Doug's response to David Lane
dave50am...@my-deja.com
It is true that I have never had access to the original manuscripts or
private papers of Paul Twitchell. I have never spoken with Darwin or
Gail. You mention that you have "seen" the papers, but that is not the
same as having read them. Have you read Paul's private papers? If not
then we are both guessing what might be in them.
My guess is based on my personal experience with writing, and with
marriage. In marriage you often share the hidden details of you inner
most personal thoughts with your wife. So if Gail and Paul were at all
close and I suspect that they were at some times, then she would be a
resource as Paul probably confided many things to her over the years
that are not available anywhere else. We know from the writings that in
the early days before Eckankar became a success,they struggled to make
ends meet with Gail making more of a contribution than Paul. During
this time it would be unusual if they never discussed the forming of
Eckankar, its roots and its direction. Darwin as husband number two had
this valuable resource to draw on for information.
In regards to access to Paul's private documents, what can be more
valuable? I know from my experience that I have to make many drafts to
arrive at a final version of an important written piece, if I want it
to be any good at all. I understand that Paul hand wrote many of these
documents, with his notes in the margins. Having this kind of access to
a document, gives the reader an opportunity to discover how the
document was created. Since Paul never revealed his original sources, I
suspect reviewing this type of material would give Darwin an unique
opportunity to learn how the final product was created.
You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
Surely in his position, he would have had many conversations with Gail
about Eckankar regardless of whether Lane existed or not. If he was a
serious student of Pauls' work he would review his work in private as
well. That is the point, DARWIN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY to review all of
the
original source materials left after Paul's death, and he could do so
with the close assistance of one of Paul's first and most trusted
students: Gail. You mention that Dariwn was naive, and new to Eckankar,
but he at the same time had more opportunity and resources than anyone
in the world to know the exact situation.
As I have mentioned before, I think Darwin's response was to attack. To
deny this material, and to try to stop if from becoming prominant. That
is consistant with his actions. A good offense is the best defense. He
sued Peebles and threatened to sue Lane and SCP.
In the Peebles matter we cannot have all the facts. You seem to agree
that Eckankar obtained their copy of Peebles paper using fraudulant
representation, and then used this to sue him. You don't dispute this
do you?
I have had some considerable experience in the civil justice system in
the U.S. It appears that the exact contents of this case are not part
of the public record. (Who knows, perhaps they are available waiting
for some one to ask.) When this happens it is usually part of the
settlement and it is a stipulation agreed to by both parties. Jim
Peebles did not lose this case, he settled out of court. When a suit of
this nature is brought to court, a party with "deep pockets" can if hey
want extend the case for years, filing documents, explorations,
requests for documents etc. They can make it a very expensive
proposition, and you either respond or default. If the financial
resources of the parties involved are not equal then it can become very
difficult for private parties to continue regardless of who is right or
wrong. Remember Peebles did not publish anything. The paper was lyng
unread in a professor's cabinet when they obtained it through lies and
deception. You indication that because he paid fees and the matter was
closed, does not mean a thing. Especially in a matter where one side
has nearly unlimited funds, and the motivation.
I seem some very shameful behavior here on the part of Darwin, and
eckankar.
In regards to 3,000 letters received. I think that's a lot. I don't
know over what period of time that was.
To: Nathan
Okay, you are pretty funny. I just can't get into the heavy tone of
damnation.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mahavahana
>
> I have had some considerable experience in the civil justice system in
> the U.S. It appears that the exact contents of this case are not part
> of the public record. (Who knows, perhaps they are available waiting
> for some one to ask.) When this happens it is usually part of the
> settlement and it is a stipulation agreed to by both parties. Jim
> Peebles did not lose this case, he settled out of court. When a suit of
> this nature is brought to court, a party with "deep pockets" can if hey
> want extend the case for years, filing documents, explorations,
> requests for documents etc. They can make it a very expensive
> proposition, and you either respond or default. If the financial
> resources of the parties involved are not equal then it can become very
> difficult for private parties to continue regardless of who is right or
> wrong. Remember Peebles did not publish anything. The paper was lyng
> unread in a professor's cabinet when they obtained it through lies and
> deception. You indication that because he paid fees and the matter was
> closed, does not mean a thing. Especially in a matter where one side
> has nearly unlimited funds, and the motivation.
Excellent point Dave.
I hope that all here take a moment, and do a little guided "Soul
Travel" exercise. Here we go:
*** Imagine yourself a 20 year old college student . . . who has just
learned he's being sued for a million dollars by . . . the well-heeled
religious organization he belongs to . . . for simply writing a class
paper he never published . . . and faced with the alternatives, he has
little choice but to settle out of court at the terms of the mighty
religious organization of Light and Sound . . . ***
I'm not sure what plane this all takes place on. Rest assured however,
it's a plane that the Eck Masters are familiar with.
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
http://www.csun.edu/~hbjou017/cults/ekonkar/
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
len rossen
We all make assumptions so here is the other side of your
assumption.
I'll raise it as a question. Is it possible for an individual to libel an
organization?
And for all I know, Eckankar did overreact to the paper. It's possible.
Len
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote in message
news:RqXw4.51305$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com...
Rich
> I hope that all here take a moment, and do a little guided "Soul
> Travel" exercise. Here we go:
>
> *** Imagine yourself a 20 year old college student . . . who has just
> learned he's being sued for a million dollars by . . . the well-heeled
> religious organization he belongs to . . . for simply writing a class
> paper
that had libelous defamation in it
> and faced with the alternatives, he has
> little choice but to settle out of court...
Paying court costs isn't a guilty verdict. This is true. We have no
evidence to draw conclusions *either* way. But the question still
lingers... if Peebles was truly innocent of defamations as charged, why
did David Lane with hold the outcome of the case for so long if not to
cover up Peebles culpability?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 14:58:18 -1000 Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > > I hope that all here take a moment, and do a little guided "Soul
> > > Travel" exercise. Here we go:
> > >
> > > *** Imagine yourself a 20 year old college student . . . who has just
> > > learned he's being sued for a million dollars by . . . the well-heeled
> > > religious organization he belongs to . . . for simply writing a class
> > > paper
> >
> > that had libelous defamation in it
> >
> > > and faced with the alternatives, he has
> > > little choice but to settle out of court...
> >
> > Paying court costs isn't a guilty verdict. This is true. We have no
> > evidence to draw conclusions *either* way. But the question still
> > lingers... if Peebles was truly innocent of defamations as charged, why
> > did David Lane with hold the outcome of the case for so long if not to
> > cover up Peebles culpability?
>
Why?
> Paying court costs isn't a Guilty Verdict.
Helloooo? That's what *I* just* said! Boy Joe is really blinded by his
need to attack and try to make Eckists look 'wrong'.
> This means that Peebles *wasn't* culpable (guilty),
What!? This guy must think all the reader here are really stupid. No
trial - no verdict, neither guilty nor not guilty. But the question,
which he misrepresented, is still unanswered.
Rich
>
> From: <dave50am...@my-deja.com>
>
> > You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
> > myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
>
> "your"
> place.
>
> > In the Peebles matter we cannot have all the facts. You seem to agree
> > that Eckankar obtained their copy of Peebles paper using fraudulant
> > representation, and then used this to sue him. You don't dispute this
> > do you?
>
> Dave.
Also, David Lane neglects(again) to cite any proof for his allegation as
to how Noe acquired the paper.
<SNIP>
> Again the entire issue with Jim Peebles is utterly unclear
> largely because the only person who really had close information to the
> events
> appears to refuse to send in the details.
>
> That's David Lane.
And even when he does provide 'details', they are often hearsay.
Rich
>
> <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > From: <dave50am...@my-deja.com>
> >
> > > You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
> > > myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
> >
> > In truth Dave... What you are really doing is trying to put Darwin into
> > "your"
> > place.
>
> > > In the Peebles matter we cannot have all the facts. You seem to agree
> > > that Eckankar obtained their copy of Peebles paper using fraudulant
> > > representation, and then used this to sue him. You don't dispute this
> > > do you?
> >
> > "fruadulent representation" is the term MOST people use in regards the SCP,
> > Dave.
>
>
> And in any case, what does this have to do with Eckankar Clergyman Mike
> Noe, and Eckankar's, actions in respect to obtain Peeble's paper under
> false pretenses?
Who says that he attained the papers under "false pretenses"? Where is
the evidence, proof that this was actually the case and not just more
hearsay?
Nathan Zafran
>I see some very shameful behavior here on the part of Darwin, and
>eckankar.
>To: Nathan
>Okay, you are pretty funny. I just can't get into the heavy tone of
>damnation.
Neither can I get into the kinds of negative statements against
Eckankar that you just made.
If you can agree to stop making public statements like that, I can
agree to go easier on my parodies of Davie-boy. If you can't,
neither can I.
Nathan
Michael Wallace
> You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
> myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
In truth Dave... What you are really doing is trying to put Darwin into
"your"
place.
> In the Peebles matter we cannot have all the facts. You seem to agree
> that Eckankar obtained their copy of Peebles paper using fraudulant
> representation, and then used this to sue him. You don't dispute this
> do you?
"fruadulent representation" is the term MOST people use in regards the SCP,
Dave. Perhaps you need to take another look at what Doug wrote, and maybe
things
will read differently on the second or third revision.
>
> I seem some very shameful behavior here on the part of Darwin, and
> eckankar.
You have seen what you "believe" to be shameful behaviour... And shameful by
whose standards? Again the entire issue with Jim Peebles is utterly unclear
largely because the only person who really had close information to the
events
appears to refuse to send in the details.
That's David Lane.
The Eckankar office no doubt has reference to this matter, but they are not
involved in this discussion, and I have no idea if confidentiality
agreements
are in place or otherwise.
David Lane is the only person who can shed some light on this matter, and he
seem incapable or unwilling to do so. That, in my book, is shameful.
>
> In regards to 3,000 letters received. I think that's a lot. I don't
> know over what period of time that was.
>
>
> To: Nathan
> Okay, you are pretty funny. I just can't get into the heavy tone of
> damnation.
Really?
But Nathan IS hitting that funny bone lately <G>
Love
Michael
>
Michael Wallace
len rossen <sv77...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a1hjl$9p3$1...@mailint03.im.hou.compaq.com...
> Hi Maha:
>
> We all make assumptions so here is the other side of your
> assumption.
> I'll raise it as a question. Is it possible for an individual to libel an
> organization?
> And for all I know, Eckankar did overreact to the paper. It's possible.
>
Len... The ONLY way that we can know for sure what the facts are is if David
Lane published what Jim Peebles wrote... After all he said he was talking to
him last year at some Baptist Church... So he should be able to access this
info fairly easily...
But he won't?
I wonder why?
Love
Michael
Nathan Zafran
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:21:20 GMT, ezaf...@home.com (Nathan Zafran)
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:59:54 GMT, dave50am...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>>I see some very shameful behavior here on the part of Darwin, and
>>eckankar.
>
>
>>To: Nathan
>>Okay, you are pretty funny. I just can't get into the heavy tone of
>>damnation.
>
>Neither can I get into the kinds of negative statements against
>Eckankar that you just made.
>
>If you can agree to stop making public statements like that, I can
>agree to go easier on my parodies of Davie-boy. If you can't,
>neither can I.
----------------------------------------------
I misunderstood who posted the previous message which I responded to.
I mistakenly thought it was Doug Marman who made the statements ( I
was looking too hard at the header to see that it was this other
Dave).
Now that I see that it was this other Dave who made that statement
about Eckankar, I retract everything I said in the above post.
Instead, my response to the comment about me is the following:
Thanks for thinking I am funny. As regards the heavy tone of
damnation, I prefere to call it serious parody, and I have no
intention of stopping. I have little respect for David Lane, and I
enjoy occasionally poking fun at him. He deserves it. And if you don't
like it, don't read my posts.
Nathan
Mahavahana
<wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dave50am...@my-deja.com>
>
> > You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
> > myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
>
> In truth Dave... What you are really doing is trying to put Darwin into
> "your"
> place.
?
>
> > In the Peebles matter we cannot have all the facts. You seem to agree
> > that Eckankar obtained their copy of Peebles paper using fraudulant
> > representation, and then used this to sue him. You don't dispute this
> > do you?
>
> "fruadulent representation" is the term MOST people use in regards the SCP,
> Dave.
How do you know this to be true Michael?
And in any case, what does this have to do with Eckankar Clergyman Mike
Noe, and Eckankar's, actions in respect to obtain Peeble's paper under
false pretenses?
Perhaps you need to take another look at what Doug wrote, and maybe
> things
> will read differently on the second or third revision.
Dave's question was quite clear, and was in reference to Eckankar's MO
in obtaining Peeble's paper.
>
> >
>
> > I seem some very shameful behavior here on the part of Darwin, and
> > eckankar.
>
> You have seen what you "believe" to be shameful behaviour... And shameful by
> whose standards?
Eckankar suing an eckist for writing a school paper? Suing that Eckist
-- a 20 year old college student -- for a million dollars?
For a paper? A paper that wasn't even published?
Shame, where IS thy blush!
Again the entire issue with Jim Peebles is utterly unclear
> largely because the only person who really had close information to the
> events
> appears to refuse to send in the details.
>
> That's David Lane.
How do you know this is so?
Weren't you in contact with Jim Peebles Michael? Can't you email him
back and ask him for details? <g>
>
> The Eckankar office no doubt has reference to this matter, but they are not
> involved in this discussion, and I have no idea if confidentiality
> agreements
> are in place or otherwise.
>
> David Lane is the only person who can shed some light on this matter, and he
> seem incapable or unwilling to do so. That, in my book, is shameful.
I see. So if Eckankar has all the details and keeps mum, that's
perfectly okay with you.
But if a non-Eckist has the details doesn't disclose them, that's
"shameful."
Right.
No doubt all the details of the case are confidential Michael. If you
can't get these details from Eckankar org, why blame Lane?
Mahavahana
> Mahavahana wrote:
>
> > I hope that all here take a moment, and do a little guided "Soul
> > Travel" exercise. Here we go:
> >
> > *** Imagine yourself a 20 year old college student . . . who has just
> > learned he's being sued for a million dollars by . . . the well-heeled
> > religious organization he belongs to . . . for simply writing a class
> > paper
>
> that had libelous defamation in it
>
> > and faced with the alternatives, he has
> > little choice but to settle out of court...
>
> Paying court costs isn't a guilty verdict. This is true. We have no
> evidence to draw conclusions *either* way. But the question still
> lingers... if Peebles was truly innocent of defamations as charged, why
> did David Lane with hold the outcome of the case for so long if not to
> cover up Peebles culpability?
Read the thread title Rich.
Paying court costs isn't a Guilty Verdict.
This means that Peebles *wasn't* culpable (guilty), simply because he
paid court costs.
Paying court costs isn't necessarily an admission of culpability.
Whatever you think of Peebles, give him a break.
Don't start up with saying he was "culpable," or any other such term
that implies guilt.
Mahavahana
Michael, you said that Peebles contacted you and told you he was now an
Eckist.
You should be able to access this info fairly easily...
But you won't?
I wonder why? (not really)
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
http://www.csun.edu/~hbjou017/cults/ekonkar/
The major points of the Peebles case are these:
Peebles was an Eckist; he wrote a SCHOOL PAPER about Darwin and
Eckankar, a paper that wasn't published by Peebles or anyone.
Eckankar sued Peebles for a million dollars for writing this school
paper.
And Eckankar obtained the paper under false pretenses.
KMerrymoon
Thanks for the response. Although I can see that we have different viewpoints
on these matters, it seemed to me that your note was written repectfully. I
appreciate that.
First, yes, I actually read Paul's private papers. Not all of them all the way
through, but I got a chance to go through all of them and read a good portion
of them. So, I do have a farily good sense of what's there.
I can see the scenario you've painted, and why you might guess that Gail would
have known everything, and therefore Darwin would have. From what I know,
however, I would guess differently. I would say that Paul was writing long
before he met Gail, and I don't see him running his stuff by Gail before he
would publish it. And I don't see Paul discussing what he was doing in his
writings with Gail.
I think Gail listened to Paul, and probably read most of his writings, because
she enjoyed Paul and his creativity. But I always had a sense that Gail was
somewhat standing on the outside looking in at all that Paul was creating. I
think she was truly surprised to find out his real age after he died.
What she did know, however, was the relationship that Paul had with Kirpal
Singh, since she herself met Kirpal. And I did see some letters from Paul to
Premananda, from the fifties, so that was in his files. But you'll see later in
the book why I don't believe these teachers were some dark secret that Paul was
trying to cover up.
As far as Darwin's response, remember, David Lane's material was not delivered
in a neutral, objective manner. Even David admits this. He didn't weigh the
evidence and point to the many possible scenarios and leave the conclusions up
to the reader. He didn't encourage respect for Paul, no matter whatever he
might have done. In fact, the accusations that David made against Paul were so
negative that anyone who knew Paul could only possibly see them as an attack on
Paul. Whether there were some real facts mixed in or not, it did not paint a
true picture of Paul, who he was, or what the teachings of ECKANKAR were all
about.
So why is it so surprising that Darwin would respond to it as an attack? I'm
not saying that you or I would have responded in the same way, but I certainly
find it understandable. And that's based upon the little I know about it.
Neither of us hardly know all the facts. So why should we be passing judgement
on Darwin? Or David Lane, for that matter?
The problem with publicly passing judgement on someone else, is that we can
become frozen in the way we see them from then on. It becomes harder for us to
change the way we see them as we learn new things. In other words, we become
stuck and stop growing in our relationship with that person. They become a
thing to us, and not a person anymore. When this happens, a piece of us stops
growing spiritually, as well.
I've had a bit more experience with legal matters than I care to have, just
like you. My guess is that the Peebles matter was settled on both sides with a
stipulation that the settlement could not be discussed. That's why the files
would be sealed. Lane, Peebles and ECKANKAR would not be allowed to speak about
it without opening themselves up to serious damages. As you say, that tells us
nothing about who did what or who is guilty of what. The only thing we can
conclude from this is that both sides mutually agreed to bury the term paper
and drop the charges.
For you to say that Darwin acted shamefully about this surprises me, since
neither of us have enough information to say what happened. However, the
Peebles paper was hardly as innocent as David portrayed. It was hardly sitting
silently in some file. David had referred to it in his term paper, and the SCP
was on the trail for any dirt they could find, whether it was true or not. It
may have been written somewhat innocently by Peebles, but it still could have
been libelous, and it certainly got caught up in a bigger matter where it was
being used as a weapon, which Peebles may never have intended for it to be.
All for now
Doug.
neural...@my-deja.com
"Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dave50am...@my-deja.com>
>
> > You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
> > myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
>
> In truth Dave... What you are really doing is trying to put Darwin
into
> "your"
> place.
>
agree
> > that Eckankar obtained their copy of Peebles paper using fraudulant
> > representation, and then used this to sue him. You don't dispute
this
> > do you?
>
> "fruadulent representation" is the term MOST people use in regards
the SCP,
maybe
> things
> will read differently on the second or third revision.
>
> >
>
> > eckankar.
>
> You have seen what you "believe" to be shameful behaviour... And
shameful by
unclear
> largely because the only person who really had close information to
the
> events
> appears to refuse to send in the details.
>
> That's David Lane.
>
are not
> involved in this discussion, and I have no idea if confidentiality
> agreements
> are in place or otherwise.
>
> David Lane is the only person who can shed some light on this matter,
and he
> seem incapable or unwilling to do so. That, in my book, is shameful.
>
> >
> > know over what period of time that was.
> >
> >
> > Okay, you are pretty funny. I just can't get into the heavy tone of
> > damnation.
>
>
> But Nathan IS hitting that funny bone lately <G>
>
> Love
>
> Michael
> >
>
>
neural...@my-deja.com
Dear Michael:
You keep saying that I won't engage your arguments or elaborate about
this or that issue (concerning Jim Peebles).
I am most happy to do so.
Indeed, I am doing my best to respond to Doug's critique.
So, I really don't get your point.
Feel most free to ask me anything.
But I don't like posting on this newsgroup, after having done it for
some 5 years.
Why?
It is WAY too time-consuming.
So why not do what Doug is doing and then I can systematically respond
the best way I can.
I love these kinds of debates/exchanges.
As for Jim Peebles.
Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
Michael Wallace
I went to reply to a message from Joe...
It must be Troll Allergic.
Joe... You do not address the issue at hand, of course. And your presumption
as to why I do not contact Jim Peebles myself is ludicrous. As you well
know... He wrote to me some years ago, several computers ago, and I don't
have his return address.
Please be assured if I had this address I would have written LONG ago.
But nice trolling for someone no one appears to like. It is truly amazing
how you manage to keep up this solo vendetta of anger.
Love
Michael
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote in message
news:740x4.1571$A4.1...@c01read04.service.talkway.com...
Michael Wallace
Nathan Zafran <ezaf...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38c47174...@news.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com...
> Thanks for thinking I am funny. As regards the heavy tone of
> damnation, I prefere to call it serious parody, and I have no
> intention of stopping. I have little respect for David Lane, and I
> enjoy occasionally poking fun at him. He deserves it. And if you don't
> like it, don't read my posts.
It is an important point. People with years of experience with David Lane on
line often respect his ability to wiggle out of corners, and come up with
marvellous sophistry, but few respect his writing ability in "Making" or the
manner in which he reached his conclusions.
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:17:05 +1000 "Michael Wallace"
> <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <dave50am...@my-deja.com>
> >
> > > You may say this is mere guess work. True,but really I am putting
> > > myself in Darwin's place, using my own experience as a back drop.
> >
> > In truth Dave... What you are really doing is trying to put Darwin into
> > "your"
> > place.
>
>
Too Deep?
Oh well...
Love
M
>
Michael Wallace
<neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a2gp1$9uq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38c4...@pink.one.net.au>,
> "Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
>
Again the entire issue with Jim Peebles is utterly unclear
> > largely because the only person who really had close information to
> the events appears to refuse to send in the details.
> >
> > That's David Lane.
>
> the best way I can.
Sure... Why haven't you put in place exactly what it is that you are talking
about?
What DID Jim Peebles write... Do you have an actual copy of this paper?? To
date all we have in this area is air, and opinions about the results. No
facts, no information... just assertions.
It isn't a very difficult question.
> I love these kinds of debates/exchanges.
>
> As for Jim Peebles.
>
> Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
So?
Do you have a problem with this? If I insult my neighbour, and he sues me...
Then I am supposed to say "But you are my neighbour... You can't do that!"
And where does this sort of logic end up... He was an AMERCIAN, and another
AMERICAN Sued him... He was a HUMAN... etc etc.
So far all I have heard is air and opinions about a matter of a corporation
suing an individual who "apparently" offered slander against the corporate
entity. For someone who states they understand Law, I am sure you must
realise the obligation of corporate entities to protect their rights.
For my part, I suspect you have confused the teaching with the business. To
presume they are one and the same simply shows a lack of understanding of
the obvious.
Did you hear what the Catholic Church recently did to a Beer Company that
had a commercial that was a "slight" parody of confession? The Bishop of
Sydney *publically* stated he would close them down "And not through Legal
Means" if they did not stop it forthwith.
Is this a reflection on Catholic Belief... Or Catholic Structure?
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
KMerrymoon <kmerr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000307013051...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
In fact, the accusations that David made against Paul were so
> negative that anyone who knew Paul could only possibly see them as an
attack on
> Paul. Whether there were some real facts mixed in or not, it did not paint
a
> true picture of Paul, who he was, or what the teachings of ECKANKAR were
all
> about.
>
This is a very relevant point. However, I also suspect David Lane actually
saw things at the time in much the way he chose to write them... Which is to
say, with a fair degree of bias. Not surprising... He was a young man at the
time.
> I've had a bit more experience with legal matters than I care to have,
just
> like you. My guess is that the Peebles matter was settled on both sides
with a
> stipulation that the settlement could not be discussed. That's why the
files
> would be sealed. Lane, Peebles and ECKANKAR would not be allowed to speak
about
> it without opening themselves up to serious damages. As you say, that
tells us
> nothing about who did what or who is guilty of what. The only thing we can
> conclude from this is that both sides mutually agreed to bury the term
paper
> and drop the charges.
If David Lane knew what was in the papers, and knew he was not allowed to
discuss them... Would it not be fair to say that he would have mentioned
this by now?
"If" the person who wrote to me claiming to be Jim Peebles was even related
to the man, the fellow seemed extremely reticent to talk about this aspect.
In fact, he wouldn't. So I remain curious... What "was" it Mr Peebles
actually wrote?
Without hard evidence, David Lane's assertions on this subject remain
extremely fragile.
>
> For you to say that Darwin acted shamefully about this surprises me, since
> neither of us have enough information to say what happened. However, the
> Peebles paper was hardly as innocent as David portrayed. It was hardly
sitting
> silently in some file. David had referred to it in his term paper, and the
SCP
> was on the trail for any dirt they could find, whether it was true or not.
It
> may have been written somewhat innocently by Peebles, but it still could
have
> been libelous, and it certainly got caught up in a bigger matter where it
was
> being used as a weapon, which Peebles may never have intended for it to
be.
I recall someone here (Was it George?) who said he had bumped into Jim
Peebles in those early days, and the impression he had was of an angry young
man ... But I have no idea, of course.
The simple fact is, many people say and do things in their youth that they
regret in later years. Unless we hear from Jim Peebles, or see at least what
he wrote... Then this entire senario is based on Hearsay.
Thanks again Doug... I always appreciate your insight.
Love
Michael
Rich
> Dear Michael:
>
> You keep saying that I won't engage your arguments or elaborate about
> this or that issue (concerning Jim Peebles).
He's right. That's exactly what you did again in _this_ post David.
> I am most happy to do so.
>
> Indeed, I am doing my best to respond to Doug's critique.
>
> So, I really don't get your point.
>
> Feel most free to ask me anything.
>
> But I don't like posting on this newsgroup, after having done it for
> some 5 years.
>
> Why?
>
> It is WAY too time-consuming.
Why? Because you are called to task on all your assumptions, innuendo
opinions and dodges?
> So why not do what Doug is doing and then I can systematically respond
> the best way I can.
>
> I love these kinds of debates/exchanges.
The why did you ignore Michael's, mine and others questions? Forget the
debates David. All we'd like are some straight forward answers.
> As for Jim Peebles.
>
> Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
This is great David, completely avoid this issue. Shouting that Peebles
was an Eckist as if nobody here knew that? This trying to imply some
wrong doing on Eckankar's part is a very transparent dodge. Or are you
saying that because he maintained a member in Eckankar, that Eckankar
should not have held him accountable for his defamation? Weak David,
really weak.
Professor I Q Autisticofsky
>Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
I have been sent by the Lairds of Kerma to determine David Lane's IQ
and makek a general assessment about his mental skills.
After reading Doug's excellent comments on the above statement, it is
clear that David Lane has blatatantly ignored it, and continued in his
usual autistic manner pretending to be able to think logically, but,
of course, failing miserably. After observing him for about 25 years,
the only coherent thoughts I have been able to detect is when he is
worried about paying the rent and when he is trying to figure out
whether to use a fork or spoon to stir his coffee. Other than these
two situations, he has been unable to form clear concise logical
thoughts. He attempts all the time to make sense, but falls flat on
his face each time. I understand that his nose has become a pancake
from all the face-falls. Well, no need for David to try to save his
face, is there? Unfortunately, we can't tell if he is lying by looking
at his nose, since it is too flat to grow each time he lies. However,
he stinks a little bit more each time, so if you're aware of smell,
you'll know if he's lying. Right now, he makes the garbage dump smell
like roses.
I therefore give him a hundred pounds of sour grapes as compensation
for his stupidity and inability to understand anything whatsoever
about logic and reason. David, if you can understand English, please
go to the back porch, look inside the garbage can, and you will see
the grapes. Take them out, wash them thoroughly, and put them into the
refrigerator. Eat them at your leisure.
Oh, and by the way, I assign you an IQ of 2, which is double the IQ
that was assigned to you previously by a renowned colleague of mine.
This puts you on a par with wild iguanas from east Mozambique. Not
bad, don't you think? Oops, I forgot! You can't do that skill yet.
Professor I Q Autisticofsky
neural...@my-deja.com
How David Lane met Jim Peebles
It was back in 1977 and I was taking a sect and cults class with
Professor Happ at CSUN.
Jim Peebles, an Eckist, was also enrolled in the class.
Our assignment was to write a term paper on a new religion. Peebles and
I picked Eckankar.
In addition, we were supposed to present the key features of our paper
in front of class.
Given this connection, Peebles and I became friendly.
He was a devout Ekist at the time.
After finding out about the research of Dr. John Sutphin, an Eckist and
a Professor of Philosophy in the South, I told Peebles about some
interesting developments.
We tend to forget about Dr. Sutphin, who is now deceased, but he was
INSTRUMENTAL in getting some of the hidden history out to the public.
Sutphin was shocked to see the blatant plagiarism in Twitchell's books
and the duplicity of Brad Steiger's biography.
So much so that he wrote to Steiger and Eckankar (while an Ekist). I
will try to scan his letters in later this week.
So Peebles and I began discussing our term papers.
My first term paper, lest we forget, was NOT the Making of a Spiritual
Movement. That came a year later when I did an independent studies
project.
So Peebles' paper on the whole was quite positive, while mine was
exploring this hidden history as unearthed by my research and
Sutphin's, Pecen's, and others.
We gave a joint presentation on Eckankar. Peebles as an Ekist from the
inside; mine as the outsider with a critical bent.
We turned in our term papers to Professor Happ.
Mine was upwards of a 100 pages.
Peebles was 12 pages long.
Ironically, it was only AFTER Peebles had finished his term paper
(which he wrote as A GOOD STANDING ECKIST) that he began to have doubts
about Eckankar and its teachings/history.
This paper apparently came to the attention of Eckankar officials
through my own work which cited a section or two from Peebles'
narrative.
Eckankar sued Peebles, L.A. Baptist College, and Ed Gruss.
Why?
Peebles, who was born a Baptist (if I am not mistaken), had given a
copy to Gruss.
When Noe tried to secure a copy of Peebles' paper he was informed that
Gruss may have had a copy in his files.
Thus Gruss, under the false impression that Mike Noe was a member of
SCP, provided one xerox copy of Peebles' paper.
After that incident, a lawsuit was commenced.
Why Eckankar was so concerned with this term paper is unusual to say
the least.
It was not going to see the light of day and indeed was more or less
forgotten by all concerned.
Eckankar has, unwittingly, kept Jim Peebles and his 12 page term paper
ALIVE to this very day because of its lawsuit.
Jim Peebles is NOT an Eckankar member anymore.
Mahavahana
> Dave50americanpie,
>
> Thanks for the response. Although I can see that we have different viewpoints
> on these matters, it seemed to me that your note was written repectfully. I
> appreciate that.
>
> First, yes, I actually read Paul's private papers. Not all of them all the way
> through, but I got a chance to go through all of them and read a good portion
> of them. So, I do have a farily good sense of what's there.
>
> I can see the scenario you've painted, and why you might guess that Gail would
> have known everything, and therefore Darwin would have. From what I know,
> however, I would guess differently. I would say that Paul was writing long
> before he met Gail, and I don't see him running his stuff by Gail before he
> would publish it. And I don't see Paul discussing what he was doing in his
> writings with Gail.
Why not?
>
> I think Gail listened to Paul, and probably read most of his writings, because
> she enjoyed Paul and his creativity. But I always had a sense that Gail was
> somewhat standing on the outside looking in at all that Paul was creating. I
> think she was truly surprised to find out his real age after he died.
I got the same sense about Gail Doug, even though I never met her.
>
> What she did know, however, was the relationship that Paul had with Kirpal
> Singh, since she herself met Kirpal. And I did see some letters from Paul to
> Premananda, from the fifties, so that was in his files. But you'll see later in
> the book why I don't believe these teachers were some dark secret that Paul was
> trying to cover up.
Nevertheless, cover up these teachers he did! That's un-controvertible.
>
> As far as Darwin's response, remember, David Lane's material was not delivered
> in a neutral, objective manner. Even David admits this. He didn't weigh the
> evidence and point to the many possible scenarios and leave the conclusions up
> to the reader.
2 questions Doug.
What are these "other possible scenarios" for what Paulji did?
And, do you consider your new book neutral and objective?
He didn't encourage respect for Paul, no matter whatever he
> might have done.
Do you realize what you're saying here Doug?
Look at your sentence again.
A critic should "encourage respect" for the subject of his criticism,
NO MATTER WHATEVER HE MIGHT HAVE DONE?
That's what you saw lacking from Lane's critique of Eckankar?
Unqualified respect?
We should encourage respect for any leader of any religion, simply
because some people like these leaders?
John-Roger? Thakar Singh? David Koresh? Moon? Kriyananda? Sai Baba?
In fact, the accusations that David made against Paul were so
> negative that anyone who knew Paul could only possibly see them as an attack on
> Paul.
Consider this Doug.
What Paul did was . . . wrong.
That's the thing most Eckist have a problem with; that's the thing that
just can't swallow.
What Paulji did was just, plain, wrong.
So, what do they do?
They try and find fault with the person who pointed out Paulji's
defects.
This is called "transference" in psychological circles.
Whether there were some real facts mixed in or not, it did not paint a
> true picture of Paul, who he was, or what the teachings of ECKANKAR were all
> about.
>
> So why is it so surprising that Darwin would respond to it as an attack? I'm
> not saying that you or I would have responded in the same way, but I certainly
> find it understandable. And that's based upon the little I know about it.
> Neither of us hardly know all the facts. So why should we be passing judgement
> on Darwin? Or David Lane, for that matter?
I thought you just passed judgment on Lane . . .
>
> The problem with publicly passing judgement on someone else, is that we can
> become frozen in the way we see them from then on. It becomes harder for us to
> change the way we see them as we learn new things. In other words, we become
> stuck and stop growing in our relationship with that person. They become a
> thing to us, and not a person anymore. When this happens, a piece of us stops
> growing spiritually, as well.
Oh.
You sure know a great deal about spirituality Doug.
>
> I've had a bit more experience with legal matters than I care to have, just
> like you. My guess is that the Peebles matter was settled on both sides with a
> stipulation that the settlement could not be discussed.
I suspect you're right.
That's why the files
> would be sealed. Lane, Peebles and ECKANKAR would not be allowed to speak about
> it without opening themselves up to serious damages. As you say, that tells us
> nothing about who did what or who is guilty of what.
Yes.
The only thing we can
> conclude from this is that both sides mutually agreed to bury the term paper
> and drop the charges.
Yes, I agree with you here 100% Doug.
>
> For you to say that Darwin acted shamefully about this surprises me, since
> neither of us have enough information to say what happened.
Here I disagree, for I feel we do have enough information.
However, the
> Peebles paper was hardly as innocent as David portrayed. It was hardly sitting
> silently in some file.
What was Peeble's paper doing, exactly? Do you have new info on this
Doug?
The paper hadn't been published.
It was a class paper.
It was sitting in Prof. Gruss's office.
David had referred to it in his term paper, and the SCP
> was on the trail for any dirt they could find, whether it was true or not. It
> may have been written somewhat innocently by Peebles, but it still could have
> been libelous, and it certainly got caught up in a bigger matter where it was
> being used as a weapon, which Peebles may never have intended for it to be.
I have no idea if your suppositions are correct here Doug. Lane can
answer this one.
All I can say is that Eckankar's "pre-emptive strike" against Peebles
and Gruss was apparently an action of *extreme* paranoia and insecurity.
neural...@my-deja.com
> > > largely because the only person who really had close information
to
> > the events appears to refuse to send in the details.
> > >
> > > That's David Lane.
> >
respond
> > the best way I can.
>
talking
> about?
>
> What DID Jim Peebles write... Do you have an actual copy of this
paper?? To
> date all we have in this area is air, and opinions about the results.
No
> facts, no information... just assertions.
>
> It isn't a very difficult question.
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Yes, I did in fact have a copy of Peebles' paper for several years. I
would imagine that I might still have it somewhere or it may have been
lost in the robbery of my home.
>
> > I love these kinds of debates/exchanges.
> >
> > As for Jim Peebles.
> >
> > Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
>
> So?
>
> Do you have a problem with this? If I insult my neighbour, and he
sues me...
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I have no problem with Jim Peebles being an Eckist at the time of
writing his paper, but I certainly do have a problem with a religion
that would sue one of its own for a million plus dollars over a 12 page
term paper.
And secured such a term paper under a false pretense.
You see, there is really something fucked up about suing a 20 year old
Ekist who really believed in Eckankar.
Don't you get it?
There was nothing benign about it.
neural...@my-deja.com
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Michael:
> >
> > You keep saying that I won't engage your arguments or elaborate
about
> > this or that issue (concerning Jim Peebles).
>
> He's right. That's exactly what you did again in _this_ post David.
>
> > I am most happy to do so.
> >
> > Indeed, I am doing my best to respond to Doug's critique.
> >
> > So, I really don't get your point.
> >
> > Feel most free to ask me anything.
> >
> > But I don't like posting on this newsgroup, after having done it for
> > some 5 years.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > It is WAY too time-consuming.
>
> Why? Because you are called to task on all your assumptions, innuendo
> opinions and dodges?
>
respond
> > the best way I can.
> >
>
the
> debates David. All we'd like are some straight forward answers.
>
> >
> > Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
>
Peebles
> was an Eckist as if nobody here knew that? This trying to imply some
> wrong doing on Eckankar's part is a very transparent dodge. Or are
you
> saying that because he maintained a member in Eckankar, that Eckankar
> should not have held him accountable for his defamation? Weak David,
> really weak.
>
> --
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
What is there to avoid?
Peebles wrote the paper as an Eckist in a PRO MANNER.
He loved Eckankar. He loved Darwin.
He didn't write the paper as a critique.
He loved his religion.
I know because I was there when he found out the hidden story.
He was devastated.
Then Eckankar sued him over information that he claimed he had gotten
from his own fellow Ekists.
He wasn't trying to defame anyone but rather trying his naive best to
finish a term paper (12 pages) for a class in as an objective a manner
as he knew how, given his limitations.
It was a pro-Eckankar piece.
Eckankar sued him, Gruss, and L.A. Baptist College for a million plus.
Peebles didn't intend to defame anyone.
He loved his religion.
You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
Ironically, it has kept Peebles' paper and name alive for 20 years.
neural...@my-deja.com
ezaf...@home.com (Professor I Q Autisticofsky) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:05:39 GMT, neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
Well, thanks for the compliments.
One glitch:
I don't drink coffee.
neural...@my-deja.com
saxm...@bellsouth.net wrote:> > As for Jim Peebles.
> >
> > Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
> >
>
>
So when a 20 year old who loves his religion writes a postive term
paper on his group (try reading the paper; it is not a rip), he should
get sued for a million dollars if what he writes is in disagreement
with the official biography?
Think for a second.
Is this wise?
Is this kind?
Is this necessary?
Peebles loved his religion and he thought he was writing a positive
paper on his group.
He certainly didn't want to rip them.
Yet, he got ripped in the end.
Sorry, I was there.
I saw what Eckankar did to this guy over a 12 page term paper that is
on the whole PRO eck.
neural...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> Dave50americanpie,
>
> Thanks for the response. Although I can see that we have different
viewpoints
> on these matters, it seemed to me that your note was written
repectfully. I
> appreciate that.
>
> First, yes, I actually read Paul's private papers. Not all of them
all the way
> through, but I got a chance to go through all of them and read a good
portion
> of them. So, I do have a farily good sense of what's there.
>
> I can see the scenario you've painted, and why you might guess that
Gail would
> have known everything, and therefore Darwin would have. From what I
know,
> however, I would guess differently. I would say that Paul was writing
long
> before he met Gail, and I don't see him running his stuff by Gail
before he
> would publish it. And I don't see Paul discussing what he was doing
in his
> writings with Gail.
>
writings, because
> she enjoyed Paul and his creativity. But I always had a sense that
Gail was
> somewhat standing on the outside looking in at all that Paul was
creating. I
> think she was truly surprised to find out his real age after he died.
>
Kirpal
> Singh, since she herself met Kirpal. And I did see some letters from
Paul to
> Premananda, from the fifties, so that was in his files. But you'll
see later in
> the book why I don't believe these teachers were some dark secret
that Paul was
> trying to cover up.
>
delivered
> in a neutral, objective manner. Even David admits this. He didn't
weigh the
> evidence and point to the many possible scenarios and leave the
conclusions up
whatever he
> might have done. In fact, the accusations that David made against
Paul were so
> negative that anyone who knew Paul could only possibly see them as an
attack on
paint a
> true picture of Paul, who he was, or what the teachings of ECKANKAR
were all
> about.
>
> So why is it so surprising that Darwin would respond to it as an
attack? I'm
> not saying that you or I would have responded in the same way, but I
certainly
> find it understandable. And that's based upon the little I know about
it.
> Neither of us hardly know all the facts. So why should we be passing
judgement
> on Darwin? Or David Lane, for that matter?
>
we can
> become frozen in the way we see them from then on. It becomes harder
for us to
> change the way we see them as we learn new things. In other words, we
become
> stuck and stop growing in our relationship with that person. They
become a
> thing to us, and not a person anymore. When this happens, a piece of
us stops
> growing spiritually, as well.
>
have, just
> like you. My guess is that the Peebles matter was settled on both
sides with a
the files
> would be sealed. Lane, Peebles and ECKANKAR would not be allowed to
speak about
> it without opening themselves up to serious damages. As you say, that
tells us
we can
> conclude from this is that both sides mutually agreed to bury the
term paper
> and drop the charges.
>
since
the
> Peebles paper was hardly as innocent as David portrayed. It was
hardly sitting
and the SCP
> was on the trail for any dirt they could find, whether it was true or
not. It
> may have been written somewhat innocently by Peebles, but it still
could have
> been libelous, and it certainly got caught up in a bigger matter
where it was
> being used as a weapon, which Peebles may never have intended for it
to be.
>
>
> Doug.
First, Gail not only met Kirpal Singh. She was initiated by him in 1963.
Second, Peebles' paper was innocent.
You see, Peebles wrote a PRO-Eckankar term paper. That is why I
mentioned his alliance with Eck.
Third, there is no gag order whatsoever on me about Peebles' case.
Indeed, I have no gag order on me about anything from any cult or
religion.
Fourth, Eckankar's REACTION to Peebles' paper was extraordinarily
disproportionate to the accusations of defamation.
For those who lived during that time and were privy to the ins and outs
it was obvious that the lawsuit was a smokescreen.
I am in the process of securing the documents from that time period and
let us see what information they provide.
Keep up the good work Doug.
You have a nice and a polite way of discussing these issues which makes
it fruitful for all concerned.
R. Floyd Pickett
neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am in the process of securing the documents from that time period and
> let us see what information they provide.
This sounds like the most fruiful approach to the matter. Let us review the primary
document rather than rely on your 22 year-old memories.
rfp
--
The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects
is that science requires reasoning while those other
subjects merely require scholarship.
-- Robert Heinlein
Rich
> What is there to avoid?
That Peebles paper did in fact contain defamatory statements is the
obvious answer.
> Peebles wrote the paper as an Eckist in a PRO MANNER.
>
> He loved Eckankar. He loved Darwin.
>
> He didn't write the paper as a critique.
Are saying that he wrote the paper before he you told him your "hidden
story"?
> He loved his religion.
>
> I know because I was there when he found out the hidden story.
>
> He was devastated.
>
> Then Eckankar sued him over information that he claimed he had gotten
> from his own fellow Ekists.
So are saying that he wrote the paper after "he found out the hidden
story"?
> He wasn't trying to defame anyone but rather trying his naive best to
> finish a term paper (12 pages) for a class in as an objective a manner
> as he knew how, given his limitations.
"wasn't _trying_ to"? But he must have for Eckankar to sue for
defamation.
> It was a pro-Eckankar piece.
>
> Eckankar sued him, Gruss, and L.A. Baptist College for a million plus.
>
> Peebles didn't intend to defame anyone.
"didn't intend"? But he did, didn't he? You read the paper. Could any
of what he wrote be construed to be legally defamatory? Will you avoid
these direct questions too?
> He loved his religion.
>
> You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
No David, what is key, is whether the paper contained statements that
were legally defamatory.
> Ironically, it has kept Peebles' paper and name alive for 20 years.
That's absolutely ridiculous David! If the paper was pro-Eckankar why
would Eckankar sue? You have tried to suggest that it was to get back
at you for your paper. Give us some credit for a bit of intelligence
and common sense. You are not talking to your malleable college kids
here.
Rich
>
> In article <38c4...@pink.one.net.au>,
> "Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > <neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8a2gp1$9uq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <38c4...@pink.one.net.au>,
> > > "Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > Again the entire issue with Jim Peebles is utterly unclear
> > > > largely because the only person who really had close information
> to
> > > the events appears to refuse to send in the details.
> > > >
> > > > That's David Lane.
> > >
> respond
> > > the best way I can.
> >
> talking
> > about?
> >
> > What DID Jim Peebles write... Do you have an actual copy of this
> paper?? To
> > date all we have in this area is air, and opinions about the results.
> No
> > facts, no information... just assertions.
> >
> > It isn't a very difficult question.
>
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Yes, I did in fact have a copy of Peebles' paper for several years. I
> would imagine that I might still have it somewhere or it may have been
> lost in the robbery of my home.
> >
> > >
> > > As for Jim Peebles.
> > >
> > > Let us not forget HE WAS AN ECKIST WHEN HE WROTE HIS PAPER.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a problem with this? If I insult my neighbour, and he
> sues me...
>
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> I have no problem with Jim Peebles being an Eckist at the time of
> writing his paper, but I certainly do have a problem with a religion
> that would sue one of its own for a million plus dollars over a 12 page
> term paper.
>
> And secured such a term paper under a false pretense.
>
> You see, there is really something fucked up about suing a 20 year old
> Ekist who really believed in Eckankar.
>
> Don't you get it?
>
> There was nothing benign about it.
Still avoiding answers to the only important questions David.
Was there anything in Peebles paper that could be construed to be legal
defamation?
If there was not. What plausible reason would there be for Eckankar to
sue him?
Rich
Rich
> So when a 20 year old who loves his religion writes a postive term
> paper on his group (try reading the paper; it is not a rip), he should
> get sued for a million dollars if what he writes is in disagreement
> with the official biography?
>
> Think for a second.
>
> Is this wise?
> Is this kind?
> Is this necessary?
Exactly! The "disagreement" being legally defamatory would be the only
reasonable explanation.
Jackie
>
> Eckankar sued him, Gruss, and L.A. Baptist College for a million plus.
>
> Peebles didn't intend to defame anyone.
>
>
> You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
>
Now I get it, it's a debate pro or con Eckankar the organization, since
none of your debates or arguments are about the "principles" of spirit.
--
With love, Jackie
An Introductory Welcome to ECKANKAR
ECKANKAR Main Web Site:
http://www.eckankar.org
ECKANKAR Table of Content:
http://www.eckankar.org/content.html
ECKANKAR, Ancient Wisdom for Today:
http://www.eckankar.org/freeBook.html
KMerrymoon
<2 questions Doug.
<What are these "other possible scenarios" for what Paulji did?
<And, do you consider your new book neutral and objective?>
DOUG:
I will offer what I believe are more accurate scenarios in my book, and I will
try to back up why I believe they make more sense.
As far as neutrality and objectivity go, I can assure you that I raise these
very subjects in the coming chapters, point out the difficulties and what these
terms really mean. Exploring these very issues is an important part of what it
means to learn from dialogue in this age of criticism.
I ORIGINALLY WROTE:
>He didn't encourage respect for Paul, no matter whatever he
> might have done.
JOE:
<Do you realize what you're saying here Doug?
<Look at your sentence again.
<A critic should "encourage respect" for the subject of his criticism,
<NO MATTER WHATEVER HE MIGHT HAVE DONE?
<That's what you saw lacking from Lane's critique of Eckankar?
<Unqualified respect?
<We should encourage respect for any leader of any religion, simply
<because some people like these leaders?
<John-Roger? Thakar Singh? David Koresh? Moon? Kriyananda? Sai Baba?
DOUG:
Is the respect of others such a difficult matter to comprehend?
Wouldn't you prefer others to respect you? Do you think others can respect you
when you have no respect for them?
The point here is that we can be critical of practices, behaviors, beliefs,
habits, but this doesn't mean we need to be critical of the people who do these
things. If you have problems with the above spiritual leaders, is it because of
who they are or what they have done?
Shouldn't we respect each person's right to choose what they believe is the
right thing for them to do in their lives? Shouldn't that respect be
unqualified?
Even if we find ourselves at war with others, that doesn't mean we cannot
respect them as people, with the right to make their own choices. It is this
kind of respect for Paul Twitchell and his teaching that I find almost
completely lacking in David's book.
JOE:
<Consider this Doug.
<What Paul did was . . . wrong.
<That's the thing most Eckist have a problem with; that's the thing that
<just can't swallow.
<What Paulji did was just, plain, wrong.>
DOUG:
Consider this, Joe.
I have considered what you said. <G>
Okay, I'll say something else here. My conclusion? Nothing Paul did was plain.
It was always full of flavor.
The Sant Mat definition of wrong is that which leads Soul away from God and the
higher worlds. Using this definition, would you really say that Paul was just
plain wrong?
Mahavahana
<hu4...@home.and.inthe.godworlds> wrote:
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Eckankar sued him, Gruss, and L.A. Baptist College for a million plus.
> >
> > Peebles didn't intend to defame anyone.
> >
> > He loved his religion.
> >
> > You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
> >
> > Ironically, it has kept Peebles' paper and name alive for 20 years.
>
> Now I get it, it's a debate pro or con Eckankar the organization, since
> none of your debates or arguments are about the "principles" of spirit.
That a religious organization -- by the direct orders of the Living Eck
Master -- sues a professor and his 20 year old ECKIST student for
millions for a 12 page paper . . . that all says nothing about the
principles of spiritual living?
I think it says quite a lot Jackie.
It says a lot about Eckankar, and a lot about Eckankar's LEM.
And the attitudes of the Eckists of a.r.e. on this issue -- says a
mouthful about Spiritual Principles.
Baraka Bashad.
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
Mahavahana
> > He wasn't trying to defame anyone but rather trying his naive best to
> > finish a term paper (12 pages) for a class in as an objective a manner
> > as he knew how, given his limitations.
>
> "wasn't _trying_ to"? But he must have for Eckankar to sue for
> defamation.
Not necessarily Rich.
Perhaps just being honest about Darwin's life -- and honest about facts
that Darwin would rather not want publicized -- was all the reason
Darwin needed to sic Eckankar's lawyers on Peebles.
You keep thinking, and implying, that simply because Eckankar brought
suit against Peebles that Peebles was somehow guilty of something, or
that what was contained in Peebles' paper was factually incorrect.
You don't know that, like you obviously don't know much about the law.
>
>
> > It was a pro-Eckankar piece.
> >
> > Eckankar sued him, Gruss, and L.A. Baptist College for a million plus.
> >
> > Peebles didn't intend to defame anyone.
>
> "didn't intend"? But he did, didn't he? You read the paper. Could any
> of what he wrote be construed to be legally defamatory? Will you avoid
> these direct questions too?
>
>
> > He loved his religion.
> >
> > You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
>
> No David, what is key, is whether the paper contained statements that
> were legally defamatory.
Again, you're speaking as if you're assuming Peebles was found guilty
of in a court of law for slandering Darwin Gross.
That didn't happen.
The case never went to trial.
Peebles was never found guilty of anything.
You have no evidence to sustain your assumptions Rich. I wish you'd
stop playing schoolyard lawyer here.
>
>
> > Ironically, it has kept Peebles' paper and name alive for 20 years.
>
>
> That's absolutely ridiculous David! If the paper was pro-Eckankar why
> would Eckankar sue?
Again, it's quite possible that the paper contained facts that Darwin
didn't want publicized -- even though Peebles's paper wasn't ever
published.
It's quite possible that the paper was Pro Eckankar; yet contained info
about Darwin's past life that he would rather have wanted left alone.
The larger point here is that we have no evidence that Peeble's paper
was slanderous.
What we do have is evidence of strong-arm tactics by Darwin against an
Eckist.
You have tried to suggest that it was to get back
> at you for your paper. Give us some credit for a bit of intelligence
> and common sense. You are not talking to your malleable college kids
> here.
And I'm obviously not talking to someone who knows jack-diddly about
the law.
Mahavahana
> > paper on his group (try reading the paper; it is not a rip), he should
> > get sued for a million dollars if what he writes is in disagreement
> > with the official biography?
> >
> > Think for a second.
> >
> > Is this wise?
> > Is this kind?
> > Is this necessary?
>
> Exactly! The "disagreement" being legally defamatory would be the only
> reasonable explanation.
ONCE again Rich, you incorrectly assume that Peebles was found guilty
of defamation.
That's not so. I wish you'd stop implying it's so.
KMerrymoon
Why?
DOUG:
This was interesting David. Sounds very different from the picture you painted
in your book, however. You said:
"Eckankar sent one of their own officials, Mike Noe, down
to southern California to secure a copy of the twelve
page report, which claimed, among other things, that
Eckankar was skirting tax laws and that Darwin Gross
had fathered an illegitimate child."
So Jim Peebles was giving the devout ECKist view, eh?
I find it strange that in your book you painted the picture of ECKANKAR trying
to cover up more damaging information, but now suddenly Jim Peebles' paper was
nothing but innocence and light.
Michael Wallace
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38C4BC...@aloha.net...
> Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > Read the thread title Rich.
>
> Why?
>
> > Paying court costs isn't a Guilty Verdict.
>
> Helloooo? That's what *I* just* said! Boy Joe is really blinded by his
> need to attack and try to make Eckists look 'wrong'.
>
> > This means that Peebles *wasn't* culpable (guilty),
>
> What!? This guy must think all the reader here are really stupid. No
> trial - no verdict, neither guilty nor not guilty. But the question,
> which he misrepresented, is still unanswered.
>
The pressure of no one liking him must be beginning to tell...
It is a sad thing ...
However, I would like to stress one more time, NO ONE within cooee of this
place knows what Jim Peebles said, other than perhaps David Lane. He
apparently has not seen fit so far to elucidate this...
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
<neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a3mdr$58l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Rich Writes:
> > This is great David, completely avoid this issue. Shouting that
> Peebles
> > was an Eckist as if nobody here knew that? This trying to imply some
> > wrong doing on Eckankar's part is a very transparent dodge. Or are
> you
> > saying that because he maintained a member in Eckankar, that Eckankar
> > should not have held him accountable for his defamation? Weak David,
> > really weak.
> >
>
>
> What is there to avoid?
Exactly... Why are you avoiding answering these simple questions?
>
> Peebles wrote the paper as an Eckist in a PRO MANNER.
Did he?
I can't say anyone I know have ever seen this. Have you? What does it say?
> I know because I was there when he found out the hidden story.
So tell us what he wrote...
> You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
Response to "what" exactly?
>
> Ironically, it has kept Peebles' paper and name alive for 20 years.
You are suggesting he should be grateful then?
Oh... And did you have permission from Doug to repost his article with your
comments inserted on your private site? Or are you going to actually tell us
you "stole" his writing!! <G>
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 18:20:46 -1000 Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > finish a term paper (12 pages) for a class in as an objective a manner
> > > as he knew how, given his limitations.
> >
> > "wasn't _trying_ to"? But he must have for Eckankar to sue for
> > defamation.
>
> Not necessarily Rich.
Joe... The fact is you don't know...
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Windy <saxm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:38C539...@bellsouth.net...
> Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> >
> > Did you hear what the Catholic Church recently did to a Beer Company
that
> > had a commercial that was a "slight" parody of confession? The Bishop of
> > Sydney *publically* stated he would close them down "And not through
Legal
> > Means" if they did not stop it forthwith.
> >
> > Is this a reflection on Catholic Belief... Or Catholic Structure?
> >
> > Love
> >
> > Michael
<G>
Cute...
Love
M
>
>
Michael Wallace
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38C5D8...@aloha.net...
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38c4...@pink.one.net.au>,
> > "Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > news:8a2gp1$9uq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <38c4...@pink.one.net.au>,
> > > > "Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> > > >
>
> Was there anything in Peebles paper that could be construed to be legal
> defamation?
>
> If there was not. What plausible reason would there be for Eckankar to
> sue him?
Here we go round the mulberry bush... Isn't that the name of the song Rich?
David Lane for some strange reason seems unable to answer this fairly
question... He has admitted he read the paper, and had a copy... Now he
can't answer simple questions.
Is it true Jim claimed Darwin fathered an illegitimate child, for instance?
Many people here would like to know exactly what it was that caused the Eck
Organisation to take the matters to the courts. But still no direct
answer...
Simple questions... Not hard...
Like ... Did David Lane have permission to take Doug's post and place it up
on his private site with his comments inserted in the flow of the text?
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38C5D5...@aloha.net...
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > He wasn't trying to defame anyone but rather trying his naive best to
> > finish a term paper (12 pages) for a class in as an objective a manner
> > as he knew how, given his limitations.
>
> "wasn't _trying_ to"? But he must have for Eckankar to sue for
> defamation.
One must wonder that if there was nothing defamatory why the case was
settled with Jim paying for the solicitors... Normally people who have
nothing to hide simply come clean and go tell the judge their story.
Personal representation costs nothing.
But the "real" point is... No One knows what Jim Peebles wrote... It seems
even David Lane does not know... Because after 20 years he has failed to
tell us.
>
>
> > It was a pro-Eckankar piece.
> >
> > Eckankar sued him, Gruss, and L.A. Baptist College for a million plus.
> >
> > Peebles didn't intend to defame anyone.
>
> "didn't intend"? But he did, didn't he? You read the paper. Could any
> of what he wrote be construed to be legally defamatory? Will you avoid
> these direct questions too?
It certainly appears he just won't be here because maybe it is too time
watsing for him <G> Or better yet... Maybe we are just being "baited" so he
can write that he "just discovered" some innoculous piece of writing.
Even so, it does appear David is not willing to accept responsibility for
the
issues he set into motion. Very weak, I must say, or at least that is how it
looks from here.
>
>
> > He loved his religion.
> >
> > You see, Eckankar's response is what is key.
>
> No David, what is key, is whether the paper contained statements that
> were legally defamatory.
It is not THAT hard really...
Either it did, or it didn't.
And THEN we get to the next level... Is what eventually gets sent in (If
anything at all) going to be the truth? Is it going to be David's "view" of
it... Maybe if he "does" see Jim Peebles as he claims, he could ask Jim to
write and clarify some matters.
>
>
> > Ironically, it has kept Peebles' paper and name alive for 20 years.
>
>
> That's absolutely ridiculous David! If the paper was pro-Eckankar why
> would Eckankar sue? You have tried to suggest that it was to get back
> at you for your paper. Give us some credit for a bit of intelligence
> and common sense. You are not talking to your malleable college kids
> here.
Maybe Dave is getting away from the Real World in all those Ivory Towers??
Or maybe he is just baiting?
<G>
Love
Michael
PS: Please note these posts are being CC'd to Dave... As he invited us to
do.
Michael Wallace
> DAVID LANE WROTE:
> How David Lane met Jim Peebles
>
> It was back in 1977 and I was taking a sect and cults class with
> Professor Happ at CSUN.
>
> DOUG:
> This was interesting David. Sounds very different from the picture you
painted
> in your book, however. You said:
>
> "Eckankar sent one of their own officials, Mike Noe, down
> to southern California to secure a copy of the twelve
> page report, which claimed, among other things, that
> Eckankar was skirting tax laws and that Darwin Gross
> had fathered an illegitimate child."
>
> So Jim Peebles was giving the devout ECKist view, eh?
>
> I find it strange that in your book you painted the picture of ECKANKAR
trying
> to cover up more damaging information, but now suddenly Jim Peebles' paper
was
> nothing but innocence and light.
>
Funny that...
I wonder what David is trying to say?
What is it Dave... Are you telling the truth here... Or in your book?
Love
Michael
Jackie
>
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:16:07 GMT Jackie
> <hu4...@home.and.inthe.godworlds> wrote:
> > Now I get it, it's a debate pro or con Eckankar the organization, since
> > none of your debates or arguments are about the "principles" of spirit.
>
> That a religious organization -- by the direct orders of the Living Eck
> Master -- sues a professor and his 20 year old ECKIST student for
> millions for a 12 page paper . . . that all says nothing about the
> principles of spiritual living?
>
> I think it says quite a lot Jackie.
>
> It says a lot about Eckankar, and a lot about Eckankar's LEM.
>
> And the attitudes of the Eckists of a.r.e. on this issue -- says a
> mouthful about Spiritual Principles.
I'll bet the first Christians, during the time after Jesus, would have
wanted to sue their persecutors also. No one said mistakes haven't been
made, you just want the leaders of Eckankar to answer your questions
with the answers YOU want to hear. It seems to me you want people to
think, believe and behave as you see fit. IT AINT'T GOIN' HAPPEN no
matter how often you ask. It may be called stubbornness OR it may be
called individual thinking. (interesting concept)
Windy
Windy
backed into a corner. The tell-tale sign is the use of profanity.
dave50am...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> Dave50americanpie,
>
> Thanks for the response. Although I can see that we have different
viewpoints
> on these matters, it seemed to me that your note was written
repectfully. I
> appreciate that.
>
I am more interested in knowing the truth than in promoting one side or
the other here. I do see that you have good manners, and I appreciate
that Doug. It is interesting to me that you read Paul's private papers.
I would imagine that there was a huge number of them. Did that include
rough drafts of pending manuscripts, like "Letters to Gail" ?
> First, yes, I actually read Paul's private papers. Not all of them
all the way
> through, but I got a chance to go through all of them and read a good
portion
> of them. So, I do have a farily good sense of what's there.
>
> I can see the scenario you've painted, and why you might guess that
Gail would
> have known everything, and therefore Darwin would have. From what I
know,
> however, I would guess differently. I would say that Paul was writing
long
> before he met Gail, and I don't see him running his stuff by Gail
before he
> would publish it. And I don't see Paul discussing what he was doing
in his
> writings with Gail.
Doug; I didn't mean to confine this concept of shared knowledge to the
items you mention. As we know she knew Kirpal Singh and took an
initiation from him. This is a Sant Mat initiation, don't they take
several years of study prior to the point you are accepted? I am not in
Sant Mat but I recall reading that there is a certain amount of effort
required before you get initiation. If this is so she had to at least
have the basic picture of Sant Mat teachings in mind in order to get
the initiation.
I guess my main point here is that Gail was present at the start and
all of the begining stages of Eckankar. This must have been an exciting
time for them. I don't think that she had much influence on what Paul
wrote, or taught, but she was a key and instrumental figure in the
formation of the organization. She is the one who had the vision to
appoint Darwin, after all. Her doing this implies she was in charge of
Eckankar after Paul died. (at least somewhat)I currently feel that
she "inherited Eckankar" in a sense. I think this was a very fluid
time for Eckankar which is evidenced in the writing left behind. I am
under the impression that she was a full time worker in this period of
formation, and had to know where many of these ideas and teachings had
come from.
>
> I think Gail listened to Paul, and probably read most of his
writings, because
> she enjoyed Paul and his creativity. But I always had a sense that
Gail was
> somewhat standing on the outside looking in at all that Paul was
creating. I
> think she was truly surprised to find out his real age after he died.
>
> What she did know, however, was the relationship that Paul had with
Kirpal
> Singh, since she herself met Kirpal. And I did see some letters from
Paul to
> Premananda, from the fifties, so that was in his files. But you'll
see later in
> the book why I don't believe these teachers were some dark secret
that Paul was
> trying to cover up.
>
> As far as Darwin's response, remember, David Lane's material was not
delivered
> in a neutral, objective manner. Even David admits this. He didn't
weigh the
> evidence and point to the many possible scenarios and leave the
conclusions up
> to the reader. He didn't encourage respect for Paul, no matter
whatever he
> might have done. In fact, the accusations that David made against
Paul were so
> negative that anyone who knew Paul could only possibly see them as an
attack on
> Paul. Whether there were some real facts mixed in or not, it did not
paint a
> true picture of Paul, who he was, or what the teachings of ECKANKAR
were all
> about.
Dave50american pie replies:
If I were Darwin I would assume that Lane's materials were an attack
and a threat to Eckankar. My first thought would be to investigate them
to see if there was any truth to them. I would probably start by asking
Gail, and then review Paul's files to see what if anything I could
learn that would shed light on them.
>
> So why is it so surprising that Darwin would respond to it as an
attack? I'm
> not saying that you or I would have responded in the same way, but I
certainly
> find it understandable. And that's based upon the little I know about
it.
> Neither of us hardly know all the facts. So why should we be passing
judgement
> on Darwin? Or David Lane, for that matter?
>
> The problem with publicly passing judgement on someone else, is that
we can
> become frozen in the way we see them from then on. It becomes harder
for us to
> change the way we see them as we learn new things. In other words, we
become
> stuck and stop growing in our relationship with that person. They
become a
> thing to us, and not a person anymore. When this happens, a piece of
us stops
> growing spiritually, as well.
>
Dave50americanpie;
I agree that most likly Eckankar, and Peebles agreed to stipulate that
the file was closed, and neither party can comment on it without
opening the matter again to the courts. They cannot between them make
any agreements as to what an outside party like David Lane will do. He
would have to be part of the suit and sign off on the agreement.
Lane mentions that there were personal details about Darwin fathering a
child out of wedlock in this paper. Perhaps this got Darwins dander up
a bit.
> I've had a bit more experience with legal matters than I care to
have, just
> like you. My guess is that the Peebles matter was settled on both
sides with a
> stipulation that the settlement could not be discussed. That's why
the files
> would be sealed. Lane, Peebles and ECKANKAR would not be allowed to
speak about
> it without opening themselves up to serious damages. As you say, that
tells us
> nothing about who did what or who is guilty of what. The only thing
we can
> conclude from this is that both sides mutually agreed to bury the
term paper
> and drop the charges.
>
Dave50americanpie:
Perhaps it is my personal make up but I do find this behavior
unethical, and full of "power and might" not "truth and light."
> For you to say that Darwin acted shamefully about this surprises me,
since
> neither of us have enough information to say what happened. However,
the
> Peebles paper was hardly as innocent as David portrayed. It was
hardly sitting
> silently in some file. David had referred to it in his term paper,
and the SCP
> was on the trail for any dirt they could find, whether it was true or
not. It
> may have been written somewhat innocently by Peebles, but it still
could have
> been libelous, and it certainly got caught up in a bigger matter
where it was
> being used as a weapon, which Peebles may never have intended for it
to be.
>
> All for now
>
> Doug.
Rich
> You keep thinking, and implying, that simply because Eckankar brought
> suit against Peebles that Peebles was somehow guilty of something, or
> that what was contained in Peebles' paper was factually incorrect.
>
> You don't know that, like you obviously don't know much about the law.
I do know that if a frivolous suit is presented to the Court, that the
Court will reject is as such. That didn't happen. Therefore I would
conclude that the suit had merit in the eyes of the Law.
Rich
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
> > Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > > You keep thinking, and implying, that simply because Eckankar brought
> > > suit against Peebles that Peebles was somehow guilty of something, or
> > > that what was contained in Peebles' paper was factually incorrect.
> > >
> > > You don't know that, like you obviously don't know much about the law.
> >
> > I do know that if a frivolous suit is presented to the Court, that the
> > conclude that the suit had merit in the eyes of the Law.
>
> go to hearing. If the Judge finds the claim substantial, then it is
> permitted to proceed to trial. If not, the case is closed, and the applicant
> bears all costs.
>
> Is that how it works in the States as well?
Never been thru the process myself so I can't say, but I'm sure it's
similar.
Rich
> > Was there anything in Peebles paper that could be construed to be
> legal
> > defamation?
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> If I am not mistaken in earlier editions of the Making I mentioned that
> Peebles had reported allegations (which he himself did not believe)
> from Ekists in his area that Darwin had fathered an illegitimate child
> and Eckankar had skirted tax laws. He may have also mentioned the issue
> of Darwin's alleged drug use. In each of these cases, however, Peebles
> stated that they were allegations.
OK, so Eckankar's suit was not frivolous. This was most likely written
in a way the was legally defamatory. Thank you David. Why didn't you
say so from the beginning?
Michael Wallace
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38C6B0...@aloha.net...
> Mahavahana wrote:
>
> > You keep thinking, and implying, that simply because Eckankar brought
> > suit against Peebles that Peebles was somehow guilty of something, or
> > that what was contained in Peebles' paper was factually incorrect.
> >
> > You don't know that, like you obviously don't know much about the law.
>
> I do know that if a frivolous suit is presented to the Court, that the
> conclude that the suit had merit in the eyes of the Law.
Is it the same as here in Australia, Rich... You have a claim, and it must
go to hearing. If the Judge finds the claim substantial, then it is
permitted to proceed to trial. If not, the case is closed, and the applicant
bears all costs.
Is that how it works in the States as well?
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 18:39:58 -1000 Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > paper on his group (try reading the paper; it is not a rip), he should
> > > get sued for a million dollars if what he writes is in disagreement
> > > with the official biography?
> > >
> > > Think for a second.
> > >
> > > Is this wise?
> > > Is this kind?
> > > Is this necessary?
> >
> > Exactly! The "disagreement" being legally defamatory would be the only
> > reasonable explanation.
>
> ONCE again Rich, you incorrectly assume that Peebles was found guilty
> of defamation.
>
> That's not so. I wish you'd stop implying it's so.
Yopu seem to be having greater and greater trouble understanding English
Joe...
Rich is merely observing the obvious... Frivolous Court applications are
generally extremely frowned upon by the legal profession (Though maybe it is
different in the States) ... And unless there IS a substantial claim matters
do not proceed through to listing for trial.
Are you seriously trying to tell us this is NOT how the system works?
Love
Michael
R. Floyd Pickett
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> DAVID LANE WROTE:
> How David Lane met Jim Peebles
>
> It was back in 1977 and I was taking a sect and cults class with
> Professor Happ at CSUN.
>
Dave, nobody is born a Baptist. They may be born to Baptist parents, but membership in
the Baptist church is unlike membership in the Catholic church. One must actually
profess faith on their own and be baptized.
> When Noe tried to secure a copy of Peebles' paper he was informed that
> Gruss may have had a copy in his files.
Who informed him?
> Thus Gruss, under the false impression that Mike Noe was a member of
> SCP, provided one xerox copy of Peebles' paper.
Exactly how did Ed Gruss gain this impression?
> After that incident, a lawsuit was commenced.
>
> Why Eckankar was so concerned with this term paper is unusual to say
> the least.
>
> It was not going to see the light of day and indeed was more or less
> forgotten by all concerned.
>
> Eckankar has, unwittingly, kept Jim Peebles and his 12 page term paper
> ALIVE to this very day because of its lawsuit.
>
> Jim Peebles is NOT an Eckankar member anymore.
Did Peebles ever actually leave the Baptist church when he joined Eckankar?
> DOUG:
> This was interesting David. Sounds very different from the picture you painted
> in your book, however. You said:
>
> "Eckankar sent one of their own officials, Mike Noe, down
> to southern California to secure a copy of the twelve
> page report, which claimed, among other things, that
> Eckankar was skirting tax laws and that Darwin Gross
> had fathered an illegitimate child."
>
> So Jim Peebles was giving the devout ECKist view, eh?
>
> I find it strange that in your book you painted the picture of ECKANKAR trying
> to cover up more damaging information, but now suddenly Jim Peebles' paper was
> nothing but innocence and light.
What is even stranger is why Gruss would even have a copy of the term paper.
If Peebles was a classmate of Dave's at California State University, Northridge, CA in
1977, why in 1979 did Professor Ed Gruss of the Los Angeles Baptist College, Santa
Clarita, CA (now The Master's College
http://www.masters.edu/GeneralInformation/Doctrine.htm) have an unread copy of a term
paper written in 1977 for a class in another college twenty miles away?
rfp
--
The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects
is that science requires reasoning while those other
subjects merely require scholarship.
-- Robert Heinlein
KMerrymoon
<I am more interested in knowing the truth than in promoting one side or the
other here. I do see that you have good manners, and I appreciate that Doug. It
is interesting to me that you read Paul's private papers. I would imagine that
there was a huge number of them. Did that include rough drafts of pending
manuscripts, like "Letters to Gail" ?>
DOUG:
I saw the original manuscripts, but I didn't spend much time with them since
they were already published. I was working with David Stewart at the time he
spoke with David Lane about the Letter to Gail editing. I was co-editor of the
ECK World News with David Stewart at the time. I mention this latter on in my
book. I saw some of the originals, like David Stewart did, where names were
crossed out with the new name inserted in the margins or between the lines. I
had also seen some of these original manuscripts back in 1974, when I was
working at the ECKANKAR Office when it was in Las Vegas.
If Paul were really trying to hide something, I don't think he would have kept
these documents in his file.
Dave50americanpie:
<Doug; I didn't mean to confine this concept of shared knowledge to the
items you mention. As we know she knew Kirpal Singh and took an
initiation from him. This is a Sant Mat initiation, don't they take
several years of study prior to the point you are accepted? I am not in
Sant Mat but I recall reading that there is a certain amount of effort
required before you get initiation. If this is so she had to at least
have the basic picture of Sant Mat teachings in mind in order to get
the initiation.>
DOUG:
Gail took the initiation during Kirpal's American tour in 1963. Paul
recommended her, and that was generally enough to get initiation, although
there were no hard and fast rules, from what I know. Remember, Gail only met
Paul shortly before this, so how much time could she have spent studying Sant
Mat. Perhaps a few months at most, from what I know.
Dave50americanpie:
<I guess my main point here is that Gail was present at the start and
all of the begining stages of Eckankar. This must have been an exciting
time for them. I don't think that she had much influence on what Paul
wrote, or taught, but she was a key and instrumental figure in the
formation of the organization. She is the one who had the vision to
appoint Darwin, after all. Her doing this implies she was in charge of
Eckankar after Paul died. (at least somewhat)I currently feel that
she "inherited Eckankar" in a sense. I think this was a very fluid
time for Eckankar which is evidenced in the writing left behind. I am
under the impression that she was a full time worker in this period of
formation, and had to know where many of these ideas and teachings had come
from.>
DOUG:
I don't think Gail had much influence on the formation of the organization. And
as you will see later in my book, Gail did not, in her mind, appoint Darwin.
She would never agree with that. She merely carried out Paul's wishes. That's
the way she saw it and the way she explained it.
Paul did leave the copyrights for all of his writings to Gail. That certainly
would have prevented anyone in ECKANKAR from taking over the organization by
force. I think Paul did that intentionally as a check against such things. But
remember, the rest of ECKANKAR was a non-profit corporation that was run by a
board. ECKANKAR did not belong to Gail.
Gail supported Paul, and no doubt she could have had a great deal of influence
in the organization if she wanted it, but she never did want it.
Dave50americanpie:
<If I were Darwin I would assume that Lane's materials were an attack
and a threat to Eckankar. My first thought would be to investigate them
to see if there was any truth to them. I would probably start by asking
Gail, and then review Paul's files to see what if anything I could
learn that would shed light on them.>
DOUG:
Not much in the files, except for the name changes, to shed light on these
things. And remember, Gail and Darwin got divorced about this time.
neural...@my-deja.com
> > >
> > > In fact, the accusations that David made against Paul were so
> > > > negative that anyone who knew Paul could only possibly see them
as
> > an
> > > attack on
> > > > Paul. Whether there were some real facts mixed in or not, it did
> > not paint
> > > a
> > > > true picture of Paul, who he was, or what the teachings of
ECKANKAR
> > were
> > > all
> > > > about.
> > > >
> > >
> > actually
> > > saw things at the time in much the way he chose to write them...
> > Which is to
> > > say, with a fair degree of bias. Not surprising... He was a young
man
> > at the
> > > time.
> > allowed to
> > > discuss them... Would it not be fair to say that he would have
> > mentioned
> > > this by now?
> > >
> > > "If" the person who wrote to me claiming to be Jim Peebles was
even
> > related
> > > to the man, the fellow seemed extremely reticent to talk about
this
> > aspect.
> > > In fact, he wouldn't. So I remain curious... What "was" it Mr
Peebles
> > > actually wrote?
> > >
> > > Without hard evidence, David Lane's assertions on this subject
remain
> > > extremely fragile.
into Jim
> > > Peebles in those early days, and the impression he had was of an
> > angry young
> > > man ... But I have no idea, of course.
> > >
> > > The simple fact is, many people say and do things in their youth
that
> > they
> > > regret in later years. Unless we hear from Jim Peebles, or see at
> > least what
> > > he wrote... Then this entire senario is based on Hearsay.
> > >
> > > Thanks again Doug... I always appreciate your insight.
> > >
> > > Love
> > >
> > > Michael
that
> > Gruss may have had a copy in his files.
> >
> > SCP, provided one xerox copy of Peebles' paper.
> >
> >
> > Why Eckankar was so concerned with this term paper is unusual to say
> > the least.
> >
> > It was not going to see the light of day and indeed was more or less
> > forgotten by all concerned.
> >
> > Eckankar has, unwittingly, kept Jim Peebles and his 12 page term
paper
> > ALIVE to this very day because of its lawsuit.
> >
> > Jim Peebles is NOT an Eckankar member anymore.
>
>
legal
> defamation?
>
to
> sue him?
>
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
If I am not mistaken in earlier editions of the Making I mentioned that
Peebles had reported allegations (which he himself did not believe)
from Ekists in his area that Darwin had fathered an illegitimate child
and Eckankar had skirted tax laws. He may have also mentioned the issue
of Darwin's alleged drug use. In each of these cases, however, Peebles
stated that they were allegations.
Ironically, in light of what did happen to
Darwin, Peebles may have been a prophet!
Given Darwin's Dharma front corporation (in Oregon) and the
transference of a large sum of money from Eckankar (for which Harold
lambasted his former leader), it would be interesting to know what
Darwin actually DID do during his tenure.
neural...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> This was interesting David. Sounds very different from the picture
you painted
> in your book, however. You said:
>
> "Eckankar sent one of their own officials, Mike Noe, down
> to southern California to secure a copy of the twelve
> page report, which claimed, among other things, that
> Eckankar was skirting tax laws and that Darwin Gross
> had fathered an illegitimate child."
>
> So Jim Peebles was giving the devout ECKist view, eh?
>
> I find it strange that in your book you painted the picture of
ECKANKAR trying
> to cover up more damaging information, but now suddenly Jim Peebles'
paper was
> nothing but innocence and light.
>
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
Try reading the paper. It was quite benign.
Maybe Eckankar can send you a copy of it.
In any case, I was there with Peebles at the time.
His paper was quite nice to Eckankar since he believed in his religion.
He reported those allegations precisely because he had heard them from
other Ekists and wanted to make his paper sound more "objective" (like,
see, I can report negative claims, even though I am an Ekist).
Ironic, huh?
Peebles at 20 was devastated by the whole affair.
Eckankar treated him terribly.
Later, Darwin (who should be raked over the coals for his treatment of
Peebles) would end up saying something that is doubly ironic, "Eckankar
treated me like shit."
neural...@my-deja.com
"R. Floyd Pickett" <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
but membership in
> the Baptist church is unlike membership in the Catholic church. One
must actually
> profess faith on their own and be baptized.
>
that
> > Gruss may have had a copy in his files.
>
>
> > Thus Gruss, under the false impression that Mike Noe was a member of
> > SCP, provided one xerox copy of Peebles' paper.
>
>
> >
> > Why Eckankar was so concerned with this term paper is unusual to say
> > the least.
> >
> > It was not going to see the light of day and indeed was more or less
> > forgotten by all concerned.
> >
> > Eckankar has, unwittingly, kept Jim Peebles and his 12 page term
paper
> > ALIVE to this very day because of its lawsuit.
> >
> > Jim Peebles is NOT an Eckankar member anymore.
>
Eckankar?
>
> > This was interesting David. Sounds very different from the picture
you painted
> > in your book, however. You said:
> >
> > "Eckankar sent one of their own officials, Mike Noe, down
> > to southern California to secure a copy of the twelve
> > page report, which claimed, among other things, that
> > Eckankar was skirting tax laws and that Darwin Gross
> > had fathered an illegitimate child."
> >
> > So Jim Peebles was giving the devout ECKist view, eh?
> >
> > I find it strange that in your book you painted the picture of
ECKANKAR trying
> > to cover up more damaging information, but now suddenly Jim
Peebles' paper was
> > nothing but innocence and light.
>
paper.
> If Peebles was a classmate of Dave's at California State University,
Northridge, CA in
> 1977, why in 1979 did Professor Ed Gruss of the Los Angeles Baptist
College, Santa
> Clarita, CA (now The Master's College
> http://www.masters.edu/GeneralInformation/Doctrine.htm) have an
unread copy of a term
> paper written in 1977 for a class in another college twenty miles
away?
>
> rfp
> --
> The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects
> is that science requires reasoning while those other
> subjects merely require scholarship.
> -- Robert Heinlein
>
Dear Richard:
Glad that you are using your real name again (teasing, but only
slightly).
Good questions you ask.
Let me reply to each.
1. Peebles was a Baptist, I believe, long before Eckankar (good point
you make about not being born one).
2. I don't know if one formerly severes one's ties with a Church when
joining Eckankar. Peebles was a devout Ekist when I met him.
3. It may be interesting to get the "real" Peebles online to see his
version of the story, since 20 plus years later I am sure there are
lots of interesting details missing here.
4. If I am not mistaken, Gruss may have been a friend of Peebles (via
his Baptist Church) or maybe Professor Happ or someone in Peebles'
close circle mentioned contacting him.
5. Peebles wrote the paper AS an Ekist. I know since we got in a heated
discussion about the implications of my paper and when he gave his talk
at CSUN he did so as a member.
6. After Peebles fall-out with Eckankar, he contacted several Christian
organizations, including SCP.
7. In my conversations with Gruss at the time, he informed me that Mike
Noe had claimed to have been a member of the SCP association and that
he was a Christian interested in doing work on Eckankar.
Gruss said his visitor more or less lied about who he was.
Why Noe went to Gruss' office is very curious to me in hindsight.
I would imagine, actually, that Eckankar should have had a copy of
Peebles' paper beforehand. Otherwise, why so much interest in some 12
page paper written by some Ekist?
Or, it could well have been that Noe contacted Professor Happ and was
informed that he didn't have a copy and that Gruss did (keep in mind
that a lot of these cult researchers know each other).
I think this is a story that needs a more detailed telling.
Let us try to get a hold of Peebles.
Richard, you are good at tracking people down..... See if you can get a
hold of him.
The last time we emailed each other was a few years back.....
I think he was living in Orange County.
Only one warning Richard:
Just don't clone his name and post.
slightly teasing.
neural...@my-deja.com
> > I am in the process of securing the documents from that time period
and
> > let us see what information they provide.
>
> This sounds like the most fruiful approach to the matter. Let us
review the primary
> document rather than rely on your 22 year-old memories.
>
> rfp
I quite agree.
Just don't clone the documents, Richard.
> --
> The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects
> is that science requires reasoning while those other
> subjects merely require scholarship.
> -- Robert Heinlein
>
neural...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> Dave50americanpie replies:
>
> <I am more interested in knowing the truth than in promoting one side
or the
> other here. I do see that you have good manners, and I appreciate
that Doug. It
> is interesting to me that you read Paul's private papers. I would
imagine that
> there was a huge number of them. Did that include rough drafts of
pending
> manuscripts, like "Letters to Gail" ?>
>
> I saw the original manuscripts, but I didn't spend much time with
them since
> they were already published. I was working with David Stewart at the
time he
> spoke with David Lane about the Letter to Gail editing. I was co-
editor of the
> ECK World News with David Stewart at the time. I mention this latter
on in my
> book. I saw some of the originals, like David Stewart did, where
names were
> crossed out with the new name inserted in the margins or between the
lines. I
> had also seen some of these original manuscripts back in 1974, when I
was
> working at the ECKANKAR Office when it was in Las Vegas.
>
> If Paul were really trying to hide something, I don't think he would
have kept
> these documents in his file.
>
> Dave50americanpie:
the
> items you mention. As we know she knew Kirpal Singh and took an
> initiation from him. This is a Sant Mat initiation, don't they take
> several years of study prior to the point you are accepted? I am not
in
> Sant Mat but I recall reading that there is a certain amount of effort
> required before you get initiation. If this is so she had to at least
> have the basic picture of Sant Mat teachings in mind in order to get
> the initiation.>
>
> Gail took the initiation during Kirpal's American tour in 1963. Paul
> recommended her, and that was generally enough to get initiation,
although
> there were no hard and fast rules, from what I know. Remember, Gail
only met
> Paul shortly before this, so how much time could she have spent
studying Sant
> Mat. Perhaps a few months at most, from what I know.
>
> Dave50americanpie:
> all of the begining stages of Eckankar. This must have been an
exciting
> time for them. I don't think that she had much influence on what Paul
> wrote, or taught, but she was a key and instrumental figure in the
> formation of the organization. She is the one who had the vision to
> appoint Darwin, after all. Her doing this implies she was in charge of
> Eckankar after Paul died. (at least somewhat)I currently feel that
> she "inherited Eckankar" in a sense. I think this was a very fluid
> time for Eckankar which is evidenced in the writing left behind. I am
> under the impression that she was a full time worker in this period of
> formation, and had to know where many of these ideas and teachings
had come
> from.>
>
> I don't think Gail had much influence on the formation of the
organization. And
> as you will see later in my book, Gail did not, in her mind, appoint
Darwin.
> She would never agree with that. She merely carried out Paul's
wishes. That's
> the way she saw it and the way she explained it.
>
> Paul did leave the copyrights for all of his writings to Gail. That
certainly
> would have prevented anyone in ECKANKAR from taking over the
organization by
> force. I think Paul did that intentionally as a check against such
things. But
> remember, the rest of ECKANKAR was a non-profit corporation that was
run by a
> board. ECKANKAR did not belong to Gail.
>
> Gail supported Paul, and no doubt she could have had a great deal of
influence
> in the organization if she wanted it, but she never did want it.
>
> Dave50americanpie:
> and a threat to Eckankar. My first thought would be to investigate
them
> to see if there was any truth to them. I would probably start by
asking
> Gail, and then review Paul's files to see what if anything I could
> learn that would shed light on them.>
>
> Not much in the files, except for the name changes, to shed light on
these
> things. And remember, Gail and Darwin got divorced about this time.
>
Dear Doug:
Glad to see you confirm a few observations here. My quote of David
Stewart for example (crossing out names), Gail's initiation under
Kirpal Singh (a point long denied in certain Eckankar circles), etc.
Now a question for you:
Did David Stewart receive any "heat" for talking to me, as he later
reported to me on the phone?
Did David Stewart quit Eckankar after this time?
Michael Wallace
<neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a7hc2$ugh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000308013918...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Try reading the paper.
I am sure many here would love to...
> It was quite benign.
We really don't know... And to state this simply, I have read things that
appeared one way to me, and the next day it read as a completely different
text ... It is hard to see past our personal filters.
>
>
> Later, Darwin (who should be raked over the coals for his treatment of
> Peebles) would end up saying something that is doubly ironic, "Eckankar
> treated me like shit."
Indeed... Irony is the richest form of truth <G>
But, even if your assertions here "are" right David (And again, I don't know
either way.) ... Doesn't the above offer a perfect tangent to understanding
Karma and the application to the individual?
If indeed Darwin did make a large mistake with Jim Peebles (And I for one
have never thought he handled the matter very well, nor IMHO did he deal
with yourself very well) then in the reflection of life he gets his just
deserts anyway.
To take this further... If Jim Peebles 'has' been wronged, then somewhere
along the line some 'right' must be therefore in the process of evolving.
Not to justify actions, but the long term action of life creates balance...
That is the essential principle of the Law of Karma.
The question to me is not one of "Right" or "Wrong" but of INTENTION. Was
the Intention of Jim Peebles negative? Was the Intention of the Eckankar
Organisation Evil or just plain nasty in some way?
It is my belief that when people address the issue of "intention" that many
of the questions on this and most matters get resolved more easily.
Love
Michael
Rich
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Try reading the paper. It was quite benign.
David, you said that *you* had a copy of the paper. You keep suggesting
that we read it but, you are the only one who has it. Find it. Scan it.
> Maybe Eckankar can send you a copy of it.
Not a chance. Eckankar has an extremely strong stance on privacy. They
do not give out any information on members or I'm sure ex-members.
Mahavahana
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
> >
> > Try reading the paper. It was quite benign.
>
> David, you said that *you* had a copy of the paper. You keep suggesting
> that we read it but, you are the only one who has it. Find it. Scan it.
>
> > Maybe Eckankar can send you a copy of it.
>
> Not a chance. Eckankar has an extremely strong stance on privacy. They
> do not give out any information on members or I'm sure ex-members.
Yes . . . they just serve lawsuits against college students and their
professors, and unethically appropriate the writings of other authors.
It's funny though Rich. Given Eckankar's extremely strong stance on
privacy, why you as an Eckist don't honor the privacy of others.
Have you ever considered that?
You've sent emails to people, though they request that you not; you've
posted the address and phone number and photos of people here, though
they haven't given you their permission to do so; you've used
confidential information you've received from other eckists about an
eck critic, without either the eck critic or the eckist's permission to
do so.
What do you think about Eckankar's "extremely strong stance on privacy"
Rich?
If you think Eckankar's respect of privacy is a good thing, then why
aren't you at least trying to emulate this demonstration of respect?
Baraka Bashad,
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Mahavahana
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Was there anything in Peebles paper that could be construed to be
> > legal
> > > defamation?
>
>
> >
> > If I am not mistaken in earlier editions of the Making I mentioned that
> > Peebles had reported allegations (which he himself did not believe)
> > from Ekists in his area that Darwin had fathered an illegitimate child
> > and Eckankar had skirted tax laws. He may have also mentioned the issue
> > of Darwin's alleged drug use. In each of these cases, however, Peebles
> > stated that they were allegations.
>
>
> in a way the was legally defamatory. Thank you David. Why didn't you
> say so from the beginning?
First of all, remember that the case never went to trial Rich.
You're still trying to imply that Peeble's was found "guilty" of
something.
You don't know that, as you don't know anything about how the case
would have been decided had it gone to court.
I'll say it again:
Paying court costs isn't a guilty verdict.
Paying court costs doesn't imply that the info in Peeble's paper wasn't
correct.
(By the same token, it doesn't imply that all the info in Peeble's
paper WAS correct. We still don't know if that's so, or not.)
All we know for sure is that a 20 year old Eckist was not prepared to
fight a legal battle against a well-heeled religious organization
called Eckankar . . .
Eckankar org . . . which obtained Peeble's paper under false pretense,
with the most tenuous claim of "publishing."
neural...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Try reading the paper. It was quite benign.
>
> David, you said that *you* had a copy of the paper. You keep
suggesting
> that we read it but, you are the only one who has it. Find it. Scan
it.
>
> > Maybe Eckankar can send you a copy of it.
>
> Not a chance. Eckankar has an extremely strong stance on privacy.
They
> do not give out any information on members or I'm sure ex-members.
>
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
> Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Well they didn't respect Ed Gruss or Peebles back then, huh?
They sued them, after lying about their intentions for wanting a xerox
copy of the paper.
Rich
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Was there anything in Peebles paper that could be construed
> > > > to be legal defamation?
> >
> > >
> > > If I am not mistaken in earlier editions of the Making I mentioned that
> > > Peebles had reported allegations (which he himself did not believe)
> > > from Ekists in his area that Darwin had fathered an illegitimate child
> > > and Eckankar had skirted tax laws. He may have also mentioned the issue
> > > of Darwin's alleged drug use. In each of these cases, however, Peebles
> > > stated that they were allegations.
> >
> >
> > in a way the was legally defamatory. Thank you David. Why didn't you
> > say so from the beginning?
>
> First of all, remember that the case never went to trial Rich.
Hellooooo. We already know this. Don't be so childish Joe.
> You're still trying to imply that Peeble's was found "guilty" of
> something.
No Joe. Again your not reading what's been written. These are David
Lane's explanations of what was in the paper that chould be construed to
be legal defamation.
> You don't know that, as you don't know anything about how the case
> would have been decided had it gone to court.
In your zeal to attack anything to do with Eckankar, you are attacking
the wrong guy. Argue with David Lane about these reasons. He wrote
them as the answer to my question.
<SNIP the rest of the roboton response>
And besides Joe, the suit would likely never have been brought if the
fundamentalist Christians, in the form of the Baptist College and
Professor Ed Gruss, weren't using Peebles and his paper. If you want to
blame anyone for involving and 'innocent Peebles', they are your
culprits.
Rich
> If indeed Darwin did make a large mistake with Jim Peebles...
But Michael, thru the efforts of our esteemed colleague and researcher
Sri RFP, we have found that it wasn't really an attack against an
"innocent Peebles' as David has been trying to slant the story for
twenty years. It was a preemptive action against Christian
Fundamentalist at a Baptist College and an anti-cult campaigner
Professor Ed Gruss, who had Peebles and his paper in their hands.
likely Peebles was naive about the situation but he did write the paper,
that that IMO according to the bits of information that we have been
able to squeeze out of David Lane, was defamatory.
neural...@my-deja.com
David Lane replies:
Squeeze out?
1. I mentioned in the Making that Gruss was from L.A. Baptist College.
2. I mentioned that Peebles was a classmate of mine at CSUN.
3. I mentioned the very allegations that got Peebles in trouble.
Get a clue.
Eckankar sues one of its own for a million plus
Eckankar sues a Professor who did NOTHING with Peebles' paper except
give a COPY of it OVER to an Eckankar member (who lied about his
purposes).
Eckankar sues a college that is completely unaware of the term paper.
Now think.
This is the way to react?
Hawk
David L.,why don't you write the Eckankar office and ask for a copy?
Just tell them your copy is buried under a pile of historical
insignificance somewhere and you want it so you can make sure your name
isn't forgotten on A.R.E.
I'm sure they would love to hear from you.<VBG>
luv, Hawk
In article <8a8tii$v7p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38C77A...@aloha.net>,
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
> > >
> > > Try reading the paper. It was quite benign.
> >
> > David, you said that *you* had a copy of the paper. You keep
> suggesting
> > that we read it but, you are the only one who has it. Find it. Scan
> it.
> >
> > > Maybe Eckankar can send you a copy of it.
> >
> > Not a chance. Eckankar has an extremely strong stance on privacy.
> They
> > do not give out any information on members or I'm sure ex-members.
Windy
>
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:18:36 -1000 Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > DAVID LANE REPLIES:
> > >
> > > Try reading the paper. It was quite benign.
> >
> > David, you said that *you* had a copy of the paper. You keep suggesting
> > that we read it but, you are the only one who has it. Find it. Scan it.
> >
> > > Maybe Eckankar can send you a copy of it.
> >
> > Not a chance. Eckankar has an extremely strong stance on privacy. They
> > do not give out any information on members or I'm sure ex-members.
>
> professors, and unethically appropriate the writings of other authors.
>
> It's funny though Rich. Given Eckankar's extremely strong stance on
> privacy, why you as an Eckist don't honor the privacy of others.
>
> Have you ever considered that?
>
> You've sent emails to people, though they request that you not; you've
> posted the address and phone number and photos of people here, though
> they haven't given you their permission to do so; you've used
> confidential information you've received from other eckists about an
> eck critic, without either the eck critic or the eckist's permission to
> do so.
>
> What do you think about Eckankar's "extremely strong stance on privacy"
> Rich?
>
> If you think Eckankar's respect of privacy is a good thing, then why
> aren't you at least trying to emulate this demonstration of respect?
>
> Baraka Bashad,
>
Mahavahana
> Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> No Joe. Again your not reading what's been written. These are David
> Lane's explanations of what was in the paper that chould be construed to
> be legal defamation.
"Could be construed" is a meaningless comment Rich.
The-case-never-went-to-trial.
You keep overlooking this point.
You don't know if the info in Peeble's paper was incorrect.
>
> > You don't know that, as you don't know anything about how the case
> > would have been decided had it gone to court.
>
> In your zeal to attack anything to do with Eckankar, you are attacking
> the wrong guy. Argue with David Lane about these reasons. He wrote
> them as the answer to my question.
Sorry Rich, but you're the one who seems to be arguing for the guilt of
Jim Peebles. I'm not attacking anyone here -- I'm just pointing out
that you present assmptions as it they were facts, and you don't know
very much about the law.
Now look what he says:
>
> <SNIP the rest of the roboton response>
>
> And besides Joe, the suit would likely never have been brought if the
> fundamentalist Christians, in the form of the Baptist College and
> Professor Ed Gruss, weren't using Peebles and his paper.
That statement is completely unfounded Rich, and you know it.
You have NO evidence whatsover that that's true.
Nothing.
You have no evidence that the college was *using* Peeble's paper for
anything.
Remember, the paper was never published -- for crying out loud, it was
a CLASS PAPER BY AN ECKIST COLLEGE STUDENT.
Stop making up stuff and playing with the reputations of others.
If you want to
> blame anyone for involving and 'innocent Peebles', they are your
> culprits.
What a lie.
Mahavahana
>
>
> David L.,why don't you write the Eckankar office and ask for a copy?
> Just tell them your copy is buried under a pile of historical
> insignificance somewhere and you want it so you can make sure your name
> isn't forgotten on A.R.E.
> I'm sure they would love to hear from you.<VBG>
>
> luv, Hawk
I doubt if Lane's name will ever be forgotten on a.r.e.
His research on Eckankar is what most Eckists talk about here.
That includes you Hawk.
Baraka Bashad.
Rich
> Well they didn't respect Ed Gruss or Peebles back then, huh?
Huh? Weak David. Your question presents a false analogy David. And,
your question is also a nice dodge of my request for you to produce the
evidence(the term paper) that you keep holding up to us as the basis for
your allegations of impropriety by Eckankar.
But to answer you anyway: They respected the ability of the
Fundamentalist Christians to defame them enough to take the preemptive
action of a lawsuit to stop them. You have tried to spin this around
but in fact it was the Christian fundamentalists that did not respect
Eckankar, and they paid for that disrespect by being on the receiving
end of a lawsuit.
Rich
>
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:46:46 -1000 Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > Mahavahana wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
> > No Joe. Again your not reading what's been written. These are David
> > be legal defamation.
>
> "Could be construed" is a meaningless comment Rich.
I asked for David Lane's opinion. Are you saying that his answers were
meaningless?
<SNIP Joe's redundant repetitions, again>
> > And besides Joe, the suit would likely never have been brought if the
> > fundamentalist Christians, in the form of the Baptist College and
> > Professor Ed Gruss, weren't using Peebles and his paper.
>
> That statement is completely unfounded Rich, and you know it.
Unfounded? It's founded on my opinion. You and your guru Lane keep
asking why would Eckankar sue an innocent Peebles. That's my answer.
They didn't; they were actually going after the 'big guns' the one who
were capable of pulling another SCP on them.
> You have NO evidence whatsover that that's true.
>
> Nothing.
Nothing beyond simple common sense.
> You have no evidence that the college was *using* Peeble's paper for
> anything.
>
> Remember, the paper was never published
Exactly! That is why Eckankar sued, so that it would never be
published. And they were successful!
> -- for crying out loud, it was
> a CLASS PAPER BY AN ECKIST COLLEGE STUDENT.
Who had taken it to a guy who's life long avocation has been to publish
anti-anything that isn't main stream Christianity.
w...@achilles.net
>
> So when a 20 year old who loves his religion writes a postive term
> paper on his group (try reading the paper; it is not a rip),
That is the point, David; no one here has seen the paper. Conflicting
stories abound regarding its contents. The rest of your argument is
bumf until that little detail is ironed out.
Bruce
R. Floyd Pickett
neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38C640A6...@naxs.com>,
> "R. Floyd Pickett" <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > I am in the process of securing the documents from that time period
> and let us see what information they provide.
> >
> > This sounds like the most fruiful approach to the matter. Let us
> review the primary document rather than rely on your 22 year-old memories.
> >
> > rfp
>
> I quite agree.
>
> Just don't clone the documents, Richard.
One would hope that you might provide a copy of the documents, Dave. They should have
been included in your "expose." However, its not to late to provide accurate
documentation. You certainly can't reasonably expect anyone to give any credibility to
your alleged "eye-witness" claims.
rfp
R. Floyd Pickett
I always use my own name. Unfortunately, others have decided to use it, also.
> Good questions you ask.
>
> Let me reply to each.
>
> 1. Peebles was a Baptist, I believe, long before Eckankar (good point
> you make about not being born one).
>
> 2. I don't know if one formerly severes one's ties with a Church when
> joining Eckankar. Peebles was a devout Ekist when I met him.
There have been Second Initiates of Eckankar that were also ordained Baptist ministers.
Peebles could have maintained his Baptist affiliation while an ECKist. One can formally
sever their membership with a Baptist church. It is not a requirement when joining
Eckankar. I ask because I'm curious about Peebles level of "devotion."
> 3. It may be interesting to get the "real" Peebles online to see his
> version of the story, since 20 plus years later I am sure there are
> lots of interesting details missing here.
Maybe, you could contact him?
> 4. If I am not mistaken, Gruss may have been a friend of Peebles (via
> his Baptist Church) or maybe Professor Happ or someone in Peebles'
> close circle mentioned contacting him.
Why did they mention contacting the cult specialist, Gruss?
> 5. Peebles wrote the paper AS an Ekist. I know since we got in a heated
> discussion about the implications of my paper and when he gave his talk
> at CSUN he did so as a member.
>
> 6. After Peebles fall-out with Eckankar, he contacted several Christian
> organizations, including SCP.
Why did he contact them? What was the nature of the contact?
> 7. In my conversations with Gruss at the time, he informed me that Mike
> Noe had claimed to have been a member of the SCP association and that
> he was a Christian interested in doing work on Eckankar.
>
> Gruss said his visitor more or less lied about who he was.
So, do you have Noe's account of the interaction or are we to simply accept the
veracity of Gruss given his prejudices against Eckankar?
> Why Noe went to Gruss' office is very curious to me in hindsight.
>
> I would imagine, actually, that Eckankar should have had a copy of
> Peebles' paper beforehand. Otherwise, why so much interest in some 12
> page paper written by some Ekist?
>
> Or, it could well have been that Noe contacted Professor Happ and was
> informed that he didn't have a copy and that Gruss did (keep in mind
> that a lot of these cult researchers know each other).
>
> I think this is a story that needs a more detailed telling.
It needs a great deal more detail and a lot less speculation and innuendo.
> Let us try to get a hold of Peebles.
>
> Richard, you are good at tracking people down..... See if you can get a
> hold of him.
>
> The last time we emailed each other was a few years back.....
>
> I think he was living in Orange County.
There are three Jim Peebles listed in the phone directory for California, but none of
them live in Orange County.
> Only one warning Richard:
>
> Just don't clone his name and post.
>
> slightly teasing.
Sorry, Dave, I haven't cloned anyone, but I have been cloned by some unsavory character
who is probably affiliated with Joseph O'Leary. Of course, I could be wrong about Joe's
involvement.
Mahavahana
<rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
>
>
> neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38C7D024...@naxs.com>,
> > "R. Floyd Pickett" <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > KMerrymoon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > DAVID LANE WROTE:
snip
>
> > Only one warning Richard:
> >
> > Just don't clone his name and post.
> >
> > slightly teasing.
>
> Sorry, Dave, I haven't cloned anyone, but I have been cloned by some unsavory character
> who is probably affiliated with Joseph O'Leary. Of course, I could be wrong about Joe's
> involvement.
Richard, you obviously have some serious problems with reality.
I feel sorry for you, and doubly sorry for everyone that has to deal
with you.
R. Floyd Pickett
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:55:52 GMT "R. Floyd Pickett"
> <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38C7D024...@naxs.com>,
> > > "R. Floyd Pickett" <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KMerrymoon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID LANE WROTE:
>
>
> >
> > > Only one warning Richard:
> > >
> > > Just don't clone his name and post.
> > >
> > > slightly teasing.
> >
> > Sorry, Dave, I haven't cloned anyone, but I have been cloned by some unsavory character who is probably affiliated with Joseph O'Leary. Of course, I could be wrong about Joe's involvement.
>
>
> I feel sorry for you, and doubly sorry for everyone that has to deal
> with you.
>
Well, Joe, if you are denying any involvement in the cloning, then we'll let it go at
that. Its just that you seem to show up wherever the cloner pops up. Could be just a
coincidence. I can't prove your involvement. I just have this funny feeling that you
may know more about this matter.
KMerrymoon
<Dear Doug:
<
<Glad to see you confirm a few observations here. My quote of David
<Stewart for example (crossing out names), Gail's initiation under
<Kirpal Singh (a point long denied in certain Eckankar circles), etc.
<
<Now a question for you:
<
<Did David Stewart receive any "heat" for talking to me, as he later
<reported to me on the phone?
<
<Did David Stewart quit Eckankar after this time?>
DOUG:
First of all, David, I saw no evidence that Gail was initiated by Kirpal. I
read that from your research. I did see evidence that Gail knew about Kirpal
and saw him once, however.
I comment on this question over David Stewart later in the book. David Stewart
is still a member of ECKANKAR, at least as of a couple years ago, when I last
heard. He was hardly harrassed out of the ECK Office or out of ECKANKAR for
talking with you. This is just one of many of your innuendos that were false
and misleading.
neural...@my-deja.com
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
David Stewart told me directly that he took heat for talking with me.
As for Gail's initiation, I saw the records personally.
neural...@my-deja.com
> >
> > In article <38C640A6...@naxs.com>,
> > > > I am in the process of securing the documents from that time
period
> > and let us see what information they provide.
> > >
> > > This sounds like the most fruiful approach to the matter. Let us
> > review the primary document rather than rely on your 22 year-old
memories.
> > >
> > > rfp
> >
> > I quite agree.
> >
> > Just don't clone the documents, Richard.
>
> One would hope that you might provide a copy of the documents, Dave.
They should have
> been included in your "expose." However, its not to late to provide
accurate
> documentation. You certainly can't reasonably expect anyone to give
any credibility to
> your alleged "eye-witness" claims.
>
> --
> The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects
> is that science requires reasoning while those other
> subjects merely require scholarship.
> -- Robert Heinlein
>
Personally I think it is always fruitful to get as many documents as
possible.
Why not ask Eckankar for Peebles' paper?
That would be a very simple solution.
Or do you want me to risk a lawsuit?
neural...@my-deja.com
Pretty funny richard.
You claim that I should have included documents in my expose' (I
actually did include many of them in several earlier editions), but you
know there wouldn't have been an expose' if Twitchell would have done
something first:
1. Cited his sources.
2. Presented an ACCURATE biography.
KMerrymoon
<
<David Stewart told me directly that he took heat for talking with me.
<
<As for Gail's initiation, I saw the records personally.>
DOUG:
David, I would have thought you might have shown even the slightest bit of
remorse over implying in your book that David Stewart was forced to leave work
at the ECK Office, because he spoke with you, and then quit ECKANKAR shortly
afterward, when these things were not true.
You could have simply said that David told you he had taken some heat for
talking with you. But you went much farther than that in your book.
As for Gail's initiation, I believe you. I wasn't questioning whether or not
this was true. I was only correcting your statement that what I saw in the
files confirmed your research on this point.
Michael Wallace
R. Floyd Pickett <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote in message
news:38C92E36...@naxs.com...
> Mahavahana wrote:
>
> Well, Joe, if you are denying any involvement in the cloning, then we'll
let it go at
> that. Its just that you seem to show up wherever the cloner pops up. Could
be just a
> coincidence. I can't prove your involvement. I just have this funny
feeling that you
> may know more about this matter.
Richard... Why is it that I get this odd feeling that when David Lane barks,
Joe wags in a post soon after.
It is the strangest idea... Sort of weird... But it just sticks in my head
and won't go away. I keep getting this repeating image of the tail wagging
the dog <G>
But more seriously... My poor dog got bitten by a snake today... and what is
worse... The Snake got him right above the balls. He was looking very sorry,
and in a word, really depressed as I took him into the vets for the anti
venom shot. Tomorrow we will know if he is OK.
I tell ya... Bitten by a snake is bad enough ... But right there! aya ya ya
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote in message
news:AkWx4.52414$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:10:32 GMT Hawk <hu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > David L.,why don't you write the Eckankar office and ask for a copy?
> > Just tell them your copy is buried under a pile of historical
> > insignificance somewhere and you want it so you can make sure your name
> > isn't forgotten on A.R.E.
> > I'm sure they would love to hear from you.<VBG>
> >
> > luv, Hawk
>
> I doubt if Lane's name will ever be forgotten on a.r.e.
>
> His research on Eckankar is what most Eckists talk about here.
>
> That includes you Hawk.
>
Remember Joe...
Thou Shalt not Worship False Idols!! <G>
Love
M
Michael Wallace
<neural...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a97e0$78t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38C803...@aloha.net>,
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote:
> > Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> Eckankar sues one of its own for a million plus
> Eckankar sues a Professor who did NOTHING with Peebles' paper except
> give a COPY of it OVER to an Eckankar member (who lied about his
> purposes).
Huh?
Didn't you say Gruss was responsible for the SCP info... Thus must have been
aware of the Peebles info as much as your own??
> Eckankar sues a college that is completely unaware of the term paper.
Again... They publish material from a source they are unaware of?
>
> Now think.
>
> This is the way to react?
>
Well... If it is true that the process of litigation started after the SCP
material came out, which by all accounts was extremely defamatory...
It WOULD seem to be a way to act if you need to protect your Spiritual Paths
interest ...
But we STILL don't know what all the fuss is about. NO HARD INFO as yet.
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
KMerrymoon <kmerr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000310015852...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
> <
> <David Stewart told me directly that he took heat for talking with me.
> <
> >
> David, I would have thought you might have shown even the slightest bit of
> remorse over implying in your book that David Stewart was forced to leave
work
> at the ECK Office, because he spoke with you, and then quit ECKANKAR
shortly
> afterward, when these things were not true.
>
> You could have simply said that David told you he had taken some heat for
> talking with you. But you went much farther than that in your book.
Welll David... Surely... This much you would accept... And in truth, what
someone writes as a 20 year old or so is really a young man's ideas... We
all know how wrong we 'all' were about many things at that age.
Maybe we will all look back and realise how wrong we are with things in
'this' age as well come another 20 years. If an untrue of incorrect
statement has been made, I believe it is appropriate to recognise this,
accept it, and move on.
Love
Michael
Hawk
then some.I write in response because I have had personal experience
with the light and sound and personal experience with Paul(even though
I never met him physically).
When I see a transparent academic,I like to try and have a conversation
to see if the words "revelation" ,"spiritual
experience","transformation",or any kind of indication that the person
has any real background in anything besides a spiral notebook and a
mouse and computer screen.
I haven't seen any communication from Lane or you(for that matter)that
is inspiring,insightful,spiritually relevant to mankind,or in any way
would indicate that either of you have a clue about spiritual
energy,transformation,initiation,or would indicate that you have even
read enough about such experiences to be able to communicate
intelligently about such things.
Please tell me something about your personal spiritual awakening and
deep insights into the nature of life that these experiences have
brought to you.
If you can't even talk about such things, then what value do your words
have?They are merely something you surmise because someone like Lane
said something once upon a time about something someone else said about
something they surmised about what someone else wrote about something
they heard someone say.
Please say some intelligent thought that originated within your own
noggin,and isn't just a repeat of some blather you read or heard
somewhere.
Give me a break!Your posts sound like a parrot that's been trained to
repeat what it's heard.
Joe, want a cracker?
Sorry to be so direct,but you wouldn't even make an interesting pet.
My dog has more awareness than you.
luv, Hawk
In article <38c8...@pink.one.net.au>,
--
Hu-for-U
neural...@my-deja.com
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
> <
> <David Stewart told me directly that he took heat for talking with me.
> <
>
> David, I would have thought you might have shown even the slightest
bit of
> remorse over implying in your book that David Stewart was forced to
leave work
> at the ECK Office, because he spoke with you, and then quit ECKANKAR
shortly
> afterward, when these things were not true.
>
> You could have simply said that David told you he had taken some heat
for
> talking with you. But you went much farther than that in your book.
>
or not
> this was true. I was only correcting your statement that what I saw
in the
> files confirmed your research on this point.
Dear Doug:
Sorry, but you quote me incorrectly.
I didn't say Stewart quit Eckankar.
I said exactly this, "Weeks after talking with me, David Stewart
resigned from his position [working as the Editor] and went back to
Texas."
Who gave me that information?
Eckankar's International Headquarters in Menlo Park.
As for Stewart taking heat for talking to me, I was an eyewitness to it.
Stewart told me point blank to my face (and in front of Joseph Connell)
that I should not have come and that he was getting heat for talking to
me.
I have no remorse for what I wrote.
It is what happened then.
neural...@my-deja.com
> > <
> > <David Stewart told me directly that he took heat for talking with
me.
> > <
> > >
> > David, I would have thought you might have shown even the slightest
bit of
> > remorse over implying in your book that David Stewart was forced to
leave
> work
> > at the ECK Office, because he spoke with you, and then quit ECKANKAR
> shortly
> > afterward, when these things were not true.
> >
> > You could have simply said that David told you he had taken some
heat for
> > talking with you. But you went much farther than that in your book.
>
what
> someone writes as a 20 year old or so is really a young man's
ideas... We
> all know how wrong we 'all' were about many things at that age.
>
> Maybe we will all look back and realise how wrong we are with things
in
> 'this' age as well come another 20 years. If an untrue of incorrect
> statement has been made, I believe it is appropriate to recognise
this,
> accept it, and move on.
>
> Love
>
> Michael
>
DAVID LANE REPLIES:
I was there. David Stewart directly told me he took heat. He was quite
apprehensive when I did meet with him at the International Headquarters.
Joseph Connell was there with me.
And, next time, Doug needs to read my quotes EXACTLY and CORRECTLY.
I never said Stewart quit Eckankar.
I said rather that he resigned from his position as Editor of the
journal shortly thereafter and went back to Texas.
Where did I get such info?
The Eckankar International Headquarters in Menlo Park.
So, Doug needs to quote me exactly and not make things up that I didn't
say in the text.
Professor I Q Autisticofsky
>I haven't seen any communication from Lane or you(for that matter)that
>is inspiring,insightful,spiritually relevant to mankind,or in any way
>would indicate that either of you have a clue about spiritual
>energy,transformation,initiation,or would indicate that you have even
>read enough about such experiences to be able to communicate
>intelligently about such things.
>Please tell me something about your personal spiritual awakening and
>deep insights into the nature of life that these experiences have
>brought to you.
>If you can't even talk about such things, then what value do your words
>have?They are merely something you surmise because someone like Lane
>said something once upon a time about something someone else said about
>something they surmised about what someone else wrote about something
>they heard someone say.
>Please say some intelligent thought that originated within your own
>noggin,and isn't just a repeat of some blather you read or heard
>somewhere.
>Give me a break!Your posts sound like a parrot that's been trained to
>repeat what it's heard.
>Joe, want a cracker?
>Sorry to be so direct,but you wouldn't even make an interesting pet.
>My dog has more awareness than you.
What can one expect from a graduate from my institute? He's only an
expert at 2 things. Repetition and autism. With an IQ of 2 (and
growing!), the best in 25 years that he has been able to come up with
is that the inner experiences of all Eckists (and probably everybody
else on the earth, for that matter) is merely neurons firing in the
brain. In other words, one's imagination, nothing else.
He can't help it. Those are the tools that God, the Mighty Owl, gave
him when he accidentally forgot to make David in his own image!
Professor I Q Autisticofsky
Mahavahana
<rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> Mahavahana wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:55:52 GMT "R. Floyd Pickett"
> > <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > neural...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <38C7D024...@naxs.com>,
> > > > "R. Floyd Pickett" <rfpi...@naxs.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > KMerrymoon wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DAVID LANE WROTE:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Only one warning Richard:
> > > >
> > > > Just don't clone his name and post.
> > > >
> > > > slightly teasing.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Dave, I haven't cloned anyone, but I have been cloned by some unsavory character who is probably affiliated with Joseph O'Leary. Of course, I could be wrong about Joe's involvement.
> >
> >
> > I feel sorry for you, and doubly sorry for everyone that has to deal
> > with you.
> >
>
> that. Its just that you seem to show up wherever the cloner pops up. Could be just a
> coincidence. I can't prove your involvement. I just have this funny feeling that you
> may know more about this matter.
Grow a conscience Richard; it's never too late.
When Lane was cloned on a.r.e. a couple of years ago, what particular
issue did the cloner say he was most enraged about?
The appearance of YOUR posts on Lane's NEURAL SURFER website.
When you and Samorez entered into an agreement to stay off of a.r.e.
for one year, dozens of posts appeared here bearing your very
distinctive prose style. Smith even remarked once, in reference to one
of these posts, that it was you.
When you got heat for your attacks and comments on Lane's RS Yahoo
club, a number of club members (just those that criticized you) got
their club IDs cloned, and you disappeared from the club immediately
afterwards after being a very active poster for some weeks.
A few weeks ago, when I called you on your use of pseudos on the Yahoo
Eckankar club ("Ms Ormond" and "burton latimer") immediately afterwards
my club ID was cloned -- as Ms Ormond and Burton, gee, just happened to
disappear from the club since the day I called you out.
What a spate of coincidences Richard. How remarkable.
I don't think you have any idea how your very distinctive writing style
and peculiar agenda follows you like a snail trail -- but follow you it
does, and you don't fool anyone no matter what name you're using.
Keep up the good work for Eckankar, the religion of the Highest God's
Light and Sound. You're a fine example of the teachings.
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
Mahavahana
<wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> Richard... Why is it that I get this odd feeling that when David Lane barks,
> Joe wags in a post soon after.
Well Michael, when you tried to falsely claim that Jim Peebles was
still a member of Eckankar, I took issue with that.
Your basic response was to run, and to claim that I were impersonating
Lane.
If eck critics weren't here to keep your storytelling in check, god
knows the tales you're been spinning here.
Mahavahana
light and sound and the juicy experiences -- and maketh folks throw
their ethics out the window.
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:06:00 GMT Hawk <hu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Yes, it is true that David Lane has had his 15 minutes of fame and
> then some.I write in response because I have had personal experience
> with the light and sound and personal experience with Paul(even though
> I never met him physically).
> When I see a transparent academic,I like to try and have a conversation
> to see if the words "revelation" ,"spiritual
> experience","transformation",or any kind of indication that the person
> has any real background in anything besides a spiral notebook and a
> mouse and computer screen.
> I haven't seen any communication from Lane or you(for that matter)that
> is inspiring,insightful,spiritually relevant to mankind,or in any way
> would indicate that either of you have a clue about spiritual
> energy,transformation,initiation,or would indicate that you have even
> read enough about such experiences to be able to communicate
> intelligently about such things.
> Please tell me something about your personal spiritual awakening and
> deep insights into the nature of life that these experiences have
> brought to you.
> If you can't even talk about such things, then what value do your words
> have?They are merely something you surmise because someone like Lane
> said something once upon a time about something someone else said about
> something they surmised about what someone else wrote about something
> they heard someone say.
> Please say some intelligent thought that originated within your own
> noggin,and isn't just a repeat of some blather you read or heard
> somewhere.
> Give me a break!Your posts sound like a parrot that's been trained to
> repeat what it's heard.
> Joe, want a cracker?
> Sorry to be so direct,but you wouldn't even make an interesting pet.
> My dog has more awareness than you.
>
> luv, Hawk
>
>
>
>
> In article <38c8...@pink.one.net.au>,
> "Michael Wallace" <wall...@one.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > Mahavahana <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote in message
> > news:AkWx4.52414$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com...
> > > On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:10:32 GMT Hawk <hu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David L.,why don't you write the Eckankar office and ask for a
> copy?
> > > > Just tell them your copy is buried under a pile of historical
> > > > insignificance somewhere and you want it so you can make sure
> your name
> > > > isn't forgotten on A.R.E.
> > > > I'm sure they would love to hear from you.<VBG>
> > > >
> > > > luv, Hawk
> > >
> > > I doubt if Lane's name will ever be forgotten on a.r.e.
> > >
> > > His research on Eckankar is what most Eckists talk about here.
> > >
> > > That includes you Hawk.
> > >
> >
> > Remember Joe...
> >
> > Thou Shalt not Worship False Idols!! <G>
> >
> > Love
> >
> > M
> >
> >
>
> --
> Hu-for-U
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.