Did some Ekist REALLY write this?
dla...@hotmail.com
I have received a few letters recently from "apparent" Ekists.
One can never tell anymore. But this was sent to me claiming to
be a post placed in Hu-Chat. The writer claims to be arising from
g...@pacificcoast.net (Glen), but quite frankly it surprises me.
So here it is and perhaps somebody can tell me what it is actually
happening:
(apparently posted to hu-chat)
"Well finally someone on our side has decided to the same [apparently
in reference to some guy--Paul Markert?--using false names].
"They have replicated Dave Lane's letterhead to the point where I
can't tell them apart. It couldn't happen at a more advantageous
time because Lane has really been thumping us for the last few weeks."
"Well, I guess he is not used to being on the other end of the gun...
he is positively beside himself about this imposter."
"Here is where the help part comes in. I've been making a big deal
of pretending to be confused as to which is which [which only irritates
the professor even more]. I've responded to obvious fakes as if they
were written by the professor."
"If you are an a.r.e. person why not join in and do the same:)
Maybe even reconcile with the artificial Lane and praise his fairness
etc."
"I know this is not all that spiritual.... but it's spring and all
the world is feeling a bit fiesty (well not in the southern
hemisphere..... but then most of the really important people
live in the northern hemisphere so who cares:).
"So if you want..... join me in loving Dave#2:)
Oh and if the master who created this, is on this group.....
I bow deeply to you:)
Glen Stevens
ps
"If this post offends you please complain to the new Moderators:)
I figure I'll last about 2 weeks on this group after I stop being
one of the Moderators<VBG>
--------------------------------------------
DEAR ARE participants:
I don't know have a clue who wrote this, but was this really
posted on Hu-Chat?
I am just hoping for some straightforward criticism.
If you wish to rip me, then feel most free to do so.
But please, I ask again, don't use my name.
thanks
david lane
email me at
this address or
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
GLEN STEVENS
> I have received a few letters recently from "apparent" Ekists.
>
> One can never tell anymore. But this was sent to me claiming to
> be a post placed in Hu-Chat. The writer claims to be arising from
> g...@pacificcoast.net (Glen), but quite frankly it surprises me.
This is private email!
You know Dave I have always suspected that you had a mole on HuChat.
Isn't it kind of silly spying on a group of people like this.
You know I would of thought that your days had more important things in
them than stealing my email from a closed group.
Pretty pathetic.
> So here it is and perhaps somebody can tell me what it is actually
> happening:
I guess the first thing that is happening is that someone is violating the
SOP of HuChat. I'm glad I'm leaving if that's the case.
The second thing is that you, Dave, are posting my private email, directed
to someone other than yourself, on to a newsgroup. That is very rude and
clearly shows you have little respect for nettiquette.
But then that does not surprise me.
You moan about fairness for yourself and then post my private mail here.
Very uncool. I don't think I like you very much anymore.
So . . . now that it's here . . . let's at least let the writer make the
first comments on it.
First, yes, on HuChat, we talk about Dave Lane sometimes. Since you
obviously have a mole there, you likely know that this is not the first
time and it likely won't be the last. Big deal.
> (apparently posted to hu-chat)
>
> "Well finally someone on our side has decided to the same [apparently
> in reference to some guy--Paul Markert?--using false names].
It's a truthful statement. Someone has. I guess it also means you can take
me off your list of suspects.
>
> "They have replicated Dave Lane's letterhead to the point where I
> can't tell them apart. It couldn't happen at a more advantageous
> time because Lane has really been thumping us for the last few weeks."
Another truthful statement. I truly cannot tell them apart unless Dave #2
goes on a rant. And yes it is true that you have been beating the crap out
of us of late. Both comments are obviously part of the public record.
Again, big deal.
> "Well, I guess he is not used to being on the other end of the gun...
> he is positively beside himself about this imposter."
This is another truthful statement. You've said it yourself. I feel no
sympathy for you after you've posted this here.
>
> "Here is where the help part comes in. I've been making a big deal
> of pretending to be confused as to which is which [which only irritates
> the professor even more]. I've responded to obvious fakes as if they
> were written by the professor."
Again, this is a matter of the public record. You've watched it unfold
yourself with some of the sillier rants.
I have also responded to posts that I thought were authentic and been fooled.
Again this is obviously a part of the public record.
I have seen nothing yet, that would give you Dave, any reason to violate
my rights of privacy. Posting private email, directed to you by your mole,
is very uncool. Posting email that you have gained by subterfuge is cheap
and dirty.
> "If you are an a.r.e. person why not join in and do the same:)
> Maybe even reconcile with the artificial Lane and praise his fairness
> etc."
> "I know this is not all that spiritual.... but it's spring and all
> the world is feeling a bit fiesty (well not in the southern
> hemisphere..... but then most of the really important people
> live in the northern hemisphere so who cares:).
> "So if you want..... join me in loving Dave#2:)
Yeah . . . so what? I suggested that others might like to post as well.
Not everyone goes to a.r.e. all the time and for those who might like to
join the fray I was updating them on the occurences of late.
Again, I see nothing here I am ashamed of. I go to a.r.e. to confront guys
like you Dave. That's why I'm here and it's why most other Eckists are
here as well.
It's the Usenet. It isn't always nice . . .and as you've clearly shown
today, sometimes it's pretty dirty and downright pathetic.
>
> Oh and if the master who created this, is on this group.....
>
> I bow deeply to you:)
Again, clear proof that I don't have a clue who is doing this. Also clear
proof that I have no idea how they are doing this.
If indeed ANYONE is.
I showed the headers to a friend tonight and he said "you know, it's
almost as if these posts were all coming from the same computer."
I wonder if someone who is low enough to post stolen email, also might be
low enough, to fake his own cloning.
> DEAR ARE participants:
>
> I don't know have a clue who wrote this, but was this really
> posted on Hu-Chat?
I, Glen Stevens wrote it, as a funny post, to a closed group, you are not
a member of.
It was posted on HuChat by me and it should have stayed there. You had no
right to read this and you certainly had no right to post my email on this
group!
> I am just hoping for some straightforward criticism.
>
> If you wish to rip me, then feel most free to do so.
>
> But please, I ask again, don't use my name.
I have never used your name!
You had no business using mine here!
Email is private and should not be posted here!
You may not like what I said in my private mail, but it was private and
you had no rights to steal it, or to post it here.
I don't care if you are all wrapped up in your little victim conciousness
because someone is copying your name. It is no excuse for you to post
private email here.
I am right pissed off at you Lane!
I think the tone here on a.r.e just got a ton nastier.
And yes . . . this is the real
Glen Stevens
--
DEGibbens
g...@pacificcoast.net (GLEN STEVENS):
> "They have replicated Dave Lane's letterhead to the point where I
> can't tell them apart. It couldn't happen at a more advantageous
> time because Lane has really been thumping us for the last few weeks."
<<Another truthful statement. I truly cannot tell them apart unless Dave #2
goes on a rant. And yes it is true that you have been beating the crap out
of us of late. Both comments are obviously part of the public record.
Again, big deal.>>
??? I missed something. How has Dave been "beating the crap out of us"? His
arguments seem pretty lame to me.
Douglas E. Gibbens
http://members.aol.com/degibbens/
Nathan Zafran
g...@pacificcoast.net (GLEN STEVENS) wrote:
<snip>
It's nice to see you get a little hot, Glen. I mean, what did you
expect? David Lane has been unethically writing heavily biased garbage
for well over 25 years (autistically, I might add). Did you actually
expect him to suddenly become an honest human being? Of course, he has
a mole on the chat lines! He needs to do all these things to get dirty
information about Eckankar to continue his diatribe! He has nothing
better to do with his time than attack other religions, and will use
any underhanded method he can think of.
But the bottom line is I can't understand why he is so upset about
other people mimicing him. I mean, he never has anything positive or
valuable or new to say anyways, so what's the problem? Whether it's
him or his clones, or his disciples, it all boils down to the same old
stuff -- put downs of Eckankar, a wonderful spiritual path, loved by
many tens of thousands around the world.
Still, I have to admit, it's nice to see David lane squirm, for a
change.
In Eck,
Nathan
GLEN STEVENS
In article <VLx41.33987$971.10...@newsgate.direct.ca>,
eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran) wrote:
>
> It's nice to see you get a little hot, Glen. I mean, what did you
> expect? David Lane has been unethically writing heavily biased garbage
> for well over 25 years (autistically, I might add). Did you actually
> expect him to suddenly become an honest human being? Of course, he has
> a mole on the chat lines! He needs to do all these things to get dirty
> information about Eckankar to continue his diatribe! He has nothing
> better to do with his time than attack other religions, and will use
> any underhanded method he can think of.
Of course I am upset about this.
I wrote a private letter to a private group.
I had the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Lane is on here
asking people to be fair and then he goes ahead and breaks one of the most
fundamental of all rules on the Usenet.
Email is private!
It does not matter that Lane does not like what I think of him.
What I said in that letter was a silly, off-color, off the cuff, humorous
post to a private group. Sure it was in bad taste . . . it was not as
evolved as the Beano posts but it was silly and in bad taste . . . I admit
that in the post.
But . . . the person who posted my private email agreed to keep all HuChat
posts private when they joined. Forwarding this post, and God knows how
many more posts, to Dr. Lane was dishonest.
When Dr. Lane got a copy of my private email he should have tossed it in
the trash. At the very least, he should have written me an email . . . my
email address is on every one of my posts . . . and spoken with me
personally on this.
To post my private email here is a personal attack on me.
As you may guess I am pissed off.
And you should be too . . . no matter what side of this group you sit on.
Posting personal email here is wrong. If I had done it you guys would have
been all over me. Because the illustrious Dr.Dave did it . . . he gets a
free ride right?
Glen Faust
--
Dancing Thunder
On Fri, 08 May 1998 02:41:03 GMT, dla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I have received a few letters recently from "apparent" Ekists.>
First of all. David Lane knows how to spell. Secondly, David Lane
does not like Eckankar, but unless forced to defend himself, has not
personally attacked individual Eckists. Thirdly, David Lane would not
post private e-mail from hu-chat on a.r.e. His standards are higher
than that.
It's easy to spot imposters. They have no class and even less balls.
Now, as for Glen's hu-chat post. I say THREE CHEERS to him for
exposing the ongoing preschool junk that goes on in a.r.e. Glen and
others have been on a.r.e. for over 3 years now. They know this
territory well.
The discussion here stopped being about Eckankar years ago. It's been
about human power plays and outwitting the opponent. It's incredible
fun, but has nothing to do with Eckankar. Everyone who comes to
a.r.e., including myself, is staking a claim to the right to Be here,
and the right to express themselves.
Those who hide behind masks are cowards and not fooling anyone.
Glen, you have nothing to defend, except your pride. I like David
Lane's idea of posting his (I repeat HIS) posts on his web site, which
only he has access to.
I offer my server to Glen and Sam whenever he returns, and will host a
web site of their a.r.e. posts. Sam is not my enemy and I see no
reason to take sides. Glen, Sam and David Lane are valuable, decent
people entitiled their own opinions and have the right to express
themselves BY THEMSELVES.
I also suggest that whomever posted Glen's private post to hu-chat
here on a.r.e. be removed from the hu-chat list. By the same token,
it should be written into the hu-chat moderating procedure that posts
that originate in a.r.e. are not to be reposted in hu-chat.
In addition, Hotmail needs to be notified by David Lane that he is
being cloned. Newsgroups DO get shut down.
Kim Krause/aka Dancing Thunder
Jan4litsnd
KIM wrote:
>Glen, you have nothing to defend, except your pride. I like David
Lane's idea of posting his (I repeat HIS) posts on his web site, which
only he has access to.
>I offer my server to Glen and Sam whenever he returns, and will host a
web site of their a.r.e. posts. Sam is not my enemy and I see no
reason to take sides. Glen, Sam and David Lane are valuable, decent
people entitiled their own opinions and have the right to express
themselves BY THEMSELVES.
JAN:
Yes, 'by themselves'.
Kim, as magnanimous as it sounds in the heat of the moment, still, why in the
world would you wish to offer Sam a platform on your website? You can still
rethink that one you know.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Jan
Nathan Zafran
jan4l...@aol.com (Jan4litsnd) wrote:
>Kim, as magnanimous as it sounds in the heat of the moment, still, why in the
>world would you wish to offer Sam a platform on your website? You can still
>rethink that one you know.
I totally agree here. I can't understand why she would want to assist
someone whose agenda is to relenlessly and viciously destroy the
validity of Eckankar. I'm really scratching me head here.
In Eck,
Nathan
Bruce & Denise
GLEN STEVENS wrote:
> And yes it is true that you have been beating the crap out
> of us of late.
> I don't see this at all.
> I have seen nothing yet, that would give you Dave, any reason to violate
> my rights of privacy. Posting private email, directed to you by your mole,
> is very uncool. Posting email that you have gained by subterfuge is cheap
> and dirty.
I agree that privacy is to be respected, but let's face it; usenet
is a part of the internet, which is not exactly a bastion of privacy.
I wouldn't post anything to a usenet group that I wouldn't mind seeing
on the front page of the New York Times.
Bruce
"This world is full of creeps like me" -- Lyle Lovett
Rick Chadwick
Dancing Thunder wrote in message <35532b7d...@news.comcat.com>...
<snip>
>The discussion here stopped being about Eckankar years ago. It's been
>about human power plays and outwitting the opponent. It's incredible
>fun, but has nothing to do with Eckankar. Everyone who comes to
>a.r.e., including myself, is staking a claim to the right to Be here,
>and the right to express themselves.
I have been trying to think of a way to describe what often happens in
a.r.e. for two years now. I think what you said above hits the nail on the
head.
Eckankar is a path to God. It is a spiritual path. Most of what is
talked about here is mind candy.
>Those who hide behind masks are cowards and not fooling anyone.
A coward is a coward. Fear is their leader. A person who follows fear is
a person who can be lead. It is better to lead yourself and if you can't do
that; learn how to defeat fear. Eckankar is one way but there are many
others. Other paths, other teachers. Don't be lead by fear.
>Glen, you have nothing to defend
<snip>
Sing Hu to open your heart
With love from Rick
Dancing Thunder
On 08 May 1998 18:49:03 GMT, jan4l...@aol.com (Jan4litsnd) wrote:
>
>Kim, as magnanimous as it sounds in the heat of the moment, still, why in the
>world would you wish to offer Sam a platform on your website? You can still
>rethink that one you know.
Simple. When I was a regular poster to a.r.e. (1996 and some of
1997), Sam and some of the other ex-Eckists treated me with respect,
even whenever we had differing viewpoints.
It takes an open heart to be able to truly communicate.
Just because a person is an Eckist doesn't mean they have more value
as a human being or Soul.
With love,
Kim
Dancing Thunder
On Fri, 08 May 1998 23:24:18 GMT, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran)
wrote:
>jan4l...@aol.com (Jan4litsnd) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Kim, as magnanimous as it sounds in the heat of the moment, still, why in the
>>world would you wish to offer Sam a platform on your website? You can still
>>rethink that one you know.
>
> I totally agree here. I can't understand why she would want to assist
>someone whose agenda is to relenlessly and viciously destroy the
>validity of Eckankar. I'm really scratching me head here.
>
>In Eck,
>
>Nathan
>
Everyone who is cloned has a right to be treated fairly. Just because
Glen is an Eckist, and Sam is not, makes no difference to me. We're
all One, despite our differences, however crudely they may be
expressed.
I was not being magnanimous. I am being true to myself only, and my
relationship to the Eck.
If a person is knocked down, I don't ask them what side of the river
they are from before I extend my hand to help them back up.
Kim
Monty Cantsin
In article <3553a86e...@news.comcat.com>, kmcr...@comcat.com wrote:
Thanks for your kind words of support Kim:)
It was sweet of you to fly in here and offer a shoulder:)
Thanks for your offer of a site.
I am unsure what I want to do right now.
I may reactivate one of my old pseudos . . . .
I always liked Hugh Singer . . . but I think Gord is using it right now.
Faustus (a really old one) was also fun . . . it fits:) the implication
from many is that I (and you etc) have sold my soul to Satan<VBG>.
Or maybe I'll just let Glen die completely and come back in a few days
with a new name and a new account.
Hell! Sam did it and seems to be having a swell time.
Anyway . . . I was pleased to see an old pal here for what may be my wake:)
Thanks
You know
--
My5koshas2
Bravo Kim! Bravo......it seems that others could take a lesson from your
understanding.
Bravo!
"Whatever Name you call Him, He will answer."
David Cullen
Bill Ramsey
kmcr...@comcat.com (Dancing Thunder) wrote:
>Everyone who is cloned has a right to be treated fairly. Just because
>Glen is an Eckist, and Sam is not, makes no difference to me. We're
>all One, despite our differences, however crudely they may be
>expressed.
>
>I was not being magnanimous. I am being true to myself only, and my
>relationship to the Eck.
>
>If a person is knocked down, I don't ask them what side of the river
>they are from before I extend my hand to help them back up.
>
>Kim
>
Bravo!
DEGibbens
DEGibben:
> ??? I missed something. How has Dave been "beating the crap
>out of us"? His arguments seem pretty lame to me.
Zuma <al...@webspan.net>:
<<Uh yeah right.....If David Lane is so wrong and inconsequential, why is it
that
everyone hangs on his every word??? As soon as Lane posts, reposts are within
hours.....Nathan has made a point of including Lane in his monthly diatribes
about a.r.e. and Lane's prescence frightens every hard core Eckist to the
core.>>
David Lane frightens me not in the least. If anything, I find his presence here
stimulating as a form of intellectual exercise. He's the intellectual
equivalent of the dead weight I pick up at the gym. And just like that dead
weight, I know that nothing I say here on a.r.e. will ultimately cause any kind
of fundamental shift in his awareness.
Eckankar is about personal and individual responsibility for your own state of
consciousness. If the International Eckankar Office were forced to shut down
tomorrow another organization would certainly take its place in no time. You
see, Zuma, someday you will understand that you can take away someone's worldly
possessions, even their life, but you cannot take away their awareness or
spiritual unfoldment.
Zuma <al...@webspan.net>:
<<It is not his "ethos" or "bias" that bothers all of you...it is his pristine
logic and historical accuracy that puts a kink in the ECK. You all squirm when
Dave posts.>>
Yuk, yuk. I've only acknowledged about a dozen times now his research as valid
from a certain scholarly and academic point of view. I'd hardly call that
squirming.
Oh BTW, perhaps you might it personally illuminating to define the ECK and
precisely how what David Lane is doing could possibly put a "kink" in it.
cinder
Dancing Thunder (Kim) wrote in message
>...I was not being magnanimous. I am being true to myself only, and my
>relationship to the Eck.
>
>If a person is knocked down, I don't ask them what side of the river
>they are from before I extend my hand to help them back up.
Yep. Pretty basic. Not too surprising that some folks find this
difficult to understand, but such is life, eh?
Thanks for being true to your own convictions, Kim, and seeing the
connections between your own Principles and Spirit Itself.
csk
monty_cantsin
In article <3558A438...@webspan.net>, Zuma says...
>
>
>
>Monty Cantsin wrote:
>
>> I am unsure what I want to do right now.
>>
>> I may reactivate one of my old pseudos . . . .
>>
>> I always liked Hugh Singer . . . but I think Gord is using it right now.
>>
>> Faustus (a really old one) was also fun . . . it fits:) the implication
>> from many is that I (and you etc) have sold my soul to Satan<VBG>.
>>
>> Or maybe I'll just let Glen die completely and come back in a few days
>> with a new name and a new account.
>>
>> Hell! Sam did it and seems to be having a swell time.
>>
>> Anyway . . . I was pleased to see an old pal here for what may be my wake:)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> You know
>>
>> --
>
>and decided to descend with some flambuoyant pseudonym and morph into a
>character who no one really cares about. You are the consummate dweeb who wraps
>himself up in a tangled web of self-loathing and needs to stand out in some
>obscure way as a force to be reckoned with, but alas, you are but a wart on the
>ass of truth seekers. I must take a stand alongside the Eckists and dub
>thee.....Sir Asswipe.
>
>Zuma
>
>
Thank you for the knighthood, your majesty, King Ass.
Look at the posts again. They address the substrate of plagiarism, ego,
imagination, history, etc.
As a UNIX programming professional, you should appreciate the move to a
more abstract level of analysis.
Off the topic, have you ever read Barbara Thiering's
"Jesus & The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls?"
Monty
wall...@om.com.au
In article <6jagkf$8...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Monty Cantsin wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Naw, nobody knows Monty....you are just some chainjerker who's lurked a
little
> >and decided to descend with some flambuoyant pseudonym and morph into a
> >character who no one really cares about. You are the consummate dweeb who
wraps
> >himself up in a tangled web of self-loathing and needs to stand out in some
> >obscure way as a force to be reckoned with, but alas, you are but a wart
on the
> >ass of truth seekers. I must take a stand alongside the Eckists and dub
> >thee.....Sir Asswipe.
> >
> >Zuma
Again those amazingly vitriolic sentences... I stand (Well OK ... I sit) in
awe of the linguistic twisting. Maybe you should write some scripts for a
Nasty Sitcom... Could be big.
> >
> Off the topic, have you ever read Barbara Thiering's
> "Jesus & The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls?"
>
There are so many good books on the subject of tearing apart the Catholic
Church. I like the take on the vow Catholic Priests have to take on rejecting
the evils of Modernism (Which is a study of the Catholic Church).
The cute thing is, the Catholic Church invented Modernism as a way of
defending themselves against the claims from the Lutheran Scholars. The only
problem was all the Jesuits who took up the study, well they sort of left the
church.
Not that I am against the Catholic religion... Far from it. I personally feel
it has so much content and deep spirituality that it is an institution to be
respected. Some of the monks are just wonderful people and extraordinary
human beings.
I do dislike the blindness which many of the followers subject themselves to,
however, and the heavy trappings of guilt and shame that seem to be part of
the fabric of the religion. While I respect the power of the church, I really
found no place inside it personally.
Especially as even basic questions about apparent paradoxi within the
theology are met with rebuke rather than discussion, as a matter of course.
You know, standard stuff like "How can God have a Mother?" etc.
But considering the background where a Mithraite (Constantinople) took a
fledgling religion, organised it, and made it conform to the dictates of the
State in order to maintain control throughout his provinces... it has done
pretty well for itself.
All things considered
love
michael
glen
> > Or maybe I'll just let Glen die completely and come back in a few days
> > with a new name and a new account.
> >
> > Hell! Sam did it and seems to be having a swell time.
> >
> > Anyway . . . I was pleased to see an old pal here for what may be my wake:)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > You know
> >
> > --
>
> Naw, nobody knows Monty....you are just some chainjerker who's lurked a little
> and decided to descend with some flambuoyant pseudonym and morph into a
> character who no one really cares about. You are the consummate dweeb
who wraps
> himself up in a tangled web of self-loathing and needs to stand out in some
> obscure way as a force to be reckoned with, but alas, you are but a wart
on the
> ass of truth seekers. I must take a stand alongside the Eckists and dub
> thee.....Sir Asswipe.
>
> Zuma
Zuma dude . . . you seem to have missed an important part of the puzzle.
In response to someone hacking my account, for a few days I brought up all
my old pseudos, as a way of being independent from the hacker.
One of the names I used was Monty Cantsin . . . I did a few silly posts
last year in that name but did not try to disguise my ISP or anything.
When I used the name Monty Cantsin, the real Monty Cantsin uncloaked and
exposed himself as the Dave Lane clone.
I think your post above was directed at the real Monty . . . I was only a
little bit Monty . . . I think you are angry at the Full Monty:)
Glen
--