Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00157)

Hi Steve,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Rampa and Twitchell


> Hey, Paul:
>
> Excellent comment. Eckankar is so preposterous I was
> just flabbergasted to discover that anyone takes it
> seriously. You mean you don't believe in Fubbi and
> Rebazar?

What?! Next you'll be claiming that Santa Claus isn't real!

> That some people would say they are chubby with Fubbi
> is not hard to explain. I don't remember the source,
> but there was a radio show I read about some time ago
> on which the decision was made to expose the mendacity
> of the common man. A guest was invited into the show,
> who claimed to have seen a "flying saucer" earlier in
> the evening and who invited others who had seen the
> "flying saucer" to call in and tell their experiences.
> There was, of course, no "flying saucer" and there
> had been no sighting of anything by the guest.

A similar episode happened to me in the 4th grade. A pretty girl stood up
at show and tell with a bottle of red liquid and ask us if we could smell
her new perfume. Well I was sitting right up front and I wasn't sure if I
smelled perfume or not, but she _was_ pretty so I raised my hand affirming
that I could indeed smell perfume. "No," she smirked. "It's only red food
coloring and water." To prove her point she turned up the bottle and drank
her 'perfume.' ......The bitch wasn't pretty anymore.

> All evening long people who desperately wanted to
> attract attention to themselves called the station to
> confirm that the "flying saucer" was real, that they
> had seen it themselves, that some of them had taken
> rides on it, and that some were in telepathic
> communication with the space aliens who piloted it.
> All of this was conscious lying, of course, and serves
> as an object lesson in the unreliability of eyewitness
> testimony.
>
> That anyone would have nerve enough to defend Eckankar
> in a court of law is even more mind boggling than that
> anyone could take Paul Twitchell seriously.
>
> I have not been reading fully the posts by Eckists on
> other lists - they disgust me.


LOL. Very interesting choice of words. Maybe one doesn't read fully
certain posts because they 'flabbergast' one? :)

bottoms up,
Bill
> Steve
>