Doug's Response to David Lane #2
KMerrymoon
misrepresentations (continued from part 1):
APPARENT MISREPRESENTATIONS:
DAVID WROTE:
In addition, Darwin wrote a personal letter to all Eckists living in Arizona
concerning the work...
Indeed the rift was such that Darwin Gross sent a personal letter to every
Eckist living in Arizona concerning it at the time...
Again, Darwin Gross was the one who sent a personal letter to every Eckist in
Arizona concerning my manuscript and mentioned it in his Mystic World...
Well before SCP came out Darwin Gross issued a letter to every Eckist in
Arizona concerning the term paper...
While there is no doubt that the SCP material was worrisome to Eckankar, you
keep forgetting Darwin's own letter to Arizona Eckists about the term paper.
DOUG RESPONDS:
It is easy to forget that such a letter existed, since David has presented no
evidence, or even any clear explanation of this apparent letter, nor has anyone
else mentioned it that I have heard of. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation by
David to act as if such a letter should be treated as evidence. It is no
different than Darwin's claims of forgery.
If David wants this Arizona letter to be treated as evidence, then he needs to
first show some reason to believe it actually existed. Since he is making
claims about the letter being sent to "every ECKist in Arizona," then he also
needs to make clear how he knows this.
Since David is claiming that the purpose of this letter was specifically about
his term paper, then David needs to show some evidence to support this. And
since David is arguing that this letter proves his theory that his term paper
had created a "tremendous rift," he needs to at least tell us how many ECKists
were living in Arizona at the time, how many copies of this letter were sent
out, and what the letter said to lead David to this conclusion.
I was working at the ECKANKAR Office during the time that David is talking
about here, and I don't remember any such letter being sent out. I do remember
something about Darwin addressing a letter to Arizona ECKists concerning the
construction of the Spiritual Center, which was going on at that time in
Sedona, Arizona. I had lived in Sedona only a few years earlier, so I remember
all of the questions arising over the new Spiritual Center for ECKANKAR. Was
there a mention about David's term paper in this letter? I don't remember any.
Or is David suggesting a separate letter, devoted solely to the subject of his
term paper, was mailed to every ECKist in Arizona? I find that hard to believe.
But I could be convinced if there was some evidence to support it.
DAVID WROTE:
And in October 1978, Darwin devoted a section in his article for Mystic World
concerning the term paper...
4. Darwin Gross devoted a section of his Mystic World (which is sent out
worldwide) mentioning it...
While I certainly agree that the SCP Journal caused much more of a reaction, it
must be remembered that the term paper did indeed cause a reaction since Darwin
Gross sent a personal letter to every Eckist in Arizona concerning it and
devoted portions of his writing in the Mystic World about the controversy.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Here again, without some substance, these references are meaningless. How do we
know what conclusion to draw about the article without reading it? So, let's
look at the actual quote from the Mystic World that David is referring to. I
should mention that this is taken from the middle of the article, and is only
one of many points being addressed:
<<At the close of this particular calendar year I want to compliment all of the
ECKists, all of the leaders in ECKANKAR that have stood fast their ground and
not been shaken by various attacks that have been placed upon ECKANKAR, the
Living ECK Master, as well as some of the teachings of the past Living ECK
Master, Sri Paul Twitchell. These attacks are made by individuals who are
ignorant of Spirit, ignorant of some of the laws of Spirit and are not aware of
the error in judgement which they are making. They do not realize that the
cycle of God for man is that man must become as God eventually. There is first
the child who seeks, then becomes the man who looks for God everywhere but in
the right place. Ultimately he finds his teacher, becomes a disciple, and
finally in ECKANKAR, becomes the master himself of his own world and universe.
<<
<<This is so very simple it need not take incarnation after incarnation. The
teaching of ECK is not done in a way the human consciousness tends to believe.
The ECK Master may never utter a word about God. He may use an example; it
could be done through a job, profession or by means other than oral or written
teaching. The Living ECK Master may not appear to be a teacher to anyone...
<<
<<Those of us as ECKists, I want you to know and understand, nothing can happen
to you and nothing can ever come to you or be kept away from you except in
accordance with your state of consciousness. Until you understand this you do
not have the key to life. Those who have withstood the attacks have not been
affected by the material written by people who have not done their research or
homework, and gotten the facts straight. These attackers are on a very low
level of spiritual [sic] according to the survival scale.
<<
<<There have been some manuscripts being passed around that are trying to
degrade ECKANKAR, Its teachings as well as Its present spiritual leader and
past spiritual teacher. There are always a great number of people who have to
show what they know. They will invariably talk to you expressing their opinions
and beliefs about God, telling you how much they can help you. Many even
advertise in the press to the effect "always be sceptical." This is one of the
reasons Sri Paul Twitchell stressed that the ECKists should be very cautious...
David is arguing in his most recent volley that the fact that Darwin addressed
the subject in a Mystic World article shows that David's term paper had created
a "rift" in ECKANKAR. This seems like a misrepresentation to me. In fact,
according to the article, Darwin seems to be suggesting that, although it had
garnered some concerns because it was seen as an attack, it really had little
effect. Darwin was actually complimenting the ECKists for holding to their own
truth and not being shaken by "various" attacks, not just one attack.
This article also flies completely in the face of David's claim that Darwin or
ECKANKAR was trying to cover-up the information. We should remember that a
letter written by Dr. Sutphin was also being circulated at this time, as well
as the Christian groups that were passing out false information, which ECKANKAR
addressed in their ads about 6 months later. So, Darwin is talking about a
number of issues, not just David's term paper here. And the point of Darwin's
article was that our spiritual experience is where our anchor of truth should
be, and there is nothing that could keep from us what we needed spiritually.
DAVID WROTE:
Between 1978 and 1981 I received several thousand letters from Eckists
worldwide concerning the manuscript...
1. The number of letters I received from Eckists around the world...
In addition, I have already mentioned the slew of letters I received from
around the world from Eckists concerning it.
DOUG RESPONDS:
To suggest that these letters show that there was a rift in ECKANKAR caused by
David's term paper seems like another misrepresentation. All that a large
number of letters show is that David's term paper stirred up interest or
concern. Those letters could have been critical of David. They could have
thanked David for the new information he was bringing out about Paul's past.
They could have been asking him questions. None of these mean, however, that it
was causing a rift.
If David wants to suggest that these letters somehow proved that his term paper
created a rift in ECKANKAR, he needs to actually demonstrate that with real
evidence, not just suggest the idea. If, on the other hand, David is simply
saying that this is how he sees it, then he should be making it clear that idea
of a rift is merely his opinion.
DAVID WROTE:
Bill Popham, the business consultant, mentioned that there was a rift in
Eckankar over the manuscript since the organization received a number of
letters concerning it...
5. Bill Popham and Steve Gazda, Eckankar officials, explaining to me that there
was a growing rift in Eckankar concerning it.
DOUG RESPONDS:
When David wrote about the comments of these ECKists last year, he never said
they saw a growing "rift". David did say that Bill Popham agreed that David's
paper was raising some concerns. Is David now trying to suggest that concerns
being raised over new information is the same thing as a rift?
If we go back to David's book, however, we find that he was clearly using the
word, rift, to mean "an intense dispute within Eckankar." This is what I have
been challenging.
David's term paper represented an attack on ECKANKAR to most ECKists, just as
the SCP Journal did, and the many cases that were mentioned in the ad that I
quoted from in my book. In those days, new religious groups such as ECKANKAR
were regularly under attack. This, of course, raised concerns.
I think it is a misrepresentation for David to put the word, rift, into the
mouths of Bill and Steve, unless he knows for sure that was the actual word
spoken by them, which would contradict what David told us last year.
DAVID WROTE IN RESPONSE TO DOUG'S BOOK:
You write "hardly some outside hired gun." I never wrote anything of the kind.
That is your spin. Bill Popham was paid by Eckankar to act as a business
consultant on this issue. I am not surprised he was an Eckist, just as I am not
surprised that the attorney who threatened to sue me on Eckankar's behalf was
also an ECKist.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The lawyer used by ECKANKAR was someone hired for a period of many years. This
has nothing to do with the issue here, which is David's claim about the meaning
of Bill Popham being "hired."
Here is the comment from David's book that started this all:
<<My paper had caused such a tremendous rift among the Eck disciples that
Eckankar hired a business consultant to review the manuscript.>>
My point was that David never told the readers of his book that this business
consultant was an ECKist who didn't live far from the ECKANKAR Office. I think
this information makes a big difference in the apparent urgency that David is
trying to interpret from the event.
Saying that Bill Popham was "hardly some outside hired gun" makes this point
quite directly. Where is the spin? David had created an over-inflated sense of
urgency in the way he originally wrote it, which is the way it still stands in
his book. That is the spin that I see and pointed out.
DAVID WROTE:
Again, Gruss deposition (taken just months after his meeting with Noe) is very
clear and univocal.
I will quote again:
"He [Mike Noe] introduced himself, and he indicated he was working with
Spiritual Conterfeits Project and he was interested in doing research on
various groups."
Further in the same deposition, Gruss replies to Mr. Barry's question: "Did you
infer from that he was working with Spiritual Counterfeits Project?" by
stating:
"He [Noe] said he was. I didn't have to infer."
This, naturally, contradicts your claim Doug.
DOUG RESPONDS:
David knows very well that this is the first time anyone has quoted this from
Gruss' deposition. David also knows that when he questioned Gruss on the phone
last year, Gruss could not say for sure that Mike Noe had actually said he was
as a member of the SCP.
While I appreciate this new information from David, and I find it helpful, I
would rather he didn't try to make it sound like I was saying something I knew
was wrong, or making it unclear whether I knew it was wrong. In fact, my
comments were the direct result of the phone conversation that David had with
Gruss and shared with us last year.
But this does raise some other questions. David says that Gruss never read
Peebles' term paper before handing it out to the concerned parishoners whose
daughter was looking into ECKANKAR. David has even quoted Gruss' deposition on
this point. Gruss said this to make him sound innocent of knowing the
defamatory information in the term paper. Something about this doesn't make
sense.
Remember, Gruss did not even know Peebles. The term paper was handed to him by
a Professor who was leaving the LA Baptist College for a period of time.
If the term paper was being handed to Gruss as a part of some files that
belonged to the first Professor, then certainly Gruss would not have gone
through those files to use them as his own, especially without reading them.
Therefore, I assume that Gruss was given the term paper with some kind of
explanation, and that the paper was given to Gruss to be used by Gruss.
If this is true, then Gruss certainly did know the nature of the term paper. He
might not have been aware of the defamatory information it contained, but he
would have known it contained some information that was critical against
ECKANKAR. And therefore, Gruss was still responsible for the truth in the
information he was handing out. I wonder how much about this came out in Gruss'
deposition. However, David only shares with us the information that he finds
helpful to his side of the story.
Therefore, while I would like to thank David for helping to clear up this one
point, I would hope he would also be more open about the whole deposition and
not just share a few selected parts. Rich Smith has offered to scan the whole
thing and post it to the web if David would fax him a copy.
DOUG WROTE IN HIS BOOK ABOUT THE PEEBLES INCIDENT:
David states that ECKANKAR was trying to "undermine any open and objective
investigation" into Paul's past, however, as we have seen, Darwin was
responding to what he felt was an attack against ECKANKAR based upon false and
defamatory information.
DAVID WROTE IN RESPONSE:
First:
Darwin Gross and Eckankar never asked to meet with Gruss, L.A. Baptist College,
or Peebles.
DOUG RESPONDS:
If David thinks this is an argument against what I wrote, then he needs to show
why. We have already shown that Peebles' paper contained false and defamatory
information, and we have already heard from David that those were the hot
bottons for Darwin that triggered the case. I don't see how not talking with
Gruss, et al, before filing a lawsuit suggests what I wrote was wrong.
DAVID CONTINUED:
Second:
When I sent my term paper to Darwin Gross directly (specifically at his
secretary's request), I didn't get a response from Darwin saying that he wanted
to discuss my research.
Instead I got a certified letter from Alan Nichols, attorney at law
(representing Eckankar), saying that I would be sued if I published my term
paper.
DOUG RESPONDS:
David had already received a response from Darwin, where Darwin (written by BB)
wrote back in a very friendly manner to inform David of his understanding of
the relationship between Kirpal and Paul. This was in response to David's first
letter listing some of his challenges (David had not yet sent his term paper).
BB then asked politely for a copy of David's term paper.
As for the legal threat that David got back, I have now reached the point of
wondering why David won't share it with us. David has posted his first two
letters to ECKANKAR, and ECKANKAR's first response back. Why not support one of
the most significant charges David makes in his book, that he was legally
threatened?
It is only after we read the actual letter that we could possibly conclude the
letter was an attempt to "undermine any open and objective investigation." All
we have at this point, however, is a statement by David that there was a
letter, and David's interpretation as to the intention behind that letter.
DAVID CONTINUED:
Third:
SCP offered Darwin Gross an opportunity to respond to the charges they made
against Eckankar and have them printed in the journal.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Darwin wrote in his memo that the SCP had offered him not just the chance of
responding, but the chance to edit the SCP Journal, but that they then refused
him this opportunity.
So, all that the SCP ended up offering was Darwin the chance to make comments,
which the SCP could then use to select from what they wanted and slant the way
they wanted. It is also obvious to any objective person that the SCP Journal is
a blantant piece of propaganda, which misrepresents many of the teachings of
ECKANKAR, as I have shown in my book.
David really thinks that Darwin turning this offer to respond down is proof
that Darwin was trying to "undermine any open and objective investigation"?
I've missed the logic here.
DAVID CONTINUED:
Fourth:
When the SCP Journal did come out, Darwin Gross issued a worldwide memo
requesting that the mailed copies be destroyed.
DOUG RESPONDS:
David seems to have forgotten that the Mystic World article, which I quoted,
called A Letter To The Membership, described the use of "subliminal techiques
that are dangerous to the spiritual insights of readers and participants."
I have already said that these subliminal techniques included the image of a
devil screened over the the cover artwork in a way that is invisible to the
eye. It was discovered by Harold as an accident, when he was making a color
separation of the page.
So, it is clear why Darwin would recommend that the copies would be destroyed.
If David is implying that Darwin was trying to "undermine any open and
objective investigation," then why didn't Darwin request that copies of David's
book be destroyed? Or David's term papers? Or Dr. Sutphin's papers?
In fact, the Mystic World article says quite clearly:
"These attacks will concentrate on the lower realms of experience rather than
on the truths of ECKANKAR. They will be defamatory more than philosophical.
"They will not, of course, and cannot deny the verity of personal spiritual
experience as an ECKist and the truth that lies within each of us! In that
light there is nothing to defend and nothing to prove."
In other words, Darwin's request that the SCP Journals be destroyed show us
Darwin's concern over the subliminal techniques used within them "that are
dangerous to the spiritual insights of readers..."
David thinks that he can simply make suggestive accusations like this, without
any evidence to back up his opinions. They only make his OWN comments look like
attempts to undermine an open and objective investigation.
DAVID WROTE:
The Cover-up allegation is specific.
Darwin denied Twitchell's plagiarism (even claiming that there wasn't any and
that the alleged book that was cribbed didn't have a copyright date -- both
incorrect).
Darwin also denied Twitchell was initiated by Kirpal Singh.
He even claimed that the allegation of the Kirpal/Twitchell connection was
based on "forged" documents, a point that has never been proven.
While there is no doubt that the SCP material was worrisome to Eckankar, you
keep forgetting Darwin's own letter to Arizona Eckists about the term paper.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I find it fascinating that David can so easily see the problem with Darwin's
claim about the "forged" documents because they had never been proven. Yet
David doesn't seem to be able to see that none of the things he has just listed
offer any proof about his claims of a cover-up.
David hasn't even proven the reality of this letter to Arizona ECKists, never
mind proving that it was being written as some kind of cover-up.
Darwin obviously believed at that time that the charge of plagiarism was not
true. David seems to think the case is obvious, but it certainly was not
obvious at the time, at least not to me or most ECKists who saw David's
research as it was spelled out by the SCP Journal. It is only after seeing a
much more detailed analysis that I think the matter has become clearer.
So, David has not shown that Darwin's motivation was in trying to cover-up
David's research. In fact, David completely overlooks the articles and memos
that Darwin sent out informing ECKists of the research. How can Darwin be
covering it up if he is talking about it? David is confusing disagreement with
cover-up.
The issue over Kirpal initiating Paul is exactly the same. Darwin read a letter
addressed from Paul to Kirpal which he misunderstood to mean that Paul had
never been initiated.
Here is what the letter apparently said, as quoted from the
July-August-September 1976 Leadership in ECK newsletter:
"In 1971, Paul Twitchell wrote to one of those claiming to be THE Radha Soami
Master, 'I have never recognized you as a Master, or that you can give
initiations, and that your work is not in the best interest of spirituality."
This was apparently from a private letter that Paul wrote to Kirpal after
Kirpal continued to deride Paul in public. It is easy to see how Darwin might
have taken this to mean that Kirpal had never initiated Paul, when in fact what
Paul was saying was that the initiations Kirpal gave were not initiations as
understood by Paul and ECKANKAR.
Once again, David's arguments of cover-up are in his head. There is no evidence
to suggest a real, actual, physical cover-up. David is seeing a natural
resistance or disagreement with his new information, and imagining he has
stumbled another great Watergate cover-up. Remember, David's book was written
shortly after the Watergate incident, but David's book has no proof of a
cover-up like Watergate did. David has only shown us conjectures and imagined
motivations.
David can see quite clearly the problems with Darwin making a claim (actually
is was BB who wrote it) that "...a Mr. Khanna tried to use against Paul
Twitchell by faking Paul's signature on many papers." Without the evidence to
back this up, we cannot conclude anything about it.
So, why is it that David can't see the problems with his own claims?
In fact, David wants to think that the claim of forgery was part of a cover-up.
Well, then should we take all of David's continual repetition of cover-up,
without the evidence to back it up, David's own attempt to cover-up the truth?
If David is really interested in an open and objective investigation, then I
ask him to set aside the conjectures, the assumptions, the subjective
impressions and imagined motivations. To be open and objective means to support
theories with evidence that is clear enough to convince us. It should be the
evidence that convinces us, not some cleverly worded series of accusations.
If we were discussing spiritual matters here, then the subjective world would
be appropriate, since spiritual experiences are a matter of subjective
discrimination. However, David is trying to discredit the spiritual teachings
of Paul and ECKANKAR by focusing on objective accusations. Therefore, we must
use objective criteria to openly and objectively treat David's evidence.
Unfortunately, David either does not understand the principles of objective
analysis, or refuses to practice them. Otherwise, why would he continue to make
such accusations without the evidence to prove it?
If David wants to offer up his opinions, then perhaps the best thing is to
simply make them clear that they are his opinions. However, that has nothing to
do with an open and objective investigation. Rather, that would be a statement
of beliefs concerning a religion he has never belonged to.
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
> KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> > Once again, David's arguments of cover-up are in his head. There is no evidence
> > to suggest a real, actual, physical cover-up. David is seeing a natural
> > resistance or disagreement with his new information, and imagining he has
> > stumbled another great Watergate cover-up. Remember, David's book was written
> > shortly after the Watergate incident, but David's book has no proof of a
> > cover-up like Watergate did. David has only shown us conjectures and imagined
> > motivations.
>
>
> awwww Doug, say it ain't so! ROFLROFRORROFLROFLROFLOFLROFLROFLFLROFLROFLLROFL
>
>
> rfp
Woodword-Burns????!! Hey you're not Deep Throat are you? Perhaps one
of Paulji's Plumbers? Colson found God you know. Doesn't that give you
hope?
Does CREEP mean anything to you? (No, not the Committee to
Rehabilitate Paulji)
Not up to your usual standards RFP. More like a Cher2050 post.
Vatti
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
Yes RFP, standards. Sheeeeeeeesh, it was Woodward and Bernstein. Mr.
Burns is a character on The Simpsons. Next you'll say Ricardo
Montalban played Bernstein and Troy Donahue played Woodward in the
movie.
Standards are important. So is accuracy, mythological religions
notwithstanding.
Vatti
Ken
Vatti wrote...
>
> Woodword-Burns????!! Hey you're not Deep Throat are you? Perhaps one of
> Paulji's Plumbers? Colson found God you know.
> Doesn't that give you hope?
Hey Lala, I didn't know God was lost.
So you don't think anyone can discover God in their hearts with Eckankar?
How long has it been since you were "saved"?
Ken
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
> KMerrymoon wrote:
> Once again, David's arguments of cover-up are in his head. There is no evidence
> to suggest a real, actual, physical cover-up. David is seeing a natural
> resistance or disagreement with his new information, and imagining he has
> stumbled another great Watergate cover-up. Remember, David's book was written
> shortly after the Watergate incident, but David's book has no proof of a
> cover-up like Watergate did. David has only shown us conjectures and imagined
> motivations.
>
> David Lane, a legend in his own mind, a Woodword-Burns wannabe?
>
> awwww Doug, say it ain't so! ROFLROFRORROFLROFLROFLOFLROFLROFLFLROFLROFLLROFL
>
> Woodword-Burns????!! Hey you're not Deep Throat are you? Perhaps one of Paulji's Plumbers? Colson found God you know.
> Doesn't that give you hope?
> Does CREEP mean anything to you? (No, not the Committee to Rehabilitate Paulji)
> Not up to your usual standards RFP. More like a Cher2050 post.
>
> No. I am not Deep Throat, but I know the identity of the individual (Hint: Nixon & Deep Throat were both graduates of
> Duke University).
>
> I'm not a plumber, but I can give you the number of a reliable plumbing firm.
>
> Liddy claims that Watergate, like Clinton's more recent troubles, was all about sex.
>
> The burglars weren't after political intelligence, Liddy said, so much as an album of Washington call girls who, he
> claimed, were supplied to visiting Democratic dignitaries. Some have scoffed at Liddy's theories, others took them
> seriously - most notably fellow Watergate felon Chuck Colson, who found God behind bars and now ministers to convicts
> across the country. . . .Colson opined that the "call-girl angle sounds credible to me".
>
> CREEP? http://www.resnet.trinity.edu/mshay2/royko/970120.htm
>
> Standards?
No. No. No. Its Burns:
http://www.apbnews.com/media/celebnews/vault/vb_gburns0315_01.html
<A memo to the FBI director contains information from a tipster who
told the bureau he sold narcotics to Burns and wife Gracie Allen. The
informant claimed Allen wore long sleeves to cover up her drug use.>
Gives a whole new meaning to "say goodnight Gracie" doesn't it.