Dragnet - Plagiarism Revisited
@aloha.net Rich
"All we know are the facts ma'am" - Sgt Joe Friday
About twenty-five years ago I read David Lane's "The Making of a
Spiritual Movement". Like many that read it, for years I believed that
his information and conclusions on the plagiarism issue were accurate.
Fast forward to early 1998 where I had been going back and forth with
David on A.R.E. for more than a year. I was beginning to recognize that
some of David's opinions, couched as facts, where exaggerations. What
sparked a search for the unadulterated facts was when he said that 1/2
of The Far Country was plagiarized and that "was merely the tip of the
iceberg." So I picked up the book, counted how many paragraphs there
were and compared that to how many he listed in his book. It turned out
that it was less than a 1/3, but he refused to back off from his "tip of
the iceberg' claim, so I challenged him to put up all the paragraphs
side by side with those from other's books.
The criteria for the 'Plagiarism Contest'(his term) is as follows:
"To be submitted in the Plagiarism Contest, comparison quotes must be
posted here, or on the web, for all to see. No hearsay, suspicions,
guesses, opinions, page numbers, or unsubstantiated claims can be
accepted in the total number of paragraphs."
"Every benefit of the doubt is given to David Lane and detractors.
Numbers will be rounded off in their favor, and questionable paragraphs
will always err on their side. Partial paragraphs and even one sentence
quotes will be counted as a whole paragraph."
Many eagerly jumped in to help him. If it turned out that this was the
"tip of the iceberg",(only 10%) then they would gleefully be able to
cite thousands of paragraphs that could be documented as plagiarized.
Over three years later I did ballpark math on the totals as follows:
By my count there are about 1500 paragraphs in The Far Country. Most of
Paul's other major books are about the same size. Of course the
discourses and a few other things are smaller in size. To remove any
doubt, by erring in the extreme for fairness, I decided to use his
average writings as only 750 paragraphs.
According to David Lane, in his five years as ECK Master, Paul wrote
about 60 manuscripts. Like many of David's claims I suspected that might
be an exaggeration too, so I decided to again go to the extreme, to bend
over backwards in using only 30 as the number he wrote. In effect, that
would _double_ the percentage total.
At that time right around 100 paragraphs had been documented.(As of
today, maybe 60 more have been documented) Assuming that David was
accurate with the about 400 paragraph numbers he cited in his book, I
decided to include those too, and came up with this:
750 paragraphs
X 30 works
-----------
22,500 paragraphs that Paul wrote.
500 ÷ 22,500 = 2.2%
However, recently Doug did what no one has bothered to do before. He
actually checked the paragraph numbers David has given at the beginning
of Chapter One, against the two Julian Johnson books David referred to.
Out of the first 32 paragraphs that David identified as plagiarisms,
only 20% of what David claimed actually showed plagiarisms!
Be that as it may, the 400+ that David claims in "The Far Country" have
never be documented except as shown above. So if we add the 7(20%) from
above, with the additional 60 more, here's what we get.
167 ÷ 22,500 = .7%
Less that 1% of what Paul wrote has been *proven* to be plagiarized!
Keep in mind that _all_ these figures have been skewed _in favor_ of
plagiarism.
Some will certainly continue to find even this miniscule amount
egregious. Some will continue to imagine that vast amounts of what Paul
Twitchell wrote was plagiarized.
Irregardless, these are how the facts stand today.
Dum-De-Dum-Dum
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wernertrp
80% or 2.2% or 0.7% plagiarism what does it matter.
I call it copycat the ancient indian stories.
Whatever percentage it may be.
didledumdumdie.
Michael Wallace
I feel it deserves a post to Ford Johnson, with a link to a URL where he can
invite everyone to share the information... Let's see if he will put a note
up on his bulletin board stating clearly that the plagiarism claim has been
overstated to the extreme <G>
Would you like me to put up the info at some permanent address??
Love
Michael
PS: Isn't it odd how everyone assumed David Lane was stating facts, when
they were in simple fact, opinions.
PPS: Saint George (SG) and the Dragon (D) quote: (SG) I'm going to book you
on a 714... (D) "A 714, what's a 714?" ... (SG) Devouring maidens out of
season. I am also booking you on a 504... (D) "A 504 What's a 504!!"
...(SG) Overacting... let's go.
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:c819c...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
@aloha.net Rich
"Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
> This just came through Sri Rich...
>
> I feel it deserves a post to Ford Johnson,
I wrote it for there, and sent it there first.
> with a link to a URL where he can
> invite everyone to share the information... Let's see if he will put a
note
> up on his bulletin board stating clearly that the plagiarism claim has
been
> overstated to the extreme <G>
Not a chance, in fact he never posted it! I sent it 48 hours ago...
posts I sent after it showed up yesterday. So either he is suppressing
facts that are contrary to his tightly held stance which would be
detrimental to his overall program, or he is having a real hard time
trying to construct a response that could spin it enough to fool his
followers.<G>
> Would you like me to put up the info at some permanent address??
Yes! Good idea. Do it.
> Love
>
> Michael
>
> PS: Isn't it odd how everyone assumed David Lane was stating facts,
when
> they were in simple fact, opinions.
Hey... I was young, naive and after the first shock, it didn't change a
thing with my spiritual understanding.
> PPS: Saint George (SG) and the Dragon (D) quote: (SG) I'm going to
book you
> on a 714... (D) "A 714, what's a 714?" ... (SG) Devouring maidens out
of
> season. I am also booking you on a 504... (D) "A 504 What's a 504!!"
> ...(SG) Overacting... let's go.
Book 'em Dano.<G>
wernertrp
80% or 2.2% or 0.7% plagiarism it doesn't matter.
When Paul copycat the ancient indian stories.
@aloha.net Rich
"wernertrp" <schube...@t-online.de> wrote
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> > > > Some will certainly continue to find even this miniscule amount
> > > > egregious.
> 80% or 2.2% or 0.7% plagiarism it doesn't matter.
> When Paul copycat the ancient indian stories.
Right, that's what I said. It doesn't matter to some. To me, reason
dictates 99.3% shows a realistic overall representative picture.
Michael Wallace
"wernertrp" <schube...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dac8b6b8.04051...@posting.google.com...
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:<c86hn...@news3.newsguy.com>...
> > "Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
> >
> > > This just came through Sri Rich...
> > >
> > > I feel it deserves a post to Ford Johnson,
> >
> > I wrote it for there, and sent it there first.
> >
> >
>
> 80% or 2.2% or 0.7% plagiarism it doesn't matter.
> When Paul copycat the ancient indian stories.
Werner... Did you know the Bible is 100% plagiarized?
All literature is plagiarized to some degree. Either consciously or
subconsciously we subsume elements of past reading and experience and
assemble this into new forms... But the new forms invariably carry
structures inherent in things we have read in the past.
It just cannot be avoided.
The curious fact remains... Paul referenced the vast majority of his
sources, and recommended books for reading to many people. He was not hiding
any of his past research. What strikes me as curious, however, is that the
writers he appeared to NOT reference seem to have themselves taken their
research from the Parent Faith of which Sudarshen Singh was the last
teacher.
Annie Bessant, Julian Johnson and some others all studied and used material
from the Parent Faith without referencing the source.
I may not be 100% accurate with this, but it seems Paul may have had a
twisty humour in there somewhere... something I am sure you can appreciate
<G>
Love
Michael
@aloha.net Rich
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> "Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
>
> > This just came through Sri Rich...
> >
> > I feel it deserves a post to Ford Johnson,
>
> I wrote it for there, and sent it there first.
>
>
> > with a link to a URL where he can
> > invite everyone to share the information... Let's see if he will put
a
> note
> > up on his bulletin board stating clearly that the plagiarism claim
has
> been
> > overstated to the extreme <G>
>
> Not a chance, in fact he never posted it! I sent it 48 hours ago...
> posts I sent after it showed up yesterday. So either he is suppressing
> facts that are contrary to his tightly held stance which would be
> detrimental to his overall program, or he is having a real hard time
> trying to construct a response that could spin it enough to fool his
> followers.<G>
Ford finally responded. Maybe after seeing this censorship post?
Below is my post, his response and my answer.
His response is basically like previous ones when contrary facts have
been presented. He presents no new facts or information, and can't
refute the facts presented. So we see 'The most important thing for a
truth seeker is his opinion is that Paul was a liar and a thief ect, and
that overrides any facts.'
I originally wrote:
about 60 manuscripts, including I assume taking into account
"out-of-print and obscure material". Like many of David's claims I
suspected that might be an exaggeration too, so I decided to again go to
the extreme, to bend over backwards in using only 30 as the number he
wrote. In effect, that would _double_ the percentage total.
At that time right around 100 paragraphs had been documented.(since
then, maybe 60 more have been documented) Assuming that David was
accurate with about the 400 paragraph numbers he cited in his book, I
decided to include those too, and came up with this:
750 paragraphs
X 30 works
-----------
22,500 paragraphs that Paul wrote.
500 ÷ 22,500 = 2.2%
However, recently someone did what no one has bothered to do before. He
actually checked the paragraph numbers David has given at the beginning
of Chapter One, against the two Julian Johnson books David referred to.
Out of the first 32 paragraphs that David identified as plagiarisms,
only 20% of what David claimed actually showed plagiarisms!
Be that as it may, the 400+ that David claims in "The Far Country" have
never be documented except as shown above. So if we add the 7(20%) from
above, with the additional 60 more, here's what we get.
167 ÷ 22,500 = .7%
Less that 1% of what Paul wrote has been *proven* to be plagiarized!
Keep in mind that _all_ these figures have been skewed _in favor_ of
plagiarism.
Some will certainly continue to find even this miniscule amount
egregious. Some will continue to imagine that vast amounts of what Paul
Twitchell wrote was plagiarized.
Irregardless, these are how the facts stand today.
Dum-De-Dum-Dum
Ford responds:
Dear CyberSailor
I'm afraid that your emphasis of the degree of Twitchell’s Plagiarism
misses the point. The issue for the truth-seeker is not the percentage
of Paul’s writings that contain plagiarism. The issue is the moral
turpitude associated with the act of plagiarism in the first place. When
one holds himself out as "God made flesh" and “the most developed human
on the planet” and the many other appellations that Paul and his
successors adopted, there is a standard of conduct that is not only
expected but which they have defined as appropriate in judging their
actions.
Plagiarism is only one such indicator of whether they are true to their
own standards or whether these standards are only lip service, good for
establishing an image but not for accountability. Thus, the issue is
credibility. Just as in our justice system, a person’s past patterns of
lying is held as probative evidence that they are lying on the stand and
generally cannot be trusted, the same holds true --to an even greater
degree-- for one who would seek to lead souls to God and who puts
himself up as the exclusive “Son of God”, “God made flesh.”
To carry the discussion into one of how frequently Paul plagiarized (and
Harold covered-up) is to shift the attention to a pedantic side-note
arguing over a point that provides little solace to the God Seeker who
is just looking for an honest teacher who will not deceive him.
Concentration on this and other pedantic points is what occurred so
often in the long debate with David Lane who valiantly carried the torch
of truth on this and other issues regarding Eckankar.
Paul’s veracity and credibility can best be judged against his own
standards of truth. If he knowingly violated his own standards on a
consistent basis, regardless of the percentage, then these acts would
bring all of his writings into question. It would be difficult to
discern when he is telling the truth and when he is not. In Paul’s
numerous acts of plagiarism, it is clear that his intentions are not
pure or he would never resort to the pattern of lying that plagiarism
represents. And remember this is only one of ten patterns of deception
in which Paul engaged (see Chapter 7 Confessions). The use of any one of
these devices should raise fundamental questions to the truth seeker
about whether this man is to be believed -- much less followed.
Here is how Confessions treats this issue:
“When a person comes to a spiritual teaching, listens to the words of
its spiritual leader, and reads its sacred texts, he is in a vulnerable
state: he might well be too trusting. Many who come to Eckankar do not
question it. They believe that they are being told the truth and that a
highly developed spiritual leader would not deceive them. All teachers
carry great responsibility. A relationship of trust exists akin to that
of parent to child. How much more sacrosanct, then, is the relationship
between a spiritual leader and a student, especially if the former
purports to be the manifestation of God? The student is apt to believe
what he is told, especially if facile answers are readily available to
assuage his concerns.” (p 93)
And
"The Standard of Truth
Paul set other important standards in Eckankar. They compose its
foundation and are what attracted me to the teaching. This is how he put
it:
'Man is able to tell what comfortable lies he likes to others but he
must beware of telling them to himself — not because it is immoral but
because, unfortunately, he will not be able to deceive himself. One
cannot live happily with a person he knows is a liar.12'"
"Having warned us about the liar, Paul then identifies the standard,
indeed the imperative, for truth in our lives. He writes:
'Before you can give truth to others, Truth must be known as the
absolute need in your life. We must see Truth and know Truth and think
Truth always.13'
'This is the time for Truth, -the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but
the Truth.- This is no time for half-Truths, for bewilderment and lack
of understanding. These constitute the soil in which grief grows. In
Truth alone is there comfort, understanding and courage.14'"
"He even spoke of the untoward circumstances that befall anyone who
fails to heed this admonition:
'Refuse to see Truth, pretend that it is impossible to know what is true
and what is not, distort Truth, seek to mix it with Untruth, attempt to
deceive both ourselves and others, give Truth in an unattractive manner,
then chaos will reign in our lives.15'"
"These are the principles by which the history of Eckankar and its
leadership will be examined. Looking at this history will not be easy.
It may even be painful. We all struggle to defend our beliefs and those
in whom we have placed our trust. Indeed, we should not abandon these
loyalties quickly. However, the God-seeker must choose between holding
on to the familiar and moving on toward truth. Some will choose the
familiar, at least until the call of soul shepherds them beyond their
comfort zone into the unfamiliar, the unknown, where the next step in
spiritual growth lies. Let us remember what Paul said:
'We must have Truth in order to have power. Be truthful in your
thoughts. Never shy away from a critical thought from a sense of
mistaken kindness to yourself. Never make a deliberate effort to forget
something unpleasant. It is our responsibility to face the things we
have created.16'"
Paul's plagiarism must be viewed from this perspective if the real
issues associated with it are to be considered. That Paul stole material
from others is clear and undeniable. That he did it intentionally and
knowingly has also been well documented and attested to even by one of
the persons who lent him some of the books from which he plagiarized
while questioning Paul about this practice (Dr. Bluth).
Paul did not copy this material –mistakes and all— from some astral
library as Harold maintains. The point is that Paul was not a very
honest person at times and vacillated from a high state of consciousness
to such a low state that stealing the works of others and representing
that they are his own, did not seem to phase him. These are the symptoms
of a pathological liar, whether the conclusion is an easy and
comfortable one to accept or not.
So whether Paul plagiarized 2%, 10% or 40% percent is not nearly as
important as the fact that he did it repeatedly and fell victim to the
very consequence about which he warned others, namely:
“Refuse to see Truth, pretend that it is impossible to know what is true
and what is not, distort Truth, seek to mix it with Untruth, attempt to
deceive both ourselves and others, give Truth in an unattractive manner,
then chaos will reign in our lives.15”
The chaos that now infects the minds and feelings of thousands of
Eckists around the world is the result of Paul Twitchell’s, Darwin
Gross' and Harold Klemp's failure to follow this admonition. Eckankar
now reaps the whirlwind.
TS
I replied:
The facts of Paul's plagiarism stand on their own merit.
TS starts by saying I am missing the point? How could I be missing my
own point? This is TS's tactic to immediately deflect and avoided my
point. The facts prove that the plagiarism issue is wildly
overinflated. Regarding that, my point was, "Some will certainly
continue to find even this miniscule amount egregious."
Common sense and reason dictates to me that 99.3% shows a realistic
overall representatation of Paul's writings.
TS's point in this case is forget this indicator of the facts. When
other facts have been presented, his response has been forget those,
because the plagiarism supports his view. Rather than addressing each on
their own merit he shifts the attention to other opinions that have also
been shown to not be supported by facts. This circular logic and a
careful examination of the rest of his response is refuted on logical
fallacies web sites and include slothful induction, fallacy of
exclusion, prejudicial language, various forms of ad hominem and begging
the question. These are excellent tactics for debating and lawyerly
spin, but do not seek the truth or a higher consciousness perspective.
Many of the Eckists that have been thrown off balance by these
misrepresentations and distortions of the facts have been taken in by
other's opinions.
What I have presented is not opinion. Erring by a wide margin still
only proves that .7% of Paul's were plagiarized.
sugmad dream
information on the Ancient Science of Soul Travel was nothing new.
Masters had been teaching it for years in fact much in the way Paul
taught it. Being a child of the sixties and very open to spiritual
experiences which seemed to be happening to myself and others. Many
were willing to dies in order to find spiritual freedom from all
things. The truth is money and spirit are very closely related they
both contain freedoms.
What strikes me as funny is how we as enlightened beings hang on every
word spoken by someone like a Paul, Harold, Pope, RESA, H.I., etc....
In fact we are even willing to surrender our God rights for a single
source God who sells the universality of spirit. How undivine! Don't
get me wrong it is great being around a person who has gained a
certain level of awareness. In fact it was always a small one on one
band of followers who by OSMOSIS the master lifted into ecstatic
states of knowing.
Bricks and concrete will never take anyone into the heart ITSELF.
Building the next world religion will not set Souls free, those in
control want a new world order and Eckankar would serve it well.
"The locked doors of temple halls are the pillars of vanity, greed,
lust, fear and a misunderstanding of our divine nature."
Is Lai Tsi contemplation in the new testament, yes. Can you imagine
the Christian faith taking Lai Tsi contemplation and changing the
words "Show me they way oh Sugmad" to "Show me they ways oh Lord", how
could they do it? NOT!
Ekankar nor any other teaching can hold truth! "To hold truth is to
lose IT."
As our divine nature you can know IT without expression.
Warmest Regards to all,
Surmad Dreaming
Michael Wallace
A quick look through reveals Fords attitude:
> there is a standard of conduct that is not only
> expected but which they have defined as appropriate in judging their
> actions.
Do you get the sense of a pompous, overbearing task master who presumes HE
is the be all and end all of all conversation?
Why is it that people lost in their own logic never see the holes in it? Why
is is that people with huge logs in their own eyes always pick on the
splinters somewhere else?
Ford Johnson plays Censor God with himself, not just his bulletin Board. He
avoids the obvious time and time again, and does a side step shuffle when
confronted with the obvious. Plagiarism was NEVER the issue... People's
beliefs that is is WRONG is the issue. The facts are, plagiarism is a
standard practice even today in ALL journalism.
Facts are, the Bible is a plagiarized document, but even if this is "wrong"
it does not invalidate the Christian teaching. Even the slughter of
countless thousands of innocents in the history of the church does not
invalidate the church or its teachings. People seem to hold human morals up
as the factor by which all things can be judged, but the facts are that
people find spiritual growth in all circumstances, in all times, and in all
ways.
Is anyone at Fords BB growing spiritually? Perhaps this should be his
greatest concern... But we all know, he is simply using the pretext of
"problems" in Eckankar to garner a following for himself. There is a large
million dollar tax bill to pay, and someone has to do it!
love
Michael
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:c899a...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
>
> > "Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
> >
> > > This just came through Sri Rich...
> > >
> > > I feel it deserves a post to Ford Johnson,
> >
> > I wrote it for there, and sent it there first.
> >
> >
>
> must beware of telling them to himself - not because it is immoral but
> Paul did not copy this material -mistakes and all- from some astral
@aloha.net Rich
TS writes:
"You are free to present your point and we certainly welcome all points
of view."
I sincerely thank you for that.
"But, first, no attempt has ever been made in Confessions or, to my
knowledge, any postings on this site to quantify the extent of Paul's
plagiarism. So the charge of misrepresentation of the statistical extent
or “facts” about Paul’s plagiarism is spurious at best."
You write that, but later exemplify the opposite by representing the .7%
as: Paul's "plagiarism was so extensive".
“The Center For Twitchellian Plagiarism” was the direct result of my
challenge to David Lane. Unfortunately it is rife with 'begging the
question' opinions, does not present unadulterated facts, or even
include all the documented plagiarisms.
In this thread I am not "interested in debating points and the
redemption of Paul Twitchell." You on the other hand appear to find it
necessary to continue doing the opposite. What I am interested in here
is presenting the truth about the facts, and leaving each the freedom to
determine what those mean to themselves, without my prejudicing them.
You write that the plagiarisms(.7%) "gut the religion of Eckankar of its
core doctrine and leave it a hollow shell". I find that a curious
statement because all I have read in your book and on the net has not
shown me any universal spiritual principle that Paul did not write
about. The outer organization is surely open to criticism, but the
concept of the "understanding of your oneness with ALL THAT IS" was
demonstrated by the quote of Paul's that I posted recently.
The writings of Eckankar also show, as you wrote, that "the real issue
for their spiritual unfoldment is not Paul, Darwin, Harold or any of the
other “masters.” These issues are distractions, taking them away from
the real search for God, which lies within them". Yet studying with
teachers is a necessary step for almost everyone. That isn't a problem.
It's when the student doesn't take the next step. Sure there are
contradictory writings, but as I unfolded, my perspective focused on the
core of the spiritual meaning, much as you have done.
The issue of what you offer as core doctrine that was not previously
presented by Paul is a sidebar to this thread, so I won't pursue it with
this topic, but it might make an interesting discussion for another
thread.
One of the cornerstones of the 'truth seeker' is an attack on Eckankar
based on the plagiarism issue. Yet the real issue as I perceive it boils
down not to criticism of the obvious humanness of masters, but to a
recognition that not all have reached a level of 'master student' as to
their own true spiritual nature. Most of us "are still in a search for
truth, the search for the divine within us" were organizations like
Eckankar and HCS can be helpful.
My point of this thread is that dubious arguments attempting to prove
that the founder of a religion stole the literary materials of others
does keep people entrapped. I think that presenting the clear fact of
.7% will help some on both sides of the issue avoid that. Plagiarism or
lack of it has no bearing on the awareness of Self as the God-soul as
you define it.
@aloha.net Rich
"Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
> Do you get the sense of a pompous, overbearing task master who
presumes HE
> is the be all and end all of all conversation?
Not necessarily, but it appears that he can't allow validity to any
opinions that differ from his.
> Why is it that people lost in their own logic never see the holes in
it? Why
> is is that people with huge logs in their own eyes always pick on the
> splinters somewhere else?
Hmmmm, these last two questions vaguely reminded me of your first one.
;-D
simon
If you keep bringing it up here more people will read the book.
Is that what you want?
simon
Astral
> "Michael Wallace" <fl...@phurphy.com> wrote
>
>
> > Do you get the sense of a pompous, overbearing task master who
> presumes HE
> > is the be all and end all of all conversation?
>
> Not necessarily, but it appears that he can't allow validity to any
> opinions that differ from his.
reposted from the Truth Seeker:
To TS About Cybersailor and Others - U.S.
Dear TS,
I am curious as to why some eckists like Cybersailor (mean), and
others who argue, with eyes and ears closed, are permitted to remain
on this site? Some of these eckists are rude and only want to express
their eck agendas. They never want to discuss a point. They are
boring, insulting, and are just playing games with the site. Can't the
rest of us be guarded and protected from this eck spam? These sites
are like our home, and if someone misbehaves in your home you kick
them out and not invite them back. I know you are liberal with what is
posted here and want people to be able to express controversial views,
but some of these people never concede anything. It is pointless to
even try and discuss things with them because they are deaf and blind
to other perspectives. We've been where they are now, but they can't
be where we are now because they aren't ready to be here. They can't
handle the Truth! So, why does TS even let some of them remain or come
back time and time again when they only misbehave? Many others are
coming to these sites and want to feel safe from fanatical eckists.
CyberSailor is one of the more unloving, negative, vain, rude, and
agenda driven eck chelas that has come here for awhile. Could you
maybe give him a push out the door?
Usually Skeptical
p.s. If you just want to answer this privately it would be okay with
me.
(ASTRAL:
It didn't take the participants on the Truth Seeker board long to
figure out the incomparable (mean) Mr. Rich Smith, ek fanatic. Usually
Skeptical wants to give him a push out the door. Pity we cant' do that
here. Maybe a walk down the plank? LOL. He's got guts though. He's
willing to appear idiotic and foolish in service of His Master's
Cause. But, the point is mute, irrespective of Rich's stupidity. LOL)
I fully understand your point and there are times when we have shut
off discussion on a point as I believe we will shortly do with some of
our contributors. Indeed, we have even sent some of them complimentary
copies of the e-book on the chance that they would read it and return
more informed.
However, most of it is allowed because there are always new people
coming to this and the HCS web site. They have not been privy to the
discussion and arguments that have gone on before. When they read
these discussion points, they are hearing some of the arguments for
the first time and it is for them that we go around this tree over and
over. For those who persist, however, without taking steps to even
become informed about the issues, I think perhaps you are correct that
the discussion with them should be truncated earlier.
As you can perhaps understand, I am reluctant to cut discussion and
debate because this is one of the few forums that permit intelligent
and polite discussion on these points and I don't relish the role of
censor. But you do make a good point and I will certainly take it into
consideration in the future.
Thank you,
TS
simon
didnt go over too well.
cher
ford johnson. Maybe that's just a mystical secret for you to work on
there bud. <grin>
cher
mini-master and why! People should pay particular attention to how ford
is using his hatred and personal attacks against his former religion as
a tax write off! Read the book.... and then place brain in gear. That's
all it takes to see that all ford has is built off his hatred. A
religion created for a.r.e. detractors! <sigh>
@aloha.net Rich
"Your "facts" about the .7% that you claim represents Paul's plagiarism
sounds small by the number and that of course is your point. But lets
look at that number from another point of view. If your .7% represents
thousands of instances..."
It _is_ small by the number. And yes, that is one of my my points. At
the risk of repeating myself too many times, I have said that some
people, as you do, find that small amount egregious. That's your
choice. My tolerance level is simply different. Your point of view
that .7% represents thousands of instances, again demonstrates my other
point. That is simply not true. It's a couple hundred. I'm curious if
you can explain why so many are compelled to exaggerate, even when the
facts and figures are staring them in the face?
As to your analogy, I guess the difference for me is that I never
expected perfection from a human master. In that I tend to be a realist.
Well, that's enough with this topic for me. Thanks so much for civil
the discussion.
arelurker
Rich wrote:
>
> TS wrote:
>
> "Your "facts" about the .7% that you claim represents Paul's plagiarism
> sounds small by the number and that of course is your point. But lets
> look at that number from another point of view. If your .7% represents
> thousands of instances..."
>
> It _is_ small by the number. And yes, that is one of my my points. At
> the risk of repeating myself too many times, I have said that some
> people, as you do, find that small amount egregious. That's your
> choice. My tolerance level is simply different. Your point of view
> that .7% represents thousands of instances, again demonstrates my other
> point. That is simply not true. It's a couple hundred. I'm curious if
> you can explain why so many are compelled to exaggerate, even when the
> facts and figures are staring them in the face?
>
> As to your analogy, I guess the difference for me is that I never
> expected perfection from a human master. In that I tend to be a realist.
>
> Well, that's enough with this topic for me. Thanks so much for civil
> the discussion.
Statistics lie, and liars use statistics....what does that make Rich?
Lurk
simon
arelurker
in brackets below. I think it gives more texture to Ford's comments.
Rich wrote:
>
> TS wrote:
>
> "Your "facts" about the .7% that you claim represents Paul's plagiarism
> sounds small by the number and that of course is your point. But lets
> look at that number from another point of view. If your .7% represents
> thousands of instances..." [of literary thievery, as the Center for
Twitchellian Plagiarism points out, the number takes on a totally
different meaning and perspective. I don't believe anyone but the
truly gullible will fall for this devise of using a fractional
percentage to diminish the significance of a person who has lied to
the public thousands of times and thought nothing about it.]
Rich Weakly Responds:
> It _is_ small by the number. And yes, that is one of my my points. At
> the risk of repeating myself too many times, I have said that some
> people, as you do, find that small amount egregious. That's your
> choice. My tolerance level is simply different. Your point of view
> that .7% represents thousands of instances, again demonstrates my other
> point. That is simply not true. It's a couple hundred. I'm curious if
> you can explain why so many are compelled to exaggerate, even when the
> facts and figures are staring them in the face?
Lurk Responds:
This has got to be the most childish response to the plagiarism issue. A
liar is a liar and Rich wants to quibble over how much of a liar Paul
is...as though the helps Paul's and eckankar's case. It doesn't, but
Rich's delusional mind urged on by Marman's delusional mind think so.
Rich Rationalizes:
> As to your analogy, I guess the difference for me is that I never
> expected perfection from a human master. In that I tend to be a realist.
Here's Ford's Analogy Rich is referring to:
To use an analogy, it is like a partner who has been in a relationship
for 20 years and in an effort to downplay the 100 times that he or she
has been unfaithful, points out that this merely represents 100 times
over the 7,300 days they have been married or only 0.01369 % of the
time. Surely this can be understood and overlooked since the
percentage of unfaithfulness is so small! I believe that this argument
would be of little comfort to the partner who had remained true and
believed the many lies told during those years. This is the essential
nature of your argument, and spiritual betrayal is even worst than the
example chosen for this comparison.
Lurk Responds
So Rich claims to be a realist and doesn't expect perfection? So he
expects his wife to be unfaithful to him? That's what Rich is saying via
the analogy. That he expects his spiritual masters to break their trust
and be liars. What a fool.
>
> Well, that's enough with this topic for me. Thanks so much for civil
> the discussion.
I should say it is enough of this topic. You got your ass spanked and
are incapable of having a rational discussion. Once again, Rich's
infantile viewpoints get demolished over at the www.thetruth-seeker. com site.
This is so amusing to watch.
Lurk
AL Radzik
barrel of clean water. You take one teaspoon of shit and put it in the
water. Nobody drinks the water because it's "shitty water". No matter
how little shit you put in the water, it makes it bad.....even 2.2% shit.
Now the question remains, would Rich Smith drink the water?
Alf
cher
AL Radzik
Now it's got to be word for word stuff. No allusions or references to
Mithra....get it?
Alf
cher
tree. Take a walk on the wild side of modern day theology and see for
yourself. There are any number of university sites that have really good
information in them... and you'll have a pretty good idea of what areas
they would be most knowledgeable in. No cop out here, but it's a real
honest to goodness fact that the bible was put together from a variety
of texts that span a great many years. Some were kept, and others were
set aside. But the transference from various cultures to the christian
scripts is well documented. And this is your belief system, so I won't
hassle you here about. I don't see any of this being a reason to step
away from the faith or the text, but rather a clearer understanding of
the religion one chooses to practice. So no badgering or joking here,
okay? And for what it's worth.... if your path works for you, then more
power to the both of you. <smile> And that's genuine. :-)
AL Radzik
in the Bible.
Alf
cher
the footprint of how religions form. Finding the cultural pottery shards
among the pearls is a map to people. It makes the human aspect glow. I
guess I'm a closet history buff. <smile>
Theologians have discovered some very interesting finds due to the
archeology that's taken place the last 50 years. Seriously alfie... this
stuff is truly fascinating. And it only shows what love can do!
skardicus
"AL Radzik" <al_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b0ea$40ac97ad$18e1a310$18...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> I am a lapsed Catholic anyway, but nonetheless interested in plagiarism
> in the Bible.
Significant parts of the OT were written by non-Hebs 2000 years before the
Hebrews had a language. See Cuneiform.
Skardicus
cher
have his mystery in his own time! tsk.....
cher
AL Radzik wrote:
>
> Hey cher, what do you expect from a guy who's experienced
> "reintarnation".....the act of coming back to life as a hillbilly!<LAM>
>
> Alf
Kinpa
> I am a lapsed Catholic anyway, but nonetheless interested in plagiarism
> in the Bible.
>
> Alf
There is no plagiarism in the Bible, and anyone calling it that could do with a history lesson (and there is one individual in question that has claimed that recently) plagiarism did not exist anywhere before 1710 when the world's first copyright law was passed in England....therefore, to make it extremely simple, there is not a single word of the Bible that is plagiarism by definition.
However, there ARE several other historical factors present upon the issue, one being trade and commerce between the East and West, whereby any numbers of spiritual concepts have also spread across the world, including the tenets of Buddhism that one person claims was plagiarized into Christianity, but history proves that untrue. Buddhism DID in fact exist in Israel and had made contact centuries earlier....
Then there is also the possibility that Abraham from whom Judaism came at the beginning, was actually an Indian citizen....the Judaic Abraham and Sarah...the Hindu Brahman and Saraswati.....but the Hindu versions existed thousands of years previous to any existence of Judaism....and then there are the centuries that the Jews were taken to Babylon, whose religion at the time was Zoroastrianism, a far earlier monotheistic religion that most certainly was adopted by the Jews in captivity.....
See? The various religions are hardly a mystery at all, it's as easy as studying a bit of history....
Tisra Til
The point is there is no point....Old wine in new glasses.
Kinpa
Henosis Sage
More BS
Twitchell took the Rosicrucian planes and dropped them on top of and blended
them into both RS and Hindu dogma.
Everything you say Matthew Sharpe is a weak excuse for a manipulative liar by
a liar and a delusional psychotic.
Blah blah bloody blah. Twitchell made it ALL UP. The whole thing.
He thought it was a good idea to pursue. He thought he could communicate some
things to the west better than other who had tried and the easterners who were
trying.
He spent a lifetime wasting his life pouring over this that and another path
and teaching. IN his day he was "expert" in obscure religions and spiritual
paths. That doesn't mean that **all cosmologies already existed** or that
the planes he said were planes are real or there.
And your beliefs about the bible and history etc are just that. beliefs.
Twitchell lied, try not continuing that pathetic tradition.
HA HA HA like that's going to happen, not!
Tisra Til
As far as no extra planes, prove it. Twitchell claims that in his books. But I know you're not a big reader.
Kinpa
> Like I've said before about denial. You're living in fantasy - with plenty of toilets, I'm sure. Twitchell claimed himself that he was he was the spokesman (i.e. a version of) of the Sugmad (I prefer good old Damgus). Same difference. A claim of Hindus all the time. So he obviously milked that cow for all it was worth.
>
> As far as no extra planes, prove it. Twitchell claims that in his books. But I know you're not a big reader.
Henosis Sage
WATS DA MATTER CHILD ... CAN'T HANDLE WHAT TT HAS TO SAY - GET SO PISSED OFF
AND ARE SUCH A CONTROL FREAK YOU HAVE TO REPORT HIS POSTS FOR ABUSE?
YOU PATHETIC IDIOT CHILD
Tisra Til
Tisra Til
Kinpa
> It was a rhetorical question, fruitfly. And you didn't bother to answer it anyway, because you can't.
Tisra Til
If you're so bored, don't respond bonehead. No skin off my back. And what's with this short attention span. I didn't say anywhere that I had a waking, conscious OBE. Only in dreams. And I can't even say that I was actually out of my physical body, even though it seemed very real at the time. So do a little fact checking (of your own memory, which seems to be quite spacious) before making WRONG statements mr-turd-burglar-eck-master-wannabe. The Klempster wouldn't accept less. You have to flush out all of the CRAP if you ever hope to have a coherent thought process, and any sort of creativity. Right now it's at the level of a 15 year old, I would say. You disagree? Stuff it. Right where the sun don't shine!
But hey, don't let me slow you down. Mt. Olympus, where all the Vairagis exist, awaits your presence. What's your number, now? 974-5-6. Oh, who cares! You're number 1 in my book (well, make that number 2, since it is your favorite phantasy :D)
Kinpa
Tisra Til
Henosis Sage
Pathological Narcissists are generally stuck at or below the 6 year old level. fwiw.
Henosis Sage
"Aww don;t cry little man...you have already invited me into your dreams many times, as have sean and richard....I bet that none of you even realize that....your opinions and delusions have been noted, and discarded, perhaps go find someone that cares about them to tell instead of me.....in dreams it is~! See you soon!"