My last experience with my "inner master."
Tian Yue
Masters™. Here's a partial answer via something I wrote before. The
following experience is a true and accurate account of what occurred
just before I left Eckankar™:
There came a time in my membership in Eckankar when I had come to a
crossroads. I felt as if I was beginning to see a crack in the
illusion of Eckankar, and this disturbed me. I was out of step with my
chosen way, and I truly felt something was very wrong, either with me
or with Eckankar or both. I had been questioning whether the Master or
any of his high initiates really were anywhere close to the level of
enlightenment they had claimed, and questioned the policies of
Eckankar. The events that led up to this moment had shaken the
comfortable, cherished views I had accepted, and my fellow Brothers of
the Leaf were looking a little ragged around the edges. One day I
tried listening to my inner voice for an answer. I sat down and
literally listened to the inner realms within myself. Oddly, the
message, or impression to be more accurate, was the famous quote of
Henry David Thoreau:
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is
because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which
he hears, however measured or far away."
Now, I suppose there are few people who would understand how deeply
these words spoke to me, how utterly profound these words are to me.
I've always loved Thoreau's keen sense of the beauty and truth of
following the beat of one's own drum. These words were so appropriate
for the struggle I was experiencing, and seemed to touch my very core.
Yet, I found the words to be troubling, for what they were telling me
was that Eckankar and the Master, as well as my fellow high initiates,
were not truly spiritually enlightened. They had not attained the
spiritual liberation they claimed. For what I had really been asking,
was not which path to take, but rather, was the path of Eckankar
valid? Was it authentic? Was it worth sticking with or was it time to
let it go and move on? I had been wrestling with issues about Eckankar
that the words perfectly answered. They truly spoke to the essence of
these
issues.
The words, so innocuous to me as I recollect them now, were not so
easy to face at the time. In fact, they unnerved me. I wasn't ready to
cast aside with certainty all that Eckankar had meant to me. So I put
this aside, and continued with my activities for a few more months.
But the words would not go away. They kept entering my mind, as if
trying to get my attention. I wondered if it was Kal Niranjan trying
to lead me astray. Maybe this was a test. The writings of the Masters
were full of accounts of such ordeals. On the other hand, the words
truly felt real, as if they welled up from my deepest core. What if
these words were leading me correctly? What if they spoke the truth?
Such was my plight, and there seemed to be no easy resolution. As all
those who endure this ordeal can attest, it is not easy to walk away
from a path that seems to be so intimately bound to one's life, woven
in so well to one's experience that it seems inseparable from all that
comprises one's existence. Then one night I had a very strange dream.
I was walking along a street, and I came to a door. It was the door to
a very familiar place, yet I couldn't recollect just where I was.
There was a large area concealed behind the door. I couldn't quite
remember, but I somehow knew this place. I opened the door, and went
in. It was a large compound, containing numerous edifices. I went into
the first building, and looked around. Yes, it was familiar. I know
this place! I looked around the room, and observed something peculiar.
There were numerous paper mache objects hanging from the ceiling, all
around the room. The objects were representations of Eckankar,
familiar icons and symbols of all that was Eckankar. But they weren't
real. They were make believe. They were occupying the space, as if
they were collected there to inculcate the area with the impression of
Eckankar, but they were only paper mache.
I went outside, and noticed another building. It looked like a chapel.
I went in, and noticed more paper mache figures. This time, the
figures were black and intended to be a little scary. Kal Niranjan
came to mind. Yes, they were little Kal icons, hanging everywhere, and
occupying every nook and cranny! But they weren't at all unsettling or
scary. They were fake! Artificial! Nothing more than representations
of someone's ideology. Odd, I mused. Quite strange.
I went outside, and looked about some more. The familiarity of this
setting was overwhelming. As I peered about at the various chapels,
buildings, and the surrounding grounds, the realization struck me. I
knew where I was. I was in a world that was my very own. It was my own
self I was peering into. It was my own consciousness. It all came back
to me in an instant. The paper mache objects of Eckankar, of Masters,
of Kal Niranjan, had been put there by others, due to my own
carelessness. I had once actually thought they were real, and was
lulled into no longer adequately guarding my home from intrusions. I
had left my own consciousness to others to do as they pleased. I no
longer recognized my own home, so filled it was with objects of
another's making. It was all a deception. Paper mache! I was dismayed.
How had this happened to me? Why had I not seen this before? Who had
cluttered my inner home with these cheap imitations? Yet I was not
disturbed by this realization. I would simply reclaim my property. I
was home, after a long absence, and now everything would be okay.
Then a man opened the door at the entrance, the door I had walked
through moments ago. He seemed to have a key to the premises. He was a
rather ordinary looking man, dressed in casual clothes, possibly work
clothes. He appeared to be about fifty years old, with a round face,
and had an ordinary haircut. He was not very tall. More than that I
can't describe. He had no memorable features, being rather plain. He
looked as if he could be a custodian or janitor. He ambled slowly and
confidently through the property, ignoring me completely. It wasn't
that he was avoiding me, simply that he didn't care who I was, as if I
meant nothing to him. I was a bystander in my own home. I didn't
matter to him that much. He looked as if he owned the place. He seemed
to be in his own domain, accustomed to being here.
Suddenly remembering the circumstances of my arrival, I felt as if I
had been gone a long while, only to return to find paper mache
figurines occupying my property, and strangers trespassing through the
grounds with impunity. So I approached him with a question. "Who are
you?" I inquired, "and what are you doing here?"
"Are you speaking to me?" he asked, as if interrupted from some vague,
unimportant task. He was aloof, as if incognizant of his betrayal of
personal boundaries. "Why, I've been walking through this place for
more than 20 years!" he said, with a sense of entitlement.
Stunned by his casual arrogance, I ordered him to leave. "This is my
property," I said, and added, "You don't have my permission to be
here." He regarded me with annoyance, as if I were a fly to swat, or
an ant to step on. He seemed so accustomed having access to the
property, he had come to think of his presence as a right. So I looked
him in the eyes and ordered, "Go away. Don't come through here again.
And give me that key!"
At this, he reluctantly left, throwing a petulant, disdainful look in
my direction. The wandering stranger went out the back entrance,
through a gate I unlocked with the key I had repossessed from him.
That was that, I said to myself. Imagine! Some guy who thinks he has a
right to come into my property as if he owns the place. As he said, he
had been walking through the premises everyday for some twenty-odd
years! As I walked back to the main residence, I realized I had just
ordered the Master, a trespasser, to leave my home. I was now free,
for the first time in more than twenty years.
Awakening, I opened my eyes to the gentle sunlight of a calm Saturday
morning softly filtering through the curtains. As I remembered the
dream, the words of Thoreau drifted through my mind, once again. "If a
man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he
hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears,
however measured or far away." A peaceful resolution quietly flushed
through my body, as I listened to the chirping of sparrows outside my
window. I am ready now, I knew. I am free to go my own way. I am whole
again.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
Thanks for sharing that experience.
Etznab
Crankshaft
It's been my experience that if people feel less free as a member they
will either leave the teachings altogether or not attend any outer
functions whatsoever and only study on their own.
I think a lot can be learned from what you have shared and I am
grateful that you did. Thank you.
Dave
TianYue
> Thanks for sharing this Tianyue.
>
> It's been my experience that if people feel less free as a member they
> will either leave the teachings altogether or not attend any outer
> functions whatsoever and only study on their own.
>
> I think a lot can be learned from what you have shared and I am
> grateful that you did. Thank you.
>
> Dave
That's an odd comment about "not attending outer functions" as a
solution to the issues my dream and other comments raise. My dream
dealt not with mere outer issues, but instead dealt with the deception
that even carries inwardly to all levels. This was an inner
experience, not an outer one. My inner voice (the primordial ground of
being, for lack of better terms) told me PT is a fraud. Nice try.
Tianyue
Crankshaft
> On Sep 22, 6:04 am, Crankshaft <davemariabar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for sharing this Tianyue.
>
> > It's been my experience that if people feel less free as a member they
> > will either leave the teachings altogether or not attend any outer
> > functions whatsoever and only study on their own.
>
> > I think a lot can be learned from what you have shared and I am
> > grateful that you did. Thank you.
>
> > Dave
>
> That's an odd comment about "not attending outer functions" as a
> solution to the issues my dream and other comments raise.
My comments were about my experiences over the years and were not
about your dream experience you shared or about your comments
directly.
My dream
> dealt not with mere outer issues, but instead dealt with the deception
> that even carries inwardly to all levels. This was an inner
> experience, not an outer one. My inner voice (the primordial ground of
> being, for lack of better terms) told me PT is a fraud.
I found your dream interesting. I really like PT. That's just
something we'll
probaby always disagree on. But agreement is not important. I just
enjoy the dialogue.
> Nice try.
I was not attempting to "try" anything.
Dave
TianYue
There is as much said by omission as there is by what a person thinks
is important to overtly address. Any astute person knows this and can
see this. Your comments in reply to my dream in which you refer to
avoiding the "outer" and not commenting on the fact that my dream was
an inner experience could (notice I wrote "could") be taken as code to
mean that my dream only applicable to outer organizational or "group"
problems, which is so often the method Eckists use to dismiss valid
points people make about Eckankar. Most of your replies to my posts
have been largely about the "outer" org, as if simply separating outer
organizational issues from a notion of a pristine inner master (the
inner PT), who somehow manages to be completely untouched by that same
masters outer behavior, settles all questions of authenticity. If
(notice I said IF) that is your intent, I disagree.
Tianyue
Crankshaft
No code being used. Your inner experience where you heard the quote by
Thoreau
got me thinking about freedom.
>Most of your replies to my posts
> have been largely about the "outer" org,
I'm a Light and Sound disciple so I choose to keep my inner
experiences private
as a personal discipline. If I should become a former member, things
might be a little different.
But experiences in my daily life I sometimes open up for public
discussion. Life is precious
and can be fleeting but is also fun to talk about.
>as if simply separating outer
> organizational issues from a notion of a pristine inner master (the
> inner PT), <cut>
I really like PT. That's something we probably cannot agree on but
agreement is not so important. Like
I said, I really just enjoy the dialogue. My work is such that I don't
get to speak with people too often other
than my wife.So even though you seem a tad argumentative today, I
still enjoy talking with you.
Dave
Kinpa
it is a being, a state of conciousness that does all that it is
claimed the Mahanta can do, and i find that very interesting, i simply
call him the Ancient One, and the feeling i get everytime i meet him
is as if ive found an old friend that i had forgotten existed.i asked
him why he didnt appear to be Wah-Z or any other Eck Master, i was
told that i didn't need them to be, i can see truth, so i dont need to
see Christ, or Wah-Z or Peddar Zaskq for that matter, they are merely
form that Spirit uses to communicate with us. i know full well you
aren't an Eckist and aren't even remotely sympathetic to Eckankar, but
this is just my take on it, that Paul Twitchell didnt mislead anyone
at all, this inner quality exists, one simply needs to learn to
recognize it, in whatever form it takes, if any...just my take...
Kinpa
havent been to a seminar in 18 years or so, but my inner connection is
stronger for it. when i first started Eckankar, i told myself "i dont
care if this is fake, because IT WORKS!" fully realizing that some of
the things that PT said might be hard to swallow or seemed way out
there.i believe it was always his intention to get those interested to
TRY and make the inner connection with the Divine within themselves
where it is always waiting to communicate...again, just MY take on
this...
Tian Yue
> in my own experiences with the inner master, it has never been anyone,
> it is a being, a state of conciousness that does all that it is
> claimed the Mahanta can do, and i find that very interesting, i simply
> call him the Ancient One, and the feeling i get everytime i meet him
> is as if ive found an old friend that i had forgotten existed.i asked
> him why he didnt appear to be Wah-Z or any other Eck Master, i was
> told that i didn't need them to be, i can see truth, so i dont need to
> see Christ, or Wah-Z or Peddar Zaskq for that matter, they are merely
> form that Spirit uses to communicate with us. i know full well you
> aren't an Eckist and aren't even remotely sympathetic to Eckankar, but
> this is just my take on it, that Paul Twitchell didnt mislead anyone
> at all, this inner quality exists, one simply needs to learn to
> recognize it, in whatever form it takes, if any...just my take...
You describe the inner master as a "being, a state of consciousness,"
but yet isn't "anyone," which I take to mean the being doesn't have
personal characteristics, and is more like pure consciousness.
If this is true, may I ask why you refer to this being as having
gender? And if the being has no form or image, then how do you know
this being is an eck master, and not an independent entity? Or, quite
possibly, maybe this being is your own self, or even the unnameable
pure "ground of being," or what some call the Absolute? How do you
know it is the Mahanta, or any being that is in any way connected to
PT's claims?
What I'm getting at is the notion that PT, Klemp or Eckankar has
something to do with your inner experience. PT's theology is all about
ownership. He states that only through Eckankar's masters can soul be
truly connected to spirit. The issue I have isn't whether there are
higher states of consciousness, or whether there is an omniscient
spirit, or that an individual can have experiences with spirit. The
issue is about the claims of spiritual exclusivity and even possession
of the only keys to spirit, all of which PT claimed to have. The
deception isn't that PT claimed there is spirit, light and sound,
soul, higher planes and all the other teachings that are rather common
in Indian philosophy. The deception, rather, is the claim that only
through PT's eck masters can soul become realized of these states of
consciousness. You wrote that "Paul Twitchell didn't mislead anyone."
He mislead people into believing that through their connection with
Eckankar's inner masters, they gain access to spirit and all the
wonders of the inner worlds.
In this way, Eckankar leaders maintain control of the follower. It
allows them to manipulate and create dependency. And it allows them,
to a large degree, to restrict and limit the attention of the follower
to Eckankar. The denials of this, made via statements that Eckists are
free, that they can find their own way, and are expected to create
their own individual path, simply serve as a subterfuge to convince
the trusting, unwitting followers they aren't being manipulated, when
in fact they are.
In my dream, I took the keys away from the intruding "master."
Although he was in possession of them, they were, in fact, my keys,
and they always had been mine. He fooled me into thinking my own keys
were his to give. He fooled me into thinking my own consciousness was
his to bestow.
I'm not fooled anymore.
Tianyue
Kinpa
> On Sep 28, 1:37 pm, Kinpa <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
the keys back into your own hands, why do you so obviously not have
them?if you are freed from Eckankar's illusion, why do you spend so
much of your time and energy here? don't you have better and more
worthwhile things to do?apparently not....for a path that , as you
claim, has no reality to it, you are certainly caught up in a feeding
frenzy over it's energies...
TianYue
I see that there is much in my reply that you have chosen not to
answer. That's okay, I understand.
Your explanation falls short of making clear why you refer to the
"absolute" as having male gender. If It is beyond duality, why would
it have gender?
As to why I post here: My purpose is manyfold. Mostly, it is to
balance the harm I did by spreading ECKANKAR™ all over Southern
California and other areas in which I've lived. I find that to be a
worthwhile endeavor. As to ECKANKAR's™ "energies," they are not what
draws me here. I've outgrown them, and realized how entrapping they
are. I don't expect you, as a full-tilt EKist™, to understand or value
my motives.
Tianyue
Kinpa
because you can't seem to concieve of it without a
gender...understand? im speaking very slowly, also for your benefit...
TianYue
Oh boy, I see this is venturing off into the usual A.R.E. silliness.
It's nonsensical that you somehow have come to the conclusion that I
think of "it" as having gender, since I have never held that view at
any time in my entire life. This discussion is veering off into la la
land. You are the one who used gender specific terms, and now you're
trying to pawn your usage off on someone else. Please take personal
responsibility for your own writing. This is strange.
Tianyue
TianYue
My previous reply didn't show up on google groups, so I'll try again.
You referred to the "master" as a pure state of consciousness, and you
used gender specific terms. I asked you why you think a pure state of
consciousness would have gender, and your answer is you used gender
specific terms for my benefit. This reply is peculiar and nonsensical,
since I've never indicated that I thought of the non-dual, unnameable
state as having any gender at any time in my entire life. Please own
up to your own statements, and don't try to pawn them off on others.
Take responsibility for your own expressions. It seems to me as if you
are embarrassed and your reply indicates you think people are so
stupid they will accept this rather strange, irrational and
transparent ploy. I do think this is amusing. Maybe that was your
intent? Trying to be amusing, that is?
Tianyue
TianYue
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good idea, Kinpa. Mr. Addleman needs to concentrate on not sticking
> himself.http://www.kentaddleman.com/photo%20gallery.htm
>
> Kent Herbert Addleman, how is your father doing? Is he living with you
> or still in L.A.? I am curious about what motivated him to move to
> Puerto Rico from California....in the early sixties was it? late 50s?
> I did not come across a record showing your mother still being a part
> of your life or your "wife" for that matter even though she lives in
> the same city as you. I ask about your Dad, because it is often a love
> in one's life that influences the other to do something far from the
> beaten path to raise bees 3000+ miles away. What drew you to Iowa? I
> think if you switched to your middle name and professional counseling
> to your curriculum vitae, I believe you would make a well-rounded
> healer.
>
> JR
I see people's personal lives as out of bounds or off limits, from an
ethical point of view. But others will differ in their sense of
personal ethics. ECKists™ here have a history of attacking people in
their personal, private lives. This speaks volumes to those lurking
here who may be wondering if ECKists™ practice what they preach.
Sincere, authentic love and goodwill get thrown out with the garbage
in ECKANKAR™ culture. Anyway, your "opposition research" is way off
the mark. Too bad none of you can read the ECK Vidya™. That way, you
could really dig something up of use.
Tianyue
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tianyue,
Who here has actually has met this character
in person?
Etznab
TianYue
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question, Etznab. Which character
are you referring to?
Tiantye
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
JR
TianYue
Oh, now I understand. That went right over my head. I don't know if
anyone will claim knowledge of JR. I suspect the regular crowd will
disavow any connection to him (said with tongue in cheek). But notice
that as long as he is on the attack against me, the usual crowd will
not object. He's doing the dirty work for them. Doug, et al will
passively observe with no comment.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
In spite of how you've been treated, both here
and on other groups, I think you have shown a
lot more tolerance, respect and maturity than a
number of people who have shown less of same.
*********
I could be wrong about this, but I believe there
are certain "privacy" rights for members of this
group. JR says he's manipulating us, but that is
not the same as a "violation of privacy", IMO. A
person has a right to use a pseudonym, and for
good reasons, for Internet dialogue.
Apparently JR wants to exercise the liberty of
compromising a person's privacy in the spirit of
manipulation, IMO. And apparently nobody else
has a conscience to speak out against this lack
of mutual respect for personal privacy.
Etznab
TianYue
> On Oct 5, 1:56 pm, TianYue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I believe you would make a well-rounded
>
> > > healer. JR
>
> > I see people's personal lives as out of bounds or off limits, from an
> > ethical point of view. But others will differ in their sense of
> > personal ethics. ECKists™ here have a history of attacking people in
> > their personal, private lives. This speaks volumes to those lurking
> > here who may be wondering if ECKists™ practice what they preach.
>
> > Sincere, authentic love and goodwill get thrown out with the garbage
> > in ECKANKAR™ culture. Anyway, your "opposition research" is way off
> > the mark. Too bad none of you can read the ECK Vidya™. That way, you
> > could really dig something up of use.
>
> > Tianyue
>
> eyes or Mr. D-----'s What I have done and am doing is manipulate you
> each into standing up and taking credit for using ECKists and ECKANKAR
> for scapegoats to blame your personal human misery on. Mr. De----'s
> reference below on Oct 5 in post 16 of theis thread may be assumed as
> his sympathy for you having been "attacked" by me, "this character."
>
> Nothing ever happened to anyone that they have not righteously earned.
> Mr. D. is welcome to send La Cosa Nostra to my door to cut me up and
> bag me with a chain saw. My only wish is that I get to choose my color
> of bag: burlap, white, gray, or traditional black before being thrown
> to curb for earling morning collection by Waste Management. Rumors may
> then be spread about how I was ground up and fed to grade-schoolers
> and the prison system as discounted "beef" with contaminated with Mad
> Cow. (Throw in some mustang horse meet to explain the sweet taste. Hey
> if it may work for Trump's kind of people, it'll work for you.) JR
It's not surprising that you admit that you're trying to manipulate me
and others with whom you disagree. After all, considering that the Eck
leaders manipulate the Eckankar followers with various deceptive
tactics, it would hardly be a shock that the followers would
subconsciously absorb this approach and become manipulative, as well.
What I find refreshing in your admission is that you openly admit to
intentionally trying to manipulate people. There is a tendency, it
seems, for Eckists to think they have license to do nearly anything,
no matter how malicious, in their defense of Eckankar.
But I don't understand the reference to the Mafia "la cosa nostra,"
and imagined threats of death by chainsaw and being tossed to the curb
in burlap bags. You lost me when you brought that into the discussion.
Do you imagine that Etznab is a member of the Mafia? If so, I submit
that you've broken loose from your moorings, dear fellow.
Tianyue
age...@comcast.net
Personal human misery blamed on...who???
Mr. Clark, this fantastic assumption must be some neat little
narrative you're spinning to justify your (unconscious?) desire to
expose eckankar as the kind of militant, malicious and delusional cult
it has become. Doing a fine job there laddie! Keep it up. Shine that
light on yourself. So far on A.R.E. only Cher Gruderman has exceeded
you in this sort of public self-sabotage on behalf of eckankar. In the
end, your protracted campaigns of stalking and harassment of ex-
members accomplish little more than publicly digging you deeper into
the muck of your own thuggery.
But at least you've openly confessed to being a jerk. This, as you
know, is the first step in finding your balance.
M
TianYue
Thanks, Etznab. You're a class act.
As to people speaking out, I've never noticed principle trumping party
line on A.R.E. Despite what people might like to think about
themselves, they pretty much stick together, no matter how
dysfunctional it gets, and that includes even those who think of
themselves above the fray. It's sad, really. Group think is alive and
well.
Tianyue
Sean
"TianYue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:32148498-e938-4a0c...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Tianyue
---------------------------------------
T & E,
emphasis should be placed on the "I've never noticed" phrase.......... as
opposed to the conclusions because of never noticing principles at work. :)
My "conscience" tells me that some comments are simply not worth commenting
on. And I am the only one who decides what I say or when i say it. No point
giving that power to another because of an emotional reaction, and no point
surrendering to the clamour of a group who might demand I make a comment I
have already decided is a waste of energy. Savvy?
There's another point to consider folks ............. why assume others even
read what was written in the first place? <smile>
TianYue
> "TianYue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Well, as to assuming people read: here you are reading. And how would
you know what I assume, brother?
As to what "I've noticed," I notice a lot of things. I have always
found people's behavior patterns in groups particularly fascinating.
So yes, I notice. It's one of those things that interests me, so I pay
attention. The same applies to the non-eckist groups, I might add.
I've seen entire groups, including all the active members, attack en
mass a person who is not part of the group. Most people lack the
courage to stand apart. Yes, I've noticed. I've noticed JR write posts
that were totally off the charts in terms of their vicious nature, and
watched the other eckists pile onto his thread with their own replies
of general agreement. No one said a word about it, and A.R.E is not
known to be a group for people who lack the urge to speak up, yet
silent they remain.
The silence speaks volumes.
Tianyue
Sean
The silence speaks volumes.
Tianyue
------------------------------------------------------
Hi T ...
If silence speaks volumes, then I shall remain mute! <smile>
Hope that didn't break your ear drums, lol ... hey just kidding. cheers
Kinpa
there is no such thing as a right to privacy, as all rights come from
the constitution, and privacy isnt mentioned there...all other laws
are merely privileges...also, the web page is on the internet, which
is anything BUT private lol...
Ken
Well Kinpa, not all rights are enumerated in the US
constitution. And according to another document (the U.S.
Declaration of Independence), some rights are God given and
inherent, whether they are recognized by other men or not. But
besides all that, not all of the participants on these
discussion groups are under the influence of either document
anyway :-)
This is really about the expectation of a social courtesy. An
expectation by most participants in on-line discussions that
there will be an extension of the courtesy of "privacy".
Privacy in this case meaning the non-disclosure of personal
information by others that's not directly relevant to the
discussion. It's a social expectation that's occasionally
abused by a few individuals on both sides of that privilege.
But you're right, it's definitely not a right but rather more
like holding the door for someone who is following you. It's a
nice thing to do because in the long run it benefits everyone
in the social circle.
--
Ken
Kinpa
Declaration of Independence, it only gives the right to life liberty
and the pursuit of happiness...but privacy is not included, nor in any
law here in the U.S., so, it is merely a courtesy at best...sorry to
be such a stickler about it but several years ago i put quite a bit of
research into this particular area, as i didnt believe it was true,
and i found out the hard way that it certainly is, there is no legal
right for anyone to demand privacy, and in fact, it takes a quite
meticulous process to actually attain any real degree of it,
especially now, in the video age, where almost everything we do is
caught on camera when we least expect it, and then there's this here
internet, people can be tricky and find out all kinds of info on a
person, that the person in question doesnt even realize they put out
there...oh well, c'est la vie i guess!
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kinpa,
How about private property?
In your opinion, is there such a thing? Any laws
created to insure this as a legal right?
Etznab
Kinpa
yes there is and yes there are, but, a distinction needs to be made,
privacy in and of itself, is not property, and therefore is not
protected under any law...furthermore, understand that i do not
necessarily agree with the laws, as they stand, just wanted to say
that privacy is not actually protected under a law, that's all :o)
Kinpa
> On Sep 28, 1:37 pm, Kinpa <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > it is a being, a state of conciousness that does all that it is
> > claimed the Mahanta can do, and i find that very interesting, i simply
> > call him the Ancient One, and the feeling i get everytime i meet him
> > is as if ive found an old friend that i had forgotten existed.i asked
> > him why he didnt appear to be Wah-Z or any other Eck Master, i was
> > told that i didn't need them to be, i can see truth, so i dont need to
> > see Christ, or Wah-Z or Peddar Zaskq for that matter, they are merely
> > form that Spirit uses to communicate with us. i know full well you
> > aren't an Eckist and aren't even remotely sympathetic to Eckankar, but
> > this is just my take on it, that Paul Twitchell didnt mislead anyone
> > at all, this inner quality exists, one simply needs to learn to
> > recognize it, in whatever form it takes, if any...just my take...
>
> You describe the inner master as a "being, a state of consciousness,"
> but yet isn't "anyone," which I take to mean the being doesn't have
> personal characteristics, and is more like pure consciousness.
>
> If this is true, may I ask why you refer to this being as having
> gender?
i had posted answers to this before, but apparently failed, so here
goes again...
i refer to this being as having gender, because that is how the human
state of conciousness generally views it, and yes, that includes you
Kent, and so , my previous "smart alec" answer still holds true, quite
literally in fact...
And if the being has no form or image, then how do you know
> this being is an eck master, and not an independent entity? Or, quite
> possibly, maybe this being is your own self, or even the unnameable
> pure "ground of being," or what some call the Absolute? How do you
> know it is the Mahanta, or any being that is in any way connected to
> PT's claims?
because as always i ASKED, very very simple...It was the same being
referred to by PT as the Mahanta, irregardless of whether or not he
"made up" that term, it really makes no difference, except to your
mental state...furthermore, this being was NOT my own self, to bring
it down to lower plane terms, and still, it IS a PART of myself, just
the same....it is a component of me, as Soul, but was not me, as in
god soul and all the other mtriad terms folks like you and Ford
Johnson use...in my case it seems to fit just fine, and without any
problem, within the terminology PT gave for It...
>
> What I'm getting at is the notion that PT, Klemp or Eckankar has
> something to do with your inner experience. PT's theology is all about
> ownership. He states that only through Eckankar's masters can soul be
> truly connected to spirit.
you see that as "ownership" of this inner state of conciousness, and i
dont, simple as that, we disagree...
The issue I have isn't whether there are
> higher states of consciousness, or whether there is an omniscient
> spirit, or that an individual can have experiences with spirit. The
> issue is about the claims of spiritual exclusivity and even possession
> of the only keys to spirit, all of which PT claimed to have. The
> deception isn't that PT claimed there is spirit, light and sound,
> soul, higher planes and all the other teachings that are rather common
> in Indian philosophy. The deception, rather, is the claim that only
> through PT's eck masters can soul become realized of these states of
> consciousness. You wrote that "Paul Twitchell didn't mislead anyone."
> He mislead people into believing that through their connection with
> Eckankar's inner masters, they gain access to spirit and all the
> wonders of the inner worlds.
>
again, PT did no wrong...i find it amusing that noone has ever
considered that the names of the Eck Masters might not at all be the
ones given in the books...is this a lie? i think not, some of these
entities simply dontwant to be endlessly called upon to be asked to
fulfill someone's desires...does Rebazar Tarzs exist?? most
definitely! is Rebazar Tarzs actually this entity's name?? perhaps not
at all ;o) try asking him
> In this way, Eckankar leaders maintain control of the follower. It
> allows them to manipulate and create dependency. And it allows them,
> to a large degree, to restrict and limit the attention of the follower
> to Eckankar. The denials of this, made via statements that Eckists are
> free, that they can find their own way, and are expected to create
> their own individual path, simply serve as a subterfuge to convince
> the trusting, unwitting followers they aren't being manipulated, when
> in fact they are.
>
show me the proof, as i have proof of exactly the opposite~!not the
kind i can share with you or anyone however...
> In my dream, I took the keys away from the intruding "master."
> Although he was in possession of them, they were, in fact, my keys,
> and they always had been mine. He fooled me into thinking my own keys
> were his to give. He fooled me into thinking my own consciousness was
> his to bestow.
>
> I'm not fooled anymore.
>
> Tianyue
>
but your wording, and indeed your presence here prove that you have no
such keys, sorry to inform you, but you simply dont...perhaps your
time would be better spent in trying to gain these "keys" than here
arguing with folks...
Kinpa~!!!!
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6e3f4659-7339-4ff1...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kinpa,
Is this name "Kinpa" the only one you are posting
with here at A.R.E.? Like, you are not the same as
another poster here on this board, are you?
Etznab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmmmmm, interesting but very much ON Topic!
I see you're into prying into other people's privacy now Etznab.
<VBG>
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean,
I wouldn't call that question prying. Hacking into a person's
personal computer would be prying, IMO.
It was a question that Kinpa didn't have to answer. In fact, I
went and removed the post altogether after I already answered
the question for myself. Not by searching private information,
not by hacking anybody's computer, not by presenting a false
pseudo or posing as somebody else besides "Etznab", but by
searching public information on this and other Google Groups.
I wouldn't call that prying into other people's privacy, Sean.
BTW, since arriving here in 2007 I have not used any other
profile name on this group other than the one my posts appear
under. That would be Etznab (just for the record).
If I understand correctly, are you of the opinion that using
more than one alias in the same newsgroup is a matter of
personal privacy? That, as users, we are all entitled to that
right?
Etznab
Sean
Sean,
Etznab
-------------------------------------------------------
you'd call that a *right*?
Your a funny fella somedays. :)
Crankshaft
Revealing personal information like addresses and phone numbers has
been done here in
the past unfortunately. Some people spoke out against it. Some didn't
seem to mind.
Sometimes people even send email privately pretending to criticize Sri
Harold's discourses
as a test of loyalty. They create a loyalty test sort of trap that
uses pretending to be against Sri Harold
as the bait. They want to see if you will criticize also. It's some
sort of weird loyalty thing.
These types of behaviors are both sad and funny. It's unfortunate that
people choose to do these
things. They think they are Spiritually serving by behaving in these
ways.
I predict that the revealing of personal info and the private email
loyalty tests will go the way of the horse
and buggy in the future as our spiritual group continues to mature
more spiritually.
Dave
Sean
"Crankshaft" <davemar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2da8b968-8043-4191...@j68g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boy that IS weird!!! <shudder>
Sounds like a "this too shall pass" attitude is best. Anyway, I know I went
too far a cpl of times on this board, but sorted that out and alls well.
Everyone makes mis-takes, smart folks move on and let it go.
and HI Dave, I'm still catching up and been very distracted with my
interests in the financial crisis, and house work. ;-)
cheers sean
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean,
Yes, I would call that a right. How about you?
Etznab
Sean
Sean,
Etznab
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well imho, this *space* is not any different than a public bar, a nightclub,
a street, a local rally, a public park, a beach, or any other public space.
You're certainly entitled to wear a mask, or a silly hat with a fake name
plastered on it, but it makes little difference when you're in public. :)
That you might physically be in your own home when posting here, is
irrelevant to the reality.
As to *rights* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights is as good a place
to start as any. If you are interested.
cheers sean
Sean
http://www.hb-rights.org/2speech
Anonymous Speech
Anonymous speech is fully protected by the First Amendment, and in fact
dates back to the roots of our country. Though often decried as "cowardly"
and inviting abuse, there are many legitimate reasons for anonymous
speech--when there is fear of reprisal or retaliation, for example, for
criticizing an employer or expressing unpopular views. A good discussion of
anonymous speech can be foundhere .
With the advent of the Internet, anonymous speech has proliferated .
Postings in chat rooms typically indicate e-mail addresses, but not names.
ISP's are today increasingly being forced to divulge the names of customers
who have been alleged to have committed some improper act (in on-line
defamation lawsuits, such information is subpoenaed during the discovery
process). Many organizations are today fighting to protect on-line anonymity
rights.
For those seeking additional protection of their anonymity in e-mail
communication, "remailers" offer a free service (free because even they
don't know who to charge!) that allows e-mails to be sent without revealing
the e-mail address of the sender. Read more about on-line anonymity here. Of
course, anonymous speech carries with it great responsibility--if you engage
in illegal, harassing, threatening or defamatory speech, then you should
understand that your anonymity may be compromised by law enforcement
authorities or through the legal system.
There are many anonymous remailers to choose from--select one and send an
anonymous message--it's your right! Click here for more information.
Many great Americans have made statements supporting free speech and freedom
of the press.
Last updated November 2004
PS The First Ammendment as referred to, only applies in the USA
jurisdictions specifically.
"Sean" <b...@peace.now> wrote in message
news:48f20e6f$0$31806$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave & Others,
Good post Dave.
Unfortunately too, there is much to be suspicious about
in the on-line community when the person(s) one might go
and correspond with are relatively anonymous and all you
have to look at is their text.
This "loyalty test" that you spoke about, and the giving
out of personal information, etc., is unfortunate indeed.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Eckankar members
in various groups live in relative fear of detractors. Even to
the point of looking for personal information about a known
user in order to quell their fears. Honesty is not always a
successful response from those who they fear and those
who are honest and trusting could find themselves cyring
wolf in the eyes of their peers. (I'm not addressing your-
self personally at this point [after my second paragraph],
but just using this space to share my random views on
possibly related topics.
For example, when someone doesn't personally like
your perspective of Eckankar, doesn't agree and/or see
things the same as yourself, suspects that you are a
detractor in spite of your honest admission of being in
Eckankar for decades. It might not matter what you say
when the other person is living in fear.
I hope these things do go the way of the horse.
As far as I know it is perfectly alright to use more than
one alias or pseudonym online. Even within the same
online group. However, knowing this, I don't believe it is
unusual for other posters to ask whether or not a user is
using more than one at the same time. If I belonged to a
group and someone whom I met showed up dressed in a
costume, or disguise, but I thought I recognized something
familiar underneath it all, I don't believe it would be unusual
to go and ask if they were dressed as someone else the
other day. Or as someone else a minute ago. One could
interpret a disguise, in this particular case, as something
to fear or one could look at it with curiosity and ask whether
they ever met them before, ever spoke with them before,
and when they might have appeared as someone else.
On the subject of plagiarism, that I've seen come up time
and time again, it was not my suspicion that it didn't happen.
And it was not my primary concern. What my concern had
to do with pointed at the "author" of alleged plagiarisms.
In the case with Paul Twitchell and Rebazar Tarzs, I did
(and do) want to know beyond a doubt whether it was Paul
using a pseudonym or whether Rebazar Tarzs was in fact
a separate identity - or a separate person with a separate
physical body, who throughout history had carried the name
Rebazar Tarzs.
*********
I know that I might appear to ramble in my posts and ap-
pear to move off topic in the eyes of some. I know that the
way I articulate things is not always concise enough for all
people and some might take offense thinking I was being
critical of them personally, or of "Eckankar", when In fact I
was not addressing them personally. When I was not att-
acking their Eckankar, but was looking at something else
other than what they saw and trying to go somewhere else
other than where they thought.
In my opinion it happens in this type of context - online -
that trust is sometimes of the utmost importance. And be-
cause we might happen to share personal information with
relative strangers, not all of which sincerly desire to be our
friends.
One of the easiest ways to put yourself at risk to cyber
attack is to have a website and/or post a lot of information
online. Even just sharing your views. This is elementary in
a lot of books about online activity and how to be safe.
Considering that the whole world could be looking at the
things you say - and not even knowing you personally - or
seeing you from their own biased perspective based on the
way you write alone, that is an awful lot of people to have
as your critics and/or enemies. More than one would nor-
mally have in an average lifetime if they didn't go online &
own a computer.
It is wise to use a pseudonym in some cases, and if
one illustrates a lot of information to state whether or not
they share the same views. For example the daily news.
Another example, if they write about religions to not go
and appear to tell others "how it is" but to be certain if
they know the facts behind information they comment
on, and if they don't, to try and make that clear.
*********
Only a very small fraction of this post was composed
as addressing you personally, Dave. The majority of it
was just my usual ramblings on one subject to another
for anybody curious enough to read it.
Etznab
Crankshaft
>
> Considering that the whole world could be looking at the
> things you say - and not even knowing you personally - or
> seeing you from their own biased perspective based on the
> way you write alone, that is an awful lot of people to have
> as your critics and/or enemies. More than one would nor-
> mally have in an average lifetime if they didn't go online &
> own a computer.
>
> It is wise to use a pseudonym in some cases, and if
> one illustrates a lot of information to state whether or not
> they share the same views. For example the daily news.
> Another example, if they write about religions to not go
> and appear to tell others "how it is" but to be certain if
> they know the facts behind information they comment
> on, and if they don't, to try and make that clear.
>
> *********
>
> Only a very small fraction of this post was composed
> as addressing you personally, Dave. The majority of it
> was just my usual ramblings on one subject to another
> for anybody curious enough to read it.
>
> Etznab
Gee thanks Rambling Etznab. <g> I actually read all the ramblings and
could use a verbal colonic or two or three as a result.<g> I watch
you
going around and around trying to find answers to spiritual questions
using ONLY non-spiritual techniques. Maybe I'll live to see a non-
rambling whirling
dervish type Etznab someday.
Dave
Crankshaft
> "Crankshaft" <davemariabar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Revealing personal information like addresses and phone numbers has
> been done here in
> the past unfortunately. Some people spoke out against it. Some didn't
> seem to mind.
> Sometimes people even send email privately pretending to criticize Sri
> Harold's discourses
> as a test of loyalty. They create a loyalty test sort of trap that
> uses pretending to be against Sri Harold
> as the bait. They want to see if you will criticize also. It's some
> sort of weird loyalty thing.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Boy that IS weird!!! <shudder>
>
> Sounds like a "this too shall pass" attitude is best. Anyway, I know I went
> too far a cpl of times on this board, but sorted that out and alls well.
> Everyone makes mis-takes, smart folks move on and let it go.
Yeah, it's part of the negativity of the world we physically live in.
Connections between
good people become much less prevelant unfortunately. But these
experiences
teaches us more about vairag and forgiveness for ourselves and others.
Dave
Rich
Much to do about nothing? This whole indignant about 'privacy' started
because JR posted info about Kent that Kent or someone else put on the
internet.
There have been naive people that posted their personal info in this group.
There was a fool who badgered Eckists to find him and then when he was
found, said to post the info here(Alfie). There have been people who put
stuff on the internet and then act as if Eckists have invaded their private
life(Kent and others). There are people you track down info on others on the
internet(many people). There have been cases where people tried or did
contact employers in an effort to get them fired or in trouble. There have
been claims and unproven accusations of hacking & planting virus. There
have been threats of violence. And now Eckists baiting Eckists to challenge
their loyalty? That's a new one. Those of these that are actions of ill
intent or aberrated personalities are extremely _rare_ occasions. Some of
those are misperceptions or pure imagination and have no realty in the
physical world. Those who can't let it go, don't sort it out, may have yet
to learn some lessons.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Kinpa
not at all, i have been a poster here in the past under a different
name, SoulSinging i believe it was, but at this time, this is the only
name i am using here...
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mmmmmm, interesting but very much ON Topic!
>
> I see you're into prying into other people's privacy now Etznab.
>
> <VBG>- Hide quoted text -
TianYue
Actually, although "privacy" is not mentioned in the U.S.
constitution, constitutional scholars state that many of the
provisions of the bill of rights are, in fact, various assertions of
the right to privacy.
The fourth amendment, for example, protects citizens from illegal
search and seizure, and this has been interpreted by courts to protect
such things as private telephone conversations and email. Under that
provision, the police can't invade the privacy of your home or search
your car or other personal property to see, for example, which books
you are reading. Many laws on the books protect privacy of medical
records (HIPPA) and medical information. And Peeping Tom laws protect
people from strangers peering into their windows.
Under the first amendment, your right to privately follow a religion
is protected. No one has the right to require you to divulge religious
affiliations. Various rights to privacy also relate to financial
information. The laws which pertain to privacy are too numerous to
enumerate here.
But some things that aren't protected by actual laws are nevertheless
off limits due to basic respect and ethics. Not everything that is
legal is ethical. And not everything that is illegal is unethical.
Divulging personal information for no other purpose than to intimidate
or drive away people who express dissenting views reveals not only a
lack of ethics, but also a vacuity in any sort of reasonable,
substantial rebuttal. It doesn't refute criticism, but rather is
intended to suppress criticism.
Tianyue
TianYue
Rich is one of the worst offenders of personal space on A.R.E. He
actually found the telephone number of a former eckist's mother, and
called her, pretending to be a friend of her son to connive her into
giving out her son's number and address. Talk about a willingness to
cross over ethical lines! As I wrote earlier, when people feel the
need to stoop to such aggressive and invasive tactics, it reveals a
fundamental lack of any substantial rebuttal, and it reveals a need to
control. Rich is one of a.r.e.'s primary Enforcers. There is only one
reason to do the sort of opposition research into personal space he
and others like JR have done, and that is to intimidate people who
express dissenting views about Eckankar. They hope that by revealing
personal info, people will cease reporting unflattering information
about Eckankar.
Tianyue
TianYue
Any method of inquiry, if it reveals something of importance or value
about spiritual matters, is spiritual. On the other hand, closing off
avenues of exploration or discovery IS unspiritual and is also really,
really foolish.
Tianyue
Kinpa
>
> Actually, although "privacy" is not mentioned in the U.S.
> constitution, constitutional scholars state that many of the
> provisions of the bill of rights are, in fact, various assertions of
> the right to privacy.
>
these are interpretations only, NOT law, and that makes your point
irrelevant...constitutional scholars arent always supreme court
justices, which they HAVE to be, to make judgment based on their
interpretations, to make law, simple as that...
> The fourth amendment, for example, protects citizens from illegal
> search and seizure, and this has been interpreted by courts to protect
> such things as private telephone conversations and email. Under that
> provision, the police can't invade the privacy of your home or search
> your car or other personal property to see, for example, which books
> you are reading. Many laws on the books protect privacy of medical
> records (HIPPA) and medical information. And Peeping Tom laws protect
> people from strangers peering into their windows.
>
none of this equates to a law that specifically gives a right to
privacy, you are arguing semantics, plain and simple...furthermore,
several laws have been passed more recently to erode that
right...phone conversations are not, and never have been, private...my
brother in the NSA and my mother who worked for Ma Bell for 40 years
can testify to that...ALL calls are scanned for keywords that would
alert the gov't to terrorist activities in the US, and every call has
a record at the phone company, who placed it, who received it, at what
time it started and at what time it ended, to say the least...this is
hardly privacy...if uncle sam wants to know, he can find out...if you
want true privacy, you need to be financially self sufficient, avoid
using electronics (phones, computers etc.) and live pretty much alone
in the wilderness, and forget using utilities too, get your own water,
heat your own house, hunt your own food, rely on NOONE, and don't
drive a newer automobile, now that they all have transponders and
satellite linkups, then you can have some actual privacy, otherwise,
someone somewhere knows at least a part of where you are and what
you're up to....if you're interested, i know of some pretty remote
terrain in the rocky mountains...
> Under the first amendment, your right to privately follow a religion
> is protected. No one has the right to require you to divulge religious
> affiliations. Various rights to privacy also relate to financial
> information. The laws which pertain to privacy are too numerous to
> enumerate here.
>
there is NO law covering financial privacy...i guess you arent
familiar with the IRS?? which requires ANY transaction of $500 or more
to be reported to them...is this financial privacy? i guess it is as
long as you are dealing with spare change...
> But some things that aren't protected by actual laws are nevertheless
> off limits due to basic respect and ethics.
> Tianyue
this is YOUR opinion, nothing more, again, there is no such law...most
of the laws regarding privacy that you refer to are NOT constitutional
law, and therefore pertain to a privilege, NOT a right...BIG
difference there...
Kinpa
Sean
"Kinpa" <tsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8469ef58-0788-4bda...@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
As usual the emphasis gets lost in the myopic view of only what happens in
America is important or worth discussing, as if that is how the *world*
works.
Other nations DO have hard & specific personal privacy laws. Maybe time
America caught up with the rest of the world and placed more value on the
rights of the individual citizen vs business self-interests and criminal
behaviour?
Maybe what's needed is an a.r.e.international , and an a.r.e.usa ??? They
would be very different groups in topic and attitude. :)
>
>
>
>
TianYue
>
> Kinpa
I don't want to be rude, but the lack of informed opinions by you and
others commenting on this thread has me dismayed. Maybe I'm just tired
after a long days work, but I'm wondering if the inane posts are
intended by you folks to deliberately drive me away by the
unpleasantness of the sheer stubborn ignorance. This is tedious. There
is really no way to explain the laws of privacy without providing
reams of information which you would need to read to further your
understanding of this topic. I can't force you to educate yourself,
and I can't force you see that the word privacy doesn't need to be
stated outright in the constitution for that right to exist in that
document. You really must do more research before you make such
sweeping comments as you have.
I've gathered some excerpts from articles to get you started. Please,
for your own erudition, read these Wikipedia articles. Don't just read
the excerpt I included. Click on the link and read the entire article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy
Privacy laws of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_in_the_United_States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States privacy laws embody several different legal concepts.
One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an
aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who
unlawfully intrudes into his or her private affairs, discloses his or
her private information, publicizes him or her in a false light, or
appropriates his or her name for personal gain.[1] Public figures have
less privacy, and this is an evolving area of law as it relates to the
media.
The right to privacy include individuals' Constitutional rights
against the government. These includes the Fourth Amendment right to
be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to
free assembly, and the Fourteenth amendment due process right,
recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to
privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child
rearing.[2]
{....}
Constitutional right to privacy
There are Constitutional limits to the government's intrusion of
individuals' right to privacy. This is true even when pursuing a
public purpose such as exercising police powers or passing
legislation. The Constitution, however, only protects against state
actors. Invasions of privacy by individuals can only be remedied with
under the above private laws.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures
that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
First Amendment provides a right to free assembly, breadthening
privacy rights.
The Ninth Amendment declares that merely the fact that a right is not
explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the
government can infringe on that right.
The Supreme Court recognizes the Fourteenth amendment as providing a
substantive due process right to privacy. This was first recognized by
several Supreme Court Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965
decision protecting married couple's rights to contraception. It was
recognized again in 1973 Roe v. Wade which used the right to privacy
to protect a woman's right to an abortion.
---------------------------------
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution
is a part of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guards against
unreasonable searches and seizures, and was designed as a response to
the controversial writ of assistance (a type of general search
warrant), which was a significant factor behind the American
Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially
sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable
cause and be limited in scope according to specific information
supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn
by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
{...}
Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
{...}
Reasonable expectation of privacy
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan issued a
concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the
Court as the definition of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes: (1)
governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective
expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be
reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as
such.
-------------------------------
Here's the famous case that established that the fourth amendment
applies to electronic conversations:
--------------------------------
Katz v. United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme
Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from
unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone
booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.
Facts
Charles Katz was convicted in California of illegal gambling. He had
used a public pay phone booth in Los Angeles to place bets in Miami
and Boston. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI had recorded his conversation
via an electronic eavesdropping device attached to the exterior of the
phone booth. Katz was convicted based on recordings of his end of the
conversations. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the
recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of
Appeals sided with the FBI because there was not a physical intrusion
into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.
Issue(s) before the Court
-Does the Fourth Amendment protect the private conversations of an
individual made in a telephone booth?
-Is a physical intrusion by government officials required to violate a
defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and
seizure, or is a warrant-less electronic tap of the defendant's phone
call enough of an act to violate his/her rights?
-Is the government required to obtain a search warrant before
executing a wiretap, or is a determination by the federal agents that
probable cause exists enough?
Holding
-So long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation
would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from
"unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment.
-The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places. Therefore, the
rights of an individual may not be violated, regardless of whether or
not there is physical intrusion into any given area.
-A warrant is required before the government can execute a wiretap,
and the warrant must be sufficiently limited in scope and duration.
Decision and rationale
In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the
Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be.
Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business
office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a
telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."
The thrust of the Court's argument was that the Amendment protects
people and not just places. This ruling also extended the protection
of the Fourth Amendment to include private conversation in addition to
corporal objects.
-"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and
recording the petitioner's words violate the privacy upon which he
justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus
constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment."
-"The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
--------------------------
Here's a discussion of the Pricacy Act of 1974:
---------------------------
Privacy Act of 1974
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974
The Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (Dec.
31, 1974), codified in part at 5 U.S.C. § 552a, was passed by the
United States Congress following revelations of the abuse of privacy
during the administration of President Richard Nixon.
Provisions of the Privacy Act
Conditions of Disclosure
The Privacy Act states in part:
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system
of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another
agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior
written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains....[1]
--------------------------------------------------
As to your assertions of the NSA and wiretaps and electronic
surveillance, there were constitutional decisions (see Katz v. U.S.,
above) that established privacy rights in those cases, but sadly, the
Bush administration in recent years has, indeed, trampled the fourth
amendment to such an extent that scholars now believe the fourth
amendment rights are severely damaged.
As Wikipedia puts it:
"In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic
surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply
to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took
up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court,
Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in
order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not
address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of
foreign powers or their agents."
FISA laws were supposed to have protected American citizens from
warrantless wiretapping in foreign surveillance, and required the
executive branch (including the NSA, etc.) to justify surveillance by
obtaining secret warrants from the secret FISA court, which many
scholars think is unconstitutional in itself. But Bush has ignored the
FISA laws, and has also ignored various provisions of the U.S.
Constitution with relative impunity, thanks to a powerless congress.
Many scholars believe the constitution has been severely damaged due
to Bush's imperious manner of doing as he pleases. You can thank such
people as some of your neocon (eckankar) friends for that little gift,
as our country drifts towards fascism.
Hopefully, things will get better with the next President with new
legislation that re-establishes our fourth amendment rights.
Tianyue
Ken
What's this? You're saying the world doesn't end at our
borders? >shock<
;-)
--
Ken
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
news:e5idncwLkYkSj2vV...@supernews.com...
LOL ... oops and sorry, didn't you get the memo? <G>
Etznab
> "Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e5idncwLkYkSj2vV...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sean wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suspect that what Kinpa might have been touching on
has to do with the fact that privacy can be invaded in the
U.S.A. That there are technologies and agencies with the
means to do so. Even in a clandestine fashion. I believe
Kinpa was touching on the "reality" of the situation and
about how information that we might like to think private,
really is NOT. (Google Chrome anyone?)
Personal freedoms and privacy are eroding in the age
of technology and the War on Terror, IMO.
The Inquisition did some horrible things in the past. All
they had to do was "suspect" you. In fact, one could be a
total innocent and the church/state could still find a way
to persecute and torture those who they didn't personally
like. They could take away your property by drumming up
false charges. Or, they could take away your property if
even a relative was suspected a witch, heretic, etc.
My, haven't we come a long way in all those years?
Welcome to A.R.E. Where people are treated kindly
by those who don't like them :) (:
Etznab
Sean
S:
The reality of the situation is worldwide, not limited to the USA, or USA
laws.
Have a look at the details about Chrome Etznab, and tell me which other
browser is better more private, and why. If you're concerned about your
private info, why are using Google Groups? It's the same company, the same
Privacy level. :)
------------------
Personal freedoms and privacy are eroding in the age
of technology and the War on Terror, IMO.
S:
Depends on where you live.
-------------------
The Inquisition did some horrible things in the past. All
they had to do was "suspect" you. In fact, one could be a
total innocent and the church/state could still find a way
to persecute and torture those who they didn't personally
like. They could take away your property by drumming up
false charges. Or, they could take away your property if
even a relative was suspected a witch, heretic, etc.
S:
When you really think about, not a lot has changed, though the methodology
has. And again, it depends on where you live.
------------------------------------------
My, haven't we come a long way in all those years?
Welcome to A.R.E. Where people are treated kindly
by those who don't like them :) (:
Etznab
S:
Well I like you Etznab, and what you do overall, and always have. Don't know
anyone here I dislike. Can't judge the opposite, or need to. (::)
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean,
The technology might be headed toward "Skynet".
That was the context.
Etznab
TianYue
There is a difference between asserting that there are no rights to
privacy established by the constitution (which Kinpa stated, and which
is also an interpretation held by some arch conservatives [Bush/Cheny]
who want a more authoritarian government) and asserting that those
rights have been severely trampled in the post 9/11 Bush
administration, in which the fourth amendment and other constitutional
protections have been blithely ignored to the point that those
protections are in great jeopardy of losing their force and effect
(which I would agree has occurred--and if that is what Kinpa actually
meant, I'm in agreement, but I don't think that is his/her position).
Without the constitution, we're a banana republic with nukes, which
some think is the way we're heading.
I noticed that in tonight's debates, constitutional lawyer Barack
Obama made reference to the rights to privacy that are part of the
U.S. constitution. Interesting....
Tianyue
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tianyue,
I saw (and heard) reference to that too.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean,
All I knew about Google Chrome was what I
read from a Chicago Tribune article last month.
I believe this is a link to that article:
*********
Google's Chrome browser gets us closer to
computing in the clouds
Eric Benderoff | Tech Buzz
September 4, 2008
Google's new Web browser is widely viewed as
keen competition for Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
Here's another thought: Chrome, which debuted
Tuesday, takes computer users a step closer to
an environment where they may no longer need
an operating system—at least as we know it
today—to run a PC.
"I believe that is really Google's intent," said
Sridhar Vembu, the chief executive of Zoho, a
California-based softwaremaker. [....]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/chi-thu_google_chrome_folosep04,0,3745328.column
Etznab
Etznab
>
> Etznab- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean,
I like you too, Sean. This is not about you.
*********
Just out of curiosity, I went and typed the words
Skynet and Google Chrome into a search browser.
Here is one of the links. Tell me if you can view it.
http://getanewbrowser.com/2008/09/no-google-chrome-for-me/
From another link:
“We have some people at Google (who) are really
trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on
a large scale,” Page said to a packed Hilton ballroom
of scientists. “It’s not as far off as people think.”
Thankfully they are based in California, and the
Terminator just so happens to be the governor.
http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2007/02/19/google-skynet/
Some other trivia:
"Skynet is a fictional example of an artificial
intelligence that becomes sentient, and turns
on its creators."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(Terminator)
This one is a real eye-opener, IMO. From 2004!
"A St. Louis physicist [Stephen Thaler] created
a computer program called the Creativity Machine
that simulates what goes on in the human brain.
It has invented new products, composed music,
coined new words and frightened some who fear
such self-aware machines could take over the
world. [....] Thaler, too, is engineering independent
robots. A glossy, black, plastic cockroach named
H3 could be the prototype for swarms of bunker-
busting robots that could seek out, explore and
use collective intelligence to defeat an enemy
target. The U.S. Air Force has contracted Thaler
to create such robots. [....] Thaler's first contact
with the Air Force used a Creativity Machine to
help design warheads that reconfigure the pattern
of schrapnel scattering. That's important to limit
collateral damage and to save money by tailoring
bombs to destroy a target in one hit. [....] Spy
agencies want to use Thaler's technology to map
the Internet and detect unusual behavior. [....]
Sci-fi fans see similarity between Thaler's thinking
machines and Skynet. There's even an eerie co-
incidence between the fictional satellite's Judgement
Day - August 29th, 1997 - and the date the patent
for Creativity Machine became final - August 19th,
1997."
[Based on article by Tina Hesman, St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, 01/25/04]
*********
http://newmedia.wikia.com/wiki/Stephen_Thaler
Etznab
JS
2545100c-65f1-413c...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com, "TianYue"
<tia...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yes, I watched the debate and I noticed that, too, and I wondered if someone
here at a.r.e. might mention it, since the issue has shown up in a couple
different threads here recently.
It is true that a right to privacy is nowhere specified in so many words in
the United States Constitution, but I would certainly, just for example,
distrust anyone who is up for the Supreme Court who did not acknowledge that
the spirit of that Document (especially the whole Bill of Rights) quite
explicitly is based upon an individual right to privacy as one of its
fundamental premises.
The US of A may be in its waning days -- at least as we know it -- and I'm
sure one day it will meet its end, as all things do. But I do hope in my
heart, whatever great thing comes next, whatever fruit that whatever
revolution comes may bear, that this lesson, among many others, is learned:
that the right to privacy must be guaranteed with no doubt-in-language by
that new land's future constitution.
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it...!
--JS
Sean
Sean,
The technology might be headed toward "Skynet".
That was the context.
Etznab
-----------------------------------
Um, I really don't think so mate. I'm relaxed about it, if that helps. :)
Sean
No couldn't view the video, it was no longer available, but the rest of the
page was fine.
fwiw data is always running a two way street, from your pc, to the ISP
servers, thru a million channels, to the goal website or whatever, and all
the way back again. If data didn;t go from your pc to google you'd never be
able to do a search.
The issue is about add-on stuff, and chrome seems to have the same as
everyone else, an extra feedback line for errors, effectiveness, and search
term data, but none of this is personal, or sucking stuff out of your pc.
Then there's the security holes in browsers, IE being the worst
consistently, but even so it's the OS that's the main game anyway, can it
defend against buffer overflows and stop malicious code being installed ....
if those thing shappen then it's irrelevant what browser you use. fill in
the usual internet security warnings ... but there's enough simple free and
easy solutions to reduce any risks to almost zero, and being aware what your
own computer is doing [ like when it;s doing things it shouldn;t be ] and
not assuming it's just a phone version of a typewriter is sensible.
The old personal responsibility thing, and relevant knowledge. I'm tired and
can't get into the rest of the stuff now mate, so cheers.
sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:64ae44db-e628-42d6...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Sean
"TianYue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2545100c-65f1-413c...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Tianyue
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, I noticed that, smiled and said to myself 'aha' what a co-incidence,
thinking old kent's on the ball again. :)
But hey, *banana republic* that's my line I used just cpl days ago you
plagiarist bugger! <vbg>
cheeers
Sean
"JS" <j...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:C51C3F92.42B7%j...@127.0.0.1...
Alrighty then! You do that. <vbg>
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
"I think that the constitution has a right to privacy in it."
That was the quote, I believe. I heard it on CNN - just
this morning - when they were replaying parts of the debate.
Etznab
TianYue
> "TianYue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Well, about the "banana republic with nukes" comment, I guess great
minds think alike. ;). Heh.
I really should have credited Paul Krugman, who used the exact phrase
in his NYTImes column:
"So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a
major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody
trusts the White House an inch.
As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with
nukes."
But seriously, without the stabilizing influence of a functioning
constitution, the U.S. will decline and even become a possible threat
to world security, just like any third world country but with an
arsenal that can blow the world to smithereens. Strong words, perhaps,
but I'm merely passing on what many respected political scholars have
expressed in recent times.
Tianyue
Rich
Privacy is an Illusion. There is no guarantee that ensures it.
The Gov't can get a warrant and spy on you anytime they want.
Rights are man manmade. Criminals don't abide them.
A private detective doesn't need a warrant.
Paparazzi...
Anyone versed in internet searching.
Even your good friend neighbor can easily spy on you.
Here's realistic rights:
"Understand that the right to choose your own path is a sacred privilege.
Use it. Dwell in possibility."
- Oprah Winfrey
"Human beings have an inalienable right to invent themselves."
- Germaine Greer
TianYue
Okay, so.... does this mean you don't support the right to privacy,
including the bill of rights, or does it just mean you don't think
rights to privacy are 100% enforceable? Do you want the government to
be able to spy on it's citizens? Or are you simply saying that while
privacy is a precious right, it is difficult to protect?
It seems you are denigrating the right to privacy, as if you think
it's a good idea that a government can have totalitarian authority to
know everything about your private life. Please tell me I don't have
to explain why that is a bad idea. George Orwell, roll over.
Tianyue
Sean
"TianYue" <tia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2545100c-65f1-413c...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Tianyue
------------------------------------------------
This is another co-incidence, and much more important and widespread than
web browser security or Govt intrusions imho.
It's the elephant in the room, even though this example may *appear* as a
one off in a nation that does have strong Privacy Laws and Privacy
Regulators who are adequately funded and staffed do investigate such matters
and Prosecute those that breach the Laws.
A fraudster's dream: sensitive documents discovered in a dumpster
Print
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 16/10/2008
Reporter: Thea Dikeos
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2393401.htm
again, watch the video folks as it gives a better sense.
Sean
Tianyue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S:
Well if the most recent Noble Peace prize was using "banana republic" then i
am in good company too. I plagiarised from our ex-PM that siad to
wake-australia up in the late 80's. AND IT REALLY DID ... people started to
pay attention to the fine print and the lack of logic everyone was simply
ignoring -- we really were in a "she'll be right mate" state of mind. Well,
things were not right, and much needed to be done, and decided where we as a
nation really wanted to go. Much reform started to happen and for the
better, over the last 20 years, and BOTH sides of the political divide
recognised that and each played their role. On top of that, so did the
Unions, and Business, and Banks, and everyone in society. But no pain, no
gain, is a truism. I paid a big price personally, so did many. Unemployment
went over 10% for a very long time, interest rates maxed at 22% ..... Paul
keating also called it the *Recession we had to have* .... he was way to
flippant and calous how he said this at that time ... but he was right.
Here's an example ... there are 13 AA rated banks in the world today. The
highest rating possible for a Bank. Four of those Banks are Australian
banks, and our financial system is as solid as a rock.
We may have some harder times now economically due to the world situation,
but we also don;t have the level of fraud in business, in real estate, or in
the mortgage and finance industry that exists right now in the USA. If we
didn't act co-operatively as a nation 20 years ago to fix these matters and
make serious choices about what was more important to all of us in the
longterm, we wouldn't be where we are now as a thriving nation and all the
benefits that entails right now. Not blowing my own trumpet here at all, we
have been blessed to have some very good political and business leaders take
significant stands for the good of all, and the longer term.
Our political leaders last year on both sides of politics, our Reserve
Banks, and others were not ignorant of the fact that this financial crisis &
recession was coming from the USA very soon. They didn't speak of it openly,
to do so was irresponsible, but behind the scenes much care was being taken,
and none of them have been surprised ... except to the extent of how hard
and fast it has been.
Your point about the nukes is not a trivial point, nor is it over-stating
the importance and the potentials here. As a nation you do have
responsibilities that you;ve willingly taken on. You can;t just walk away or
ignore this stuff without serious consequences. It IS a part of the mix to
be considered, and can't be over-stated at all.
cheers have a good day .... this should cheer you up though Kent!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2393419.htm
watch the video, much better than the text
For details about this prediction forecast as at 2007 see:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------
Some additional info worth having a look at:
Rudd's executive idea is to force a fine-tuning
The Age, Australia - 15 Oct 2008
Australia's regulators, led by APRA, will be asked to design a template for
presentation at the G 20 meeting in Brazil on November 8 and 9,
This is an idea that even a year ago would have been laughed off by groups
that it targets; but that was then, and this is now: this crisis has many
parents, and one of them is definitely what Rudd yesterday hyperbolically
called "unrestrained greed": a culture of profit maximisation.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/rudds-executive-idea-is-to-force-a-finetuning-20081015-51iv.html
Blame extreme capitalism': Rudd October 15 2008
Kevin Rudd tells the National Press Club in Canberra where he lays the blame
for the world financial crisis. (Video Duration - 00:03:02)
http://media.theage.com.au/?rid=42811 video of Pime Minister saying PEOPLE
FIRST
Then also see Rudd answering a question in the NEXT video "CRISIS, oh
bother" is VERY funny ... aussies at their best, even in a crisis. <smile>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean
Tianyue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ahem, I think you've all missed the point about Obama's comment about "right
to privacy".
It was about *abortion* that was the topic being discussed.
And Obama seriously failed imho to say what really needed to be said by
someone on that point, in regards the politics of it all, and what is REALLY
important.
And it's basically this, imho:
"My view is this. John McCain, and the millions of other Americans do hold
moral beliefs that abortion is wrong. I accept your personal beliefs and
your objections, and more than that I respect them as being valid and very
genuinely held. The real important issue about this subject however, is that
it this issueis really all about our Privacy Rights as individuals in this
Nation. That is to live free of any type of coersion or force being applied
to us to act in a particular way, be it socially or through the powers of
Government.
This ideal is clearly enshrined within the Constitution of the US of A.
Now, way back in 1973 this matter of abortion was brought to the The Supreme
Court of the USA under Roe vs Wade, and under OUR Constitution the Court
clearly resolved the issue of abortion under the greater ideal of personal
liberty and individual Privacy Rights.
And yet, here we are, in 2008, 35 years after Roe vs Wade should have been
put to bed, and this subject of *abortion* is bstill eing used to hijack or
at best manipulate our national political dialog and processes.
Of course I understand that this is being done by really genuine and
well-meaning people just like John McCain, however I believe that these
people are ignoring the fact that to continue in this way they are actually
undermining our Constitution and all that it stands for.
This nation was not built on populist polititics where everyone agreed on
every nuance of social policy or Law that has been made. But we do know it
is through the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and the great Constitution
that they gave us, that America has not only survived but thrived as a
people, and we have been a beacon of Liberty and human rights across the
world as a result.
As President, I or John, will need to swear an Oath to protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States, and I take that requirement very
seriously. At the end of the day, it does not matter in the slightest what
my personal views may be, or John's personal views are about Abortion,
because it's the Constitution and the separation of powers enshrined in that
Document and the Laws in the land, that have already decided this issue 35
years ago.
That decision held that Women have a right to privacy in all matters of
their health care and their bodies. That is what Roe vs Wade was all about
.... it was NOT about abortion per se, but about a womans RIGHT to Decide
for herself in connection with her health care provider. That's it. End of
story until or if as a nation we Vote to change the Constitution in a way
that would remove that individual right from living women, and somehow give
a Legal Right to the as yet unborn.
So my personal view, and my approach as President is this.
We as a nation need to finally get over Roe vs Wade and the non-stop
personal attacks by a section of our citizens on anyone, especially
Politicians, about their personal and private moral views on this matter.
Everyone needs to be prepared to fully accept the responsibility to work
within the constraints of the Constitution of this great nation.
And frankly, these ongoing attacks, the questioning, and even simply the
raising of this issue in the political and electoral process, where it does
NOT belong, needs to stop, and it needs to stop right now.
Thank-you"
----------------------------------------------
Whattya reckon folks????
Sean
PS a cpl other links to check
> Rudd's executive idea is to force a fine-tuning
> The Age, Australia - 15 Oct 2008
> Australia's regulators, led by APRA, will be asked to design a template
> for presentation at the G 20 meeting in Brazil on November 8 and 9,
> This is an idea that even a year ago would have been laughed off by groups
> that it targets; but that was then, and this is now: this crisis has many
> parents, and one of them is definitely what Rudd yesterday hyperbolically
> called "unrestrained greed": a culture of profit maximisation.
> http://business.theage.com.au/business/rudds-executive-idea-is-to-force-a-finetuning-20081015-51iv.html
> Blame extreme capitalism': Rudd October 15 2008
> Kevin Rudd tells the National Press Club in Canberra where he lays the
> blame for the world financial crisis. (Video Duration - 00:03:02)
> http://media.theage.com.au/?rid=42811 video of Pime Minister saying PEOPLE
> FIRST
>
PS Even the right-wing commentators at FOX get this point and agree with out
*Left leaning* PM
Listen to Bill O'reilly's Talking points about the last debate if you
haven't seen it yet
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
His Ingram Angle segment was also very interesting.
-----------------------------------------------
Or watch Hannity get confused, and then ignore what T. Boone Pickens says
regarding Energy, and the lack of a real *rational/practical* plan by either
Candidate, and the *ticking bomb* of reality
*interesting times* <smile>
Ken
And then they will say, "Human life begins at conception".
And all of those fine words you wrote just above go right out
the window. Because if you really *do* believe that human life
begins at inception, abortion is murder, and evil. And not
standing up to a state that condones the murder of innocent
children is evil.
I'm pro choice, but I don't see any way to bridge this gap.
--
Ken
Kinpa
> "Kinpa" <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
sorry to be so provincial, BUT, the posting of Kent's webpage is an
american one, so, more than likely only american laws stand to cover
it....i dont know where JR is from but unless its a different country
AND that country has a privacy law that covers the posting of Kent's
link, it's really irrelevant, the whole topic started under an
ethnocentric pretense in the first place, and is really irrelevant
anyways, if Kent is so certain that privacy exists (and i see from his
post, following yours, that he insists it does) then i invite him to
put up or shut up! press charges against JR for posting that link, ill
wait to see what happens, although i know that it certainly wont end
in any sort of prosecution of JR for invading your privacy in any
manner that is illegal, in america or ANY other country...the fact
remains that it was a webpage, and that fact alone makes it
international property...anyone from literally anywhere can view it,
and copy and paste the link to it anywhere, and even copy the pictures
and have any sort of fun they wish with them, or use any info
contained on the page long before coming to a point whereby they have
even remotely broken a law....i shall await proof of anything
otherwise, and if i dont find any being provided, i shall take THAT as
proof that i am correct in my view on this matter ( the anti eckists
do it, why cant i?)... no offense to you Sean, i really didnt mean to
exclude your country of origin or whichever laws it may have
concerning privacy, so please accept my apology for having been so
ethnocentric in the first place :o) on another note, we shall have to
see what world laws are made concerning privacy, once all national
sovereignty has been abolished, and it will...north american union
anyone?? ;o)
Kinpa
are actually rights....rights come from "God" via the constitution (in
only america of course, please excuse these remarks, and if anyone
from another country has something to add concerning the laws of that
country, i'd be glad to hear about it) however Kent, are you aware
that the 14th amendment created a new citizenship?? the constitution
itself refers to state citizen, as at the time of it's writing no
other form of citizenship existed, collectively we were known as
"natural born americans" but there was no national citizenship as it
wasnt included in the lawmaking...the 14th amendment fixed that when
it freed the slaves by creating a new type of citizenship, that known
as a US Citizen, completely different than a natural born american
citizen, for US Citizens can be (and often are) denied any
constitutional rights, they are now under the laws of the U.C.C.,
which contain no rights, only privileges, that can be given and taken
away by the government's will...not at all the same as constitutional
rights, furthermore these laws concern intrastate trade, which most
believe doesnt apply to them, however, the government differs in it's
opinion and practice and holds us to these laws everyday...the
internal revenue code is a great example of this, as the folks who
have to pay it are those living in a federal area or
territory(washington d.c. etc.) and they have to be involved in the
production, sale and /or transport of weapons, tobacco and/or
firearms...unknown to most in the IRS files we all carry a code saying
that we are involved in one aspect or another of these things, even
though many arent, and im sure youre well aware that everyone gets to
pay income tax, as almost none are "non resident aliens" (another term
for "natural born american") since the buck act of (i believe either
1939 or 40) created a saran wrap, invisible federal territory over
these 50 united states, thus including everyone in this
taxation...just one example...its SO easy to think you know a thing,
and then find out that what you thought you knew was an illusion, i
know this because im one of those myself....furthermore, every law you
posted, has other laws that gives the feds power to ignore them and go
about their buisness anyways...if i had more time at this computer, id
fetch the links for you, but unfortunately, you'll have to do the
research yourself, just be thankful that the internet exists now, so
you can do it rather quickly instead of having to read thousands of
books to get the picture, as ive had to spend 20 years doing....what's
going on out there may shock you more than you would be willing to
believe...thankfully i enjoy economics and political science, so i
didnt mind doing the research the long hard way...and of course there
is no end to contrasting points of view (same as religion eh?) but
you'll just have to sort through BOTH sides to get the whole
picture...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Const...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Const...
> into the phone booth itself. ...
>
> read more »
Kinpa
exactly right Etz~!mine isnt a very popular point of view, but the
number who share it has been growing steadily for many years...
Kinpa
i agree that it DOES depend where you live, sorry to have left that
out of my rants...but the time approaches when it wont matter,we'll
all live under the same legal structure,worldwide...the UN is
powerless, for now, that may well change though :o)
Kinpa
completely irrelevant, they dont exists...if they do, why is noone
enjoying them?why are so many not being allowed to enjoy them?methinks
obama was just twisting some words to fit his agenda...in the book
1984, they called that doublespeak...wanna talk about prophecies? that
one there is more prophetic than anyone seems to realize...right down
to the computer in every home (which has just become realized in the
last few years) now just wait till you arent allowed to tturn it off,
or log off from it...it could happen, and if it does, my point will be
made...i wont enjoy being right tho, i'd rather be dead wrong, and
would gladly be a paranoid alarmist...only time will tell...
Kinpa
i agree with you, wholeheartedly...some believe the constitution
itself was written to fail in the first place, but, that's another
story for another time lol
Sean
"Kinpa" <tsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:299b2151-2103-4400...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
That's fine kinpa, no need to apologise. No one can include all aspects of
an issue in a short post. I like to fill in gaps when I see them, for
everyone's benefit. given much of this began about internet/personal privacy
I felt it should be seen in that perspective a global one. Most nations have
privacy laws but only one has the US Constitution. and yes, much change
around these days by the look of it. Good to learn from others experience &
experiences and expand our pov's , imho.
Privacy is interesting topic, I investigated it alot over the years. Seems
to me to be two key aspects. One the attempt to define what are personal
*rights*, and secondly the cultural perspectives that vary.
eg in indignenous culture here for around 100,000 years there was barely any
privacy for anyone because everyone knew almost everything about everyone
else. They were generally happy & succeeded in the becoming the longest
continuous multi-nation civilisation on the planet. They must have gotten
something right in their cultural Laws which were as defined as any written
constituion.
They didn't need money, banks, political parties or free-trade agreements
either. <smile> Of course the world has changed, i don't deny that. cheers
Sean
"Ken" <K...@NowHere.net> wrote in message
I know and agree with you Ken ..... only suggesting that the above IF said
would help to oil up the politicals wheels and reduce the existing friction.
My opinion is just that something like this *needs* to said by someone in
high office.
The differences in opinion here are just as stark, as it is a personal moral
decision about beliefs. However the topic rarely enters the public poltical
arena [ when it does everryone just ignores it including the media ] It just
isn't something that gets asked of politicians around election time.
But it is still an fractious issue though from time to time. eg like last
week
VICTORIA is a step closer to *decriminalising* abortion after the
controversial abortion reform bill passed through the state's upper house
yesterday.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24478367-5013871,00.html
fyi abortion proceedures occur in all States, however untill now it has been
technically *illegal*. Federal pro-life politicians once tried years ago to
have it excluded from universal health care refund payments, Medicare, but
that failed badly not to be revisited ever I would expect.
Doctors and religious based private/public hospitals are NOT forced to do
the proceedure, and are exempt on conscience. So freedom of choice for the
individual & groups exists at all levels of involvment in this country. All
Political parties confer a conscience vote on this topic always.
The biggy is this ... I don't know of any politician pro or not that gets
pummeled by his party or electors for voting one way or the other. The legal
aspects are dealt with asap, and then everyone gets on with their normal
poltical life.
I think it works well this way. cheers
Sean
<smile> I really am not offended, just making a flippant point. <vbg>
Stopping americans speaking from and about their cultural backgound is like
holding back water from Niagra falls with an egg cup. LOL
My comments weren't directed at you personally, even though your message
copped the reply post. One day I will learn to just go with the flow and the
prevailing winds, and develop the self-control needed to not point out the
obvious. hehehehe
cheers, and thx for the reply, all makes sense to me.
Sean
I for one, had to laugh when I discovered in research that the IRS could be
seen as an *illegal* entity, and that the Federal Income Tax laws were also
more than likely Unconstitutional. One of those "Possession equals 9/10ths
of the Law" moments. <G>
"Kinpa" <tsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:883d6043-3531-4417...@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
TianYue
> "TianYue" <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
No, Sean, I was not missing Obama's point, but I like what you wrote.
Obama was referring to the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution
that was used to decide the abortion issue in Roe v Wade. This thread
about rights to privacy was more general, and not specific to
abortion, but the politics of abortion revolve around the 14th
amendment rights of due process, which involves the principle that the
state cannot infringe upon a citizen's basic rights (such as the
implied right to privacy) without applying due process to insure that
any imposition of the state upon citizens is in accordance with the
constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “No State
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law ... ”
This is one of the provisions in the constitution, in addition to
other amendments, that imply a right to privacy. In other words,
people are supposed to be left alone, to live their own private lives
as they see fit, unless there is a damn good reason to bother them.
Liberty is all about privacy. There is no freedom if you can't live
your own private life in peace. Any interference with their liberty or
lives must be in accordance with their constitutional rights, and must
be constitutionally permitted. Even if a majority of Americans, or a
majority of congress, or any state or federal government body, have
notions about how others should live their lives in terms of such
things as morality or religion, the 14th amendment exists to protect
the individual citizen from interference from the state.
Abortion is not a sin in terms of known science. It is only murder in
terms of religious belief. Attempts to make abortion illegal are
attempts to force religious beliefs on others. Since the "abortion is
murder" nonsense is merely opinion and not proven in science, it is a
violation of the due process principle of the 14th amendment for a
state to force women to carry a fetus to full term. As I recall, Obama
did touch on this point by mentioning the right for women to decide
for themselves what they do with their own bodies, and that abortion
is a personal, private issue that people have a right to decide for
themselves without government interference. Legally, a state would
have to prove abortion is truly murder (ahem, with science and facts,
doug) before it could enforce anti-abortion laws. But in our present
day America, with religious conservatives in a majority on the the US
Supreme Court, our rights are in jeopardy of being taken away.
But the problem is that many Americans lack the legal education to
understand these principles, and it is dangerous political territory
to get too far into the technical legal aspects, which wouldn't
convince those who think they can inflict their beliefs on others.
Many Americans get their notions from pastors at church, and Obama
isn't going to have more clout than the pastor in the local church who
these religious people see every Sunday. Lots of Americans actually
think this is a "christian nation" and think that "rule of the
majority" gives them the right to force their religious beliefs on all
Americans.
But progressives keep repeating that while religious sentiments should
be respected, it is a private matter that government should stay out
of.
So, that said, Obama's comments about constitutional rights to privacy
were all about the 14th amendment, and directly related to the more
general discussion on this thread.
Tianyue
Sean
Tianyue
----------------------------------------------------------------
S: Thanks T .... nice covering of all the key points, THX.
I wasn't saying your general privacy discussion wasn't valid or connected to
Obama's point. I agree it is ... i was trying to add another aspect to it,
Yes Obama, pointedly I might say, spoke to the key issue about abortion. I
feel however that with so many people not aware of the underlying principles
involved for the Constitution and American Law overall, that this point he
made could really be expounded in a very strong and public manner, by
someone, anyone!!!
That it gets into the politics on a regular basis and interferes in due
process, that it instills hatred and aggressiveness by all sides regularly,
that it tends to separate people rather than draw them together on shred
ideals such as the underpinning of the Constitituion and all it means to all
people, could really do with some attention in the public arena ... and
addressed openly in a way that at least all people have the opportunity to
at least *hear* it and why it is so important for everyone.
Doesn;t mean people still won't be pro-life or hold totheir beliefs, but
that isn;t the issue. That's unsolvable, the interference in politics
however i see as solvable because other Christian nations do not have this
problem on such a regylar basis. I guess some would say it;s their
constitituional right to raise the topic becasue it;s important to them,
sure, that would be true -- I'm saying the implications and the damage done
by repeatedly bringing it has become or should become labelled as totally
unnacceptable for the normal political process. Otherwise it will never come
close to be trully effective, open, consistent, and develop honest
brokerage.
on top of my yadda yadda I agree with you, no worries at all. You know the
framework much better than I, because you live it .... cheers sean
Kinpa
> either. <smile> Of course the world has changed, i don't deny that. cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
good for them~!We could learn ALOT from those folks,some of which was
already known, but seems to have been forgotten...i know that i dont
need fiat money, i like the hard cash myself, but i differ from most
in this<g> banks? i dont use them lol...as for political parties,
ewwww of NO use to me,as they werent to our county's founing father,
our first president...noone remembers his farewell address and the
warnings it contained, but then again, he favored a constitutional
monarchy lol, not sure i agree....i think EVERYONE should serve a
mandatory term in congress or the senate and that the same should go
for the president, then we would be forced to educate EVERYONE just to
be able to count on everyone having the competency to do these jobs,
but oh well, just a rant...
Kinpa
>
> - Show quoted text -
sorry about my cropping...i generally do that because i access the net
from my cell phone alot, and its no fun to re-read a single long post
thru each and every response...maybe i should get a better cell phone
and amend my habits accordingly...
Sean
On Oct 17, 8:31 pm, "Sean" <ohBot...@ohMy.com> wrote:
> "Kinpa" <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
SNIP
> Stopping americans speaking from and about their cultural backgound is
> like
> holding back water from Niagra falls with an egg cup. LOL
>
> My comments weren't directed at you personally, even though your message
> copped the reply post. One day I will learn to just go with the flow and
> the
> prevailing winds, and develop the self-control needed to not point out the
> obvious. hehehehe
>
> cheers, and thx for the reply, all makes sense to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sorry about my cropping...i generally do that because i access the net
from my cell phone alot, and its no fun to re-read a single long post
thru each and every response...maybe i should get a better cell phone
and amend my habits accordingly...
--------------------------------------------
Sean: I said *copped* not cRopped <smile>
*Copped* in aussie means *you had to recieve the mouth full, the verbiage,
or the punch in the face*, depending on the situation.
as in "cops" = police , you're post *copped* my reply which spoke to years
of experience online and not just your particular message comments. :)
Kinpa
thanks for clearing that up for me <G>must have been feeling self
concious about my cropping lol
Etznab
> in my own experiences with the inner master, it has never been anyone,
> it is a being, a state of conciousness that does all that it is
> claimed the Mahanta can do, and i find that very interesting, i simply
> call him the Ancient One, and the feeling i get everytime i meet him
> is as if ive found an old friend that i had forgotten existed.i asked
> him why he didnt appear to be Wah-Z or any other Eck Master, i was
> told that i didn't need them to be, i can see truth, so i dont need to
> see Christ, or Wah-Z or Peddar Zaskq for that matter, they are merely
> form that Spirit uses to communicate with us. i know full well you
> aren't an Eckist and aren't even remotely sympathetic to Eckankar, but
> this is just my take on it, that Paul Twitchell didnt mislead anyone
> at all, this inner quality exists, one simply needs to learn to
> recognize it, in whatever form it takes, if any...just my take...
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2:55 pm, TianYue <kentaddle...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 1:09 pm, Crankshaft <davemariabar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 22, 1:51 pm, TianYue <kentaddle...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sep 22, 6:04 am, Crankshaft <davemariabar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Thanks for sharing this Tianyue.
> >
> > > > > It's been my experience that if people feel less free as a member they
> > > > > will either leave the teachings altogether or not attend any outer
> > > > > functions whatsoever and only study on their own.
> >
> > > > > I think a lot can be learned from what you have shared and I am
> > > > > grateful that you did. Thank you.
> >
> > > > > Dave
> >
> > > > That's an odd comment about "not attending outer functions" as a
> > > > solution to the issues my dream and other comments raise.
> >
> > > My comments were about my experiences over the years and were not
> > > about your dream experience you shared or about your comments
> > > directly.
> >
> > > My dream
> >
> > > > dealt not with mere outer issues, but instead dealt with the deception
> > > > that even carries inwardly to all levels. This was an inner
> > > > experience, not an outer one. My inner voice (the primordial ground of
> > > > being, for lack of better terms) told me PT is a fraud.
> >
> > > I found your dream interesting. I really like PT. That's just
> > > something we'll
> > > probaby always disagree on. But agreement is not important. I just
> > > enjoy the dialogue.
> >
> > > > Nice try.
> >
> > > I was not attempting to "try" anything.
> >
> > > Dave
> >
> > There is as much said by omission as there is by what a person thinks
> > is important to overtly address. Any astute person knows this and can
> > see this. Your comments in reply to my dream in which you refer to
> > avoiding the "outer" and not commenting on the fact that my dream was
> > an inner experience could (notice I wrote "could") be taken as code to
> > mean that my dream only applicable to outer organizational or "group"
> > problems, which is so often the method Eckists use to dismiss valid
> > points people make about Eckankar. Most of your replies to my posts
> > have been largely about the "outer" org, as if simply separating outer
> > organizational issues from a notion of a pristine inner master (the
> > inner PT), who somehow manages to be completely untouched by that same
> > masters outer behavior, settles all questions of authenticity. If
> > (notice I said IF) that is your intent, I disagree.
> >
> > Tianyue
That is an interesting perspective, imo.
Etznab
> btw...im one of those folks who dont generally make many outer events,
> havent been to a seminar in 18 years or so, but my inner connection is
> stronger for it. when i first started Eckankar, i told myself "i dont
> care if this is fake, because IT WORKS!" fully realizing that some of
> the things that PT said might be hard to swallow or seemed way out
> there.i believe it was always his intention to get those interested to
> TRY and make the inner connection with the Divine within themselves
> where it is always waiting to communicate...again, just MY take on
> this...
I think that is also interesting.
"... when i first started Eckankar, i told myself "i dont care if this is fake, because IT WORKS!" fully realizing that some of the things that PT said might be hard to swallow or seemed way out there.i believe it was always his intention to get those interested to TRY and make the inner connection with the Divine within themselves where it is always waiting to communicate...again, just MY take on this..."
Etznab
> > in my own experiences with the inner master, it has never been anyone,
> > it is a being, a state of conciousness that does all that it is
> > claimed the Mahanta can do, and i find that very interesting, i simply
> > call him the Ancient One, and the feeling i get everytime i meet him
> > is as if ive found an old friend that i had forgotten existed.i asked
> > him why he didnt appear to be Wah-Z or any other Eck Master, i was
> > told that i didn't need them to be, i can see truth, so i dont need to
> > see Christ, or Wah-Z or Peddar Zaskq for that matter, they are merely
> > form that Spirit uses to communicate with us. i know full well you
> > aren't an Eckist and aren't even remotely sympathetic to Eckankar, but
> > this is just my take on it, that Paul Twitchell didnt mislead anyone
> > at all, this inner quality exists, one simply needs to learn to
> > recognize it, in whatever form it takes, if any...just my take...
>
>
> but yet isn't "anyone," which I take to mean the being doesn't have
> personal characteristics, and is more like pure consciousness.
>
> If this is true, may I ask why you refer to this being as having
> gender? And if the being has no form or image, then how do you know
> this being is an eck master, and not an independent entity? Or, quite
> possibly, maybe this being is your own self, or even the unnameable
> pure "ground of being," or what some call the Absolute? How do you
> know it is the Mahanta, or any being that is in any way connected to
> PT's claims?
>
> What I'm getting at is the notion that PT, Klemp or Eckankar has
> something to do with your inner experience. PT's theology is all about
> ownership. He states that only through Eckankar's masters can soul be
> truly connected to spirit. The issue I have isn't whether there are
> higher states of consciousness, or whether there is an omniscient
> spirit, or that an individual can have experiences with spirit. The
> issue is about the claims of spiritual exclusivity and even possession
> of the only keys to spirit, all of which PT claimed to have. The
> deception isn't that PT claimed there is spirit, light and sound,
> soul, higher planes and all the other teachings that are rather common
> in Indian philosophy. The deception, rather, is the claim that only
> through PT's eck masters can soul become realized of these states of
> consciousness. You wrote that "Paul Twitchell didn't mislead anyone."
> He mislead people into believing that through their connection with
> Eckankar's inner masters, they gain access to spirit and all the
> wonders of the inner worlds.
>
> In this way, Eckankar leaders maintain control of the follower. It
> allows them to manipulate and create dependency. And it allows them,
> to a large degree, to restrict and limit the attention of the follower
> to Eckankar. The denials of this, made via statements that Eckists are
> free, that they can find their own way, and are expected to create
> their own individual path, simply serve as a subterfuge to convince
> the trusting, unwitting followers they aren't being manipulated, when
> in fact they are.
>
> In my dream, I took the keys away from the intruding "master."
> Although he was in possession of them, they were, in fact, my keys,
> and they always had been mine. He fooled me into thinking my own keys
> were his to give. He fooled me into thinking my own consciousness was
> his to bestow.
>
> I'm not fooled anymore.
>
> Tianyue
"If this is true, may I ask why you refer to this being as having gender? And if the being has no form or image, then how do you know this being is an eck master, and not an independent entity? Or, quite possibly, maybe this being is your own self, or even the unnameable pure "ground of being," or what some call the Absolute? How do you know it is the Mahanta, or any being that is in any way connected to PT's claims?"
Etznab
> On Oct 3, 4:01 pm, Kinpa <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 4:26 pm, TianYue <kentaddle...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 3, 2:18 pm, Kinpa <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sep 30, 1:41 am, Tian Yue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:> On Sep 28, 1:37 pm, Kinpa <tsharp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > i referred to "IT" as a "him" purely for your benefit....if you took
> > > > the keys back into your own hands, why do you so obviously not have
> > > > them?if you are freed from Eckankar's illusion, why do you spend so
> > > > much of your time and energy here? don't you have better and more
> > > > worthwhile things to do?apparently not....for a path that , as you
> > > > claim, has no reality to it, you are certainly caught up in a feeding
> > > > frenzy over it's energies...
> >
> > > I see that there is much in my reply that you have chosen not to
> > > answer. That's okay, I understand.
> >
> > > Your explanation falls short of making clear why you refer to the
> > > "absolute" as having male gender. If It is beyond duality, why would
> > > it have gender?
> >
> > > As to why I post here: My purpose is manyfold. Mostly, it is to
> > > balance the harm I did by spreading ECKANKAR(tm) all over Southern
> > > California and other areas in which I've lived. I find that to be a
> > > worthwhile endeavor. As to ECKANKAR's(tm) "energies," they are not what
> > > draws me here. I've outgrown them, and realized how entrapping they
> > > are. I don't expect you, as a full-tilt EKist(tm), to understand or value
> > > my motives.
> >
> > > Tianyue
> >
> > because you can't seem to concieve of it without a
> > gender...understand? im speaking very slowly, also for your benefit...
>
>
> Oh boy, I see this is venturing off into the usual A.R.E. silliness.
> It's nonsensical that you somehow have come to the conclusion that I
> think of "it" as having gender, since I have never held that view at
> any time in my entire life. This discussion is veering off into la la
> land. You are the one who used gender specific terms, and now you're
> trying to pawn your usage off on someone else. Please take personal
> responsibility for your own writing. This is strange.
>
> Tianyue
Seven years later and he's still not taking personal responsibility with the examples of trying to pawn his usage onto others. Evidently it's a habit.
"Oh boy, I see this is venturing off into the usual A.R.E. silliness. It's nonsensical that you somehow have come to the conclusion that I think of "it" as having gender, since I have never held that view at any time in my entire life. This discussion is veering off into la la land. You are the one who used gender specific terms, and now you're trying to pawn your usage off on someone else. Please take personal responsibility for your own writing. This is strange."