Priceless quote of the week

[Tom Leafeater]

Imagine if a detractor made this statement about Twitchell: "If the author had
made this a habit [to always show the actual evidence and facts to support
every claim being made], he could have at least shown us where he got this
information from that he has told us about. That would have protected his own
reputation, since it shows he didn't just make it up. It also gives others a
much better way of judging how true it might be."

The Eckankar followers would have a fit!

But its okay to these followers when the same principle is used in an attempt
to discredit Johnson:

"One way to avoid such errors, which I am assuming were made uninintentionally,
is to always show the actual evidence and facts to support every such claim or
accusation being made. That is considered good journalism."

"If the author made this a habit, he could at least show us where he got this
information from that he is telling us about. That protects his own reputation,
since it shows he isn't just making it up. It also gives others a much better
way of judging how true it might be."

-Doug Marmon

Now, if Doug could apply such logic to Eckankar and Twitchell...

If only Twitchell had followed a course of action reflecting the principle
which Doug's advice is founded upon (the last paragraph above), there would be
much less discussion over such things today, for Twitchell would have credited
all his works to the sources he borrowed from verbatum. Of course, it wouldn't
have settled the matter of the fictitious Order of the Varaigi Masters, the
fabrication of Rebazar Tarz, or the matter of Twitchell's dubious claim to
omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience (a tall tale for a guy who didn't
even manage to appoint a successor before his own untimely death, which he
surely could have forseen if he really had such abilities), but one can't
always have everything!

Leafeater (former brother)

[Drmarman]

DOUG RESPONDS:
Hey Brother,

It's interesting that you posted this, since I was just reading Ford's book and
have found that he did indeed give a reference to his quote about Gail's
comment that what Paul created was a fraud.

And guess what? Sean was right.

In Chapter 10 of Ford's book, he has a footnote (number 9) in the back of the
book in reference to the quote: "See Message 386 at
http://www.angelfire.com/sys/popup_source.shtml?search_string=tuzahu."

Tuzahu is the person who also posted as DavidP111, who told the longest string
of intentional lies we've seen on a.r.e. so far. This is who Sean suspected was
the source.

This is exactly why it is useful to have references to facts that make such
accusations. Now we can decide if it is a source we trust, is it a solid fact
verified by multiple sources (what journalists usually require)?

As for Paul's comments: I think if he makes assertions that can't be verified,
then we should simply take them as a story. There is no need to be swayed one
way or the other by such things, unless we have some way of verifying these
things for ourselves.

Yes, it does work both ways. I agree with that.

Doug.

[Sean]

"Drmarman" <drma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220020752...@mb-m29.aol.com...

Thanks Doug, that is really very good to know. Nothing like a little
confirmation. <g>

To say David Parker is an unreliable witness would be an understatement! Yet
Ford Johnson uses this "claim that Gail said xyz about Paul" as a
foundational point in his open letter to Sri Harold posted on his website.

Very very good to know ............. next year is looking like fun already
;-))

Sean