Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
2002 HOOKWINKED: Duplicitous Deluded Doug Marman's Classic BS
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Peetee Aitchei
Dec 7, 2014, 12:17:17 AM12/7/14
to
A 21 page article essay - detailed, comprehensive, accurate, clear, truthful, honest and direct.
2014-12-06 Copyright (c) Twitchell Eckankar History Archive All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer Fair Use:
This article is presented strictly in the PUBLIC INTEREST for research purposes and Personal USE ONLY.
All the copyrights of materials reproduced here are the properties of their respective owners.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED SUCH INFORMATION
AND KNOWLEDGE BE PRESENTED OPENLY AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC INTO THE FUTURE
First published 2014-12- 07
ARTICLE TITLE
- 2002 HOOKWINKED: Duplicitous Deluded Doug Marman's Classic Bullshit -
Marman Will Never Admit to his False Public Accusations Made Against Lane & Others
Marman Will Never Admit to his Fallacious Beliefs about Plagiarism Twitchell & Klemp
Marman doesn't have a poor memory, his memory is atrocious.
Marman is not intelligent. His thinking is in fact dysfunctional.
Marman has misused his position in Eckankar to abuse and insult others based on falsehoods.
Marman has little to no ethics or integrity or self-honesty or self-awareness.
Marman refuses to take personal responsibility for his own words and actions.
Marman is disingenuous, duplicitous and dishonest.
Marman just makes shit up about other people, historical events and the facts.
Marman cannot read properly. He distorts beyond all recognition what others have actually said.
Marman has egregiously and unconscionably misled thousands of people, especially ECKists.
These are my own justified true beliefs and opinions based on the known factual evidence and my own personal experiences and interactions with one Douglas Marman over 15 years.
An example of the massive proof for these statements follows.
Doug Marman = DM
David Lane = DL
--- --- --- --- ---
2002-01-24 on alt.religion.eckankar Thread title - HOOKWINKED!!!
by JOE
The entire foundation of ECKANKAR was built on Paulji's plagiarism of
Julian Johnson and other writers.
Paulji's testament, THE TIGER'S FANG, contains plagiarized passages
from Walter Russell's THE SECRET OF LIGHT and Sant Mat books.
Where Paulji is telling us about his "inner experiences," he's actually just
giving us page after page of stuff he copied from books.
Paulji's other early testament to his alleged training with the Eck Master
"Rebezar Tarzs," THE FAR COUNTRY, is absolutely riddled with
hundreds of paragraphs plagiarized from the writings of Dr. Julian
Johnson.
THE SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD, Eckankar's "Bible," contains plagiarized passages.
ILLUMINATED WAY LETTERS, a compilation of a series of monthly letters
sent to the Eck membership, also contains plagiarized passages.
THE KEY TO ECKANKAR, an early Twitchell book, contains plagiarism.
ECKANKAR: COMPILED WRITINGS contains plagiarism.
THE FLUTE OF GOD contains plagiarized passages.
STRANGER BY THE RIVER contains plagiarized passages.
THE SPIRITUAL NOTEBOOK contains plagiarized passages.
ECKANKAR: THE KEY TO SECRET WORLDS contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK VIDYA contains plagiarized passages.
LETTERS TO GAIL contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK DISCOURSES contain plagiarized passages.
HERBS THE MAGIC HEALERS contains plagiarized passages.
[TEHA note: add to this list - Dialogues With The Master, Introduction to Eckankar, In My Soul I Am Free, and every single Discourse Series ever written by Twitchell. It's not 1% or 2% of the text which is Plagiarised, it is closer to 90% ]
Those all are Paul Twitchell Eck books.
In each case, evidence of plagiarism is clear. All plagiarized
passages are from copyright protected texts, and Paulji is not on
record for ever asking permission, from any of the copyright
holders, for the use of their literary property.
All the major concepts of ECKANKAR: Uses of the Imagination, Ancient
Masters, Soul Travel, Inner plane experiences, inner Light and Sound,
Beingness... these can all be traced to Paulji's literary sources.
The fact is,
Most every book Paulji wrote on Eckankar contains documented evidence of plagiarism.
That being so,
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji actually wrote, and what he copied from others.
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji experienced "on the inner," versus what he saw in someone else's book and claimed for his own.
There's absolutely no way to TRUST Paul Twitchell about anything he had to say about himself or his experiences.
In short,
ECKANKAR is founded upon the claims of Paul Twitchell, and
Paul Twitchell has been exposed as a liar and a plagiarist.
Those are the hard facts.
It's time for ECKANKAR, its Clergy, and its members to check themselves:
Tell the unadorned truth about Paul Twitchell.
People who are checking out Eckankar deserve to know this truth up
front, before they part with their money, energy and devotion to Eck
org and its fictions.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/F6rEJJ-Bhq0J
---
[ TEHA note:
Then the ECKist Mythology Defence-Attack Dog Tag Team change the title to:
History of religious texts reveals plagiarism
The seriously unintelligent aspect to this is that the Attack Dogs cannot tell (or publicly admit to) the clear differences between a proven 'word for word' verbatim case of genuine Plagiarism and the drawing upon older religious texts in using pre-existing universal or religion specific "ideas, concepts, philosophies and beliefs about Human Life, and God, and Spirituality".
TWO very different things.
The Attack Dog Team (including the secret HI ECKist Bright Future Yahoo Group) also cannot tell the difference between Quoting an author verbatim, then providing a Reference for that, against acknowledging one's prior teachers or influences in an open way in order to give them a "general credit" for being of service to the Author.
These issues have NOTHING to do with specific cases of Plagiarism. The latter does not excuse the intentional use of the verbatim reusing of specific words nor the FORM in which it is presented as a whole. Particularly when it is being taken from another authors Copyrighted Works. The common and totally accepted methodology for writers is to 'draw upon' and to be 'inspired by' another writers "literary style" in order to improve their own.
All writers do seek out the ideas, concepts and phraseology of others in order to create something different by a general reworking of that into a new and unique literary work of their own. Whether an author gives his sources of inspiration credit or not is totally irrelevant to the existence and use of extensive plagiarism with the INTENT to deceive the reader that what has been presented is the actual original work of the author.
Again, these are TWO very different things.
---
Back to being HOOKWINKED!!!
DM to Joe quote
> As for what ECKANKAR admits or doesn't admit, I believe Harold has openly
> spoken about Paul as a Master Compiler. I take that as a polite way of
> agreeing that Paul did plagiarize.
> But once again, your problem isn't with me, but others.
JOE: Jan's an intelligent person.
Your words led her to the firm conclusion that Meyer's article
COMPLETELY EXCUSES Paulji from any charges of plagiarism.
Maybe you should look again at what you actually wrote.
[ TEHA Note: Jan, and Cher and others stated clearly NO, Twitchell did not plagiarise.
Their reference for that was Doug Marman's book "Dialogues" and his many posts to a.r.e.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/U-975HnpdRAJ ]
---
JAN (Jan4litsnd) replies to Joe
Is there plagiarism? --
The figure is relatively small compared to the enormous output of Paul
Twitchell. The current documented amount of known plagiarism by Paul Twitchell
has been counted paragraph by paragraph, and it is about .4%, which is less
than 1%.
Marman's research has shown that in Paul's time as well as earlier throughout
history, reworking some principles or words from other works was accepted
practice, especially in religious texts --- until a change in the early 80s.
Paul Twitchell died in 1971. For more details about the change in attitudes and
practice and laws, refer to Doug Marman's Dialogue in the Age of Criticism.
http://members.aol.com/LKPublictn/DialogIntro.htm
(JOE) wrote:
>Watch this everyone.
>
>Question Jan:
>Was Paul Twitchell a plagiarist? Yes or no?
JAN replies:
Paul doesn't live in present time, he didn't write his books in present time.
In 1971 and before, especially in the 1950s when he wrote several of his books,
journalistic standards were different. Check Dialogue in the Age of Criticism,
I think it's Chapter Six, to understand the standards of journalism of the day.
....so my answer is....no.
[TEHA gives a Sophistry, Cognitive Dissonance and Logical Fallacies ALERT ]
To put it another way, my grandmother was born about ten years before Paul
Twitchell. My grandmother had ten children, all born at home with no doctor
present. She also nursed a couple of her neighbors children if there was a
need, at the same time she nursed hers, as they lived in a remote area.
My grandmother never flew in a plane.
My daughter flies all around the world to many countries.
There's been much rapid change in everything in the last century, and the ones
before it. Standards always change along with the times.
------
> JOE WROTE:
> I'm willing to be wrong about that:
>
> Did Doug submit the evidence of Paulji's plagiarism to the author of
> the story about news reporters and plagiarism, to ask if _what Paulji
> did_ would be considered acceptable in yesteryear?
>
> Nope, no way. Doug wouldn't dare.
>
> Doug was just fooling you when he told you that because he found one
> instance where news reporters, for the sake of speed in getting
> new stories to press, sometimes didn't cite all their sources...then
> plagiarism in any form and context was totally acceptable in Paulji's
> time.
>
> That's completely untrue.
[TEHA gives a Sophistry & Cognitive Dissonance and Logical fallacies ALERT ]
DOUG REPLIES:
Why such denial of an article that was printed in a national newspaper? The
article was clear, that plagiarism was not only common in journalism in the
days when Paul worked as a journalist, but the practice was also
recommended. If this upsets you, or you find it hard to believe, then look
up the text that Phillip Meyers referred to, which was the bible of
journalists, which he quoted from. That book recommended the practice, since
in those days most information was lost once it was published, and the world
wide web didn't exist to bring valuable information to everyone's reach.
[ TEHA Note: Marman must be off his rocker here. Can there be any other excuse for such lunacy, other than intentional lying to everyone or simply stupid? Joe posts a list of books with proven Plagiarism in them. These are books about spirituality, about Twitchell telling the read that XYZ Eck master appeared to him in his home or took him on an inner journey where they DICTATED the teachings of Eckankar to him. But large amounts of text has been proven to be directly copied from a multitude of other books.
In response to this matter Marman rattles off this totally unrelated bullshit excuse about "journalists and newspapers". Why? Well because to Marman, Paul Twitchell was so DUMB he couldn't tell the difference between writing a news report about a murder in Miami Florida for the LA Times and his books about Eckankar.
This is such a disconnect from reality the only thing one could reasonably and rationally conclude is that Marman has for decades been extremely self-deluded, bordering on the psychotic. Or he's a duplicitous A hole lying through his teeth endeavouring to manipulate anyone stupid enough to believe his make believe bullshit here.
Furthermore, Marman is claiming that Twitchell was a "Journalist", and that being one this must have gotten in so deeply to his consciousness that he had no power to control himself any more. The seriously delusional aspect to this FALSE claim by Marman is that Twitchell was NOT A JOURNALIST.
He was a writer, a published author, and an editor for a few small time magazines and local rags, yes, but he was never a Journalist who was hired to work at a newspaper, nor any other like publication. There is not one single piece of evidence to sustain this false claim by Marman. Such a connection being used as an excuse in unfounded, even if it was a "fair minded excuse", which it is not.
The articles that Twitchell wrote for Our Navy and Our Army magazines were not of him working as a Journalist either. It was Twitchell writing 'essays and articles'. That's it. Twitchell was never "trained or hired as a Journalist", ever.
Well what about when he was at the Seattle-Post Intelligencer newspaper? He worked there in 1960-1961. Then show me even ONE news report written by Twitchell in that newspaper! There are none!
With the exception of the July 1963 articles about himself, there are none. There is not one example anywhere of Twitchell writing a journalistic newspaper report in all of America. He never worked as newspaper journalist. In Seattle he was working in sales and advertising. That's it. He wrote up sharp manipulative advertising copy for display ads and dealt with clients. That is it!
I challenge Doug Marman the "grandiose historical researcher and author" to prove, with evidence, this is not 100% true and accurate. ]
---
> JOE WROTE:
> Paulji would have been considered a plagiarist in ANY time.
DOUG REPLIES:
Well, if you were talking in the field of literature or academic research,
and you were talking in the Western countries, and you were talking since
the 18th century - yes the term would apply.
[ TEHA Note: Then it applies 100% to Twitchell. He was operating post the 18th century, in western countries, in the field of Literature and historical research of the past. He researched "literature" and then wrote about it, and sometimes he simply plagiarised it word for word. He researched aspects of world history via literature from around the world and wrote about it. He was an author and a long experienced writer, and he wrote about that too. In 1968 he was BANNED from further publishing of his "writings" because he was a plagiarist. Twitchell KNEW IN SPADES what he was doing all the time, and he KNEW it was unacceptable long before he published The Far Country.
Twitchell built his entire writing career from 1939 based upon an unbroken habit of plagiarising others writings big and small, published copyrighted books and other literary works. These facts cannot be denied by anyone who is sane, has integrity, and is also mentally functional as an adult. ]
It is also leveled at artists, musicians and engineers, but without quite
the same stigma as in the world of literature and academia. In the field
of journalism, during the years when Paul was a journalist, it had no
negative stigma, since it made for more interesting reading, and the
personality of the author was secondary in importance.
[ TEHA Note: An ECK Master is not a journalist writing up newspaper stories! ]
Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without giving him
prominent credit would also be called plagiarism. As would David Lane's use
of the theories from Kirpal's satsangis, which he later admitted he got from
them, but never mentioned this in his book. As would David's borrowing from
an article that raised concerns about Paul's early birthdate conflicts. If
David had given credit, it wouldn't have looked so bad when those pieces of
evidence all fell apart under better scrutiny. So, technically, all of these
things are also plagiarism.
Yet, I don't think what David did was that big of a deal. Paul's borrowing
still bothers me more. That's just the way it is. None of these things change
the great value of the work that Paul did, in my mind, nor the value of
David's book.
[ TEHA Note: What value there was in the "contents" of the ideas that are useful or true in Paul's work was destroyed by his failings, his lies, his mythical BS, and his massive plagiarisms in copying others texts word for word and then putting them into ECK masters mouths intentionally and falsely claiming that these are the ECK teachings being given out by the grand hierarchy of the Vairagi ECK masters. The man was a fool. These acts by Twitchell have unnecessarily harmed many people as a result. There is no freedom in that.]
All of this comes down to the fact that if you see Paul negatively, then you
are going to see plagiarism as helping to justify your belief. If you see
Paul positively, then it is something that can be tolerated. That's pretty simple.
[ TEHA Note: Marman, you're insane! People saw Paul positively. Then they found out he was lying to them, and he was copying massively Eckankar texts from other writers and pretending this was dictated by Rebazar Tazrs and others.
It was only after this their view of Twitchell changed and became more negative. It was after this they began to reconsider what Gross and Klemp and others had been saying to them since 1971 to 2002 what was true and what was false. They lied about it too. They have intentionally kept the truth from Eckists and the public by covert and manipulative means and the threat of potential or real legal action. They were equally as deluded as yourself.
No one, not one soul ever to pass through a.r.e., or any other venue, has ever used plagiarism to justify their pre-existing negative attitude to Twitchell. This is because the reason they first got upset was their previously open and accepting positive beliefs which they did have in Twitchell because of his writings. Because of what he had said and written TO THEM personally, via the publications and discourses, as students of Eckankar.
Only when they found out he had been manipulating them intentionally and very knowingly did their positive feelings change. It is the Plagiarism and the lying in and of itself, that created the negative reappraisal and subsequent criticisms of Twitchell and Eckankar as a teaching. Marman, you got it all ass up and backwards - true to form!
Then apologists and sophists like Marman come along an ATTACK these people, judge these people, insult them, tell them they do not understand their own choices and actions, and put intentions and reasons into their mouths that they never ever have said.
Marman has been a disrespectful A hole to these people for decades and has no understanding of exactly what he has been doing. No idea what harm has been caused to them, and especially those who have believed in Marman's make believe excuses, delusions, falsehoods and insipid assumptions.
That anyone has to point this out to Marman again and again and still he can't and will not see it, shows how absolutely stupid and inept he truly is! I am not saying anything new here, it's all been said endlessly to him. He is a rock - impervious to the simplest things people have been telling him for decades. To ignore them as he have, to twist what they have said, and meant, is simply pig ignorance and self-importance of the worst kind in normal human relationships. Marman's extreme vanity protects him from the truth. He cannot see it.
Marman, you are utterly incompetent to be giving anyone in this world any advice or sharing your dubious opinions about what spirituality is or isn't, what is truth and what isn't, what Twitchell did or thought or didn't. Marman, you do not have a clue and have no degree of wisdom at all of these matters, nor about human beings and common sense.
Marman, you are the poster child of how psychologically damaged people can become by swallowing whole the Eckankar mythology, the Twitchellian lies, mysticisms of and the unsavoury lack of ethics of Eckankar, especially under Klemp since 1983. Simply put Marman, you are as thick as a brick! ]
However, to go on and on about it for years, is a matter of obsession. You
can't kill your own demons that way. They need to be resolved within.
Others will always make their own choices.
Interestingly, in all the books on plagiarism that I've read, they all made
one comment right up front. While people don't like plagiarism, most even
like less those who keep attacking plagiarists and raising the issue. Now,
I'll let everyone answer for themselves why that might be.
Doug.
--- --- ---
DL Replies to Marman's false accusations of him
Dear Doug:
First, I did my own research before meeting Sutphin and that which was
mine I included in the book. That which was Sutphin's I put in quotes.
In addition, I helped Sutphin track down things he had never seen.
In the first two MAKING versions I included photostats of Sutphin's
work to substantiate my own independent research.
Second, I think you forget that I quote Kirpal Singh himself as my
source concerning the Tiger's Fang. I also cite and quote Betty
Shifflet, an initiate of Kirpal and one-time friend of Paul's.
Yes, I certainly did talk to Kirpal initiates and when appropriate
quoted them in the text.
Third, you mention me borrowing from an article that questions Paul's
birthdate.
Can you cite the article, since I am a bit confused. If you are
talking about the one which was published in Paducah, I came upon
that after the original Making and later incorporated it in.
I was confused from the get go about Paul's birthdate, given the
Library of Congress' 1908 date and Paul's death certificate as
1922.... and so on.
In any case, I have never accused Paul Twitchell of plagiarism
because he used similar ideas or that he taught similar practices.
No, I accused him of plagiarism when he COPIED ALMOST VERBATIM
the arrangement (Form) of those ideas and those words repeatedly over
and over again.
--- --- ---
[ TEHA Note: Now comes the absolute Classic BS Response from DM - the blind fool who can NEVER READ or LISTEN TO EXACTLY WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY and WRITE - it's really quite sad. ]
> DOUG REPLIES:
> David, I know you just like to argue, but you've obviously not read what I
> wrote very carefully. Or maybe you were thrown off by the way Joe commented
> on my post. Or maybe you're just feeling defensive.
>
> My point was that there was nothing wrong, in my mind, with what you had
> done. Yet, still it was indeed a surprise to many of us that Dr. Sutphin was
> the source for some of those plagiarism quotes. It never said that in your
> book. It was also a surprise that your Tiger's Fang theory was not your own,
> but was also borrowed. Yes, I was referring to that article from Paducah,
> which you also quoted without credit.
> If you think my interpretation of plagiarism is inaccurate, then you should
> know that some editors have recently been fired for printing a joke someone
> else told, even though they rewrote the joke and changed it by using their
> own words and names. There's been other cases where mere ideas being
> borrowed have been the cause for accusations of plagiarism, and the cause of
> people getting fired.
>
[ TEHA Note: So what Marman? ... that has nothing to do with Twitchell copying other's works from the 1950s to the 1970s and selling them as if they were the genuine ancient teachings of the Vairagi ECK Masters and that they had made him the 971st Living Eck master. Nothing. There is zero equivalence here. You are intentionally distracting off topic because of your non-stop obsessive compulsive need to avoid your cognitive dissonance about this issue. Your head is full of assumptions and untruths and idiocy. Illogical garbage iow. ]
> The whole field has a tendency to get ridiculous. That's why few serious
> researchers or authors will make a big deal out of plagiarism when it is
> discovered.
> I do agree that Paul's cases are based on the copying of words, which these
> days is the main focus of plagiarism, but the point I was trying to show was
> how easily the matter gets into the areas of foolishness.
>
[ TEHA Note: Faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrcccccccc what is wrong with you Marman? "copying of words, which these days is the main focus of plagiarism" - and yesterday, and in 1968 when Twitchell was busted by Orion, and when Helena Blavatsky was busted in the 1880s too. Marman you stupid silly man, "plagiarism" has ALWAYS BEEN focused on the COPYING OF WORDS, when involved in books and literature.
Where do you get this fantasy crap from? Is it to INTENTIONALLY MIND FUCK OTHERS, simply to protect your beloved Twitchell, Patti Simpson, and your entrenched Eckankar beliefs?
For this is what it looks like, because surely, no one could be this dumb, could they? Did you even read what Lane just wrote about Sutphin and the references he gave in TMOASM and his College papers? Clearly you did not. ]
> Just think about this for a moment: The whole point of plagiarism is to
> criticize others for not giving credit when they borrow. The borrowing is
> okay. The new work, provided it is not all a copy, is still something new.
> We simply have a convention and set of rules that are very grey over how to
> footnote and when to quote. The same rules don't apply in art or music or
> engineering. I just don't see the crime that all this hollering is about.
> But I do know it bothers others, since they were taught it was bad in
> school.
[ TEHA Note: This is surely what madness looks like in words. Delusional:101 It is Marman that has been "hollering" obsessively about issues of "giving credit" and "criticism". Sure "borrowing" is ok, but verbatim copying is not, but is exactly what Twitchell did, in everything he ever wrote on Eckankar, and then he also "borrowed ideas and the like" and put it in his own words and into his own special Eckankar framework. The latter does not cancel out the former, in any way, and it never will.
Next is the really unsavoury and most unethical part of Twitchell's actions and words. He put those copied words into a mythical fictional framework and made an uncountable number of intentional lies about how and who he got that information from.
Out of that Twitchell created an entirely fraudulent edifice known as the Vairagi Eck Masters and Eckankar ... and then he charged people annual membership fees to learn all about it. Then he announced himself as the New Messiah of the Age and the highest consciousness on earth and as the 971st Living ECK master. He lied!
Without all the copied words, that would never have happened. Therefore people are entitled to feel somewhat RIPPED OFF by the CON. They foolishly and naively seriously believed Twitchell was speaking Truth. Not lying through his teeth 24/7. ]
--- --- ---
[ David Lane has another go at trying to explain, simply hoping Marman might actually comprehend it if he repeats himself - a sucker for punishment is David! He was always too polite and too trusting. ]
PAGE 2 HOOKWINKED!!! History of religious texts reveals plagiarism
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/U-975HnpdRAJ
Dear Doug:
I think we are talking past each other again.
Let me restate:
Sutphin was not the source for my plagiarism quotes. I had discovered
those on my own, as have many others on their own.
In addition, I certainly did QUOTE AND CITE George Tipton Wilson's
article. It is on page 13 of the MAKING. I also list the title.
Maybe you are referencing something different here?
If you read the MAKING I don't make a "theory" about the Tiger's Fang.
I simply quote Kirpal Singh and others who talk about it.
I reference precisely my sources.
Again, I think you are conflating issues here.
I will repeat my point:
I am not accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his use of similar
ideas, concepts, or practices.
I am accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his VERBATIM copying
of long series of words, sentences, and paragraphs (which have
unique arrangements) and passing off the same as his own [work].
While I can certainly agree that there can be a sliding scale
here..... with Twitchell the scale is clearly tipped against him.
---
DOUG REPLIES:
David, are you saying that you used no paragraphs of plagiarism examples
that Dr. Sutphin found, which were new to you, in your book without
crediting Dr. Sutphin? If this is true, then it goes against what you've
said elsewhere. You have admitted that Dr. Sutphin had found things you
hadn't seen before, and some of those quotes were used in your book. Did you
give him credit for everyone of those that you used? I didn't see that.
Secondly, yes I know that you mentioned George Tipton Wilson's article, but
what about the quotes you borrowed from that article that you didn't give
credit to? That's what I was referring to. When I read all of Wilson's
article I was surprised how much had originated there.
Third, in your book you call it The Tiger's Fang Incident. You never state
that this theory came from Kirpal's group in your book. Only after the
theory began falling apart did you suddenly inform us that this wasn't your
theory to begin with anyway.
I am not trying to conflate anything. I believe I am accurate in what I'm
stating. If you would like to go through the details, let me know.
I agree that Paul's plagiarism detracts from how we might see him
otherwise. However, I don't see how it would detract from the teaching he
brought forth, since it is the truth of the teaching that is important, not who wrote it first.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/psYuRXYVIzYJ
[ TEHA Note: YOU'RE AN IDIOT MARMAN - sorry, there is no better word for it. ]
DL: Dear Doug:
Yes, every plagiarism I use in the MAKING is something I found for
myself, unless otherwise noted. I am definitely aware of the fact that
Sutphin found plagiarisms on his own. As have a number of other people.
If I took a quote from Sutphin, I cited it.
I quoted Sutphin's letter to Steiger and I also quoted Sutphin
research on Paul's birthdate.
Re-read the MAKING and see which plagiarism examples I give. Yes,
others may have found the same plagiarisms, but each one I found
myself. If I hadn't, I would have quoted Sutphin's example directly.
You make a claim that I took material from Tipton that I didn't
properly cite or quote.
Can you back this up, Doug?
Because I didn't even have Tipton's article until after several
editions of the MAKING.
Keep in mind that his article was published in the early 1980s.
When I did get it, I quoted it properly and gave direct citations.
Maybe you can give me an example?
As for Kirpal Singh and the Tiger's Fang. Here is the entire page on
that subject. You can figure out whether I cited my sources properly:
FROM THE MAKING:
The Tiger's Fang: A Broken Tooth
"Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these masters when he took
me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. The sotry [sic] of
this trip has been recorded in my bookThe Tiger's Fang."
--Paul Twitchell
[Paul Twitchell, "The God Eaters," Psychic Observer (November 1964),
page 11.]
In 1963, Paul Twitchell sent in manuscript form his book, The
Tiger's Fang, to Kirpal Singh in Delhi, India. Kirpal Singh did not
approve of the work because the inner experiences Twitchell described
having were not complete or accurate.
Reno H. Sirrine in a personal letter to the author, dated
February 22, 1977. Writes Sirrine: "Master Kirpal Singh told me that
he did not return the manuscript, The Tiger's Fang, because many of
the inner experiences he described were not complete or accurate."
About this episode, Kirpal Singh comments:
"I tell you one American was initiated by me--I've got the
initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, "The
Master's Form appears to me inside." That form used to speak to him,
dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and
the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Later he sent me another
letter, "Return my book, The Tiger's Fang." I returned his book.That
was dictated by me on the inner planes, and that's all right. He
changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he
changed it to another guru's name. . . ."
[Kirpal Singh, Heart to Heart Talks, Volume One , page 53.]
The year 1963 was to prove to be a pivotal time for Paul
Twitchell, for not only did he break off friendly ties with Kirpal
Singh, but he also began to prepare the foundation for his own
movement.
Now, Doug, go review your allegations against me.
They don't hold up.
---------
You make a big deal about this Tiger's Fang incident, but when you
look at what I actually wrote you can tell it comes from two sources
whom I DIRECTLY quote:
Paul Twitchell and Reno Sirrine.
And they are properly cited and quoted.
thanks
--- --- --- --- --- ---
[ TEHA Note: Here's the KICKER FOLKS
MARMAN NEVER REPLIES TO DAVID LANE
Instead he RUNS and HIDES and AVOIDS CONFRONTING:
HIS UNTRUTHS
HIS DISTORTIONS
HIS FALSE ACCUSATIONS
HIS FALSE ALLEGATIONS
HIS ERRORS
HIS MAKE BELIEVE BS
HIS COWARDICE
HIS LACK OF INTEGITY
HIS STUPIDITY
HIS LONG TERM MISREPRESTATIONS
HIS INABILITY TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG
HIS REFUSAL TO APOLOGIZE
THE MAN IS A FOOL - That is the gist of it.
I believe that Marman has every right to believe what stupid thing he wants to believe.
I also believe that Marman has every right to act and behave in any way he chooses to.
I do respect his human rights to be like that. I do not have a problem there.
There is no reason on earth that I have to then respect his beliefs, his actions or his ethics.
I do not. I totally reject his long term behaviour, his mythical thinking, his foolishness, his laziness, his insulting words, his egregiously flawed judgements and I have called them out for what they are here. And will continue to be critical of them and him as being 100% responsible for them.
For the readers benefit though, I will explain why it is that he is so flawed here.
Marman still holds to a sincere belief that less than 1% of Twitchell's writings were verbatim plagiarisms. He is wrong.
Marman believes that there was no Plagiarism in Dialogues with the Master. That it was a true and reasonably accurate accounting of Rebazar Tarzs and other the Eck masters speaking to and dictating to Twitchell the teachings of Eckankar. He is wrong.
Marman believes that the "examples of plagiarism" provided by Lane and hundreds of others were only "isolated one off cases" of Twitchell drawing on the writings of others "word for word". That the rest of those books were genuine accounts just like DWTM. He is wrong.
Marman believes that Twitchell's Eck masters are real spiritual beings that do belong to a spiritual hierarchy that teaches a thing called Eckankar, an enlightened and superior path to God etc. He is wrong.
Marman still believes that the essential elements of Twitchell's accounting of his life in regard to being guided by a Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs his entire life, that others in his life like Hubbard and Kirpal Singh and Premananda were mere incidentals in his life, that RT guided him to go to those "teachers" for a special spiritual Eckankar purpose, and that Twitchell was destined to be the head of the order as the Mahanta, the Living ECK master is true and valid. He is wrong. And on and on it goes.
Another permanent issue that causes serious conflict in Marman's thinking processes is that he has an inability to read and comprehend what other people say to him. He can see this in others, but never in himself. He cannot seem to help himself from misinterpreting it or not even seeing what is being said. As such he goes off on wrong assumptions and deluded thinking, endlessly tilting at windmills that were never there. He is wrong, but simply cannot help himself. It's not always intentional, iow.
On the subject of plagiarism Marman has one singular problem - laziness. He has never been willing to do the work required himself. Unless something was dropped in his lap, he was never interested in looking or doing the research for HIMSELF.
Marman believes that an absence of evidence amounts to the evidence of absence - but refuses to ever look for that evidence, or to see it when stuck right in front of his face.
Marman cannot tell the difference (or speak about it properly) between genuine verbatim plagiarism that can and does amount to a serious Copyright Infringement; and the "borrowing of ideas and concepts" from other writers.
He repeatedly CONFLATES these two very different things. He is wrong.
Therefore when Lane and others speak about "plagiarism" being word for word obvious copying, Marman automatically DEFAULTS to discussing that AS IF the other people are merely speaking about the similarity in CONCEPTS and IDEAS and occasional WORDS being the same. He is wrong. And it has screwed up Marman head space since the 1970s to today.
Lastly, the reader should be mindful that, like everyone else, Marman is just another VICTIM of the deceptions of Twitchell as the first cause. The disingenuous manipulations of Harold Klemp, Brad Steiger, Patti Simpson, Gail Twitchell and all the rest who have filled Marman's mind with garbage, untruths, half truths and fraudulent rationalisations.
That is no justification and nor is it a compelling excuse for his own unconscionable behaviour for nigh on 30 years now. ]
--- --- ---
JOE responds again & DOUG's Denials ongoing Page 2
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > It happens both ways, Joe, because most people here are reacting as if it is
> > some kind of war of words, when in fact we are all merely sharing our
> > opinions and thoughts.
> >
> > I have never misrepresented the matter, and I have tried to clarify it
> > numerous times, just as I have done again above.
> JOE WROTE:
> Whatever, you didn't even acknowledge my question.
>
> People are taking your stuff about "journalists and plagiarism of
> yesteryear" and citing it as clear evidence that Paulji DID NOT PLAGIARIZE.
>
> Read Jan's post and see. It's not the first time an Eckist here has
> cited your Meyer interpretation -- an interpretation that does
> misrepresent the issue of Paulji's plagiarism of religious texts.
DOUG REPLIES:
You are apparently having a reading comprehension problem.
I answered your question directly. [ TEHA - Bullshit he did! ]
That was the whole point of my answer. I said it quite clearly in my
book that I believe the evidence is quite clear that Paul did plagiarize.
That's what I said, so how can I be the one who is misleading
others to say that Paul did not plagiarize?
It appears that you are having an interpretation problem as well,
so maybe you should give others some slack.
> > > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > > Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things
> > very differently.
> > > >
> > > > That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of plagiarism is.
> > > > That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to decide
> > > > for ourselves what is right for us to do.
> >
> > > JOE WROTE:
> > > Unfortunately, that's not Eck org's position on Paulji's true literary
> > > sources.
> > >
> > > Eckankar still hasn't admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single word.
> > >
> > > And Eckists are taking your glib "research" into plagiarism and making
> > > it into something that it's not:
> > > A bona fide excuse for Paulji plagiarizing.
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Sounds like lots of things you aren't happy about, but I haven't
> > misrepresented the matter and have explained it many times. So, your problem
> > isn't with me.
> JOE WROTE:
> You can confer with Jan, and other Eckists, and ask them why they
> think your interpretation of the Meyer article is "evidence" that
> Paulji NEVER PLAGIARIZED.
>
> I think you need to hold a "Resa" session with Jan and the other
> Eckists here, and set them straight.
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, in case you haven't noticed, this is YOUR problem. I'm not misleading
anyone. If you think there is confusion, I'd be glad to explain further.
> JOE WROTE:
> Was Jan correct or mistaken in thinking that the Meyer article
> provides evidence that Paulji never plagiarized?
>
> Yes or no?
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, Jan may interpret Meyer's article differently than I do, however I
don't see how his article shows that Paul never plagiarized. In fact, Meyer
calls it plagiarism, but makes it clear that back in those days (1930's -
1970's) that journalists encouraged the practice of plagiarism in the field
of journalism.
Is that clear enough?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/3-2T0SzVV7gJ
[ TEHA - NO it's as clear as MUD Marman, you refuse point blank to acknowledge a single thing JOE said or asked about JAN, what JAN said about your book, what JAN and half a dozen (too hundreds of ) other ECKists have said here, which is as a direct result of YOUR book and YOUR posts here and elsewhere!
You are refusing to take personal responsibility for the effect of your own actions and your own words.
You are intentionally failing to correct people who are publicly MISREPRESENTING YOUR OWN WORDS ON A FORUM THAT YOU ARE PARTCIPATING IN ... AND then you twist this into somehow being Joe's problem but not your own.
That is disingenuous unethical clap trap and a (disgusting unacceptable) denial of your own culpability here, and your decades long unconscionable behaviour about Twitchell and Eckankar history. By misusing your own personal history, personal contacts via Patti Simpson, Gail Twitchell and Darwin and then with Harold including your own personal access to Twitchell's *secret* archive, plus your long term and well publicised High Initiate and leadership authority status in Eckankar.
You are now abusing your power to "influence others through the use of your word" and when they come away with WRONG conclusions, right in front of your face, you are refusing to correct these errors directly. Instead all you can see is that Joe has a problem!
That's disgusting and unethical.
These people are publicly denying Twitchell Plagiarized ... this is a lie .... they directly reference your DITAOC book, your post on a.r.e., and from 2006 they reference your TWT book too!
Marman, you are the one putting up the fraudulent excuse that "plagiarism" was acceptable at some time, in some forms, by some journalists, and in some publications when YOU directly relate that back to Twitchell's plagiarism (and name redactions and false biography) throughout his Eckankar writings.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the Truth and the facts of the matter being made by yourself here. Eckists then take that, twist it even further, and you then choose to disassociate yourself, some how believing and rationalising away, that you are not in fact personally and directly responsible (and should be accountable) for these seriously flawed errors and false conclusions initially spread by yourself.
That is being delusional from start to finish.
Plagiarism (copying verbatim) of others published works was never ok, was never an accepted practice in any form, for any publisher in the US in the 1960s or anyone else since Copyright law was introduced hundreds of years ago. Excessive plagiarism was always a significant plank for claims of Copyright Infringement.
TWITCHELL GOT BANNED FROM ORION MAGAZINE FOR PLAGIARISING IN 1968 - which part of that do you not recognize as being wrong, unacceptable, inexcusable, and also obviously intentional and a clear long term pattern of behaviour on Twitchell's part?
Is this highlighted as a FACT in DITAOC and TWT Marman? No! Did you write a factual chapter dedicated to the plagiarisms known, the misrepresentations made, and the lies told by Twitchell about himself and where the "texts" came from? No!
This is ridiculous. I would have thought, since 2002 you may have come to your senses, but as you have not. This is specifically why this material is now being re-published and these comments made like they are now.
The Sukhmani BS was a bridge too far as well, and one can put that down as one fo the triggers. Marman is 'dangerous' to others well-being and mental stability. He's a purveyor of deceptions, not truth.
Twitchell got banned for plagiarism at the very same time he was busy editing and printing his Eckankar books. All are chock full of plagiarised texts. It is undeniable for all but a mentally ill person. What's Marman's latest excuse?
Normal people at Orion in the 1960s, not some lunatic academic extremist, found what Twitchell did as totally intolerable. Unacceptable. Especially for someone writing about God, Spirituality and Truth. Presenting himself as teacher of spiritual wisdom and God and Life, and a Master in his own right. Give it up Marman, you are a laughing stock.
People didn't stop "entering into dialogue" with you because of the weight of your arguments convinced them they were wrong and you were right. Lane didn't decide to not write a retort to your TWT book because you wiped the floor clean with your insightful brilliance. No Marman. They simply wanted to get away and stay away for your version of insanity. People learnt through trial and error that having an intelligent conversation with you was a complete waste of time.
.... BLIND AS A BAT WITH YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND YOUR PRIVATE PARTS EXPOSED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE ... YOU'RE AN INCOMPETENT IDIOT. Sorry!
Someone has to tell you. And someone has to let people know, from the US to Africa, about this before they get caught in your hypnotic web of delusions and mythical beliefs as well. ]
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Mon, 28 Jul 2014
Etznab says (more nicely than I would) on a.r.e.
Re: History of religious texts reveals plagiarism
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/mnliWQBRN_kJ
I think Harold did try to open up this can of worms back in 1984. However, people do worship and do try and make a God out of a man. It is quite probable that within a large group of many people not all of them will behave the same.
Some will let their enthusiasm get the best of them. They will forget about the truth, about facts, about history and even experience selective amnesia with regard to what is right in front of their face. Iow, people do go over the top with their beliefs and projections. I think such things can be found within most congregations where the New Age teachings are concerned.
So Harold (as leader) spoke about Paul Twitchell, the founder of Eckankar. I was not even a member that early on, but would guess a lot of what Harold said went in one ear and out the other. I would also suspect that some people were seriously in love with the idea of a genuine master living here on Earth and in the United States. Not only the idea of a master, but one from a long line of similar adepts and that Eckankar (as presented) came from an ancient spiritual teaching.
What is not to love about the idea of that? What is not to love about believing it true? Sprinkle in the many reports from members having O.O.B. experiences with the Master(s) and it then appears even the more real to believe as literally true. Nowadays there are drawings and paintings of these Masters. In color no doubt!
I can remember visiting a.r.e. years ago and asking many questions until people couldn't stand it
any more. I sensed some subtle feeling of an unspoken truth. That people who wanted me to "move on" didn't feel that way because I was making things up, or telling lies. Rather I think by that time most people knew about what I was pointing a finger at. And the unspoken truth I referred to just a while ago is this: The belief that some people were better not to know about certain things until after they got their spiritual footing.
iow, the talk about plagiarism and the true identity of Eckankar Masters was not something totally taboo for all. Rather, I sensed people feared what certain truths might do to potential members and new members if they were told right from the beginning.
Maybe ask yourself where it is in the books by Paul Twitchell, and others, that the Eck Masters,
vocabulary and symbolism, etc. unique to Eckankar were (only) literary devices designed to capture the attention of the reader and that these were something newly created and not a part of past history.
However, the idea that Paul did this and that because not many would read the material
otherwise, these are the kind of explanations I have read here at a.r.e. These are the type of things
painted over the plagiarisms as if to justify the deed.
So much guessing. So many people and writers trying to act as if they know more than others about the truth (or Whole Truth) behind the evolution of modern day Eckankar.
If Harold Klemp really came out - in so many words - and said that Paul Twitchell was a rascal, wasn't always honest (even sometimes in letters to friends), compiled, borrowed and plagiarized the writings of other people and credited Eck Masters instead ... then why does it seem to so much hurt the ears of certain Eckankar members when people want to talk about this?
Are they afraid it might dampen their chances for recruiting new members, or cause the relatively few new members to bolt for the door?
Failure to communicate is the legacy of a.r.e. in so many ways if you ask me. Failure to communicate the truth!
But until more people do this I don't see much chance for real dialogue here.
The Master needs the members.
The Master needs love.
This was (in so many words) written into the teachings by Paul Twitchell, I believe.
iow, the Master cannot serve well and carry out a mission if the majority of people hate them, or simply don't trust him and tell it to his face. So it is my suspicion that Harold selected his words carefully when writing about Paul Twitchell and the Eckankar writings. It is also my suspicion that spiritual leaders know full well the movements will not continue if at the same time a majority of members are not happy.
I recall watching Harold Klemp's smile and tone of voice grow over the years into something very
peculiar and unique. To me it spoke volumes about something, but I was not exactly sure what.
However, today I think I am closer to knowing what it is. He is the leader, a spiritual leader for thousands of people from all walks of life ... with many, many people looking up to him as an example of ... for some maybe it seems like God on Earth.
Yea, a lot can be communicated by a smile and a tone of voice; for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Harold already admitted that Paul Twitchell plagiarized?
Hmm ... I wonder how many people missed that boat? :):):)
[end Etznab quote]
TEHA Final Note on ECKANKAR, Plagiarism and the Truth
It is a fact that, prior to 1982, several bona fide Copyright Holders of published literary works made direct complaints in writing to, and took legal action against, ECKANKAR for serious and manifold breaches of their Copyrights by Paul Twitchell, Gail Twitchell, and ECKANKAR, a Non-profit Religious Corporation.
This was as a direct result of the proven plagiarism in their copyright works by one Paul Twitchell in his published books and discourses that were sold by Eckankar.
Harold Klemp was fully aware of this by 1984. He chose not to inform the Membership of these facts, nor make known what compensation was paid out, or what other action was taken as a result.
Buyer beware - there is no freedom of Soul when sincere people have the true facts withheld from them intentionally due to Information Asymmetry and the power of Eckankar to control "the truth".
2014-12-06 Copyright (c) Twitchell Eckankar History Archive All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer Fair Use:
This article is presented strictly in the PUBLIC INTEREST for research purposes and Personal USE ONLY.
All the copyrights of materials reproduced here are the properties of their respective owners.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED SUCH INFORMATION
AND KNOWLEDGE BE PRESENTED OPENLY AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC INTO THE FUTURE
First published 2014-12- 07
ARTICLE TITLE
- 2002 HOOKWINKED: Duplicitous Deluded Doug Marman's Classic Bullshit -
Marman Will Never Admit to his False Public Accusations Made Against Lane & Others
Marman Will Never Admit to his Fallacious Beliefs about Plagiarism Twitchell & Klemp
Marman doesn't have a poor memory, his memory is atrocious.
Marman is not intelligent. His thinking is in fact dysfunctional.
Marman has misused his position in Eckankar to abuse and insult others based on falsehoods.
Marman has little to no ethics or integrity or self-honesty or self-awareness.
Marman refuses to take personal responsibility for his own words and actions.
Marman is disingenuous, duplicitous and dishonest.
Marman just makes shit up about other people, historical events and the facts.
Marman cannot read properly. He distorts beyond all recognition what others have actually said.
Marman has egregiously and unconscionably misled thousands of people, especially ECKists.
These are my own justified true beliefs and opinions based on the known factual evidence and my own personal experiences and interactions with one Douglas Marman over 15 years.
An example of the massive proof for these statements follows.
Doug Marman = DM
David Lane = DL
--- --- --- --- ---
2002-01-24 on alt.religion.eckankar Thread title - HOOKWINKED!!!
by JOE
The entire foundation of ECKANKAR was built on Paulji's plagiarism of
Julian Johnson and other writers.
Paulji's testament, THE TIGER'S FANG, contains plagiarized passages
from Walter Russell's THE SECRET OF LIGHT and Sant Mat books.
Where Paulji is telling us about his "inner experiences," he's actually just
giving us page after page of stuff he copied from books.
Paulji's other early testament to his alleged training with the Eck Master
"Rebezar Tarzs," THE FAR COUNTRY, is absolutely riddled with
hundreds of paragraphs plagiarized from the writings of Dr. Julian
Johnson.
THE SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD, Eckankar's "Bible," contains plagiarized passages.
ILLUMINATED WAY LETTERS, a compilation of a series of monthly letters
sent to the Eck membership, also contains plagiarized passages.
THE KEY TO ECKANKAR, an early Twitchell book, contains plagiarism.
ECKANKAR: COMPILED WRITINGS contains plagiarism.
THE FLUTE OF GOD contains plagiarized passages.
STRANGER BY THE RIVER contains plagiarized passages.
THE SPIRITUAL NOTEBOOK contains plagiarized passages.
ECKANKAR: THE KEY TO SECRET WORLDS contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK VIDYA contains plagiarized passages.
LETTERS TO GAIL contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK DISCOURSES contain plagiarized passages.
HERBS THE MAGIC HEALERS contains plagiarized passages.
[TEHA note: add to this list - Dialogues With The Master, Introduction to Eckankar, In My Soul I Am Free, and every single Discourse Series ever written by Twitchell. It's not 1% or 2% of the text which is Plagiarised, it is closer to 90% ]
Those all are Paul Twitchell Eck books.
In each case, evidence of plagiarism is clear. All plagiarized
passages are from copyright protected texts, and Paulji is not on
record for ever asking permission, from any of the copyright
holders, for the use of their literary property.
All the major concepts of ECKANKAR: Uses of the Imagination, Ancient
Masters, Soul Travel, Inner plane experiences, inner Light and Sound,
Beingness... these can all be traced to Paulji's literary sources.
The fact is,
Most every book Paulji wrote on Eckankar contains documented evidence of plagiarism.
That being so,
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji actually wrote, and what he copied from others.
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji experienced "on the inner," versus what he saw in someone else's book and claimed for his own.
There's absolutely no way to TRUST Paul Twitchell about anything he had to say about himself or his experiences.
In short,
ECKANKAR is founded upon the claims of Paul Twitchell, and
Paul Twitchell has been exposed as a liar and a plagiarist.
Those are the hard facts.
It's time for ECKANKAR, its Clergy, and its members to check themselves:
Tell the unadorned truth about Paul Twitchell.
People who are checking out Eckankar deserve to know this truth up
front, before they part with their money, energy and devotion to Eck
org and its fictions.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/F6rEJJ-Bhq0J
---
[ TEHA note:
Then the ECKist Mythology Defence-Attack Dog Tag Team change the title to:
History of religious texts reveals plagiarism
The seriously unintelligent aspect to this is that the Attack Dogs cannot tell (or publicly admit to) the clear differences between a proven 'word for word' verbatim case of genuine Plagiarism and the drawing upon older religious texts in using pre-existing universal or religion specific "ideas, concepts, philosophies and beliefs about Human Life, and God, and Spirituality".
TWO very different things.
The Attack Dog Team (including the secret HI ECKist Bright Future Yahoo Group) also cannot tell the difference between Quoting an author verbatim, then providing a Reference for that, against acknowledging one's prior teachers or influences in an open way in order to give them a "general credit" for being of service to the Author.
These issues have NOTHING to do with specific cases of Plagiarism. The latter does not excuse the intentional use of the verbatim reusing of specific words nor the FORM in which it is presented as a whole. Particularly when it is being taken from another authors Copyrighted Works. The common and totally accepted methodology for writers is to 'draw upon' and to be 'inspired by' another writers "literary style" in order to improve their own.
All writers do seek out the ideas, concepts and phraseology of others in order to create something different by a general reworking of that into a new and unique literary work of their own. Whether an author gives his sources of inspiration credit or not is totally irrelevant to the existence and use of extensive plagiarism with the INTENT to deceive the reader that what has been presented is the actual original work of the author.
Again, these are TWO very different things.
---
Back to being HOOKWINKED!!!
DM to Joe quote
> As for what ECKANKAR admits or doesn't admit, I believe Harold has openly
> spoken about Paul as a Master Compiler. I take that as a polite way of
> agreeing that Paul did plagiarize.
> But once again, your problem isn't with me, but others.
JOE: Jan's an intelligent person.
Your words led her to the firm conclusion that Meyer's article
COMPLETELY EXCUSES Paulji from any charges of plagiarism.
Maybe you should look again at what you actually wrote.
[ TEHA Note: Jan, and Cher and others stated clearly NO, Twitchell did not plagiarise.
Their reference for that was Doug Marman's book "Dialogues" and his many posts to a.r.e.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/U-975HnpdRAJ ]
---
JAN (Jan4litsnd) replies to Joe
Is there plagiarism? --
The figure is relatively small compared to the enormous output of Paul
Twitchell. The current documented amount of known plagiarism by Paul Twitchell
has been counted paragraph by paragraph, and it is about .4%, which is less
than 1%.
Marman's research has shown that in Paul's time as well as earlier throughout
history, reworking some principles or words from other works was accepted
practice, especially in religious texts --- until a change in the early 80s.
Paul Twitchell died in 1971. For more details about the change in attitudes and
practice and laws, refer to Doug Marman's Dialogue in the Age of Criticism.
http://members.aol.com/LKPublictn/DialogIntro.htm
(JOE) wrote:
>Watch this everyone.
>
>Question Jan:
>Was Paul Twitchell a plagiarist? Yes or no?
JAN replies:
Paul doesn't live in present time, he didn't write his books in present time.
In 1971 and before, especially in the 1950s when he wrote several of his books,
journalistic standards were different. Check Dialogue in the Age of Criticism,
I think it's Chapter Six, to understand the standards of journalism of the day.
....so my answer is....no.
[TEHA gives a Sophistry, Cognitive Dissonance and Logical Fallacies ALERT ]
To put it another way, my grandmother was born about ten years before Paul
Twitchell. My grandmother had ten children, all born at home with no doctor
present. She also nursed a couple of her neighbors children if there was a
need, at the same time she nursed hers, as they lived in a remote area.
My grandmother never flew in a plane.
My daughter flies all around the world to many countries.
There's been much rapid change in everything in the last century, and the ones
before it. Standards always change along with the times.
------
> JOE WROTE:
> I'm willing to be wrong about that:
>
> Did Doug submit the evidence of Paulji's plagiarism to the author of
> the story about news reporters and plagiarism, to ask if _what Paulji
> did_ would be considered acceptable in yesteryear?
>
> Nope, no way. Doug wouldn't dare.
>
> Doug was just fooling you when he told you that because he found one
> instance where news reporters, for the sake of speed in getting
> new stories to press, sometimes didn't cite all their sources...then
> plagiarism in any form and context was totally acceptable in Paulji's
> time.
>
> That's completely untrue.
[TEHA gives a Sophistry & Cognitive Dissonance and Logical fallacies ALERT ]
DOUG REPLIES:
Why such denial of an article that was printed in a national newspaper? The
article was clear, that plagiarism was not only common in journalism in the
days when Paul worked as a journalist, but the practice was also
recommended. If this upsets you, or you find it hard to believe, then look
up the text that Phillip Meyers referred to, which was the bible of
journalists, which he quoted from. That book recommended the practice, since
in those days most information was lost once it was published, and the world
wide web didn't exist to bring valuable information to everyone's reach.
[ TEHA Note: Marman must be off his rocker here. Can there be any other excuse for such lunacy, other than intentional lying to everyone or simply stupid? Joe posts a list of books with proven Plagiarism in them. These are books about spirituality, about Twitchell telling the read that XYZ Eck master appeared to him in his home or took him on an inner journey where they DICTATED the teachings of Eckankar to him. But large amounts of text has been proven to be directly copied from a multitude of other books.
In response to this matter Marman rattles off this totally unrelated bullshit excuse about "journalists and newspapers". Why? Well because to Marman, Paul Twitchell was so DUMB he couldn't tell the difference between writing a news report about a murder in Miami Florida for the LA Times and his books about Eckankar.
This is such a disconnect from reality the only thing one could reasonably and rationally conclude is that Marman has for decades been extremely self-deluded, bordering on the psychotic. Or he's a duplicitous A hole lying through his teeth endeavouring to manipulate anyone stupid enough to believe his make believe bullshit here.
Furthermore, Marman is claiming that Twitchell was a "Journalist", and that being one this must have gotten in so deeply to his consciousness that he had no power to control himself any more. The seriously delusional aspect to this FALSE claim by Marman is that Twitchell was NOT A JOURNALIST.
He was a writer, a published author, and an editor for a few small time magazines and local rags, yes, but he was never a Journalist who was hired to work at a newspaper, nor any other like publication. There is not one single piece of evidence to sustain this false claim by Marman. Such a connection being used as an excuse in unfounded, even if it was a "fair minded excuse", which it is not.
The articles that Twitchell wrote for Our Navy and Our Army magazines were not of him working as a Journalist either. It was Twitchell writing 'essays and articles'. That's it. Twitchell was never "trained or hired as a Journalist", ever.
Well what about when he was at the Seattle-Post Intelligencer newspaper? He worked there in 1960-1961. Then show me even ONE news report written by Twitchell in that newspaper! There are none!
With the exception of the July 1963 articles about himself, there are none. There is not one example anywhere of Twitchell writing a journalistic newspaper report in all of America. He never worked as newspaper journalist. In Seattle he was working in sales and advertising. That's it. He wrote up sharp manipulative advertising copy for display ads and dealt with clients. That is it!
I challenge Doug Marman the "grandiose historical researcher and author" to prove, with evidence, this is not 100% true and accurate. ]
---
> JOE WROTE:
> Paulji would have been considered a plagiarist in ANY time.
DOUG REPLIES:
Well, if you were talking in the field of literature or academic research,
and you were talking in the Western countries, and you were talking since
the 18th century - yes the term would apply.
[ TEHA Note: Then it applies 100% to Twitchell. He was operating post the 18th century, in western countries, in the field of Literature and historical research of the past. He researched "literature" and then wrote about it, and sometimes he simply plagiarised it word for word. He researched aspects of world history via literature from around the world and wrote about it. He was an author and a long experienced writer, and he wrote about that too. In 1968 he was BANNED from further publishing of his "writings" because he was a plagiarist. Twitchell KNEW IN SPADES what he was doing all the time, and he KNEW it was unacceptable long before he published The Far Country.
Twitchell built his entire writing career from 1939 based upon an unbroken habit of plagiarising others writings big and small, published copyrighted books and other literary works. These facts cannot be denied by anyone who is sane, has integrity, and is also mentally functional as an adult. ]
It is also leveled at artists, musicians and engineers, but without quite
the same stigma as in the world of literature and academia. In the field
of journalism, during the years when Paul was a journalist, it had no
negative stigma, since it made for more interesting reading, and the
personality of the author was secondary in importance.
[ TEHA Note: An ECK Master is not a journalist writing up newspaper stories! ]
Besides, even David Lane's use of Dr. Sutphin's research without giving him
prominent credit would also be called plagiarism. As would David Lane's use
of the theories from Kirpal's satsangis, which he later admitted he got from
them, but never mentioned this in his book. As would David's borrowing from
an article that raised concerns about Paul's early birthdate conflicts. If
David had given credit, it wouldn't have looked so bad when those pieces of
evidence all fell apart under better scrutiny. So, technically, all of these
things are also plagiarism.
Yet, I don't think what David did was that big of a deal. Paul's borrowing
still bothers me more. That's just the way it is. None of these things change
the great value of the work that Paul did, in my mind, nor the value of
David's book.
[ TEHA Note: What value there was in the "contents" of the ideas that are useful or true in Paul's work was destroyed by his failings, his lies, his mythical BS, and his massive plagiarisms in copying others texts word for word and then putting them into ECK masters mouths intentionally and falsely claiming that these are the ECK teachings being given out by the grand hierarchy of the Vairagi ECK masters. The man was a fool. These acts by Twitchell have unnecessarily harmed many people as a result. There is no freedom in that.]
All of this comes down to the fact that if you see Paul negatively, then you
are going to see plagiarism as helping to justify your belief. If you see
Paul positively, then it is something that can be tolerated. That's pretty simple.
[ TEHA Note: Marman, you're insane! People saw Paul positively. Then they found out he was lying to them, and he was copying massively Eckankar texts from other writers and pretending this was dictated by Rebazar Tazrs and others.
It was only after this their view of Twitchell changed and became more negative. It was after this they began to reconsider what Gross and Klemp and others had been saying to them since 1971 to 2002 what was true and what was false. They lied about it too. They have intentionally kept the truth from Eckists and the public by covert and manipulative means and the threat of potential or real legal action. They were equally as deluded as yourself.
No one, not one soul ever to pass through a.r.e., or any other venue, has ever used plagiarism to justify their pre-existing negative attitude to Twitchell. This is because the reason they first got upset was their previously open and accepting positive beliefs which they did have in Twitchell because of his writings. Because of what he had said and written TO THEM personally, via the publications and discourses, as students of Eckankar.
Only when they found out he had been manipulating them intentionally and very knowingly did their positive feelings change. It is the Plagiarism and the lying in and of itself, that created the negative reappraisal and subsequent criticisms of Twitchell and Eckankar as a teaching. Marman, you got it all ass up and backwards - true to form!
Then apologists and sophists like Marman come along an ATTACK these people, judge these people, insult them, tell them they do not understand their own choices and actions, and put intentions and reasons into their mouths that they never ever have said.
Marman has been a disrespectful A hole to these people for decades and has no understanding of exactly what he has been doing. No idea what harm has been caused to them, and especially those who have believed in Marman's make believe excuses, delusions, falsehoods and insipid assumptions.
That anyone has to point this out to Marman again and again and still he can't and will not see it, shows how absolutely stupid and inept he truly is! I am not saying anything new here, it's all been said endlessly to him. He is a rock - impervious to the simplest things people have been telling him for decades. To ignore them as he have, to twist what they have said, and meant, is simply pig ignorance and self-importance of the worst kind in normal human relationships. Marman's extreme vanity protects him from the truth. He cannot see it.
Marman, you are utterly incompetent to be giving anyone in this world any advice or sharing your dubious opinions about what spirituality is or isn't, what is truth and what isn't, what Twitchell did or thought or didn't. Marman, you do not have a clue and have no degree of wisdom at all of these matters, nor about human beings and common sense.
Marman, you are the poster child of how psychologically damaged people can become by swallowing whole the Eckankar mythology, the Twitchellian lies, mysticisms of and the unsavoury lack of ethics of Eckankar, especially under Klemp since 1983. Simply put Marman, you are as thick as a brick! ]
However, to go on and on about it for years, is a matter of obsession. You
can't kill your own demons that way. They need to be resolved within.
Others will always make their own choices.
Interestingly, in all the books on plagiarism that I've read, they all made
one comment right up front. While people don't like plagiarism, most even
like less those who keep attacking plagiarists and raising the issue. Now,
I'll let everyone answer for themselves why that might be.
Doug.
--- --- ---
DL Replies to Marman's false accusations of him
Dear Doug:
First, I did my own research before meeting Sutphin and that which was
mine I included in the book. That which was Sutphin's I put in quotes.
In addition, I helped Sutphin track down things he had never seen.
In the first two MAKING versions I included photostats of Sutphin's
work to substantiate my own independent research.
Second, I think you forget that I quote Kirpal Singh himself as my
source concerning the Tiger's Fang. I also cite and quote Betty
Shifflet, an initiate of Kirpal and one-time friend of Paul's.
Yes, I certainly did talk to Kirpal initiates and when appropriate
quoted them in the text.
Third, you mention me borrowing from an article that questions Paul's
birthdate.
Can you cite the article, since I am a bit confused. If you are
talking about the one which was published in Paducah, I came upon
that after the original Making and later incorporated it in.
I was confused from the get go about Paul's birthdate, given the
Library of Congress' 1908 date and Paul's death certificate as
1922.... and so on.
In any case, I have never accused Paul Twitchell of plagiarism
because he used similar ideas or that he taught similar practices.
No, I accused him of plagiarism when he COPIED ALMOST VERBATIM
the arrangement (Form) of those ideas and those words repeatedly over
and over again.
--- --- ---
[ TEHA Note: Now comes the absolute Classic BS Response from DM - the blind fool who can NEVER READ or LISTEN TO EXACTLY WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY and WRITE - it's really quite sad. ]
> DOUG REPLIES:
> David, I know you just like to argue, but you've obviously not read what I
> wrote very carefully. Or maybe you were thrown off by the way Joe commented
> on my post. Or maybe you're just feeling defensive.
>
> My point was that there was nothing wrong, in my mind, with what you had
> done. Yet, still it was indeed a surprise to many of us that Dr. Sutphin was
> the source for some of those plagiarism quotes. It never said that in your
> book. It was also a surprise that your Tiger's Fang theory was not your own,
> but was also borrowed. Yes, I was referring to that article from Paducah,
> which you also quoted without credit.
> If you think my interpretation of plagiarism is inaccurate, then you should
> know that some editors have recently been fired for printing a joke someone
> else told, even though they rewrote the joke and changed it by using their
> own words and names. There's been other cases where mere ideas being
> borrowed have been the cause for accusations of plagiarism, and the cause of
> people getting fired.
>
[ TEHA Note: So what Marman? ... that has nothing to do with Twitchell copying other's works from the 1950s to the 1970s and selling them as if they were the genuine ancient teachings of the Vairagi ECK Masters and that they had made him the 971st Living Eck master. Nothing. There is zero equivalence here. You are intentionally distracting off topic because of your non-stop obsessive compulsive need to avoid your cognitive dissonance about this issue. Your head is full of assumptions and untruths and idiocy. Illogical garbage iow. ]
> The whole field has a tendency to get ridiculous. That's why few serious
> researchers or authors will make a big deal out of plagiarism when it is
> discovered.
> I do agree that Paul's cases are based on the copying of words, which these
> days is the main focus of plagiarism, but the point I was trying to show was
> how easily the matter gets into the areas of foolishness.
>
[ TEHA Note: Faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrcccccccc what is wrong with you Marman? "copying of words, which these days is the main focus of plagiarism" - and yesterday, and in 1968 when Twitchell was busted by Orion, and when Helena Blavatsky was busted in the 1880s too. Marman you stupid silly man, "plagiarism" has ALWAYS BEEN focused on the COPYING OF WORDS, when involved in books and literature.
Where do you get this fantasy crap from? Is it to INTENTIONALLY MIND FUCK OTHERS, simply to protect your beloved Twitchell, Patti Simpson, and your entrenched Eckankar beliefs?
For this is what it looks like, because surely, no one could be this dumb, could they? Did you even read what Lane just wrote about Sutphin and the references he gave in TMOASM and his College papers? Clearly you did not. ]
> Just think about this for a moment: The whole point of plagiarism is to
> criticize others for not giving credit when they borrow. The borrowing is
> okay. The new work, provided it is not all a copy, is still something new.
> We simply have a convention and set of rules that are very grey over how to
> footnote and when to quote. The same rules don't apply in art or music or
> engineering. I just don't see the crime that all this hollering is about.
> But I do know it bothers others, since they were taught it was bad in
> school.
[ TEHA Note: This is surely what madness looks like in words. Delusional:101 It is Marman that has been "hollering" obsessively about issues of "giving credit" and "criticism". Sure "borrowing" is ok, but verbatim copying is not, but is exactly what Twitchell did, in everything he ever wrote on Eckankar, and then he also "borrowed ideas and the like" and put it in his own words and into his own special Eckankar framework. The latter does not cancel out the former, in any way, and it never will.
Next is the really unsavoury and most unethical part of Twitchell's actions and words. He put those copied words into a mythical fictional framework and made an uncountable number of intentional lies about how and who he got that information from.
Out of that Twitchell created an entirely fraudulent edifice known as the Vairagi Eck Masters and Eckankar ... and then he charged people annual membership fees to learn all about it. Then he announced himself as the New Messiah of the Age and the highest consciousness on earth and as the 971st Living ECK master. He lied!
Without all the copied words, that would never have happened. Therefore people are entitled to feel somewhat RIPPED OFF by the CON. They foolishly and naively seriously believed Twitchell was speaking Truth. Not lying through his teeth 24/7. ]
--- --- ---
[ David Lane has another go at trying to explain, simply hoping Marman might actually comprehend it if he repeats himself - a sucker for punishment is David! He was always too polite and too trusting. ]
PAGE 2 HOOKWINKED!!! History of religious texts reveals plagiarism
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/U-975HnpdRAJ
Dear Doug:
I think we are talking past each other again.
Let me restate:
Sutphin was not the source for my plagiarism quotes. I had discovered
those on my own, as have many others on their own.
In addition, I certainly did QUOTE AND CITE George Tipton Wilson's
article. It is on page 13 of the MAKING. I also list the title.
Maybe you are referencing something different here?
If you read the MAKING I don't make a "theory" about the Tiger's Fang.
I simply quote Kirpal Singh and others who talk about it.
I reference precisely my sources.
Again, I think you are conflating issues here.
I will repeat my point:
I am not accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his use of similar
ideas, concepts, or practices.
I am accusing Paul of plagiarism because of his VERBATIM copying
of long series of words, sentences, and paragraphs (which have
unique arrangements) and passing off the same as his own [work].
While I can certainly agree that there can be a sliding scale
here..... with Twitchell the scale is clearly tipped against him.
---
DOUG REPLIES:
David, are you saying that you used no paragraphs of plagiarism examples
that Dr. Sutphin found, which were new to you, in your book without
crediting Dr. Sutphin? If this is true, then it goes against what you've
said elsewhere. You have admitted that Dr. Sutphin had found things you
hadn't seen before, and some of those quotes were used in your book. Did you
give him credit for everyone of those that you used? I didn't see that.
Secondly, yes I know that you mentioned George Tipton Wilson's article, but
what about the quotes you borrowed from that article that you didn't give
credit to? That's what I was referring to. When I read all of Wilson's
article I was surprised how much had originated there.
Third, in your book you call it The Tiger's Fang Incident. You never state
that this theory came from Kirpal's group in your book. Only after the
theory began falling apart did you suddenly inform us that this wasn't your
theory to begin with anyway.
I am not trying to conflate anything. I believe I am accurate in what I'm
stating. If you would like to go through the details, let me know.
I agree that Paul's plagiarism detracts from how we might see him
otherwise. However, I don't see how it would detract from the teaching he
brought forth, since it is the truth of the teaching that is important, not who wrote it first.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/psYuRXYVIzYJ
[ TEHA Note: YOU'RE AN IDIOT MARMAN - sorry, there is no better word for it. ]
DL: Dear Doug:
Yes, every plagiarism I use in the MAKING is something I found for
myself, unless otherwise noted. I am definitely aware of the fact that
Sutphin found plagiarisms on his own. As have a number of other people.
If I took a quote from Sutphin, I cited it.
I quoted Sutphin's letter to Steiger and I also quoted Sutphin
research on Paul's birthdate.
Re-read the MAKING and see which plagiarism examples I give. Yes,
others may have found the same plagiarisms, but each one I found
myself. If I hadn't, I would have quoted Sutphin's example directly.
You make a claim that I took material from Tipton that I didn't
properly cite or quote.
Can you back this up, Doug?
Because I didn't even have Tipton's article until after several
editions of the MAKING.
Keep in mind that his article was published in the early 1980s.
When I did get it, I quoted it properly and gave direct citations.
Maybe you can give me an example?
As for Kirpal Singh and the Tiger's Fang. Here is the entire page on
that subject. You can figure out whether I cited my sources properly:
FROM THE MAKING:
The Tiger's Fang: A Broken Tooth
"Master Kirpal Singh spoke briefly of these masters when he took
me through the several invisible worlds in 1957. The sotry [sic] of
this trip has been recorded in my bookThe Tiger's Fang."
--Paul Twitchell
[Paul Twitchell, "The God Eaters," Psychic Observer (November 1964),
page 11.]
In 1963, Paul Twitchell sent in manuscript form his book, The
Tiger's Fang, to Kirpal Singh in Delhi, India. Kirpal Singh did not
approve of the work because the inner experiences Twitchell described
having were not complete or accurate.
Reno H. Sirrine in a personal letter to the author, dated
February 22, 1977. Writes Sirrine: "Master Kirpal Singh told me that
he did not return the manuscript, The Tiger's Fang, because many of
the inner experiences he described were not complete or accurate."
About this episode, Kirpal Singh comments:
"I tell you one American was initiated by me--I've got the
initiation report in his own handwriting. Then he wrote to me, "The
Master's Form appears to me inside." That form used to speak to him,
dictate to him, inside. And all that dictation was put into a book and
the manuscript was sent to me in 1963. Later he sent me another
letter, "Return my book, The Tiger's Fang." I returned his book.That
was dictated by me on the inner planes, and that's all right. He
changed that book before printing; where he mentioned my name, he
changed it to another guru's name. . . ."
[Kirpal Singh, Heart to Heart Talks, Volume One , page 53.]
The year 1963 was to prove to be a pivotal time for Paul
Twitchell, for not only did he break off friendly ties with Kirpal
Singh, but he also began to prepare the foundation for his own
movement.
Now, Doug, go review your allegations against me.
They don't hold up.
---------
You make a big deal about this Tiger's Fang incident, but when you
look at what I actually wrote you can tell it comes from two sources
whom I DIRECTLY quote:
Paul Twitchell and Reno Sirrine.
And they are properly cited and quoted.
thanks
--- --- --- --- --- ---
[ TEHA Note: Here's the KICKER FOLKS
MARMAN NEVER REPLIES TO DAVID LANE
Instead he RUNS and HIDES and AVOIDS CONFRONTING:
HIS UNTRUTHS
HIS DISTORTIONS
HIS FALSE ACCUSATIONS
HIS FALSE ALLEGATIONS
HIS ERRORS
HIS MAKE BELIEVE BS
HIS COWARDICE
HIS LACK OF INTEGITY
HIS STUPIDITY
HIS LONG TERM MISREPRESTATIONS
HIS INABILITY TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG
HIS REFUSAL TO APOLOGIZE
THE MAN IS A FOOL - That is the gist of it.
I believe that Marman has every right to believe what stupid thing he wants to believe.
I also believe that Marman has every right to act and behave in any way he chooses to.
I do respect his human rights to be like that. I do not have a problem there.
There is no reason on earth that I have to then respect his beliefs, his actions or his ethics.
I do not. I totally reject his long term behaviour, his mythical thinking, his foolishness, his laziness, his insulting words, his egregiously flawed judgements and I have called them out for what they are here. And will continue to be critical of them and him as being 100% responsible for them.
For the readers benefit though, I will explain why it is that he is so flawed here.
Marman still holds to a sincere belief that less than 1% of Twitchell's writings were verbatim plagiarisms. He is wrong.
Marman believes that there was no Plagiarism in Dialogues with the Master. That it was a true and reasonably accurate accounting of Rebazar Tarzs and other the Eck masters speaking to and dictating to Twitchell the teachings of Eckankar. He is wrong.
Marman believes that the "examples of plagiarism" provided by Lane and hundreds of others were only "isolated one off cases" of Twitchell drawing on the writings of others "word for word". That the rest of those books were genuine accounts just like DWTM. He is wrong.
Marman believes that Twitchell's Eck masters are real spiritual beings that do belong to a spiritual hierarchy that teaches a thing called Eckankar, an enlightened and superior path to God etc. He is wrong.
Marman still believes that the essential elements of Twitchell's accounting of his life in regard to being guided by a Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs his entire life, that others in his life like Hubbard and Kirpal Singh and Premananda were mere incidentals in his life, that RT guided him to go to those "teachers" for a special spiritual Eckankar purpose, and that Twitchell was destined to be the head of the order as the Mahanta, the Living ECK master is true and valid. He is wrong. And on and on it goes.
Another permanent issue that causes serious conflict in Marman's thinking processes is that he has an inability to read and comprehend what other people say to him. He can see this in others, but never in himself. He cannot seem to help himself from misinterpreting it or not even seeing what is being said. As such he goes off on wrong assumptions and deluded thinking, endlessly tilting at windmills that were never there. He is wrong, but simply cannot help himself. It's not always intentional, iow.
On the subject of plagiarism Marman has one singular problem - laziness. He has never been willing to do the work required himself. Unless something was dropped in his lap, he was never interested in looking or doing the research for HIMSELF.
Marman believes that an absence of evidence amounts to the evidence of absence - but refuses to ever look for that evidence, or to see it when stuck right in front of his face.
Marman cannot tell the difference (or speak about it properly) between genuine verbatim plagiarism that can and does amount to a serious Copyright Infringement; and the "borrowing of ideas and concepts" from other writers.
He repeatedly CONFLATES these two very different things. He is wrong.
Therefore when Lane and others speak about "plagiarism" being word for word obvious copying, Marman automatically DEFAULTS to discussing that AS IF the other people are merely speaking about the similarity in CONCEPTS and IDEAS and occasional WORDS being the same. He is wrong. And it has screwed up Marman head space since the 1970s to today.
Lastly, the reader should be mindful that, like everyone else, Marman is just another VICTIM of the deceptions of Twitchell as the first cause. The disingenuous manipulations of Harold Klemp, Brad Steiger, Patti Simpson, Gail Twitchell and all the rest who have filled Marman's mind with garbage, untruths, half truths and fraudulent rationalisations.
That is no justification and nor is it a compelling excuse for his own unconscionable behaviour for nigh on 30 years now. ]
--- --- ---
JOE responds again & DOUG's Denials ongoing Page 2
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > It happens both ways, Joe, because most people here are reacting as if it is
> > some kind of war of words, when in fact we are all merely sharing our
> > opinions and thoughts.
> >
> > I have never misrepresented the matter, and I have tried to clarify it
> > numerous times, just as I have done again above.
> JOE WROTE:
> Whatever, you didn't even acknowledge my question.
>
> People are taking your stuff about "journalists and plagiarism of
> yesteryear" and citing it as clear evidence that Paulji DID NOT PLAGIARIZE.
>
> Read Jan's post and see. It's not the first time an Eckist here has
> cited your Meyer interpretation -- an interpretation that does
> misrepresent the issue of Paulji's plagiarism of religious texts.
DOUG REPLIES:
You are apparently having a reading comprehension problem.
I answered your question directly. [ TEHA - Bullshit he did! ]
That was the whole point of my answer. I said it quite clearly in my
book that I believe the evidence is quite clear that Paul did plagiarize.
That's what I said, so how can I be the one who is misleading
others to say that Paul did not plagiarize?
It appears that you are having an interpretation problem as well,
so maybe you should give others some slack.
> > > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > > Clearly, someone coming from an academic background would see things
> > very differently.
> > > >
> > > > That's what ethics are all about, which is what the issue of plagiarism is.
> > > > That means we will each see ethics differently, but we each need to decide
> > > > for ourselves what is right for us to do.
> >
> > > JOE WROTE:
> > > Unfortunately, that's not Eck org's position on Paulji's true literary
> > > sources.
> > >
> > > Eckankar still hasn't admitted that Paulji plagiarized a single word.
> > >
> > > And Eckists are taking your glib "research" into plagiarism and making
> > > it into something that it's not:
> > > A bona fide excuse for Paulji plagiarizing.
> > DOUG REPLIES:
> > Sounds like lots of things you aren't happy about, but I haven't
> > misrepresented the matter and have explained it many times. So, your problem
> > isn't with me.
> JOE WROTE:
> You can confer with Jan, and other Eckists, and ask them why they
> think your interpretation of the Meyer article is "evidence" that
> Paulji NEVER PLAGIARIZED.
>
> I think you need to hold a "Resa" session with Jan and the other
> Eckists here, and set them straight.
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, in case you haven't noticed, this is YOUR problem. I'm not misleading
anyone. If you think there is confusion, I'd be glad to explain further.
> JOE WROTE:
> Was Jan correct or mistaken in thinking that the Meyer article
> provides evidence that Paulji never plagiarized?
>
> Yes or no?
DOUG REPLIES:
Joe, Jan may interpret Meyer's article differently than I do, however I
don't see how his article shows that Paul never plagiarized. In fact, Meyer
calls it plagiarism, but makes it clear that back in those days (1930's -
1970's) that journalists encouraged the practice of plagiarism in the field
of journalism.
Is that clear enough?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/3-2T0SzVV7gJ
[ TEHA - NO it's as clear as MUD Marman, you refuse point blank to acknowledge a single thing JOE said or asked about JAN, what JAN said about your book, what JAN and half a dozen (too hundreds of ) other ECKists have said here, which is as a direct result of YOUR book and YOUR posts here and elsewhere!
You are refusing to take personal responsibility for the effect of your own actions and your own words.
You are intentionally failing to correct people who are publicly MISREPRESENTING YOUR OWN WORDS ON A FORUM THAT YOU ARE PARTCIPATING IN ... AND then you twist this into somehow being Joe's problem but not your own.
That is disingenuous unethical clap trap and a (disgusting unacceptable) denial of your own culpability here, and your decades long unconscionable behaviour about Twitchell and Eckankar history. By misusing your own personal history, personal contacts via Patti Simpson, Gail Twitchell and Darwin and then with Harold including your own personal access to Twitchell's *secret* archive, plus your long term and well publicised High Initiate and leadership authority status in Eckankar.
You are now abusing your power to "influence others through the use of your word" and when they come away with WRONG conclusions, right in front of your face, you are refusing to correct these errors directly. Instead all you can see is that Joe has a problem!
That's disgusting and unethical.
These people are publicly denying Twitchell Plagiarized ... this is a lie .... they directly reference your DITAOC book, your post on a.r.e., and from 2006 they reference your TWT book too!
Marman, you are the one putting up the fraudulent excuse that "plagiarism" was acceptable at some time, in some forms, by some journalists, and in some publications when YOU directly relate that back to Twitchell's plagiarism (and name redactions and false biography) throughout his Eckankar writings.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the Truth and the facts of the matter being made by yourself here. Eckists then take that, twist it even further, and you then choose to disassociate yourself, some how believing and rationalising away, that you are not in fact personally and directly responsible (and should be accountable) for these seriously flawed errors and false conclusions initially spread by yourself.
That is being delusional from start to finish.
Plagiarism (copying verbatim) of others published works was never ok, was never an accepted practice in any form, for any publisher in the US in the 1960s or anyone else since Copyright law was introduced hundreds of years ago. Excessive plagiarism was always a significant plank for claims of Copyright Infringement.
TWITCHELL GOT BANNED FROM ORION MAGAZINE FOR PLAGIARISING IN 1968 - which part of that do you not recognize as being wrong, unacceptable, inexcusable, and also obviously intentional and a clear long term pattern of behaviour on Twitchell's part?
Is this highlighted as a FACT in DITAOC and TWT Marman? No! Did you write a factual chapter dedicated to the plagiarisms known, the misrepresentations made, and the lies told by Twitchell about himself and where the "texts" came from? No!
This is ridiculous. I would have thought, since 2002 you may have come to your senses, but as you have not. This is specifically why this material is now being re-published and these comments made like they are now.
The Sukhmani BS was a bridge too far as well, and one can put that down as one fo the triggers. Marman is 'dangerous' to others well-being and mental stability. He's a purveyor of deceptions, not truth.
Twitchell got banned for plagiarism at the very same time he was busy editing and printing his Eckankar books. All are chock full of plagiarised texts. It is undeniable for all but a mentally ill person. What's Marman's latest excuse?
Normal people at Orion in the 1960s, not some lunatic academic extremist, found what Twitchell did as totally intolerable. Unacceptable. Especially for someone writing about God, Spirituality and Truth. Presenting himself as teacher of spiritual wisdom and God and Life, and a Master in his own right. Give it up Marman, you are a laughing stock.
People didn't stop "entering into dialogue" with you because of the weight of your arguments convinced them they were wrong and you were right. Lane didn't decide to not write a retort to your TWT book because you wiped the floor clean with your insightful brilliance. No Marman. They simply wanted to get away and stay away for your version of insanity. People learnt through trial and error that having an intelligent conversation with you was a complete waste of time.
.... BLIND AS A BAT WITH YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND YOUR PRIVATE PARTS EXPOSED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE ... YOU'RE AN INCOMPETENT IDIOT. Sorry!
Someone has to tell you. And someone has to let people know, from the US to Africa, about this before they get caught in your hypnotic web of delusions and mythical beliefs as well. ]
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Mon, 28 Jul 2014
Etznab says (more nicely than I would) on a.r.e.
Re: History of religious texts reveals plagiarism
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/XyI2kmHvHxA/mnliWQBRN_kJ
I think Harold did try to open up this can of worms back in 1984. However, people do worship and do try and make a God out of a man. It is quite probable that within a large group of many people not all of them will behave the same.
Some will let their enthusiasm get the best of them. They will forget about the truth, about facts, about history and even experience selective amnesia with regard to what is right in front of their face. Iow, people do go over the top with their beliefs and projections. I think such things can be found within most congregations where the New Age teachings are concerned.
So Harold (as leader) spoke about Paul Twitchell, the founder of Eckankar. I was not even a member that early on, but would guess a lot of what Harold said went in one ear and out the other. I would also suspect that some people were seriously in love with the idea of a genuine master living here on Earth and in the United States. Not only the idea of a master, but one from a long line of similar adepts and that Eckankar (as presented) came from an ancient spiritual teaching.
What is not to love about the idea of that? What is not to love about believing it true? Sprinkle in the many reports from members having O.O.B. experiences with the Master(s) and it then appears even the more real to believe as literally true. Nowadays there are drawings and paintings of these Masters. In color no doubt!
I can remember visiting a.r.e. years ago and asking many questions until people couldn't stand it
any more. I sensed some subtle feeling of an unspoken truth. That people who wanted me to "move on" didn't feel that way because I was making things up, or telling lies. Rather I think by that time most people knew about what I was pointing a finger at. And the unspoken truth I referred to just a while ago is this: The belief that some people were better not to know about certain things until after they got their spiritual footing.
iow, the talk about plagiarism and the true identity of Eckankar Masters was not something totally taboo for all. Rather, I sensed people feared what certain truths might do to potential members and new members if they were told right from the beginning.
Maybe ask yourself where it is in the books by Paul Twitchell, and others, that the Eck Masters,
vocabulary and symbolism, etc. unique to Eckankar were (only) literary devices designed to capture the attention of the reader and that these were something newly created and not a part of past history.
However, the idea that Paul did this and that because not many would read the material
otherwise, these are the kind of explanations I have read here at a.r.e. These are the type of things
painted over the plagiarisms as if to justify the deed.
So much guessing. So many people and writers trying to act as if they know more than others about the truth (or Whole Truth) behind the evolution of modern day Eckankar.
If Harold Klemp really came out - in so many words - and said that Paul Twitchell was a rascal, wasn't always honest (even sometimes in letters to friends), compiled, borrowed and plagiarized the writings of other people and credited Eck Masters instead ... then why does it seem to so much hurt the ears of certain Eckankar members when people want to talk about this?
Are they afraid it might dampen their chances for recruiting new members, or cause the relatively few new members to bolt for the door?
Failure to communicate is the legacy of a.r.e. in so many ways if you ask me. Failure to communicate the truth!
But until more people do this I don't see much chance for real dialogue here.
The Master needs the members.
The Master needs love.
This was (in so many words) written into the teachings by Paul Twitchell, I believe.
iow, the Master cannot serve well and carry out a mission if the majority of people hate them, or simply don't trust him and tell it to his face. So it is my suspicion that Harold selected his words carefully when writing about Paul Twitchell and the Eckankar writings. It is also my suspicion that spiritual leaders know full well the movements will not continue if at the same time a majority of members are not happy.
I recall watching Harold Klemp's smile and tone of voice grow over the years into something very
peculiar and unique. To me it spoke volumes about something, but I was not exactly sure what.
However, today I think I am closer to knowing what it is. He is the leader, a spiritual leader for thousands of people from all walks of life ... with many, many people looking up to him as an example of ... for some maybe it seems like God on Earth.
Yea, a lot can be communicated by a smile and a tone of voice; for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Harold already admitted that Paul Twitchell plagiarized?
Hmm ... I wonder how many people missed that boat? :):):)
[end Etznab quote]
TEHA Final Note on ECKANKAR, Plagiarism and the Truth
It is a fact that, prior to 1982, several bona fide Copyright Holders of published literary works made direct complaints in writing to, and took legal action against, ECKANKAR for serious and manifold breaches of their Copyrights by Paul Twitchell, Gail Twitchell, and ECKANKAR, a Non-profit Religious Corporation.
This was as a direct result of the proven plagiarism in their copyright works by one Paul Twitchell in his published books and discourses that were sold by Eckankar.
Harold Klemp was fully aware of this by 1984. He chose not to inform the Membership of these facts, nor make known what compensation was paid out, or what other action was taken as a result.
Buyer beware - there is no freedom of Soul when sincere people have the true facts withheld from them intentionally due to Information Asymmetry and the power of Eckankar to control "the truth".
Etznab
Dec 8, 2014, 1:24:19 AM12/8/14
to
Is it not amazing how many people who did not witness an event (or events) in history can be so sure that they know about the absolute truth? Can be even so sure based on the testimony of others who also were not on the scene to witness the facts?
So what happens next? Generally what happens is that truth and justice go to battle against fiction and crime. Evidence and facts are sought in an attempt to clarify for everyone (everyone who was not a witness to the truth) what actually happened.
There is something to note, however. Suppose the evidence, the truth and the facts are slow to surface. Or slow to be revealed. Suppose that people have weeks, months and even years to imbibe erroneous versions of the truth; and fictions even. Furthermore, suppose that the inaccurate record of history and the facts has grown into a religion with many members; members who live in a country (or countries) where freedom of religion (or freedom to believe / imagine) grants them liberty to propagate as true (in spite of common sense and growing evidence to the contrary) that which is not. Note that when the truth finally does come to surface, finally does come to be revealed via facts and evidence that all can see, that many people can persist (in spite of the truth) to believe as before! Believe as BEFORE the truth was actually known to them!
Large crowds of people are allowed to have "freedom of religion" and basically believe whatever they want without the government charging them with a crime. In fact, many things are allowed if / when a person says it is part of their religious belief; or part of their religion.
So imagine this. Imagine people believing in false information religiously!
The government will not step in (in many cases) to tell people they are wrong to believe what they believe. Not when it is the people's right to believe regardless the growing amount of facts and evidence to the contrary. (Only in America?)
Is this peculiar?
Why would law enforcement allow people to commit crimes unimpeded. Is it simply to let them vent?
Here is my belief. People in authority are the minority. They very well know this. They know that the average citizen is powerless to pose as any great threat to them (they, the authority). HOWEVER, when citizens combine and join together into a movement there is then no other group of people on earth great enough to oppose them! The "pawns" are the greatest majority on the board and in real life there are potentially millions and billions more "pawns" than can be found on a board of chess. Not a ruler or a member of clergy can oppose such a majority when the very same majority is their very own sustenance. Their very own means to live in a world such as has been maintained by the majority of citizens working in concert across the globe for decades.
So what is the actual historical truth about "Eckankar" teachings and "Masters" of the same? Well consider this. Does it really matter? Does the truth really matter if / when the majority already have a popular version of the truth? Can even the master of any religion stand to oppose the combined and most popular beliefs of the congregation? How could they? Could they do it by openly holding a hearing and collecting each and every available and verifiable fact to render a more complete picture of the actual truth? Would that work? Because what if the people don't want it. What if the people can't handle the truth? Can the relative minority in authority prevent the people from acting out? Have they even the resources to do that?
I think this is why people are (sometimes) allowed to vent. Sometimes allowed to commit crime. And allowed to believe in whatever they want. Because people are the potential majority. If the actions of authority to "correct" have the result of creating an even greater unified majority to oppose them, this could spiral into a "chain reaction" of sorts and render less powerful any minority authoritative group on earth assembled to oppose them.
Long story short (my contribution to this thread), the "Pied Piper" of authority (religious or secular) will play every and any "tune" available in order to find what works to keep the majority in line.
Harold Klemp specifically and openly admitting all the facts of plagiarism that are known today would not be in his (or Eckankar the corporation's) best interest (IMHO) because the majority could potentially dethrone both him and the current leadership; if not the corporation itself! They have the power, because they (the potential majority) are a vital necessity and the "corporate body" cannot sustain a "living" without their cooperation, support and financial contributions.
No great empire, nation, etc. has ever lasted for eternity but has always, always been altered depending on the livelihood of the majority and what happens either with, or to them.
IMO, pawns are the front line of both offense and defense. The whole "game" would change if pawns but acted in united allegiance. Not only on one side of the board.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages