A post I sent to Ford's site yesterday

I've received a number of comments to my last post.

I will respond to some of the questions and comments.

To Degar:

I agree with you that no church, book or religion can replace the part of us
that knows. We also both agree on the importance of fearlessness in seeing
truth, and the importance of teachings with heart.

My lights are fine, as are yours.


To Joey Ward:

I don't do yes or no questions, but I will try to keep my answers short:

1. Did Paul Twitchell have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman as
he told the world through his writings?

I don't know how anyone could say who was highest or who is even higher than
another. So, I would never say such a thing, myself. I don't even think having
the highest state of consciousness should be anyone's goal. A person can gain a
high state of consciousness and be unable to make a living here in the
physical. That's not very useful.

2. Does Harold Klemp have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman as
he is telling the world throught his writings?

Same as above, however, I will add this. I agree with the Sufis who say that
there is what they call The Pole of The World. The Sufi teacher Ibn al' Arabi
points out that this same principle applies at every level of human affairs.
Another Sufi put it this way: "Just as there is someone who acts as the pole
for the whole of humanity, so there are poles for every faith, community,
occupation - even down to the level of towns."

We sense when we are near such people since they seem to represent and carry
the whole of the town or company or faith that they are a part of. Every age
has those who carry the whole of things for the world at every level. We
connect to that whole through their vision.

However, I don't believe in saying who the Pole of the World is, since everyone
needs to find this out for themselves. In fact, in most times through history
the Pole of The World was hidden. The Sufis say this as well.

3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works?

Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes.

4. Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on
them as if the Eck Master were saying them?

Yes.

5. Who do you Trust to tell the truth about Spiritual truths? Pick one only.
[Names omitted]

I see all teachings as mines. The good ones are gold mines, but they all need
to be sorted through to find the pure gold. I have found no outer teachings
that are pure gold.

The only place to test the gold is within ourselves, when we try to use it in
our lives.

You might point to an outer person. I would rather point to our inner
knowingness to recognize truth. We often do pick it up from others, however.


To Journey:

You asked: "If you are not trying to undermine Ford and his book "Confessions
of a God Seeker," why did you give such a negative opinion about the book in
The Chanhassen Villager last November?"

If you read my comments to the Chanhassen Villager, just like in my last post,
it is focused on the errors in what David Lane has reported and the unfortunate
fact that Ford repeated these as if they were facts as David did. I am
absolutely amazed at how far the distortion of truths from David Lane has
spread. I was disappointed that the newspaper had not done better research, and
that Ford had not as well, especially since David Lane himself suggested to
Ford that he study my book more thoroughly to see what had been discussed via
the Internet.

I am just as amazed at how quickly and completely people assume that I am some
kind of pawn in a battle or fighting some kind of war against Ford for pointing
out the errors. I guess this goes to show how far off perceptions of someone
else's motivations can be. People will imagine what my motivations are, but
they are a million miles from the mark.

I do agree that some people like to win their arguments no matter what, and
since I have no interest in that, this is exactly why I have said I would say
no more about such things unless folks here were interested. From the responses
I've seen, there doesn't seem to be much interest in what I was writing about.

I think you are right that we should all look at our motivations. I have
certainly done so and have tried only to offer help in clearing up some of the
confusions that have been going on for a while by getting to the facts. I have
tried to stay far from criticizing anyone else's beliefs, although I do think
some friendly dialogue in this area is good.

I think it is just as important to look at the motivations for bringing up my
personal motivations. I have not questioned Ford's motivations, nor would I. I
think his intentions are sincere. Getting stuck over another person's so-called
intentions is often the way our Censor stops us from seeing another person's
point of view fairly.

When we get so attached to our cause, anyone who says anything that appears to
interfere with our cause becomes or enemy. The motivations of our enemies are
always wrong in our minds. Ask them and they would say the same about their
enemies.

It is a sad fact that public dialogue over religious matters is almost
impossible these days. This was not true in America during its early days.
Public dialogue was often lively and contentious, but never came to people
disowning their neighbors or rejecting their families and friends like it does
today.

As far as I am concerned, we are all friends here with a common interest in
Spiritual Truth. That is how I see it. And we will each decide for ourselves
what is true, as we should.


To DD:

You wrote: "You spend all of your time chipping away at the edges of the
argument, finding miniscule points of contention (a minor date discrepancy
here, a location there) but not once do you address the underlying core truth
that is being and has been expressed here from the very beginning."

Exactly right. So why is everyone getting so worked up about it? Why is no one
simply acknowledging the minor points and letting it go? These are not core
truths, just a matter of correcting errors in fact.

No, I don't agree that my "can't we all get along" message doesn't help us get
at the truth. In fact, let me say it this way: If we can not listen to those
who see things differently than we do, then we will never see Truth. This
doesn't mean we should all agree, but it certainly does mean that we should be
able to hold respectful and friendly conversations with those who have a
different way of seeing things. We should be open to learning from others.

You wrote: "Your method is to find a few unimportant discrepancies and use them
as an attempt to discredit the entire revelation of overall truth discovered."

This is incorrect. I am only trying to point out the errors. I am not trying to
discredit the entire message. But clearly, after we have seen the facts for
what they are, the overall picture does change somewhat. That's natural.

Since so many of David Lane's claims are in fact not based on facts at all, but
merely on imagined intentions and speculations, I have also offered other
possible interpretations. My point is not that David's guesses are wrong and
mine are right, but simply to show how widely interpretations can vary when
there are no facts.

You are the one who is painting a picture of black and white, not I. I don't
see David or Ford as all wrong, nor as all right. I say let's find the gold
wherever we look. Why blame anyone for the fact that everything they offer is
not pure gold?

Lastly, you suggest that I am defending a teaching and that I am an apologist.
Okay, perhaps I am. I don't feel that is what I am doing, but I can see it
would look that way to you. But surely you see that your comments are the same.
You are also defending your beliefs. In fact, everyone who has responded to my
post on this bulletin board has picked at what I would call minor, technical
details and completely avoided my points. This doesn't mean you or anyone else
here is any less sincere, does it?


To Nacal:

You asked: "Where do you ever give a reference or a quote from your sources?"

They are in my book, and have been thoroughly discussed on
alt.religion.eckankar and can be found in the records there. I would be glad to
present them here as well, if anyone was interested.

You asked: "Why have you returned without answering the questions posed to you
by site members in previous postings? When did Twitchell first write about the
mahanta? Was it 1969 as one site member has stated?"

I answered last time that I had just moved to a new home and my files were
still packed in boxes. They are still packed in boxes, but a few are handy so I
pulled out Paul's old Wisdom Notes and Illuminated Way Letters.

You seem to be right. Paul didn't use the word, Mahanta, until the January 1969
Illuminated Way Letter and the February 1969 Wisdom Note. Before then he mainly
used, The Master, Spiritual Traveler, Teacher, etc. Not even the mention of
Living ECK Master very often, although Outer Master and living Master were
mentioned often.

This is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

You wrote: "You are also being untruthful when you say that you, “… have no
desire to interfere with the beliefs of anyone.”

And how would you know that? You seem to know my own desires and intentions
better than I do. Clearly I will need to ask you next time what my intentions
and desires are.

This is foolishness. Do you realize how hard it is to know the desires of your
own children? How often do parents misunderstand what their children are trying
to do? Have you never had this happen to you when you were a child? Yet you
think you can actually guess my desires, when you don't even know me? Have we
even met?

Why do people spend so much time imagining they KNOW the intentions of those
they disagree with?

I see this with ECKists just as often as with David Lane and the group here.
So, I'm not picking on this group. I see it as a real trap and an excuse to
justify rejecting what another person has to say.

You wrote: "You also claim to “have enjoyed the conversations on this
bulletin board” and yet you only respond to selective questions."

That's right. That was what I came here to share, after Ford claimed that I was
not after the kind of truth that could be discussed openly and that my book was
not about encouraging open dialogue. I came here for just that kind of
dialogue, but guess what? No one here wants to discuss the facts or the errors
openly.

If I were Ford, I would care enough to make sure the facts I was using were
accurate. I thought, especially as a lawyer, he would want to know.

You wrote: "You attempt to confuse (like Paul and Harold) by twisting and
abusing truth in order to blind the reader with your distortions and illusions
of reality."

If you really believe this, then why not point out a quote where you feel this
is what I am attempting to do, rather than making broad accusations about my
motivations? Why not just address directly what what I am saying and point out
how you see it differently? I have no intention of twisting the truth in anyway
at all.

You wrote: "Is what Harold’s teaches (Eckankar) a myth?

"Since I brought the subject up can you tell me if the Holocaust was a myth or
not?

"Some things ARE black and white so just give a yes or no answer to the
previously mentioned two questions. Please, no long-winded explanation, yes or
no to each question."

Sorry, I don't do yes or no answers, but I'll be glad to discuss your
questions. Yes, I would say a lot of what is taught about Eckankar is a myth.
Yes, I think a lot of what people think about the Holocaust is made up of myth
as well. This doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that many of
the stories or facts are lies. It just means that people often try to simplify
things.

History is largely made up of myth. There are a million personal individual
stories about World War II, for example, yet the history books treat it as one
thing that happened. The people who go through it don't see it the way the
history books do. They were there, but the myths are what we can deal with to
understand. Otherwise it is too complex.

You wrote: "Doug, instead of focusing on David Lane or Ford’s book let’s
now focus on the writings of Twitchell and Klemp and see where we can find
inaccuracies, or is the world still flat to you? Did you like the posting from
the May-June-July 1971 Mystic World about Twitchell? “No one really knows for
sure where he came from, when he was born, or if his true name is even Paul
Twitchell. How long he has been on this Earth planet is not known.” Or, how
about this quote from the same article, “Paul is known to the world as Peddar
Zaskq, which is his real name, is an occidental.” Wasn’t this also his name
for his last incarnation and his spiritual name?"

Obviously we now know where he came from and was born (Paducah, Kentucky) and
that his true name was not Paul Twitchell, but was John Paul Twitchell. We also
now know when he was born (1909). Paul certainly didn't ever talk about these
things, nor would he answer questions about them directly, and I think he liked
the idea that his past was mysterious, and he helped to create this mysterious
past. Yes, Paul is only known to the world as Peddar Zaskq because he told the
world that was his spiritual name.

And yes, this is the kind of writing that is mythological. Did you think I
would say something else?

You went on: "Let’s now go back up to the preceding paragraph since you seem
to claim to like “facts” (why don’t you give your sources?). “But it is
a fact that his Master Rebazar Tarzs, an ancient Tibetan lama, who appears to
be in his early forties, was a young man when Columbus discovered America.”
Now, was that really a “fact,” or a delusional belief, or a deliberate lie?
Or, is it that, “There is a need of the people to believe in the magic of a
saviour, and Sri Paul Twitchell knows this and acts out the part” (same
article)."

It certainly is no fact, since there are no records nor anything else to prove
that Rebazar Tarzs even exists, never mind how old he really is. However, there
is no proof that it is a lie, either. It certainly sounds far-fetched. But I
don't think the belief in saints, saviors and spiritual teachers comes from the
desire to believe in magic. I think it comes from the innate memory within Soul
that there is a truth and meaning to life that most of the world seems to have
forgotten, but some remember.

As Rumi once said, the reason that false gold is so popular is because there is
such a thing as real gold.

Of course, mixed with this is that many people want a father figure, or want
someone to take care of them and tell them what is right and wrong.

You wrote: "The sad thing is that there is no freedom in religion… there is
only control through the use of fear and surrender of the common sense of
having an open mind, and of course, the dangled carrot of initiation and hope."

It certainly seems that way. To me, without freedom there is no point to a
spiritual teaching. It is simply a social group. There is more peer pressure
and more influence from the people who want everyone to be harmonious rather
than speaking honestly, than control from above, but in general I agree with
you.

You wrote: "Paul states, “Ramaji was one of the first initiates in the
ancient Order of the Vairagi.” It seems Paul has a problem spelling his name.
“Ji” is a Hindu suffix used to denote respect and affection. But, Paul is
not speaking of Rama."

Why do you think that Paul is referring to someone different than Rama? The
Hindus often add the "ji" to the end of a name, and sometimes it is written
with only the "j". Take the name Shamus-i-Tabriz. Generally this is spelled,
Shams of Tabriz. Same person. Jalalludin Rumi is spelled dozens of ways.
Sometimes he is also called Mevlana. Same person. Sometimes it is written
Shabda Yoga, sometimes Shabd Yog. Sometimes Yoga is spelled Joga. I interpret
this quote from Paul to be referring to the same person as Rama, but if you
feel otherwise I would find it interesting to hear why.

You asked: "By the way, why has Harold evaded giving his birth date and age?"

I don't know. Probably because it is a personal fact that has nothing to do
with his role. But maybe it is just a hold-over from Paul. You would have to
ask him. My guess is that he doesn't want people holding birthday parties
because of his birthdate.

You wrote: "Also, why is it Doug that on page 282 that Harold, the mahanta,
doesn’t even know today about an experience he had in1970. He states, “Was
he really an ECK Master? Who can say?” Shouldn’t the Master who is greater
than the God of all religions know such things?"

I would have to read the whole quote in context. It sounds to me as if Harold
is asking a rhetorical question. In other words, who can say if he was a Master
then?

Actually the question I ask is how did Darwin know that he was the Mahanta, or
how does Harold know this? Isn't this like any initiate who might think they
have gained the next initiation? Isn't this the same question? How do they
really know?

You ask: "Are the initiations in Eckankar valid as a means to greater spiritual
growth over those who are non-eckists? Or, is this a myth too?"

I think the initiations are a mixed bag. There is definitely reality to them,
from my personal experience. But they have become filled with myths as well. I
can tell you that real Self-Realization is rare, HI or not. The initiation
level doesn't prove anything. It is more meaningful as a personal matter than a
comparison to others. I don't think anyone should be judging another person's
worth or truth by what initiation level they are at. Including the Master.

You asked: "Paul states on page 136 of Difficulties Of Becoming The Living ECK
Master, “Cause with all of that, see, I write books in series. I have four
books that are finished now; well, the Shariyat is a continued writing, but
I’ve got three books actually.” So Doug, where’s book three? If it
wasn’t finished why didn’t Harold go to the Astral Library to finish it?"

Paul wrote a number of the first chapters to book three. I think he got to
chapter three or four. That's as far as it has gotten. I think that Harold
thought about completing book three but for some reason decided it wasn't his
place to do so. I would be surprised if Harold ever finishes book three, or
tries to. But you would have to ask him if you wanted to know.

You wrote: "Was the “Moon Virus” that Twitchell warned of a myth or a
self-promotional lie, or did he make an erroneous assumption or was it just
conjecture (page 234 of “Difficulties”)? Show me where Kirpal Singh’s
name is used with Sudar Singh’s?"

I have no idea where Paul got the idea of the Moon Virus from. He certainly
used it to gain some news. It is similar in some ways to the HIV virus in the
way it has stumped the scientists, but I have heard no connection to the moon.

Here is the first quote of Paul's where he mentions Sudar Singh, from the
January 1964 Orion magazine:

"I began my study of bilocation under the tutelage of Satguru Sudar Singh, in
Allahabad, India. Later, I switched to Sri Kirpal Singh of old Delhi. Both
were teaching the Shabda Yoga, that which is called the Yoga of Sound Current.
I had to learn to leave my body at will and return, without effort..."

Here is another quote from my book:

"I have since found two other early articles of Paul's, that show the same
thing: An article that ran in early 1966 called, Can You Be In Two Places At
The Same Time?, shows Sudar Singh, from Allahabad, India, along with Bernard of
England, a Self-Realization Swami who has a retreat in Maryland, Kirpal Singh
of Delhi, India, and Rebazar Tarzs, a Tibetan monk.

"The second article was called, The God Eaters, and ran in the November 1964
issue of The Psychic Observer. In the article Paul talks about Rebazar Tarzu
[sic], who he "made contact with...through bilocation," and Kirpal Singh as his
teachers. These examples clearly show that both Sudar Singh and Rebazar Tarzs
were referred to, side by side with Kirpal Singh. It was not until late 1966
before Paul suddenly stopped referring to Kirpal Singh."

You wrote: "You mention that you talked to Patti Simpson and basically she says
it was “funny” how Paul would evade giving out information on himself. You
wrote that Paul tried to leave information blank “when it came to filling out
official forms,” but found that, “they would gladly accept whatever he
wrote whether it was right or wrong.” In truth, Paul intentionally lied and
mislead people. Ironically, this is one “fact” that you have supplied to
help prove the validity of David Lane’s claim! This is also proof that you
don’t even listen to your own words! Perhaps, this is because your conscious
subjective (self) is to evade, and your unconscious objective Self (God-Soul)
is to impart truth."

If you want to imagine that, go ahead. I think there is a big difference
between someone who is intentionally trying to mislead people about their age,
and a person who refuses to give out their age. But if you want to say that
both are technically lies, that's fine with me. It seems to me that you are
just trying to make it look like something it isn't.

Remember, the picture that David painted is that Paul lied to Gail about his
age, as he had lied about his age his whole life. In fact, Gail knew perfectly
well that Paul wasn't giving out his age, and so did everyone else. Pretty
different picture if you ask me.

Here's a similar example. David was accused of copyright infringment many years
ago (ironic, isn't it?). It was over a book written about J R Hinkins group.
Under oath he said one thing. In his deposition, also under oath, he said the
opposite. The judge politely said that his testimony was untrustworthy. David
claims that he was not trying to lie, he just didn't remember it correctly.
However, the testimony shows that the first story he told seemed like the one
that would best help his case. Later it turned out to be exactly the wrong
thing, so when asked the same question in court, he answered the opposite way.
He lost his case over this.

Would you call that lying? David doesn't. I'll take David's word for it that he
just forgot, even though it looks otherwise. I guess that's just how I am.

You wrote: "Doug you have imagined facts through your own distorted belief
system of myth being reality. You seem to be confused as you spread confusion
to others (somewhat like Typhoid Mary).You have no idea of what fact or truth
is because you are unable to hear truth."

Mighty big claims. Why not just show me the quotes where you think I'm off base
and share how you see it? Why imagine that I am unable to see truth?

I'm sure I see it differently than you do. But I have few illusions about Paul.
My point was to show how many illusions that David had, while claiming
otherwise. Ford's book has got them now, too, since he was taken in by David's
story. The irony is that those who are most concerned about pointing out the
lies and illusions of others are often just as unwilling to admit and correct
their own.

However, if you feel that I've made any errors, please point them out. David
caught a few, and I immediately corrected them. I would like to make my book as
accurate as possible, and I'm in the process of making another edit to include
the latest information, since we are always learning new things.

Thanks for asking specific questions. More of this would make a real dialogue
worthwhile. And I am glad to share the specific evidence behind my comments if
anyone is interested.

Doug.

That was a fun post to read, I enjoyed it immensely. Thanks. <g>

A quick point here about David Lane for the record:

I don't think "untrustworthy" is a fair facsimilie of what the judge said,
though it may well have been what she intended. <VBG>

I believe the words the Judge used were "DL was an unreliable witness..."

best example post I can find when it was "Live on a.r.e." is here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5OqF5.4%248A4.434305%40news.interact.ne
t.au&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

There's a link somewhere in the archives to the judges actual comments in
context.

She may have been polite, but the comments were still quite stinging, imho.
;-))

Cheers Sean

Here is the exact judgement.

If you read IN CONTEXT, you will see that the Judge didn't find
McWilliams's testimony or mine "credible" in terms of whether I was
given a considered license to have LIfe 102 published on my website
AFTER Peter had sold his copyright back to MSIA.

Peter and I argued in court that, yes, he had indeed given me this
permission and that I still had a right to have the book on my website
even after he sold his book back to MSIA.

The judge didn't find this credible and ruled against me.

The book was taken off my website and is no longer available
worldwide, except in used bookstores and off the net from Amazon.com,
etc.

Peter died of Aids a couple of years ago.

However, I found his entire deposition and thought it would be
interesting to post in its entirety which I will do shortly.

Life 102 was a wonderful read.

It is too bad that it is no longer available.

thanks

dave

Here's the judgement.

Please keep in mind Peter's note to me at the time of writing the
book.

MSIA v David Christopher Lane - Opinion of August 19, 1998 and
Judgment of September 1, 1998

1. Opinion

CHURCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF SPIRITUAL INNER AWARENESS, Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID C. LANE, Defendant,

---------------------------------

CASE NO. CV 97-6685 CAS (VAPx)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This case came on regularly for trial to the Court on July 28, 1998,
at 9:30 a.m. Vincent Cox of Leopold, Petrich Smith appeared for
plaintiff and Mitchell L. Lathrop and Bridget K. Moorhead of Luce
Forward Hamilton & Scripps appeared for defendant. The Court has
considered the evidence and arguments offered at trial by the parties
and, now being fully advised in the premises, hereby makes he
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. Plaintiff Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
("MSIA") is a religious corporation, organized under the laws of the
State of California.

2. Defendant Dr. David C. Lane ("Lane" or "defendant") is a professor
of philosophy and sociology at Mount San Antonio College, located in
Walnut, California.

3. Between March 1994, and November 1996, MSIA and Peter McWilliams
("McWilliams") engaged in disputes and litigation regarding the rights
and wrongs of the relationship between MSIA and McWilliams.

4. In August 1994, McWilliams caused to be published through his
company,Prelude Press, a book that he had authored entitled Life 102:
What To Do When Your Guru Sues You ("Life 102"). The book was critical
of MSIA and its founder, John-Roger Hinkins, ("John-Roger").

5. In the Summer or Fall of 1994, McWilliams contacted defendant to
obtain research material concerning MSIA and John-Roger that he could
use in writing Life 102.

6. Dr. Lane provided McWilliams with research materials, books written
by Dr. Lane on various religions, his dissertation thesis, and various
other documents and tape recordings Dr. Lane had collected regarding
MSIA and John-Roger.

7. McWilliams testified that, at his first meeting with defendant
which he stated took place in July 1994, he orally gave defendant
permission to use the book for non-commercial purposes. At trial,
McWilliams was asked whether defendant had told him that defendant
would only cooperate with McWilliams if McWilliams gave defendant
permission to place the book on defendant's Internet webpage.
McWilliams responded that he gave defendant permission to use the book
to "gain David Lane's trust" (R.T. at 112). However, in his
deposition, McWilliams testified in response to essentially the same
question stating that "there was no direct quid pro quo, so the answer
to that absolute direct question is no" (McWilliams depo. tr., April.
20, 1998, at 44).

8. Defendant testified at trial that at the first meeting with
McWilliams, he made clear to McWilliams that he would not provide him
with any documents to assist him in his work, unless McWilliams gave
him full access to "use the information in the book" that McWilliams
was writing (R.T. at 72-73). According to testimony at trial,
defendant told McWilliams based on his prior experiences with
purported defecters from MSIA in the 1980's that he would not assist
McWilliams in the writing of McWilliams' book unless McWilliams
granted Lane an unrestricted right to use the book (R.T. at 25)
However, in his deposition, Lane testified as follows:

Q. Did you specifically tell Mr. McWilliams that you wouldn't
cooperate with him unless he gave you permission to use the resulting
book in any way you chose?

A. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Peter McWilliams who
volunteered that. It wasn't one of my conditions, but he was very
thankful for the research I had done, and because of that he wanted to
-- it was like a material consideration. I had done something for him,
and he was paying me back. Lane depo. tr., Feb. 18, 1998, at 44.

9. In Exhibit 22, which was posted on the Internet in September 1997,
Lane claimed that McWilliams had given him unrestricted access to Life
102 when McWilliams posted the book on the Internet, an event that
occurred in September 1995, more than one year after the 1994 initial
meeting. It is undisputed that Lane never asked McWilliams to reduce
this agreement to writing (R.T. at 69).

10. Thereafter, in September 1994, McWilliams sent numerous copies of
the book to defendant accompanied by a handwritten note. The note,
Exhibit 202, reads in part as follows:

David-

Tada!
Here it is in print form -- Life 102! Let me know if you need more.
Thank you for all your help. I couldn't have done it without you. Yes,
of course, put it on your web page, give copies to your class.
Whatever you want - just don't sell it. Again, thanks I owe you
several!
Enjoy-
Peter McWilliams
9/94

11. Beginning in or about the Fall of 1995, McWilliams placed the
books that his company, Prelude Press, had published (all of which
were authored or co-authored by McWilliams) on his website at
http://www.mcwilliams.com. All of the foregoing books contained
copyright notices, and the introductory page of the website stated, in
relevant part:

Hello.

Welcome to my home page.

Here you will find the complete text of all my books currently in
print, plus works 'in progress.' You are welcome to read, search,
download, copy, print, or give away any of it. Just don't try to sell
large chunks of it, or I'll call the FBI. (See the first 30 seconds of
any rental videotape). You are certainly free to incorporate portions
of these books in what you create, and sell that. That's the nature of
the creative process. There is no need to ask me to 'grant
permission.' Who the hell am I to 'grant permission?'

12. Sometime after September 1995, Lane first placed the entire text
of Life 102 on his Internet website in downloadable form.

13. On November 1, 1996, a settlement of the disputes between
plaintiff and Mc Williams was reached. As part of the written
sentiment agreement, McWilliams assigned his copyright interest in
Life 102 to plaintiff and agreed to remove the text from his internet
website within six hours of the execution of the agreement (See Ex.
1). McWilliams further represented and warranted that no licenses for
consideration had been granted to anyone with respect to the work, and
he formally revoked all prior licenses he had granted with respect to
the work. Id.

14. Despite his representation and warranty that he has not assigned
or granted any license in Life 102 for consideration, McWilliams
testified at trial that he advised representatives of MSIA at the time
of the settlement that he had previously granted a license for
consideration to use Life 102 to Lane (R.T at 127). However,
McWilliams' attorney in the litigation between McWilliams and MSIA,
Ralph 0. Williams, III, testified that when negotiating the settlement
between MSIA and McWilliams," [Williams) was concerned about what the
words 'assignment for consideration,' mean [sic]. So as [he recalled]
Vincent Cox asked (him] and/or Peter [McWilliams), was there anything
in writing, and the answer to that was in the negative. No, there was
nothing in writing. Was there any consideration or money paid, and
(Williams) answered no, because (he] didn't know of any, and Peter
[McWilliams] answered no." (R. T. at 96)

15. On November 6, 1996, plaintiff registered Life 102 with the
Register of Copyrights, which issued a Registration Certificate No.
TX4-406-489.

16. On February 9, 1997, plaintiff recorded in the Copyright Office
the Assignment of Copyright in Life 102 from McWilliams to plaintiff.

17. Several months after McWilliams took the text of the book off of
his Internet website in accordance with the settlement ageement with
MSIA, and discontinued the link to Lane's website, Lane placed the
entire text of the book on his own website, apparently sometime in or
about March 1997. Counsel for MSIA wrote to Lane on March 13, April 2,
and May 5, 1997, enclosed a copy of the written, notarized Assignment
of Copyright from McWilliams to MSIA and demanded that Lane cease and
desist from copying, displaying, and distribution of Life 102. Lane
refused to do so, based upon a claim of legal right, but not including
a claim that Lane had been granted a license for consideration.

18. In September 1997, defendant posted a notice in an Internet
newsgroup announcing the commencement of the instant lawsuit against
him and stating that the content of the book was "currently on Lane's
website with Peter McWilliams' express permission, granted to Lane
when Peter first posted the book online [in September 1995], and gave
Lane unrestricted permission to post or copy it in any way he deemed
fit." Exhibit 22.

19. Plaintiff's post-trial Exhibit 62 is hereby received in evidence,
as is defendant's post-trial declaration.

20. The court finds that no bargained for consideration was given by
Lane to McWilliams for any license to use, copy, download or
disseminate any copy of Life 102, and that any testimony of McWilliams
and defendant to the contrary is not credible, and that defendant, in
fact, gave no consideration for any purported license with respect to
Life 102.

21. To the extent any of the foregoing findings of fact may be deemed
to be conclusions of law, they are hereby adopted as such.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The claimed license agreement between McWilliams and defendant with
respect to Life 102 was made without consideration, if it was made at
all.

2. Exhibit 202, the cover note sent to defendant by McWilliams in
September 1994, does not embody or constitute a valid or enforceable
license agreement for consideration; rather, it is at most a
unilateral and gratuitous statement that accompanied copies of
McWilliams' book, Life 102. See Simmons v. Cal Institute of
Technology. 34 Cal.2d 264 (1949); Passant v. McWilliams, 53
Cal.App.4th 1240 (1997).

3. Section 301 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 301, operates
to preempt state law, to the extent that state law provides
protections similar to those afforded by the copyright laws and
effectively abolishes state law causes of action such as
quasi-contract, implied-in-law contract and plagiarism with respect to
copyrighted works. Klekas v. EMI Films, Inc., 150 Cal.App.3d 1102,
1111 (1984).

4. To the extent any of the foregoing conclusions of law may be deemed
to be findings of fact they are hereby adopted as such.

Counsel for plaintiff is hereby directed to prepare and lodge a form
of judgment, consistent with the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, granting a permanent injunction restraining
defendant from making further use of Life 102 during the life of the
copyright.

Date: August 19, 1998
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2. Judgment

CHURCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF SPIRITUAL INNER AWARENESS,

California religious corporation, Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID C. LANE, an individual,

Defendant,

---------------------------------

DR. DAVID C. LANE, an individual,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

CHURCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF SPIRITUAL INNER AWARENESS,

California religious corporation,

Counterdefendant.

---------------------------------

CASE NO. CV 97-6685 CAS (VAPx)

JUDGMENT

This action came on for trial before the Court, the Honorable
Christina A.Snyder, District Judge, presiding, and the issues having
been duly triedand a decision having been duly rendered through
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on August 24, 1998,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant David Lane
hasinfringed plaintiff's copyright registration number TX 4-406-489
and, in accordance with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, David Lane, and all agents, servants, employees and
attorneys of David Lane, and all persons in active concert or
participation with David Lane who receive actual notice of this order
by personal service or otherwise, are permanently enjoined from the
manufacture, reproduction, adaptation, sale, offering for sale,
distribution, loading into a computer's random access memory, posting
on computer networks, including, but not limited to, the Internet and
the USENET, preparation of derivative works, rental, lease, lending,
or display of any copies, or excerpts from any copies, of the work
entitled "Life 102: What to Do When Your Guru Sues You," which was
registered for copyright and assigned copyright registration number TX
4-406-489. This injunction shall continue in force until the
expiration of copyright protection in copyright TX 4-406-489.

Plaintiff shall recover of defendant David Lane its costs of suit in
the within action, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 17
U.S.C. §505. The court sets the hearing on reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs for October 5, 1998 at 10:00 a.m..

DATED: September 1, 1998

Honorable Christina A. Snyder,
United States District Court Judge

thanks for the exact info.

I must say you seem to be getting more responsive in your old age. <G>

please below

"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.04020...@posting.google.com...

Yes. that's right from what I see.

My point to Doug was that doesn't automatically mean you were
"untrustworthy"

I think I mentioned at the time we were discussing this "live on a.r.e."
that you were ill-advised by your lawyers about this argument, as it was
pretty weak.

Yes. Not surprising.

It always seemed to me that your reliance on McWilliams [from a legal
perspective] was where the matter was doomed from the start. He wasn't one
for dotting the i's and crossing the t's now was he?

To me it seems your reliance on him that you had some sort of "legal right"
above and beyond McWilliams VERY legal arrangement with MSIA per the
Copyright transfer was ill advised.

Some would say it beggars belief, but then we all have our opinions about
things that often don't pan out in a legal sense.

I can well accept that you may have "believed" you had been given a legal
right by McWilliams to publish his material, however, at the time he
transfered the copyright even McWilliams didn't appear to think that. And
you didn't take any formal/legal steps to commit such agreements into
writing or legalese ............ that's what left you out in the cold with
only McWilliams "word".

Trouble is, people's "word" isn't good enough in a federal court.

Doomed from the start. I am still amazed you took the matter so far and
didn't simply settle with the MSIA out of court. However, I note your many
comments that it was a matter of keeping the material out there in the
public domain because MSIA were infact trying to "kill" the book. That was
par tof your decision making process, fine.

Still the funniest thing about this is that yes you were found to be in
breach of copyright by a federal court judge, and that your testimony was
not "credible."

I do love irony <VBG>

Anyway, Doug's main point I still agree with. Your story changed, and
McWilliams story changed form depositions to court. Any third party trying
to work out what REALLY happened, what was REALLY said, and what was REALLY
intended is going to have a hard time working that out.

The trained judge seemed to think something was not 100% kosher, for her
make the comments she did.

One way of looking it is that she found your belief that you had a right to
publish the works based upon your "evidence" is simply too ludicrous to be
credible ..... where's the legal documentation is the obvious question.

For an intelligent man to defend himself in court and argue such things may
be what she found too incredible to believe.

IF you believed the note form McWilliams was sufficient AFTER he transferred
the copyright the way HE did it, well , again it beggars belief.

When he did that EVERYTHING CHANGED ........... it moved from a "gentlemans
agreement" to something legal.

That you chose to ignore that FACT, is again part of the irony of this
event.

It again proves that what we personally believe doesn't always fit the facts
of the matter from a greater perspective.

You aren't the first or the last to get this wrong. It's called being human.

The old adage fits well here: "don't believe everything you are told or
read" <VBG>

Ford Johnson appears to have the same problem in this area, for example,
David Parkers comments about what Gail said, and what he reported about Brad
Steiger which Doug reports Brad TOTALLY DENIED.

The lesson here is that people's memories and personal beliefs about events
from what they have been told can often be found to be not credible in the
true light of ALL the facts.

A heads up for everyone perhaps? ;-))

No, thankyou. <G>

Take it easy David.

snipped the judgement etc.>>

Love Sean

It seems to me that you deserve the benefit of the doubt as far as
*your* credibility is concerned. I can see how you thought you had a
right to the text as long as you didn't try to sell it, but that the
judge did not feel like an implied "in consideration of" exchange
between you and Peter, was credible enough evidence in a court of law
to overturn an actual explicit contract between Peter and MSIA where
money exchanged hands.

The Q and A at point 8 seems to be the crux of the biscuit where the
judgement was concerned.

Thinking about benefit of the doubt makes me wonder about your
assessment of how "evil" you think Paul Twitchell was with respect to
his making a spiritual movement.

Reading Ford's site, you'd think he was one of the more evil men of
the century, if not the millenium. I'd like to get your current take
if whatever form you you care to give it.

Ok then, Geoff

P.S. I read your book all the way through about three times back in
1982 when it first came to my attention. While I was definitely
shocked, I noticed even the first time through that you never attacked
any of the actual messages, just the messenger. And to be honest,
since I never knew Paul except through his books, I just took it as
another good reason not to get too caught up in the personality of a
Master. It made it easier for me to follow Paul's advice in the intro
to the Tiger's Fang to simply weigh and judge for myself what is being
said, because the "linear" story itself was likely made up to make
sense out of a very non-linear experience.

I also read the Path of the Masters cover to cover, and was glad that
Paul culled out a lot of what I considered unnecessary trappings that
came from the context of turn of the century India, etc.

So in a back-handed way, I thank you for writing the TMOASM. You
caused me to focus on the assessing truth for myself.

Here's the whole thread:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B55C12B57

` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good onya Rich .......... everything at the fingertips almost. <g>

this bit has such a nice ring to it don't you think?

One of the funniest things that EVER happened on a.r.e. I reckon!!!!

Love Sean

Big Snip...

Legal crap is such a waste of time, hey?

The whole thing hinges on whether there was a consideration... Peter sold
his right for a consideration, in the form of money. You gained a right by
assiting him, this is clearly a consideration.

Copyright is all about who GAINS a consideration or value, and the purchase
of copyright agreement would have likely contained that all consideration
fell to the owner of the book upon transferrence of copyright.

Because Peter didn't pay you I think your pro-bono Brother-in-law presumed
that you were owed a consideration in terms of the right of use and that
would be a fair argument, but being pro-bono I am equally sure he was going
to give it a stand at the plate, and see if he got the home run.

Despite Justice being blind, it seemed to me when I read through your
judgement that in essence the judge was 'really' saying he didn;t like his
time being wasted with trivial crap. He must have known that MSIA bought the
book to shut it down, and he must have known you published the book to keep
the good fight going...

Personally I still say you lost a golden chance to set a precedence in
regards copyright. Two different stories to any judge sinks your case
because of the credibility factor... that's all there is for the judge to
make a determination when there is no written proof of a consideration as
far as contract goes.

It is one of those things that is a very important social issue, the right
to publish getting taken over by monied concerns. However you could have
plagiarized the book and just re-written it !! <G>

Love

Michael

thanks for your note.

Actually, I have never felt ill-will towards Paul Twitchell.

I think he is a fascinating character and lived an interesting life.

I certainly don't think of him as evil or any such thing.

Indeed, I have great deal of affection for him.

He was a human being, like the rest of us.

Obviously, I just don't buy the guru gig thing...... but those who
knew him (including his first wife who I spoke with on the phone and
his close confidantes) liked him.

He seemed like a likeable guy.

Actually, Michael, in hindsight I agree with you.

It was a blunder on my part not to see the larger view..... that I
could have actually done a long book review of Life 102 (citing key
parts) and avoided the lawsuit all together.

But there is a long history between me and J.R.

And, quite frankly, I was plain irritated by his attempts to squelch
McWilliams (27 different lawsuits were filed against McWilliams, I was
informed, by MSIA, etc.) and have the book removed from the public
domain.

I will try to post the entirety of McWilliams' deposition, since it at
least recalls how Peter saw it.

Ah, not if you are on the receving end!!!!.

But, definitely an ironic twist, I must admit.

Where's Peter when I need him?

(smile).

It's the way it goes sometimes David ............ happens to the best of us.
<VBG>

Back in my early 20's a judge deemed me to be an unreliable witness in a
case, so I sort of know what it's like.

Trouble is I knew I was right and told the "truth", but had a lot of trouble
taking the whole thing seriously enough at the time. Luckily my friend still
got off the charge, he had other witnesses far more polished that I.

He knew not to put his eggs in one basket.

<G>

Cheers Sean

Indeed he is .......... I have had many good laughs along the way. <G>

And hi, hope doing well Cher.

Love Sean

Dear Cher:

I have never blamed the judge. She made her decision and I accepted
it.

As for Peter being a bitter gay man, it is obvious you never met him
or knew him personally.

I did.

He was a wonderful man and very very funny.

He was not bitter, but clearly wanted to correct a wrong.

In any case, it was sad to see him at trial that day, in shackles, as
he had been arrested several days before my trial due to the FEDS
charging him for producing medical pot.

I miss him.

Along with a great deal of whining on this very ng about the incident!
<smile> Oh yes, david... it's in the archives.

I read a few of his books.... but you're right... he didn't give me
dope, so I guess I don't qualify as an expert or friend. I do have an
opinion. You know what opinions are, right david? Those thoughts we hold
about people we've never met, and share with others? Sound familiar?

Most bitter men are funny. Or don't you get comedy central?

<shudder> Obviously. Norma Rae all over again. Whoopie..... :-\

Yeah.... poor baby. He knew he was dealing with with all those factions
and still chose to break the law. Not a rocket scientist, hey? He broke
the law, just as you did. Get over it. The laws are there to keep
society in check, not spotlight the narcissist!

> I miss him.

Yeah... how's that working out for you?

Hi! Too many days off. I feel so relaxed and peaceful. <smile> But
yes.... feeling better. Just in time for another bitter blast of
canadian air. :-\

I could do with some of that cooler air here, tis a hot summer here still.

hold that relaxed and peaceful state Cher, it's good. ;-)))

Enjoy this moment to say what you were too frightened to say under true
identity. Pissy little coward! chuckle........

Funky weather lately! We're getting more of that 9 degree for high this
weekend! <sigh> I hate canadian weather. <grumble>

If you are dying of AIDS, I think it would be perfectly appropriate
for you to take any drugs you wish to get your medicine down.

Not in my experience. Most bitter men are just that..... bitter.

Or women, for that matter.

David Lane replies:

Peter is now a narcissist because when he was dying of AIDS smoking
pot helped him get the cocktail of medicines down?

I personally think that drugs should be legalized, even if the
heaviest drugs I take are coca cola and excederin.

I personally see no reason why the federal government should restrict
AIDS patients their ability to get through the day by smoking pot.

You don't care, so what's your point, Cher?

Well that's the idea that being floated by you, hey? Or maybe one just
feels that because he's dying from aids, the world owes him the right to
do whatever the hell he choses to do? Same outcome, but not as
emotionally sentimental, right? Frankly a druggie is the same, alive or
dying.... any excuse in the book. Not politically correct, I'm sure....
but probably just as true as the Oprah version you keep passing off for
the sake of sentimentality.

I guess Shelly Berman wasn't your cup of tea then? <smile> Or Lenny
Bruce? Red Foxx? <grin>

No, but this is a great example of how you process what you read!!!! I
should hang onto this one for future use. But if this is all you see of
peter's narcissistic personality, then whatever.... I guess in your
book, he rose above the human condition because he was sick? Burst your
bubble time here.... a jerk is a jerk, sick or well. At least that's the
way the real world works, and not that disneyland you live in.

YAWN....... and I think that they are illegal for a reason.... and that
reason is that people in general don't want to pay for the cost of what
goes along with drug abuse. Seems rational to me.

Well they do. Now figure out how to live with it! Let me know how that
works out for you.

My point? That peter made it all that much more complicated for himself.
His choice. No parades! If you want to make him a martyr, go for it. But
not everyone sees this the way that you do. Your strange loyalty and
sentimentality is a keynote of your personality, david. It blinds you to
what the rest of the world around you sees clearly. Oddly enough, as a
woman I shouldn't have to explain to you how you manage to romanticize
your life over and over again. For someone who is so deathly afraid of
spiritual leaders deluding him, you sure are oblivious to the head trip
you play on yourself.

Yeah, them buggers, why can't they keep their weather on their side of the
damn border. Weather wasn't a part of NAFTA now was it?

<G>

No, but if it's a cold day in hell, I know who to thank! <wink>

Where's Harold Klemp when we need him? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!

Try chanting "mahanta, mahanta, mahanta" instead.

Works for me. ;-)

Love Sean

ps sam would you mind emailing when you have a chance, I had a "writing"
question to ask you.

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Either way, excuse or justification or medicinal, I personally think
anyone dying of anything should be able to intoxicate themselves
anyway these wish.

Given that apparently 93 percent of the world's population is into
caffeine of some sort, I think probably almost all human beings could
qualify as "druggies" of some sort.

I certainly am with my love of coca cola.

I liked Sam Kinison and he was very funny, but I never thought of him
as bitter.

Dear Cher,

Why is Peter a jerk?

What did he possibly do to get that tag?

Above what human condition?

He was dying of AIDS and I think anyone who is sick should be allowed
whatever drugs they want to alleviate the pain.

That's my sense of it.

Well, then alcohol and cigarettes should be outlawed, as well as fast
food, and so many other things........ given your argument.

Sorry to disappoint you again, Cher, but I don't have AIDS, so I don't
really know why it should or shouldn't work out for me.

But, yes, I think anyone should be able to smoke pot if they wish.

Or, drink if that gets them through their sickness.

Huh?

What is there to romanticize about Peter?

He died of AIDS and I miss him as a friend.

I think it is perfectly okay to miss one's friends.

As for what else you are writing here, it seems just a tad
peculiar......

But such is the diversity of human responses to simple things like
death.

Cher,

It is a dead heart that speaks such words,
We should all be in mourning for your death.

Lurk

Really Cher... Geoff and I have had some interesting exchanges. It was
nice to have a vacation from the rancor and hatred that you often
contribute here. Perhaps you would think twice about the way you
contribute. Maybe control your emotions a bit or something....

Lurk

It occurs to me the Cher found it very hurtful for people to use the
death of her husband in the discussions as ammunition in arguments here
on a.r.e.. Now we see why she objected so much....she is using Peter's
death as fodder in her hatred triad against Lane. Doesn't take Cher long
to be in that over the top space.

Lurk

I thought so. <smile> So that and a nickle equals what?

Justification doesn't change the law. The law has a list of illegal
substances. Your firrend wasn't in chains because he stopped at
Starbucks on his way to court. But nice attempt at spin, david. Do they
pay you enough to pass that on to our children? <shaking her head>

LOL.... that's a good one, david. LOL.....

His hissy fit at J.R.? His ford moment in trying to tear down his former
path and build his own on the ruins. It's a trait of selfish people who
want what they want without realizing the consequences.

Answered above.

Well that is a nice fantasy. I can just see the AMA trying to wrap their
minds around all the overdoses they'd have to answer for because david
lane made it clear that dying means getting what you want now without
limitations. Sure david..... <g>

You live in california..... aren't they already trying to do that? I
guess it's not just my argument then, hey? <smile> Thanks for adding
that one.... seems you do understand afterall.
LOL..... actually the list of illegal drugs is very specific. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to comprehend the difference between a dose of
heroin and a hamburger. But what the hell... if this is all you have for
an argument, go for it. <g>

Why would you want to anesthetize yourself at the end? If there's
nothing there after death, I guess the fear of facing it would be a
complex problem hey?

You tell me, you brought him up. From my vantage point, I've come to
recognize that romanticizing your life is second nature for you david.
So I don't see this limited to only peter, f.y.i.! Seems you missed that
point completely.

Okay. The only given after birth.... you will die. Peter obviously chose
aids. Missing him is fine.

No one said it wasn't.

Really? david, you're just that transparent. It's isn't peculiar at all
if someone sees through the projections of your life story. The reality
that you hold dear here and shared is that death is frightening and one
should do all they can to not be consciously aware of the event when it
comes to you. I find that very revealing.

Particually when you're talking to someone who is afraid of it. <g>

Lane later in this thread admits that he believes that all people should
have access to whatever drugs they want when they face death. Now are
you telling me that you believe this as well? That you want to be
incoherent in this most important event of your lifetime? You can spin
this into sentimentality all you want to, lurk..... but the fact is,
fear of death is a very real entity on this planet. Is it too mature a
discussion for you to cope with? Perhaps you could sit this one out
then?

saji

This particular need to associate the way the subject of my husbands
death was dealt with here and the conversation between david and myself,
in the loss of david's casual friend is odd to say the least! Now what
I am wondering is this: Are you suggesting that there was something more
than platonic between david and peter? Seems that you're really bent on
making this comparison a strong one and seeing as how I had a most
intimate relationship with my life mate of over 20 + years, I'm left to
wonder what information you're not sharing with us here, lurk. What is
it that you know?

Huh?

I think you forget that at the time Peter smoked pot in California it
was LEGAL for medicinal reasons.

It was the FEDERAL government (not the state, since it was allowed by
the state) who indicted Peter, overriding the State's allowance.

But that is neither here or there.

Again, I think drugs should legalized and that AIDS patients should be
allowed to smoke pot if they wish.

We simply disagree on the issue.

LANE REPLIES:

Hissy fit?

Geez, J.R. sued Peter and Peter responded in kind with a famously
witty and insightful book. Have you ever read it?

Facing consequences?

Peter went to jail to defend his right and the rights of other AIDS
patients to smoke pot.

The state of california, by the way, agreed with Peter. The feds did
not.

And, yes, he was willing to face the consequence of his civil
disobedience.

In any case, it is useless talking about this issue with you.

We simply don't see eye to eye.

I

Huh?

The AMA SUPPORTS medicinal uses of pot for AIDS patients.

They are not advocating making it illegal.

Do some research.

10 grams of caffeine, Cher, and you are dead.

The line between legal and illegal is a changing one.

Again, we simply disagree on this issue.

Ironically, one of Peter's good friends was William F. Buckley who
also advocated the legalization of drugs.

Fear of facing what?

Death comes to all of us, regardless of our belief systems.

If someone wants pain killers at such a time, I see absolutely no
reason why they shouldn't be given.

Pain is pain..... and I think it is nice to alleviate it when
possible.

Yes, I missed your point since it seems pointless to have a civil
conversation with you.

I brought up Peter because of the lawsuit and the judgement.

And, yes, I do miss him.

Whether that is romantic or not is your spin, not mine.

Lane replies:

Huh? Peter "chose" AIDS?

Are you truly serious about this?

Do you really believe that Peter consciously chose "AIDS"?

I can see that discussing these issues is a cul du sac.

In any case, I disagree with you.

I think many things happen in our live which are simply out of our
control and that humans for the most part do their best to navigate
their existence.

In any case, I can see your "compassion" coming through here.

Huh?

I didn't say anything of the sort. I simply said that individuals
should be allowed to do what they want to alleviate pain, especially
AIDS patients smoking pot if it helps them to get their medicine down.

I think it is fine for people to go to the dentist and get a shot of
novacaine if it helps them alleviate pain.

Or, do you suggest that we go to the dentist and get drilled with out
such things and really come to grips with the DRILL?

Personally, I think all human beings should have a fear of death, lest
they end up dying prematurely.

Having a fear of death is a wonderful way to keep alive.

As for me, I fear death in this way: I want to stay alive and enjoy
the company of my child.

Outside of that, I have lived a pretty full life.

Huh?

I think lots of people are afraid of death and for good reason.

It keeps their bodies in tact.

I think maybe what you implying is an obsessive fear or something of
that order.

You simply don't me, but that's okay.

Your ad hominens are probably the most interesting part of your
narratives.

No stress saji, there are also acceptable non-governmental pathways, so
daddy congressman can still be paid off from the other side as well. IT's
called fairness and equity! ;-))

Anyway, I'm a strong believer in the alleviation of pain and the right of
individuals to make their own choices ........... but making a choice just
because you are dying doesn't automatically flow that the rest of society
MUST accept your choices either.

To me self-responsibility means having the smarts to take charge of your own
life, and that may mean establishing options without the input/approval of
society and medical practioners. .

Personal choice, that's all I'm saying. Fact is people are afraid of dying,
and if a little chemical helps to grease the wheels during that process and
someone chooses it freely, or even to take their own life before things get
terribly grim in a physical sense, then it's got nothing to do with me.

Smart people don't make an issue of it, or get busted in the process, imho.
Expecting the rest of the society you live in to accept your decisions in
this area when the law clearly shows that they don't, seems irrational and a
bit self-defeating imv. It's also a personal choice to live in that society
in the first place .... there are benefits and consequences for that choice
too.

Yes society is to blame, if you want, on the other hand Peter knew the
"rules" of the game, or should have by the time he decided to operate
outside the rules. So I don't think Peter is innocent or a victim for being
busted. Maybe a bit naive and not very well organised, but that's all.

fwiw

Love Sean

You know, if Lurk made rational sense in his satement above, it might even
make sense. As it is, it doesn't. It is a completely irrational statement
that makes no sense what so ever. But that's is what I have come to expect
from Lurk, so it's not a complaint, just an observation.

<G>

now, cher, this is a funny retort on your part.

I am worried, though, because Lurk does KNOW all.......

Keep yapping, eventually you might convince yourself your comments are
not hateful.

Lurk

It is not odd for me to point out how you did not like using the death
your husband in a similar way you are using Peter's death.

I think the wider issue here can be a learning experience for you:
People, like yourself, who are caught up in the throes of self hatred,
often will do and say things the elicit responses from their environment
which will support such self hatred. I find this truly sad because it
usually all happens unconsciously. I don't like to see you treat
yourself in such a hateful manner anymore than I like to see you project
such on Lane or others.

So when someone does use your husband's death as fodder here on this
newsgroup, perhaps you could see this as one of the cues that you're
eliciting such responses by your own hatred towards others. This is not
to excuse the person who chimes in with your strategy to get people to
confirm your self hatred, but is something to bring to your awareness.

The reason I brought your husband up in comparison in the first place
was for your to remember how you felt when reading someone using your
husbands death so that you might see your own comment possibly having
the same effect on Lane.

As I have told you in the past, I think you have some legitimate and
interesting counter points to share here on the newsgroup that are
dismissed or not heard because of the nasty way in which they are
expressed....they get lost in your insulting and biting discourse.

I guess it all depends on what you want. Do you want to be heard and
exchange viewpoints with the hope that learning might occur from such
exchange, or do you want to alleviate the emotional pressure that builds
inside you which you dump on others in the form of hateful remarks?

Lurk

Perhaps I mistakenly assume an intelligent reader Sean. Let me dumb it
down for you:

You see when people object strongly to something, often that is a clue
they do the same thing themselves. So Cher objected to her husband's
death being dragged uncerimoniously through the dirt here and now we see
doing the same thing with regard to Peter's death. Do you understand
yet, or do you need more explanation?

Lurk

And ILLEGAL FEDERALLY! <smile> Sorry that you keep forgetting that
california is part of the union, but that doesn't change reality, no
matter how often you stomp your little foot.

Not at all surprising. I'm just surprised that he or you for that matter
were caught unawares by this development.

Obviously. I personally believe that if these drugs are listed federally
as illegal, there's a damned good reason for it. I guess abiding by the
law isn't glamorous enough for your type.

Famously witty? LOL..... you do sugar coat those things you approve of,
don't you? It's so ..... interesting. <smile>

You seem to have this tendency to exalt the actions of those you approve
of. Saint Peter the cultbuster? <g> Whatever......

LOL...... got the boy right up there next to Thomas Paine, hey?
<chuckle> Whatever......

Actually david, if you're so sure of this.... then provide information
to support your premise here. The last I read, the AMA and FDA had done
trials and found that there was negligible evidence of any medicinal
value to the drug for any condition other than some minor benefit for
those with glaucoma. A great deal of hype surrounding the issue and very
little genuine science reaching the press, so apparently this is one of
those liberal issues with lots of funding for propaganda.

Caffeine isn't an illegal drug, dave.

And never so slippery a slope as when some slick talker tries to bury
the fact of illegal status by wrapping in the arguments of legal drugs
and their approved uses. tsk....

Oh...when all else fails, name drop? Is that how you play the game?
Frankly I still see this as an illegal drug and that's that. Period. End
of discussion. If you chose to break the law, go for it.... I would
rather not, thank you. As for Buckley, his importance is insignificant
to my view. I'm not prone to that sort of guru worship.

Again... slip over to a drug which is legal and wrap your issue in it's
glow. No one is addressing pain killers. Getting stoned doesn't kill
pain, david.

I never said that pain killers was the issue.... that's your attempt to
justify your argument. If you need to be stoned on your ass to find the
courage to die, then just say so. There's no crime in admitting your
fear of death.

You are oblivious to your own style! You brought up peter, granted. But
you added the spice of his passing from aids as if this somehow had
diddly to do with the conversation. Go back and read what you wrote. As
to your missing him..... that's a personal issue. Take it up with
someone who cares.

Okay.... let's see if I can explain this to you. SOUL KNOWS. SOUL
chooses. Whether peter was aware of this choice in his life is not going
to change that fact. The same holds true for you as well.

And this bothers you why? Had you hopes of convincing me otherwise? <g>