Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 17:49:20 (GMT)
From: Jan 25, 2000 To: Feb 04, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


JHB -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:21:46 (GMT)
__ Jack -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:45:47 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Ah, then tell us how much -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:39:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ VP -:- Now THIS is interesting -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:43:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- I cannot say what I did -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:23:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Nuff said, Roger--nt -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:41:08 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:25:12 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek™ -:- To be or not to be... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:35:54 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- toimply what you imply -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:16:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- fair enough, Run -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:47:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Brian -:- toimply what you imply -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:35:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- to do what u did - CENSORSHIP -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:26:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- I would like a straight answer -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:05:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Brian -:- I would like a straight answer -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:44:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- I would like a straight answer -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:42:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- Then please provide more info -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 16:38:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Observer 9 -:- The Reckoning -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:38:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- The Reckoning -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:32:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Katie is correct -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:32:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Just a few points -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:15:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- You're on a roll.... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:24:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- too hot -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:19:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- You're WRONG! -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:09:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- You SAY!! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 01:42:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Run, serious corporate biz... -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:41:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- Run, serious corporate biz... -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:37:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Run, serious corporate bull... -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:07:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Because I'm a Wild Fern -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:02:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- wake me up when -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:45:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- already you've screwed up! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:19:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Because I'm a Wild Fern -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:21:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- I disagree! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:24:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- More garbage Rodge! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 13:45:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger Wild Fern eDrek™ -:- We call it mulch, Joey -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 18:34:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- Analytical Skills Needed -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:58:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- A test! -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:09:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- The Grade -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:17:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- The Grade -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:17:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- It's a FEATURE -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:39:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- Old Fact Test -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 00:50:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- ATTENTION: AT -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:43:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- ATTENTION: JOEY -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 06:51:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Well..... -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:18:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- Well..... -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 17:16:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- FINALLY OLD FACT -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:31:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ AT -:- ^^^^^ Read Above Post ^^^^^^^ -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:06:07 (GMT)
__ __ Ben Lurking -:- To be or not to be... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:20:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- good points to the expert -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:40:52 (GMT)
__ __ Powerman -:- To be or not to be... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:41:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- The one you don't want me on -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:55:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Powerman -:- The one you don't want me on -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:22:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ A Visitor -:- RE: What Planet He's On -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 20:55:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Yes, that's it. Real Estate! -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:43:45 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:43:32 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:23:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ Powerman -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:42:25 (GMT)
__ __ Agasp -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:53:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:34:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ A mediator -:- The Arguments Below -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:22:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ A Customer -:- It already exists.... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:38:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Who the hell u think u r? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 16:44:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- Why do you care? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:55:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Yes, I'm a recent ex -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:04:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- Should have known -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:51:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ beep -:- Watch Jim hes lying to you -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:52:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ One Coward to Another -:- My aren't we brave! NT -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:05:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Peeb -:- Brave Nostrils Flaring! NT -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:48:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Yes, I'm a recent ex -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:25:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Good one, Harry -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:57:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Separate foum, no because... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:03:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- What's a 'foum' Rog. -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:13:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Master Spelling's Pop Quiz -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:28:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Bumble Bees are fun -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:46:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Bumble Bees have stingers -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:57:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Final Ousterand Undoingof M -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:24:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Harry's Translator -:- What's a 'foum' Rog. -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:35:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Ah, that's my problem -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:35:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry's Translator -:- Ah, that's my problem -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:31:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Are you calling me paranoid? -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:19:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Hey, hey, hey -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:51:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Hey, hey, hey -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:29:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Hey, hey, hey -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:02:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- ow bout Have a Poke in the Eye -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 09:05:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- What's a 'foum' Rog. -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:26:20 (GMT)

Roger eDrek™ -:- I'm BAAACK! with a comedy -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:13:22 (GMT)

MAHA-ha ha! -:- The world as I see it ... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:29:30 (GMT)

TiM -:- Stuck in the Sugmad -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:05:14 (GMT)
__ arne' t you the -:- brave one (NT) -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:19:08 (GMT)

Jim Heller -:- While I'm at it, oh Brian? -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:59:19 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Thanks for the answer, Brian -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 22:50:54 (GMT)
__ bb -:- While I'm at it, oh Brian? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:42:20 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- While I'm at it, oh Brian? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:36:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mu -:- While I'm at it, oh Brian? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:21:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Diatribe or Daya's Tribe? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:26:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ VP -:- History 101, Drek -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:36:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Remedial History 101 -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:52:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Thanks for making my point -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:30:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- So what specifically -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:48:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- So what is right -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:36:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- One last reply to this -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 00:13:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- One last reply to this -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 01:08:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- What you're saying -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 13:06:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- What you're saying -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 15:05:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- So what is right -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:12:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Thank you, both of you -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 21:26:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- Covering old ground -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 17:05:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Don't do that on 1st date -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 19:07:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Duplicity? Really Rodge?? -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 22:31:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Here we go again, huh Joey? -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 23:46:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Duh, going where Rodge? -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 00:12:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- Ooops! I forgot you! -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:45:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ BB -:- While I'm at it, oh Brian? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:06:28 (GMT)

Richard -:- DEortation #2 -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:05:25 (GMT)
__ Jack -:- Making Money -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:35:09 (GMT)
__ Mu -:- DEortation #2 -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:50:13 (GMT)
__ Brian -:- DEortation #2 -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:52:56 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- BWAH HA HA HA HA! -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:57:47 (GMT)

Someone -:- Close your eyes for an hour -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:13:31 (GMT)
__ Michael -:- Close your eyes for 8-10 hours -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:00:40 (GMT)
__ Mu -:- Open your eyes for a lifetime -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:30:17 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Ah, the supreme comic irony... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:48:00 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- Open your eyes for a moment... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:54:29 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Close your eyes for an hour -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:28:47 (GMT)
__ __ selene -:- Close your eyes for an hour -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:41:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ Powerman -:- Yes, romperroom Knowledge NT -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:50:33 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- I do ya one better -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:16:29 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- Try to do it w/o talking to M -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:40:19 (GMT)

Jim Heller -:- Open letter to FA's & friends -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:50:30 (GMT)
__ VP -:- On censorship -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:59:56 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- The post that should have been -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 23:23:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ Brian -:- The post that should have been -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:54:49 (GMT)
__ __ Jim Heller -:- The irony, Veep -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:49:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ VP -:- No, I didn't read it myself -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 22:24:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ VP -:- The alternative -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 22:29:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- STOP IT RIGHT THERE! -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 23:33:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim Heller -:- Boy, this is frustrating -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 23:29:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- Boy, this is frustrating -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:43:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I agree, Veep ... bUUUTttttttt -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:17:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- I don't disagree:however, -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:39:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Briefly -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 22:29:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- I CAN remain calm... -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:10:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VP -:- I CAN remain calm... -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:43:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- You're right -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 09:34:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- I'll be REALLY brief -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:34:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ A Customer -:- BRAVO, VP!!! -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:10:46 (GMT)

Know It All -:- They read the site -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:53:31 (GMT)
__ Carl Sandburg -:- This poem needs some work -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:11:01 (GMT)
__ __ Larkin -:- You want iambic pentametre? -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:53:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- Best OF FORUM!!!! (nt) -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:32:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- author, AUTHOR! -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:59:56 (GMT)
__ __ selene -:- This poem needs some work -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:50:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ selene -:- This poem needs some work -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:06:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mike -:- Ahhh, the foibles of PINE! -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:08:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Ahhh, the foibles of PINE! -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:12:32 (GMT)

zzzzzz -:- Two Davids and Goliath -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:17:25 (GMT)
__ Sean O'Grady -:- Two Davids and Goliath -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:46:20 (GMT)
__ selene -:- yeah well so you that's bad.. -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:28:44 (GMT)
__ __ zzzzzz -:- yeah well so you that's bad.. -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:40:02 (GMT)

zzzzzz -:- And there's more -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 04:38:07 (GMT)
__ X -:- And there's more and more -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:06:31 (GMT)
__ __ zzzzzz -:- And there's more and more -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:32:41 (GMT)
__ Jo -:- And there's more -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:16:32 (GMT)
__ __ Guy from the other place -:- Hey Jo -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:25:29 (GMT)

oldie -:- :-) Scott .T -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 22:16:30 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- :-) Scott .T -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:40:50 (GMT)

G -:- Past masters with fake halos -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:15:25 (GMT)
__ Sean O'Grady -:- Past masters with fake halos -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 04:15:58 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- Past masters with fake halos -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:21:41 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Rawat with fake halo -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 22:51:33 (GMT)
__ __ EddytheHootle -:- Question to J-M -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:57:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jethro -:- Question to J-M -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:27:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ EddytheHootle -:- Question to J-M -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:49:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Myths going down the drain -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:23:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Question to J-M -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:09:07 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- Past masters: a contradiction? -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:11:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Rawat's so pathetic -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:42:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- And don't forget -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:35:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Are you serious? -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:36:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Yes a REAL bar of REAL soap -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:13:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- One important factor -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:51:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Anon -:- Past masters: a contradiction? -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:15:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Succession of Masters (Kings) -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:08:03 (GMT)
__ __ bill -:- Rawat with fake halo -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 23:40:01 (GMT)
__ CQG -:- I think 'Hansa' means swan(nt) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:34:56 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- You have to read this first -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 17:56:19 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- You have to read this first -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:19:27 (GMT)
__ __ Jethro -:- Question for Hamzen -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 20:00:33 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Then 'Spread this Knowledge' ! -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 17:59:10 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- Spread it with Chords -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:58:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sean O'Grady -:- Spread it with Chords -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 02:36:46 (GMT)
__ __ Gregg -:- truth is bliss -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:13:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Jiva -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:39:17 (GMT)
__ __ Joey -:- Then 'Spread this Knowledge' ! -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 18:57:03 (GMT)


Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:21:46 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
Before the Roger/Brian/Katie threads were deleted by the FA, my small contribution was that very few people here want to read this stuff here. NOT because it was argumentative, but because it was seriously off topic. This forum is about Maharaji, his organisations, and knowledge. The Roger threads were, and the new ones still are, about forum software, and absurd innuendos about misuse of forum funds.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTAND THIS FORUM TO BE ABOUT.

I have serious disagreements about the future of the Latvian club, about the Latvian brewery Aldaris' export policy, about the English media's use of the name 'United' as refering to only one team that uses that name, about racist language and behaviour, about the expenditure on my house in Latvia, and a whole host of other things.

BUT I DO NOT BRING THOSE DISAGREEMENTS HERE!

Give me heavy arguments about knowledge, about the fat guru, about the murky finances that built a 30 million dollar mansion. But please, please, leave your off-topic arguments away from this forum.

That's my personal plea.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:45:47 (GMT)
From: Jack
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
Dear John,

You are getting carried away. M's mansion didn't cost 30 million dollars. Please get the facts right.

Jack

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:39:56 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jack
Subject: Ah, then tell us how much
Message:
If it didn't cost $30 million then how much?

I'm probably the most responsible one for that number as that's what I'd estimate it to be worth on the market. Probably didn't cost that much as much of the labor was premie slave labor of which I was one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:43:12 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Now THIS is interesting
Message:
Roger,
Did I understand you to mean that you worked on M's house or did you just mean you were a premie, but other's did the work? I'm asking because if you did work on his house, would you start a thread and tell us about it? I would be interested in a thread about that.
VP
Interested in architecture
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:23:03 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: I cannot say what I did
Message:
I'd like to give specifics about what I did at the residence, but it would reveal my identity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:41:08 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Nuff said, Roger--nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:25:12 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
This worked out well JHB. See what happens when you start an off topic thread about a personal opinion?
Is this thread going to be deleted? At least this one is entertaining. It's funny actually.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:35:54 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: JHB
Subject: To be or not to be...
Message:
For starters, not everybody likes me and I can live with that. However, and regardless of how many times I've told you all that I'm leaving I still feel the need and desire to participate here. Maybe I've got some kind of investment and interest in discussing Maharaji.

JHB, unfortunately there may be, at times, the need for what you are labeling 'off topic' and I will call internal administrative discussions regarding the operation of the forum. And a similar topic of Forum Guidelines is constantly bandied about all the time and rarely does that discussion receive as acrimonious response as I have.

I will apologize for my extremely long post that has been deleted. I had just been insulted again by Brian and I was quite insulted and furious. Excuse me for being just a little too human.

However, that is my point. I am very much concerned with the rights and responsibilities of all parties engaged here as both providers and participants. I am very much concerned about the added credibility that the Forum Administrator(s) or Forum Software Developer and Provider might get due to their apparent position of power.

The Forum Administrator(s) are anonymous and when they post without their Forum Administrator hats on the readers do not know who they are and, therefore, what these people say as common citizens carries no additional weight. If you remember Gerry you might recall the tremendous effort he went to in his attempts to balance himself between being Gerry and Forum Administrator. I, too, had my own experience at being Forum Administrator and let' s just say that it was hell. I actually wanted to be anonymous or use a completely new poster name as administrator for the purpose of maintaining my own anonymity and to avoid tempering and governing my posts. However, I was overruled by the previous Forum Administrator, Brian. In hindsight, I would have to say that things could have turned out very much differently had I been anonymous. Although, under the circumstances with Joey it would have been an extreme test of restraint requiring Christ-like patience.

Yes, anonymous Forum Administrator(s)! A good move if I say so myself having been the very one to instigate and implement that suggestion when I was the unseen and unsung forum administrator for approximately two weeks when the last publicly known Forum Administrator, Gerry, retired under fire and duress. Yes, I (and an unnamed person) was the Kingmaker. Read it and weep. Roger/Barney calling the shots. And if I say so myself that I think I did a damn good job. Please, hold your applause for after the show.

And I, again, was the Forum Administrator at Paradise where I very quietly worked to ensure that it continued to operate and I archived the posts. Really, administrating Paradise is a no-brainer. Better address the IP issue, I guess. No, because IP addresses were turned off I did not see any IP addresses - really a non-issue if you don't know by now that IP addresses mean very little.

Again, my new post is concerned with the possible and potential abuse where the Software Developer or Provider oversteps his/her bounds and influences or overrides the general consensus of the community or the anonymous Forum Administrator(s). I am asking for a clearly defined license of agreement that guarantees the rights and responsibilities to protect all parties from indiscriminant unilateral actions. I do not believe that such a request is that far fetched based on historical evidence within our own beloved community. It may, however, sound a little strong and unnecessary, but personally I fear that I at times might have become an irritant to the Software Provider (Brian) and might suffer accordingly. I still do not know why I was unable to start a new thread or why I was limited in posting 500 characters per post. Perhaps, I'm a bit long winded, but fortunately for all there are no pop quizzes on my material.

And, with such restraints (500 char limit, no new threads) placed upon me there is the issue of censorship. However, I will not elaborate on that topic here. We'll save that for future discussion if you would allow it?

Should such discussions or disagreements pertaining to Forum Guidelines and the Rights and Responsibilities between the forum community and the software vendor take place behind closed doors amongst only a select few or by the users or the community, in this case, of the forum in public fashion?

Finally and most importantly, I strongly and vehemently disagree with your characterizations of my new post as 'absurd innuendoes about misuse of forum funds.' I have made that very clear. My new post, by any definition, IMO, does not contain such innuendoes. My post is about Rights and Responsibilities. The rights of forum users and the responsibilities of the software vendor. Likewise there are responsibilities on the part of the users in regards to the software vendor to pay bills on time and not to have or allow content that is illegal or not within the guidelines of the license. Note, this is different than Forum Guidelines amongst the community itself.

And the big question to couch it in terms that we all know and love, is whether this forum should be run in some democratic fashion or should it be run like the Enjoying Life forum where what you see is what you get and questions, comments, and suggestions are not welcome?

To be or not to be like EnjoyingLife? That is the question.

Certainly, the content and topic matter of these types of posts may not be for all and anyone who wishes may avoid reading it. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. And I hope that disagreement never becomes unacceptable.

A final postscript is that I would prefer that these discussions take place on the Forum rather than Anything Goes because the discussions become part of the permanent record. At least they should, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:16:52 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: toimply what you imply
Message:
How do you know it's not something in the configuration you use causing the problems in posting you describe? I know you're a programmer, but these things happen even to programmers. My browser often has trouble reading recently posted material on forums and I have to press refresh, sometimes several times. We have bugs in our computers, that's just reality.

Your post seems to imply wrongdoing on the part of others. Are you saying that your posts are limited in size when others aren't? The allegation is uncalled for without proof. I understand it's a prob, and posting in search of help might be appropriate, but implying or assuming guilt on Brian's or anyone elses' part is uncalled for.

I don't agree with your assessment of different webmasters but I personally wouldn't mind discussing these issues with you. I don't know if you would welcome my presence in your discussion of 'democracy' or not but I have to agree with 'a mediator'. Find an unobtrusive forum (like the expremie only forum would work) and post all this shit there.

I hate to think of new exes and people lurking or cruising thru here and being bombarded with any of this shit. That issue bothers me more than 'is it democratic'? But I wouldn't mind talking about if it wasn't at the expense of general forum stuff.

But then you may not want to discuss your view with someone who doesn't agree. Democracy is a really tricky biz sometimes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:47:03 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Runamok
Subject: fair enough, Run
Message:
Ok, we ain't yelling here. We is talking. No sarcasm.

I appreciate it, Run.

Listen, Run, I posted down below on the Donner thing. And I thought about it and I like what I came up with. The post had some 'contrustive criticism' to you, but I think I'll remove it and repost it on a new thread because, in all humility, it's a good post. And you're disagreement with me was the catlyst of it. Sure, my post is speculation, but I like it. The credit goes to the dialectic and not me.

Ok, Run, this issue. Again, thanks for wanting to deal with this and asking some good questions.

I am a programmer or a developer or whatever the hell. Although, I do not consider myself a hacker. And I have also worked as a tester too. Sure some of testing is monkey testing just pressing buttons, but some of it was very complicated strange stuff communicating to backend systems and having to trace through strange and obscure APIs and Trace routines and even jumping into looking line by line in C++ and assember source code.

Enough of my credentials. Everything I learned was in kindergarten. Well, actually fifth grade when they taught us different number systems like binary.

No, the most interesting thing about testing was learning how to reproduce a bug. Not all bugs are easily reproducible. Believe me, I've had some doozies.

For example, with the extreme patience of an MIT graduate with an EE and CS degree we tracked down a strange and very spurious editor bug that only occurred when the number of characters in the selected text copied into the clipboard buffer was divisible by three and then CRASH after you moved the mouse. And the error spit out was very terse. I believe we had to look at the Dr. Watson dump to get into it.

Just as everyone here thinks I'm nuts, eveyone at work thought I was nuts when I'd storm out of my office screaming after the editor had crashed and I had just lost sometimes up to an hours worth of coding. It didn't happen to anyone else. Fact was that I was using the editor was using the editor more than anyone else was and as chance would have it I was the one too lose a lot of programming code that I had just entered in. In the old days we used to have to save work every minute or five minutes because editors and systems were that flaky, but today? Nah. Come on, how many times does your system or your editor or word processor crash these days?

And what I learned as a tester was how to reproduce a bug. It's always best to reboot (a pain in the butt) and not being running any other apps to ensure that ther is no unaccounted side effects. Sometimes, when I worked on a Mac product we had to reinstall the OS to guarantee a known state. That's a lot of work, especially for a whatever Model 80. Mac OS 7.n had special OS installs for each particular Mac hardware platform. Sorry, Mac guys, but that's fucked up.

So for my home testing of my problems with the Forum, because I did a cold reboot and turned off all of my magic shit I know for a fact that I was unable to post more than a fixed number of characters, say 500 or whatever.

And I know that I was unable to start a new thread.

And, as a former administrator of Brian's software I know what the capabilities are and I know that limiting the number of characters for an IP address is one such option as I myself did the very same to Catweasel, whom I actually have some respect and fondness for.

So, I was blocked in one way or another. The FAs or Brian can say otherwise and I will, maybe, consider that I'm wrong, but...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:35:39 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@tigerriver.com
To: Runamok
Subject: toimply what you imply
Message:
This is the first I've heard of the problem, since I didn't actually read his earlier posts here. I had been told what they contained (allegation-wise) and so I stepped around the rage I was sure I'd feel.

While I certainly entertained some hilarious fantasies about messing with him, I'm actually too lazy to write the code that would have been required.

If it happens again, email the admins describing the problem. I do not want to step or be drawn by others into a position between forum users and those Administering the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:26:06 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: to do what u did - CENSORSHIP
Message:
Brian,

I really want to avoid the big ugly personality thing here and deal with the 'issues' as much as possible, but you say here:

If it happens again, email the admins describing the problem. I do not want to step or be drawn by others into a position between forum users and those Administering the forum

Brian, I think that you have already done just that as you have so clearly admitted and stated in your post or reply to my post below titled, 'The post that should have been' where you say:

Your 'phantom thread' was deleted at my request. I made my request to the forum administrator. For the thread to have remained - with it's groundless accusations intact - would have required me to respond in kind.

And that is precisely my entire point! Regardless of the admittedly poor quality of my overly long post that bumped into the default for all posters 20,000 character limit of your software, you have overstepped your bounds and have interfered between forum users and those Administering the forum through your position of authority and power as the Software Provider because you had a problem with the content of my poorly written post. Brian, by any definition of the word that is CENSORSHIP of the most blatant and abusive kind. Indeed, maybe the Forum Administrator(s) would have come to the same conclusion and I'm sure that they may speak to that. Nevertheless, you influenced their decision from your position of power as software provider. Hardly were the FAs left with any choice of their own, were they? If they refused and stuck to their guns then what? That what is that maybe you'd take your ball and go home - pull the plug on this sucker as you threatened and did do to Forum III, if you will remember.

Even Microsoft does not do such to its many critics when they are using Microsoft Word.

Yes, the FAs could have easily sided with you without your input and could have deleted my awful and pathetic and embarrassing post to you and to me all on their own accord. Perhaps, I'm mistaken, but I selected one or more of these FAs based on the displayed integrity that I had observed. And some of that integrity was a very strong sense of free expression without censorship.

Had the FAs deleted the post without your influence I would perhaps bring the matter up to them. However, the post was written in a long epiphany of anger being freshly stung by your barb and after you removed the few emotional legs that I had left to stand on. Brian, I think the 'emotional legs' phrase of yours is far more applicable to you than to Jim. The subconscious is a strange thing at times and it may even betray us.

Brian, it was not the first time that your words took the wind, took the life out of me, either. You, yes you, have a real penchant for just tearing the throat out of your victims Your posts are short and witty and dead on point blank. At least Jim spends the time to carefully and tediously explain to someone why they are so wrong before he let's them have it with the big nasty bad 'fuck you, asshole'. You don't even give people that much respect when you rip into them from my own personal experience. I'd rather get the explaination and the fuck you anyday rather than your over clever and smug cruelty.

Listen, Brian, we may not be friends or nothing, but I don't believe that you are some bad monster of a person. Nobody is. Hell, I might even say the same about Maharaji, but he's such a fat cat that it's pretty hard. Hell, here I'm am in my flat with a view of the expressway instead of a sea of diamonds. Brian, I object to the way you come and post your very powerful, well written zingers that really hurts people and I've been one of them. Yes, yes I should examine my own posts and works to take an honest inventory as they say in the twelve step programs and make amends...

Again, while you and I have some real bad blood I would try to address in public issues that concern me. Call it using the soapbox or whatever, I believe that all are entitled to be able to voice their opinions and state their beliefs, right or wrong. As to whether the discussion of Forum Guidelines or Forum Business arrangements is off topic I will vehemently disagree because the alternative is the secretive backroom private email where no one really knows what the hell is going on except the privileged few. Call me a boring fascist, but for me that's not my vision of what I would like to see for this community. I would like to have open discussions and dialogue on the operational matters that pertain to a community of which, like it or not, I am a part of. If everyone disagrees with me and desires and hopes for a benign and benevolent patriarchy or autocracy then I guess I'm in the wrong place, my friend. And to rhetorically raise the ante and use the over-worn Ex-Premie Community (EPC, yes, Brian, this is a community of people whomever the fuck we are, for better or for worse. Please, I don't want to do an old premie thing and break up the word 'community' into 'common unity', but, unfortunately, it's the sad truth of our collective experience and situation here.) cliche that everyone, including myself enjoys so much, I would or should have never have left Maharaji and I should be reading EnjoyingLife.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:05:27 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Brian
Subject: I would like a straight answer
Message:
Brian said: While I certainly entertained some hilarious fantasies about messing with him, I'm actually too lazy to write the code that would have been required.

Actually, I would like a straight answer as to whether you or the Forum Admin(s) 'messed' with me. I think it is a fair question to ask.

I'm asking if I was ever blocked in either of the following ways:

  • Limited the number of characters I could post (eg. 500)
  • Disallowed me to Start a New Thread

By your statement above, Brian, are you saying that there is no feature within the Forum Editor page (aka the administrative tools) to limit the number of characters that an IP or IP block can post per post?

Again, Brian, don't forget that I administered your Forum III software and I really do not believe that you would have changed the administrative features or actually removed an existing feature and that feature is the ability to limit the number of characters that a poster can post. It's there and you know it's there.

Like I've said to Runamok it could have been a mistake. Hell, maybe you fat fingered it yourself and nobody could post more than 500 characters and no one mentioned it until me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:44:22 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@tigerriver.com
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: I would like a straight answer
Message:
I don't place blocks on IP's on this forum. It's not my place to do that, so I don't. You've pissed me off, so 'yes' I've fantasized about it. That's all. I can't speak for anyone else, and you're not emailing anyone about it so nothing can or will be fixed. You are being no help in the matter.

Don't you think that the 'mouse' bug would have been found faster if you had noted what you were doing when it happened rather than running into the hallway cursing and screaming in frustration?

You've scattered your 'symptoms' all over this forum. I'm not able to reconstruct anything from all this. In a post above this one, you mention that you were posting 'an overlylong post'. Hadn't heard that before. Do you think I can guess this stuff without information.

You're assuming that someone deliberately 'did' something to you. I'm telling you that it wasn't me. Either provide clear understandable facts, or wait with the rest of us until it happens again...

When you say you couldn't start a new thread I am only informed that after you clicked on the link to start one, you didn't get the result you (or I) would expect. You have yet to describe (in any post I've read) just what result you did get. How is this helpful?

I don't want to be roped into software discussions on this forum. I want to be able to come in here and post on-topic as myself. We both saw what happens to people who wear a 'uniform' in the forum. They forfeit the right to be themselves here. People defer to them in some bizarre manner that just isn't warranted.

You say that you object to my being perceived as a special person here. Yet you continue to cast me in that light when you draw me into 'programmer' conversations.

I've forgotten how to post as a plain person here. I'm trying to relearn it, but mostly I stay away. It was enjoyable to be able to talk to Adnana, but then he treats me like one.

Email me the actual symptoms, Roger. I would prefer that you go through the admins, but it's obvious that you refuse to do so. Maybe we can build a small trust that will prevent everyone from being sucked into these threads.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:42:23 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Brian
Subject: I would like a straight answer
Message:
Brian, it would seem that another character flaw you might possess is coming off as the wise all-knowing patriarchal figure when you give me the following fatherly advice:

Don't you think that the 'mouse' bug would have been found faster if you had noted what you were doing when it happened rather than running into the hallway cursing and screaming in frustration?

Again, I would only hit this bug about one a week or even once every two weeks or even three. None of the other testers ever encountered it. Does that mean it wasn't there? Does that mean that maybe my machine was screwed up? Doesn't that indicate that this bug was very spurious? Doesn't that say something about how difficult it was to reproduce?

Brian, have you ever lost 10, 15, 30 or maybe 60 minutes of programming effort? Oh, yes, the wise knowledgeable programmer will save every 30 seconds. No, that's the old days. Editors and systems are so much more reliable that most people don't even remember the old days.

Yes, I'm a bad person because I had an honest and a very typical reaction under the circumstances. Don't forget that I'm very sarcastic and a bit over the top. A little play acting out might be healthy from time to time.

Have you ever lost a good chunk of programming effort at say 1:00 in the morning and you are really tired and you really need to have something that works in the morning because everyone is counting on you and it's crunch time?

Yeah, I be a very bad person.

bug would have been found faster if you had noted what you were doing when it happened

Brian, first, I'm a very skilled and competent tester and user of software. I know how to be observant and know what to make note of. Again, this was a very spurious bug that only occurred when the number of chars in the clipboard buffer was evenly divisible by 3 (like 3, 6, 9, 12...) so with that information you can even determine the likelihood, couldn't you. Easy to do after the fact. Also, that part of the product was not being monkey'd with and was assumed stable.

Brian, when a Windows program has an AV (Acception Violation) crash the screen you were working in is totally gone and replaced by an AV error message dialogue. It happens very fast, too. All you can do is go back in your mind and try to recreate what you did, which I did time and time again, but could not reproduce. How was I to know about the number of characters being mod 3 = 0? I would repro and just grab a text string and nothing would happen.

And to really get boring and technical and lose everyone here, because you are questioning in a derogatory fashion my knowledge and skill in my field in pissing match fashion, one might ask why not run a debug version of the product so at the instant of crash it asserts and you can go into source code debug mode?

Well, interesting you should mention that, but running the debug version of the product means that there is additional information in the compiled executable and because of that you will have different byte boundaries and so forth. Actually, it's fairly common not to be able to reproduce a bug in the debug version that occurs in the retail version. At best when using the retail version, as in this case, we looked at the assembly language dump in Dr. Watson and the programmer was good enough to translate in his head what the C++ code would look like from the assembler and what module it was in.

Oh, well, I now have your sage and expert advice and will do a better job next time.

Listen, I really don't have time for this today. Read my 'to do what U did - CENSORSHIP' post. That is really the big issue here.

Really, we all hate this personality conflict stuff, and, everyone can continue to call me annoying, sick, and cynical, but unfortunately, it sometimes gets that way when more than one person is interacting in a social or business situation. Is it best to ignore it and sweep it under the rug or attempt to deal with it? Yes, I know that you would prefer to deal with it and everything else in private and quiet email, but based on the results I've seen from that I don't put much stock into it.

And I disagree that bugs and ERs should be handled privately, as well. There is an advantage by having a larger number of people confirm abbie-normal software behavior. Look at the newsgroups, for example.

In one of my jobs we would setup beta forums for the beta and alpha sites to post what they found and what they wanted and so forth. And after the product shipped customer support would monitor newsgroups to help detect any problems or trends.

From my experience I have seen again and again that quality software development is a group process where everyone's input and feedback is permitted, encouraged, and listened to. I will offer you my fatherly advice that you should not be so afraid and overly sensitive to the constructive criticism that the process might generate. Instead, consider it an opportunity to get to know your customers better and let them have a feeling of being included in the process. This is a very common industry standard technique to increase customer loyalty to the product.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 16:38:17 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Then please provide more info
Message:
How long were you unable to post more than 500 characters - an hour, a day, a week? When exactly did this happen (date, time, etc.) How long were you unable to start a new thread? When did this happen? Did you get an error message in either case? If so, what was it? You know the drill.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:38:33 (GMT)
From: Observer 9
Email: None
To: Roger and Brian
Subject: The Reckoning
Message:
May I jump in bewteen 'I would like a straight answer and' and 'Too Hot'

1 Roger, when you cool down, would you post what thread your post was near? I want to look up the date and time. I say this because, though I lurk alot, I very seldom post. Within the last two weeks or so, the spirit moved me to post and I couldnt get through. Also I couldnt get a thread started.
I was confused but like the local cliche says, 'the satellite was in a meteor shower' for all I new. So I licked my wounds and when I felt better,tried again and everything was fine.

2 I like Brians style when he was working with Katie. The FA job seems to work the best for the forum when two people can check and balance hard decisions- or ones that are potentially personal.

3 I dont understand what the big deal is about the software.
The forum's existence should not depend on the software used.
Why do we need Brian software anyway. Cant anyone make that?

4 IF the situation has developed to the point that posters think blocked because of disagreements with Brian, then I am sure Brian would rather see the forum running than having his software used.
He probably wouldnt mind if it wasnt. It might free him up alot.
In his position, it would be very hard not to use his influence with the FA like he admits he did.

5 OR Maybe Brian would donate his software to the forum gods which would detatch him from how it is used and he wold be free to post like a Christian.

Hope you work it out. We have to have both of you .

#9

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:32:42 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Observer 9
Subject: The Reckoning
Message:
Hi Observer -
Good post - and I had a few comments.

You wrote:
Within the last two weeks or so, the spirit moved me to post and I couldnt get through. Also I couldnt get a thread started.
I was confused but like the local cliche says, 'the satellite was in a meteor shower' for all I new.

THANK YOU! It would be nice if people would e-mail the forum admins. when something like this happened. A short e-mail would suffice. That way they could check on what's going on. I have had problems accessing the forum several times in the last month - I know they were physically moving some of their equipment, so that may have been a problem. Plus there have been power outages, etc. on the east coast due to recent weather. But it's good to have corroboration that it happened to someone else - thanks again.

You also wrote:
I dont understand what the big deal is about the software.
The forum's existence should not depend on the software used.
Why do we need Brian software anyway. Cant anyone make that?

Yes, there are plenty of other forum software programs out there (although I wouldn't say that 'anyone' could make them - you have to be a certain kind of programmer). Most of them require that you have a domain and site space to put them on. However, Paradise (Home of Forum IV) is a commercial forum venture that hosts forums on its own web space. The space that was used for Forum IV was paid for by a year, and is still available if the administrators prefer to host the forum there.

You also wrote:
Maybe Brian would donate his software to the forum gods which would detatch him from how it is used and he wold be free to post like a Christian.

Well, IMHO, he's TRYING to do that! That was the plan, and that is why Brian has asked people to address their complaints about the software to the FA's rather than to him directly. Then the FA's can e-mail him if they think it's a problem.

I can tell you from experience that being known as the 'FA' really puts you in a box with regard to posting. If you read Forum I archives, you will read many funny and insightful posts by Brian - arguments, jokes, serious stories, etc. (I know I'm prejudiced, but other people seemed to feel the same way too!) I think it's a damn shame that he cannot post without being seen as (or feeling like) an authority figure. I have felt the same way myself - you get this persona, and then you can't get rid of it.

You also wrote:
IF the situation has developed to the point that posters think blocked because of disagreements with Brian, then I am sure Brian would rather see the forum running than having his software used. He probably wouldnt mind if it wasnt. It might free him up alot.

I cannot speak for Brian, but to me, the forum itself is WAY more important than the software used. I think most people here feel that way. This forum has been on Paradise (when they had REALLY crappy software during Forum I and II) and on UseNet, and on Paradise (when they had better software but some security problems (Forum IV). Forum III was run on Brian's software, and so is this one. At this point, I'd be more than happy to see the forum move back to Paradise, if that's what the Forum Administrators want to do. I feel that the decision should be left up to them, since they have to do the behind the scenes work.

You also wrote:
In his position, it would be very hard not to use his influence with the FA like he admits he did.

Actually, EVERYONE here has influence with the FA's (there are more than one of them). When I was co-FA, I deleted and edited posts because people pointed things out to me or asked for it. Sometimes they did this on line, sometimes via e-mail, etc. I know that posts identifying people's ISP's and so forth were deleted on Forum IV - possibly for the same reason. And, although Brian was noble enough to take credit for talking to the FA's in this case, it was really ME who threw a fit first. I e-mailed the FA's and asked that they 'do something' about certain statements and suggestions that Roger made in his post. They chose to delete the whole thread - that was their decision. I did not ask them to delete the post and neither did Brian - I believe both of us asked them to 'do something', but left the decision as to what would be done up to them.

I post here under my own name - first and last are both easily identifiable to anyone who wants to take a few minutes to track them down. (My last name is not on my journeys entry because I do not want my mother to be specifically identified - my journey is true, but I feel it might cause her unnecessary pain, especially since she's now in recovery.) As I said to the forum admins when I e-mailed them about Roger's post - anyone can flame me six ways to Sunday about my posting methods, my personality, my approach to people, and so forth (and god knows, they HAVE) and I won't ask that the post be deleted. But when it comes to making suggestions about possible financial impropriety on my part without ANY evidence, I consider that completely unacceptable. (Roger has apologized for these suggestions, so I now consider the matter closed - and I appreciate his apology). My good name is important to me, and the continued existence of ex-premie.org and the forum are also VERY important to me - so that is why I reacted as strongly as I did.

You wrote:
Hope you work it out. We have to have both of you.

Well, I hope so too :). Thanks again for your post - much appreciated.

Take care -
Ms. K
(a.k.a. Katie)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:32:40 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Ms. K
Subject: Katie is correct
Message:
There is nothing to argue with there, Katie. All points clearly addressed.

Indeed, my everything including the kitchen sink phantom post was written in the heat of anger resulting from reading a Brian Zinger post. Katie and Brian have never done anything wrong in terms of finances.

Katie says, But it's good to have corroboration that it happened to someone else

I agree with that statement 100%. I disagree with people having to email such observations in rather than posting in public. This is especially true when in a shakeout period for the software. After the software has ripened then maybe this is not needed so much. Yes, I know that the software has been beta tested and is pretty much down the road, but it's also reassuring to users when the users can see the experiences of other users.

In software testing there is a database where people submit the bugs they found. It's a good idea to review new bugs so that you don't waste time when you hit an already known problem. It's also a good idea to search the database for a problem before you submit a new bug to avoid wasting other people's time with duplicates.

I have sometimes noticed that I will post a message and nothing happens except the Active Index appears. This is even without the SKIP PREVIEW box being checked.

I think that I've seen this happen more when response time is very slow. Brian might examine the Server Logs to see if there are a lot of 'broken connections' or whatever the real term is.

No, of course I do not believe Brian should donate his software and lose his rights to it. And to address someone who's name I've forgotten and/or Brian my suggestion to pay for the software does not mean that the Ex-Premie Community (EPC) or the Forum would own it. That is absurd. The common business model is to 'lease' or license to use the software for a period of time like a year.

Regardless of what people think of what I'm saying or anything else, I sincerely believe that the EPC should pay Brian a fair market rate for his efforts. Doing so may not entirely alleviate the potential problems that I've suggested, but it's the fair thing to do and it's the right thing to do, IMO. Unfortunately, I suspect the market rate is fairly nominal and the people like Paradise make money on volume. Still, maybe even paying above market rate is acceptable in this case.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:15:21 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Observer 9
Subject: Just a few points
Message:
Hi, observer

Writing software is Brian's business, and if the forum gods want it, they should pay for it. (or the site should pay for it----someone should pay for it--don't know who, exactly) I mean, he developed it on the job here, but it's NOT property of the site. He did it on his time, right? Why should he have to donate it unless he wants to?

Also, I believe the forum uses Brian's software because the posters here liked it when he developed it. I would say that not anyone can write forum software (I can't) but there is other software out there. Whether or not it's worth a shit, who knows?

I find it completely ridiculous that anyone thinks Brian used his postion to censor someone. What would that position be, exactly? EX-forum administrator? The person who wrote the software? Like he said down below, he is trying to post as just another ex-premie here. My take is that as 'Brian- a normal Joe' he asked the forum administrator to delete something. From what I understand, that has been going on for some time here (people asking FA's to delete stuff)

I could ask them to do the same thing if someone accused me of stealing something and I hadn't done it--so could you. They could have told him 'No, we aren't going to erase that stuff, sorry. We don't censor anything.' Or 'We don't have a legitimate reason to cut that.' Did Brian twist their arms--pin them to a table with a gun on their head. Don't they have free choice, or did I miss something?

Please don't take my criticism personally. It's just the points I take issue with. I did like your point that two FA's are better than one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:24:43 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: You're on a roll....
Message:
Another excellent post from you VP! I agree especially about the supposed 'influence' used by Brian. My take on what Brian has said about this is that all he did was go to the top of the page and click on 'email admin'. Anyone can do this.

Glad you've shared your thoughts with us.

Take care.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:19:06 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: too hot
Message:
Rog, I believe that you have expertise (and I also am personally interested in what you have to say about computing- altho this is not the place) but I do not believe that anybody would have done this.

Brian just tells people to fuckoff and he's had his revenge.

The software for this forum is not setup to do that (block people in the way you describe). And the now technical term 'bug' may not exactly fit the generalized definition of unforeseeable problems as I intended it too. There are so many hardware/software compatibility issues (and there are so many different PC's, servers, softwares interacting for this to take place) that I just can't assume anything along the lines you expect me too.

I do not believe everything I read in the papers. I do not believe what every doctor or lawyer tells me even tho I recognize their expertise.

Isn't it possible it's your software program, Proxamabam?

(Runamok note- sorry but I have to sarcasm back even when serious so you know what it's like.)

I really can't assume your are correct because you say so and that seems to be the sum total of your response to me.

Brian sneaking around to censor you is up there with the mass plant conspiracy theory. You're just running too hot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:09:35 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Runamok
Subject: You're WRONG!
Message:
Runamok,

Respectfully, I must say the following when you say this:

The software for this forum is not setup to do that (block people in the way you describe). And the now technical term 'bug' may not exactly fit the generalized definition of unforeseeable problems as I intended it too. There are so many hardware/software compatibility issues (and there are so many different PC's, servers, softwares interacting for this to take place) that I just can't assume anything along the lines you expect me too.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG! YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND I DO! (This is how these ugly arguments start.)

Runamok, I've administered Brian's forum software and I know what it can and cannot do. Perhaps, Brian or an FA could confirm what I already know is under the hood. I've been there, I've done that. Runamok, can I know something that you don't for once? I'm sure you know some things that I don't and I could learn from you.

I'll for the moment concede that the ability to disallow new threads might or might not exist. It might even be a new feature. My memory is not as clear on that as it is for limiting the number of characters that an IP can post. Again, I know that is an administrative feature and that is an absolute fact.

There's a dialogue in the Editor or whatever it's called. You enter an IP address. You can limit the number of posts per 24 your period and/or you can limit the number of bytes that can be post per post. Again, there may be the ability to disallow new posts. I don't exactly recall. If there is such a feature, which I really believe there is, it would be administered via a checkbox in the same dialogue. Easy to do programmatically, too. Before every post the security routine is called to determine what, if any, restrictions are placed on that IP block.

Yes, I run the Proxomitron. For my reproducing of the limiting of bytes I could post I booted up my machine and didn't load Proxomitron and ran the browser in standard like everybody else mode.

And, Runamok, you say this:

There are so many hardware/software compatibility issues (and there are so many different PC's, servers, softwares interacting for this to take place) that I just can't assume anything along the lines you expect me too.

Virtually total and complete hogwash! I will let some of my esteemed collegues correct me here, but for the most part Internet usage is very hardware and software independent. That is what makes the Internet or specifically HTTP and HTML such a break through. There might be two limitations in place that could affect behavior the HTTP version that the Website, in this case the AWC server is using, and which version of HTML your browser supports. There might be a very remote chance that some browers are broken and do quite exactly strictly adhere to their stated HTML version, but very rare. Besides, it's working now and it worked prior. That says something actually. That says that it wasn't a problem on my side.

Ok, just for arguments sake maybe there was a glitch at the AWC browser or even in Brian's software, but...

Runamok, with all due respect sometimes you need to listen to the experts, ok, I'm not a real expert I just know a little about this stuff.

If I'm wrong I will again stand corrected.

Again, I will allow for the possibility that the FAs goofed up and set a global limiter for everyone as to the number of maximum bytes per post. Many people are not as long winded as me and many people might not type 60 wpm like me either. Perhaps, I was the first to catch the error.

And finally, as you say 'altho this is not the place'. I would answer back that soon this may not be the place for much anything else than what we are told it is for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 01:42:44 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: You SAY!!
Message:
If you don't have anything but circumstance, you ain't got nothing on anyone. Nobody is that into grudges (well against ME maybe and that's not the FA's).

Get real. If it is such it's a mistake. You're trying to involve everyone in a conspiracy against you.

Try B12 or something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:41:34 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Runamok
Subject: Run, serious corporate biz...
Message:
Run, can you do me/us a favor?

But, first, let's bury the hatchet on this arguing stuff and work on the Corporate stuff.

I want and need to maintain my anonymity and cannot really do this myself, but...

Apparently, it is State Law in California or something that you can request from a registered charitable organization some kind of form that they must file at least once a year. They need to respond within two days or something. Marianne knows the details about this and it's probably in the archives.

Run, we need this data! The stuff I've got from Mary M. is good, but very cryptic and somewhat outdated. This tax-exempt charity report probably contains the most current information on funds received and how they were used. This would be the best thing we could get to help us understand Elan Vital and Maharaji.

Let me know, Run. This is important stuff - more important than arguing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:37:37 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Run, serious corporate biz...
Message:
Guys,

See FINALLY OLD FACT from Fed Gov posted by me below.

They are not required to do squat as far as Charitable Forms and Trails.

Dead end.

AT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:07:10 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Run, serious corporate bull...
Message:
Run, we need this data! The stuff I've got from Mary M. is good, but very cryptic and somewhat outdated. This tax-exempt charity report probably contains the most current information on funds received and how they were used. This would be the best thing we could get to help us understand Elan Vital and Maharaji.

JW has already reported on the pages of the forum on numerous occasions, how efforts to obtain Elan Vital's report from the Registry of Charitable Trusts in the state of California has failed for a very simple reason. EV just hasn't been filing their reports.
And you know this. You were part of those discussions.

So why are you sending Run on this wild goose chase?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:02:00 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Joey
Subject: Because I'm a Wild Fern
Message:
I'm asking Run or anyone to request whatever this report is from the Registry of Charitable Trusts in the state of California because to my Knowledge no one has really followed through with this yet.

I believe by law Elan Vital is required to produce this report upon request. I believe that you need to appear in person or by mail. Again, I do not believe that anyone has followed through on this effort yet. We need to either verify that and notify the California outfit of the discrepancy or we need to get that report and post it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:45:49 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: wake me up when
Message:
Drek hears about email.

Seriously, I jumped on a plane five minutes before Drek posted about the California charity stuff because I'm still psychic from my premie days. I'm sending this from my digital phone and palm pilot which I had hard-wired into my nervous system (but they make me sit in cargo and they still charge me for first-class- damn what a rip, if only I had thought more about my career when I was a premie). I can't wait to park outside the charitable organisations central filing information center in the visitors parking lot in the section for people investigating suspicious charities. I know it's cold, but the warmth of Roger's recent request will make me feel any minor inconveniences or pneumonia will be worth it (even Heller posting again, well maybe not).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:19:38 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Runamok
Subject: already you've screwed up!
Message:
Run!

No!

It's not the charitable organizations central filing information center in the visitors parking lot in the section for people investigating suspicious charities.

You get this report at the Elan Vital home office in Thousand Oaks or wherever the hell the P.O. box is.

Shit, Run, don't you know that this is tourist season in Sacramento? Tsk, tsk! How absolutely tacky!

And, Run, don't think that we're going to let you get away with submitting your receipts to us for a bogus trip to Sacramento.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:21:02 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Because I'm a Wild Fern
Message:
Again, I do not believe that anyone has followed through on this effort yet. We need to either verify that and notify the California outfit of the discrepancy or we need to get that report and post it.

***************************

Again, I'm telling you that JW reported on these pages making the effort, but he was unsuccessful in obtaining any report because its never been filed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:24:41 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Joey
Subject: I disagree!
Message:
By law the charitable organization has to respond to the request.

And that means that Elan Vital has to provide those documents or risk losing their status. I very much doubt that that is the case. If that was the case I think that steps would be already in the works by whomever.

Because I so dislike arguing why don't we ask JW if he followed through or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 13:45:40 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: More garbage Rodge!
Message:

Joey responded:
WHAT do you doubt to be the case?

And who's the 'whomever' you are referring to?

Since we're talking 'serious corporate biz' as you put it to Run, don't you think it would preferable to be more precise in what you have to say about it?

Otherwise you're really not helping. You're just causing people to do alot of spinning of their wheels if they fall for your garbage.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 18:34:36 (GMT)
From: Roger Wild Fern eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Joey
Subject: We call it mulch, Joey
Message:
Yes, the whomever is vague. I apologize.

Again, it is my understanding from reading Marianne's and JW's posts that California State Law requires that anyone who so desires to get a copy of whatever (again, sorry for the vagueness here) report EV must have available can make that request in person at the offices of the charity and that report has to be there or some two or three delay or by mail in two or three days.

I would suspect that if said report is not produced in the required time then the requestor can file a complaint with the board or office of the State of California that oversees and monitors these things.

What happens then, I do not know.

Again, and I might be wrong, I do not believe that anyone has really made the effort to acquire or request this report. I believe that JW and Marianne only talked about it.

I will stand corrected if the parties in question produce information stating otherwise.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:58:42 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Joey - Run - Roger
Subject: Analytical Skills Needed
Message:
Guys,

It seems to be that y'all have the skills needed to decipher the mess I pulled from the fed ftp site. Why not analyze it from your perspectives. Explain it to us Church/Charity/Educational illiterate 'not required to file anything' people who are required to file down to our last penny.

We've got a lot of different areas of expertise available here.

Let's use it together.

I can e-mail the originals to Roger and anyone else that wants them. (It was tedious going through the process of attaching the fed codes to the EV codes)but premies need to see this stuff to. Facts is facts.

My first question. Who put it together in 1971?

Have fun.

AT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:09:50 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: A test!
Message:
Hey Roger,

Just trying to see if I run into the problem again of the limited amount of characters in a post.

This is the error I get right now:

You have submitted a form that contained the following errors:

Message field contains a word that is longer than 50 characters.

Click on your browser's BACK button to correct these errors.

Then re-submit the corrected form.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:17:29 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: AT
Subject: The Grade
Message:
I don't know what you did to get that, but usually you will get that when you have any string of text that is not delimited with a space and that string is longer than 50 characters.

It would appear that Brian is trying to protect us from messages that don't text wrap in a pretty way. You know, when some clown does that and you end up having to use the horizontal scroll bar to see the whole message.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:17:45 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: The Grade
Message:

AT responded:
Well, I copied an article related to ADVC (Randy P) is a director and I guess there's a 50 character string in it.

Posted fine on AG.

I then did the simple test of 60 characters and received the following:

You have submitted a form that contained the following errors:
Message field contains a word that is longer than 50 characters.
Click on your browser's BACK button to correct these errors.
Then re-submit the corrected form.

So now I'll bop back over to AG and see if it posts.

Hope this helps with the testing.

Go... Cold Fusion;-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:39:20 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: None
To: AT
Subject: It's a FEATURE
Message:
AT, that is definitely a FEATURE. Yup, a euphemism used all the time in the Biz.

Don't know the really purpose and I don't think that asking will get an answer.

I think we are being protected from something evil and it's best that we don't know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 00:50:01 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Old Fact Test
Message:
1. AT has conclusive data that Roger eDrek did not spam ANY e-mail accounts.

2. AT has conclusive data that Roger eDrek did not email stalk anyone.

3. Elan Vital is not a Charity per GuideStar:

Charity

Elan Vital, Inc.
PO Box 6130, Malibu, CA 90264-6130

Program / Activities
Information currently not available in database

Financial Info
Assets: $ 0
Income $ 0
This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a church.

EIN: 23-7174539
Ruling Year: 1971
How to Help:
Your cash donation to this public charity is fully deductible up to 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI). The deduction for certain noncash donations is limited to 30% of your AGI; consult your tax adviser.

4. Elan Vital of Malibu is a Charity per the IRS:

IRS
Organization Name: Elan Vital Inc.
City: Malibu, CA
Code: None - A public charity with a 50% deductibility limitation.

5. Elan Vital of Malibu is included in the Army handbook for chaplains:
United States Army

6. Elan Vital's Public Record Address matches the address listed in the Charity database that states it is not a charity but a church:
Corporate Look Up
NUM: 830548 ST:CA ACTIVE/FOREIGN N/P FLD: 07/27/1973
LAST: NAME CHANGE AMENDMENT FLD: 03/24/1983
FEI#: 23-7174539
NAME : ELAN VITAL, INC.
PRINCIPAL: C/O LINDA S. GROSS CHANGED: 06/03/94
ADDRESS P.O. BOX 6130, MALIBU, CA 90264

7. Randy Prouty of Malibu is a Director of Advanced Communications Technologies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:43:48 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: AT
Subject: ATTENTION: AT
Message:
3. Elan Vital is not a Charity per GuideStar ...
6. Elan Vital's Public Record Address matches the address listed in the Charity database that states it is not a charity but a church:

***********************

AT,

If you read the information contained in YOUR OWN post, it should become clear to you that Elan Vital IS IN FACT a public charity...a public charity thats classified as a church.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I hope this is helpful, and I do thank you for your posts on this subject.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 06:51:11 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: ATTENTION: JOEY
Message:
Joey,

I kind of understand the post you're referring to but I don't understand the next one from the feds ftp site where it's documented that EV does not have to file with the IRS and does not have to file the Charity 990 forms.

And I confess... I've never understood the term 'mutually exclusive'. I'll take the 'idiot' award tonight!

Thanks for attempting to explain.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:18:28 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: AT
Subject: Well.....
Message:

Joey responded:
With an answer like that...at least I now know who you are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 17:16:57 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Well.....
Message:

AT responded:
You do? Know who I am?

Back to the conundrum of the fed info. I've given up trying to figure it out. It reminds me of the children's hand game where one (usually an adult) clasps their hands together in front of the child first with the fingers interlaced outside the palms, the index fingers go up together, the thumbs cross and the rhyme begins:

Heres the church
Heres the steeple
Open it up and see no people

Ok thinks the little child you've got my attention now what... then the fingers (except for the steeple) are laced inward:

Here's the church
Here's the steeple
Open it up and see ALL the people! (wiggle the fingers)

Were we the little children entranced by the slight of hand? I mean we made checks out to Elan Vital. But now it seems to be a church with no people. But there's still 'events' with 'all the people' of the church. Are they making checks out to Elan Vital? Oh, but then the people disappear.

Good thing they're not into 'Extreme Unction' or the congregants would be up the creek without a paddle trying to find a minister;-)

But, I do wish one of you guys would explain what you understand of the data. Are you gonna make me dig out the old stats book to figure out 'mutually exclusive'? That's ok.

At

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:31:46 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: FINALLY OLD FACT
Message:
Here you go JHB.

Straight from the 'God Bless America' Federal Government Records ftp site current as of 1999. It's a church, charity, big fat tax deduction started in 1971. Doubt if a 14 year old got this all goin. Don't you? So, I guess he was designated as God. We were duped by the typical movers and shakers. What I can't figure out is why anyone would turn over trust funds or large donations if they didn't take that sweet 50% write off.

My apologies it's so messy. The official Elan Vital codes are underlined and bolded.

237174539
ELAN VITAL INC
PO BOX 6130
MALIBU
CA90264-6130

0000

03 (Subsection Code)* see below with Classification Code

3
(AFFILIATION CODE)

Affiliation Code defines the organizational grouping.

Code Description

3 Independent - This code is used if the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).


1
(Classification Code)

Subsection Classification Description

03 1 Charitable Organization

197112
– Ruling Date YYYYMM

1 -
(DEDUCTIBILITY CODE)

Deductibility Code signifies whether contributions made to an organization are deductible.

Code Description

1 Contributions are deductible.

10 – (Foundation Code) 10 Church

059 001 000 – Activity Codes

ACTIVITY CODES

An organization may list up to three activity codes on Forms 1023 and 1024. These are codes which reflect an organization's purposes, activities, operations, or type. From one to three activity codes may be in this field.

Schools, Colleges and Related Activities
059 Other school related activities

Religious Activities
01 Church, synagogue, etc

1 – (Organization Code) 1 Corporation

95 – (District of Jurisdiction) 95-Los Angeles CA

000000 – (Advance Ruling Expiration Date YYYYMM)

ADVANCE RULING EXPIRATION DATE

A charitable organization exempt under IRC 501(c)(3) whose status as a public charity (rather than a private foundation) has not been determined generally will be allowed to operate as a public charity for a specified period of time. At the end of this time frame (expiration date), a final determination will be made as to the proper classification of the organization. This shows the month and year (YYYYMM) when an advance ruling is to expire.


0– Asset Code - No Assets

0 – Income Code - No Income

06– Filing Requirement (06)Code 990 - Not required to file (church)
0 – Filing Requirement ( 0) 0 No 990PF return (Ha Ha - no 990 requirements)

12– Accounting Period

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:06:07 (GMT)
From: AT
Email: None
To: Joey, Run, Roger
Subject: ^^^^^ Read Above Post ^^^^^^^
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:20:08 (GMT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: To be or not to be...
Message:
IP number matter to those of posting from fully qualified domains where a whois will return who I am and a phone book will return where I live, for those coming thru mass market ISP's it is a non issue except in the commsion of a crime in whcih case adequate logs can feret thru 'anonamous' email accounts on to the sources behind them. Which means if your honest and want to remain anonamous and post from a mass market ISP you are not traceable by the readers. My ip addres is my address and that was always my point. Now lets all play nice and play 'SINK the LITTLE GURU MAN' - I am going back to Lurkdon, but never fear Ben Lurks Here!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:40:52 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Ben Lurking
Subject: good points to the expert
Message:
Ben Lurking, you are the Man!

Yes, you are absolutely correct about everything you said and especially about the qualified domain.

And that's another reason I haven't gone out to get one because you end up publishing way too much personal information. And it's becoming a recognized problem.

Ben, is there a way to not give them a real name, address, and phone number?

I've got a great domain name that I want to register.

Email and I'll hit you back with it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:41:06 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: To be or not to be...
Message:
What planet are you from?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:55:05 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Powerman
Subject: The one you don't want me on
Message:
Is that your best shot?

Come on. I've got a glass jaw. Hit me like you hit me the time before. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:22:12 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: The one you don't want me on
Message:

Powerman responded:
First off, I'd look up the definition of a glass jaw, and second, I'd look into a team of psychiatric specialists. Then I'd take my head out of my ass, rearrange my top desk drawer, and look into becoming a commercial real-estate developer.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 20:55:49 (GMT)
From: A Visitor
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: RE: What Planet He's On
Message:
Middletown? or Gurneyville? (sp) Someplace cookin'
....If you get my meaning.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:43:45 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Powerman
Subject: Yes, that's it. Real Estate!
Message:
Location, location, location!

Mind if I subdivide YOUR ass, Poonman?

Sorry, as long as it's busted between you and me we might as well head down the low road.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:43:32 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
One time when I was eighteen, I was standing at a bus stop at Santa Monica College and a girl said to me, 'Are you Latvian?' I'd never even heard of Latvian so I said I didn't know. She told me to ask my mother, that she'd know. I was baffled.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:23:27 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
If John is any indication, you'd have known it if you were Latvian as it seems, by what I've learned on the web and from John's own words, the Lativan people are extreemly proud of their culture and their country.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:42:25 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
Turns out my family is from Bolivia and before that Japan.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:53:47 (GMT)
From: Agasp
Email: None
To: John
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
The off topic arguements are OK.

It is a form of relief from the intense guru grind.

While an arguement is going on, I get the impression that they all keep one eye on the door incase some dewy eyed premie wanders in.

Why a while back the whole forum scroll looked like a four letter word insult bulletin board.

I think the freedom to argue lets them blow off steam so they are more level headed for battle when the time comes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:34:01 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Agasp
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
I hope that was a joke.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:22:05 (GMT)
From: A mediator
Email: None
To: whom it may concern
Subject: The Arguments Below
Message:
Perhaps having a separate forum available would
resolve this issue. I am not taking sides.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:38:46 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: A mediator
Subject: It already exists....
Message:
and it's called Anything Goes or alternately, Hell. I believe it was set up specifically for subjects that don't belong here. It's a wonderful site actually-everyone says whatever they want. This type of stuff should be over there because in the past people who participate here have said they didn't want to see stuff here that doesn't have anything to do with the guru. But as I've said myself in the recent past, you can't force anyone to do anything. It's just too bad though that even though people have made it clear they don't want this stuff here, other's will not comply with the intention of this forum and head over to Hell. What can you do? Ignore them I guess....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 16:44:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: A Customer
Subject: Who the hell u think u r?
Message:
This is great. Some guy who calls himself a customer, of all things, is complaining because his favorite program gets interrupted by threads he's not interested in. This isn't prime-time anti-Maharaji tv, buddy. You're not a customer, you didn't pay for the show and, unless I'm missing something, you've contributed nothing at all to the discussion other than this complaint.

Anything Goes is not this forum. It's not the 'commons' and, as we all know, hardly anyone goes there. If you're not interested in a thread, don't read it. Better yet, why not start your own? Do you have anything to actually say about Maharaji, the cult or your involvement? What?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:55:25 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why do you care?
Message:
Pissing matches don't interest me. And you have said nothing worth commenting about except for two things:

--Don't recall having said anywhere what my gender is.
--I chose 'A Customer' based on a thread by Sir Dave in Hell. It has no special significance. Which you would be aware of if you had read the post where I addressed my choice of posting name.

I stand by everything I have said here and at Hell. Hell serves a good purpose and is most definitely used. And that is where the fighting belongs. You seem to have overlooked the fact that you and I want the same thing from this forum-discussion that is on topic. Or are you just implying interest in that with your parting shot? Constant battling about all this other stuff has nothing to do with what this forum supposed to be about.

Just because you don't know who I am doesn't mean that I don't belong here or that I'm new here-certain people who have been here a long time know who I am. What about you? Are you a new ex? I don't recall seeing you around here for more than the last month or so. Try not to see more than there is in the things I've posted. I won't go over old ground, but your hostility is really uncalled for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:04:14 (GMT)
From: Jim Heller
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: A Customer
Subject: Yes, I'm a recent ex
Message:
Thanks for asking. I left the cult two months ago and boy am I pissed! Sorry if you bore the brunt but I just can't believe I fell for all that shit. Especially when I realized that he's got a brother who also claims to be a Master. Did you know that? Well, I didn't. Here, take a look:

You've got to be kidding

Now, you say you're interested in talking about on-topic matters. Okay, I'm listening. Talk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:51:28 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: Should have known
Message:
Silly me. I should have realized by the tone of that post that it was you. I thought I had seen another person here since you stopped posting around the end of December who also called himself Jim. I didn't think that was you but I guess it was. You also threw me off because you've been using your last name too. Since I don't feel like checking thru archives to see why I thought it was a new person I'll assume those posts were from you unless you say otherwise.

I didn't say that I had anything about my own experience that I wanted to discuss with you in particular. I said we come here for the same reasons, which you haven't denied. I'm pretty familiar with your style Jim. And I'm not inclined to respond to being ordered around.

By the way, your response about being a new ex was funny. Thanks for the picture and the laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:52:18 (GMT)
From: beep
Email: None
To: Customer
Subject: Watch Jim hes lying to you
Message:
He is an OLD ex. Fancys himself a hotshot at goading, flaming and general predator behavior. Thinks this gives him seniority.
A master a virtual mindgames if thats what you are into. Getting you to defend yourself is his specialty.
Best ignore him when hes like this.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:05:21 (GMT)
From: One Coward to Another
Email: None
To: beep
Subject: My aren't we brave! NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:48:28 (GMT)
From: Peeb
Email: None
To: One Coward to Another
Subject: Brave Nostrils Flaring! NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:25:08 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: Yes, I'm a recent ex
Message:
>>>>>>Thanks for asking. I left the cult two months ago and boy am I pissed<<<<<<

Not this cult ya dummy, he's talkin' of the other one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:57:13 (GMT)
From: Jim Heller
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Harry
Subject: Good one, Harry
Message:
Hey, did you know I have an uncle Harry? Interesting, eh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:03:07 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: A mediator
Subject: Separate foum, no because...
Message:
I agree that maybe some people do not wish to read this stuff and I respect their needs. However, a simple solution is very readily available and that is not to read such posts. Yet, I, at this time, have my own need to express myself on an issue that concerns me and it might concern you because that issue is one of censorship.

I believe that the concern that might be argued here is that it makes the ex-premie forum look ugly and nasty and the premies who are sitting on the fence will have reason to avoid the forum.

Hogwash! This is the real world where people can speak freely and internal issues should be openly discussed. And open discussion is not available in Maharaji's World of Knowledge. It's tough and a bit uncomfortable, but at least everyone is invited to partake in issues that directly affect each and every one of us.

Also, I would like to see such discussions on the Forum because the Forum gets archived and a permanent, although very boring, record exists for everyone to refer to instead of rely on their failing memories to coax long lost details. Of course, I'm assuming that there is no censorship going on and everything we say, no matter how ugly or off topic, gets archived.

Disk space is cheap, so please spare me that excuse.

When I was in the know at Ex-premie.org there was some 70 meg available and no more than 30 were used. I'd say let it roll.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:13:16 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: What's a 'foum' Rog.
Message:
Some new fangled type of contraceptive?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:28:42 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Harry
Subject: Master Spelling's Pop Quiz
Message:
Harry, Harry, Harry!

Not now! 'Serious business' as my friend, Paul, who is in jail would say. How the hell was he to know that the gun was loaded? I hate when that happens.

Harry, Mistress Grammar is away on important business, but Master Aaron Spelling is available and very eager and ready to give you a spelling pop quiz at the Santa Monica pier. Don't underestimate Master Aaron Spelling because of his age, Harry. He is still a great Hollywood Master to be reckoned with.

Listen carefully, now, Harry. The slightest screw-up on your part is going to blow what might be the best thing to ever happen to you.

It's not the usual deal at the end of the pier that we've done with the organ grinding monkey. But this time as you start going out on the pier head left into FunLand and there is one of those kiddy rides that goes round and round.

But first, Harry, so that we don't arouse suspicion and have the police interfere with our fun like did the last time, you need to dress up in one of those classic English or Ozzie student uniforms with the beanie, britches, school tie, and books bound by a leather strap. And, be very sure that you shave at least twice because it's important to present ourselves as clean and tidy at all times.

Ok, find this ride and make sure that you get enough tickets to ride it until Master Aaron Spelling gets there for your lesson. Make sure that the little flying car thingy that you sit in is the happy face bumble bee one. Slip the guy a ten spot if you have to. Also, be sure to buy some pink cotton candy to use as a signal for Master Aron Spelling. You might even buy two or three of those pink cotton candies in case Mr. Spelling is late. And no matter what you do, even if you get sick, don't leave that bumble bee, Harry.

And, guess what, Harry? Yes, as a special treat Master Aaron Spelling might bring his daughter, Tori, to proctor the Final Exam, if you know what I mean about the word 'final'.

Oh, Harry, you're going to love this one. Is your VISA card that I have still current?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:46:49 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Bumble Bees are fun
Message:
Thanks for the invite Rog. I was just going to stay home and wash my hair and do my nails, but I have to draw the line at shaving. The Mistress was into shaving too. Boy, could I tell you some stories about her!!!!!. She comin' too? Re my credit card; anything that's mine is yours Rog.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:57:28 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Harry
Subject: Bumble Bees have stingers
Message:
Harry, the important thing you must remember at all times about bumble bees is that while they look soft and fuzzy if you piss 'em off they will sting you and the stinger will be hard stuck with its barbs and with a small dose of bumble bee venom just so you never forget how much it hurts.

You can try and pull the stinger out and then suck out the venom.

Mistress Grammar will be there, but, get this, by satellite hookup only. This will cost you thirty dollars and anything more you can give would be greatly appreciated by the organization.

See ya there, don't be square

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:24:14 (GMT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Final Ousterand Undoingof M
Message:
He just expressing his subconcious slurred desires that we all share!

FOUM

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:35:55 (GMT)
From: Harry's Translator
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: What's a 'foum' Rog.
Message:
It's that stuff that keeps frothing out of Roger's mouth as he
rages on.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:35:59 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Harry's Translator
Subject: Ah, that's my problem
Message:
So, it's the foum that is reason that every week I need to buy a new keyboard and all of my messages are completely garbled.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:31:09 (GMT)
From: Harry's Translator
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Ah, that's my problem
Message:
It could be that. Or Brian may have messed with something.
You have excellent computer skills as you keep telling us over and over so I am sure you will figure it out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:19:45 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Harry's Translator
Subject: Are you calling me paranoid?
Message:
Just because I know that Brian is sneaking into my house at night and fucking with my system.

First, Harry, for your meeting with Master Aaron Spelling I've told you how important it is to have shaven twice. Master Aaron Spelling will have it no other way unless your face is baby butt smooth. Harry, you are going to have a real close shave this time. So, don't blow it.

No, I'm not an expert on computers. No, not even with almost 20 years of experience. It's too big and it's always changing. While I may at times sound like an expert, I know deep down that I'm not. There's always something new to learn all the time. And there's always someone who knows more than you do and quite often that's the cops. And I sure wish the cops, there's two carloads of them parked outside my house right now, would leave me the fuck alone.

Ok, story time!

At one of my more recent jobs at a software company we hired this lab guy. He had previously worked for the company and was hired again about four years after his first gig. He was living in another state in a trailer park if the means anything to you.

So, let's call this guy, Bob. Anyway, Bob was the lab guy in charge of setting up the machines and stuff like that. One of my jobs was to develop and run a complicated system that sent jobs to the lab machines. And, in fact, I pretty much developed the entire lab where when I started we didn't have much of a lab. So, I'm in the lab all the time checking things out and tweaking other servers.

So, somehow Bob thinks that the lab is his and Bob don't like being told what to do even though he doesn't know what he's doing at all and he's very frustrated. Well, Bob also has another problem and he's always late for work like showing up at 2 in the afternoon and he looks wasted. And then a lot of the time Bob is sick and doesn't make it to work.

So, I'm in the lab with Bob and I'm flipping through a notebook that's sitting on a lab bench. I hit this page and it's like this shopping list for a bunch of strange things like chemicals and such. Looks like a recipe to meth without the critical ingredient of epinephrine or whatever. Or maybe it was a recipe for KAT which you can make out of common under the sink things and hydrocholoric acid or something. Don't ask me how I know these things, but it's all on the Internet and that's how I found out just for my own curiosity. Now, if I could only make a better vinyl if you know what I mean...

So, one day Bob chases me out of the lab, but he tries to slam into me like he wants to fight. Well, I'm a pussy and I don't know how to fight. And I'm really quick on my feet. Bam! I'm gone out the other door on the other side of the room and bam! I'm in my managers office with the door shut behind me telling this guy the story. Well, it didn't go very far and Bob lied his ass off. I had the option of calling corporate security, but had I done that Bob would have been booted out pronto and I don't like doing that kind of shit just because somebody is a little, ok, a lot fucked up. I even suggested to my boss that Bob was a meth head. Now, I really don't know nothing about meth. I took a Black Beauty once to help me cram for a final exam and that was all I needed to know about speed.

Anyway, I got laid off and got to do nothing while I collected big unemployment bucks! About a month ago I called over to talk to a friend and he said that Bob had been fired. Apparently, Bob had gotten even more paranoid, more strange. Yeah, and he could do that in the lab because he's there all alone for the most part.

Bob got so paranoid that he put password on the lab machines at the CMOS level where when you reboot you better know the password or your shit out of luck. Some machines have dip switches that you can flip to disable, but newer machines don't, I think. You might have to re-flash the BIOS, I'm not sure. Point is that for lab machines that a lot of people are using on and lab machines tend to crash or you need to reboot to boot into a German OS or something.

Bob thought that people were sneaking into the lab at night and fucking with his machines. Bob wasn't really doing a good job as lab monkey. Actually, it's a hard job if the equipment is hodgepodge, which at the time it was. You've got to have all these driver disks available when you reinstall the OS and all that crap. Big pain.

So, Bob got stranger than when I was there and eventually he admitted to being a speed freak and they fired his ass out of there.

I knew or rather strongly suspected that Bob was a meth head. No one believed me. Sometimes I think I see meth heads everywhere, you know?

Another quick Meth Story: A friend of mine was at a bachelors party in Las Vegas and a meth head friend drove up from Phoenix, AZ. Well, this guy was so fucked on meth and so paranoid that he thought he was being followed by the Feds the whole way. Shit, there's nothing and nobody out there for most of that drive. You're mostly alone and can see miles ahead and miles behind.

Keeping this On-Topic: Maharaji sucks!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:51:18 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Hey, hey, hey
Message:
Hey Rog, I ain't Harry's Translater. In as much as everything is connected and I am a fish and a fish is me, or I am you and you are me, Harry's Translater and Harry and two distinct and separate entities. Promise.
BTW, your not paranoid; everyone really is out to get you mate. So your right.
I hear the word 'meth' mentioned a bit. I assume your talking about speed. Some friends and I talked to and saw God one speed weekend, many years ago. We then went on a tour of hell, and I'm talking the lower levels, although we didn't get to meet the devil, which was a bummer. God came across as a bit of a loudmouthed, pompous know it all. But then I guess He does know it all hey. I remember they had some dynamite dope up there in heaven.
Take Care Rog
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:29:53 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Harry
Subject: Hey, hey, hey
Message:
BTW, your not paranoid; everyone really is out to get you mate. So your right.

I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.

And don't you tell me to take care whomever the fuck you are, Harry This or Harry That.

Yes, they say that speed is quite the rush.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:02:47 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Hey, hey, hey
Message:
Speeds a gutter drug Rog. Sorry about the 'take care'. I know what ya mean, I hate it too.
Look after yourself
Harry
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 09:05:50 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Harry
Subject: ow bout Have a Poke in the Eye
Message:
Subject Should Be: Instead of Take Care, how about a poke in the third eye with a sharp stick?

I'm bailing on ya, Harry. That speed I took only 30 minutes ago has worn off and I'm crashing to bed now. Or is that the gutter where I'm laying my head tonight?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:26:20 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: What's a 'foum' Rog.
Message:
shh Harry he's bigger and more powerful than ever before.
brought in the heavy artillery.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:13:22 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Everyone
Subject: I'm BAAACK! with a comedy
Message:
Ok, I'm baaaaaack!

As much as all of you hate me and wish I was gone. I still love all of you...

Actually, I'm joining an online 12 Step Program to help me with my Internet forum addiction. So, I probably won't have much time for this forum anymore.

I had a recent interview for a job where I was asked if I had any experience doing HTML (the language used by your browser right here and now.)

I responded proudly that, indeed, I had some skills and experience in HTML. I had gotten a lot of real experience doing Roger's House of Maharaji Drek.

He asked me if he could see it and I was, let's say, really stuck and squirming with trying to come up with a reasonable answer. I mean, can I really show anyone out there the House of Maharaji Drek? Hell, no! They'd think or know that I was some freaknoid guru cult member past or present. And, too, it's not as if House of Maharaji Drek is suitable for all audiences. An acquired taste, if you will.

Do I try to avoid the question and did say, 'No, I can't show you that.' No, saying that just raises even more questions like what kind of sick porn site is this guy running.

So, I'm dancing all over the place. Shit! What do I say? Ok, some religious thing. Ok, but he presses on and says that in his little office that sooner or later everyone knows everything about everybody. Well, uh, no, not me they don't. So, I finally told him I was in a religious cult and it ended there.

No, I didn't take that job. Could have.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:29:30 (GMT)
From: MAHA-ha ha!
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The world as I see it ...
Message:
The world as I see it
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:05:14 (GMT)
From: TiM
Email: MahaSmadhi
To: Everyone
Subject: Stuck in the Sugmad
Message:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:19:08 (GMT)
From: arne' t you the
Email: None
To: TiM
Subject: brave one (NT)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:59:19 (GMT)
From: Jim Heller
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Everyone
Subject: While I'm at it, oh Brian?
Message:
Roger's post to Brian was deleted the other day. By who? Brian perhaps? Katie (who, remember, is a completely separate person and everything)? Some other anonymous FA? Anyway, it was gone and gone fast. Not quite as fast as Brian's earlier diatribe against Roger (You're an idiot) but fast.

But, if I don't say so myself, Roger raised a very good point, I thought. And yes, it was about me. He questioned Brian about his major denunciation of me some time back, Brian's Statement of Purpose which, in part, read as follows:

I've known you since Forum I, when I viewed your certainty that Maharaji was a fraud in stark contrast to my own fears that he wasn't. I wanted to be like you. I wanted to be that certain.

Remember when OP called me a 'Jim-wanna-be'? That was a long time ago. I used to follow you around the forum and take my own shots at the people that you belittled. Mili, OP, CD, the rest. I felt confident in your shadow, and felt that if I could face my own fears with the same degree of confidence that I faced the premies, then would prevail over them too. I was pretty pitiful...

Since then you and I have taken different paths.

I took on responsibility to see that people who were in the same sad shape that I was when I found the forum would have the same chance that I did to prevail over their own fears. I had people email me about their fears and I did what I could to try to reassure them that there was an actual end to the panic attacks involved in leaving the Lord behind. Some of those people are reading this now. It's been my great pleasure to have known them and to have had them share those doubts and fears with me - a total stranger. They trusted me to keep their confidences, and I valued the fact that they even would.

I made some real blunders too. Remember the blow-up over deleted posts? And the ex-premie-only thread where we all hashed out how to deal with the crushing responsibility that I was feeling over how to do the job? That came about after I made a total ass of myself over something that I don't even remember now, although it was traumatic at the time. You suggested the quorum approach, and that was refined into a committee that I could toss the hard calls off to.

You, on the other hand, continued to follow the weak around the forum and take your shots at them. There are so many who tested the waters of leaving, and you've treated them as interesting little bugs. I grew embarrassed and ashamed that I ever looked up to you, that I was ever like that, as I watched you happily remove the few emotional legs that they had left to stand on after their years in the cult. I watched you belittle them, Jim, and I watched my respect for you drain away. I never met David Smith, but I've seen you in action.

I grew up during the time that I was running the site. I came to see that I don't have to be like you in order to stop being the scared little rabbit that I was when I found the forum.

I was talking to JW on the phone last night and he was relating how you are actually a very likeable person on a face-to-face basis. Apparently, you only choose to be the way you are online. How very sad.

This is my only post here, so I'll not be responding. I won't be emailing you, or posting to you anywhere on the internet. I have no interest in ever meeting you.

I now see you as a sad little boy. An ex-premie Petrou. You could have grown up into someone worth respecting during these last 2 years, but you chose not to. On one single occasion you were asked, expected, and flat-out told to toe the line that the rest of the people who use the forum were willing to toe. You chose to stand up for your over-inflated right to demand what you want from people who you believe had damn-well better provide it. So now you have your new platform, provided by yet another person. Maybe you even have the respect of the people who go out of their way to read your posts, the people who someday want to be certain like you. In that case, you have your paradise. Your own little kingdom of heaven.

You could have chosen to share your better side with people who, like you and like me, left the cult carrying only their emotional scars and a need to be reassured that their fears would fade eventually. Like JW, they might have come away knowing and liking the real Jim. But you chose not to let them know the real Jim. I never knew him.

Instead you've remained in persona. And as pitiful to watch any other Jim-wanna-be.

I know.
I was there.
Goodbye.

Since then, Brian, you have posted a completely vitriolic post to Carol, as scathing as you possibly muster, I imagine. As for Roger, well he ever so much as dared to suggest a few things about the forum (hey, Mr. Owner, what's with those short subject lines anyway?) and we know how you handled it.

Tell me, Brian, just how far above my miserable, base level have you risen anyway?

The way I see it, your holier-than-thou attitude only lasted as long as you muzzled yourself. We can't all be Katie, Brian, no matter how much we love her. Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 22:50:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: Thanks for the answer, Brian
Message:
Figures.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:42:20 (GMT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: While I'm at it, oh Brian?
Message:
Hi Jimmy,
what in the world have you been doing?
Kind of a long vaca for you this time.

As I remember it, Brian deleted some offensive words from
the post of the Drek man.

And Carol was trying to skirt the rules of posting a
journey. I think that she should wait to do that anyway till
she has more time to evolve.

'ex premie Petrou'! Now that is saying a lot.
As I remember it, Brian posted 2 posts to you in that thread

They were both quite strong....< Does that sound like CD?

I remember when Brian used to post as .... and he did prowl
the forum as a team with you at one point. I actually liked
the ferocity but he is right in that there is another side that
I think is funnier and also more effective...or maybe saying
it is more effective is giving too much to the premies as
they sure arent too very changable.

I saw that you mentioned bad words directed at Brian from
the Drekmaster. ( You mentioned it in the first post),
I somehow missed any action like that but I can see there
is. Whatever anyone thinks, Brian has done a lot of really
excellent work, a real lot. I dont mind if has an builders
perspective about ex premie org because it is kind of like the
story of the chicken that made the bread story. (or rooster).

He made it, folks say this should be happen that should happen,
We are dang lucky that he went and actually took on the hard
task and learned the ropes and even wrote the code for the
new improved forum 5.

I know he is not a forum administrator and niether is Katie.
She might have some duties on the -recent ex- forum.
I guess the problem with ferocity is that it needs a
status as an occasional style. Limping away from having
wasted your life being dominated by a god incarnate madman
gets people to post kooky things that....well, Carol posted
something last week that fried me good. I wasnt happy with
my intial response. Anyway, Katie and others here are people
I read and I really dont want to type something that might make
them cry or feel bad.
I think tweaking the thinking is ok, although as you especially
know, premies thinking is like mercury, you point something
out, and they are all over the place and wont be pinned by
a helping hand.
Got to go, kids are all around demanding attention.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:36:53 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: bb
Subject: While I'm at it, oh Brian?
Message:
bb,

Love you and all that. You and I may not agree on everything, but I don't think we've got a major problem that we cannot discuss it here. And I'm thankful for that.

Anyway, and I'll say more elsewhere in greater and more boring detail, your statement:

Whatever anyone thinks, Brian has done a lot of really excellent work, a real lot.

This exact sentiment is part of the problem as I see it in terms of Brian and, through association and her own real efforts, Katie lends them more credibility capital than anyone else here. In many ways their opinion supercedes everyone else's here.

In fact, in doing my research for my current topic I've spent a lot of (too much) time looking at the archives of Forum III, especially the Final Days or is that Final Daze? Anyway, everyone was falling all over themselves to thank Brian and Katie for all the work they did. Ok, yes, they did a lot of work. Ok, but so have I (and I really, swear to God don't want to play that up) whether you like my site or not. Sir David has done a lot of work. And a lot of other people have done a lot of work, too.

In taking this to a ridiculous extreme, we don't need to replace Maharaji or Mahatma SoAndSoAnand with new saints. We need to be equals and we need to be able to freely express ourselves here without fear of retribution. And if we need or prefer to be anonymous for whatever personal reasons like not wanting our families and friends and co-workers to discover that we are, indeed, the twisted and notorious Roger eDrek™ then so be it. It's a non-issue. It's a matter of personal choice for god's sake. Can't we have personal choice here as to whether we want to announce to the world that we were followers of the stupid and fat Guru Maharaj Ji? Stop trying to force your thinking, your standards, your rules on others! As stupid as we all might sound from time to time, we're adults and we deserve some respect for our privacy and our personal choices regarding our privacy. And let's not get into the barney outed Joey at some internet cafe in Montreal, please.

While the Ex-Premie Community (yes, the EPC) was interred in Paradise, there was no one we had to pay tribute to. They (Paradise) was paid off in silver by Katie and we never again had to say a single word to Paradise unless there was a technical problem. Likewise, they never said anything to us nor did they interfere in our business. Sounds like a healthy arm's length business arrangement. Yet, we see below in Brian's post that he successfully petitioned and got relief from the Forum Administrator(s) via the deletion of my poorly written and overly long diatribe that I wrote just after being insulted rather rudely by Brian. This is me is the crux of the issue - abuse of power and censorship.

While Brian and I have some real bad blood and I'm sure that Katie doesn't like me either, both of these people are good decent people. I may say that I don't like Brian's aggressive posting style when he does post, but who the hell am I to criticize?

Yes, Brian worked his ass off coming up to speed with Perl. I don't read Perl, but I bought a couple of Perl manuals as reference and I have read through all of Brian's code in preparation of completely taking over Forum III and ex-premie.org. I am not exaggerating when I say that I read Brian's code and understood it because I'm a programmer, too, you see and once you've know one or more languages they all are pretty much the same. I remember when I was in school working on my C.S. degree and I had taken course in COBOL, BASIC, and FORTRAN that I heard someone in the lab say that they knew nine computer languages. Gosh, was I impressed. Well, not so much today, I'm not.

Although Perl is very terse and hard to read with the function names and commands not being very mnemonic, it is very powerful. Reminds me much of a mainframe editor language that I used years ago that I really got into and did strange things with like wrote complicated parsing and text substitution programs with.

As a database person I disagree with the use of the file based architecture, but Brian's code is good code. I'm sure that if he rewrote it from scratch at this point in time he might do somethings different, but still it's damn good code.

Oh, yeah, I've heard the sour grapes thing about me and Brian... No, not in the least.

I digress in the good old days when programmers where geeky arrogant dweebs and data and programs were entered via punch card reader...

But, my point is the over-accollading (sp?) again and again of our appreciation of Brian that he has been elevated to the status of can-never-do-wrong sainthood. And that just does not sit well with me. It does not sit well with me when Brian jumps up and down on Carol, no matter how silly her thinking is or was and worse when Brian jumps on my case and when maybe he's played a role in having my posting here blocked through the limiting of the number of character or turning off the ability to create new threads. I don't know if the FAs did that on their own or whether Brian did or influenced them.

I think it's wrong to create idols and for those idols to abuse their apparent position of power.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:21:12 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: While I'm at it, oh Brian?
Message:
Would you guys stop deleting and bitching at each other and just get back to fucking with maharaji and help the stoopit premijis? Diatribe that sucka! Hoo Hah!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:26:22 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Mu
Subject: Diatribe or Daya's Tribe?
Message:
You know where it's all going, don't you?

When Maharaji departs his mortal coil I'm going back to the fold to be one of Daya's Tribe. Get to do some toe kissing, yeah!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:36:37 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: History 101, Drek
Message:
Hey, Roger
At the risk of becoming argumentative again with you over Brian and Katie (I'm sure they are quite capable of taking up for themselves, anyway) I'm not sure that your statement that people were falling all over themselves to thank Brian and Katie for their work on Forum 3 is correct. Unless I have had a complete and utter brain fart, I seem to remember how hardly ANYONE thanked them at all! At the time I was in disbelief over this. Not because Brian was my idol, but because he had worked damn hard for all of us and it was all volunteer.

I seem to remember that I fell all over myself and maybe a handful of other posters said thanks, too. Robyn, Helen, JW?? --I can't remember who, but it wasn't a huge thread--that much I DO remember.

Brian received a lot of thanks for being webmaster at first, but I remember him coming under a lot of fire for taking a stand with Jim. It was almost as if people were afraid to thank him at the time. An idol? I don't think so (sorry Brian) Have you forgotten your history, sir Drek? (or did I have a total and utter brain fart???)
Stay warm,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:52:31 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: Remedial History 101
Message:
VP, yes, you might have had a minor brain belch.

And I do know my history. I have it all right here on my machines and I can dig into it in seconds and search for anything. I'm dying to pull together the Rob Anderson hoax where he tells the premies that it is Maharaji's agya that they not post on the Forum. A lot was happening back then.

There were two small to medium sized threads with people thanking Brian and Katie in F3a54a.htm. And really there are spontaneous thank you's scattered throughout the Forum archives. I believe and I can check that the thank you's to Brian and Katie are in the Forum IV archives.

Please do not construe my bringing up the constant thanking of Brian and Katie for their efforts as being a case of sour grapes. Brian and Katie have done a lot for this community which I'm calling EPC short for Ex-Premie Community, not to be confused with EPO which is Ex-Premie.Org. Still, there are plenty of others around here that have put in a lot of time in one way or another that have not been showered with appreciation. And I'm not talking about website operators and fancy stuff like that. The appreciation should be shown for every person who has contributed to these pages.

I've always been a fan of the underdogs. Don't like the powerhouse teams because they've got it too easy. Don't have no heroes. God is a concept...

Indeed, Brian and Katie deserved it. I would make the suggestion that the ordeal of writing the software would not have been quite as time consuming and arduous for Brian if he had already known PERL. He came up to speed the hard way. Still, don't feel bad for Brian because he learned a marketable skill and hopefully he is making some money from it.

Volunteer work sometimes has a big payoff. Look at Bill Gates! It has been said because his mother was on the national board of directors of the United Way with the CEO of IBM is how Bill's little nobody nowhere software company got the contract to provide the OS for the first IBM PCs. Bill didn't have no PC OS software, but he bought some and delivered that. Rest is history.

Please consider the fact that we never once had to thank anybody at Paradise. Nor did anyone have to worry about offending the host and getting kicked out. And if the Paradise tech guy, Chad Peterson, would have posted some vitriolic rant against someone we all would have just laughed our asses off instead of when Brian and Katie say something I believe that many people give them respect above and beyond what others may get.

That's my point. At Paradise we were all playing on an even playing field with some exception going to some people for their previous efforts. The entire personality problem between Forum Administrators and Forum Host were eliminated.

Is there really something wrong with my asking that we all be considered the same here? That there be no special privileges granted by the Forum Administrators based upon whatever relationships we have or have had?

Date: Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 08:40:49 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: Announcing Forum IV
Message:
Paradise forums seem to work alright now, at least mine does. There are of course, other forums that can be used which might even be better. I know Geocities has them and so does Yahoo. There are many more.

I think it's the best idea to seperate the forum from the website. Also, if archiving is not being done then it cuts down the workload tremendously. In actual fact, I was ready to offer myself as webmaster of a new ex-premie forum if this old one deteriorated or went out of business. Only I wasn't prepared to spend time archiving the posts.

Anyway, you've done a good job on the web site and that's a nice permanent fixture on the web.

Date: Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 10:38:34 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Announcing Forum IV
Message:
Boy, I'm gonna miss these newfangled frames.

Guess there's no chance of seeing them around.

Bye, frames.

Date: Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 12:52:46 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Announcing Forum IV
Message:
Boy, I'm gonna miss these newfangled frames.

Me, too, Run!

This forum software is superior to any other out there. That's why Brian needs to sell it and make money for all of his hard work. Someone can always BUY this software and maybe we can have it back that way, eh? (One suggestion, Brian. Put spell check on the thing ;)

Paradise used to suck. sob! I'm sad sad sad sad sad sad sad to see it change. I told Katie and Brian by e-mail that I think putting the forum on site and writing this software was brilliant on Brian's part. I do hate to see it change.

On the other hand, am I MYSELF willing to read EACH AND EVERY post, archive, handle forum disputes? HELL NO! I'd have to read CD for crying out loud! (Just joshin', Chris) But seriously, no way, no how.

Am I gonna tell Katie and Brian what they have to do with their lives just to PLEASE ME or anyone else here? HELL NO! I'm gonna thank them for their time and effort. They have helped a lot of people here, as have all of you who take the time to post. JW, Jim, Nigel, Gail, KK, JM, TD, John K, Bill, Robyn, eb, Judex, Selene, Micky, Rick, Anon, Sir David, Jerry, Gerry and others who I am forgetting stand out in my mind as being the posters who really helped me.

Even if anyone here disagrees with the decisions that Brian and/or Katie have made in the past week, my hope is that you will agree they worked their assess off and deserve some thanks.

Date: Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 13:04:17 (EDT)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: Announcing Forum IV
Message:
Dear Brian and Katie,

I want to acknowledge your hard work and dedication toward making Forum III run so smoothly as to make it all seem effortless. Barney made some excellent points about the endless, thankless task of running the site; as if that weren't enough, mediating disputes and considering legal ramifications in your decision making processes--sounds rather stressful for a volunteer position. And I agree with Runamok--I'm going to miss the frames.

For the record, (snicker and a big 'high' to Robyn), after years of traditional and cognitive therapies and hooey hooey New Age healing modalities, I can honestly say: the Ex-Premie Forum has done more to help me to unravel the cult brainwashing accumulated through years of Mormonism and Maharaji-ism than all my previous (and expensive) efforts combined.

My gratitude to you both for everything! Paradise won't be as nice (gotta love this 'preview message' capability).

With love,
eb

Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 01:22:59 (EDT)
From: Diz
Email: None
To: eb, Katie and Brian
Subject: Announcing Forum IV
Message:
Same here (at least in generalities), eb.

Dear Katie and Brian

Just want to echo the messages of appreciation. You've done an incredible job, for me personally you've provided an avenue to freedom several times wider that I'd been able to find myself. I'm real glad to hear that you've found a way to extricate yourselves from full-time forum servitude. Glad you've decided to keep the site still. It's a fantastic resource for anyone who wants to get another angle on MJ, and I think your approach to it is spot on.

I'll also miss this format, agree it's better than any equivalent I've seen, not that I'm a connaisseur - hope you're getting it all packaged up to make your fortune, Brian. Agree that a spell-check would be great!

Hope all goes well for you, Brian and Katie, and that you have a wonderful time in the hours that you reclaim

Love, Diz

Date: Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 15:52:27 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: Announcing Forum IV
Message:
Dear Brian and Katie,
I just want to thank you again for all the work you've done. I know it has taken lots of effort and time out of your lives no matter what some think. I know because I know you.
I am glad your 'load' will be lightened back to something managable.
I will tell you also that while it is nice to have posts archived, on Sir's forum I've happily awaited for some of my posts to drop off the edge! :) As you said if there are things a person wants to save they can.
Love you both, SEE you soon,
Robyn

Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 00:07:51 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Forum 3 was Great
Message:
I'd like to thank you all.
Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 02:10:05 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: KB
Subject: THANKS!
Message:
Thanks to everybody and especially Brian and Katie who should get the last post somehow.
Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 04:11:08 (EDT)
From: Da
Email: Da
To: barney
Subject: THANKS!
Message:
Da - That is the way it works!

Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 02:35:31 (EDT)
From: Curly
Email: None
To: KB
Subject: Forum 3 was Great
Message:
I very much agree. It has been an educational experience for me. Thank you all.
Curly

Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 03:17:55 (EDT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: All who ran Forum 3
Subject: Forum 3 was Great
Message:
Many thanks to all of you.

Date: Thurs, Jul 08, 1999 at 07:11:25 (EDT)
From: chr
Email: None
To: KB
Subject: Forum 3 was Great
Message:
Thanks Brian and Katie, you did a great job in what were sometimes difficult circumstances.
Chris.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:30:38 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Thanks for making my point
Message:
Is there really something wrong with my asking that we all be considered the same here?

Ask anything you wish, but you may not receive it. First of all, we are not all the same. Secondly, respect and friendship are earned and I'm not giving mine away to anyone here who I don't think deserves it. Look, Roger, I don't want to fight with you about this--I really don't. I happen to like Brian and Katie for the people they are (who I HAVE met in person in real life, by the way) NOT just for their work here. No matter what you say to try to convince me, you aren't going to change my mind about this. Only they could do something to change my mind about this, can you understand that?

There were two small to medium sized threads with people thanking Brian and Katie in F3a54a.htm. Thanks for posting them--I think you proved my point for me.I guess you and I have different perceptions of what the forum tripping all over itself might mean, because 9 posters--8 excluding you (Myself, you, Sir Dave, Robyn, Diz, eb, chr, Jethro, and Curly) out of the hundreds who write and read here daily was hardly overwhelming TO ME. (I didn't count Run who didn't say thanks in that thread nor KB who said a general thanks to all)

What is with this powerhouse team notion you have going? It sounds like you think there is a boxing match going on and that everyone here agrees with Brian and Katie instead of with you. Come on, Roger, you have Jim in your corner for crying out loud. How does that make you an underdog???? Really, though, I'm just funning with you a bit on this to make a point--can you see how absurd it all sounds? Those of us who can think for ourselves agree and disagree from thread to thread and post to post, depending upon the ideas that are being discussed and the actions being taken. I happen to agree with Katie and Brian a lot, but not always.

If you don't like Brian and Katie, FINE. I think we all get that point. Can we move on now or do we have to keep beating this dead fish? I'm done if you are.

Thanks,
VP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:48:58 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: So what specifically
Message:
is your point? That people WANTED to express their thanks to Brian and Katie for doing a difficult job-setting up the Forum and webmastering it? So what? I often thank people for doing things and I do that because I want to. It doesn't mean that I start the worship thing over it-I'm just happy that someone has done something that may be of use to me that I couldn't have done myself. And then about the information that participants here post-of course we are grateful for that type of help too. And I have seen many people thanking others when a specific post is really good. Isn't that why we keep coming here? But that is a different issue from the actual setup and webmastering of the site.

You bring up your own site-House of Drek. Roger, if people WANT to thank you for that site, they will. Other's won't acknowledge it at all-the same applies to Hell (aka AG). And the same thing applies here too. The only difference is in the way you (as webmaster of that site) seem to interpret things. I don't feel that Brian, Katie, or Sir Dave expect anyone to express their appreciation for work they've done, but I get the impression that you expect it for your efforts at Drek because this is not the first time you have brought this up. Why are you feeling underappreciated? Must people thank you for your work? There apparently was a need at some point in time that you felt should be fulfilled, so you created the site. It was YOUR choice, right? If it was something you wanted to do, can't you just be happy you did it because YOU wanted to do it? Or must we express our appreciation because you want us to? That kind of thanks is not sincere and is reminiscent of cult think to me. Let it come naturally.

Take care of yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:36:44 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: None
To: A Customer
Subject: So what is right
Message:
VP and my favorite customer who does not have the courage to use his or her real handle:

There are thank you's all over and everywhere. I'm sure that there are thank you's when Forum V started up.

The problem is the additional consideration that Brian and Katie get because of their efforts. Their posts and what they say and, more importantly what Brian has admitted to doing, does not get challenged or examined as critically as other posters here.

No, I do not desire appreciation for the House of Maharaji Drek. I would have preferred posting as some other name had it not been destroyed just for the purpose of distancing myself from the House of Maharaji Drek and whatever credibility capital I might get from it.

Oh, and respect is earned now, is it? Interesting that some people around here believe that we should respect everyone like some of the more obnoxious premies. I actually agree with you that respect is earned. Respect is also lost, too, isn't it? And I can tell, A Customer, that you know longer respect me, yet you are afraid to use your real handle because, because...

Because you're being a bit timid here. No, go ahead and tell me who you are. I won't bite you. I just think your approach here is cowardly. Are you afraid of tarnishing your posting handle by engaging in a controversy and having to take a side and ending up possibly disliked? Don't worry, there's only me on this side. Only one person to dislike you and I'm really not that dangerous, but I do sound like I should be taking better care of myself, don't I?

And the 'take care of yourself' is a nicey-nice close, isn't it? Like your concerned about my well being, like maybe I'm having a breakdown or something.

'A Customer' your tone is a bit tacky, shall we say, eh?

VP, yes, you've actually met Katie and Brian. And I've met some ex-premies, too. It's very much different when you meet people face to face in an easy setting of short duration. But, you know we're all just people and so often we end up in little disagreements and misunderstandings. Not to say that Brian and Katie are not nice people, but in any long term social situation the problems always seem to arise, don't they? Or is it just me? Am I the only one who has these problems with people?

Can't help but think back to the ashram days where such a great effort was made by everyone to just get along. I think that repression might describe that situation. Long term repression of growing inner resentment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 00:13:07 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: One last reply to this
Message:
Roger-when I said take care, I meant it the way it was said. I can't decide how you will interpret it. As for using the name I use-one last time: it has no particular significance attached to it. But I would like to say this about posting names: Some people are fine with using their real names, some are not, and some do whatever they want to do. You have said in the past that you don't use your name because you are afraid to. Now since I have never questioned your explanation about this, why do you feel that I MUST tell you who I am? I've said before that you don't know me. Really, when it comes right down to it what difference does that make in the content of what one has to say? If I told you my name was Derek, would you know if that was true? How about Irene? What if I started posting here within the next few days using Sam or Nancy? Would it really make a difference? I don't see where adding my real name to anything I've said would matter in reference to the content.

Accept people for what they are. It makes life a lot easier.

At risk of further sarcasm---Take care Roger

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 01:08:50 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: A Customer
Subject: One last reply to this
Message:
Hi, A Customer,

I think what Roger was saying is that he believes you are a forum regular using 'A customer' as another alias to hide your regular identity. I don't think he wants you to tell him your name in the real world, but another one HE believes you usually use here. Did that make sense?

By the way, you said that name has no significance, but I think that name is great. When you are an ex-premie you HAVE been a customer (or consumer) for a long time, right? You know, buying videos, buying plane tickets to programs, buying M's lines of bull--that kind of stuff--har har.

Talk to you later and stay warm wherever you are tonight,
VP
P.S. thanks for the kudos today:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 13:06:35 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: What you're saying
Message:
could be true I guess. I am not using this name to flame him though so it shouldn't have been interpreted that I'm 'undercover'. I tried to be very upfront with what I say, but how it gets interpreted is out of my control.

You're right about being a customer in the sense you used it. Didn't even think of that.

Take care VP. Your posts were very good

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 15:05:52 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: A Customer
Subject: What you're saying
Message:
Hey, I have enjoyed your posts very much, too.
I don't know whether you are undercover or not, but it looked like that was what Roger was saying. Have a good weekend. I won't be here too much, I'll be out in the real world :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:12:40 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: So what is right
Message:
You are right that people have issues and problems with relationships. No one is immune to this--certainly not me. Most of us aren't preforming our real live relationships on a 'stage' or public forum--this place certainly makes things trickier that way. It's easy to be bold with words on a page, and more so when you are anonymous, I believe.

My relationships with katie and brian are a bit more complex than a quick visit in an easy setting, but I don't feel the need to explain or defend.

Yes, people treat the ex-webmasters and ex-FAs differently here. Surely you know that deference is not always a positive thing.

Repression is bad, you are right about that. So is airing every little thought we ever had before God and everyone. There is a balance. I'm not saying I have it all right, either, Roger.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 21:26:51 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: Thank you, both of you
Message:
Thanks to both of you for putting the time and energy into this uncomfortable squabble.

Yes, VP has correctly summed up what my complaint is about the posting to me using a different handle than the normal handle that you, A Customer, might use.

A Customer, I have two problems with your use of a different handle in posting your constructive criticism to me regarding this issue. Of course, I am assuming that you are doing exactly that, posting with a different handle on this occasion. Please correct me if I am wrong on my assumption.

1. You and I had some kind of positive 'relationship' through this forum and you seek to avoid having me know that you are expressing your concerns to me and damaging that 'other' relationship. I see this as very duplicitous. I am somewhat disturbed regarding this lack of honesty. And, worse, this act of duplicity plants a seed of doubt in me regarding who my friends are. And that doubt will extend to all of my so called friends because I will never know who A Customer is or was.

IMO, your act of deception for the purpose of giving me your honest feedback is, in the long run, far more damaging to me in a systemic fashion than whatever single isolated resentment you are afraid that I might harbor towards you.

2. And my constructive criticism feedback to you is that you might have an ulterior motive for your concealing your usual posting handle is that you wish to avoid that name being tainted by having participated in this discussion. As in you will be able to post with your usual handle and maintain that persona in a totally favorable light that is completely free of any hint of being argumentative or being disagreeable.

Now, the ultimate act of cowardice would be for me to have posted everything I said using a different posting handle.

Finally, I believe that the overall effect of using these different handles in the manner I've described above is far more damaging to the forum community than my attempt to air issues regarding to the operation of the forums.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 17:05:37 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Covering old ground
Message:
Roger-

This is not the place to continue this conversation. I have posted a response to you in Hell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 19:07:14 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: A Customer
Subject: Don't do that on 1st date
Message:
A Customer,

Who died and made you Perfect Forum Master?

This is not the place to continue this conversation.

I believe the description for the Forum is something like Anything and Everything About Maharaji. It is not yet, Anything and Everything About Maharaji and ONLY Maharaji. And there is still plenty of evidence of Off Topic (OT) posting to indicate no change in that. Like all OT posts, and all posts in general, it has been and always will be the individual's choice to decide which ones to read.

Hell, sorry, I was recently rescued from there and I don't have any plans to return.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 22:31:15 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Duplicity? Really Rodge??
Message:
Finally, I believe that the overall effect of using these different handles in the manner I've described above is far more damaging to the forum community than my attempt to air issues regarding to the operation of the forums.

***********************

Talking to yourself again, Rodge??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 23:46:41 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Joey
Subject: Here we go again, huh Joey?
Message:
no text
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 00:12:55 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Duh, going where Rodge?
Message:
nt to you too pal!:::)))
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:45:20 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: Jean Michel
Subject: Ooops! I forgot you!
Message:
I'm sorry Jean Michel-I forgot to mention your name above as another person who has set up and is webmastering another site. Big oversight on my part. Take no offense please.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:06:28 (GMT)
From: BB
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: While I'm at it, oh Brian?
Message:
I guess that although I read a lot here I have missed a lot
also. Until the last day I didnt know you and Brian had anything
going on. I also managed to not realize that you were the
person that took over briefly from Brian.

Of course bringing that up is a reminder that Brian did try
to back away from the job way back then.
Not a minor point!
You mention that it was around forum 3.
So I figure that he wasnt all that attatched to any of the
perks(?) that go with the webmaster job.
He also did bail out of the forum quite a while back and
seems to come in here only when he is paged.
So there is another not so minor point.
Katie tried to leave the forum at least once I am sure of,
but, she bonded with too many of us to go.
And, dont fergit, since it turns out it was you that was
webmaster briefly, I do recall you mentioning that if you were
still at the helm, you would block a person or two.
I think shp was one, and the other I fergit.
I dont say that with any thought that doing that would have
been wrong on your part. I actually agreed at the time.
I only mention this stuff because the wine tells me too, and
also, because Brian and Katie dont seem very different
than the rest of us in thier actions. I didnt say that
as well as should have, but blame it on typeing fatigue.
I'll be in and out all night.

I hang out at the bottom of the threads before they go into
the archives because then the threads are sort of complete
and I can just stroll down the thread once.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:05:25 (GMT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: DEortation #2
Message:
Noone liked deportation #1. Hubbard was deported 5 years for no good reason. Rawat has scarfed off more money and more people than Hubbard and Rajneesh ever dreamed of. Rawat. Padre Pio, Sri Chinmoi, Thankar Singh, Klemp, and Tibetan adepts are all people
who had developed and use chakra powers. Ken Wilber was converted to a Tibetan Lama when zapped by the Lama's chakra energy. They all also have in common an unbending adherence to their chakra tradition no matter what lunacy goes on - and that includes Padre
Pio. I experienced after five years that Rawat's technique is very dangerous. When you get far into it and begin to make mistakes it can cause intense harm and in my case came close to
killing me three times - as a direct result of the techniques.
I will type in more later. But that experience along with the other rip offs must be enoug for the U.S. justice system. Anyway,
I'm starting to work on it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:35:09 (GMT)
From: Jack
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Making Money
Message:
Dear Richard,

I'm sure L.R.H. must have made more money than M. but maybe I'm wrong. Those Scn. tecniques are VERY expensive.

Jack

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:50:13 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: DEortation #2
Message:
Got 'dem 'ole kundalini freak out blues.....meybe?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:52:56 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@tigerriver.com
To: Richard
Subject: DEortation #2
Message:
I'm having trouble picturing how meditation could possibly be deadly, unless you were shown an even more bizarre version of the 'secret' techniques than I've heard of. You were supposed to trim your thumbnails is the way I heard it...

As for deporting Rawat, he's a US citizen now. You would have to show that he was granted citizenship under false claims. Good luck though. Who would you want to inflict him on?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:57:47 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: BWAH HA HA HA HA!
Message:
Brian, the thumbnail thing was hilarious! I got this picture of someone with those super-long fingernails trying to do music and puncturing their temples...... he he he... yecchhhh.... he he he! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:13:31 (GMT)
From: Someone
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Close your eyes for an hour
Message:

Try to close your eyes 1 hour and enjoy your Wisdom!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:00:40 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Someone
Subject: Close your eyes for 8-10 hours
Message:
I think that problem with you folks in developed, industrial nations is that you don't get enough sleep.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:30:17 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Someone
Subject: Open your eyes for a lifetime
Message:
A monk sat down to meditate. His teacher stopped by and asked him why he was meditating. The monk replied that he was meditating to become enlightened. The teacher picked up a tile and started polishing it with a rag. The monk asked the teacher what he was doing. The teacher replied that he was polishing the tile into a mirror. The monk responded that no amount of polishing would make the tile into a mirror. The teacher said that no amount of meditating would make one enlightened.

Do you understand? No, you follow an empty teacher. Therefor, you are too stupid and have no wisdom. But, do not be downhearted, there is no wisdom.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:48:00 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Someone
Subject: Ah, the supreme comic irony...
Message:
of a person who is (a) anonymous, and (b)a premie, choosing that particular pseudonym. 'Someone', indeed!

Thanks for the chuckle.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:54:29 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Someone
Subject: Open your eyes for a moment...
Message:
... and see that you're in a cult. It's a bit scary at first, but you'll get used to it, and when you do, and forgive yourself for the wasted years, you will feel wonderful, and a little wiser.

John the Open Eyed

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:28:47 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: You got it backwards
Subject: Close your eyes for an hour
Message:
See, these premies nowadays don't even do their homework. The supposed wisdom is... to 'enjoy'. So you close your eyes for an hour to 'enjoy' the enjoyment, not the wisdom.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:41:12 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Close your eyes for an hour
Message:
And supposedly the way I heard it last it doesn't even have to be an hour if you can't, just so long as you try. K lite makes it easy. AS you said the focus is on enjouyment.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:50:33 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: Yes, romperroom Knowledge NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:16:29 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Someone
Subject: I do ya one better
Message:
Someone: I close mine for about 8 hours every night and you are right.... It does WONDERS for my wisdom.... and my aging frame, too! Thanks for the advice :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:40:19 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Someone
Subject: Try to do it w/o talking to M
Message:
After that, get back with us. Lots of us meditate but some of us are too rightfully burnt out on M to want to. It's quite a trick to separate the programmed grovelling and self-denigration in the face of the 'master' (that self-aggrandizing, former self-proclaimed messia and ex-Lord of the Universe) from the meditation.

Try not talking to him for an hour at the same time as you attempt meditation. He's not listening anyway (except to the sound of money in your pocket).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:50:30 (GMT)
From: Jim Heller
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Open letter to FA's & friends
Message:
Although I've otherwise stopped posting (for now, at least) I still care a lot about the issues surrounding this cult. Enough, anyway, to write this.

I'm quite concerned about the censorship which has settled in here. Apparently, a few anonymous people now run this forum. Who appointed them, how or why, the terms of their engagement, any of that is all secret. What exactly their 'administration' entails is also secret. One thing they do, however, which is NOT secret is delete whatever posts and threads they choose to without advance warning or subsequent explanation. Doing that must be kind of fun in a way (I can just imagine!) but, ultimately, I think it, it's a terrible practice.

Obviously, no one wants to see a lot of infighting amongst exes. Hey, I remember a time when the notion was unheard of. Our commonality as former cult members was so rich and poignant and our relief at being able to finally start making sense of Maharaji so welcome, we just naturally all got along. In an often grey world of relativism it was a relief to have fallen upon some fair absolutes: cult thinking is bad and critical thinking (at last) was good. Yippee, we finally learnt something!

Unfortunately, divisiveness crept in, as it always must whenever people are involved. Personalities started grating on one another a bit here and there. There were philosophical differences both on topic and off. Policy differences. Lifestyle differences. Even differences about how best to challenge the Hamster or try to 'ferret' out the truth. Often these disputes were between mutually respecting parties but sometimes not. Sometimes, for whatever reason, respect had worn away while the arguments continued.

Now one doesn't have to spend too long here to notice the various weather changes. Sometimes this place has been hilarious. There's been so much good humour, most of it, of course, at the expense of cult thinking and those who support it (namely us, then, and premies today). Ridicule? Only for the ridiculous of course. The forum's also served as an immeasurably excellent clearing house of information for the informationally-starved (again, us, then, and premies today). In that light, the mood here has often been kind of casually business-like. That's been good too.

And, of course, there have been tempests galore. Arguments between exes and premies, betweem exes and exes, on-topic and off. Hey, don't forget, we've even had some good exchanges between premies and premies. (Now those are funny. You can't tell me they're not funny. THOSE are funny!). Plus there have been some real efforts to wreak havoc on this forum. Premies have tried to undermine it and some exes have been bizarrrely mischievous at times as well. Yes, Virginia, there ARE mental health issues. Why not? We're talking about a lot of people, many of whom, it appears, got a little messed up, to say the least, in their years of service. Oh well.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the forum's always nicer when there's no real nastiness afoot. I know that's how I always found it. I think that's a given and I don't think anyone need make that point. As much as we all like a good bit or racy gossip once in a while, a little intrigue, a few sparks, some oil on the coffee, if you will, a little robust this or that, however you call it, generally, people like to have a good time and to enjoy it with others.

But sometimes, as we all know, that's not entirely possible. Sometimes, there really are unpleasant issues that should be aired and addressed. The current forum procedure, with its anonymous FA's cutting anything that even approaches these issues doesn't allow for that. For the short term gain of maintaining civility at all costs, the FA's have fallen into Happy Valley syndrome. This page is becoming Enjoying Life Without Knowledge.

See, it's not so much that everyone needs to read Roger's 'rant' against Brian (which I have to criticize: it was far too long and he misspelled 'goddam'). It's just the effect of people realizing that some anonymous crew will make that decision for them. THIS bowlderizing of the page is not good. The forum, despite whatever anyone else might say about their great private property interest here, is really the one and only ex-premie 'commons'. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be SOME control of discussion here but I think the censor's knife should be wielded gingerly, and by no means by some anonymous parties subject to neither recall nor recourse. THAT, my friends, constitutes full censorship and that, I think, is a bad, bad idea.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:59:56 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: On censorship
Message:
Hi, there Jim. How's it going?

When I came here yesterday and clicked on the post by Roger to Brian and got the message that it had been censored, my reaction was the same as yours. I think, in almost ALL cases censorship is a bad practice, too. A bit like government making decisions for us--like we are too stupid to make them ourselves, sheesh.

I didn't get to read the rant: however, I heard about it's contents in a private e-mail. I am no attorney, but it seemed to me that some of Roger's accusations could be considered slanderous. Someone should have some serious proof to say what he did publically. Otherwise, that person is just smearing someone's good name and reputation without anything to back this up. (Ironically, I recall once Roger was concerned with his own good name being ruined here and he was crying out for accountability from the person who said the things about him, correct?)

Anyway, the FA probably did Roger a big favor. No offense, Roger, but did you talk to these people about this in private by e-mail before you posted what you did? No, PLEASE DON'T ANSWER THAT HERE. Some things are better handled privately.

Other than deleting things that could be slanderous or illegal, I agree with Jim that what is written here should not be edited. Just because someone doesn't like what someone else said to them doesn't mean it should just disappear. (I believe the mentioned thread is an exception) There have been several holes in conversations that shouldn't exist here lately. I've been flamed in the past, and no one came to my rescue to delete the 'fuck yous.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 23:23:36 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: The post that should have been
Message:
Really, I must be on my way...

And, maybe this is the post that should have been - not such an overlong rant and dealing more with the issues only.

VP, since you did not detail in your post what might constitute slander on my part I will only assume that you are referring to the questions I asked about funds spent for equipment and the possibility of selling a commercial software on the part of Brian.

Again, and I've searched what limited email record that I have and I could not find anything about the purchase of equipment. Therefore, I must assume that my information was based on a telephone call sometime last spring or summer with Katie or Brian on that matter.

And at this point I will be more than happy to completely retract that statement or question. I am more than fully satisfied with Katie's perfectly acceptable response on that matter that she posted in the Phantom Thread.

I was, in fact, wrong to even bring that issue up as it not relevant. Katie has always been very upfront and honest about the accounting of funds sent in.

I believe in my post that I also indicated that my statement was subject to clarification. It has been clarified and I am doing the honest and honorable thing by retracting it without hesitation or ambiguity. I also argue that it be stricken from the record ;)

And in my retraction I believe that I have done the right thing and have avoided any possibility of being slanderous or using innuendo as it was done on me. I do not believe that it is slanderous for a private person to say something that they think might be true. I believe slander is saying something as if it was true knowing that such was, in fact, untrue and there might also need to be malicious intent. As a private person and not the press and I am not subject to a higher standard of rigorous confirmation of facts.

Again, I still have concerns about the nature of the current relationship between the Ex-Premie Community (EPC) and Brian's TigerRiver.com Forum Software (TRFS) company.

I have absolutely no uncertainty as to my recollection of telephone calls with Brian in the Summer of 1999 where he told me of his plans to further enhance and develop his forum software to be able to sell in the marketplace. The plan, as Brian told me, at that time, was to give the EPC a free forum for acting as beta testers. BTW, a very common practice in the industry.

Ok, I believe I've read somewhere that the EPC and the Recent-Ex forums were not, in fact, the beta testers for Brian's latest forum software. If that is the case then we must assume one of two things here in regards to the arrangement between the EPC and Brian:

1. EPC is getting the forum software for free through the generosity of Brian
2. EPC is paying for the forum software

I have absolutely no problem with paying a market rate for forum software to Brian. In fact, Katie paid for the Paradise Forum IV services for the EPC.

However, if the EPC pays for the software then I think it is only fair that there should be no extended shows of gratitude for Brian and his time and effort. Being paid means that Brian has been compensated and nothing further is required from any poster using his software.

And more importantly through a general user's license agreement like I assume we had at Paradise Brian is prohibited from interferring or influencing the running of the forum other than when there is a clearly defined violation of the license agreement. I am not accusing Brian of abusing his role here. I am concerned with the possibility and the appearance of such or the use of undue influence.

If there is clearly defined business relationship as there was at Paradies then there is no need for posters to show their endless gratitude and all posters, including Brian and Katie, are on a more even playing field when it comes to having a say or a voice on the forum.

When EPC was on Paradise there were no forum super heroes and we didn't have to show our gratitude. And most importantly no one needed to worry about offending the host who's party we were attending. More like we had rented a public hall or a pub, I'd say. Lot's of nasty little host-party guest problems are instantly avoided. Read some of the Forum III last days archives to get a flavor of what I'm saying.

This is not to say that Katie and Brian are not well liked. In fact, they are well liked and they have done a lot for this community.

I just happen to disagree with them sometimes, that's all. And I feel as if I've come out with the short end of the stick because of the apparent perceived imbalance that is undeniably in their favor. And to be quite honest I really resent Brian's recent treatment of me on the Forum as he acts in his official capacity and I'm an end user asking for a change or making a suggestion.

While Brian and/or Katie have stated that the EPC was not the beta site for the latest version of TRFS, I must say that I am a little skeptical of that claim. We've seen that some Enhancement Requests (ERs) like having the JavaScript to show posts in local time have been implemented. Such rapid response of a minor cosmetic ER is very unusual in the software industry except for premier customers or alpha and beta sites.

Regardless of whether EPC is a beta site for TRFS, Brian might receive many benefits from the EPC presence. He can monitor and measure performance with a moderate load. Of course, I'm assuming that his other real beta-site is smaller that EPC and has less traffic. I don't know, do I? I'm asking these questions then.

For any commercial product vendor It is always good to say that your software has so many customers and has served up so many 100's of billions or is that trillions of hamburgers or messages. Look at Paradise and they will say that they've served up such and such messages.

Again, I have no problem with Brian making money on his efforts. I have a problem of what may be the true price that EPC is paying for the software. I am asking straight forward questions about the arrangement. I would like to see something prominently posted somewhere that explicitly states what the arrangements, the requirements, and the responsibilities are. A user agreement or a license agreement. Not Forum Guidelines, mind you.

Also, I believe that EPC should have the ability not to be locked into any kind of agreement that does not allow EPC to comparison shop for other products.

Let me finish by discussing innuendo here.

Are the questions I'm posing slanderous innuendo or a prudent, reasonable inquiry of what might be construed as a business arrangement between EPC and Brian?

As for past allegations and innuendo about me I would characterize all of that as being much more vicious than what I have presented here are.

I was accused of being a plant, a sex email spammer, a stalker and all sorts of wonderful things. Were there any specific details revealed in those allegations that I could address? No, not really. And that constitutes innuendo.

An example of innuendo would be my saying and saying again and again that Katie was an embezzler and not providing any details. Did I do that? No, I brought up one and only one detailed incident that I had a question about. Katie responded and I retracted.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Katie is a good and honorable person. We may not agree on everything, but I can make that statement in all sincerity.

Is my asking Brian to officially clarify and post what relationship between himself and EPC slanderous innuendo? No, I don't think so.

I am only wishing to have clear cut roles defined and stated for the purpose of avoiding any conflicts of interest or the possible personality conflicts that we've seen between the members of the community and Forum Administrators or Webmasters and Developers of Software. Again, we had no such problems on Paradise when the Forum Admins became anonymous.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:54:49 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@tigerriver.com
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: The post that should have been
Message:
To the extent that you've retracted your statements, I accept your apology. You are right that I could have treated you more civily (lly?). I will attempt to be civil to you from this pont on, provided you refrain from venting your personal dislike for me in brand new threads in public forums where they do not belong.

People don't use this forum because they wonder whether you and I like each other. We don't. JHB is correct that this stuff doesn't belong here. It belongs in private email.

From the time that you quit being the webmaster, you have not emailed me about a single complaint, question or concern that you might have about me, anything concerning me, the site, the forum or life in general. You've used public forums to air your grievances - regardless of the topic of the forum, and irregardless of the disinterest expressed in the subject by others.

Your 'phantom thread' was deleted at my request. I made my request to the forum administrator. For the thread to have remained - with it's groundless accusations intact - would have required me to respond in kind.

You were the first to scream when people accused you of wrong-doing from the safety of anonymity. Then you accuse me of wrong-doing under the names of 'Barney' or of 'Roger eDrek'. The protection that you've enjoyed, granted by those who have a greater sense of right and wrong than you have shown, would have come to a screeching end. It was better that the threads die silently.

I'm only responding now because you have apologized and because this thread will possibly (and rightly, in my opinion) also be deleted. It has nothing to do with Maharaji.

When you post on topic, you add value to the lives of the people who read this forum. Many of them are now at the point where you and I have both been. Neither of us cared how other participants felt about each other - not in the least.

If you have a question for me, email me. If you have a question regarding the forum software, suggestions, 'REs', bugs, complaints, etc then make full use of the link provided to contact the forum administrators. Please stop using this forum as your personal complaint or suggestion box.

I understand that you see conspiracy where others don't. But the world isn't made up of people born to reasssure you.

I have no idea what 'EPC' is in your viewpoint, since you just made up the term. Tigerriver.com is a domain that Katie and I secured so that I could continue to write perl programs that run on the web. The plan was to turn ex-premie.org over to someone else, and I would have lost my programming base. I've had a volunteer come forward and wander off in circles somewhere.

Ex-premie.org is a website, and not a corporation. There is no written, hidden, or wink-and-nod agreement between myself and an ethereal web domain name. How could there be?

I am not able to 'sell' anything to a non-existant party. Ex-premie.org isn't paying for forum software because ex-premie.org can't 'buy' forum software. It's a domain name, a collection of webpages. Stop with the legal mumbo jumbo about 'parties'.

Whether Forum 5 uses the forum software that I wrote or not, I have continued to provide software and support for the french forum. That support has recently been extended to a spanish forum. Nobody whined about being used as 'beta-testers' on Forum 3. None have complained about it on the french forum. Traffic is picking on the spanish forum, but so far no complaints.

Calls for financial disclosure regarding site contributions from non-contributors will continue to be ignored. Anyone who contributed money toward the cost of paying for ex-premie.org's webspace knows my email address. None have used this forum as a platform for accountability.

Any forum administrator who chooses to shed anonymity in this forum deserves the abuse that both you and I have had in our lives when we ran Forum 3.

This forum is about Maharaji. Use this forum for that purpose or not. I don't care. When you post on topic I almost come to like you, but more importantly you contribute something of value to people who desperately need it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 21:49:42 (GMT)
From: Jim Heller
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: VP
Subject: The irony, Veep
Message:
Veep,

Notice how you don't exactly know what Roger said but only heard it paraphrased later. Are you sure it's a fair summation?

Besides, say Roger was actually wrong about his allegations that Brian's got a self-serving agenda irrespective of his great life in public service. So? Roger makes the allegation, Brian or Katie can address it and we can take it from there. If Roger's wrong he can deal with it. If not, they can. Parliament and Congress work that way, don't they? What's the big deal?

Better question -- what's the alternative?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 22:24:15 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: No, I didn't read it myself
Message:
You make a good point, I am operating from what someone else told me about what was posted. I realize this, that I did not observe it first hand, but I consider my source to be reliable.

Since I didn't get to read what Roger wrote and you did, may I ask you a question? Was there a blatant slanderous accusation made or not? I'm talking about more than a suggestion of a self serving agenda here-- I'm asking you if Roger accused people of illegal activities in a public forum? If he did, I repeat that the FA did him a favor, he could get sued for something like that. (Although the accused are way too nice to do something like that)

My problem with talking about this kind of thing over a forum is simply this (and you asked) This is not a court room or a senate hearing where all of us reading can SEE the physical evidence that might be needed for someone to defend themselves against the type of sladerous comments that I heard were made. So, since the accused cannot properly defend themselves, why should Roger be allowed to smear their good names here by making accusations that it would be difficult if not impossible to answer here?

Brian and Katie have done a hell of a lot for this site and this forum and for the ex-premie community (and for me personally.) Even if you don't like them personally or agree with them, I would hope you would be willing to conceed that point. You have done a lot for everyone, too, Jim and I respect you and don't want to argue with you about this. My point is simply that if someone is going to slander and the accusations cannot be answered with physical evidence here maybe that is the type of thing that should be censored. Otherwise, the forum should be left alone.

Hey, if slander didn't take place, then I guess it shouldn't have been cut. Fair enough?
Got to go lead the boy scouts, but I will be back later to see what you had to say on this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 22:29:27 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: JIM
Subject: The alternative
Message:
I forgot to answer one of your questions. You asked me for the alternative.

The alternative is that Roger make the accused aware privately of his concerns and allegations. OR involve the authorities if he thinks something illegal went on (which I can tell you it did NOT!! Good grief!) I believe in free press, but with that also comes responsibility. That is all I am suggesting. Do you disagree? Do you think anyone can say anything at all about anyone without being held accountable? If that is the case, why do we have slander laws?

Take care and we can discuss this more later tonight. I'm starving and need some chow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 23:33:17 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: STOP IT RIGHT THERE!
Message:
HERE I GO WITH THE CAPS LOCKS STUCK JUST WAY MY ACCELLERATOR GETS IN MY CAR WHEN I'M ROAD RAGING!

Whew, kicked it loose just in time! We're all safe now.

I'll front the money for any and all of you to sue me if I ever accused Brian and Katie of doing anything illegal in that long windy phantom post.

Please, and no offense if you didn't read it then do not attempt to comment on it or reconstruct. It's journalism at it's worst. Just like trying to find those missing twelve minutes of Nixon.

Read my cleaned up post above and see that my gripe is with the lack of a clear cut agreement between software provider and the Ex-Premie Commmunity. Nothing even close to allegations of anything illegal and really nothing under the table either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 23:29:12 (GMT)
From: Jim Heller
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: VP
Subject: Boy, this is frustrating
Message:
Veep,

You're asking me to comment on now-erased comments that you've never read and I'm reluctant to repost. Why not email Rodger yourself and hear what he says? Does that work?

By the way, at their very worse, Rodger's allegations were tentative. He was asking for an explanation which, I recall, Katie started to give before the thread miraculously disappeared. And, even more fundamentally, all this talk of legalities and such is silly. We're talking small change at best. Who the fuck cares about that? My read on Rodger's complaint was that commingled funds, even on a small scale, would just go with the property of commingled interests (i.e. personal business mixed with public service). That's what I got out of it but, then, like I say, it's not here for us to consider.

Why not email Rodger yourself? He can explain better than I, I'm sure.

And no, by the way, I DON'T think Brian and Katie have done all that much for us. Brian wanted the job of webmastering and he got it. He got a lot out of it on a personal level (both software experience and a new relationship). Despite his denunciation of me as an ungrateful loudmouth who fails to appreciate that this is his forum, I don't think I -- or you -- owe him anything.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:43:23 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim Heller
Subject: Boy, this is frustrating
Message:
And, even more fundamentally, all this talk of legalities and such is silly. I was following your lead of comparing the workings of this place to Parlimant or Congress. And I concur, it IS silly. But when you are the person who is in a hot seat for small change at best it has to get infuriating. If it's small change, why even bring it up? Because you're right, who gives a fuck about small change? Not I. And looks like Roger really doesn't either.

I don't need to e-mail Roger because he already explained himself above. (I appreciate you taking the time to do that, Roger) I wanted to explain to you and Roger both that I don't feel like I 'owe' Brian or Katie anything, other than the return of their friendship that has been extended to me. Oh, yeah, and probably an apology for getting into this here.

You know, Jim, so many personal character attacks here(I'm talking off topic stuff--not stuff about Maharaji) turn out to mean nothing--they have no meaningful purpose other than for someone's shits and giggles or because there is nothing else going on for them to do. I'm not talking about challenging someone's point of view (that has value here) I'm talking about cruelty, venom and downright meanspirited stuff that has no value. Roger touched on this in his post above. The pattern here seems to be that the attacker backs down and ends up apologizing. Meanwhile, the damage is done.

I don't think I am so different from you, in that I am asking for a little accountability. Ever since I have known you, you have been calling for this, from everyone here. You have been saying to this community, 'Answer the questions! Be honest with yourself and others! Don't believe something that isn't real or true! Think for yourself! Think before you speak or act!' I believe in that. I think we should also think before we post--think about the person on the other side of the screen. I'm not saying we all have to live in a nicey nice bubble, never flame anyone or get angry. That would be unrealistic. But I AM saying be accountable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 17:17:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: I agree, Veep ... bUUUTttttttt
Message:

Jim responded:
I agree with your general point about accountability. Who wouldn't? But I think you get into trouble as soon as you start tsk tsk-ing 'cruelty, venom and downright meanspirited stuff'.

It's the old omelet argument, isn't it? There are times -- many, here, in fact -- where premies (esp.) utter utterly worthless garbage here. This happens lots. This is, after all, an anti-cult page, remember? You know, where cult members, who long ago lost the ability or dignity to think for themselves, come to defend their master.

You might as well hack at their words with a machete, if you want. Machete, butterfly kisses, compass and ruler ... it doesn't much matter. Do whatever you want, I say. They don't deserve respect in the circumstances and, know what? -- everyone who's ever really engaged them here for any length of time ends up treating them the same. There is only one bottom-line for any discussion with a cult apologist and that, I'm convinced, is FUCK OFF!. What one says on the way, or how long one takes to get there is a matter of taste, whim and personal preference. But talk with one long enough -- on topic, I mean -- and that's where you get eventually.

So I disagree about the 'attacker' always eventually 'apologizing'. Often they don't, nor should they.

Let's not forget, as well, that this medium naturally favours the 'evader' in any argument. He or she can't be 'sanctioned' by body language, someone turning to talk to someone else, vocal inflections .. any of the things one normally does to subtly or otherwise deal with bullshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:39:26 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I don't disagree:however,
Message:
I think you missed my point. It's highly possible I didn't do a good job making it.

By venom and cruelty, etc. I meant personal attacks against other exes on the forum about forum management stuff and other off topic subjects--Okay, I won't beat around the bush on this anymore--specifically these groundless attacks on Brian and Katie or other forum administrators. REALLY who the fuck cares? People with nothing going on in their lives who need this controversy and drama like some housewives need soap operas(no offense, all housewives)

I'm also talking about old grudges that people can't seem to get past--that is where I am finding little or no value in the debates here. Hope I made that clearer.

And the attackers I was talking about who always end up apologizing aren't the ones who are attacking premies--no, you are spot on with that observation! They are the exes who attack other exes again and again over this FA bullshit--or ex premies who attack one another. Some of them don't apologize, but some do, then never stop doing what they are doing. It's really a pattern.

Don't we all have better things to do than rehash our past issues with one another (and some of these things are REALLY OLD ISSUES) over and over and over--what is the purpose? Aren't there other more valuable ways to expend our debating energy? Ways that might benefit someone lurking or shake up a person sitting on the fence? What are the real purposes of the page? You stated some of them well in your last post.

By the way, I was NOT talking about flaming premies who are bombarding you with endless vague and frustrating (infuriating!) Satsang. You're right, this isn't their page. I believe they have several of their own now, right? They come here, they take their chances on giving their opinions. I always think it's best to try to talk civilly and sensibly with someone to start out with but that doesn't mean they will be sensible in return, nor do I think an ex-premie should have to continue to be civil to a premie. No, I did not mean to imply that, not at all.

Yes, arguing with premies is a dead end street. It has made me angry on more than one occasion myself. Kind of like taking your head and beating it up against a wall over and over and over---well, you know the drill.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 22:29:23 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: Briefly
Message:
I'm sure that I might be ego-centric when I say that you might be referring to me. Ok.

These groundless attacks, old grudges that you talk about an really old issues and soap operas and endless apologies...

I will admit that my one suggestion of financial impropriety was wrong and was based upon a faulty recollection. Is it so wrong to sometimes misconstruing a past event and asking a question about it?

And is it wrong to apologize when corrected? I hope not.

VP, are you completely free of bias and honest enough to consider that Brian's treatment of me might not be part of his old grudge towards me?

Soap Operas? Is the talk of operational issues or the larger Forum Guidelines issue a soap opera or just business-like or organizational side effect that is inherent in any organization or collection of people with a common purpose. Consider governments and Parliaments and Congress. There are rules of order (Robert's Rules or whatever) to ensure fairness of process. In corrupt governments or when a political party that for the moment has popular support they often attempt and sometimes successfully the rules that governing bodies or even elections are subject to. And such changes are made to help them maintain their position of power. Ultimately, the most damaging effect can be the erosion of rights and individual freedoms. And worse.

Is our situation here that diabolical. Of course, not. Nevertheless, I do not believe that such issues are merely that of the soap opera genre.

I've said it before and will say it again that open and public discussion of such issues is, IMO, healthy. I still believe that Brian's asking the FAs to delete the thread has at the very least the appearance of abusing his position of power and authority. And, again, something like that would have never have taken place had the Forum been on Paradise because the relationship between the providers of the software service and the forum community is strictly an arms length business relationship.

REALLY who the fuck cares?

I feel that to say or ask that is really a sad state of affairs where people are so indifferent, self-satisfied and unconcerned, complacent, ambivalent, and even worse annoyed.

Yes, our little world here is nothing compared to the real issues of abuse and injustice. We should always be thankful that our problems are not like those and we should just shut up and be happy with what we've got and what we've been given here. Don't rock the boat. Don't insult the party host. Don't ask the party hostess whether the bean dip is vegetarian or not. Just shut up and eat it, smile a lot and always be thankful.

And if some party guest is getting out of hand then make sure that you snarl and tsk, tsk sufficently so that the host and hostess will be sure to keep inviting you back to their parties.

Like me or not, like what I say or not, God, I hope I never get that way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:10:20 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: I CAN remain calm...
Message:
Roger,

I understand why you would be defensive after my last post.
You know how they say, 'If the shoe fits'? I can assure you yours is not the only foot I was talking about in that post, ok? There are a couple of different things being beaten to death here. I never said I didn't like you, (hellfire, I don't even KNOW you)just that I...well you know what I said.

Yes, Roger, I am annoyed. I am sorry you don't like it, but it's the fact. I agree that it is healthy to discuss these types of issues initially...I agree with you there. I am NOT annoyed that you questioned something. I am starting to become annoyed that you continue to pontificate on and on and on about it way past the time the questions you are asking have been answered, and into the land of the absurd. (For the record, I did not just call you absurd, I said the argument continuing on and on was absurd.)

I would be the last person to tell people (especially here) not to question things. If you knew me in my life, you would know that. I've been run off of the road (while in my car) and I have had trash thrown into my yard because of sticking up for something I believed in politically that was unpopular.

I am currently a plaintiff in two lawsuits over the difference between what is right and what is wrong. I have a friend dying of lung cancer and one paralyzed with a dibilitating disease. I feel I have a pretty good handle on what I believe is important and what is not. I'm sorry if you think it's sad to be this way. I think it's well adjusted.

No, you aren't the only one here with a grudge. I haven't asked Brian whether or not he has a grudge against you because I'm not that interested in knowing about this. Nor am I interested in knowing about your grudges. In fact, that is my WHOLE POINT.

I have already posted this somewhere, but my opinion is that you are wrong about Brian influencing the FA. This is not kissing up to the host, by the way. It is my educated opinion. I have the right to be satisfied with an answer someone I know gives me. Not everything is a conspiracy.

First off, all he did was contact the FA and talk to them about deleting something. Hey, did you know that one time someone outed some info about ME on the forum and I e-mailed an FA and had it deleted? Yeah, it was really easy to do and I had no influence over the FA. Just ole VP.

When I see a good looking girl walking down the street, I am more likely to turn and stare at her than a woman who is less attractive. It's human nature. People are influenced. Maybe the FA just likes Brian or thought he made a good argument when he made the request. Could it be that it had nothing at all to do with the software? Is that possible? (BTW did you read above where Katie said SHE made the request?)

If I'm wrong about this, show me the proof. Otherwise it's just your opinion, which happens to be different from mine. That doesn't make me pathetic, even if it makes you feel better to portray me that way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 06:43:47 (GMT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: I CAN remain calm...
Message:
OOPS That should have read that I believe you are wrong about Brian's position (?huh?) influencing the FA.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 09:34:24 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: VP
Subject: You're right
Message:
Who the hell cares! I really want out of this stupid mess. I'm sick of it.

I hope that I can just break the spell and leave this behind.

I'm tired of it.

Thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 04:34:03 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: I'll be REALLY brief
Message:

Joey responded:
You're absolutely full of shit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:10:46 (GMT)
From: A Customer
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: BRAVO, VP!!!
Message:
EXCELLENT POST!!!! Especially the last two paragraphs!

Take care...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:53:31 (GMT)
From: Know It All
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: They read the site
Message:
Oh, they read the site
they read the site
they read the site

and, the exes are getting together, together, together

oh, they read the site, and the exes are getting together

and soon there will be fireworks.

lalalalalalalala

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:11:01 (GMT)
From: Carl Sandburg
Email: None
To: Know It All
Subject: This poem needs some work
Message:
KIA: Try a little iambic pentametre. It works wonders.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:53:19 (GMT)
From: Larkin
Email: larkin@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Carl Sandburg
Subject: You want iambic pentametre?
Message:
The minions from EV all read this site
Assure their friends it’s but a load of shite
Tho' sometimes in the middle of the night
They worry: just suppose the forum’s right...
And Prempal’s just a lardy, bloated fraud
And not the one all-knowing perfect lord
Suppose the one whose form we have adored
Is one more dragon sitting on his hoard...
Whose breath’s the kiss of death, whose Boundless Grace
A myth constructed on a groundless base
Insipid grins all gazing into space
Whose shabby little cult’s a damned disgrace..
Whose saints aren’t even fit to be let loose
Who even closed his eyes to child abuse
Who’s passed the buck although he’s no excuse...
Believe it, Prem, we’re gonna cook your goose!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:32:03 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Larkin
Subject: Best OF FORUM!!!! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:59:56 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Larkin
Subject: author, AUTHOR!
Message:
Larkin: Bravo, Bravo! Excellent use of Carls' advice, too! This is definitely a 'BEST OF' candidate.... :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:50:21 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: Carl Sandburg
Subject: This poem needs some work
Message:
who never has anything of value to say

ah but 'Know it All' though not tht literary was a haringer of doom and sho nuf.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:06:47 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: FA's
Subject: This poem needs some work
Message:
Please edit my post or censor it.
dammit I am going to learn the spell checker on PINE
haringer may be more apt but this is getting silly.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:08:44 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: Ahhh, the foibles of PINE!
Message:
Selene: One of MY PERSONAL favorite editors..... NOT! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:12:32 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Ahhh, the foibles of PINE!
Message:
I knew. But I never got used to all that gooey stuff.
Hard to teach a rabid dog new tricks, etc..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:17:25 (GMT)
From: zzzzzz
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Two Davids and Goliath
Message:
Amazing how impersonal search engines are. Those two absent Brits, the two Davids have left their mark on the web for all to see. A quick search for 'maharaji' on AltaVista brings up the Lord's site and then listed sixth and seventh are the two Davids' sites.

Click here to see what I mean.

Such niggling little annoyances just won't go away even long after the authors have.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:46:20 (GMT)
From: Sean O'Grady
Email: seang2@earthlink.net
To: zzzzzz
Subject: Two Davids and Goliath
Message:
Hey, don't you have a whole house of Lords over there. Which one was it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:28:44 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: zzzzzz
Subject: yeah well so you that's bad..
Message:
just try waiting and waiting and waiting..... for your husband to go to sleep so you can sneak a cigarette after you swore you quit
you think you have a mission?
who cares about a f#%# guru website hit at a time like this? and, for the millionth time have not we gone over this??? these things depend on things like search criteria, stats based on which logs are analized by which software, etc.. yawn blah I WANT A FR#$# CIGARETT#$# grrrrrr
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:40:02 (GMT)
From: zzzzzz
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: yeah well so you that's bad..
Message:
I'd be waiting forever for my husband to go to sleep. I'd have to be gay and living in CA instead of hetero and living in London.

Regarding the fags (Brit slang for cigarettes), have you tried those nicotene tablets that you keep in your mouth? They release just enough nicotene to stop you from going mad. If you take several at once, you can get a bit high. That's the only thing which kept me sane once when I was in hospital. (I'm insane again now).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 04:38:07 (GMT)
From: zzzzzz
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: And there's more
Message:
Just in case you've missed something, Click here to go to the Ex-premie network.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:06:31 (GMT)
From: X
Email: None
To: zzzzzz
Subject: And there's more and more
Message:
Its nice, but its a table.
Visit a moor.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:32:41 (GMT)
From: zzzzzz
Email: None
To: X
Subject: And there's more and more
Message:
But moors don't have HTML code in them. At least it's not ex-premie regulation yellow.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:16:32 (GMT)
From: Jo
Email: None
To: zzzzzz
Subject: And there's more
Message:

Jo responded:
Cool.

Thanks zzzzzzzz.

Josey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:25:29 (GMT)
From: Guy from the other place
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Jo
Subject: Hey Jo
Message:

Read my message to you on The ANYTHING GOES forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 22:16:30 (GMT)
From: oldie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: :-) Scott .T
Message:
Hi Scott T.
I got a little paranoid by Mikes post about mine. I though he was referring to me repeating myself. So I cooled it.

One of my over-sensitive-to-pecking-order-days I guess.

My post was alot of work to follow the thread of how I was feeling about what Carols post triggeed.

Thanks for saying what you said.

:-) :-) :-)
;-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:40:50 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: oldie
Subject: :-) Scott .T
Message:
Oldie:

I guess I waited too long to get back to the Forum, and now the thread has slipped away. Anyhow, you're welcome.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:15:25 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Past masters with fake halos
Message:
In m's site,what's with the air-brushed in halos
around the heads of 'Sri Hans' and 'Sri Swarupanand'?
Wouldn't just a picture of a 'Master' be enough?
Why defile their picture by adding in something fake?
Around 'Sri Swarupanand' the halo is yellowish, around
'Sri Hans' the halo is this strange green color.
Frankly, if I saw someone with a green halo around
their head, I would run the other way. It makes 'Him'
look like 'He' is from outer space; doesn't seem like
a fitting tribute to your 'Father', m. Are you afraid
that without the religious trappings, they won't look
holy enough? that they will look like ordinary guys?
Why the insecurity?

(I won't comment on the picture of Adwetanand,
I'm too scared to.)

And those fancy titles, such fancy titles. They get
longer and longer until, with 'Sri Hans', they just
explode. What do all these titles mean? They are left
unexplained so they sound sooo mysterious and holy.
What does HRH mean? Oh no, that is not for us
unpriviledged low-lifes to know. Maybe it means
'His Royal Highness'? Is m feeling a little bitter
about the British ruling India in the past?

I think this plays on the notion that
'what I don't know or understand must be really cool'.

Also, what's so special about swans and seagulls?
What about pigeons? Thy this, the Pidgeon Avatar.
Nah, doesn't sound cool enough.

I guess swans and seagulls (preferably in slow motion)
represent the smoothness of the breath.

I wonder if Totapuri is the famous Totapuri associated
with Ramakrishna. I don't remember m ever talking about
Totapuri, Anandpuri, or Adwetanand. I think he
briefly mentioned Swarupanand before.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 04:15:58 (GMT)
From: Sean O'Grady
Email: seang2@earthlink.net
To: G
Subject: Past masters with fake halos
Message:
Hey, I knew a guy named Swan a long time ago. He was too smart to be a Premie-so he went to live with Da Free John (remember him, made the sun stop). Anyway, a good friend called him Seagull one day. Boy, was he pissed. His sacred light dimmed.
So what's up with that!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:21:41 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Sean O'Grady
Subject: Past masters with fake halos
Message:

cqg responded:
Maybe he did'nt like being given the bird? ... :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 22:51:33 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Rawat with fake halo
Message:
Advetanand is one of the titles of Dayal Singh.

I guess Rawat is using that name to hide the fact that the tradition he claims is merely Radhasoami. All the Radhasoami 'masters' are in Dayal Singh lineage.

His father (Shri Hans) very likely had several gurus, like most Indians, same thing for Sarupanand.

Then Totapuri etc are more or less mythic figures of Radhasoami's origins. I've searched through all the Radhasoami and Sikh litterature I've found, they all say the same thing. Totapuri was definitely an ascet of the 19th century, but there are NO hystorical details available on him. Same thing for Kabir in the 14th century..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:57:51 (GMT)
From: EddytheHootle
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Question to J-M
Message:
I was surprised when you stated that Totapuri and Ramakrishna teach that God does not incarnate in human form (p.s. I totally agree with this view...as a layman ofcourse ;-))..

Where did you get this info from?...its odd for a Hindu (Totapuri) not to agree with this central Hindu concept...

Your statement about Kabir Das or St Kabir not being a historical figure....is inaccurate...Kabir was an orphan oadopted by a poor muslim cobler and his wife...that is why they called him kabir ( a muslim name)..

Kabir had two teachers...a Sufi master of the time and a Hindu saint...you know the famous story about kabir's encounter with the hindu saint along the river...

For G* Shri Hans always thought of himself as Satguru....and this was not something that he adopted when Prempal appeared on the scene....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:27:37 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Question to J-M
Message:
Whether Kabir was an individual or not is in dispute by scholars because some of Kabir's biographers made the assumtion that there was only one Kabir. There was also date problems.

According to Khanzinat-al-Asfia(treasurery of Saints) written by Maulvi Gulam Sarwat and published in Lahore(1868) there were several Kabirs,

Kabir Chishite
Shaikh Kabir Jualaha
Khwajah Aulia Kabir
Syed Kabir-ud-din Hassan

and more.

This is referred to in 'Kabir and the Kabir Panth' by G.H Wescott(ISBN 81-215-0000-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:49:56 (GMT)
From: EddytheHootle
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Question to J-M
Message:
Kabir das lived ca. 1440-1518 and his parents were Niru and Nima.

What is in dispute is not wether Kabir was a person or not, but the large number of legends surrounding his life. He was a deciple of Ramanand and possibly also Baba Farid (?).

There are other Kabirs I am sure, its a common name...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:23:53 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Myths going down the drain
Message:
This is an interesting issue.

The facts are many scholars have been working on this, and none of them is as sure as you are.

The 'Kabir' myth/stories obviously have some grounds, but nothing is for sure.

Lots of stuff have been written about 'Kabir', most of it is myths (according to knowledgeable people).

What's the problem with this ? Another myth going down the drain?

Try to find any book on Kabir, and the whole debate is explained in the introduction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:09:07 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Question to J-M
Message:
this central Hindu concept...

Hinduism is more a syncretism than a religion like our monotheism.

As a matter of fact, there are lots of religions, beliefs, groups etc in Hinduism.

Some say God can take a human form, some say it never does ... and they're all hindus.

Like in Buddhism, there are many currents and teachings. I don't know if you can count them.

But it's the same in Christianity. There are hundreds of different churches. Most of them minors, but still christians. In Christianism and in Buddhism for instance, you have a central figure: Christ, Buddha.

In Hinduism you have many figures, and many currents without figures, only holy scriptures, or holy places and myths. Some Hindus accept all of the currents, some are more fanatical of a special tradition (or more than one).

Hinduism is more something deeply linked to the traditional Hindu society (which doesn't exist so much anymore) and the various traditions. It's very difficult to say where the limits are. I've recently read something about some Hindu groups going to court because they don't want some other group being considered Hindu.

Your statement about Kabir Das or St Kabir not being a historical figure....is inaccurate...Kabir was an orphan oadopted by a poor muslim cobler and his wife...that is why they called him kabir ( a muslim name)..

Kabir had two teachers...a Sufi master of the time and a Hindu saint...you know the famous story about kabir's encounter with the hindu saint along the river...

I said there are not enough details to even say when he's born and where. And there are no direct testimonies.
But there are lots of stories, a definite corpus of songs which is a part of the 'Adhi Grant' which is the Sikh holy book.
And many songs from the middle-age mentioning him. All these songs have been gathered in various books, and lots of exegesis made out of these.
It's almost certain that lots of these stories are true. But there are no historical facts beside what I've mentioned.

For G* Shri Hans always thought of himself as Satguru....and this was not something that he adopted when Prempal appeared on the scene....

My opinion is that the guy had to have a lot of charisma (and ego). His followers came quite naturally, and seeing this he very likely decided he could set himself as a guru. There are many saddhus and swamis in India, and I guess that when they become famous for whatever reason, there titles grow. And I guess they make a decent living out of this job in India. But there household was not very luxurious. The Dehra Dun house ('residence') and the Premnagar Ashram were not very big compared to many rich Indian people's houses.

Maybe Hans Singh Rawat first became 'Guru Hans' when he had some disciples, and then 'Satguru' when he became more famous.

We don't have testimonies yet to say WHEN people considered him a 'satguru'. This is all hearsay. He definitely was considered one at his death, maybe not before !

What we can also guess is that he had some trouble with Vairaganand after Sarupanand's death, as it's mentioned in the DLM booklet.

The oldest writings we have is that DLM Booklet (Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj) dated 1969/1970.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:11:24 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Past masters: a contradiction?
Message:
Here's something interesting:
In 'Shri Hans' letter to John F. Kennedy,
he stated 'Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Krishna,
Lord Buddha, Swami Ramkrishna were all
realised souls and they taught this truth'.
It certainly sounds like he was saying that
Ramakrisha was a Master.

m is saying on his site that
'Sri Anandpuri ji Maharaj' was THE Master after
Totapuri (there can only be one at a time, right?).
But Totapuri was one of Ramakrishna's teachers,
so according to m, Ramakrishna could not have been
a Master, contradicting what his father said.

Link to the letter to JFK:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jmkahn/letter_to_jfk.htm

See the following link regarding Totapuri:
http://www.adamford.com/swb/html/aperson.html

Also, see the bottom of the page at the following link:
http://www.adyapeath.org/home.html
There is quite a similarity between the fake halos
around Ramakrishna and Annada Thakur and those on the
Masters page on m's site. Is somebody copying somebody?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:42:10 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Rawat's so pathetic
Message:
Rawat's and Totapuri's teachings are very much different.

Totapuri (and Ramakrishna) say God in human form doesn't exist, when Rawat says he's Himself God incarnate.

I guess Rawat is mentioning Totapuri in his lineage because he's an Indian emblematic figure, and that gives some halo to his supposed background.

What would people think if he was merely saying something like:

My father Hansji was a disciple of various gurus, Sarupanand being one of them. Hansji was also initiated by Sawan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang Beas.

He started to set himself as a guru a few years before Sarupanand's death, claiming he was his heir, when Shri Swami Vairag Anand Ji Maharaj was Sarupanand's appointed successor.

Sarupanand was one of the gurus of the Advait Mat group in Guna, India, and part of the Sant Mat tradition.

All gurus are heirs of Shiv Dayal Singh (Advetanand) who's the founder of the Radhasoami/Sant Mat tradition in the 19th century.

And dozens of gurus in India and in West claim to be Satgurus in the present days.

That would sound pretty lame ! Isn't this what it's all about ?

Rawat is a lame gurmukh, who doesn't admit his heritage. So pathetic ....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:35:54 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: And don't forget
Message:
that Hanji died in his bathroom, slipping on a soap bar.

That's why his death was totally unexpected. You can't mention this either in a decent guru's resume!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:36:53 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Are you serious?
Message:
JM: Did Sri Hans actually fall on a bar of soap???? I had never heard this before. I mean, the propaganda machine said that he died in his sleep and turned into a pile of flowers. A bar of soap???? ......
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:13:02 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Yes a REAL bar of REAL soap
Message:
According to witnesses who reported it to some exes.

Of course they had to make some beautiful official version!

Can you imagine the all-knowing tripping on his soap and breaking his head in his bathroom. Maybe he even broke the crown he was wearing .... Poor guy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:51:23 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: One important factor
Message:
The Singh Rawats are very likely from Sikh origins, as the Singh name suggests.

But Hans rejected the Sikh tradition and shaved his head and beard. Very likely because he was a member of reformists groups (this is mentioned in the DLM booklet).

That is a very important factor in India, as you have to be respectful of your tradition to be a part of your social group, specially when you deal with religion. Because of this, even though he very likely had some charisma, he couln't have a following in Punjab where his guru had his following, thus emigrated to Delhi and had his following in the lower classes of the society. One can guess Hans had some ambition, and was intelligent enough to understand he had no hope becoming famous and rich in Punjab or staying in the group he was a part of.

Even though he's very likely been a devoted disciple of his guru, he couldn't be his chosen successor, as all of the RSSM gurus and figures are definitely Sikh and never rejected their Sikh heritage.

I guess here are some keys to understand Hans (and Prempal's) background.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:15:07 (GMT)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Past masters: a contradiction?
Message:
Interesting you spotted this interesting claim of M's to be linked by guru lineage to Totapuri. There was a thread about this about a month or two ago where this odd claim was discussed at length.
There is of course yet another discrepancy brought to light on JM's site, where Shri Hans' guru's (Swami Sarupanand) 'official biography' is partially reproduced.

It may not seem so surprising therefore that the Paramhansa Advait Mat book does not anywhere mention Shri Hans Ji , even though he is claimed by some to have been the successor to Sarupanand. The book clearly paints a different version of events, whereby Sarupanand is described as appointing a disciple named 'Shri Swami Vairag Anand Ji Maharaj' as his successor..

If you follow the links to the exact page of the book where Swarupanand names his successor (Vairaganand) you get the following extract: (BTW I have read through the whole book and I could not find Shri Hans JI mentioned by name anywhere despite the fact that Swarup's mahatmas are numerously listed there by name.)
Of course it is worth remembering that this book was compiled by the Advait Mat group to document their lineage. The DLM equivalent book paints a different story whereby Vairaganand is portrayed as an imposter who highjacked the lineage! It's all a total mess. I don't believe any of them.

Here is the extract:

page 244

Thus, the Master continued to address the congregation of the Sadhus, as time warranted, sometimes alone and sometimes in the midst of devotees. In the end, before that assembly dispersed, the Master started revealing deep secrets of spiritualism to a few Mahatmas privately. First of all, He called Shri Swami Vairag Anand Ji Maharaj (The Third Master), Mahatma Satgur Sewa Anand Ji, Mahatma Santosh Anand Ji and Mahatma Gur Darshan Anand Ji. and observed, - From. now onward, I may or may not give Darshan to you. I will do what I wish. The work of spiritual propagation has expanded. I wish to appoint one Of You as a chief All will have to abide by what he says. Now who should be the chief out of you four?' Pointing towards Shri Swami Vairag Anand Ji Maharaj, the Third Master, all of them requested, -Oh Lord! He will be our chief' The Second Master observed, 'I also wish the same. He shall be your chief. He will sit on the 'Palang' (Guru's cot) and will issue orders. All of you will have to act accordingly'; All bowed to the Master's orders and said, -' Oh Lord! We accept Your orders most respectfully.'

The Second Master again took the hand of Shri Swami Vairag Anand Ji Maharaj in His own hands in the presence of all of them and observed, -'Very well, He shall be your chief. Do you all agree to it?' All bowed to denote their acceptance. Thus He gave all these orders secretly and none knew anything about it outside.

On 5th October. 1935 A. D., a week before the ending of that congregation, He disclosed that secret in the presence of all the Mahatmas. At 4. 00 P. M. the Master had thrown open His Darshan in the inner courtyard (Haveli). He made observations in the presence of all, Now I wish to live in loneliness and have grown old also I wish to appoint someone from amongst you, as your chief, who will be acceptable to you all.

p245

'Tell Me, as to who should be that chief ?' Then, calling Mahatma Satgur Sewa Anand Ji, asked him, as to who should be the chief? At that time, Mahatma Satgur Sewa Anand Ji said with folded hands, '0h, Lord, He (Pointing towards the Third Master) should be the Chief.' Then He observed in the presence of all the Mahatmas, Very well, very well. This is My wish also. He should be your chief. All of you shall have to abide by His orders. Those Mahatmas who are ready to abide by His orders, should raise their hands.' All the Mahatmas raised their hands. Then He asked them to lower their hands and after repeating this three or four times He observed. His orders shall be acceptable to you all. He only shall sit on the Palang' (throne) and issue orders and all of you shall have to obey that fully and in every way.' He again ordered, Allof you gird up your loins and say that you agree to it.' All of them girded up their loins and He Himself taking the hand of the Third Master in His left hand, said, He is a great Gurumukh. He has served Me very faithfully. I am much pleased with Him

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:08:03 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: Succession of Masters (Kings)
Message:
The more I think about it, the more these gurus
sound like kings. There are many similarities:
thrones, orders, obeying the Master/King,
the Master/King appointing his successor, extreme
wealth, bowing down before the Master/King and
kissing their feet/ring (ass if you were asked to),
crowns, etc. Also the succession from father to son
which is prevalent with both gurus and kings, Gurus
and kings both claiming to have been divinely chosen
by God (remember the 'Sun King'?). Many kings have
claimed to be divine, for example, the pharaohs and
the Roman emperors (including the popes).

Maharaji is short for Maharaj Ji (maha=great,
raj=king, ji=dear or beloved) or 'Beloved Great King'.
A question for 'people with Knowledge': Would you,
if 'Maharaji' asked you to, literally kiss his ass?

I work with some Indians, who told me that in India,
gurus are a dime a dozen, there are lots of them.
Many Indians are now viewing the whole thing as a big
joke. There might be some very enlightened people out
there, but with all guys with their huge egos, finding
one is like finding a needle in a haystack. I have
come to the realization that Truth is within, just as
m parroted, and that I don't need him. I find some value
in being inspired by others, but I prefer an eclectic
approach.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 23:40:01 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Rawat with fake halo
Message:
The historical details are easy to figure.

Confused guy, hears eastern thinking on the wheel of life and
that there is no god and that someone that 'identifies'
with the divine is as good as god in person.
And with cushy jobs unavailable to the average joe,
becomeing or assumeing 'god' is a easy gig that only requires
personal delusion and the enjoyment of playing better than the
next guy. In a culture where there are 4 castes, the Im better
than you are trip is already institutionalized throughout
the society so the guru trip is a natural.

In a nutshell, the historical data on those guys is...
delusional guys find a job pretending to be god.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:34:56 (GMT)
From: CQG
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I think 'Hansa' means swan(nt)
Message:

CQG responded:
I think 'Hansa' means swan(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 17:56:19 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: You have to read this first
Message:
Please don't read the next post if you're over-sensitive to devotional songs.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:19:27 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: You have to read this first
Message:
Thanks for the warning, very grateful, shall avoid like the plague.

By the way, and for someone who found practising knowledge in a zenish way very rewarding, now starting to again, big thanks. Your angle on the issues raised here such as radha stuff has been very liberating. Thanks also for the quality of your info.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 20:00:33 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Question for Hamzen
Message:
Hi Hamzen, What do YOU actually mean by 'practising knowledge'?

Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 17:59:10 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Then 'Spread this Knowledge' !
Message:
From the old 'Guru Puja 74' song book ....

SECTION ONE:

(First 3 lines of music)

Verse 1.
Spread this Knowledge to every land
To tell them our Lord Is here
Then they'll all come to His Lotus Feet
For their true selves to appear.

Verse 2.

When confusion has gone from your mind,
And there's no shadow following you
You'll all know Satchitanand.
You'll know love is true.

Verse 3.
And when the Golden Age Is here,
And there's no darkness on this earth,
Guru Maharaj Ji will smile everywhere
And you'll know love.

Verse 4.
So spread this Knowledge to every land
To tell them our Lord Is here.
Then we'll all know Satchitanand,
And heaven will be here.

SECTION TWO:

Jai Satchitanand.
Truth is the consciousness of bliss.
Jai Satchitanand.
Truth is the consciousness of bliss.
Yes it is. Yes It is. Yes It is. Yes It is.
All things must surely pass.
You soul inside it will always last.
We could never describe
The secret that is keeping you alive.
The kingdom of heaven is within.
We say that just because we have seen it.
Though all your friends might turn away,
Troubles surround you everyday,
Don't you worry, don't you cry.
There is peace lying right between your eyes.
Yes there is. Yes there is. Yes there is.
Right between your eyes.

BOLIE SATGURUDEV MAHARAJ Kl JAI (Repeat, Fade Out)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:58:56 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Spread it with Chords
Message:
I can't believe it's not butter.

SECTION ONE:

(First 3 lines of music)

Verse 1.
(C) Spread this (G) Knowledge to (Am) every land
(C) To tell them (G) our Lord Is (Am) here
(Dm) Then they'll all come to (Am) His Lotus Feet
(Em) For their true selves to (Am) appear.

Verse 2. (same as 1)
When confusion has gone from your mind,
And there's no shadow following you
You'll all know Satchitanand.
You'll know love is true.

Verse 3. (same as 1)
And when the Golden Age Is here,
And there's no darkness on this earth,
Guru Maharaj Ji will smile everywhere
And you'll know love.

Verse 4. (same)
So spread this Knowledge to every land
To tell them our Lord Is here.
Then we'll all know Satchitanand,
And heaven will be here.

SECTION TWO:

(C) Jai (G) Satchita-(Am)-nand.
(C) Truth is the (G) consciousness of (Am) bliss.
(C) Jai (G) Satchita-(Am)-nand.
(C) Truth is the (G)consciousness of (Am) bliss.
(Em) Yes it is. Yes It (Am) is. Yes It (Dm) is. Yes It (G) is.
(C) All (G) things must surely (Am) pass.
(C) Your soul (Am) inside it will always (Am) last.
(C) We could (G) never de-(Am)-scribe
(C) The secret that is (G) keeping you a-(Am)-live.
(each line (C-G-Am))
The kingdom of heaven is within.
We say that just because we have seen it.
Though all your friends might turn away,
Troubles surround you everyday,
Don't you worry, don't you cry.
There is peace lying right between your eyes.
(Em) Yes there is. Yes there (Am) is. Yes there (Dm) is.
Right between your (G) eyes.

(C) BOLIE (G) SATGURU-(Am)-DEV (C) MAHA-(G)-RAJ Kl (Am)JAI (Repeat, Fade Out)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 02:36:46 (GMT)
From: Sean O'Grady
Email: seang2@earthlink.net
To: Runamok
Subject: Spread it with Chords
Message:
Now we need a campfire. All of us sitting around singing, remembering Ol' Holy Name, drinking nectar and roasting lotus feet.

Sean

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:13:29 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: truth is bliss
Message:
Thanks, Jean-Michel, for the bad acid flashback. What an awkward piece of songwriting! Jesus!

Do you remember the band Jiva? I thought they had some good songs, although I supposed I'd think differently if I were to listen to them now that I'm no longer 'under the influence.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:39:17 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Jiva
Message:
I remember Jiva, and I also thought their music was quite good. The songs weren't overtly devotional. In about 1985 I was on holiday in a little resort on the island of Rhodes in Greece. Our favourite bar was run by a Greek rastafarian married to an English woman. Anyway, they had a great collection of music, and he let me browse the records to choose what to play. So one evening I found the Jiva album. I asked him how he got it, but he couldn't remember. He didn't know about Maharaji. Inside the album sleeve there was the original devotional insert with all the Salutations at the Lotus Feet crap. I felt it my duty to remove this (surrepticiously of course). I think I may still have it somewhere.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 18:57:03 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Then 'Spread this Knowledge' !
Message:
Jean-Michel,

It was only a few years back, circa 1996, that I was in Toronto on a book-buying trip.
I remember shooting the breeze with a premie buddy of mine and the subject rolled around to 'devotinal music' (we were probably listening to some at the time).
In any case we both agreed that 'Spread this Knowledge' was probably THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SONG OF ALL TIME! Not just...THE MOST BEAUTIFUL DEVOTIONAL SONG OF ALL TIME, but...THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SONG, PERIOD!!

Well...I guess it's all part of the delusion of premiehood. It comes with the territory, so to speak.

Thanks, (I think:) for reminding me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index