1970-01-09 US Newspapers Press Release AAP Newswire from Eckankar

[Peetee Aitchei]

Living Gods & Vaheguru isn't Vi Guru, Vi Guru isn't Sat Guru, Ik Onkar isn't Eckankar

1970-01-09 US Newspapers Press Release AAP Newswire from Eckankar, Las Vegas NV

Published news report by the Playground Daily News
Fort Walton Beach FL -
New Religious Leader Makes World Impact

Paul Twitchell said,
"Eckankar means Soul Travel. It is a natural
religion that opens the consciousness to gain
God-realization."

When he walks on the street in a metropolitan
city, hundreds of people recognize him and
begin to follow. Often he will end up with a
crowd of several hundred helping him shop.

Paul Twitchell is a charismatic, youngish man (appears to be in his late 30s)
with bright china blue eyes and has a warm,
friendly approach to life.

He is known to his followers as the Mahanta,
an ancient title of the Light Giver, the Vi
Guru, highest of Gurus, and the living Eck
Master.

His mail averages approximately 10,000
letters weekly.

[ Note: Ok, so that's 2,000 per work day.
Imagine only 3 minutes work per letter, even
if not really possible. That equals 13 full-time
staff just on incoming Mail.
Getting 10,000 letters per week in 1969?
I don't think so.
Intentional misinformation / PR?
Yes, probably. ]

More than a million people around the globe,
most of them whom he has never seen, believe
this amazing man is living god. He is the new
world spiritual leader to them.

He heals and answers their prayers at vast distances


Extracts from newspaper file:

1970-01-09 Playground Daily News Fort Walton Beach FL - New Religious Leader Makes World Impact

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPd0FtSVlkZnZfZmc/view?usp=sharing


--- --- ---

There isn't really that much use for the term "Vi Guru". More likely Paul meant Sat Guru.

Satguru (Sanskrit: सदगुरू), or sadguru, means the true guru.
The recommendation says that the first and the foremost qualification of the True Master (Satguru) is that he must have known the True Lord (God) himself.
In one of Kabir's songs[6] the satguru is described as the real sadhu.

In Sant Mat and Advait Mat, the living Satguru is considered the path to God-realization.

Meher Baba equated worship of the Satguru with worship of God: "Consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, each and every creature, each and every human being — in one form or the other — strives to assert individuality. But when eventually man consciously experiences that he is Infinite, Eternal and Indivisible, then he is fully conscious of his individuality as God, and as such experiences Infinite Knowledge, Infinite Power and Infinite Bliss. Thus Man becomes God, and is recognized as a Perfect Master, Satguru, or Kutub. To worship this Man is to worship God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satguru

See also

Appayya Swamigalu
Bodhinatha Veylanswami
Ghasidas
Ravidas
Ravidassia religion
Sant Mat
Advaita Vedanta
Ramana Maharshi

--- --- ---

From Eckankar:

"Sat Nam is a name for God. Vi-Guru is a true teacher. In Eckankar this is the Mahanta, my inner guide. These words were very familiar to me because my parents are Sikhs, and these are common terms in that religion"
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Rebazar/Story08.html

"Waheguru" (Vaheguru) and its variant "Vahiguru" appear 16 times in Guru Granth Sahib. Vahiguru occurs twice on Ang 1403 and once on Ang 1404. Other words used in the Guru Granth Sahib to refer to God are: Onkar, Satguru ("true teacher"), Satnaam ("true name"),Rama, Rahman, Purushah, Allah, Khuda among others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheguru

Vahiguru isn't Vi Guru. Vi Guru doesn't mean 'true teacher'.

Sat Naam means God. Onkar means God. Ik Onkar means One God.
Eckankar means Soul Travel. And Co-worker with God.
And the one oneness. A path to God-realization.
An individual path to Total Awareness.

And........ a Sat Guru is a "true teacher".

[Etznab]

Wanted to mention that I did find the letters "vi guru" in some of the transliterations for Sikh literature. However, those pages didn't include an English translation and so I can't say the meaning.

http://www.sikhmarg.com/guru-granth-karaj.html
http://www.sikhmarg.com/granth-satkaar.html


Also, Sanskrit does have a word "gurvi"

It was mentioned on the Eckankar website (FAQ section) that:

"Many Eckankar terms trace their historical roots to the Far East; however, they have their own meaning and application in Eckankar."

http://www.eckankar.org/FAQ/index.html#wherefrom

My guess is that even if one found an historical example of the term "vi guru" the Eckankar definition is probably not the same.

Many words do change in either appearance, or meaning (or both) over time and there are many different reasons why. Regardless. it might be helpful to look at the English translation of Sikh "vi guru" on this page.

http://www.sikhmarg.com/granth-satkaar.html

Also can page search here for "vi guru". My translator says Indonesian detected, but I'm not sure about that.

http://www.panthrattan.com/anmolbachan.pdf

... all the time I have for this right now.

[Peetee Aitchei]

Hi thanks for looking.

It's pretty hard chasing these meanings down unless one knows the languages well.

Paul Twitchell's diction says: Vi-Guru: The mahanta, the highest of all spiritual masters, supreme guru, or spiritual teacher; also refers to Sat Nam, the ruler of the fifth or Soul plane.

so there's not much difference between the mahanta and sat nam? :-(

It seems possible that "Waheguru" (Vaheguru) and its variant "Vahiguru" is both
a term for the supreme being/god and for 'the mahanta'. It's also possible that
Vi-Guru is a shortened version of vahiguru etc and so means the same thing.

RS grew up in the bosom of sikhs, the punjab, and most of their teachers are Singhs. It's natural; for there to be many aspects and phases of the sikhs
in RS. Some have suggested that RS is essentially warmed over traditional
Sikhism re-orientated back to having living masters/Sikh gurus again.

The writings of the SGGS include nanak original texts, sufi saints, islam,
hindoo, buddhist, sikh gurus poetry etc, and much about bhakti. In a way it's
a compilation of text, similar to what Paul Twitchell has done, but he obscured
the sources.

RS is very reliant on those teachings ideals and teachers/gurus. Bhakti, the
Sikhs, Sufis and RS, all emphasize meditation and mantras devotion frame of
mind shabda and moksha jivan mukti etc.

It can't be a surprise that in many places Eckankar looks just like the above
philosophies. A core part of Eckankar doctrines and beliefs and cosmology is based on this RS summary of Bhakti saints the Sikhs the Sufis and Sant Mat.
The writings in Eckankar are sometimes verbatim with only minor changes and
in meanings.

Twitchell added to this mix the teachings and doctrines from kriya yoga babaji,
positive mental thinking, new thought, theosophy, ancient greeks, freemasons,
buddhists, the occult, scientology, psychology, mysticism and more.

In all of this twitchell seems to be presenting the most 'universal' or maybe most synchronistic and useful ideas of the 'spiritual path' ... as he saw it.
nothing wrong in that. Placed inside a framework he called 'eckankar'.

Or one could say that all these past groups were part of the ancient Vairagi hierarchy of adepts and are and were always connected to these prior masters
on the inner and who can still be accessed.

Still, Ik Onkar doesn't mean Ekankar. Different things entirely.

Twitchell gives multiple meanings to the word Eckankar.

Some are the same as for Ekankar, others say it means Soul Travel or
Co-worker with God or the Path of Total Awareness, or the Bilocation
Philosophy.

"Near enough is good enough, I make it up as I go along. Whatever
this book I am writing/compiling now says, will be good enough."

[Kinpa]

words as well as definitiond for and of them, are all mental concepts and nothing more. period. as with any mental concept, there is end;ess room for varying interpretations. Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar is as accurate and as good as any. your useless prattling about history is a limitation, and one that you are welcomed to, however, you also are a liar by trying to claim knowledge of the meaning and "only correct" interpretations of meanings. the very idea is ridiculous, but it does on the other hand, prove what i have consistently said about both of you. you are overly attached to Eckankar and are anything BUT free of it, and this is why you have the need to continue claiming that your opinions are the only worthy ones. rather egotistical.

but of course everyone can certainly maintain their individual perceptions, but it is pointless to further claim that yours is the only one, it is simply a choice, ONE choice where there can and are a great many.:D the world would be a much easier place for you if only everyone agreed on the form of history that you hold wouldnt it? unfortunately that is not a thing that anyone could ever expect to happen, just not very likely. not very realistic. sort of like that incontinence problem ;)


your summary of paths that you say were all copied into Paul Twitchell's Eckankar, is in complete, you left out Sufism, which in his mind Eckankar had more in common with than any Sant Mat or Radhasoami or Sikh path. the reason is quite obvious. the Godhead has no religion. the way to attain the realization of the Godhead has always existed on earth...you have also completely forgotten the way of the Shamans, which existed long before there was any religion. it was shamans who originated the idea of magic words, the reason being much the same as is found in Hinduism, Judaism and even in Christianity. the Sound had power as that power created all that is. strangely, science has now proven this to be the scientific fact of the matter. everything in existence emits a sound. every star, every galaxy, nebula, black hole, every blade of grass, every living thing on this planet.

for those with the eyes to see, Paul Twitchell had it correct. as did many other paths in their own times. you may not like my saying this, but it will remain the truth regardless of anyone's opinions of it. Sound is much more certain, scientifically apeaking, than is matter. so what do you have to offer? still exploiting your slavery to Eckankar? lol fun stuff.

"Near enough is good enough, I make it up as I go along. Whatever
this book I am writing/compiling now says, will be good enough."

the same can be said of you and your repeated attempts at proving things with plagiarism that plagiarism cannot prove. it IS endlessly amusing however! thank you for the constant laughs!

[Etznab]

"you left out Sufism"

I saw Sufis and Sufi saints mentioned in the post.

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Sunday, 28 December 2014 08:41:30 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


RE "Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar"

Where is Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar?

There is not one that I know of.

He never ever mentions it.

Twitchell only ever gives a cursory "name dropping" mention to Guru Nanka.

[Kinpa]

go and re-reade all of the materials, it is in there. and his definition is an interpretation, and therefore can be said to not necessarily be limited in the way the Sikh Gurus sought to limit it. there are many many interpretations of the concept given throughout his writings. and in case you missed it, he did the same with his plagiarisms, re-interpreted tham in not necessarily the same way any of the various authors meant them. not a thing i see any problem with personally.

for ANY spiritual path or principle to be truly a living one, it MUST grow and that necessitates evolvement and change, so Twitchell took care of that in his way, and of course now, those writings are for the most part gone. so then the comments about Harold come next? thyey continue evolving....and they will evovle beyond him also, that should be no surprise...he is well aware of that fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpprOGsLWUo

[Kinpa]

but they are not at all mentioned in the context that Paul Twitchell meant them to be, and THAT is what i have addressed...

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Sunday, 28 December 2014 12:13:58 UTC+11, Etznab wrote:
> On Saturday, December 27, 2014 3:41:30 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:

RE "you left out Sufism"

I saw Sufis and Sufi saints mentioned in the post.

--------


Yes you did. It looks to me that Paul's research was limited to whatever
flowed through his involvement and reading of Radhasoami teachings.

The Sikhs and sikh philosophy only show up in connection with radhasoami
as well. he never really studied or researched Guru nanak, the other Gurus
or the religion itself separately. Not that I can see anyway.

iow when you overview it, all the aspects in eckankar that are a reflection of
the teachings and ideals of Sant Mat, Bhakti marg, the Sufis and the Sikhs
only comes through the 'filter' of the radhasoami teachings via Shiv dayal
Singh.

And he was one strange person, especially as a child if one believes what's
been written about him. RS really ended up being a breakaway movement from Sikhism, being influenced by the teachings of Tulsi Sahib and others along those lines. He was big on Ram (Rama) and wrote the Ghat Ramayan.

http://www.tulsisahib.org/sant-mat.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/doc/118292337/Param-Sant-Tulsi-Sahib

Eventually RS reintroduced the need for a living master/guru which had been
dropped by the Sikhs hundreds of years before. The original Kabir and Nanak
teachings iow.

All of Paul's "indian" writings tend to centre around Sant Mat group of
teachings in general, but he never goes very deeply into Buddhism or Vedanta
and those other Vedanta Vaishnavism Advaita Sant Mat gurus.

It's hard to escape that if one is going to copy the philosophies, ideas, and sometimes texts from Kabir, Guru Nanak, Soamiji, Salig Ram, the Sufis, Sant mat gurus then one's writings are going to sound a lot like Kabir, Guru Nanak, Soamiji, Salig Ram, the Sufis, and Sant Mat.

A one begets the other ... kind of a thing. imho.

It's all back to front to suggest that Guru Ajan was writing about "Eckankar" 300 years ago. He was writing about Sikhism and Sant Mat basically.

If that sounds like Eckankar it's because Eckankar was PARTLY based on Sant
Mat and related movements and their philosophies.

eg Kabir Panths, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism - Santana Dharma, Sikhism,
Radhasoami, Vedanta, Sufism, Ramananda, Exasarana Dharma, and so


Peace

[Etznab]

"... he did the same with his plagiarisms, re-interpreted tham in not necessarily the same way any of the various authors meant them. not a thing i see any problem with personally. ... ."

He also credited plagiarisms to Eck Masters and as a result coaxed people to think the information came from Eckankar instead. Several examples of word for word sentences from other people's works appearing to animate the false images of Eck Masters. Paragraphs and chapters appear for not only paraphrased, but for plagiarized material as well.

We know about so many plagiarisms today, but this was a long time coming. In the past allegations of plagiarism were met with denial and unbelief. And one of the key reasons for denial and belief, IMHO, was the truth negated the lies that so many had come to believe. A whole "movement" was spawned that carried a belief in Eckankar as an ancient group of masters passing on information and sharing it from generation to generation over time. Instead of this, however, one can find library books used instead!

Hello? All of those other groups, authors, gurus and teachers that Eckankar had turned into "not Eckankar" and "different from Eckankar" while at the same time rewriting some words and beliefs, and plagiarizing others?; the good majority of which allegedly supported and sanctioned by Living, or past Living Eck Masters?

Now all school children can copy from books and then lie to their teachers when asked about where the text came from? Even when presented with the plagiarized text side by side the children can deny the truth they copied simply by making up fabulous lies that the words were dictated to them by Eck Masters? Which are very real, btw. :)

No. I really don't think so. Plagiarism might have been O.K. in the past, but then the words appeared written by different authors and not so much as if come by way of ancient masters; although some people claimed that as well.

I remember years ago when I started to research the a.r.e. information with an unbiased attitude. It didn't so much matter who said what, whether for or against Eckankar, when what really mattered most was the truth. And I found that some of the truths were hard to swallow because some people had not the stomach for them. In other words, some people couldn't handle the truth. Instead they got angry, tried to deny them, tried to compromise the truth, to spin it as if to bargain things. These, IMO, are symptoms leading to the death of an ideal. I watched people take new found truth and reinterpret it word for word, line by line as if to censor and outfit it for a.r.e. and their own limited, biased, and imaginary conception of the truth. There were / are so many examples of this it is not funny. So many people refusing "the death of an ideal" because there is not one of equal caliber on hand to replace it. For example, if the Eck Masters did not really communicate so many words to the Eckankar library, but the words were plagiarized from the public library instead, then how can the ideal of "it came from Eckankar masters" be replaced? How can one prove as truth it was indeed "Eckankar" Masters who dictated the information to Paul? How can one even prove the plagiarized information to be true? even after acknowledging the actual author?

There were many other things that Paul Twitchell claimed, or made appear as if to be true. Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar has helped to clarify a lot about the writings of Paul Twitchell and, in part, reminded people that:

"[...] As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"

http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html

In this respect it doesn't really matter to me who said what, what their title or how many credentials they have if the same person takes liberty to alter the truth and render it occult. I would instead have to ask the question why? Why have they made the truth a secret, or spawned a secret society of people who know the truth but render it differently for others? What is the motive behind this? And when the secrets and the "secret society" are "made" because people finally find out the truth for themselves, how does the "secret society" respond? Do they continue to deny the truth that everybody knows? or do they keep trying to spin the truth as if to mystify it?

How many years did it take (is it taking) - no thanks to "Eckankar Inc." - for the full "growing list" of plagiarism examples to see the light of day? Instead of "Eckankar Inc." it was a college student, or college professor who spotted plagiarisms and then began making them known to the world. It was people like that and members, or x-members of Eckankar who did the research and posted many of the examples here.

If an Eck Member should help to clarify and to reveal truth one could argue that "Eckankar" did this. However, ultimately - and according to the corporate structure - a member can be negated, no matter what they say, by other members with differing views and opinions. And all members can be trumped by the one and only "Corporate Sole" member, perhaps.

In this day and age when corporations share some of the same rights as living people.

From a non-Eckankar book, quoting ...

"Sensing the damage that the publication of David Lane's research would have on Eckankar, its lawyer, Alan Nichols, attempted to refute the charge that Paul [Paul Twitchell] had plagiarized the works of Julian Johnson. He wrote in a letter to Lane in 1977:
With a wide background of study you will find many similarities both approximate and exact in many religious statements, history and mythology. [....] How did you know Johnson didn't obtain his information from Twitchell or Rebazar Tarzs [sic] or some other common source? Don't be suprised that many people find the same truths and even in the same words, commandments, etc., whether they are concepts, stories of events, or levels of God Worlds or consciousness."

[See: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher Consciousness, p. 124] 

http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsma4.html

That was 1977. Since then there is way, way more than just the words of Julian Johnson. And, btw, Julian Johnson quoted both Vivikenanda and Lavelle in his book. Paul Twitchell took the words of Julian Johnson, Vivikenanda and Lavelle and had them all as if coming out the mouth of Rebazar Tarzs (See: The Far Country, by Paul Twitchell and compare with The Path of The Masters, by Julian Johnson.

What was that lawyer in 1977 trying to do? Deny plagiarism by Paul Twitchell and Eckankar?

A number of other people were helpful to David Lane with illustrating truth for certain things, because they had knowledge about the original manuscripts by Paul Twitchell. (The link may try to redirect to another page, making it necessary to quickly click the red X - next to the address - before it does.)

http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html

[Kinpa]

On Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:59:54 AM UTC-5, Etznab wrote:
> On Saturday, December 27, 2014 8:19:19 PM UTC-6, Kinpa wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 27, 2014 9:05:52 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 28 December 2014 08:41:30 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > RE "Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar"
> > >
> > > Where is Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar?
> > >
> > > There is not one that I know of.
> > >
> > > He never ever mentions it.
> > >
> > > Twitchell only ever gives a cursory "name dropping" mention to Guru Nanka.
> >
> > go and re-reade all of the materials, it is in there. and his definition is an interpretation, and therefore can be said to not necessarily be limited in the way the Sikh Gurus sought to limit it. there are many many interpretations of the concept given throughout his writings. and in case you missed it, he did the same with his plagiarisms, re-interpreted tham in not necessarily the same way any of the various authors meant them. not a thing i see any problem with personally.
> >
> > for ANY spiritual path or principle to be truly a living one, it MUST grow and that necessitates evolvement and change, so Twitchell took care of that in his way, and of course now, those writings are for the most part gone. so then the comments about Harold come next? thyey continue evolving....and they will evovle beyond him also, that should be no surprise...he is well aware of that fact.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpprOGsLWUo
>
> "... he did the same with his plagiarisms, re-interpreted tham in not necessarily the same way any of the various authors meant them. not a thing i see any problem with personally. ... ."
>
> He also credited plagiarisms to Eck Masters and as a result coaxed people to think the information came from Eckankar instead. Several examples of word for word sentences from other people's works appearing to animate the false images of Eck Masters. Paragraphs and chapters appear for not only paraphrased, but for plagiarized material as well.
>
> We know about so many plagiarisms today, but this was a long time coming. In the past allegations of plagiarism were met with denial and unbelief. And one of the key reasons for denial and belief, IMHO, was the truth negated the lies that so many had come to believe. A whole "movement" was spawned that carried a belief in Eckankar as an ancient group of masters passing on information and sharing it from generation to generation over time. Instead of this, however, one can find library books used instead!
>
> Hello? All of those other groups, authors, gurus and teachers that Eckankar had turned into "not Eckankar" and "different from Eckankar" while at the same time rewriting some words and beliefs, and plagiarizing others?; the good majority of which allegedly supported and sanctioned by Living, or past Living Eck Masters?
>
> Now all school children can copy from books and then lie to their teachers when asked about where the text came from? Even when presented with the plagiarized text side by side the children can deny the truth they copied simply by making up fabulous lies that the words were dictated to them by Eck Masters? Which are very real, btw. :)
>
> No. I really don't think so. Plagiarism might have been O.K. in the past, but then the words appeared written by different authors and not so much as if come by way of ancient masters; although some people claimed that as well.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now you are again taking a HUGE stretch by indicating that children lie about plagiaising and claiming that ECK Masters told them what they had plagiarised...show proof and stop screwing around......i wonder if you can find a way to blame the cold war on Paul Twitchell's plagiarisms also, you seem to mistakenly believe it proves thing it cannot possibly prove.

do you understand why i repeatedly say "apples and oranges"???

regardless of what you believe or insist, apples will NEVER become oranges, and likewise, Twitchell's plgiarisms will never prove that there are no ECK adepts....i find it silly that you can fine NO other way to prove or disprove an INNER question with outer books....stop being ridiculous...if you are THAT unable to leave your body consciously and have ANY experience either with, or disproving the existence of ECK Masters, then you might seriously be wasting your time..









--------------------------------------------------------------------

> I remember years ago when I started to research the a.r.e. information with an unbiased attitude. It didn't so much matter who said what, whether for or against Eckankar, when what really mattered most was the truth. And I found that some of the truths were hard to swallow because some people had not the stomach for them. In other words, some people couldn't handle the truth. Instead they got angry, tried to deny them, tried to compromise the truth, to spin it as if to bargain things. These, IMO, are symptoms leading to the death of an ideal. I watched people take new found truth and reinterpret it word for word, line by line as if to censor and outfit it for a.r.e. and their own limited, biased, and imaginary conception of the truth. There were / are so many examples of this it is not funny. So many people refusing "the death of an ideal" because there is not one of equal caliber on hand to replace it. For example, if the Eck Masters did not really communicate so many words to the Eckankar library, but the words were plagiarized from the public library instead, then how can the ideal of "it came from Eckankar masters" be replaced? How can one prove as truth it was indeed "Eckankar" Masters who dictated the information to Paul? How can one even prove the plagiarized information to be true? even after acknowledging the actual author?
>
> There were many other things that Paul Twitchell claimed, or made appear as if to be true. Harold Klemp, the leader of Eckankar has helped to clarify a lot about the writings of Paul Twitchell and, in part, reminded people that:
>
> "[...] As soon as we set someone above us, in potential or in fact, we have committed a crime against ourselves: We have limited the opportunity for our own unfoldment. [... .]"
>
> http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/writings.html
>
> In this respect it doesn't really matter to me who said what, what their title or how many credentials they have if the same person takes liberty to alter the truth and render it occult. I would instead have to ask the question why? Why have they made the truth a secret, or spawned a secret society of people who know the truth but render it differently for others? What is the motive behind this? And when the secrets and the "secret society" are "made" because people finally find out the truth for themselves, how does the "secret society" respond? Do they continue to deny the truth that everybody knows? or do they keep trying to spin the truth as if to mystify it?
>
> How many years did it take (is it taking) - no thanks to "Eckankar Inc." - for the full "growing list" of plagiarism examples to see the light of day? Instead of "Eckankar Inc." it was a college student, or college professor who spotted plagiarisms and then began making them known to the world. It was people like that and members, or x-members of Eckankar who did the research and posted many of the examples here.
>
> If an Eck Member should help to clarify and to reveal truth one could argue that "Eckankar" did this. However, ultimately - and according to the corporate structure - a member can be negated, no matter what they say, by other members with differing views and opinions. And all members can be trumped by the one and only "Corporate Sole" member, perhaps.
>
> In this day and age when corporations share some of the same rights as living people.
>
> From a non-Eckankar book, quoting ...

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

does this in some way relieve you of having to deal with it? does it even matter? seriously? LOL you bitch bitch bitch, but still have nothing to show for your efforts...blame the big corporation then, you need a scapegoat not being able to make your own way in the world....stop crying, seriously, grow a spine and then USE it!



--------------------------------------------------------------------

> "Sensing the damage that the publication of David Lane's research would have on Eckankar, its lawyer, Alan Nichols, attempted to refute the charge that Paul [Paul Twitchell] had plagiarized the works of Julian Johnson. He wrote in a letter to Lane in 1977:
> With a wide background of study you will find many similarities both approximate and exact in many religious statements, history and mythology. [....] How did you know Johnson didn't obtain his information from Twitchell or Rebazar Tarzs [sic] or some other common source? Don't be suprised that many people find the same truths and even in the same words, commandments, etc., whether they are concepts, stories of events, or levels of God Worlds or consciousness."
>
> [See: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher Consciousness, p. 124] 
>
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsma4.html
>
> That was 1977. Since then there is way, way more than just the words of Julian Johnson. And, btw, Julian Johnson quoted both Vivikenanda and Lavelle in his book. Paul Twitchell took the words of Julian Johnson, Vivikenanda and Lavelle and had them all as if coming out the mouth of Rebazar Tarzs (See: The Far Country, by Paul Twitchell and compare with The Path of The Masters, by Julian Johnson.
>
> What was that lawyer in 1977 trying to do? Deny plagiarism by Paul Twitchell and Eckankar?
>
> A number of other people were helpful to David Lane with illustrating truth for certain things, because they had knowledge about the original manuscripts by Paul Twitchell. (The link may try to redirect to another page, making it necessary to quickly click the red X - next to the address - before it does.)
>
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm5.html

who honestly cares? no one considers plagiarisms as meaningful as you do....the most amusing thing is how you are unable to allow anyone to just beg to differ...as if you cannot live letting others have whatever opinion they choose to have.....as i've said before, you are a slave, and you chained yourselfand keep yourself in chains, it isnt any corporation's fault.....you are responsible for yourself.....

[Etznab]

Look at the sentence again. It had a question mark and was not a statement. Also look at the context. Including: "No. I really don't think so."

"regardless of what you believe or insist, apples will NEVER become oranges, and likewise, Twitchell's plgiarisms will never prove that there are no ECK adepts....i find it silly that you can fine NO other way to prove or disprove an INNER question with outer books....stop being ridiculous...if you are THAT unable to leave your body consciously and have ANY experience either with, or disproving the existence of ECK Masters, then you might seriously be wasting your time.."

I believe it is you making the "stretch" by illustrating suppositions about my opinions regarding Eck adepts.

"does this in some way relieve you of having to deal with it? does it even matter? seriously? LOL you bitch bitch bitch, but still have nothing to show for your efforts...blame the big corporation then, you need a scapegoat not being able to make your own way in the world....stop crying, seriously, grow a spine and then USE it!"

Monkey see. Monkey do.

"who honestly cares? no one considers plagiarisms as meaningful as you do....the most amusing thing is how you are unable to allow anyone to just beg to differ...as if you cannot live letting others have whatever opinion they choose to have.....as i've said before, you are a slave, and you chained yourselfand keep yourself in chains, it isnt any corporation's fault.....you are responsible for yourself....."

So many you, you, you's again. Do you know this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc&list=PLaSmYOhNPYIR3jopwX3Iu6EARE7Pkfo0-&index=1

Or this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweSLmSgO-k

Sometimes good to ask questions of what appears to be "God".

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Sunday, 28 December 2014 13:19:19 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


RE "go and re-read all of the materials"

Bullshit .. you QUOTE what you claim is:

"Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar"

Put up or eff off with your untrue, totally FALSE assertions.

You are a Liar and Manipulator too now, just like Marman.

Congratulations.

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Monday, 29 December 2014 07:27:54 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:

RE: "Twitchell's plgiarisms will never prove that there are no ECK adepts"

Twitchell's plagiarisms prove he was an intentional liar and manipulator,
and so was Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp (and Gail Twitchell et al) to this day.

Given Kinpa is also choosing to be an intentional liar and manipulator too,
it is no surprise he identifies with Plagiarism as being OK and not a problem.

Lying is OK. And intentionally manipulating people through deception is OK too.

Kinpa's World, it's a little twisted but still pretty.

LOL :)

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Sunday, 28 December 2014 13:20:13 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


RE "but they are not at all mentioned in the context that

Paul Twitchell meant them to be, and THAT is what i have addressed..."

No you didn't.
The only thing you said was : "you left out Sufism"

What was the "context" you allude to that Twitchell meant 'sufism' to mean?

Got a book, discourse page and paragraph number?
What about an actual quote of Twitchell speaking about Sufism .... ?

Then someone might have a chance of a half clue of knowing wtf you're talking about.

[Kinpa]

wrong answer~! you lose again Sean! and YOU are far more of a liar and manipulator, but you dont have the backbone to admit it. worthless and weak! typical! keep on FRAMING things YOUR way and forget what other opinions of reality exist~! SLAVE~!!!! LMAO you're a joke, without Eckankar you would have no life, nothing to do with yourself!

[Kinpa]

i know that YOU just had a little accident yet again....no coincidence either...your logic is still not logical, and you still insist that apples are oranges....you make your assertions and come to illogical conclusions all you would like....it never stops being funny...

[Kinpa]

i do actually, but no matter, if you're too lazy to find it, i cannot help you....just like you have no idea where the term Sugmad came from...i mean it is seriously easy to find, perhaps read some Sufi literature sometime...neither of you have half a chance, because you have already decided everything, you know everything LOL, and regardless of what anyone says you will remain that way...so stop pretending that you are interested in having a conversation at all, THAT is a lie....you like calling names do you not? you seem to have no purpose without doing it....54 years of waste....pfffft....

[Kinpa]

On Sunday, December 28, 2014 8:21:20 PM UTC-5, Peetee Aitchei wrote:

did you like that? the right side of your face??...then get LTG 1 and use the table of contents to find the letter named, of all things,"Sufis"...honestly, if you needed me to tell you this then you are nowhere near as smart as you seem to claim....why be limited to a quote? read the entire letter....but here is the quote anyhow " What I've said here is a clue to my thinking --- an insight into my philosophy and thought! My thinking comes closer to that of the Sufis than to any other philosophies." - Paul Twitchell....in case youre wondering he also mentions the Zikr, which existed in Persia centuries before Kabir or Nanak existed, but Nanak came to call it Simran....Twitchell considered Eckankar to be more like Sufism than Sikhism or Sant Mat or Radhasoami, and in truth, it certainly is...not that you would know being that you are obviously unable to have ANY spiritual experience, judging by the way you cry and whine about everyone being liars and history re-writers....a couple of elementary school kids, seriously....feel free to grow up at any time! unless you're scared...

[Peetee Aitchei]

---

Bullshit .. you QUOTE what you claim is:

"Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar"

Go on, do it. Quote Twitchell's definition of "Ek Onkar"

Was it something I said?

[Peetee Aitchei]

-----------------

RE "but they are not at all mentioned in the context that
Paul Twitchell meant them to be, and THAT is what i have addressed..."

No you didn't.
The only thing you said was : "you left out Sufism"

GO on then ... What was the "context" you allude to that

Twitchell meant 'sufism' to mean?

Got a book, discourse page and paragraph number?

What about an actual quote of Twitchell speaking about Sufism .... ?

Do know of even one?

[Peetee Aitchei]

-----

GO ON get LTG 1 and use the table of contents to find the letter named, of all
things,"Sufis"... and explain what you meant by :

"but they are not at all mentioned in the context that Paul Twitchell meant
them to be, and THAT is what i have addressed..."

Given you state that:

"words as well as definitiond for and of them, are all mental concepts
and nothing more. period. as with any mental concept, there is end;ess
room for varying interpretations. Paul Twitchell's definition of Ek Onkar

is as accurate and as good as any ...."

QUOTE ME TWITCHELL'S DEFINITION of Ek Onkar

Kinpa states that: "your summary of paths that you say were all copied
into Paul Twitchell's Eckankar, is in complete, you left out Sufism,.,."

No I didn't leave it out .. it's there plain as day.

I do not say they were all copied into Eckankar;
Twitchell does, his own writings say this.
I am not required as a part of this picture.
I am irrelevant.

Here go look-a-see for yourself:
https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0B-M0yAR0UPhPdzZTdGxkNjBTR1U

:)

[Kinpa]

i never said a word about Twitchell saying that Sufism "meant" anything in any context...are you unable to speak english? you seem to have trouble with the most basic of understandings...i spoke of Sufism in the context of Eckankar, but it seems you are unable to keep up with this....Letters to Gail, Volume 1, the letter on Sufis and i quote (a second time) " What I've said here is a clue to my thinking --- an insight into my philosophy and thought! My thinking comes closer to that of the Sufis than to any other philosophies. "

and there it is, it's very simple, shouldnt be a problem for you...

[Kinpa]

why? would it make any difference? silly man... :D

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Monday, 29 December 2014 15:11:14 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


RE quoting:

"i never said a word about Twitchell saying that Sufism "meant" anything in any context..."

QUOTE:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/kO8VgKaAz7w/G_yVOr3XCCMJ

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Monday, 29 December 2014 15:14:01 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


RE Kinpa: "why? would it make any difference? silly man... :D"


Exactly!

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Saturday, 27 December 2014 00:07:16 UTC+11, Peetee Aitchei wrote:

---

Keeping in mind what Twitchell said this about Eckankar and himself in 1969:
- "Eckankar means Soul Travel. It is a natural

religion that opens the consciousness to gain
God-realization."

- Often he will end up with a crowd of several hundred helping him shop.

- Paul Twitchell is a charismatic, youngish man (appears in his late 30s in 1970)
(see Paul photo circa 1969
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPdlFEVVZhNFdxOHc/view?usp=sharing )

- His mail averages 10,000 letters weekly.

- More than a million people - believe (he) is (a) living god.

(quoting)
"In 1973 when I joined Eckankar it was accepted that the LEM was GOD.
However that year, Helen Frye, Pat Henderson and Charlie Wallace (later Millie
Moore and Helen Baird) took me under their wings and mentored me to a better realization. It was, they said, "The Sound current that was the MOST important part of the students growth, not a Master or even a LEM". .. "
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPNkxXTUxSNldGaWM/view?usp=sharing


- He heals and answers their prayers at vast distances

That Paul Twitchell also said this in 1970 the SKS.

". . . He placed these magnificent Adepts in charge of the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, the Holy Book of the ECK Order. They are the guardians of these works, and upon each plane an Adept of the Order of the Vairag is in charge of a section of this Book of Golden Wisdom. A section of the book is within the temples of Golden Wisdom on each plane as designated by the SUGMAD.

"The planes and guardians are:
* The Ocean of Love and Mercy - the SUGMAD.
* The Anami Lok - the Padama Samba is the guardian of this section of the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad. It is kept in the Temple of Golden Wisdom known as the Sata Visic Palace.
* The Agam Lok - the Adept here is the Mahaya Guru, guardian of the Holy Book at the Kazi Dawtz temple of Golden Wisdom.
* The Hukikat Lok -The Adept here is the Asanga Kaya, the guardian of the Holy Book at the Jartz Chong Temple of Wisdom.
* The Alaya Lok-the Adept here is the great Tsong Sikhsa, guardian of the Holy Book at Anakamudi Temple of Golden Wisdom.
* The Alakh Lok--the Adept here is the Sokagampo, guardian of the Holy Book at the Tamanata Kop temple of Golden Wisdom.
* The Atma Lok--the Adept here is Jagat Giri, guardian of the Holy Book at the Param Akshar temple of Golden Wisdom. This is the house of imperishable knowledge. It is the highest that soul can go, as long as It is attached to a physical body, to study at any of the Temples of Golden Wisdom.
In the worlds below the Atma plane (where the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad is kept for those who are able to study its golden pages) are
* The Saguna Lok (etheric world). The Adept here is Lai Tsi, guardian of the Holy Book at the Dayaka Temple of Golden Wisdom in the city of Arhirit.
* The Par Brahm Lok (Mental world)--the Adept here is the Koji Chanda, guardian of the Holy Book at the Namayatan Temple of Golden Wisdom in the city of Mer Kailash.
* The Brahmanda Lok (Causal world)--the Adept here is Shamus-I-Tabriz, guardian of the Holy Book at the Sakapori Temple of Golden Wisdom in the city of Honu.
* The Anda Lok (Astral world) - the Adept here is Gopal Das, guardian of the Holy Book of the Askleposis Temple of Golden Wisdom in the city of Sahasra-Dal-Kanwal.
* The Pinda Lok (Physical world) -the Adept here is Rami Nuri, guardian of the Holy Book at the Moksha temple of Golden Wisdom in the city of Retz, Venus.
* The Prithvi Lok (Earth World)--the Adept here is Yaubl Sacabi, guardian of the Holy Book at the Gare-Hira temple of Golden Wisdom at Agam Des, the home of the Eshwar-Khanewale (the God-eaters) in the Himalayan mountains.
* The Surati Lok (Mountain world) - the Adept here is Fubbi Quantz, guardian of the Holy Book at the Katsupari Monastery Temple of Golden Wisdom in northern Tibet.
* The Asurati Lok (Desert world)--the Adept here is Banjani, guardian of the Holy Book at the Faqiti Monastery temple of Golden Wisdom in the Gobi Desert. The section here is only an introduction to the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad. Chelas (students) are usually taken here to begin their study of the holy works in the dream state."

--- --- ---

In 1965 and 1966 there were no initiations.
In 1968, late, there were 3 initiations.
By June 1970 there were 8 initiations.
After he died, the SKS 2 in Oct 1971 said there were 14 initiations
(with 9 given on the outer)
From 1963 until 1968 the IMSIAF book, there was no such thing as an Eck Master
From 1963 to 1969 there was no Mahanta.

When Twitchell passed away in Sept 1971, Patti and Darwin were 6th Initiates.
Patti had refused to take over as Eck master from Paul.
Darwin had only just quit his job to become an Eck missionary.
And Harold Klemp was just made a 3rd.

Millie Moore, Dorothy Moore, Helen Frye, Louis & Dorothy Bluth, Elmo Dewhitt,
Pat Evans Henderson, Vandilla Walker and Helen Baird may (?) have all been
8ths by this time. Or close.

In late 1983 the six 8ths left were:
Elmo DeWhitt, Helen Baird, Millie Moore and her sister Dorothy Moore,
Pat Henderson, and Patti Simpson Rivinus.

(quoting Patti in 2011)

"I see no way for the master and the CEO to deal with people
who have obviously done their work and accomplished their goal.
Most of them leave, some get really upset and pick a fight and,
sadly, throw out the baby with the bath water. Unfortunately
some who stay come to enjoy the power they wield."

[sign...@gmail.com]

Isn't it time you shared your profound spiritual knowledge with us all to say what the ultimate path to God is given how much knowledge you clearly have on the subject?

[Peetee Aitchei]

Sure Rob. How's it going these days? Are you still mean, arrogant and egotistical?

There is no 'ultimate path to God'.

You're asking the wrong question.

Answers to the right questions here:
https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0B-M0yAR0UPhPalFWRzl6YmlmM00

[Kinpa]

and you know the "right question" do you? again with the grade-school antics i see....VERY amusing however....please do continue, by all means...

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 12:04:35 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:

What a pathetic excuse for a human being you've become.

Get real, grow up, and get some help. You need it.

Idiot!

[Kinpa]

there you go, showing your complete lack of maturity with all of the judgment and name callin....enjoy it while you are able to! thankfully, the opinions of others mean nothing to be, so your words have no power toi affect me in any way. but it's amusing that you hurl them anyhow....enjoy your chains Sean, you are enslaved and are incapable of freeing yourself....but that happened by your own choice....by all means enjoy~!!! and have a most wonderful day~!

[Peetee Aitchei]

----

RE "the opinions of others mean nothing to be"

Really?

It's impossible to overemphasize the importance of narcissists' lack of empathy. It colors everything about them. I have observed very closely some narcissists I've loved, and their inability to pay attention when someone else is talking is so striking that it has often seemed to me that they have neurological problems that affect their cognitive functioning. These are educated people with high IQs, who've had ordinary middle-class backgrounds and schooling, and their thinking is not only illogical but weird: with narcissists, you have to know them pretty well to understand their behavior.

For instance, they always fill in their gaps (which make up just about the entirety of their visible life) with bits of behavior, ideas, tastes, opinions, etc., borrowed from someone else whom they regard as an authority. Their authoritative sources, as far as I know, are always people they've actually known, not something from a book, for instance, and narcissists' opinions may actually come from someone you know, too, but who is not to you obviously an authority on the matter at hand, so narcissists can seem totally arbitrary, virtually random in their motivations and reasoning. They are evidently transfixed by a static fantasy image of themselves, like Narcissus gazing at his reflection, and this produces an odd kind of stillness and passivity.

Because their inner life is so restricted and essentially dead, it doesn't contain images of how to live a full life -- these things are not important to them, they expect others to look after day-to-day chores, they resent wasting their specialness on common things, they don't put their heart into their work (though they'll tell you how many hours they put into it), they borrow their opinions and preferences and tastes from whomever strikes them as authoritative at the moment.

---

Essentially, narcissists are unable or unwilling to trust either the world or other people to meet their needs. Perhaps they were born to parents unable to connect emotionally and, thus, as infants learned not to let another person be essential to them in any way. Perhaps NPD starts later, when intrusive or abusive parents make it dangerous for the child to accept other people's opinions and valuations. Maybe it comes from a childhood environment of being treated like royalty or little gods. Whatever the case, narcissists have made the terrible choice not to love. In their imaginations, they are complete unto themselves, perfect and not in need of anything anyone else can give them. (NB: Narcissists do not count their real lives -- i.e., what they do every day and the people they do it with -- as worth anything.) Their lives are impoverished and sterile; the price they pay for their golden fantasies is high: they'll never share a dream for two.

Now, it is possible to have a relatively smooth relationship with a narcissist, and it's possible to maintain it for a long time. The first requirement for this, though, is distance: this simply cannot be done with a narcissist you live with. Given distance, or only transient and intermittent contact, you can get along with narcissists by treating them as infants: you give them whatever they want or need whenever they ask and do not expect any reciprocation at all, do not expect them to show the slightest interest in you or your life (or even in why you're bothering with them at all), do not expect them to be able to do anything that you need or want, do not expect them to apologize or make amends or show any consideration for your feelings, do not expect them to take ordinary responsibility in any way. But note: they are not infants; infants develop and mature and require this kind of care for only a brief period, after which they are on the road to autonomy and looking after themselves, whereas narcissists never outgrow their demands for dedicated attention to their infantile needs 168 hours a week. Adult narcissists can be as demanding of your time and energy as little babies but without the gratification of their growing or learning anything from what they suck from you.

Babies love you back, but adult narcissists are like vampires: they will take all you can give while giving nothing back, then curse you for running dry and discard you as a waste of their precious time.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/howto.html

Mix that with the extreme irrational sophistry of a Doug Marman.... and any
kind of crap is likely to come pouring out. Idiot:101

[Kinpa]

there you go using wikipedia to diagnose folks you have NO right, much less the education to diagnose....tsk tsk tsk....watch that blood pressure old man...or are you a 12 year old? cant decide? funny stuff, seriously....go be a man! DEAL WITH YOUR OWN ISSUES~!!!!! unless you prefer the worthless and weak way of things, in any case DO stop flattering yourself that your opinions mean anything to anyone but yourself!

[Kinpa]

dont let your anger cause your g/f to leave LOL! she has only just arrived...

[Peetee Aitchei]

Idiot.

[Peetee Aitchei]

On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 13:12:43 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:


> there you go using wikipedia to diagnose folks you have NO right, much less the education to diagnose....tsk tsk tsk....watch that blood pressure old man...or are you a 12 year old? cant decide? funny stuff, seriously....go be a man! DEAL WITH YOUR OWN ISSUES~!!!!! unless you prefer the worthless and weak way of things, in any case DO stop flattering yourself that your opinions mean anything to anyone but yourself!

RE "... there you go using wikipedia ... "

IDIOT lol

[Kinpa]

well stop doing that silly man.....did you enjoy the surprise? LMAO it's all over but the crying now....you cant say yopu werent warned....enjoy Sean

[Etznab]

Apples and oranges again.

[Etznab]

Kinpa about accidents, apples and oranges.

[Etznab]

Kinpa about surprises. Again!

[Kinpa]

Not going to show where I supposedly said these words? Yet another lie??? LOL

[Kinpa]

Do you enjoy those richard?

[Etznab]

Kinpa wrote: "Not going to show where I supposedly said these words? Yet another lie??? LOL"

It's very easy. Type the words "did you enjoy the surprise" and search the a.r.e. archives. Then choose "sort by date".

Like, look at your 5th post on 12/29/14.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Aalt.religion.eckankar$2CYPrRwnwRB5kJ$20after$3A2014$2F12$2F1$20before$3A2015$2F1$2F1|sort:date|spell:false/alt.religion.eckankar/kO8VgKaAz7w/vusOfjF_RCsJ

It would have been real easy for you to find those words.

So why did you write: "Not going to show where I supposedly said these words? Yet another lie??? LOL"

Are you now denying the words that you wrote?

[Kinpa]

Why not? sean gets to lie and claim he wrote a thing that he plagiarized, and you make excuses to support him!

[Etznab]

And you taunt and ridicule. Call people drunks.

[Kinpa]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:43:36 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:

He should ALWAYS include a link with whatever is considered to be "proof" , even if it happens to prove something other than what is claimed, a VERY simple concept...why are you having trouble with it? I guess I can go delete the comment and then tell you to prove it, being that that is what the two of you do most often....and now you virtually ignore his actual plagiarism! Amazing! Who is in denial again???

[Kinpa]

Can you prove that any of these people were NOT drunk at the time??

[Etznab]

Yeah. I have already proven to myself that I was not drunk, and I told you that I don't drink.

Also told you that your information about my membership was wrong. You won't believe it because you would rather be a cyberbully. This is what I see about you. And since our conversations will remain, others can come and form their own opinions as well. I think you are fooling yourself to believe that you can speak for everybody. (Appearing as if to speak for others is something you have done repeatedly and examples can be given. Anybody can use the archives and see this. I think what you have done with that is called propaganda.

[Kinpa]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 2:10:57 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 8:47:01 PM UTC-5, Kinpa wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:44:27 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 8:37:26 PM UTC-5, Kinpa wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:43:36 AM UTC, Etznab wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 7:18:20 PM UTC-5, Kinpa wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 1:13:42 AM UTC, Henosis Sage wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 30 December 2014 12:04:35 UTC+11, Kinpa wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What a pathetic excuse for a human being you've become.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Get real, grow up, and get some help. You need it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Idiot!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not going to show where I supposedly said these words? Yet another lie??? LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > Kinpa wrote: "Not going to show where I supposedly said these words? Yet another lie??? LOL"
> > > > >
> > > > > It's very easy. Type the words "did you enjoy the surprise" and search the a.r.e. archives. Then choose "sort by date".
> > > > >
> > > > > Like, look at your 5th post on 12/29/14.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Aalt.religion.eckankar$2CYPrRwnwRB5kJ$20after$3A2014$2F12$2F1$20before$3A2015$2F1$2F1|sort:date|spell:false/alt.religion.eckankar/kO8VgKaAz7w/vusOfjF_RCsJ
> > > > >
> > > > > It would have been real easy for you to find those words.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why did you write: "Not going to show where I supposedly said these words? Yet another lie??? LOL"
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you now denying the words that you wrote?
> > > >
> > > > Why not? sean gets to lie and claim he wrote a thing that he plagiarized, and you make excuses to support him!
> > >
> > > And you taunt and ridicule. Call people drunks.
> >
> > Can you prove that any of these people were NOT drunk at the time??
>
> Yeah. I have already proven to myself that I was not drunk, and I told you that I don't drink.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You proving a thing to yourself is useless, that proves nothing at all

> Also told you that your information about my membership was wrong. You won't believe it because you would rather be a cyberbully. This is what I see about you. And since our conversations will remain, others can come and form their own opinions as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am not cyber-bullying you, dream on! Did you write headquarters yet about my mentioning your membership here? You claimed that you were going to, so why have you not done that? It is only YOUR concern, what you see, and the rest of the world certainly CAN see for themselves what I say here, have never hidden that, unlike the two of you, deleting posts to try hiding what has been said...

I think you are fooling yourself to believe that you can speak for everybody. (Appearing as if to speak for others is something you have done repeatedly and examples can be given. Anybody can use the archives and see this. I think what you have done with that is called propaganda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can think whatever you'd like, but I still think that is because you can't stand that there could be a group of people that DO allow me to speak for them because they simply don't WANT to speak to you! Are you getting angry? You seem to be....call it propaganda if you wish, but that doesn't make it the truth, it just shows that you can't stand the pressure, so you always take this defensive position, that you will later claim wasn't defensive at all....oh well...