be mistaken too (It has happened before.)
                  >
                  > Sri Harold has written quite a bit about Paul, much of which is
                  > posted on the main Eckankar website. I wonder if Gail includes
                  > what Harold has had to say about Paul in her statement about
                  > someone finally getting it right. I have thought that Harold pretty
                  > much got it right. But then do I want to rely on him as an
                  > "authority" or do I want to rely more on my own experience? I
                  > believe that Harold himself would defer to personal experience.
                  >
                  > With Love in ECK,
                  >
                  > Steve (end of HuChat post)
                  >
                  > Also, here's some comments from Mark Alexander in his
                  > post on HuChat:
                  >
                  > Mark is telling "Cheryl, I don't know if I'm reading this right,
                  > but if you read me as using Doug as an authority, you misread me.
                  > I was pointing to Doug as an example of how much work it takes
                  > to make a thorough case to counter dubious authorities like David
                  > Lane who easily sway those who respond merely to authorities."
                  >
                  > ME HERE: Now I found Mark's comment rather intriguing because
                  > he is saying that Doug is not an authority; yet he calls David
                  > Lane a "dubious" authority who obviously troubles Mark because
                  > David Lane is able to impact those who read what he (David) writes.
                  > LOL!
                  >
                  > Mark Alexander further wrote: "By the way, Patti Simpson and
                  > Fred Foos (of Fred and Anya Foos fame) have both weighed in on
                  > Doug's book as well:
                  >
                  > http://spiritualdialogues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemi
                  > \d=28#jc_writeComment
                  >
                  > HU Mark"
                  >
                  > Steve R then replied to Mark with this:
                  >
                  > "I would not use the word 'culminate'. Lane already has a very
                  > large website as a response to Doug. Personally, as Lane cites me
                  > by name on the first page, I would have preferred that Doug had
                  > focused on Paul rather than Lane. Even better, I would have
                  > preferred that he let sleeping dogs lie."
                  >
                  > ME HERE: So, it seems some view Doug's new book as
                  > re-opening of a can of worms. Some see it as going back to
                  > square one in the debates with David Lane and of course, this
                  > will focus once again seekers' attentions onto the controversial
                  > arguments regarding the scam, lies and deceit that is all a big
                  > part of the made-up fake religion called eckankar! I think that
                  > Klemp is not so happy with Doug Marman right now as it surely
                  > brings back all the old discussions that are still easily found
                  > in searches on the Internet! Klemp just can't control the big
                  > world of Cyberspace even though Klemp has stated in his
                  > book "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," that as the Mahanta,
                  > "he is the highest state of consciousness known to the
                  > chronicles of mankind." LOL!
                  >
                  > As Steve R. suggested, it would be better to let sleeping dogs
                  > lie regarding David Lane for sure, and especially Ford Johnson
                  > (a former RESA and spokesman for eckankar), as well! : )
                  >
                  > So in answer to the question:
                  > "Why aren't there Current High Profile ECKists supporting
                  > Marman's book . . . ?"
                  >
                  > The answer is Doug M. not only questions the factual
                  > existence of Rebazar, but he has also stated that the eck
                  > initiations are mostly myth. One can go to the Links page on
                  > this site and look at the first link to read Doug's comments on
                  > these subjects. And as some eckists suggest they'd rather let
                  >sleeping dogs lie (David Lane & Ford Johnson). And finally, Doug
                  >is not following Klemp's point of view regarding PT's half truths--
                  >Doug is contradicting the present mahanta's spin! How dare
                  > he do that! : )
                  >
                  > Mish
                  >
                • Elizabeth
                  ... Doug s book is the sense of Paul unlike what I have received through any other ECK publication. God Michael is still around? Yes, well he too is a master
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 27, 2007
                     
                     
                     
                    >Michael W wrote: 
                    > I must say, what has been left with me after reading
                    Doug's book is the sense of Paul unlike what I have
                    received through any other ECK publication.>
                     
                     
                    God Michael is still around?  Yes, well he too is a master in his own right.  Even if he says so himself! If he isn't selling water, he is trying to sell sound...
                     
                     
                     
                    >Steve R wrote:
                    I still have not read Doug's book, and I do plan to as soon
                    as I can afford the $20. I have heard lots of really good things
                    about it, and I am featured, if not in the book, at least in
                    Lane's response to it (ugh).
                     
                     
                    Ugh and double ugh!   Steve R isn't really "that worried about being "featured" in Doug's book....   Another guy who thinks he is a master in his own right!   
                     
                     
                    >Phil Morimitsu spoke at our regional seminar last month and
                    part of his talk was about the process of working with the
                    Living ECK Master in writing his books for Eckankar. It was
                    a fascinating illustration of just one of the ways in which the
                    Master teaches and of the care that he
                    puts into anything that is published by Eckankar. His first
                    book just flowed. His second ECK book took him five years
                    and many versions. Harold kept rejecting them, but never
                    told Phil precisely why. So he learned quite a bit during those
                    five years. Kind of like Milarepa or the Karate Kid <g>.
                     
                     
                    Poor Phil, being tested for the mastership...  Well, that is what most thought at one time anyway.  A Master in the making by non other than someone who thinks he "knows" he is a master, of the entire universe.  You know what I could write a children's fairy tale based on this 'krap.
                     
                     
                     
                    >I have also known a few ECKists who have written some very
                    good books on their own. Sometimes, if there is a spiritual
                    subtext to the work, I have heard chelas refer to the book as
                    an "ECK book". On several occassions I have heard the
                    authors later lament this development. On several other
                    Occassions the author has ended up leaving Eckanakr to
                    start their own teaching.
                     
                    Hmmm,  James Davis, Ford Johnson, Michael Owen's, Winged Wolf what's her name again?, Bettine Clement (flute lady now an Avatar) Heather Hughs Calero (my spelling sucks but ya get the idea).  Ooops almost forgot those 3 ladies can't become LEMs so they went out and either started their own spiritual path, or was elevated in one, higher than eckankrap would or could recognize.  Could we also include Patti Simpson to the mix?  Just wondering; if eckankrap didn't have it's male chauvinistic spin, couldn't all of these women, including Gail and Klemp's current wife Joan all qualify as FLEMs?  
                     
                     
                     
                    >In the case of Doug's book, I seem to have the impression
                    that he wrote the book independently so as to give it greater
                    academic creedence than would a book published by
                    Eckanakar (Doug, please correct me if I am wrong.). Even
                    though Doug is an ECKist, he is presenting his own
                    research, independently from the Eckankar organization.
                    Perhaps this will give the book greater credence in academic
                    circles - hopefully.
                     
                     
                    Tell me, just who in the heck is going to give two shits for this book if they are not eckists?  Nobody!  This is just a spin doctor, trying to look like he hasn't been riding the fence.  After all, sooo many eckies look up to Steve, though he could never fit on a pedestal... I envision him sitting similar to jabba the hun, fat and disgusting munchin on them Krispy Kremes....       
                     
                     
                    >Comparing Doug's book with "other ECK publications" can
                    give the impression that it is itself an "ECK publication",
                    which it is not. Although from what I hear, it is a very good
                    book. It's purpose is just very different from that of ECK
                    Publications.
                     
                     
                    Ugh!   what the hell did he just say?  LOL  Spin spin spin....   And why do they always sign off with "Love in Eck"?  Does that make it "all right" in their book?  Such BS; someone had to come up with a diversion from the detractors...   Spin it just a little better than David, or Ford, but all the same really.  This book will do ONE thing,  take the attention off of the Mahanta and his mission!  That is why it isn't being promoted or published by Klemp and Company!  Dredging up old Paul Twitchell shit has to be Klemp's worst nightmare right about now...   When you think about it; Doug, Rich and Cheryl (who by the way can eat Steve R under the table, when it comes to Krispy Kreme Donuts)    are just an embarrassment to Klemp and Company!  God how many splinter groups can come out of eckankrap?   Ohhh I just thought of a couple more guys that left the teachings years ago to create "the first of many" splinters of this made up religion. 
                     
                    Liz
                     
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     
                    With Love in ECK,
                     
                    Steve
                     
                    ###
                    End of Steve R's post! So there you have it—Harold Klemp's
                    books (and other authors of eck books) fail the test in academic
                    circles yet Klemp is listed in the International Who's Who of
                    Intellectuals? Certainly, Harold Klemp cannot write worth a
                    damn, but I didn't think a high profile H.I. like Steve R would
                    actually say this on a BB! It seems like Steve R is stumbling
                    around all over the place—perhaps, he's the one who should
                    have let sleeping dogs lie! : )
                     
                     
                    Check out what Steve R originally wrote that shows his
                    180 turn around regarding "The Whole Truth", in the post
                    below:
                     
                    "mishmisha9" <mishmisha9@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi, All!
                    >
                    > In reading some of the posts on other sites, like A.R.E. &
                    > HuChat, it appears that Doug Marman is quite controversial
                    > even among his fellow eckists. Some are really eagerly
                    > grasping onto his spin, his new book, while others are
                    > obviously annoyed by it. Perhaps, the current high profile
                    > ek reviewers are trying to "act as if" the book "The Whole
                    > Truth" doesn't even exist, so there is no yea or nay
                    > comments coming from the higher ups including Klemp.
                    > They are turning a blind eye so to speak??? But behind the
                    > scenes, what commotion is really there--is Doug headed for
                    > some trouble from the Klemp camp?? That would be
                    > interesting to know seeing how Klemp reacted to Ford Johnson
                    > and Graham Forsyth.
                    >
                    > Anyway, it seems that Rich (Cybersailor) and some others
                    > really like the book; hence, Rich wanted to post the link here
                    > on ESA--bravo, Rich, for the courage that took!! Especially in
                    > light of the silence regarding the book from Minnapolis and the
                    > problems some of his fellow online eck chatters have with it! LOL!
                    >
                    > From HuChat, recently posted, here's some portions of the
                    > book discussion taking place there:
                    >
                    > Joe Homsey wrote and Steve R replied:
                    >
                    > > Gail Twitchell and Brad Steiger have also complimented
                    > > Doug Marman's "The Whole Truth".
                    > >
                    > > If I'm not mistaken, Gail Twitchell was quoted saying
                    > > something along the line, "Someone finely got it right
                    > > about Paul Twitchell."
                    >
                    > I sure am glad that none of us is resorting to an appeal to
                    > celebrity or authority here. <g>
                    >
                    > With all due respect to Gail and Brad, I do not know whether
                    > either of them is working within Eckankar today or with the
                    > current Living ECK Master. Of course both are great primary
                    > sources, as is Patti Simpson, regarding the particulars of
                    > Paul's life. Sometimes the endorsement of authorities can be
                    > meaningful. But as far as I am aware, none is currently an
                    > active ECKist. I may be mistaken too (It has happened before.)
                    >
                    > Sri Harold has written quite a bit about Paul, much of which is
                    > posted on the main Eckankar website. I wonder if Gail includes
                    > what Harold has had to say about Paul in her statement about
                    > someone finally getting it right. I have thought that Harold pretty
                    > much got it right. But then do I want to rely on him as an
                    > "authority" or do I want to rely more on my own experience? I
                    > believe that Harold himself would defer to personal experience.
                    >
                    > With Love in ECK,
                    >
                    > Steve (end of HuChat post)
                    >
                    > Also, here's some comments from Mark Alexander in his
                    > post on HuChat:
                    >
                    > Mark is telling "Cheryl, I don't know if I'm reading this right,
                    > but if you read me as using Doug as an authority, you misread me.
                    > I was pointing to Doug as an example of how much work it takes
                    > to make a thorough case to counter dubious authorities like David
                    > Lane who easily sway those who respond merely to authorities."
                    >
                    > ME HERE: Now I found Mark's comment rather intriguing because
                    > he is saying that Doug is not an authority; yet he calls David
                    > Lane a "dubious" authority who obviously troubles Mark because
                    > David Lane is able to impact those who read what he (David) writes.
                    > LOL!
                    >
                    > Mark Alexander further wrote: "By the way, Patti Simpson and
                    > Fred Foos (of Fred and Anya Foos fame) have both weighed in on
                    > Doug's book as well:
                    >
                    > \d=28#jc_writeComment
                    >
                    > HU  Mark"
                    >
                    > Steve R then replied to Mark with this:
                    >
                    > "I would not use the word 'culminate'. Lane already has a very
                    > large website as a response to Doug. Personally, as Lane cites me
                    > by name on the first page, I would have preferred that Doug had
                    > focused on Paul rather than Lane. Even better, I would have
                    > preferred that he let sleeping dogs lie."
                    >
                    > ME HERE: So, it seems some view Doug's new book as
                    > re-opening of a can of worms. Some see it as going back to
                    > square one in the debates with David Lane and of course, this
                    > will focus once again seekers' attentions onto the controversial
                    > arguments regarding the scam, lies and deceit that is all a big
                    > part of the made-up fake religion called eckankar! I think that
                    > Klemp is not so happy with Doug Marman right now as it surely
                    > brings back all the old discussions that are still easily found
                    > in searches on the Internet! Klemp just can't control the big
                    > world of Cyberspace even though Klemp has stated in his
                    > book "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," that as the Mahanta,
                    > "he is the highest state of consciousness known to the
                    > chronicles of mankind." LOL!
                    >
                    > As Steve R. suggested, it would be better to let sleeping dogs
                    > lie regarding David Lane for sure, and especially Ford Johnson
                    > (a former RESA and spokesman for eckankar), as well! : )
                    >
                    > So in answer to the question:
                    > "Why aren't there Current High Profile  ECKists supporting
                    > Marman's book . . . ?"
                    >
                    > The answer is Doug M. not only questions the factual
                    > existence of Rebazar, but he has also stated that the eck
                    > initiations are mostly myth. One can go to the Links page on
                    > this site and look at the first link to read Doug's comments on
                    > these subjects. And as some eckists suggest they'd rather let
                    >sleeping dogs lie (David Lane & Ford Johnson). And finally,  Doug
                    >is not following Klemp's point of view regarding PT's half truths--
                    >Doug is contradicting the present mahanta's spin! How dare
                    > he do that! : )
                    >
                    > Mish
                    >
                     
                  • mishmisha9
                    Not to leave Cheryl s astute opine out of the discussion regarding Doug Marman s new book The Whole Truth, here s what she posted, From: cheryl, Sunday,
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 27, 2007
                      Not to leave Cheryl's astute opine out of the discussion
                      regarding Doug Marman's new book "The Whole Truth,"
                      here's what she posted,

                      From: cheryl, Sunday, August 19, 2007 8:35:27 PM
                      replying to Mark Alexander on HuChat:

                      And yet, here again you site Doug, Patti and Fred. Are they
                      authorities that sway the opinions of others? I'm not swayed
                      by names and celebrities, Mark! If I were prone to such things,
                      then perhaps Graham and Ford would've played a larger role in
                      my life. <chuckle> Doug shares a lateral mental approach to
                      taking up the fight. It's just a rationalized study in the mental
                      games surrounding the controversy of Paul Twitchell's life. Paul
                      is an ECK Master here, now! He's available to anyone who seeks
                      him out today. <wink>

                      Personally Mark, Paul has never been further from my heart
                      than my attention/intention . That Paul works on the mental
                      plane isn't lost on me in this particular instance, because this is
                      where the spotlight is shinning right now. And it's not about
                      Paul's spirituality, it's about followers of his who are stuck in the
                      controversaries surrounding Paul's life. In time that will work
                      itself out in those who are stuck in that place. For others, it's
                      just another fad along the way, a passing fancy that distracts us
                      from the spiritual mission we're here to observe and practice. If
                      Paul taught me anything at all, he taught me that the ECK has
                      always been here... now, we only have to recognize it! He also
                      taught me to forego the worship of personalities. <wink>
                      (End of Cheryl's comments)

                      ### Cheryl's use of "<wink>" can be confusing--LOL! A "wink"
                      when someone is commenting on something has always indicated
                      that the person is joking, not being serious. So is this the
                      case with Cheryl? She wrote, "Paul is an ECK Master here, now!
                      He's available to anyone who seeks him out today. <wink>"
                      It appears she didn't intend that for Truth when she added her
                      little "wink!" : )

                      Also, this comment that she wrote, "That Paul works on the
                      mental plane isn't lost on me in this particular instance, because
                      this is where the spotlight is shinning right now," shows how
                      out of balance "eck think" is! Hello, Paul is dead--he isn't
                      working anywhere right now! And as to "where the spotlight
                      is shining right now," it sure isn't on eckankar regardless how
                      much we as a group of current eckists and ex-eckists do
                      discuss eckankar. Eckankar is not in the spotlight, being its
                      lack of fame and numbers! Few people on planet earth have
                      ever heard about it--it is not an old teaching and cannot be
                      found in historical records beyond its creation by Paul
                      Twitchell in the 1960s. Gee, it took me into the late 90s to
                      "accidentally" discover it! Eckankar is just a nutty little fake
                      religion that keeps some people at the top of its hierarchy
                      out of the unemployment lines! It's job security for those on
                      top, and a scramble for those underlings who pay out their
                      hard earned money to keep the org rolling along so much in
                      fact that some chelas find difficulty in affording to buy a cheap
                      book like Marman's even! LOL!

                      Here's a question, how many eckists are there who can afford
                      a "real" vacation, going some place fun and nice? Instead, how
                      many opt to travel in the month of October to Minneapolis to
                      worship and pay hommage to Klemp instead--spending their
                      money on expensive hotel accommodations, trying to find
                      affordable dining and buying their souvenirs in the eck
                      bookshop? How much fun is that really? How relaxing is it?
                      Year after year this goes on in the lives of devoted chelas!
                      Before you know it, your time is up and spent . . . on what?
                      Nonsense! I don't call that living. I don't call it growing! I
                      don't call it utilizing what is given to us in our lifetime--IMO!
                      But some choose to do this and so it goes!

                      Mish

                      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                      "mishmisha9" <mishmisha9@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Hi, All!
                      >
                      > It seems that Steve R would like us to believe that he is
                      > interested in reading Doug Marman's new book after
                      > all! Here's Steve R's reply to Michael concerning "The
                      > Whole Truth", post # 60882 from HuChat, posted on
                      > Aug. 26, 2007. Steve explains that Doug's book gives
                      > credence to the eck teachings and history while Harold
                      > Klemp, who is listed in the International Who's Who of
                      > Intellectuals Ninth Edition, fails to do this with his eck
                      > books? So while reading this consider that Steve R is
                      > saying that Marman is the better writer and that he knows
                      > more than the living eck master/mahanta! LOL! I love
                      > these spins that H.I.'s like Steve R conjure up in defending
                      > the eck teachings and making the fake religion with all its
                      > controversy more easy to swallow by the gullible chelas.
                      >
                      > As to the Steve R being unable to afford to spend $20 for
                      > Marman's book delaying his purchase right now, well,
                      > perhaps, if Steve truly wanted to read the book, all he would
                      > need to do is not buy his one week supply of Krispy Krème
                      > donuts. He'd probably have more than enough money to
                      > buy the book! : )
                      >
                      > Here's the post beginning with Michael's comment:
                      >
                      > Re: [HU-Chat] Re: Global Warming and Junk
                      > Science
                      >
                      > Michael W wrote:
                      >
                      > > I must say, what has been left with me after reading
                      > Doug's book is the sense of Paul unlike what I have
                      > received through any other ECK publication.>
                      >
                      > Steve R wrote:
                      >
                      > I still have not read Doug's book, and I do plan to as soon
                      > as I can afford the $20. I have heard lots of really good things
                      > about it, and I am featured, if not in the book, at least in
                      > Lane's response to it (ugh).
                      >
                      > Phil Morimitsu spoke at our regional seminar last month and
                      > part of his talk was about the process of working with the
                      > Living ECK Master in writing his books for Eckankar. It was
                      > a fascinating illustration of just one of the ways in which the
                      > Master teaches and of the care that he
                      > puts into anything that is published by Eckankar. His first
                      > book just flowed. His second ECK book took him five years
                      > and many versions. Harold kept rejecting them, but never
                      > told Phil precisely why. So he learned quite a bit during those
                      > five years. Kind of like Milarepa or the Karate Kid <g>.
                      >
                      > I have also known a few ECKists who have written some very
                      > good books on their own. Sometimes, if there is a spiritual
                      > subtext to the work, I have heard chelas refer to the book as
                      > an "ECK book". On several occassions I have heard the
                      > authors later lament this development. On several other
                      > occassions the author has ended up leaving Eckanakr to
                      > start their own teaching.
                      >
                      > In the case of Doug's book, I seem to have the impression
                      > that he wrote the book independently so as to give it greater
                      > academic creedence than would a book published by
                      > Eckanakar (Doug, please correct me if I am wrong.). Even
                      > though Doug is an ECKist, he is presenting his own
                      > research, independently from the Eckankar organization.
                      > Perhaps this will give the book greater credence in academic
                      > circles - hopefully.
                      >
                      > Comparing Doug's book with "other ECK publications" can
                      > give the impression that it is itself an "ECK publication",
                      > which it is not. Although from what I hear, it is a very good
                      > book. It's purpose is just very different from that of ECK
                      > publications.
                      >
                      > With Love in ECK,
                      >
                      > Steve
                      >
                      > ###
                      > End of Steve R's post! So there you have it—Harold Klemp's
                      > books (and other authors of eck books) fail the test in academic
                      > circles yet Klemp is listed in the International Who's Who of
                      > Intellectuals? Certainly, Harold Klemp cannot write worth a
                      > damn, but I didn't think a high profile H.I. like Steve R would
                      > actually say this on a BB! It seems like Steve R is stumbling
                      > around all over the place—perhaps, he's the one who should
                      > have let sleeping dogs lie! : )
                      >
                      >
                      > Check out what Steve R originally wrote that shows his
                      > 180 turn around regarding "The Whole Truth", in the post
                      > below:
                      >
                      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                      > "mishmisha9" <mishmisha9@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi, All!
                      > >
                      > > In reading some of the posts on other sites, like A.R.E. &
                      > > HuChat, it appears that Doug Marman is quite controversial
                      > > even among his fellow eckists. Some are really eagerly
                      > > grasping onto his spin, his new book, while others are
                      > > obviously annoyed by it. Perhaps, the current high profile
                      > > ek reviewers are trying to "act as if" the book "The Whole
                      > > Truth" doesn't even exist, so there is no yea or nay
                      > > comments coming from the higher ups including Klemp.
                      > > They are turning a blind eye so to speak??? But behind the
                      > > scenes, what commotion is really there--is Doug headed for
                      > > some trouble from the Klemp camp?? That would be
                      > > interesting to know seeing how Klemp reacted to Ford Johnson
                      > > and Graham Forsyth.
                      > >
                      > > Anyway, it seems that Rich (Cybersailor) and some others
                      > > really like the book; hence, Rich wanted to post the link here
                      > > on ESA--bravo, Rich, for the courage that took!! Especially in
                      > > light of the silence regarding the book from Minnapolis and the
                      > > problems some of his fellow online eck chatters have with it! LOL!
                      > >
                      > > From HuChat, recently posted, here's some portions of the
                      > > book discussion taking place there:
                      > >
                      > > Joe Homsey wrote and Steve R replied:
                      > >
                      > > > Gail Twitchell and Brad Steiger have also complimented
                      > > > Doug Marman's "The Whole Truth".
                      > > >
                      > > > If I'm not mistaken, Gail Twitchell was quoted saying
                      > > > something along the line, "Someone finely got it right
                      > > > about Paul Twitchell."
                      > >
                      > > I sure am glad that none of us is resorting to an appeal to
                      > > celebrity or authority here. <g>
                      > >
                      > > With all due respect to Gail and Brad, I do not know whether
                      > > either of them is working within Eckankar today or with the
                      > > current Living ECK Master. Of course both are great primary
                      > > sources, as is Patti Simpson, regarding the particulars of
                      > > Paul's life. Sometimes the endorsement of authorities can be
                      > > meaningful. But as far as I am aware, none is currently an
                      > > active ECKist. I may be mistaken too (It has happened before.)
                      > >
                      > > Sri Harold has written quite a bit about Paul, much of which is
                      > > posted on the main Eckankar website. I wonder if Gail includes
                      > > what Harold has had to say about Paul in her statement about
                      > > someone finally getting it right. I have thought that Harold pretty
                      > > much got it right. But then do I want to rely on him as an
                      > > "authority" or do I want to rely more on my own experience? I
                      > > believe that Harold himself would defer to personal experience.
                      > >
                      > > With Love in ECK,
                      > >
                      > > Steve (end of HuChat post)
                      > >
                      > > Also, here's some comments from Mark Alexander in his
                      > > post on HuChat:
                      > >
                      > > Mark is telling "Cheryl, I don't know if I'm reading this right,
                      > > but if you read me as using Doug as an authority, you misread me.
                      > > I was pointing to Doug as an example of how much work it takes
                      > > to make a thorough case to counter dubious authorities like David
                      > > Lane who easily sway those who respond merely to authorities."
                      > >
                      > > ME HERE: Now I found Mark's comment rather intriguing because
                      > > he is saying that Doug is not an authority; yet he calls David
                      > > Lane a "dubious" authority who obviously troubles Mark because
                      > > David Lane is able to impact those who read what he (David) writes.
                      > > LOL!
                      > >
                      > > Mark Alexander further wrote: "By the way, Patti Simpson and
                      > > Fred Foos (of Fred and Anya Foos fame) have both weighed in on
                      > > Doug's book as well:
                      > >
                      > > http://spiritualdialogues.com/index.php?
                      option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemi
                      > > \d=28#jc_writeComment
                      > >
                      > > HU Mark"
                      > >
                      > > Steve R then replied to Mark with this:
                      > >
                      > > "I would not use the word 'culminate'. Lane already has a very
                      > > large website as a response to Doug. Personally, as Lane cites me
                      > > by name on the first page, I would have preferred that Doug had
                      > > focused on Paul rather than Lane. Even better, I would have
                      > > preferred that he let sleeping dogs lie."
                      > >
                      > > ME HERE: So, it seems some view Doug's new book as
                      > > re-opening of a can of worms. Some see it as going back to
                      > > square one in the debates with David Lane and of course, this
                      > > will focus once again seekers' attentions onto the controversial
                      > > arguments regarding the scam, lies and deceit that is all a big
                      > > part of the made-up fake religion called eckankar! I think that
                      > > Klemp is not so happy with Doug Marman right now as it surely
                      > > brings back all the old discussions that are still easily found
                      > > in searches on the Internet! Klemp just can't control the big
                      > > world of Cyberspace even though Klemp has stated in his
                      > > book "Those Wonderful ECK Masters," that as the Mahanta,
                      > > "he is the highest state of consciousness known to the
                      > > chronicles of mankind." LOL!
                      > >
                      > > As Steve R. suggested, it would be better to let sleeping dogs
                      > > lie regarding David Lane for sure, and especially Ford Johnson
                      > > (a former RESA and spokesman for eckankar), as well! : )
                      > >
                      > > So in answer to the question:
                      > > "Why aren't there Current High Profile ECKists supporting
                      > > Marman's book . . . ?"
                      > >
                      > > The answer is Doug M. not only questions the factual
                      > > existence of Rebazar, but he has also stated that the eck
                      > > initiations are mostly myth. One can go to the Links page on
                      > > this site and look at the first link to read Doug's comments on
                      > > these subjects. And as some eckists suggest they'd rather let
                      > >sleeping dogs lie (David Lane & Ford Johnson). And finally, Doug
                      > >is not following Klemp's point of view regarding PT's half truths--
                      > >Doug is contradicting the present mahanta's spin! How dare
                      > > he do that! : )
                      > >
                      > > Mish
                      > >
                      >
                    • prometheus_973
                      Hi Mish, Thanks for the info. BTW- I liked Liz s posts too! I ve got some of my own comments to share on chela Truthiness.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 27, 2007
                        Hi Mish,
                        Thanks for the info. BTW- I liked Liz's posts too!
                        I've got some of my own comments to share on
                        chela "Truthiness."

                        ******************************************************
                        From: Cheryl G., Sunday, August 19, 2007 8:35:27 PM
                        replying to Mark Alexander on HU-Chat:

                        [C] "And yet, here again you site Doug, Patti and Fred.
                        Are they authorities that sway the opinions of others?
                        I'm not swayed by names and celebrities..."

                        ME: Does Cheryl mean that neither Marman, Runfeldt,
                        Morimitsu, Moore, Davis, Johnson, or Twitchell & Klemp
                        sways her with their opinions? WOW! I guess CG must
                        get everything direct from her source... the Inner/Astral!

                        [C] "Doug shares a lateral mental approach... It's just a
                        RATIONALIZED study in the MENTAL GAMES surrounding
                        the controversy of Paul Twitchell's life."

                        ME: True, Doug does rationalize a lot. Then, again, most
                        ECKists do! This is how they fill-in the blanks when Klemp
                        leaves them guessing.

                        [C] "Paul is an ECK Master here, now! He's available to
                        anyone who seeks him out today. <WINK>"

                        ME: I guess that the "<wink>" that Cheryl gives must
                        mean that she is joking with her comment. Therefore,
                        she is saying that Paul IS NOT here now and is NOT
                        AVAILABLE to anyone who seeks him out today!

                        [C] "... Paul works on the mental plane... this is where
                        the spotlight is shinning right now. And it's NOT about
                        Paul's spirituality, it's about followers of his who are
                        STUCK in the controversaries surrounding Paul's life.
                        In time that will work itself out in those who are STUCK
                        in that place."

                        ME: FIRST, I thought Paul's work was mainly research
                        done in the ASTRAL LIBRARY. That's what Klemp has
                        said. Klemp, apparently, hangs out on the Astral too.
                        HK's seen PT in the Astral library on many occasions
                        writing in the margins of ancient manuscripts! LOL!

                        SECOND, Cheryl says that PT's followers are "STUCK
                        in that place" of controversary. Let's face it - there will
                        always be controversary surrounding PT's lies due to
                        on-going editing and cover-up. It's what scammers
                        do as part of their damage control. The suckers/foolish
                        followers and ECK Leaders do the damage control
                        edits and the rationalizations because they fear being
                        on their own with an independent and personal perspective
                        when facing the Real Truth. It's much easier with the
                        blinders and filters on when listening to and following
                        Klemp's recycled and redundant "wisdom."

                        [C] "For others, it's just another FAD along the way a
                        passing fancy..."

                        ME: I don't know if the history of ECKANKAR and
                        of the FIRST LEM/Mahanta (Twitchell) is just a "fad"
                        or a "passing fancy?" Apparently, Cheryl sees TRUTH
                        as a "FAD" and "PASSING FANCY" as well! Cheryl does
                        seem to be attached to her own personal delusions,
                        distortions, and rationalizations. She sees the view
                        atop the Lightning Worlds and thinks she is all
                        powerful. <chuckle>

                        [C] Paul also taught me to FOREGO the worship of
                        personalities. <WINK>"

                        ME: Well, once again Cheryl gives a "<wink>" which
                        means that the opposite is true. Therefore, Paul
                        DID NOT teach her to forego "the worship of
                        personalities." So which personalities does Cheryl
                        worship? Or, maybe it wasn't PAUL that taught her
                        this skill? Maybe it was Steve R. or Marman?

                        ***************************************************************
                        Steve R wrote:

                        "I still have not read Doug's book, and I do plan to as soon
                        as I can afford the $20. I have heard lots of really good things
                        about it, and I am featured, if not in the book, at least in
                        Lane's response to it (ugh).

                        [ME] Either justaskthem isn't doing so well since he can't
                        afford the book, or Stever is lying. I wonder, which is true?
                        If Steve R. is lying then why believe ANYTHING that he has
                        to say! So, what's true and what's not with old Stever? Since
                        business isn't doing well (to afford $20 for Doug's book)
                        then Stever won't have the funds to travel to and attend
                        the 2007 ECK World Wide Seminar this October either. Right?!

                        Stever: "Phil Morimitsu spoke at our regional seminar last
                        month... His second ECK book took him five years and many
                        versions. Harold kept rejecting them, but never told Phil
                        precisely why...."

                        [ME] Where are Phil's books now? Are they still being listed
                        on ECKANKAR.org? I don't think so! I remember hearing
                        about a complaint from a Seminar talk Phil gave after writing
                        one of his books. The only thing he spoke about were the
                        problems he and his wife (an ECKist) were going through.
                        They later divorced. But, then again, divorce is common
                        in ECKANKAR.

                        Stever: "... On several other occassions the author has
                        ended up leaving Eckankar to start their own teaching.
                        In the case of Doug's book, I seem to have the
                        impression that he wrote the book independently... Even
                        though Doug is [still] an ECKist, he is presenting his own
                        research, independently from the Eckankar organization."

                        [ME] Yes, it seems that Doug is doing what Ford should
                        have done. Doug is remaining inside ECKANKAR and is
                        also gathering a following and writing books that ECKists
                        read and endorse to others. Even though Doug has gotten
                        a former 8th Initiate and Gross supporter (Patti Simpson)
                        to write a glowing review he is still well thought of in the
                        ECK community! And, having GAIL support him is a very
                        clever move on Doug's part! Also, Brad Steiger's book
                        "In My Soul I Am Free" is still offered by ECKANKAR. So,
                        to get Brad's endorsement too is a real coup! Ford Johnson
                        should have taken this approach instead of the one he
                        used. It takes longer this way, but Marman's building a
                        strong foundation and support for the future.

                        Stever: "Perhaps this will give the book greater credence
                        [than Klemp's works] in academic circles - hopefully...
                        Comparing Doug's book with "other ECK publications" can
                        give the impression that it is itself an "ECK publication..."

                        [ME] Yes, I agree! Doug's new book and the endorsements
                        (especially by GAIL & BRAD) will give it all the illusion of
                        historical accuracy. Klemp's historical inaccuracy is blatant
                        when he contradicts his own PT info and can't seem to
                        connect the dots! LOL! Look at the age 27 info/date (1935)
                        for Who's Who in Kentucky lies and the 1935 date for when
                        PT "first trip to India" lie where PT met Sudar. And, HK gives
                        1908 as PT's birth year! Do the math and connect the dots
                        Eckies!

                        However, Doug's books and his Internet sites (unofficial EK
                        sites too!) give Marman a soapbox/pedestal to stand upon.
                        This allows him to build a following and support for his own
                        independent and personal views of ECKANKAR Dogma.
                        It also sets Marman up as an authority figure that challenges
                        Klemp's version of "Truth." Perhaps, this is why Doug seems
                        to have both Twitchell and Gross supporters in his camp.

                        Let's not forget, too, all of those ECKists still connected to
                        Twitchell and, especially, to Darwin via the ECK Initiations!

                        Prometheus

                        Steve R. wrote (previously):
                        [snip]

                        "With all due respect to Gail and Brad, I do not know whether
                        either of them is working within Eckankar today or with the
                        current Living ECK Master. Of course both are great primary
                        sources, as is Patti Simpson, regarding the particulars of
                        Paul's life. Sometimes the endorsement of authorities can be
                        meaningful. But as far as I am aware, none is currently an
                        active ECKist. I may be mistaken too (It has happened before.)

                        Sri Harold has written quite a bit about Paul, much of which is
                        posted on the main Eckankar website. I wonder if Gail includes
                        what Harold has had to say about Paul in her statement about
                        someone finally getting it right. I have thought that Harold pretty
                        much got it right. But then do I want to rely on him as an
                        "authority" or do I want to rely more on my own experience? I
                        believe that Harold himself would defer to personal experience."
                      • prometheus_973
                        Hi Mish and All, I thought I d bring back Mish s comments on the subject of Marman s book. I ve noticed some interesting patterns with Marman: 1) There seems
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 28, 2007
                          Hi Mish and All,
                          I thought I'd bring back Mish's comments on the
                          subject of Marman's book.

                          I've noticed some interesting patterns with Marman:

                          1) There seems to be an obsession with everything
                          involving Twitchell.

                          2) There is, also, an obsession with everything
                          involving Rumi, although, Rumi was Not an ECK Master
                          according to Klemp. And, Rumi is Not listed in the
                          Shariyat. Klemp supports Doug's obsession with Rumi
                          as a means of placating (manipulating & controlling)
                          Marman.

                          3) Marman has the need to always get in the last
                          word and can never admit that he has been wrong
                          with his assumptions and speculations.

                          4) Marman has his own "personal" views that differ
                          from what Klemp and ECKANKAR teach. It is
                          unusual that Klemp tolerates this, therefore, we
                          must assume that Klemp fears the repercussions
                          of disciplining DM as HK did with Ford Johnson.

                          5) Marman uses questionable authority figures and
                          Former (high profile) ECKists to support his hidden
                          agenda to revive the "undiscovered" or newly reinterpreted
                          teachings of Twitchell... the founder of ECKANKAR.

                          6) Marman's reasoning processes and use of logic
                          are askewed due a number of factors which include
                          the making of erroneous assumptions by speculating
                          on sketchy information that Marman refers to as "fact."

                          7) Marman, also, views almost everything that cannot
                          be experienced or "known" directly (in his opinion) as
                          Myth. This includes the EK initiations, God-Realization,
                          Rebazar Tarzs, and the Holocaust!

                          As I've stated before... Ford should have used Marman's
                          approach. If he had he would still be an ECKist insider and
                          Klemp would "still" be handling Ford with kid gloves and
                          tolerating him as HK has with Marman.

                          Ford could, also, have used the anti-ECKANKAR David Lane
                          (like Doug has) in forums on Internet sites and in books
                          as a means, or as an excuse, in order to bring out his
                          own version of the Truth and to express his own views
                          and opinions in what "appears" to be an adversarial
                          contest. Brilliant!

                          I only wonder... Who gave Doug this idea in the first place?

                          Prometheus

                          BTW- I "snipped" much of the following post in order
                          to condense Mish's insightful opinions.

                          mish wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          Hi, All!
                          >
                          It seems that Steve R would like us to believe that he is
                          interested in reading Doug Marman's new book after
                          all! Here's Steve R's reply to Michael concerning "The
                          Whole Truth", post # 60882 from HU-Chat, posted on
                          Aug. 26, 2007. Steve explains that Doug's book gives
                          credence to the eck teachings and history while Harold
                          Klemp, who is listed in the International Who's Who of
                          Intellectuals Ninth Edition, fails to do this with his eck
                          books? So while reading this consider that Steve R is
                          saying that Marman is the better writer and that he knows
                          more than the living eck master/mahanta! LOL! I love
                          these spins that H.I.'s like Steve R conjure up in defending
                          the eck teachings and making the fake religion with all its
                          controversy more easy to swallow by the gullible chelas.
                          >
                          As to the Steve R being unable to afford to spend $20 for
                          Marman's book delaying his purchase right now, well,
                          perhaps, if Steve truly wanted to read the book, all he would
                          need to do is not buy his one week supply of Krispy Krème
                          donuts. He'd probably have more than enough money to
                          buy the book! : )

                          [snip]

                          —Harold Klemp's books (and other authors of eck books)
                          fail the test in academic circles yet Klemp is listed in the
                          International Who's Who of Intellectuals? Certainly, Harold
                          Klemp cannot write worth a damn, but I didn't think a high
                          profile H.I. like Steve R would actually say this on a BB! It
                          seems like Steve R is stumbling around all over the place—
                          perhaps, he's the one who should have let sleeping dogs lie! : )
                          >
                          So, it seems some view Doug's new book as re-opening of a
                          can of worms. Some see it as going back to square one in the
                          debates with David Lane and of course, this will focus once
                          again seekers' attentions onto the controversial arguments
                          regarding the scam, lies and deceit that is all a big part of the
                          made-up fake religion called eckankar! I think that Klemp is
                          not so happy with Doug Marman right now as it surely brings
                          back all the old discussions that are still easily found in searches
                          on the Internet! Klemp just can't control the big world of
                          Cyberspace even though Klemp has stated in his book "Those
                          Wonderful ECK Masters," that as the Mahanta, "he is the highest
                          state of consciousness known to the chronicles of mankind." LOL!
                          > >
                          As Steve R. suggested, it would be better to let sleeping dogs
                          lie regarding David Lane for sure, and especially Ford Johnson
                          (a former RESA and spokesman for eckankar), as well! : )

                          So in answer to the question: "Why aren't there Current High
                          Profile ECKists supporting Marman's book . . . ?"
                          > >
                          The answer is Doug M. not only questions the factual
                          existence of Rebazar, but he has also stated that the eck
                          initiations are mostly myth. One can go to the Links page on
                          this site and look at the first link to read Doug's comments on
                          these subjects. And as some eckists suggest they'd rather let
                          sleeping dogs lie (David Lane & Ford Johnson). And finally, Doug
                          is not following Klemp's point of view regarding PT's half truths--
                          Doug is contradicting the present mahanta's spin! How dare
                          he do that! : )
                          > >
                          Mish
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.