Get a LIfe People!
nights...@webtv.net
be so clever, so witty always thinking you have the last bark. But most
of what you say doesnt contain one bit of original thought. Your always
quoting some book, Paul, Harold, Fubbi, Rebazar....not sure if he is
still on the in list. Do you have an original thought that hasnt been
programmed into you by the Eck management. Eck is a business thats all
it is....Your all these
pathetic lost souls who cant get your lives together on your own so you
seek out some crutch. With all cults you need some human you elevate
to such a Godlike status....Thats
to satisfy your insecurity that you are not worthy enough on your own.
Its like a child waiting for parental approval. These Eck
initiations...what
do you need these for? Its silly. So you have
one Eckist at a higher level than another. Ive
seen how it all plays out. These higher level
initiates arent always such good people. That
ran rampant in the late 60's and early 70"s..
There only in it for the money. I saw 1st hand how Eck sapped the life
, energy and all her talent from one women who was extremely close to
Paul. They took her money, her time from her family, and eventually
her life with promises that her breast cancer will be healed.
She believed that crud. I believethat she would
had sought treatment if Eck hadnt promised
her an inner healing, or maybe she was so obsessed with Paul that shed
rather die thinking she would be with him on " those wonderful inner
planes '. Oh yes , to heck with her family she left behind. One last
thing,,,to the wonderfull Eckist business office personnel who wrote
The Letter in 1974, " Sorry to hear about Ruths death. Please send back
all the books she had to sell to her sat sang group" Its all about
money isnt it?
To quote an important man of our times ....
M. Jagger "You cant always get what you want,
but if you try sometimes ...you get what you need" Well Ive waited
since '74 to get what I
needed. I cant have my mom back but I sure got what I needed in telling
you mindless
pseudo spiritual backstabbing money sucking
temple building fools what I think.
You dont need this crap,. you aready have the
answers yourself. Just look inside.
arelurker
> Well Ive waited since '74 to get what I needed.
I cant have my mom back but I sure got what I needed in telling
> you mindless pseudo spiritual backstabbing money sucking
> temple building fools what I think.
> You dont need this crap,. you aready have the
> answers yourself. Just look inside.
>
ummm, that would have been Kate that wrote the letter about Ruth.
She's sorry.
She's not in Eckankar anymore.
Lurk
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
HU4God
>since '74 to get what I
>needed. I cant have my mom back but I sure got what I needed in telling
>you mindless
>pseudo spiritual backstabbing money sucking
>temple building fools what I think.
>You dont need this crap,. you aready have the
>answers yourself. Just look inside.
you seem so anger. you title this message, "get a life
people!" so why are you here?
you detractors seem to have the problem...you hate
Eckankar. so as you say, "get a life" and leave Eckankar
to those who care to be a part of it.
your friendly eckist,
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Jackie
~~~~~~~ @-->-->-- ~~~~~~~
Download a HU wave file here:
http://members.aol.com/hu4god/husong.html
Keyword: aol://4400:5009 (AOL only)
Sharon V Comstock
On 15 Jan 1999, HU4God wrote:
Nightskyflyer wrote:
> >
> I saw 1st hand how Eck sapped the life
> >, energy and all her talent from one women who was extremely close to
> >Paul. They took her money, her time from her family, and eventually
> >her life with promises that her breast cancer will be healed.
> >She believed that crud. I believethat she would
> >had sought treatment if Eck hadnt promised
> >her an inner healing, or maybe she was so obsessed with Paul that shed
> >rather die thinking she would be with him on " those wonderful inner
> >planes '. Oh yes , to heck with her family she left behind. One last
> >thing,,,to the wonderfull Eckist business office personnel who wrote
> >The Letter in 1974, " Sorry to hear about Ruths death. Please send back
> >all the books she had to sell to her sat sang group" Its all about
> >money isnt it?
Well Ive waited
> >since '74 to get what I
> >needed. I cant have my mom back but I sure got what I needed in telling
> >you mindlesspseudo spiritual backstabbing money sucking
> >temple building fools what I think. You dont need this crap,. you
aready have the
> >answers yourself. Just look inside.
>
Jackie the Friendly Eckist Wrote:
>
> you seem so anger. you title this message, "get a life
> people!" so why are you here?
Duh, Jackie...did you read the letter? Hey...people lose their
mothers for a lot of reasons, and yeah...some of them take years
and years to get over it. And it's not uncommon when people
lose a loved one for them to get angry about it....
Oh...except HORRORS!!! How DARE someone get mad at ECKANKAR,
the highest path to God, the path of LOVE....
You know, Jackie...the woman was an Eckist. In other "religions"
there's usually a pastor/priest or something to be there for the
mourners. And generally other members of the church, too.
Why didn't some Eckists maybe at least sit down with this person &
sing "HU" when they lost their mother? Hey...then they could
have picked up all the books & sold them elsewhere? Where were
the Eckists from this woman's Satsang?
>
> you detractors seem to have the problem...you hate
> Eckankar. so as you say, "get a life" and leave Eckankar
> to those who care to be a part of it.
It's not a "detractor", Jackie...it's a human being.
And excuse me...but as it's been noted I have a bit of a problem
revealing private information...but this person just got on the
Internet at Christmas....and in case you're wondering, there was
no private correspondence between us until tonight...because I
just wanted to tell them I hoped they could get over the anger &
focus on their mother's love a little bit.
And that's really none of your fucking business....but I just want
you to know....that wasn't a detractor, it was a human being.
But obviously...it wasn't a potential CONVERT so you wouldn't be
interested....
Go HU, friendly Eckist...and shove the blue orb where the son
don't shine!!!!
Sharon
glen
Sharon V Comstock <scom...@cub.kcnet.org> wrote:
> Jackie the Friendly Eckist Wrote:
> >
> > you seem so anger. you title this message, "get a life
> > people!" so why are you here?
>
> Duh, Jackie...did you read the letter? Hey...people lose their
> mothers for a lot of reasons, and yeah...some of them take years
> and years to get over it. And it's not uncommon when people
> lose a loved one for them to get angry about it....
Agreed. I believe Jackie was referring to the author's post title.
>
> Oh...except HORRORS!!! How DARE someone get mad at ECKANKAR,
> the highest path to God, the path of LOVE....
Well here I think we are used to that . . . at least when you are around:)
>
> You know, Jackie...the woman was an Eckist. In other "religions"
> there's usually a pastor/priest or something to be there for the
> mourners. And generally other members of the church, too.
Hmmmm. . .. there is in our area. Eckist clergy also visit hospitals and
hospice regularly. I thought this was done everywhere.
> Why didn't some Eckists maybe at least sit down with this person &
> sing "HU" when they lost their mother? Hey...then they could
> have picked up all the books & sold them elsewhere? Where were
> the Eckists from this woman's Satsang?
I guess time may be a factor. When did this occur? Nowadays I believe
that would have happened. An ESA or RESA would have been there to help . .
. . but again . . . in rural areas . . . well I honestly cannot say.
>
> >
> > you detractors seem to have the problem...you hate
> > Eckankar. so as you say, "get a life" and leave Eckankar
> > to those who care to be a part of it.
>
> It's not a "detractor", Jackie...it's a human being.
Can a human being not also be a detractor.
If you do not like the word detractor . . . invent another one and pitch
it to the group.
>
> And excuse me...but as it's been noted I have a bit of a problem
> revealing private information...
actually I think the problem is you reveal too much information. Thousands
of posts of information:)
but this person just got on the
> Internet at Christmas....and in case you're wondering, there was
> no private correspondence between us until tonight...because I
> just wanted to tell them I hoped they could get over the anger &
> focus on their mother's love a little bit.
Oh Goodie . . . . now you can have your own disciple too.
>
> And that's really none of your fucking business....but I just want
> you to know....that wasn't a detractor, it was a human being.
>
Strong language for a Granny. Do you kiss your gandkids with that mouth?
> But obviously...it wasn't a potential CONVERT so you wouldn't be
> interested....
Not too many converts here:) Lots of detractors though:)
> Go HU, friendly Eckist...and shove the blue orb where the son
> don't shine!!!!
>
> Sharon
Such wisdom.
>
--
Glen
MrBizarro
Windy heeft geschreven in bericht <36A362...@bellsouth.net>...
>> > Go HU, friendly Eckist...and shove the blue orb where the son
>> > don't shine!!!!
>> >
>> > Sharon
>>
>
Her son? :)))
sharo...@my-dejanews.com
Sharon wrote: : And one woman, a mother, died of breast cancer because of
Paul Twitchell, : because she believed.
Ken wrote:
Sharon, this is pathetic. The death of a loved one is difficult at
best. Taking someone elses personal tragedy and twisting it to
your own ends is manipulative and nasty.
I agree with you totally here, Ken...yes, the death of a loved one is
difficult.
I thought it was a bit manipulative and nasty of "Jackie the friendly
Eckist" when all she saw in nightskyflyer's post was an angry
Eckankar-hating detractor, and ignored the pain of a child who'd lost its
mother because the mother beleived in Twitchell & Eckankar.
No doubt the mother believed Twitchell's claims to be the Godman,
(go back over the quote I posted that you said was "nice")....
Here's another SKS II quote: This one from page 146, right after
Lai Tsi's version of the 25th Psalm, by the way...so these are
actually Lai Tsi's words as dictated to Paul Twitchell...
"All those who gaze upon the countenance of the Mahanta, the Living ECK
Master, shall be lifted up spiritually and be healed of all their
afflictions." (I'll post more "context" separately...)
And here's a repost of nightskyflyer's post...and Jackie's response
to it. I think since the child (now grown) was there...well...he/she
has more of a right to speak about the reasons for the mother's
death than anyone else does...incidentally...nightskyflyer happened
to be in college when his/her mother died...
Re: Get a LIfe People!
Author: HU4God <hu4...@aol.comnospam>Date: 1999/01/15Forum:
alt.religion.eckankar more headers author posting history
------------------------------------------------------------------------
nightskyflyer wrote:
>
>Every Eckist who gets on these things trys to
>be so clever, so witty always thinking you have the last bark. But most
>of what you say doesnt contain one bit of original thought. Your always
>quoting some book, Paul, Harold, Fubbi, Rebazar....not sure if he is
>still on the in list. Do you have an original thought that hasnt been
>programmed into you by the Eck management. Eck is a business thats all
>it is....Your all these
>pathetic lost souls who cant get your lives together on your own so you
>seek out some crutch. With all cults you need some human you elevate
>to such a Godlike status....Thats
>to satisfy your insecurity that you are not worthy enough on your own.
>Its like a child waiting for parental approval. These Eck
>initiations...what
>do you need these for? Its silly. So you have
>one Eckist at a higher level than another. Ive
>seen how it all plays out. These higher level
>initiates arent always such good people. That
>ran rampant in the late 60's and early 70"s..
>There only in it for the money. I saw 1st hand how Eck sapped the life
>, energy and all her talent from one women who was extremely close to
>Paul. They took her money, her time from her family, and eventually
>her life with promises that her breast cancer will be healed.
>She believed that crud. I believethat she would
>had sought treatment if Eck hadnt promised
>her an inner healing, or maybe she was so obsessed with Paul that shed
>rather die thinking she would be with him on " those wonderful inner
>planes '. Oh yes , to heck with her family she left behind. One last
>thing,,,to the wonderfull Eckist business office personnel who wrote
>The Letter in 1974, " Sorry to hear about Ruths death. Please send back
>all the books she had to sell to her sat sang group" Its all about
>money isnt it?
>To quote an important man of our times ....
>M. Jagger "You cant always get what you want,
>but if you try sometimes ...you get what you need" Well Ive waited
>since '74 to get what I
>needed. I cant have my mom back but I sure got what I needed in telling
>you mindless
>pseudo spiritual backstabbing money sucking
>temple building fools what I think.
>You dont need this crap,. you aready have the
>answers yourself. Just look inside.
(and Jackie responds...)
you seem so anger. you title this message, "get a life
people!" so why are you here?
you detractors seem to have the problem...you hate
Eckankar. so as you say, "get a life" and leave Eckankar
to those who care to be a part of it.
your friendly eckist,
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Jackie
~~~~~~~ @-->-->-- ~~~~~~~
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
sharo...@my-dejanews.com
SHARIYAT-KI-SUGMAD BOOK TWO
From the Intro: "The Ancient Scriptures of ECKANKAR, the Ancient Science of
Soul Travel brought to light for the first time.
Book Two is the second section of the works of the SHARIYAT-KI-SUGMAD which
was dictated by Yaubl Sacabi, the great ECK master, at the Gare-Hire Temple
of Wisdom at Agam Des in the Himalaya Mountains.
The SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD contains the wisdom and ecstatic knowledge of those
planes of the spiritual worlds, beyond the regions of time and space. To
read and study this highly inspired book will give the reader an insight into
the scriptures of the Temples of Golden Wisdom.
The essence of God knowledge is laid down in these writings. Those who
follow ECK are involved in the SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD for it is their bible, the
everlasting gospel. All worldly doctrines on religions, philosophies, and
sacred writings are the offsprings of the SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD"
Chapter Nine: The Visions of Lai Tsi...page 146...
(25th Psalm thing)
"If you work, if you study, if you love, if you contemplate, and if you do
any of these things for the love of truth or the love of the SUGMAD, then,
whether you know it or not, you are already practicing the works of ECK.
All those who gaze upon the countenance of the Mahanta, the Living ECK
Master, shall be lifted up spiritually and be healed of all their
afflictions. This is the right act which strikes a cord that extends
throughout the whole universe, touches all spiritual intelligence, visits
every world, vibrates along its whole extent, and conveys its vibrations to
the very bosom of the SUGMAD.
Therefore, anyone who has been healed of all their afflictions by gazing upon
the countenance of the MAHANTA, the Living ECK Master, shall find that not
only does it assist them in every way, but it shall, as stated above, vibrate
to the extent of the whole world and help those nearest him with astonishing
results.
The SUGMAD never appears in the flesh except as the Mahanta, the Living ECK
Master, and only in the consciousness of men as the ECK."
Oh...and from the freebie newbie book, page 4:
"Our basic text is the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, which means Way of the
Eternal. It is the holy scriptures of Eckankar. Several chapters
of ECKANKAR--Ancient Wisdom for Today (freebie book) open with a
quote from the Shariyat."
"Our teacher and mentor is the Living ECK Master. Eckankar is never
without a living Master."
Page 5: "When Paul Twitchell introduced Eckankar to the modern world
in 1965, he separated spiritual truths from the cultural trappings which
had surrounded them...he became the Living ECK Master."
Page 6: (Harold & Reb see Paul on the higher planes walking beside a woman
on a beach) "The woman had tried to commit suicide, but the Mahanta stepped
in to prevent it. For months thereafter, he took her out of the body at
night..."
HU4God
HU4God
>Eckist" when all she saw in nightskyflyer's post was an angry
>Eckankar-hating detractor,
BS, you have no idea how ridiculous you
sound.
I was NOT responding to their experience.
Just their hate.
So keep talking and sound ridiculous.
glen
to watch out for them.
One of them is a lady who claims to have been an ex-Eckist. Her name is
Sharon Comstock. She has posted several thousand posts here in the last 9
months with 2-3 different addresses, but you can always tell a Sharon
post. It says a little bit about a ton of stuff, but says nothing of
substance about anything. By all means read all of her stuff, if you have
the time. But be aware that she is the only person here who knows for sure
if she ever was an Eckist. And at times she is not always clear on that
herself:)
The other person posts as ARELURKER and also recently as Wagstaff. This
newsgroup has had trouble with people being hacked. It has occurred a
number of times to both Eckists and non-Eckists. But the majority of those
hacked are those Known as detractors. ARELURKER is the second most
prolific detractor poster after Sharon Comstock. He used to be quite an
interesting person to talk with but since he has recently been hacked he
has become quite unruly. The SPAM you see cluttering up the newsgroup
comes from Lurk and also from Sharon who seems to copying Lurk.
Lurk has threatened to do this if people posted things he does not like here.
Sharon does the same thing.
So you decide.
Sharon Comstock and ARELURKER are working very hard to stifle all
discussion here.
What do you think about that?
--
Glen
Ela
HU4God wrote in message <19990204180501...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
Sometimes I wonder about Sharon...
Oh dear... I am using on of those new fangled keyboards. The one with the
curly keyboard, and it is really difficult for me to express myself. Blah
blah yadda yadda...
I guess that happens when you get a little "bent" <G>
Love
Michael
(From yet another computer as my phone line isn't working right.
>
DrDreck
> There are 2 individuals on a.r.e. who are quite unbalanced. You might want
> to watch out for them.
pot----kettle-----black.
Make that three, Glen
Dr. Dreck
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
arel...@mindspring.com
>
> There are 2 individuals on a.r.e. who are quite unbalanced. You might want
> to watch out for them.
>
> Sharon Comstock. She has posted several thousand posts here in the last 9
> months with 2-3 different addresses, but you can always tell a Sharon
> post. It says a little bit about a ton of stuff, but says nothing of
> substance about anything. By all means read all of her stuff, if you have
> the time. But be aware that she is the only person here who knows for sure
> if she ever was an Eckist. And at times she is not always clear on that
> herself:)
>
> The other person posts as ARELURKER and also recently as Wagstaff.
Again, not true Glen.
This
> newsgroup has had trouble with people being hacked. It has occurred a
> number of times to both Eckists and non-Eckists.
This true there has been cloning by outside people. I
believe eckists have used the real cloning as cover in their
misdirection efforts.
But the majority of those
> hacked are those Known as detractors. ARELURKER is the second most
> prolific detractor poster after Sharon Comstock. He used to be quite an
> interesting person to talk with but since he has recently been hacked he
> has become quite unruly. The SPAM you see cluttering up the newsgroup
> comes from Lurk and also from Sharon who seems to copying Lurk.
I haven't sent any spam. But I could see where an eckist
would spam the NG and then come on and accuse detractors of
being the spamers.
>
> Lurk has threatened to do this if people posted things he does not like here.
> Sharon does the same thing.
Not true Glen. I said I would start posting analysis of the
discourses as a way for people to know it was me posting to
cut down on the confusion. That's not spam, that's grueling
work.....having to read Harold's writing.
>
> So you decide.
>
> Sharon Comstock and ARELURKER are working very hard to stifle all
> discussion here.
> What do you think about that?
As usual, Glen telegraphs his intentions and his plots.
Lurk
>
> --
> Glen
Sharon V Comstock
On 5 Feb 1999, glen wrote:
> There are 2 individuals on a.r.e. who are quite unbalanced. You might want
> to watch out for them.
>
> One of them is a lady who claims to have been an ex-Eckist. Her name is
> Sharon Comstock. She has posted several thousand posts here in the last 9
> months with 2-3 different addresses, but you can always tell a Sharon
> post. It says a little bit about a ton of stuff, but says nothing of
> substance about anything. By all means read all of her stuff, if you have
> the time. But be aware that she is the only person here who knows for sure
> if she ever was an Eckist. And at times she is not always clear on that
> herself:)
>
Yeah...I'd better remind everyone...I post under the above,
under twink...@my-dejanews.com and demon...@my-dejanews.com
and most recently sharo...@my-dejanews.com
I'm much easier to keep track of than Glen...who has used so many
I'm sure he doesn't even remember. Also, as Glen points out, my
posts are easily recognized by my "style" (or lack of it). Look
for hatred, anger, rambling, confusion, and the phrases "sort of"
and "kind of" I think have been pointed out...
Actually...I say a whole lot about the insignificance of Eckankar.
You can't always spot Glen...or whatever name he uses...sometimes
he acts real nice, sometimes he's not...but that's okay, because
it's all in service to Eckankar, the True Faith.
Was I an Eckist? <tee-gee> Well...I think I already
confessed...way back in the early 80's I was contacted by David
Lane and a secret cabal of Eckankar Detractors...I was sent in as
a double agent in service to the Kal...I would sign up for the
discourses & all that stuff, go to Satsangs & stuff, sneak into
seminars & get phony name tags...tee hee even on the inner,
well...I had them all fooled. Yes...I even fooled Nathan, an
ESA according to himself...and ha ha what I did to Michael Wallace
when he was moderator of Chela-Chat...snuck in there simply
because as a double agent I had access to the secret & holy Mystic
World...to get on the closed ecklists you must prove you are an
Eckist by quoting a few lines from the most recent issue...and ha
ha poor MW had to read through all my rambling posts there too...
I even fooled the Eckankar International Office, and Harold, the
Mahanta, the Living Eck Master....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (that's evil maniacal laughter)
dEMONsPAWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
glen
> glen wrote:
> >
> > The other person posts as ARELURKER and also recently as Wagstaff.
>
> Again, not true Glen.
Your header numbers are identical. The posts are coming from you in Atlanta.
>
> This
> > newsgroup has had trouble with people being hacked. It has occurred a
> > number of times to both Eckists and non-Eckists.
>
> This true there has been cloning by outside people. I
> believe eckists have used the real cloning as cover in their
> misdirection efforts.
But you fail to offer even one shred of proof.
Why dear reader . . . because there are none. Pick a newsgroup at random
and you will likely find someone complaining about hacking or misidentity
issues. It is rampant on the Usenet.
Lurk uses this phenomena to his own advantage, playing the victim,
pretending that there is some plot to get him.
Which is silly. Lurk has not posted a meaningful post in years. He has
offered all he has to offer to the debate and so has reinvented himself as
the a.r.e. equivalent of those people who jump out in front of cars so
that they can sue the driver.
>
> But the majority of those
> > hacked are those Known as detractors. ARELURKER is the second most
> > prolific detractor poster after Sharon Comstock. He used to be quite an
> > interesting person to talk with but since he has recently been hacked he
> > has become quite unruly. The SPAM you see cluttering up the newsgroup
> > comes from Lurk and also from Sharon who seems to copying Lurk.
>
> I haven't sent any spam. But I could see where an eckist
> would spam the NG and then come on and accuse detractors of
> being the spamers.
So are you now saying that an Eckist is Atlanta is sending in posts as you?
--
Glen
glen
Sharon V Comstock <scom...@cub.kcnet.org> wrote:
> On 5 Feb 1999, glen wrote:
>
> > There are 2 individuals on a.r.e. who are quite unbalanced. You might want
> > to watch out for them.
> >
> > One of them is a lady who claims to have been an ex-Eckist. Her name is
> > Sharon Comstock. She has posted several thousand posts here in the last 9
> > months with 2-3 different addresses, but you can always tell a Sharon
> > post. It says a little bit about a ton of stuff, but says nothing of
> > substance about anything. By all means read all of her stuff, if you have
> > the time. But be aware that she is the only person here who knows for sure
> > if she ever was an Eckist. And at times she is not always clear on that
> > herself:)
> >
> Yeah...I'd better remind everyone...I post under the above,
> under twink...@my-dejanews.com and demon...@my-dejanews.com
> and most recently sharo...@my-dejanews.com
Most of your posts come out of a community network in Penn. What is
interesting though is that this type of high volume posting is contrary to
the rules of operation of your ISP.
Your community ISP is supported by the local taxpayers.
Is this why you keep changing around . . . . to hide your activities from
your community ISP
> I'm much easier to keep track of than Glen...who has used so many
> I'm sure he doesn't even remember.
True . . . . but unlike you I only use one at a time. And why should that
matter . . . . it is the issues we are interested in . . . right?
Also, as Glen points out, my
> posts are easily recognized by my "style" (or lack of it). Look
> for hatred, anger, rambling, confusion, and the phrases "sort of"
> and "kind of" I think have been pointed out...
>
> Actually...I say a whole lot about the insignificance of Eckankar.
Well I would agree that most of what you post . . . . more than 2000 posts
now . . . . is insignificant:)
>
> You can't always spot Glen...or whatever name he uses...sometimes
> he acts real nice, sometimes he's not...but that's okay, because
> it's all in service to Eckankar, the True Faith.
>
> Was I an Eckist? <tee-gee> Well...I think I already
> confessed...way back in the early 80's I was contacted by David
> Lane and a secret cabal of Eckankar Detractors...I was sent in as
> a double agent in service to the Kal...I would sign up for the
> discourses & all that stuff, go to Satsangs & stuff, sneak into
> seminars & get phony name tags...tee hee even on the inner,
> well...I had them all fooled. Yes...I even fooled Nathan, an
> ESA according to himself...and ha ha what I did to Michael Wallace
> when he was moderator of Chela-Chat...snuck in there simply
> because as a double agent I had access to the secret & holy Mystic
> World...to get on the closed ecklists you must prove you are an
> Eckist by quoting a few lines from the most recent issue...and ha
> ha poor MW had to read through all my rambling posts there too...
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (that's evil maniacal laughter)
>
>
> dEMONsPAWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Oh look.... here is some of that insignificance right now:)
--
Glen
nir...@my-dejanews.com
>... The SPAM you see cluttering up the newsgroup
> > comes from Lurk and also from Sharon who seems to copying Lurk.
>
> I haven't sent any spam. But I could see where an eckist
> would spam the NG and then come on and accuse detractors of
> being the spamers.
>
> >
> > Lurk has threatened to do this if people posted things he does not like here.
> > Sharon does the same thing.
>
> Not true Glen. I said I would start posting analysis of the
> discourses as a way for people to know it was me posting to
> cut down on the confusion. That's not spam, that's grueling
> work.....having to read Harold's writing.
> Lurk
Wow! So that was you, Lurk!
I didn't find it worth reading after skimming some of your comments and I
doubt many others would've either, just because of the length of it all,
never mind the prejudicial "analysis."
Reading your and other detractor's interpretations and analysis of the Eck
literature is sort of like reading an analysis and interpretation of the
Torah and of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech by a member of an
anti-Jew / anti-black hate group. Now I'm not saying that you are a hater
like that or anything. I have a feeling that you are probably a generally
nice person who is not prejudiced toward anyone (maybe not even Eckists), but
when it comes to the religion of Eckankar it is no secret that you have a
strong prejudice toward it since your posts always make that perfectly clear.
But it's all OK i.m.o., because you, me, and everyone else are doing
whatever we need to do to learn our lessons. I've got my own lessons to
learn, and Eck detractors are Eck detractors because there are lessons they
need to learn through the experience of being an Eck detractor.
Rafi
Sharon V Comstock
On 5 Feb 1999, glen wrote:
>
> Most of your posts come out of a community network in Penn. What is
> interesting though is that this type of high volume posting is contrary to
> the rules of operation of your ISP.
As a matter of fact, it's not.
In fact, just last week (or the week before, I forget) I
stopped by the network office...had a nice chat with the lady
who runs it about the hours I use, since we're unlimited but I
don't want to hog it. She said I was fine...
And I also told her how thankful I was the because of the
internet, I learned not only some answers to the health problems
I've had, but I learned I was in a mind-control cult, and got
free...and that I had stayed on the newsgroup to speak the truth
about it.
Even though it takes time...not easy with a 386 with 6 MB Ram.
She said I'd think I died & went to heaven once I got the 486 with
the faster modem running...
>
> Your community ISP is supported by the local taxpayers.
Yep. Most of whom are nice, god-fearing Christians who go to
church & stuff. Like the kinds you find on local zoning boards.
And the kind of people I worked for and with as a secretary for
the local Lutheran parish. Even though I wasn't a Christian.
People like the photocopier repairman. We spent many hours
together. He was shocked at first when I'd told him I wasn't a
Christian. But we became friends. He had a 12-year-old son, &
I'd been there & done that...lots of laughs!!!
>
> Is this why you keep changing around . . . . to hide your activities from
> your community ISP
The local ISP is aware of my activities. I just ran down there,
in fact. Another nice chat with Sue...hey...guess what!!! She
said to bring down the 486 & they'd get the modem running for
me...they might even have some extra RAM around that might fit!!!
So I've got to run...that's what I like about being part of a nice
local community ISP...sort of like extended family...Sue even
vaguely remembered that REAL spammer...back in September, I think?
The one that hit a lot of newsgroups & even made it into the
newspapers?
Oh...by the way...I've been quite open about the "changing around"
I do from the beginning. Would you like to post a list of all
the pseudos & different addresses you've used here, "Glen" ????
Later...gotta unhook the 486...WOW I can't imagine how fast a
33.6 (or whatever) will be!!!! I've got a 14.4, but it's much
better than the 9600 I started out with...
Me
sharo...@my-dejanews.com
nir...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I didn't find it worth reading after skimming some of your comments and I
> doubt many others would've either, just because of the length of it all,
> never mind the prejudicial "analysis."
This reminded me of something...the use of the word "prejudice"...
Reminds me of Twitchell's "chosen people" and "alien heathen pagan
quotes"
There are laws about prejudice & bigotry, you know. Especially in
areas of employment...
I used to work for a Lutheran parish you know...
In fact, when I came here as an Eckist in July, one of the whistleblowers
got sort of nasty & asked me how I sneaked into a Christian
organization...and I responded publicly that when I was interviewed, I
openly told the pastor that I was not a Christian, and was a member of a
religion called Eckankar. I told him a bit about the beliefs. To be
honest, I couldn't help feeling a bit embarrassed when I told him about the
other planes & eckmasters & stuff...I sort of laughed & said it was sort of
"New Agey"
He said it wasn't a problem with him...as long as what I did when
putting together the newsletter & choosing articles & things for
it didn't conflict with Christianity.
And I had excellent Christian references, friends I'd discussed my
religious beliefs with, who also knew my feelings about the spiritual
teachings of Christianity...
Anyway...if you're really interested...you can go to the Dejanews Archives
for my postings in July...the subject was "Message from Alfie" he
apologized, and we got to talking & I found out he wasn't really just a
horrible evil "detractor" like I'd been told...
>
> Reading your and other detractor's interpretations and analysis of the Eck
> literature is sort of like reading an analysis and interpretation of the
> Torah and of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech by a member of an
> anti-Jew / anti-black hate group. Now I'm not saying that you are a hater
> like that or anything. I have a feeling that you are probably a generally
> nice person who is not prejudiced toward anyone (maybe not even Eckists), but
> when it comes to the religion of Eckankar it is no secret that you have a
> strong prejudice toward it since your posts always make that perfectly clear.
>
Really, Rafi...it's not prejudice. You know, there used to be
slavery here, I'm sure you're aware. And it was totally accepted,
and yes some people still hold those beliefs.
But you know...yes, there had to be a war to stop it, but that was
more over the rights of states to secede from the union...
Religions can enslave too. One great thing about this country is
free speech...and freedom of thought.
And those of us here who speak against Eckankar...well, we think
people have a right to know there are two sides to the story.
By the way, you know those notices that come with the discourses
or the Mystic World? On Job Openings at the Eckankar International
Office in Minneapolis?
Did you ever notice, in the "qualifications" section? The first two
requirements for all jobs are always 1. Current member of Eckankar in
good standing, and 2. Well-grounded in the ECK teachings and an
example of love, service, and dedication to the ECK principles.
I wonder if that's against the law? You know, like the employment laws to
protect the rights of the handicapped & older people & women? I can remember
years ago, not telling people I had a child because they often responded
"well, forget it because if your child is sick, you'll have to stay home to
take care of it."
And women often didn't get jobs because their employers thought they
would get pregnant & quit.
Christianity didn't have a problem hiring an Eckist...
What does Eckankar have against hiring non-Eckists? And...is it
legal to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation?
Sharon
> But it's all OK i.m.o., because you, me, and everyone else are doing
> whatever we need to do to learn our lessons. I've got my own lessons to
> learn, and Eck detractors are Eck detractors because there are lessons they
> need to learn through the experience of being an Eck detractor.
>
> Rafi
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Sharon
Pagan & Sub-Human
Sharon V Comstock
On 5 Feb 1999, glen wrote:
>
> Your community ISP is supported by the local taxpayers.
This got me thinking, Glen...now I don't know how it works in
Canada (how's grad school going, by the way) by here in the
US, and in my state...well, state universities are supported
by taxpayer funds.
I'm not sure exactly how the laws about separation of church &
state go...
But I wondered...what would taxpayers, or state government &
stuff, think about a member of Eckankar who is employed by a
state university and uses university time & equipment & meeting
space to work on Eckankar newsletters & hold intro sessions &
Satsang & bookstudies & stuff???
In fact...this person told me herself that other employees had
evidently complained about it...that was awhile ago, when I was
an Eckist...
> True . . . . but unlike you I only use one at a time. And why should that
> matter . . . . it is the issues we are interested in . . . right?
Yes, Glen...please...go debate some issues...and I will post
quotes from the Eckbooks & my opinion on them, & other stuff...
And we can ignore each other...
>
> Oh look.... here is some of that insignificance right now:)
>
I try my best...
Hey...just out of curiousity...why don't you post a list of your
names & addresses...so if I feel like it I can look them all up,
to determine what a reasonable number of postings would be
considered, then this year I'll try to stifle a bit. I won't
waste time with you...and I'll try to be a bit more focused &
stuff ....
dEMONsPAWN
arel...@mindspring.com
>
> In article <36BAF0DD...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > glen wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Again, not true Glen.
>
> Your header numbers are identical. The posts are coming from you in Atlanta.
>
> >
> > This
> > > newsgroup has had trouble with people being hacked. It has occurred a
> > > number of times to both Eckists and non-Eckists.
> >
> > This true there has been cloning by outside people. I
> > believe eckists have used the real cloning as cover in their
> > misdirection efforts.
>
> But you fail to offer even one shred of proof.
>
> Why dear reader . . . because there are none. Pick a newsgroup at random
> and you will likely find someone complaining about hacking or misidentity
> issues. It is rampant on the Usenet.
>
> Lurk uses this phenomena to his own advantage, playing the victim,
> pretending that there is some plot to get him.
I've seen how eckists have cloned David Lane and Rev when
they were saying things eckists didn't like. This is cultic
behavior. Intead of expressing a alternate opinion, eckists
would clone the detractor's screen name and other eckists
would respond to it to creat confusion.
>
> Which is silly. Lurk has not posted a meaningful post in years. He has
> offered all he has to offer to the debate and so has reinvented himself as
> the a.r.e. equivalent of those people who jump out in front of cars so
> that they can sue the driver.
It's not playing victim to ask eckists not to clone my name
and respond to it when it is obviously a cloned (with
talkway under the name). Your idea of victim is different
than mine Glen. Eckists cloning detractors, on the other
hand, seems to be an expression of a person coming from of
place of disempowerment and victimhood.
>
> >
> > But the majority of those
> > > hacked are those Known as detractors. ARELURKER is the second most
> > > prolific detractor poster after Sharon Comstock. He used to be quite an
> > > interesting person to talk with but since he has recently been hacked he
> > > has become quite unruly. The SPAM you see cluttering up the newsgroup
> > > comes from Lurk and also from Sharon who seems to copying Lurk.
> >
> > I haven't sent any spam. But I could see where an eckist
> > would spam the NG and then come on and accuse detractors of
> > being the spamers.
>
> So are you now saying that an Eckist is Atlanta is sending in posts as you?
I'm saying I'm not spaming and I haven't posted under
another screen name. Look Glen, I'm not an eck master so you
can believe me.
Lurk
>
> --
> Glen
glen
>
> Oh...by the way...I've been quite open about the "changing around"
> I do from the beginning. Would you like to post a list of all
> the pseudos & different addresses you've used here, "Glen" ????
>
Uuuuuh . . . sure . . . why not.
Sam...@aol.com
arel...@mindspring.com
J.@newsguy.com
You might like to look those up first:)
--
Glen
glen
> I've seen how eckists have cloned David Lane and Rev when
> they were saying things eckists didn't like. This is cultic
> behavior. Intead of expressing a alternate opinion, eckists
> would clone the detractor's screen name and other eckists
> would respond to it to creat confusion.
I personally believe that the reason you will not tell us the name of the
path you currently follow is because you realize that your incessant
posting here is in itself . . . . cultic behavior.
>
> >
> > Which is silly. Lurk has not posted a meaningful post in years. He has
> > offered all he has to offer to the debate and so has reinvented himself as
> > the a.r.e. equivalent of those people who jump out in front of cars so
> > that they can sue the driver.
>
> It's not playing victim to ask eckists not to clone my name
> and respond to it when it is obviously a cloned (with
> talkway under the name). Your idea of victim is different
> than mine Glen. Eckists cloning detractors, on the other
> hand, seems to be an expression of a person coming from of
> place of disempowerment and victimhood.
You still have not offered one shred of proof that any of this has been
done by an Eckist.
Where is the proof?
> > So are you now saying that an Eckist is Atlanta is sending in posts as you?
>
> I'm saying I'm not spaming and I haven't posted under
> another screen name. Look Glen, I'm not an eck master so you
> can believe me.
>
> Lurk
I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what you send
here SPAM.
>
> >
> > --
> > Glen
--
Glen
Ela
glen wrote in message ...
I always thought there was something odd about those Canadians <G>
Love
Michael
arel...@mindspring.com
>
> In article <36BB9DEC...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > I've seen how eckists have cloned David Lane and Rev when
> > they were saying things eckists didn't like. This is cultic
> > behavior. Intead of expressing a alternate opinion, eckists
> > would clone the detractor's screen name and other eckists
> > would respond to it to creat confusion.
>
> I personally believe that the reason you will not tell us the name of the
> path you currently follow is because you realize that your incessant
> posting here is in itself . . . . cultic behavior.
Oh, back to the "name of the path" I follow line of
questioning.
You can add this "name of my path" to your "Lurk is
spamming" line of "debating" and you can probably come up
with several hundred more posts (or non post according to
one's perspective).
>
> >
> > >
> > > Which is silly. Lurk has not posted a meaningful post in years. He has
> > > offered all he has to offer to the debate and so has reinvented himself as
> > > the a.r.e. equivalent of those people who jump out in front of cars so
> > > that they can sue the driver.
> >
> > It's not playing victim to ask eckists not to clone my name
> > and respond to it when it is obviously a cloned (with
> > talkway under the name). Your idea of victim is different
> > than mine Glen. Eckists cloning detractors, on the other
> > hand, seems to be an expression of a person coming from of
> > place of disempowerment and victimhood.
>
> You still have not offered one shred of proof that any of this has been
> done by an Eckist.
>
> Where is the proof?
First, I have to get pass the awkwardness of an eckists
demanding proof. <gg>
Okay here's my proof:
I know what I know!
I have and inner knowingness!
I have direct perceptions of truth!
I am a part of the highest path in the universe and I don't
need to corroborate my claims, I dare you question my assertion!
I've proved it to myself on the inner no need to
substantiate it on the outer!
There's some proof. You should have no doubt whatsoever,
that what I say is true.
>
> > > So are you now saying that an Eckist is Atlanta is sending in posts as you?
> >
> > I'm saying I'm not spaming and I haven't posted under
> > another screen name. Look Glen, I'm not an eck master so you
> > can believe me.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what you send
> here SPAM.
Please explain. I have no idea what the definition of spam
is other than unwanted advertisements I get in my email. In
the context of Usenet postings, what is spam?
You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
and such, so please enlighten me.
Lurk
glen
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what you send
> > here SPAM.
>
> Please explain. I have no idea what the definition of spam
> is other than unwanted advertisements I get in my email. In
> the context of Usenet postings, what is spam?
>
> You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
> your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
> and such, so please enlighten me.
>
> Lurk
Why would I bother . . . you won't believe it from me anyway. I read the
SOP for mindspring. You subscribe to it . . . look it up yourself.
--
Glen
HipGnosis
> In article <36BC5C92...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what you send
> > > here SPAM.
> >
> > Please explain. I have no idea what the definition of spam
> > is other than unwanted advertisements I get in my email. In
> > the context of Usenet postings, what is spam?
> >
> > You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
> > your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
> > and such, so please enlighten me.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Why would I bother . . . you won't believe it from me anyway.
Yes Glen, no one here believes you! You've got a firm grasp of the
obvious!:)
The simple fact is . . . . you're a liar and BS artiste. :) You know
it. We know it. Everyone knows it. :)
Even your dog probably knows it, which is why it's always biting you! :)
Are all Eckists liars like yourself? One wonders. :)
glen
"HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 1999 21:46:04 GMT harp...@hotmail.com (glen) wrote:
> > In article <36BC5C92...@mindspring.com>,
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what
you send
> > > > here SPAM.
> > >
> > > Please explain. I have no idea what the definition of spam
> > > is other than unwanted advertisements I get in my email. In
> > > the context of Usenet postings, what is spam?
> > >
> > > You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
> > > your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
> > > and such, so please enlighten me.
> > >
> > > Lurk
> >
> > Why would I bother . . . you won't believe it from me anyway.
>
>
> Yes Glen, no one here believes you! You've got a firm grasp of the
> obvious!:)
>
> The simple fact is . . . . you're a liar and BS artiste. :) You know
> it. We know it. Everyone knows it. :)
>
> Even your dog probably knows it, which is why it's always biting you! :)
>
> Are all Eckists liars like yourself? One wonders. :)
Well Joe O'Leary . . . you have certainly slipped into the darkside:) Do
you really think this pathetic example of a pseudo switch would make
yourself undetectable:)
It really sucks being you
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
--
Glen
glen
glen
"HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 1999 21:46:04 GMT harp...@hotmail.com (glen) wrote:
> > In article <36BC5C92...@mindspring.com>,
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what
you send
> > > > here SPAM.
> > >
> > > Please explain. I have no idea what the definition of spam
> > > is other than unwanted advertisements I get in my email. In
> > > the context of Usenet postings, what is spam?
> > >
> > > You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
> > > your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
> > > and such, so please enlighten me.
> > >
> > > Lurk
> >
> > Why would I bother . . . you won't believe it from me anyway.
>
>
> Yes Glen, no one here believes you! You've got a firm grasp of the
> obvious!:)
>
> The simple fact is . . . . you're a liar and BS artiste. :) You know
> it. We know it. Everyone knows it. :)
>
> Even your dog probably knows it, which is why it's always biting you! :)
>
\
Ooooooh Joe O'Leary . . . how profound.
Is this the best you have . . . . hey . . .. Joe . . . don't forget to
change your pathetic pseudo:)
--
Glen
glen
harp...@hotmail.com (glen) wrote:
> In article <zR3v2.9314$QU6.52...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
> "HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
>
not
--
Glen
HipGnosis
> In article <zR3v2.9314$QU6.52...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
> "HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
>
> > > In article <36BC5C92...@mindspring.com>,
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it all depends on what you call SPAM. Your ISP calls what
> you send
> > > > > here SPAM.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain. I have no idea what the definition of spam
> > > > is other than unwanted advertisements I get in my email. In
> > > > the context of Usenet postings, what is spam?
> > > >
> > > > You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
> > > > your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
> > > > and such, so please enlighten me.
> > > >
> > > > Lurk
> > >
> > > Why would I bother . . . you won't believe it from me anyway.
> >
> >
> > Yes Glen, no one here believes you! You've got a firm grasp of the
> > obvious!:)
> >
> > The simple fact is . . . . you're a liar and BS artiste. :) You know
> > it. We know it. Everyone knows it. :)
> >
> > Even your dog probably knows it, which is why it's always biting you! :)
> >
>
> Well Joe O'Leary . . . you have certainly slipped into the darkside:)
Chatting with the likes of you? I agree!
BTW everyone, "Glen Stevens" isn't this person's real name. He admits
just uses "Glen Stevens" to foster the illusion that he's upfront about
who he is.
What a hypocrite.
Do
> you really think this pathetic example of a pseudo switch would make
> yourself undetectable:)
Oh, but I am detectable! Alcatraz and San Pablo, Oakland CA. The
offer is still good, always was.
I find it funny though, that you call using pseudos "pathetic"! <g>
Here you are, an Eckankar Higher Initiate, never stating your real
name, using pseudos, switching psueudos, cheering on people that clone
other posters, constantly attacking anyone that disagrees with the
Eckankar party line . . . and lately, lying on a daily basis.
And that's just the stuff we know you're doing, the stuff you've
admitted to.
Well, OK. Eckankar must want you here, otherwise you wouldn't have
been here so long.
That says a mouthful about Eckankar. You can tell alot about a
religion by the people representing it.
harpoon39
"HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
> > > > > You seem to have empowered yourself as an authority with
> > > > > your reading of headers and looking up definitions of spam
> > > > > and such, so please enlighten me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lurk
> > > >
> > > > Why would I bother . . . you won't believe it from me anyway.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Glen, no one here believes you! You've got a firm grasp of the
> > > obvious!:)
> > >
> > > The simple fact is . . . . you're a liar and BS artiste. :) You know
> > > it. We know it. Everyone knows it. :)
> > >
> > > Even your dog probably knows it, which is why it's always biting you! :)
> >
> > Well Joe O'Leary . . . you have certainly slipped into the darkside:)
>
> Chatting with the likes of you? I agree!
So why are you going through the hassle of pretending to be someone else
Joe O'Leary. Are you trying to make it look like there are more people
here than just you and Paul Markert:) Or are you hiding out from someone?
> BTW everyone, "Glen Stevens" isn't this person's real name.
Guilty as charged.
I've never denied it.
He admits
> just uses "Glen Stevens" to foster the illusion that he's upfront about
> who he is.
How is my using Glen Stevens any different from you using Joe O'Leary?
> What a hypocrite.
You are likely correct in that diagnosis of me. What I do here likely is
frequently hypocritical. Hey . . . what can I say . . . I am a work in
progress and God certainly is far from being finished with me.
I make no claims to greatness.
>
> Do
> > you really think this pathetic example of a pseudo switch would make
> > yourself undetectable:)
>
> Oh, but I am detectable! Alcatraz and San Pablo, Oakland CA. The
> offer is still good, always was.
Someday I will take you up on it. I would like to meet you and shake your
hand and then maybe if you'd take the time I'd like to take you to a good
vegetarian restaurant and buy you a good meal of samosas. Truly. Sam and
I tried to link up a couple of times but it never happened. Maybe I'll get
to San Francisco someday. I think if a few of us actually met face to face
there would be less conflict here.
>
> I find it funny though, that you call using pseudos "pathetic"! <g>
Actually I was not calling using pseudo's pathetic . . . I was calling the
way you attempted to disguise it pathetic.
I change my headers frequently . . . here that's not pathetic . . . just
smart.
>
> Here you are, an Eckankar Higher Initiate, never stating your real
> name, using pseudos, switching psueudos, cheering on people that clone
> other posters, constantly attacking anyone that disagrees with the
> Eckankar party line . . . and lately, lying on a daily basis.
Please give me one specific incident where I have lied.
>
> And that's just the stuff we know you're doing, the stuff you've
> admitted to.
Why would I not admit to it?
It is just an equivalence of what you guys do.
>
> Well, OK. Eckankar must want you here, otherwise you wouldn't have
> been here so long.
Why would the path of Eckankar have anything to do with my decision to
post here. I have complete free will . . . as does every member of the
path I follow.
>
> That says a mouthful about Eckankar. You can tell alot about a
> religion by the people representing it.
And that is your first mistake Joe O'Leary. You are starting to believe
those conspiracy statements of yours. I don't represent Eckankar! I
represent Brian Miller and that is it. . . . I speak for myself and no one
else.
--
DrDreck
wrote:
>
> Here you are, an Eckankar Higher Initiate, never stating your real
> name, using pseudos, switching psueudos, cheering on people that clone
> other posters, constantly attacking anyone that disagrees with the
> Eckankar party line . . . and lately, lying on a daily basis.
>
>
> That says a mouthful about Eckankar. You can tell alot about a
> religion by the people representing it.
For such a private and subjective path, one would expect Glen and the
likes of him to just ignore naysayers and follow the Eck quietly to
heaven. Instead, they are not unlike Muslim suicide fundamentalists who
strap on bombs, walk into a crowd, and gladly die for Allah.
In this case, the a.r.e Eckists immerse themselves in debate;
challenge others' mental stability; avoid all confrontation in favor of
character assassination, and show a weak and very dark-human side.
Here, it seems Mr. Stevens, even after being an HI, has learned very
little from the ECK and remains a noisy little upstart; clever, proud,
and vindictive. Nice work Harold. Are you proud of him now?
Dr Dreck
arel...@mindspring.com
>
> In article <36BAF0DD...@mindspring.com>,
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > glen wrote:
>
> > > comes from Lurk and also from Sharon who seems to copying Lurk.
> >
> > I haven't sent any spam. But I could see where an eckist
> > would spam the NG and then come on and accuse detractors of
> > being the spamers.
> >
> > >
> > > Sharon does the same thing.
> >
> > Not true Glen. I said I would start posting analysis of the
> > discourses as a way for people to know it was me posting to
> > cut down on the confusion. That's not spam, that's grueling
> > work.....having to read Harold's writing.
>
> > Lurk
>
> Wow! So that was you, Lurk!
No. I believe you are referring to the Rapheal analysis of
Harold's neurotic discourse series for High Initiates.
>
> I didn't find it worth reading after skimming some of your comments and I
> doubt many others would've either, just because of the length of it all,
> never mind the prejudicial "analysis."
There's some interesting points in there. You can get a
glimpse of the real Harold Klemp and not the imagined one.
>
> Reading your and other detractor's interpretations and analysis of the Eck
> literature is sort of like reading an analysis and interpretation of the
> Torah and of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech by a member of an
> anti-Jew / anti-black hate group. Now I'm not saying that you are a hater
> like that or anything. I have a feeling that you are probably a generally
> nice person who is not prejudiced toward anyone (maybe not even Eckists), but
> when it comes to the religion of Eckankar it is no secret that you have a
> strong prejudice toward it since your posts always make that perfectly clear.
Yes, I definitely have strong opinions about eckankar. If my
opinions are prejudice then that means your opinions are
_________? Truth? Prejudice?
>
> But it's all OK i.m.o., because you, me, and everyone else are doing
> whatever we need to do to learn our lessons. I've got my own lessons to
> learn, and Eck detractors are Eck detractors because there are lessons they
> need to learn through the experience of being an Eck detractor.
Yes I agree, when one sees what drew him/her to eckankar,
there is a lesson to be learned.
Lurk
arel...@mindspring.com
>
> In article <c89v2.9444$QU6.52...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
> "HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
>
>
> > What a hypocrite.
>
> You are likely correct in that diagnosis of me. What I do here likely is
> frequently hypocritical. Hey . . . what can I say . . . I am a work in
> progress and God certainly is far from being finished with me.
>
> I make no claims to greatness.
As I stated before Glen, allusions to humanness are great
since we all make mistakes and step over the line on occasion.
But when you use such humanness as a basis or a license for your
continued poor disposition on this newsgroup, I think such
justification is not only disingenuous, but ultimately is an
expression of fanaticism.
This reminds me of something I read in the
"Shariyat-KI-Sugmad, Book II", by Paul Twitchell:
"Every chela who wants to reach the ECKshar state must
become a fanatic on the path. He must have that inspired
faith, that zealot's drive to serve the cause of ECK without
any question. He should, by all means, be able to find new
energies that will overcome the psychic powers and those
physical energies that seem to smother him on the lower
planes. This builds the proper attitude in him so that he
can have victory in the end by entering into the ECKshar."
Lurk
harpoon39
> harpoon39 wrote:
> >
> > In article <c89v2.9444$QU6.52...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
> > "HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > What a hypocrite.
> >
> > You are likely correct in that diagnosis of me. What I do here likely is
> > frequently hypocritical. Hey . . . what can I say . . . I am a work in
> > progress and God certainly is far from being finished with me.
> >
> > I make no claims to greatness.
>
> As I stated before Glen, allusions to humanness are great
> since we all make mistakes and step over the line on occasion.
In this post the great Lurk gives a compliment (if acknowledging that I
might be human is a compliment:)
>
> But when you use such humanness as a basis or a license for your
> continued poor disposition on this newsgroup, I think such
> justification is not only disingenuous, but ultimately is an
> expression of fanaticism.
And then with the other hand he whiskd it away again ROFL.
Be careful there Lurk . . . . you were almost nice to me:)
My disposition on this group is no better or worse than anyone else's.
I'll not apologize for speaking my truth here anymore than you would
apologize for yours.
--
nir...@my-dejanews.com
sharo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <79fgg6$a5g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> nir...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Reading your and other detractor's interpretations and analysis of the Eck
> > literature is sort of like reading an analysis and interpretation of the
> > Torah and of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech by a member of
> >an anti-Jew / anti-black hate group.....when it comes to the religion of >Eckankar it is no secret that you have a strong prejudice toward it since your >posts always make that perfectly clear.
> >
> Really, Rafi...it's not prejudice. You know, there used to be
> slavery here, I'm sure you're aware. And it was totally accepted,
> and yes some people still hold those beliefs.
Yes it is. Prejudice means pre-judging. Very simple.
> And those of us here who speak against Eckankar...well, we think
> people have a right to know there are two sides to the story.
The "side" you say you give amounts to hardly anything more than angry and
childish name calling with a little (or alot of) "interpretation" or
"analysis" of the Eck literature that is so shallow and hidden agenda-filled
that its not worth consideration. Anyone who actually would take your stuff
seriously would probably not have had the spiritual stamina to study the
Light and Sound of God via Eck anyway.
> By the way, you know those notices that come with the discourses
> or the Mystic World? On Job Openings at the Eckankar International
> Office in Minneapolis?
>
> Did you ever notice, in the "qualifications" section? The first two
> requirements for all jobs are always 1. Current member of Eckankar in
> good standing, and 2. Well-grounded in the ECK teachings and an
> example of love, service, and dedication to the ECK principles.
>
> I wonder if that's against the law? You know, like the employment laws to
> protect the rights of the handicapped & older people & women? I can remember
> years ago, not telling people I had a child because they often responded
> "well, forget it because if your child is sick, you'll have to stay home to
> take care of it."
That has to be one of the most pitiful and funny attempts to fish for
something to use as an excuse to rail against Eckankar that I've so far seen
to date. Talk about childish name calling! If you are going to waste your
energy at least waste it with a little more intelligence.
nir...@my-dejanews.com
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> nir...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <36BAF0DD...@mindspring.com>,
> > arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > Not true Glen. I said I would start posting analysis of the
> > > discourses as a way for people to know it was me posting to
> > > cut down on the confusion. That's not spam, that's grueling
> > > work.....having to read Harold's writing.
> >
> > > Lurk
> >
> > Wow! So that was you, Lurk!
>
> No. I believe you are referring to the Rapheal analysis of
> Harold's neurotic discourse series for High Initiates.
OK, never mind...
> > I didn't find it worth reading after skimming some of your comments and I
> > doubt many others would've either, just because of the length of it all,
> > never mind the prejudicial "analysis."
>
> There's some interesting points in there. You can get a
> glimpse of the real Harold Klemp and not the imagined one.
Hmmm...That's something REALLY something to think about! Right! (Just
kidding) (laugh)
> > Reading your and other detractor's interpretations and analysis of the Eck
> > literature is sort of like reading an analysis and interpretation of the
> > Torah and of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech by a member of an
> > anti-Jew / anti-black hate group. Now I'm not saying that you are a hater
> > like that or anything. I have a feeling that you are probably a generally
> > nice person who is not prejudiced toward anyone (maybe not even Eckists), but
> > when it comes to the religion of Eckankar it is no secret that you have a
> > strong prejudice toward it since your posts always make that perfectly clear.
>
> Yes, I definitely have strong opinions about eckankar. If my
> opinions are prejudice then that means your opinions are
> _________? Truth? Prejudice?
My opinions are just my opinions, but based on what I know, not on wishing
something were true to fit an agenda based on inexperience and simple
bitterness (as is your case).
> > But it's all OK i.m.o., because you, me, and everyone else are doing
> > whatever we need to do to learn our lessons. I've got my own lessons to
> > learn, and Eck detractors are Eck detractors because there are lessons they
> > need to learn through the experience of being an Eck detractor.
>
> Yes I agree, when one sees what drew him/her to eckankar,
> there is a lesson to be learned.
>
> Lurk
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
nir...@my-dejanews.com
nir...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36BE5D01...@mindspring.com>,
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
(Rafi):
> > > But it's all OK i.m.o., because you, me, and everyone else are doing
> > > whatever we need to do to learn our lessons. I've got my own lessons to
> > > learn, and Eck detractors are Eck detractors because there are lessons they
> > > need to learn through the experience of being an Eck detractor.
(Lurk):
> > Yes I agree, when one sees what drew him/her to eckankar,
> > there is a lesson to be learned.
> >
> > Lurk
What drew me to Eckankar was that I was fortunate to be aware of the
presence of the the pure love of God and of the wondrous waves of the Light
and Sound of God in Eck. The lesson has been one of learning each day how to
be more and more at one with this love, to be a more balanced, responsible,
aware and compassionate being. The goals in Eck are: becoming a conscious
co-worker with God, self realization, and God realization. For me Eckankar is
a path that will enable me, perhaps in this lifetime, to achieve such goals.
Rafi
harpoon39
> > Dr Dreck
>
> Really Richard . . .
>
>
No, no, no Lurk. Dr. Dreck is Joe O'leary. Dick Picket is not here.
--
arel...@mindspring.com
>
> In article <36BE607C...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > harpoon39 wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <c89v2.9444$QU6.52...@c01read10.service.talkway.com>,
> > > "HipGnosis" <HipG...@RealTruth.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > What a hypocrite.
> > >
> > > You are likely correct in that diagnosis of me. What I do here likely is
> > > frequently hypocritical. Hey . . . what can I say . . . I am a work in
> > > progress and God certainly is far from being finished with me.
> > >
> > > I make no claims to greatness.
> >
> > As I stated before Glen, allusions to humanness are great
> > since we all make mistakes and step over the line on occasion.
>
> In this post the great Lurk gives a compliment (if acknowledging that I
> might be human is a compliment:)
>
> >
> > But when you use such humanness as a basis or a license for your
> > continued poor disposition on this newsgroup, I think such
> > justification is not only disingenuous, but ultimately is an
> > expression of fanaticism.
>
> And then with the other hand he whiskd it away again ROFL.
>
> Be careful there Lurk . . . . you were almost nice to me:)
I think you missed the point of my comments. It's great for people to admit to
mistakes and their humanness, but when it is done in the place of practicing self
control, well, that's certainly not useful, in my opinion.
A good analogy would be a priest who, 85% of the time, when disagreeing with people in
public about religion, would start punching the people he disagrees with to get his
point across. Bystanders would certainly wonder why a spiritual man took such
punitive action. They would also never really get to hear what the priest believed
in other than the message the thrown punches send. And when someone comes along and
questions the priest as to why he punches people instead of making his own points,
and the priest responds with, "I'm a work in progress and God certainly is far from being
finished with me," it just sounds a little awkward.
>
> My disposition on this group is no better or worse than anyone else's.
> I'll not apologize for speaking my truth here anymore than you would
> apologize for yours.
Glen, let me share with you a little about what I observed in myself at one point
in my life which may or may not be helpful. I noticed that when I was speaking to
someone and something they said prompted me to feel hurt, angry, rejected, crushed,
or whatever, I would automatically want to make that hurt go away by trying to push
a button in the other person which would make them feel bad. I figured if I made them
feel bad they would go away and my hurt would go away. In order to avoid feeling
hurt when those feelings arose, I would try to control the outside factor,
condition, person that stimulated it.
As you probably can see, I was barking up the wrong tree. I was obviously placing
the cause of my feeling bad/hurt to something outside of myself. By trying to
change the outside factors, I was no more closer to resolving my hurt for it would
quickly arise upon the next thing that prompted it. Being nasty was, for all
intents and purposes, not only a disservice to others who bore the brunt of my
verbal lashings, but it also was a tremendous disservice to myself.
So what did I do? I learn to observe the feelings as they arose and acknowledged
them. And when appropriate, I express these feelings as my hurt and allowed my self
to be vulnerable in such expressions. When hurt arises, this is my truth for that
moment. To deny it, suppress it, or try to make it go away by looking outwardly
does a disservice to my truth in that moment; it also divides me.
Anyway to make a long story short, as I continued to observe my emotional
reactions, over time, I gained many insights, patterns emerged, old wounds began to
heal. I became less reactive to the comments of others because their wasn't a pool
of unacknowledge hurt crying to get out. I began to take responsibility for my
reactions by owning them. I settled into finding a balance between taking
responsibility for my reactions and asking for what I wanted or needed from others
in the world.
I pass this on to you in the spirit of an honest self revealing exchange. I'm not
trying to make you look bad as much as I am only commenting on the bulk of what I'm
getting from you.
I observed how you sincerely tried to communicate better when you came back to
a.r.e. after being away a few months, but, unfortunately, abandoned this effort in
favor of throwing punches.
I get frustrated for you knowing how much a disservice you are doing to yourself.
You are a sharp guy and can do better.
For what it's worth.
Lurk
wags...@my-dejanews.com
>
> And lastly, let's not forget the boobs that claim to be cybersleuths, able to
> pick apart "header numbers" to tell who is posting what from where! When will
> they ever be right?
>
> This is Joe O signing off -- not ARELurker! Quick eckists, make notes!
>
"So . . . you admit to trying to look like Lurk."
Wrong.
Here is the one calling himself "Glen Stevens" lying again. I've never cloned
anyone here, or in anyway tried to use another person's identity in any way,
shape or form.
Brian Miller though is using someone named "Glen Stevens" to be his foil.
Wonder how the real Glen Stevens of this world feel about that.
"I suppose you were also the dolt who was posting using Lurk's sign on."
Wrong. This is Brian's attempt to save face for Eckankar. Eckists are the
one's cloning eck critics here. Brian knows this to be true.
Brian is a hypocrite that has used many different aliases here. Nothing wrong
with that, except that he likes to use real people's names without their
permission, and he attacks another here (non-eckists that is) that use aliases
themselves.
"You already post from Nesguy/ Talk Away."
Ooooh.
"And you went out and opened up a Mindspring.com account."
I've had a mindspring account for almost a year now. Does that fact bother
you? Probably so!
This is just another attempt by Brian/Glen to steer converstation away from
Eckankar.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Peanut Gallery . . . this only goes to show
what legths these detractors will go to, to mees with the minds of
Eckists."
By using an pseudo? You're full of it Brian/Glen.
This is just another attempt by Brian/Glen to steer conversation away from
Eckankar.
Eckists here are the one's cloning other people's identities.
"Joe O'Leary posted repeatedly trying to lure people to an illegal MSIA
site. Then he disappears and reappears with the same kind of account as
Lurk."
You're hopeless Brian/Glen/BM . . .
The MSIA site is perfectly legal. Mindspring is a very popular ISP.
This is just another attempt by Brian/Glen to steer converstation away from
Eckankar.
"Sharon takes a few days off and then return to post dozens of long
rambling posts each day."
None of which you seem up to replying to . . .
----
It sucks being Sharon and Joe.
Pathetic
apologies to Lurk.
I did not believe you were really being hacked. I sure did not believe you
were being hacked by a detractor. ----------
Brian/Glen here is once again lying. Anyone saying 1/10th of the things he
says here would have to be either a liar or a fool . . .
Oh, and another thing:
>
> No, no, no Lurk. Dr. Dreck is Joe O'leary. Dick Picket is not here.
>
> --
I have never posted here under "Dr. Dreck."
Thanks for creating as much confusion as possible here Brian/Glen. It's all
going down to Peter S. pretty soon.
Dr_Dreck
I love it!
Wagstaff delivers Glen a major cyber-wedgie! For God's sakes man, pull
your drawers outta yer arse! Ya' look silly and impotent! Ya needs a
new pseudo, ya pathetic Eckgrunt!
Dr_Dreck
sharo...@my-dejanews.com
"Dr_Dreck" <ooga...@wraith.com> wrote:
>
> I love it!
>
> Wagstaff delivers Glen a major cyber-wedgie! For God's sakes man, pull
> your drawers outta yer arse! Ya' look silly and impotent! Ya needs a
> new pseudo, ya pathetic Eckgrunt!
>
> Dr_Dreck
>
I think Joe went too far. Glen/Brian obviously has a reason to want to be
anonymous. Wasn't he the one who argued that Samorez ID should be kept secret.
Maybe us detractors should have shown him the same courtesy.
I love you Joe but today you acted like an asswipe.
Hugs
Sharon
harpoon39
>
> Here is the one calling himself "Glen Stevens" lying again. I've never cloned
> anyone here, or in anyway tried to use another person's identity in any way,
> shape or form.
>
> Brian Miller though is using someone named "Glen Stevens" to be his foil.
>
> Wonder how the real Glen Stevens of this world feel about that.
Who was it that said those who live by the sword, die by the sword?
While I am not pleased to see my name displayed on a.r.e. I am not
entirely surprised, after more than 4 years, that it has eventually
happened.
You know when I discovered Samorez's true ID I struggled with the thought
of outing him. I almost did it several times but each time I thought
better of it. It was the same with Alfie. I knew his true name long before
it showed up on the Oasis site. Again I thought long and hard about it and
almost outed him several times but in the end I took the higher road.
Joe had the same choice to make. No matter what you may think of me I've
never outed anyone here. Looks like Joe did so with me, without even
blinking an eye.
BTW, before you get too excited, detractors, I have an unlisted phone, I
am not on the voters list and my house is in my wife's name (different
surname). But go ahead and try:)
So Joe . . . my ISP says my account is secure. How did you hack my plan file?
--
Sharon
>
> While I am not pleased to see my name displayed on a.r.e. I am not
> entirely surprised, after more than 4 years, that it has eventually
> happened.
Glen...(that's who I met you as so that's how I think
of you)...excuse me here, but as one human being to
another...you signed one of your posts earlier this
week as "Brian Miller"
Personally...well...I have no idea what your real name
is, nor do I care...I thought the Brian Miller was a
reference to your BMFlush pseudo (which I thought was
hilarious)
So double-check back...you brought the name out...in
fact, didn't you use it as BMFlush sometimes?
Anyway...just a thought I've had this week...considering
a lot of things, and the effects of stress...I know grad
school & all isn't easy...but do you take vitamins? A
good organic well-balanced B-complex supplement might
help a bit...or just niacin...really...try it & see how
you feel...
I'm just being serious & polite here...for whatever it's
worth...dropping the "labels" for a moment...
You weren't hacked, Glen/Brian...really...you let that
name out yourself...
Hugs,
Sharon
Alfie
harpoon39 wrote:
> BTW, before you get too excited, detractors, I have an unlisted phone, I
> am not on the voters list and my house is in my wife's name (different
> surname). But go ahead and try:)
My my, Glen/Brian.....aren't YOU the paranoid one? Telling me about my
daughters' names on my web page; Telling me to "THINK MAN!; Telling me
off!!!.NOW I'M TELLING YOU!!!!.... You have gone to great lengths in
disguising yourself. Who the hell is after YOU? You are almost as
despicable as that scumbag Pickett and that bloated old surfer "Aloha
Rich" for publishing a high profile Web Page on me. BTW, you aren't
important enough to call or bother looking up.
Hoveringly,
Alfster
Sharon
>
> harpoon39 wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, before you get too excited, detractors, I have an unlisted phone, I
> > am not on the voters list and my house is in my wife's name (different
> > surname). But go ahead and try:)
>
vitamin recommendation...because I remember the private
correspondence we had when I was an Eckist and just trying
to understand why you were so nasty & argumentative...
And you told me that you felt your "method" was effective.
You had "Letters to a Chela" as a HOLY DISCOURSE!!!!
And your behavior shows...you've got that Twitchell
prizefighter complex thing...without any morality or
compassion or ethics...
You are not only a paranoid fundie---wow did Twitch's
implanting work with you---but you are a deliberately cold
cunning & calculating schemer...
Just like Twitchell and Klemp...
You're not even worth wasting insults on...especially the
good ones I learned from a TRUE Master!!!!
Sharon
AND ANOTHER THING!!! I believe you are also WAGSTAFF...you set it up
deliberately to use it to "reveal" and further discredit "JOE"...where
IS the real Joe, anyway???
wags...@my-dejanews.com
> In article <79v5qr$7h8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wags...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> "You know when I discovered Samorez's true ID I struggled with the thought
> of outing him. I almost did it several times but each time I thought
> better of it. It was the same with Alfie. I knew his true name long before
> it showed up on the Oasis site. Again I thought long and hard about it and
> almost outed him several times but in the end I took the higher road."
>
> Sharon . . . Lurk . . . can you hear the violins? <g>
>
> Yes, you've always taken the higher road, haven't you Brian-Glen? (Sounds
> kind of cool, like John-Roger!)
>
>
> "Joe had the same choice to make. No matter what you may think of me I've
> never outed anyone here. Looks like Joe did so with me, without even
> blinking an eye."
>
> *You* posted your name here! Brian-Glen are too too much!
>
> And you know what? If *you* had wanted your name kept a secret, I would have
> honored that . . .
"You outed me and you have to own it."
Nope! *You* outed yourself and everyone here saw it!
Pardon me if I thought youropenness was genuine. My mistake! I should have
remembered who I was dealing with . . . :-D
"While it is true that I accidentally used my real name here when posting,
clearly, after 4 years of using pseudo's I obviously wanted to keep it
private."
You want your name private now? Ok fine. I'll never use it here again, if
you and yours return the favor? Capiche?
But don't fault others here for not having mind-reading abilities! There was
simply nothing "obvious" about you wanting to keep your name private.
And everyone here knows that.
"YOU were the one who brought my slip up to the forefront. Everyone else
had just ignored it. You had a choice to make and you did NOT honor my
obvious choice. You plastered my name all over a.r.e. with glee."
Hm, that sounds familiar. Sort of like the way you plastered *my* name all
over a.r.e.? Including ascribing my name to posts I didn't author?
Sort of like the way pickett posts stuff about people on his page?
Hm?
"Yes I slipped up, but YOU were the scum who brought my slip up to
everyone's attention."
No whateveryournameis, *you* posted *your* name here! And you left no
instructions that you wanted that name kept a secret.
Like the good eckist, you wanted to have things both ways. When I questioned
you about your use of pseudos, you posted your (apparent) real name here as
some kind of gesture of openness and honesty. How short lived and insincere
that gesture was, huh?
How does it feel Glen? I guess you really stuck your foot in it, but that's
not my fault.
> And you know what? If *you* had wanted your name kept a secret, I would have
> honored that . . .
"That is just so untrue!
Admit it. You had the scoop of the year and you used it with pleasure."
The scoop of the year?
Jeez, who cares....
But what I said is true nonetheless.
"If you want to be one of the bad guys, at least have the class to revel in
your scumliness after you do the dirty deed."
From the ridiculous to the sublimely ridiculous . . .
You have only yourself to blame HI.
And if you call posting your name an act of "scumliness," maybe there's
something you should look at there. In how you feel about your name and what
you are doing here on a.r.e., I mean.
Does Peter know you're here? Maybe that's it.
"You sure are no Alfie."
Whatever. But you sure are a Madhis! :-D
Glen
harpoon39
<sharo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> harp...@hotmail.com (harpoon39) writes: > In article
<79v5qr$7h8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wags...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
>
> > While I am not pleased to see my name displayed on a.r.e. I am not
> > entirely surprised, after more than 4 years, that it has eventually
> > happened.
>
>
>
> Glen...(that's who I met you as so that's how I think
> of you)...excuse me here, but as one human being to
> another...you signed one of your posts earlier this
> week as "Brian Miller"
Sigh . . . .
> Personally...well...I have no idea what your real name
> is, nor do I care...I thought the Brian Miller was a
> reference to your BMFlush pseudo (which I thought was
> hilarious)
>
> So double-check back...you brought the name out...in
> fact, didn't you use it as BMFlush sometimes?
When I came back as Brian M, in the fall, it was because I was working on
my papers on my home computer and had forgotten to change my configuration
back to Glen Stevens.
>
> Anyway...just a thought I've had this week...considering
> a lot of things, and the effects of stress...I know grad
> school & all isn't easy...but do you take vitamins? A
> good organic well-balanced B-complex supplement might
> help a bit...or just niacin...really...try it & see how
> you feel...
>
> I'm just being serious & polite here...for whatever it's
> worth...dropping the "labels" for a moment...
>
> You weren't hacked, Glen/Brian...really...you let that
> name out yourself...
For those who do use a pseudo, I am sure you will agree that there is a
certain mindset required to keep the attention to detail.
Sharon, your point is well taken. I have found the post where I used the
name Brian. I was angry about a post and responded while I was angry. . .
. and then I fired it off without editting.
>
> Hugs,
>
> Sharon
Thanks . . . I can use the hug.
Glen
harpoon39
> In article <79v5qr$7h8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wags...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> "You know when I discovered Samorez's true ID I struggled with the thought
> of outing him. I almost did it several times but each time I thought
> better of it. It was the same with Alfie. I knew his true name long before
> it showed up on the Oasis site. Again I thought long and hard about it and
> almost outed him several times but in the end I took the higher road."
>
> Sharon . . . Lurk . . . can you hear the violins? <g>
>
> Yes, you've always taken the higher road, haven't you Brian-Glen? (Sounds
> kind of cool, like John-Roger!)
>
>
> "Joe had the same choice to make. No matter what you may think of me I've
> never outed anyone here. Looks like Joe did so with me, without even
> blinking an eye."
>
> *You* posted your name here! Brian-Glen are too too much!
>
> And you know what? If *you* had wanted your name kept a secret, I would have
> honored that . . .
You outed me and you have to own it.
While it is true that I accidentally used my real name here when posting,
clearly, after 4 years of using pseudo's I obviously wanted to keep it
private.
YOU were the one who brought my slip up to the forefront. Everyone else
had just ignored it. You had a choice to make and you did NOT honor my
obvious choice. You plastered my name all over a.r.e. with glee.
Yes I slipped up, but YOU were the scum who brought my slip up to
everyone's attention.
> And you know what? If *you* had wanted your name kept a secret, I would have
> honored that . . .
That is just so untrue!
Admit it. You had the scoop of the year and you used it with pleasure.
If you want to be one of the bad guys, at least have the class to revel in
your scumliness after you do the dirty deed.
You sure are no Alfie.
Glen
harpoon39
<m...@nevermindspring.com> wrote:
> harpoon39 wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, before you get too excited, detractors, I have an unlisted phone, I
> > am not on the voters list and my house is in my wife's name (different
> > surname). But go ahead and try:)
>
> My my, Glen/Brian.....aren't YOU the paranoid one? Telling me about my
> daughters' names on my web page; Telling me to "THINK MAN!; Telling me
> off!!!.NOW I'M TELLING YOU!!!!.... You have gone to great lengths in
> disguising yourself. Who the hell is after YOU? You are almost as
> despicable as that scumbag Pickett and that bloated old surfer "Aloha
> Rich" for publishing a high profile Web Page on me. BTW, you aren't
> important enough to call or bother looking up.
>
> Hoveringly,
>
> Alfster
I assume that means you tried and failed. <GG>
whatever
Dr_Dreck
>
> No, no, no Lurk. Dr. Dreck is Joe O'leary. Dick Picket is not here.
Dr. Dreck is not Joe O'Leary. Glen Stevens is not Brian Miller. Glen is
most assuredly Glen, though. The last name may or may not be Stevens
but when you dig a little,
you may find that g...@islandnet.bc.ca, g...@sd61.bc.ca, and
g...@pacificcoast.net are certainly consistent with the first half of
Monsieur Harpoon's "pseudo".
Don't really understand the whole cloning game that goes on in his
head....maybe those little voices have a clue<G>.
Anyway, Glen can be found defending Eckankar all over the place; even
suggesting that people killfile McElwaine because he gives the path a
bad name. For the most part,
Glen is just an average Canadian dude who likes ice skating, Gordon
Lightfoot, and collects books.
Dr. Dreck
Brian Miller
> In article <f_Fw2.284$po....@c01read02.service.talkway.com>,
> "Dr_Dreck" <ooga...@wraith.com> wrote:
> >
> > I love it!
> >
> > Wagstaff delivers Glen a major cyber-wedgie! For God's sakes man, pull
> > your drawers outta yer arse! Ya' look silly and impotent! Ya needs a
> > new pseudo, ya pathetic Eckgrunt!
> >
> > Dr_Dreck
> >
>
> I think Joe went too far. Glen/Brian obviously has a reason to want to be
> anonymous. Wasn't he the one who argued that Samorez ID should be kept secret.
> Maybe us detractors should have shown him the same courtesy.
>
> I love you Joe but today you acted like an asswipe.
>
>
> Hugs
> Sharon
Thanks Sharon but you know the truth is it was my slip up.
And to be real honest . . . while I did not publish Sam's or Alfie's true
names, I cannot guarantee I would not with Lurk and J.
After a day to think of it . . . Joe is right.
It was my error.
--
Brian
Brian Miller
>
> Nope! *You* outed yourself and everyone here saw it!
>
> Pardon me if I thought youropenness was genuine. My mistake! I should have
> remembered who I was dealing with . . . :-D
You know what Joe. If you are not sitting down, do so. I agree with you.
It was inevitable I suppose. I use the Usenet for research sources and I
was bound to forget to change the preferences over on my newsreader.
>
> But don't fault others here for not having mind-reading abilities! There was
> simply nothing "obvious" about you wanting to keep your name private.
>
> And everyone here knows that.
I can see where you might make that assumption.
>
> No whateveryournameis, *you* posted *your* name here! And you left no
> instructions that you wanted that name kept a secret.
You are correct.
>
> How does it feel Glen? I guess you really stuck your foot in it, but that's
> not my fault.
You know Joe, you are correct. I slipped up.
>
> Does Peter know you're here? Maybe that's it.
Who is this Peter you keep referring to?
--
Brian
Brian Cohen
> When I came back as Brian M, in the fall, it was because I was >working on my papers on my home computer and had forgotten to change >my configuration back to Glen Stevens.
>
>
>
Message 1 of 1 for search ~a (B...@flush.com) & ~g (alt.test)
return to search results
yah
Author: Brian M <B...@flush.com>
Date: 1998/10/15
Forum: alt.test
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
stretching credulity, again?
Never troll a Troll.
Brian Cohen
Brian Miller
Cohen" <br...@life.org> wrote:
> On 12 Feb 1999 15:22:10 GMT harp...@hotmail.com (harpoon39) wrote:
>
> > When I came back as Brian M, in the fall, it was because I was
>working on my papers on my home computer and had forgotten to change >my
configuration back to Glen Stevens.
> >
> >
> >
> Message 1 of 1 for search ~a (B...@flush.com) & ~g (alt.test)
> return to search results
>
> yah
> Author: Brian M <B...@flush.com>
> Date: 1998/10/15
> Forum: alt.test
>
> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>
> stretching credulity, again?
> Never troll a Troll.
>
> Brian Cohen
Any relation to Leonard Cohen . . . . my favorite Canadian poet.
--
Brian
Brian Miller
I have not forgotten about this post Lurk. I have been revisiting it and
thinking about what you said.
>
> I think you missed the point of my comments. It's great for people to admit to
> mistakes and their humanness, but when it is done in the place of
practicing self
> control, well, that's certainly not useful, in my opinion.
I am unsure if what I do here is this. I wonder if you guys pay me so much
attention because I offend you, or if it is because right now, I am
basically the only person standing up to you. Basically, if you come here
looking for a scrap I am the only show in town right now.
But I do understand what you are saying here and I am still considering it.
>
> A good analogy would be a priest who, 85% of the time, when disagreeing
with people in
> public about religion, would start punching the people he disagrees with
to get his
> point across. Bystanders would certainly wonder why a spiritual man took such
> punitive action. They would also never really get to hear what the
priest believed
> in other than the message the thrown punches send. And when someone
comes along and
> questions the priest as to why he punches people instead of making his
own points,
> and the priest responds with, "I'm a work in progress and God certainly
is far from being
> finished with me," it just sounds a little awkward.
The problem with this analogy is that you keep elevating my responsibility
level. I do not come here as some priest. I just come here as a guy who
disagrees with you.
>
> >
> > My disposition on this group is no better or worse than anyone else's.
> > I'll not apologize for speaking my truth here anymore than you would
> > apologize for yours.
>
>
> Glen, let me share with you a little about what I observed in myself at
one point
> in my life which may or may not be helpful. I noticed that when I was
speaking to
> someone and something they said prompted me to feel hurt, angry,
rejected, crushed,
> or whatever, I would automatically want to make that hurt go away by
trying to push
> a button in the other person which would make them feel bad. I figured
if I made them
> feel bad they would go away and my hurt would go away. In order to avoid
feeling
> hurt when those feelings arose, I would try to control the outside factor,
> condition, person that stimulated it.
I can see this in many of us here, including myself and also including you
when you grew tired of being hacked. I agree that I do this here.
But that is really the reason I come here and excluding you and Dave Lane
from the list, I think that is why most of the detractors come here as
well. Don't you think we come here because of the conflict . . . . not in
spite of it.
>
> As you probably can see, I was barking up the wrong tree. I was
obviously placing
> the cause of my feeling bad/hurt to something outside of myself. By trying to
> change the outside factors, I was no more closer to resolving my hurt
for it would
> quickly arise upon the next thing that prompted it. Being nasty was, for all
> intents and purposes, not only a disservice to others who bore the brunt of my
> verbal lashings, but it also was a tremendous disservice to myself.
I struggle with this Lurk.
I see the point you are making but I do not know if it applies to me. I
come here for the conflict. I enjoy the jousting. While one side of me was
saying you scum, to Joe, for outing me, another side was saying . . .
"wow! well played . . . I didn't even see that one coming:)" I enjoy the
batttles joe and I have.
>
> So what did I do? I learn to observe the feelings as they arose and
acknowledged
> them. And when appropriate, I express these feelings as my hurt and
allowed my self
> to be vulnerable in such expressions. When hurt arises, this is my truth
for that
> moment. To deny it, suppress it, or try to make it go away by looking
outwardly
> does a disservice to my truth in that moment; it also divides me.
>
> Anyway to make a long story short, as I continued to observe my emotional
> reactions, over time, I gained many insights, patterns emerged, old
wounds began to
> heal. I became less reactive to the comments of others because their
wasn't a pool
> of unacknowledge hurt crying to get out. I began to take responsibility for my
> reactions by owning them. I settled into finding a balance between taking
> responsibility for my reactions and asking for what I wanted or needed
from others
> in the world.
For me, alt.religion. eckankar is a bit like an alternate reality. I am
nothing like the person I am here, in real life. Coming to a.r.e. is kind
of like going out with the guys for a wild Saturday night (all the while
knowing in reality I have a mate, a job, kids, a mortgage, a cat and a dog
waiting for me home in the reality zone:)
>
> I pass this on to you in the spirit of an honest self revealing
exchange. I'm not
> trying to make you look bad as much as I am only commenting on the bulk
of what I'm
> getting from you.
I do not think you are far off in your assessment of me. I cannot deny
that I get a kick out of this. You know I really miss Sam. We would knock
each other around for a week or so and then out of the blue I'd get an
email that said "Good shot<GG>"
>
> I observed how you sincerely tried to communicate better when you came back to
> a.r.e. after being away a few months, but, unfortunately, abandoned this
effort in
> favor of throwing punches.
\
To be honest . . . . I found the gentle dialogue to be a bit tame.
I enjoy the punches . . . giving and getting.
>
> I get frustrated for you knowing how much a disservice you are doing to
yourself.
> You are a sharp guy and can do better.
>
> For what it's worth.
Truly, I thank you for taking the time to respectfully express this to me Lurk.
It has been a source of introspection for me.
I don't really know what I think about it.
Your post was timely given the recent developments with Joe. Pseudo's are
a bit like a masquerade ball . . . they enable one to be quite
uninhibited.
Perhaps I'll try being the guy with the kids and the dog at home, here on
a.r.e., for a while.
I appreciate the perspective.
--
Brian
Brian Cohen
. . . no, a cinematic allusion to the British Monty Python movie, "Life
of Brian"
Brian Miller
> On 12 Feb 1999 15:22:10 GMT harp...@hotmail.com (harpoon39) wrote:
>
> > When I came back as Brian M, in the fall, it was because I was
>working on my papers on my home computer and had forgotten to change >my
configuration back to Glen Stevens.
> >
> >
> >
> Message 1 of 1 for search ~a (B...@flush.com) & ~g (alt.test)
> return to search results
>
> yah
> Author: Brian M <B...@flush.com>
> Date: 1998/10/15
> Forum: alt.test
>
> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>
> stretching credulity, again?
> Never troll a Troll.
>
> Brian Cohen
Seriously, this is a clever bit of sleuthing.
Except that what you discovered was the smokescreen that I left for you.
The post where I accidentally used my real name is not in the archives.
You may have even missed it the first time around. It was only up for a
short while before I cancelled it. I invented BM @flush to cover up my
initial screw up.
But Sharon is right. The stress of Grad school is too much to allow all
the subterfuge too.
I think maybe I'll just do a Jason Venner for a while. Perhaps it would be
useful to have a few more Eck posts in context here:)
You win Joe.
At least until Reading Break:)
I've enjoyed the game.
Bowing low . . . . heading toward the door.
--
Brian
DrDreck
How do I know that you aren't pulling a double reverse blind with
these cancelled messages?
98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598184658000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598184400000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598204110000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598215215000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
I think you've been signing on with your real name, Glen Stevens,
and are trying to obscure it while raising doubts about the veracity of
anyone's identity on this newsgroup as an insidious way to discredit
eckankar's critics.
Dr_Dreck
BrianMiller
>>
>> Bowing low . . . . heading toward the door.
>>
>> --
>> Brian
>How do I know that you aren't pulling a double reverse blind with
>these cancelled messages?
>98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598184658000 alt.religion.eckankar glen >
>98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598184400000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
>98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598204110000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
>98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598215215000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
>I think you've been signing on with your real name, Glen Stevens,
>and are trying to obscure it while raising doubts about the veracity >of anyone's identity on this newsgroup as an insidious way to >discredit
>eckankar's critics.
>Dr_Dreck
--
Curses. I am foiled at last. Glen Stevens is my real name.
I must discredit eckankar's critics. They must be stopped.
I cannot dispute their logic. I cannot let Eckankar fail because
I have invested my whole life in it. I worked hard at being
paranoid. I worked hard until I could see Rebazar Tarzeven when I
know it is not real.
I want to be the next living ECK Master. Harji told me I could be
if I did my job here good enough.
When I become the Mahanta I will get a new computer and replace the
stump I sit on with a real chair. With wheels on it even. I will
move to the US and get cable internet.
I will rule.
No one will stop me.
Glen
Brian Cohen
wrote:
Ahhh, the old triple blind - obscure Glen with Brian and then clone
Brian on Talkway to make people think that the cloner is behind all of
this so you can play the wounded victim. . . wait this sounds too
familiar; isn't that the strategy that DrDreck/Joe/Wagstaff/Ram/etc. .
. tried?
Brian Cohen
GlenStevens
I am the only real me. my real name is really BM Flush. I and only I
will be the next Living ECK Master.
I BM Flush posess the most important qualification to become the
Mahanta.
I have a funny name.
Twitchell--Gross--Klemp--FLUSH!!!!!
My spiritual name shall be Poo Pee
Baraka Bashad
BM
GlenStevens
SoulWords
>The problem with this analogy is that you keep elevating my responsibility
>level. I do not come here as some priest. I just come here as a guy who
>disagrees with you.
>Don't you think we come here because of the conflict . . . . not in
>spite of it.
>
that actually
connects him to detractors who also like a good fight.
If he does not measure up to what you beleive a priest shold be-
well- there's something else you can enjoy fighting about!
]<G>
Love in ECK, David
BMFlush
Now that I am GODMAN...
The big question is...
Does Poo Pee in the Woods?
Answer: Only in the summer. Winters in Minnesota are too cold!
***
<giggle>
Guess what people! With this faster machine I am learning about things
I traditionally did not know about (some may remember my confusion over
something called "headers")...
AND...since I remember when I was an Eckist this past summer, in the
Eck Online Gestapo...I forget exactly who it was that had that tracking
software & several Eckists were obsessed with tracking the
whistleblowers...so I naturally assumed it was a waste to try to use
one but it looked like such fun...I tried being "Twinkle" but got
confused & used my own name...
But I have a question: Now, to me, the following headers make it look
like it's that guy "Pickett" .... I thought he swore not to post here
for a year? I wonder if he posted a lot more before this week?
e: Life of Brian
Author: DrDreck <ooga...@wraith.com>Date: 1999/02/13Forum:
alt.religion.eckankar Posted on: 1999/02/13Message-ID:
<o56x2.1068$po....@c01read02.service.talkway.com>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri,
12 Feb 1999 19:13:24 PDTNewsgroups: alt.religion.eckankarOrganization:
Talkway, Inc.References: X-Client-NNTP-Posting-Host:
dial85.pm3abing4.abingdonpm.naxs.com/216.98.76.85X-Complaints-To:
ab...@talkway.comX-Trace: c01read02.service.talkway.com 918875604
209.185.64.205 (Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:13:24 PDT)
Re: Life of Brian
Author: Brian Cohen <br...@life.org>Date: 1999/02/13Forum:
alt.religion.eckankar Posted on: 1999/02/13Message-ID:
<MU7x2.1114$po....@c01read02.service.talkway.com>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri,
12 Feb 1999 21:16:28 PDTNewsgroups: alt.religion.eckankarOrganization:
Talkway, Inc.References:
X-Client-NNTP-Posting-Host: dial193.pm3abing3.abingdonpm.naxs.com/216.98.75.193X-
Complaints-To: ab...@talkway.comX-Trace: c01read02.service.talkway.com
918882988
209.185.64.202 (Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:16:28 PDT)fewer headers author
posting history
Why doesn't everyone grow up & stop this spy vs spy vs spy phony name &
picking on people crap? I mean, really...
Hugs,
Sharon
sharo...@my-dejanews.com
Roger wrote:
Why don't you try interpreting this awakened dream you're having. Who are
the real critics? Why must they be stopped? What really is their logic?
What really is Eckankar? Why are you playing with this idea of paranoia?
Maybe you're trying to tell yourself something. You wanting to be the LEM?
The importance of the computer and this stump is hiding something. The
wheels, is that your dreaded fear of the never ending wheel of karma, and
finally your expressed meglamania.
<P>I don't like to see people suffer so I'm just offering you a hand.
<P>Roger
Sharon responds:
Roger, you're new here...maybe I should explain...actually, the above you
quoted is a joke...the stump & new computer...referring back to Glen's
complaints about his old computer & modem, and wishing he had cableinternet
like like Nathan, and then something someone else joked about--Glen sitting
on a stump...
You see...there's a long history of confusion here...long before *I* arrived
as an Eckist back in July...
As an Eckist & also after I left...I was always "me" even when I used
pseudos....couldn't resist last night's "joke" BrianMiller & Glen Stevens
ones though, and today's BM Flush...but good grief I was doing it to JOKE,
not to confuse...because I learned where you see those headers...
But...the history here is that evidently for a long time *some* people have
been using pseudos & cloning & stuff just to cloud the issues. Eckists avoid
the issues, and also don't answer perfectly serious questions...that happened
to me when I was an Eckist...my eyes were truly opened here...
Take "Pickett" for example...you know, he & SamOrez (long before my time)
evidently made an agreement they'd both stay off for a year.
I happened to just discover "headers" the other day...and a lot of
things..and you know it looks like Pickett always posted here under addresses
from places like Newsguy (which I understand costs money but assures
anonymity) and another place I never heard of called "Zippo"...I wonder,
didn't he ever post with his "real" address at naxs.com?
Some people here, like me, aren't aware of the fact that sometimes it might
be wise to not be open & honest & trusting. Because when they are, people
like certain Eckists here, who have devious & manipulative minds like Paul
Twitchell, will take people's naivete & use it against them later...like the
"embarrassing" reposts of my older ones...hey, I am certainly not
embarrassed...although I've said some ... uh, odd things perhaps...well
that's me...
They've never reposted "good" things I've said...they just try to make me,
and others, look bad & discredit us as much as possible.
Well...I'm probably rambling...hey, what do you think of "Letters from a
Chela"?
I had no idea what was being done to my mind when I was an Eckist...
But you know, I've stated here before...God is truly in the heart (whatever
the heck God is) and you don't need Eckankar, or any "religion" to connect
you with it/him/whatever...although they can sometimes help.
I just prefer religions that weren't set up by a manipulative con artist like
Paul Twitchell.
Hugs,
Sharon
Harold Chump
Nice try, Pickett....Man, you oughtta be taking car of the "little lady"
instead of flooding a.r.e. with nonsense. I heaqr you have a tee-shirt
that says :" Not tonight honey...I have a modem"
Harold
> > I've enjoyed the game.
> >
> > Bowing low . . . . heading toward the door.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
>
> How do I know that you aren't pulling a double reverse blind with
> these cancelled messages?
> 98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598184658000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
> 98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598184400000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
> 98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598204110000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
> 98/05/17 026 cancel <glen-150598215215000 alt.religion.eckankar glen
>
> I think you've been signing on with your real name, Glen Stevens,
> and are trying to obscure it while raising doubts about the veracity of
> anyone's identity on this newsgroup as an insidious way to discredit
> eckankar's critics.
>
> Dr_Dreck
Brian Miller
<rogs...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> Why don't you try interpreting this awakened dream you're having. Who are
> the real critics? Why must they be stopped? What really is their logic?
> What really is Eckankar? Why are you playing with this idea of paranoia?
> Maybe you're trying to tell yourself something. You wanting to be the LEM?
> The importance of the computer and this stump is hiding something. The
> wheels, is that your dreaded fear of the never ending wheel of karma, and
> finally your expressed meglamania.
> <P>I don't like to see people suffer so I'm just offering you a hand.
> <P>Roger
> <BR> </HTML>
Roger . . . I did not post any of this silliness from last night and this
morning.
What you are seeing is a giant panic attack.
The detractors have realized that they have pushed so hard this time that
I am considering fading off for a while.
They of course are desperate because without me to play with there will be
no one else interesting to mess with.
So of course they are doing this dog and pony show to try to entice me to
continue posting.
This is just what they do Roger.
No sense getting worried about it.
It cannot be stopped. It will play itself out in time.
Salut
--
Brian
Brian Miller
>
> Roger, you're new here...maybe I should explain...actually, the above you
> quoted is a joke...the stump & new computer...referring back to Glen's
> complaints about his old computer & modem, and wishing he had cableinternet
> like like Nathan, and then something someone else joked about--Glen sitting
> on a stump...
>
> You see...there's a long history of confusion here...long before *I* arrived
> as an Eckist back in July...
>
> As an Eckist & also after I left...I was always "me" even when I used
> pseudos....couldn't resist last night's "joke" BrianMiller & Glen Stevens
> ones though, and today's BM Flush...but good grief I was doing it to JOKE,
> not to confuse...because I learned where you see those headers...
Well it looks like you did confuse Roger:)
--
Brian
dunc...@my-dejanews.com
> Why doesn't everyone grow up & stop this spy vs spy vs spy phony name &
> picking on people crap? I mean, really...
>
> Hugs,
>
> Sharon
>
O.K.
Make a note of this.
I agree with Sharon.
This shit is getting very boring.
Duncan