Steve and Lane debate, part three

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar
Publication date: 1996

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


You keep making this "call" for a stop to "personal" attacks.
Hmm. Just re-read what you have written about me in a number of

There is only one glitch: I don't want you to stop. You are my
inspiration to write more.

There is one thing you could do to make your personal psycho-bios of
me better:

Be accurate.

By the way, have you called MSAC yet to "check" on my credentials?

Oh that's right, it's okay to discuss my background (and get it
wrong), but it's not okay to discuss the background of the founder
of Eckankar (and try to find out some essential biographical facts).

When those "facts" contradict the "image" of the guru, we either say
it was due to "typos" or it was due "similarities on the astral

Again, Steve, if you have a strong desire to put a halt to personal
attacks and name calling, just refrain from it yourself. Practice
what you desire.

As for me, I could care less. I don't take any of your attacks to
heart, nor do I mind the various dispersions I have heard through the

I think we learn the most from our critics, even if they do get the
details wrong.

Call me whatever you wish.

But here's one hint:

Being accurate will be more powerful.



Geez, 1922 again?

I have checked through my primary documents and found that
Paul Twitchell himself stated that Jack Jarvis "interviewed"
him on July 9, 1963. 

As Twitchell wrote in the "Square Peg":

"Since the interview by Jack Jarvis in the Post-Intelligencer
July 9 [1963]
[Twitchell's own words, not mine], I have
 been besieged with telephone calls and mail asking what in
"heaven's name is a Cliff Hanger?"

Jack Jarvis in that very same "interview" said Twitchell had just
turned 40.



I coughed twice before I wrote this.....

You claim that I have used "faulty" information.

I don't mind criticism, but you have never shown any of my
information to
be "faulty."

What you have demonstrated is that you believe in "typos" when you
absolutely no proof of such.

You have also demonstrated a wonderful knack of getting your
biographical information about me wrong several times, and I have
corrected you more times than I wish to count.

By all means bring up the "faulty" information. We can re-hash it
one more time for interested readers to see what is what.

Oh by the way, Kirpal Singh would have liked Twitchell to do
very simple and easy: cite his sources.

Twitchell didn't oftentimes and because of that he has been
heavily criticized for his plagiarism. 

Also don't forget that Twitch knew what plagiarism was when it
happened to him (J.R. and MSIA).

Just measure Twitchell by his own "high" standards.

Twitch would have sued himself.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.