Discussion:
Trolls & Spammers
(too old to reply)
Etznab
2021-07-08 01:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Etznab
2021-07-08 01:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etznab
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Scroll down to section: The Flute of God: A Case Study of Re-Editing

https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html

BTW, Paul Twitchell was later BANNED from Orion magazine FOR PLAGIARISM!

Which is worse.

1. Plagiarizing?

2. Making up fictional masters and history?

My vote is No. 2. That's why trolls try and focus on plagiarism as if no big deal. Also media.

"Member Kristy Walker has heard the plagiarism accusations before and isn’t troubled by them. It wouldn’t really matter because, she said, “I’ve had so many experiences on my own.”

https://www.startribune.com/new-age-religion-eckankar-makes-its-home-in-chanhassen/384356371/

For one thing, they are not accusations only. They were / are words used to animate fictional masters when Eckankar boasts of LIVING masters! They are not the same.
Henosis Sage
2021-07-08 08:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Scroll down to section: The Flute of God: A Case Study of Re-Editing
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
BTW, Paul Twitchell was later BANNED from Orion magazine FOR PLAGIARISM!
Which is worse.
1. Plagiarizing?
2. Making up fictional masters and history?
My vote is No. 2. That's why trolls try and focus on plagiarism as if no big deal. Also media.
"Member Kristy Walker has heard the plagiarism accusations before and isn’t troubled by them. It wouldn’t really matter because, she said, “I’ve had so many experiences on my own.”
https://www.startribune.com/new-age-religion-eckankar-makes-its-home-in-chanhassen/384356371/
For one thing, they are not accusations only. They were / are words used to animate fictional masters when Eckankar boasts of LIVING masters! They are not the same.
"I have a book in my collection called the Sar Bachan written by Sardar Seva Singh, which is the teachings of the Sound Current, and acts as practically my Bible!" —Paul Twitchell in a letter to future wife Gail, 8 July 1963; in Paul Twitchell, Letters to Gail, volume II, Menlo Park: ECKANKAR, 1977, page 149. ("Sardar" Seva Singh was the Radha Soami Satsang Beas translator of the Sar Bachan into English.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Dayal_Singh#cite_note-9
Funny how Shiv Dayal Singhs book is Twitchell's bible in 1963. I wonder what Rebazar Tarzs thought about that? <G>

This by Lane is still true today >>>
As Twitchell's travels to India at a young age are extremely doubtful, his account of Sudar Singh (whom he claims to have met at the same time) also becomes highly questionable. There is no indication in Twitchell's actual life (versus his created one) or written works that Sudar Singh is a real person. The true identity of Sudar Singh is intimately tied with Twitchell's efforts to cover-up his past associations with certain teachers. This cover-up was started by Twitchell in January 1964, and continues today under the present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html


Meanwhile Marman stupidly attempts to white wash the whole Sudar Singh issue by falsely claiming when Twitchell said Paris france, he really meant Paris kentucky where his sister studied art painting for a while ... but did she even do that?

IMSIAF claims he was in Paris when 15 years old having graduated early (grade 10) and all set to go to college ... whereas the other missives talk about being in Allahabad in 1938 when Paul was 29 years old, having graduated high school when he was 21 years old.

imho Marman's incompetent historical analysis and mythical (faulty made up) beliefs and opinions have been a gross disservice to eckists past and present.

also in 1938 Babuji Maharaj Madhav Prasad Sinha was the parent faith leader and he was still based in Allahabad, later moving back to Agra where it all began. . Nothing to do with the Beas group or Kirpla singh line.

and then we also know that Inayat Khan, sufi guru was based in Paris in the 1920s, before returning to India where he passed away. Twitchell never knew him either. But read and copied his sufi books and ideas.


Lastly "Sudar" is the female name version of Sudarshan in the Sikh culture. David Lane could have worked that out in the 1980s if he looked.

Paul could have worked it out in the 1960s if he actualy cared about what he was doing and the IMPACTS on people who swallowed whole his lying bullshit.

Oh what a web Twitchell with Gail with Patti simpson and Marman and Klemp and others have woven
Etznab
2021-07-09 13:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henosis Sage
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Scroll down to section: The Flute of God: A Case Study of Re-Editing
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
BTW, Paul Twitchell was later BANNED from Orion magazine FOR PLAGIARISM!
Which is worse.
1. Plagiarizing?
2. Making up fictional masters and history?
My vote is No. 2. That's why trolls try and focus on plagiarism as if no big deal. Also media.
"Member Kristy Walker has heard the plagiarism accusations before and isn’t troubled by them. It wouldn’t really matter because, she said, “I’ve had so many experiences on my own.”
https://www.startribune.com/new-age-religion-eckankar-makes-its-home-in-chanhassen/384356371/
For one thing, they are not accusations only. They were / are words used to animate fictional masters when Eckankar boasts of LIVING masters! They are not the same.
"I have a book in my collection called the Sar Bachan written by Sardar Seva Singh, which is the teachings of the Sound Current, and acts as practically my Bible!" —Paul Twitchell in a letter to future wife Gail, 8 July 1963; in Paul Twitchell, Letters to Gail, volume II, Menlo Park: ECKANKAR, 1977, page 149. ("Sardar" Seva Singh was the Radha Soami Satsang Beas translator of the Sar Bachan into English.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Dayal_Singh#cite_note-9
Funny how Shiv Dayal Singhs book is Twitchell's bible in 1963. I wonder what Rebazar Tarzs thought about that? <G>
This by Lane is still true today >>>
As Twitchell's travels to India at a young age are extremely doubtful, his account of Sudar Singh (whom he claims to have met at the same time) also becomes highly questionable. There is no indication in Twitchell's actual life (versus his created one) or written works that Sudar Singh is a real person. The true identity of Sudar Singh is intimately tied with Twitchell's efforts to cover-up his past associations with certain teachers. This cover-up was started by Twitchell in January 1964, and continues today under the present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
Meanwhile Marman stupidly attempts to white wash the whole Sudar Singh issue by falsely claiming when Twitchell said Paris france, he really meant Paris kentucky where his sister studied art painting for a while ... but did she even do that?
IMSIAF claims he was in Paris when 15 years old having graduated early (grade 10) and all set to go to college ... whereas the other missives talk about being in Allahabad in 1938 when Paul was 29 years old, having graduated high school when he was 21 years old.
imho Marman's incompetent historical analysis and mythical (faulty made up) beliefs and opinions have been a gross disservice to eckists past and present.
also in 1938 Babuji Maharaj Madhav Prasad Sinha was the parent faith leader and he was still based in Allahabad, later moving back to Agra where it all began. . Nothing to do with the Beas group or Kirpla singh line.
and then we also know that Inayat Khan, sufi guru was based in Paris in the 1920s, before returning to India where he passed away. Twitchell never knew him either. But read and copied his sufi books and ideas.
Lastly "Sudar" is the female name version of Sudarshan in the Sikh culture. David Lane could have worked that out in the 1980s if he looked.
Paul could have worked it out in the 1960s if he actualy cared about what he was doing and the IMPACTS on people who swallowed whole his lying bullshit.
Oh what a web Twitchell with Gail with Patti simpson and Marman and Klemp and others have woven
I'd been thinking about the duplicity of fact and fiction when I had a thought.

Normally people would correct mistakes, errors, fictions taken as literally true, but with religions pseudo history and fantastic stories abound. Organizations flaunt fabulous fictions with impunity. How does this happen? for centuries on end? Like, (as Kinpa likes to say) "Everybody does it."

Consider the source. Godman, Guru, Priest, etc. And if you are a member and go against the former? Go against the fictions and lies in order to have the truth instead? Are you not (in the eyes of the faithful) going against God and all that is Holy?

To my knowledge, none of the Eckankar leaders have sufficiently explained exactly how characters animated by plagiarized text are as real as living masters. Not to mention, Why would spiritual masters allow themselves to be used in such a way a to supplant historical facts and truths. And IMO this means that members might consider they don't have a green light to go beyond what the living masters (real, or not) say. IOW, people don't generally like to second-guess their masters.

Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, on one occasion remarked that he wasn't God. I haven't the exact quote, but did he say that it was even laughable? or something to that effect?

Harold Klemp also said:

"... As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"

https://web.archive.org/web/20060105083608/http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html

So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is? What is the problem pointing out that pages and pages of Rebazar Tarzs history (like his reported communications and quoted sayings to Paul Twitchell), what some allude to as "compiled text" compiled by a "master compiler", was COPIED, PARAPHRASED and PLAGIARIZED from library books, etc.?
Etznab
2021-07-09 14:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etznab
Post by Henosis Sage
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Scroll down to section: The Flute of God: A Case Study of Re-Editing
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
BTW, Paul Twitchell was later BANNED from Orion magazine FOR PLAGIARISM!
Which is worse.
1. Plagiarizing?
2. Making up fictional masters and history?
My vote is No. 2. That's why trolls try and focus on plagiarism as if no big deal. Also media.
"Member Kristy Walker has heard the plagiarism accusations before and isn’t troubled by them. It wouldn’t really matter because, she said, “I’ve had so many experiences on my own.”
https://www.startribune.com/new-age-religion-eckankar-makes-its-home-in-chanhassen/384356371/
For one thing, they are not accusations only. They were / are words used to animate fictional masters when Eckankar boasts of LIVING masters! They are not the same.
"I have a book in my collection called the Sar Bachan written by Sardar Seva Singh, which is the teachings of the Sound Current, and acts as practically my Bible!" —Paul Twitchell in a letter to future wife Gail, 8 July 1963; in Paul Twitchell, Letters to Gail, volume II, Menlo Park: ECKANKAR, 1977, page 149. ("Sardar" Seva Singh was the Radha Soami Satsang Beas translator of the Sar Bachan into English.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Dayal_Singh#cite_note-9
Funny how Shiv Dayal Singhs book is Twitchell's bible in 1963. I wonder what Rebazar Tarzs thought about that? <G>
This by Lane is still true today >>>
As Twitchell's travels to India at a young age are extremely doubtful, his account of Sudar Singh (whom he claims to have met at the same time) also becomes highly questionable. There is no indication in Twitchell's actual life (versus his created one) or written works that Sudar Singh is a real person. The true identity of Sudar Singh is intimately tied with Twitchell's efforts to cover-up his past associations with certain teachers. This cover-up was started by Twitchell in January 1964, and continues today under the present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
Meanwhile Marman stupidly attempts to white wash the whole Sudar Singh issue by falsely claiming when Twitchell said Paris france, he really meant Paris kentucky where his sister studied art painting for a while ... but did she even do that?
IMSIAF claims he was in Paris when 15 years old having graduated early (grade 10) and all set to go to college ... whereas the other missives talk about being in Allahabad in 1938 when Paul was 29 years old, having graduated high school when he was 21 years old.
imho Marman's incompetent historical analysis and mythical (faulty made up) beliefs and opinions have been a gross disservice to eckists past and present.
also in 1938 Babuji Maharaj Madhav Prasad Sinha was the parent faith leader and he was still based in Allahabad, later moving back to Agra where it all began. . Nothing to do with the Beas group or Kirpla singh line.
and then we also know that Inayat Khan, sufi guru was based in Paris in the 1920s, before returning to India where he passed away. Twitchell never knew him either. But read and copied his sufi books and ideas.
Lastly "Sudar" is the female name version of Sudarshan in the Sikh culture. David Lane could have worked that out in the 1980s if he looked.
Paul could have worked it out in the 1960s if he actualy cared about what he was doing and the IMPACTS on people who swallowed whole his lying bullshit.
Oh what a web Twitchell with Gail with Patti simpson and Marman and Klemp and others have woven
I'd been thinking about the duplicity of fact and fiction when I had a thought.
Normally people would correct mistakes, errors, fictions taken as literally true, but with religions pseudo history and fantastic stories abound. Organizations flaunt fabulous fictions with impunity. How does this happen? for centuries on end? Like, (as Kinpa likes to say) "Everybody does it."
Consider the source. Godman, Guru, Priest, etc. And if you are a member and go against the former? Go against the fictions and lies in order to have the truth instead? Are you not (in the eyes of the faithful) going against God and all that is Holy?
To my knowledge, none of the Eckankar leaders have sufficiently explained exactly how characters animated by plagiarized text are as real as living masters. Not to mention, Why would spiritual masters allow themselves to be used in such a way a to supplant historical facts and truths. And IMO this means that members might consider they don't have a green light to go beyond what the living masters (real, or not) say. IOW, people don't generally like to second-guess their masters.
Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, on one occasion remarked that he wasn't God. I haven't the exact quote, but did he say that it was even laughable? or something to that effect?
"... As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060105083608/http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is? What is the problem pointing out that pages and pages of Rebazar Tarzs history (like his reported communications and quoted sayings to Paul Twitchell), what some allude to as "compiled text" compiled by a "master compiler", was COPIED, PARAPHRASED and PLAGIARIZED from library books, etc.?
Likewise, What is the problem confronting clergy and the Eckankar leadership with that information and asking for the truth about WHO said those words? IOW, WHO was the source of Rebazar Tarzs and the pages and pages of words (in quotes mind you) credited to him? Was it really Rebazar Tarzs? And if it was not, then what is wrong with asking Eckankar to please explain it? Expain it honestly?

There isn't anything wrong with that. It's only wrong for people brainwashed by pseudo history and religion who refuse to swallow their pride! People who will fight like religious fanatics to preserve the idea of fictions as literally true (because that is what they were taught). People who band together like a popular majority to control the narrative about God, religion, spiritual masters and history in spite of the many truth that contradict their imagined fantasies.
Henosis Sage
2021-07-10 07:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Post by Henosis Sage
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Scroll down to section: The Flute of God: A Case Study of Re-Editing
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
BTW, Paul Twitchell was later BANNED from Orion magazine FOR PLAGIARISM!
Which is worse.
1. Plagiarizing?
2. Making up fictional masters and history?
My vote is No. 2. That's why trolls try and focus on plagiarism as if no big deal. Also media.
"Member Kristy Walker has heard the plagiarism accusations before and isn’t troubled by them. It wouldn’t really matter because, she said, “I’ve had so many experiences on my own.”
https://www.startribune.com/new-age-religion-eckankar-makes-its-home-in-chanhassen/384356371/
For one thing, they are not accusations only. They were / are words used to animate fictional masters when Eckankar boasts of LIVING masters! They are not the same.
"I have a book in my collection called the Sar Bachan written by Sardar Seva Singh, which is the teachings of the Sound Current, and acts as practically my Bible!" —Paul Twitchell in a letter to future wife Gail, 8 July 1963; in Paul Twitchell, Letters to Gail, volume II, Menlo Park: ECKANKAR, 1977, page 149. ("Sardar" Seva Singh was the Radha Soami Satsang Beas translator of the Sar Bachan into English.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Dayal_Singh#cite_note-9
Funny how Shiv Dayal Singhs book is Twitchell's bible in 1963. I wonder what Rebazar Tarzs thought about that? <G>
This by Lane is still true today >>>
As Twitchell's travels to India at a young age are extremely doubtful, his account of Sudar Singh (whom he claims to have met at the same time) also becomes highly questionable. There is no indication in Twitchell's actual life (versus his created one) or written works that Sudar Singh is a real person. The true identity of Sudar Singh is intimately tied with Twitchell's efforts to cover-up his past associations with certain teachers. This cover-up was started by Twitchell in January 1964, and continues today under the present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
Meanwhile Marman stupidly attempts to white wash the whole Sudar Singh issue by falsely claiming when Twitchell said Paris france, he really meant Paris kentucky where his sister studied art painting for a while ... but did she even do that?
IMSIAF claims he was in Paris when 15 years old having graduated early (grade 10) and all set to go to college ... whereas the other missives talk about being in Allahabad in 1938 when Paul was 29 years old, having graduated high school when he was 21 years old.
imho Marman's incompetent historical analysis and mythical (faulty made up) beliefs and opinions have been a gross disservice to eckists past and present.
also in 1938 Babuji Maharaj Madhav Prasad Sinha was the parent faith leader and he was still based in Allahabad, later moving back to Agra where it all began. . Nothing to do with the Beas group or Kirpla singh line.
and then we also know that Inayat Khan, sufi guru was based in Paris in the 1920s, before returning to India where he passed away. Twitchell never knew him either. But read and copied his sufi books and ideas.
Lastly "Sudar" is the female name version of Sudarshan in the Sikh culture. David Lane could have worked that out in the 1980s if he looked.
Paul could have worked it out in the 1960s if he actualy cared about what he was doing and the IMPACTS on people who swallowed whole his lying bullshit.
Oh what a web Twitchell with Gail with Patti simpson and Marman and Klemp and others have woven
I'd been thinking about the duplicity of fact and fiction when I had a thought.
Normally people would correct mistakes, errors, fictions taken as literally true, but with religions pseudo history and fantastic stories abound. Organizations flaunt fabulous fictions with impunity. How does this happen? for centuries on end? Like, (as Kinpa likes to say) "Everybody does it."
Consider the source. Godman, Guru, Priest, etc. And if you are a member and go against the former? Go against the fictions and lies in order to have the truth instead? Are you not (in the eyes of the faithful) going against God and all that is Holy?
To my knowledge, none of the Eckankar leaders have sufficiently explained exactly how characters animated by plagiarized text are as real as living masters. Not to mention, Why would spiritual masters allow themselves to be used in such a way a to supplant historical facts and truths. And IMO this means that members might consider they don't have a green light to go beyond what the living masters (real, or not) say. IOW, people don't generally like to second-guess their masters.
Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, on one occasion remarked that he wasn't God. I haven't the exact quote, but did he say that it was even laughable? or something to that effect?
"... As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060105083608/http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is? What is the problem pointing out that pages and pages of Rebazar Tarzs history (like his reported communications and quoted sayings to Paul Twitchell), what some allude to as "compiled text" compiled by a "master compiler", was COPIED, PARAPHRASED and PLAGIARIZED from library books, etc.?
Likewise, What is the problem confronting clergy and the Eckankar leadership with that information and asking for the truth about WHO said those words? IOW, WHO was the source of Rebazar Tarzs and the pages and pages of words (in quotes mind you) credited to him? Was it really Rebazar Tarzs? And if it was not, then what is wrong with asking Eckankar to please explain it? Expain it honestly?
There isn't anything wrong with that. It's only wrong for people brainwashed by pseudo history and religion who refuse to swallow their pride! People who will fight like religious fanatics to preserve the idea of fictions as literally true (because that is what they were taught). People who band together like a popular majority to control the narrative about God, religion, spiritual masters and history in spite of the many truth that contradict their imagined fantasies.
One of the things coming to mind is all the stories told by harold at seminars and in books. The stories of members reporting on various named and unnamed eck masters meeting them or doing things. Plus Harold saying "the eck masters are real."

so there's more to this than only Paul manifesting stories about eck masters said this did that ..... so, just because X person has X experience and believes that it was master X who appeared, guided spoke to them doesn't make it literally true. far from it.

and yet, easily believed.

and PS ... via snowdon again ... kind of related imho

In democracies today, what is important to an increasing many is not what rights and freedoms are recognized, but what beliefs are respected: what history, or story, undergirds their identities as citizens, and as members of religious, racial, and ethnic communities. It’s this replacement-function of false conspiracies — the way they replace unified or majoritarian histories with parochial and partisan stories — that prepares the stage for political upheaval.

Especially pernicious is the way that false conspiracies absolve their followers of engaging with the truth. Citizenship in a conspiracy-society doesn’t require evaluating a statement of proposed fact for its truth-value, and then accepting it or rejecting it accordingly, so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere.
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/conspiracy-pt1

You see it's obvious I am a key member of an Roman Catholic Opus Dei Conspiracy to destroy eckankar and lead eckists into falsehoods and eternal slavery.
For others it's is Twitchell who is working for Satan.

clear as day. <G>
Etznab
2021-07-10 11:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henosis Sage
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Post by Henosis Sage
Post by Etznab
Post by Etznab
Expose an unknown truth (new plagiarisms coming out the mouths of eck masters perhaps) then watch the trolls and spammers come out of the woodwork!
Scroll down to section: The Flute of God: A Case Study of Re-Editing
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
BTW, Paul Twitchell was later BANNED from Orion magazine FOR PLAGIARISM!
Which is worse.
1. Plagiarizing?
2. Making up fictional masters and history?
My vote is No. 2. That's why trolls try and focus on plagiarism as if no big deal. Also media.
"Member Kristy Walker has heard the plagiarism accusations before and isn’t troubled by them. It wouldn’t really matter because, she said, “I’ve had so many experiences on my own.”
https://www.startribune.com/new-age-religion-eckankar-makes-its-home-in-chanhassen/384356371/
For one thing, they are not accusations only. They were / are words used to animate fictional masters when Eckankar boasts of LIVING masters! They are not the same.
"I have a book in my collection called the Sar Bachan written by Sardar Seva Singh, which is the teachings of the Sound Current, and acts as practically my Bible!" —Paul Twitchell in a letter to future wife Gail, 8 July 1963; in Paul Twitchell, Letters to Gail, volume II, Menlo Park: ECKANKAR, 1977, page 149. ("Sardar" Seva Singh was the Radha Soami Satsang Beas translator of the Sar Bachan into English.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Dayal_Singh#cite_note-9
Funny how Shiv Dayal Singhs book is Twitchell's bible in 1963. I wonder what Rebazar Tarzs thought about that? <G>
This by Lane is still true today >>>
As Twitchell's travels to India at a young age are extremely doubtful, his account of Sudar Singh (whom he claims to have met at the same time) also becomes highly questionable. There is no indication in Twitchell's actual life (versus his created one) or written works that Sudar Singh is a real person. The true identity of Sudar Singh is intimately tied with Twitchell's efforts to cover-up his past associations with certain teachers. This cover-up was started by Twitchell in January 1964, and continues today under the present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404134145/http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html
Meanwhile Marman stupidly attempts to white wash the whole Sudar Singh issue by falsely claiming when Twitchell said Paris france, he really meant Paris kentucky where his sister studied art painting for a while ... but did she even do that?
IMSIAF claims he was in Paris when 15 years old having graduated early (grade 10) and all set to go to college ... whereas the other missives talk about being in Allahabad in 1938 when Paul was 29 years old, having graduated high school when he was 21 years old.
imho Marman's incompetent historical analysis and mythical (faulty made up) beliefs and opinions have been a gross disservice to eckists past and present.
also in 1938 Babuji Maharaj Madhav Prasad Sinha was the parent faith leader and he was still based in Allahabad, later moving back to Agra where it all began. . Nothing to do with the Beas group or Kirpla singh line.
and then we also know that Inayat Khan, sufi guru was based in Paris in the 1920s, before returning to India where he passed away. Twitchell never knew him either. But read and copied his sufi books and ideas.
Lastly "Sudar" is the female name version of Sudarshan in the Sikh culture. David Lane could have worked that out in the 1980s if he looked.
Paul could have worked it out in the 1960s if he actualy cared about what he was doing and the IMPACTS on people who swallowed whole his lying bullshit.
Oh what a web Twitchell with Gail with Patti simpson and Marman and Klemp and others have woven
I'd been thinking about the duplicity of fact and fiction when I had a thought.
Normally people would correct mistakes, errors, fictions taken as literally true, but with religions pseudo history and fantastic stories abound. Organizations flaunt fabulous fictions with impunity. How does this happen? for centuries on end? Like, (as Kinpa likes to say) "Everybody does it."
Consider the source. Godman, Guru, Priest, etc. And if you are a member and go against the former? Go against the fictions and lies in order to have the truth instead? Are you not (in the eyes of the faithful) going against God and all that is Holy?
To my knowledge, none of the Eckankar leaders have sufficiently explained exactly how characters animated by plagiarized text are as real as living masters. Not to mention, Why would spiritual masters allow themselves to be used in such a way a to supplant historical facts and truths. And IMO this means that members might consider they don't have a green light to go beyond what the living masters (real, or not) say. IOW, people don't generally like to second-guess their masters.
Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, on one occasion remarked that he wasn't God. I haven't the exact quote, but did he say that it was even laughable? or something to that effect?
"... As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060105083608/http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is? What is the problem pointing out that pages and pages of Rebazar Tarzs history (like his reported communications and quoted sayings to Paul Twitchell), what some allude to as "compiled text" compiled by a "master compiler", was COPIED, PARAPHRASED and PLAGIARIZED from library books, etc.?
Likewise, What is the problem confronting clergy and the Eckankar leadership with that information and asking for the truth about WHO said those words? IOW, WHO was the source of Rebazar Tarzs and the pages and pages of words (in quotes mind you) credited to him? Was it really Rebazar Tarzs? And if it was not, then what is wrong with asking Eckankar to please explain it? Expain it honestly?
There isn't anything wrong with that. It's only wrong for people brainwashed by pseudo history and religion who refuse to swallow their pride! People who will fight like religious fanatics to preserve the idea of fictions as literally true (because that is what they were taught). People who band together like a popular majority to control the narrative about God, religion, spiritual masters and history in spite of the many truth that contradict their imagined fantasies.
One of the things coming to mind is all the stories told by harold at seminars and in books. The stories of members reporting on various named and unnamed eck masters meeting them or doing things. Plus Harold saying "the eck masters are real."
so there's more to this than only Paul manifesting stories about eck masters said this did that ..... so, just because X person has X experience and believes that it was master X who appeared, guided spoke to them doesn't make it literally true. far from it.
and yet, easily believed.
and PS ... via snowdon again ... kind of related imho
In democracies today, what is important to an increasing many is not what rights and freedoms are recognized, but what beliefs are respected: what history, or story, undergirds their identities as citizens, and as members of religious, racial, and ethnic communities. It’s this replacement-function of false conspiracies — the way they replace unified or majoritarian histories with parochial and partisan stories — that prepares the stage for political upheaval.
Especially pernicious is the way that false conspiracies absolve their followers of engaging with the truth. Citizenship in a conspiracy-society doesn’t require evaluating a statement of proposed fact for its truth-value, and then accepting it or rejecting it accordingly, so much as it requires the complete and total rejection of all truth-value that comes from an enemy source, and the substitution of an alternative plot, narrated from elsewhere.
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/conspiracy-pt1
You see it's obvious I am a key member of an Roman Catholic Opus Dei Conspiracy to destroy eckankar and lead eckists into falsehoods and eternal slavery.
For others it's is Twitchell who is working for Satan.
clear as day. <G>
Wow. Thanks for sharing this information! And well said. Both times!
Maplin
2021-07-14 06:30:51 UTC
Permalink
On 9/07/2021 9:52 pm, Etznab wrote:
<snip>
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.

Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").

I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?

The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.

We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
Henosis Sage
2021-07-15 01:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maplin
<snip>
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
yes, really well said Maplin.
Maplin
2021-07-15 09:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maplin
<snip>
Post by Etznab
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a
crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling
Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
SPeaking of scammers, I just need to unload about yet another breed...
taxi drivers who don't want to use the meter.

(PS did you know that the meter is called a "taximeter", with the
emphasis on the second syllable, and the cars are called taxi cabs in
abbreviation for that? As in, a taximeter-equipped motor cabin?)

Literally 3 times in a row, I hailed a cab to get home from my night job
in a busy night-time district. I guess these drivers assume everyone is
just another stupid australian drunk, and a lot of them are, but a
certain number are like me, they've been working and they just want to
commute home safely and conveniently. I guess all christians or whites
or aussies or something, all look the same ;)

The idea is, the driver says, "is 25 bucks OK?" or whatever price,
knowing that the metered fee would be lower. I've caught more than
enough cabs home to know what it costs on the weekends, about 18 bucks.
The 1st time, I just said fine (he actually offered 20 bucks fare), the
next one I said, whatever it says on the meter please and he kind of
deflated in despair, sulked and started the meter. The 3rd guy started a
long rant at me in Hindi or Buttfrickistan-ese or whatever, as I got out
and walked away. He shouted something at me as I did.
I booked a cab to get home from my other job one night last week and had
other problems with the driver, so I refused him and called back asking
for someone else. The next guy was professional and courteous and just
what you THINK you're paying for, at last.

Then, today, hailed a cab from the shopping centre because it was
seriously raining hard. This guy tried the "is 20 bucks OK" and the
meter off, I was only a few minutes from home and it would have cost
half that, so I said no thanks and got out. That's literally all I said,
and got a lot stream of abuse for it again. So that's actually four
hailed cabs in a row, and even one I booked (that's another story, I'll
post about it later as I need to get ready for work now)

So I called the taxi company and gave them his name, plate and license
numbers, car description etc, and took their advice and reported him
direct to the Dept of Transport too :) Heh.

In these times of competition they've never had before (Uber and the
like), this is the WORST moment to be pulling this stuff. I was wary of
Uber for years and wouldn't use them, now they're my preferred carrier.
You get a fixed price and pay in advance, they don't accept cash so
there's no haggling, and they are independent drivers so they appreciate
the business. I've never had a problem with them, except that late on a
Monday or Tuesday in the further-out suburbs you can't always get one
straight away. In which case I'll just walk a few km's to the next major
stop and have no problem from there. Luckily I haven't had this happen
on a rainy night yet.

It's like EVERYTHING is a scam now. Every industry, every category of
business, everything you try to do, some shark is trying to game the
system. I don't need to tell you guys about spam emails, dodgy websites
and the phone calls... the less said about that the better. So what will
be the ultimate result of that as it goes on that way? Eventually govt's
will have to act and crack down, and a lot of people will go to jail or
out of business, and everything you try to do will be locked up tight
behind ridiculous and ever-more-inconvenient layers of security, as is
happening already.

Which makes me think, it's a bad time to be a phony religion or
spiritual leader when all around the world there's pressure building to
increase scrutiny on everything.
fife
2021-07-15 13:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maplin
Post by Maplin
<snip>
Post by Etznab
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a
crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling
Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
SPeaking of scammers, I just need to unload about yet another breed...
taxi drivers who don't want to use the meter.
(PS did you know that the meter is called a "taximeter", with the
emphasis on the second syllable, and the cars are called taxi cabs in
abbreviation for that? As in, a taximeter-equipped motor cabin?)
Literally 3 times in a row, I hailed a cab to get home from my night job
in a busy night-time district. I guess these drivers assume everyone is
just another stupid australian drunk, and a lot of them are, but a
certain number are like me, they've been working and they just want to
commute home safely and conveniently. I guess all christians or whites
or aussies or something, all look the same ;)
The idea is, the driver says, "is 25 bucks OK?" or whatever price,
knowing that the metered fee would be lower. I've caught more than
enough cabs home to know what it costs on the weekends, about 18 bucks.
The 1st time, I just said fine (he actually offered 20 bucks fare), the
next one I said, whatever it says on the meter please and he kind of
deflated in despair, sulked and started the meter. The 3rd guy started a
long rant at me in Hindi or Buttfrickistan-ese or whatever, as I got out
and walked away. He shouted something at me as I did.
I booked a cab to get home from my other job one night last week and had
other problems with the driver, so I refused him and called back asking
for someone else. The next guy was professional and courteous and just
what you THINK you're paying for, at last.
Then, today, hailed a cab from the shopping centre because it was
seriously raining hard. This guy tried the "is 20 bucks OK" and the
meter off, I was only a few minutes from home and it would have cost
half that, so I said no thanks and got out. That's literally all I said,
and got a lot stream of abuse for it again. So that's actually four
hailed cabs in a row, and even one I booked (that's another story, I'll
post about it later as I need to get ready for work now)
So I called the taxi company and gave them his name, plate and license
numbers, car description etc, and took their advice and reported him
direct to the Dept of Transport too :) Heh.
In these times of competition they've never had before (Uber and the
like), this is the WORST moment to be pulling this stuff. I was wary of
Uber for years and wouldn't use them, now they're my preferred carrier.
You get a fixed price and pay in advance, they don't accept cash so
there's no haggling, and they are independent drivers so they appreciate
the business. I've never had a problem with them, except that late on a
Monday or Tuesday in the further-out suburbs you can't always get one
straight away. In which case I'll just walk a few km's to the next major
stop and have no problem from there. Luckily I haven't had this happen
on a rainy night yet.
It's like EVERYTHING is a scam now. Every industry, every category of
business, everything you try to do, some shark is trying to game the
system. I don't need to tell you guys about spam emails, dodgy websites
and the phone calls... the less said about that the better. So what will
be the ultimate result of that as it goes on that way? Eventually govt's
will have to act and crack down, and a lot of people will go to jail or
out of business, and everything you try to do will be locked up tight
behind ridiculous and ever-more-inconvenient layers of security, as is
happening already.
Which makes me think, it's a bad time to be a phony religion or
spiritual leader when all around the world there's pressure building to
increase scrutiny on everything.
Hi Bart, or Maplin, or Maplin Zero. Unfortunately increased scrutiny doesn't mean change.

Government did crack down in the '70s here in the States. Truth in advertising laws, etc. etc. Then another political party got into power and everything's just gotten worse, and worse, and worse, for forty years!

Standards have changed. No one remembers what "normal" and "honest" used to mean. They're out the window. Not that there always wasn't SOME fiddle, but the population's just gotten gi-normous over the last seventy years. Which means more people than ever have to hustle. And have to be even more shameless than prior generations were.

And when did everyone start thinking "dystopia"? Forty years ago? Fifty? That doesn't help anything.
Maplin
2021-07-16 06:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by fife
Post by Maplin
Post by Maplin
<snip>
Post by Etznab
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a
crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling
Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
SPeaking of scammers, I just need to unload about yet another breed...
taxi drivers who don't want to use the meter.
(PS did you know that the meter is called a "taximeter", with the
emphasis on the second syllable, and the cars are called taxi cabs in
abbreviation for that? As in, a taximeter-equipped motor cabin?)
Literally 3 times in a row, I hailed a cab to get home from my night job
in a busy night-time district. I guess these drivers assume everyone is
just another stupid australian drunk, and a lot of them are, but a
certain number are like me, they've been working and they just want to
commute home safely and conveniently. I guess all christians or whites
or aussies or something, all look the same ;)
The idea is, the driver says, "is 25 bucks OK?" or whatever price,
knowing that the metered fee would be lower. I've caught more than
enough cabs home to know what it costs on the weekends, about 18 bucks.
The 1st time, I just said fine (he actually offered 20 bucks fare), the
next one I said, whatever it says on the meter please and he kind of
deflated in despair, sulked and started the meter. The 3rd guy started a
long rant at me in Hindi or Buttfrickistan-ese or whatever, as I got out
and walked away. He shouted something at me as I did.
I booked a cab to get home from my other job one night last week and had
other problems with the driver, so I refused him and called back asking
for someone else. The next guy was professional and courteous and just
what you THINK you're paying for, at last.
Then, today, hailed a cab from the shopping centre because it was
seriously raining hard. This guy tried the "is 20 bucks OK" and the
meter off, I was only a few minutes from home and it would have cost
half that, so I said no thanks and got out. That's literally all I said,
and got a lot stream of abuse for it again. So that's actually four
hailed cabs in a row, and even one I booked (that's another story, I'll
post about it later as I need to get ready for work now)
So I called the taxi company and gave them his name, plate and license
numbers, car description etc, and took their advice and reported him
direct to the Dept of Transport too :) Heh.
In these times of competition they've never had before (Uber and the
like), this is the WORST moment to be pulling this stuff. I was wary of
Uber for years and wouldn't use them, now they're my preferred carrier.
You get a fixed price and pay in advance, they don't accept cash so
there's no haggling, and they are independent drivers so they appreciate
the business. I've never had a problem with them, except that late on a
Monday or Tuesday in the further-out suburbs you can't always get one
straight away. In which case I'll just walk a few km's to the next major
stop and have no problem from there. Luckily I haven't had this happen
on a rainy night yet.
It's like EVERYTHING is a scam now. Every industry, every category of
business, everything you try to do, some shark is trying to game the
system. I don't need to tell you guys about spam emails, dodgy websites
and the phone calls... the less said about that the better. So what will
be the ultimate result of that as it goes on that way? Eventually govt's
will have to act and crack down, and a lot of people will go to jail or
out of business, and everything you try to do will be locked up tight
behind ridiculous and ever-more-inconvenient layers of security, as is
happening already.
Which makes me think, it's a bad time to be a phony religion or
spiritual leader when all around the world there's pressure building to
increase scrutiny on everything.
Hi Bart, or Maplin, or Maplin Zero. Unfortunately increased scrutiny doesn't mean change.
Government did crack down in the '70s here in the States. Truth in advertising laws, etc. etc. Then another political party got into power and everything's just gotten worse, and worse, and worse, for forty years!
Standards have changed. No one remembers what "normal" and "honest" used to mean. They're out the window. Not that there always wasn't SOME fiddle, but the population's just gotten gi-normous over the last seventy years. Which means more people than ever have to hustle. And have to be even more shameless than prior generations were.
And when did everyone start thinking "dystopia"? Forty years ago? Fifty? That doesn't help anything.
Thanks for the reply, and I've seen that happen in stages too (in the US
I mean, watching from here... we've never had any shortage of US media
to follow), and I have a couple of American emigrants in my close family
who naturally keep a watch on what's happening in The Old Country.

Much the same has been happening here but I'd say rather than the
draconian, ham-fisted jack-booted hang-em-high approach, it's more of a
"nanny state" thing; we are saturated with more and more rules outside
of law, *for our own* good you understand, protecting us from ourselves,
imposed on employers who must then impose them on staff, and my personal
favourite: in-house policies of the public service - the UN-elected
officials gaining more and more power over people who have no way to
vote them out (and never got a vote in whether they were suitable people
to put IN in the first place). As I've said before, I see little point
whining about the elected officials when it's the UN-elected officials
who exert more power over more people more often, with less
accountability, less scrutiny and less comeback for those affected.

The dystopian aspect to me seems more informal and "social" than
official. With minimal input from the executive and only the barest
nudge in changing the actual laws, we get as much or more actual effect,
only it's delivered in different ways. "Political correctness" covers a
lot of it; a label for new social standards of convenience to the
powerful, pressuring and coercing people to stop doing things they
should rightly be free to do, by making them simply feel guilty about
it. When you can't legally enforce this will, you just get others to
guilt them into enforcing it for you.

I'd love to expand on this but once again I must go, to try and piece
together a living from the many scraps of work I need to fill my week
with to be equivalent to about a part-time fry cook. All the best
Etznab
2021-07-16 11:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maplin
Post by fife
Post by Maplin
Post by Maplin
<snip>
Post by Etznab
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a
crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling
Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
SPeaking of scammers, I just need to unload about yet another breed...
taxi drivers who don't want to use the meter.
(PS did you know that the meter is called a "taximeter", with the
emphasis on the second syllable, and the cars are called taxi cabs in
abbreviation for that? As in, a taximeter-equipped motor cabin?)
Literally 3 times in a row, I hailed a cab to get home from my night job
in a busy night-time district. I guess these drivers assume everyone is
just another stupid australian drunk, and a lot of them are, but a
certain number are like me, they've been working and they just want to
commute home safely and conveniently. I guess all christians or whites
or aussies or something, all look the same ;)
The idea is, the driver says, "is 25 bucks OK?" or whatever price,
knowing that the metered fee would be lower. I've caught more than
enough cabs home to know what it costs on the weekends, about 18 bucks.
The 1st time, I just said fine (he actually offered 20 bucks fare), the
next one I said, whatever it says on the meter please and he kind of
deflated in despair, sulked and started the meter. The 3rd guy started a
long rant at me in Hindi or Buttfrickistan-ese or whatever, as I got out
and walked away. He shouted something at me as I did.
I booked a cab to get home from my other job one night last week and had
other problems with the driver, so I refused him and called back asking
for someone else. The next guy was professional and courteous and just
what you THINK you're paying for, at last.
Then, today, hailed a cab from the shopping centre because it was
seriously raining hard. This guy tried the "is 20 bucks OK" and the
meter off, I was only a few minutes from home and it would have cost
half that, so I said no thanks and got out. That's literally all I said,
and got a lot stream of abuse for it again. So that's actually four
hailed cabs in a row, and even one I booked (that's another story, I'll
post about it later as I need to get ready for work now)
So I called the taxi company and gave them his name, plate and license
numbers, car description etc, and took their advice and reported him
direct to the Dept of Transport too :) Heh.
In these times of competition they've never had before (Uber and the
like), this is the WORST moment to be pulling this stuff. I was wary of
Uber for years and wouldn't use them, now they're my preferred carrier.
You get a fixed price and pay in advance, they don't accept cash so
there's no haggling, and they are independent drivers so they appreciate
the business. I've never had a problem with them, except that late on a
Monday or Tuesday in the further-out suburbs you can't always get one
straight away. In which case I'll just walk a few km's to the next major
stop and have no problem from there. Luckily I haven't had this happen
on a rainy night yet.
It's like EVERYTHING is a scam now. Every industry, every category of
business, everything you try to do, some shark is trying to game the
system. I don't need to tell you guys about spam emails, dodgy websites
and the phone calls... the less said about that the better. So what will
be the ultimate result of that as it goes on that way? Eventually govt's
will have to act and crack down, and a lot of people will go to jail or
out of business, and everything you try to do will be locked up tight
behind ridiculous and ever-more-inconvenient layers of security, as is
happening already.
Which makes me think, it's a bad time to be a phony religion or
spiritual leader when all around the world there's pressure building to
increase scrutiny on everything.
Hi Bart, or Maplin, or Maplin Zero. Unfortunately increased scrutiny doesn't mean change.
Government did crack down in the '70s here in the States. Truth in advertising laws, etc. etc. Then another political party got into power and everything's just gotten worse, and worse, and worse, for forty years!
Standards have changed. No one remembers what "normal" and "honest" used to mean. They're out the window. Not that there always wasn't SOME fiddle, but the population's just gotten gi-normous over the last seventy years. Which means more people than ever have to hustle. And have to be even more shameless than prior generations were.
And when did everyone start thinking "dystopia"? Forty years ago? Fifty? That doesn't help anything.
Thanks for the reply, and I've seen that happen in stages too (in the US
I mean, watching from here... we've never had any shortage of US media
to follow), and I have a couple of American emigrants in my close family
who naturally keep a watch on what's happening in The Old Country.
Much the same has been happening here but I'd say rather than the
draconian, ham-fisted jack-booted hang-em-high approach, it's more of a
"nanny state" thing; we are saturated with more and more rules outside
of law, *for our own* good you understand, protecting us from ourselves,
imposed on employers who must then impose them on staff, and my personal
favourite: in-house policies of the public service - the UN-elected
officials gaining more and more power over people who have no way to
vote them out (and never got a vote in whether they were suitable people
to put IN in the first place). As I've said before, I see little point
whining about the elected officials when it's the UN-elected officials
who exert more power over more people more often, with less
accountability, less scrutiny and less comeback for those affected.
The dystopian aspect to me seems more informal and "social" than
official. With minimal input from the executive and only the barest
nudge in changing the actual laws, we get as much or more actual effect,
only it's delivered in different ways. "Political correctness" covers a
lot of it; a label for new social standards of convenience to the
powerful, pressuring and coercing people to stop doing things they
should rightly be free to do, by making them simply feel guilty about
it. When you can't legally enforce this will, you just get others to
guilt them into enforcing it for you.
I'd love to expand on this but once again I must go, to try and piece
together a living from the many scraps of work I need to fill my week
with to be equivalent to about a part-time fry cook. All the best
"[...] the UN-elected officials gaining more and more power over people who have no way to
vote them out [... .]"

I think you're on to something.
Maplin
2021-07-20 17:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etznab
Post by Maplin
Post by fife
Post by Maplin
Post by Maplin
<snip>
Post by Etznab
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a
crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling
Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
SPeaking of scammers, I just need to unload about yet another breed...
taxi drivers who don't want to use the meter.
(PS did you know that the meter is called a "taximeter", with the
emphasis on the second syllable, and the cars are called taxi cabs in
abbreviation for that? As in, a taximeter-equipped motor cabin?)
Literally 3 times in a row, I hailed a cab to get home from my night job
in a busy night-time district. I guess these drivers assume everyone is
just another stupid australian drunk, and a lot of them are, but a
certain number are like me, they've been working and they just want to
commute home safely and conveniently. I guess all christians or whites
or aussies or something, all look the same ;)
The idea is, the driver says, "is 25 bucks OK?" or whatever price,
knowing that the metered fee would be lower. I've caught more than
enough cabs home to know what it costs on the weekends, about 18 bucks.
The 1st time, I just said fine (he actually offered 20 bucks fare), the
next one I said, whatever it says on the meter please and he kind of
deflated in despair, sulked and started the meter. The 3rd guy started a
long rant at me in Hindi or Buttfrickistan-ese or whatever, as I got out
and walked away. He shouted something at me as I did.
I booked a cab to get home from my other job one night last week and had
other problems with the driver, so I refused him and called back asking
for someone else. The next guy was professional and courteous and just
what you THINK you're paying for, at last.
Then, today, hailed a cab from the shopping centre because it was
seriously raining hard. This guy tried the "is 20 bucks OK" and the
meter off, I was only a few minutes from home and it would have cost
half that, so I said no thanks and got out. That's literally all I said,
and got a lot stream of abuse for it again. So that's actually four
hailed cabs in a row, and even one I booked (that's another story, I'll
post about it later as I need to get ready for work now)
So I called the taxi company and gave them his name, plate and license
numbers, car description etc, and took their advice and reported him
direct to the Dept of Transport too :) Heh.
In these times of competition they've never had before (Uber and the
like), this is the WORST moment to be pulling this stuff. I was wary of
Uber for years and wouldn't use them, now they're my preferred carrier.
You get a fixed price and pay in advance, they don't accept cash so
there's no haggling, and they are independent drivers so they appreciate
the business. I've never had a problem with them, except that late on a
Monday or Tuesday in the further-out suburbs you can't always get one
straight away. In which case I'll just walk a few km's to the next major
stop and have no problem from there. Luckily I haven't had this happen
on a rainy night yet.
It's like EVERYTHING is a scam now. Every industry, every category of
business, everything you try to do, some shark is trying to game the
system. I don't need to tell you guys about spam emails, dodgy websites
and the phone calls... the less said about that the better. So what will
be the ultimate result of that as it goes on that way? Eventually govt's
will have to act and crack down, and a lot of people will go to jail or
out of business, and everything you try to do will be locked up tight
behind ridiculous and ever-more-inconvenient layers of security, as is
happening already.
Which makes me think, it's a bad time to be a phony religion or
spiritual leader when all around the world there's pressure building to
increase scrutiny on everything.
Hi Bart, or Maplin, or Maplin Zero. Unfortunately increased scrutiny doesn't mean change.
Government did crack down in the '70s here in the States. Truth in advertising laws, etc. etc. Then another political party got into power and everything's just gotten worse, and worse, and worse, for forty years!
Standards have changed. No one remembers what "normal" and "honest" used to mean. They're out the window. Not that there always wasn't SOME fiddle, but the population's just gotten gi-normous over the last seventy years. Which means more people than ever have to hustle. And have to be even more shameless than prior generations were.
And when did everyone start thinking "dystopia"? Forty years ago? Fifty? That doesn't help anything.
Thanks for the reply, and I've seen that happen in stages too (in the US
I mean, watching from here... we've never had any shortage of US media
to follow), and I have a couple of American emigrants in my close family
who naturally keep a watch on what's happening in The Old Country.
Much the same has been happening here but I'd say rather than the
draconian, ham-fisted jack-booted hang-em-high approach, it's more of a
"nanny state" thing; we are saturated with more and more rules outside
of law, *for our own* good you understand, protecting us from ourselves,
imposed on employers who must then impose them on staff, and my personal
favourite: in-house policies of the public service - the UN-elected
officials gaining more and more power over people who have no way to
vote them out (and never got a vote in whether they were suitable people
to put IN in the first place). As I've said before, I see little point
whining about the elected officials when it's the UN-elected officials
who exert more power over more people more often, with less
accountability, less scrutiny and less comeback for those affected.
The dystopian aspect to me seems more informal and "social" than
official. With minimal input from the executive and only the barest
nudge in changing the actual laws, we get as much or more actual effect,
only it's delivered in different ways. "Political correctness" covers a
lot of it; a label for new social standards of convenience to the
powerful, pressuring and coercing people to stop doing things they
should rightly be free to do, by making them simply feel guilty about
it. When you can't legally enforce this will, you just get others to
guilt them into enforcing it for you.
I'd love to expand on this but once again I must go, to try and piece
together a living from the many scraps of work I need to fill my week
with to be equivalent to about a part-time fry cook. All the best
"[...] the UN-elected officials gaining more and more power over people who have no way to
vote them out [... .]"
I think you're on to something.
Ooh boy once I start on this topic I have trouble letting it go. It's
one I think about a lot.
I think the western world and most of the "First World" are on a
slippery slope of eroding democratic principles. A dear one to me is
that you shouldn't be able to gain power over people by just getting
some job at some place... the most basic tenet of democracy is that we
choose the people we trust with that power. As it says in one of the
Dune books -
"Democracy, that's where you vote for..."
"No! That's where you don't trust anyone with power over you!"
IMO, *THAT* is what it's all about. The foundation of the United States
of America was on high principles, basically "No more kings!" No more
hereditary power, the whole point of it isn't that you can vote them in
but you can vote the bastards OUT!! Nobody gets to hang onto power just
because they desire it. In a true democracy holding office would be a
burden of responsibility, not an elevation to privilege.

So. When I find I've got to answer to some careerist who gets to decide
what I'm allowed or not allowed to do, that rankles. The public service
is *supposed* to be there to implement the decisions and policies of the
elected representatives, but part of this gradual (and IMO wrong and
dangerous) erosion of democracy is that more and more of what should be
the powers of the elected rep's get delegated to people who just got
some job at some place.

Surely the American democracy is superior to the Westminster system (UK,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand et al) because they have recall
elections, and you can vote chiefs of departments in or out. I'm really
not very well versed in this and I'd appreciate a bit of a primer as to
how this works in the USA - in fact I think The Simpsons has explained
it better than anything else I've come across. We just don't have that
right.

For that matter one of the great deficiencies of the Australian system
is no Bill Of Rights. You *effectively* have the same rights, pretty
much, because they're upheld in other laws, that make it illegal to do
things that would be against those accepted principles, but nowhere are
those basic rights actually enumerated, defined or guaranteed. And the
govt has always put some effort into actually resisting such a Bill. To
me this hurts because it's clear that the populace wants it - it IS the
will of the people.

But, as mentioned, this is a Westminster system democracy, IMO a
thinner, weaker, more dilute form than the American one. Now, don't get
me wrong, I believe the American democracy is in fact more compromised
by other interests and parties than our own is - they have these lobby
groups, whether industry, private, academic, political or whatever, from
*outside* the body of representatives, and they arguably have the real
power in most states and federally. But for all that, the basics of the
American Constitution are stronger and better than ours.

I'm no republican (note the lower-case r, I did that to make it clear I
don't mean the American political party but the movement in Australia to
end the constitutional monarchy and make us a republic), I don't believe
the problem is that the ultimate head of state for Australia is the
Queen. I actually favour continuing that state of things... I would
still like to see what I would call true democratic reforms in Australia.

I know I write long posts, and I've got stuff I have to do, I'll come
back to this.

Etznab
2021-07-15 14:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maplin
<snip>
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
Yes. Well said, Maplin. The evidence speaks for itself.

On the other hand, there is popular belief and contemporary Eckankar dogma that doesn't always match the facts. (The word plagiarism appears not once on the official Eckankar website, or any derivative of the word plagiarize; ex. plagiarist, etc. Master compiler and the word "borrowed" is what you see instead.)

So it's not only expressing a view about a.r.e., trolls and spammers when posting here. For me, it's also about the long history and evolution of Eckankar teachings; fact and fiction. Looking at that and how stories change as new information comes in. All those many paragraphs and chapters spelled out as if coming from Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell creates a character that people then come to believe in. Does everybody know the magnitude of that history? How much of it did not originate with any Rebazar Tarzs? But that Rebazar Tarzs was as if stamped over the authors and their books and the credit given to Eckankar via names like Rebazar Tarzs?

It's clearly evident, as you alluded to, what the real, factual, evidence-based, verifiable and provable story is in my opinion. I think a lot of others would agree. Some who dropped out and washed their hands of Eckankar, so to speak. And some who remain, but mostly hold their tongue if something does not jive with the leader and clergy version of events. Not everybody, of course.
Etznab
2021-07-15 15:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Etznab
Post by Maplin
<snip>
So if Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar, isn't God and it's like a crime to set someone above us? What is the problem with telling Eckankar history like it is?...
There isn't a problem with that in itself, but certain people still have
a problem with it - I think the problem is, it shatters their carefully
developed illusions and constructs. Some people react so badly to that
that it may actually be dangerous to do it, such as the courtier getting
a little *too* close to uncomfortable truths the Grand High Poobah or
whoever it is doesn't really want to confront.
Here in internet land though, it's less likely to have any real
consequences. What's the worst that can happen? Some guy you've barely
heard of writes an upset page of text? Big deal! I would urge you to
keep going and pursue objective fact, regardless of who isn't
comfortable with it. Everything I've seen you post in regards to this
plagiarism issue is researched, referenced and thorough, and you're able
to defend it and stand by it. I would say, though, that you don't need
to give your challengers and the deniers so much air-time; your
plagiarism-in-Eck posts stand on their own merits, unlike some of the
challenges you've had to them. If someone wants to argue against your
posts but they don't have a cogent position, that's obvious to others
too. I wonder sometimes if you're too worried that if you don't walk
readers through the holes in these responses, they might be swayed to
support that false position (especially that "it can't be plagiarism
because since the revelations are so holy and beyond question, another
[holy] person would find the same words too - and if they don't, they
must be heretics!").
I think you've been posting good, self-consistent and provable stuff. If
someone might be persuaded to disbelieve it by way of a purely emotive,
non-logical and subjective rebuttal, I'd suggest you don't need to try
and win that person back. Or if they reject it purely because they think
a "holier" person demands it as a matter of faith, same again. You'd
only be arguing with someone who refuses to accept; neither will budge,
so what's the point?
The question of plagiarism needs to be properly dealt with if Eckankar
expects to continue, and that won't be by making people believe an
un-truth of convenience for the church. Again, I applaud what you're
doing and urge you to continue objectively and without allowing purely
emotional responses to sway you from a position you know makes sense.
We've mentioned plenty of SF authors before, I'm reminded of a line from
one of Robert Heinlein's books - "an emotional argument permits no
refutation". (ie "it just doesn't FEEL right!" - that's difficult to
refute). But you should never need to; that emotional argument is no
counter to your properly constructed essays on plagiarism. Good job!
Yes. Well said, Maplin. The evidence speaks for itself.
On the other hand, there is popular belief and contemporary Eckankar dogma that doesn't always match the facts. (The word plagiarism appears not once on the official Eckankar website, or any derivative of the word plagiarize; ex. plagiarist, etc. Master compiler and the word "borrowed" is what you see instead.)
So it's not only expressing a view about a.r.e., trolls and spammers when posting here. For me, it's also about the long history and evolution of Eckankar teachings; fact and fiction. Looking at that and how stories change as new information comes in. All those many paragraphs and chapters spelled out as if coming from Rebazar Tarzs to Paul Twitchell creates a character that people then come to believe in. Does everybody know the magnitude of that history? How much of it did not originate with any Rebazar Tarzs? But that Rebazar Tarzs was as if stamped over the authors and their books and the credit given to Eckankar via names like Rebazar Tarzs?
It's clearly evident, as you alluded to, what the real, factual, evidence-based, verifiable and provable story is in my opinion. I think a lot of others would agree. Some who dropped out and washed their hands of Eckankar, so to speak. And some who remain, but mostly hold their tongue if something does not jive with the leader and clergy version of events. Not everybody, of course.
Will the day come? Or has it come already where a prosecuting attorney, or judge presents the case evidence against a real Rebazar Tarzs (the trove of copied from books, etc.) and awaits an honest reply from Eckankar Inc.? Let's try to imagine for a moment what that reply would look like. Real? Not real? A little of both? But what about the sheer magnitude of plagiarism examples credited to some Rebazar Tarzs? Is THAT R.T. real??? And this was / is one of the main points that I have via this newsgroup and others looked at from both sides. However, does Eckankar or the website mention in plain words that THAT Rebazar Tarzs was / is a made up fiction? In other words, if true that THAT Rebazar Tarzs was / is in many respects a made up fiction, then can Eckankar officially admit that? (As opposed to "spinning it" another way, or ignoring the subject altogether as if non important?)
Loading...