Helen -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:49:15 (GMT)

__ Nigel -:- Just-so stories... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:44:45 (GMT)

__ __ Way -:- Just-so stories... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 21:12:52 (GMT)

__ __ Helen -:- flies and crickets die I say! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 14:59:29 (GMT)

__ __ Robyn -:- Just-so stories... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:02:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ Helen -:- The pee test -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:07:49 (GMT)

__ Jim Heller -:- Isn't it kind of obvious? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:29:46 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- Not so obvious -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:02:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Not so obvious -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:40:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- Evolution -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:42:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Evolution -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:15:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Maturana (pt 6) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:35:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Autopoeisis -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 21:55:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Autopoeisis -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:52:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Autopoeisis -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:21:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Ah well, that's that sorted -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 19:44:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Autopoeisis -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:46:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Evolution -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:47:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Evolution -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:44:01 (GMT)

__ Harry -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:57:08 (GMT)

__ __ Helen -:- a joke for you -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:18:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ Harry -:- The unselfish gene. -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 05:40:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Helen -:- Unitarian satsang 4U -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:35:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Bug-eyed aliens -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:17:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- flesh eating bacteria & God -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:10:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Diatribes,women, and God -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 09:51:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- captialism God and Aussies -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:34:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ Helen -:- a joke for you -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:03:50 (GMT)

__ mantis -:- bug fucking nonsense (nt) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:51:11 (GMT)

__ G -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:44:04 (GMT)

__ __ Helen -:- raping children -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:26:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ Black Widow -:- raping children -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 17:27:12 (GMT)

__ JHB -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:00:30 (GMT)

__ __ Helen -:- terrific pig -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:28:34 (GMT)

__ __ Robyn -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:25:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ Harry -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 05:08:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ Helen -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:34:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ michael -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:20:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Helen -:- adultery -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:42:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ michael -:- adultery -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 22:00:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- adultery -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 17:00:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- adultery -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:34:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:30:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ michael -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:48:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:42:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:48:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- evolution& rape (ot) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:18:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ michael -:- better safe than sorry (nt) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:45:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Social Darwinism -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:47:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Common calls of ignorance -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:05:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Way -:- Common calls of ignorance -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:38:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Way and Robyn -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:58:33 (GMT)

Roger eDrek™ -:- I am the conspiracy... -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:06:24 (GMT)

__ Curly -:- Just for the record... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:40:31 (GMT)

__ __ Marianne -:- CURLY!!!!! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:31:57 (GMT)

__ __ Ms. K -:- Just for the record... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:58:24 (GMT)

__ JHB -:- I am the conspiracy... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:49:30 (GMT)

__ __ Joey -:- It's about accountability -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:21:28 (GMT)

__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- The Latvian Conspiracy -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:13:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ Sony™ -:- its personal, deal with it -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:53:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- This is more about you, friend -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:07:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- By the way, I do know... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:42:58 (GMT)

__ Joey -:- Misinformation specialist! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:27:40 (GMT)

__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Yes, I'll answer YOUR Question -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:41:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joey -:- It comes down to this Rog -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:04:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- And it gets up to where... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:13:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- And it gets up to where... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:28:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- And hopefully it ends here -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:16:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- And hopefully it ends here -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:45:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Tell you what Joey... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:53:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Tell you what Joey... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:57:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- A small olive branch here -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:21:28 (GMT)

__ Sony™ -:- WOW! ****BEST**** -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:51:10 (GMT)

__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Thanks, Rob! -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:56:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- What was M's Health Company? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:18:25 (GMT)

cqg -:- response from inactive thread -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:47:36 (GMT)

__ Nigel -:- response to response... -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 13:01:51 (GMT)

__ __ cqg -:- ...to response -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:47:31 (GMT)

__ Runamok -:- Great post, CGQ! w/ highlights -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:22:51 (GMT)

__ __ cqg -:- Great post, CGQ! w/ highlights -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:58:21 (GMT)

__ __ Bombs Away -:- Fuck you Bungamok -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:29:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ Runamok -:- Happy Birthday, Bombs Away!!!! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:53:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ selene -:- Happy Birthday, Bombs Away!!!! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:59:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Yes, dear, I am a gemini... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:10:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Pushing 50 are you Ger? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:34:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Pushing 50 are you Ger? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:49:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ look younger than ... -:- Pushing 50 are you Ger? -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 00:17:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Did someone say NIRVANA? -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:31:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Did someone say NIRVANA? -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:59:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- How come your posts look like -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:12:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- How come your posts look like -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:53:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ps Runamok -:- I think I'm dumb is a Nirvana -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 02:03:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Yes, dear, I am a gemini... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:53:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joey -:- Damn those torpedoes!! -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:39:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Yer really one to talk, Joey -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:34:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Yer really one to talk, Joey -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:17:15 (GMT)

TiM -:- eDrek has no right! -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 18:42:54 (GMT)

__ Roger eDrek™ -:- No end of attacks on name -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:00:24 (GMT)

Brian -:- Febrary is the cruelest month -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:52:50 (GMT)

__ Small voice -:- Febrary is the cruelest month -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:54:32 (GMT)

__ __ Brian -:- Febrary is the cruelest month -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:22:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ Helen -:- Feboowary in poetry -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:21:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JHB -:- April is the cruelest month -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:05:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- April is the cruelest month -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:16:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Ms. smarty pants K -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 14:50:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- Ms. smarty Helen :) -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:47:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Lit. talk with Katie -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:12:05 (GMT)

__ __ cqg -:- 'owd yoo doo dat? (nt) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:10:53 (GMT)

__ AJW -:- Must be the Minnelium Hug (nt) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:02:14 (GMT)

__ __ cqg -:- You mean the Billennium mug?nt -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:40:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Billandhismumhug (nt) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:45:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ cqg -:- An'and a mam'? Ug (nt) (tit) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:52:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- An'and a mam'? Ug (nt) (tit) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:05:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- An'and a mam'? Ug (nt) (tit) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:29:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- A tit is ... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 14:47:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- A tit is ... -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:00:18 (GMT)

Jim Heller -:- Run? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:40:11 (GMT)

__ Harry -:- Run? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:06:13 (GMT)

__ Richard -:- Run? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:58:34 (GMT)

__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Thanks, Dick! -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:58:35 (GMT)

__ AJW -:- Run? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:42:48 (GMT)

oshlabaka -:- Current Premie asks -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:15:08 (GMT)

__ AJW -:- 'Knowledge' huh! -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:17:12 (GMT)

__ __ Candy -:- 'Knowledge' huh! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:06:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- Keep sucking the snot sister. -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:39:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ I. Dunno -:- Anth's Cognition! Too Funny! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:56:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ I Dunno -:- What's going on? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:49:20 (GMT)

__ __ reader -:- 'Knowledge' huh! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:27:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ AJW -:- It's me upbringing -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:43:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ I. Dunno -:- Sinus trouble, Huh! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:38:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ JHB -:- 'Knowledge' huh! -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:53:44 (GMT)

__ Susan -:- Current Premie asks -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 18:33:25 (GMT)

__ Brian -:- Current Premie asks -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 15:47:51 (GMT)

__ __ Oshlabaka -:- Current Premie asks -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 07:15:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ Brian -:- Current Premie asks -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:16:09 (GMT)

__ __ Helen -:- Zero opportunity -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:27:26 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- ^^^^Read Brian's Post^^^^ Nt -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 22:05:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ I dunno -:- Brian's for ''BEST OF FORUM' -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:56:03 (GMT)

__ __ Susan -:- excellent post Brian! Nt -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:42:48 (GMT)

__ __ Mike -:- Well said, Brian -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:04:53 (GMT)

__ G -:- Current Premie asks -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 11:37:58 (GMT)

__ Mel Bourne -:- Current Premie responds... -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:38:59 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Fuck off, Mel -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:17:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ Runamok -:- We don't need leaders, right? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:11:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Shifting -:- the last phrase... -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:17:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Oh relax, Run -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:21:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Good dog, nice dog -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:14:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Indisbelief -:- Good dog, nice dog -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:44:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oshlabaka -:- Good dog, nice dog -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:00:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- Response to question 1 -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:12:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- What's there not to believe? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:04:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- I'll answer that, Runanduck -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:40:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- You're a leader, Jim. -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:34:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Indisbelief -:- My apology, Run -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:26:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- You're right, Indie -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:46:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Indisbelief -:- My apology to you too, Jim -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:54:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- My apology to you too, Jim -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:53:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Thanks Indie, Hi Hel -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:48:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- I agree Run -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:47:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Character Witness for Run NT -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 06:09:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- HI RUN -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:35:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ Sharks Villian View -:- The Melbourne Grand Prix -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:17:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Jim - are you OK? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:02:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Jim - are you OK? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:56:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I'm an atheist. Get it? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:07:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- I'm an atheist. Get it? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:25:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- I disagree to some extent -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:45:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- a bit extreme ... no? -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:27:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Yes, I'm serious -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:45:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- seriously ... -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 19:33:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Way -:- To Oshlabaka -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:01:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ More than a reader now -:- Advice -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:39:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Advice -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:05:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ reader -:- Advice -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 17:41:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Adnana -:- Advice -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:11:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Advice -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:01:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ reader -:- Advice -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:05:15 (GMT)

Ben Lurking -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 19:53:47 (GMT)

__ michael -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:08:08 (GMT)

__ Powerman -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 20:29:54 (GMT)

__ __ Ben Lurking -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 00:37:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ 09 -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 03:48:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Powerman -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:34:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Ticket takers without arms -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 07:33:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- Meditation techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:17:16 (GMT)

__ __ Marianne -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 20:57:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Selene -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 22:50:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ Powerman -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 21:14:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Marianne -:- So you're a Catholic boy? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:35:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- So you're a Catholic boy? -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:07:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Once again.... -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 18:55:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Once again.... -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:30:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Very good! ot -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:37:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Very good! ot -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:13:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Angela's Ashes, Cork, OT -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:43:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Angela's Ashes, Cork, OT -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 00:02:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Sean -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 00:34:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Meditaion techniques not ADA -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:37:23 (GMT)

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:49:15 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Everyone Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Have you all seen the latest controversy regarding research that points to rape being 'natural' ie, an evolutionary adaptation? I saw a thingie on it on Dateline and read an article @ it in the Washington Post. I can't see how it makes any difference at all to understand rape from any angle other than it being abhorrent and criminal. But I guess it's significant (if their research holds any water) because it is saying that rape is not a manifestation of wanting to have POWER but rather a warped expression of some innate adaptive mechanism to keep the species going. Therefore I guess it would affect treatment of rapists (meaning psychological treatment). SOme of the counter arguments are: if this is so, then why are so many boys; and women outside childbearing years, victims of rape? The researchers are not sanctioning rape in any way shape or form but they have stated that they don't think women should dress provocatively since all men are potential rapists. Recently there was a case here in the D.C. area where a judge actually said that an 11-year-old girl who was raped by a man in his 40's 'was partially responsible' because she had acted provocatively. My fear is that this research will support that kind of thinking & turn back the clock on crimes against women. My husband is totally insulted by this 'research' (largely extrapolated from observing insects) and thinks it's a bunch of b.s. What do y'all think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:44:45 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Helen Subject: Just-so stories... Message:

Hi Helen, Here's my tuppenceworth: if rape were adaptive for humans it would be the norm. Fortunately rape is a freaky exception and unacceptable in the overwhelming majority of societies. I think (hetero) rape is a good an example of what Jim (below) calls 'nature colouring outside the lines' (quite a nice expression, actually). He applied it to explain homosexual rape, but I would use it for all forms. Humans are social animals with elaborate courtship procedures and pair-bonding mechanisms. Setting aside the questions of morality, I think rape is dysfunctional for humans because of their long gestation and even longer period of childhood dependance where, for an adult male to a secure a foothold in the next generation, his interests (or the interests of his genes) are better served (and energies preserved) by home-building and providing for the family unit. Even screwing around risks provoking the wrath of rival males... (I don't wish to offend any feminists here with what sounds like a 'little wifey belongs indoors' argument, while man the hunter should be out there a-doin his big, bold stuff, ok? I am not trying to say how things should be - merely from my understanding how we got to where we are..!) But short answer to the question in hand - is rape adaptive? I think the argument is totally crap. I would be interested to read the research in question. (Who? When? Where? How?) It could be just the media sensationalising or making innapropriate extrapolations from studies of insects (where what looks to us like rape may be to the bugs in question, the norm... and, anyway, who are we to say whether on not Ms. Termite or whoever gave her consent?!) Ants may 'go to war' and 'take slaves' - just like humans - but that hardly means humans carry a gene for those activities and act via the same mechanisms (which is what certain sociobiologists such as Robert Trivers have argued in the past). On the one hand I dislike any form of psychology which ignores the reality of evolution, while on the other, I hate the waffling of evolutionary psychologists who don't appear to have a very firm grasp of evolutionary theory (and there are many!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 21:12:52 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Just-so stories... Message:

Nigel, Of course rape is 'dysfunctional' (to use your word), and you don't have to know anything about gestation periods, or the interests of selfish genes. When I hear human behavior explained with such language, I am offended, and not as a feminist, but as a human being. By the evolutionary standards that you cite, a Walt Chamberlain-type who sleeps with 5000 women in his lifetime, is far superior to that home-building, family-unit type of guy you describe. Right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 14:59:29 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Nigel Subject: flies and crickets die I say! Message:

Great post Nigel and I agree with you. As for the research itself of course my half-baked brain cannot remember the names of the researchers but if you are so inclined it was in The Washington Post during the last three weeks int he Style section (they would have that on line) . Here in the states it is in the press everywhere I look, if I run across it again I will let you know. I believe the insects they studied were some kind of fly that has an additional penis purely for the purpose of rape. It locks onto the female so she cannot escape. I remember hearing somethign about crickets along these lines and I have never felt the same way about them since. I also derive extreme pleasure when my dog goes on a cricket killing rampage in our basement!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:02:08 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Just-so stories... Message:

Dear Nig, 'and, anyway, who are we to say whether on not Ms.Termite or whoever gave her consent?!' It was a good post all together Nigel but this is my very favorite line. :) Maybe those scientists have learned termite and eaves dropped, the perves. Also, I just have to through in this bitty private joke, if you can pee, or how many times you can pee before Nigel sends an email reply!? We may add this to our growing list of pee test standards, the movie rating system, Pause or Not pause to pee video rating and the pee test of true friendship. You know I miss one of you Nigel but I can't remember his and her names, nice married couple, Mr E something maybe. Mrs E was a less frequent visitor. Of course I do miss Willie but Larkin is my fave. :) Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:07:49 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Robyn & all Subject: The pee test Message:

The pee test of post reading--good one. Robyn,, we should explain the pee test. The pee test of friendship is when you are engrossed in such a good conversation with a friend that you just pee while continuing the conversation and don't even bother to close the door of the loo. The pee test of video rental is, do you put the video on pause while you pee or just leave it going because it's not that fascinating? This is a great way to recommend videos to a friend : was it a PTP or a NPTP? The pee test of post reading I guess would be the same--do you hold it while reading, because you can't bear to break away from the line of thought of the poster, or do you pause to pee. I hope this clarifies and commentary by anyone on these standards is appreciated. Of course in the case of pregnant women or women who have given birth and whose bladders are shot, this may not apply.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:29:46 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Helen Subject: Isn't it kind of obvious? Message:

Anyone interested in this stuff should read some of the many books available on sexual strategies and evolution, in humans and animals. Overwhelming evidence for an evolutionary basis for jealousy, sexual love, sexual aggression and incest taboos. Anyone who argues against it is simply in the dark. All of the 'overflow' statistics, including homosexual rape for instance, is most likely just another example of nature coloring outside the lines.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:02:44 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Not so obvious Message:

What do you mean by 'nature coloring outside the lines' and what would the evolutionary basis be for this? Homosexual rape does nothing to pass on genes. Indeed, it may have developed as a display of power. Consider the rapes that occur in prison, they are often power trips, and these rapists know damn well they are not going to get their victim pregnant. It is a fact that many rapists are very into the power aspect of rape and they couldn't care less about getting the victim pregnant. I think your viewpoint is overly simplistic. There are many psychological aspects to rape, it is not merely an aberrant drive to pass on genes. How would you explain women committing rape? Current evolutionary theories are just a way of looking at things, it is a very big assumption to assume that they can account for and fully describe everything. Also, there is a great deal that is not understood about how evolution occurred.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:40:45 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: G Subject: Not so obvious Message:

G, All sorts of mechanisms and traits have evolved that seem to conflict with obvious, short-term procreative survivals. (I think that's why Nigel's so ginger about evolutionary psychology's attempts to 'reverse engineer' the psyche. So many influences at play, complementary and opposed, and of ocurse it's impossible to isolate any of them.) But I also think that genetic survival strategies are apparent in the long-term. Natural selection's efficiency is only apparent in the long-term. On a shorter horizon, any one organism is bound to have all sorts of physical or psychological traits that don't appear, anyway, to serve any procreative agenda. Given long enough, however, they seem to always streamline, survival being the competitive game that it is. Our big problem coming to terms with natural selection, apparently, lies in our difficulty in grasping a sense of the long-term. By the way, there's all sorts of great reading in the area if you're interested. I'd start with Dawkins. Here's an interview: http://www.2think.org/dawkinswired.shtml or (another of my dismally unsuccessful links?): Dawkins You're right that there's a great deal that's not yet understood. But if you've got a better explanation for complexity, life, the brain and consciousness than evolution, I'd love to hear it. But I'm talking about something with a little evidence. Faith and spirituality need not apply.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:42:44 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Evolution Message:

Jim, It sounds like you have a great deal of faith in current evolutionary theories, based on your wording, such as 'I also think', 'apparent', and 'seem'. By theories, I mean explanations of evolution, not evolution itself. Given that we live for such a short time, the wording 'apparent in the long-term' is problematic. Competition is a factor in survival, but so is cooperation. I'm familiar with Dawkins and I think there is something to what he says. But I also think he is a fanatic and his viewpoints are very incomplete. With a grain of salt, check out the site God And Science.org. I don't agree with their conclusions, but the site does point out a lot of evidence that shows big problems with current theories, both from the fossil record and from genetics. I do believe we evolved, but how? Regarding mutations: Seemingly random mutations were seem in the lab. From this, people have leaped to the conclusion that the entire set of mutations throughout history has no pattern, thus the repeated dogma, 'random mutations'. What evidence exists for this assumption? It's not enough to start with the assumption that there is no intelligent design involved, and from that assumption, conclude that there is just randomness, and then from that, conclude that there is no design involved. That is circular reasoning. If you look at a hurricane at a micro level, you won't see the overall pattern. It's only when you see the hurricane in it's entirety that you see the pattern. The problem is that no one has been around for billions of years to do any measurements. So either way, there is a leap of faith involved. Regarding natural selection and 'survival of the fittest': Even many atheistic scientists believe that there are other factors involved besides mutations and natural selection, such as sexual selection, cooperation, and genetic mechanisms. The many instances of irreducible complexity shows a big problem with the 'it happened by chance' explanation. Also, the very laws of physics had to be just right for life to develop in our universe. You can counter with the assumption of the many many many other universes theory, but then what about Occam's Razor? There is no evidence of other universes. I think it's a cool theory, but it doesn't preclude an underlying intelligence. We look at something man made, and we assume that it was a product of design. It takes a leap of faith to look at sometime in nature that looks ingeniously designed, and assume that in fact, it wasn't designed, but is just a product of chance. Following that logic, we could say that computers are not really designed, since the designers of computers are only a product of chance. What about simple awareness itself, how is that explained? And I don't mean thought processes. I don't buy the notion that consciousness is only a by-product of the brain (i.e. just brain shit). And I don't buy the notion that the brain is just a Turing Machine, Penrose didn't think so, and he was brilliant. Then there is the Big Bang, for which there is hard evidence. And particles coming into existence out of seemingly nowhere. Scientists many years ago thought they were on the verge of understanding everything. That was before sub-atomic particle, the Big Bang, relativity, string theory, etc. Once again, scientists think they are close. I don't think so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:15:46 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: G Subject: Evolution Message:

Given that we live for such a short time, the wording 'apparent in the long-term' is problematic. What do you mean? We might live short lives but our knowledge base doesn't. Competition is a factor in survival, but so is cooperation. Well, sure. I was in a hurry and forgot to mention cooperation which, according to biologists, is a key survival strategy and mechanism. I'm familiar with Dawkins and I think there is something to what he says. But I also think he is a fanatic and his viewpoints are very incomplete. Great, another expert! Okay, so how's he a fanatic and how are his viewpoints very incomplete? And what's your knowledge base? With a grain of salt, check out the site God And Science.org. I don't agree with their conclusions, but the site does point out a lot of evidence that shows big problems with current theories, both from the fossil record and from genetics. Oh that stuff's all bullshit. Give me a break, will you? I'm into science not pathetic religious attempts to sidestep it. Is that what you're all about? That page is retarded. I do believe we evolved, but how? No. You tell me. You obviously think you're smarter than the scientists so you explain evolution. Regarding mutations: Seemingly random mutations were seem in the lab. From this, people have leaped to the conclusion that the entire set of mutations throughout history has no pattern, thus the repeated dogma, 'random mutations'. That's complete folderal. I'm sorry, G, but I get offended when ignorance parades itself so proudly. You obviously haven't read dick in the field. And what? You want me to fill in the gaps? Forget it. I'm no expert although many exists. They're called 'scientists'. In this case biologists and evolutionary biologists in particular. What evidence exists for this assumption? It's not enough to start with the assumption that there is no intelligent design involved, and from that assumption, conclude that there is just randomness, and then from that, conclude that there is no design involved. That is circular reasoning. If you look at a hurricane at a micro level, you won't see the overall pattern. It's only when you see the hurricane in it's entirety that you see the pattern. The problem is that no one has been around for billions of years to do any measurements. So either way, there is a leap of faith involved. No! Again, your reasoning's laughable here. What exactly have you read about evolution. You seem to know nothing at all about it. Like, I can't even deal with your argument, it's so muddled. Regarding natural selection and 'survival of the fittest': Even many atheistic scientists believe that there are other factors involved besides mutations and natural selection, such as sexual selection, cooperation, and genetic mechanisms. See? No offence but you've just demonstrated how utterly ignorant you are of the science in this area. To even suggest that natural selection is somehow opposed to 'sexual selection, cooperation, and genetic mechanisms' (whatever the latter is supposed to mean). It isn't. The many instances of irreducible complexity shows a big problem with the 'it happened by chance' explanation. Bullshit. But obviously you've somehow stumbled upon the creation fake scientific arguments. That's where you picked up the notion of 'irreducible complexity'. Why not read the real stuff for a change? Also, the very laws of physics had to be just right for life to develop in our universe. You can counter with the assumption of the many many many other universes theory, but then what about Occam's Razor? There is no evidence of other universes. I think it's a cool theory, but it doesn't preclude an underlying intelligence. Occam's Razor won't help you in the slightest. We have evidence that galaxies and maybe even 'universes' exist -- we're living in one. But there is absolutely no evidence of an 'underlying intelligence'. None. We look at something man made, and we assume that it was a product of design. It takes a leap of faith to look at sometime in nature that looks ingeniously designed, and assume that in fact, it wasn't designed, but is just a product of chance. Following that logic, we could say that computers are not really designed, since the designers of computers are only a product of chance. No assumption necessary. And now, maybe if you bothered to actually read some evolutionary theory you might understand how that works. Read The Blind Watchmaker. You wouldn't be making such confused arguments if you really understood the darwinian explanation. What about simple awareness itself, how is that explained? And I don't mean thought processes. I don't buy the notion that consciousness is only a by-product of the brain (i.e. just brain shit). And I don't buy the notion that the brain is just a Turing Machine, Penrose didn't think so, and he was brilliant. Well you can buy what you want and I'll buy what I want. Personally, I'm impressed by science. What can I tell you? And the scientific community is squarely against you. Consciousness is 'only' a by-product of the brain. But what's with the atttitude? Why do you say 'only'? You have something against brains or something? You need a God to make it all special? Then there is the Big Bang, for which there is hard evidence. And particles coming into existence out of seemingly nowhere. Scientists many years ago thought they were on the verge of understanding everything. That was before sub-atomic particle, the Big Bang, relativity, string theory, etc. Once again, scientists think they are close. I don't think so. Sorry, G, but this kind of arrogance rubs me the wrong way. I'll take the hard-working, competitive, co-operative, ever-self-sharpening scientific community over you any day of the week.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:35:47 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: G Subject: Maturana (pt 6) Message:

Have you read anything on 'Autopoeisis'? By-passes the problems around, but still stays firmly within the evolutionary viewpoint.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 21:55:13 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Autopoeisis Message:

I did a little reading on autopoeisis, it sounds interesting. How does it bypass (all?) the problems with the random mutation and natural selection theory? How is awareness explained? Is there a summary somewhere? Here's in interesting link: The Definition of Life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:52:46 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: G Subject: Autopoeisis Message:

Best bet for starting out would be Capras 'Web of Life'. Re question marks on evolution & auto-poesis, it's excellent on consciousness, cuts out the need for any juju or magic. Other areas of second order systems theory, which is where maturana & varelas ideas are rooted, clarify possibilities in a number of areas, ie speed of change in systems, non-linear nature of systems, self-organising .........

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:21:11 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Autopoeisis Message:

I can't see autopoeisis explaining awareness. It could provide understanding of the brain and thinking, but awareness, I don't think so. It also sounds like it takes faith to believe in it; it's just a theory. It could be a significant factor in evolution and sounds like good research. But IMO, 'God' or 'no God', there is stuff going on that we don't have the slightest clue about, and we hardly know anything. It could be that everyone is completely off when it comes to understanding the big picture. IMO assuming that we know more than we do gets in the way of scientific progress. There is non-mainstream scientific research, for example, esp research, that is not even looked at because of current dogma. People seem to have an ego need to think they know what's going on. In turns of the laws of nature being fined tuned for life, autopoeisis does not apply.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 19:44:15 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: G Subject: Ah well, that's that sorted Message:

...'People seem to have an ego need to think they know what's going on. In turns of the laws of nature being fined tuned for life, autopoeisis does not apply' Indeed, er, how do you know it could describe the brain etc but not awareness? All that time I could have saved myself, all those years going down a blind alley & of course your statements here have advanced the argument, be interested to know at least some of the reasoning behind your TOTAL blanking of the idea of autopoeisis. Where do you stand on evolutionary theory in general?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:46:52 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Autopoeisis Message:

Ok, I'll hear you out, how does autopoeisis relate to the creation of our universe and the laws of nature? What is your understanding of autopoeisis? I said I don't THINK that autopoeisis can describe awareness. That is an intuition that I have. But I'm open, how does autopoeisis describe awareness? What is awareness? I don't think that autopoeisis can describe awareness because I believe that awareness is nonphysical. I am not blanking out the idea of autopoeisis, in fact, it sounds very interesting. Do you understand how autopoeisis addresses the problems with evolutionary theories, if so, can you describe how, rather than refer me to a book? On evolutionary theory: I believe that we evolved and that mutations (at least partially random), natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mechanisms, and perhaps autopoeisis are all factors contributing to evolution, but also that there are unknown factors at work. I don't discount the theories, I just don't think they explain the whole story. I do not take the Atheistic Oath of 'it just happened, it all happened by chance, nature didn't have us in mind, the universe created itself, the blind watchmaker, matter and energy is all there is, etc.' What is the scientific evidence for believing this philosophy? People have a right to believe this, but it is inaccurate to promote it as scientific fact. Where is the rigorous proof of it? One big problem is irreducible complexity. There has to be a massive genetic change in the creation of a complex biological system with interdependent parts. Either a gradual or sudden change poses problems for current theories. How does autopoeisis address this? Suppose evolution at some time were somehow fully understood, would that necessarily describe everything? That sounds like a very big assumption; what are the reasonings and assumptions behind it? One assumption that I can think of is that everything is physical. Consider an autopoeitic computer system. Such a system would have to be designed and programmed by a very intelligent person. I'm not implying that some 'person' designed the universe.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:47:04 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: G Subject: Evolution Message:

Dear G, So glad to have you on board! I've been arguing some of the points you make for a long time here, and I have had no other posters on my side. And thanks for the link to the God/Science website, even though it regretably concerns Jesus as the messiah along with the scientific stuff. One of the greatest problems with Neo-Darwinism is the rate of genetic mutation, which is far below the rate required for evolution to proceed as the theory says it does. A great new book on this particular problem is 'Not by Chance' by Lee Spetner.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:44:01 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Way Subject: Evolution Message:

You're still looking at evolutionary change as linear and one speed. Have you looked at Capras book on Autopoietic systems? Or done any reading around self-referencing & self-organizing systems, emerging systems? Recent cybernetics, even neural nets. Way, this is so frustrating, could be fooling myself but think I know where you're coming from. You really need to check this stuff out, IF I'm understanding you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:57:08 (GMT) From: Harry Email: None To: Helen Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Hi Helen, brings to mind the image of a cave man hiding behind a rock and jumping out and clubbing some poor unsuspecting cave woman, then having his way with her and then dragging her by the hair to his cave and showing her where the kitchen is. He then returns to his rock. If you go deep enough into the murky depths of the human psyche, then I wouldn't be surprised what you'd find. I remember when I was teenager, and my girlfriend and I were at a party, having sex in one of the bedrooms. A couple of the local thugs came in ,whipped out their dicks and said they were next. My girlfriend freaked out, but that didn't matter to them. The absurd thing about it all, was that their dicks were limp, so it had to be about power, and they were willing to damage a couple of people and maybe go to jail for that. The morality of rape is another issue, but I think it doesn't help to generalise whether it's about power or an evolutionary adaptation. It may be both, depending on the circumstances and who's doing the raping. H

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:18:43 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Harry Subject: a joke for you Message:

I think I agree with you that the cause doesn't matter, any way you slice it (sorry a little tribute to Loreena Bobbit there)-- rape is wrong bad criminal etc. However, I do think the study of humans as animals with adaptations, sexually and otherwise is important & enlightening. That is a horrible story about what happened to you & your girlfriend. I guess as we evolve from teenagers to adults, we start to prefer more private places with which to enjoy 'coitus'., eh? On a lighter note: Did you hear the joke about the lady who was in the store with her 3 year old? The little girl was behaving so the mother said 'okay, that does it, we're leaving and I am NOT buying you this toy!!' 'Oh yeah?' the little dickens replied. 'I am going to tell grandpa that I saw you kissing daddy's pee pee last night!' The store grew absolutely stone quiet and the mother bought the toy and slinked (slunk?) out of the store, with the 3 year old smiling smugly at her side.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 05:40:55 (GMT) From: Harry Email: None To: Helen Subject: The unselfish gene. Message:

>>>>>>>That is a horrible story about what happened to you & your girlfriend.<<<<<<<< Hey Helen, it wasn't so bad in the end. When it got heavy, I went really cold inside and to my dismay, heard myself telling them, that if they touched her, I'd kill 'em. Must have looked funny. This skinny, gangly kid standing up to these 2 big, tattoed thugs, but I meant it and they suspected I meant it too. I'm positive they weren't worried about me in the least, but they zipped up and left. Funny thing was, I knew they would go, so I wasn't being brave or anything. I have often wondered why they left. Maybe they were just into playing a role, and didn't really want to rape her anyway, or maybe it just looked like turning into too much of a hassle. I like my theory of the unselfish gene the best. Think about all the things that evolutionary theory doesn't explain; the love of music or books. Bravery and selflessness are but two of the more valued human traits, and if anything, are liable to get you killed, and that's adios to your genes. Then there's the simple pleasures like love, caring and compassion, that feeling of awe that a sunset or the laugh of a child can evoke. I liked your joke better when you added the second post. H

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:35:48 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Harry Subject: Unitarian satsang 4U Message:

Well, unfortunately for us 'softies', evolutionary psychology/biology/science explains why we have those warm soft fuzzy feelings and explains those 'intangibles' like honor, bravery, love, appreciation for the arts, etc. Jim and I had this talk long ago about the causes of selflessness (such as the act of you threatening those thugs when all reason said 'run like the wind') and he recommended a book called 'The Moral ANimal'. I guess the book (which I have not read) talks about how our highly developed morals/sensibilities are important to our survival value as highly complex social animals. To be honest I would rather live in the realm of spaced out blissed out wonder at the world, than to use science to probe why we are as we are we. I feel that there are things about us and about life that science can never address. And yet I feel really sheepish saying that because if it weren't for all the devoted scientists out there half of us here would be dead of some kind of dreaded disease/bacteria/accident of childbirth,etc. I like what Nigel and others have said at times, that being scientifically oriented doesn't necessarily mean losing the sense of wonder at it all. In fact it can enhance our wonder--the more we know the more we don't know. Robyn sent me a wonderful quote from Einstein: 'There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, The other is as though everything is a miracle.' --Einstein Now of course we could deconstruct this phrase ad nauseum since the word 'miracle' has so much connotative value. 'Miracle' implies something supernatural manifesting something out of nothing. But however you look at the universe, creation, life-- whether it arose from a series of chemical changes and smart DNA, or from a 'designer', ie, GOD, it IS pretty damn miraculous. ANd life *IS* a 'gift' --another word that has connotative value because it implies a 'giver'. Maybe there is no 'giver' in the sense of an objective GOd/designer but still it's pretty damn lucky to be alive, for whatever time fate allots us on this planet. Helen, the religious Unitarian (the folks who believe in one God, at most)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 00:17:12 (GMT) From: Harry Email: None To: Helen Subject: Bug-eyed aliens Message:

Hi Helen >>>>>>To be honest I would rather live in the realm of spaced out blissed out wonder at the world, than to use science to probe why we are as we are we.<<<<<<<<< That's sort of the point I guess. Science can't explain why we're here, or even how we got here. The Big Bang sounds good, but until they (the scientists) can create something from nothing, then it's all just conjecture, and IMO has no more relevance than the realities of poets, artists and dreamers. I liked Robyn's Einstein quote. She is indeed a Goddess of the highest order. IMO, science has and is de-sacredising (good word hey) life, the planet we live on, the universe and our relationships to same, and can be traced back to the separateness of religion, especially the bible. I heard of scientific experiments being done into meditation. These bug-eyed scientific types in lab coats, wired up some meditators and attached them to their machines, to all the better understand meditation. All they had to do was close their eyes and actually experience the experience, but somehow the experience has become irrelevant, in the face of scientific findings. Which leads me to my theory on who these scientists really are. Helen, I believe that they are really bug-eyed Praying Mantis type entities from another Planet, that have come here to conduct experiments on us humans. When they go home at night from the Lab, they shed their human bodies, crack a can of 'bug juice' and sit around trying to think up new and imaginative ways to mess up us humans. 'Hey, let's genetically modify their food and see how they handle that' says one. 'Cool, that should be fun, remember the time we feed cows to cows and created Mad Cows disease? That was a laugh hey?' And on and on it goes. Harry

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:10:53 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Harry Subject: flesh eating bacteria & God Message:

WHile I agree with you for the most part and I enjoy your light-hearted fun tone, I have to say that science would become extremely relevant to me if I were to get cancer, or some other life-threatening illness. As a matter of fact I can tell you right now that science, in the form of a little pink pill, is helping me sleep well for the first time since I fractured my back YEARS ago and my muscles are starting to heal themselves. I don't know what I would have done without the little 'clinical trial' my rhemotologist put me on to try to find a pain managment medication I could live with. (and I tried everything including 2 years of acupuncture prior to the pills). Chronic pain was really destroying my quality of life andhad a very debilitating effect psychologically.People in pain are cranky little curmudgeons with no hope for the future. It scared me that I was becoming that way! I am always amazed when I read about our forefathers, and mothers, and wonder how they made it without the help of the medicine, psychiatry, and dentistry that we have today. George Washington died of something that antibiotics would have easily cured. Merriweather Lewis (of the Lewis and Clark expedition) may have been manic depressive or may have had syphyllis--he went mad and killed himself. And I shudder to think of what childbirth must have been like before modern times. None of this natural childborth stuff for me, man-- GIVE ME THAT EPIDURAL, I SAY!! So while I agree that science cannot answer all our questions, religion, faith, spirituality and an innocent open-hearted approach to life will not be all that relevant if you have a flesh-eating bacteria eating your hand and are screaming in pain!! Okay my diatribe is over. Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 09:51:18 (GMT) From: Harry Email: None To: Helen Subject: Diatribes,women, and God Message:

Sorry to hear about your back Helen. There's an Aussie footballer (Ange Christo) who severely damaged his spine and was told he would never play football again. The doctors wanted him to have back surgery, but he declined. Not only did he prove them wrong, he again plays at the highest level, in that greatest of all games, Australian Rules Football. He took up joga and did lots of gentle stretching and seems good as new. On his comeback game a guy landed on his shoulders while Ange was twisted and he seemed OK. All the best in your recovery. Ok, I take the point of your diatribe (that's a cool word BTW). I myself would have been dead a couple of times and lost my right leg twice if not for the wonders of modern medicine. I guess what I object to, is that these days it's science for profit, and that seems obscene to me. The benefits or lack of them to mankind are now immaterial, as the greater proportion of scientific research is funded by big business, with the express purpose of making profits. Feeding meat to cows (and cows meat at that), because it was a cheap source of protein is just one such case. The immorality of doing such a thing seems evident you would think. Then there's genetically engineered food, the new and better poisons being used on our foods, with an obvious disregard for the earth, etc, etc. We can only do these things when we see the earth as no longer sacred, but as just another resource, and so the exploitation continues, of the earth and each other. Shit, that feels good. That's the first diatribe I've had in ages. Harry

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 15:34:33 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Harry Subject: captialism God and Aussies Message:

I know exactly what you mean! I heard an example of this on NPR--the infertility industry harvests eggs from young women for invitro implantation in infertile women. The young women selling their eggs can make 1 or 2K, but are not always told the effects this can have ont heir bodies. They take hormones to stimulate egg production, potentially they can get hyperstimultion syndrome where their body goes into shock from their ovaries producing too many eggs. Or how about the studies that are now trying to figure out if all the clomed and pergonal infertile women have taken is giving them breast and ovarian cancer? I think it is human nature to want to have it all and do it all because we CAN, without thinking of the potential consequences. We are impatient. We want the fastest, sexiest car without thinking of the consequences to the environment. We want the smartest, healthiest babies, and the most quickly produced beef without thinking about the ethical, environmental , and health risks. That's capitalism for ya. That's why I reluctantly agree with Dr. Laura when she says we need GOd, because without God everything becomes permissable (she's quoting Dosteivski). I say 'reluctantly' because she is so mean and blaming of anyone in a messy human dilemma. You probably don't have Dr. Laura in Australia, but my cousins told me there's a guy on Aussie radio, a blowhard conservative like our Rush Limbaugh, who is very popular like our Dr. Laura. BTW that's great about that football player. I think doctors should never say these things like 'you'll never walk again'. I am glad the guy proved the dr's wrong. Soon I will be holding football players on my shoulders too! I really am doing fine now. thanks Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:03:50 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Harry Subject: a joke for you Message:

I meant to say the girl was 'misbehaving'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:51:11 (GMT) From: mantis Email: None To: Helen Subject: bug fucking nonsense (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:44:04 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Helen Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Piled higher and deeper I'd say. Sounds like some evolution fanatics trying to explain everything with evolutionary theory. I don't think anyone really understands evolution. Wanting to have POWER over someone else is certainly a huge factor in many rapists, so is HATE. That is well documented. Many rapists get off on the power, the power turns them on. For many, it's a sick fetish. As to what the statistics are, I don't know. Extrapolating from the behavior of insects to humans is utterly stupid, I would think they would at least look at mammals. Rape does occur in the animal world; maybe by 'natural', they mean that it occurs in nature. But that is a poor choice of words; they should at least make clear that that is what they mean. And just because it occurs in nature doesn't mean that wanting power is not a big factor. It sounds like they drew some illogical conclusions. By 'some innate adaptive mechanism to keep the species going' I guess they mean horniness. Well, sure, I suppose horniness is a factor, and rape is certainly warped, but what value does this research have? I suppose you could tell a rapist, based on this research, that they have warped sexual desires. Duh. I wonder how much money was spent on this. The whole thing sounds perverted, some sickos watching insects having sex and getting paid for it. The wording 'evolutional adaptation' is dangerous. It could taken to imply the notion that rape might be good for the survival of the species. That is bs, it goes against the notion of sexual selection. I can't see that the word rape would even apply to insects. You can't just compare the behaviors of different species of animals, especially those very different, and think they have the same meanings. It sounds like the researchers projected human traits onto these insects. Very sick. I would think that the cause of rape varies and that cases of rape need to be dealt with individually. For example, a gang rape is different than a serial rapist. In no case is rape justified because it occurs in nature. We humans are not just animals. In the case of the 11 year old, even if she acted 'provocatively', that guy is totally responsible for his crime. Such responsibility is not something that can be divided up like a pie. Also, to blame her for however she acted seems extremely moralistic, cruel, and harmful. She had already suffered enough and wouldn't even have to be told to be careful after that happened. To blame her is like saying a girl or woman flirting is evil and that getting raped is a punishment. Suppose this girl was flirting and that was a factor in the rape? So what? Why was this judge even mentioning it? Are women never to act flirtatious? And whether this 11 year old was even flirting is highly suspect. She certainly was not inviting him to rape her. Maybe this judge had a little bit of a rapist in himself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:26:13 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: G Subject: raping children Message:

I agree with you about the case of that 11 year old. Can you beleive that? It is disgusting to blame a child. Apparently the guy thought she was older, like 15, so that made it okay to go up to her room and rape her? Yuk. Some of these judges know squat about rape, molestation, child sexual abuse, and spousal abuse. They are the true caveman. CHildren in puberty often do act 'seductive' (that's what the defense was saying this girl was doing) but so what? An adult should never take advantage of that. I agree with you that extrapolating from insects is really dumb. Humans are so much more complex and have that conscience & moral thing going. I certainly don't expect and insect to know the difference between right and wrong.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 17:27:12 (GMT) From: Black Widow Email: None To: Helen Subject: raping children Message:

Any man that rapes my ass better know that I'm going to EAT his when he's done, the fucker.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:00:30 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Helen Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

I think it's a load of bullshit. Even if true, a man who who did what he knew to be wrong, by every known moral or ethical belief system, because he was giving in to his animal instincts, should be treated as an animal. Did I tell you of how our pig was slaughtered last week on my land in Latvia? And he didn't even rape anyone..... John the unforgiving.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:28:34 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: JHB Subject: terrific pig Message:

Yikes! Didn't you read Charlotte's Web?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:25:09 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: JHB Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Dear Helen, I saw that Date Line also Helen and was shocked! As John said, even if it is inherint in being male that is no excuse to throw decency out the window, what are brains for for god's sake! Someone once told me that the reason men fall asleep after orgasm and women are energized was so women could get away from the man/rapist. Well who knows if these theories are correct or not but what difference does it really make. Don't species evolve out of useless instincts? Shouldn't that 'natural' rapist now evolve away from it to save himself from prision? Brings to mind that ruling in Italy, I think, that a woman can't be raped is she is wearing jeans! Insanity. As far as an 11 yr old acting prevocatively(sp), why should the blame go from the adult to the minor just because of the person's sex! If that 11 yr old was acting sexual then the male, depending on their relationship, could use the opportunity to explain such things to the child or just turn away and not cross that line. Not taking responsibility for ones own actions and blaming anyone else for them is a pet peeve of mine and now to add on another stupid argument for that person who can't take responsibility for themselves is sickening. Hey, something to get fired up about that doesn't have to do with M! :) Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 05:08:45 (GMT) From: Harry Email: None To: Robyn Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

>>>>>>Someone once told me that the reason men fall asleep after orgasm and women are energized was so women could get away from the man/rapist<<<<<< Hi Robyn, that's a new one on me. I always thought it was an exchange of energies, and that explains we males just wanting to go to sleep, and you gals acting like you could run a marathon. Personally, I wish you gals would just go to sleep too:) H

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:34:08 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Robyn Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

I agree, what are these elaborate brains of ours for if we are too stupid to realize rape is wrong, period! I had never heard that theory about why the woman is energized and the man falls asleep. sheesh! If the man falls asleep though, it gives the woman the perfect opportunity to bonk him on the head with her club! SO that one just doesn't make sense! Or how about the stereotypical lighting of cigarettes after the 'act'. How adaptive is that! Oy Vey!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:20:50 (GMT) From: michael Email: None To: Robyn Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Yeow! What a load of dung! Who cares what insects do for sex? Not I. I saw a special that showed how adultry was a natural behavior for primates. That doesn't make it right just because it is instinctive or natural. If adultry were the societal norm, then adultry would not be a major cause of divorce and marital strife. There are or have been societies where sexual fidelity in marriage was not held to such high regard. Rather a certain sense of sharing was expected and the polite thing to do. But, rape? Don't think so. Ain't right. The fundamentalist Islamic societies want women to cover up. Doing so prevents the men in that society from being tempted. Well, there is a lot to be said for maturity and self control. Any judge who says that an 11 year old child (or any woman) is responsible for her own rape needs a swift kick in the nuts! After all, isn't he just asking for it? Sheesh - whatever happened to romance? Roses, wine and a sweet little lie gets me every time! Peace - michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:42:40 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: michael Subject: adultery Message:

I am glad you brought up the adultery thing becasue one of the experts on this who was interviewed on Nightline was a researcher who thinks adultery is a 'natural' male thing as well, the man's desire to procreate being so overwhelming he just has to destroy his family over it! She wasn't condoning it, she was just sayign that men are more likely to cheat becasue of this. But aren't women just as likely to cheat? Does anyone have any statistics on this? I agree with Robyn that the bottom line is people are responsible for their actions. I can see it now, the husband caught with his pants down 'it was my irresistable urge to procreate dear, she means nothing to me, honest!' I agree about romance. I think those old romantic movies with their subtle nuances are much sexier because you have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 22:00:35 (GMT) From: michael Email: None To: Helen Subject: adultery Message:

The special I saw used the example of an adulterous wife! She loved her husband, but that old genetic imperative for getting some strange genetic material was just too much! 'My ovaries made me do it! But I still love you!' When we lived in hierarcichal dominate primate groups perhaps there was a valid need to seek diverse partners. Today we are more sophisticated, we believe. 'God, you are so exciting. And you know that my wife/husband just doesn't know more than one position/understand me/care! You know you want to! Oh, Baby....that's so good!' Yikes - cold shower time....not!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 17:00:45 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Helen Subject: adultery Message:

Helen, There's a whole library of stuff on evoultion and sex. A lot of it deals with sexual strategies and, in particular, adultery, rape, stuff like that. You want?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:34:32 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: adultery Message:

I am only marginally interested in this stuff as you know Jim, but sure give me a title or two. Especially if the author has a 'warm inviting style' & doesn't take him or herself too seriously. Can you find a book that meets that description? Helen the 'science lite' kinda gal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:30:55 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: michael Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Dear Michael, 'Who cares what insects do for sex?' Well, I did see slugs mating on TV once and thought it was damned interesting. :) 'Sheesh - whatever happened to romance? Roses, wine and a sweet little lie gets me every time!' Every time!? That's some track record! :) Seriously though, I wonder what % of men, and sometimes women (how does that fit into this study?) rape or think of raping. How many do it and don't even think of it as rape so never get so far as to question their actions? Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:48:06 (GMT) From: michael Email: None To: Robyn Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Depends on how much wine.... And how sweet the lies... How fine a line is there between seduction and rape? To bring the cult into this - were we not seduced? Perhaps we did willingly submit. Did we then find that we were being used? Does being used, no matter how willingly, constitute some form of rape? Oh, and how does one tell if insect sex is rape or not? I have seen nature specials were fish were into group scenes! Hoo Hah!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:42:28 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Robyn Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Seriously though, I wonder what % of men, and sometimes women (how does that fit into this study?) rape or think of raping. How many do it and don't even think of it as rape so never get so far as to question their actions? I have never considered raping anyone. I have never tried to get a woman drunk so they will have sex with me. I cannot understand the mind of the person that would actually enjoy doing that. I know I am not totally sane, but I seriously worry about the minds of those men who do condone rape in any way. It makes me consider that the idea that some humans are human and others are something less evolved has some credence. John the feeling very serious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:48:46 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: JHB Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Dear John I think a lot of men feel this way and thus are baffled by this research. So many men (my husband included) can't imagine how anyone could get their jollies this way. Thanks for writing Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:18:58 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: JHB Subject: evolution& rape (ot) Message:

Dear John, I am glad to read your feelings about this subject. I wonder, given your feelings, if you can empathize with a women being afraid of men? I was driving to work today and in the middle of a mountain road and a car was stuck there. I almost hit this car so I pulled around and pulled over in front of them. As I drove by I saw it was a man at the wheel. What could I do, the guy was in the road and going to get hit but I did lock all the doors when I saw him get out of his car and come toward me. I didn't care if he saw me and I didn't roll down my window. Actually he had a very kind face and told me he was waiting for a tow truck and thanked me for stopping. I thought it was really fucked up that I felt the need to help but had to fear that person at the same time. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:45:55 (GMT) From: michael Email: None To: Robyn Subject: better safe than sorry (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:47:33 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: All Subject: Social Darwinism Message:

When evolutionists start extrapolating into human behavior, the results can be pure bullshit and absolutely horrific. The 20th century saw many disasters of Social Darwinism. To give just one example, the Nazis loved Darwinian theory and what they did is in fact totally appropriate according to Darwinism. If the human race did actually start living according to the ideals of Darwinism, first our society would descend into pure hell and then the species would rather quickly become extinct! Helen, pay no attention to those idiots when they try to 'explain' human behavior. Don't even give them any credence when they stick to their own fields in paleontology and genetics.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:05:38 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Way Subject: Common calls of ignorance Message:

Jim Heller responded: Way, Your reasoning is flawed and you appear to completely misunderstand Darwinism. You've got the right attitude, though. Haughty as all get out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:38:58 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Common calls of ignorance Message:

Jim, You argue against my reasoning, my understanding, and my attitude. But you don't argue against my point. So I will remind you of my point: When Darwinian theory is applied to issues such as rape, the results can be ridiculous and harmful. There have been, in fact, many instances where Darwinism has been horribly misapplied, such as the Nazi example. You don't deny that the Nazis loved Darwinism, do you? In their writings, they cited it over and over again to justify their goals and methods. Similarly, to speak of rape as 'natural' because it furthers the goal of 'selfish genes' is offensive in the extreme! I don't want to argue the validity of Darwinism in this post. I'm merely saying that the human race should not guide itself with the values obtaininable through random mutation and survival of the fittest. To do so would be disasterous. That's my point (and I believe that is Helen's original concern when watching Dateline) and I really don't see how you could argue against it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:58:33 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Way/Robyn Subject: Way and Robyn Message:

Yikes, I never made that Nazi connection. I guess we always have to be on our toes, to make sure our 'theories' are not really an excuse to exploit and oppress someone else. Robyn when my sister moved to the boonies, her car broke down one night. Having been raised in DC, she was trained to not open the car door to anyone who approached. This kind old man and is son approached the car. SHe rolled down the window a crack and stuck out an envelope with 2 quarters. The guys were like 'what the hell? Open your door please so we can help you.' They were really sincere and nice country folk. It is sad that we women have to be so on red alert. But unfortunately that is an adaptation necessary to OUR survival, eh? For example, I LOVE to walk at night but feel like I can't do it, and I love to hike but feel really uneasy hiking by myslef as I do. ANd we know my hiking companion, Misha is far from being a killer--ha ha. I agree with michael better safe than sorry. Okay I have blabbed away here enough, you are all sick to death of me! Love Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:06:24 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Everyone Subject: I am the conspiracy... Message:

King. I am the conspiracy King. Presented for your consideration from the Life Is Stranger Than Fiction Files If anyone remembers Rob Anderson (aka Cerberus, Des Perado, and a host of other spoofed names that independent thinking premies have used on the Forum) you might remember that Rob was very fond of anagrams. Consider that in the post by Jean-Michel entitled 'My Suggestion to Prem Rawat', J-M includes an official letter from Elan Vital that says that all documents must be approved by the Elan Vital U.S. Public Relations Officer, Andrea Robins of Deltona, Florida with an email address of andrearob@aol.com. Ok, we know that Rob Anderson liked to play around with anagrams and that he lives on the East Coast of the U.S. And I have some pretty good information that Rob Anderson Cerby lives in Florida. Let's consider what anagrams can be made from Andrea Robins: Say, Rob Andersin And if you search the Internet for telephone number for Andrea Robins you get a name that is Robins Michael Andrea girls-name-here. And that is somewhat common. So, it looks like Andrea is probably Mrs. Michael Robins for what that's worth. Also, consider that for women posting on the Internet it might be a good idea to secret away one's gender to avoid the usual problems. And a very common way to avoid the problems is to post using a man's name. And, consider that when someone adopts an alias they might choose and stick to something that is somewhat familiar to them for the purpose of being easy to remember. And something else became triggered in my mind and that was email I received from Rob Anderson Cerby with an email address of wordsage@bellsouth.net. I had actually confused 'wordsage' with 'wordsmith' and did an Internet search of 'wordsmith' and Florida and 'Public Relations' and I came up with the following hit: Public Relations Society of America - Palm Beach Country Chapter has this: President-Elect: LJ Margolis, (407) 547-8087 LJPR (Palm Beach) ljpr@flinet.com http://members.aol.com/elejota And Secretary: Margie D. Yansura, (407) 820-1383 Wordsmith Communications (West Palm Beach) 714 Claremore Dr, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-7638 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Phone: (561) 820-1383 Well, I'll be the first to admit that the Wordsmith Communications might be a completely bogus connection since I confused 'wordsage' with 'wordsmith', but nevertheless it got me to the page with LJ Margolis, President-Elect. Now, whether this LJ Margolis is the Elan Vital PAM, Lynn Margolis I don't know either. However, I think that it is very likely as I do believe that Lynn Margolis lives in Florida as well. If there a connection between Lynn Margolis and Andrea Robins it may mean nothing to my suspicion about Rob Anderson Cerby. However, it could be that Lynn and Andrea are networked together as that's how premies and, especially wheeling and dealing PAMs, operate and that is most definitely true for the PR industry as a whole. Again, I really believe that Rob Anderson Cerby is from Florida and I would not put it past Maharaji and Elan Vital or rogue premies to operate in an orchestrated effort to goof with us. Sure, I could be wrong on this, but it's worth considering, in my estimation. And, of course, less sinister than all of that is the simple sharing a laugh over all of this with your mates at the local pub as to how you pulled another fast one over the Ex-Premies. The First Rob Anderson Cerby Hoax Maharaji's Agya for Premies to Stay Away from Ex-Premie Forum Remember the big hoax involving the burly kilt-wearing, scotch drinking, lap dance loving Scotsman? Eventually, Rob Anderson said that he was called to report to Maharaji in Malibu about the situation on the forum or whatever and then Rob Anderson posted the Maharaji's agya to the premies not to post at the Ex-Premie forum. And I, Roger eDrek™ or was it barney has email to the effect that Robert Anderson Cerby might have really have been in California. Email from OldPWK@aol.com dated June 18, 1999 Barney You got to keep this to yourself, mate. The phone call was genuine, from Miss C. in Malibu. M. is concerned that some of us are getting confused and upset on the ex site, not to mention skipping practice! He did not sanction my mission to find out any legal stuff, that was just my own fear. He was pissed about that. I felt bad about saying it too, 'cause I'd begun to really admire and respect Jim and I felt like a louse afterwards. Anyway, I've been 'summoned' so I'm flying to LA tomorrow. Be back in a week. I'll see if he'll let me just be supportive and funny, otherwise I'm out, unless I use a phoney name, but then you'd be pissed. It's different for the others. M. is just strongly suggesting they steer clear for their own good, but they can do as the please, obviously, without fear of recriminations. I feel bad about Gail. I really didn't go to Montreal, and really would have got her in had I gone. Actually her posting that email did make the shit hit the fan, because of my saying I'd sneak her in. I'm gonna get my arse reamed for that. M. cuts me a lot of slack, more than most, but that was going too far. He'll probably make me retrain all the goons. I fucking died when I saw my email in red letters. I hope she's OK. I'll send her a video if you think it would help. I've opened up this email account again, now the smoke's cleared a bit. Just so's you know it's me, remember last time I tried to warn you about Curly? Rob ps Do me a favour, don't post this one too? and an email immediately follows that says this: ps dv is also curly he's definately a premie. I make my living sussing people out. Rob the tacky Mensan (IQ 166) Don't you just love that the use of English spelling and phrases and words in that gotcha hoax post? Bullshit! We know for a cold fact that Robert Anderson Cerby lives on the East Coast of the U.S. Sir Dave will back me and I nailed Cerby in Hell on that point and where the hell is Cerby now. Yeah, right, he's just a lonely and mucky desperado on the run heading for the Hole in the Wall. And, indeed, at some point after the letter from Rob telling me of his impending trip to Malibu I did receive an email with an IP address that was from California. And at some point in Rob's confession (I cannot find the email nor that part of his confession, but I know it's somewhere) he/she says that he knew that I would run the IP and it would help solidify his hoax. And, yes, there is this from Forum III where Rob Anderson admits the hoax: From: 'Rob' aka Joker Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Suckers Message: Rob. Good work, by the way. You took the bait. No, Marianne, it's you who took the bait. Hook, line, sinker, rod, reel AND fishing boat. Don't worry, you're not alone. Orlando, Catweasel, CD, Barney, KB, Sir Dave, Anth, Katie....did I miss anyone? You stupid, stupid fucks, you believed every word of it, from the 'agya' to the 'anth's a liar'. So who am I? An ugly, overweight, whiskey-swilling, lap dance-loving, kilt-wearing, folk-singing, bearded, CIA-trained, ex-SAS, senior official of Elan Vital? I am laughing so hard the tears are streaming down my face. Didn't it occur to any of you that the whole thing was a monstrous scam? Take a look at my first posts as 'Watcher'. Here's this poor, lonely, out-on-the-fringe premie with no-one to talk to, looking for cyber hugs from nice cuddly people like Gail, Mary M....Then watch the slow metamorphosis into this huge, powerful, EV Chief-of-Staff, ordering premies to hit the road, rubbing shoulders with The Man, getting Marianne wetting her panties with fright.... You know why it worked? Three reasons: First, I created an easily recognisable, well-defined stereotype. One that would instantly form in your mind's eye, and could be built on, bit by bit. Big, gruff, Scotsman, aye, complete with favorite single-malt and Burns quotes (courtesy MS Encarta). Second, you wanted to believe in me, because it gave you a focal point to unleash on. I confirmed all your 'suspicions' about M & EV (not before I'd read up on them first, of course). Third, you kicked Jim out! Absolutely amazing! The one man who almost had me sussed, and who would definately have got to the bottom of the 'agya' thing, was relegated to the dugout! I couldn't believe my luck. Did you not notice that I did the 'everybody out' routine just before Jim was barred, and then, realising he was out, conveniently came back 'with new instructions'? Carpe Deum, laddie! So anyway, there you have it. So why end it here? Well even a seasoned Joker like me realises when a joke's gone too far. Marianne, I hope you've got a sense of humor sugar, I think you've ended up with the most egg on your face. Oh, that form thing? That's a request for a drivers licence, not a passport. Got it from the California DMV website, courtesy of Alta Vista. Anth, never had the pleasure sir, but I hope you're a good sport! Jim, I'd like to shake you by the hand. In our intellectual chess games, you had me licked hand-over-foot. I hope they see how essential your presence here is and let you back! I'm just a bad, bad person. But I had a darn good laugh and now I'll sit quietly and wait to be blocked, unless you could forgive the poor Joker, and wait around to hear the real story - not that you'll ever believe anything else I have to say. For the record: My name isn't Rob Anderson, I'm not Scottish, I do meditate now and then, nobody at Elan Vital knows who the fuck I am and the last & only time I spoke to Maharaji face-to-face was in a darshan-dream back in 1980. And the question might be and I know that I'm going to sound really stupid to ask this, but was Rob Anderson's Maharaji's Agya game not a hoax at all? Was there some truth in the entire episode? Consider just the fact that Rob Anderson put that warning out there that it was Maharaji's agya for premies not to hang out at the ex-premie forum. Regardless of whether it was totally false the seed would have been planted. If I was an agya-obeying premie I would take such under advisement.And consider at that time just how many stupid premies were on the forum saying the most stupid things that made Maharaji and his entire philosophy just look stupider than hell. Cerberus From: Mythography Cerberus was the guardian of the underworld, and a faithful servant of Hades (the god who ruled that gloomy realm). He was represented as a grotesque dog who had three heads (although the poet Hesiod claims that Cerberus had fifty heads - quite an extravagant number), all of which snarled at those foolish enough to attempt to leave the underworld; the dog also had the tail of a serpent. According to legend, Cerberus was the result of the union of Echidna and Typhon, two beings that are best described as somewhat monstrous themselves. Additionally, he was the brother to both the Hydra and the Chimera, which further emphasizes his monstrous aspect. Cerberus is featured in several mythological stories in his role as the watchdog of Hades. Perhaps the best known involves the vigorous hero Herakles (or Hercules, if you prefer the more familiar Latinized version or Roger eDrek™ if you prefer the Drekinized version). Herakles underwent a series of Twelve Labors, one of which was to capture the fierce canine guardian and parade him around the Greek city of Mycenae for a bit, and then return the dog to Hades. This unbelievable stunt was in due course accomplished by the hero, although one would imagine that Cerberus did not enjoy it in the least. Another tale depicts the poet and singer Orpheus charming Cerberus by the power of his song, which emphasizes Orpheus's magical gifts of enchantment (indeed, Cerberus was notorious for not allowing mortals who were still alive to enter the underworld, with the exception of a handful of mythological characters). And how! I bet Cerberus didn't like being paraded through the streets of Mycenae. Could hardly manage taking that damn bitch for a walk in hell, let alone Mycenae. That does explain a lot now. Guardian of the underworld faithfully serving. You can all call me stoopid and paranoid, but I would never ever put it past Maharaji to mess with us in an orchestrated fashion. Or at the very least, somebody has got a real mission - terminate with extreme prejudice! Or as innocent as someone just playing some grins. Again, for your consideration. Roger eDrek™: Did they say why, Cerby, why they want to terminate my command? Captain Robert A. Cerby: I was sent on a classified mission, sir. Roger eDrek™: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you? Captain Robert A. Cerby: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound. Roger eDrek™: Are my methods unsound? Captain Robert A. Cerby: I don't see any method at all, sir. Roger eDrek™: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? ...Are you an assassin? Captain Robert A. Cerby: I'm a soldier. Roger eDrek™: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:40:31 (GMT) From: Curly Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Just for the record... Message:

Hello All: I stopped posting on this forum for many reasons: Mostly because I've never been a premie, therefore, I am not an ex premie. I have been an aspirant and I was turned off by the whole process. One could call me an ex-aspirant. After a while, I felt like an intruder in this forum, in the sense that I had no real information to give, after I posted my experience as an aspirant. I felt my presence to be superflous. By the end of Forum III things were getting a bit ugly. I did not want to get involved in the uglyness. I am glad it's over. I have read posts in Forum IV ocassionally. A few days ago I popped in Forum V. I read the inactive index and saw that Jim wasn't around. I've always liked Jim and I wondered if something had happened. I posted on AG as 'Concerned' asking his whereabouts. Someone answered that he was just taking a break. I don't know who this Rob character is or why he said that I was a premie and you should beware of me. I really don't care, he was/is an asshole anyway. I just want to put on record that I am not a premie, and I've never posted under any other name except for the 'Concerned' post. Nice to see you all again, Curly P.S. Hi Marianne.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:31:57 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: MarianneDB@aol.com To: Curly Subject: CURLY!!!!! Message:

Curly!!! So nice to see you. Thanks for saying hello. I have often thought of you since you left. You were very kind to me in discussing personal things from our past. How are you doing? How was your new year's celebration? I know that you were just an aspirant. Rob was full of caca from beginning to end. Send me an email and tell me how you are. Confidentiality ensured. Your pal in Stoogehood, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:58:24 (GMT) From: Ms. K Email: None To: Curly Subject: Just for the record... Message:

Hi Curly - Thanks for posting. Just for the record, I'd like to say that 'dv' is not a premie either. He is an old friend of mine from before/during my premie days. Take care - Ms. K (Katie)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:49:30 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: I am the conspiracy... Message:

Roger, You're a weird guy but you might just have your teeth into some assoles arse. Hell, I don't know, but can I ask you something. How do you do about getting enemies on this site? Shit, I've challenged the former LOTU publicly on this site, I've written to Maharaji directly, I've complained about not being insulted here, and I've even got myself on the enjoyinglife.org site as a defector! I'VE HAD ONE INSULT THAT THE F**KING FORUM ADMIN DELETED BEFORE I HAD THE CHANCE TO READ IT! Now what do I need to do to get some enemies here? Shit, even Jim is cordial to me. John the feeling neglected.......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:21:28 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: JHB Subject: It's about accountability Message:

Joey responded: To answer your question JHB, about how to go about making enemies, I'll offer you this. Try spewing out the kind of informational bullshit that your friend Roger has, and refuse to be accountable...and that just might do it. Or do you even believe in accountability? Now I'm saying one of the key premises for Roger's magnus opus conspiracy theory is absolutely full of shit...that there is no pam by the name of Lynn J Margolis. Now Roger has been challenged. Do you believe he has an obligation to be accountable? Yes or no.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:13:27 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: JHB Subject: The Latvian Conspiracy Message:

Ok, JHB, from one weird guy to another, you've got a chance now that I've given you a toe-hold with the Latvian Conspiracy and we know for a fact that there is someone out there who has an intense dislike for you. Now, why do so many people hate me? Well, sing my theme song with me (see below) and you'll know a little more than you knew about me. And there might be some people who hate me because it is fashionable. And there might even be people who hate me and want others to hate me because it's profitable, if you know what I mean. For example, I make an ass out of myself from time to time and affect the credibility of the forum. And, yes, I've been paranoid since birth, but all of a sudden there's these 'new' indignant and, yet, still very reasonable voices on the forum telling us what a hate site it is or how it's affecting the credibility. And these new reasonable voices might encourage a known ex-premie to take the discussion further. Sure, I might be very mistaken here. But, seriously, think about some of the tactics you might want to employ in counter-intelligence and spin doctoring or whatever you want to call it. You bet that this is the stuff that they do. And I've got some really nice people giving me free mental health counseling telling me to take care of myself and all sorts of good stuff. Now, really, am I 100% paranoid or could it just be that somebody has the job of watching and monitoring this forum and they see a way, they see a crack, they see a weak spot and they start to poke at it, probe it? And if they're really smart they won't be very overt about it, rather they will just plant a tiny seed of doubt or make a suggestion that such and such is hurting the credibility of the forum or whatever. And you know, that's how nature works. Have you ever been to the mountains (hell, you can even see this in the concrete in the jungles of the cities) and huge boulders and a walls of granite get broken down starting from tiny cracks and fissures where rain and snowmelt seeps in and freezes, expands and contracts? And a seed gets planted and the tiny root will work it's way down into the crack to draw up moisture and nutrients. And the root grows slowly in diameter and eventually what was just a tiny seed has cracked the granite or concrete wide open. Very subtle, very slowly. Nevertheless, the job gets done and the mountain comes down. So, is Maharaji and/or Elan Vital behind all of this? Who knows? We do know that they are watching us. Make no mistake about that. Could Rob Anderson and others be part of a conspiracy coming from Malibu or Central Florida? Who knows? However, let's for grins say that might be the case. Well, what a sloppy and stupid operation, huh? Yeah, but what else would you expect from Maharaji and Elan Vital. All of their operations, schemes, Millenniums, whacking Pat Halley on the head, Jagdeo containment, and everything have all been just one big boob job after another and it all comes from the biggest boob of them all, Maharaji. What the fuck has ever changed with Guru Boobaraji? And, yes, I'm shameless, ego-centric and VERY paranoid, but you don't think that Boobaraji might not be taking a small and special interest in me? Hey, Booboo! I'll make you a deal. Give me one of your beautiful daughters with a nice pick-a-nic basket that contains an appropriate dowry and I'll recant everything. I'll be the back-to-the-fold example you really need. And I'll work the other side of this little game. JHB, it's completely up to you as to what you want to do with this precious gift that I've given you. Perhaps, you should start by showing a little gratitude and singing my theme song: My Theme Song I was born in a crossfire hurricane And I howled at my ma in the driving rain But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash, it's a gas! Gas! Gas! I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag I was schooled with a strap right across my back But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash, it's a gas! Gas! Gas! I was drowned I was washed up and left for dead I fell down to my feet and I saw they bled I frowned at the crumbs of a crust of bread I was crowned with a spike right through my head But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas But it's all right I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash, it's a gas! Gas! Gas!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:53:34 (GMT) From: Sony™ Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: its personal, deal with it Message:

Sure, cracking the mountain. Are you so hung up in 'we' and the common goal that it hasn't occurred to you that a few just can't stand ya like the old joke of the desperate praying man, and god says 'I don't know, there is just something about you that just pisses me off' also someone has to tell you no. She doesn't love you anymore

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:07:48 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Sony™ Subject: This is more about you, friend Message:

First, you are obviously a coward because you dare not use your real posting name. If you are an ex-premie it means that you are a coward because you don't wish to offend me and allow me to know with whom I'm having this excellent conversation. And you don't to want tarnish whatever name you've got in this community. God, I love the Internet. If you're a Yank you should know about the Declaration of Independence. Ok, who was the first to sign the DOI? And how did John Hanncock sign it? Yeah, that's right, with HIS name and as big as he could. And what are you doing here, my friend? Using another fake name. You're a coward either way you want to look at it. If you are a premie then it means you are doing your job and tapping the wedge into the crack to split the rock.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:42:58 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: By the way, I do know... Message:

that not eveyone likes me here. And you can bet that I don't like everyone here either. What of it? Is there some sacred rule that we need to all just get along? You know I was just thinking today that the Forum and all the little cliques and all the personalities reminds me of: High School! Stupid, fucking High School. Yes, you got your jocks, your nerds, your artsy types, the power mechanic types, the pre-meds and brains, the homecoming king and queen, the student council types, the outcasts, the dropouts, the drug addicts and the boozers, the sluts, the cheerleaders, the wrestling team, the football team, the speech club, the this and the that. Fuck, ya! Pep rally at 3:00 p.m. I hated High School. I would have dropped out, but instead I took summer school and I graduated a year early. Have never been to a reunion, but have thought of hiring a transvestite to go and pretend to be me. Best dream I ever had was me doing the Firesign Theater Eat it, Eat it raw scene and getting kicked out of the Pep Rally. Actually, I went to one Pep Rally and did the Eat It Raw thing, but didn't get kicked out. So, welcome to Ridgemont High, boys and girls. This is your High School and we all want to get along and appreciate and tolerate diversity. Hey, if you don't like me then do the simple thing: (Scroll down) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don't read my stuff! Like I got a gun to your head or something. Oh, that Roger, he's so disgusting! Jody told me the other day that she heard from Carla that Carla had heard from Wendy and Wendy heard from that retarded guy who hangs outside of the drug store that the soda jerk had heard from the milkman who had heard from the coal delievery guy who heard from the ice man who heard from the lamp lighter who heard from the ragman who heard from the trash scavengers who heard from the priests who heard from Jesus who heard from God himself who had it on good word from the Devil himself that Roger was caught smoking in the bathroom. Yeah, like I said back then, 'Fuck you!'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:27:40 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: Misinformation specialist! Message:

Well, I'll be the first to admit that the Wordsmith Communications might be a completely bogus connection since I confused 'wordsage' with 'wordsmith', but nevertheless it got me to the page with LJ Margolis, President-Elect. Now, whether this LJ Margolis is the Elan Vital PAM, Lynn Margolis I don't know either. However, I think that it is very likely as I do believe that Lynn Margolis lives in Florida as well. Just to set the record straight, what corporate documents have you been looking at, that have you so convinced that Lynn Margolis is an EV pam? OR, how else have you arrived at your conclusion? I'm saying right here and now you're full of shit. Now are you going to answer the question?!?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:41:00 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Joey Subject: Yes, I'll answer YOUR Question Message:

I'm saying right here and now you're full of shit. Now are you going to answer the question?!? Joey, I would not even think of not answering YOUR question. You have every right to ask me questions and you have every right to have a prompt response. Your answer is here, Joey.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:04:11 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: It comes down to this Rog Message:

As long as you refuse to be accountable for the pure unadulterated bullshit that you spew forth on these pages, your credibility goes down the toilet. Now here again is the question: Just to set the record straight, what corporate documents have you been looking at, that have you so convinced that Lynn Margolis is an EV pam? OR, how else have you arrived at your conclusion? Remember this. You can continue to play your superscilious twisted twitty games. Or you can be accountable. Your choice.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:13:58 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Joey Subject: And it gets up to where... Message:

Joey, I do not answer to you! You got that? I repeat, I do not answer to you. Great, now I've got two people watching me. P.S. My frieds are quietly working on the Margolis stuff. It's there. Maybe tomorrow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:28:39 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: And it gets up to where... Message:

Joey responded: It's not a matter of accountability to ME. Its a matter of accountability to Everyone who is participating on this forum. Funny you need more time. If what you're saying about Lynn J Margolis being a pam is true, you should be able to offer us the basis for your claim without great difficulty. Yet you need more time and your friends assistance. For what? To weave more bullshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:16:00 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Joey Subject: And hopefully it ends here Message:

Joey, I'm completely sick of your insanity. If you are not certifiably insane then I would suggest that you are suffering from methamphetamine psychosis. At my last job I worked with a meth freak. I was the first to spot the guy, streetwise as I am. Friendly and fine one moment, and the next, completely out of control raving and ranting and very paranoid. He tried to get me into a physical fight one afternoon. I am the fastest rabbit in the briar patch. Matcho (sic), I'm not. You and me are through, Joey. You're one sick puppy and everybody knows it. You're the one who's got the accounting to come up with here. Minutes ago, before you two posts to me here, I received a phone call from someone asking me what was going on with you here. Basically, this person suggested that I should not respond to you and I held back and took the took out the punch from my post with the Eye Spy GIF that I got in the email from Rob. Now, though, I don't give a rip, Joey. You are, once again, off to the races and you're back riding me. And that, Pal Joey, is just way fuuuucked up if you know what I mean. Speaking for everyone as I always do, they're all going to say that I prolonged this thing by responding, but I don't care who the asshole is, whether it's you or whether it's Maharaji. Yeah, my credibility is zip, so what? Only means, I ain't got nothing to lose. If anyone is a plant here, Joey, it would have to be you. You've done more to damage to what's going on here than I have any day! Maharaji loves you, Joey! This is exactly the stuff he wants to have happen here. Someone planting the seed of divisiveness, the seed of doubt, the seed of turmoil. You're playing into HIS hands perfectly, Joey. Joey, if you continue with your rant and be on my case then I'm going to pull up something from the archives that you can account for. Please, Joey, just back off and wait like everyone else here for the skinny on Margolis when I've got it ready. In the meantime, just shut the fuck up! Maybe 10 minutes in the Anything Goes Penalty Box or, worse, the Recent-Ex Forum for some heavy recipe exchanges.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:45:00 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: And hopefully it ends here Message:

Joey responded: I've asked you to be accountable and all you can respond with are your intimidating posts complete with bullshit innuendo, which really serve to warn off ANYONE who may take issue with you, now or in the future. Again, if you had any conclusive evidence that Lynn J Margolis was a pam, you wouldn't need time to post it. You could just do it. So I'll await the tale that I suspect you'll be spinning for us. And furthermore, if there's anything in the archives that you want me to be accountable for, I'll be glad to respond. However, forum readers should note that the archives for Forum 4 are in your House Of Drek, and there's really no guarantee that what you'll bring up hasn't been doctored by yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:53:52 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Joey Subject: Tell you what Joey... Message:

Joey, I'm going to wait until tomorrow or the next day for your accountability exam. Let you bone up for it. I just hate pop quizes, myself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:57:46 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: Tell you what Joey... Message:

Joey responded: No problem pal, whenever you're ready.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:21:28 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Joey Subject: A small olive branch here Message:

I'm working on something here that one of my 'friends' emailed me that is acting as a tickler. So, I'm out on the Net doing a search and I'm looking through boatloads of information trying to find the needle in haystack. I've spent countless hours scouring the net on this stuff, Joey. I've got fragments of factoids in my head that I do not always have the ability to pull together on demand. For example, I'll find some names in the corporate documents and search the net with that name and get back, let's say, 300 hits and I've got to guess which ones I'm going to look at. And even then I may have been on a real page, but I won't know it. Yet, it's there in my brain that I've seen such and such about such and such. And to make it that much more difficult pages change and pages go away. A search engine will give me pages that no longer exist, but I end up wasting my time looking at them. This is an inexact science at best, Joey. And I've got too much shit in my head and I really don't need the additional grief. And it's pretty clear that I asked for help if you will look at the threads where I asked if anyone can help me with Lynn Margolis. And since then I gotten some emails and a phone call was returned and I know that Lynn Margolis was a somebody in the organization. I don't know if Lynn Margolis is LJ Margolis, President-Elect of the PRSA of Palm Beach Country. Maybe I can find that one out, maybe I can't. You think that if I was to call Lynn Margolis, which I did, that she would even tell me? Lynn Margolis was a somebody, maybe not a full blown PAM, but she was and probably still is a somebody in the organization. Tidbit: she was an assistant or something to Dennis Marciniak (sp?). I would appreciate if you were to work with me rather than against me. I love doing this kind of stuff and don't mind the effort, but I sure get sick of the grief.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:51:10 (GMT) From: Sony™ Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: WOW! ****BEST**** Message:

What Powerman said

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:56:14 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Sony™ Subject: Thanks, Rob! Message:

Thanks, Rob, I mean, Cerby. You were THE One to start linking other posts in your posts, I believe. Looks like somebody has a webpage. They might have paid for its development or it might be homebrewed. Somatic Solutions, Inc. NAME : SOMATIC SOLUTIONS, INC. PRINCIPAL: 341 N MAITLAND AVE. CHANGED: 05/23/97 ADDRESS #285 MAITLAND, FL 32751 US RA NAME : ROBINS, MICHAEL RA ADDR : 341 N MAITLAND AVE. #285 MAITLAND, FL 32751 ANN REP : (1997) BN 05/23/97 (1998) B 05/04/98 (1999) A 04/29/99 TITLE: P NAME: ROBINS, ANDREA 341 N MAITLAND AVE., #285 MAITLAND, FL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:18:25 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: What was M's Health Company? Message:

Anybody remember the name of the new age health company that Maharaji had a piece of?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:47:36 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Nigel and everyone Subject: response from inactive thread Message:

Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 22:23:56 From: Nigel Response to inactive thread below (blimey, busy days on the ol' forum, what?) Nigel, I'm asking myself whether I was 'having a pop' at what I read into your post, rather than what you actually said. Your 'all the wisdom I am likely to need' comment did touch a nerve though, - I took it as meaning that you thought you had nothing left to learn from life, hence my 'bit strong' jibe. We could go for a bit of the old verbal 'Liverpool kisses' on this, though I don't really know you well enough. One day, perhaps. What I was trying to get over goes something like this: When someone's personal belief-system is challenged, it can be mistaken as a personal attack, or at least a negation of what they hold dear. No doubt many (recent) premies will be coming to this forum in a pretty fragile state of mind, especially when they have begun that ... daunting (?) process of seriously re-evaluating their beliefs about who they are, about who they can trust, and about whose ideas they should keep well clear of. I had a dose of an M video about a year ago, (after twenty-odd years' abstinence) and there's no doubt in my mind - the guy uses hypnosis. Anyone currently indoctrinated with his spiel is partially hypnotised, programmed, conditioned, or whatever the current phrase is. That fragile, pre-ex state, is pretty vulnerable, and I guess I intuited Lily as being close to it. (Forgive my projecting, if that's what it was). Though I don't agree with everything she says, she was brave enough to jump in and post here on front line 'enemy territory' (if indeed she still is a 'premie' - and sorry about the labeling). Makes me wonder whether some of us exes have taken the easy option of simply attacking other peoples' beliefs, as opposed to guiding them through the minefield of what easily could become an 'us versus them' war zone. There was a link I found about a week or two ago likening cult de-programming to the grieving process, (will have to check the archives) and though I am certainly not denying the right of anyone to give vent towhatever emotions they feel like expressing on this forum, I guess what I'm trying to say simply boils down to this - have a heart, exes, - we were starry-eyed 'bliss-babies' too, once. Bursting the bubble of delusion is not a job for sadists, though I can see how some might be attracted to it - and wasn't there always at least one sadist in every ashram? (Not that I'm accusing you of this Nigel, far from it. Honest!) But to your question: do I 'think Lily's argument is a licence for gurus to do anything they like?' Here goes nuthin' If people allow themselves to be walked all over, (as we did when we were premies), then that says as much about the underdog as the one doing the walking, yes? IMLTHO (in my less than humble opinion) NEITHER should be absolved of their own personal responsibility or accountability. Most people (so-called 'masters'/gurus included) would like to do anything they want , but for that to happen, it requires other people to be willing to let them get away with it. If Lily still wants to help M get away with it, then I think she should come clean and say so. Maybe she will. Perhaps she's still undecided. Who knows? 'til later, Nigel, Cheers Chris

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 13:01:51 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: cqg Subject: response to response... Message:

Hi Chris, I missed reading this one at first - and then my computer network went down and kept me offline. Thanks for the response. I actually tend to agree with with more-or-less everything you have written - at least up to a point - though I would like to add a couple of things. Firstly, when Lily jumped in on the exchanges I was having with Mike, it was the first of her posts I had read. I didn't really know what was her status with regard to being a premie, waverer, recent ex, ex etc., but her post read very much like a premie post and I replied in much the same way I tend to when talking to premies on the forum. (Also, her tone certainly didn't seem timid. If I had thought she was in any way vulnerable I would probably have replied differently.) It may be that, as you seem to imply, we should always give new visitors the benefit of the doubt before expressing ourselves too assertively. But I also think there is a danger of giving too much leeway - especially since so many (most?) of the premie posts that appear show little desire to really engage in discussions, and are more interested in attacking the forum itself or generally causing disruption. And then, of course, many of the 'new' posters are no more than the same handful of regular premie posters taking on new aliases (JB and 'evergreen' look like recent examples of old cultists with new handles). And then there other other apparent waverers like 'Rob' who ended up giving everyone the runaround after having been overly indulged by many. I am not sure exactly what 'attacking' a person's beliefs really means. I prefer to think of myself and others as 'challenging' or 'questioning' them (and then I have no real interest in challenging anything other than defences of Maharaji and the cult). As JW has said, it probably serves a very useful purpose to do that - even with the disruptive premies - since so many non-posting premies also read the site and we know from experience that a good few have now quit the movement because of the arguments and evidence they have read on ex-premie.org and on the forum. I do try to be civil - even to premies - and I think I succeed (most of the time!) - but I don't lose sleep over any comments I might have phrased a bit more courteously for the simple reason that this is an ex-premie forum. Unless a person sees themself as an ex, then they already know that this isn't really the place for them but if they want to join in, they may do so - but surely know what to expect. (Especially so, now that there is a recent-exes forum which is probably the best place for premies taking those first tentative steps out of the cult.) I agree with your later comments about the student/ underdog/ devotee needing to share some of the responsibility for allowing the master get away with everything he gets away with - but only to the extent that the victim of a confidence trickster shares the responsibility for allowing themselves to be duped. Ultimate culpability must surely lie with the master - especially when the master in question has so blatantly misrepresented himself in the past. If I had just signed up for a course of meditation lessons and received everything that was promised and no less, I might find the experience disappointing, but would feel no sense of betrayal, provided everything had been upfront and the teacher in question made no extravagent claims about their role or their 'powers'. Anyway, thanks again for the post, Chris. (It is the 'Rock Ferry kiss' that one has to worry about! :-) All best, Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 18:47:31 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Nigel Subject: ...to response Message:

Thanks for getting back, Nigel 'Blatant misrepresentation' - yup, that sums it up very nicely. And to think that some people are only just starting that journey away from the Maha ... after many, many years (- check out Sir Dave's 'ex-premies only' site to say hello to a recent refugee). I recently came across this site which I can really highly recommend for an overview of the issues of detatching oneself from a cult. It's long, but worth a printout, I think. Cheers, Chris (BTW, when I lived in Scotland, it was the Glaswegian screwdrivers you had to watch out for!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:22:51 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: cqg Subject: Great post, CGQ! w/ highlights Message:

I really appreciate your post and consider it as touching on some very important points. I want to highlight a few parts of your post as it's long and people are bound to skip over it and miss some good stuff. You've touched on issues of abuse, exiting as a grieving process, and personal accoutability (a topic not seen much). 'When someone's personal belief-system is challenged, it can be mistaken as a personal attack... No doubt many (recent) premies will be coming to this forum in a pretty fragile state of mind' 'Makes me wonder whether some of us exes have taken the easy option of simply attacking other peoples' beliefs, as opposed to guiding them through the minefield of what easily could become an 'us versus them' war zone.' There was a link I found about a week or two ago likening cult de-programming to the grieving process... ...we were starry-eyed 'bliss-babies' too, once. Bursting the bubble of delusion is not a job for sadists, though I can see how some might be attracted to it - and wasn't there always at least one sadist in every ashram?' 'If people allow themselves to be walked all over, (as we did when we were premies), then that says as much about the underdog as the one doing the walking, yes?' 'Most people (so-called 'masters'/gurus included) would like to do anything they want , but for that to happen, it requires other people to be willing to let them get away with it.' Are you the same person who posts as Christopher? Thank you for your post.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:58:21 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Great post, CGQ! w/ highlights Message:

Gratis, Run Link re. grieving process mentioned at start of this thread is here P.S. make that cQg, (NOT CGQ - verify and confirm that I am no way part of GCHQ - as in the UK government spy station, - but who was suggesting i was? - certainly not Dr Spooner, - and how much fun can you have with that?) Juicy HQ??? and yus, I am the same Christopher/Dr Octopus as before, - 'handle'-change with permission of 'Lord Gnome' (see archives below), a.k.a. to some as 'Coach'. [Sorry to have to outed you, Gnome, my Lord, but I consider that a privelige, even if I can't spell it]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:29:45 (GMT) From: Bombs Away Email: pissoff.com To: Runamok Subject: Fuck you Bungamok Message:

Yer such a dickhead. You are the instigator of a lot of 'fights.' You are a major flamer (although a crappy one.) You love dissention and discord. You are the biggest hypocrite I've ever come across.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:53:36 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Bombs Away Subject: Happy Birthday, Bombs Away!!!! Message:

What are you pushing 50?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:59:10 (GMT) From: selene Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Happy Birthday, Bombs Away!!!! Message:

I thought he was a Gemini Ger aren't you a Gemini?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:10:18 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: selene Subject: Yes, dear, I am a gemini... Message:

but who's this 'Bombs Away' fellow? He seems to have taken quite a disliking to this 'runamok' fellow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:34:42 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: gerry Subject: Pushing 50 are you Ger? Message:

Yes, funny how closely his use of semantics and rhetoric corresopnds to your own, Herr Ger.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:49:23 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Pushing 50 are you Ger? Message:

But I wish you and Gerry could be friends. God can you tell I had a nice day at work? It's cause I worked from home!! those damned geeks are winning. I am giving up my office I swear they made up the remodeling story. They are never leaving. I am doomed to work at home. Oh wait. that's a good thing. oh wait. 'THEY: are reading this. yikes. M you got me now. what did you call it Roger? SSI? does it come with bennies? no no not that kind!!! Anyway who did you mean Run? Gerry's b day isn't til spring.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 00:17:04 (GMT) From: look younger than ... Email: None To: I am but... still selene Subject: Pushing 50 are you Ger? Message:

but not for long I 'm thinkin we are all more or less pushing the big 5 zero give or take whatever Should I post a 'Dark Valentine' to prove the point do you think Run? nah I don't need any more fan mail. If that is what it's called these days. I say after 45 does it really matter? That is when I decided to decide it didn't. or it did really matter. oh well whatever nevermind. yikes I'm reciting Nirvana lyrics like Roger now. Hey I liked them first Roger! No not you are the eternal boy. Even our little boy guru is what? now? let's see last b'day I attended was Long beach 97 and he was 40 so can I do the math after a day of computing? 43???? or was 98 the big 40 which would make him 44?? yeah... he was always a 'few' years younger than I. or me. whatever. nevermind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:31:37 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: look younger than ... Subject: Did someone say NIRVANA? Message:

Hope I die before I get old! Talking 'bout my g-g-g-g-generation! Just like Curly came instantly back to the Forum when his ears starting burning red, and I am my own parasite, I don't need a host to live. From A decent Nirvana page: nir.va.na \ni(*)r-'va:n-*, n*r-\ n [Skt nirva-nsub-dot>a, lit., act of extinguishing, fr. nis-] often cap out + va-ti it blows - more at WIND 1: the final beatitude that transcends suffering, karma, and samsara and is sought esp. in Buddhism through the extinction of desire and individual consciousness 2: a place or state of oblivion to care, pain, or external reality Hey, check this out! The Nirvana webpage says this about the song Sifting: Sifting - seems to take on authority figures Wonder if our own Sifting/Shifting is using that? I don't know what the Nirvana songs are about. For a good picture of the boys, check this out. Kurt, you were my kind of guy! Why did you have to do it? I haven't been the same since Tuesday of April 5, 1994. Oh, shit, that's like 6 years ago. Damn, where has all the heroin gone? And I was looking at the Concert Chronology page and pissed off that I only saw them twice.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:59:12 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Roger eDrek™ Subject: Did someone say NIRVANA? Message:

Thanks! Still like Coutney's spirit though. i sure hope you were not taking a pot shot at our shirting. she is true blue I can vouch for her. do you think she had a part in his death? come on please tell me!! you obviously like conspiracies. Did you see the aborted PBS wannabe video Kurt and Courtney? do you think she had any part in his suicide? do you think it was a murder?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:12:59 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: look younger than ... Subject: How come your posts look like Message:

they come from an elementary-schooler? Selene, do you see the point now? 'Bombs away Bungamok'? Is this the post of a middle-aged man?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:53:04 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Runamok Subject: How come your posts look like Message:

I don't know anything. I think I'm dumb/

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 02:03:45 (GMT) From: ps Runamok Email: None To: Selene Subject: I think I'm dumb is a Nirvana Message:

Song from their In Utero CD. I wasn't puttin my self down yet again. whew. this on line communicaiton gets harder and more complex the more I do it. .......gettin tired........selene

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:53:34 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: gerry Subject: Yes, dear, I am a gemini... Message:

I'm supposed to be working now, but I *always* have time for you sweetie. I don't know but as the song goes 'He's a Lot Like You' or he reminded me of you. Could be I was just missing you. I didn't think you were an Aquarius, not aloof enough for that. oops I'm sounding new age. And they were just starting to stop snapping at me. I'll never learn. Must be I like it a little.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:39:24 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Bombs Away Subject: Damn those torpedoes!! Message:

You've entered this thread where Run has responded to a really excellent post by cgq. Do you think your kamikaze attack on Run adds to the discussion? OR, maybe you just don't care, because your hatred of Run is such, it supercedes your desire to make a meaningful contribution to this page? I think you're going a bit too far.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:34:00 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Joey Subject: Yer really one to talk, Joey Message:

gerry responded: You've done the same, no ten times worse, to Roger. If you don't understand that, that you're not only fucking crazy, you're stupid as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 20:17:15 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: gerry Subject: Yer really one to talk, Joey Message:

sigh. Joey isn't crazy or stupid. Did he say he didn't understand what you wrote? He isn't even here! OK time to go to work. Go pick on Miragey Gerry. Read that link G posted at the top of the page. Look at both links. But not if you just ate lunch!! bye sweetie!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 18:42:54 (GMT) From: TiM Email: None Yet To: Everyone Subject: eDrek has no right! Message:

What right has eDrek to align his name so closely with TM? Maharishi transcended dental medication years ago without Roger's help. What right has 'eDrek' to be writ so large and 'TM' so small? Smite eDrek for his insolence, oh SatGuru! Bash him! Smash eDrek into duhWreck.! Lay Roger - low! BohleSkreeSodGuguDoveMyHashishHooRay!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:00:24 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: TiM Subject: No end of attacks on name Message:

Subject Should Be: No end of the attacks on my good name Roger eDrek™

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:52:50 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Everyone Subject: Febrary is the cruelest month Message:

The forum gagged on the date today. There are 51 broken posts due to my spelling error. I'll fix em as soon as I can. FebrUary FebrUary FebrUary

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:54:32 (GMT) From: Small voice Email: None To: Brian Subject: Febrary is the cruelest month Message:

Er, Brian, if it's at all possible could you please lengthen the subject field so we can put longer subjects in. Thanks awfully.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:22:28 (GMT) From: Brian Email: None To: Small voice Subject: Febrary is the cruelest month Message:

I've got some changes that I've been debugging. That's in there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:21:09 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Brian Subject: Feboowary in poetry Message:

Brian, Everyone knows it is spelled Feboowary.That's how kids pronounce it. And actually AUGUST in DC is worse than February. I will take Feboorary over August here any day. Even though right about now February sucks too. I am such a font of wisdom tonight! WHo wrote that line about February being the cruelest month? Was it Emily Dickenson or W.H. Auden? The font of wisdom, Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:05:56 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Helen Subject: April is the cruelest month Message:

April is the cruelest month bringing forth.... can't remember the next bit but something like 'new life from dead shoots...' The Waste Land by Thomas Stearns Elliot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:16:29 (GMT) From: Ms. K Email: None To: JHB Subject: April is the cruelest month Message:

Thank you, John! Here's the quote: April is the cruelest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain. -T.S. Eliot, (as John said.) take care, Ms. K (who is SHOCKED by Helen's ignorance of poetry - snicker! You need an good anthology, girl!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 14:50:02 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Ms. K Subject: Ms. smarty pants K Message:

I can quote some lines from the 'Lovesong of J Edgar Prufrock' by T.S. Eliot.(I think that was the name of the poem and I think these are a close approximation of the lines) Will that redeem me? 'We have lingered in the chambers of the sea, By seagirls wreathed in seaweed green and brown, Til human voices wake us and we drown.' Also I do know that The Wasteland was the basis of some of the imagry in Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby. Helen, trying to remember what I learned in graduate school but sadly lacking & who now aspires to be a romance novelist (hey a person has to start somewhere)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 04:47:50 (GMT) From: Ms. K Email: None To: Helen Subject: Ms. smarty Helen :) Message:

Hi Helen! You're redeemed. I am particularly fond of T.S. Eliot, so probably think his poems should be known by ALL (hey, the guy who STARTED this thread had no idea where the quote came from!). I love 'Prufrock' - bet ya can't sing that one to the tune of 'Yellow Rose from Texas' :). Take care, girlfriend, Ms.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 17:12:05 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Ms. K Subject: Lit. talk with Katie Message:

My memory is so awful. I admire people who can remember all these details, that's why I was a horrid extemporaneous speaker when I taught high school, I always had to refer to my notes. Wish I could blame M for my memory problem, but I can't, and I also know it's not a low thyroid, must be just the way I am. Yet I can remember perfectly useless details, like the dress my friend wore 10 years ago at her wedding. I love Prufrock, too. I had this fabulous teacher in high school who taught it to us, and I really didn't understand it, except the depressing ennui tone was something all us high school kids could relate to. I love what Ms. Emily said about how you know it's a poem: when you feel like the top of your head has lifted off (or something like that). I guess that's the power of metaphor and other figurative language. We are reading Tale of Two Cities for book club. It's written on an epic scale so doesn't have the quirky detail that I love so much about Dicken's other works. One of my professors said he inhabits a 'thoroughly nervous universe.' Okay back to my own boring writing about nannies--and the employers who exploit them--yuck! Love Ms. H

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:10:53 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Small voice Subject: 'owd yoo doo dat? (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:02:14 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Brian Subject: Must be the Minnelium Hug (nt) Message:

Okay, I lied about the (nt)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:40:33 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: AJW Subject: You mean the Billennium mug?nt Message:

cqg responded: nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:45:19 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: cqg Subject: Billandhismumhug (nt) Message:

Bill and his mum hug.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:52:59 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: AJW Subject: An'and a mam'? Ug (nt) (tit) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:05:49 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: cqg & observers Subject: An'and a mam'? Ug (nt) (tit) Message:

This link (obscurum per obskewerass or something) just goes to show what strange stuff can be found on the net ... and what worse time to find it ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:29:22 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: cqg Subject: An'and a mam'? Ug (nt) (tit) Message:

Dear Chris, You certainly find the oddest web sites! Didn't you give the URL to that one called, taking the piss? Well since I am here I just HAVE to ask what (tit) is other then slang for breasts, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 14:47:48 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Robyn Subject: A tit is ... Message:

Hi Robyn. What, you ask, is a tit? (apart from a breast). The British use the word to describe someone who is, as they say, being a 'bit of a plonker' None the wiser? er, being a 'dickhead' , yes? ... an arse? ... talking 'bollocks'? ... 'fannying about'? And that's just for starters. More fun than this (already?) is cockney rhyming slang. That'll fox yer. Enjoy. [BTW, that little pink number of Anth's - should I bring a camera?]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:00:18 (GMT) From: Robyn Email: None To: cqg Subject: A tit is ... Message:

Dear Chris, You are the king of URL! :) Never heard that 'fannying about'. You have some funny expressions over there. :) Those Assies do too. I love to read them. When I see a cut or something like that it makes my tail bone and spine tingle and I call it shimmy lizards. I don't know where it came from but people seem to not have ever heard it before and like it. Love, Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:40:11 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Everyone Subject: Run? Message:

I twise tried to post the following to Run in the thread below but it didn't seem to take: Run, Do you think meditating on the techniques of 'Knowledge' puts you in touch with a higher consciousness?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:06:13 (GMT) From: Harry Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Run? Message:

>>>>>>Do you think meditating on the techniques of 'Knowledge' puts you in touch with a higher consciousness?<<<, 'Higher Consciousness' is just about one of those throw away lines these days. What's your definition of it, and depending on your definition, do YOU think meditation can get you there?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:58:34 (GMT) From: Richard Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Run? Message:

Higher Conciousness? No. Powers? Yes. Mental telepathy, psychokinesis, and other stuff. But higher conciousness? No. With all the 'stuff' I developed via Rawat's partial Radhasoami yoga, I was still the most low conciousness destructive little bastard in the world. Worse than eDreck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:58:35 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Richard Subject: Thanks, Dick! Message:

What Sony™ said

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:42:48 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Run? Message:

Hi Jim, Hope you don't mind me butting in here, but my immediate response to your question is, 'It depends if anyone comes and sits on your head before you open your eyes.' Reminds me of a night back in the satsang room of the Education Ashram, in 74. There was this big blond housemother called Jan, everyone else had gone to bed... ...but that's another story. Anth the Interuption

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:15:08 (GMT) From: oshlabaka Email: jdonohue@cs.com To: Everyone Subject: Current Premie asks Message:

I'm not going to fool with you on this for very long, but what about the Knowledge? I have left and came back many times. When I left I completely forgot about the knowledge, about Darshan. It's like I never had it. I remeber Kansas City 1980 right after I rcvd K. I know I wasn't Hyped up or anything but the feeling was profoundly real.Try doing Word for a little while before responding to this thread.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:17:12 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: oshlabaka Subject: 'Knowledge' huh! Message:

Hi Oshlabaka, Premies say, 'Knowledge is an experience of the life force within'. This is a belief. When you sit down and poke your eyes or whatever, sure you have an experience. You're alive. Everything you do is an experience. Picking your nose is also an indescribable experience. The thing is, as a premie, you are conditioned to believe that the patterns you see when you press your eyeballs, the noises you hear when you block your ears, concentrating on your breath, and shoving your tongue back, are all somehow experiences of perfection. If someone who hasn't been conditioned with this belief does a technique and sees patterns for example, that person has no reason whatsoever to believe that the patterns are a direct experience of the life force. When I received knowledge I was told I would experience 'God within'. Well I didn't. I just believed I did- or believed I wasn't trying hard enough. Sure God may be within. But one thing's for sure oshlabaka, he sure doesn't taste like snot. Anth the Caster Away of Beliefs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:06:16 (GMT) From: Candy Email: None To: AJW Subject: 'Knowledge' huh! Message:

Should really be signed... Anth the Doesn't Know what a Colossal Boob he Sounds Like Despite his Obvious Intelligence to Anyone who has Actually Tasted and Felt Knowledge and has a Decent Memory. *see below or Anth the Clearly Proud of his Obvious Ignorance on the Subject, thus Rendering all the Rest of his Postulations, However Witty they may Be, Meaningless and Impotent. Which do you prefer? * Though memory can be quite deceptive as well. Especially when it's clouded with layers of gossip, doubt and built-up charges. Even at the best of times, it may be difficult to accurately recall the taste of a dish you loved at a restaurant you haven't eaten at recently, as mundane and seemingly easy that may appear. Let alone remembering strong and profound feelings and why you had them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:39:45 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Candy Subject: Keep sucking the snot sister. Message:

...cos that's all it is. (and you thought you'd never end up in a mindless cult right)? Anth the Been there and Done It.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:56:42 (GMT) From: I. Dunno Email: None To: Candy Subject: Anth's Cognition! Too Funny! Message:

Dear Candy, Too funny! I hope Anth has a good laugh or maybe he'll have a giant cognition about himself. Love, I. Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:49:20 (GMT) From: I Dunno Email: None To: Candy Subject: What's going on? Message:

Where have all these highly intelligent people sprung from all of a sudden? I'm finding reading tonight reeaaaally interesting. Please keep it up! Thanks Nigel & Candy (not a v. sophisticated name for such a brain) Love, I. Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:27:38 (GMT) From: reader Email: None To: AJW Subject: 'Knowledge' huh! Message:

You're so crude.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:43:27 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: reader Subject: It's me upbringing Message:

reader, it's me upbringing. I'm descending from the animals and haven't finished evolving yet. I went up an evolutionary deadend for a while and became involved in a cult, but I'm out now, so should be back on the road to oblivion. anth the homo sapien sapien.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:38:08 (GMT) From: I. Dunno Email: None To: A.J.W. Subject: Sinus trouble, Huh! Message:

Dear A.J., I have to agree with your ethics when you are trying to bring justice and not taking any coverups. Also when you are investigating M's finances. (I don't really want to be paying for Dya's horses when my kid would really like a horse.) But when you invalidate knowledge just to the tecniques then I have to disagree. The tecniques are nothing but vehicles to experience as you put it 'the life force within'. This is not a belief or blind faith - it's an experience that I have an inkling you must have experienced by concentrating your mind at some time or another, especially after your searching in India, etc. Initiates these days are told NOT to push their eye-balls but to put very light pressure on the point below the eyebrows and either side of the bridge of the nose. The light appears regardless of the 'doughnut'produced by pushing the eye-balls, although I must admit the light is brighter in a bright room and almost non-existent in a dark room. (It really doesn't matter) As for 'drinking snot' I can only assume you must have had a sinus infection. I must admit the concentration of the mind can be reached without the 'snot' tecnique. (4th Tecnique) As for the second and third - you can't really find fault with breathing or 'listening to the silence within. These days initiates are told by m 'to press lightly to close the ears.' I just like to state the facts as I experience them. Peace man, I. Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:53:44 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: reader Subject: 'Knowledge' huh! Message:

JHB responded: Crude maybe, but a valid point of view. What do you have to offer? Your silence would indicate you have nothing to offer. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 18:33:25 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: oshlabaka Subject: Current Premie asks Message:

Read Brian's post. I think the meditation techniques that are taught by the guru may indeed bring a profound experience to many people. But what does that prove? It really does not prove, at all, that the guru is good, a good person, or divine. All it proves is he teaches those techniques. A lot of other people teach them. Some like his brother, teach them and also teach that because you learn them from him he is somehow divine. Others teach them and do not try to take credit for what an individual feels when they do them. If I were to show you something beautiful and wonderful about yourself, what would it prove to you about me? Really, all I did was show you something about you. Have you seen the Wizard of Oz? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain is Rawat's rallying cry. You already had the courage, the brains, and the heart...like the wizard, Rawat showed you something about yourself that was there all along. Like the wizard, he was not the only one who could have done it. But the wizard, when the curtain was pulled, set the Lion, the Straw man, and the tin man free. He let Dorothy go home too. Rawat instead pretends the curtain is still there, and so do many premies, pretending that curtain is still drawn. He takes credit for your experience, and you believe him. The rest of us, we learned to snap our Ruby slippers, went back to Kansas, and are living our lives in the real world. We still have what we learned in Oz, but we know the wizard is just a guy who doesn't have the courage himself to face what he is. Home may be a little scarier than Oz, and it certainly is more real, but there is no place like it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 15:47:51 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: oshlabaka Subject: Current Premie asks Message:

I agree with Mel when he responded to the effect that you can't debate personal experience. It's pointless to argue whether meditating 'works' or not, unless you've clearly defined what 'working' is supposed to mean. I had my most profound experience one night in satsang before I received Knowledge. I was pretty sure that I had just 'received' it, and almost passed up going to a Knowledge session as a result. Regardless of how anyone feels about Maharaji, I believe that they have to come to a separate judgement about meditation and what they've experienced as a result of practicing it. I can lie to you about everything in the world, and then tell you one thing that is true. If you find out about the lies, is the true statement any less true? But if I told you one thing that's true, am I any less a liar? I got involved with Maharaji because I wanted to know who I am. Satsang seemed to be addressing that issue, and held the promise that if I received Knowledge my questions would evaporate in the face of my experience. But from the time that I accepted the premise and returned to satsang on a nightly basis, the emphasis and goal of my personal 'quest' was slowly being turned from 'Who Am I' to 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji'. That's a problem that a lot of people face when trying to evaluate Maharaji separately from their own meditation experience when years of conditioning have taught them to equate the two. Whether I experienced GOD in that satsang hall, or whether I experienced ME in there, the fact is that I didn't experience MAHARAJI. Maybe Rawat has had that same experience at sometime in his life. He can then say that he and I have both had it. But he would be a TOTAL FOOL to say that he now knows for a fact that Brian is the source of his experience, don't you agree? Should he spend his life devoted to me if I were the person who he heard about it from, or the person who showed him some meditation techniques? He IS a total fool for pretending that his father was the source of his experience, and that he is the source of YOUR experience. Maharaji takes advantage of people's willingness (or even NEED) to attribute that sort of intangible experience to something or someone tangible. He does this by first taking credit for the experience himself, and secondly by extracting a promise from people that they will not reveal the techniques to others. He has also added yet another level of insurance that he receive any undue credit by insisting that premies not even give satsang to anyone anymore!! If you never put yourself in his shoes by describing the experience that people can have and by revealing valuable or useless meditation techniques them, then you have ZERO opportunity to discover on your own that you could also extract full credit from your 'devotees' for what they experience as a result of meditating. You would be a fraud if you were to do that, of course. His brother, Satpal, knows that Maharaji is nothing special. Satpal reveals these techniques and also claims to the source of people's experience as a result of using them. Like his brother Satpal, Maharaji is a fraud. Maharaji doesn't talk about God. Maharaji talks about Maharaji. In his goofy thinking, they are one and the same, and in a way that excludes mere mortals like you and me. Premies continue to empower his delusions by not questioning them, by accepting them blindly as an explanataion for their own meditation experiences, by keeping their promises to not find out differently, and by catering to his divine fantasies as they line up to kiss his feet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 07:15:30 (GMT) From: Oshlabaka Email: jdonohue41@cs.com To: Brian Subject: Current Premie asks Message:

Regarding Why Premes Dont give Satsang anymore...... The vast Consensus of Premies are vegitarian--Right? Maharaji Never insisted they be vegitarian. The vast consensus of premies do not smoke cigarettes Maharaji never insisted on premie's being smoke free. Maharaj ji insisted on avoiding drugs. Most premes were (way back when) Pot heads! Maharaj ji insisted Knowledge never to be a wedge in Marrage Familys broke up because of Knowledge. Maharaj ji insisted (and I had the oportunity to ask him myself) that religion, even Christianity was not a conflict with Knowledge...'no buts about it.' Premies considered the church their enemy. I like my Steak and I smoke Like a chimney. I Love My Jesus. I Love My Family, I Love My God. I never had a problem with Maharaj ji. I was all but ostracized by Premies. And You Wonder Why Premies Dont Give Satsang anymore??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 15:16:09 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Oshlabaka Subject: Current Premie asks Message:

I never had a problem with Maharaj ji. I was all but ostracized by Premies It's pretty amazing how premies mangaged to wrestle the wheel away from the 'Perfect Driver'. Nothing is ever his fault, because he never has the balls to be direct with any but the top of the chain of command. You can absolve him of all responsibility. After all, he never takes any. Why should you hold him accountable for what his 'generals' do in his name? Right... That you once had Maharaji answer a real question, and that you accepted his polically correct answer as being his actual policy speaks more about your personal gullibility than about Maharaji's opinions. His position has ALWAYS been that premies serve his needs - not the other way around. And that premies should feel gratitude to HIM - not the other way around. Believe what you want to believe. It keeps you a 'Current Premie'. You know - one of those horrible people who are always misunderstand the Lord's Will.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:27:26 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Brian Subject: Zero opportunity Message:

Great post Brian. So clearly written, makes SO make sense. Loved the phrase 'zero opportunity' in reference to M and knowledge. Especially when that word 'opportunity' was always used in premie land as a euphenism for giving dough or free labor. Nice to see it used in a real sentence for once!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 22:05:12 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Brian Subject: ^^^^Read Brian's Post^^^^ Nt Message:

^^^^Read Brian's Post^^^^

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:56:03 (GMT) From: I dunno Email: None To: Brian Subject: Brian's for ''BEST OF FORUM' Message:

Excellent post, Brian. I. Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:42:48 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Brian Subject: excellent post Brian! Nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:04:53 (GMT) From: Mike Email: None To: Oshlabaka Subject: Well said, Brian Message:

Osh: Your post has a bit of a 'slip' in it to wit, '...felt like I never HAD it.' You are attributing your experience to M in that statement; like 'it' was something 'he' gives you. That's absolute crap; if there really is anything 'in there,' YOU HAVE IT, already! He didn't give you anything, PERIOD! Some old meditation techniques are all that is passed from M, PERIOD! Talk to any ex who still meditates and they will tell you that their 'experience' has improved since dumping the 'devotion to M' thing. Absolutely NONE will tell you that their experiences became non-existent or lessened in any way, whatsoever. That's kind of strange, no? You WILL hear them (those that still meditate) saying that M is a fraud, you will hear them saying that M gives you nothing but some old techniques, but you will NOT hear them say that meditation stopped working when they decided to NOT worship the ex-lord of the universe. Think about it!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 11:37:58 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: oshlabaka Subject: Current Premie asks Message:

I loved the positive experiences I had. I still have a beautiful experience of consciousness within me, even though I don't worship (now called gratitude) Maharaji anymore, I do still meditate. Whether I'll ever listen to him again, I don't know. Right now, I'm very turned off. I think it's important to distinguish between the inner experience, the techniques, group feeling, etc. and Prem Pal Rawat. There were times when Maharaji inspired me; sometimes he's an inspirational speaker. Yes, sometimes he seems to get high and speaks well. Having a lot of people adore him I'm sure helps with that. But other times he had quite the opposite effect on me, for example, the Kissimmee program, where he yelled his head off. A number of times recently, he just bored me. Maharaji, in my opinion, is erratic. If he would just acknowledge that and be more humble and let others speak, I would feel differently about him. One thing that bothers me about Mr. Rawat is that he seems to be not such a nice guy and a bit of a hypocrite in real life. Another is the contradictory statements he has made. Another is the fact that he lies, and the dishonest approach to showing Knowledge. There are a good number of ex-premies who meditate and enjoy it. One concept I feel Maharaji perpetuates is the notion that in order to practice Knowledge, you need him. In other words, you need to spend money listening to his videos, etc. It sure seems to me that he's very into the money and adoration. He also puts down other religions. One thing I miss is people getting together and speaking (sometimes) of their own experience. Maharaji took that away. Regarding Darshan, I believe he once said (at the Manchester program) that it worked 'because you thought it would work'. I think the experience has a lot to do with their own faith. Maybe it's like permitting myself to feel love. I think to some degree, m has been a catalyst to people (sometimes negatively). I wish he would have more respoect for his role. In my opinion, if a person is going to listen to m, it would be wise not to believe everything he says, not to implicitly trust him, and not to do everything he says. It's impossible to believe everything he says anyway because he contradicts himself. So in general, I don't think this is a black or white issue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:38:59 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: oshlabaka Subject: Current Premie responds... Message:

Hi Oshlabaka A good question, but one that's either ignored on this site or treated as a 'delusional' piece of brain washing. You and I (and others) can be convinced by our own practical and very real experience of Knowledge, but most people here are rude enough to reject that personal experience out of hand. Beware if you continue to debate your experience here. Regards Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:17:39 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Fuck off, Mel Message:

Jim responded: Hi Run: Here, I've given you something to bitch about over on the Runanduck forum. Happy? Mel, I think you're the greatest! Absolutely. Hey, tell me what you think about this Fakiranand stuff. Do you think it was possible for such a fanatical devotee as was he to disobey direct agya from m not to hurt Halley?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:11:54 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: all Subject: We don't need leaders, right? Message:

Many ex-premies do meditate and enjoy it. Giving credit to M for your experiences in meditation would be as ridiculous (and delusional) as giving credit to Jim Heller for leaving M. Constantly referring to a person outside yourself as an explanation for experiences of your inner self can't be healthy or REAL! M'rage always says to experience without concepts, but he leaves the biggest concept in, himself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:17:02 (GMT) From: Shifting Email: None To: Runamok Subject: the last phrase... Message:

I like your way of saying that! Don't have concepts-left out: of your own - let me feel your head with mine, let me make you my servant. Bastard!! He grew up, what is his problem now? Little guru...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 17:21:54 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Runamok Subject: Oh relax, Run Message:

Run, Please, don't make a fool of yourself again. Practise what you're preaching over there. I can just imagine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:14:53 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: Good dog, nice dog Message:

Why try to start a fight with me and then play dumb? And why try to defame a forum started for new exes at their request? You're insulting the people who want to have it as much or more than me. And you're detracting from the dialog that can take place here by bringing your personal animosities into the mix. Some of us clearly don't want a hostile verbal environment whether dealing with each other or with premies. Why pretend that it's a 'fringe' point of view?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 19:44:32 (GMT) From: Indisbelief Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Good dog, nice dog Message:

Indisbelief responded: 1)Was it recent exes who demanded a forum for themselves, or was it Katie who decided to create one for them? 2)I've reread this brief exchange between Jim and yourself several times, and as far as I can see the personal animosity has been injected as much by you as by him. Isn't this holier than thou attitude on your part going a bit too far?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:00:06 (GMT) From: Oshlabaka Email: jdonohue41@cs.com To: Indisbelief Subject: Good dog, nice dog Message:

'Don't give in to the powers of hate, Luke' Star Wars- Return of the Jedi Look how much discussion I sparked with one question. Imagine what 4 techniques can do? All this in fighting does prove, you are indeed ex-premes(ex-lovers) To those who admit to experience Knowledge--keep going-you'll get there... somehow... I hope. Finally to those who question my choice in Perfect Masters: You can keep your Subaru, I'm happy with My Chevy Malibu, Maharaj ji. Jai Sat Chit Anand

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:12:15 (GMT) From: Ms. K Email: None To: Indisbelief Subject: Response to question 1 Message:

Hi Indisbelief - You are right that I decided to create a forum for recent exes (which expanded into a forum which included other ex-premies who wanted a flame-free forum where only ex-premies could post). Nobody requested this specifically, but there was an informal e-mail network among these people, and the RE forum was an attempt to formalize this: to provide a place where everyone who was e-mailing each other could talk to each other at once. I had no idea what would happen with this forum - sometimes new forums do not take off - but it's chugging along. I don't see any problem with having this separate forum. Almost everyone there posts on Forum V as well - some of the participants post way more on Forum V than they do there. And the people who are participating seem to like the forum, for various reasons: no flames, knowing who all the participants are and who is posting, and the fact that only ex-premies are allowed to read and post. Sincerely, Ms. K (Katie)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:04:14 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Indisbelief Subject: What's there not to believe? Message:

Read the post 'Fuck off Mel' from Jim and then give me the blow-by-blow reduction, analyzing how (and if) I played a part in introducing a fight into this thread. I'll be looking forward to your response, 'Indisbelief'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:40:32 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Runamok Subject: I'll answer that, Runanduck Message:

Run, You're too funny. I didn't post for a month but I did lurk a bit. And what did I see? You, my good friend, trying to goad me, provoke me, incite me and fight me here, there and everywhere. I read your posts over on AG, Run. You're pathetic. In fact, Laurie and I had a wonderful laugh now and again seeing how you just couldn't let me go even though I wasn't there. And now you've got your own little private forum? One where everyone's sworn to secrecy? But you're the same person over there that you are here, right? Okay, tell me the truth, Run, and don't shuck and jive this time: how many of your posts there are about me, either by name or otherwise? You know, it's a private party and everything. Perhaps I have no right to even ask. But I just can't help but think that your main use of your little forum there is to justify yourself all over again. Knowing you, you probably try to spruce it all up this way or that. But the fact is, Run, you're a hypocrite. I trust that all your RE friends take that point and love you in spite of it. I know I do. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:34:04 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Laurie's Bfriend Subject: You're a leader, Jim. Message:

but I'm not your follower. You want to fight? Take it to AG, you'll get more response.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:26:23 (GMT) From: Indisbelief Email: None To: Runamok Subject: My apology, Run Message:

Indisbelief responded: Yes, I've just read the post, and it does seem that Jim went out of his way on that one to bait you. No more commentary from me about this, and again I apologize.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:46:17 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: Indisbelief Subject: You're right, Indie Message:

Jim Heller responded: I DID intentionally bait Run. Mea culpa. Couldn't resist. I guess it all came about, officer, in a weak moment when I was telling Mel to fuck off and remembering how Run likes to 'tsk tsk' me when I do that. Worse, as you can see from HIS post above, he bizzarely equates me to some sort of ... well, I can't even say. It's so crazy, it's embarrassing. And, like I posted above, I started thinking about all the posts you're probably not aware of (lucky you) where Run tried to run me down while I was gone. And, well what can I tell you? I delivered me unto temptation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:54:58 (GMT) From: Indisbelief Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: My apology to you too, Jim Message:

Indisbelief responded: Jim, 1)I AM aware of the history between yourself and Runamuck 2) I really had no intention of intervening in an 'officer' kind of style. 3) I regret becoming involved in this. 4)As stated in my title, I apologize to you as I did to Runamuck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:53:59 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: My apology to you too, Jim Message:

Joey responded: Jim, 1)I AM aware of the history between yourself and Runamuck 2) I really had no intention of intervening in an 'officer' kind of style. 3) I regret becoming involved in this. 4)As stated in my title, I apologize to you as I did to Runamuck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:48:14 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: Indisbelief Subject: Thanks Indie, Hi Hel Message:

Yeah Indie, it seems like some people are very offended by my 'radical' ideas about (not) flaming and would like to paint me as an equal offender. But I really don't go in for argumentative posting, altho I do have a little more of a standup response to it than some do (Katie for instance). Maybe you'd care to interject to 'bombs away' above in cQg's post (think I got his name right). Lots of flamers seem to think I make a good target. Personally, I think flaming is a big turnoff for premies who are glued to this forum for informtion. Yes they post some pretty stupid or repetitious stuff but they're presence here is a sign of interest in exiting. Jim was preemptively striking his anticipations of my objections to his gratuitous 'fuckyou's' aimed at Mel. It is also tough on newly arrived exes, who sometimes are challenged as to their identity and on several occasions have been bashed for being someone that they were not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:47:37 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Runamok Subject: I agree Run Message:

Run, I agree with everything you have said here. I think you have been unfairly attacked for flaming, because you are more assertive in standing up to people here. One thing about taking long breaks from the forum and reading only intermittently now is that I can see that people really need to lighten up. Perhaps to not lighten up regarding their painful process of sorting out being a premie, but lighten up in regards to who is the winner of what argument. The intellectual power struggles and the accusations get very picky and petty and ridiculous. And very annoying to wade through. But saying that I still choose to be here & am glad to have met many good souls here. I think the forum still does alot of good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 06:09:26 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek™ Email: drek@oz.net To: Runamok Subject: Character Witness for Run NT Message:

no text

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 23:35:05 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Run Subject: HI RUN Message:

Just am interjecting a big hello to you. Am sick to death of snow, besides that nothing else new. How are ya? I am sadly lacking any sense of big outrage in which to argue any points dealing with M, god or not god, life's meaning, yours and Jim's stances on things, etc. My biggest dilemma today: getting 11 girl scouts to sit still enough to listen to a few instructions. But I wanted to say hi anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:17:24 (GMT) From: Sharks Villian View Email: None To: Jim Subject: The Melbourne Grand Prix Message:

We named it after you Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:02:58 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim - are you OK? Message:

....your response seemed rather garbled to say the least! Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:56:43 (GMT) From: Loaf Email: Loafji@yahoo.com To: Mel Bourne Subject: Jim - are you OK? Message:

It seems a phenomenon of party politics that two opposing stances will negate any 'holistic' view of things - to admit to the validity of experience whilst 'in the cult' may be seen as a loss of faith - and likewise for 'the cult' to admit to any psycho-physical and social origins of 'grace' or experience - may be seen to diminish the role of the master. Hmmm......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:07:18 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Loaf Subject: I'm an atheist. Get it? Message:

Jim responded: Look, you guys can talk all you want about how 'beautiful the experience of Knowledge' is but as far as I'm concerned it's, at best, a cute parlour trick on the mind. Face it, if you apply pressure to your optic nerve you'll see light. This might be a particularly nice distraction and imaginary respite from the world but that's all it is. While you're playing at getting away from it all, someone's keeping it all happening. Your white blood cells are still fighting whatever they're fighting, your border guards are still watching out for terrorists and B.C. bud (if you're American) and you still have to fight your fight, whatever that is. So meditate. Take a break. Get away from it all sure. But don't think for a second that if you take your hands off the steering wheel someone else is driving. That's just not on, yet that's the fundamental myth that makes Knowledge Knowledge, the idea that there's some guiding consciousness within and around us that we need to 'let go' to, that we need to 'surrender to' whose perfect embodiment is 'the Satguru'. That's all a lie. And the very notion that these meditation techniques could be exalted with such excessive importance is one big mistake.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:25:21 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Jim Subject: I'm an atheist. Get it? Message:

'...the very notion that these meditation techniques could be exalted with such excessive importance is one big mistake.' And one more big mistake is how premies seem to give the Maha all the credit for what they experience in meditation. It's like saying every that time I read or write something, I have to keep feeling gratitude to the one who taught me how to read and write. Patent delusion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 16:45:25 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: cqg Subject: I disagree to some extent Message:

Jim Heller responded: Put simply, if I thought for a moment that 'Knowledge' was really a valid spiritual experience, I'd be right in there with all the other premies saying 'Who gives a fuck about the guy's lifetsyle, look what he gave me?' Fortunately for me, I no longer harbour any such illusions. Knowledge is a parlour trick and that's about all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:27:02 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: a bit extreme ... no? Message:

Jim, are you saying that no type of meditation can ever lead to a valid 'spiritual' experience? Who's to judge what's valid in that realm? Surely only the person doing the meditating. For sure, the hype surrounding premies' expectations of the 'experience' and of what it's supposed to mean (see God etc.) is a parlour trick, but .... you being serious on this one?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:45:19 (GMT) From: Jim Heller Email: heller@bc1.com To: cqg Subject: Yes, I'm serious Message:

Jim Heller responded: Chris, As far as I'm concerned, and as I've said so often here, I'm of the view that spirituality itself is bunk. What we have is an amazing brain that produces an amazing mind and there and there alone us where you'll find consciousness. Spirituality's the product of all the earlier times in man's history when we just didn't know that. We thought there were gods. There aren't. Sure isn't any signs of any.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 19:33:12 (GMT) From: cqg Email: None To: Jim Heller Subject: seriously ... Message:

... seriously, Jim, how the FUCK did you become a premie? Please tell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:01:25 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Oshlabaka Subject: To Oshlabaka Message:

Oshlabaka, Why did you choose that pseudonym? Remind me of that story, please. Was he a devotee like yourself that leaves the master and then returns? I lived near KC in 1980. Some high times, not to be denied. I think Mel Bourne is much too simplistic in telling you that most people here reject 'the Knowledge' along with their rejection of Rawat. The truth is that there is a wide variety of stances here, (as is always the case among human beings, no matter what the arena, yes?). Read the journeys and you will see that many ex-premies still attempt to approach the truth within. I personally find the term 'the Knowledge' to be problematic. If you use it to mean a Self-Knowledge potential for every human being, then I personally do not reject it. If you say it to mean the four techniques, then I personally do reject it, since I no longer use the techniques or rely on Rawat in any way. Did you see the latest satellite feed last month? What are your current feelings about Rawat and about Self-Knowledge? The forum discussion often degenerates into cyber shouting matches, but there is still room for serious discussion for anyone who wishes it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:39:50 (GMT) From: More than a reader now Email: None To: all Subject: Advice Message:

Ok, so my friend has the 4 tech now bec of this website. My concern...I have had many incredible exp. meditating. Many where I thought I wasn't going to find me back in my body - like a thread of life may have remained - sound familiar? Long finger nails under banyan trees and all that. I told my friend ok if you meditate what are you going to do -- bec dear God - do something. Pray for protection from Jesus or Mary or your Guardian angel but ask for protection. Bec just like astral body tripping it isn't all fun and games out there. What are you going to do if you should perhaps med for a long time and catch a wave... and it keeps taking you. And fear creeps in - are you going to stop and never med again bec your scared. I started to go and go whatever that means to anyone who med deeply. And my only hope was GMJ at the time. Whew. He was there with me and protected me. So what do I tell her exactly. Need input. Thank you

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:05:05 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: More than a reader now Subject: Advice Message:

I started to go and go whatever that means to anyone who med deeply. And my only hope was GMJ at the time. Whew. He was there with me and protected me. When you asked Maharaji for help, your mind translated that as your own deeper self and it (or God?) calmed you down. Your continued mistake in thinking it was Maharaji is your ongoing problem to deal with. I had the same experience myself and I assure you that Maharaji was totally unaware you were having any problem. Christians in similar situations call on Christ, Bhuddists call on Bhuddha, and so on. It's within you - M was right on that at least. I hope this helps your understanding. And you do want to understand don't you? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 17:41:38 (GMT) From: reader Email: None To: JHB Subject: Advice Message:

Thank you,really

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:11:32 (GMT) From: Adnana Email: None To: JHB Subject: Advice Message:

JHB wrote: Christians in similar situations call on Christ, Bhuddists call on Bhuddha, and so on. It's within you - Hoo HAH! It is you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:01:09 (GMT) From: Runamok Email: None To: More than a reader now Subject: Advice Message:

You stop yourself at whatever point you want to. I doubt very, very much that Prem Pal Rawatt had any idea what was up with you when this happened.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:05:15 (GMT) From: reader Email: None To: Runamok and others Subject: Advice Message:

Thank you. Later that night I realized for God's sake, that I just wanted my friend not to get too 'out there' without a life line or something--and I did enough by just telling her to ask whomever for protection. That's plenty and should put her in the right 'mindset' to start her inner journey and discovery. So, I'm not concerned anymore. By-the-way, my brother in law for years has followed Siddha Yoga that started in the west w/ Muktananda, ya know. Well, what fun to read their website of exes. The Scandal!! Their Swami's have interesting talks on the East/West culture stuff. Ex. - ' I have always felt that a lot of the problem w/ the Guru comes fr our misunderstanding of Indian culture. I was in the first wave of Western sekers. We took everything that was said literally. They would say.'The Guru is God 'and we believed that Baba knew every detail of your life.' 'I began to understand that the Hindu mind loves to milk the highest rasa fr a situation and then has a separate standard for practical reality ....They love to speak expansively to create great feeling in the moment. Yet they would often not act on how they spoke.' Wasn't that fun - sounds pretty relatable, huh? And articulate. Thank you all again. And for taking me seriously and not being sarcastic. The sarcasm I read here is so ,excuse me really, but juvenile. Sometimes I feel the guys are in junior high. I don't feel good writing this. But there are so many angry sarcastic people in the world - to then read more is such a waste. I used to be sarcastic in my twenties and it just isn't cool. In my opinion - well and my therapists and my mature friends. Don't be mad at me for saying this. If it's fun for you guys well who am I to say anything.Just my opinion. reader reader

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 19:53:47 (GMT) From: Ben Lurking Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Meditaion techniques not ADA Message:

The meditation techniques may not meet ADA guidelines, has M ever taught - given k to anyone without the use or lack of arms? Is he discriminating - lawyers please step up - this may be a federal area that they are violating

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:08:08 (GMT) From: michael Email: None To: Ben Lurking Subject: Meditaion techniques not ADA Message:

I remember meeting a premie who had useless arms. They were just sticks with skin on them. He could only flop them about. I remember a satsang by m (i think) that said that all you needed was a body. It didn't have to be perfect just human. So, maybe, an ADA suit would not hold up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 20:29:54 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Ben Lurking Subject: Meditaion techniques not ADA Message:

This is the type of shit that brings a lack of credibility to this forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index