Attack on Eckists?
Colleen Russell
especially in light of some of the names I've been called and false
accusations made by some eckists here.
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BA79532...@worldnet.att.net...
> If turning the other cheek and being kind and loving were the true
> objective, then one would have to ask themselves what excuse is there for
> those who attack ECKists in their own newsgroup?"
I am not aware of attacking eckists personally, although I can't say the
same for eckists who have done so against me. I don't harbor hate or blame
in my heart toward anyone, and this is not what I want to sustain within my
psyche because it doesn't feel good and it lessens my ability to be with
Spirit. I do feel some anger and discomfort at the time eckists seem
deliberately trying to distort what I and other former members write, who
ridicule, and try to damage professional and personal reputations, all in
the name of love and compassion.
Cher continues:
"Where is their love and
> kindness if this is so important to them as beings? Nothing makes one
> stop and question so deeply as the one with the forked tongue."
I have seen love and kindness here, but unfortunately, it primarily stays
polarized in either former eckists/eckankar critics or eckists
contingencies. Within the group of eckists, members support and
congratulate each other; they also jointly attack "outsiders." I've seen
the same regarding others, but former eckists aren't organized into any
"insider" group and this appears to give us freedom to agree and disagree,
to express our own viewpoint on issues. I've seen some attempts to support
over the line between the two contingencies and that feels good when it
seems authentic. I believe that people operate best when we are
interconnected and interdependent -- not glued together in our thinking and
acting, nor isolated, but mutually respectful and involved with each other
in our own way.
In speaking for myself, and I believe other former eckankar initiates, at
one point or another, a psychic pain is involved in confronting the truth,
as we've discovered it, about eckankar, the leader(s) and the membership
toward whom we feel a great disappointment and betrayal. We were part of
the group consciousness to a lesser or greater degree, just as those who are
currently involved in eckankar. We loved the ideals, we loved the "living
eck master," the second "living eck master," and the third "living eck
master." We loved the sound and light of spirit and from what I've heard,
most still do.
The hurt comes from breaking through what we idealized in eckankar, much
like adolescents break away from their parents' house to go out into the
world. For me, times alone are sometimes lonely without a group within
which one can strongly identify. But I wouldn't want it any other way
because this is my way and I don't expect my way on a spiritual path to be
easy all along the journey. It often is! And I'm blessed to have all the
joy and beauty I do in my life. I've been loved and I love others. I feel
more whole now than I ever have.
Many of us have been studying the dynamics of cults or highly-controlling
and influencing groups. I didn't fully relate eckankar to this category
until a recent experience initiated a confrontation with understanding what
eckankar is and how it really affected my life. I've come up with my own
viewpoint which is in agreement with others who have left eckankar after
many years of service. When I was in eckankar, I thought I had found the
ultimate truth and reality which Paul Twitchell, the founder, gave me. At
that time, I would think that anyone who questioned the "master's" words
were ignorant or unaware souls. This is what I was taught and what the
community valued.
I feel grateful that I've changed. I have experienced my own reality,
which includes the light and sound of spirit, and which is not Paul
Twitchell's or Harold Klemp's experience of reality. Further, anyone else's
vision of "ultimate reality" can be dangerous if I take it on as mine
because in this case, I compromise myself.
I believe that we are each in a constant state of change regarding
consciousness with a mission to develop it. I hear, feel, see, sense,
breathe Spirit with emotions we call love, joy, freedom, peace, vitality,
patience, acceptance. I regard humankind as representing various states of
consciousness, some more in harmony with the divine than others.
One of the reasons I have been posting at ARE for the last few months is
that I want to be heard and seen for my self which I realize was not
something I experienced when I was a first or seventh initiate in eckankar.
I am dismayed that this is still occurring when I enter this group online;
in my perception, the organization continues to operate as a closed system
with "outsiders" appearing less than in many ways, therefore devalued and
ignored. If I wanted to, I could have kept my seventh initiation membership
active, repeated the words of the masters, and maintained a good reputation
in the org. I couldn't do it because it wasn't an authentic way for me to
live my life.
I hope these reflections haven't bored people too much, but I felt compelled
to write them.
May all of you find your own light, love, and peace.
Colleen
> Colleen Russell wrote:
> >
> > Discover eckankar and learn all you can about it. Contemplate if this is
> > something that can be beneficial for you and your goals. Get the facts
and
> > personal experiences which are now so easily available through the
internet.
> > See how the eckists on ARE demonstrate what they've learned through
their
> > communication. Do they demonstrate love, kindness, and tolerance for
> > themselves and for others? Are they role-models? Listen to the inner
voice
> > and vision...is this safe and helpful for you? Then you can decide if
,on a
> > personal basis, you're for or against it. Trust in yourself and in the
> > power within you and around you.
> >
> > I've available for any questions you might have about eckankar and my
> > experience in it. I was given the 7th initiation when Darwin Gross was
the
> > living eck master. I was involved in eckankar with Paul Twitchell who
gave
> > me the 6th initiation. I've given this information to inform you that I
> > know first hand about eckankar, its founder, and the "living eck master"
who
> > was kicked out of the org by the current "living eck master, Harold
Klemp."
> >
> > There are many sides to the story, many parts of the whole.
> >
> > It's quite a drama, isn't it? One that you may very well decide to
avoid.
> > And that's OK. It's all up to you. Honor your own truth and feelings.
> >
> > Colleen
> >
> > ZERO CIRCLE
> >
> > "Be helpless, dumfounded,
> > Unable to say yes or no.
> > Then a stretcher will come from grace
> > to gather us up.
> >
> > We are too dull-eyed to see that beauty.
> > If we say we can, we're lying.
> > If we say No, we don't see it,
> > That No will behead us
> > And shut tight our window onto spirit.
> >
> > So let us rather not be sure of anything,
> > Besides ourselves, and only that, so
> > Miraculous beings come running to help.
> > Crazed, lying in a zero circle, mute,
> > We shall be saying finally,
> > With tremendous eloquence, Lead us.
> > When we have totally surrendered to that beauty,
> > We shall be a mighty kindness."
> > Rumi
> >
> > "vahana" <vahana...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > news:9o5b4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > > ECKANKAR org's official website gives a partial account of Eckankar's
> > history
> > > and teachings:
> > > http://www.eckankar.org
> > >
> > > What's the rest of the story? You may find these links to be of
interest.
> > >
> > > Research on Eckankar's history, including the online book
> > > ECKANKAR, THE MAKING OF A SPIRITUAL MOVEMENT:
> > > http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/
> > >
> > > A key aspect of Membership in Eckankar is access to specially written
> > > "ECK Discourses" that are off-limits to non-Eckankar members. At this
> > site, you
> > > can find out what's inside these ECK Discourses before you invest in
ECK
> > > Membership:
> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
> > >
> > > Paul Twitchell, ECKANKAR's founder, often copied the words of other
> > authors
> > > without permission or proper citation. Visit the Rich Smith Memorial
> > Center for
> > > Twitchillian Plagiarism to see a partial account of Paul Twitchell's
> > extensive
> > > plagiarism of copyright protected texts:
> > > http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
> > >
> > > What's ECKANKAR's offical, direct response to critical questions on
ECK
> > > History? Here's the next best thing in an online, un-official book
> > written by
> > > long time ECKANKAR High Initiate, Doug Marman:
> > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
> > >
> > > Extensive corrections & responses to Doug Marman's book:
> > > http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/ekdebates.htm
> > >
> > > Membership in ECKANKAR is essential for obtaining Eck Discourses and
> > > Initiations; you can sign up for membership online:
> > > http://www.eckankar.org/Membership/
> > >
cher
>
> I've wanted to write a clarification regarding my belief and intent on ARE,
> especially in light of some of the names I've been called and false
> accusations made by some eckists here.
I find this okay... considering some of the nasty things I've seen you
manufacture about Eckankar. As for names.... labels yes... names? Nope.
> "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BA79532...@worldnet.att.net...
> > If turning the other cheek and being kind and loving were the true
> > objective, then one would have to ask themselves what excuse is there for
> > those who attack ECKists in their own newsgroup?"
>
> I am not aware of attacking eckists personally, although I can't say the
> same for eckists who have done so against me. I don't harbor hate or blame
> in my heart toward anyone, and this is not what I want to sustain within my
> psyche because it doesn't feel good and it lessens my ability to be with
> Spirit. I do feel some anger and discomfort at the time eckists seem
> deliberately trying to distort what I and other former members write, who
> ridicule, and try to damage professional and personal reputations, all in
> the name of love and compassion.
>\
I'd say it's pretty easy for anyone to see that the ECKists on this
group feel much the same way. But then I doubt that this point would
ever be taken seriously. Just because you are an ex-member of the group
doesn't mean that you can say outrageous things and not be challenged.
That you have consistently seen this challenge as a personal attack, I
doubt that you and I are on the same track here.
> Cher continues:
> "Where is their love and
> > kindness if this is so important to them as beings? Nothing makes one
> > stop and question so deeply as the one with the forked tongue."
>
> I have seen love and kindness here, but unfortunately, it primarily stays
> polarized in either former eckists/eckankar critics or eckists
> contingencies. Within the group of eckists, members support and
> congratulate each other; they also jointly attack "outsiders." I've seen
> the same regarding others, but former eckists aren't organized into any
> "insider" group and this appears to give us freedom to agree and disagree,
> to express our own viewpoint on issues. I've seen some attempts to support
> over the line between the two contingencies and that feels good when it
> seems authentic. I believe that people operate best when we are
> interconnected and interdependent -- not glued together in our thinking and
> acting, nor isolated, but mutually respectful and involved with each other
> in our own way.
I'd personally like to see more mutual respect. Perhaps towards Sam and
Brian? I notice that ECKists and non-eckists seem to be attacked just as
often. I've also seen a great deal of back slapping coming from you to
other detractors that you support... some of which are very apt to
attack ECKists using the most vial and contemptable language possible.
I've seen you refer to them as loving in service to truth. I wonder if
there is a common ground on which to discuss this sort of thing.
> In speaking for myself, and I believe other former eckankar initiates, at
> one point or another, a psychic pain is involved in confronting the truth,
> as we've discovered it, about eckankar, the leader(s) and the membership
> toward whom we feel a great disappointment and betrayal. We were part of
> the group consciousness to a lesser or greater degree, just as those who are
> currently involved in eckankar. We loved the ideals, we loved the "living
> eck master," the second "living eck master," and the third "living eck
> master." We loved the sound and light of spirit and from what I've heard,
> most still do.
I honestly believe that many detractors would love to still be a part of
the group consciousness. It isn't actually true, other than in this
place. Perhaps you could share with us where you've seen this? I dearly
would love to see such examples of this love, seriously. Perhaps this is
something that might help the healing process... to show this love and
respect rather than the attacks and slander and lies and rumors. I
personally have not seen this sort of love that you suggest is here. I
see the psychic pain and I see ECKists being expected to pay for this
psychic pain. But I don't see anyone here who is responsible for that
psychic pain except those who are blinded by it.
> The hurt comes from breaking through what we idealized in eckankar, much
> like adolescents break away from their parents' house to go out into the
> world. For me, times alone are sometimes lonely without a group within
> which one can strongly identify. But I wouldn't want it any other way
> because this is my way and I don't expect my way on a spiritual path to be
> easy all along the journey. It often is! And I'm blessed to have all the
> joy and beauty I do in my life. I've been loved and I love others. I feel
> more whole now than I ever have.
colleen.. this may as well have been written on the side of a vw bus.
<sigh> The very same happiness is felt in the lives of all the ECKists I
know and guess what... I know happy non-ECKists too. Can you imagine
such a thing!? I didn't join Eckankar as a idealist. I couldn't lay that
kind of garbage on anyone. This isn't meant as a person insult to you,
but this is a distinct difference between us apparently. I owned my own
youth and never expected a sugar daddy of any sort to take care of me
and my illusions. So if I come across as unsympathetic then at least you
can understand I'm being genuine.
> Many of us have been studying the dynamics of cults or highly-controlling
> and influencing groups. I didn't fully relate eckankar to this category
> until a recent experience initiated a confrontation with understanding what
> eckankar is and how it really affected my life. I've come up with my own
> viewpoint which is in agreement with others who have left eckankar after
> many years of service. When I was in eckankar, I thought I had found the
> ultimate truth and reality which Paul Twitchell, the founder, gave me. At
> that time, I would think that anyone who questioned the "master's" words
> were ignorant or unaware souls. This is what I was taught and what the
> community valued.
Well I happen to see this as you finding a new group consciousness with
which to bond. I have yet to meet anyone in Eckankar who has a history
of blind obedience that you have described. And this I would swear to!
Many of us have wondered just exactly what path you were a member of. It
appears that this was simply your means of spiritual experimentation.
But to hold Eckankar hostage for your personality seems rather less then
enlightened. The statement you made here of "what the community valued"
is a clear indication of where your priorities obviously were and
apparently still are.
> I feel grateful that I've changed. I have experienced my own reality,
> which includes the light and sound of spirit, and which is not Paul
> Twitchell's or Harold Klemp's experience of reality. Further, anyone else's
> vision of "ultimate reality" can be dangerous if I take it on as mine
> because in this case, I compromise myself.
Well frankly colleen... I don't lean on anyone elses ultimate reality, I
test my own. I honestly think this is a keen statement by you of your
state of consciousness. I seriously doubt that this is common among most
seekers of spiritual truth.
> I believe that we are each in a constant state of change regarding
> consciousness with a mission to develop it. I hear, feel, see, sense,
> breathe Spirit with emotions we call love, joy, freedom, peace, vitality,
> patience, acceptance. I regard humankind as representing various states of
> consciousness, some more in harmony with the divine than others.
Just as everyone here does. Perhaps you are only now discovering this
for yourself?
> One of the reasons I have been posting at ARE for the last few months is
> that I want to be heard and seen for my self which I realize was not
> something I experienced when I was a first or seventh initiate in eckankar.
> I am dismayed that this is still occurring when I enter this group online;
> in my perception, the organization continues to operate as a closed system
> with "outsiders" appearing less than in many ways, therefore devalued and
> ignored. If I wanted to, I could have kept my seventh initiation membership
> active, repeated the words of the masters, and maintained a good reputation
> in the org. I couldn't do it because it wasn't an authentic way for me to
> live my life.
Well as to riding the fence post with your initiations, I have a feeling
that you would not have gotten away with that one after Sri Harold
stepped in. From what i hear, he doesn't much like ranch hands who can't
stand doing chores. LOL...... As for your desire to heard for who you
are... well, there are certainly countless ECKists with the same needs.
But then you aren't around them on line. In all honesty if it were not
for this newsgroup I seriously doubt that I would seek out your
friendship or want to know you. But because I'm an ECKist and here on
this group this isn't an acceptable thing. So basically you have
captured the attention of those who you don't know for some personal
satisfaction. How lonely. Perhaps you could find some friends in your
own field who might respect what you ahve to offer them. Sharing who you
are here in this light... let's see now... I think it had something to
do with smearing your ex-husband and attacking Eckankar is hardly the
innocent preoccupation of a sweet little old lady with only the best of
intentions. <groan>
> I hope these reflections haven't bored people too much, but I felt compelled
> to write them.
It's a free country... at least this week so far.....
Len
This may come as a surprise to you but when you criticize
Eckankar, by calling its past and present leaders names, such
as you do in this and in eckankartruth, this can be a personal
attack on another's religion and felt as a personal attack for an
individual. Good, bad or ugly, this is the long and short of it.
You also align yourself with others who call Eckankar's
leaders modern day versions of Hitler. Many, many times
you talk objectively about Eckists being brainwashed, under
some flavor of mind control. Can you say that you are not
aware saying these things is felt by those who are students
of Eckankar as an attack on their religion and as a personal
attack.
On the other hand some eckists do the same to you. A
vicious cycle. And in the beginning you really pissed me off
with your notes. But that was then and this is now.
Life is too short and precious to be hurtful. So as
the story goes, a spiritual leader comes to town and is
approached by the current religious leaders. They say to
him something like wherever you go you agree with everyone,
how can you agree with all paths and all explanations, the
leaders sat back awaiting the spiritual leaders reply...
he said, yes I agree with you to.
So Colleen, I agree with you, and your point of view.
And I agree with Cher and Rich's and Lurk's. In other
words, we each create our reality and the truth which follows.
Len
"Colleen Russell" <colleen9> wrote in message
news:9o8ee0$uq3$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
: I've wanted to write a clarification regarding my belief and intent on
: > > >
:
:
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> Colleen Russell wrote:
> >
> > I've wanted to write a clarification regarding my belief and intent on ARE,
> > especially in light of some of the names I've been called and false
> > accusations made by some eckists here.
>
> I find this okay... considering some of the nasty things I've seen you
> manufacture about Eckankar.
Are you sure she manufacture things about eckankar or was that you who
did and reacted.
> As for names.... labels yes... names? Nope.
I've seen her use the term cult. It's a legitimate term especially when
she highlights what it means.
>
> > "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3BA79532...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > If turning the other cheek and being kind and loving were the true
> > > objective, then one would have to ask themselves what excuse is there for
> > > those who attack ECKists in their own newsgroup?"
> >
> > I am not aware of attacking eckists personally, although I can't say the
> > same for eckists who have done so against me. I don't harbor hate or blame
> > in my heart toward anyone, and this is not what I want to sustain within my
> > psyche because it doesn't feel good and it lessens my ability to be with
> > Spirit. I do feel some anger and discomfort at the time eckists seem
> > deliberately trying to distort what I and other former members write, who
> > ridicule, and try to damage professional and personal reputations, all in
> > the name of love and compassion.
> >\
>
> I'd say it's pretty easy for anyone to see that the ECKists on this
> group feel much the same way. But then I doubt that this point would
> ever be taken seriously. Just because you are an ex-member of the group
> doesn't mean that you can say outrageous things and not be challenged.
Nobody is asking for eckists not to challenge Colleen or anyone. But
there is a difference in challenging and attack personally.
> That you have consistently seen this challenge as a personal attack, I
> doubt that you and I are on the same track here.
I've seen here point out personal attacks a personal attacks.
Maybe you need to understand the difference. Maybe study this piece I
wrote to Rich and get back to me and I'll test you.
***************************
Here's the crux of the issue here on a.r.e.: When Colleen or any critic
makes critical remarks about Paul or Harold or eckankar in general, many
eckists, like yourself take it personally. Upon feeling personally
insulted, you and other eckists strike back by insulting the critic
personally and being nasty. You justify this by proclaiming that you are
responding to critics' attacks and speak as though these attacks are
personal in nature. This indicates to me that your identity or
definition of yourself is enmeshed with eckankar and/or you masters. In
other words, your concept of yourself is externally based despite all
the rhetoric to the contrary.
Colleen, I, or any critic is certainly has the right and is in the scope
of this newsgroup to speak critically about eckankar and its masters. I
understand this is a shock to many eckists since the eckankar culture
does not tolerate critical discourse about its masters or master's
words. I'm sure many eckists come on this newsgroup and genuinely
have hurt feelings from these critical comments. Should a critic refrain
from making critical remarks because eckists' feelings get hurt?
I don't think so, here's why: It is not my responsibility that eckists
choose to be over identified with and base their self esteem on some
perfect image of their master, eckists, or eckankar and take critical
comments personally.
To drive home this point, let me turn the table: Would it be reasonable
to expect an eckist NOT to express all the things they like and admire
about eck masters and eckankar because it hurt the feelings of a critic
that was really attached to the idea that eckankar was ALL negative? Of
course not. To extend this further: After a critic experienced hurt, if
he/she proceeded by attacking the eckist personally, or finding out
personal information to use against the eckist, or just simply persisted
with insulting name calling, wouldn't you eckists think that kind of
odd? And to top it all off, wouldn't you find it a bit ironic if this
critic then proceeded to preach to the eckists about responsibility?
Would you think it is your responsibility if critics have hurt feelings
because an eckists posted a top ten list of the best things about
eckankar? Be honest now.
Yes, this is just how absurd the dynamics are on this newsgroup.
Many former members offer their insights from their time in eckankar and
do not have the intention of hurting anyone on the newsgroup. Some
simply want to offer alternative opinions about eckankar for people
checking out eckankar or for eckists who do not have a clue about the
history of eckankar or the cultic elements in eckankar.
Eckists often boldly announce that people should decide for themselves.
That is great, and I agree. Part of deciding for one's self is to
consider all the various viewpoints, both positive and negative, and
then make decisions based upon that.
You eckists need to make the distinction between someone being critical
of your religion or masters and someone being critical of you
personally. Why? If for no other reason, the very thing you fear葉hat
eckankar will look bad to the publicĺ‚ecomes true not from what critic
say, but from your responses.
*****************
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Len wrote:
>
> Hi Colleen:
>
> This may come as a surprise to you but when you criticize
> Eckankar, by calling its past and present leaders names, such
> as you do in this and in eckankartruth, this can be a personal
> attack on another's religion and felt as a personal attack for an
> individual. Good, bad or ugly, this is the long and short of it.
Why is it a personal attack on you if I call Harold or Paul cultic?
Are you Harold or Paul?
> You also align yourself with others who call Eckankar's
> leaders modern day versions of Hitler. Many, many times
> you talk objectively about Eckists being brainwashed, under
> some flavor of mind control. Can you say that you are not
> aware saying these things is felt by those who are students
> of Eckankar as an attack on their religion and as a personal
> attack.
Usually someone will get upset about their group being subject to mind
control if they fear it to be true.
> On the other hand some eckists do the same to you. A
> vicious cycle. And in the beginning you really pissed me off
> with your notes. But that was then and this is now.
> Life is too short and precious to be hurtful. So as
> the story goes, a spiritual leader comes to town and is
> approached by the current religious leaders. They say to
> him something like wherever you go you agree with everyone,
> how can you agree with all paths and all explanations, the
> leaders sat back awaiting the spiritual leaders reply...
> he said, yes I agree with you to.
> So Colleen, I agree with you, and your point of view.
> And I agree with Cher and Rich's and Lurk's.
So you agree me that eckankar has a bold streak of arrogance and elitism?
Thanks for the confirmation.
Lurk
cher
arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > Colleen Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > I've wanted to write a clarification regarding my belief and intent on ARE,
> > > especially in light of some of the names I've been called and false
> > > accusations made by some eckists here.
> >
> > I find this okay... considering some of the nasty things I've seen you
> > manufacture about Eckankar.
>
> Are you sure she manufacture things about eckankar or was that you who
> did and reacted.
>
> > As for names.... labels yes... names? Nope.
>
> I've seen her use the term cult. It's a legitimate term especially when
> she highlights what it means.
What does that have to do with what's being said, lurk? Are you reading
this right?
> >
> > > "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3BA79532...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > > If turning the other cheek and being kind and loving were the true
> > > > objective, then one would have to ask themselves what excuse is there for
> > > > those who attack ECKists in their own newsgroup?"
> > >
> > > I am not aware of attacking eckists personally, although I can't say the
> > > same for eckists who have done so against me. I don't harbor hate or blame
> > > in my heart toward anyone, and this is not what I want to sustain within my
> > > psyche because it doesn't feel good and it lessens my ability to be with
> > > Spirit. I do feel some anger and discomfort at the time eckists seem
> > > deliberately trying to distort what I and other former members write, who
> > > ridicule, and try to damage professional and personal reputations, all in
> > > the name of love and compassion.
> > >\
> >
> > I'd say it's pretty easy for anyone to see that the ECKists on this
> > group feel much the same way. But then I doubt that this point would
> > ever be taken seriously. Just because you are an ex-member of the group
> > doesn't mean that you can say outrageous things and not be challenged.
>
> Nobody is asking for eckists not to challenge Colleen or anyone. But
> there is a difference in challenging and attack personally.
I completely agree! And frankly I'm tired of being called names by you
guys. Does that mean anything to you? Apparently not.... because you've
done it for so long you don't notice that you do it. Take off the
blinders lurk... the hypocrisy is glaring.
> > That you have consistently seen this challenge as a personal attack, I
> > doubt that you and I are on the same track here.
>
> I've seen here point out personal attacks a personal attacks.
? Could you perhaps restate this? I don't think the sentence works.
thanks.
> Maybe you need to understand the difference. Maybe study this piece I
> wrote to Rich and get back to me and I'll test you.
If I wanted to address this piece of yours to Rich, you'd be answering
that post, right?
> ***************************
<snip the whatever>
> You eckists need to make the distinction between someone being critical
> of your religion or masters and someone being critical of you
> personally. Why? If for no other reason, the very thing you fear葉hat
> eckankar will look bad to the publicĺ‚ecomes true not from what critic
> say, but from your responses.
> *****************
And detractors need to learn that criticizing people and their beliefs
is not the same thing as critical thinking.
Our reputation? No actually this is a time honored hope of the
detractors. If not, then all your man hours and web sites would be for
naught. Guess what! :-)
> Lurk
HU
--
With love & gratitude,
@->->--
"Len" <sv77...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u0Qp7.326$YP.1...@news.cpqcorp.net...
Rich
> I am not aware of attacking Eckists personally,
Maybe these will awaken your view of behavior.
So why are you playing what you describe as this most "ridiculous game"
with Klemp "as if he thought he was God! How gross and disgusting."
As I have been reading these posts over the last two months, I see her
fragility, desperation, and rage. Isn't there anyone who can help
contain her because she really can't do it herself. Everyone,
besides the Eckists, she devalues. THis is clearly an example
of black/white thinking.
I sense a tremendous amount of hate projected here, and it appears
to be truly a negative energy which isn't at all what I ever think of
in terms of spiritual enlightenment, knowledge of self, connection
with Spirit, loving kindness, compassion, being present, giving to
others for the good of all.
You, as active members of that organization, including "clergy',
I hear, have demonstrated the cult Eckankar truly is. I
never really imagined that Eckists could be so crude, so hateful, so
disrespectful of my or other's welfare...
I wish you well, Sean, in all your ventures. I didn't initially
expect the rage in you which has surfaced
I see others here often justifying coercion and manipulation and
authority in Eckankar
You know, Doug, you have a soft-spoken "voice" that could be just as
dangerous as Cher's harsh insults.
Cher,
Your need to attack and devalue a woman is quite apparent,
Windy,
What you write sounds like it comes from a very wounded and angry place.
You sound too frightened to take anything I say seriously, Joey.
you'll have Rich, Cher, Joey, Micheal, Ken et al...gnawing on you ankle
Here's a some of your titles that are certainly attacking Eckists.
Attacking their beliefs is indirectly attacking Eckists,
which seems to be your forte.
CHILD MOLESTATION; EXPLOOITATION OF A MINOR
Eckankar Attracts Offenders
AUTHENTICITY
Threats
Cult Characteristics
Understanding Terrorist Cults
A "contract" for signing up in Eckankar...Would you sign???
Paranoid System?
"So you will lead a double life"
Are you Really Free?
Thought Stopping Rituals
Trance induction and professional and personal challenges
Klemp's Alcohol Withdrawal?
HAROLD'S DOUBLESPEAK FROM HULITSND
Twitchell's Threat of Hell
Are Eckankar members free to question or challenge
the Living Eck Master(s)?
MYTHS IN CREATION
Is Eckankar becoming a christian teaching?
Chello Newsreader
False Impersonation - using Colleen
Who's fooling with my name and making innacurate posts?
Cher's Crusade
Rich's Insults & Blame
RICH - SHAME ON YOU FOR YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS
Sorry, Rich, but your perception is wrong
Rich,
You're not making sense, in my opinion, and I'm grateful others clearly
see through your posts as you attempt to devalue others one at a time,
systematically.
And, yes, this is an Eck clergy, or so I understand, as well.
You sound more like your role is that of a bouncer of a club.
With you, Rich, it seems that your viewpoint is either 100% for or 100%
against. And you continue to sound so superior and hostile. Sad and
unnecessary.
Rich, I want to defend Samorez. How dare you fool around in your
typical arrogant style
Oh, Rich, come on.....are you always right????
Rich, You appear so completely lacking in social grace and taste
Your "musing" is scary and I think potentially quite dangerous.
Rich, at one point or another in your life you are going to realize
that you are caught up and heavily involved in deception.
Rich,
I perceive a paranoid quality in your criticisms...
You demosntrate how anger and other emotions can go underground,
Rich,
Interesting that you sound so preachy when so many on this post have
openly expressed how offended they are by your condescending,
ridiculing, devaluing remarks and rigid allegiance to every statement
offered by the authorities in Eckankar. You know, although you work
hard to sound intelligent and logical, I don't see your logic and
your intelligence doesn't appear to be working hand in hand with
wisdom, love, and authenticity. In my perception, you've verbally
abused others who have expressed their points of view which
is different from the black-white thinking of Eckankar members.
I believe, also, Rich, that as a so-called "higher initiate" your
behavior is inexcusable..
There are more Colleen.
And many more attacking every other Eckist in this NG.
You have written over a thousand post here and if not directly
attacking Eckists, Eckankar and ECK Masters, most do it indirectly.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Len
Why is it a personal attack on you if I call Harold or Paul cultic?
Are you Harold or Paul?
Len:
No of course not. And I didn't say that this was a personal attack
on me in my post. I brought it up as a reason why some individuals
respond as though they were being personally attacked.
Maybe if I say, think of a family. Can you understand this.
Lurk:
So you agree me that eckankar has a bold streak of arrogance and
elitism?
Thanks for the confirmation.
Lurk
Len:
Are you saying you need me to confirm that which you already know
to be true? Is that the case?
On another note, I've noticed a distinct difference in your most recent
posts as opposed to earlier in the year. I wonder if anyone else has
noticed. As an example, when you criticize Eckankar or eckists, you've
added words to the effect, which have some self-reflection.
A kinder, gentler Lurk<g>.
Len
cher
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> ................
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > Colleen Russell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've wanted to write a clarification regarding my belief and intent on ARE,
> > > > especially in light of some of the names I've been called and false
> > > > accusations made by some eckists here.
> > >
> > > I find this okay... considering some of the nasty things I've seen you
> > > manufacture about Eckankar.
> >
> > Are you sure she manufacture things about eckankar or was that you who
> > did and reacted.
> >
> > > As for names.... labels yes... names? Nope.
> >
> > I've seen her use the term cult. It's a legitimate term especially when
> > she highlights what it means.
>
> What does that have to do with what's being said, lurk? Are you reading
> this right?
Maybe not. What labels were you referring to?
>
> > >
> > > > "cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3BA79532...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > If turning the other cheek and being kind and loving were the true
> > > > > objective, then one would have to ask themselves what excuse is there for
> > > > > those who attack ECKists in their own newsgroup?"
> > > >
> > > > I am not aware of attacking eckists personally, although I can't say the
> > > > same for eckists who have done so against me. I don't harbor hate or blame
> > > > in my heart toward anyone, and this is not what I want to sustain within my
> > > > psyche because it doesn't feel good and it lessens my ability to be with
> > > > Spirit. I do feel some anger and discomfort at the time eckists seem
> > > > deliberately trying to distort what I and other former members write, who
> > > > ridicule, and try to damage professional and personal reputations, all in
> > > > the name of love and compassion.
> > > >\
> > >
> > > I'd say it's pretty easy for anyone to see that the ECKists on this
> > > group feel much the same way. But then I doubt that this point would
> > > ever be taken seriously. Just because you are an ex-member of the group
> > > doesn't mean that you can say outrageous things and not be challenged.
> >
> > Nobody is asking for eckists not to challenge Colleen or anyone. But
> > there is a difference in challenging and attack personally.
>
> I completely agree! And frankly I'm tired of being called names by you
> guys.
What names?
Does that mean anything to you? Apparently not.... because you've
> done it for so long you don't notice that you do it. Take off the
> blinders lurk... the hypocrisy is glaring.
Please explain.
>
> > > That you have consistently seen this challenge as a personal attack, I
> > > doubt that you and I are on the same track here.
> >
> > I've seen here point out personal attacks a personal attacks.
>
> ? Could you perhaps restate this? I don't think the sentence works.
> thanks.
Sure: I've seen her point out personal attacks as personal attacks.
>
> > Maybe you need to understand the difference. Maybe study this piece I
> > wrote to Rich and get back to me and I'll test you.
>
> If I wanted to address this piece of yours to Rich, you'd be answering
> that post, right?
I thought it applied to your comments.
>
> > ***************************
> <snip the whatever>
> > You eckists need to make the distinction between someone being critical
> > of your religion or masters and someone being critical of you
> > personally. Why? If for no other reason, the very thing you fear葉hat
> > eckankar will look bad to the publicĺ‚ecomes true not from what critic
> > say, but from your responses.
> > *****************
>
> And detractors need to learn that criticizing people and their beliefs
> is not the same thing as critical thinking.
So tell me how someone might speak critically of eckankar before you
personally feel they are not attacking you personally? I seriously would
like you to answer that question.
> Our reputation? No actually this is a time honored hope of the
> detractors. If not, then all your man hours and web sites would be for
> naught. Guess what! :-)
I'm actually trying to be nice and explain how eckists' reactions of
making the person the issue is damaging to eckankar's reputation and how
it is viewed by the public. Gosh, even some eckists have personally
called you out about this.
As Colleen once suggested, why not simply concentrate on what your
personal experiences have been about a particular subject matter instead
of making a critic the issue?
Lurk
>
> > Lurk
cher
> Oh Rich... this is a keeper! This one is definitely a keeper! Thank you.
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > Colleen Russell wrote:
> >
Colleen Russell
have spent quite a lot of time gathering quotes, some of which you have
incorrectly attributed to me, I don't see the point or how you've clarified
yourself, as Lurk requested.
I'm sorry that the attempt to "make the person look like the bad guy"
continues to play itself out here, as many have noted.
The provocative and insulting comments which I'm replying to are omitted,
and as such, you appear to be playing an ineffective game. If you are
looking for understanding, you can't find it in parts. You might want to go
back to the eckankar books to review how Paul Twitchell described "looking
at the whole."
Perhaps I'll find time to put together comments made by you and/or Rich,
which will demonstrate how benign mine are in comparison. This an eckankar
newsgroup discussion and we all have a right to express ourselves, which is
in opposition to eckankar's covert rule for its members: do not criticize
or differ from the "master(s)" teaching...(EXCEPT when one is thrown out!)
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BA8CD67...@worldnet.att.net...
> Perhpas this will help clear up the matter, lurk.
>
> > Oh Rich... this is a keeper! This one is definitely a keeper! Thank you.
Seems like the wording you typically use, Cher.
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> > >
> > > Colleen Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not aware of attacking Eckists personally,
> > >
> > > Maybe these will awaken your view of behavior.
> > >
> > > So why are you playing what you describe as this most "ridiculous
game"
> > > with Klemp "as if he thought he was God! How gross and disgusting."
This is my reaction and my feelings. I'm not attacking anyone, but perhaps
acting in defense of someone else's attack on my personal beliefs.
> > >
> > > As I have been reading these posts over the last two months, I see her
> > > fragility, desperation, and rage. Isn't there anyone who can help
> > > contain her because she really can't do it herself.
The person to whom I'm addressing this comment has been over the line with
me in personal name-calling, insults, ridicule. After a time of being
provoked, this is what I perceive, as have others who have commented
likewise.
Everyone,
> > > besides the Eckists, she devalues. THis is clearly an example
> > > of black/white thinking.
I'm not calling anyone names, I'm describing a process which is either
directed at me or someone else.
> > >
> > > I sense a tremendous amount of hate projected here, and it appears
> > > to be truly a negative energy which isn't at all what I ever think of
> > > in terms of spiritual enlightenment, knowledge of self, connection
> > > with Spirit, loving kindness, compassion, being present, giving to
> > > others for the good of all.
This is not labeling anyone pesonally, I am identifying what I see..
> > >
> > > You, as active members of that organization, including "clergy',
> > > I hear, have demonstrated the cult Eckankar truly is. I
> > > never really imagined that Eckists could be so crude, so hateful, so
> > > disrespectful of my or other's welfare...
> > >
My honest response to crude, mean-spirited remarks.
> > > I wish you well, Sean, in all your ventures. I didn't initially
> > > expect the rage in you which has surfaced
> > >
I'm trying to be peaceful and I'm identifying the rage I experience from the
words. I'm not personally labeling or attacking anyone,quite the opposite.
> > > I see others here often justifying coercion and manipulation and
> > > authority in Eckankar
Another comment on the process I perceive.
> > >
> > > You know, Doug, you have a soft-spoken "voice" that could be just as
> > > dangerous as Cher's harsh insults.
A speculation, not name-calling, labeling, attacking. A truthful comment,
again, on possibilities and process. Cher has frequently given "harsh
insults"; Doug has a soft-spoken voice as he contradicts Professor David
Lane's research on eckankar.
> > >
> > > Cher,
> > > Your need to attack and devalue a woman is quite apparent,
> > >
Again, my experience of you attacking and devaluing me and another poster
here. I have been attacked and devalued, on a personal level.
> > > Windy,
> > > What you write sounds like it comes from a very wounded and angry
place.
How else can I find understanding and compassion with the words Windy posted
to me and others? This is my opinion.
> > >
> > > You sound too frightened to take anything I say seriously, Joey.
> > >
Again, my attempt to make sense of some dialogue.
> > > you'll have Rich, Cher, Joey, Micheal, Ken et al...gnawing on you
ankle
This isn't my language and it isn't from me.
> > >
> > > Here's a some of your titles that are certainly attacking Eckists.
> > > Attacking their beliefs is indirectly attacking Eckists,
> > > which seems to be your forte.
> > >
This phonenomenon has been constantly pointed out here -- how eckists
interpret former eckist's and other's criticism and indignation of their
experience with eckankar as a personal attack.
> > > CHILD MOLESTATION; EXPLOOITATION OF A MINOR
> > > Eckankar Attracts Offenders
I stand on this perception.
> > > AUTHENTICITY
What's wrong with this?
> > > Threats
> > > Cult Characteristics
> > > Understanding Terrorist Cults
> > > A "contract" for signing up in Eckankar...Would you sign???
> > > Paranoid System?
> > > "So you will lead a double life"
> > > Are you Really Free?
> > > Thought Stopping Rituals
> > > Trance induction and professional and personal challenges
What is wrong with the above? They are all relevant questions or subjects
on the discussion at hand.
> > > Klemp's Alcohol Withdrawal?
A subject being discussed by quite a few here.
> > > HAROLD'S DOUBLESPEAK FROM HULITSND
My opinion.
> > > Twitchell's Threat of Hell
Twitchell did threaten hell to any initiate who left eckankar. The quotes
have been presented here.
> > > Are Eckankar members free to question or challenge
> > > the Living Eck Master(s)?
Good question -- one that everyone should ask.
> > > MYTHS IN CREATION
> > > Is Eckankar becoming a christian teaching?
Relevant topics and indepth discussions of thinking people.
> > > Chello Newsreader
> > > False Impersonation - using Colleen
> > > Who's fooling with my name and making innacurate posts?
> > > Cher's Crusade
> > > Rich's Insults & Blame
> > > RICH - SHAME ON YOU FOR YOUR CONSTANT ATTACKS
> > >
> > > Sorry, Rich, but your perception is wrong
Rich's perception of me is/was wrong, and I have a right to express it.
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > > You're not making sense, in my opinion, and I'm grateful others
clearly
> > > see through your posts as you attempt to devalue others one at a time,
> > > systematically.
The perception many have pointed out.
> >
> > > And, yes, this is an Eck clergy, or so I understand, as well.
> > > You sound more like your role is that of a bouncer of a club.
This is my honest observation and disappointment. It's been quite an
obvious behavior to many here.
> > >
> > > With you, Rich, it seems that your viewpoint is either 100% for or
100%
> > > against. And you continue to sound so superior and hostile. Sad and
> > > unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Rich, I want to defend Samorez. How dare you
> >
> > > Oh, Rich, come on.....are you always right????
> > >
> > > Rich, You appear so completely lacking in social grace and taste
This may have been comments related to Sam Orez valid complaint of eckists
distasteful and crude disclosure of his sister's death. I hope I would
offer some support to SO.
> > >
> > > Your "musing" is scary and I think potentially quite dangerous.
> > >
> > > Rich, at one point or another in your life you are going to realize
> > > that you are caught up and heavily involved in deception.
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > > I perceive a paranoid quality in your criticisms...
> > > You demosntrate how anger and other emotions can go underground,
These are my perceptions of process and behavior as I attempt to make sense
of the distortions and rageful written attacks.
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > > Interesting that you sound so preachy when so many on this post have
> > > openly expressed how offended they are by your condescending,
> > > ridiculing, devaluing remarks and rigid allegiance to every statement
> > > offered by the authorities in Eckankar. You know, although you work
> > > hard to sound intelligent and logical, I don't see your logic and
> > > your intelligence doesn't appear to be working hand in hand with
> > > wisdom, love, and authenticity. In my perception, you've verbally
> > > abused others who have expressed their points of view which
> > > is different from the black-white thinking of Eckankar members.
> > > I believe, also, Rich, that as a so-called "higher initiate" your
> > > behavior is inexcusable..
I stand my ground on the above.
> > >
> > > There are more Colleen.
> > > And many more attacking every other Eckist in this NG.
> > > You have written over a thousand post here and if not directly
> > > attacking Eckists, Eckankar and ECK Masters, most do it indirectly.
There is nothing wrong or unethical in any sense about anything written
above.
Colleen
arel...@home.com
Rich wrote:
>
> Colleen Russell wrote:
>
> > I am not aware of attacking Eckists personally,
>
> Maybe these will awaken your view of behavior.
Rich the examples you list below, if put into context, are responses to
the eckist behavior here.
I sympathize with Colleen predicament here because the same thing happen
to me over the years here. Colleen raises issue or speaks about her
experience in eckankar. Some eckists go ballistic and instead of address
the issue she raises, they begin a steady stream of insults, put downs
and general mental gang banging. So Colleen is left with nothing but to
highlight and call attention to such childish behavior. This is how I'm
reading the responses below which you have collected, Rich. If people
responded to the issues raised and expressed their own truth, then I
would guess she would be responding to those comments instead point out
the anger and attempts at humiliation and such. When she highlights such
eckists' responses I don't view that as attacking as you are trying to
portray here.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Len wrote:
>
> Lurk wrote:
>
> Why is it a personal attack on you if I call Harold or Paul cultic?
>
> Are you Harold or Paul?
>
> Len:
>
> No of course not. And I didn't say that this was a personal attack
> on me in my post. I brought it up as a reason why some individuals
> respond as though they were being personally attacked.
>
> Maybe if I say, think of a family. Can you understand this.
I understand Len that eckist feel hurt when their religion or leader is
criticized, I just happen to think that is an unreasonable boundary to
set or enforce. And just because eckists feel hurt doesn't mean a critic
had intentions to hurt.
What is extraordinarily ironic is that most eckist argue the same thing
I'm arguing when the table is turned. Meaning, if a critic expresses
feelings of being hurt or betrayed upon finding out about Paul's
transgression, then eckists are so quick to point out how this hurt they
feel is the critic's own creation and Paul or Harold have nothing to do
with it. Does anyone else see this double standard?
Now the difference between this two examples is Paul relationship with
his students is supposed to be founded on trust and therefore, when he
exposed as a fraudulent or being deceptive, then he did have something
to do with the critics reaction of hurtfulness. It is a healthy
response. Maybe Paul doesn't have responsibility for the full brunt of the
hurtful feelings because feelings from the past from similar incidents
can rise up. His lying and betraying people's trust does have a lot
to do with a person feeling hurt.
Now with eckists here, feeling hurt from a critic's comments about their
master or eckankar in general is not the same relationship that Paul had
with his students. The question becomes: At what point should a critic
refrain from offering criticism on a newsgroup because eckists get their
feelings hurt? I guess everyone's answer to this question will be
different. I take the stand that each person who post here is an adult
and I treat them accordingly. I think it is unreasonable to expect
critics who offer critic comments or ex-eckist to tell their stories to
refrain from doing so because eckists feel hurt. I think it is an act of
respect to have the expectation that eckists can work through through
their feelings with impinging on my right to speak candidly and
forthrightly.
>
> Lurk:
>
> So you agree me that eckankar has a bold streak of arrogance and
> elitism?
>
> Thanks for the confirmation.
>
> Lurk
>
> Len:
>
> Are you saying you need me to confirm that which you already know
> to be true? Is that the case?
It is encouraging to see an eckist confirm what I see. I get an insider view.
Bravo to you.
>
> On another note, I've noticed a distinct difference in your most recent
> posts as opposed to earlier in the year. I wonder if anyone else has
> noticed. As an example, when you criticize Eckankar or eckists, you've
> added words to the effect, which have some self-reflection.
>
> A kinder, gentler Lurk<g>.
When I speak to people outside of this newsgroup setting I speak with a
context of self reflection. This is not a safe place. For instance, I
don't want to divulge too much information about myself, because I don't
want Rich calling my boss and telling him personal religious information
about me or other such aggressive antics we've seen by eckists over the years.
Lurk
cher
Rich
> From my perspective, Cher, although you and/or Rich (it's unclear to me)
> have spent quite a lot of time gathering quotes, some of which you have
> incorrectly attributed to me
You wrote every one of these Colleen. It's all here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&as_ugroup=alt.religion.eckankar&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=colleen
That you still can't face that responsibility is indicative of your
continued denial of your mistakes.
> The provocative and insulting comments which I'm replying to are omitted
Which does not negate the fact that from the very beginning of your time
in A.R.E., these quotes make it clear that _you_ have been provocative
and insulting, attacking on all fronts.
Have one of you psychologist friends take a look at these.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3BA88B5D.5C56%40aloha.net&filter=0
See if they think that taken as a whole, these reflect any kindness,
tolerance and understanding. That they are not attacking by nature.
Seriously, get a second opinion.
You are the one that has come to this NG about Eckankar attacking.
Some Eckists are counter-attacking your attacks. That may not be the
best way to deal with them but you seem unwilling to really listen to
the real life experiences of Eckists. So they(I) sometimes respond in
kind to your attacks but pointing out with your own words the hypocrisy
of what you have written, so others might see it.
Eckists have not gone to a NG about you, attacking. See the difference?
Rich
> Rich the examples you list below,
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3BA88B5D.5C56%40aloha.net&filter=0
> if put into context, are responses to
> the Eckist behavior here.
Not all, and the titles I listed were not responses but original
attacks.
But be that as it may, that does not negate my point that Colleen
attacks Eckist.
> I sympathize with Colleen predicament here because the same thing happen
> to me over the years here. Colleen raises issue or speaks about her
> experience in Eckankar. Some Eckists go ballistic and instead of address
> the issue she raises, they begin a steady stream of insults, put downs
> and general mental gang banging.
But that's not what I did in this case. I just quoted her own words.
That was the issue of that post, my response to her denying her
attacking behavior towards Eckists. Notice that again she didn't
directly respond, but instead side stepped her culpability in another
post.
Sure she raises issues, but is rarely able to support them when
challenged to do so. She chooses to not follow up with any kind of real
dialog. My experience has been that, unlike you, Colleen usually does
not respond at all, even when repeatedly challenged on issues. Her
responses to issues are often the kind that I quoted. She usually makes
herself the issue and ignores the real life experiences of Eckists in
their responses. If she did it the other way around, I'd be more in
agreement with you.
Rich
> Paul relationship with
> his students is supposed to be founded on trust
Not quite right. What I have learned from Eckankar is that the
relationship is supposed to be one of a student to teacher. It is
incumbent upon the student to take responsibility for their own
learning. The trust must ultimately come from one's own inner
experience.
Ben Douglass
>
>arel...@home.com wrote:
>
>> Paul relationship with
>> his students is supposed to be founded on trust
>
>Not quite right. What I have learned from Eckankar is that the
>relationship is supposed to be one of a student to teacher. It is
>incumbent upon the student to take responsibility for their own
>learning. The trust must ultimately come from one's own inner
>experience.
>--
Soooooooooooo, Rich, you are admittinmg that *TRUST* betwedn a student and a
teacher is not NECESSARY?
> o
> |
> ~/|
> _/ |\
> / | \
> -/ | \
> _ /____|___\_
> (___________/
>Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Benjamin Douglass - ["Agitate, Educate, Liberate"]
[EMAIL]: webm...@666bendouglass.net
[HOME]: http://www.bendouglass.net
***********************************************************
Remove 666 before sending email [Only a SPAMMER deserves to die!!!]
Colleen Russell
concept or thing called eckankar and as such it's open for discussion. We
are in a country which honors free and open dialogue, although this
principle is lacking in eckankar, according to my and others experiences in
it.
Kindness is not only what feels good, but it can be a way in which others
are motivated to "wake up." Kindness does not always flatter or join in
what another believes is true. Kindness is not a function of co-dependency,
in my opinion, even though co-dependency is comfortable in its familiarity
which is self-limiting and self-destructive.
And, again, I'm not working with another here in a therapeutic relationship.
Colleen
"Rich" <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:3BA93B...@aloha.net...
Colleen Russell
founded on trust? A true teacher, in my opinion, empowers one to develop
his/her talents and skills with the goal of becoming adept at what he/she is
taught. I think trust between the two is important in the student's ability
to be a student, reveal his/her vulnerabilities, and allow the teacher to
lead. Finally, the student "goes free" on his/her own, more equipped to
meet the world. This certainly doesn't apply to Twitchell/Gross/Klemp who
encourage the student to stay in the same student/teacher relationship or
suffer, as they have written, dire consequences. This isn't empowering the
student nor helpful in giving the student the tools to go forth into the
world, alone.
We all have our different viewpoint, though, Rich. I'm more in agreement
with arelurker.
Colleen
"Rich" <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:3BA94A...@aloha.net...
vahana
Colleen has been very civil here from the beginning, yet the attacks she's
endured from the Eckists here only slightly pale in comparison to what Sharon
had to endure. It's been incredible and sickening to watch.
Not every online a.r.e. eckist is guilty of attacking Colleen -- Jackie, Jan,
David Hutt and Doug have, as far as I've seen, been decent to her.
However, Rich Smith, Richard Pickett, Michael Wallace, Ken Stolzfus, Rita
Crorkin, and of course Cher Grundermann acted in perfect "Swordsman of the
Sugmad" character toward her.
In article <3BA90CF8...@home.com>, arel...@home.com says...
Rich
>
> So, you don't think that a master and student relatioinship needs to be
> founded on trust?
Not blind trust as you have told us you had when you were in Eckankar.
I agree with you that
> A true teacher, in my opinion, empowers one to develop
> his/her talents and skills with the goal of becoming adept at what he/she is
> taught. I think trust between the two is important in the student's ability
> to be a student, reveal his/her vulnerabilities, and allow the teacher to
> lead.
Of course. That is why we choose a teacher. We trust them because we
see that the teacher does have more knowledge than us. But if it is
blind trust in a master, the most important lesson of the spiritual path
has yet to be learned. All the faculties that we have will be brought
to bear if we are to attain the spiritual awareness that we have.
Reliance on others must be discarded before we can establish ourselves
in that state.
> Finally, the student "goes free" on his/her own, more equipped to
> meet the world.
That is what has happened to me. It is because I was learned to accept
responsibility for my own experiences and decisions, and develop trust
in my own inner guidance. Yet I do not reject my teachers, because I
see that they too are learning, and from that I can also learn.
> This certainly doesn't apply to Twitchell/Gross/Klemp who
> encourage the student to stay in the same student/teacher relationship or
> suffer, as they have written, dire consequences.
That is the path you took. Not the one that I followed in Eckankar.
> This isn't empowering the
> student nor helpful in giving the student the tools to go forth into the
> world, alone.
I agree with that scenario. But it didn't happen that way with me. I
saw my teachers pointing the way. You have told us you clung to them.
It is up to the spiritual student to unfold their wings and fly when
they are ready. Some need to leave there preconceived notions of the
teacher to do so. And that's OK. But I find very little value in
leaving the nest and keep flying back to take a dump on the teacher.
Rich
>
> Once again, Rich, this is not an NG about you or about me. It's about a
Who said it wasn't? Then why not discuss it instead of throwing out one
time broad stroke allegation with negative inferences towards Eckankar,
Eckists and Eck Masters and then never responding to those that
challenge them? Your responses usually bring the attention back to
yourself by saying you are being attacked, but you ignore the very issue
that you initially started.
> We are in a country which honors free and open dialogue, although this
> principle is lacking in Eckankar, according to my and others experiences in
> it.
What nonsense. You are the one that refuse to discuss. See, again you
do not face your culpability, your dark side if you will, and take
responsibility for what you wrote. Again you do not address my point.
I showed you dozens of examples of your attacks and you ignore them.
> Kindness is not only what feels good,
I didn't say that it was.
> but it can be a way in which others
> are motivated to "wake up." Kindness does not always flatter or join in
> what another believes is true. Kindness is not a function of co-dependency,
> in my opinion, even though co-dependency is comfortable in its familiarity
> which is self-limiting and self-destructive.
All you have done here is attempt to tell us that your see your attacks
as being kind. That your kindness is knowing better than us and you are
try to wake us up. You know, and we are asleep. I have come to accept
that is the way you look down on Eckists. It is bigotry and insulting.
It is placing yourself above us. That is egotism on your part, not self
destructive co-dependency on my part.
Unlike you I do take responsibility for what I write. I'm not
attempting to tell anyone that they are asleep and need to be shaken
from their cult dreams. I'm addressing what you wrote, and you
continue to avoid that. And that's OK. I no longer expect anything
better from you. But I will continue to point out that your experiences
are _not_ those of mine and most Eckists.
> And, again, I'm not working with another here in a therapeutic relationship.
Again? I didn't say someone you are working with even once. You don't
have _any_ psychologist friends!? So don't get an objective opinion.
I didn't expect you to. Not once have I seen you even acknowledge in any
way that could be mistaken about Eckists. Even the sleeping Eckist here
admit their mistakes and unknowingness of other's experiences, but not
you... So enjoy your 'kind' attacks.
Ken
"vahana" <vahana...@newsguy.com> wrote ...
>
> Here here Lurk.
>
> Colleen has been very civil here from the beginning, yet the attacks she's
> endured from the Eckists here only slightly pale in comparison to what Sharon
> had to endure. It's been incredible and sickening to watch.
>
> Not every online a.r.e. eckist is guilty of attacking Colleen -- Jackie, Jan,
> David Hutt and Doug have, as far as I've seen, been decent to her.
>
> However, Rich Smith, Richard Pickett, Michael Wallace, Ken Stolzfus, Rita
> Crorkin, and of course Cher Grundermann acted in perfect "Swordsman of the
> Sugmad" character toward her.
I don't like what she does on this newsgroup. I think she's disingenuous.
I think she uses the "little gold stars" of her psychology degree and 7th
initiation to lord it over others and gain undue credibility for herself.
If my responses bother you Joe, then maybe you should just killfile me.
cher
abusers, right colleen? Abusive people are never so charged in word and
spirit as when they are attacking other people and attempting to force
their personal view of the world on them. Verballly and emotionally
abusive people are a dime a dozen and easily cured.... help is
plentiful.
cher
The sort of blind trust you have described is the sort one finds in an
immature individual. Do not attempt to make the world pay for your
immaturity.
cher
do point it out in everyone else. colleen is a prime example of this
behavior.
cher
colleen when she first came here. it didn't take long for her to show
her true colors, tho... did it. if you guys need a martyr then so be
it.... apparently sharon didn't fit that mold. but don't expect anyone
else to blindly believe this nonsense. especially after the hysterical
nonsense from colleen over something as simple minded as posting to a
newsgroup. that she instantly saw eckists behind the evil should give
everyone a fair estimation of her character.
Len
Rich will of course answer this in his own manner.
Trusting or conversely, not trusting is not what the evolving
nature of the relationship between the student and the Living Eck Master
is about Ben. This is a mistaken notion.
I do not have to believe one iota of anything which comes from
any Eck Master, not really any different in everyday living.
What I have come to know, is that replying on that which the
teacher is also relying on is the key.
The ECK is not the exclusive domain of Eckankar, or its Eck
Masters. Placing trust on this ECK, is not only necessary, but
ultimately separates those who can gain some measure of success, and
those who fall away, in any spiritual endeavor
Len
"Ben Douglass" <webm...@666bendouglass.net> wrote in message
news:9obmo...@drn.newsguy.com...
: In article <3BA94A...@aloha.net>, Rich says...
:
vahana
says...
>
>
>I don't like what she does on this newsgroup. I think she's disingenuous.
>I think she uses the "little gold stars" of her psychology degree and 7th
>initiation to lord it over others and gain undue credibility for herself.
>
>If my responses bother you, then maybe you should just killfile me.
Why should I suffer cowards that try to deter ex-eckists from posting here?
Plus, I find the irony of remarks like yours, coming as they do from one who
follows Harold Klemp, 14th initiate and authority on the entire cosmos, amusing.
Len
I understand Len that eckist feel hurt when their religion or leader is
criticized, I just happen to think that is an unreasonable boundary to
set or enforce.
Len:
Compassion comes to mind. An individual shows great compassion
when they do not knowingly say hurtful things to one another. One might
call this kind of behavior abusive. I agree with you that errecting
some law to enforce this will not work. This must work on an individual
basis.
Lurk:
And just because eckists feel hurt doesn't mean a critic
had intentions to hurt.
Len:
There are so many ways to communicate differing opinions
than criticizing.
Lurk:
What is extraordinarily ironic is that most eckist argue the same thing
I'm arguing when the table is turned. Meaning, if a critic expresses
feelings of being hurt or betrayed upon finding out about Paul's
transgression, then eckists are so quick to point out how this hurt they
feel is the critic's own creation and Paul or Harold have nothing to do
with it. Does anyone else see this double standard?
Len:
I think you are making a case for the option of talking with
each other as people, as opposed to eckists, non-eckists, detractors
true believers. These are just props, separating each other. The
issue is people feeling so strongly, one way or the other, they just
have to try to jam beliefs down each others mouths.
Lurk:
Now the difference between this two examples is Paul relationship with
his students is supposed to be founded on trust and therefore, when he
exposed as a fraudulent or being deceptive, then he did have something
to do with the critics reaction of hurtfulness. It is a healthy
response. Maybe Paul doesn't have responsibility for the full brunt of
the
hurtful feelings because feelings from the past from similar incidents
can rise up. His lying and betraying people's trust does have a lot
to do with a person feeling hurt.
Len:
I don't know where the notion that the relationship between an
Eck Master has its basis on only trust.
Lurk:
Ken
"vahana" <vahana...@newsguy.com> wrote ...
Ken wrote...
> >I don't like what she does on this newsgroup. I think she's disingenuous.
> >I think she uses the "little gold stars" of her psychology degree and 7th
> >initiation to lord it over others and gain undue credibility for herself.
> >
> >If my responses bother you, then maybe you should just killfile me.
>
> Why should I suffer cowards that try to deter ex-eckists from posting here?
Why shoud I care what you suffer or tolerate?
Ken
Cher wrote...
>
> Most certainly not the blind trust that you have described here colleen.
> The sort of blind trust you have described is the sort one finds in an
> immature individual. Do not attempt to make the world pay for your
> immaturity.
Oh, why not?
This world is full of people trying to make others pay for their errors in
judgement. That "actions and consequences" thing will take care of
any readjustment of attitude and awareness. ;-)
vahana
says...
Yes Ken, but you demonstrated that you *do* care. Unless you've given up
fantasizing that this newsgroup is an Eck satsang.
You forget that you're the one crying "bigot" and wailing about "pressure to
change" and infrigements to your religious freedom.
Therefore, you tell us that you care. Can't have it both ways.
arel...@home.com
Len wrote:
>
> Lurk:
>
> I understand Len that eckist feel hurt when their religion or leader is
> criticized, I just happen to think that is an unreasonable boundary to
> set or enforce.
>
> Len:
>
> Compassion comes to mind. An individual shows great compassion
> when they do not knowingly say hurtful things to one another. One might
> call this kind of behavior abusive. I agree with you that errecting
> some law to enforce this will not work. This must work on an individual
> basis.
I think an individual shows compassion by NOT enabling people who are
obviously over-sensitive and experience personal hurt from comments not
directed at them personally but to the negative aspects of their
religion or leaders. There are times when avoiding hurting other's
feelings is indulging the people which also conveys the hidden message
that they are not capable of handling their feelings. Do that enough to
a people, and pretty soon, guess what? They are unable to handle the
slightest thing and wallow in a pool of hurt.
>
> Lurk:
>
> And just because eckists feel hurt doesn't mean a critic
> had intentions to hurt.
Okay Len, let me ask you the same question I asked someone else here
last week: If I told eckists here on the newsgroup that when they speak
positively about eckankar it hurts my feelings, would you refrain from
expressing positive viewpoints about eckankar for fear of hurting my feelings?
I didn't say "only." But trust is a major part of the relationship
according to Paul and Harold. If you want to refute them go ahead.
Ben Douglass
>
>
>
>Len wrote:
>>
>> Lurk:
>>
>> I understand Len that eckist feel hurt when their religion or leader is
>> criticized, I just happen to think that is an unreasonable boundary to
>> set or enforce.
>>
>> Len:
>>
>> Compassion comes to mind. An individual shows great compassion
>> when they do not knowingly say hurtful things to one another. One might
>> call this kind of behavior abusive. I agree with you that errecting
>> some law to enforce this will not work. This must work on an individual
>> basis.
>
>I think an individual shows compassion by NOT enabling people who are
>obviously over-sensitive and experience personal hurt from comments not
>directed at them personally but to the negative aspects of their
>religion or leaders. There are times when avoiding hurting other's
>feelings is indulging the people which also conveys the hidden message
>that they are not capable of handling their feelings. Do that enough to
>a people, and pretty soon, guess what? They are unable to handle the
>slightest thing and wallow in a pool of hurt.
>
wisdom it startles me.
cher
enabling to another human being in their life? At what point does this
stop being about the religion and becomes about the people practicing
that religion? And when does this suddenly cross the line into that
territory that gives people in the U.S. where both you and lurk live,
freedom of religious choice? See it's really you guys who are walking
the narrow stretch of the imagination here. That you can find something
to say which you feel is of critical importance about the path of
Eckankar that new seekers should look at is fine... but when it turns
into a personal interpretation of that path and it's value then it no
longer fits your description here. There are countless religious paths
on this planet. One can only surmise that neither you nor lurk would be
happy following all of them. So whatever you find wrong with Eckankar on
a personal level, you would would likely find wrong with these other
paths as well, right? Religious differences is not an excuse for boarish
behavior no matter how much you may think it's necessary to wake someone
else up to your opinion. And that's where the argument falls flat. You
guys confuse your personal opinions with other peoples truth. When you
attack someone elses God and their expression of it, then you
essentially make your opinion the replacement for that God and its
expression. This is something we consistently have seen on this
newsgroup. That you chose not to believe something is a personal choice
for you not a doctrine for all peoples. In the name of being right and
self righteous for all other people and their beliefs.... where have we
heard that one in this past 10 days?
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> And from the standpoint of whom? Which person gets to determine what is
> enabling to another human being in their life?
There are no hard and fast rules about this. I've explain what I thought
was unreasonable boundaries and that respecting such boundaries would
not only have the effect of enabling the person, but would curtail my
freedom of speech.
At what point does this
> stop being about the religion and becomes about the people practicing
> that religion?
At what point does a newsgroup discussion transmute into someone
practicing their religion? This newsgroup isn't a church, ya know.
And when does this suddenly cross the line into that
> territory that gives people in the U.S. where both you and lurk live,
> freedom of religious choice?
Again, if you can tell me how a newsgroup discussion can prevent someone
from practicing their religion, I'll sincerely listen to your concerns.
See it's really you guys who are walking
> the narrow stretch of the imagination here. That you can find something
> to say which you feel is of critical importance about the path of
> Eckankar that new seekers should look at is fine... but when it turns
> into a personal interpretation of that path and it's value then it no
> longer fits your description here.
I have every right to assess, evaluate, and speculate the efficacy of
the path/religion called eckankar, as you do. Whenever you express a
positive opinion about eckankar you doing such
If I turn your comments around on you maybe you can see how it feels and
look: (please report back to me)
That you can find some positive to say which you feel is of critical
importance about the path of Eckankar that new seeker should look at is
fine...but when it turns into a personal interpretation of that path and
it's value by telling all those testimonial stories of spiritual
experiences, then it no longer fits your description here. This is abuse!
There are countless religious paths
> on this planet. One can only surmise that neither you nor lurk would be
> happy following all of them. So whatever you find wrong with Eckankar on
> a personal level, you would would likely find wrong with these other
> paths as well, right?
If they do the same things as eckankar, yes.
Religious differences is not an excuse for boarish
> behavior no matter how much you may think it's necessary to wake someone
> else up to your opinion. And that's where the argument falls flat. You
> guys confuse your personal opinions with other peoples truth. When you
> attack someone elses God and their expression of it, then you
> essentially make your opinion the replacement for that God and its
> expression.
Adults can decide whether they want to replace their expression of God
with my opinion.
What's the big deal?
This is something we consistently have seen on this
> newsgroup. That you chose not to believe something is a personal choice
> for you not a doctrine for all peoples. In the name of being right and
> self righteous for all other people and their beliefs.... where have we
> heard that one in this past 10 days?
Maybe I'll see if you'll answer this question: If I feel hurt because an
eckist expresses a positive opinion about eckankar or related a
spiritual experience, would you stop speaking positively about eckankar?
Lurk
Ben Douglass
In article <3BAB7FFC...@worldnet.att.net>, cher says...
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > And from the standpoint of whom? Which person gets to determine what is
> > enabling to another human being in their life?
>
> There are no hard and fast rules about this. I've explain what I thought
> was unreasonable boundaries and that respecting such boundaries would
> not only have the effect of enabling the person, but would curtail my
> freedom of speech.
An old saying... your freedom ends where mine begins......
> At what point does this
> > stop being about the religion and becomes about the people practicing
> > that religion?
>
> At what point does a newsgroup discussion transmute into someone
> practicing their religion? This newsgroup isn't a church, ya know.
But this group was set up by ECKists to discuss Eckankar. That may be
difficult to fathom but it's still true. It doesn't have to be a church,
only a place of respect.
> And when does this suddenly cross the line into that
> > territory that gives people in the U.S. where both you and lurk live,
> > freedom of religious choice?
>
> Again, if you can tell me how a newsgroup discussion can prevent someone
> from practicing their religion, I'll sincerely listen to your concerns.
Great and then you tell me how attacking another persons religion and
taking joy in the attempt to destroy it in the process has anything to
do with freedom of speech.
> See it's really you guys who are walking
> > the narrow stretch of the imagination here. That you can find something
> > to say which you feel is of critical importance about the path of
> > Eckankar that new seekers should look at is fine... but when it turns
> > into a personal interpretation of that path and it's value then it no
> > longer fits your description here.
>
> I have every right to assess, evaluate, and speculate the efficacy of
> the path/religion called eckankar, as you do. Whenever you express a
> positive opinion about eckankar you doing such
The point here is that in mixing the things of opinion with these so
called issues of plagiarism you attempt to wrap your personal opinion in
a blanket of righteousness. In other words you go beyond the boundaries
you suggest you are doing here. Define the difference between personal
opinions and facts.
> If I turn your comments around on you maybe you can see how it feels and
> look: (please report back to me)
>
> That you can find some positive to say which you feel is of critical
> importance about the path of Eckankar that new seeker should look at is
> fine...but when it turns into a personal interpretation of that path and
> it's value by telling all those testimonial stories of spiritual
> experiences, then it no longer fits your description here. This is abuse!
And how do you see this as abuse? The fact is that the religion has a
right to share what it has to offer whether you agree with it or not.
There is abuse when there are no options. The options here are openned
ended. Join, leave, move on. Where does this fit the description of
abusive? That no one can say what the religion means to them without
being attacked is what's abusive. Check with the constitution... you
might find others agree with this assessment. If this group were named
alt.arelurker and I posted to attack you and what you believe then I
would be guilty of harrassment.
> There are countless religious paths
> > on this planet. One can only surmise that neither you nor lurk would be
> > happy following all of them. So whatever you find wrong with Eckankar on
> > a personal level, you would would likely find wrong with these other
> > paths as well, right?
>
> If they do the same things as eckankar, yes.
Why? What makes your belief system more important than everyone else? Is
this elistist? Or is it simply that without referencing yourself to what
you do not believe in, there is no "you" to be?
> Religious differences is not an excuse for boarish
> > behavior no matter how much you may think it's necessary to wake someone
> > else up to your opinion. And that's where the argument falls flat. You
> > guys confuse your personal opinions with other peoples truth. When you
> > attack someone elses God and their expression of it, then you
> > essentially make your opinion the replacement for that God and its
> > expression.
>
> Adults can decide whether they want to replace their expression of God
> with my opinion.
So long as you remember that it is your opinion that you are sharing.
Too often that gets lost in the ego of the postings. Just because you
want to argue with other people about what they chose to believe in
doesn't condone boarish behavior. No one is telling you that you cannot
have your opinions, only that you are responsible for them and that they
are not an excuse to attack other people with.
> What's the big deal?
You tell me....
> This is something we consistently have seen on this
> > newsgroup. That you chose not to believe something is a personal choice
> > for you not a doctrine for all peoples. In the name of being right and
> > self righteous for all other people and their beliefs.... where have we
> > heard that one in this past 10 days?
>
> Maybe I'll see if you'll answer this question: If I feel hurt because an
> eckist expresses a positive opinion about eckankar or related a
> spiritual experience, would you stop speaking positively about eckankar?
lurk... how does one twist their mind around that one? Of course I don't
feel hurt by this, but that doesn't mean that on a group called
alt.religion.eckankar that this is an unwarranted expectation.
I think that when ever I find myself dealing with someone who is trying
to justify hurtful behavior so that they can continue without guilt I
have to wonder what that persons personal motives are. Why? Because I
instantly see that this person knows what they are doing is hurtful and
is seeking to shift responsibility on to the person they are being
hurtful to. News flash... just because you have an opinion doesn't mean
that this gives you rights above the people that you are confronting.
Discussing issues in an open forum without the need to target a belief
system as a whole is time honored. Targetting a belief system as a whole
because you don't like it, is bigotry.
> Lurk
cher
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > And from the standpoint of whom? Which person gets to determine what is
> > > enabling to another human being in their life?
> >
> > There are no hard and fast rules about this. I've explain what I thought
> > was unreasonable boundaries and that respecting such boundaries would
> > not only have the effect of enabling the person, but would curtail my
> > freedom of speech.
>
> An old saying... your freedom ends where mine begins......
>
> > At what point does this
> > > stop being about the religion and becomes about the people practicing
> > > that religion?
> >
> > At what point does a newsgroup discussion transmute into someone
> > practicing their religion? This newsgroup isn't a church, ya know.
>
> But this group was set up by ECKists to discuss Eckankar. That may be
> difficult to fathom but it's still true. It doesn't have to be a church,
> only a place of respect.
Just because eckankar set up doesn't mean it can control who post here
or that eckists should be revered in some way. It is the nature of
usenet that anyone with an interest in eckankar can post both positive
and negative comments.
I guarantee life will be a little easier if you understand that one point.
>
> > And when does this suddenly cross the line into that
> > > territory that gives people in the U.S. where both you and lurk live,
> > > freedom of religious choice?
> >
> > Again, if you can tell me how a newsgroup discussion can prevent someone
> > from practicing their religion, I'll sincerely listen to your concerns.
>
> Great and then you tell me how attacking another persons religion and
> taking joy in the attempt to destroy it in the process has anything to
> do with freedom of speech.
On top of the question above which you did not answer I have to ask another:
How can posting opinions on a newsgroup destroy someone's religion? I'll
sincerely listen to your concerns when you answer this question.
>
> > See it's really you guys who are walking
> > > the narrow stretch of the imagination here. That you can find something
> > > to say which you feel is of critical importance about the path of
> > > Eckankar that new seekers should look at is fine... but when it turns
> > > into a personal interpretation of that path and it's value then it no
> > > longer fits your description here.
> >
> > I have every right to assess, evaluate, and speculate the efficacy of
> > the path/religion called eckankar, as you do. Whenever you express a
> > positive opinion about eckankar you doing such
>
> The point here is that in mixing the things of opinion with these so
> called issues of plagiarism you attempt to wrap your personal opinion in
> a blanket of righteousness. In other words you go beyond the boundaries
> you suggest you are doing here. Define the difference between personal
> opinions and facts.
It doesn't matter whether I express an opinion, an fact or an opinion as
fact. And it doesn't matter if I do so in a blanket of righteousness or
with sarcasm or with humor or with sincerity. The fact is I still have a right.
>
> > If I turn your comments around on you maybe you can see how it feels and
> > look: (please report back to me)
> >
> > That you can find some positive to say which you feel is of critical
> > importance about the path of Eckankar that new seeker should look at is
> > fine...but when it turns into a personal interpretation of that path and
> > it's value by telling all those testimonial stories of spiritual
> > experiences, then it no longer fits your description here. This is abuse!
>
> And how do you see this as abuse?
Why don't you tell me how expressing negative opinions about eckankar is abuse.
> The fact is that the religion has a
> right to share what it has to offer whether you agree with it or not.
Just as people have the right to express its shortcomings. Now you're
getting it!
> There is abuse when there are no options. The options here are openned
> ended. Join, leave, move on. Where does this fit the description of
> abusive? That no one can say what the religion means to them without
> being attacked is what's abusive. Check with the constitution... you
> might find others agree with this assessment. If this group were named
> alt.arelurker and I posted to attack you and what you believe then I
> would be guilty of harrassment.
By attack if you me posting negative opinions then you would be guilty
of posting on a usenet newsgroup.
Again the sooner you give up this idea the name of the group means
ownership and control, the peaceful your life will become on the newsgroup.
>
> > There are countless religious paths
> > > on this planet. One can only surmise that neither you nor lurk would be
> > > happy following all of them. So whatever you find wrong with Eckankar on
> > > a personal level, you would would likely find wrong with these other
> > > paths as well, right?
> >
> > If they do the same things as eckankar, yes.
>
> Why?
I'm consistent. If those other paths are doing the same thing as
eckankar I would criticize them.
>What makes your belief system more important than everyone else?
Who said anything about my belief system being more important.
Is
> this elistist? Or is it simply that without referencing yourself to what
> you do not believe in, there is no "you" to be?
You're losing me here.
>
> > Religious differences is not an excuse for boarish
> > > behavior no matter how much you may think it's necessary to wake someone
> > > else up to your opinion. And that's where the argument falls flat. You
> > > guys confuse your personal opinions with other peoples truth. When you
> > > attack someone elses God and their expression of it, then you
> > > essentially make your opinion the replacement for that God and its
> > > expression.
> >
> > Adults can decide whether they want to replace their expression of God
> > with my opinion.
>
> So long as you remember that it is your opinion that you are sharing.
I don't think I ever forgot that.
> Too often that gets lost in the ego of the postings. Just because you
> want to argue with other people about what they chose to believe in
> doesn't condone boarish behavior. No one is telling you that you cannot
> have your opinions, only that you are responsible for them and that they
> are not an excuse to attack other people with.
But you're defining attacking people as me expression opinions. I try to
stick with the issues. How about you?
>
> > What's the big deal?
>
> You tell me....
>
> > This is something we consistently have seen on this
> > > newsgroup. That you chose not to believe something is a personal choice
> > > for you not a doctrine for all peoples. In the name of being right and
> > > self righteous for all other people and their beliefs.... where have we
> > > heard that one in this past 10 days?
> >
> > Maybe I'll see if you'll answer this question: If I feel hurt because an
> > eckist expresses a positive opinion about eckankar or related a
> > spiritual experience, would you stop speaking positively about eckankar?
>
> lurk... how does one twist their mind around that one?
Probably by not answering the question.
Of course I don't
> feel hurt by this, but that doesn't mean that on a group called
> alt.religion.eckankar that this is an unwarranted expectation.
I wasn't asking if you feel hurt. I asking if you would refrain from
posting positive comments because I felt hurt? Please answer that.
> I think that when ever I find myself dealing with someone who is trying
> to justify hurtful behavior so that they can continue without guilt I
> have to wonder what that persons personal motives are. Why? Because I
> instantly see that this person knows what they are doing is hurtful and
> is seeking to shift responsibility on to the person they are being
> hurtful to.
But I come from the point of view that it is hurtful to enable people
who are over-sensitive and feel hurt when negative opinions about their
religion are expressed. The more compassionate thing to do is to express
the opinion and allow the person the space to negotiate their hurt.
News flash... just because you have an opinion doesn't mean
> that this gives you rights above the people that you are confronting.
Why are you attributing more power to my opinion than to your opinion?
Because they make more sense? <g>
> Discussing issues in an open forum without the need to target a belief
> system as a whole is time honored. Targetting a belief system as a whole
> because you don't like it, is bigotry.
Well, all I can say is reread the the last few postings in this thread
and I think you'll see I have defined the communication problem on
a.r.e. very fairly.
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> > >
> > > cher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And from the standpoint of whom? Which person gets to determine what is
> > > > enabling to another human being in their life?
> > >
> > > There are no hard and fast rules about this. I've explain what I thought
> > > was unreasonable boundaries and that respecting such boundaries would
> > > not only have the effect of enabling the person, but would curtail my
> > > freedom of speech.
> >
> > An old saying... your freedom ends where mine begins......
> >
> > > At what point does this
> > > > stop being about the religion and becomes about the people practicing
> > > > that religion?
> > >
> > > At what point does a newsgroup discussion transmute into someone
> > > practicing their religion? This newsgroup isn't a church, ya know.
> >
> > But this group was set up by ECKists to discuss Eckankar. That may be
> > difficult to fathom but it's still true. It doesn't have to be a church,
> > only a place of respect.
>
> Just because eckankar set up doesn't mean it can control who post here
> or that eckists should be revered in some way. It is the nature of
> usenet that anyone with an interest in eckankar can post both positive
> and negative comments.
>
> I guarantee life will be a little easier if you understand that one point.
And I guarantee that life will become much easier when you understand
that your need to force opinions on others is not a god given right.
> >
> > > And when does this suddenly cross the line into that
> > > > territory that gives people in the U.S. where both you and lurk live,
> > > > freedom of religious choice?
> > >
> > > Again, if you can tell me how a newsgroup discussion can prevent someone
> > > from practicing their religion, I'll sincerely listen to your concerns.
> >
> > Great and then you tell me how attacking another persons religion and
> > taking joy in the attempt to destroy it in the process has anything to
> > do with freedom of speech.
>
> On top of the question above which you did not answer I have to ask another:
>
> How can posting opinions on a newsgroup destroy someone's religion? I'll
> sincerely listen to your concerns when you answer this question.
I did answer your question. That you don't comprehend what I said is a
different matter.
Take a look around you lurk.
> >
> > > See it's really you guys who are walking
> > > > the narrow stretch of the imagination here. That you can find something
> > > > to say which you feel is of critical importance about the path of
> > > > Eckankar that new seekers should look at is fine... but when it turns
> > > > into a personal interpretation of that path and it's value then it no
> > > > longer fits your description here.
> > >
> > > I have every right to assess, evaluate, and speculate the efficacy of
> > > the path/religion called eckankar, as you do. Whenever you express a
> > > positive opinion about eckankar you doing such
> >
> > The point here is that in mixing the things of opinion with these so
> > called issues of plagiarism you attempt to wrap your personal opinion in
> > a blanket of righteousness. In other words you go beyond the boundaries
> > you suggest you are doing here. Define the difference between personal
> > opinions and facts.
>
> It doesn't matter whether I express an opinion, an fact or an opinion as
> fact. And it doesn't matter if I do so in a blanket of righteousness or
> with sarcasm or with humor or with sincerity. The fact is I still have a right.
According to whom? Where did you get this blanket right to behave in
anyway that you chose in any room that you enter regardless of those who
are there rightfully and then demand that they move out of your way for
your opinions? When did you get this idea about freedom of speech? Have
you even read the constitution? Stand in the center of a movie theatre
and shout fire and see how far your freedom gets you. Can you imagine
other instances? The fact remains that no matter the circumstances it's
your behavior in doing what you chose to do that makes the difference
between people ignoring you, listening to you or applauding as the cops
cart you off.
> >
> > > If I turn your comments around on you maybe you can see how it feels and
> > > look: (please report back to me)
> > >
> > > That you can find some positive to say which you feel is of critical
> > > importance about the path of Eckankar that new seeker should look at is
> > > fine...but when it turns into a personal interpretation of that path and
> > > it's value by telling all those testimonial stories of spiritual
> > > experiences, then it no longer fits your description here. This is abuse!
> >
> > And how do you see this as abuse?
>
> Why don't you tell me how expressing negative opinions about eckankar is abuse.
When they are spread as truths and not opinions. Negative or positive...
when they are cloaked as truth and not opinions. Attacking members of
Eckankar for saying what they feel is positive about their path because
it is in conflict with what your opinion is about their faith and likely
hundreds of other religions.
> > The fact is that the religion has a
> > right to share what it has to offer whether you agree with it or not.
>
> Just as people have the right to express its shortcomings. Now you're
> getting it!
So then if you chose to constantly point out these shortcomings because
you see it is your right to do so even to the point of harrassment of
the people who are were they should be and not in your house telling you
what to believe.... Interesting.
> > There is abuse when there are no options. The options here are openned
> > ended. Join, leave, move on. Where does this fit the description of
> > abusive? That no one can say what the religion means to them without
> > being attacked is what's abusive. Check with the constitution... you
> > might find others agree with this assessment. If this group were named
> > alt.arelurker and I posted to attack you and what you believe then I
> > would be guilty of harrassment.
>
> By attack if you me posting negative opinions then you would be guilty
> of posting on a usenet newsgroup.
When did I post in alt.arelurker? Don't try to make this simplistic by
shifting it to simply negative opinions. This is attacking a persons
religious freedom. As I said before there is a difference in posting
your personal opinion and forcing it on others as truth for all.
> Again the sooner you give up this idea the name of the group means
> ownership and control, the peaceful your life will become on the newsgroup.
And the sooner you understand that there are newsgroups out here where
you can explore your options the better it will be for you. My life is
peaceful... an ECKist on an ECK related newsgroup. Now what about
someone who choses to post here regularly only to complain and find
faults in those members of that group? Onwership and control? The name
is on every post lurk. It's you who cannot face that reality. Like it or
not it's on each and every post. This is why it is warrented that people
will say things that are positive and supportive of the group Eckankar.
duh.........
> >
> > > There are countless religious paths
> > > > on this planet. One can only surmise that neither you nor lurk would be
> > > > happy following all of them. So whatever you find wrong with Eckankar on
> > > > a personal level, you would would likely find wrong with these other
> > > > paths as well, right?
> > >
> > > If they do the same things as eckankar, yes.
> >
> > Why?
>
> I'm consistent. If those other paths are doing the same thing as
> eckankar I would criticize them.
Why? And why would anyone care what you think?
> >What makes your belief system more important than everyone else?
>
> Who said anything about my belief system being more important.
You just did! Go back and read what you wrote... you just did!
> Is
> > this elistist? Or is it simply that without referencing yourself to what
> > you do not believe in, there is no "you" to be?
>
> You're losing me here.
The people that you would be complaining about and disagreeing with have
a belief system... but all you have is a self made system of non-belief.
Without these groups your chosen belief system has no face, no
substance, no activity, no gathering of sorts, no converts, no voice.
Essentially it is a religion... just the flip side of one. You exist in
antithisis of Eckankar, therefore you are.
> >
> > > Religious differences is not an excuse for boarish
> > > > behavior no matter how much you may think it's necessary to wake someone
> > > > else up to your opinion. And that's where the argument falls flat. You
> > > > guys confuse your personal opinions with other peoples truth. When you
> > > > attack someone elses God and their expression of it, then you
> > > > essentially make your opinion the replacement for that God and its
> > > > expression.
> > >
> > > Adults can decide whether they want to replace their expression of God
> > > with my opinion.
> >
> > So long as you remember that it is your opinion that you are sharing.
>
> I don't think I ever forgot that.
But how do others know this? Do you forget to say so? How often do you
mention this point? How often do you give others the right to believe as
they do, even if it is in conflict with what you believe? Welcome to the
new mood of America.
> > Too often that gets lost in the ego of the postings. Just because you
> > want to argue with other people about what they chose to believe in
> > doesn't condone boarish behavior. No one is telling you that you cannot
> > have your opinions, only that you are responsible for them and that they
> > are not an excuse to attack other people with.
>
> But you're defining attacking people as me expression opinions. I try to
> stick with the issues. How about you?
Most of the time. I falter, don't you? I've seen you often times get
upset becuase you felt people were attacking the person rather than the
beliefs. My point is that in a room with the name Eckankar on the door,
you cannot distinguish one from the other when every other attack is
directed at "you ECKists" this that or the other. The term "Eckists" is
where the whole thing falls apart on you. That's why I started using the
term "detractor" but that just went right over everyone's heads. See, no
matter how much you suggest that you attack only ideas go back and see
how often you lean on attacking "Eckists" as if we were not people,
individuals, humans. That's where bigotry gets ugly.
> >
> > > What's the big deal?
> >
> > You tell me....
> >
> > > This is something we consistently have seen on this
> > > > newsgroup. That you chose not to believe something is a personal choice
> > > > for you not a doctrine for all peoples. In the name of being right and
> > > > self righteous for all other people and their beliefs.... where have we
> > > > heard that one in this past 10 days?
> > >
> > > Maybe I'll see if you'll answer this question: If I feel hurt because an
> > > eckist expresses a positive opinion about eckankar or related a
> > > spiritual experience, would you stop speaking positively about eckankar?
> >
> > lurk... how does one twist their mind around that one?
>
> Probably by not answering the question.
But there is an answer........ I don't need to accept your chess move
here....
> Of course I don't
> > feel hurt by this, but that doesn't mean that on a group called
> > alt.religion.eckankar that this is an unwarranted expectation.
>
> I wasn't asking if you feel hurt. I asking if you would refrain from
> posting positive comments because I felt hurt? Please answer that.
No I wouldn't. If I was on alt.arelurker I would consider it. But this
isn't as simple as hurt my feelings by saying unkind things about my
faith. This is about saying negative things about Eckankar on this group
and about Eckists how chose to defend what they believe in.
> > I think that when ever I find myself dealing with someone who is trying
> > to justify hurtful behavior so that they can continue without guilt I
> > have to wonder what that persons personal motives are. Why? Because I
> > instantly see that this person knows what they are doing is hurtful and
> > is seeking to shift responsibility on to the person they are being
> > hurtful to.
>
> But I come from the point of view that it is hurtful to enable people
> who are over-sensitive and feel hurt when negative opinions about their
> religion are expressed. The more compassionate thing to do is to express
> the opinion and allow the person the space to negotiate their hurt.
And I find that this is an excuse for your behavior. Try looking into
emotionally abusive people... the structure there will be very
enlightening. What does psychology say about someone who believes they
are helping someone by daily telling them they are fat or stupid or ugly
or unwanted? Seriously lurk... you are wiser than this. :-)
> News flash... just because you have an opinion doesn't mean
> > that this gives you rights above the people that you are confronting.
>
> Why are you attributing more power to my opinion than to your opinion?
> Because they make more sense? <g>
Nope! I exlained earlier in the post.
> > Discussing issues in an open forum without the need to target a belief
> > system as a whole is time honored. Targetting a belief system as a whole
> > because you don't like it, is bigotry.
>
> Well, all I can say is reread the the last few postings in this thread
> and I think you'll see I have defined the communication problem on
> a.r.e. very fairly.
And I honestly feel that if you read this one you should have a better
idea of why I cannot agree with your assessment! But thanks for the
discussion.
Len
Compassion comes to mind. An individual shows great compassion
when they do not knowingly say hurtful things to one another. One might
call this kind of behavior abusive. I agree with you that errecting
some law to enforce this will not work. This must work on an individual
basis.
Lurk:
I think an individual shows compassion by NOT enabling people who are
obviously over-sensitive and experience personal hurt from comments not
directed at them personally but to the negative aspects of their
religion or leaders.
Len:
Maybe if you can re-phrase this I can follow what you are saying.
I put the above sentence into my grammer checker and the maessage
came back (wordiness). I would like to understand what you are saying.
Lurk:
There are times when avoiding hurting other's
feelings is indulging the people which also conveys the hidden message
that they are not capable of handling their feelings. Do that enough to
a people, and pretty soon, guess what? They are unable to handle the
slightest thing and wallow in a pool of hurt.
Len:
This is where compassion for others again comes into play.
And your approach can also backfire, alienating others and
for certain whatever we are trying to communciate is lost.
I would think a better approach would be to ask first before
offering up ones opinion. If a person is open to another
and invites that other person in, there can be real sharing,
because there can be listening. Your approach assumes too much.
Lurk:
And just because eckists feel hurt doesn't mean a critic
had intentions to hurt.
Len:
Lurk, as I mentioned earlier, there are many ways to
express one's differences without criticizing. Try this
out.
Lurk:
Okay Len, let me ask you the same question I asked someone else here
last week: If I told eckists here on the newsgroup that when they speak
positively about eckankar it hurts my feelings, would you refrain from
expressing positive viewpoints about eckankar for fear of hurting my
feelings?
Len:
Let me answer you this way Lurk. Lets discuss Eckankar without any
positive or negative references. Then there are no issues about hurt
feelings. The precarious position you have placed yourself in, by not
allowing yourself to express anymore of your path than by criticizing
Eckankar has made your argument one-dimensional. I can go back to 2-3
years ago and show you talks between you and Doug which mimic our
conversation.
Regards,
Len
arel...@home.com
I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
on a newsgroup?
>
> > >
> > > > And when does this suddenly cross the line into that
> > > > > territory that gives people in the U.S. where both you and lurk live,
> > > > > freedom of religious choice?
> > > >
> > > > Again, if you can tell me how a newsgroup discussion can prevent someone
> > > > from practicing their religion, I'll sincerely listen to your concerns.
> > >
> > > Great and then you tell me how attacking another persons religion and
> > > taking joy in the attempt to destroy it in the process has anything to
> > > do with freedom of speech.
> >
> > On top of the question above which you did not answer I have to ask another:
> >
> > How can posting opinions on a newsgroup destroy someone's religion? I'll
> > sincerely listen to your concerns when you answer this question.
>
> I did answer your question. That you don't comprehend what I said is a
> different matter.
> Take a look around you lurk.
So now are two questions you have not answered: How can a newsgroup
discussion prevent someone from practicing their religion and how can
posting opinions on a newsgroup destroy someone's religion?
These are issues you brought up, these are fair questions.
>
> > >
> > > > See it's really you guys who are walking
> > > > > the narrow stretch of the imagination here. That you can find something
> > > > > to say which you feel is of critical importance about the path of
> > > > > Eckankar that new seekers should look at is fine... but when it turns
> > > > > into a personal interpretation of that path and it's value then it no
> > > > > longer fits your description here.
> > > >
> > > > I have every right to assess, evaluate, and speculate the efficacy of
> > > > the path/religion called eckankar, as you do. Whenever you express a
> > > > positive opinion about eckankar you doing such
> > >
> > > The point here is that in mixing the things of opinion with these so
> > > called issues of plagiarism you attempt to wrap your personal opinion in
> > > a blanket of righteousness. In other words you go beyond the boundaries
> > > you suggest you are doing here. Define the difference between personal
> > > opinions and facts.
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether I express an opinion, an fact or an opinion as
> > fact. And it doesn't matter if I do so in a blanket of righteousness or
> > with sarcasm or with humor or with sincerity. The fact is I still have a right.
>
> According to whom?
The ISP I pay monthly.
Where did you get this blanket right to behave in
> anyway that you chose in any room that you enter regardless of those who
> are there rightfully and then demand that they move out of your way for
> your opinions?
I'm not demanded you move out of the way. Please express your opinions
all you want. I'm still not seeing what behavior you find objectionable.
I'm just expressing opinions and you are.
> When did you get this idea about freedom of speech? Have
> you even read the constitution? Stand in the center of a movie theatre
> and shout fire and see how far your freedom gets you. Can you imagine
> other instances? The fact remains that no matter the circumstances it's
> your behavior in doing what you chose to do that makes the difference
> between people ignoring you, listening to you or applauding as the cops
> cart you off.
These examples you cite here in the form of questions are quite
melodramatic.
I think the constitution my back me up in my expressing opinions on a
newsgroup. Please tell me how it doesn't.
>
> > >
> > > > If I turn your comments around on you maybe you can see how it feels and
> > > > look: (please report back to me)
> > > >
> > > > That you can find some positive to say which you feel is of critical
> > > > importance about the path of Eckankar that new seeker should look at is
> > > > fine...but when it turns into a personal interpretation of that path and
> > > > it's value by telling all those testimonial stories of spiritual
> > > > experiences, then it no longer fits your description here. This is abuse!
> > >
> > > And how do you see this as abuse?
> >
> > Why don't you tell me how expressing negative opinions about eckankar is abuse.
>
> When they are spread as truths and not opinions. Negative or positive...
> when they are cloaked as truth and not opinions. Attacking members of
> Eckankar for saying what they feel is positive about their path because
> it is in conflict with what your opinion is about their faith and likely
> hundreds of other religions.
That's expressing disagreement, not abuse depending how it is done. I
think communication can be abusive, such as when making the person the
issue. Eckist follow that line more than non eckists here.
Again turn it around, if a former member expresses a negative experience
with eckankar and an eckist expresses a positive opinion about the same
subject matter, would you call it attacking?
>
> > > The fact is that the religion has a
> > > right to share what it has to offer whether you agree with it or not.
> >
> > Just as people have the right to express its shortcomings. Now you're
> > getting it!
>
> So then if you chose to constantly point out these shortcomings because
> you see it is your right to do so even to the point of harrassment of
> the people who are were they should be and not in your house telling you
> what to believe.... Interesting.
I don't view it as harassing to point out negative things about your
religion, even if they're redundant. I don't view it as harassing me if
someone expresses their positive experiences with eckankar or posts all
those Harold quotes over and over.
And again, it is not your house sweetie. This is a fundamental mistake
you are making here. Seriously take a look at that. That attitude alone
could be the source of much conflict here. I mean, if you approach
people, who express opinions different than yours, as though they have
no right to even be expressing their opinions here, that creates the
condition for hostility from the outset, don't you think.
Just think of how you would react if every response to eckists I posted
has undertones of seething anger because I though you all didn't have a
right to express your positive opinions on this newsgroup. I think you
would find that as outrageous as I find your attitude.
>
> > > There is abuse when there are no options. The options here are openned
> > > ended. Join, leave, move on. Where does this fit the description of
> > > abusive? That no one can say what the religion means to them without
> > > being attacked is what's abusive. Check with the constitution... you
> > > might find others agree with this assessment. If this group were named
> > > alt.arelurker and I posted to attack you and what you believe then I
> > > would be guilty of harrassment.
> >
> > By attack if you me posting negative opinions then you would be guilty
> > of posting on a usenet newsgroup.
>
> When did I post in alt.arelurker?
I don't take hypotheticals a real.
Don't try to make this simplistic by
> shifting it to simply negative opinions. This is attacking a persons
> religious freedom. As I said before there is a difference in posting
> your personal opinion and forcing it on others as truth for all.
I keep asking for you to explain how the dynamics of this "forcing."
How can one person force an opinion on another person? How are people
impinging upon eckists' religious freedom.
>
> > Again the sooner you give up this idea the name of the group means
> > ownership and control, the peaceful your life will become on the newsgroup.
>
> And the sooner you understand that there are newsgroups out here where
> you can explore your options the better it will be for you. My life is
> peaceful... an ECKist on an ECK related newsgroup.
Your life is peaceful just so long as nobody express an opinion different
than yours on a newsgroup you seem to think you own, eh?
Now what about
> someone who choses to post here regularly only to complain and find
> faults in those members of that group? Onwership and control? The name
> is on every post lurk. It's you who cannot face that reality. Like it or
> not it's on each and every post. This is why it is warrented that people
> will say things that are positive and supportive of the group Eckankar.
> duh.........
Nobody owns this group. Why are you have such a hard time with this
simple fact. If eckists owned it they would do away with it because this
is one of the few sources where people can find critical information
about eckankar.
It's usenet. You can't control it. Live with it.
>
> > >
> > > > There are countless religious paths
> > > > > on this planet. One can only surmise that neither you nor lurk would be
> > > > > happy following all of them. So whatever you find wrong with Eckankar on
> > > > > a personal level, you would would likely find wrong with these other
> > > > > paths as well, right?
> > > >
> > > > If they do the same things as eckankar, yes.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > I'm consistent. If those other paths are doing the same thing as
> > eckankar I would criticize them.
>
> Why?
Because I believe that speaking openly and candidly about the negative
aspects of a religion in the context I do can make them better.
>And why would anyone care what you think?
Because I have good ideas? Not everyone has an aversion to or is
sensitive to criticism.
>
> > >What makes your belief system more important than everyone else?
> >
> > Who said anything about my belief system being more important.
>
> You just did! Go back and read what you wrote... you just did!
>
> > Is
> > > this elistist? Or is it simply that without referencing yourself to what
> > > you do not believe in, there is no "you" to be?
> >
> > You're losing me here.
>
> The people that you would be complaining about and disagreeing with have
> a belief system... but all you have is a self made system of non-belief.
A self made system of non-belief? I have beliefs.
> Without these groups your chosen belief system has no face, no
> substance, no activity, no gathering of sorts, no converts, no voice.
> Essentially it is a religion... just the flip side of one. You exist in
> antithisis of Eckankar, therefore you are.
Is this a fancy way of calling me the Kal like Paul and Harold do of
people who disagree.
I express my beliefs all the time here.
>
> > >
> > > > Religious differences is not an excuse for boarish
> > > > > behavior no matter how much you may think it's necessary to wake someone
> > > > > else up to your opinion. And that's where the argument falls flat. You
> > > > > guys confuse your personal opinions with other peoples truth. When you
> > > > > attack someone elses God and their expression of it, then you
> > > > > essentially make your opinion the replacement for that God and its
> > > > > expression.
> > > >
> > > > Adults can decide whether they want to replace their expression of God
> > > > with my opinion.
> > >
> > > So long as you remember that it is your opinion that you are sharing.
> >
> > I don't think I ever forgot that.
>
> But how do others know this? Do you forget to say so? How often do you
> mention this point? How often do you give others the right to believe as
> they do, even if it is in conflict with what you believe?
All the time, Cher. All you are doing is framing me expressing negative
opinions as taking away the rights of others to believe what they want.
That is simply not true. If an eckists expresses a positive viewpoint
that is contrary to mine I don't view that as that eckist taking my
rights away to believe what I want.
This is getting a bit surrealistic to tell you the truth.
Welcome to the
> new mood of America.
>
> > > Too often that gets lost in the ego of the postings. Just because you
> > > want to argue with other people about what they chose to believe in
> > > doesn't condone boarish behavior. No one is telling you that you cannot
> > > have your opinions, only that you are responsible for them and that they
> > > are not an excuse to attack other people with.
> >
> > But you're defining attacking people as me expression opinions. I try to
> > stick with the issues. How about you?
>
> Most of the time. I falter, don't you? I've seen you often times get
> upset becuase you felt people were attacking the person rather than the
> beliefs. My point is that in a room with the name Eckankar on the door,
> you cannot distinguish one from the other when every other attack is
> directed at "you ECKists" this that or the other. The term "Eckists" is
> where the whole thing falls apart on you. That's why I started using the
> term "detractor" but that just went right over everyone's heads. See, no
> matter how much you suggest that you attack only ideas go back and see
> how often you lean on attacking "Eckists" as if we were not people,
> individuals, humans. That's where bigotry gets ugly.
I talk about "some" eckists or "eckists I have observed" while I was in
eckankar or eckists I observe here. Sometimes, I let it slip and you the
term eckists universally, but most of the time I try to be clear about
who I'm talking about.
>
> > >
> > > > What's the big deal?
> > >
> > > You tell me....
> > >
> > > > This is something we consistently have seen on this
> > > > > newsgroup. That you chose not to believe something is a personal choice
> > > > > for you not a doctrine for all peoples. In the name of being right and
> > > > > self righteous for all other people and their beliefs.... where have we
> > > > > heard that one in this past 10 days?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I'll see if you'll answer this question: If I feel hurt because an
> > > > eckist expresses a positive opinion about eckankar or related a
> > > > spiritual experience, would you stop speaking positively about eckankar?
> > >
> > > lurk... how does one twist their mind around that one?
> >
> > Probably by not answering the question.
>
> But there is an answer........ I don't need to accept your chess move
> here....
I understand by answering the question you would have to admit your own bias.
>
> > Of course I don't
> > > feel hurt by this, but that doesn't mean that on a group called
> > > alt.religion.eckankar that this is an unwarranted expectation.
> >
> > I wasn't asking if you feel hurt. I asking if you would refrain from
> > posting positive comments because I felt hurt? Please answer that.
>
> No I wouldn't.
Right, you would find it unreasonable as I find it unreasonable to
refrain from expressing negative viewpoints because some eckists feel
hurt. So it is not abuse after all, right? Can you at least admit that?
If I was on alt.arelurker I would consider it. But this
> isn't as simple as hurt my feelings by saying unkind things about my
> faith. This is about saying negative things about Eckankar on this group
> and about Eckists how chose to defend what they believe in.
>
> > > I think that when ever I find myself dealing with someone who is trying
> > > to justify hurtful behavior so that they can continue without guilt I
> > > have to wonder what that persons personal motives are. Why? Because I
> > > instantly see that this person knows what they are doing is hurtful and
> > > is seeking to shift responsibility on to the person they are being
> > > hurtful to.
> >
> > But I come from the point of view that it is hurtful to enable people
> > who are over-sensitive and feel hurt when negative opinions about their
> > religion are expressed. The more compassionate thing to do is to express
> > the opinion and allow the person the space to negotiate their hurt.
>
> And I find that this is an excuse for your behavior. Try looking into
> emotionally abusive people... the structure there will be very
> enlightening. What does psychology say about someone who believes they
> are helping someone by daily telling them they are fat or stupid or ugly
> or unwanted? Seriously lurk... you are wiser than this. :-)
It more like making critical remarks about eckankar and its master which
are taken personally and eckists feel hurt.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Len wrote:
>
> Len:
>
> Compassion comes to mind. An individual shows great compassion
> when they do not knowingly say hurtful things to one another. One might
> call this kind of behavior abusive. I agree with you that errecting
> some law to enforce this will not work. This must work on an individual
> basis.
>
> Lurk:
>
> I think an individual shows compassion by NOT enabling people who are
> obviously over-sensitive and experience personal hurt from comments not
> directed at them personally but to the negative aspects of their
> religion or leaders.
>
> Len:
>
> Maybe if you can re-phrase this I can follow what you are saying.
> I put the above sentence into my grammer checker and the maessage
> came back (wordiness). I would like to understand what you are saying.
It is compassionate to allow people the space to feel their hurt if they
get hurt when reading critical comments. That is much more compassionate
than trying to fix the problem by requesting people not post negative
comments which infringes on their right to express opinions.
>
> Lurk:
>
> There are times when avoiding hurting other's
> feelings is indulging the people which also conveys the hidden message
> that they are not capable of handling their feelings. Do that enough to
> a people, and pretty soon, guess what? They are unable to handle the
> slightest thing and wallow in a pool of hurt.
>
> Len:
>
> This is where compassion for others again comes into play.
> And your approach can also backfire, alienating others and
> for certain whatever we are trying to communciate is lost.
> I would think a better approach would be to ask first before
> offering up ones opinion.
Len I can see you are sincere in your responses here but to suggest that
I seek permission before I post something critical of Paul, Harold or
eckankar in general is unreasonable. Would you find it unreasonable to
seek permission to post something positive about Harold or eckankar that
might hurt my feelings?
If a person is open to another
> and invites that other person in, there can be real sharing,
> because there can be listening. Your approach assumes too much.
I think you are speaking of something totally different than I. I'm
speaking of a critic making critical remarks about your masters or
eckankar and then some eckists taking this personally and feeling deep
hurt. And as a result of feeling hurt expecting critics not to post
critical remarks.
>
> Lurk:
>
> And just because eckists feel hurt doesn't mean a critic
> had intentions to hurt.
>
> Len:
>
> Lurk, as I mentioned earlier, there are many ways to
> express one's differences without criticizing. Try this
> out.
>
> Lurk:
>
> Okay Len, let me ask you the same question I asked someone else here
> last week: If I told eckists here on the newsgroup that when they speak
> positively about eckankar it hurts my feelings, would you refrain from
> expressing positive viewpoints about eckankar for fear of hurting my
> feelings?
>
> Len:
>
> Let me answer you this way Lurk. Lets discuss Eckankar without any
> positive or negative references. Then there are no issues about hurt
> feelings.
That's a cop out response and an impossibility.
The precarious position you have placed yourself in, by not
> allowing yourself to express anymore of your path than by criticizing
> Eckankar has made your argument one-dimensional.
So would you consider the eckists who express only positive things about
eckankar one-dimensional?
I can go back to 2-3
> years ago and show you talks between you and Doug which mimic our
> conversation.
What... where I ask a direct questions and your give me a cop out
answer? <g>
Lurk
>
> Regards,
> Len
vahana
They have no idea Lurk...
>>
>These examples you cite here in the form of questions are quite
>melodramatic.
>
>I think the constitution my back me up in my expressing opinions on a
>newsgroup. Please tell me how it doesn't.
They don't know...
Here's what the 1st Amendment really says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances."
No one is prohibiting the free exercise of Eckankar here. How would that even
been possible to accomplish, from a usenet newsgroup?
>
>
>
>>
>> > >
>>> > > If I turn your comments around on you maybe you can see how it feels and
>> > > > look: (please report back to me)
>> > > >
>> > > > That you can find some positive to say which you feel is of critical
>> > > > importance about the path of Eckankar that new seeker should look at is
>>> > > fine...but when it turns into a personal interpretation of that path and
>> > > > it's value by telling all those testimonial stories of spiritual
>>> > > experiences, then it no longer fits your description here. This is abuse!
>> > >
>> > > And how do you see this as abuse?
>> >
>>> Why don't you tell me how expressing negative opinions about eckankar is
>>abuse.
>>
>> When they are spread as truths and not opinions. Negative or positive...
>> when they are cloaked as truth and not opinions. Attacking members of
>> Eckankar for saying what they feel is positive about their path because
>> it is in conflict with what your opinion is about their faith and likely
>> hundreds of other religions.
>
>That's expressing disagreement, not abuse depending how it is done. I
>think communication can be abusive, such as when making the person the
>issue. Eckist follow that line more than non eckists here.
>
>Again turn it around, if a former member expresses a negative experience
>with eckankar and an eckist expresses a positive opinion about the same
>subject matter, would you call it attacking?
I wonder, does the url http://www.eckankar.org
express ECKANKAR, its history and teachings, as mere "opinions," or as truth?
Seems to me to be a webpage of rather bold statements about Eckankar. Ain't it
funny no Eckists object to it...
>
>
>>
>> > > The fact is that the religion has a
>> > > right to share what it has to offer whether you agree with it or not.
>> >
>> > Just as people have the right to express its shortcomings. Now you're
>> > getting it!
>>
>> So then if you chose to constantly point out these shortcomings because
>> you see it is your right to do so even to the point of harrassment of
>> the people who are were they should be and not in your house telling you
>> what to believe.... Interesting.
>
>I don't view it as harassing to point out negative things about your
>religion, even if they're redundant. I don't view it as harassing me if
>someone expresses their positive experiences with eckankar or posts all
>those Harold quotes over and over.
>
>And again, it is not your house sweetie. This is a fundamental mistake
>you are making here. Seriously take a look at that. That attitude alone
>could be the source of much conflict here. I mean, if you approach
>people, who express opinions different than yours, as though they have
>no right to even be expressing their opinions here, that creates the
>condition for hostility from the outset, don't you think.
>
>Just think of how you would react if every response to eckists I posted
>has undertones of seething anger because I though you all didn't have a
>right to express your positive opinions on this newsgroup. I think you
>would find that as outrageous as I find your attitude.
What these eckists really want, Lurk, isn't the freedom to talk among
themselves.
No, it's never been about that!
Want they want, what they really want, is a unique franchise to proselytize
their correct, party-line views on ECKANKAR for ECKANKAR org.
That's what it's been about here at a.r.e. from day 1.
They just can't admit it to themselves.
cher
about Eckists posting to this group. Think about it for a moment. Just
think about it.
I'm glad that you posted this here... I think this is important to
read... to take a long hard look at. Particularly the part about
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I think this is the part that
detractors smear consistantly. I see detractors consistantly harp on
Eckists for posting material which is Eckankar related.... including our
urls. Does that mean anything to you joe?
cher
dismissed my points so consistantly that I don't see any recourse but to
drop this thread. I am not here to convince you of anything, but I am
also not here to be convinced by you of anything either. I agree to
disagree.
You have every right to not be an Eckist.
Ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
>
Cher wrote...
> > And I guarantee that life will become much easier when you understand
> > that your need to force opinions on others is not a god given right.
>
Lurk replied...
> I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> on a newsgroup?
I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
of power for him or her to realize this desire. It doesn't need to be a
form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
Also note the word critic. Always, the individual who attempts to force
others into a specific dogma or line of thinking bases this attempt on
a critical interpretation about how certain things are wrong and how
they need to be changed. Acceptance and tolerance of individual free
will seems to be anathema to these people as they tend to believe
that they have the one true understanding of what is right and moral.
Lurk, you will no doubt notice that this position which I am ascribing to
you (as well as several others on a.r.e.) corresponds to many of your
own criticisms of Eckankar. Interesting, isn't it? Almost as though you
were seeing your own shadows projected upon the screen of Life.
Len
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:3BADDF5C...@home.com...
:
:
Len:
Praise and criticism can be made from the same cloth.
I see people respect other people's position and attempt
to influence them, other than the critical way.
: > Lurk:
: >
: > There are times when avoiding hurting other's
: > feelings is indulging the people which also conveys the hidden
message
: > that they are not capable of handling their feelings. Do that enough
to
: > a people, and pretty soon, guess what? They are unable to handle the
: > slightest thing and wallow in a pool of hurt.
: >
: > Len:
: >
: > This is where compassion for others again comes into play.
: > And your approach can also backfire, alienating others and
: > for certain whatever we are trying to communciate is lost.
: > I would think a better approach would be to ask first before
: > offering up ones opinion.
:
: Len I can see you are sincere in your responses here but to suggest
that
: I seek permission before I post something critical of Paul, Harold or
: eckankar in general is unreasonable. Would you find it unreasonable to
: seek permission to post something positive about Harold or eckankar
that
: might hurt my feelings?
:
Len:
Some middle ground might be worth persuing. I'm open
to suggestions.
:>Len
:
: If a person is open to another
: > and invites that other person in, there can be real sharing,
: > because there can be listening. Your approach assumes too much.
:
: I think you are speaking of something totally different than I. I'm
: speaking of a critic making critical remarks about your masters or
: eckankar and then some eckists taking this personally and feeling deep
: hurt. And as a result of feeling hurt expecting critics not to post
: critical remarks.
:
Len:
I'm not certain that there is an expectation by eckists that
critical remarks will no longer be forthcoming. I haven't polled
this issue. I believe some eckists expect you to listen to them.
:
: >
: > Lurk:
: >
: > And just because eckists feel hurt doesn't mean a critic
: > had intentions to hurt.
: >
: > Len:
: >
: > Lurk, as I mentioned earlier, there are many ways to
: > express one's differences without criticizing. Try this
: > out.
: >
: > Lurk:
: >
: > Okay Len, let me ask you the same question I asked someone else here
: > last week: If I told eckists here on the newsgroup that when they
speak
: > positively about eckankar it hurts my feelings, would you refrain
from
: > expressing positive viewpoints about eckankar for fear of hurting my
: > feelings?
: >
: > Len:
: >
: > Let me answer you this way Lurk. Lets discuss Eckankar without any
: > positive or negative references. Then there are no issues about
hurt
: > feelings.
:
: That's a cop out response and an impossibility.
:
Len:
I see possibilities where you see none. Not a cop out
from my POV. Nor am I trying to evade your question.
I just think your example does not address the issue
at hand. I have never heard a critic make the remark that
they are hurt by eckists sharing quotes or understandings
from themselves or from Eckankar literature. I'm addressing
a real issue, while you like to balance it with something
hypothetical. There is a difference Lurk.
:
: The precarious position you have placed yourself in, by not
: > allowing yourself to express anymore of your path than by
criticizing
: > Eckankar has made your argument one-dimensional.
:
: So would you consider the eckists who express only positive things
about
: eckankar one-dimensional?
:
:
: I can go back to 2-3
: > years ago and show you talks between you and Doug which mimic our
: > conversation.
:
: What... where I ask a direct questions and your give me a cop out
: answer? <g>
:
: Lurk
Len:
Answered above.
Len
:
: >
: > Regards,
: > Len
Rich
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote ...
> > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > on a newsgroup?
>
> I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
>
> Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
> of power for him or her to realize this desire. It doesn't need to be a
> form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
> manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
>
> That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
> control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
> to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
> as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
> this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
>
> Also note the word critic. Always, the individual who attempts to force
> others into a specific dogma or line of thinking bases this attempt on
> a critical interpretation about how certain things are wrong and how
> they need to be changed. Acceptance and tolerance of individual free
> will seems to be anathema to these people as they tend to believe
> that they have the one true understanding of what is right and moral.
Also:
1. They often speak as if their opinions are foregone facts.
2. They often speak as if their interpretation are those of Eckists,
Eckankar and ECK Masters.
3. They attempt to overwhelm Eckists opinions by posting the very same
post multiple times a day.
4. They repeatedly badger Eckists on a given subject with taunts,
insults and lies, attempting to misrepresent the Eckist's position.
5. They do not accept and respect Eckists opinions and experiences.
All of these actions, whether conscious or not, are attempts to force
the naive into believing their opinions.
When Eckists complain about these forceful antics, the detractors
respond by repeating one or more of these.
--
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> lurk...I read through your response to my post and frankly you summarily
> dismissed my points so consistantly that I don't see any recourse but to
> drop this thread.
I kind of figured the questions I posed would be too hard for you to
answer. It is hard seeing one's own biases. It takes courage, eh?
I am not here to convince you of anything, but I am
> also not here to be convinced by you of anything either. I agree to
> disagree.
> You have every right to not be an Eckist.
And to post critical comments on the newsgroup named
alt.religion.eckankar?
C'mon say it....it will be good for you. Repeat after me: "Lurk you have
every right to post your negative opinions about eckankar on this newsgroup"
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Ken wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote ...
> >
> Cher wrote...
> > > And I guarantee that life will become much easier when you understand
> > > that your need to force opinions on others is not a god given right.
> >
>
> Lurk replied...
> > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > on a newsgroup?
>
> I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
Being persuasive? Is being persuasive on a newsgroup discussion
religious intolerance or, to use your favorite word bigotry?
>
> Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
> of power for him or her to realize this desire.
Looks like you are going through the same thought process that con man
Paul Twitchell went through.
It doesn't need to be a
> form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
> manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
Or Eck Masters.
>
> That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
> control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
> to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
> as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
> this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
The irony in your comments is you'll jump from saying this to support
your notions about "someone forcing opinions on others on a newsgroup,"
to a post about how there is not such thing as brainwashing when it
comes to eck masters and eckists.
Relativism can be comforting, eh?
>
> Also note the word critic. Always, the individual who attempts to force
> others into a specific dogma or line of thinking bases this attempt on
> a critical interpretation about how certain things are wrong and how
> they need to be changed.
Kind of like Paul seeing things wrong with other teachers and going
about producing and being everything he criticized.
Acceptance and tolerance of individual free
> will seems to be anathema to these people as they tend to believe
> that they have the one true understanding of what is right and moral.
If there is any group around here that thinks it has the one true
understanding, it is eckist, Ken!
>
> Lurk, you will no doubt notice that this position which I am ascribing to
> you (as well as several others on a.r.e.) corresponds to many of your
> own criticisms of Eckankar. Interesting, isn't it?
I think maybe you see this because one side of yourself is trying to
tell another part of yourself that the absolutism in eckankar that you
are projecting onto me is counter productive.
> Almost as though you
> were seeing your own shadows projected upon the screen of Life.
You're much to young to be talking about such things. Learn a little more
before you hurt yourself talking about shadows. <gg>
Lurk
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> Read this again joe and then look at what you wrote about how you FEEL
> about Eckists posting to this group. Think about it for a moment. Just
> think about it.
>
> I'm glad that you posted this here... I think this is important to
> read... to take a long hard look at. Particularly the part about
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I think this is the part that
> detractors smear consistantly.
I think you are mistaking Joe and I for the government. Notice it says,
"Congress will make no law..."
Lurk
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > lurk...I read through your response to my post and frankly you summarily
> > dismissed my points so consistantly that I don't see any recourse but to
> > drop this thread.
>
> I kind of figured the questions I posed would be too hard for you to
> answer. It is hard seeing one's own biases. It takes courage, eh?
Vanity is no excuse for a lack of awareness lurk... I simply refuse to
be badgered into your narrow little view of the world. Biases? Tell me
about them lurk.... you're the expert here.... Then we'll see if you
have any courage or not.
> I am not here to convince you of anything, but I am
> > also not here to be convinced by you of anything either. I agree to
> > disagree.
> > You have every right to not be an Eckist.
>
> And to post critical comments on the newsgroup named
> alt.religion.eckankar?
but not to harrasse others with your viewpoint or to demean others for
their beliefs or assault or threaten assault others for their religious
choices. You guys have a miserable track record lurk.
> C'mon say it....it will be good for you. Repeat after me: "Lurk you have
> every right to post your negative opinions about eckankar on this newsgroup"
as soon as you acknowledge that what I said is true! You lurk, have
every right to not be an ECKist. Read that line carefully....
> Lurk
cher
is through them! You did know that, didn't you? Are you an American
Citizen?
Ken
Lurk wrote...
> > > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > > on a newsgroup?
> >
Ken replied...
> > I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> > critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
>
Lurk responds...
> Being persuasive? Is being persuasive on a newsgroup discussion
> religious intolerance or, to use your favorite word bigotry?
No. Being persuasive has nothing to do with it.
> > Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
> > of power for him or her to realize this desire.
>
> Looks like you are going through the same thought process that con man
> Paul Twitchell went through.
>
>
> It doesn't need to be a
> > form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
> > manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
>
> Or Eck Masters.
>
>
> >
> > That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
> > control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
> > to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
> > as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
> > this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
>
> The irony in your comments is you'll jump from saying this to support
> your notions about "someone forcing opinions on others on a newsgroup,"
> to a post about how there is not such thing as brainwashing when it
> comes to eck masters and eckists.
What does this mythical thing you call "brainwashing" have to do with it?
And just to keep the conversation on track, this "it" we're talking about is
what I called, "the dogmatic *attempt* by some critics to force others to
get in line and believe as they do."
Anyone who's done any research knows that there's no generally
accepted evidence that brainwashing exists *at all* without extreme
physical coercion. And even the most heinous forms of torture combined
with attempts at mind control has an almost zero rate of success after the
individual is released to freedom. See, the whole brainwashing myth
(which has been promoted by certain anti-cult types) is just another one
of those tactics I talked about above that is designed to instill fear in
others. Why, I wonder, is it so necessary to foster a sense of fear in
people you are trying to convince?
> Relativism can be comforting, eh?
>
> >
> > Also note the word critic. Always, the individual who attempts to force
> > others into a specific dogma or line of thinking bases this attempt on
> > a critical interpretation about how certain things are wrong and how
> > they need to be changed.
>
> Kind of like Paul seeing things wrong with other teachers and going
> about producing and being everything he criticized.
Not at all. As I see it, the big difference between what Paul said and the
standard detractor rhetoric we see here all the time is that Paul never
tried to force anyone into a specific line of thinking using fear and
derision -- which is the most common detractor tactic. One of the most
important things he taught was that it was up to each of us to prove what
he said for ourselves, to accept nothing on blind faith.
> Acceptance and tolerance of individual free
> > will seems to be anathema to these people as they tend to believe
> > that they have the one true understanding of what is right and moral.
>
> If there is any group around here that thinks it has the one true
> understanding, it is eckist, Ken!
As I see it, the Eck perspective is that there is *no* "one true
understanding" of Truth. Each of us is responsible for creating our own
world and it's up to the individual to live one's life as one sees fit. None
of us is ever capable of containing or even comprehending It All.
And BTW, you've once again attempted to deflect the conversation. I
was talking about acceptance and tolerance of the individual's free will,
not one true understanding. There are few groups on Earth that are more
tolerant and respectful of the individual's free will than are Eckists.
> > Lurk, you will no doubt notice that this position which I am ascribing to
> > you (as well as several others on a.r.e.) corresponds to many of your
> > own criticisms of Eckankar. Interesting, isn't it?
>
> I think maybe you see this because one side of yourself is trying to
> tell another part of yourself that the absolutism in eckankar that you
> are projecting onto me is counter productive.
No Lurk, I'm seeing it because you exemplify your own criticisms of
Eckankar.
> > Almost as though you
> > were seeing your own shadows projected upon the screen of Life.
>
> You're much to young to be talking about such things. Learn a little more
> before you hurt yourself talking about shadows. <gg>
I'm far, far older than you can imagine, Lurk <g>.
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> How about that! And the only way that you can control what we do or say
> is through them!
You don't make any sense.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > lurk...I read through your response to my post and frankly you summarily
> > > dismissed my points so consistantly that I don't see any recourse but to
> > > drop this thread.
> >
> > I kind of figured the questions I posed would be too hard for you to
> > answer. It is hard seeing one's own biases. It takes courage, eh?
>
> Vanity is no excuse for a lack of awareness lurk... I simply refuse to
> be badgered into your narrow little view of the world. Biases?
It looks to me that you don't like when your logic and thinking gets
turned around on you. To answer the questions is to indict you own
thinking. Tough thing
to admit. You did the right thing, you ungracefully bowed out.
Tell me
> about them lurk.... you're the expert here.... Then we'll see if you
> have any courage or not.
>
> > I am not here to convince you of anything, but I am
> > > also not here to be convinced by you of anything either. I agree to
> > > disagree.
> > > You have every right to not be an Eckist.
> >
> > And to post critical comments on the newsgroup named
> > alt.religion.eckankar?
>
> but not to harrasse others with your viewpoint or to demean others for
> their beliefs or assault or threaten assault others for their religious
> choices. You guys have a miserable track record lurk.
I can post any way I see fit according to the usenet rules not your
rules. If I post negative comments about eckankar and this hurt your
feelings, then I'm sorry you feel hurt and harassed, but as I explained
to you earlier, I will not refrain from posting the way that I do. I
would rather treat you as an adult and encourage you to get through your
hurt feelings or feelings of being harassed.
>
> > C'mon say it....it will be good for you. Repeat after me: "Lurk you have
> > every right to post your negative opinions about eckankar on this newsgroup"
>
> as soon as you acknowledge that what I said is true! You lurk, have
> every right to not be an ECKist. Read that line carefully....
I know I have that right and I don't need you to grant it either. Ponder
that, dear.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Ken wrote:
>
> Lurk wrote...
> > > > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > > > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > > > on a newsgroup?
> > >
>
> Ken replied...
> > > I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> > > critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
> >
>
> Lurk responds...
> > Being persuasive? Is being persuasive on a newsgroup discussion
> > religious intolerance or, to use your favorite word bigotry?
>
> No. Being persuasive has nothing to do with it.
Okay then, how does one force others to believe as they do if persuasion
is not involved?
>
> > > Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
> > > of power for him or her to realize this desire.
> >
> > Looks like you are going through the same thought process that con man
> > Paul Twitchell went through.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't need to be a
> > > form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
> > > manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
> >
> > Or Eck Masters.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
> > > control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
> > > to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
> > > as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
> > > this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
> >
> > The irony in your comments is you'll jump from saying this to support
> > your notions about "someone forcing opinions on others on a newsgroup,"
> > to a post about how there is not such thing as brainwashing when it
> > comes to eck masters and eckists.
>
> What does this mythical thing you call "brainwashing" have to do with it?
I brought it up because I used it as an example of how you take the
position that brainwashing does not exists, yet you'll argue that people
posting negative opinions about eckankar are forcing "others to get in
line and believe as they do." Can't you see the inconsistency in your thinking?
> And just to keep the conversation on track, this "it" we're talking about is
> what I called, "the dogmatic *attempt* by some critics to force others to
> get in line and believe as they do."
>
> Anyone who's done any research knows that there's no generally
> accepted evidence that brainwashing exists *at all* without extreme
> physical coercion. And even the most heinous forms of torture combined
> with attempts at mind control has an almost zero rate of success after the
> individual is released to freedom. See, the whole brainwashing myth
> (which has been promoted by certain anti-cult types) is just another one
> of those tactics I talked about above that is designed to instill fear in
> others. Why, I wonder, is it so necessary to foster a sense of fear in
> people you are trying to convince?
>
> > Relativism can be comforting, eh?
> >
> > >
> > > Also note the word critic. Always, the individual who attempts to force
> > > others into a specific dogma or line of thinking bases this attempt on
> > > a critical interpretation about how certain things are wrong and how
> > > they need to be changed.
> >
> > Kind of like Paul seeing things wrong with other teachers and going
> > about producing and being everything he criticized.
>
> Not at all. As I see it, the big difference between what Paul said and the
> standard detractor rhetoric we see here all the time is that Paul never
> tried to force anyone into a specific line of thinking using fear and
> derision -- which is the most common detractor tactic.
Paul made himself the ultimate authority and spoke from that position.
Once eckists bought into that (or currently buy Harold's claims to
authority) then he could say anything and it was believed. And he did
use fear and derision, it is subtle to the eckist eye.
One of the most
> important things he taught was that it was up to each of us to prove what
> he said for ourselves, to accept nothing on blind faith.
>
> > Acceptance and tolerance of individual free
> > > will seems to be anathema to these people as they tend to believe
> > > that they have the one true understanding of what is right and moral.
> >
> > If there is any group around here that thinks it has the one true
> > understanding, it is eckist, Ken!
>
> As I see it, the Eck perspective is that there is *no* "one true
> understanding" of Truth. Each of us is responsible for creating our own
> world and it's up to the individual to live one's life as one sees fit. None
> of us is ever capable of containing or even comprehending It All.
>
> And BTW, you've once again attempted to deflect the conversation. I
> was talking about acceptance and tolerance of the individual's free will,
> not one true understanding. There are few groups on Earth that are more
> tolerant and respectful of the individual's free will than are Eckists.
Yes we see that in this public newsgroup how eckists like yourself who
cry bigotry and religious intolerance, or attempt to position eckists as
victims of critic's forceful opinions when critics post negative
opinions about eckankar.
Lurk
cher
Seriously, Ken is pointing to badgering a person with irrational
thinking. If this was brainwashing, then every lawyer in the U.S. and
around the world would be guilty! Don't confuse persuasion with magical
thinking... it's just garden variety harrassement that you guys are
playing in.
Sharon2000
> <arel...@home.com> wrote ...
> >
> Cher wrote...
> > > And I guarantee that life will become much easier when you understand
> > > that your need to force opinions on others is not a god given right.
> >
>
> Lurk replied...
> > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > on a newsgroup?
>
> I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
>
Yep...you're talking about what I experienced in the EckGestapo!!
Got me out of the cult a lot faster, and drove home more quickly the
truth about eckankar's control & manipulation.
> Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
> of power for him or her to realize this desire. It doesn't need to be a
> form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
> manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
>
Yep...Nathan Zafran, Doug Marman, Richie Smith, and other HIs,
RESAs, ESAs, cult "clergy", and wannabe Swordmen of the Suggie!
But...the fact is, all the power that cult members think they
have, from Klemp right on down, is in their deluded minds.
> That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
> control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
> to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
> as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
> this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
>
Golly gee, Ken, don't you see this is what eckist do here
constantly? Even going so far as to claiming David Lane is
running a cult?
> Also note the word critic. Always, the individual who attempts to force
> others into a specific dogma or line of thinking bases this attempt on
> a critical interpretation about how certain things are wrong and how
> they need to be changed. Acceptance and tolerance of individual free
> will seems to be anathema to these people as they tend to believe
> that they have the one true understanding of what is right and moral.
>
You just don't see it, Ken. But others see it quite clearly, how
you and the other cult representatives constantly live by and act according
to the instructions of Twitchell and Klemp:
"No man merely in the state of human consciousness can judge the ECKist any
more than an animal having simple consciousness can judge the human
conscious state of man. The ECKist is in fact the new species of the human
race, not understood by men. When in this state the ECKist has developed an
intellectual illumination of the most pronounced character, and a strongly
marked sense of moral exaltation. He has also the conviction, the sense of
immortality, the extinction of the sense of wrong doing and the extinction
of the fear of physical death." Paul Twitchell, Illuminated Way Letters,
pg. 247
Look at that last line, Ken. It looks like the type of Muslim
fundamentalism that terrorists live by.
Want more quotes? Well...I don't have time right now. Some are located at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/eckankarsurvivors/handout2.html
> Lurk, you will no doubt notice that this position which I am ascribing to
> you (as well as several others on a.r.e.) corresponds to many of your
> own criticisms of Eckankar. Interesting, isn't it? Almost as though you
> were seeing your own shadows projected upon the screen of Life.
You know, Ken, in spite of the greater amount of light when you wake up,
clear away the eckanfog, and leave the cult...there just aren't as many
shadows...but the ones we *do* see are quite clear, and not...eckanfogged.
It's very *real* out here, Ken. It's nice.
You just don't get it.
Sharon
--
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/eck.txt
http://www.delphi.com/eckankartruth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth
http://www.stormpages.com/truthbeknown66/
cher
must be to stepping off the path of Eckankar. LOL......... yep... you're
a real example alrightie!
<chuckling>
Considering your hellbent inability to deal with any sort of authority
or self discipline... what makes you think that anyone would read your
words, look at who you are and how you behave and then believe the words
of propoganda that you post here? There aren't any people that gullible
left on the planet sharon! Seriously, to know you is to see straight
through what you post as pure fabrication.
cher
From: Sharon V Comstock <scom...@cub.kcnet.org>
Subject: Re: Obstacles to EK dialogue
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.93.980928...@cub.kcnet.org>#1/1
References: <6ss9qm$4cr$1...@clarknet.clark.net>
<6tl410$5vu$2...@207.212.27.40> <6umcei$i4g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: East Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar
I think what it boils down to, Nathan, is that I'd rather serve in Hell
than rule in your illusion of Heaven.
Why are you so threatened by anything outside of your very narrow
beliefs? My Eckankar isn't like that!
Of course, I could be wrong. . .another thing I've always questioned
most
of my life is "myself" -- what is myself, what do I want myself to be,
what is it about me that isn't myself --
But it just seems that the older I get the more clear I am about what
"myself" is. . .and whether it's "right" or "wrong", well it's me.
We disagree on just a few of the issues Nathan. And one of them is that
thing about talking to "detractors". You know, one of the things I've
questioned about myself is my tendency to be a bit "too" friendly &
"trusting" . . . even just recently I've questioned that. But I keep
coming to the same conclusion. . .I'd rather be friendly *& trusting
than
hide behind a bunch of brick walls & locked doors. Yeah, maybe
sometimes
I get burned. . .but that's no big deal. Really.
I can talk to anyone I want because I've found it a good way to learn &
grow. Nothing and noone outside myself affects "me". Except when I
start
feeling that "me" is wrong, and start trying to change myself & fit
myself into other people's boxes.
I'm just rambling a bit, but hey that's me. I can be quite organized &
stuff when I want to be.
Anyway, take this "Modern Prophet" stuff. I remember when this was
brought up on Chela Chat. Not much discussion. Of course, I popped
right in with my feelings about it. If I recall, there was another who
said she had the same feelings I did. . .a good friend of yours, if I
recall. An Eckist I truly like & respect. . .but none of that "awe of
rank" stuff, altho I'm sure she's an HI.
I would have like to have seen this discussed more, but it sort of died
out. I needed to discuss this to work it out & understand it more. It
was then brought up later on Vahana. . .well I did get some good
feedback
there. And also a bit of being judged that I wasn't immediately
accepting. Actually, I feel I've come to understand this issue a bit
more
here on ARE.
Whoops I suppose all this stuff should be kept private. Well, excuse
me,
but one thing I've learned in life is when you're dealling with people
you're not sure about. . .make sure you have witnesses.
I really feel bad about making Eckankar look bad to anyone who's
searching. You know, I really feel strongly that it's not nice to
interfere with someone else's spiritual path. In fact, I was just
reading that. . .Harold addressed the issue in either ATM 2 or Wisdom
from the Heart. . .I'm sort of reading those two now, along with several
other books. . .a little problem with me, reading a bunch of stuff at
the
same time. . .
Anyway, Harold wrote about the importance of not interfering, because he
loves everyone. Now, to be honest I don't remember if he was talking
about interfering with Eckists or interfering with anyone. . .well,
maybe
that's my problem. . .maybe I interpret Harold the wrong way.
Well, I really have other things to do today eventually,, when I get
around to it. . .but I just want to say that whatever my spiritual path
is NO ONE is going to interfere with it. Not even Harold. And I
believe
he wrote about that somewhere. . .the Kool-Aid thing. . .he told us to
be
wary, not to blindly believe everything he says & writes. Well, I take
Harold quite seriously. . .he told us to watch, that if he said things
like that, well it wasn't really "him". . .
Nathan, I would much prefer to not ignore anyone. . .because I believe
that your fundamentalist approach to Eckankar is a good & useful one,
that
many seekers want & need this approach, though it's not for me. Just as
some people also need to get OUT of Eckankar (and Harold understands
this)
and so driving the detractors out of ARE would also be interfering. . .
Well, enough for now. It feels good not to be pissed off. Although I
may have more to say. . .from a place of love, of course,
In the Light & Sound,
Sharon
Ken
> > Lurk wrote...
> > > > > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > > > > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > > > > on a newsgroup?
> > > >
> >
> > Ken replied...
> > > > I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> > > > critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
> > >
> >
> > Lurk responds...
> > > Being persuasive? Is being persuasive on a newsgroup discussion
> > > religious intolerance or, to use your favorite word bigotry?
> >
Ken wrote...
> > No. Being persuasive has nothing to do with it.
>
> Okay then, how does one force others to believe as they do if persuasion
> is not involved?
You can't read? Please pay attention. I explained it in detail.
> > > > Note the word *attempt*. Most likely, the critic would need a position
> > > > of power for him or her to realize this desire.
> > >
> > > Looks like you are going through the same thought process that con man
> > > Paul Twitchell went through.
> > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't need to be a
> > > > form of absolute power like that found in government; we can see it
> > > > manifested today by some members of academia and the clergy.
> > >
> > > Or Eck Masters.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That said, there are many ways for someone lacking that kind of
> > > > control over others to try to accomplish this. Ridicule and attempting
> > > > to portray those who disagree with the standard detractor argument
> > > > as some kind of fringe cultists are two examples seen regularly on
> > > > this newsgroup. These tactics are based on instilling fear in others.
> > >
> > > The irony in your comments is you'll jump from saying this to support
> > > your notions about "someone forcing opinions on others on a newsgroup,"
> > > to a post about how there is not such thing as brainwashing when it
> > > comes to eck masters and eckists.
> >
> > What does this mythical thing you call "brainwashing" have to do with it?
>
> I brought it up because I used it as an example of how you take the
> position that brainwashing does not exists, yet you'll argue that people
> posting negative opinions about eckankar are forcing "others to get in
> line and believe as they do."
Well, that's not what I said at all Lurk. It's not about simply posting
"negative" opinions. It's about using subtle forms ridicule and
intimidation in an attempt to cow others into silence and manipulate
opinion.
Well, it's reassuring to see that some things don't change. You're still
singing the same old tune even though nearly every Eckist on this
newsgroup has at one time or another pointed out (as I did in the very
post that you are replying to) that Paul repeatedly said we must each
prove to ourselves what is true.
I can say without a doubt that I do not look at Harold as an ultimate
authority on anything. Like Paul, he tells us that we must walk our own
path, that he's simply there to provide guidance if we are willing to
accept it. And as he's said many times, he's still learning just like all of
us. You are once again attempting to spin the situation into some sort
of twisted and distorted vision that really has very little to do with reality.
Ken
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
<snipped pre- and post-detractor sharon>
In fact, I've snipped ALL of Sharon as I don't read her stuff. She's had
nothing to say now for years, yet like that energizer bunny, on and on she
goes. But whatever!
Rich
I wasn't that involved with the formal organization for most of my
almost 15 years in it.
======================================================================
There wasn't a whole lot of actual "physical"
contact, and I didn't have a lot of interaction with other eckists,
and wasn't able to get to a lot of satsangs & study groups
======================================================================
<giggle> I used to feel guilty because when there was a choice
between an eckfunction and a Habitat thing, I skipped the eckstuff.
======================================================================
I was *so* happy when an HI from my old home traveled all the way here
to have Satsangs. I was really sad when I was thrown out because when
you're in Satsang, well...if you miss three, you're out.
======================================================================
I didn't "practice" the "spiritual exercises" --
sitting down for 20 minutes a day, same time,
same place, and hypnotizing myself.
======================================================================
And as far as the "Light and Sound," well.. no
maybe I didn't "embrace and understand"
======================================================================
You know...and I've posted this...I don't know whether reincarnation
is true or not.
======================================================================
I can't say I believed or disbelieved, really. Well...I probably
believed/disbelieved in a lot of things, but mostly, well...
======================================================================
I don't really have a firm opinion on whether or not "evil" and "satan"
exist as Christianity teaches, but...if I *did* believe in that stuff
(and I don't exactly *disbelieve*, I'm undecided), well...it's quite
clear to me that Harold Klemp and many eckists are simply being
deceived and controlled by demonic influences.
======================================================================
At this point, I cannot honestly even say that I believe in God.
Or if I believe in "anything" in particular.
======================================================================
Anyway...talking about rest periods, I took a year off once.
Or, I tried to. Wrote and told MM I needed a year off, for
several reasons...I was really overwhelmed with school and
other things in life, and not able to give eckankar and my
"spiritual" life the time and attention it deserved, on the
inner and the outer.
<SNIP>
I'll be honest, I was sort of pissed off because I DIDN't get a
"rest period" at all!!! I figured...everything would just be
sort of "turned off" for a year. But...it wasn't. And...I
couldn't figure out why!
I mean, I'm not going to go into details or anything, just to
say that, well...aside from not having contact with the
discourses (which I'd been neglecting anyway) and the eckbooks
and not even thinking or doing what I recognize now as just
eckancrap, well....I just didn't get the "break" I wanted and
felt I needed.
======================================================================
SEX
That's great that you got out of high school early!! I did too...
<giggle> ... I was pregnant, and they kicked us out back then...I
could have kept my mouth shut about it, but, well...that's not me!
======================================================================
actually, you know...getting pregnant wasn't a mistake. More of an
"inner voice" thing, I'd say... I wasn't screwing around, and even
as a teenager knew exactly when I was ovulating...
======================================================================
They should pay you for those movies, you know. Hey...
years ago, a friend of mine knew some people... well...
she got $50 just for getting a guy "aroused" off camera!!!
I'll tell ya...I was IMPRESSED!!
=====================================================================
You know, I can't remember if it was four or five years ago,
but I was raped. It would have been easier if it had been a stranger
- and a minority group member, which would have given me somewhere to
aim my anger. But it happened to be a close friend, someone I'd known
for 20 years, someone who was like a brother. His wife & I were
friends. His mother & I were friends. I may have even been tempted
to have an affair with him under different circumstances...
=====================================================================
(Well...I'm certainly glad I don't have sex with priests, or
share needles with them! <g> And I'm glad AIDS wasn't around
back in my grandparents' time, when my grandfather was drinking
and going to the whorehouses with the priests. He might have
infected my grandmother!
=====================================================================
Okay, I went to confession once before Easter, that's what's required.
Forgot all the formal words of course, just told Father Neil I felt I
hadn't really sinned, okay I wasn't perfect but talked to God all the
time, and was working on it. Okay...I'd "fornicated" a lot, but
sorry...I don't think you need a license. Just love. Without love,
yes...it's a sin. Okay, I've sinned. So...I got absolved. Wasn't
necessary...I stopped having sex without love a long time ago...but
that was an "inner" thing... <giggle>...anyway, actually, well...
I *did* genuinely always love a lot of people!! Still do...in
different ways, perhaps...
======================================================================
I think sometimes, well...when the third eye opens, and you get that
kundalini stuff happening, well...what you attract isn't always GOOD!
That's what happened to me, you know!!! It's sort of like a homing
signal for psychic-level vampires...the scent of fresh innocent blood..
======================================================================
I had to laugh when the doctor said I should do Kegels...
<giggle> You know...I've been doing them for over 30
years...they become a habit...
======================================================================
Anyway, the only past-life memories I ever had (supposedly) was of
being a slut in ancient Greece and again in 15th-16th century France.
In Greece, I was a young priestess on a mission who got distracted by
some guy...I think he was a shepherd. Then supposedly this same guy
was my coachman in France, and we were screwing around.
======================================================================
DRUGS
Tried coke two or three times...three, now that I think of it. The
first two times, I exhaled...<giggle> ... really! My friends were
a bit upset. The third time...I got it right. Damn, did the
housework get done fast!! Really!! Honestly...that kitty litter pan
was so clean, you could eat out of it!! I polished, disinfected, and
dried it with cloth diapers left over from Amy...
Coming down was *NASTY* ... but it helped
me to understand why people got hooked on the stuff. I didn't like
it...it just wasn't "real." Never touched it again...
Another time...a scumbag put a chunk of crack in the hash pipe...and
silly me, I said "this doesn't taste like hash." That was a DIRTY
thing to do to a person...but I must say, it *is* possible to sort of
detach, refuse to participate in the effects, but to observe and learn
from it. Nasty, nasty stuff...a lot worse than just snorting the
powder...more deceptive, bigger & more powerful illusions...
======================================================================
So...have to laugh at this one...I was standing in line for
something at school, a couple hundred kids all over, but...I'm
a mom. We sort of scan the floor...and by golly, there was a
little rolled-up baggie at my feet! Moms pick things up, you
know...
Well, son of a gun, guess what it was!! Hadn't seen anything
like it (or smoked it) in probably 10 years...absolutely
beautiful golden sinsemilla, with lovely streaks of red...
Asked the people around me if they'd dropped it...lots of big
eyes & "Oh Wow's" but no one claimed it...
Didn't quite know what to do with it...didn't feel right about
giving it to someone, since that might hurt them in some
way...and damn, the stuff always helped me to
sleep, just half a joint after the kids were tucked in...
On the other hand, well...drugs are a no-no. But...could it
be some kind of gift, or test, or what?
Plus...I'm not a wasteful person. What I picked up was what
used to be a "dime" bag -- $10 - and one of the students said
it would cost around $50...they were amazed when I told them
I used to pay $15 for a big baggie of primo Columbian Gold...
Held onto it for a few days, thinking, taking it "on the inner"
and everything. Looking at every possible thing I could do, and
what would result from each choice I could possibly make in this
situation...
I decided...I was tired. I'd been bothered by not giving my
contemplations time & attention anyway, just overwhelmed with
everything...needed a break from something, but you can't drop
school, family, and everything else...
So...I smoked it. Got back on track with the sleeping, wrote to
the org for a year off, told them what I did, and the other
reasons for needing a break...
==================================================================
Grundie, 2 or 3 beers is *nothing*. Two or three sixpacks,
maybe...but by that time I'd be asleep, and not thinking
about your silly little cult & everything connected with it.
===================================================================
HOME
Where I live, there's some really nice forest, then a town,
then a smelly landfill
=======================================================================
You know, maybe moving to this horrible tin can was sort of
a "waking dream" ... an "outer" sign of the "inner" eckankar
thing....
======================================================================
half my tree had fallen on the trailer!!! A really BIG TREE!!!
But...NO DAMAGE!!!
...everyone is *amazed* that it actually felt right on my
trailer & you can't even tell!! Well...one shingle is sort of bent...
and the rain gutter was already a bit saggy...
=======================================================================
But I'll tell you... you wouldn't *believe* the piles of
books-to-be-read I've accumulated in the past months...the piles are
unreal, although I just managed to get most of them in big boxes while
I put up more bookshelves....
=======================================================================
the carpet's been rolled up in my hallway for three years now,
I tore out the trailer's carpeting last year (most of it)
because of my allergies
=======================================================================
HEALTH
Well, not to be indelicate...but for almost 25 years, until I had the
hysterectomy, that's what I called that monthly thing.
======================================================================
anyway...oh, one of my symptoms was also agoraphobia!! It
was weird, I knew it wasn't *me* ...and refused to participate
in it!! Although it was hard sometimes...
======================================================================
And, I'd been having problems sleeping.
I'd be exhausted, but even after a busy day with school & the
house & my son & the critters & everything else, well...still
couldn't sleep.
======================================================================
Isn't that fatigue a bitch? I'll tell you, I'd be scared
to death at times...it was like being in a coma, for three
or four hours, sometimes...I'd look like I was asleep, but
be totally aware...and know that if the trailer caught on
fire, I'd be unable to get out....
======================================================================
Cloth diapers wouldn't work for adults, Frank...no
plastic lining.
Actually...it's not really funny, and women shouldn't
be embarrassed about it. It happens...had that problem
myself, when I had all the health problems...and the
severe coughing. I'd even pass out sometimes. But I
found Serenity worked best...never felt embarrassed about
buying them. In fact, sometimes grocery store clerks would
ask...tell me they had the same problem...they seemed to
feel better when they found out they weren't alone...
I'm glad that's over with...and by golly, as I suspected,
smoking had NOTHING to do with the coughing. Anyway...
a lot of women end up having surgery for it...
======================================================================
(yeah, I know about that memory loss...brain fog...once,
I couldn't remember the names of my grandchildren, in a store...)
======================================================================
I'm blind as a bat without my glasses!!! Gotta get
used to the contacts again, I guess. Allergies sort of make it
difficult...
======================================================================
I'm sensitive to molds & certain perfumes....
======================================================================
And...way back in my dieting years, went to Overeaters
Anonymous...but I must say, thought THAT one was weird...
wow, people get weird about food! I'm just allergic to
most of the darn stuff...miss burritoes, actually. (sp?)
======================================================================
You know...in my early eckyears, I had this awful problem with
spastic colitis...for several years. Worse than natural
childbirth, let me tell you!! Doctors said give up the coffee...
I did. Tried a lot of things. Mostly...just had to live with
it, cope with it...and survive.
======================================================================
For some reason, an all protein diet...especially beef, often RAW...
works wonders for me.
======================================================================
my cervical cancer & hysterectomy in 1985,
======================================================================
You know, I've recently found out, it looks like I've got
that fibromyalgia...and have had it most of my life.
======================================================================
...and now, with carpal tunnel symptoms (which are also
fibromyalgia)
I know I have problems with a lot of hand-writing...pain and
numbness, for some reason, doesn't interfere with using a
computer, though...
======================================================================
MISC
==================================================================
I almost got my brother's gun, but didn't because I knew I'd use it.
And for a long time, it got to the point where I was having fantasies
about blowing away a man, any man, before I died.
==============================================================
I carry my gun down my bra....much easier to get to when I need it...
==================================================================
And I've got a good alarm system, a watchdog, and a gun - so any
thieves, murders, and rapists will leave me alone and go attack my
next door neighbor.
So I've got the face of Satan on my shower curtain. I haven't been
reacting to it. I just noted its presence. I think about the Eck
Masters, and place their faces over that of Satan. Okay, I could
iron the shower curtain (On low heat, of course, it's plastic). I
could throw it out and buy another. When it gets a bit moldy I'll
wash it, & that'll re-arrange the wrinkles. But I'm basically lazy,
I don't iron, and I pay for water by the gallon. It'll go away on
its own when it sees it's wasting its time.
======================================================================
I don't think of myself as a "garbage-picker," really...a few
of my friends just say that I'm the ultimate "recycler!"
======================================================================
For whatever reason, perhaps it's genetic, <g> I am incapable
of transcribing things exactly as dictated....something inside
just gives me the inclination to do it *my* way...
======================================================================
I didn't have *any* German in high school, but I *did* flunk both
French and Spanish!!
======================================================================
The oddest
thing happened....I was in the grocery store, and the
woman in front of me forgot to pick up a bag with a dozen eggs in it.
Normally, well...I would have taken them and run after her. I do
things like that. But it was strange....and I thought
"Why the heck am I doing this?" I kept them. Took them home.
======================================================================
hey, a lot of these people are perfectly capable of getting a job
washing dishes. Or maybe cleaning a highway rest stop. <giggle> You
know...that was my first job when I graduated with my BA in 1995...
======================================================================
Actually...I like Jesus. He's dead. Sort of. Not
really. It's like...my grandmother is still alive. She
lives in my heart...that's what the resurrection is all
about, sort of. Only...moreso. Anyway...I like
Christianity. Lots of freedom of choice...informed consent...
no psychic alien mind-beams & stuff...
I have to agree....one thing I DO NOT
like about Christianity is that threat of the
resurrection of the body!!!! I've had different
interpretations...and oh horrors, yes...some sects says
that even if I have the damn thing cremated, God can
STILL bring it back!!!!!
Don't know what the heck Catholicism teaches...
Personally, if I come back, I wouldn't mind being a rock,
or a tree, or a cat....not one who's kept indoors, though.
Well...whether I come back, or go to heaven (or a
reasonable facsimile) I *would* like a new body & curly
red hair if I'm going to be human (or a reasonable
facsimile of a human.)
======================================================================
HEY ECKIES!!!! GUESS WHAT I DID!!! I'M HAVING MASSES SAID FOR THE
POOR LOST SOUL OF PAUL TWITCHELL!!!!! Not because I necessarily
*believe* but hey, it certainly can't hurt...plus...IT'LL IRRITATE
THE HELL OUT OF HIM!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
======================================================================
I snore, you know...haven't heard it myself, but the grandkids tease
me about it...
======================================================================
And next time I'm out in the woods doing a sort of nekkid Wicca ritual
(except I can never keep track of what color candles you're supposed to
use for what...I just use what I pick up on clearance racks)
======================================================================
Fall is GORGEOUS!!! A bit chilly for Wiccan stuff <ggg> but last
Samhain, it was quite warm in my rock circle....
======================================================================
But anyway, yeah...as Spring approaches, my pagan blood starts stirring
I've been practicing all winter for a big Spring ritual, sort of,
because well when you're out in the woods there aren't any potties
around...but, darn, I always forget the name & date of the official
Spring holiday. Haven't done one of those really big
nekkid-in-the-circle-under-the-trees things since the totally awesome
purification-from-the-cult ritual I did back on Halloween 1998, and it
*did* feel incredibly purifying. And warm inside the circle.
======================================================================
I wouldn't hurt anyone anymore than I'd hurt a fly. Whoops....no,
I think flies are dirty and disgusting. I swat them, and then, because
I don't like squished flies, I put the bodies in the ashtray, which is
always handy. But, because years ago I noticed they're not always dead
when you think they are, and they'd recover and fly off, well...you
know, I always have my BIC handy. So...I'd torch them to make sure.
Then... once one started sort of spinning around. It was pretty neat.
So.... before I torch them totally, sometimes I'll just hold the BIC on
one side and watch them spin around...
======================================================================
I'm surprised...I used the "f" word twice here yesterday. I
don't usually swear...don't
even *think* the "f" word usually. Well, I guess I do swear...
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&btnG=Google+Search&as_oq=f++fuck&as_eq=&as_ugroup=alt.religion.eckankar&as_uauthors=sharon
======================================================================
PS...I'm not an OLD bag. I'm a middle-aged one for a few more
years. Except maybe under my eyes.
Honest to God, I'd read ages ago that Miss America contestants used
Preparation H under their eyes to tighten up the skin...ha, like
Miss America contestants have a problem there. Anyway...I tried it,
but it didn't work for me. Plus it's pretty yukky and hard to wash
off.
======================================================================
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how
to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day."
Well, actually I prefer to fish from shore, but after a few
beers I was feeling really spirichul so I got down on my knees
in the proper position that my Master likes best...and by
golly, It Works For Me!!!!
======================================================================
I don't think I'm pathetic or dumb. I do a hell of a lot better job
of being hateful & nasty than *they* do, don't you think? <ggg>
And the longer I'm at it, the better I get!!
======================================================================
God, I am SUCH a bitch!!!! <ggg> I LOVE IT!!!!
======================================================================
But you know, it's just like aliens...darn, I would *love* to talk to
some, you know? Had one who used to play my Atari, but it
didn't say much. Ended up hogging the Atari & wouldn't let me
have a turn, so I just sort of ignored it, and it went away.
Didn't even have to waste my time using a handy-dandy all
purpose "spell" against entities...basically, it's just "F*** off,
asswipe" ...
======================================================================
Subject: Re: Sharon on Sharon
Date: 07 Jan 2001 05:11:05 GMT ***
From: Sharo...@playful.com
Organization: Eckankar Sucks
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.eckankar
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
"Oh...there's a lot of joking in the quotes you posted,
but on the whole after scanning through them quickly,
I'd say yeah...they're accurate"
***note A few quotes were added in since the post just above
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> Can't wash one if you don't have one! You're safe, lurk. LOL......
> Seriously, Ken is pointing to badgering a person with irrational
> thinking. If this was brainwashing, then every lawyer in the U.S. and
> around the world would be guilty! Don't confuse persuasion with magical
> thinking... it's just garden variety harrassement that you guys are
> playing in.
"You guys," eh? But what you are seeing as harassment is people
expressing their negative views of eckankar. That they are expressed
aggressively doesn't mean they are forced on someone, right? If an eckist
tells one of those sales pitch testimonial stories about how they met
Paul on the inner before they joined eckankar, I wouldn't take that as
this eckists trying to force their views on me. I wouldn't feel
particularly compelled to change my beliefs and sign up for membership.
If I complained about how this eckists was trying to force their
opinions on me, wouldn't that seem kind of ridiculous?
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Ken wrote:
>
> > > Lurk wrote...
> > > > > > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > > > > > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > > > > > on a newsgroup?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Ken replied...
> > > > > I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> > > > > critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lurk responds...
> > > > Being persuasive? Is being persuasive on a newsgroup discussion
> > > > religious intolerance or, to use your favorite word bigotry?
> > >
>
> Ken wrote...
> > > No. Being persuasive has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Okay then, how does one force others to believe as they do if persuasion
> > is not involved?
>
> You can't read? Please pay attention. I explained it in detail.
Yeah? What is a dogmatic attempt?
Okay, so even if critics are using forms of ridicule and intimidation,
how does that equal forcing opinions? We're all on equal footing here.
You're making eckists sound like they have no capacity to decide for
themselves in the face of opinions being expressed. Contrast this with
the sentiments expressed at the end of this post.
So when it comes to critics expressing views on a newsgroup, this is
forcing opinions on eckists, but when Paul blatantly lies to eckists,
then suddenly, eckists have this large capacity to decide for
themselves.
You're a mixed up little boy, Ken.
Lurk
lalaleel...@yahoo.com
This is a fine example of Rich's dedication to a "religion of
kindness". What a freaking hypocrite you are Gilligan. Also note the
fanaticism it takes to devote the time to copying, categorizing, and
posting this kind of information. All in the name of Sugmad, I'm sure.
Thank god Paul didn't write about smiteing his enemies or Rich would
be taking flying lessons instead "sailing the cyber sea" looking for
dirt on his enemies. Vatti
cher
cher
arel...@home.com
cher wrote:
>
> Nope....
Then you have double standards.
Lurk
Ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > > > Lurk wrote...
> > > > > > > I really don't understand this thing you and Ken keep referring
> > > > > > > to...this forcing opinions on others. Could you tell me how that works
> > > > > > > on a newsgroup?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken replied...
> > > > > > I can't speak for Cher, but for me it's the dogmatic *attempt* by some
> > > > > > critics to force others to get in line and believe as they do.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lurk responds...
> > > > > Being persuasive? Is being persuasive on a newsgroup discussion
> > > > > religious intolerance or, to use your favorite word bigotry?
> > > >
> >
> > Ken wrote...
> > > > No. Being persuasive has nothing to do with it.
> > >
> > > Okay then, how does one force others to believe as they do if persuasion
> > > is not involved?
> >
> > You can't read? Please pay attention. I explained it in detail.
>
> Yeah? What is a dogmatic attempt?
This response by you is characteristic of how you and some other
detractors approach Eckankar today. Dissecting sentences into
unrecognizable pieces in a specious effort to find their meaning is an
exercise in futility. Why don't you try to read the whole sentence in the
original context with the following definitions in mind:
dogmatic
1. expressing rigid opinions
2. relating to dogma
dogma
1. religious belief
2. group belief
If you still have trouble with it, maybe you could try taking an evening
course in English.
The issue here is the attempt and the goal. I never said that you were
particularly successful in forcing your opinions on others. I don't see
Eckists using the same tactics you and other long-time Eck critics
regularly stoop to.
Once again, that is not at all what I am saying. As I said in my last
post to you (which you are replying to here), it's not about simply posting
"negative" opinions. It's about using subtle forms ridicule and
intimidation in an attempt to cow others into silence and manipulate
opinion.
> but when Paul blatantly lies to eckists,
> then suddenly, eckists have this large capacity to decide for
> themselves.
The "blatant lies" you refer to is your interpretation of the facts, and not a
fact in and of itself. It is (once again) just your opinion. Stating your
negative opinion as though it's a fact is another tactic you and other
detractors regularly use in an intimidating manor designed to silence
others and manipulate opinion.
arel...@home.com
Whether it is dogma or intimidation, eckists still will decide for
themselves, right? Why are you so concerned with this "forcing opinions"
you are seeing?
Then why all the fuss? Why do you care?
I could say eckists attempt to use force to slience critics (and my
charge would not be from my imagination like yours葉hink cloning and
phoning). But I don't have a persecution complex so I guess it never
enters my mind that such force would be a factor in getting me to sign
up with eckankar.
I suspect you care because you know the arguments that are made here
against eckankar are effective.
Ken, out of one side of you mouth you are trying to convince others that
eckists took to heart a couple of reference by the Paul to decided for
themselves, and out of the other side of your mouth you are concerned that
critics are forcing opinions on eckists.
Just think about that for a while.
>
> > but when Paul blatantly lies to eckists,
> > then suddenly, eckists have this large capacity to decide for
> > themselves.
>
> The "blatant lies" you refer to is your interpretation of the facts, and not a
> fact in and of itself. It is (once again) just your opinion. Stating your
> negative opinion as though it's a fact is another tactic you and other
> detractors regularly use in an intimidating manor designed to silence
> others and manipulate opinion.
I've seen enough evidence to call it a fact. And stating it as so is not
intimidating people or trying to silence them. You can't expect everyone
to buy into your safe cocoon of relativism.
Lurk
Ken
Ken wrote ...
> > This response by you is characteristic of how you and some other
> > detractors approach Eckankar today. Dissecting sentences into
> > unrecognizable pieces in a specious effort to find their meaning is an
> > exercise in futility. Why don't you try to read the whole sentence in the
> > original context with the following definitions in mind:
> >
> > dogmatic
> > 1. expressing rigid opinions
> > 2. relating to dogma
> >
> > dogma
> > 1. religious belief
> > 2. group belief
> >
> > If you still have trouble with it, maybe you could try taking an evening
> > course in English.
>
Lurk writes...
> Whether it is dogma or intimidation, eckists still will decide for
> themselves, right? Why are you so concerned with this "forcing opinions"
> you are seeing?
What drives my concern is irrelevant to the point, which is, you and
several others here do use certain tactics in an attempt to force your
opinions on others. Why are you questioning my motivation? Isn't this
encroaching on ad hominem territory by making me the issue?
Lurk wrote:
> > > Okay, so even if critics are using forms of ridicule and intimidation,
> > > how does that equal forcing opinions? We're all on equal footing here.
> > > You're making eckists sound like they have no capacity to decide for
> > > themselves in the face of opinions being expressed. Contrast this with
> > > the sentiments expressed at the end of this post.
> >
Ken responded:
> > The issue here is the attempt and the goal. I never said that you were
> > particularly successful in forcing your opinions on others.
>
Lurk replied:
> Then why all the fuss? Why do you care?
Again, why is my motivation in question here? Why can't you simply
address the points I'm raising without making me the issue?
>
> I could say eckists attempt to use force to slience critics
You've said that many times. There may be some truth to it, and I don't
think it's generally a good idea. I try to not say things that could be
interpreted that way, but perhaps I have once or twice in the heat of the
discussion.
Does the fact that some Eckists appear to use certain tactics to silence
detractors make it okay for you to use fear, intimidation and intentional
misinterpretation to do the same thing?
> (and my
> charge would not be from my imagination like yours
I've explained my perspective on how critics and detractors attempt to
manipulate people on this newsgroup. There are examples of what I'm
saying all around, even in your replies to me in this discussion. There's
no reason for you to stray into ad hominem territory Lurk, by saying that
this is all from my imagination.
> 葉hink cloning and
> phoning). But I don't have a persecution complex so I guess it never
> enters my mind that such force would be a factor in getting me to sign
> up with eckankar.
>
> I suspect you care because you know the arguments that are made here
> against eckankar are effective.
You suspect you know my motivations? Well, you know what they say
about people with suspicious minds <g>.
Ken wrote...
> > Once again, that is not at all what I am saying. As I said in my last
> > post to you (which you are replying to here), it's not about simply posting
> > "negative" opinions. It's about using subtle forms ridicule and
> > intimidation in an attempt to cow others into silence and manipulate
> > opinion.
>
Lurk replied...
> Ken, out of one side of you mouth you are trying to convince others that
> eckists took to heart a couple of reference by the Paul to decided for
> themselves, and out of the other side of your mouth you are concerned that
> critics are forcing opinions on eckists.
>
> Just think about that for a while.
I am not trying to "convince others" that Eckists took anything to heart. I
am telling you how I interpreted the ECK teachings.
At the same time, I am also concerned that I see critics and detractors
on this n.g. using fear, intimidation and misdirection in an attempt to
sway the opinion of readers.
I can assure you that I say both of these things out of the same side of
my mouth, Lurk <g>.
Lurk wrote...
> > > but when Paul blatantly lies to eckists,
> > > then suddenly, eckists have this large capacity to decide for
> > > themselves.
> >
Ken replied...
> > The "blatant lies" you refer to is your interpretation of the facts, and not a
> > fact in and of itself. It is (once again) just your opinion. Stating your
> > negative opinion as though it's a fact is another tactic you and other
> > detractors regularly use in an intimidating manor designed to silence
> > others and manipulate opinion.
>
Lurk responded...
> I've seen enough evidence to call it a fact. And stating it as so is not
> intimidating people or trying to silence them. You can't expect everyone
> to buy into your safe cocoon of relativism.
So you refuse to admit that you are stating an opinion? Is it possible that
you don't know the difference between opinion and fact? When you
believe something strongly enough, does it automatically then become a
fact that others must accept?
Who's the one being relative here?
vahana
says...
>
>
>Ken wrote ...
>> > This response by you is characteristic of how you and some other
>> > detractors approach Eckankar today. Dissecting sentences into
>> > unrecognizable pieces in a specious effort to find their meaning is an
>> > exercise in futility. Why don't you try to read the whole sentence in the
>> > original context with the following definitions in mind:
>> >
>> > dogmatic
>> > 1. expressing rigid opinions
>> > 2. relating to dogma
>> >
>> > dogma
>> > 1. religious belief
>> > 2. group belief
>> >
>> > If you still have trouble with it, maybe you could try taking an evening
>> > course in English.
>>
>
>Lurk writes...
>> Whether it is dogma or intimidation, eckists still will decide for
>> themselves, right? Why are you so concerned with this "forcing opinions"
>> you are seeing?
>
>
>What drives my concern is irrelevant to the point, which is, you and
>several others here do use certain tactics in an attempt to force your
>opinions on others. Why are you questioning my motivation? Isn't this
>encroaching on ad hominem territory by making me the issue?
Because your motivation for being here is very suspect Kenster.
You apparently think a.r.e. is supposed to be an "eck satsang" with only those
opinions on Eckankar you happen to agree with.
You know that's not so, so the question is very pertinent:
Why ~are~ you here, anyway?
Why don't you join a real Eck satsang?
If you're stuck in a wheelchair, why don't you join a moderated eck online
group, like "Hu Chat"?
>
>
>
>Lurk wrote:
>> > > Okay, so even if critics are using forms of ridicule and intimidation,
>> > > how does that equal forcing opinions? We're all on equal footing here.
>> > > You're making eckists sound like they have no capacity to decide for
>> > > themselves in the face of opinions being expressed. Contrast this with
>> > > the sentiments expressed at the end of this post.
>> >
>Ken responded:
>> > The issue here is the attempt and the goal. I never said that you were
>> > particularly successful in forcing your opinions on others.
>>
>Lurk replied:
>> Then why all the fuss? Why do you care?
>
>
>Again, why is my motivation in question here? Why can't you simply
>address the points I'm raising without making me the issue?
Because this time, you are the issue. Isn't that what you've always wanted?
YOU"RE the guy who constantly complains that there are "bigots" here that are
interferring with your <ahem> "religious freedom."
Since you're the one constantly making noise on that topic, it's time for you to
tell us just why you're here.
Are you here because you think this is an Eck satsang?
Or are you here because you're a Vahana for Eckankar, a missionary for the "Eck
message."
Or are you here because you like feeling like a victim?
I vote for #3. I think that's what you've been about here, from the beginning.
Why don't you just be honest with yourself?
Carly
"vahana" <vahana...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9p83p...@drn.newsguy.com...
Another example of you trying to put your opinion as more important than
Ken's and saying it does not beling here. Double standard.
>
> You know that's not so, so the question is very pertinent:
>
> Why ~are~ you here, anyway?
>
> Why don't you join a real Eck satsang?
Now why are you allowed your opinion to be expressed, and Ken isn't. Is your
opinion more important or pertinent? Double standard, Joester.
> If you're stuck in a wheelchair, why don't you join a moderated eck online
> group, like "Hu Chat"?
>
Now see, again you are trying to get the Eckists to quit posting. You just
don't give up, do you. Go away, or stay, but Ken has as much right here as
you do. But you know that, you just have to get that through to one of your
dominant personalities.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Lurk wrote:
> >> > > Okay, so even if critics are using forms of ridicule and
intimidation,
> >> > > how does that equal forcing opinions? We're all on equal footing
here.
> >> > > You're making eckists sound like they have no capacity to decide
for
> >> > > themselves in the face of opinions being expressed. Contrast this
with
> >> > > the sentiments expressed at the end of this post.
> >> >
> >Ken responded:
> >> > The issue here is the attempt and the goal. I never said that you
were
> >> > particularly successful in forcing your opinions on others.
> >>
> >Lurk replied:
> >> Then why all the fuss? Why do you care?
> >
> >
> >Again, why is my motivation in question here? Why can't you simply
> >address the points I'm raising without making me the issue?
>
> Because this time, you are the issue. Isn't that what you've always
wanted?
So we can be the issue personally, but you can't. Double standard. As
Official Group Manager I think you had better follow the rules and play
fair. Ken has as much right to not be personally attacked as any of the
opposition does. If you continue to play unfairly you will be sent to time
out to one of the one-sided lop-sided groups to play.
> YOU"RE the guy who constantly complains that there are "bigots" here that
are
> interferring with your <ahem> "religious freedom."
Ahem? What is that supposed to mean. Are you inferring we don't have the
freedom to practice our chosen religion. Do you have that right? Are you a
member of the United States Of America? Everyone who is a US citizen has
that right. What you don't have is the right to edit it and make a AHEM
before it.
>
> Since you're the one constantly making noise on that topic, it's time for
you to
> tell us just why you're here.
A personal agenda? Are you playing fair here? Demanding that another member
of this newsgroup be accountable to you? I am the group manager. Are you
challenging me?
>
> Are you here because you think this is an Eck satsang?
Again you assume Ken has no right to express himself. Are you here to attack
Ken are to carry on a civil conversation? If you are here to carry on a
civil conversation then I think you need to rethink just what it is that you
are trying to tell Ken. Are you saying he can only express his religious
freedom in the confines of your designated perameters?
> Or are you here because you're a Vahana for Eckankar, a missionary for the
"Eck
> message."
Does one have to define why they are here? Is this Joesters newsgroup?
> Or are you here because you like feeling like a victim?
So what if none of the above is the reason. Are you limiting people to only
respond to the posts as you would define them to? Joester, you need to get a
grip and quit being so controlling. Perhaps Ken is here for none of the
reasons you gave him to choose from. Does that mean he has to leave?
According to you, you think everyone has to have a reason. How about NO
reason, just because. I am sure you have heard that answer sometime in your
lifetime of endless badgering.
> I vote for #3. I think that's what you've been about here, from the
beginning.
How can you vote on what is someone else's reason? Are you a part of the
Borg? Are you a cultis member of some obscure group that has learned to
become one with another's mind?
> Why don't you just be honest with yourself?
Are you asking Ken to be honest with himself or with yourself? I think you
are looking to make a puppet out of Ken and have him move to your
instructions. It ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.
Jan4litsnd
>From: "Carly" carl...@hiwaay.net
>Message-id: <trfivpa...@corp.supernews.com>
JAN:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<laughter tears running down Jan's cheeks>
It was:
"you just have to get that through to one of your dominant personalities"
"As Official Group Manager I think you had better follow the rules and play
fair."
"Are you a part of the Borg? Are you a cultis member of some obscure group that
has learned to become one with another's mind?"
that got me laughing.
Carly, you're a very funny Official Group Manager tonight!
Jan
HU
(a principle of Eckankar)
--
With love and gratitude,
Jackie
arel...@home.com
Ken wrote:
>
> Ken wrote ...
> > > This response by you is characteristic of how you and some other
> > > detractors approach Eckankar today. Dissecting sentences into
> > > unrecognizable pieces in a specious effort to find their meaning is an
> > > exercise in futility. Why don't you try to read the whole sentence in the
> > > original context with the following definitions in mind:
> > >
> > > dogmatic
> > > 1. expressing rigid opinions
> > > 2. relating to dogma
> > >
> > > dogma
> > > 1. religious belief
> > > 2. group belief
> > >
> > > If you still have trouble with it, maybe you could try taking an evening
> > > course in English.
> >
>
> Lurk writes...
> > Whether it is dogma or intimidation, eckists still will decide for
> > themselves, right? Why are you so concerned with this "forcing opinions"
> > you are seeing?
>
> What drives my concern is irrelevant to the point, which is, you and
> several others here do use certain tactics in an attempt to force your
> opinions on others. Why are you questioning my motivation? Isn't this
> encroaching on ad hominem territory by making me the issue?
In this case, I thought it was interesting how in one part of your post
you are arguing that eckists are getting opinions forced on them, and in
another part of the post, you are proudly proclaiming how eckists are
taught to decide for themselves. It seems the deciding for one's self
would take care of the opinions being forced on eckists and there
wouldn't be any need for concern on you part. That's why I asked you.
>
> Lurk wrote:
> > > > Okay, so even if critics are using forms of ridicule and intimidation,
> > > > how does that equal forcing opinions? We're all on equal footing here.
> > > > You're making eckists sound like they have no capacity to decide for
> > > > themselves in the face of opinions being expressed. Contrast this with
> > > > the sentiments expressed at the end of this post.
> > >
> Ken responded:
> > > The issue here is the attempt and the goal. I never said that you were
> > > particularly successful in forcing your opinions on others.
> >
> Lurk replied:
> > Then why all the fuss? Why do you care?
>
> Again, why is my motivation in question here? Why can't you simply
> address the points I'm raising without making me the issue?
Ken, I don't see anything wrong with persuading eckists to another point
of view. I'm not sure what you are seeing a intimidating and ridicule.
You are speaking generally about that. But even if that goes on, eckists
are big people and choose to hold to their truth or change it based upon
points raised in a newsgroup where we're all on equal footing.
>
> >
> > I could say eckists attempt to use force to slience critics
>
> You've said that many times. There may be some truth to it, and I don't
> think it's generally a good idea. I try to not say things that could be
> interpreted that way, but perhaps I have once or twice in the heat of the
> discussion.
>
> Does the fact that some Eckists appear to use certain tactics to silence
> detractors make it okay for you to use fear, intimidation and intentional
> misinterpretation to do the same thing?
Do you think I use fear, intimidation and intentional misinterpretation
to silence eckists? Show me what you mean and I'll be happy to comment
on them. And no, I did not bring eckist behavior up to justify any
behavior you see. It just that the some of the eckists' behavior here is
way more outrageous than critics. But you will notice I did get
specific, phoning and cloning which you know what I'm talking about. I
can get more specific if you like. Hope you do the same.
>
> > (and my
> > charge would not be from my imagination like yours
>
> I've explained my perspective on how critics and detractors attempt to
> manipulate people on this newsgroup.
You have?
There are examples of what I'm
> saying all around, even in your replies to me in this discussion. There's
> no reason for you to stray into ad hominem territory Lurk, by saying that
> this is all from my imagination.
Its a way to disagree with your assessment.
I feel comfortable saying Paul Twitchell lied. Are you trying to
convince me otherwise. That's a cardinal sin in eckankar, you know.
Is it possible that
> you don't know the difference between opinion and fact? When you
> believe something strongly enough, does it automatically then become a
> fact that others must accept?
>
> Who's the one being relative here?
You by ignoring evidence. Evidence and well supported arguments is not
the relativist's best friend.
Lurk
Ken
> >> Whether it is dogma or intimidation, eckists still will decide for
> >> themselves, right? Why are you so concerned with this "forcing opinions"
> >> you are seeing?
> >
> >
Ken wrote...
> >What drives my concern is irrelevant to the point, which is, you and
> >several others here do use certain tactics in an attempt to force your
> >opinions on others. Why are you questioning my motivation? Isn't this
> >encroaching on ad hominem territory by making me the issue?
>
> Because your motivation for being here is very suspect Kenster.
My motivation is none of your business and has no relevence to the issues. Raising
it IS an ad hominem.
> You apparently think a.r.e. is supposed to be an "eck satsang" with only those
> opinions on Eckankar you happen to agree with.
Wrong again.
>
> You know that's not so, so the question is very pertinent:
>
> Why ~are~ you here, anyway?
>
> Why don't you join a real Eck satsang?
>
> If you're stuck in a wheelchair, why don't you join a moderated eck online
> group, like "Hu Chat"?
That's pretty pathetic, Joe.
Ken
Ken wrote...
> > Does the fact that some Eckists appear to use certain tactics to silence
> > detractors make it okay for you to use fear, intimidation and intentional
> > misinterpretation to do the same thing?
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
>
> Do you think I use fear, intimidation and intentional misinterpretation
> to silence eckists?
Yes, especially intentional misrepresentation. However I don't see you
play the fear card all that often.
> Show me what you mean and I'll be happy to comment
> on them. And no, I did not bring eckist behavior up to justify any
> behavior you see. It just that the some of the eckists' behavior here is
> way more outrageous than critics. But you will notice I did get
> specific, phoning and cloning which you know what I'm talking about. I
> can get more specific if you like. Hope you do the same.
I've been very busy the last few days but I'll try to post some examples
for you as soon as I can.
<snips>
> > Who's the one being relative here?
>
> You by ignoring evidence. Evidence and well supported arguments is not
> the relativist's best friend.
I've never ignored evidence. I've faced the facts Lurk, but simply have
a different interpretation of how things fit together than you do.
arel...@home.com
Ken wrote:
>
> Ken wrote...
> > > Does the fact that some Eckists appear to use certain tactics to silence
> > > detractors make it okay for you to use fear, intimidation and intentional
> > > misinterpretation to do the same thing?
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote ...
> >
> > Do you think I use fear, intimidation and intentional misinterpretation
> > to silence eckists?
>
> Yes, especially intentional misrepresentation. However I don't see you
> play the fear card all that often.
Please elaborate on the fear and the other points you mentioned.
>
> > Show me what you mean and I'll be happy to comment
> > on them. And no, I did not bring eckist behavior up to justify any
> > behavior you see. It just that the some of the eckists' behavior here is
> > way more outrageous than critics. But you will notice I did get
> > specific, phoning and cloning which you know what I'm talking about. I
> > can get more specific if you like. Hope you do the same.
>
> I've been very busy the last few days but I'll try to post some examples
> for you as soon as I can.
>
> <snips>
>
> > > Who's the one being relative here?
> >
> > You by ignoring evidence. Evidence and well supported arguments is not
> > the relativist's best friend.
>
> I've never ignored evidence. I've faced the facts Lurk, but simply have
> a different interpretation of how things fit together than you do.
So you think Paul making up his past and Rebazar is not lying?
Lurk
Ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
>
>
> > > Do you think I use fear, intimidation and intentional misinterpretation
> > > to silence eckists?
> >
Ken wrote...
> > Yes, especially intentional misrepresentation. However I don't see you
> > play the fear card all that often.
>
> Please elaborate on the fear and the other points you mentioned.
Give me time. I've been busy lately but I should be able to post some
examples with comments by the end of the week or so.
Ken wrote...
> > > > Who's the one being relative here?
> > >
Lurk wrote...
> > > You by ignoring evidence. Evidence and well supported arguments is not
> > > the relativist's best friend.
> >
> > I've never ignored evidence. I've faced the facts Lurk, but simply have
> > a different interpretation of how things fit together than you do.
>
> So you think Paul making up his past and Rebazar is not lying?
I don't think that Paul made up Rebazar. As to him fictionalizing his past,
it's so irrelevant that it's not important enough to even mention.
HU
--
With love & gratitude,
Jackie
@->->--
: > >Lurk writes...
:
: > You apparently think a.r.e. is supposed to be an "eck satsang" with only
those
: > opinions on Eckankar you happen to agree with.
:
: "Ken" <kah...@att.net> wrote
: Wrong again.
This is obviously an incorrect statement, otherwise, he and other Eckists would
not be conversing with you and others who strongly hate Eckankar.
For years, Eckists have been responding to ex-eckists who disagree with the
principles of Eckankar. If they thought your way above, they would not have had
continuous dialogues of historical topics for so long.
--
With love & gratitude,
Jackie
@->->--