Please Read this Prior to Joining Eckankar
Mahavahana
membership policies.
A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
Of course, a religion that requests donations isn't in itself a bad
thing. But when a religion's request for donations is obviously tied
to sacred initiations that it claims link one to God, then this
practice of asking for money year after year to keep one's connnection
to God is clearly a coercive arrangement.
Also, given that this request for donations is coming from the
religion's leader, who is claimed to be a living representative and
embodiment of God, then that request is further evidence of coercion
and undue influence.
Eckankar has a policy stating that the chela's initiations may be
revoked after 5 years of membership inactivity. Membership activity is
defined as a response to a yearly request for $130, a donation which
Eckankar states is non-refundable.
It's been discovered that while Eckankar makes many claims about the
wonders of these Eck initiations on its website, Eckankar doesn't care
enough to inform people of the 5-year policy prior to their joining
Eckankar.
What else to call this but deceptive advertising, if not outright
fraud?
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Nathan Zafran
<Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
>Questions were raised here recently that challenged some of Eckankar's
>membership policies.
Questions have been raised here recently attesting to the apparent
insanity of this poster.
It seems that he doesn't know his derriere from his arm-joints, yet
continues to assume that he is capable of rational thinking.
A panel of impartial judges has declared this individual null and
void, therefore whatever he utters from here on in must be stricken
from the record books.
Any furthur attempts on his part to display intelligent behaviour will
be met with the strictest punishments. He will be relegated to singing
the Hu for 2 hours a day until he learns not to think, and just be.
Sri Harboringnogrudges, acting on bequarter of....
Council for the Release of Insane Escapees from the Thinking
Institute
Rich
> Despite their claims to the contrary,
And dispite all reason, facts and personal experiences of all the
members of Eckankar in this news group, Joe continues to ignore the
reality of these and present his opinions as facts.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> Mahavahana wrote:
>
> > Despite their claims to the contrary,
>
> And dispite all reason, facts and personal experiences of all the
> members of Eckankar in this news group, Joe continues to ignore the
> reality of these and present his opinions as facts.
>
> Joe is an Internet Troll
What's the first clue that someone doesn't have an argument to counter a
well reasoned argument? They make the person the issue.
Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
work in making the people the issue.
Lurk
ken
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote ...
:
: Questions were raised here recently that challenged some of Eckankar's
: membership policies.
:
: A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
: their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
: still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
: to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
Eckankar requires a commitment to the teaching in order to receive
outer initiations. That commitment takes the form of membership.
Membership is available without cost, but a donation is requested. If
someone sees this request as coercive or improper, then it seems
obvious to me that membership in Eckankar isn't right for them at this
time.
Joe attempts to portray individuals who disagree with his position as
"stonewallers" or "party-liners" who are trying to obfuscate the truth. It
seems as though there isn't enough room in Joe's world for good honest
people to disagree on something so subjective as religion and spirituality.
The freedom to choose our religion is a good thing, and not something to
be taken for granted -- that freedom is far from universal on this planet.
Ken
Mahavahana
>
> Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote ...
> :
> : Questions were raised here recently that challenged some of Eckankar's
> : membership policies.
> :
> : A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
> : their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
> : still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
> : to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
>
> Eckankar requires a commitment to the teaching in order to receive
> outer initiations. That commitment takes the form of membership.
Which is a request for money.
> Membership is available without cost,
But still involves a request for money.
but a donation is requested.
Yes.
$130 for a few dollars worth of paper and postage -- to "help get the
message of ECK out to the world," or something like that.
What does this mean, getting the message of ECK out to the world?
It means selling MORE units of memberships, which is which $130 is
asked for a some unbound paper and a couple bucks in postage!
If
> someone sees this request as coercive or improper, then it seems
> obvious to me that membership in Eckankar isn't right for them at this
> time.
Yet again, Ken forgets the total context of what Eckankar is asking and
what Eckankar is letting the prospective chela know BEFORE he/she
becomes an eck member.
Ken, the eck webpage doesn't let people know that they must be members
for life, or their initiations may be pulled.
Keep this fact in mind before you spin another sermon.
>
> Joe attempts to portray individuals who disagree with his position as
> "stonewallers" or "party-liners" who are trying to obfuscate the truth. It
> seems as though there isn't enough room in Joe's world for good honest
> people to disagree on something so subjective as religion and spirituality.
Aw Ken. But right here you *are* obfuscating the truth by not
acknowledging that Eckankar isn't being upfront with prospective
members.
Can I call you Stonewall Stoltfus from now on?
>
> The freedom to choose our religion is a good thing, and not something to
> be taken for granted -- that freedom is far from universal on this planet.
Thy Free speech is a freedom as well, though it's sometimes abused by
thy Eck Clergyman.
ken
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote ...
:
Maha:
: > : A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
: > : their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
: > : still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
: > : to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
Ken:
: > Eckankar requires a commitment to the teaching in order to receive
: > outer initiations. That commitment takes the form of membership.
Maha:
: Which is a request for money.
What exactly are you saying here? That membership itself is a
request for money? If that's what you're saying you're suffering from
a severe case of fuzzy thinking.
Membership is the conscious shared experience of a group that
voluntarily joins together. The money aspect is secondary, unless
the cold hard cash you seem to despise is a *requirement* to
joining. In Eckankar's case, it isn't.
Maybe you could clairify your statement above Joe. Unless your
intention is to just sling as much mud as possible, hoping some of
it sticks.
: > Membership is available without cost,
:
: But still involves a request for money.
:
: but a donation is requested.
:
: Yes.
:
: $130 for a few dollars worth of paper and postage -- to "help get the
: message of ECK out to the world," or something like that.
:
: What does this mean, getting the message of ECK out to the world?
:
: It means selling MORE units of memberships, which is which $130 is
: asked for a some unbound paper and a couple bucks in postage!
That's a valid way to look at it, if you prefer to believe that there is no
altruism or benevolence to be found in Eckankar. For most Eckists
though, "getting the message of ECK out to the world" means sharing
what meaning we've found in this teaching, how it resonates within our
hearts and how it harmonizes us with Life. You can go ahead and
paint me as a cultist if that kind of sharing is a "bad thing".
: If
: > someone sees this request as coercive or improper, then it seems
: > obvious to me that membership in Eckankar isn't right for them at this
: > time.
:
:
: Yet again, Ken forgets the total context of what Eckankar is asking and
: what Eckankar is letting the prospective chela know BEFORE he/she
: becomes an eck member.
Membership is not the point of the teaching. Self and God realization is.
The two year waiting period that is recommended before the student
requests the outer initiation in Eckankar is designed to allow the new
student to become familiar with all the aspects of the teaching before any
real commitment is made by the student.
There is more to know about Eckankar than what could be contained in
any informational disclaimer. It strikes me that you are just nit-picking
and fault finding. I have no doubt that any policy of disclosure that
Eckankar took to using would not satisfy you. There are always more
faults to find.
: Ken, the eck webpage doesn't let people know that they must be members
: for life, or their initiations may be pulled.
:
: Keep this fact in mind before you spin another sermon.
:
: > Joe attempts to portray individuals who disagree with his position as
: > "stonewallers" or "party-liners" who are trying to obfuscate the truth. It
: > seems as though there isn't enough room in Joe's world for good honest
: > people to disagree on something so subjective as religion and spirituality.
:
: Aw Ken. But right here you *are* obfuscating the truth by not
: acknowledging that Eckankar isn't being upfront with prospective
: members.
:
: Can I call you Stonewall Stoltfus from now on?
If I can call you "Ornery Oleary, The Usenet Troll".
: > The freedom to choose our religion is a good thing, and not something to
: > be taken for granted -- that freedom is far from universal on this planet.
:
:
: Thy Free speech is a freedom as well, though it's sometimes abused by
: thy Eck Clergyman.
"Abused" free speech? To someone who cherishes freedom, THAT'S
a chilling statement.
Ken
PS I honorably avoided all references to Nazis, Stalinists and other
ideological totalitarians in replying to Joe's "abuse" of free speech
comment . . . But just barely <G>.
Nathan Zafran
<Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
,irrelevant and useless nonsense>
Priority one! Priority one!
Bomb on the verge of being dropped. Mahavana is attacking Eckankar
again. To the bomb shelter!
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Whew! Barely survived this ASS-ault!
Swami Imrelievedthatitsoverfornowananda
Rainforest
>
> Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote ...
> :
> Maha:
> : > : A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
> : > : their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
> : > : still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
> : > : to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
> : >
> Ken:
> : > Eckankar requires a commitment to the teaching in order to receive
> : > outer initiations. That commitment takes the form of membership.
> :
> Maha:
> : Which is a request for money.
>
> What exactly are you saying here? That membership itself is a
> request for money? If that's what you're saying you're suffering from
> a severe case of fuzzy thinking.
>
> Membership is the conscious shared experience of a group that
> voluntarily joins together. The money aspect is secondary, unless
> the cold hard cash you seem to despise is a *requirement* to
> joining. In Eckankar's case, it isn't.
Paulji made an interesting observation Ken, (about this strange mind
set) in essence: Whenever you mention money, people say you are not
real, but offer spiritual knowledge for free and they will flock to your
feet. Just try getting something for free in christian literature and
you will be concidered crazy.
In ECK,
George
sharo...@myremarq.com
> : membership policies.
> :
> : their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
> : still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
> : to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
>
> outer initiations. That commitment takes the form of membership.
> someone sees this request as coercive or improper, then it seems
> obvious to me that membership in Eckankar isn't right for them at this
> time.
>
> "stonewallers" or "party-liners" who are trying to obfuscate the truth.
> It seems as though there isn't enough room in Joe's world for good honest
> people to disagree on something so subjective as religion and
> spirituality.
>
> be taken for granted -- that freedom is far from universal on this
> planet.
But...the thing is, with Eckankar...at first, it seems quite
innocent. There shouldn't be anything suspicious about joining,
getting the discourses, etc. And...it's not a lot of money.
The problem comes in, that you may first be interested just through
the newbie freebie book, or one of those innocent new-agey dream
interpretation intro presentations.
You decide to check it out. The newbie freebie book tells...you
usually get your first (inner) initiation during the first year of
membership. You may or may not remember. But....that doesn't
matter.
It depends on your susceptibility, your degree of psychic
receptivity, as to whether or not you remember, or even if it
happens.
So...you start studying the discourses. Practicing the
self-hypnotic spiritual exercises, the visualizations, reading the
books. You'll probably want to read the "Holey Scriptures" -- the
Shariyat --
So...what happens? Very slowly, you become a victim of all the
mind- control techniques & tactics interwoven with the stolen
spiritual truths.
At the end of two years, well...you're hooked. You think "it works
for me." Damn right you'll commit...it's designed to do that.
Twitch may have been a totally amoral con artist...but he wasn't
stupid.
Freedom to choose includes having the information to make an
informed decision.
Sharon
--
.
http://members.delphi.com/sharon2000
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
SoulWords
for the $130 to purchase the wedding ring.
Be careful.
(2) Your spouse stole 6 gallons of Tibetan yak tea from Julian Johnson when
he/she was young. Don't forgive him/her.
(3) If you produce any children, find out
if they are returnable to the manufacturer first.
(4) If you do get divorced, make certain that you can get all your sperm and/or
vaginal
fluids returned to you.
(5) Disregard his/her employer, family, and friends who claim that he/she is a
wonderful loving person, and the 10 months of engagement in whcih they also
demonstrated those qualities to you.
He/she could be an alien masquerading as
a great person-just trying to suck you into a marriage cult.
Love, David
Mahavahana
>
> Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote ...
> :
> : > : A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
> : > : their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
> : > : still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
> : > : to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
> Ken:
> : > Eckankar requires a commitment to the teaching in order to receive
> : > outer initiations. That commitment takes the form of membership.
> Maha:
> : Which is a request for money.
>
> What exactly are you saying here? That membership itself is a
> request for money? If that's what you're saying you're suffering from
> a severe case of fuzzy thinking.
Go to the eck website online sign up for membership, or to the eck
membership brochure. One is asked for name address phone number and
money. Nothing else.
>
> Membership is the conscious shared experience of a group that
> voluntarily joins together. The money aspect is secondary, unless
> the cold hard cash you seem to despise is a *requirement* to
> joining. In Eckankar's case, it isn't.
A request for money is the main aspect of Eckankar's membership. Why
do you keep dancing around this fact?
>
> Maybe you could clairify your statement above Joe. Unless your
> intention is to just sling as much mud as possible, hoping some of
> it sticks.
Why do you call a statement of facts "mudslinging"?
>
>
> : > Membership is available without cost,
> :
> : But still involves a request for money.
> :
> : but a donation is requested.
> :
> : Yes.
> :
> : $130 for a few dollars worth of paper and postage -- to "help get the
> : message of ECK out to the world," or something like that.
> :
> : What does this mean, getting the message of ECK out to the world?
> :
> : It means selling MORE units of memberships, which is which $130 is
> : asked for a some unbound paper and a couple bucks in postage!
>
> That's a valid way to look at it, if you prefer to believe that there is no
> altruism or benevolence to be found in Eckankar.
If Eckankar gives away the discourse sfor $10, the org is STILL making
a huge profit on what it's giving to the chela.
What benevolence Ken? What altruism?
Face it. Eckankar is asking a huge amount of money for paper and
postage, on something that should rightly only cost a couple bucks.
For most Eckists
> though, "getting the message of ECK out to the world" means sharing
> what meaning we've found in this teaching, how it resonates within our
> hearts and how it harmonizes us with Life.
For crying out loud Ken. What has that to do with eck membership and
the request for $130? You amaze me...
You can go ahead and
> paint me as a cultist if that kind of sharing is a "bad thing".
I never brought up your red-herring-sharing, I brought up Eckankar's
asking of $130 for something that should cost less than 1/10th that
amount.
If you think that arrangement is fair and honorable, good on yer.
>
>
> : If
> : > someone sees this request as coercive or improper, then it seems
> : > obvious to me that membership in Eckankar isn't right for them at this
> : > time.
> :
> :
> : Yet again, Ken forgets the total context of what Eckankar is asking and
> : what Eckankar is letting the prospective chela know BEFORE he/she
> : becomes an eck member.
>
> Membership is not the point of the teaching.
Membership is a pre-requisite to the eck initiations. Why are you
obfuscatin'?
Self and God realization is.
> The two year waiting period that is recommended before the student
> requests the outer initiation in Eckankar is designed to allow the new
> student to become familiar with all the aspects of the teaching before any
> real commitment is made by the student.
Why can't you follow what I write Ken?
Why aren't people told BEFORE they sign up about the 5 year policy? Or
don't you care that they're not told?
>
> There is more to know about Eckankar than what could be contained in
> any informational disclaimer. It strikes me that you are just nit-picking
> and fault finding. I have no doubt that any policy of disclosure that
> Eckankar took to using would not satisfy you. There are always more
> faults to find.
I would be very satisfied if Eckankar was forthright and open about its
5 year policy. I'm amazed that you, the great "sharer," don't give a
crap about new people to want Eckankar to tell people about this policy
before they join.
But you're an Eckankar Man.
>
>
> : Ken, the eck webpage doesn't let people know that they must be members
> : for life, or their initiations may be pulled.
> :
> : Keep this fact in mind before you spin another sermon.
> :
> : > Joe attempts to portray individuals who disagree with his position as
> : > "stonewallers" or "party-liners" who are trying to obfuscate the truth. It
> : > seems as though there isn't enough room in Joe's world for good honest
> : > people to disagree on something so subjective as religion and spirituality.
> :
> : Aw Ken. But right here you *are* obfuscating the truth by not
> : acknowledging that Eckankar isn't being upfront with prospective
> : members.
> :
> : Can I call you Stonewall Stoltfus from now on?
>
> If I can call you "Ornery Oleary, The Usenet Troll".
>
>
> : > The freedom to choose our religion is a good thing, and not something to
> : > be taken for granted -- that freedom is far from universal on this planet.
> :
> :
> : Thy Free speech is a freedom as well, though it's sometimes abused by
> : thy Eck Clergyman.
>
> "Abused" free speech? To someone who cherishes freedom, THAT'S
> a chilling statement.
>
>
> Ken
>
> PS I honorably avoided all references to Nazis, Stalinists and other
> ideological totalitarians in replying to Joe's "abuse" of free speech
> comment . . . But just barely <G>.
Oh, but you just did invoke all those references. You also have no
idea, like Nathan and some others here, of the concept of "fighting
words" which is a clear abuse of free speech. The best your "swords"
can do is to sling abuse via the internet to all that criticize this
religion of undue influence and false pretenses.
TuzaTravlr
>Questions were raised here recently that challenged some of Eckankar's
>membership policies.
>
>A number of High Initiates in Eckankar responded to these questions in
>their own inimitable way. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's
>still quite evident that Eckankar does tie a yearly request for money
>to the getting and keeping of Eck initiations.
>
>Of course, a religion that requests donations isn't in itself a bad
>thing. But when a religion's request for donations is obviously tied
>to sacred initiations that it claims link one to God, then this
>practice of asking for money year after year to keep one's connnection
>to God is clearly a coercive arrangement.
>
>Also, given that this request for donations is coming from the
>religion's leader, who is claimed to be a living representative and
>embodiment of God, then that request is further evidence of coercion
>and undue influence.
>
>Eckankar has a policy stating that the chela's initiations may be
>revoked after 5 years of membership inactivity. Membership activity is
>defined as a response to a yearly request for $130, a donation which
>Eckankar states is non-refundable.
>
>It's been discovered that while Eckankar makes many claims about the
>wonders of these Eck initiations on its website, Eckankar doesn't care
>enough to inform people of the 5-year policy prior to their joining
>Eckankar.
>
>What else to call this but deceptive advertising, if not outright
>fraud?
If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
"donations".
The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
afford the membership.
If you do not respond, you will recieve another membership brochure and a
reminder letter that you have a "five year rest period" before you lose all
initiations and have to begin with a "new membership."
Also included in in current re-mailers of membership renewal brochures are
questionaires asking various questions on what eckankar can do to serve you
better, why you may or may not be interested, and various other questions.
Interesting stuff in my 26 years of viewing different religious marketing of
eckankar. :o)
Nathan Zafran
>If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
>form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
>"donations".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
>donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
>afford the membership.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>If you do not respond, you will recieve another membership brochure and a
>reminder letter that you have a "five year rest period" before you lose all
>initiations and have to begin with a "new membership."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>Also included in in current re-mailers of membership renewal brochures are
>questionaires asking various questions on what eckankar can do to serve you
>better, why you may or may not be interested, and various other questions.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
P. S. The above are not only untrue, but blatantly deliberate lies.
As if anyone cares................
I mean, who is going to listen to a dead horse advocate? Only another
dead horse!
Swami ROFLananda
TerraTrekr
>From: ezaf...@home.com (Nathan Zafran)
>Date: Sun, 21 November 1999 10:29 PM EST
>Message-id: <3838b80c....@news.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com>
The cult meme kicks in.
Nathan Zafran
>The cult meme kicks in.
And the peanut gallery responds accordion-ing-ly. true to form, like a
mindless zombie...........
Swami Frankensteinrecognizerananda
TuzaTravlr
>On 22 Nov 1999 01:53:25 GMT, tuzat...@aol.com (TuzaTravlr) wrote:
>
>
>>If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy
>sends a
>>form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
>>"donations".
>
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>
>
>
>>
>>The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
>>donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
>>afford the membership.
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>
>>
>>If you do not respond, you will recieve another membership brochure and a
>>reminder letter that you have a "five year rest period" before you lose all
>>initiations and have to begin with a "new membership."
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>
>>
>>Also included in in current re-mailers of membership renewal brochures are
>>questionaires asking various questions on what eckankar can do to serve you
>>better, why you may or may not be interested, and various other questions.
>
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Nice, try, dead horse advocate!!
>
>
>
>P. S. The above are not only untrue, but blatantly deliberate lies.
>
>As if anyone cares................
>
>I mean, who is going to listen to a dead horse advocate? Only another
>dead horse!
>
>Swami ROFLananda
>
Nathan, as I was just explaining current practices, it surprises me that you,
being a "HI clergy" are unaware of these practices.
Your "enlightened" attacks always make me smile, however, if you wish me to
scan copies of said forms/form letters and paste them to the newsgroup, it can
be done.
I am not sure why this would be required or why you would deny what I
explained, as I was answering Maha's simple question pertaining to membership
services within areas at my disposal. You may want to check with membership
services and people in this department before you cry liar. :o) Perhaps you may
like me to give you some names in the department for you to check with? :o)
Is current membership services procedures a dead horse? :o)
And Nathan, I can always count on you to respond to my any of my posts
depicting them as some "agent of kal". :o) Amusing now that I think of it that
an "agent of kal" would know more about current procedures than a "swordsman of
sugmad". ":o)
"secret (ssshhhh) agent" :o) as this issue really matters not, at least to me.
:o)
Nathan Zafran
>Your "enlightened" attacks always make me smile, however, if you wish me to
>scan copies of said forms/form letters and paste them to the newsgroup, it can
>be done.
Okey-Dokey. Not that it amounts to a hill of beans, but please do.
Post all the form letters to prove each and every one of your silly
allegations.
Nathan
Michael Wallace
SoulWords <soul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991121165120...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
>
> (5) Disregard his/her employer, family, and friends who claim that he/she
is a
> wonderful loving person, and the 10 months of engagement in whcih they
also
> demonstrated those qualities to you.
> He/she could be an alien masquerading as
> a great person-just trying to suck you into a marriage cult.
>
Man... Do I know Number Five! <G>
Marriage... The three ring circus..
The Engagement Ring
The Wedding Ring
The Suffering
<VBG>
Love
Michael
Rich
> What exactly are you saying here? That membership itself is a
> request for money? If that's what you're saying you're suffering from
> a severe case of fuzzy thinking.
Not at all Ken. His thinking is absolutist clear. Hold his detractor
party line at all costs! Never give in but continue the tautegorical
litany in the face of all facts whether published, personal experiences
or reason.
Rich
> Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
> work in making the people the issue.
Right. It's not their responsibility that people act like trolls. It's
me that makes them that way.<G>
ken
Rainforest <rain...@escape.ca> wrote ...
:
: Paulji made an interesting observation Ken, (about this strange mind
: set) in essence: Whenever you mention money, people say you are not
: real, but offer spiritual knowledge for free and they will flock to your
: feet. Just try getting something for free in christian literature and
: you will be concidered crazy.
: In ECK,
: George
Hi George. I recently got one of those little 3"x5" pamphlets that
certain Christians like to hand out. You know the ones . . . they have
big bold printing on the cover saying things like "ARE YOU SAVED?"
So there is some "christian literature" that is free <G>. The quality of
this "literature" is pretty much worth the price charged too.
Ken
ken
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote ...
:
: ken wrote:
: > What exactly are you saying here? That membership itself is a
: > request for money? If that's what you're saying you're suffering from
: > a severe case of fuzzy thinking.
:
: Not at all Ken. His thinking is absolutist clear. Hold his detractor
: party line at all costs! Never give in but continue the tautegorical
: litany in the face of all facts whether published, personal experiences
: or reason.
I'd like to say that he seems to be ignoring my comments and points on
purpose, but I'm really not sure that he understands what I've been saying.
Could be my communications skills. Could be the fact that he has a
finger in each ear and seems to be singing to himself <g>.
Ken
arel...@home.com
> Paulji made an interesting observation Ken, (about this strange mind
> set) in essence: Whenever you mention money, people say you are not
> real, but offer spiritual knowledge for free and they will flock to your
> feet. Just try getting something for free in christian literature and
> you will be concidered crazy.
> In ECK,
> George
Sounds like Paul was creating his market.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
> If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
> form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
> "donations".
It should be none of eckankar's damn business why someone can't afford
to send in money. This is blatant coercion!
>
> The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> afford the membership.
>
> If you do not respond, you will recieve another membership brochure and a
> reminder letter that you have a "five year rest period" before you lose all
> initiations and have to begin with a "new membership."
This is a blatant threat...typical eckankar crap.
It's the passive aggressive way to raise funds. I see a pattern: Stick
carrot, stick carrot, stick carrot.
Most people, when strapped for cash, are usually a little embarrassed to
have to explain why to some membership gal in Minneapolis. Eckankar
knows this, and it apparently wants to create hurdles for a person
wanting to send in less than the suggested "donation." Consider this in
the context of Klemp's great anthem: "a spiritual student must pay his
own way."
>
> Also included in in current re-mailers of membership renewal brochures are
> questionaires asking various questions on what eckankar can do to serve you
> better, why you may or may not be interested, and various other questions.
>
> Interesting stuff in my 26 years of viewing different religious marketing of
> eckankar. :o)
Hey thanks for the information TuzaTravrl, it is hard to get a straight
answers from eckists here.
Lurk
Mahavahana
> >
> Nathan, as I was just explaining current practices, it surprises me that you,
> being a "HI clergy" are unaware of these practices.
>
> scan copies of said forms/form letters and paste them to the newsgroup, it can
> be done.
I wish you would scan these form letters for us Tuza.
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> > Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
> > work in making the people the issue.
>
> Right. It's not their responsibility that people act like trolls. It's
> me that makes them that way.<G>
Well...now that you mention it.
You have choices. You can simple agree to disagree in a thread or you
can call people names.
See how that works?
Lurk
Rainforest
>arel...@home.com wrote:
> > George Wrote:
> > Paulji made an interesting observation Ken, (about this strange mindset) in essence: Whenever you mention
> > money, people say you are not real, but offer spiritual knowledge for free and they will flock to your
> > feet. Just try getting something for free in christian literature and you will be concidered crazy.
> > In ECK,
> > George
> Sounds like Paul was creating his market.
> Lurk
Yes Lurk, you are right, it could read like that, but so could many
other mind sets in the scheme of things. But you have to admit, or maybe
not, that it is a true statement about how people feel that religion
should be free, otherwise it is bogus. As far as creating a market, the
art of found wisdom (since the beginning of time) has had marketability
to it, in some form or another. There has never been a religion, that
has not wanted to sustain itself financially. All I can really say to
you/this is, Mensch Tracht und Gott Lacht, Man plans and God Laughs.
In ECK,
George
Rainforest
Mahavahana wrote:
>
> > >
> > Nathan, as I was just explaining current practices, it surprises me that you,
> > being a "HI clergy" are unaware of these practices.
> >
> > Your "enlightened" attacks always make me smile, however, if you wish me to
> > scan copies of said forms/form letters and paste them to the newsgroup, it can
> > be done.
>
> I wish you would scan these form letters for us Tuza.
Yes Maha, I also would also like to see these form letters Tuza is
referring to, lets get it out in the open.
In ECK,
George
Rainforest
That's true Lurk, there is the "PRIDE" factor involved here. But I am
wondering weather it is a false pride, a factor which is hard to over
come. ECKANKAR does NOT belittle ANYONE, nor do they hold it against
ANYONE for admitting that they are in dire need. Quite the contrary,
because to ECKANKAR it shows humility, which goes a long way and helps
the LEM to take notice and help handle the Chela's need(s). IMO
In ECK,
George
Windy
the catch is, they sell your name and address to every mailing list
around. I have received more nun doll offers in the past year than any
other catalog. Great stuff, that religion for nothing.
The reason I can follow the mailing list back to them is because I use
a different first name when I want to track something.
Try it, and see how many things in life are free. I have received too
much for one person to purchase in a lifetime, not to mention all the
requests for money for missions etc. funded by the "church".
Somehow I find it hard to believe that when Jesus founded the Catholic
church he meant for the Pope to live in his own city, tax free with a
crown of jewels on his head.
Rainforest
The problem here is (not to contradict you) that Jesus wasn't the
founder of the Catholic Church. More later.
It's a funny thing Windy, all this talk about money and initiations, and
then your post triggered an article I once researched about Catholic
Financial Affairs. To be brief, it appears that the Vatican owns all the
real estate in Rome. Everyone who wants to build has to lease the land
from the Vatican for various lengths of time. Usually 100 years and then
it is re negotiated. They own massive amounts of real estate, stock in
companies, as well as, according to an investigative report that was
sent to me once when there was a scandal about a secret Catholic Mason
Group controlling the Vatican bank with money ties to the Mafia, and
backing in a prophylactic factory came to the surface, as well as
selling titles to Holy Orders, etc. And that was just the tip of the Ice
Berg. Don't get me wrong, I am not here to complain (I have neutral
feelings about it), it is just that to most Catholics, The Pope is
infallible as well as it's organizational structure, which can do no
wrong. So when we see ECKANKAR in a positive light and defend it's
principles, we are jumped on and called every derogatory name in the
book. I feel that good Catholics should (but are afraid to) take an in
depth look into the core consciousness of their own religion, before
judging others and there religion, whatever that may be.
In ECK,
George
Rich
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > > Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
> > > work in making the people the issue.
> >
> > Right. It's not their responsibility that people act like trolls. It's
> > me that makes them that way.<G>
>
> Well...now that you mention it.
I accept that you and others like to believe that I along with other
Eckists or Eckankar are responsible for your actions and must deny any
culpability for your own behavior.
Remember this?
"That is the difference between them and us. They have turned abusive.
Yes, that does make a difference. I've encountered some recovering
abusers on the net, and I learned a few things from that experience.
The one thing that sustains an abuser is denial; an abuser cannot allow
hirself to be open to the slightest possibility that sie is harming
another human being. They blame anyone and anything else in sight,
but virtually all of that blame is directed at the victim, in one way
or another. Abusers REFUSE to take responsibility for their behavior."
http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html
> You have choices. You can simple agree to disagree in a thread or you
> can call people names.
I don't agree to disagree, since I often do agree. Pointing out the
repeated behavior of people on this NG is not name calling. For the best
examples of that, see almost any post of Alfie, Sharon and Joe.
more troll info:
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-abuse-faq/troll-faq.html
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
ken
CB <cultb...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
:
:
: ken wrote:
: >
: > Hi George. I recently got one of those little 3"x5" pamphlets that
: > certain Christians like to hand out. You know the ones . . . they have
: > big bold printing on the cover saying things like "ARE YOU SAVED?"
: > So there is some "christian literature" that is free <G>. The quality of
: > this "literature" is pretty much worth the price charged too.
: >
: > Ken
: Hi Ken.
:
: What about those silly old Discourses that Harji used to send out once
: you joined ECKANKAR? I was very disappointed to find that most of them
: were taken verbatim from some of Paul Twitchell's books! I remember
: starting to read the first discourse and said "Hmmmm this looks vaguely
: familiar"
: Lo and behold it was a chapter from Eckankar- Keys To Secret Worlds; a
: book I already owned!
: You know which one I am talking about, right? Where you fix on a spot on
: the ceiling...and suddenly you are there and have a 360 degree view.
: First, ya buy the book, and then---THE SECRET DISCOURSES---then you find
: out---they are the same damned thing!!
I didn't read "Keys" until I was in Eckankar for a few years, so I probably
got the discourse first. SAY! . . . You don't suppose that's why he put it
in there, do you??? Just in case someone missed that part of the book,
so they might be sure to read a very useful technique?
: I'm sure Harji put the kibosh on that one and all the new discourses
: "fit the time" because face it---people just aren't that gullible
: anymore.
: Anyway, yeah, those "saved" Christians are a pain in the ass! I hate
: those little pamphlets too. Fire and Brimstone and Satan and yada yada.
: It just ain't REAL Chritianity. It's a cult.<G>
I've found that for many folks, a "Cult" is whatever religion or teaching they
don't believe in.
Ken
Chuck Mattsen
sharo...@myremarq.com says...
> Well, in Christianity, when you go for a pastoral counseling session,
> you're not told ahead of time that a "donation" is expected.
I spent my childhood in mass where it seems to me I can recall a plate
being passed around ... frequently, no less. :-) Then there was the
monsignor who came to counsel my Dad (you see, he was "evil" back in the
'60s for having had a divorce, and he was trying to get back into the
church's good graces before he died ... yeah, that was a nice added
stressor there, excommunication) ... the monsignor would demand some
(let's just say a "few" glasses) wine as payment for his counseling
session; so, my dying-of-alcoholism father would be urged to join him, at
his request. :-\ Aah, the fond memories of childhood.
> I'll dig it up...but it's repeated frequently that if someone wants
> an "Eck Spiritual Aide" session, a donation is required.
Not that it matters to me anymore, but I'd be interested to see the word
"required" used, rather than "requested." Of course, immediately someone
here will say that it's the same thing with all of that "subtle"
manipulation that goes on, eh?
> On the other hand, for all the years I *DID* pay the full requested
> donation...even when I had to wait a few months, rather than ask for
> charity, well...tell me, is it "Pride" to follow the words of Twitch
> I'd read in the eckbooks, about the importance of paying? I can dig
> up quotes, you know. Also...sorry, but I was raised that you should
> earn your own way, and that's how I always tried to live my life.
> There's a lot of subtle manipulation in Eckankar. Sure, people with
> no qualms about taking handouts surely have no problem with sending in
> less than the requested donation, or taking whatever they can from life.
So, Eckankar is "bad" for requesting/requiring (take you pick as
the spirit moves you) donations for membership. But, if we ask for a
break on the donation, *we're* bad for being lazy slugs. Nice Catch-22
y'all have got set up, sweetness.
> Well...just dropping in momentarily...
Not unlike Glenda in Munchkinland, I'm sure. Careful someone doesn't
burst that bubble... :-P
[What is it now hon' ... three days 'til C-Day, or have you heard yet?]
Chuck Mattsen
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> > > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > > afford the membership.
>
> Again not true.
Just a personal "story" here ... and again, I have no problem with
Eckankar requesting, or even requiring, a donation.
But in my case, over my years of study, there were three occasions where
I asked for a "reprieve" on the suggested donations ... the first two
were for one year of membership and one seminar donation, respectively
... for those two, indeed, *no* questions were asked.
More recently, however, on the third occasion, I *was* asked to put my
request and the reason for it in writing and mail it into the office.
That was a change from earlier practice. I still don't claim that
there's anything wrong with them asking for that ... it's perfectly
within their right. But from my viewpoint there was a perceived shift in
policy from, say, five years ago to last year.
But then, many things mutate over time.
Michael Wallace
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:383918...@aloha.net...
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> > Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
> > work in making the people the issue.
>
> Right. It's not their responsibility that people act like trolls. It's
> me that makes them that way.<G>
Spin spin spin...
Hmmm... What I have woven today should look good... Let me try it out...
OPPPS. Someone is RESISTING ME! This is a PERSONAL ATTACK... And what... yep
it is that Rich fellow again... How DARE he suggest I am less then
perfect!!!
Etc etc etc
(Michael Channeling Lurk)
<G>
Love
Michael
SoulWords
jumped on and called every derogatory name in the book. I feel that good
Catholics should (but are afraid to) take an in depth look into the core
whatever that may be.
>In ECK,
>George
>
George- I'll settle for good ANYONE checking out their own religion. Eventually
the detractors who are so happy to point out every foible or supposed foible of
the human consciousness related to Eckankar
will see that there is NO worldwide spiritual, political, or religious
structure
that is "good'. Eckankar, with its outer imperfections, comes closer to it than
any other I know, and I've looked at a dozen or more very meticulously.
And the great thing is that the outer structure means less to most of my
ECKist friends than the outer structure of Christinaity, Judasim, etc means to
my Christian and Jewish friends! <G>
Love, David
>
>
>
>
sharo...@myremarq.com
> George Wrote:
> > Paulji made an interesting observation Ken, (about this strange mind
> > set) in essence: Whenever you mention money, people say you are not
> > real, but offer spiritual knowledge for free and they will flock to
> > your feet. Just try getting something for free in christian literature
> > and you will be concidered crazy.
> > In ECK,
> > George
>
> Sounds like Paul was creating his market.
>
> Lurk
Well, in Christianity, when you go for a pastoral counseling session,
you're not told ahead of time that a "donation" is expected. I'll
dig it up...but it's repeated frequently that if someone wants an
"Eck Spiritual Aide" session, a donation is required.
Oh...on something someone else wrote here earlier...I've just been
skimming quickly, regarding pride as a negative factor in not wanting
to ask to be on the "charity list." For one thing...I can go back &
dig up the abuse & accusations against me because when I was an eckist
here last summer, I posted that *I* had indeed asked for the discourses
recently without the usual donation.
I thought perhaps it *was* a matter of pride, which isn't good.
On the other hand, for all the years I *DID* pay the full requested
donation...even when I had to wait a few months, rather than ask for
charity, well...tell me, is it "Pride" to follow the words of Twitch
I'd read in the eckbooks, about the importance of paying? I can dig
up quotes, you know. Also...sorry, but I was raised that you should
earn your own way, and that's how I always tried to live my life.
There's a lot of subtle manipulation in Eckankar. Sure, people with
no qualms about taking handouts surely have no problem with sending in
less than the requested donation, or taking whatever they can from life.
Like the eckist I knew who used her employer's time, materials, and
equipment for the state newsletter. Maybe I'm wrong...and okay, in any
job we may have some free time, but I generally have always found a way
to keep myself busy...I believe in an honest day's work for an honest
day's pay, you know? Especially when you're being paid by taxpayers.
I'm not saying that all eckists do this, or that non-eckists don't,
but...well, I just think a little bit of honesty & personal ethics
don't hurt, you know?
Well...just dropping in momentarily...and Tuza Traveler, yes, PLEASE
scan that stuff in!!
Sharon
--
.
http://members.delphi.com/sharon2000
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
sharo...@myremarq.com
So when we see ECKANKAR in a positive light and defend it's
> principles, we are jumped on and called every derogatory name in the
> book. I feel that good Catholics should (but are afraid to) take an in
> depth look into the core consciousness of their own religion, before
> judging others and there religion, whatever that may be.
> In ECK,
> George
Well, George...lest we forget, I came here seeing eckankar in a
positive light. I was wrong.
And...I didn't start the name-calling. It was interesting going
back in the archives, though. Very interesting.
Catholics aren't coming here judging others and their religion.
Former eckists are coming here and asking *everyone* to take an
indepth look at the "core consciousness" of their "religion."
My only formal training in Catholicism was a few years in childhood,
from 2nd or 3rd grade until 5th or 6th.
I don't know about others, but the "core consciousness" of the
Catholicism I believe in is expressed in the writings of its
greats...Merton, Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liesieux,
St. John of the Cross, the Bible guys, a bunch of others. I like
the Pope's writings, too. His Jubilee prayer is beautiful.
I leave politics to the politicians.
However, as an eckist, I honestly thought my "religion" at the
time was about love, respect for all paths, and that its leaders
were honest and trustworthy. I was wrong. That's why I left.
Twitch envied the Catholic Church, which is why he wanted to build
his own Vatican. And...he was hurt, and filled with anger and
resentment because they rejected him. So...revenge was a factor in
*his* writings about Catholicism.
What about the Living Eck Master born of a virgin bullshit quote?
What does Twitch say about Christianity? In LC, pg. 27: "The biblical
story of the immaculate conception is not to be taken too seriously,
that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and from a Virgin. This was
invented to fit into the theology which at the time was formulated
for the saviour-gods."
What did Twitch do, George? The same thing he accused others
of doing...only much worse.
w...@achilles.net
>
> > If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
> > form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
> > "donations".
That is not true.
> It should be none of eckankar's damn business why someone can't afford
> to send in money. This is blatant coercion!
Relax, Lurk; you've been trolled by your fellow detractor!
> > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > afford the membership.
Again not true.
<other untruths snipped>
> This is a blatant threat...typical eckankar crap <further misdirected outrage by Lurker snipped>
Lurk, taken in again by another troll. To avoid confusion, you guys
might want to work these things out amongst yourselves before posting.
> Hey thanks for the information TuzaTravrl, it is hard to get a straight
> answers from eckists here.
Even harder to get a straight question from the trolls.
Bruce
Rainforest
sharo...@myremarq.com wrote:
>
> Rainforest <rain...@escape.ca> wrote:
>
> So when we see ECKANKAR in a positive light and defend it's
> > principles, we are jumped on and called every derogatory name in the
> > book. I feel that good Catholics should (but are afraid to) take an in
> > depth look into the core consciousness of their own religion, before
> > judging others and there religion, whatever that may be.
> > In ECK,
> > George
>
> Well, George...lest we forget, I came here seeing eckankar in a
> positive light. I was wrong.
>
> And...I didn't start the name-calling. It was interesting going
> back in the archives, though. Very interesting.
>
> Catholics aren't coming here judging others and their religion.
Sharon, that is all you talk about is your born again attitude. Give me
a break and i'll give you one if that is possible.
>
> Former eckists are coming here and asking *everyone* to take an
> indepth look at the "core consciousness" of their "religion."
Then come as former ECKists, not as Catholics, then you can claim that
you are not judging the religion of others.
>
> My only formal training in Catholicism was a few years in childhood,
> from 2nd or 3rd grade until 5th or 6th.
Your formal training is not the issue, and you know it.
>
> I don't know about others, but the "core consciousness" of the
> Catholicism I believe in is expressed in the writings of its
> greats...Merton, Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liesieux,
> St. John of the Cross, the Bible guys, a bunch of others. I like
> the Pope's writings, too. His Jubilee prayer is beautiful.
Again, the ideals of Catholic writers and Saints does not represent real
Catholic behavior.
>
> I leave politics to the politicians.
Then try not being political by politicking, and stick to the issues.
>
> However, as an eckist, I honestly thought my "religion" at the
> time was about love, respect for all paths, and that its leaders
> were honest and trustworthy. I was wrong. That's why I left.
There has been a huge exodus of former Catholics that would disagree
with you.
>
> Twitch envied the Catholic Church, which is why he wanted to build
> his own Vatican.
Sharon, please don't get me started on the Vatican.
> And...he was hurt, and filled with anger and
> resentment because they rejected him. So...revenge was a factor in
> *his* writings about Catholicism.
And you are taking revenge on ECKANKAR.
>
> What about the Living Eck Master born of a virgin bullshit quote?
So, you don't believe in the immaculate conception then.
>
> What does Twitch say about Christianity? In LC, pg. 27: "The biblical
> story of the immaculate conception is not to be taken too seriously,
> that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and from a Virgin.
And you have said that virgin birth is bull.
> This was
> invented to fit into the theology which at the time was formulated
> for the saviour-gods."
You tell me.
>
> What did Twitch do, George? The same thing he accused others
> of doing...only much worse.
And you are doing the same Sharon.
In ECK,
George
Mahavahana
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
> > > form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
> > > "donations".
>
> That is not true.
How-do-you-know?
>
> > It should be none of eckankar's damn business why someone can't afford
> > to send in money. This is blatant coercion!
>
> Relax, Lurk; you've been trolled by your fellow detractor!
>
> > > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > > afford the membership.
>
> Again not true.
How do you know?
>
> <other untruths snipped>
>
> > This is a blatant threat...typical eckankar crap <further misdirected outrage by Lurker snipped>
>
> Lurk, taken in again by another troll. To avoid confusion, you guys
> might want to work these things out amongst yourselves before posting.
>
> > Hey thanks for the information TuzaTravrl, it is hard to get a straight
> > answers from eckists here.
>
> Even harder to get a straight question from the trolls.
The "trolls." Typical eckist reaction to anyone with critical info on
their faultless religion. What impressive openness and lack of fear.
Anyway,
Here's a straight question:
How do you know there's no form? Do you work at the Eck org office?
One thing we do know for sure at this juncture:
The eck membership application form says to contact the office if you
can't pay the full $130 "suggested" donation.
That in itself is coercive.
sharo...@myremarq.com
> sharo...@myremarq.com wrote:
> >
> > Rainforest <rain...@escape.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Catholics aren't coming here judging others and their religion.
>
> Sharon, that is all you talk about is your born again attitude. Give me
> a break and i'll give you one if that is possible.
I'm not asking for any breaks, George.
No, I do NOT only talk about my "born again" attitude. You
know why? Because I don't have one!!! Post quotes where
I show this attitude...
You people bring up Catholicism more than *I* do!
Now...think back. I was an eckie. A rather nice one, I must
say. I came here. I saw. I asked some questions. I kept a
LOT of my thoughts to myself ... but, I think I've let them all
out since leaving, haven't I?
Now, I have this little habit of posting as I go along. I was
surprised as anyone else...moreso...to find myself going to
Mass last January. I posted the details of it, though.
Did I ever say "born again?" No. In fact, when I left your
cult, I believe I mentioned things about what was MINE, my
commitment to God, in fact, that your CULT jumped in and
interfered with.
I have not been born again, George. My "connection" is much
clearer and stronger, though, since I left your cult and got
rid of the eckanfog, and the illusion your pseudo-masters put
between me and reality.
So...you know, it's hilarious...maybe some day I'll go through
the archives and repost every single piece of ridiculous garbage
you and your fellow eckies have posted about me.
Gee, not too long ago....I was obviously receiving funding from
the counter-cult movement, possibly even the SCP. IN YOUR MIND,
George!! Joey had me rabble-rousing with all the local wacko
fundies that supposedly infest where I live. Haven't seen any,
by the way.
I mean, you people are totally ridiculous!!
> >
> > Former eckists are coming here and asking *everyone* to take an
> > indepth look at the "core consciousness" of their "religion."
>
> Then come as former ECKists, not as Catholics, then you can claim that
> you are not judging the religion of others.
Now wait a minute, George! How many times have eckists
here insisted on knowing Lurk & Joe's present spiritual
paths or whatever?
I have been asked, since I don't like your cult, to
suggest something better. I generally say...look into
the ones Twitch stole from....and I don't mean Scientology
or the mail-order cult he took some garbage from.
I came here as an eckist. I am here now as a former eckist.
In the process, all along, well...I just......SHARE!!! <ggg>
> >
> > My only formal training in Catholicism was a few years in childhood,
> > from 2nd or 3rd grade until 5th or 6th.
>
> Your formal training is not the issue, and you know it.
This is alt.religion.eckankar --- that *should* be
the issue.
For example...Letters to a Chela. Now...no, there's
no sense in asking eckists their opinions of it.
> >
> > I don't know about others, but the "core consciousness" of the
> > Catholicism I believe in is expressed in the writings of its
> > greats...Merton, Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liesieux,
> > St. John of the Cross, the Bible guys, a bunch of others. I like
> > the Pope's writings, too. His Jubilee prayer is beautiful.
>
> Again, the ideals of Catholic writers and Saints does not represent real
> Catholic behavior.
And the supposed ideals of your cult -- the ones I
believed in -- does not represent real ECKist behavior.
> >
> > I leave politics to the politicians.
>
> Then try not being political by politicking, and stick to the issues.
The issue is...eckankar is a deceptive cult, started
by a skillful con artist.
> >
> > However, as an eckist, I honestly thought my "religion" at the
> > time was about love, respect for all paths, and that its leaders
> > were honest and trustworthy. I was wrong. That's why I left.
>
> There has been a huge exodus of former Catholics that would disagree
> with you.
The "religion" I left was your cult, George. I don't
think anyone of any religion would disagree with the
fact that Twitch & Klemp are not honest and trustworthy.
Why was the reference to Twitch edited out of the
"Modern Profit," which was compiled for sale to the
general public, in bookstores.
> >
> > Twitch envied the Catholic Church, which is why he wanted to build
> > his own Vatican.
>
> Sharon, please don't get me started on the Vatican.
Look, George, I don't like the funny hats & red shoes,
either. But...it doesn't concern me.
Back to the issue, George. Looking at the plans Twitch
wrote about so clearly...oh, LC 126: "...a large complex
of building to house all the official buildings and
headquarters, the archives and a spiritual city which will
last out the present era."
Twitch said it. Klemp's doing it. The Cult Vatican.
>
> > And...he was hurt, and filled with anger and
> > resentment because they rejected him. So...revenge was a factor in
> > *his* writings about Catholicism.
>
> And you are taking revenge on ECKANKAR.
Not at all, George. *I* rejected your CULT.
Do you want the child molesting comparison again, George?
> >
> > What about the Living Eck Master born of a virgin bullshit quote?
>
> So, you don't believe in the immaculate conception then.
The Immaculate Conception is not the Virgin Birth.
You know...I'll repeat what I've always felt about the
Virgin Birth. In fact, I remember posting it here last
year, and Ken responding to it, but I don't remember if
I was still a cult member...
But, what I said is basically that I don't know whether
or not Mary was a virgin. Probably not...especially
considering relatively new information about Essene
practices. Something about they were called virgins
until they were married or gave birth...
I don't think it's important...it's sort of an "inner"
thing, symbolic, with me. Anyway...whether Mary was a
virgin or not really isn't important. I believe that if
God wanted a virgin birth, there would be one.
I consider many possibilities. It's not important.
But....I *do* wonder, what the heck possessed Twitch to
make up all that wacky stuff?
Do you think Twitch's mom, whoever it was, was a virgin?
Is Harold's mom still around? Did Darwin's mom lose her
virginity when he got de-mahanta'd?
Twitch was either a totally conscienceless pathological
liar, or he was just extremely mentally disturbed. Perhaps
both.
> >
> > What does Twitch say about Christianity? In LC, pg. 27: "The biblical
> > story of the immaculate conception is not to be taken too seriously,
> > that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and from a Virgin.
>
> And you have said that virgin birth is bull.
I believe I said Twitch's claims to be the result of a virgin
birth are bull.
If I said the virgin birth was bull, please post the quote.
>
> > This was
> > invented to fit into the theology which at the time was formulated
> > for the saviour-gods."
>
> You tell me.
> >
> > What did Twitch do, George? The same thing he accused others
> > of doing...only much worse.
>
> And you are doing the same Sharon.
The same....what? I'm not plagiarizing. I'm not
lying. I'm not claiming to be God on Earth.
I'm simply doing some consumer education, George.
And, of course, being nasty and insulting, and having
some fun, and refusing to go away!!! <ggg>
Oh, George...BTW...the membership pamphlet says
family membership is available...the eck member with
the longest history receives his current discourse, other
family members study according to their own place in the
study sequence...
THEN...in bold print... "They can either request their own
copy of the discourses or read the copy alread in the
household."
And, I'd read the same thing in other eckstuff...you are
not allowed to photocopy the discourses for other members
of your household. I forget exactly what the charge is for
an extra set...but I can find it somewhere. Oh...it's right
there...$15 a set.
So...okay, it was around spring of '98 when a new local
Satsang started up. Now...I did a bad thing. I made David
photocopies of the ones we were studying, because we would
study them separately, usually at bedtime. But...when I
started, I asked the local director about it, because I
really wanted to follow the rules, but it didn't make sense.
He said he'd find out. I asked several times, but never got
an answer.
I mean, $15 is not a big deal, actually. Oh...there's no
charge for the missalettes at church, by the way. Of course,
I toss money in the basket...
Hey, you know what's neat? You can toss all sorts of things
in the collection baskets!! Right now, they're taking
orders for homemade ravioli!!
And of course, the student groups are handing out nice
organized lists of what's needed for the Holiday Food Drive
according to your last name, you know, like A-D has a choice
of giving sweet potatoes & some other things. That's good,
otherwise they'd end up with several hundred cans of sweet
potatoes, and no turkey. It's nice for children to develop
an awareness of the joys of giving, you know?
Gee, what did I post here awhile ago, from the Secret Kiddie
Discourse/Coloring Book? Something about the "mahanta" being
like Santa, bringing presents?
Hey, the diocese does a lot of good work, you know. Spend a
lot of money on it. They publish financial reports, George.
Of course, I'm sure a portion is siphoned off to the Vatican.
Oh horrors.....well, it's like the United Way. So...the guy
at the top had a Mercedes. I saw the United Way doing plenty
of good things in the community, too.
What's your cult doing, George? Other than buying land for
Temples....whoops, that's all raised locally, in-state
donations...
TuzaTravlr
>More recently, however, on the third occasion, I *was* asked to put my
>request and the reason for it in writing and mail it into the office.
>That was a change from earlier practice. I still don't claim that
>there's anything wrong with them asking for that ... it's perfectly
>within their right. But from my viewpoint there was a perceived shift in
>policy from, say, five years ago to last year.
>
>But then, many things mutate over time.
>
Chuck,
It appears another "hi" does not know current procedures, speaking of Bruce's
response, stating this is all untrue.
It is true that in the past, until this calendar year, that there was not a
question or request for reasons in submitting less than the "suggested"
donations. This has mutated or changed as recently as a year or so ago. :o)
I will get to the scan by the end of this week, hopefully, when I can grab the
forms/form letters that show my statements per requests. :o)
And Chuck, if the membership is really a "suggested donation", should any
amount sent be questioned? In the past, even $0 sent would not be questioned.
Perhaps more members sending less than the "suggested amount" require this
changed procedure. :o) Just some thoughts. :o)
Rainforest
>
> Rainforest <rain...@escape.ca> wrote:
> > sharo...@myremarq.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Rainforest <rain...@escape.ca> wrote:
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Catholics aren't coming here judging others and their religion.
> >
> > Sharon, that is all you talk about is your born again attitude. Give me
> > a break and i'll give you one if that is possible.
>
> I'm not asking for any breaks, George.
It was a pun Sharon!
>
> No, I do NOT only talk about my "born again" attitude. You
> know why? Because I don't have one!!! Post quotes where
> I show this attitude...
I'll see what I can do. But am busy right now on doing an article on The
Secret Instructions of the Society of Jesus, you know Sharon, The
Jesuits, The Vatican's C.I.A., educated clergy, the teaching arm of the
Church, write most of the books, has most of the schools, has more
wealth than one can dream of, the one's Hitler fashoned the S.S. order
after, among other secret things.
>
> You people bring up Catholicism more than *I* do!
We the "people" of ECK are only following your example Sharon.
>
> Now...think back. I was an eckie. A rather nice one, I must
> say. I came here. I saw. I asked some questions. I kept a
> LOT of my thoughts to myself ... but, I think I've let them all
> out since leaving, haven't I?
I don't know the answer to that question Sharon, have you?
>
> Now, I have this little habit of posting as I go along. I was
> surprised as anyone else...moreso...to find myself going to
> Mass last January. I posted the details of it, though.
We don't post Satsang details Sharon.
>
> Did I ever say "born again?"
I am saying that Sharon.
No. In fact, when I left your
> cult, I believe I mentioned things about what was MINE, my
> commitment to God, in fact, that your CULT jumped in and
> interfered with.
Interfered with? Come on Sharon, you can't blame everyone for the things
you are attracted to.
>
> I have not been born again, George.
Then you were not saved from ECKANKAR then.
My "connection" is much
> clearer and stronger, though, since I left your cult and got
> rid of the eckanfog, and the illusion your pseudo-masters put
> between me and reality.
Then you can't say that you were an ECKist.
>
> So...you know, it's hilarious...maybe some day I'll go through
> the archives and repost every single piece of ridiculous garbage
> you and your fellow eckies have posted about me.
Well why don't you do it Sharon.
>
> Gee, not too long ago....I was obviously receiving funding from
> the counter-cult movement, possibly even the SCP. IN YOUR MIND,
> George!!
Still in my mind Sharon.
Joey had me rabble-rousing with all the local wacko
> fundies that supposedly infest where I live. Haven't seen any,
> by the way.
>
> I mean, you people are totally ridiculous!!
Take one to know one Sharon.
>
> > >
> > > Former eckists are coming here and asking *everyone* to take an
> > > indepth look at the "core consciousness" of their "religion."
> >
> > Then come as former ECKists, not as Catholics, then you can claim that
> > you are not judging the religion of others.
>
> Now wait a minute, George! How many times have eckists
> here insisted on knowing Lurk & Joe's present spiritual
> paths or whatever?
But not to the the point of journalizing.
>
> I have been asked, since I don't like your cult, to
> suggest something better. I generally say...look into
> the ones Twitch stole from....and I don't mean Scientology
> or the mail-order cult he took some garbage from.
Well if that is true, why arn't the copyright holders creating a fuss.
>
> I came here as an eckist. I am here now as a former eckist.
Then be a former ECKist, and not a poster girl for another religion.
>
> In the process, all along, well...I just......SHARE!!! <ggg>
>
> > >
> > > My only formal training in Catholicism was a few years in childhood,
> > > from 2nd or 3rd grade until 5th or 6th.
> >
> > Your formal training is not the issue, and you know it.
>
> This is alt.religion.eckankar --- that *should* be
> the issue.
Right on Sharon, you win the ARE prize.
>
> For example...Letters to a Chela. Now...no, there's
> no sense in asking eckists their opinions of it.
Why not.
>
> > >
> > > I don't know about others, but the "core consciousness" of the
> > > Catholicism I believe in is expressed in the writings of its
> > > greats...Merton, Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liesieux,
> > > St. John of the Cross, the Bible guys, a bunch of others. I like
> > > the Pope's writings, too. His Jubilee prayer is beautiful.
Maybe I will address this soon.
> >
> > Again, the ideals of Catholic writers and Saints does not represent real
> > Catholic behavior.
>
> And the supposed ideals of your cult -- the ones I
> believed in -- does not represent real ECKist behavior.
Real, ideal, real, ideal, real people are not ideal, and no one here
claims to be ideal Sharon.
>
> > >
> > > I leave politics to the politicians.
> >
> > Then try not being political by politicking, and stick to the issues.
>
> The issue is...eckankar is a deceptive cult, started
> by a skillful con artist.
Then stick to ECKANKAR.
>
> > >
> > > However, as an eckist, I honestly thought my "religion" at the
> > > time was about love, respect for all paths, and that its leaders
> > > were honest and trustworthy. I was wrong. That's why I left.
> >
> > There has been a huge exodus of former Catholics that would disagree
> > with you.
>
> The "religion" I left was your cult, George. I don't
> think anyone of any religion would disagree with the
> fact that Twitch & Klemp are not honest and trustworthy.
Does not compute, does not compute.
>
> Why was the reference to Twitch edited out of the
> "Modern Profit," which was compiled for sale to the
> general public, in bookstores.
Boy you shure want to know things for someone that hates ECKANKAR.
>
> > >
> > > Twitch envied the Catholic Church, which is why he wanted to build
> > > his own Vatican.
Let's talk about the Vatican.
> >
> > Sharon, please don't get me started on the Vatican.
>
> Look, George, I don't like the funny hats & red shoes,
> either. But...it doesn't concern me.
>
> Back to the issue, George. Looking at the plans Twitch
> wrote about so clearly...oh, LC 126: "...a large complex
> of building to house all the official buildings and
> headquarters, the archives and a spiritual city which will
> last out the present era."
>
> Twitch said it. Klemp's doing it. The Cult Vatican.
What's wrong with that.
>
> >
> > > And...he was hurt, and filled with anger and
> > > resentment because they rejected him. So...revenge was a factor in
> > > *his* writings about Catholicism.
> >
> > And you are taking revenge on ECKANKAR.
>
> Not at all, George. *I* rejected your CULT.
>
> Do you want the child molesting comparison again, George?
What are you talking about now Sharon?????????
>
> > >
> > > What about the Living Eck Master born of a virgin bullshit quote?
> >
> > So, you don't believe in the immaculate conception then.
>
> The Immaculate Conception is not the Virgin Birth.
Oh, back to class Sharon, do not pass go.
>
> You know...I'll repeat what I've always felt about the
> Virgin Birth. In fact, I remember posting it here last
> year, and Ken responding to it, but I don't remember if
> I was still a cult member...
>
> But, what I said is basically that I don't know whether
> or not Mary was a virgin. Probably not...especially
> considering relatively new information about Essene
> practices. Something about they were called virgins
> until they were married or gave birth...
Back to class again Sharon.
>
> I don't think it's important...it's sort of an "inner"
> thing, symbolic, with me. Anyway...whether Mary was a
> virgin or not really isn't important. I believe that if
> God wanted a virgin birth, there would be one.
>
> I consider many possibilities. It's not important.
>
> But....I *do* wonder, what the heck possessed Twitch to
> make up all that wacky stuff?
You will have to ask Paulji the things you don't understand.
>
> Do you think Twitch's mom, whoever it was, was a virgin?
>
> Is Harold's mom still around? Did Darwin's mom lose her
> virginity when he got de-mahanta'd?
>
> Twitch was either a totally conscienceless pathological
> liar, or he was just extremely mentally disturbed. Perhaps
> both.
Ah, you sure like soft targets Sharon.
>
> > >
> > > What does Twitch say about Christianity? In LC, pg. 27: "The biblical
> > > story of the immaculate conception is not to be taken too seriously,
> > > that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and from a Virgin.
Correct.
Are we still on the air! Will address this issue shortly Sharon, but you
may not like what is coming down the pike.
In ECK,
George
Chuck Mattsen
tuzat...@aol.com says...
> >Chuck Mattsen mat...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> >More recently, however, on the third occasion, I *was* asked to put my
> >request and the reason for it in writing and mail it into the office.
> >That was a change from earlier practice. I still don't claim that
> >there's anything wrong with them asking for that ... it's perfectly
> >within their right. But from my viewpoint there was a perceived shift in
> >policy from, say, five years ago to last year.
> >
> >But then, many things mutate over time.
> >
> It appears another "hi" does not know current procedures, speaking of Bruce's
> response, stating this is all untrue.
>
> It is true that in the past, until this calendar year, that there was not a
> question or request for reasons in submitting less than the "suggested"
> donations. This has mutated or changed as recently as a year or so ago. :o)
Yes, I would suppose so, since I dealt with Jassie all three times. (A
busy woman. :-)
> I will get to the scan by the end of this week, hopefully, when I can grab the
> forms/form letters that show my statements per requests. :o)
I threw out all of my membership related correspondence not long ago.
:-( Not that I have an axe to grind ... not at all ... but I really
despise all of this "yes they do"-"no they don't" crap when people aren't
backing up what they have to say. Totally pointless (as is the whole
discussion anyway, IMO).
> And Chuck, if the membership is really a "suggested donation", should any
> amount sent be questioned? In the past, even $0 sent would not be questioned.
> Perhaps more members sending less than the "suggested amount" require this
> changed procedure. :o) Just some thoughts. :o)
Well, this is probably where you would prefer that I get out of this
thread, because I can think of lots of reasons for them to request it ...
if it really is a path of personal responsibility, I can see why they'd
want to take steps to assure that those requesting assistance weren't
doing so lightly, lest the paying members be shouldering all the burdern.
Mahavahana
wrote:
> Well, this is probably where you would prefer that I get out of this
> thread, because I can think of lots of reasons for them to request it ...
> if it really is a path of personal responsibility, I can see why they'd
> want to take steps to assure that those requesting assistance weren't
> doing so lightly, lest the paying members be shouldering all the burdern.
I think you have a good point Chuck. I have no problem with the
concept of personal responsibility in respect to paying for what one
materially gets from the eck org or any other org. I don't think
anyone does (leaving aside whether $130 is a fair amount).
IMO what's key here is that Eckankar membership is a linking of a
request for money to getting and keeping the Eck initiations. Seems to
me this request compromises the chela's personal responsibility, as on
some level it puts him in the position of maintaining his spiritual
connection with money.
Anyway, you're right. This issue isn't world-shaking or
life-threatening. But the endless denials from the clergy keep the
issue alive.
Chuck Mattsen
Mahav...@calistoga.com says...
> Anyway, you're right. This issue isn't world-shaking or
> life-threatening. But the endless denials from the clergy keep the
> issue alive.
I remember when I was first looking into Eckankar, many moons ago (not
that long ago, but a number of years now) ... I was tooling around AOL,
and came across the Eckankar forums there. Now, I had had brief
exposures to Eckankar in the form of the mass market books (Tiger's Fang,
Talons of Time, East of Danger, and a few others), as would most in my
position of being a denizen of the local newsstand's sci-fi racks. So, I
had seen the early books with the blurbs about Paul on them, and I had
also seen later books with a brief bio of Darwin.
Since I knew nothing of the "history" of that changeover (if you can call
something which is avoided like the plague and, I suspect, re-written a
tad "history" ... but I digress), I made a couple of innocent (I thought)
queries in the Eck forums there on AOL about what happened to Darwin?
These queries were immediately met with defensiveness and certainly a
*lack* of forthcoming info. Indeed, when I continued to ask (silly me),
I was reported to AOL for supposedly violating the dreaded TOS (Terms of
Service), and the AOL police told me to stop. It was at that point that
I turned by back on AOL. Yet, I joined Eckankar. Go figure. (And I
don't regret it, nor do I regret my decision to leave.)
Anyway, what folks don't seem to realize is that if you tell people "You
can't look at this," you only make them want to look that much harder.
Rich
> IMO what's key here is that Eckankar membership is a linking of a
> request for money to getting and keeping the Eck initiations.
Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced, in
any way, their receiving of initiations. You keep inferring this but
the link is only in your mind. It's a fictitious scenario that may look
good in words but has no bearing in reality.
The simple facts remain.
Membership is usually required to receive and keep outer initiations.
A donation is not required to be a member.
<SNIP>
> But the endless denials from the clergy keep the issue alive.
LOL Who's keeping it alive!? You have repeatedly brought up this
*opinion* for _years_. If it was more than your opinion maybe their
would be something to deny. As it is, everybody is just disagreeing
with you.
sharo...@myremarq.com
> In article <_4r_3.1240$Mg.5...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> Mahav...@calistoga.com says...
>
> Since I knew nothing of the "history" of that changeover (if you can call
> something which is avoided like the plague and, I suspect, re-written a
> tad "history" ... but I digress), I made a couple of innocent (I thought)
> queries in the Eck forums there on AOL about what happened to Darwin?
> These queries were immediately met with defensiveness and certainly a
> *lack* of forthcoming info. Indeed, when I continued to ask (silly me),
> I was reported to AOL for supposedly violating the dreaded TOS (Terms of
> Service), and the AOL police told me to stop. It was at that point that
> I turned by back on AOL. Yet, I joined Eckankar. Go figure. (And I
> don't regret it, nor do I regret my decision to leave.)
You too, Huh? They turned me back on immediately...
when I told them what was going on, and send them a big
compilation of quotes from the "Holey Scriptures."
Their most recent complaint about me was to Deja. No
problem with Deja, either, once they actually looked at
what the complaints are about.
>
> Anyway, what folks don't seem to realize is that if you tell people "You
> can't look at this," you only make them want to look that much harder.
Well, the cult's agenda is to silence the detractors, so they
can infiltrate the whole world and build a lot of Temples.
arel...@home.com
> > > If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
> > > form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
> > > "donations".
> >
> > It should be none of eckankar's damn business why someone can't afford
> > to send in money. This is blatant coercion!
> >
> > >
> > > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > > afford the membership.
> > >
> > > If you do not respond, you will recieve another membership brochure and a
> > > reminder letter that you have a "five year rest period" before you lose all
> > > initiations and have to begin with a "new membership."
> >
> > This is a blatant threat...typical eckankar crap.
> >
> > It's the passive aggressive way to raise funds. I see a pattern: Stick
> > carrot, stick carrot, stick carrot.
> >
> > Most people, when strapped for cash, are usually a little embarrassed to
> > have to explain why to some membership gal in Minneapolis. Eckankar
> > knows this, and it apparently wants to create hurdles for a person
> > wanting to send in less than the suggested "donation." Consider this in
> > the context of Klemp's great anthem: "a spiritual student must pay his
> > own way."
>
> That's true Lurk, there is the "PRIDE" factor involved here. But I am
> wondering weather it is a false pride, a factor which is hard to over
> come. ECKANKAR does NOT belittle ANYONE, nor do they hold it against
> ANYONE for admitting that they are in dire need.
Why make them grovel, then?
Why not just let them send the form in and indicate in a space
_____(donation amount), how much they are able to give. You can still
have the suggested amount on the form. What reason is there to tell
someone at the international office why you can't donate the suggested
amount if it is not for the purpose of putting that subtle pressure on
the initiates. I willing to consider other explanations.
Lurk
Quite the contrary,
> because to ECKANKAR it shows humility, which goes a long way and helps
> the LEM to take notice and help handle the Chela's need(s). IMO
> In ECK,
> George
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Also included in in current re-mailers of membership renewal brochures are
> > > questionaires asking various questions on what eckankar can do to serve you
> > > better, why you may or may not be interested, and various other questions.
> > >
> > > Interesting stuff in my 26 years of viewing different religious marketing of
> > > eckankar. :o)
> >
> > Hey thanks for the information TuzaTravrl, it is hard to get a straight
> > answers from eckists here.
> >
> > Lurk
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> > >
> > > arel...@home.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
> > > > work in making the people the issue.
> > >
> > > Right. It's not their responsibility that people act like trolls. It's
> > > me that makes them that way.<G>
> >
> > Well...now that you mention it.
>
> I accept that you and others like to believe that I along with other
> Eckists or Eckankar are responsible for your actions and must deny any
> culpability for your own behavior.
Where did you get that idea? I don't think eckists are responsible for
my actions. I choose to be persistent and post my arguments and
opinions. You eventually degrade into the name calling crap.
>
> Remember this?
>
> "That is the difference between them and us. They have turned abusive.
> Yes, that does make a difference. I've encountered some recovering
> abusers on the net, and I learned a few things from that experience.
> The one thing that sustains an abuser is denial; an abuser cannot allow
> hirself to be open to the slightest possibility that sie is harming
> another human being. They blame anyone and anything else in sight,
> but virtually all of that blame is directed at the victim, in one way
> or another. Abusers REFUSE to take responsibility for their behavior."
> http://www.firelily.com/support/depression/trolls.html
>
> > You have choices. You can simple agree to disagree in a thread or you
> > can call people names.
>
> I don't agree to disagree, since I often do agree.
I was just trying to show you that you do indeed make a choice when
confronted with opinions different than yours: You can graciously agree
to disagree, keep the argument going by posting your rebuttals, or you
can take the ad hominem route and make the person the issue and call
them names like a school boy.
> Pointing out the
> repeated behavior of people on this NG is not name calling. For the best
> examples of that, see almost any post of Alfie, Sharon and Joe.
I get a kick out of this...people are trolls to you Rich because YOU
react to opinions different than yours. What a strange sense of personal
responsibility you have.
Lurk
>
> more troll info:
> http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-abuse-faq/troll-faq.html
> http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
>
arel...@home.com
w...@achilles.net wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > If one sends less than the desired requested amount, the current policy sends a
> > > form to explain why. Of course this may be in situations of minimun
> > > "donations".
>
> That is not true.
>
> > It should be none of eckankar's damn business why someone can't afford
> > to send in money. This is blatant coercion!
>
> Relax, Lurk; you've been trolled by your fellow detractor!
>
> > > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > > afford the membership.
>
> Again not true.
>
> <other untruths snipped>
>
> > This is a blatant threat...typical eckankar crap <further misdirected outrage by Lurker snipped>
>
> Lurk, taken in again by another troll. To avoid confusion, you guys
> might want to work these things out amongst yourselves before posting.
>
> > Hey thanks for the information TuzaTravrl, it is hard to get a straight
> > answers from eckists here.
>
> Even harder to get a straight question from the trolls.
>
Hey Bruce, you know how easy it is to zip through a post and simply put
"untrue" throughout. If these points are untrue, what is the truth about it?
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Chuck Mattsen wrote:
>
> In article <383A72...@achilles.net>, w...@achilles.net says...
>
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> > > > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > > > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > > > afford the membership.
> >
> > Again not true.
>
> Just a personal "story" here ... and again, I have no problem with
> Eckankar requesting, or even requiring, a donation.
I have no problem with eckankar requesting donations if it is done with
integrity. I think when I was leaving they were starting to send
collection envelopes to people on the local level. This money would
support local activities and resources. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> But in my case, over my years of study, there were three occasions where
> I asked for a "reprieve" on the suggested donations ... the first two
> were for one year of membership and one seminar donation, respectively
> ... for those two, indeed, *no* questions were asked.
>
> More recently, however, on the third occasion, I *was* asked to put my
> request and the reason for it in writing and mail it into the office.
> That was a change from earlier practice. I still don't claim that
> there's anything wrong with them asking for that ... it's perfectly
> within their right. But from my viewpoint there was a perceived shift in
> policy from, say, five years ago to last year.
Thanks for divulging your personal experiences with this issue. I haven't
been in eckankar for a few years so I'm not versed on all the policy
changes that are created to accommodate the "consciousness of this time."
<gg>
Why do you feel it is there right to know the conditions under which you
came to decide you did not have enough money to send in to eckankar?
Are we to assume that if you gave a reason that was not acceptable, then
they would not give you the membership. I mean does the reason your
short on cash have to sanctioned. I am really at a loss as to why
eckankar needs to information in a practical level.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
TuzaTravlr wrote:
>
> >Chuck Mattsen mat...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> >More recently, however, on the third occasion, I *was* asked to put my
> >request and the reason for it in writing and mail it into the office.
> >That was a change from earlier practice. I still don't claim that
> >there's anything wrong with them asking for that ... it's perfectly
> >within their right. But from my viewpoint there was a perceived shift in
> >policy from, say, five years ago to last year.
> >
> >But then, many things mutate over time.
> >
> Chuck,
> It appears another "hi" does not know current procedures, speaking of Bruce's
> response, stating this is all untrue.
>
> It is true that in the past, until this calendar year, that there was not a
> question or request for reasons in submitting less than the "suggested"
> donations. This has mutated or changed as recently as a year or so ago. :o)
>
> I will get to the scan by the end of this week, hopefully, when I can grab the
> forms/form letters that show my statements per requests. :o)
>
> And Chuck, if the membership is really a "suggested donation", should any
> amount sent be questioned? In the past, even $0 sent would not be questioned.
> Perhaps more members sending less than the "suggested amount" require this
> changed procedure. :o) Just some thoughts. :o)
Maybe eckankar's thrust of a "temple in every pot" <g> is the reason for
the policy change.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Chuck Mattsen wrote:
>
> In article <19991122235824...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> tuzat...@aol.com says...
>
> > >Chuck Mattsen mat...@uswest.net wrote:
> >
> > >More recently, however, on the third occasion, I *was* asked to put my
> > >request and the reason for it in writing and mail it into the office.
> > >That was a change from earlier practice. I still don't claim that
> > >there's anything wrong with them asking for that ... it's perfectly
> > >within their right. But from my viewpoint there was a perceived shift in
> > >policy from, say, five years ago to last year.
> > >
> > >But then, many things mutate over time.
> > >
>
> > It appears another "hi" does not know current procedures, speaking of Bruce's
> > response, stating this is all untrue.
> >
> > It is true that in the past, until this calendar year, that there was not a
> > question or request for reasons in submitting less than the "suggested"
> > donations. This has mutated or changed as recently as a year or so ago. :o)
>
> Yes, I would suppose so, since I dealt with Jassie all three times. (A
> busy woman. :-)
>
> > I will get to the scan by the end of this week, hopefully, when I can grab the
> > forms/form letters that show my statements per requests. :o)
>
> I threw out all of my membership related correspondence not long ago.
> :-( Not that I have an axe to grind ... not at all ... but I really
> despise all of this "yes they do"-"no they don't" crap when people aren't
> backing up what they have to say. Totally pointless (as is the whole
> discussion anyway, IMO).
>
> > And Chuck, if the membership is really a "suggested donation", should any
> > amount sent be questioned? In the past, even $0 sent would not be questioned.
> > Perhaps more members sending less than the "suggested amount" require this
> > changed procedure. :o) Just some thoughts. :o)
>
> Well, this is probably where you would prefer that I get out of this
> thread, because I can think of lots of reasons for them to request it ...
> if it really is a path of personal responsibility, I can see why they'd
> want to take steps to assure that those requesting assistance weren't
> doing so lightly, lest the paying members be shouldering all the burdern.
This is an outrageous attitude on eckankar's part if it is indeed true.
It's a double whammy. First, the system makes you pay up front for
spiritual connections and calls them donations. Then they set up a
program designed to flush out the eckists who are not honest and send in
less than the suggested amounts? I'm sorry, but from where I sit,
designing policies to force accountability on donations by members is the
height of arrogance.
Yes, yes, I believe in personal responsibility. My idea of personal
responsibility means taking notice and challenging institutions and
administrators or even Harold when their is a lack of integrity in the
WAY money is collected. It is an act of compassion for one's self and
others to do so.
The other point that is interesting is if forcing accountability on
members with respect to donations is this is yet another manifestation
of the one way flow of accountability in the relationship.
If anything, eck members have many reasons to mistrust the eck org and
demand accountability on their part. Meaning, the current master accused
the former master of misappropriation of member's fund. People naively
trusted Darwin. So we know that these God Realized beings can corrupt
according to Harji. Does Harold institute an openness with regard to
financial matters in eckankar after this? Nope, he doesn't have to.
Everyone blindly trust him now.
It is an act of responsibility to ask questions of entities in which you
donate money to be accountable for the trust you place in giving them
money.
In business circles, eckankar is considered a cash cow. The hard costs
for producing and distributing the discourses is a few bucks out of the
$130, as Joe says. Then there is a portion of that $130 that goes to
general and administrative and the other expenses for maintaining a
central office (to pay people to answer the phones and field excuses for
not sending in the requested amount <g>).
None of the money went back to the local level when I was a member (this
may be changing now...someone speak up it that's the case.) All the
other eck functions are self supporting and make money. Even regional
seminars that occur had to send in a cut of their proceeds to the international
office.
Eck centers are locally supported and rely on local members to pay rents
and expenses. They can make money distributing eckankar books and again,
keeping a part of the proceeds. Hey, if you want to promote eckankar in
your area, you can send away and pay for promotional kit for
$15 bucks or so. God, eckist even pay for marketing materials.
Any businessman have nothing but envy for the business set up eckankar has.
All the money is going one way...to Minneapolis. And the request for
accountability is going the other way....towards the members by
questioning what reason they have for donating less than the suggested amount?
Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
I maintain this is a manifestation, a symptom of a group of people who
have weak personal boundaries and allow themselves to be exploited.
<lurk steps down from the soapbox and walks away shaking his head>
These comments weren't directed to you personally Chuck...thanks for
inspiring my comments, though.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Chuck Mattsen wrote:
>
> In article <_4r_3.1240$Mg.5...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> Mahav...@calistoga.com says...
>
> > Anyway, you're right. This issue isn't world-shaking or
> > life-threatening. But the endless denials from the clergy keep the
> > issue alive.
>
> I remember when I was first looking into Eckankar, many moons ago (not
> that long ago, but a number of years now) ... I was tooling around AOL,
> and came across the Eckankar forums there. Now, I had had brief
> exposures to Eckankar in the form of the mass market books (Tiger's Fang,
> Talons of Time, East of Danger, and a few others), as would most in my
> position of being a denizen of the local newsstand's sci-fi racks. So, I
> had seen the early books with the blurbs about Paul on them, and I had
> also seen later books with a brief bio of Darwin.
>
> Since I knew nothing of the "history" of that changeover (if you can call
> something which is avoided like the plague and, I suspect, re-written a
> tad "history" ... but I digress), I made a couple of innocent (I thought)
> queries in the Eck forums there on AOL about what happened to Darwin?
> These queries were immediately met with defensiveness and certainly a
> *lack* of forthcoming info. Indeed, when I continued to ask (silly me),
> I was reported to AOL for supposedly violating the dreaded TOS (Terms of
> Service), and the AOL police told me to stop. It was at that point that
> I turned by back on AOL. Yet, I joined Eckankar. Go figure. (And I
> don't regret it, nor do I regret my decision to leave.)
Well Chuck, here's some information about the time period:
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/darwingrosstruthfile/index.html
I can't vouch for the veracity of the claims on this site. I tried to
get confirmation or disconfirmation about some of the facts on the site
here a few months ago, but none of the eckists were able to do
either...got mostly the ad hominem arguments. That's a shocker. <gg>
Take a look at the site, look past Darwin's rationalizations and finger
pointing and extract the facts that are asserted. An tell me if you
think it is prudent to ask questions about money in eckankar. (BTW, I'm
no fan of Darwin's and is not a plug for him.)
>
> Anyway, what folks don't seem to realize is that if you tell people "You
> can't look at this," you only make them want to look that much harder.
Yup.
Lurk
Mahavahana
> Mahavahana wrote:
>
> > IMO what's key here is that Eckankar membership is a linking of a
> > request for money to getting and keeping the Eck initiations.
>
> Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
> hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
> Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
> 'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced, in
> any way, their receiving of initiations.
But it did. You can't deny that Eckankar links a yearly request for
money to the getting and keeping of the Eck initiations.
You can't deny that the offical policy of Eckankar and the current LEM
is to remove the Eck initiations after 5 years of inactivity.
Go read THE SECRET TEACHINGS by Harold Klemp. He flatly states that
one must keep the eck membership or the initiations *will* be pulled.
You keep inferring this but
> the link is only in your mind.
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating a fact about Eckankar's
policies, one that can easily be checked out by a visit to the eck
membership application and a reading of THE SECRET TEACHINGS by Harold
Klemp.
It's a fictitious scenario that may look
> good in words but has no bearing in reality.
As an Eck Madhis, you really should know more about Eck policies before
you publicly reveal your ignorance.
I'm merely stating the policies of Eckankar, which you can't deny.
>
> The simple facts remain.
> Membership is usually required to receive and keep outer initiations.
> A donation is not required to be a member.
Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
required.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I said a request for money is tied to the getting and keeping of the
Eck initiations.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > But the endless denials from the clergy keep the issue alive.
>
> LOL Who's keeping it alive!? You have repeatedly brought up this
> *opinion* for _years_. If it was more than your opinion maybe their
> would be something to deny. As it is, everybody is just disagreeing
> with you.
With me? They're disagreeing with the Eck org membership office and
the LEM.
Mahavahana
<Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:33:15 -1000 Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > Mahavahana wrote:
>
> Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
> required.
Correction:
Should read: "Go back through any post I have ever made and find where
I said a donation is REQUIRED."
Windy
>
> SoulWords <soul...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991121165120...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> >
> > (5) Disregard his/her employer, family, and friends who claim that he/she
> is a
> > wonderful loving person, and the 10 months of engagement in which they
> also
> > demonstrated those qualities to you.
> > He/she could be an alien masquerading as
> > a great person-just trying to suck you into a marriage cult.
> >
>
> Man... Do I know Number Five! <G>
>
> Marriage... The three ring circus..
>
> The Engagement Ring
> The Wedding Ring
> The Suffering
>
> <VBG>
>
> Love
>
> Michael
Ah, Marriage, that institution where people of the opposite sex join
together with nothing in common to live life happily ever after.
Now if anyone were to analyze that as closely as they analyze other
people's religions, we would all be scratching our heads and asking
"What nut thought that one up!"
The sooner you understand that two parts do not make a whole, the
better you get along.
Most of the time, I just give Bob the benefit that he acts as he does
because he is of the inferior gender.
Now Michael, I understand that you want to be the best there is, but
you'll have to settle. You can only be the best MAN. The best of the
human race is only available to the "weaker" sex.
sharo...@myremarq.com
> sharo...@myremarq.com wrote:
>
> It was a pun Sharon!
I'm not a "pun" person. Don't understand most of them.
>
> I'll see what I can do. But am busy right now on doing an article on The
> Secret Instructions of the Society of Jesus, you know Sharon, The
> Jesuits, The Vatican's C.I.A., educated clergy, the teaching arm of the
> Church, write most of the books, has most of the schools, has more
> wealth than one can dream of, the one's Hitler fashoned the S.S. order
> after, among other secret things.
Sounds cool!! Is the article sold yet? I assume you're
looking for wide distribution & profit...it
*certainly* couldn't be because you hate
Catholicism,
could it? I'll light a candle to the Patron Saint of
Article Sales, whoever the heck that is.....
Were you a Catholic before you joined your new cult?
Hey, I'm glad Hitler got different outfits for the SS. They
wouldn't have been
as scary in dresses.
Speaking of Hitler, you know....back when I first came here
as an eckist, and started talking to
detractors, well.....Nathan invited me to join
that "Group of Online Eckists." He specifically said it
WASN'T the Gestapo or anything.
I thought that was an odd remark. I thought the Group would
be about how to better share joy & love &
spirit & all....well, it wasn't like that. Not
at all....
It was about how to deal with the detractor "problem."
And I learned why Nathan "invited" me. He later wrote that
he'd written to another "renegade" eckist who
started posting here...a woman who'd evidently
been an eckist since Twitch's time. She was talking nicely
to detractors, too.
I forget her name. She disappeared. Nathan said he wrote
to "newbies" to sort of bring them into line,
you know....to have a unified force against
the
detractors here. I've heard he writes to others privately
.... oh, wasn't there another tender newbie
here recently, and Nathan said he'd respond
privately?
Back on the ecklists, Nathan suggested that we all just post
"Hu's" here...but not read anything.
I sent David Lane a private hu. I was just sort of bubbling
over that day...well, he thanked me. Nathan
told me not to correspond with him, not even to
say
"you're welcome." So...I didn't. I thought David Lane was
some kind of Agent of the Kal, but...well, you know how
the cult teaches everyone is where they're supposed to be...
Nathan's a RESA, you know. Personally hand-picked by Harold
on the Inner and the Outer. Are you a RESA,
George, or just an ordinary HI? You've been
in 30 years or so, I believe......
>
> No. In fact, when I left your
> > cult, I believe I mentioned things about what was MINE, my
> > commitment to God, in fact, that your CULT jumped in and
> > interfered with.
>
> Interfered with? Come on Sharon, you can't blame everyone for the things
> you are attracted to.
George, this is old, but I'll repeat it. I wasn't *attracted*
to the cult. You know...I think I read the TV guide
back then, but the cult wasn't advertising there yet.
I've already posted. I had "experiences." I do *not* count
the "dream" experience with Harold, which came much
later than these "experiences" I wondered
about.... I wasn't asleep for those.
But, these experiences...well, evidently, I was "open" to
something, and that's how Harold got in. And
deceived me. So that while I was searching
"religion" at the library, I came across an eckbook. I
believed it. Stupid, gullible me!
>
> > I have not been born again, George.
>
> Then you were not saved from ECKANKAR then.
I don't think "saved" is the right word, George. I left your
cult. Defected. Quit. Escaped the mind-control and
cultic programming.
No...not saved. Awakened from the eckanfog.
>
>
> My "connection" is much
> > clearer and stronger, though, since I left your cult and got
> > rid of the eckanfog, and the illusion your pseudo-masters put
> > between me and reality.
>
> Then you can't say that you were an ECKist.
But I *was* an ECKist, George. Not just an "eckankarist"
either.
I was *me* all along....but your cult tried to put its label
on me, the "inner" me, call it "soul" if you
will.....
> >
> > Gee, not too long ago....I was obviously receiving funding from
> > the counter-cult movement, possibly even the SCP. IN YOUR MIND,
> > George!!
>
> Still in my mind Sharon.
DOES EVERYONE SEE THIS ONE?? Hilarious, isn't it??
Hey, my new computer might arrive today!!! Tomorrow at the
latest....<ggg>
Wanna speculate on how I'm getting a new computer????
> > > > Former eckists are coming here and asking *everyone* to take an
> > > > indepth look at the "core consciousness" of their "religion."
> > >
> > > Then come as former ECKists, not as Catholics, then you can claim
> > > that you are not judging the religion of others.
> >
> > Now wait a minute, George! How many times have eckists
> > here insisted on knowing Lurk & Joe's present spiritual
> > paths or whatever?
>
> But not to the the point of journalizing.
What do you mean by journalizing?
> >
> > I have been asked, since I don't like your cult, to
> > suggest something better. I generally say...look into
> > the ones Twitch stole from....and I don't mean Scientology
> > or the mail-order cult he took some garbage from.
>
> Well if that is true, why arn't the copyright holders creating a fuss.
Julian Johnson's dead. How should I know?
Maybe everyone isn't as litiguous and paranoid and hellbent
on silencing everyone
like eckankult is. Like....sueing David Lane when he was
a college student. And having the "no ek"
sign banned....
> > >
> > > Then try not being political by politicking, and stick to the issues.
Speaking of politics, that was one of the reasons given for
Harold's editing the Modern Profit, I believe. He's a
politician...just lookin' for new "votes."
And
contributors to keep him in office....
> >
> > The issue is...eckankar is a deceptive cult, started
> > by a skillful con artist.
>
> Then stick to ECKANKAR.
I'll try. Thought that sheep joke was funny, though.
> >
> > > >
> > > > However, as an eckist, I honestly thought my "religion" at the
> > > > time was about love, respect for all paths, and that its leaders
> > > > were honest and trustworthy. I was wrong. That's why I left.
> > >
> > > There has been a huge exodus of former Catholics that would disagree
> > > with you.
> >
> > The "religion" I left was your cult, George. I don't
> > think anyone of any religion would disagree with the
> > fact that Twitch & Klemp are not honest and trustworthy.
>
> Does not compute, does not compute.
> >
> > Why was the reference to Twitch edited out of the
> > "Modern Profit," which was compiled for sale to the
> > general public, in bookstores.
>
> Boy you shure want to know things for someone that hates ECKANKAR.
I asked this question when I was an eckist, and loved the
cult. About a year ago, George.
Whether I hate eckankult or not is irrelevant, actually.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Twitch envied the Catholic Church, which is why he wanted to build
> > > > his own Vatican.
>
> Let's talk about the Vatican.
> > >
> > > Sharon, please don't get me started on the Vatican.
Do you hate the Vatican, George?
> >
> > Look, George, I don't like the funny hats & red shoes,
> > either. But...it doesn't concern me.
> >
> > Back to the issue, George. Looking at the plans Twitch
> > wrote about so clearly...oh, LC 126: "...a large complex
> > of building to house all the official buildings and
> > headquarters, the archives and a spiritual city which will
> > last out the present era."
> >
> > Twitch said it. Klemp's doing it. The Cult Vatican.
>
> What's wrong with that.
Just pointing it out. Twitch copied from Catholicism
(and everywhere else.)
He wanted to create a new world religion, with himself
as "Christ."
> >
> > >
> > > > And...he was hurt, and filled with anger and
> > > > resentment because they rejected him. So...revenge was a factor in
> > > > *his* writings about Catholicism.
> > >
> > > And you are taking revenge on ECKANKAR.
> >
> > Not at all, George. *I* rejected your CULT.
> >
> > Do you want the child molesting comparison again, George?
>
> What are you talking about now Sharon?????????
Evidently, you've missed it. Maybe you missed it & were
focused on my Nazi stuff.
It's why I detract. It's like ... if my kid were molested
by a daycare center or something, or even...a
priest!!! I wouldn't just take my kid &
"move on." I'd have concern for others who may take their
children there.
> > >
> > > > This was
> > > > invented to fit into the theology which at the time was formulated
> > > > for the saviour-gods."
> > >
> > > You tell me.
> > > >
> > > > What did Twitch do, George? The same thing he accused others
> > > > of doing...only much worse.
> > >
> > > And you are doing the same Sharon.
> >
> > The same....what? I'm not plagiarizing. I'm not
> > lying. I'm not claiming to be God on Earth.
> >
> > I'm simply doing some consumer education, George.
> >
> > And, of course, being nasty and insulting, and having
> > some fun, and refusing to go away!!!
> >
Oh....are you talking about your article? Just skimmed
through it....but ...
where's the SECRET STUFF? Will it read like Letters
to a Chela? If
so, perhaps you should post it at the Catholic
newsgroup.....
Actually, George, the Jesuits I believe are hated by a
lot of people, and the Catholics too, I was surprised to
learn. In fact...a 12 yr old who goes to a local
private fundie Christian school was telling me how sick
she was of it...and that they hated Catholics!! I've
heard that on Christian radio, too!! Golly, gee....you
know, I've known some nasty Catholics, too. I know a
real manipulative evil little bitch who claims to be
Wiccan, too.
Can't think of any nasty United Methodist Church
members, though. I'm sure they exist.
Guess people are just people, huh, George?
Do you know what your problem is, George? You get too
upset about things.
I think you're reacting, you know --- that five passions
stuff. And you assume I react the same way!! <giggle>
Hey, George....when I was an eckist, I didn't get upset
about what the detractors were
posting. So what if Twitch plagiarized?
I don't get upset about things, George.
Don't you think you should grow up? Oh...but post the
rest of your expose....I
read lots of things, you know.....but, since I'm not in
a position of defending Catholicism,
I'm not going to discuss it. I'm not a scholar,
you know. And....I
could care less.
Sharo
ken
Michael Wallace <wall...@one.net.au> wrote ...
:
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
: > Anyway, you're right. This issue isn't world-shaking or
: > life-threatening. But the endless denials from the clergy keep the
: > issue alive.
:
: Oh Lovely Sri Joe...
:
: Like... You know... Like someone 'forced' you to send this in?
Your <ahem> mean spirited refusal to acknowledge his complete and
total correctness and amazingly thorough grasp of the truth compels him
to continue. It's like some sort of astral arm twisting <g>.
Want to get him to shut up? Just reply to every post, "Okay Joe, whatever
you say!"
:
: You guys are SUCH a case <G>
Got that right.
Ken
Chuck Mattsen
> I recommend reading the "Golden Dream" by Heather Hughes Calero on the life
> of Milarepa... It has a nice section towards the end on the issue of paying
> for Spiritual Blessings in the appropriate manner.
That is a good book; I've got most of Heather's works ... say, <ahem>,
for someone whose writings used to be prominently advertised alongside
the ECK books in catalogs, etc., <ahem> whatever happened to Heather?
Should I move her books a few feet to the right on the bookshelf next to
my signed copy of Darwin's "From Heaven to the Prairie", Sri Michael?
It's as though she never existed. :*)
Chuck Mattsen
sharo...@myremarq.com says...
> "arel...@home.com" <arel...@home.com> wrote:
> > Chuck Mattsen wrote:
>
> >
> > The other point that is interesting is if forcing accountability on
> > members with respect to donations is this is yet another manifestation
> > of the one way flow of accountability in the relationship.
Not sure where this crept in, but having never said this, can we all be
more careful to whom we attribute quotes? Just a little careful
editing. (Not that such a courtesy should necessarily be expected in a
newsgroup where the norm is ripping each other new assholes, but hey,
it'd be nice :-)
Windy
>
> Windy <saxm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:383AE2...@bellsouth.net...
> > Michael Wallace wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Now Michael, I understand that you want to be the best there is, but
> > you'll have to settle. You can only be the best MAN. The best of the
> > human race is only available to the "weaker" sex.
>
>
> Like Shazz, right?? <VBG>
>
> C'mon.. There have to be SOME exceptions to the rule... Please??? <G>
>
> Love
>
> Michael
>
> >
Well there is one exception and that is if you have your own Ratology.
Then of course you could be number one, but that would only be the Head
Cheese.
Rich
> Rich wrote:
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> > > Rich wrote:
> > > > arel...@home.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Rich, you ought to get the golden ad hominem of year award for your fine
> > > > > work in making the people the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Right. It's not their responsibility that people act like trolls. It's
> > > > me that makes them that way.<G>
> > >
> > > Well...now that you mention it.
> >
> > I accept that you and others like to believe that I along with other
> > Eckists or Eckankar are responsible for your actions and must deny any
> > culpability for your own behavior.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
Lurk doesn't pay attention to what he was saying above. He blames me
for them being the issue, and then agrees with me("now that you mention
it") when I facetiously say that I am responsible for them acting like
trolls.
<SNIP>
> > I don't agree to disagree, since I often do agree.
>
> I was just trying to show you that you do indeed make a choice when
> confronted with opinions different than yours: You can graciously agree
> to disagree, keep the argument going by posting your rebuttals, or you
> can take the ad hominem route and make the person the issue and call
> them names like a school boy.
Note that he calls me a school boy, thus using the very name calling
thing that he is attempting to deride me about.<G>
I am not interested in playing the arguing and debating games with the
trolls on this NG. I learned long ago that it is a waste of time and
effort. Not only do I not want to keep it going, but I try not to even
get started in it. Perhaps the ad hominem approach doesn't follow the
logical rules of debate. So what? I'm not here to debate. But it
brings the readers an overview of the detractors agenda, tactics and
misrepresentations which does discredit all the nit-picking and old dead
horse issues that are repeatedly regurgitated here. It informs the
readers of the hidden motivations of the trolls without having to lower
myself into engaging them in their fun. It is an effective defense
against those that assault Eckankar, Eckist and anyone that questions
their bogus allegations.
> > Pointing out the
> > repeated behavior of people on this NG is not name calling. For the best
> > examples of that, see almost any post of Alfie, Sharon and Joe.
>
> I get a kick out of this...people are trolls to you Rich because YOU
> react to opinions different than yours.
(DETRACTOR WARNING # 3)
Not at all. Trolls to me are those that fit the internet definition of
trolls.
> What a strange sense of personal responsibility you have.
I imagine it does seem strange to those that usually blame things
outside themselves, to see those that do take full responsibility for
everything in their sphere of experience, as I try to do.
Rich
> > > request for money to getting and keeping the Eck initiations.
> >
> > Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
> > hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
> > Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
> > 'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced, in
> > any way, their receiving of initiations.
>
> But it did. You can't deny that Eckankar links a yearly request for
> money to the getting and keeping of the Eck initiations.
No need to deny something that is not true. The "link" is in Joe's
imagination not in the day to day reality and experience of those that
are actually members.
> You can't deny that the offical policy of Eckankar and the current LEM
> is to remove the Eck initiations after 5 years of inactivity.
I haven't so far. Why do you think he implies that I would?
But of course this is not a hard and fast rule as is evidenced by the
personal experiences of several people who have posted them here.
<SNIP>
> > The simple facts remain.
> > Membership is usually required to receive and keep outer initiations.
> > A donation is not required to be a member.
>
> Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
> required.
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.
This is an example of an excellent detractor debate technique. I never
wrote that he said that donations were required. Yet when I make a
simple statement of facts that has no reference or even an inference to
what he said, his response put's words in _my_ mouth accusing me of
putting words in his mouth!! Is he lying? Does he do this on purpose?
Is he mentally challenged? You decide...
For further explanations about Joe's allegations see DETRACTOR WARNINGS
# 1, #2, #3, & # 4 all of which he exemplified here in this one post.
Rich
motivations for designing policies, forcing accountability, Harold's
integrity, a cash cow, the actual ways in which Eckankar disburses it
funds, any weakness of Eckists or exploitation. It is just Lurk's
standard detractor speak negative scenario based in speculations at
assume the worst.
For further explanation of Lurk's allegations see DETRACTOR WARNING 1 -
4 all of which are exemplified in his post.
--
Rich
I never heard of this book or her. Was it advertized in Eck catalogs?
Sold thru Eckankar? Was she an Eckist?
Rich
> > > Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
> > required.
>
>
> Should read: "Go back through any post I have ever made and find where
> I said a donation is REQUIRED."
Geez Joe. You put words in my mouth, and then challenge me in two
different posts to prove the words I _never_ said in that post. You are
making a fool of yourself here... again. Either that or *YOU* go back
to that post and find where I wrote that you said this.:-|
Michael Wallace
Michael Wallace
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:383AD424...@home.com...
>
>
> > Pointing out the
> > repeated behavior of people on this NG is not name calling. For the best
> > examples of that, see almost any post of Alfie, Sharon and Joe.
>
> I get a kick out of this...people are trolls to you Rich because YOU
> responsibility you have.
>
> > more troll info:
> > http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-abuse-faq/troll-faq.html
> > http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
> >
If people read the information on "trolls" then read your behaviour over a
period of time, then they might come to their own conclusions ... And it MAY
be different to yours <G>
So... It begs to ask... You are 'not' reacting to an opinion that is
different to your own with your posts here??
Or are you just defending yourself?
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote in message
news:_4r_3.1240$Mg.5...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:15:04 -0600 Chuck Mattsen <mat...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> Anyway, you're right. This issue isn't world-shaking or
> life-threatening. But the endless denials from the clergy keep the
> issue alive.
Oh Lovely Sri Joe...
Like... You know... Like someone 'forced' you to send this in?
You guys are SUCH a case <G>
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
<sharo...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
news:19991123084530.770$q...@newsreader.com...
> Well, the cult's agenda is to silence the detractors, so they
> can infiltrate the whole world and build a lot of Temples.
Has to Doctor given you any pills for this paranoia, Sharon?
Please... Take them!! <G>
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Chuck Mattsen <mat...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.12a3b4116...@news.uswest.net...
> In article <19991122195048.946$B...@newsreader.com>,
> sharo...@myremarq.com says...
> > I'll dig it up...but it's repeated frequently that if someone wants
> > an "Eck Spiritual Aide" session, a donation is required.
>
> Not that it matters to me anymore, but I'd be interested to see the word
> "required" used, rather than "requested." Of course, immediately someone
> here will say that it's the same thing with all of that "subtle"
> manipulation that goes on, eh?
More of the same as same as accusations from Sharon... Another Dead Horse
she is trying to find in order to beat it up. Maybe glasses will help?
As I recall the requested donation can be either as money or in the form of
a gift. This is to demonstrate that you are not seeking something for
nothing.
I recommend reading the "Golden Dream" by Heather Hughes Calero on the life
of Milarepa... It has a nice section towards the end on the issue of paying
for Spiritual Blessings in the appropriate manner.
> > Well...just dropping in momentarily...
>
> Not unlike Glenda in Munchkinland, I'm sure. Careful someone doesn't
> burst that bubble... :-P
Where's the pin?
The real problem is what will come out if the bubble is burst... Maybe it is
much safer for everyone's sensitivities if we just leave it there for a
little while longer and hope and pray it bursts elsewhere <G>
love
Michael
sharo...@myremarq.com
>
> The other point that is interesting is if forcing accountability on
> members with respect to donations is this is yet another manifestation
> of the one way flow of accountability in the relationship.
I think it is. Just as when asked about Paul Twitchell
in "Ask The Master" (reference edited in the "Modern
Profit" version), Harold made the questioner the issue,
and evaded an honest answer.
>
> If anything, eck members have many reasons to mistrust the eck org and
> demand accountability on their part. Meaning, the current master accused
> the former master of misappropriation of member's fund. People naively
> trusted Darwin. So we know that these God Realized beings can corrupt
> according to Harji. Does Harold institute an openness with regard to
> financial matters in eckankar after this? Nope, he doesn't have to.
> Everyone blindly trust him now.
>
> It is an act of responsibility to ask questions of entities in which you
> donate money to be accountable for the trust you place in giving them
> money.
>
> In business circles, eckankar is considered a cash cow. The hard costs
> for producing and distributing the discourses is a few bucks out of the
> $130, as Joe says. Then there is a portion of that $130 that goes to
> general and administrative and the other expenses for maintaining a
> central office (to pay people to answer the phones and field excuses for
> not sending in the requested amount <g>).
>
> None of the money went back to the local level when I was a member (this
> may be changing now...someone speak up it that's the case.) All the
> other eck functions are self supporting and make money. Even regional
> seminars that occur had to send in a cut of their proceeds to the
> international office.
>
It's the same now. Although MN still requests donations
for the mission and building fund, in addition to the
regular membership fee, this money does NOT go back to
the local level.
Except...didn't they send some people to Africa? You
know why? Because evidently, the cult is quite successful
in Africa...moreso than here in America.
As of Spring 1998, MN was not helping individual states
with the building funds at all. Oh...in fact, I was told
by someone who said she saw PA's financial records and
they were very open and above-board, and there was no money
coming in from MN.
As far as seminars go, well...I worked in the hotel convention
business. Registration fees *are* used to pay some
organizational expenses associated with seminars, however, it's
a small percentage; most of the money collected for
seminar registrants goes to the organizations. They're good
money-makers. Many organizations use a portion of the fee to
pay for speakers and things. They don't pay speakers in the
cult. Organizations also get free rooms based on the number of
attendees, for the head people.
> Eck centers are locally supported and rely on local members to pay rents
> and expenses. They can make money distributing eckankar books and again,
> keeping a part of the proceeds. Hey, if you want to promote eckankar in
> your area, you can send away and pay for promotional kit for
> $15 bucks or so. God, eckist even pay for marketing materials.
>
I bought several packages of brochures to distribute when
I was at the Philadelphia 1998 seminar. Never got a chance
to put them anywhere, since I left the cult shortly afterwards.
You can buy posters with little brochure holders and reply
cards to put in
laundramats and other public places. The cult suggests members
can set up regular routes. Harold did it when he was a
"regular" eckie.
> Any businessman have nothing but envy for the business set up eckankar
> has.
Gee, Lurk, I don't think *honest* businessmen would!!
>
> All the money is going one way...to Minneapolis. And the request for
> accountability is going the other way....towards the members by
> questioning what reason they have for donating less than the suggested
> amount?
>
> Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
>
> I maintain this is a manifestation, a symptom of a group of people who
> have weak personal boundaries and allow themselves to be exploited.
> <lurk steps down from the soapbox and walks away shaking his head>
>
Yeah, what a setup, Lurk...it's funny, I never fell for
advertising & marketing bullshit, well...not a lot.
MN never answered my letter about where the money goes.
The Disabled American Veterans, I must say, didn't tell me
I was wrong about my donation going to pay professional
fundraisers. Hard to do, when the percentage of profit
they got was right there in the promotional information they
sent me. I read the fine print.
Eckankar doesn't even have any fine print. They stick with
deception and manipulation.
Sharon
w...@achilles.net
> How-do-you-know?
Personal experience.
> > > > The current membership form states that the memebership fee is a "suggested
> > > > donation". In reality, explanations are required for those not being able to
> > > > afford the membership.
> >
> > Again not true.
>
> How do you know?
Personal experience.
> > > Hey thanks for the information TuzaTravrl, it is hard to get a straight
> > > answers from eckists here.
> >
> > Even harder to get a straight question from the trolls.
>
> The "trolls." Typical eckist reaction to anyone with critical info on
> their faultless religion. What impressive openness and lack of fear.
Refer to the previous post; I was suggesting that by posting incorrect
information, someone was "trolling" this group. It's just jargon, Maha.
> How do you know there's no form? Do you work at the Eck org office?
I am not saying there is no form. I am saying that I have never been
required regarding variances in donations to Eckankar. If there is a new
form or a new procedure it is unknown to me. Maybe someone could scan
one and post it somewhere so we all could take a look.
Bruce
w...@achilles.net
>
> The issue is...eckankar is a deceptive cult, started
> by a skillful con artist.
>
>
> either. But...it doesn't concern me.
Good point. Like most people, you are selective about your idealism.
Why is that? Could it be because it is unwise to saw off the branch on
which one is standing? There is a strain of pragmatism that supports
most idealists.
> Do you want the child molesting comparison again, George?
If you believe the news reports, there is no need to construct
"comparisons" regarding Catholics and child abuse; there was plenty of
the real thing during the past fifty years or so, in residential schools
and elsewhere.
> I don't think it's important...it's sort of an "inner"
> thing, symbolic, with me. Anyway...whether Mary was a
> virgin or not really isn't important. I believe that if
> God wanted a virgin birth, there would be one.
And if the early clerics wanted one...?
> I consider many possibilities. It's not important.
Hold that thought; you might remember it the next time an Eckist
dismisses your objections about Eckankar using the same words.
Bruce
sharon v.c.
> >
> > The issue is...eckankar is a deceptive cult, started
> > by a skillful con artist.
> >
> > > Sharon, please don't get me started on the Vatican.
> >
> > Look, George, I don't like the funny hats & red shoes,
> > either. But...it doesn't concern me.
>
> Good point. Like most people, you are selective about your idealism. Why is that? Could it be because it is unwise to saw off the branch on which one is standing? There is a strain of pragmatism that supports most idealists.
Where do you get the idea that I'm idealistic?
Although I do like to dress up in the outfit sometimes.
It's just as much fun as being dEmOnSpAwN!
>
> > Do you want the child molesting comparison again, George?
>
> If you believe the news reports, there is no need to construct
> "comparisons" regarding Catholics and child abuse; there was plenty of the real thing during the past fifty years or so, in residential schools and elsewhere.
I don't have to look at the news reports, but it's
all over. Boy Scouts, too. Catholic priests don't
have a monopoly on child molesting.
It's just men, Bruce. Most often in families. Good
grief, the local newspaper, well...I don't bother to
read it.
>
> > I don't think it's important...it's sort of an "inner"
> > thing, symbolic, with me. Anyway...whether Mary was a
> > virgin or not really isn't important. I believe that if
> > God wanted a virgin birth, there would be one.
>
> And if the early clerics wanted one...?
So what? Since I learned what a virgin was and how
babies were made, well...duh, Bruce!
We're not talking early clerics. We're talking about
Twitchell...oh, wait...didn't he claim the shariyats
were dictated ... let me check...yes, Fubbi Quantz
dictated the shariyats.
Well...Twitch hated his mother, which is why he rejected
the thought of it. So he was born of a virgin on a
riverboat, where the nicest lady in town hid out so her
reputation wasn't ruined. And...what book did Twitch
write about peeking in her window, I think?
Well...he was so thrilled to find out stepmom wasn't his
mom, he ran away from home, didn't he? But who knows...
he lies so much...
Anyway...I'm glad that Fubbi made Twitch happy by revealing
the truth.
Paul Twitchell was a lunatic, Bruce!!!
This is the 20th Century, fer crissakes! You know, Twitch
should have asked Fubbi what his real birthdate was, too...
As I said, if God wanted a virgin birth, there would be one.
Who knows...maybe that's what alien kidnappings are all
about!! <ggg>
>
> > I consider many possibilities. It's not important.
>
> Hold that thought; you might remember it the next time an Eckist
> dismisses your objections about Eckankar using the same words.
Why? You can object all you want...but no one is
going to stop giving people the opportunity to think
a little bit before getting trapped in your cult, and
the opportunity to see the "teachings" that the Klempster
wants de-emphasized.
Oh...hey George...when are you going to get to some
really good secret Jesuit stuff? Nothing particularly
shocking so far....this stuff has been around for ages.
And...as I've said before, just because John Wayne Gacy
did it first doesn't mean it's okay for Jeffrey Dahmer
to do it.
Oh...it's sort of funny how you're being sure you have a
reason for being "on topic." It's not the detractors
who run around complaining to ISPs, AOL, & Deja.
By the way...if I disappear for awhile, don't take it
personally. I missed Advent last year...and it starts
this weekend. I don't know if you're supposed to give
something up for Advent...but I'm also going to have a
new toy, and I'm going to get those darn pesky webpages
worked on a bit more....so I may just post "reruns" but
won't have time to chat...
<giggle> I *do* have a Harold Christmas Carol I wrote
last year, but it was after Christmas. Oh shit, I just
remembered...I think it's on the 386, unless I sent it
to someone from one of my web emails...
You eckists are *such* asswipes!! You really think that
everyone is as hysterical & "true-believing" as you are---
What a hoot!!
Sharon
Yep...I also heard one of my favorites, The Frugal Gourmet, is
a perv...and oh horrors, a minister!! Oh, well...haven't watched
his show for awhile, but I plan to ... I like it!!
>
> Bruce
sharon v.c.
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:30:45 -0600 Chuck Mattsen wrote:
> In article , wall...@one.net.au says...
>
> > I recommend reading the "Golden Dream" by Heather Hughes Calero on the life
> > of Milarepa... It has a nice section towards the end on the issue of paying
> > for Spiritual Blessings in the appropriate manner.
>
> for someone whose writings used to be prominently advertised alongside the ECK books in catalogs, etc., whatever happened to Heather? Should I move her books a few feet to the right on the bookshelf next to my signed copy of Darwin's "From Heaven to the Prairie", Sri Michael?
Hey, Chuck, are you familiar with John Jensen's "Experiences
with Invisible Realities"? Good book!! I was pleasantly
surprised when I acquired it recently; first, because it was
an eckbook; secondly, because of the somewhat "spacey" title.
It's excellent! I wonder if Jensen is still an eckist? He's
a former Catholic priest. Just skimmed through the book, but
it's going on the top of the "books to be read completely after
skimming" pile.
I read "From Heaven to the Prairie" before I joined...and it
was years before I asked about Darwin. It seemed like he'd
never existed!
Sharon
Chuck Mattsen
sharo...@myremarq.com says...
> Hey, Chuck, are you familiar with John Jensen's "Experiences
> with Invisible Realities"? Good book!! I was pleasantly
> surprised when I acquired it recently; first, because it was
> an eckbook; secondly, because of the somewhat "spacey" title.
No, haven't heard of it. Remind me about it later on, will 'ya? (I'm on
a quick work break <g>)
Chuck Mattsen
> I never heard of this book or her. Was it advertized in Eck catalogs?
> Sold thru Eckankar? Was she an Eckist?
Heather Hughes-Calero's books were sold by IWP, and were featured in the
ECK catalogs and inserts that were stuffed into the ECK books in
bookstores as recently as 4 or 5 years ago ... "The Golden Dream," "Woman
Between the Wind," "The Sedona Trilogy (books I-III)" and, I believe, her
non-fiction "Writing as a Tool for Self-Discovery" was also featured.
"Golden Dream" is dedicated "With love to the present-day Vi-Guru" :-)
The "About the Author" section of the "Writing..." book described her as
an ECK initiate, and was dedicated "In Service to the SUGMAD," so, yes,
she was an ECKist.
It's really weird, though, how all mention of her or her books seemed to
have vanished overnight when they were so prominently featured.
Too bad, as they're fun reads ... seeing them get less exposure is, well,
double-plus ungood. ;-)
Rainforest
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 06:27:36 -0500 w...@achilles.net wrote:
> > sharo...@myremarq.com wrote:
am 4 indents over!!
> > >
> > > The issue is...eckankar is a deceptive cult, started
> > > by a skillful con artist.
> > >
> > > > Sharon, please don't get me started on the Vatican.
> > >
> > > Look, George, I don't like the funny hats & red shoes,
> > > either. But...it doesn't concern me.
> >
> > Good point. Like most people, you are selective about your idealism. Why is that? Could it be because it is unwise to saw off the branch on which one is standing? There is a strain of pragmatism that supports most idealists.
>
> Where do you get the idea that I'm idealistic?
>
> Although I do like to dress up in the outfit sometimes.
>
> It's just as much fun as being dEmOnSpAwN!
Who are you talking to Sharon?!
>
> >
> > > Do you want the child molesting comparison again, George?
Dh, What?!
But still in active mode, it gets better and better and better Sharon,
would not want to bore you. But then again you seem to be in denial.
> And...as I've said before, just because John Wayne Gacy
> did it first doesn't mean it's okay for Jeffrey Dahmer
> to do it.
Dh, what say???
Talking to two people at once I guess??
>
> Oh...it's sort of funny how you're being sure you have a
> reason for being "on topic." It's not the detractors
> who run around complaining to ISPs, AOL, & Deja.
Talking to me or Bruce, Sharon?
>
> By the way...if I disappear for awhile, don't take it
> personally.
Happy whatever Sharon.
I missed Advent last year...and it starts
> this weekend. I don't know if you're supposed to give
> something up for Advent...but I'm also going to have a
> new toy, and I'm going to get those darn pesky webpages
> worked on a bit more....so I may just post "reruns" but
> won't have time to chat...
>
> <giggle> I *do* have a Harold Christmas Carol I wrote
> last year, but it was after Christmas. Oh shit, I just
> remembered...I think it's on the 386, unless I sent it
> to someone from one of my web emails...
>
> You eckists are *such* asswipes!!
Must be dead on your feet by now, take two Anacin call me in the morning
and all those nasty thoughts, but hey, Nisht Geferlacht.
You really think that
> everyone is as hysterical & "true-believing" as you are---
It would be nice if I knew who you are talking to Sharon.
In ECK,
George
>
> What a hoot!!
>
>
> Sharon
>
> Yep...I also heard one of my favorites, The Frugal Gourmet, is
> a perv...and oh horrors, a minister!! Oh, well...haven't watched
> his show for awhile, but I plan to ... I like it!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
Michael Wallace
> Then of course you could be number one, but that would only be the Head
> Cheese.
>
Praise to the Great and Holy Rat...
May all bow before him, and know his path is true
May the Inner Rat evolve
And express itself in the freedom of cryptic comment
And bad puns
Amen
Michael Rat
>
Michael Wallace
> In article <383b...@pink.one.net.au>, wall...@one.net.au says...
>
> > I recommend reading the "Golden Dream" by Heather Hughes Calero on the
life
> > of Milarepa... It has a nice section towards the end on the issue of
paying
> > for Spiritual Blessings in the appropriate manner.
>
> for someone whose writings used to be prominently advertised alongside
> Should I move her books a few feet to the right on the bookshelf next to
> my signed copy of Darwin's "From Heaven to the Prairie", Sri Michael?
> It's as though she never existed. :*)
She is now called "Winged Wolf" and apparently from friends who have spoken
to her she is pretty "out there" with her new path of self discovery.
She wrote great books, very simple style, but effective.
So... You have a signed copy of "From Heaven to the Prairie" as well? This
proves you are indeed an old Toad!! <G> Winged Wolf is alive and well, and
giving great workshops on Sharmanic Practise. And personally, though there
will be some who hotly dispute this, if someone gets to a point of evolution
where they feel they have a new and better way to follow their truth and
teach it, and if this conflicts with Eckankar and they must leave ...
Well... I for one wish them very well.
Obviously, of course the outer teaching would drop connection to these folk,
but you know... It isn't something that is done without thought, and
certainly it is not an automatic process. In Winged Wolf's case I believe
she requested her name be dropped (It is no longer her name)...
I know of other cases where HI's have gone into teaching their own path
outside of the ECK teachings and this has been allowed to continue without
interuption from the office. The turning point in attitude seems to come
when the people begin seeking to actively prosletyse for otherexisting
ECKists to jointhe "new" path of the HI in question. In the cases I know of,
after some years these people were asked to cease this activity.
Ariel Tomioka left after her book, as did Winged Wolf, but I see no
crititical references from the office in this regard.... If people want to
leave, they leave. There is a good book coming out that inspects the "real"
reasons why Paul dropped all reference to Kirpal Singh, and this looks at
the process of dropping someone out of the reference material pretty
effectively. Certainly it is a very different process than what David Lane
promoted.
Anyways... My personal ventures into the Sharmanistic tradition showed many
valid and useful causes for the practitioners who work within it. Some of my
own body work techniques would be considered sharmanistic, but if I chose to
produce a video and package this process, I could not see that it would
conflict with me connection to Eckankar.
However, for some there is a conflict, and they chose their new path. What
is important is the choosing... People can always change their mind, or not
as the circumstances unfold.. But to sit on the fence and wonder and not act
for fear of consequences... That is a spiritual crime against ourselves.
Every time I have had a real question, there has been a real answer waiting
for me ... Had to wait sometimes, but often it was not too long before a
clear direction came to me.
Much Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
ken <kens...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:81fbd5$kk9$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> you say!"
Ok Ken... Whatever you say!
<VVVBG>
Couldn't resist that one <G>
Still can't figure out the motivation behind all the effort these guys
make... I mean can a hatred last so long and not disturb the synapses of the
brain? Anger held over a long period has very detrimental effects on the
mind and emotions, which maybe explains some of these guys...
But hey! Who really cares!! <G> If this is how Joe et al get their rocks
off, who am I to criticism??
Love
Michael
Chuck Mattsen
> So... You have a signed copy of "From Heaven to the Prairie" as well? This
> proves you are indeed an old Toad!! <G>
:-P
> Winged Wolf is alive and well, and
> giving great workshops on Sharmanic Practise. And personally, though there
> will be some who hotly dispute this, if someone gets to a point of evolution
> where they feel they have a new and better way to follow their truth and
> teach it, and if this conflicts with Eckankar and they must leave ...
> Well... I for one wish them very well.
Blasphemer. Infidel. Mouse.
> I know of other cases where HI's have gone into teaching their own path
> outside of the ECK teachings and this has been allowed to continue without
> interuption from the office. The turning point in attitude seems to come
> when the people begin seeking to actively prosletyse for otherexisting
> ECKists to jointhe "new" path of the HI in question. In the cases I know of,
> after some years these people were asked to cease this activity.
Yes, the same with ... what was it? ... vitamin sales? :)
> Ariel Tomioka left after her book, as did Winged Wolf, but I see no
> crititical references from the office in this regard.... If people want to
> leave, they leave.
No, I've seen no critical references. In fact, *no* references. What
was the name of the guy in 1984 whose job it was at the Ministry of
Information to remove all traces of people from the knowledge base? :)
So, in essence, you feel you may continue your dual paths of Eckankar and
Ratology, then?
Michael Wallace
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:383AD949...@home.com...
>
>
> This is an outrageous attitude on eckankar's part if it is indeed true.
> It's a double whammy. First, the system makes you pay up front for
> spiritual connections and calls them donations. Then they set up a
> program designed to flush out the eckists who are not honest and send in
> less than the suggested amounts? I'm sorry, but from where I sit,
> designing policies to force accountability on donations by members is the
> height of arrogance.
Ah the logic strikes again...
Nice emotive terms like "Flush out the ECKists who are not honest" is a
wonderful journalistic twist on the proceedings that is just superb... Won't
get Lurk a job at the New York Post, unfortunately. They have higher
editorial standards that this. I believe it is called "Here say".
Take a nice single minded view to start with, increase blinker size, and
make sure that tunnel vision is disturbed by any consideration other than
the predestined goal to which you seek your points to reach. Now because an
organisation offers members a BENEFIT in regards continuing membership...
Which is that if you don't have enough money for the suggested donation,
that you can write and request a lesser donation ... This is now construed
as "Flushing out ECKists who are not honest"?
Truly beautiful warp of common sense to fit the blinkered parameters of the
predjudice Lurk... Excellent... Hard to find better! <G>
> If anything, eck members have many reasons to mistrust the eck org and
> demand accountability on their part. Meaning, the current master accused
> the former master of misappropriation of member's fund. People naively
> trusted Darwin. So we know that these God Realized beings can corrupt
> according to Harji. Does Harold institute an openness with regard to
> financial matters in eckankar after this? Nope, he doesn't have to.
> Everyone blindly trust him now.
>
Prior to this Lurk is asking if this claim is substantiated, and infers that
this was just a hokey claim by Harold to get Darwin out of the picture...
And now (As it is convenient) it seems that Darwin did INDEED possibly steal
the money, and now 'this' justifies doubt of the entire organisation. It is
wrapped in some imagined responsibility that Sri Harold must provide
accountability for funds invested... You know... Like every religion on the
planet must now do this or be suspect?
Nice one... Couldn't have had a solicitor from LA do better than this.
Judge... this side is black, and because it is not white it is
contemptable... But worse!! Judge, the other side is WHITE, which has no
Black, and therefore it is contemtable as well. And possibly MORE so because
you think it would have learned from the other side!
You could write to OJ and ask is he needs any help ?? Yes?? <G>
Flip flop flip flop... We all thought he was a slippery fish, until we
realised this is just the sound of Lurk's Logic !!!
<G>
Love
Michael
arel...@home.com
Yes I react. I react by posting an alternative opinion and try to
support it or give my reasons why I have such a view for the most part.
That's different kind of reaction than what I'm pointing out to Rich. He
can't seem to control reactions at the end of a thread when people don't
agree with his view and calls people trolls or liars and proceeds to try
to make a case that our behavior makes him react that way. That's simply
embracing victimhood.
C'mon Micahel, these questions you are asking are really elementary. Stop
asking me to do your work for you. <g>
Lurk
arel...@home.com
> I am not interested in playing the arguing and debating games with the
> trolls on this NG. I learned long ago that it is a waste of time and
> effort. Not only do I not want to keep it going, but I try not to even
> get started in it. Perhaps the ad hominem approach doesn't follow the
> logical rules of debate. So what?
It reflects badly on eckankar...that's what. The very thing you fear,
you create yourself here Rich with your behavior.
> I'm not here to debate.
This is what you say after trying to debate people with your weak
arguments. <g>
But it
> brings the readers an overview of the detractors agenda, tactics and
> misrepresentations which does discredit all the nit-picking and old dead
> horse issues that are repeatedly regurgitated here.
Keep it up Rich. I think is shows people just how receptive some eckankar
clergy are to opinions different than their own. It shows people what to
expect from some of the long time members.
People will know ahead of time, if they ask hard questions in eckankar,
if they ask critical questions, if they challenge the institutionally
sanctioned higher ups (HI's), they will be made the issue by these
spiritual gangsters who hide behind their smiley faces. This is the way
of Harji.
I can sling some ad hominem arguments too, eh? <gg>
It informs the
> readers of the hidden motivations of the trolls without having to lower
> myself into engaging them in their fun. It is an effective defense
> against those that assault Eckankar, Eckist and anyone that questions
> their bogus allegations.
Effective defense? You can't defend against your shadow Rich. Own it!
That's the only way.
You eckists can justify any aggressive behavior now that Harji made y'all
a religion, eh? <g>
Eckists get people's accounts closed that post critical opinions on
eckankar in this newsgroup. Eckists smear people's character in the name
of the Sugmad. Eckists present a constant stream of ad hominem
arguments.
Until and unless the eckankar organization and its people come to terms
with its own pathology, it will continue to be the effect of it. That's
how it works on an individual level and I believe that's how it works on
an organizational level.
Until then, eckankar does not get Lurk's seal of approval and I would not
recommend any serious student become involved with this organization,
especially the current direction eckankar is heading.
Hell, I half I expect to see eckankar listed on the New York Stock
Exchange in the future. People
will be able to buy God stocks, and Divine bonds. Those who own the most
stock will be closer to God, of course. <lol>
Lurk
arel...@home.com
> Ariel Tomioka left after her book, as did Winged Wolf, but I see no
> crititical references from the office in this regard.... If people want to
> leave, they leave.
The book was banned being used in eck book discussions and such after
she left.
People who leave generally cease to exist organizationally speaking.
There is a good book coming out that inspects the "real"
> reasons why Paul dropped all reference to Kirpal Singh, and this looks at
> the process of dropping someone out of the reference material pretty
> effectively. Certainly it is a very different process than what David Lane
> promoted.
Is this the book Doug Marman is writing you referred to awhile back?
If not, what is his book about? Unless it is top secret or something.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:383AD949...@home.com...
> >
> >
>
> > This is an outrageous attitude on eckankar's part if it is indeed true.
> > It's a double whammy. First, the system makes you pay up front for
> > spiritual connections and calls them donations. Then they set up a
> > program designed to flush out the eckists who are not honest and send in
> > less than the suggested amounts? I'm sorry, but from where I sit,
> > designing policies to force accountability on donations by members is the
> > height of arrogance.
>
> Ah the logic strikes again...
>
> Nice emotive terms like "Flush out the ECKists who are not honest" is a
> wonderful journalistic twist on the proceedings that is just superb... Won't
> get Lurk a job at the New York Post, unfortunately. They have higher
> editorial standards that this. I believe it is called "Here say".
I was responding to Chuck's explanation for why eckankar requests an
explanation for donating a lesser amount. Here what he said,
"...I can think of lots of reasons for them [eckankar] to request it ...
if it really is a path of personal responsibility, I can see why they'd
want to take steps to assure that those requesting assistance weren't
doing so lightly, lest the paying members be shouldering all the burden."
You see, I simply ran with Chuck's opinion (not that he agrees with what
I came up with). But you'll notice that all my comments were under the
condition of "If this is true."
>
> Take a nice single minded view to start with, increase blinker size, and
> make sure that tunnel vision is disturbed by any consideration other than
> the predestined goal to which you seek your points to reach. Now because an
> organisation offers members a BENEFIT in regards continuing membership...
> Which is that if you don't have enough money for the suggested donation,
> that you can write and request a lesser donation ... This is now construed
> as "Flushing out ECKists who are not honest"?
Would you prefer: making sure eckists are not weaseling out of paying
when they really can really pay? Again, my comments related back to
Chuck's explanation about why the eckankar org needs to know why members
send in lesser amounts than the suggested donation.
>
> Truly beautiful warp of common sense to fit the blinkered parameters of the
> predjudice Lurk... Excellent... Hard to find better! <G>
>
> > If anything, eck members have many reasons to mistrust the eck org and
> > demand accountability on their part. Meaning, the current master accused
> > the former master of misappropriation of member's fund. People naively
> > trusted Darwin. So we know that these God Realized beings can corrupt
> > according to Harji. Does Harold institute an openness with regard to
> > financial matters in eckankar after this? Nope, he doesn't have to.
> > Everyone blindly trust him now.
> >
>
> Prior to this Lurk is asking if this claim is substantiated, and infers that
> this was just a hokey claim by Harold to get Darwin out of the picture...
I never inferred that Harold trumped up this claim to get rid of Darwin,
Darwin did. I think my take on that was it was hard to know the truth
and that both of them acted poorly and a lot of finger pointing was
going on. Both were responsible and both probably have some legitimate
gripes with the other.
> And now (As it is convenient) it seems that Darwin did INDEED possibly steal
> the money, and now 'this' justifies doubt of the entire organisation. It is
> wrapped in some imagined responsibility that Sri Harold must provide
> accountability for funds invested... You know... Like every religion on the
> planet must now do this or be suspect?
You don't think it is kind of odd that Harold, after accusing Darwin of
embezzling funds, did not go out of his way to be more open about money or
change the structure so what he accuse Darwin of couldn't happen again.
People's trust were violated if Darwin took the money. Harold did the
opposite, according to Darwin, he created a structure where he had
absolute power and little accountability from a puppet board.
>
> Nice one... Couldn't have had a solicitor from LA do better than this.
> Judge... this side is black, and because it is not white it is
> contemptable... But worse!! Judge, the other side is WHITE, which has no
> Black, and therefore it is contemtable as well. And possibly MORE so because
> you think it would have learned from the other side!
>
> You could write to OJ and ask is he needs any help ?? Yes?? <G>
>
> Flip flop flip flop... We all thought he was a slippery fish, until we
> realised this is just the sound of Lurk's Logic !!!
Michael, I think you are trying a little to hard here to turn common
sense into some grand stylistic conspiracy.
Lurk
Mahavahana
> Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > > Mahavahana wrote:
> > >
> > > > request for money to getting and keeping the Eck initiations.
> > >
> > > Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
> > > hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
> > > Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
> > > 'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced, in
> > > any way, their receiving of initiations.
> >
> > But it did. You can't deny that Eckankar links a yearly request for
> > money to the getting and keeping of the Eck initiations.
>
> No need to deny something that is not true. The "link" is in Joe's
> imagination not in the day to day reality and experience of those that
> are actually members.
>
> > You can't deny that the offical policy of Eckankar and the current LEM
> > is to remove the Eck initiations after 5 years of inactivity.
>
> I haven't so far. Why do you think he implies that I would?
> But of course this is not a hard and fast rule as is evidenced by the
> personal experiences of several people who have posted them here.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > The simple facts remain.
> > > Membership is usually required to receive and keep outer initiations.
> > > A donation is not required to be a member.
> >
> > Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
> > required.
> >
>
> This is an example of an excellent detractor debate technique. I never
> wrote that he said that donations were required. Yet when I make a
> simple statement of facts that has no reference or even an inference to
> what he said, his response put's words in _my_ mouth accusing me of
> putting words in his mouth!! Is he lying? Does he do this on purpose?
> Is he mentally challenged? You decide...
>
>
> For further explanations about Joe's allegations see DETRACTOR WARNINGS
> # 1, #2, #3, & # 4 all of which he exemplified here in this one post.
lmao!
Here's Rich's comments from a few posts back on this thread:
"Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced,
in any way, their receiving of initiations. You keep inferring this
but the link is only in your mind. It's a fictitious scenario that may
look good in words but has no bearing in reality."
Rich . . . try out night school. Please.
Mahavahana
> The following is Lurk's opinion and not: the attitude of Eckankar,
not the "attitude" of Eckankar??? lol!
thanks for clearing that up!
What *is* the attitude of Eckankar? Eckankar can do no wrong! <g>
Right Rich?
it's
> motivations for designing policies, forcing accountability, Harold's
> integrity, a cash cow, the actual ways in which Eckankar disburses it
> funds, any weakness of Eckists or exploitation. It is just Lurk's
> standard detractor speak negative scenario based in speculations at
> assume the worst.
>
> For further explanation of Lurk's allegations see DETRACTOR WARNING 1 -
> 4 all of which are exemplified in his post.
>
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > This is an outrageous attitude on eckankar's part if it is indeed true.
> > It's a double whammy. First, the system makes you pay up front for
> > spiritual connections and calls them donations. Then they set up a
> > program designed to flush out the eckists who are not honest and send in
> > less than the suggested amounts? I'm sorry, but from where I sit,
> > designing policies to force accountability on donations by members is the
> > height of arrogance.
> >
> > Yes, yes, I believe in personal responsibility. My idea of personal
> > responsibility means taking notice and challenging institutions and
> > administrators or even Harold when their is a lack of integrity in the
> > WAY money is collected. It is an act of compassion for one's self and
> > others to do so.
> >
> > The other point that is interesting is if forcing accountability on
> > members with respect to donations is this is yet another manifestation
> > of the one way flow of accountability in the relationship.
> >
> > If anything, eck members have many reasons to mistrust the eck org and
> > demand accountability on their part. Meaning, the current master accused
> > the former master of misappropriation of member's fund. People naively
> > trusted Darwin. So we know that these God Realized beings can corrupt
> > according to Harji. Does Harold institute an openness with regard to
> > financial matters in eckankar after this? Nope, he doesn't have to.
> > Everyone blindly trust him now.
> >
> > It is an act of responsibility to ask questions of entities in which you
> > donate money to be accountable for the trust you place in giving them
> > money.
> >
> > In business circles, eckankar is considered a cash cow. The hard costs
> > for producing and distributing the discourses is a few bucks out of the
> > $130, as Joe says. Then there is a portion of that $130 that goes to
> > general and administrative and the other expenses for maintaining a
> > central office (to pay people to answer the phones and field excuses for
> > not sending in the requested amount <g>).
> >
> > None of the money went back to the local level when I was a member (this
> > may be changing now...someone speak up it that's the case.) All the
> > other eck functions are self supporting and make money. Even regional
> > seminars that occur had to send in a cut of their proceeds to the international
> > office.
> >
> > Eck centers are locally supported and rely on local members to pay rents
> > and expenses. They can make money distributing eckankar books and again,
> > keeping a part of the proceeds. Hey, if you want to promote eckankar in
> > your area, you can send away and pay for promotional kit for
> > $15 bucks or so. God, eckist even pay for marketing materials.
> >
> > Any businessman have nothing but envy for the business set up eckankar has.
> >
> > All the money is going one way...to Minneapolis. And the request for
> > accountability is going the other way....towards the members by
> > questioning what reason they have for donating less than the suggested amount?
> >
> > Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
> >
> > I maintain this is a manifestation, a symptom of a group of people who
> > have weak personal boundaries and allow themselves to be exploited.
> > <lurk steps down from the soapbox and walks away shaking his head>
> >
> > These comments weren't directed to you personally Chuck...thanks for
> > inspiring my comments, though.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> --
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
--
Mahavahana
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > > IMO what's key here is that Eckankar membership is a linking of a
> > > request for money to getting and keeping the Eck initiations.
> >
> > Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
> > hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
> > Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
> > 'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced, in
> > any way, their receiving of initiations.
>
> But it did. You can't deny that Eckankar links a yearly request for
> money to the getting and keeping of the Eck initiations.
"No need to deny something that is not true. The "link" is in Joe's
imagination not in the day to day reality and experience of those that
are actually members."
///////
You don't think the Eckankar membership application is "real"?
The application that asks for $130 a year?
You don't think what Harji wrote in THE SECRET TEACHINGS is "real"?
What he wrote about how the initiations will be pulled if one lets his
membership lapse?
Sorry Rich, but you can't deny Eckankar's policies. These policies
don't exist in the imagination like Eck masters. No, there right there
in black and white on Eckankar literature.
You're having a really hard time with that, aren't you?
> You can't deny that the offical policy of Eckankar and the current LEM
> is to remove the Eck initiations after 5 years of inactivity.
"I haven't so far. Why do you think he implies that I would?
But of course this is not a hard and fast rule as is evidenced by the
personal experiences of several people who have posted them here."
////////////
The policy exists. The policy itself applies to all Eckists even if
there are exceptions.
The few exceptions *don't* disprove the policy.
And the policy is a coercive inducement to pay money to keep eck
memberships.
<SNIP>
> > The simple facts remain.
> > Membership is usually required to receive and keep outer initiations.
> > A donation is not required to be a member.
>
> Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
> required.
>
> Don't put words in my mouth.
"This is an example of an excellent detractor debate technique. I never
wrote that he said that donations were required. Yet when I make a
simple statement of facts that has no reference or even an inference to
what he said, his response put's words in _my_ mouth accusing me of
putting words in his mouth!! Is he lying? Does he do this on purpose?
Is he mentally challenged? You decide..."
////////
As I pointed out in another post, you definitely did imply that I was
saying that Eckankar requires money for membership.
Rich
> I think is shows people just how receptive some eckankar
> clergy are to opinions different than their own.
The teachings of Eckankar are not about peoples opinions. They are
about each individual establishing a personal connection to the Light
and Sound of God. There are many ways to pursue this, A.R.E. being the
least likely to be helpful.
The detractors here rarely discuss the actual teachings of the basic
principles, practices and experiences of ECK, but mostly present their
_opinions_ as 'facts' with endless nit-picking debate about the
organization, Eckists and the Eck Masters.
Rich
> Here's Rich's comments from a few posts back on this thread:
>
> "Right Joe, * in your opinion *. But despite your having posted
> hundreds of posts trying to spin it up into something more, it is not.
> Eckists and probably most Ex-Eckist are not of the opinion that they
> 'bought' their initiations or that the money they donated influenced,
> in any way, their receiving of initiations. You keep inferring this
> but the link is only in your mind. It's a fictitious scenario that may
> look good in words but has no bearing in reality."
This quote he presents proves the opposite of what he accused me of
doing!<G> It shows that I did _not_ put the "words in his mouth"
"that a donation was required."
--
Rich
> Sorry Rich, but you can't deny Eckankar's policies.
Again, I am not denying any policies. Do you wonder why her keeps
suggesting that I am?
<SNIP>
> And the policy is a coercive inducement to pay money to keep eck
> memberships.
In his negative opinion.
> > > The simple facts remain.
> > > Membership is usually required to receive and keep outer initiations.
> > > A donation is not required to be a member.
> >
> > Go back through my post and see where I ever said that a donation was
> > required.
> >
> > Don't put words in my mouth.
>
> "This is an example of an excellent detractor debate technique. I never
> wrote that he said that donations were required. Yet when I make a
> simple statement of facts that has no reference or even an inference to
> what he said, his response put's words in _my_ mouth accusing me of
> putting words in his mouth!! Is he lying? Does he do this on purpose?
> Is he mentally challenged? You decide..."
> ////////
>
> As I pointed out in another post, you definitely did imply that I was
> saying that Eckankar requires money for membership.
The "other post" did not show me implying any such thing.
Chuck Mattsen
> Michael Wallace wrote:
> > Nice emotive terms like "Flush out the ECKists who are not honest" is a
> > wonderful journalistic twist on the proceedings that is just superb... Won't
> > get Lurk a job at the New York Post, unfortunately. They have higher
> > editorial standards that this. I believe it is called "Here say".
>
> I was responding to Chuck's explanation for why eckankar requests an
> explanation for donating a lesser amount. Here what he said,
>
> "...I can think of lots of reasons for them [eckankar] to request it ...
> if it really is a path of personal responsibility, I can see why they'd
> want to take steps to assure that those requesting assistance weren't
> doing so lightly, lest the paying members be shouldering all the burden."
Yes, that's what I said; however, it's quite different from "flushing
out" the "[dis]honest" ... if you must thrust a lot of charged words into
your posts, kiddo, do me the courtesy of not hiding behind mine when you
do so, okie dokie? Your assertion is a *far* cry from what I said.
> You see, I simply ran with Chuck's opinion (not that he agrees with what
> I came up with).
Not at all.
> But you'll notice that all my comments were under the
> condition of "If this is true."
So, "If Mr. Smith *IS* beating his wife ..." The damage is done, you
see.
> Would you prefer: making sure eckists are not weaseling out of paying
> when they really can really pay? Again, my comments related back to
> Chuck's explanation about why the eckankar org needs to know why members
> send in lesser amounts than the suggested donation.
Again, I cannot explain that which I do not know ... I merely suggested a
possibility. Honestly, if you've something to say, surely you can come
up with your own words, guy, and not duck behind someone else, eh?
Again, I'm not here with intent to detract, nor am I here with intent to
defend ... if you will, think of me as the hot dog vendor at a baseball
game ... it makes little difference to me which team wins, as long as
they eat while they're here ... but this kind of tactic makes me want to
change professions. :-)