Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Talking Points"?
33 views
Skip to first unread message
Etznab
Jun 8, 2015, 12:41:05 PM6/8/15
to
Wanted to speculate on the evolution of possible "talking points" over the years.
At one point plagiarism was denied, or argued that the alleged plagiarized books were not copyrighted.
At one point the amount of plagiarisms were alleged to be 1% or 2% of the total works.
At one point the plagiarisms (several examples, including numerous paragraphs now illustrated on a.r.e.) were said to be only plagiarisms; as if not much more than that.
In the past year the ideas of "no proof" and "cannot prove" have cropped up more and more with respect to what, if anything, the plagiarisms mean about existence of certain Eckankar masters and spiritual beings.
***
Some considerations.
If certain information (including the real life existence of certain Eckankar masters) is not true, because it never existed to begin with (except in the imaginations of readers who literally believed in so many forms of fiction, including pseudo history and religion), it could become a formidable "talking point" burdening others with the impossible task of proving a negative. It might be similar to asking others to prove Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny (Tooth Fairy, etc., etc.) are not real when so many people claim otherwise and having seen and had experiences with them.
IMO there is a difference with the Ecknakar masters topic, however, because these were claimed to have been real living people and not simply imaginary people created by the mind and in dreams!
Real they were said to be; and always having a real living master has been a characteristic claimed relatively unique to Eckankar, compared with spiritual paths not having living masters.
Now, in spite of numerous examples of word for word plagiarisms, and credited to Eckankar masters, people are challenged with the inaility to prove "these" masters were never completely real to begin with.
Leaded gasoline was said to be something at one time. As was asbestos and any number of other products later found (actually admitted) to be something else.
The proof was in the pudding, so to speak, and what so many nay-sayers did was try to coverup the truth and prevent the taking of personal responsibility and liability for having created and dispersed such products to begin with.
At the present time there are any number of non biodegradable industrial byproducts and materials - including radioactive and chemical wastes - that people are very desperately wanting to find a home for and "cover up". Many things that people want to make go away because they are harmful ... and my argument is that the topic of safety should have been more thoroughly investigated first.
When Paul Twitchell copied from books and told stories that were not exactly true (just like every other spiritual path has done, according to some) and other people saw this and were aware of it, then
1.) Why was it allowed to continue?
2.) How was it allowed to continue?
***
These things, imho, are in need of answering and study in order to better insure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
Thus, one of the big reasons for taking time to investigate the allegations of plagiarism and lies inhabiting religious ideology and dogma today.
At one point plagiarism was denied, or argued that the alleged plagiarized books were not copyrighted.
At one point the amount of plagiarisms were alleged to be 1% or 2% of the total works.
At one point the plagiarisms (several examples, including numerous paragraphs now illustrated on a.r.e.) were said to be only plagiarisms; as if not much more than that.
In the past year the ideas of "no proof" and "cannot prove" have cropped up more and more with respect to what, if anything, the plagiarisms mean about existence of certain Eckankar masters and spiritual beings.
***
Some considerations.
If certain information (including the real life existence of certain Eckankar masters) is not true, because it never existed to begin with (except in the imaginations of readers who literally believed in so many forms of fiction, including pseudo history and religion), it could become a formidable "talking point" burdening others with the impossible task of proving a negative. It might be similar to asking others to prove Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny (Tooth Fairy, etc., etc.) are not real when so many people claim otherwise and having seen and had experiences with them.
IMO there is a difference with the Ecknakar masters topic, however, because these were claimed to have been real living people and not simply imaginary people created by the mind and in dreams!
Real they were said to be; and always having a real living master has been a characteristic claimed relatively unique to Eckankar, compared with spiritual paths not having living masters.
Now, in spite of numerous examples of word for word plagiarisms, and credited to Eckankar masters, people are challenged with the inaility to prove "these" masters were never completely real to begin with.
Leaded gasoline was said to be something at one time. As was asbestos and any number of other products later found (actually admitted) to be something else.
The proof was in the pudding, so to speak, and what so many nay-sayers did was try to coverup the truth and prevent the taking of personal responsibility and liability for having created and dispersed such products to begin with.
At the present time there are any number of non biodegradable industrial byproducts and materials - including radioactive and chemical wastes - that people are very desperately wanting to find a home for and "cover up". Many things that people want to make go away because they are harmful ... and my argument is that the topic of safety should have been more thoroughly investigated first.
When Paul Twitchell copied from books and told stories that were not exactly true (just like every other spiritual path has done, according to some) and other people saw this and were aware of it, then
1.) Why was it allowed to continue?
2.) How was it allowed to continue?
***
These things, imho, are in need of answering and study in order to better insure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
Thus, one of the big reasons for taking time to investigate the allegations of plagiarism and lies inhabiting religious ideology and dogma today.
Etznab
Jun 8, 2015, 1:12:23 PM6/8/15
to
"Real they were said to be; and always having a real living master has been a characteristic claimed relatively unique to Eckankar, compared with spiritual paths not having living masters."
The main point hinges on the word "LIVING" master, imho.
So at one point plagiarism was outright denied, but later "borrowing" admitted.
How long before masters once qualified as living are later found to not have been living?
When even Doug Marman admits the phenomenon of putting other people's words as if coming out the mouths of Eck Masters I suggest this is a crumb to follow and not one to make disappear. It is one to follow where it leads, but I haven't seen Doug leading any more discussions here for quite some time. Not unless he is having others to do it this him.
Where are the R.S.'s who argued in favor of 2% plagiarisms now?
Where are the D.M.'s who argued in favor of not three consecutive plagiarized words in a row?
I think maybe they have lost the argument and any basis to reconstitute their former claims. Just like Darwin (or his secretary, whatever) could no longer claim no plagiarism in view of copious evidence to the contrary visible to those with eyes to read and see.
If there be an ancient lineage of Eckankar masters having passed information personally from one to another over thousands of years then let the truth be seen. If, however, the story (along with the truth) is something else and was intentionally changed, for various reasons, then I say let that be shown. And the reason is because the word "LIVING" is evidently vital to the creation and the continuation of Eckankar teachings here on Earth. And living cannot be changed to imaginary and qualify as the same thing.
Message has been deleted
Kinpa
Jun 14, 2015, 10:15:34 PM6/14/15
to
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 1:16:31 AM UTC, Henosis Sage wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------
You have no evidence of this claim....
>
> Yeah, that was well explained imho Mr Etznab.
>
> RE: "Where are the D.M.'s who argued in favor of not three
> and Copied Texts in DWTM and that it was in fact Paul writing out (as best
> he could) a written record of his REAL CONVERSATIONS with one Rebazar Tarz?
>
> Because when he was SHOWN incontrovertible evidence of the MASSIVE PALGIARISM
> & COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENTS in DWTM you know what he said?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of misspells right there, didn't you post something ridiculing me the other day about that??? LOL
> NOTHING ...... ZIP NADA NOT ONE WORD
>
> INSTEAD HE STARTED AN ARGUMENT - FALSELY ACCUSED OF SAYING SOMETHING VIA EMAIL
> TO HIM - SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY WHICH WAS PROVABLE IN THE EMAILS - AND WHEN CHALLENGED TO PRODUCE SAID "COMMENTS BY ME" HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED TO DO SO THEN ACCUSING ME OF LYING ABOUT IT FOR I KNEW I HAD SAID --- THEN THE COPWARD RAN AWAY AND HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN OF SINCE.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
Still can't spell? perhaps a dictionary is in order for the amateur linguist/astrologer/numerologist? A coward is one who always calls another names from behind his keyboard....not the best course of action, but hey, only you have to live with yourself, it's unfortunate that your obvious pride over what you consider a proving of another wrong simply isn't so...just another weak attempt to get someone to argue with....argue with your pet instead..
> DOUG MARMAN IS A LYING CREEP WITH ZERO INTEGRITY AND MULTIPLE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES.
>-------------------------------------------------------
Funny how you cowardly make this claim about another but offer no proof of it. And multiple psychological issues?? LMAO!
> MAYBE, JUST MAYBE THE ONE APPEARING AS KINPA HERE IS DOUG MARMAN IN DRAG???
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am everyone on the net aren't I? You seem to be rather overly obsessed with me, and to be honest I find that quite strange....
> THE REPEATED BEHAVIOUR HERE SINCE SEPT 2014 IS IN FACT EXACTLY THE SAME
> BEHAVIOUR AS DISPLAYED BY DOUG MARMAN VIA EMAIL AND ON HIS SDP SITE.
>
> LIES - MANIPULATIONS - SOPHISTRY - FALSEHOODS - AND EXTREME ARROGANCE AND
> MASSIVE GRANDIOSITY - DENIAL OF THE TRUTH AND HABITUAL CERTAINTY IN THE
> FACE OF MASSIVE SMOTHERING DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT PROVED HIS 100% WRONG
> FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS ONGOING .....
>
> THAT AND HE IS AN OFFENSIVE DISINGENUOUS COWARD OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.
>------------------------------------------------------
You are not even one percent better than what you accuse of another....just a lot of hot air that no one seems to care to hear...
> A CUNNING MANIPULATIVE CREEP WHO PRIVATELY SAYS KLEMP IS NO LONGER THE MAHANTA
> THAT ANOTHER ONE IS - BUT PUBLICLY TO HIS SYCOPHANT FOLLOWERS WHO HOLD TO
> ECKANKAR HE COVERS UP WHAT HE KNOWS AND BELIEVES AND THINKS ABOUT MATTERS
> ECKANKAR.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
You love to call names and accusations that you have never been able to prove to people that don't ever read what you right and who don't care to answer you, then you claim that the fact they didn't answer proves you were right...LOL...downright silly, but hey, you keep blowing that hot air all around...but why am I still only seeing ONE person following you around? you seem to be jealous of others who have a larger audience than you do, but why, if you are so NOT a coward, are you unable to admit what is obvious to any who read here?
> WHY WAS THE VERY NEXT ECKANKAR SEMINAR TITLED "MY MISSION RENEWED" ????????
>
> WHAT'S ALL THAT ABOUT KLEMP IN JANUARY 2014 SLIPPING ON BLACK ICE AND BREAKING
> HIS HIP AND THEN HIS WEIRD DELUSIONAL DISTURBING CRAP HE SPOKE ABOUT AT THE
> 2012 SPRINGTIME SEMINAR WHILE SITTING IN A WHEEL CHAIR ????
>
> KLEMP IS A SERIOUSLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND WHO I WOULD
> NOT TRUST ENOUGH TO PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF A MOBILE HOT DOG STAND!!!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are welcomed to your own opinion, no one seems to actually care what you think however....I see no one flocking here to agree with you other than your pet Etznab LOL
>
>
> DOUG MARMAN IN MY VIEW IS A "DOG" - AS USED BY THOSE IN THE CRIMINAL WORLD
> AND IN PRISONS. MATT SHARPE KINPA IS NO BETTER - HE'S JUST NOT AS GOOD AT
> BEING A LYING MANIPULATOR AS DOUG MARMAN
>------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't lied or manipulated...which is why you offer only accusation after accusation but cannot prove a single one of those....smh.....well, it IS all YOUR karma, so you created it, you enjoy it! :D
> MARMAN HAS SIMPLY HAD MUCH MORE TIME TO PERFECT HIS DISHONEST DECEPTIVE TRADE
> OF HIS LIFE LONG DREAM OF BEING AN EXPERT AND A SPIRITUAL MASTER OF NOTE.
>
> MAYBE KINPA SEES HIMSELF AS DOUG'S APPRENTICE -- WAITING IN THE WINGS TO
> RECEIVE THE MANTLE FROM HIS ESTEEMED SUPERIOR MANIPULATOR WHEN HE TOO RUNS
> OUT OF ROPE
>------------------------------------------------------
I am not apprentice to anyone nor do I await to become anyone's Master, but I still find this slander endlessly funny and further proof that you ARE a liar, since you have never been able to prove that I ever said such a thing anywhere!
> ... LIKE TWITCHELL DID IN SEPT 1971 AFTER (SUPPOSEDLY) WRITING A NOT TO
> SRI KIRPAL SINGH INSULTING HIM AND AND ABUSING HIM IN PRINT.... WHICH WAS
> LATER USED BY ECKANAKR AS SOME KIND OF "PROOF" THAT KIRPAL SINGH WAS NOT
> EITHER "SUDAR SINGH" (a female name) NOR THE CHARACTER "REBAZAR TARZS" AS
> WRITTEN ABOUT BY THE TWITCH IN HIS FRAUDULENT ECKANKAR BOOKS AND DISCOURSES.
>
> THE QUESTION I WANT ANSWERED IS WHY WAS MARMAN AND KLEMP EMAILING EACH OTHER
> DURING THE LATTER PART OF 2011 POST PATTI'S DEATH?
>
> WHY WAS MARMAN DISCUSSING WITH KLEMP VIA EMAIL KLEMP'S EARLIER PROMISE THAT
> HE WOULD KNOW WHEN THE TIME WAS RIGHT TO STEP ASIDE AND HIS MISSION WAS COMPLETED?
>
> AND WHY DID PATTI SIMPSON RIVINUS DEMAND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE FEMALE 8TH INITIATES IN JULY 1983 THAT KLEMP REMOVE DARWIN GROSS IMMEDIATELY OR THEY WOULD GO PUBLIC TO THE ECK CHELAS?
>-----------------------------------------------------
Why do you even care? You have no love for Darwin regardless, instead it's about hurling shit to and fro for you LOL...do yourself a favor, wash your hands when you get done...
> THIS BEING BUT A MONTH AFTER THE FIRST VERSION OF LETTERS TO GAIL III ARRIVED
> FROM THE PRINTERS .. ONLY TO BE LATER PULPED IN SEPTEMBER ... NOT BE SEEN AGAIN
> UNTIL 1990 AND THOROUGHLY REDACTED WITH 6 MONTHS OF LETTERS DELETED???
>
> Ask Doug Marman yourself @ http://spiritualdialogues.com/
>
>
> IF HE IGNORES YOU DROP ME A NOTE AND I'LL PROVIDE A CPL OF EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR HIM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does a lack of conversations with Rebazar Tarzs prove he is not real? No, you cannot use a negative to prove a positive anymore than you can prove a negative...I'm not sure why certain people are unaware of this fact that is a definite part of the saying "You can't prove a negative."
The very same way, if we adopt your "logic" no shaman that has ever existed ever had any effect or did any good or served any actual purpose for the members of his tribe, why? Because his words are not in writing?
Once again you show a complete lack of the ability to think in even the least degree of logic, because you consistently judge life and others by your double standard, where anyone that you don't like is bad, but anything you do is not to be judged by the same standards as if you are exempt, but you are not! Wake up and smell the coffee! Or don't , it makes little difference to me, but you may as well know that it IS endlessly amusing to the public as they read this stuff, then to watch you endlessly claim that another is defaming you! You couldn't win a defamation lawsuit if your life depended on it!
But thank you SO much for the hilarity once again! RIGHT ON CUE, AGAIN! EVERY TIME!
Here is a video for you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVEN3FrBVU
You have no evidence of this claim....
>
> Yeah, that was well explained imho Mr Etznab.
>
> RE: "Where are the D.M.'s who argued in favor of not three
> consecutive plagiarized words in a row?"
>
> And where's the D.M.'s who repeatedly claimed that no one had ever shown
>
> and Copied Texts in DWTM and that it was in fact Paul writing out (as best
> he could) a written record of his REAL CONVERSATIONS with one Rebazar Tarz?
>
> Because when he was SHOWN incontrovertible evidence of the MASSIVE PALGIARISM
> & COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENTS in DWTM you know what he said?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of misspells right there, didn't you post something ridiculing me the other day about that??? LOL
> NOTHING ...... ZIP NADA NOT ONE WORD
>
> INSTEAD HE STARTED AN ARGUMENT - FALSELY ACCUSED OF SAYING SOMETHING VIA EMAIL
> TO HIM - SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY WHICH WAS PROVABLE IN THE EMAILS - AND WHEN CHALLENGED TO PRODUCE SAID "COMMENTS BY ME" HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED TO DO SO THEN ACCUSING ME OF LYING ABOUT IT FOR I KNEW I HAD SAID --- THEN THE COPWARD RAN AWAY AND HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN OF SINCE.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
Still can't spell? perhaps a dictionary is in order for the amateur linguist/astrologer/numerologist? A coward is one who always calls another names from behind his keyboard....not the best course of action, but hey, only you have to live with yourself, it's unfortunate that your obvious pride over what you consider a proving of another wrong simply isn't so...just another weak attempt to get someone to argue with....argue with your pet instead..
> DOUG MARMAN IS A LYING CREEP WITH ZERO INTEGRITY AND MULTIPLE PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES.
>-------------------------------------------------------
Funny how you cowardly make this claim about another but offer no proof of it. And multiple psychological issues?? LMAO!
> MAYBE, JUST MAYBE THE ONE APPEARING AS KINPA HERE IS DOUG MARMAN IN DRAG???
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am everyone on the net aren't I? You seem to be rather overly obsessed with me, and to be honest I find that quite strange....
> THE REPEATED BEHAVIOUR HERE SINCE SEPT 2014 IS IN FACT EXACTLY THE SAME
> BEHAVIOUR AS DISPLAYED BY DOUG MARMAN VIA EMAIL AND ON HIS SDP SITE.
>
> LIES - MANIPULATIONS - SOPHISTRY - FALSEHOODS - AND EXTREME ARROGANCE AND
> MASSIVE GRANDIOSITY - DENIAL OF THE TRUTH AND HABITUAL CERTAINTY IN THE
> FACE OF MASSIVE SMOTHERING DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT PROVED HIS 100% WRONG
> FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS ONGOING .....
>
> THAT AND HE IS AN OFFENSIVE DISINGENUOUS COWARD OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.
>------------------------------------------------------
You are not even one percent better than what you accuse of another....just a lot of hot air that no one seems to care to hear...
> A CUNNING MANIPULATIVE CREEP WHO PRIVATELY SAYS KLEMP IS NO LONGER THE MAHANTA
> THAT ANOTHER ONE IS - BUT PUBLICLY TO HIS SYCOPHANT FOLLOWERS WHO HOLD TO
> ECKANKAR HE COVERS UP WHAT HE KNOWS AND BELIEVES AND THINKS ABOUT MATTERS
> ECKANKAR.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
You love to call names and accusations that you have never been able to prove to people that don't ever read what you right and who don't care to answer you, then you claim that the fact they didn't answer proves you were right...LOL...downright silly, but hey, you keep blowing that hot air all around...but why am I still only seeing ONE person following you around? you seem to be jealous of others who have a larger audience than you do, but why, if you are so NOT a coward, are you unable to admit what is obvious to any who read here?
> WHY WAS THE VERY NEXT ECKANKAR SEMINAR TITLED "MY MISSION RENEWED" ????????
>
> WHAT'S ALL THAT ABOUT KLEMP IN JANUARY 2014 SLIPPING ON BLACK ICE AND BREAKING
> HIS HIP AND THEN HIS WEIRD DELUSIONAL DISTURBING CRAP HE SPOKE ABOUT AT THE
> 2012 SPRINGTIME SEMINAR WHILE SITTING IN A WHEEL CHAIR ????
>
> KLEMP IS A SERIOUSLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND WHO I WOULD
> NOT TRUST ENOUGH TO PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF A MOBILE HOT DOG STAND!!!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are welcomed to your own opinion, no one seems to actually care what you think however....I see no one flocking here to agree with you other than your pet Etznab LOL
>
>
> DOUG MARMAN IN MY VIEW IS A "DOG" - AS USED BY THOSE IN THE CRIMINAL WORLD
> AND IN PRISONS. MATT SHARPE KINPA IS NO BETTER - HE'S JUST NOT AS GOOD AT
> BEING A LYING MANIPULATOR AS DOUG MARMAN
>------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't lied or manipulated...which is why you offer only accusation after accusation but cannot prove a single one of those....smh.....well, it IS all YOUR karma, so you created it, you enjoy it! :D
> MARMAN HAS SIMPLY HAD MUCH MORE TIME TO PERFECT HIS DISHONEST DECEPTIVE TRADE
> OF HIS LIFE LONG DREAM OF BEING AN EXPERT AND A SPIRITUAL MASTER OF NOTE.
>
> MAYBE KINPA SEES HIMSELF AS DOUG'S APPRENTICE -- WAITING IN THE WINGS TO
> RECEIVE THE MANTLE FROM HIS ESTEEMED SUPERIOR MANIPULATOR WHEN HE TOO RUNS
> OUT OF ROPE
>------------------------------------------------------
I am not apprentice to anyone nor do I await to become anyone's Master, but I still find this slander endlessly funny and further proof that you ARE a liar, since you have never been able to prove that I ever said such a thing anywhere!
> ... LIKE TWITCHELL DID IN SEPT 1971 AFTER (SUPPOSEDLY) WRITING A NOT TO
> SRI KIRPAL SINGH INSULTING HIM AND AND ABUSING HIM IN PRINT.... WHICH WAS
> LATER USED BY ECKANAKR AS SOME KIND OF "PROOF" THAT KIRPAL SINGH WAS NOT
> EITHER "SUDAR SINGH" (a female name) NOR THE CHARACTER "REBAZAR TARZS" AS
> WRITTEN ABOUT BY THE TWITCH IN HIS FRAUDULENT ECKANKAR BOOKS AND DISCOURSES.
>
> THE QUESTION I WANT ANSWERED IS WHY WAS MARMAN AND KLEMP EMAILING EACH OTHER
> DURING THE LATTER PART OF 2011 POST PATTI'S DEATH?
>
> WHY WAS MARMAN DISCUSSING WITH KLEMP VIA EMAIL KLEMP'S EARLIER PROMISE THAT
> HE WOULD KNOW WHEN THE TIME WAS RIGHT TO STEP ASIDE AND HIS MISSION WAS COMPLETED?
>
> AND WHY DID PATTI SIMPSON RIVINUS DEMAND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE FEMALE 8TH INITIATES IN JULY 1983 THAT KLEMP REMOVE DARWIN GROSS IMMEDIATELY OR THEY WOULD GO PUBLIC TO THE ECK CHELAS?
>-----------------------------------------------------
Why do you even care? You have no love for Darwin regardless, instead it's about hurling shit to and fro for you LOL...do yourself a favor, wash your hands when you get done...
> THIS BEING BUT A MONTH AFTER THE FIRST VERSION OF LETTERS TO GAIL III ARRIVED
> FROM THE PRINTERS .. ONLY TO BE LATER PULPED IN SEPTEMBER ... NOT BE SEEN AGAIN
> UNTIL 1990 AND THOROUGHLY REDACTED WITH 6 MONTHS OF LETTERS DELETED???
>
> Ask Doug Marman yourself @ http://spiritualdialogues.com/
>
>
> IF HE IGNORES YOU DROP ME A NOTE AND I'LL PROVIDE A CPL OF EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR HIM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does a lack of conversations with Rebazar Tarzs prove he is not real? No, you cannot use a negative to prove a positive anymore than you can prove a negative...I'm not sure why certain people are unaware of this fact that is a definite part of the saying "You can't prove a negative."
The very same way, if we adopt your "logic" no shaman that has ever existed ever had any effect or did any good or served any actual purpose for the members of his tribe, why? Because his words are not in writing?
Once again you show a complete lack of the ability to think in even the least degree of logic, because you consistently judge life and others by your double standard, where anyone that you don't like is bad, but anything you do is not to be judged by the same standards as if you are exempt, but you are not! Wake up and smell the coffee! Or don't , it makes little difference to me, but you may as well know that it IS endlessly amusing to the public as they read this stuff, then to watch you endlessly claim that another is defaming you! You couldn't win a defamation lawsuit if your life depended on it!
But thank you SO much for the hilarity once again! RIGHT ON CUE, AGAIN! EVERY TIME!
Here is a video for you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVEN3FrBVU
Message has been deleted
Etznab
Jun 14, 2015, 10:40:21 PM6/14/15
to
Message has been deleted
Kinpa
Jun 16, 2015, 12:33:55 PM6/16/15
to
On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 2:30:05 AM UTC, Henosis Sage wrote:
> On Monday, 15 June 2015 12:15:34 UTC+10, Kinpa wrote:
> RE: "You have no evidence of this claim.... "
>
> Any reader can see that not one claim was made.
>
> iow there is No (quote) "this claim".
>
> It's in the pixels on the screen plain as day.
>
> Even printing out what Eztnab wrote, still won't change what he wrote.
>
> No claim was made ... that's a provable FACT
>
> NONE ZERO NADDA NUFFIN'
Does the phrasing of "Implied claim" suit you better then??
> On Monday, 15 June 2015 12:15:34 UTC+10, Kinpa wrote:
> RE: "You have no evidence of this claim.... "
>
> Any reader can see that not one claim was made.
>
> iow there is No (quote) "this claim".
>
> It's in the pixels on the screen plain as day.
>
> Even printing out what Eztnab wrote, still won't change what he wrote.
>
> No claim was made ... that's a provable FACT
>
> NONE ZERO NADDA NUFFIN'
Does the phrasing of "Implied claim" suit you better then??
Kinpa
Jun 16, 2015, 12:35:56 PM6/16/15
to
On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 3:12:41 AM UTC, Henosis Sage wrote:
> On Monday, 15 June 2015 12:40:21 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:
>
> RE: "With regard to spelling, you and I and Sean have all had
>
> Anyone is welcome to sue me for it too!
>
> LMAO~!
As I recall, it was YOU who first mentioned suing anyone for any reason, and this is merely one mare attempt at manipulating the reader's perceptions, a thing you do on a daily basis these days....oh well, to each their own! Let me know when you have contacted the FBI by the way!
> On Monday, 15 June 2015 12:40:21 UTC+10, Etznab wrote:
>
> RE: "With regard to spelling, you and I and Sean have all had
> typos and misspellings in our messages. Regularly."
>
> Yes!
>
>
> Anyone is welcome to sue me for it too!
>
> LMAO~!
As I recall, it was YOU who first mentioned suing anyone for any reason, and this is merely one mare attempt at manipulating the reader's perceptions, a thing you do on a daily basis these days....oh well, to each their own! Let me know when you have contacted the FBI by the way!
0 new messages