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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.