XPost: alt.religion.eckankar, alt.meditation.shabda, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.revisionism   
   From: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net   
      
   Gee.. long walks with michael martin! Debates with david lane! Hmmmm....   
   and when I add those pieces together I end up with "I'm right on the   
   money where you're concerned".  Well that makes you a subject   
   matter expert, studying the debates of michael martin and david lane!   
    That you have the audicity to state for everyone here that you're   
   credentials come from discussions with michael martin.... a yahoogroups   
   guru is more than enough to lead me to wonder why you're posting on   
   a.r.e. and not your root group, alt.out-of-body. Maybe because with   
   those credentials no one would talk to you anylonger?    
      
   Laura wrote:   
   >   
   > Did I mention David Lane? No, I did not.   
   > Quite apart from that, you may suggest to this (actually it's *these*,   
   > in case you haven't noticed - I hail from alt.out-of-body myself) group   
   > whatever you want. As long as you do not point out exactly what is   
   > wrong with what I wrote, your credibility is hardly any good. If you   
   > wish to examine my "clues" about world religions, go right ahead. It   
   > might be mildly entertaining.   
   > The only contact I have had with David Lane is through reading a few   
   > old posts where he and Michael Martin have a go at each other.   
   > I have, however, spent considerable amounts of time debating with   
   > Michael recently.   
   > My opinion is not based on David Lane's. It is my own, and based to a   
   > large extent on my discussions with M.M. and the research I did in   
   > connection with that.   
   > Anyway, I'm aware that you Eckists disagree that your entire religion   
   > is basically a plagiarism of various other, older, religions. But that   
   > is, to all intents and purposes, what it looks like. Can you refute   
   > that? Or do you not feel the need to do so, being a blind follower of   
   > it, accepting everything it tells you at face value, including the lie   
   > that it is completely original?   
   > Plagiarism isn't that uncommon in religion, really. Most religions,   
   > even old ones, are replete with it, though not quite to the extent of   
   > some recent ones.   
   > Note also that plagiarism in itself is not a bad thing. If the things   
   > that are plagiarized are all good, the result is likely to be pretty   
   > good as well.   
   > The trouble is that they all refuse to acknowledge that they have   
   > plagiarized anything.   
   >   
   > You've managed to jump to quite a conclusion based on a very short   
   > post, and that doesn't seem very wise, or even smart, to me. I am not a   
   > follower of David Lane, or indeed anyone else. If I didn't abhor labels   
   > as much as I do, I would call myself an agnostic. Look it up if you   
   > don't know what it means.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)