Proof

[Etznab]

In my opinion (one that is undoubtedly shared by others) it is possible the Eck Masters assigned to plagiarized and copied material are, and never were, real in the sense of having physical bodies; either now, or in the past.

This is a very real possibility accompanied by supporting evidence in the form of copious written examples of what to more and more people looks like not ancient masters, but copied and paraphrased material assigned names that differ from the historical authors of certain copyrighted material.

Some here, in this group, over the years seem to be battling against the "death of an ideal" ... evidenced by denial and anger especially. For proof of this one can review the a.r.e. archive, especially the early years, and how many were prone to dismiss and not acknowledge that which (accompanied by evidence) came to be more and more accepted as true. Accepted by more and more people including Eckankar clergy and all the way to the top.

It is insightful (IMHO) to note that "Eckankar" did not always so much openly and publicly address, explain, answer questions - if even did admit - the topic of plagiarism ... the Eckankar books contained plagiarized material, Paul Twitchell, the founder, had a history of copying ... and copied material appears not to be credited to the author on record, but knowingly credited to Eckanakr and Eck Masters instead.

Where is the physical record of Eckankar masters that everybody can look at and see? IMO it is more than in the imagination and minds of those who believe. It is also in black and white, such as word after word, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, page after page and book after book. This is what every single person who has eyes to see can see. A physical record of what the - certain specific - Eck Masters reportedly conveyed to Paul Twitchell, the founder of modern-day Eckankar.

In spite of this, testimony exists to confirm that not everybody cares to make a thorough study and review of such "physical records" to learn more and more about certain specific Eck Masters and what they reportedly conveyed to Paul Twitchell. An attitude of "it is all said and done", "been there, done that", or "I've seen it all" is falsely claimed by naive (or deceptive) individuals pretending to know all the facts from fiction.

ALL OF THE WRITTEN MATERIAL claimed to have come from Eck Masters, put into books and sold - when compared with previous written material and books that were sold - appearing to match in "more ways than one" (so to speak) could be looked at and studied at length, could be learned from and might reveal what is behind the curtain of mystery ... as was once the actor in The Wizard of Oz who pretended to be Great and Powerful.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain? That is like saying pay no attention to plagiarisms and what can be learned from them. Like, when one thing is claimed to be something else.

[Etznab]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA

[Peetee Aitchei]

quoting "I'm a very good man, I'm just a very bad wizard."

How The Wizard of Oz Should Have Ended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=munbt8qpCiQ

[Peetee Aitchei]

Hello Mr Etznab.

This may be of interest ... especially when mixed with the "How the brain works"
video lecture by LINGUISTICS PROFESSOR George Lakoff (and his other scientific works).

THE CEREBRAL MIRAGE - The Deceptive Nature of Awareness

In India, Vedantists, particularly those of the Advaita persuasion, have argued that the world of appearance is a beguiling illusion which hides the truth of the universe's real essence, and as such it is akin to the curtain in the movie version of The Wizard of Oz (where a balloonist from Kansas plays out his antics in order to gain power and respect) which deceives by hiding that which is behind it.

Likewise, in early schools of Gnosticism they saw the world as the manifestation of a demiurge that entraps all who succumb to its tempting guises. The higher truth is lost because one believes that the image to be real, whereas it is merely a secondary power.

What early philosophers and mystics understood (even if they couldn't articulate it scientifically) was that humankind was under the spell of a cerebral mirage, one that gave a false sense of knowledge and certainty.

Although religious thinkers of differing persuasions drew out most of these ancient insights, it has turned out to be remarkably prescient in light of modern science. Interestingly, our advanced technology provides us with a very apt metaphor for how the world of our senses belies what lies underneath.

http://integralworld.net/diem-lane13.html

It's a shame Marman has trashed all academia and science as he has. Fittingly,
given his Sukhmani sophistries, replete with eckankar connections that don't
exist, he probably more belongs 400 years ago in Guru Arjan's time than today.

(shrug)

Around this same time the following was going on as well in regards the Mughal empire and Hindus of rajput in India.

http://www.sbs.com.au/movies/movie/jodhaa-akbar
(some fascinating anecdotes hints in this 3.5 hour movie)

see http://www.indianrajputs.com/history/ and similar.

Some gain a deeper insight from history; other prefer to make it up.

[Peetee Aitchei]

...... and

Ralph Waldo Emerson in a section of The Conduct of Life (circa 1860) captures this human dilemma quite well when he wrote:

"Society does not love its un-maskers. It was wittily, if somewhat bitterly, said by D'Alembert, 'qu'un etat de vapeur etait un etat tres facheux, parcequ'il nous faisait voir les choses comme elles sont.' I find men victims of illusion in all parts of life. Children, youths, adults, and old men, all are led by one bawble or another. Yoganidra, the goddess of illusion, Proteus, or Momus, or Gylfi's Mocking -- for the Power has many names -- is stronger than the Titans, stronger than Apollo. Few have overheard the gods, or surprised their secret. Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood. All is riddle, and the key to a riddle is another riddle. There are as many pillows of illusion as flakes in a snowstorm. We wake from one dream into another dream. The toys, to be sure, are various, and are graduated in refinement to the quality of the dupe. The intellectual man requires a fine bait; the sots are easily amused. But everybody is drugged with his own frenzy, and the pageant marches at all hours, with music and banner and badge."

What all this portends--and the wise counsel it engenders--is that each one of us is on open quest whether we be mystics or scientists and whatever discoveries we make on the way we must be cautious not to be dogmatic in our pronouncements, knowing too well how limited our understanding may be at any particular point in time and how easy nature can trick us in her multifarious fashions. Nicholas of Cusa, writing in Latin, called this proglomena "on learned ignorance" and famously quipped (paradoxically as it may at first sound) that the "unattainable was attained by its unattainment". We are better educated, in other words, when we realize how little we know. Or, as Nicholas of Cusa himself penned, "For a man-even one very well versed in learning-will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his. The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be."

Twitchell, Klemp and Marman are no Emersons.

Let alone sant mat or sikh or kabiri or hindu sat gurus speaking of 'G-d'

(shrug)

[Etznab]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:26:27 PM UTC-6, Etznab wrote:

Example quote from beginning of the book The Key to Eckankar (Paul Twitchell writes):

"[...] Years ago when I retumed from England and went to the northwest to live in Seattle, Washington, Rebazar Tarzs spent considerable time with me in his physical body. It was a case of his manifesting suddenly in his body and giving a series of talks on ECKANKAR, which were to be related to the world. Finally, one night in late winter, he wound up the series. I have tried, as best as possible, to summarize the talks here. [... .]"

For those who want a sampling of those summarized talks, or how Eck Master's words read like words from library books, scan this thread (composed when I chose to verify and illustrate what others had been saying about plagiarism).

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/legions$20of$20forms|sort:date/alt.religion.eckankar/MqPyi6nZ0vw/LeAYoH7IipIJ

IMO, even if penned by Paul Twitchell, this evidence cannot be dismissed as information about Eck Masters. To the contrary, I believe it says a lot. And furthermore, in the beginning of the revised edition, the current leader of Eckankar, Harold Klemp, writes about Rebazar Tarzs; and as if to explain (with regard to certain text) what Rebazar Tarzs really meant.

Question: Was Harold Klemp trying to explain what Rebazar Tarzs actually meant BASED ON WHAT R.T. (according to Paul) reportedly SAID? Or was Harold actually trying to redefine what Joel S. Goldsmith wrote? (These are questions because I haven't fully determined yet what all of this means.)

Someplace in this archive is a post with part of Harold Klemp's comments, along with some illustrated research on the subject.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/Harold$20Klemp$20introduction$20for$20The$20Key$20to$20Eckankar|sort:date/alt.religion.eckankar/AEhzOYFzWck/aSP55sDuVpQJ

[Kinpa]

nothing you have proves any such thing, that is simply an assumption that you believe, and nothing is ever going to change that...also those that af=gree with your assumptions are a very limited group to be found at your yahoo group, which is all good and fine, but DO stop trying to make it sound bigger than it really is, it simply isnt that big, and while you have found plagiarisms, that does NOT address the existence of ANY Masters, end of story....you can use that faulty logic all you want to, it will never be proof of anything other than plagiarism, it is what it is, and it aint what it aint...apples are not oranges and will never be....constantly repeating an assumption does nbot prove it accurate nor does it make it come true, and regardless of anything, the ONLY person responsible for plagiarisms being attributed to ECK Masters is Paul Twitchell....end of story! if you cannot find his writing or saying that they are fictional, you will never have anything more than an assumption that you and a few others believe, but do not by any means KNOW!

And all of the name calling spilled towards others (for the most part by Sean) only makes the entire thing look more and more ridiculous....but have it as you choose, it makes no difference to me in any way!

[Peetee Aitchei]

-
-
-

RE "Rebazar Tarzs spent considerable time with me in his physical body."

That's called lying with the intent to manipulate others in 1968 onwards.

as mentioned on the other ref link

"The ECK teachings are based on compassion, respect, personal responsibility,
and giving others freedom. It is against spiritual law to push one's beliefs
on others or to hold anyone to a spiritual path. [... .]"

http://www.eckankar.org/FAQ/index.html#cult

That may be the 'eck teachings' but it is not the day to day activity of Eckists, ESC at Eckankar, the board of trustees, nor Harold Klemp.

Hypocrisy = hypocrisy

This bit is repeated for Marman's 30 year crusade of duplicitous manipulation
driven by his self-deluded beliefs in his own superiority and certainty.

"It is against spiritual law to push one's beliefs on others..."

[Etznab]

So there have been numerous books published by Eckankar with stories about Eck Masters and what they allegedly communicated to Paul Twitchell. Now a number of such communications appear to have originated NOT from Eck Masters, but from books that Paul Twitchell (the master compiler) copied from.

O.K.?

So there have been numerous stories about Eck Masters and what they allegedly communicated to various other individuals (besides Paul Twitchell). And that this is part of the basis for officially stating "The Eck Masters are real!".

O.K.?

Other people's experiences don't have to mean squat to me. Neither does it work for me to base the reality of certain Eck Masters (such as Rebazar Tarzs) on the experiences of others. These could be apparitions, projections, symbols of the subconscious, etc., and not the same as real human beings living now, or having lived in the past. Besides, I have not had the opportunity to challenge, investigate and question these supposed experiences with Eck Masters. Neither should I be expected to accept the reality on faith. It doesn't work for me at this point. Not after having witnessed so many liars and plagiarists already.

For God's sake people went all the way to India looking for proof about Sudar Singh. And yeah, they came back with a story. I say "So what?" It's just another story and one I have not verified for myself as true. Why they did not first check the roster at Oxford for Sudar Singh's son and proceed from there is beyond me. And why Doug Marman didn't know about Sudar Singh's son who went to Oxford (according to Paul Twitchell) is also beyond me. Like, didn't anybody do the most basic research first? Look at what Paul Twitchell said about the Eck Masters and use all of that information as part of the investigation? But, hey, Harold and Doug already knew about a growing list of plagiarisms where information about Eck Masters written by Paul Twitchell suggested it was not altogether true.

Stories, stories and more stories. So what? I would rather not be fooled again. Neither should anybody else be so inclined without first doing some actual work on their own to check and verify whether the storyteller was recounting history, or whether they were spinning (or retelling) another yarn.

All of these Masters that appear to people can be questioned. Including those having appeared to people before they heard about Eckankar. People could have asked the masters about their names, for example. They could also, even now, be asked many other questions, and questions about history to see if they are in fact masters (instead of the person's subconscious mind), and in fact telling the truth.

If I remember correctly, Paul Twitchell's master (Kirpal Singh) encouraged him to ask questions about the masters that Paul claimed to have met. Even Harold Klemp mentioned this "ability" of Paul's and whether Kirpal Singh recognized it. From what I gathered (if I remember correctly), Harold was elevating Paul for his ability to communicate with Eck Masters, Lord's and beings from other planes of existence; in other words, do Soul Travel, etc.; including meeting Sat Nam, and Sugmad, etc. Hmm. Well then, I imagine Harold, Doug and many other people were surprised when they found Paul Twitchell had the very real ability to compile, copy, paraphrase and plagiarize the writings and sayings of other people and then claim that he got the information from Eck Masters. My God! A fifth grader can do that! What an ability that Paul had where a publisher such as Orion refused to publish any more of his articles after discovering that Paul copied the works of other people. O.K. What an ability!

So maybe it is good not just to question and ask: "What does God need with a Star ship?" But also to ask, "Umm, hey! Why do Eck Masters sound like all these other authors who wrote books years before Paul Twitchell wrote his?

Clearly it means something to do the work and check things out first and not invest total blind faith in things personally unverified.

[Etznab]

Granted, a number of the creations by Paul Twitchell (his writings, etc.) were and are interesting - regardless if copied / paraphrased. However, I admit, it adds to a written book to know the copyright date and the author who wrote it - instead of a man-made pseudo name used as if to "replace" the actual author and copyrighted book. Now maybe (at least in some people's views) it doesn't "add" to Eckankar the teaching, the religion, the corporation, etc. to have Eckankar allied with gurus and teachings from other groups. Like maybe it limits the liberty and freedom to talk about certain subjects when having to do so within certain parameters, with certain respects and acknowledgements to other groups and masters; for instance Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, etc. Especially when quoting already existing teachings as the recognized privy of certain revered and respected masters at the head of various already-established teachings and religions.

Here is a consideration. By redacting names and removing the stereotypes of certain information ... changing not only the content, but also the source, Paul Twitchell and "Eckankar" are not only at liberty to profusely "borrow" till the heart's content, but also at liberty to establish another teacher / master in the modern world as well as (by creating a lineage) the ancient world as well. In this sense, and only in this sense (IMO), could Eckankar hope to encompass, eclipse, or even supplant all the other world religions and spiritual paths as if "Eck" were the hub and the others were radiations, or spokes from it.

Is this really true? Is this really true when a good portion of the Eckankar teachings are as if like "spokes" and "borrowings" from other people's books, writings, dogmas and religions? It is not so definite and clear cut, IMO just how everything branches off (as it were) from spirit and what are the parts played by Eck Masters such as Rebazar Tarzs and others. Like, Where is the lineage without a real lineage? What is the source? I say if it is not certain Eck Masters, but library books then tell it like it is. If there is not always a living master of Eckankar connected to an unbroken lineage going back thousands of years then tell it like it is. However, and here is the key thing, without an historical antiquity "Eckankar" cannot really measure itself on par with other religions, cannot really serve s a "hub", but would have to exist - as far as unbroken lineage of masters goes - as an appendage of some other already existing path with some already existing master. So in my opinion the antiquity is a necessary ingredient, whether arrived at by historical proof or created by man-made fiction.

[Etznab]

Paul Twitchell and (by extension) "Eckankar", perhaps, have created antiquity only after first having disguised the modern sources used to make animate any allegedly ancient masters. IMO it would not work, the antiquity would not have been believed, if Paul Twitchell and "Eckankar" first cited authors, books and references because this would negate the reported Eck Masters who allegedly had dictated so much information. Expose the real source & expose the real source. Disguise the real source and one is then at liberty to add fictions both onto and over the real source. Only after disguising it first. Painting over a natural wood finish, for example, and then drawing designs onto the painted parts. To most observers only the superficial appearance would be visible. The older foundational substance, or lineage could not really appear without first REMOVING its covering, its veil.

I believe the source(s) of Eckankar writings MUST be acknowledged first if one is to fully understand the true lineage of same. Otherwise, imaginations and storytelling will carry the day generation after generation, layer after layer forever covering over the truth to the extent of hiding it from view.

[Peetee Aitchei]

-
-
-

disguise
[dis-gahyz, dih-skahyz]

verb (used with object), disguised, disguising.

1.
to change the appearance or guise of so as to conceal identity or mislead, as
by means of deceptive garb:

"The king was disguised as a peasant."
"The plagiarist was disguised as an enlightened all knowing Master"

2.
to conceal or cover up the truth or actual character of by a counterfeit form
or appearance; misrepresent:

"to disguise one's intentions."
---

counterfeit
[koun-ter-fit]

adjective

1.
made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as
genuine; not genuine; forged:

"counterfeit dollar bills."

2.
pretended; unreal:

"counterfeit grief."
"counterfeit teachings."
"counterfeit religion."

noun

3.
an imitation intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine;
forgery.
---

forge
[fawrj, fohrj]

to imitate (handwriting, a signature, etc.) fraudulently;
fabricate a forgery.

verb (used without object), forged, forging.

4.
"to commit forgery."

---

forgery
[fawr-juh-ree, fohr-]

noun, plural forgeries.

1.
the crime of falsely making or altering a writing by which the legal rights
or obligations of another person are apparently affected; simulated signing
of another person's name to any such writing whether or not it is also the
forger's name.

2.
the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin,
a painting, or the like.

3.
something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery.

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Monday, 5 January 2015 17:34:39 UTC+11, Peetee Aitchei wrote:



http://spiritualdialogues.com/books/sukhmani-the-secret-of-inner-peace/#comment-23507

Posted there to illuminate the darkness and unenlightened amateur scribe

[Etznab]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/Key$20to$20Eckankar$20Introduction$20Harold$20Klemp|sort:date/alt.religion.eckankar/nD2iq5AOBzc/Ls5bZhOuB_sJ

[Kinpa]

Without your showing absolute and unquestionable proof that Paul Twitchell was never visited physically by Rebazar Tarzs, you're simply blowing hot air...you've got absolutely nothing! And none of it has the least little thing to do with anyone but yourself! Start dealing with that in some way Sean...you aren't getting any yopunger

[Henosis Sage]

On Thursday, 19 February 2015 06:21:50 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:

>
> Without your showing absolute and unquestionable proof that Paul Twitchell was never visited physically by Rebazar Tarzs, you're simply blowing hot air...you've got absolutely nothing! And none of it has the least little thing to do with anyone but yourself! Start dealing with that in some way Sean...you aren't getting any yopunger

"The ECK teachings are based on compassion, respect, personal responsibility,
and giving others freedom. It is against spiritual law to push one's beliefs
on others or to hold anyone to a spiritual path."

http://www.eckankar.org/FAQ/index.html#cult

[Kinpa]

What of it? You STILL have never had any evidence of what you claim. One wonders if there is a shred of sanity in you....the Lords of Karma do keep track however...enjoy sean...

[Etznab]

Kinpa about apples are not oranges, end of story, etc., and assumptions:

"... but DO stop trying to make it sound bigger than it really is, it simply isnt that big, and while you have found plagiarisms, that does NOT address the existence of ANY Masters, end of story....you can use that faulty logic all you want to, it will never be proof of anything other than plagiarism, it is what it is, and it aint what it aint...apples are not oranges and will never be....constantly repeating an assumption does nbot prove it accurate nor does it make it come true, and regardless of anything, the ONLY person responsible for plagiarisms being attributed to ECK Masters is Paul Twitchell....end of story! if you cannot find his writing or saying that they are fictional, you will never have anything more than an assumption that you and a few others believe, but do not by any means KNOW!"

***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0ki56yZD3A

***

Kinpa: "constantly repeating an assumption does nbot prove it accurate nor does it make it come true"

Etznab: Doh!

[Kinpa]

Etznab says as he continues repeating his so called "truths" to himself over and over again...

[Etznab]

On this thread, here are the examples of when I used the word true, truth, or truths.

"Some here, in this group, over the years seem to be battling against the "death of an ideal" ... evidenced by denial and anger especially. For proof of this one can review the a.r.e. archive, especially the early years, and how many were prone to dismiss and not acknowledge that which (accompanied by evidence) came to be more and more accepted as true. Accepted by more and more people including Eckankar clergy and all the way to the top."

"For God's sake people went all the way to India looking for proof about Sudar Singh. And yeah, they came back with a story. I say "So what?" It's just another story and one I have not verified for myself as true. Why they did not first check the roster at Oxford for Sudar Singh's son and proceed from there is beyond me. And why Doug Marman didn't know about Sudar Singh's son who went to Oxford (according to Paul Twitchell) is also beyond me. Like, didn't anybody do the most basic research first? Look at what Paul Twitchell said about the Eck Masters and use all of that information as part of the investigation? But, hey, Harold and Doug already knew about a growing list of plagiarisms where information about Eck Masters written by Paul Twitchell suggested it was not altogether true."

"Is this really true? Is this really true when a good portion of the Eckankar teachings are as if like "spokes" and "borrowings" from other people's books, writings, dogmas and religions?"

***

"All of these Masters that appear to people can be questioned. Including those having appeared to people before they heard about Eckankar. People could have asked the masters about their names, for example. They could also, even now, be asked many other questions, and questions about history to see if they are in fact masters (instead of the person's subconscious mind), and in fact telling the truth."

[Henosis Sage]

On Monday, 15 June 2015 12:31:03 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:
RE: "Like, didn't anybody do the most basic research first?"

NOPE, never. Marman did none of any worth. If it wasn't handed to him on a plate, he never "researched" a single thing. Not once. Not ever.

With one exception .. after he had written his major draft for the TWT book
in 2005 (?), did Marman then actually do some REAL RESEARCH when he travelled
to Paducah and had his FIRST ever conversation with the Librarian/s there ..
and then also dropped into WKU and saw some things about Twitchell he had
never seen or known about before.

That's it - I think.

22 years after he started presenting himself publicly as "an expert / knowledgeable person about Eckankar history and Twitchell's INTENTIONS
and "meanings".

32 years now of puff incompetence lies disinformation untruths and the
manipulation of everyone who has ever heard him say something about Eckankar history and Twitchell, Gail, Patti, Darwin and Harold.

It's easily provable that Marman was and is full of shit spin and sophistry.

[Etznab]

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 at 1:24:24 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:

"... the ONLY person responsible for plagiarisms being attributed to ECK Masters is Paul Twitchell....end of story. ... ."

This is conformation then that, according to you, Rebazar Tarzs had no role in the plagiarisms?

[Kinpa]

-----------------------------------------
Can you prove that he ever did? Are you unable to see that your saying this makes you look not very smart at all? And you still claim to be an ECKist? I think that is a bold faced lie on your part, you haven't been for quite some time, but you seem to enjoy pretending that you are....where are yours and sean's letters to the Org? Both of you can feel free to say whatever you'd like....it's not very nice to make empty threats to people is it? It certainly doesn't make you appear to be NOT a liar either! Still having a nice night? LOL

[Etznab]

I was asking you a question and you answered with a question.

Here is your quote again:

"... the ONLY person responsible for plagiarisms being attributed to ECK Masters is Paul Twitchell....end of story. ... ."

And I asked you. This is conformation then that, according to you, Rebazar Tarzs had no role in the plagiarisms?

Here is the reason I ask. Paul Twitchell and Eckankar illustrated the words of Rebazar Tarzs in quotes. I and Sean have shown this too you over and over, and what was said about Rebazar Tarzs on front and back covers of the books.

So, are you telling me then that those plagiarized words were not spoken by Rebazar Tarzs? I'm talking about the words in quotation marks said to come from Rebazar Tarzs.

Your childish mockery and avoiding the question are very obvious to me. Also, are your nasty words and personal attacks.

I will not let you escape the question, because it is a very important one. And please try to remember, I am already familiar with the tactics of "Bright Future" and of Eckists who write nasty and make personal attacks. Also already aware how you (and certain other nasty people like you) try and label who is and who isn't (according to you) an Eckist.

What was the role of Rebazar Tarzs with regard to the words said to come from and illustrated as if to come from him? What was his part in those words?

[Kinpa]

> -------------------------------------------------
I have yet to see his name listed as an author on ANY book, therefore, absolutely not!

> Here is the reason I ask. Paul Twitchell and Eckankar illustrated the words of Rebazar Tarzs in quotes. I and Sean have shown this too you over and over, and what was said about Rebazar Tarzs on front and back covers of the books.

>----------------------------------------------------------------
So what? That does nothing to prove that he had anything to do with it...who is the individual listed as being the author? End of story....it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not there were quotation marks, that does not prove that another individual wrote anything.....again you are INSISTING that i find those things as important as you two do, however I do not, and those things simply do NOT prove ANYTHING....you seem to not have a very good understanding of how evidence works within the court system, and neither does sean...

> So, are you telling me then that those plagiarized words were not spoken by Rebazar Tarzs? I'm talking about the words in quotation marks said to come from Rebazar Tarzs.

> ------------------------------------------------------
I said no such thing, and see above as for quotation marks, those prove ONLY that Paul Twitchell CLAIMED the words came from Rebazar Tarzs....it really is not that complicated....and those quotations having been lifted from other books does nothing to prove or disprove his existence...remember that thing sean loves to say "you can't prove a negative"? If that is so then why is it that you suddenly CAN prove a negative when it's convenient for you to do so? Why the double standard? That alone is a lie and is dishonest, but you seem to avoid this point anytime I bring it up, why is that? Afraid of something?

> Your childish mockery and avoiding the question are very obvious to me. Also, are your nasty words and personal attacks.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
I did no such thing, I've explained it quite clearly, but perhaps it does not appear that way to you because YOU do not like what I am saying....that denial card goes both ways...

> I will not let you escape the question, because it is a very important one.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't try to escape, I simply challenged you to use your own brain to answer it for yourself...I also disagree that it is important at all. And again you go claiming that it proves a thing it does NOT prove.....

And please try to remember, I am already familiar with the tactics of "Bright Future" and of Eckists who write nasty and make personal attacks. Also already aware how you (and certain other nasty people like you) try and label who is and who isn't (according to you) an Eckist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Your own attempts at doing that very same thing are quite evident here....make accusations all you want to, but repeating them endlessly will not magically make them true, welcome to the real world buddy!

>
> What was the role of Rebazar Tarzs with regard to the words said to come from and illustrated as if to come from him? What was his part in those words?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Again, use YOUR brain, it is not MY job to provide you with answers, but the answer to that question, that I have stated recently, is quite obvious....the straw-man arguments get boring after a short time, so feel free to proceed making your point, although in my opinion you won't be able to....but DO note how little I have ever tried to change YOUR opinion of anything....and yet you endlessly accuse me of avoiding the question? I have avoided nothing, but if you want to joust windmills, you don't need my help, you can do that alone.....otherwise why dont YOU answer your question and then continue it to your point? Or do you insist that I provide you an imagined opportunity to corral me into your conclusions? Why does it disturb you that I won't answer your question? You seem to have a definite need without which you cannot proceed....why is that? You NEED me to name Rebazar's role? Why would that be?

[Etznab]

It looks to me like you are tongue tied and want to have it both ways, because you can't admit Twitchell lied and made up much of the mythos behind Eckankar.

And why can't you admit that?

Is it because you admire the propaganda? It gives people reasons to go and make websites with stories about fictional characters?

This is what I see about you, Kinpa. And I didn't need to go remote viewing to do it. I see your bells and whistles and I also see your lying tongue. You are just a punk!

[Kinpa]

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not even remotely, I would say that instead, you are not smart enough to handle the fact that I exist and disagree with you....Have I not been speaking regularly? I have in fact, thus proving that I am anything BUT tongue-tied...THAT is YOUR mythos! You simply have 0% evidence of what you're claiming! If you haven't the mental faculties to understand that very simple concept, then I certainly can't help you! PROVE THAT TWITCHELL MADE UP ANYTHING! Where is this DIRECT evidence? Do you have him on record ANYWHERE stating this as fact? If so I have yet to see it! THAT is direct evidence, and you trying to claim that I am somehow tongue-tied is your usual strawman argument...joust those windmills Mr. McLintock! LOL

> And why can't you admit that?

>------------------------------------------
Because it has never actually been proven? HELLO IN THERE! Your assumptions do NOT constitute direct evidence to prove your claim! I have nothing to admit, I have been busy waiting for you to engage in ANY actual discussion, and I have asked you for your direct evidence of your claims many times now, and you have NEVER shown ANY! Not one thing!

> Is it because you admire the propaganda? It gives people reasons to go and make websites with stories about fictional characters?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where do you get these ideas from? It seems to me that YOU are the one creating fictions, about me, an actual living person! Prove that a single one of those individuals is fictional! There! I made it EXTREMELY simple for you, plagiarism ONLY proves that Twitchell plagiarized, it does NOT prove a negative, namely that ANYONE does not exist! THAT is the thing your argument relies on and the thing you are wholly unable to prove! All you have are mental assumptions! Those are NOT facts, they are assumptions! Look the word up in the dictionary!

> This is what I see about you, Kinpa. And I didn't need to go remote viewing to do it. I see your bells and whistles and I also see your lying tongue. You are just a punk!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And here goes young Mr. McLintock's tantrum throwing and name-calling, a sure sing of one who is losing his debate because he simply cannot prove what he claims he can! Then followed by the typical accusations. Prove that I ave lied about anything! I have no bells and/or whistles! It's just little old me over here! Am I just a punk? It sounds as if somebody is having a very hard time dealing with reality when it doesn't work out his way! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!YOU ONLY HAVE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS!That makes YOU, in fact, a LIAR!