Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar Publication date: 1996
E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
I want to go back to the home base now.
Steve R. Writes: "a. No one can prove or disprove what is in someone else's heart." LANE replies: That's why we rely on documents and they can show us several interesting things. Like this: Twitchell says he graduated at 15, but he didn't (much more like 18+). Just compare Twitchell's claims with the record and you will see his duplicity. Steve R. writes: "b. Lane takes facts which by themselves prove nothing and surrounds them with innuendo and allusion to the extent that they appear to prove something which is unprovable." LANE replies: No, Steve, I have demonstrated quite clearly that Twitchell lied, that he plagiarized, that he covered-up. These can be proven quite easily and have been. No need for allusion or innuendo when you have Twitchell himself making up new dates, when you have Twitchell himself doing new name replacements, when you have the Twitch himself coming up with weak excuses to deny his past associations (hey forgery?--yea that's what happened with Kirpal Singh..... I get it now.) It is quite provable to demonstrate that Twitchell lied. Look at his own testimony and compare with his later testimony. Good luck. STEVE R. writes: c. Lane tries to prove his point by example, by anecdote. Any basic text on research methods will tell you that this proves nothing. Any anecdote or example can be explained in a number of ways. Adding more anecdotes doesn't make the proof any more solid. DAVID LANE REPLIES: No need to resort to ancedotes when you have the documents. Have you seen his death certificate? Have you seen his photograph with Kirpal Singh. Have you personally seen the original Orion magazines? Keep talking ancedotes, Steve; I will keep talking documents. Steve R. writes: "d. A biased researcher, as Lane admittedly is, will only present those *facts* that support his position. Lane presents only a partial picture - like the Mona Lisa with only the black paint." DAVID LANE replies: Better read more carefully. That is why i give Gross's side, Klemp's side, and even put on the very first page Eckankar's official critique of my work. I even include a whole list of their books. Oh yea, that's right, Twitchell was the guy who cited Johnson profusely in FAR Country..... Yea, and Klemp cited MAKING when he cited the source on Camille..... yea........ They did neither....... next. Steve R. writes: "e. Even if what Lane suggests were true, it would have no bearing on the inner experiences of Eckists." LANE writes: No bearing? So if Paul lies then it does not matter. I get it. It's called check your brains in at the door before entering. Steve R. writes: "f. Anyone who wants to read David Lane's material should be free to do so, but would do well to remember these guidelines to critical reading..." DAVID LANE replies: I have a better plan. Why not let them read it for themselves? That way they can make their own mind up. Oh, do you want to list it as well in the back of ECK-Vidya? Nope, but I include full citations of Eck books in mine. Two way street? No, just keep closing the alley. STEVE R. writes: "2. Ask yourself "What are the facts here?" Throughout his writing Lane contradicts himself. For example he uses Brad Steiger as one of his three primary sources for Paul saying that he was born in 1922, but within a few lines he states that Steiger doesn't mention a specific date. Going back to the original book it turns out that one has to use a little stretch to jump from Paul being a teenager to the beginning of World War II. The passages can be read to support either position." DAVID LANE replies: Are you really this dishonest in replying to people? Steiger says that Paul Twitchell was with his mother when she died in 1940. He also says that Paul was a teenager. No need to stretch your imagination, Steve. Let's do a little math: teenager in 1940. Guess what? We are talking a 1920s birthdate, bro. It says it in the book. Try reading it sometime. "3. Ask, "Is there any real evidence here or is this only second hand hearsay?" Lane, for example, cites Paul's brother in law saying: "Paul Iverlet, however, strongly disagrees with Steiger's account of the Twitchell family and calls it an 'atrocious lie.' " Notice that he doesn't give us much to work with here. There are no in context quotes and the source is not necessarily reliable. Neither does David tell us just what "atrocious lie" Iverlet is referring to." LANE replies: Try reading the letter. It has been available for years and I put it online just for you. Steve Writes: "4. Beware of innuendo. David's work is rife with them. For example he writes: >Nevertheless, these two documents do summarily indicate that the "1922" >birth date was a fabrication made years later by Paul, presumably to >convince his young wife, Gail, that he was not too much older than >herself. Lane has no special insight into what was going on in Paul Twitchell's head. Such insinuations have no place in legitimate research." LANE replies: Try reading the death certificate, try reading Jarvis statement, and trying reading Steiger. When did Twitchell fabricate this new birthdate? I argued that it was presumably (don't forget that word, Steve, it may come back to haunt you) due to Gail's young age. She is the one who says he died at 48. By the way, Steve, how old was Gail when Twitch met her? Steve R. Writes: "5. Beware of non-sequitors. Lanes writing is full of phrases which carry a negative connotation, but refer to nothing. For example, Lane states "Steiger, coincidentally, makes no reference whatsoever to Twitchell's college career in his biography." This line has no relation to anything else, but given the general tenor of the surrounding text the unaware reader is left with the suggestion that there was some sinister reason for the oversight." DAVID LANE replies: Didn't you yourself say that you considered Steiger's book, the "National Enquirer" approach? Moreover, do take a close look at Twitchell's school records; they contradict Steiger at each turn. Yes, indeed, there is something sinister going on. Twitchell is systematically bullshitting his audience and you somehow want to condone it. good luck. Steve R. writes: "6. Do not allow yourself to be persuaded by the volume alone. You can't make a manure pile smell any better by piling more manure on it." LANE replies: Hey, manure expert, I am not the guy reposting a piece which has been critiqued and shown to be wanting. You have reposted this same stuff and I have shown you where you were wrong. You just don't read very well. Steve, your continued reposts have actually inspired me once again. sorry to tell you this, but I have documents and more documents to show........ Let the reader be fully informed. -------------------------- Steve R. writes: "Aside from Lane's completely speculative accusations, I see no discrepency between what Harold has said publically and the actual facts that Lane brings up. It is Lane's conclusions and fabrications that I object to." LANE responds: Fabrications? Steve, you are the one bantering about "typos" with no proof. I can show you a death certificate. I don't mind your critiques, but everybody on this newsgroup would be better served if you were more accurate in your rips. I have fabricated nothing; you can follow my trail and see why I have stated such and such. We can debate interpretations, and that's the fun part. But fabrications? You better put that dog on Twitchell's doorstep. There is no room at my home for him. Steve R. Writes: "... facts that Lane presents to be fascinating. The problem with Lane is sorting out the facts from the fabrication. (And please David L, do not bore us with line after line of Julian Johnson/Paul Twitchell. I am talking about the context that you fabricate to showcase your facts.)" LANE responds: Showcase? I list my sources, list my documents, tell you exactly where I am drawing my observations and then even give you Eckankar's "official" version on plagiarism, on Kirpal Singh, on Darwin, and the like. I even put Eckankar's official response to my work on the very first page of the printed text. Try reading it. Has Klemp given you the official "Kirpal Singh" version of events? Oh yea, that's right..... let's pull out "forgery" as an excuse for Twitchell....... Sorry you are bored, but I didn't come up with the typo defense. You did and it doesn't work. P.S. Keep up your doubting, though, since I do actually think it is very helpful to all concerned. It at least allows people to think deeper about the subject. You are a nice foil, and for that I am very appreciative to you personally. ------------------------------ Glen Writes: "Yes David, this is a good point. Actually, another good point is that you tend to not respond to the good points:)" DAVID LANE responds: Please feel most free to call my attention to something you think I have not responded to. I try to reply to everything that is pertinent or directed to me. Given the variety of news servers, sometimes posts are not read or lost or forgotten. For instance, I did reply to Mark's request (I have reposted it for you to see). I think it is very helpful for you and others to call my attention to any point you wish discussed or clarified. Naturally, one may not like my response, but I will always try to address whatever concern or question or doubt or critique you may have. I like dialogues, exchanges, debates, and even arguments. Name the point and I will do my best to respond. thank you...... ----------------------------
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at email@example.com
I want to go back to the home base now.