Comparing David's list of plagiarisms - part 2
Doug Marman
David Lane's list of so-called plagiarisms. In my previous list, I took the
first 10 paragraphs he had identified from Chapter One of Paul's The Far
Country. In this post I will compare the next six in his list for Chapter
One. I will lay out both the sections from Paul's book and Julian Johnson's
books so that we can see the similarities.
I have read through the sections that David has called out in all the books
he references. In fact, I've read them through numerous times to make sure I
catch all of the references. There is the possibility that I might have
missed something, but I don't think so.
My comparison's come from these sections of David's list:
>
> ALREADY DISCOVERED PLAGIARISMS (as found in The Making of a Spiritual
> Movement):
>
> [from TMOASM by D. Lane]
>
> Chapter One, "The Far Country"
>
> PARAGRAPHS: 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 97, 98, 110, 111, 115, 123, 124, 125,
> 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157.
>
> [Compare with The Path of the Masters (pages 283-285) and With a Great
> Master in India (pages 199-206)]
As well as the more recent list:
> New Discoveries of plagiarism from THE FAR COUNTRY
>
> Chapter One of Twitchell's book:
>
> PARAGRAPHS 31, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58,
> 59. 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83,
> 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 108, 109, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121,
> 122, 126, 128, 131, 132, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144. 158, 159,
> 160, 161, 162.
>
> Compare with Julian Johnson's PATH OF THE MASTERS ("The Creation and
> Order of the Universe") and WITH A GREAT MASTER IN INDIA (Letter
> Fourteen, July 4, 1933).
In this post I will compare paragraphs 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 and 59. Here are
how those paragraphs read from Paul's book:
"The great Astral City lies just below a shining mountain. This is where the
powerhouse of lights are caught up from the current flowing down from the
plane above it.
"The city is often called the City of Lights. Here dwells many of the
earth's renowned people, from all ages of history. Many religious figures
live here because they believe that this is the heaven that they wanted to
reach in the afterlife...
"The Astral region is the negative pole of the whole spiritual universe.
Life here is so long, that many of its inhabitants believe they have reached
immortality. All the work done by these dwellers pertains to some form of
creative activity.
"The Astral world is always wiped out after several million years, in the
same manner as the lower material universes are, and following a long period
of equal darkness, a new creation of the region is begun.
"All who live in the Astral and physical worlds are put into a deep sleep
and drawn up to the next region higher, called the Brahm Lok, or the mental
plane.
"When the creation is finished and a new Astral and lower physical universes
are reestablished, the souls are sent back to their former worlds, where old
threads of existence are picked up again."
Now, here are the sections from Julian Johnson's books that David referenced
where I could see some similarities:
From Julian Johnson's, With A Great Master In India, page 196 (Letter 14):
"In that region are suns and moons and stars. In fact many of them are seen
before you reach the real Sahansdal Kanwal. There are people of many sorts,
living in different styles and engaged in various occupations -- of course,
not of a commercial nature. Mostly, they spend their time in concentration,
meditating upon the Lord of that region. For this, as all ofther regions,
has its own lord or ruler, and he is the creator of all below him, including
the physical universe. "
From Julian Johnson's, The Path of The Masters, pages 267-268 (The Creation
and Order of the Universe section):
"It lies nearest to the physical universe. Its capital is called Sahasra dal
Kanwal, meaning a thousand-petalled lotus. Its name is taken from the great
cluster of lights which constitute the most attractive sight when one is
approaching that world. This great group of lights is the actual "power
house" of the physical universe. Out of that power house flows the power
that has created and now sustains all worlds in our group. Each of those
lights has a different shade or tint and they constitute the most gorgeous
spectacle as one enters that magnificent city of light. In that city of
splendors may be seen also many other interesting and beautiful things.
Also, here may be seen millions of earth's most renowned people of all ages
of our history. Many of them are today residents of this great city and
country. Naturally they are quite happy. It is far superior to anything ever
seen on this earth. Yet this is but the first station on the upward Path of
the Masters.
"This region constitutes the negative part of all the superphysical zones.
That is, it lies most distant from the positive pole of creation. This
region is sometimes classified as a part of Brahmanda, but the Saints prefer
to consider it as a separate grand division of creation. It has many
distinctive features of its own. Lying nearest to the physical universe, it
forms the port of entry for all the higher regions. All souls who are
passing to still higher reigions must pass through it. The great majority of
human souls at the time of death pass to some sub-plane of this region. But
very few, comparatively, go direct to this central portion of the Sahasra
dal Kanwal region. It is through all of these regions that the Masters and
their disciples must travel on their way to higher worlds.
"This section of creation is not immortal or imperishable. Neither are its
inhabitants. Many of its inhabitants believe that they have attained
immortality because their lives there go on for extremely long periods of
time, but there is no assured immortality until one reaches Sat Desh. All
below that is subject to death and dissolution.
"There are two kinds of dissolutions. The one, simple dissolution, which
reaches up to the lowest section in Brahmanda, the region called Trikuti;
this occurs after many millions of years, and the other, the grand
dissolution, which occurs after immeasurably long periods of time and
extends up to the top of Brahmanda. Of course, both of these dissolutions
include the entire physical universe, every sun, moon and planet in it. At
that time every star and its satellites are wiped out, and then follows a
period of darkness equal in duration to the life of the universe. When the
period of darkness has expired, a new creation is projected, and the heavens
are once more alive with sparkling stars. With each new creation begins a
new "Golden Age" for each planet and its inhabitants. But between minor
dissolutions there are also periods of renewal for the life of each planet
where Golden Ages succeed dark ages.
"There is a general idea, finding its way into most religions, that this
world is to come to an end. And so the Masters teach. But the end is a very
different proposition to what it is generally supposed to be. It will come
at a time when all the worlds of the physcial universe will be dissolved,
and after periods of darkness and silence, new worlds will take their
places. The inhabitants of all of those worlds to be dissolved are drawn up
to higher regions in a sort of comatose state to be replaced upon these
worlds when they are ready for human habitation. They will then begin a new
life here under more favorable conditions."
THE COMPARISON
This next series of paragraphs is very similar in results to the first 10
paragraphs. I can see not even a single complete sentence that is identical,
never mind a complete paragraph. However, there are portions of sentences
that have similarities.
Here is what I could find:
Paragraph 53. The only similarity I can find is that Paul uses the term
"powerhouse", while Johnson uses "power house". That's it.
Paragraph 54. We find some similarities with Paul's second sentence of this
paragraph. Here is what Paul wrote:
"Here dwells many of the earth's renowned people, from all ages of history."
We can compare this to Johnson's sentences:
"Also, here may be seen millions of earth's most renowned people of all ages
of our history."
Also, we should note that in the first sentence of this paragraph, Paul
refers to the name of the Astral city as the City of Lights, while Johnson
says "as one enters that magnificent city of light."
Paragraph 56. We find the second sentence has some similarities. Here is
what Paul wrote:
"Life here is so long, that many of its inhabitants believe they have
reached immortality."
Johnson wrote this:
"Many of its inhabitants believe that they have attained immortality because
their lives there go on for extremely long periods of time, but there is no
assured immortality until one reaches Sat Desh."
Paragraph 57. This paragraph is a single sentence. We can see some
similarities. Here is what Paul wrote:
"The Astral world is always wiped out after several million years, in the
same manner as the lower material universes are, and following a long period
of equal darkness, a new creation of the region is begun."
We can find a few sentences from Johnson that compare to Paul's sentence:
"The one, simple dissolution, which reaches up to the lowest section in
Brahmanda, the region called Trikuti; this occurs after many millions of
years, and the other, the grand dissolution, which occurs after immeasurably
long periods of time and extends up to the top of Brahmanda. Of course, both
of these dissolutions include the entire physical universe, every sun, moon
and planet in it. At that time every star and its satellites are wiped out,
and then follows a period of darkness equal in duration to the life of the
universe. When the period of darkness has expired, a new creation is
projected, and the heavens are once more alive with sparkling stars."
The only wording that is close here that I can see is the phrase the Paul
uses, "...a long period of equal darkness..." Johnson wrote, "...then
follows a period of darkness equal in duration to the life of the universe."
Paragraph 58. This is another single sentence paragraph. Here is what Paul
wrote:
"All who live in the Astral and physical worlds are put into a deep sleep
and drawn up to the next region higher, called the Brahm Lok, or the mental
plane."
Here is the sentence from Johnson that has similarities:
"The inhabitants of all of those worlds to be dissolved are drawn up to
higher regions in a sort of comatose state to be replaced upon these worlds
when they are ready for human habitation."
We can see a partial phrase here where the wording is similar. Paul wrote
"...drawn up to the next region higher..." Johnson wrote "...are drawn up to
higher regions..."
Paragraph 59. I can find no wording similarities here at all.
CONCLUSION:
Of these six paragraphs that David identified as plagiarisms, the first one
and last one can't even be stretched to count.
The other four have portions of a sentence where a phrase is similar. The
longest of these is in Paragraph 54, with a string of eight words in Paul's
book matching up pretty closely to a string of 10 words in Johnson's book.
It is clearly rewritten, however, but similar.
The other three paragraphs count similarities of wording in sections of 5
word strings. All are rewritten. Not even these 5 words are the same, but
they are similar.
So, we can clearly see that Paul used Johnson's work as a source for his
writings. I think the fact that Paul's sentences follow the order of
Johnson's book suggests that this is not a matter of simply drawing from
memory, although it is a possiblity. However, we can also see that Paul did
make the effort to rewrite everything he wrote. I can't see a string of
identical words any longer than 3 words long. There are two cases of this:
"all ages of" and "drawn up to", which are obviously common twists of words
and hardly something that belong to Johnson.
In other words, Paul did exactly what most English teachers recommend as
being acceptable. He rewrote the material and put it in his own words.
Doug.
@aloha.net Rich
Regarding Paul not being able to do this from memory, there was always
the rumor that he had a photographic memory. I wonder if you or anyone
knows of any instances where he actually demonstrated it? Who close to
Paul said this?
Then there is this, which I have always considered to be the source of
the lions share of the alleged plagiarisms.
"Difficulties of Becoming the Living ECK Master"
by Paul Twitchell p.98 - 100
This portion of the book was transcribed from private discussions
recorded on audio tape. Paul had been speaking about others and now
himself who have read and scanned thousands of books.
"I have proven this out myself because when I was in Seattle I read
about 35,000 books, or I don't say that I particularly read them word
for word. I went thru 35,000 books of every subject you can know
which built me a background for a certain bit of the work that I
have today."
"Then also, when I was in Washington, D.C. for several years, I read
about 15,000 books there in the Congressional Library, the subjects
that I wanted, and other places in New York. I may have read 5,000
or something like that when I was there for one year in 1946. Well,
what I'm trying to say is that this book knowledge builds a great pool
of intellectual knowledge and anyone who has a recall is able to begin
looking at this knowledge when he is not able to have a call-up of the
wisdom knowledge. All I'm saying, it's all stored there in the
background, and there is no use in carrying a book around with you all
the time. All that one does, he places it in the background, then he
can get a recall on a lot of things that he could have if he'd never
gone into this type of reading."
"Hope you can see and understand this. Now, on the other hand, he has
what we call the wisdom pool of the divine knowledge and as long as he
can maintain his position at the heights, he can always call upon the
wisdom pool. But we don't always maintain the heights of being at the
top of the spiritual ladder all the time. We go up and we go down on
this so when we're down, we can call upon this knowledge that we have
had here and for some reason, all that back in the subconscious and all
that which is in the wisdom pool also, it seems to come through when
it's necessary to come through and there is no effort to make a recall
on it."
"I've done this hundreds of times, and on stage, or when typing on a
manuscript or something. And in conversation with people or when I
need it, certain ideas come up, I call on both and both will furnish
the whole when it should be necessary."
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote
Jackie
from other books, would he have listed all those references for reading in
his books?
Just wondering.
Jackie
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:zDKLa.57303$nG.5...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Bee
inspired by others as we all do ... I f plagerism is planted heavily into
Paulji ... then so it is every book that is written .. because the essence
of it all has all been done before ... <g. L--- Bee!
"Jackie" <hu4...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gjjMa.75806$R73.10021@sccrnsc04...
Tom Leafeater
I have been short on time to spend on a.r.e. as of late, and therefore can only
make a few comments at the moment.
First: I would suggest that readers find the works in question and read for
themselves rather than simply lazily allow Doug to do the thinking for them.
Doug means well, but he may not be extracting all that is in Johnson's works,
and since the entire copy is not posted for reference to the casual reader, one
must take Doug's word that he searched for all similar comparisons. The first
time I picked up a copy of Johnson's Path of the Masters, I immediately noticed
rampant plagiarism. Furthermore, the entire point is moot since Doug has long
admitted to the plagiarism by Twitchell (only an imbecil, or a very uninformed
person, would deny it).
Second, Doug admits that it is clear Twitchell "rewrote" Johnson's material,
and asserts that Twitchell followed the order of Johnson's work. This is an
interesting admission from a person who has already admitted that Twitchell
plagiarized. So what is Doug's point? It isn't that Twitchell never
plagiarized, for he has already conceded that fact. So it is yet again the
constant attempt to minimize Twitchell's misdeeds. And the need to minimize
reveals Doug's discomfort, to put it mildly, with Twitchell's behavior. Now,
rather than defend Twitchell's behavior, he has resorted to minimizing it. This
implies strongly that Doug finds the behavior indefensible to at least some
degree. If plagiarism is fine and dandy, then why minimize it? Why not boast
about the plagiarism?
Third, merely changing a noun or a verb in in each sentence ("rewriting') has
never been acceptable by any teacher I ever had. Teachers want students to
synthesize the reading material into an integral understanding of the material.
It is odd that a person self-proclaimed to be a God-realized super-being
(Twitchell) would need to use the writings of an ordinary person to explain his
supposedly "inner" teaching. I submit that this insatiety for plagiarism by
Twitchell of a wide number of writers (including my own recent discovery of
Twitchell's plagiarism of Alan Watts) reveals he derived his teachings, not
from the inner planes as he claimed, but from a number of writings found in any
large metropolitan library, a feat anyone skilled as a newspaper reporter (as
Twitchell was) could easily accomplish.
So what is Doug's point? That Twitchell didn't plagiarize? Any reasonable
person will easily perceive the plagiarism if an honest overall comparison of
Twitchell's writings to the many writers he plagiarized from is seriously
attempted, with the actual writings held side by side in one's own hands for
thorough inspection. And if the clear examples of plagiarism aren't seen, then
perhaps one deserves to be duped. In the end, when one considers the wide array
of blantantly obvious clues of Twitchell's hoax he left behind for all to see,
and especially considering that so much of the clues are now available on the
various internet sites, those who still remain in denial are simply not ready
to face up to the truth that Twitchell was not a real master. The sheer amount
of time spent debating it online is an example of the desperate need to debunk
Eckankar's critics. Perhaps it is all as it should be. Let the duped be duped.
Leafeater
Jackie
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote in message ...
> First: I would suggest that readers find the works in question and read
for
I think this is true for ANYONE who reads anything on this newsgroup!!
"ANY" book, newsletter, discourse, etc. mentioned here should be read in
it's entirity by the reader and then they should make their own conclusion.
Too-sha
Jackie
Doug Marman
> I have been short on time to spend on a.r.e. as of late, and therefore can
only
> make a few comments at the moment.
>
> First: I would suggest that readers find the works in question and read
for
> themselves rather than simply lazily allow Doug to do the thinking for
them.
> Doug means well, but he may not be extracting all that is in Johnson's
works,
> and since the entire copy is not posted for reference to the casual
reader, one
> must take Doug's word that he searched for all similar comparisons. The
first
> time I picked up a copy of Johnson's Path of the Masters, I immediately
noticed
> rampant plagiarism. Furthermore, the entire point is moot since Doug has
long
> admitted to the plagiarism by Twitchell (only an imbecil, or a very
uninformed
> person, would deny it).
Tom, I agree that others should check out the original texts for themselves.
I think David Lane would also agree with this. That is the whole point of
open dialogue and posting these things publicly.
I have tried to show the complete text of Johnson's books that have any
similarities that I can find. Like I pointed out, there is always the
possibility that I've missed something, but I read through the sections that
David has noted numerous times. The best person to correct what I've shown
here would be David himself, since he is the one who first claimed these
paragraphs as plagiarisms.
The point is not moot, as you say, because the point is not whether Paul
plagiarized or not, but how accurate David's list really is. I fully agree
that there are plenty of examples where we can see that Paul copied.
However, I'm disappointed that David would list so many paragraphs as
plagiarisms that are not.
I notice that you aren't disagreeing with the fact that these do not look
like the case of plagiarism that David suggested they were. That is why,
perhaps, you are suggesting others go back to the original texts, to see if
I am wrong and David might not be as far off as it looks.
>
> Second, Doug admits that it is clear Twitchell "rewrote" Johnson's
material,
> and asserts that Twitchell followed the order of Johnson's work. This is
an
> interesting admission from a person who has already admitted that
Twitchell
> plagiarized. So what is Doug's point? It isn't that Twitchell never
> plagiarized, for he has already conceded that fact. So it is yet again the
> constant attempt to minimize Twitchell's misdeeds. And the need to
minimize
> reveals Doug's discomfort, to put it mildly, with Twitchell's behavior.
Now,
> rather than defend Twitchell's behavior, he has resorted to minimizing it.
This
> implies strongly that Doug finds the behavior indefensible to at least
some
> degree. If plagiarism is fine and dandy, then why minimize it? Why not
boast
> about the plagiarism?
My point is quite clear: David's list falls far short of accuracy if it was
intended to list Paul's plagiarism. Why is this so hard to understand? Why
do you keep insisting that I'm trying to minimize something? I'm after
accuracy, not minimizing or maximizing.
For some reason this is bothering you. I'm not sure why. But your continued
attempts to project your own imagined intentions onto me are rather sad.
I've been quite open about the fact that Paul has plagiarized. However, I do
think we should be accurate in portraying it. David's list is surprisingly
wrong. If I was going to publicly attack someone's character - even if the
person is no longer alive - I would try to be as accurate as I could.
Wouldn't you?
>
> Third, merely changing a noun or a verb in in each sentence ("rewriting')
has
> never been acceptable by any teacher I ever had. Teachers want students to
> synthesize the reading material into an integral understanding of the
material.
> It is odd that a person self-proclaimed to be a God-realized super-being
> (Twitchell) would need to use the writings of an ordinary person to
explain his
> supposedly "inner" teaching. I submit that this insatiety for plagiarism
by
> Twitchell of a wide number of writers (including my own recent discovery
of
> Twitchell's plagiarism of Alan Watts) reveals he derived his teachings,
not
> from the inner planes as he claimed, but from a number of writings found
in any
> large metropolitan library, a feat anyone skilled as a newspaper reporter
(as
> Twitchell was) could easily accomplish.
I think the Paul has shown in every way that he knows this material and has
given it his own expression. This has become even clearer as I go through
this in detail. That's another reason why I've posted the complete
paragraphs from Johnson to compare with the paragraphs from Paul's book. You
can see how different they are. He is hardly just changing a noun or a verb.
Paul, by the way, was quite open about his insatiable reading, and how he
used what he read in his writings and talks. This was something he spoke
about often. In fact, he addressed the whole subject of going to inner
sources, and yet how important it was to have this background of reading to
help express the inner reality. If it is surprise to you, and to all of us,
what Paul really meant, it certainly wasn't due to a lack of Paul trying to
explain.
>
> So what is Doug's point? That Twitchell didn't plagiarize? Any reasonable
> person will easily perceive the plagiarism if an honest overall comparison
of
> Twitchell's writings to the many writers he plagiarized from is seriously
> attempted, with the actual writings held side by side in one's own hands
for
> thorough inspection. And if the clear examples of plagiarism aren't seen,
then
> perhaps one deserves to be duped. In the end, when one considers the wide
array
> of blantantly obvious clues of Twitchell's hoax he left behind for all to
see,
> and especially considering that so much of the clues are now available on
the
> various internet sites, those who still remain in denial are simply not
ready
> to face up to the truth that Twitchell was not a real master. The sheer
amount
> of time spent debating it online is an example of the desperate need to
debunk
> Eckankar's critics. Perhaps it is all as it should be. Let the duped be
duped.
My point, once again, was that David's list is highly inaccurate. I've
posted this all publicly so that it would be open for discussion. I notice
that you, Tom, and Fuzzy and Alfie have all reacted to what I've posted, but
none have disagreed, based on what I posted, that these really do not look
like cases of plagiarism, as David claimed.
As you point out, this still leaves the possibility that I have not quoted
the complete sections of Johnson's book. I could do that, but you still
wouldn't believe it, since it was coming from me. So, I agree that someone
else should check this out. David Lane would be the best person.
I could scan in the pages from Johnson's books, if you like, although I'm
not sure how to attach them to a newsgroup post so that everyone could read
them. I could temporarily post them on my web site, but I don't want to keep
them there, so it would only be temporary. Let me know if you would like me
to do that.
By the way, I suspect as I go through David's list of paragraphs for Chapter
One that there will be cases where we would agree they are plagiarisms.
We'll see. I might be wrong of course. But I intend to lay them out however
the chips may fall.
Doug.
>
> Leafeater
Doug Marman
Yes, that was the quote I was just thinking about. Thanks.
I agree that what I've seen so far could be a case of a good memory. There
are plenty of real stories where extremely long passages were written word
for word, without the author realizing they had taken it from memory. Mark
Twain and Hellen Keller both tell such stories from their own life. Carl
Jung and Freud both made studies of this and reported how common it is for
all people to unconsciously plagiarize.
And yes, I've heard such stories about Paul's memory as well, but don't know
of any examples where he displayed his photographic memory.
While I do agree that this is still a possibility, my inner sense says that
this is not the case. However, it is very possible that Paul did know
Johnson's books well, and wrote from his own understanding, with no
intention of plagiarizing. I have found myself numerous times writing
something that was inspired from one of Paul's books, only to find that
passages were nearly word for word the same. Sometimes I didn't realize this
until many years later, when I would see that I'd written something I
thought was original, only to find that Paul had said something similar and
in some cases almost word for word the same. This could explain a lot of the
sections that David has pointed to, but I'm not sure it will explain all of
them.
Doug.
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:bdok4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Cultbuster
Bee wrote:
> That's logic .... Paulji has done nothing wrong ... he has only goten
> inspired by others as we all do
Inspired? He wrote word for word in several passages of the Far Country material
that was written and owned by someone else. THAT'S plagiarism.. How many times
do we have to point this out to you ostriches?
> ... I f plagerism is planted heavily into
> Paulji ... then so it is every book that is written .. because the essence
> of it all has all been done before ...
No.........inspiration and plagiarism are two different things. look in the
dictionary.
CB
Len
Well, I've been looking at David's web sites where they list side by
side Paul and Johnson's materials, as well as some others. I'm
not going to re-post this because as Tom says. check it out, the
sites are available.
Here is what I have found. Half of the compared writing are
re-writes with a phrase or two similar. The other half are
perfect copies. At times David seems to know the difference
because he uses the word copies instead of plagiarize, but
maybe he is using the word copy AKA plagiarize.
After a couple of hours of looking and reading, the issue which
stood out for me was that (larger issue) Eckankar was a
rip-off of Sant Mat. This really seemed to be the message
David was sending to the reader (if I put myself in David's
shoes), this POV seemed to fit. Because clearly there was
just as much plagiarizing as there was re-writing.
I recall that just in the Far Country alone, there are hundreds
of paragraphs which are either re-writes or copied verbatim.
I don't see massive plagiarism by Paul, but there certainly is
some, when looking at the total volume of work he did.
Len
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:qridnUa34MC...@comcast.com...
Len
cher
after all these years! LOL.........
Sharon2000
> If Paul thought he was doing anything wrong with "borrowing some phrases"
> from other books, would he have listed all those references for reading
> in his books?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Jackie
>
The Twitchster only "listed all those references" in LTG, which was a
compilation of letters he wrote to Gail *before* he started his cult. Gail
published them after his death, not Twitch. Why? Well...they had to sell
more books, and by the time Twitch died it was quite clear to Mrs. Godman
that people would fall for *any* pitiful bullshit! You won't find any
"references" in the stuff he plagiarized.
Now, right now I don't feel like dragging books out of the closet, but
after he started the cult, it was all bullshit that he claimed he got in
"dictation" from "eckmasters".
Twitch *knew* he was doing wrong, but he didn't give a rat's ass. He was
middle-aged, felt he was a failure in life, his hot young new wife wanted
to be supported, and he was desperate to make some money. E-kult was a
pitiful example of the song of a dying swan - except I'd say it had as much
worth as a salted slug.
Sharon
--
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/files
neuralsurfer
Doug:
I went through your posts.
I think your comparisons and mine are different.
But the best thing for me to do is to do a complete post on Chapter
One to show you what I thought was plagiarism.
May take me a day or so, but I think it is worth the effort.
Tom Leafeater
I am glad Doug, Len, and others agree with my urging people truly interested in
accuracy to procure a copy of Johnson's and Twitchell's writings, as well as
copies of works by other authors Twitchell plagiarized, to make an accurate
comparison, which is a difficult thing to do in bits and pieces on the
internet. Holding a copy in one's own hand brings the issue to life in a way
that is difficult to replicate online. Or, they can find the various sites
online which place some of the plagiarized paragraphs side by side, whole and
unedited, so that the reader can make up his or her own mind, without being
spoon-fed the conclusions by a trusted member of the Eckankar organization.
These alternatives are the only way to achieve any accuracy, that is, if
accuracy is truly the desired result and not simply a handy word to toss about.
To me, the point is not David Lane or Doug Marmon, but rather whether or not
Twitchell was a real master as he had claimed. David Lane is only a person who
wrote about Eckankar's underbelly. Most of those who have criticisms are not
the type to worship Lane, but are rather people capable of thinking as
individuals.
In my own case, I had observed the plagiarisms quite by accident, at a time
when I was a very devoted member of Eckankar. I was in no mood to be in a great
rush to discover Eckankar to be a fraud, so I did as so many others in Eckankar
are doing and have done (exemplified on A.R.E.): I found ways to excuse it all,
and I developed many of the seemingly rational arguments to dismiss all of the
unpleasantries. I decided that there was very little plagiarism before I had
realized the sheer number of plagiarized works involved. I decided that no
evidence of masters didn't mean they weren't real, for no evidence doesn't
prove they didn't exist. Likewise no recorded history of Eckankar meant no
proof either way of its veracity. I decided my "inner" experiences proved
Eckankar to me and took them to be enough to dismiss Twitchell's shenanigans. I
decided Twitchell was simply a colorful individualist who was non-comformist
and unusual, and I focused on Lane's motives rather than on what was right
under my nose. When I did realize Twitchell was a fraud, it wasn't because of
Lane, it was because of the entire view that came into focus based on all that
I had experienced and perceived, inner and outer. And in the end, each of the
various pieces of the puzzle were weighed and given whatever importance that I
felt was due. How accurate are Lane's various claims? I'd say accurate enough,
but even if Lane had never compiled his early assessments of Twitchell's
deceit, it hardly matters now. Plenty of others have come forward with their
own revelations. It is not about Lane anymore. It is about whether Twitchell
was really the super God-realized being he claimed to be. My conclusions are
that he was not.
As to Doug's examples, I find it diificult to derive any conlusions about them
without spending hours looking through my storage room to find boxes long ago
put to rest there for safekeeping. These boxes contain the books in question,
and only by having them before me, with the complete texts, could I begin to
debate the issue with any real substance. That Doug wishes to do this without
the texts before everyone is asking for too much trust to be placed in his
objectivity, which in my view, he is lacking. If Lane found plagiarism in more
examples than Doug has found, it is hardly a surprise, since they both have
approached the issue from opposite corners. For Doug, there is plagiarism in
only the most blatant examples, whereas Lane's approach was likely less rigid
and inflexible.
As for me, I have seen with my own eyes all I need to see. One of the most
amazing examples was hearing Lai Tzi's Chant from the Shariyat Ki Sugmad
recited word for word in an old black and white movie from the early forties.
It turned out Twitchell had put words from the Bible (or did he see the
movie??) into Lai Tzi's mouth, and claimed it to be a traditional Eckankar
verse. Such examples are spread far and wide in Twitchell's "literature," and
may be the reason many of the works have been dropped by Eckankar, though they
were by far some of the most esoteric writings Eckankar had to offer.
>>
>> Second, Doug admits that it is clear Twitchell "rewrote" Johnson's
>material,
>> and asserts that Twitchell followed the order of Johnson's work. This is
>an
>> interesting admission from a person who has already admitted that
>Twitchell
>> plagiarized. So what is Doug's point? It isn't that Twitchell never
>> plagiarized, for he has already conceded that fact. So it is yet again the
>> constant attempt to minimize Twitchell's misdeeds. And the need to
>minimize
>> reveals Doug's discomfort, to put it mildly, with Twitchell's behavior.
>Now,
>> rather than defend Twitchell's behavior, he has resorted to minimizing it.
>This
>> implies strongly that Doug finds the behavior indefensible to at least
>some
>> degree. If plagiarism is fine and dandy, then why minimize it? Why not
>boast
>> about the plagiarism?
>My point is quite clear: David's list falls far short of accuracy if it was
>intended to list Paul's plagiarism. Why is this so hard to understand? Why
>do you keep insisting that I'm trying to minimize something? I'm after
>accuracy, not minimizing or maximizing.
>
Sorry Doug, but I stand by my words. I don't think accuracy is your primary
motive. I think damage control for Eckankar is your main concern. I think your
use of the word 'accuracy' is a clever way for you to make a point, and I think
people who are truly in search of "accuracy" should simply read the works that
are in question for themselves, rather than naively take your word for any
conclusions you make. As to my claims that you desire to minimize Twitchell's
embarrasing acts: I base my conclusions on the overall focus of your writing.
You are not a person objectively in search of the hard, glaring facts about
Twitchell, with a complete and total disregard for the outcome, no matter how
dark, terrible or revealing, but rather you are an advocate in search of a
palatable explanation that neutralizes the tarnish. You are careful (sometimes)
to frame your remarks in the tone of a person attempting to be reasonable, but
the overall focus and movement of your writing is inexorably toward development
of a rationalization of anythng unbecoming of a self-described omnipotent
Master.
>For some reason this is bothering you. I'm not sure why. But your continued
>attempts to project your own imagined intentions onto me are rather sad.
>
>I've been quite open about the fact that Paul has plagiarized. However, I do
>think we should be accurate in portraying it. David's list is surprisingly
>wrong. If I was going to publicly attack someone's character - even if the
>person is no longer alive - I would try to be as accurate as I could.
>Wouldn't you?
>
David's list is only "surprisingly wrong" to the eyes of an admitted follower
of Twitchell. Of course you make this claim. I don't think you have adequately
made your case to make the statement that Lane was "wrong." I have seen the
plagiarism. You have seen the plagiarism. Any intelligent person admits there
is plagairism by Twitchell. Your standards of plagiarism are naturally much
more restrictive and narrow than would be the standards of a less partial
non-believer, so you see inacuracies everywhere in Lane's examples. You are
attempting to divert the focus from what is already an established, admitted
fact (even by you) to a discussion of whether Lane was impeccably correct in
every minute assertion, in an attempt to make accuracy, and thereby Lane, the
issue, as if Lane was inaccurate in most of his claims of plagiarism.
Therefore, I don't think it is the persuit of accuracy that motivates you, but
a desire to discredit Lane, which is an entirely counterproductive purpose to
the objective of discovering accuracy, unless you now are prepared to disavow
your previous admissions of Twitchell's plagiarism, and are reconsidering your
entire stand on the issue. Otherwise, it is a moot point, for we already know
that Twitchell plagiarized. If plagairism is not seen as an unbecoming act of
an omipotent Master, then it shouldn't matter to you what percentage he
plagiarized. On the other hand, if it is considered to be an unbecoming act,
then no amount of minimizing the act will hide the revealing fraud.
In this manner you wish to chip a small dent in the recognized extent of
Twitchell's plagiarism. This is by definition an attempt to move the focus in
the direction of minimizing the amount of plagiarism. In my view, I have seen
enough plagiarism to suit my understanding of the nature of Twitchell. His
plagiarized paragraphs are strewn through his writings like seed upon a freshly
plowed field. The plagarism is extensive enough for me to conclude he
structured his writings around these paragraphs. It means to me not merely that
he was cheap, cowardly and dishonest, but also that he derived his great "inner
wisdom" not from the vast higher planes, but from the vast literary resources
of the mundane physical plane. He was, unfortunately, a fraud.
Leafeater
Bee
"Cultbuster" <jam...@are.com> wrote in message
news:3F035540...@are.com...
No one will ever get around tour arguement because you like it <ggg> Where
is the real proof?? You can't ... maybe 15 .. Please come up with some real
facts ..L--- Bee!
>
>
@aloha.net Rich
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote
> First: I would suggest that readers find the works in question and
read for
> themselves rather than simply lazily allow Doug to do the thinking for
them.
That's a good idea. In fact, if we hadn't all trusted David Lane _in
the first place_, we could have found out twenty some years ago how
terribly he exaggerated and skillfully inserted his opinion as facts.
Now we keep finding out more and more that it wasn't accurate facts at
all.
<SNIP nonsense, ad hominem, much to do about nothing, err... 1%, and
opinions not supported by facts>
@aloha.net Rich
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote
> I could scan in the pages from Johnson's books, if you like, although
I'm
> not sure how to attach them to a newsgroup post so that everyone could
read
> them. I could temporarily post them on my web site, but I don't want
to keep
> them there, so it would only be temporary. Let me know if you would
like me
> to do that.
I'd like to see just a few representive scans shown permanently in the
Appendix. You might wait until after you've done more comparing so
you'll have a more accurate feel as to what is 'representive" of his
inaccuracy.
Michael
David's "day or two" can take up to three months, and if you are lucky the
post will actually adress the issue!! <G>
Love
Michael
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.0307...@posting.google.com...
MEST
Holy Krist! Doug do you have the slightest clue of how full of shit
you are???
You are sniveling about how "accurately" Paul Twitchell's plagiarisms
are listed?? Like there's some redeeming force in getting his copious
plagiarisms exactly cataloged?? Oh, I get it. It's like the song
"I shot the Sheriff, but I didn't shoot the deputy"
Paul's a literary killer. Next case.
Teegeeack, in defence of earth & her denizens
cher
>
> "Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > First: I would suggest that readers find the works in question and
> read for
> > themselves rather than simply lazily allow Doug to do the thinking for
> them.
>
> That's a good idea. In fact, if we hadn't all trusted David Lane _in
> the first place_, we could have found out twenty some years ago how
> terribly he exaggerated and skillfully inserted his opinion as facts.
> Now we keep finding out more and more that it wasn't accurate facts at
> all.
Well keep in mind Rich, that david wears his Ph.D like colleen wears her
former initiations! Too many people are prone to accept the word of a
self proclaimed expert on a subject without taking a closer look. Odd
how the detractors point out this flaw in ECKists, but of course never
found that same flaw in david lane's work. Just another lesson in power
plays of earth humor. <smile>
cher
cher
writers and how only recently due to the lessening of spiritual
potential in seekers that these writers now have to adhere to a formula
for writing that fits their seekers limited 7th grade education. <sigh>
Well.... black and white once worked for Ansel Adams. Maybe you can
build a world around it for the rest of this lifetime.
Been here, done this whole absolutism trip from these no name experts on
life. <shrug>
@aloha.net Rich
"Michael" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
> Warning Warning
>
> David's "day or two" can take up to three months, and if you are lucky
the
> post will actually adress the issue!! <G>
He'll get to it as soon as he digs out all that stuff he has in
storage.<G>
cher
>
> "Michael" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
>
> > Warning Warning
> >
> > David's "day or two" can take up to three months, and if you are lucky
> the
> > post will actually adress the issue!! <G>
>
> He'll get to it as soon as he digs out all that stuff he has in
> storage.<G>
LOL...... I'd pay to see that happen! <grin>
Michael
>
> "Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > First: I would suggest that readers find the works in question and
> read for
> > themselves rather than simply lazily allow Doug to do the thinking for
> them.
>
> That's a good idea. In fact, if we hadn't all trusted David Lane _in
> the first place_, we could have found out twenty some years ago how
> terribly he exaggerated and skillfully inserted his opinion as facts.
> Now we keep finding out more and more that it wasn't accurate facts at
> all.
>
> <SNIP nonsense, ad hominem, much to do about nothing, err... 1%, and
> opinions not supported by facts>
>
This is something that bears repeating... David Lane was completely unable
to address the issues raised by Doug Marman in relation to his book. He has
promised many times that he would, but I am yet to see any reasoned and
concise response to the incorrect interpretations and false assumptions.
It would be hard to forget the way he completely failed to address even the
most basic issues raised... He didn't even get Sean's comment about reading
the numbers on his wall!!
And the Brother-in-Law doing the Pro Bono case where David was found out to
be, in a nutshell, telling stories to the judge... It just sounded like
David's book about Paul was staring to look more a commentary on himself <G>
Love
Michael
Doug Marman
> >Tom, I agree that others should check out the original texts for
themselves.
> >I think David Lane would also agree with this. That is the whole point of
> >open dialogue and posting these things publicly.
> >
> >I have tried to show the complete text of Johnson's books that have any
> >similarities that I can find. Like I pointed out, there is always the
> >possibility that I've missed something, but I read through the sections
that
> >David has noted numerous times. The best person to correct what I've
shown
> >here would be David himself, since he is the one who first claimed these
> >paragraphs as plagiarisms.
> >
> >The point is not moot, as you say, because the point is not whether Paul
> >plagiarized or not, but how accurate David's list really is. I fully
agree
> >that there are plenty of examples where we can see that Paul copied.
> >However, I'm disappointed that David would list so many paragraphs as
> >plagiarisms that are not.
> >
> >I notice that you aren't disagreeing with the fact that these do not look
> >like the case of plagiarism that David suggested they were. That is why,
> >perhaps, you are suggesting others go back to the original texts, to see
if
> >I am wrong and David might not be as far off as it looks.
> TOM WROTE:
> I am glad Doug, Len, and others agree with my urging people truly
interested in
> accuracy to procure a copy of Johnson's and Twitchell's writings, as well
as
> copies of works by other authors Twitchell plagiarized, to make an
accurate
> comparison, which is a difficult thing to do in bits and pieces on the
> internet. Holding a copy in one's own hand brings the issue to life in a
way
> that is difficult to replicate online. Or, they can find the various sites
> online which place some of the plagiarized paragraphs side by side, whole
and
> unedited, so that the reader can make up his or her own mind, without
being
> spoon-fed the conclusions by a trusted member of the Eckankar
organization.
> These alternatives are the only way to achieve any accuracy, that is, if
> accuracy is truly the desired result and not simply a handy word to toss
about.
DOUG RESPONDS:
So, you are saying that my writing out the full paragraphs from Johnson's
and Paul's books, so that people can see for themselves is "spoon-feeding",
but when a web site lists just the snippets of lines side by side, that is
NOT spoon-feeding?
Why would a web site be more trustworthy than what I posted? I don't follow
that logic.
I agree that seeing the books side by side gives the best way of comparing.
I don't follow why you would suggest that my posts are spoon-feeding but
those from detractors is not, or that mine are not trust worthy, but web
sites on the Internet are.
> TOM CONTINUED:
> To me, the point is not David Lane or Doug Marmon, but rather whether or
not
> Twitchell was a real master as he had claimed. David Lane is only a person
who
> wrote about Eckankar's underbelly. Most of those who have criticisms are
not
> the type to worship Lane, but are rather people capable of thinking as
> individuals.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I hope that we are all capable of thinking as individuals. However, this
doesn't mean that we don't go along with what others say because it seems to
make sense and agrees with our own beliefs.
If the question is about mastership, why are we talking about literary
ethics? Wouldn't it be more productive to talk about Paul's impact as a
spiritual teacher?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Since we are thinking as individuals, that means we all will probably come
to slightly different conclusions on these things, and may even dramatically
disagree in some areas. But that's okay if we are thinking as individuals,
as you have suggested.
So, I think what you say is fine, but I've clearly come to a different
conclusion. Learning about Paul does show me a better picture of what he was
like, both as a teacher and as a man. I think it is good to see both
aspects. I also agree that we should not be looking at Paul as some kind of
god. That is not even what the term, god-man, is supposed to mean. In fact,
quite the opposite. It is supposed to refer to the paradox of a man who is
also able to see and know the god-realized state of consciousness.
This is something that we should all have the ability to do, so this doesn't
make him different or super-human. It is Soul, our true Self, that is
super-human and more than just being a man or woman.
It sounds to me as if you are like so many who at one time looked up to Paul
as a teacher. Today you no longer do. This isn't surprising, first of all,
because he is no longer alive. Secondly, we all grow and as we do we usually
need to learn new things.
I'm not sure why you would now suddenly see Paul as a fraud, when he was
real to you for over 20 years, and you knew that your inner experiences
through his teachings were real. However, I do follow what you are saying
and see that you have come to a very different conclusion than I.
> TOM WROTE:
> As to Doug's examples, I find it diificult to derive any conlusions about
them
> without spending hours looking through my storage room to find boxes long
ago
> put to rest there for safekeeping. These boxes contain the books in
question,
> and only by having them before me, with the complete texts, could I begin
to
> debate the issue with any real substance. That Doug wishes to do this
without
> the texts before everyone is asking for too much trust to be placed in his
> objectivity, which in my view, he is lacking. If Lane found plagiarism in
more
> examples than Doug has found, it is hardly a surprise, since they both
have
> approached the issue from opposite corners. For Doug, there is plagiarism
in
> only the most blatant examples, whereas Lane's approach was likely less
rigid
> and inflexible.
DOUG RESPONDS:
It doesn't have anything to do with trust, as far as I can see. In fact,
David just posted his list of Chapter One plagiarisms and he hasn't posted a
single one that I didn't already put on my list (up to paragraph 83, which
is as far as I had gotten in the chapter). In fact, I added two paragraphs
that he did not include. So, it looks like we are both pretty much on the
same wavelength.
The error seems to be from the list of New Additional plagiarisms found in
Chapter One. They seem to be way off track.
> TOM CONTINUED:
> As for me, I have seen with my own eyes all I need to see. One of the most
> amazing examples was hearing Lai Tzi's Chant from the Shariyat Ki Sugmad
> recited word for word in an old black and white movie from the early
forties.
> It turned out Twitchell had put words from the Bible (or did he see the
> movie??) into Lai Tzi's mouth, and claimed it to be a traditional Eckankar
> verse. Such examples are spread far and wide in Twitchell's "literature,"
and
> may be the reason many of the works have been dropped by Eckankar, though
they
> were by far some of the most esoteric writings Eckankar had to offer.
DOUG RESPONDS:
That quote from the Bible is still in print, as far as I know. I have also
run across quite a few like that throughout Paul's writings.
> TOM WROTE:
> Sorry Doug, but I stand by my words. I don't think accuracy is your
primary
> motive. I think damage control for Eckankar is your main concern.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Well, you are wrong. If you were right, I never would have added in the
paragraphs that were left out of the list of plagiarisms, which I found. I
also would not have listed all new plagiarisms from other books when I
posted my book. What kind of damage control is that?
I would rather ECKists and everyone else see a clear picture and an accurate
picture. The fact that you imagine otherwise is sad, but also wrong.
> TOM CONTINUED:
> I think your
> use of the word 'accuracy' is a clever way for you to make a point, and I
think
> people who are truly in search of "accuracy" should simply read the works
that
> are in question for themselves, rather than naively take your word for any
> conclusions you make.
DOUG RESPONDS:
As I said before, I agree completely, and I posted what I did with the
assumption that sooner or later others would check what I posted. I have
tried to be extremely fair every step of the way. However, there is no need
to trust me or worry about my motivations. People can verify these things
for themselves.
> TOM CONTINUED:
> As to my claims that you desire to minimize Twitchell's
> embarrasing acts: I base my conclusions on the overall focus of your
writing.
> You are not a person objectively in search of the hard, glaring facts
about
> Twitchell, with a complete and total disregard for the outcome, no matter
how
> dark, terrible or revealing, but rather you are an advocate in search of a
> palatable explanation that neutralizes the tarnish. You are careful
(sometimes)
> to frame your remarks in the tone of a person attempting to be reasonable,
but
> the overall focus and movement of your writing is inexorably toward
development
> of a rationalization of anythng unbecoming of a self-described omnipotent
> Master.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You seem to want to overlook and ignore a number of things. First, I came
forward in my book and openly agreed that Paul had plagiarized, and made it
clear that the evidence was strong to support this. I not only did not try
to contest this point, but went quite far to get ECKists to recognize it and
openly discuss it. I don't think any ECK leader had gone this far before. I
did so, because I think it is best for everyone to have an accurate idea.
Secondly, I supported all of my contentions in my book with actual facts,
such as quotes, timelines and clear explanations. I expect that others will
see things differently than I do, but I put out lots of new information and
compiled a lot of historical facts so that others can make a more informed
decision.
Third, I dealth with every issue that David raised in his book, plus all the
major issues he had raised since writing his book. Remember, the practice by
the Eckankar organization in the past has been to leave the issue alone and
let each person decide for themselves. I went against this trend and offered
a different approach, which was to delve into the issues and look at the
facts. Then, to offer what seemed to be the best explanation.
Fourth, I represented David's arguments as he meant them. In other words, I
did not mis-state his points or try to make it sound like he was saying
something he was not. This is such a simple thing, but I am amazed at how
far most detractors will go in mis-representing the words of others.
Fifth, I did not try to paint David with motives that he himself had not
already acknowledged. In other words, I tried to portray David as he would
portray himself, when talking about his intentions. This is clearly
something that you have not been able to do when talking about me. You
cannot stop from asserting that my intentions are dishonorable, etc., when
in fact you are just projecting your own reactions onto me.
I've just listed a few of the things that show I'm serious about trying to
fair and accurate.
The bottom line is that I happen to disagree with your conclusions. I don't
know why this would upset you so much that you would resort to accusing me
of trying to cover-up facts or minimize the issues. That is merely a way of
trying to smear me because you disagree with me.
Why not simply explain why you disagree with me and how you see it, rather
than attacking my character? Isn't that the fairest way? Doesn't that let
everyone decide for themselves and think individually? That's what I try to
do.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> >For some reason this is bothering you. I'm not sure why. But your
continued
> >attempts to project your own imagined intentions onto me are rather sad.
> >
> >I've been quite open about the fact that Paul has plagiarized. However, I
do
> >think we should be accurate in portraying it. David's list is
surprisingly
> >wrong. If I was going to publicly attack someone's character - even if
the
> >person is no longer alive - I would try to be as accurate as I could.
> >Wouldn't you?
> TOM WROTE:
> David's list is only "surprisingly wrong" to the eyes of an admitted
follower
> of Twitchell. Of course you make this claim. I don't think you have
adequately
> made your case to make the statement that Lane was "wrong." I have seen
the
> plagiarism. You have seen the plagiarism. Any intelligent person admits
there
> is plagairism by Twitchell. Your standards of plagiarism are naturally
much
> more restrictive and narrow than would be the standards of a less partial
> non-believer, so you see inacuracies everywhere in Lane's examples. You
are
> attempting to divert the focus from what is already an established,
admitted
> fact (even by you) to a discussion of whether Lane was impeccably correct
in
> every minute assertion, in an attempt to make accuracy, and thereby Lane,
the
> issue, as if Lane was inaccurate in most of his claims of plagiarism.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You state that the paragraphs I have called attention to, and have pointed
out do not appear to be plagiarism as were claimed, would only seem
suprisingly wrong to an admitted follower. This is foolishness. I can't
believe you would even say this. Look at them for yourself. You will see
exactly what I showed. That's why I went so far as to write out the full
paragraphs from Johnson, so that you can see how they really compare. But
check out for yourself. I can see that you doubt what I discovered, but for
you to claim that would only appear wrong to an admitted follower is pure
foolishness.
Secondly, you are the one who continues to divert the issue. I never said
that what I was showing in any way changed the fact that Paul had
plagiarized. I said this numerous times, that this does not change that
fact. Yet, here you are suggesting that this is what I was doing. In fact, I
made it quite clear that all that I was doing was pointing out the
inaccuracies of that list. I also showed why I said that, so that anyone
could verify it for themselves. Rather than accept this simple fact, you are
the one who is attacking my character. You said that you used to do this
when you were an ECKist. Well, you haven't changed. You are still doing it.
Apparently dealing with things as they are is not the result of the ECK
teachings, but your own issue.
Third, you say that my standards are less partial, but David has just shown
you to be wrong again. If anything, I have been more generous than David.
Why would you make so many false accusations? Why try to attack my
character, when the issue has nothing to do with me. I happened to decide to
look at this list of plagiarisms a little closer, and was surprised to find
that it was inaccurate. Now, David his posting his original list from 1970,
and guess what? None of the paragraphs I found to be bogus are on his list.
All this getting worked up over a simple thing that anyone can check out. My
motivations don't have a thing to do with this.
> TOM WROTE:
> Therefore, I don't think it is the persuit of accuracy that motivates you,
but
> a desire to discredit Lane, which is an entirely counterproductive purpose
to
> the objective of discovering accuracy, unless you now are prepared to
disavow
> your previous admissions of Twitchell's plagiarism, and are reconsidering
your
> entire stand on the issue. Otherwise, it is a moot point, for we already
know
> that Twitchell plagiarized. If plagairism is not seen as an unbecoming act
of
> an omipotent Master, then it shouldn't matter to you what percentage he
> plagiarized. On the other hand, if it is considered to be an unbecoming
act,
> then no amount of minimizing the act will hide the revealing fraud.
DOUG RESPONDS:
If you really believe what you just wrote, then why are you spending so much
time trying to minimize the inaccuracies that I've found? Why not simply
agree that they seem to be inaccuracies and move on? Why attack my
character, or claim to know my devious intentions, or portray me with all
the kinds of evil projections that you are doing? I can only imagine how you
used to treat your friends when they decided to leave Eckankar.
To me, this is not a big deal. It is hardly even noteworthy. However, I
stumbled into when I just decided to check out the list for myself. I'm
simply reporting what I found, and trying to relay the information in as
open and fair a way as possible.
Deal with those shadows, Tom. They are not mine. I don't mind being the
movie screen for your projections, but the motivations you are seeing in me
are not coming from me. If you met me in person, you would immediately see
the truth in this.
> TOM WROTE:
> In this manner you wish to chip a small dent in the recognized extent of
> Twitchell's plagiarism. This is by definition an attempt to move the focus
in
> the direction of minimizing the amount of plagiarism. In my view, I have
seen
> enough plagiarism to suit my understanding of the nature of Twitchell. His
> plagiarized paragraphs are strewn through his writings like seed upon a
freshly
> plowed field. The plagarism is extensive enough for me to conclude he
> structured his writings around these paragraphs. It means to me not merely
that
> he was cheap, cowardly and dishonest, but also that he derived his great
"inner
> wisdom" not from the vast higher planes, but from the vast literary
resources
> of the mundane physical plane. He was, unfortunately, a fraud.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Seems to be a lot more projecting here, but now it is on Paul rather than on
me.
Paul never claimed that all of his material came from the inner worlds. He
was very open, in fact, explaining exactly the opposite, that he had a
voracious reading appetite and drew from the thousands of books he read when
he wrote and gave talks.
I'm surprised you don't see the red flag go up when you find yourself making
such wrong claims about Paul. Rich even recently posted that quote from Paul
where he explains this.
This is one of the reasons for me focusing on accuracy. It is for my own
self as well, since if I find myself having a hard time seeing things as
they are, then I know I am not really detached, and am being blinded by my
own desires. That's why I think the practice of being accurate and fair is
the same as loving truth more than our attachments. I do this as an exercise
for my own sake, but I highly recommend it.
Doug.
Etznab
> plane."
>
> Here is the sentence from Johnson that has similarities:
>
> "The inhabitants of all of those worlds to be dissolved are drawn up to
> higher regions in a sort of comatose state to be replaced upon these worlds
> when they are ready for human habitation."
>
> We can see a partial phrase here where the wording is similar. Paul wrote
> "...drawn up to the next region higher..." Johnson wrote "...are drawn up to
> higher regions..."
>
> Paragraph 59. I can find no wording similarities here at all.
>
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> Of these six paragraphs that David identified as plagiarisms, the first one
> and last one can't even be stretched to count.
>
> The other four have portions of a sentence where a phrase is similar. The
> longest of these is in Paragraph 54, with a string of eight words in Paul's
> book matching up pretty closely to a string of 10 words in Johnson's book.
> It is clearly rewritten, however, but similar.
>
> The other three paragraphs count similarities of wording in sections of 5
> word strings. All are rewritten. Not even these 5 words are the same, but
> they are similar.
>
> So, we can clearly see that Paul used Johnson's work as a source for his
> memory, although it is a possiblity. However, we can also see that Paul did
> make the effort to rewrite everything he wrote. I can't see a string of
> identical words any longer than 3 words long. There are two cases of this:
> "all ages of" and "drawn up to", which are obviously common twists of words
> and hardly something that belong to Johnson.
>
> In other words, Paul did exactly what most English teachers recommend as
> being acceptable. He rewrote the material and put it in his own words.
>
> Doug.
In other words, Paul did exactly what most English teachers recommend as being acceptable. He rewrote the material and put it in his own words.
Doug.
Correction. What "we can see", Doug Marman, is that your remarks were a gross insult and disgrace to the whole truth!
Etznab
Julian Johnson:
"In the literature of the saints, God is expressed by many words, such as Soami, Ekankar, Nirankar, Radha Soami, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Hari Rai, Akshar, Parameshwar, Akshar Purush, etc. All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the saints think of God, or Lord God, the highest power. Ekankar means the 'one oneness', the body of oneness. [... .]"
Paul Twitchell:
"In the literature of the sacred, this divine formless spirit is expressed by many names, such as, ECKANKAR, Nirankar, Akal, Nirala, Anami, Agam, Alakh, Sat Purush, Prabhu, Prabhswami, Akashar, Paramakshar, Purusha.
"All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence some idea of what the Saints think of the SUGMAD, or Lord God, the highest power.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/J3imZeZxDoc/qUKGtmugRnsJ
Doug. Get out your calculator and a magnifying glass. Read carefully. "All of these words have been coined in an effort to convey to human intelligence ... ."
Henosis Sage
and surely it's obvious and clear as day that when MARMAN plays SCIENTIST
here :>
"In this post I will compare paragraphs 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 and 59. Here
are how those paragraphs read from Paul's book:"
It takes 0.0000000000000000001% of the evidence available and then Marman
calls that 100% proof that Lane's information is "unreliable" or "wrong".
See if nothing else proves it, this ONE post surely does show beyond all
possible doubt what an unintelligent fool, and a duplicitous manipulator
of fools, Doug Marman has been for DECADES ...
Cheers
Etznab
After all these years people still challenged with accepting the fact Rebazar Tarzs (along with other Eck Masters and spiritual beings) copied, borrowed and plagiarized "New Age" movement books and authors; not to mention gurus from other religions.
It is not ideal to be caught in a lie. Not ideal for Twitchell, for Marman, or Kinpa.
IMO Marman, Kinpa and others have been trapped in a cycle of denial and trying all manner of bargaining in order not to let the ideal die.
Kinpa
Henosis Sage
Given your incredibly great importance, how could anyone not mention your Name?
Kinpa
Henosis Sage
Well that's a belief. Nothing lasts forever. Not even bat shit crazy.
RE: " who stalks me endlessly as if trying to get a date or some such thing."
There's that psychological projection/unconscious guilt thing again.
You won't need to try to get a date in a federal prison Kinpoop. They'll be
lining up for you the day you get walked in the front door.
Will there be anything else you'd like to add to the mountain of evidence
before the avalanche starts?
Kinpa
Henosis Sage
RE: " I ask that you be blessed with Divine Light and Love, and Perfect
it belongs.
Me thinks there was a disturbance in the force last night; full moon and all.
How's those shamans going over there, appears they still can't touch me.
Your stupid threats and attempts at intimidation were useless, as always.
Life's like being in the eye of a storm .... *twinkle*
Desperate is as desperate as.
BTW try Orange County CA on for size, dimwit. A question arose a few weeks back. Or have you forgotten that too?
All good things come to those who sit in silence and wait for the 'remote viewing' to kick in when the time is right.
Your member ID is now irrelevant. And my very best to Bernie and Tiffany Ann
when next you say hi. Must really piss you off whenever your brothers name
comes up .. LMAO~!!!
At least someone can spell in your family, you sure can't.
Kinpa
As you will!
> Me thinks there was a disturbance in the force last night; full moon and all.
>
> How's those shamans going over there, appears they still can't touch me.
They are just fine, thanks for asking...
> Your stupid threats and attempts at intimidation were useless, as always.
I haven't made a single threat, nor have I attempted intimidation, however, I do find any/all of your attempts equally as useless...that's the wonderful thing about opinion, no one has to share yours!
> Life's like being in the eye of a storm .... *twinkle*
>
> Desperate is as desperate as.
I guess you would know...
> BTW try Orange County CA on for size, dimwit. A question arose a few weeks back. Or have you forgotten that too?
Try that on for what purpose??? An entire county eh? Not specific enough, try harder...
> All good things come to those who sit in silence and wait for the 'remote viewing' to kick in when the time is right.
As you will...
> Your member ID is now irrelevant. And my very best to Bernie and Tiffany Ann
> when next you say hi. Must really piss you off whenever your brothers name
> comes up .. LMAO~!!!
My member ID is fine, but thanks for commenting....I don't know any Bernies or Tiffany Anns....was that supposed to be familiar to me in some way? Like all of the rest of the things you post from searching Google for anyone having my surname....the problem is, I am not related to even a single one of them....oh well, not really relevant anyhow.....my brother's name? What might that be? You haven't stated even a single name of even one of my family members....oh well, try harder
> At least someone can spell in your family, you sure can't.
And who exactly is that? Go reread what I said above....
But thank you for showing once again that you are in fact stalking me! Much appreciated!!!!
Have a wonderful day sean and may your heart be blessed with Divine Love and Light and Perfect Health, in the Name of the SUGMAD, the ECK, and the Mahanta~!
Henosis Sage
RE: "I haven't made a single threat, nor have I attempted intimidation"
Liar.
RE: "The [shamans] are just fine, thanks for asking... "
Liar.
RE: 'My member ID is fine, but thanks for commenting..."
No it's not and again you're a liar.
RE: "..I don't know any Bernies or Tiffany Anns...."
Liar.
RE: "..was that supposed to be familiar to me in some way?"
Are you asking ME a question ... why would you do something as stupid as that?
RE: "Like all of the rest of the things you post from searching Google
RE: "..the problem is, I am not related to even a single one of them."
Liar.
RE: "...oh well, not really relevant anyhow."
Liar. It is very relevant.
RE: "my brother's name? What might that be?"
Asking questions again ... that's dumb.
RE: "You haven't stated even a single name of even one of my family members.."
Liar.
RE: "And who exactly is that?"
Hey, you go reread what I said above!
RE: "But thank you for showing once again that you are in fact stalking me!"
Oh really how nice it must be to be so delusional and disconnected from
reality that your over-imaginative production of illusions, blurs the
boundaries of truth and fiction at the edges of your never-ending confusion.
RE: "Much appreciated!!!!"
Liar. Have an absolute *shit* of a day Kinpoo.
And shove your lies and your disingenuous "blessings" claptrap where the
sun never shines. The time for your cock-sure fraudulent self-aggrandizement,
your abuse, your lying, your prima-donna distorted delusions, your manipulative
cyber-stalking, harassment, defamations and your narcissistic Eric Cartman
level showing off is now up.
Idiot!
Henosis Sage
RE: "Try that on for what purpose???"
Don't ask me questions.
RE: "An entire county eh? Not specific enough, try harder... "
It's specifically fine and perfect.
There was no "try" there is no "harder". It is what it is.
and for the record again, Kinpoo talks endless shit on 26th NOV 2015
the diarrhea flowed from his tricky little lying dyslexic finger tips...
QUOTING:
"Prove ANY of it wrong or inaccurate~! I've been waiting for quite awhile,
and still nothing but words...what ARE you so afraid of?? You have already
been proven a liar and a hypocrite, and ..."
"I will also say tat there never was anyone by the name of Artemis either,
that was and has always been YOU under yet another pseudonym....nope, no
proof offered, have you any to prove that such an individual ever existed
outside of your own computer??
Typical, always jousting windmills because you haven't the spine to joust
actual individuals...."
ref:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/23X6HwMWk0Q/NVugAtswAwAJ
Yep, no proof offered and none will ever be given to you .. go talk to the
mirror and 'Patricia"' or imagine people shitting their pants and getting
drunk if you wish.
SUCH BIG WORDS FOR A SPINELESS SCUMBAG ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN HIDING
BEHIND HIS COMPUTER SCREEN .... AND HIS NON-STOP LYING AND BIG MOUTH *SHIT TALK*
I'll go talk to Artemis now and leave you hanging from the end of the rope
you have tied to your own neck.
It's been, well, interesting to watch. Train wrecks usually are.
I told you way back in 2014 you're an Idiot. That's because it's true.
Thanks so much for proving it beyond all doubt and for providing all the
evidence these last 16 months and during January 2016 in particular.
Your time is up and you have run out of rope. Yet still haven't a clue.
(shrug)
.
Kinpa
As for shamans, I have never issued any threat concerning them, but I DID suggest that you might be better off just not talking smack about them, and the same goes for black magicians. Talking so much about all of these will do nothing other than to draw the attention of them to you. It's YOUR life, so no one is telling you what to say or not say, and I am well aware that you will never listen to my suggestions, however, that fact does not make my suggestion any less wise as a course of action. You go ahead and do as you will. Anything that comes of that has nothing to do with me.
In the Name of the SUGMAD, the ECK, and the Mahanta, may you be blessed with Love and Light and Perfect health! No one has ever tried to force you to accept any of those either, but I AM free to offer them, and that is that!
Kinpa
There IS more if you want to actually be accurate, however I agree with you, what it is is nothing....
>
> and for the record again, Kinpoo talks endless shit on 26th NOV 2015
> the diarrhea flowed from his tricky little lying dyslexic finger tips...
>
> QUOTING:
> "Prove ANY of it wrong or inaccurate~! I've been waiting for quite awhile,
> and still nothing but words...what ARE you so afraid of?? You have already
> been proven a liar and a hypocrite, and ..."
>
> "I will also say tat there never was anyone by the name of Artemis either,
> that was and has always been YOU under yet another pseudonym....nope, no
> proof offered, have you any to prove that such an individual ever existed
> outside of your own computer??
> Typical, always jousting windmills because you haven't the spine to joust
> actual individuals...."
>
> ref:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/23X6HwMWk0Q/NVugAtswAwAJ
>
> Yep, no proof offered and none will ever be given to you .. go talk to the
> mirror and 'Patricia"' or imagine people shitting their pants and getting
> drunk if you wish.
>
> SUCH BIG WORDS FOR A SPINELESS SCUMBAG ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN HIDING
> BEHIND HIS COMPUTER SCREEN .... AND HIS NON-STOP LYING AND BIG MOUTH *SHIT TALK*
Awww someone gets angry when their own game is used against them!
> I'll go talk to Artemis now and leave you hanging from the end of the rope
> you have tied to your own neck.
Go right ahead and talk to yourself there....there is no rope around my neck! LOL Hangings haven't been used for quite some time in this country!
> It's been, well, interesting to watch. Train wrecks usually are.
If I were you, I'd be watching where my own train is heading.....
> I told you way back in 2014 you're an Idiot. That's because it's true.
Then how is it that you prove yourself to be one on a daily basis???
> Thanks so much for proving it beyond all doubt and for providing all the
> evidence these last 16 months and during January 2016 in particular.
>
> Your time is up and you have run out of rope. Yet still haven't a clue.
>
> (shrug)
> .
Don't cry boo boo, you'll be alright.....now you have yourself a wonderful night, and be blessed by all Divine Light and Love and perfect Health in the Name of the SUGMAD, the ECK, and the Mahanta~!!!
Henosis Sage
.