Plagiarism

[Finder]

At the time Paul Twitchell founded Eckankar, plagiarism was only an issue in Academic works, not journalism, which was Paul's background. It wasn't until 1988 that the United States signed on to Berne Convention which deals with copyrights. Paul Twitchell was never sued for copyright.

Plagiarism in the arts has, from time immemorial, always been the norm. Every painter, musician, sculptor, writer, filmmaker and every other kind of artist up to today copies from, borrows from,imitates and most importantly adds to others in their field. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


Ad hominem has been the de rigueur for Eckankar's detractors who have for decades removed themselves from the consciousness of the spiritual value of the writings in favor of this logical fallacy.

Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author’s phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it with the right idea.
~ Guy Debord

Art is either plagiarism or revolution
~ Paul Gauguin

Using a big word like 'plagiarism'... always causes some damage. It will always do lasting damage, like accusations of racism.
~ Michel Houellebecq

Originality is undetected plagiarism.
~ William Ralph Inge

Once you get into the world of dystopia, it's hard to avoid plagiarism, because other people have had such powerful visions.
~ Anthony Horowitz

Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that ‘plagiarism’ farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources,
(...)
He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple;
~ Mark Twain


Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.
~ Salvador Dalí

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.religion.eckankar/Dragnet/alt.religion.eckankar/LhyUgNlBDKY/YxdPVsGOxn8J

[Kinpa]

Well said....

[Kinpa]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:45:55 PM UTC, Finder wrote:

I am writing a piece about how relevant or not plagiarism actually is....I'd like to include a few of those quotations if you don't mind, which is to say that I AM going to use them and I am letting you know before I do....if there is any issue with that please feel free to send me a message about that....I am not particularly worried about what the usual loose nuts here will say in response to this and every other statement on this thread.....creativity is sorely lacking with some folks...

[Henosis Sage]

---

Welcome back to a.r.e. Finder. How has the last 16 years treated you?

Have you met any nice Muslims who do not hate all Jews by default since then?

I know I have. :-)

This a good post/comment and I will take it as sincere and genuine, and therefore treat it and you accordingly.

Let's have a closer look at what you are saying above.

First, Finder has referenced a well known (by some) 2004 post by Rich Smith.

Dragnet - Plagiarism Revisited @aloha.net Rich 14/05/2004
"All we know are the facts ma'am" - Sgt Joe Friday
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/LhyUgNlBDKY/YxdPVsGOxn8J

It's important to get our Principles on a solid foundation. Rich got this idea of "less then 2%" from others who first raised this 'idea' in the 1990s. IT's not Rich's original idea iow. He's plagiarized iow, and I see nothing wrong with that. "Ideas" by default are not copyright-able, nor able to be patented, placed under IP, and so 'plagiarism' accusations do not ever apply.

Secondly, Rich was writing that "challenge" on the basis of an absence of evidence more so than upon what evidence was known about at the time.

Reason and logic insists that: "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I think that is clear as day what that "means". If you need help with that, please let me know. I am happy to explain it to you in great detail.

Thirdly, Rich was challenging the likes of David Lane and any others who felt that the extent of Plagiarism by Twitchell was 'significant' that the onus was totally upon them to provide more and more examples of said 'Plagiarism' while at the very same time taking a personal position (like almost everyone else) of not doing a single thing himself to do the proper research to see if there was any.

This is what I call laziness and places his entire argument into the category of "sophistry".

Quoting wiki for convenience: "In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism#Modern_usage

Rich Smith's argument and his challenge, along with Doug Marman running with that and placing such illogical sophistry into his book The Whole Truth, is the classic example of ***clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments***.

I challenge you Finder to seek to rise above such deceptiveness and incompetent & myopic thinking for your own good, across all aspects of life.

The a.r.e. post is one of classic irrationality as explained by any decent website that teaches about "logical fallacies" - his post is one whole case of Non-Sequitur plus several other fallacies along the way.

Finder, you could research this further starting here: http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm

Even Twitchell taught that 'intelligence' is a wonderful asset to possess and should not be wasted. That is too was a gift and a blessing by "God/Spirit" and that Eckists should not waste it nor deny it's usefulness. He covered this topic in his letters, his books, his live talks and across the discourses on multiple occasions. Many have missed that and it's import, unfortunately.


Now to the meat of your comments above. Let's break it down so anyone could understand it. Until proven otherwise, I will assume that you come to these "opinions and beliefs" due to others having told you and then you believed them without additional research on your own behalf.

Luckily for you, I can help you out. I have done the necessary research and thought through it rationally and clearly with an open mind, and an absence of fanatical bias.


FINDER: "At the time Paul Twitchell founded Eckankar, plagiarism was only an

issue in Academic works, not journalism, which was Paul's background."

HS: Plagiarism was NOT only an issue in 'academic' works in 1965, nor in 1980,
nor in 1990, and neither is it today. There are a multitude of historical
examples where 'plagiarism' arose as a negative issue in days gone by. One
classic example is that of Blavatsky in the 19th century. She was lambasted for
'plagiarism' some going as far to even write large books about it that detailed
the factual evidence of same.

That's one example of thousands. Research it yourself if you do not believe me.
The question is WHY would you automatically "believe" Doug Marman without
checking if what he said was IN FACT historically correct? One quote from one
academic papers does not build an edifice of historical truth.

Doug Marman is not only wrong but he is provably wrong based on genuine hard
evidence and the facts.

(Please remember these comments about Marman for they apply to his entire body
of 'work' and to other specific comments below.)

FINDER: "...journalism, which was Paul's background."

HS: Whether he was or he wasn't has NO RELEVANCE on the intentional act of
"plagiarizing other people's written works" to form the basis of his Eckankar
teachings.

If Twitchell was an academic is no excuse. If he was an airline pilot it is not
a valid excuse, and if he was the leading Journalist at the NYTs in 1935 or
1965 it is not a valid excuse.

What Twitchell's 'background' was at the time he started Eckankar has
absolutely no bearing upon his personal actions and public assertions. None.

HS Cont': That Twitchell had a 'background' in journalism is another well worn
untruth regarding Paul Twitchell. Marman has blown this up out of all
proportion and the reality of Twitchell's day to day background.

He was NOT a 'journalist', ever, he did NOT have a 'background in journalism'
either. He never studied journalism, nor it's ethics or social role. He never
had one 'job' as a Journalist either, not at a newspaper or a magazine or
anything else. He was not practically trained that plagiarism is OK in
journalism and in every other aspect of life bar 'academia'.

He knew what he was doing. He did it with intent. And he knew if he was exposed
for doing it he would be in deep trouble not only 'socially in public' but
directly from all ECKists who had believed what he said and wrote was as he
PORTRAYED IT TO BE.

The closest that Twitchell came to writing as a "journalist" was a couple of
his articles that were published by Our Navy and Our Army in the early 1940s.
That's it. He was never assigned full time to Our Navy dept either when he was
in the Navy. Check his Navy Record, it's as plain as day.

Relevance of 'journalism' and Twitchell's background to Eckankar writings = ZERO

FINDER: "It wasn't until 1988 that the United States signed on to Berne

Convention which deals with copyrights."

HS: Irrelevant. prior to that the US did have national and international Laws
and agreements about "copyright infringement" and "plagiarism in the context"
of copyright law. These practices although changing as often as the rest of
world were based upon first British Law which was transposed in the USA circa
1790 and ongoing to 1988 when such laws were heavily updated and reformed.

I recommend you add this topic to your research list Finder. IN regards
Twitchell's plagiarism and overt and obvious Copyright Infringing "acts" the
1988 Berne convention is as I said irrelevant, in that it does not MEAN what you believe it means.


FINDER: "Paul Twitchell was never sued for copyright."

HS: WRONG. or shall I say "prove he wasn't" ?

Let's not get bogged down on whether or not such CLAIMS of plagiarism and
copyright infringement made it to court, or the number of times that Lawyers
actually put it in writing their Publisher was officially suing Twitchell,
Gail or Eckankar.

An early untimely death is not a valid defense against Copyright infringement
either. Many authors and publishers from the uk to India to the US were all
over Twitchell in regards copyright infringement before he died and that
continued on against Gail and Eckankar.

"an absence of evidence is not evidence" The intentional cover up, ignoring or
denying such known fast is also not evidence that Eckankar and Twitchell were
not sued or had major claims of infringement that were all SETTLED OUT OF
COURT.

There is sufficient available evidence to show Twitchell and Eckankar were indeed taken to task by Copyright Holders about the misuse of their materials by Twitchell in his writings. That's a fact.

If you need more proof then write to Harold Klemp and demand that he release publicly the content of Twitchell's personal archive he has there, and any and all documented material about Copyright Infringement held by ECKANKAR or their Lawyers past and present.

This onus is in fact upon ECKANKAR to PROVE they and Twitchell are innocent in this case. That's the only way the truth will be exposed. A Grand Jury or a Govt Commission, or a Senate Inquiry would help expose the cover-ups as well.

In the meantime people can claim whatever they want - doe snot make it true or factual - when ALL the known facts are simply ignored as inconvenient.

FINDER: "Plagiarism in the arts has, from time immemorial, always been the norm. Every painter, musician, sculptor, writer, filmmaker and every other kind of artist up to today copies from, borrows from,imitates and most importantly adds to others in their field. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


HS: Yes, that's true and correct.

It is also totally IRRELEVANT to specific cases of voluminous Plagiarism by Twitchell and the higher standard of Copyright Infringement. Notwithstanding you "generalisation" here, the evidence is overwhelming correct that ALL TWITCHELL'S WRITINGS WERE PLAGIARIZED FROM OTHERS AND THAT AM OVERWHELMING AMOUNT FAR ABOVE 50% AND MORE LIKELY BEING +90% ---- NOT UNDER 2%.

That the only way to believe less than 2% is correct is to intentionally ignore all known evidence that has been accumulated to date.

Only Ostrich Syndrome could indicate Twitchell was not guilty of egregious Copyright Infringement of multiple authors by the score. (likely 100 authors all up at least with fact proof of at least 69 by my own personal reckoning)

FINDER: "Ad hominem has been the de rigueur for Eckankar's detractors who have for decades removed themselves from the consciousness of the spiritual value of the writings in favor of this logical fallacy""

HS: Verbal communication among interested parties is utterly IRRELEVANT TO THE
KNOWN FACTS AND THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES YOU ARE 100% WRONG IN YOUR
CURRENT BELIEFS FINDER.

Make of that what you will.

and of course you can still believe whatever you wish about Eckankar and Paul
Twitchell, that goers without saying, but best not confuse THOSE BELIEFS with
the facts about Twitchell's MASSIVE & SYSTEMIC PLAGIARISM and what could only
be described accurately as MASSIVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF OTHER PEOPLES &
GROUPS PUBLISHED MATERIALS.

I can prove and substantiate everything I have said above with historical
documentation, evidence, known facts, anecdotal reports, and informed logical
reasoning.

Can you prove me wrong with the 'hard evidence' you have at your fingertips?

If you can I am happy to hear it and add it to my historical archive so others
can know about it too.

[ CAPS are for my emphasis, I am not shouting :-) ]

[Kinpa]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note the insistence to be able to merely assume...

come to these "opinions and beliefs" due to others having told you and then you believed them without additional research on your own behalf.
>
> Luckily for you, I can help you out. I have done the necessary research and thought through it rationally and clearly with an open mind, and an absence of fanatical bias.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"and an absence of fanatical bias." Happens to be another of the frequent lies he utters on a daily basis...no need to pay any attention to it or him...

>
> FINDER: "At the time Paul Twitchell founded Eckankar, plagiarism was only an
> issue in Academic works, not journalism, which was Paul's background."
>
> HS: Plagiarism was NOT only an issue in 'academic' works in 1965, nor in 1980,
> nor in 1990, and neither is it today. There are a multitude of historical
> examples where 'plagiarism' arose as a negative issue in days gone by. One
> classic example is that of Blavatsky in the 19th century. She was lambasted for
> 'plagiarism' some going as far to even write large books about it that detailed
> the factual evidence of same.
>
> That's one example of thousands. Research it yourself if you do not believe me.
> The question is WHY would you automatically "believe" Doug Marman without
> checking if what he said was IN FACT historically correct? One quote from one
> academic papers does not build an edifice of historical truth.
>
> Doug Marman is not only wrong but he is provably wrong based on genuine hard
> evidence and the facts.
>
> (Please remember these comments about Marman for they apply to his entire body
> of 'work' and to other specific comments below.)

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is just one example of the poster's fanaticism and prejudice....but hardly the last...

> FINDER: "...journalism, which was Paul's background."
>
> HS: Whether he was or he wasn't has NO RELEVANCE on the intentional act of
> "plagiarizing other people's written works" to form the basis of his Eckankar
> teachings.
>
> If Twitchell was an academic is no excuse. If he was an airline pilot it is not
> a valid excuse, and if he was the leading Journalist at the NYTs in 1935 or
> 1965 it is not a valid excuse.
>
> What Twitchell's 'background' was at the time he started Eckankar has
> absolutely no bearing upon his personal actions and public assertions. None.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More convenient assumptions....boring

> HS Cont': That Twitchell had a 'background' in journalism is another well worn
> untruth regarding Paul Twitchell. Marman has blown this up out of all
> proportion and the reality of Twitchell's day to day background.
>
> He was NOT a 'journalist', ever, he did NOT have a 'background in journalism'
> either. He never studied journalism, nor it's ethics or social role. He never
> had one 'job' as a Journalist either, not at a newspaper or a magazine or
> anything else. He was not practically trained that plagiarism is OK in
> journalism and in every other aspect of life bar 'academia'.
>
> He knew what he was doing. He did it with intent. And he knew if he was exposed
> for doing it he would be in deep trouble not only 'socially in public' but
> directly from all ECKists who had believed what he said and wrote was as he
> PORTRAYED IT TO BE.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Show proof of this....or are you again assuming what his thoughts and intentions were??

> The closest that Twitchell came to writing as a "journalist" was a couple of
> his articles that were published by Our Navy and Our Army in the early 1940s.
> That's it. He was never assigned full time to Our Navy dept either when he was
> in the Navy. Check his Navy Record, it's as plain as day.
>
> Relevance of 'journalism' and Twitchell's background to Eckankar writings = ZERO

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which only means ZERO that sean could find, but that does NOT mean that none exists...funny the way that his particular form of fanaticism works isn't it?

> FINDER: "It wasn't until 1988 that the United States signed on to Berne
> Convention which deals with copyrights."
>
> HS: Irrelevant. prior to that the US did have national and international Laws
> and agreements about "copyright infringement" and "plagiarism in the context"
> of copyright law. These practices although changing as often as the rest of
> world were based upon first British Law which was transposed in the USA circa
> 1790 and ongoing to 1988 when such laws were heavily updated and reformed.
>
> I recommend you add this topic to your research list Finder. IN regards
> Twitchell's plagiarism and overt and obvious Copyright Infringing "acts" the
> 1988 Berne convention is as I said irrelevant, in that it does not MEAN what you believe it means.
>
>
> FINDER: "Paul Twitchell was never sued for copyright."
>
> HS: WRONG. or shall I say "prove he wasn't" ?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, show proof or shut it....simple, even for you...

> Let's not get bogged down on whether or not such CLAIMS of plagiarism and
> copyright infringement made it to court, or the number of times that Lawyers
> actually put it in writing their Publisher was officially suing Twitchell,
> Gail or Eckankar.
>
> An early untimely death is not a valid defense against Copyright infringement
> either. Many authors and publishers from the uk to India to the US were all
> over Twitchell in regards copyright infringement before he died and that
> continued on against Gail and Eckankar.
>
> "an absence of evidence is not evidence" The intentional cover up, ignoring or
> denying such known fast is also not evidence that Eckankar and Twitchell were
> not sued or had major claims of infringement that were all SETTLED OUT OF
> COURT.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IF Twitchell and Eckankar were sued and settled out of court, that alone ends the supposed importance of plagiarism as it relates to Eckankar....end of story, unless you are a fanatical former ECKist....

> There is sufficient available evidence to show Twitchell and Eckankar were indeed taken to task by Copyright Holders about the misuse of their materials by Twitchell in his writings. That's a fact.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then where is it? Claims are meaningless without evidence...buy a clue....this aside from the fact that if anyone sued and were setled with out of court, the issue is nonexistent...have whatever opinion you want to, but do stop insisting that anyone else consider you a master research journalist for you are not...and you yourself are a known copyright infringer as per your PTEHA or whichever you're calling it these days....you procured NO legal licensing to display any of the copyrighted items and stating that the copyright owners retain their rights does not in any way free you from being sued for copyright infringement...you are owed absolutely NO financial reimbursement for any items you bought and copied to put online, and making such copies and claiming to own a copyright on them, (a thing that can easily be proven) is illegal and is also copyright infringement....the copyright "mastermind" isn't looking so smart after all, despite his claims...

> If you need more proof then write to Harold Klemp and demand that he release publicly the content of Twitchell's personal archive he has there, and any and all documented material about Copyright Infringement held by ECKANKAR or their Lawyers past and present.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No oneneeds to....YOU do it being that YOU want to see those materials...

> This onus is in fact upon ECKANKAR to PROVE they and Twitchell are innocent in this case. That's the only way the truth will be exposed. A Grand Jury or a Govt Commission, or a Senate Inquiry would help expose the cover-ups as well.
>
> In the meantime people can claim whatever they want - doe snot make it true or factual - when ALL the known facts are simply ignored as inconvenient.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The same thing applies to every one of your own statements on the subject...glad that you are able to recognize the place in things that you actually hold...

> FINDER: "Plagiarism in the arts has, from time immemorial, always been the norm. Every painter, musician, sculptor, writer, filmmaker and every other kind of artist up to today copies from, borrows from,imitates and most importantly adds to others in their field. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
>
>
> HS: Yes, that's true and correct.
>
> It is also totally IRRELEVANT to specific cases of voluminous Plagiarism by Twitchell and the higher standard of Copyright Infringement. Notwithstanding you "generalisation" here, the evidence is overwhelming correct that ALL TWITCHELL'S WRITINGS WERE PLAGIARIZED FROM OTHERS AND THAT AM OVERWHELMING AMOUNT FAR ABOVE 50% AND MORE LIKELY BEING +90% ---- NOT UNDER 2%.
>
> That the only way to believe less than 2% is correct is to intentionally ignore all known evidence that has been accumulated to date.
>
> Only Ostrich Syndrome could indicate Twitchell was not guilty of egregious Copyright Infringement of multiple authors by the score. (likely 100 authors all up at least with fact proof of at least 69 by my own personal reckoning)
>
> FINDER: "Ad hominem has been the de rigueur for Eckankar's detractors who have for decades removed themselves from the consciousness of the spiritual value of the writings in favor of this logical fallacy""
>
> HS: Verbal communication among interested parties is utterly IRRELEVANT TO THE
> KNOWN FACTS AND THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES YOU ARE 100% WRONG IN YOUR
> CURRENT BELIEFS FINDER.
>
> Make of that what you will.
>
> and of course you can still believe whatever you wish about Eckankar and Paul
> Twitchell, that goers without saying, but best not confuse THOSE BELIEFS with
> the facts about Twitchell's MASSIVE & SYSTEMIC PLAGIARISM and what could only
> be described accurately as MASSIVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF OTHER PEOPLES &
> GROUPS PUBLISHED MATERIALS.
>
> I can prove and substantiate everything I have said above with historical
> documentation, evidence, known facts, anecdotal reports, and informed logical
> reasoning.
>
> Can you prove me wrong with the 'hard evidence' you have at your fingertips?
>
> If you can I am happy to hear it and add it to my historical archive so others
> can know about it too.
>
> [ CAPS are for my emphasis, I am not shouting :-) ]

Why? You have none at yours....just your infantile assumptions which also cannot be proven....obviously this post in particular pissed you right off! Thanks again for the comedy little man, it must be hard to be so unheard all of the way down under, and to have no one particularly care what you say....oh well....get over yourself...

[Tisra Til]

Would have been nice if the T(witch) had included those plagiarism quotes on the first page of the first book he wrote about Eckankar, and subsequent books. Then go on to explain how this plagiarized idea of this book relates to the plagiarized idea from that spiritual path, and what this word from this language means in the context of this idea, from this path, to this idea from that path. When you have words and concepts from different languages and different spiritual paths, how do you put them together to present a coherent, concurrent stream of consciousness? He never did that. Or if he did, it wasn't in the books sold to the public. I have 13 of them. Why did he not just say, "chant HU, and you will experience the love of God, and all knowledge will be handed to you." And isn't that the basic message? That's about all the Klempster ever says. Just "chant (or sing) HU, and the love of God will fill you up." Isn't that something a Christian can say? Or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist? Is it really necessary to create a new religion to say basically the same thing? One more God to add to the numerous current Gods.

[Henosis Sage]

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 12:41:32 UTC+10, Tisra Til wrote:
> Would have been nice if the T(witch) had included those plagiarism quotes on the first page of the first book he wrote about Eckankar, and subsequent books. Then go on to explain how this plagiarized idea of this book relates to the plagiarized idea from that spiritual path, and what this word from this language means in the context of this idea, from this path, to this idea from that path. When you have words and concepts from different languages and different spiritual paths, how do you put them together to present a coherent, concurrent stream of consciousness? He never did that. Or if he did, it wasn't in the books sold to the public. I have 13 of them. Why did he not just say, "chant HU, and you will experience the love of God, and all knowledge will be handed to you." And isn't that the basic message? That's about all the Klempster ever says. Just "chant (or sing) HU, and the love of God will fill you up." Isn't that something a Christian can say? Or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist? Is it really necessary to create a new religion to say basically the same thing? One more God to add to the numerous current Gods.

---

TT: "He never did that."

HS: You are correct. It's a key part of my own reasoning that concludes that
as a "spiritual teacher" and as a "writer" that Paul Twitchell was highly
incompetent. The fact (though will claim it is only my opinion, the evidence
and the facts say otherwise) needs to faced squarely with great humility and
honesty on Eckankar's official behalf.


TT: " Or if he did, it wasn't in the books sold to the public. I have 13 of them. "

HS: Makes no difference for the writings in his discourses are really no
different in content. What's in the books is essentially what is in the
discourses. Maybe a few add on stories and finer points now and then, but
the SOURCE MATERIALS between public and secret are the exact same sources.


TT: "And isn't that the basic message? That's about all the Klempster ever says. Just "chant (or sing) HU, and the love of God will fill you up." "

HS: Kind of yes. But Twitchell did also include many useful psychological and misc techniques along the way. Much of his karma reincarnation things are fair
enough imho. Little was known about such matter in the USA back then. Still no excuse for communicating such "truisms" the way he chose to do it.

One of the best things he ever said to the "hero" Patti Simpson, was that it doesn't make an ant hill of difference what "word" people chant for what plane ... if their attention on XYZ that is where their "mind and attention" will go.

And whatever you place your attention upon when in the human form, changes.

As if by "magic" or by "positive thinking" or by the great Mahanta ... whatever it doesn't matter.

Then there is the accumulated and copied historical wealth of knowledge he COMPILED, some of it good some of it just BS talking, and other bits utterly confusing and contradictory.

It's a failed "path" and a failed teaching by any measure.

It was the day he coined the word "eckankar" in 1963 - nothing wrong with the
word itself, only that it was Twitchell that was behind it all. That's the
issue then. Now it's Harold's issue and he equally is not up to the task at
hand.

No point crying over spilt milk I say .... (shrug)

[Tisra Til]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:40:52 PM UTC-5, Henosis Sage wrote:

I think there were basic ideas in books from Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and others that were already out there before Twitchell started publishing, but it was probably only from libraries or bookstores in large cities at the time.

"And whatever you place your attention upon when in the human form, changes."

As they say: 'energy flows where attention goes.' And we all know where a certain individual's attention goes..... on a never-ending basis.

[Henosis Sage]

---

MORE CONTROL FREAKISM ... REPORTING TT POSTS AS ABUSE HERE TOO ... OH POOR SENSITIVE DIDDUMS

[Kinpa]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:45:55 PM UTC, Finder wrote:

Stealing from one author is plagiarism; from many authors, research.
~ Walter Moers

[Tisra Til]

Most legitimate authors list their sources. Either as a footnote, or in a bibliography. The T(witch) - nowhere.

When was that quote made, in the 1600's?

[Kinpa]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:30:12 AM UTC, Tisra Til wrote:
> Most legitimate authors list their sources. Either as a footnote, or in a bibliography. The T(witch) - nowhere.
>
> When was that quote made, in the 1600's?

"MOST legitimate authors list their sources."

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

[Kinpa]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:30:12 AM UTC, Tisra Til wrote:

> Most legitimate authors list their sources. Either as a footnote, or in a bibliography. The T(witch) - nowhere.
>
> When was that quote made, in the 1600's?

Ever do a Google search?

[Tisra Til]

"You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed are you?"

Why did you even respond, Mr. I'm bored with you? You don't care what I have to say. I don't care what you have to say. You remember what I said about bonehead? Or is YOUR TOOL not exactly sharp, Mr. Sharpe (oh, the irony!)?

Now take off to grace those good old ancient order of Vairagi Fuhrers with your presence. In the body or out - I'm sure they probably don't care. I certainly don't give a f*^k.

[Tisra Til]

> When was that quote made, in the 1600's?
>
> Ever do a Google search?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahaha.... That's good! Very clever! Did the Klempmeister Soul Travel to your place and send that brilliant message to you?

I'm jealous. o*O

[wernertrp]

Kinpas joke number: 345867
Who is Walter Moers I will search.


The Danger of copying is that you didn't understand what you copy and this can be false, Untruth or bullshit.

[alea...@gmail.com]

plagiarism means copied without any CREDIT given to another author and claiming it as your original writing--which IS not part of truth. Case closed. When Eckankar finally realizes the internet exposes EVERYTHING--perhaps bibliographies will be forthcoming. I spent 5 years researching and found even more--and it is STILL denied. That is NOT truth. Why is this org so fearful of TRUTH? do they feel everyone will LEAVE if they find out? Techniques work due to BELIEF in them. TRUTH is truth; copied truth is still truth but needs CREDIT where credit is due to another writer!

[Etznab]

It would suffice to say that sources (plagiarisms, copying and paraphrase, etc.) do very much matter when credited instead to centuries old characters from a claimed unbroken lineage of spiritual adepts spanning tens of thousands of years! Whatever the material, a deeper understanding comes from discovering the author and exploring their own particular education, beliefs, prejudices and any personal bias or special interests contributing to the information and claims they tend to make. Point is, a really big difference exists between authors writing books, copying from and plagiarizing others when compared with information spoken and / or dictated from ancient masters personally to their students. The difference comes from the antiquity of information concerning spiritual lineage contrasted with authors stating personal opinions, sharing information from other writers, spouting popular belief or just plain imagining and guessing about what they do not really know. So I would submit that it is important to expand the issue of plagiarism to encompass the additional acts of creating religious propaganda, or religions through fiction and myth vs. actual communication from ancient adepts.

IMHO not "every painter, musician, sculptor, writer, filmmaker and every other kind of artist up to today copies from, borrows from, imitates and most importantly adds to others in their field" by claiming the pedigree of ancient masters from an unbroken lineage who were said to have all once lived and were real people. Neither does everybody attempt to buttress their creations, their opinions and beliefs with the idea that spiritual adepts agree with them based on the act of stealing the creative works of others and redirecting credit to said spiritual adepts instead. To the contrary, it looks to me like an act of desperation when a writer copies profusely from other writers because they feel the other writers could say things better than they could. But if that were the case then why not at least mention the other writers instead of replacing them with so many mysterious characters said to exist in the background and for the most part hidden from modern historians? It sort of looks like an indirect way for a writer to give some credit to their self after first taking from other writers, rendering their identities occult and replacing them with new and apparently unique individuals said to be far superior to the actual writers. Not only a way to give some credit indirectly to a writer, but also to the kind of beliefs and religious ideas partial to same.

When archaeologists dig into the ground and unearth truly ancient relics they actually are dealing with real substance and not fake relics; though some have tried to do so. If discoverers were to present their findings based on nebulous imaginations lacking in actual substance they could not be considered truly credible absent of proof. Neither could they speak about history based on real and vital information from physical substance when there really isn't any to begin with.

Looking at so much of the physical substance from Paul Twitchell's writings one can find matches with other writers, authors and gurus. Individuals that together collectively do not belong to the religion of Eckankar, but in several cases belong to each their own forms of belief and religion. In a way then, it looks to me a little like someone trying to monopolize on the writings of many other people by attempting to tie them to a single source; allegedly an ancient unbroken line of Eckankar masters.

O.K. then. So where is the actual "substance" and vital proof that said ancient lineage of masters really exist? There now are a handful of paths sprung off from the "Eckankar" created by Paul Twitchell and supported by claims of so many of these so-called ancient adepts. Are they schizo masters that they would belong to and endorse multiple teachings and multiple masters as the head of those teachings? Or is it more likely some people have a tendency for wanting to indirectly credit themselves for the creative works and spiritual teachings of others?

I think this something to ponder seriously.

[Henosis Sage]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 08:17:19 UTC+11, alea...@gmail.com wrote:
-perhaps bibliographies will be forthcoming. I spent 5 years researching and found even more-

How does this compare to your list?

[TEHA 2014] PLAGIARISM by Paul Twitchell LISTED by Author Book Movement
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPYXBLQXluTEx2VTg/

Plagiarism Evidence folder
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-M0yAR0UPhPdzZTdGxkNjBTR1U

[Etznab]

That's an awful lot of copying and plagiarism!

Questions:

1.) Why do all these examples exist?

2.) Do the Eck Masters need library books and the writings of others when at the same time they allegedly belong to a thousands-year-old unbroken lineage of teachings passed along from one living master to another?

It doesn't make sense. It makes better sense that a fiction writer copied and plagiarized material for use in making up stories.