Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:39:48 (GMT)
From: Apr 5, 2000 To: Apr 14, 2000 Page: 5 Of: 5


Jim -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 02:51:56 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- Did the phenomena known as gm's dick, regularly -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:42:54 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- when you are on you are on ham!! nt -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:38:17 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- hey ham, why don't you take your gloves off? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:08:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ ham -:- hey ham, why don't you take your gloves off? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:41:18 (GMT)
__ Deputy Dog -:- Right on Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:05:29 (GMT)
__ __ JHB -:- Right on Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:20:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- JHB -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:47:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- your Knowledge -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:30:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- The important thing ... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:41:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- If you weren't so far up your own arse, and looked -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:27:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- hamzen -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:50:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Deputy Dog -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:49:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Jerry r.e. Deputy Dog -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:56:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Criticism of Maharaji -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:13:16 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- To Deputy Dog -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:18:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Way -:- To DD again, -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:28:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Way - read my posts to hamzen and Jerry (nt) -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:01:15 (GMT)
__ Helen -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:42:28 (GMT)
__ __ bb -:- Helen -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:59:14 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- He's Einstein, Helen -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:32:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ Helen -:- He's Einstein, Helen -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 22:22:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- He's Einstein, Helen -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:05:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- He's Einstein, Helen -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 02:24:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- But Helen -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 20:51:35 (GMT)
__ bill burke -:- I will post a dettmers satsang that shows what he -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:33:55 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- When, Bill? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:26:05 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- My discussion with Mike last night -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:05:53 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Simple question to Mr Dettmers -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:21:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- Closing of the ashrams, 'earmarks of a cult' -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:13:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JW -:- Closing of the ashrams, 'earmarks of a cult' -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:13:47 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- The Simplicity Principle -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:43:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Nope (nt) -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:47:57 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Hey, JM -- there's a quote in there u might want -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:33:48 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- small (but important) correction -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:09:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- sorry Jim, your humor doesn't translate! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:23:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's because it wasn't a joke -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:58:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Then I don't know -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:16:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why do I always have to spoonfeed the French? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:16:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Didn't you KNOW that ALREADY ? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:22:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Didn't you KNOW that ALREADY ? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:58:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- OK, send it !! (nt) -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:23:03 (GMT)
__ Gregg -:- Post-modernism -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:46:41 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Post-modernism -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:56:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Post-modernism -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Post post-modernism -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:50:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JW -:- Heidegger -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:36:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How do I expect anyone to believe you, Joe? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:45:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That small joke had two big errors -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:47:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- That's just your ASSERTION, Jim -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:33:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well I DID ask, didn't I? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:00:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Just a little more, and then freedom. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:30:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scanner -:- DON'T MISS ABOVE THREAD .... SUPERB (nt) -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:48:50 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- To Mike Dettmers -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:42:57 (GMT)
__ __ bb -:- I have that for you Nigel, just need a night to -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:29:32 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- Well said, Nigel...nothing need be added(nt) -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:46:40 (GMT)
__ __ Jethro -:- For your info -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:09:22 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- To Mike Dettmers -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:30:51 (GMT)
__ The Feline Globetrotter -:- Dettmers ....A Gem -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:06:39 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Dettmers is also denying a very simple fact! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:05:22 (GMT)
__ Angry -:- This is how most premies exit. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:52:27 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Well said, Angry -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:47:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- Yes, JW and.... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:55:04 (GMT)
__ __ Jethro -:- This is how most premies exit. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:37:43 (GMT)
__ JW -:- Well, what could be expect? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 06:03:56 (GMT)
__ __ CHR -:- Well, what could be expect? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:04:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ JW -:- Exactly, CHR -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:45:01 (GMT)
__ Scott T. -:- Oh, I think not... but who am I? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:17:26 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 04:48:08 (GMT)
__ __ Joey -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:06:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:32:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry, et al.com -:- Congrats on the degree, Dr T -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:16:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Congrats on the degree, Dr T -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:20:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joey -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:51:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- Dettmers speaks out a little more -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:36:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Right on, Selene! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:15:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Jerry and Selene, are you surprised? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:52:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Mike are YOU surprised? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:18:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Not surprised a bit.... :-) -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:49:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- the funniest part... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:24:26 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Sounds like an ex-premie to me -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 04:20:00 (GMT)
__ alpha_o -:- the razor's edge -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 03:55:41 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- Dettmers -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:01:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Dettmers -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:07:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Way -:- To DD -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:14:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Justify your anonymity, Dog -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:59:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Justify your anonymity, Dog -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:08:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Justify your anonymity, Dog -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:13:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Thanks for the power, Powerman -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:35:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Justify your anonymity, Dog -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:23:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Justify your anonymity, Dog -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:50:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, maybe you're right -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 23:25:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Yeah, maybe you're right -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:15:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, maybe you're right -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:33:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Yeah, maybe you're right -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:16:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Yeah, maybe you're right -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:48:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, bear with me here -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 02:07:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Okay, bear with me here -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:30:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Okay, bear with me here -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:57:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Outing Dog could result in some really great thing -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:03:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why are you so embarrassed? -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:26:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Why are you so embarrassed? -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:49:32 (GMT)

CHR -:- ex-premie myths -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:51:08 (GMT)
__ JW -:- Speculation in the face of no information -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:14:00 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- Repeat customers = more money -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 03:42:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ Runamok -:- Charging - M vs EST, TM, etc -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 05:28:15 (GMT)
__ __ blood boils -:- meditation and devotion are black holes -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:28:04 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Sorry, CHR, but you REALLY miss the point -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:02:32 (GMT)
__ __ CHR -:- Sorry, CHR, but you REALLY miss the point -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:17:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ to -:- But one point you REALLY hit: -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Sorry. Above post from cq, not 'to'. (nt) -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:19:48 (GMT)
__ disappointed too -:- ex-premie myths -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:53:05 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- 'Sincerity'? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:24:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ disappointed too -:- 'Sincerity'? okay I'll talk -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:05:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Way -:- To Dis 2 -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:15:46 (GMT)
__ __ JHB -:- ex-premie myths -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 00:10:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Runamok -:- Maybe, just maybe... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 06:02:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks for the bi-weekly rag, Run (nt) -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:49:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- thank you resident authority figure Jim -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:49:05 (GMT)
__ x#%*! -:- Kudos CHR. Good post! nt -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:34:38 (GMT)
__ __ JHB -:- Kudos CHR. Good post! nt -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:42:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ x#%*! -:- Kudos CHR. Good post! nt -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:46:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Kudos CHR. Good post! nt -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:55:31 (GMT)

JW -:- Hey You Brits, You Still Rule The Colonies!!!! OT -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:59:02 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- But you Yanks bought the UK years ago. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:34:18 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- Hey You Brits, You Still Rule The Colonies!!!! OT -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:59:49 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Hi Robyn -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ Robyn -:- Hi Robyn -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:52:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JW -:- No, It's cold again.... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:10:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- No, It's cold again.... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:10:14 (GMT)

Jim -:- Simple question for @#^ -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:58:10 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- X#%*!, Why won't you answer this? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:35:38 (GMT)

Jim -:- Is it just me? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:55:42 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- It's just you Jim. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:29:46 (GMT)
__ EV-ex -:- Is it just me? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:03:29 (GMT)

curious -:- anyone have M's birth data or birth chart ? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:23:57 (GMT)
__ Stonor -:- an astrological chart question for curious -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:41:52 (GMT)
__ __ curious -:- an astrological chart question for curious -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 23:53:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- an astrological chart question for curious -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 01:56:39 (GMT)
__ More curious -:- anyone have M's birth data or birth chart ? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 02:50:03 (GMT)
__ __ curious -:- anyone have M's birth data or birth chart ? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 03:58:26 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- Here's what a Latvian night should look like! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:41:40 (GMT)
__ bb -:- Here's what a Latvian night should look like! -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:54:27 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- Here's what a Latvian night should look like! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:03:55 (GMT)
__ Paul -:- Here's what a Latvian night should look like! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:28:13 (GMT)
__ Joey -:- Hey, you wonderful looking people...!.... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:57:17 (GMT)
__ Robbie -:- Funny, you looked just like I imagined -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:27:51 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Funny, you looked just like I imagined -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:42:49 (GMT)
__ Katie -:- Thanks, JM! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:58:07 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Thanks, JM! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:25:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Robyn -:- Thanks, JM! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:43:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Thanks, JM! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:38:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Robyn and Katie -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:30:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Robyn and Katie -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:00:30 (GMT)
__ Pauline Premie -:- God, you ex-premies look so MISERABLE -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:25:23 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- God, you ex-premies look so MISERABLE -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:51:14 (GMT)
__ __ Pauline Premie -:- Excuse my typos. It's that PEACE, not that PEACH -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:27:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- Excuse my typos. It's that PEACE, not that PEACH -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:55:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joey -:- Pauline...you're driving me crazy!! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:52:07 (GMT)
__ JW -:- Brilliant -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:14:26 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- By the way JM, Happy (belated) Birthday (nt) -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:16:22 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Formidable Jean-Michel -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:54:51 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Formidable Jean-Michel -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:03:08 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Too, too funny! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:00:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Too, too funny! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:13:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- Too, too funny! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:44:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Too, too funny! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:00:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Way -:- Question -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:10:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Techniques ARE fun! What you need is a k review! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:58:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Answer -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:16:01 (GMT)

Bjørn Edwardsen -:- FA, pedophily, are you guilty? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:30:15 (GMT)
__ Runamok -:- forumfour@hotmail.com is not the current forum nt -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:40:18 (GMT)
__ __ GERRY -:- forumfour@hotmail.com is not the current forum nt -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:12:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Runamok -:- I think it's posted up top -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:47:02 (GMT)
__ Forum Administrator -:- Forum Admin and Offensive Emails. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:19:49 (GMT)
__ __ Bjørn -:- Forum Admin and Offensive Emails. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 15:12:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ Forum Administrator -:- Forum Admin and Offensive Emails. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:00:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Forum Admin and Offensive Emails. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:13:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- But Katie, that is not true -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:52:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- What is not true? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:05:49 (GMT)
__ __ Ben Lurking -:- Forum Admin and Deleted messages -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:33:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ Forum Administrator -:- Forum Admin and Deleted messages -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:05:54 (GMT)
__ Joey -:- FA, pedophily, are you guilty? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:40:19 (GMT)
__ __ Louis Cipher -:- Join me Joey- you'll do nicely.. nt -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:45:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joey -:- Join me Joey- you'll do nicely.. nt -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:55:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ Way -:- To Forum Administrator -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:55:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joey -:- To Way -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:04:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Trixie -:- Porn Hotmail 2-3 times a day for months/ Deletes -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:40:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Porn Hotmail 2-3 times a day for months/ Deletes -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:14:59 (GMT)

Daneane -:- A request -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:21:23 (GMT)
__ Paul -:- How's this? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 15:05:45 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- Excellent, Paul, I Would Sign On to That! (nt) -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:17:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- Sign On to That? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:26:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Daneane -:- You related to T. Jefferson? (nt) -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:43:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Just an ordinary man ... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:29:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Daneane -:- Just an ordinary man ...yet mighty clever(nt) -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 01:26:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- I must see my tailor - new hat fitting now due(nt) -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:51:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- for cq -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:14:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- bang! bang ... pop! pop!-reply to yr inactive post -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:51:45 (GMT)

Robyn -:- Attention Parisians -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 01:33:50 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Attention Parisians -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:10:25 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- Attention Parisians -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:50:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Attention Robyn -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:25:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ David -:- Attention Parisians -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:07:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Attention Parisians -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 15:18:39 (GMT)


Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 02:51:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
Just got this from Mike. I'm sure he'll be interested in your feedback.

To: Jim Heller

From: Michael Dettmers

Date: April 5, 2000

I have read the responses to my April 2nd memo on your website. I am willing to address, as best I can, some of the more fundamental issues that have been raised. Let me reiterate, however, what I said in my earlier memo. I have no intention of engaging in rumor and gossip. Many of the questions and concerns that have been expressed and debated about Maharaji’s lifestyle are of no concern to me. I have better things to do in my life than to get caught up in such discussions, whether it’s about Bill Clinton, Princess Diana or Maharaji.

Let me begin by saying that I wasn’t always a PAM (to use your acronym) nor was it my conscious ambition to become one. I was, however, very motivated to participate in a meaningful way in the spreading of knowledge. My ambition was consistent with my earlier involvement in the late 60s with the anti-Vietnam war movement. At that time, I helped organize and run “safe houses” in Toronto for Americans who came to Canada to evade the draft. In much the same way that I believed the anti-war movement was a worthwhile cause, I believed that Maharaji’s declared mission of spreading peace in the world was a cause I wanted to participate in.

After receiving knowledge, I became actively involved in DLM-Canada and, shortly thereafter, became the National Coordinator. For the first year or so in this position, I had no direct contact with Maharaji. In those early days I accepted and practiced all of the ashram’s prescribed protocol, and I enjoyed and derived great personal benefit from doing so.

The first time I actually spent any personal time with Maharaji was during his visit to Canada in 1974. Shortly, thereafter, he asked me to come to Denver to work at his International Headquarters. As I spent more personal time with Maharaji, I became less in awe of him as a perfect master sitting on a stage, and got to know, respect and love him as a person – a very incredible, uniquely talented, and extremely intelligent human being. It didn’t matter to me that he was but a mere mortal like the rest of us. I was convinced that he had the vision, the commitment, and the ability to spread knowledge to people all over the world, and I was glad to play a role in that endeavor.

The role I played gave me a unique vantage point on his work. For instance, from a management and organizational perspective (putting any spiritual considerations aside) the ashram structure presented some serious problems. For cultural reasons, it worked in India, but I could not see how it could work in the West unless it was confined to a small community. But it was not confined to a small community. Ashrams were established all over the world and there were no mechanisms in place or even contemplated that were capable of fulfilling the responsibilities that the structure implied. When people age, or get sick, for example, who and what support system would take care of them. The ashrams in India were capable and experienced in handling these kinds of issues because they were self-sufficient communities with premies and mahatmas of all ages, and supported by the larger community of premies.

Notwithstanding these arguments for their closure in the West, my biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult. For these reasons, I was a strong advocate for closing the ashrams. I recommended, instead, that a few retreat-type environments be established around the world where premies could visit for a week or two to deepen their experience of knowledge and then return to their daily lives. It was my view that, when people received knowledge, they were not joining anything, whether it is called DLM, Élan Vital, the world of Maharaji, or premiedom. That is why I wanted to get rid of the word “premie.” It is my opinion that you don’t become anything when you receive knowledge, you simply get more in touch with who you really are.

But my recommendations didn’t stop with the closing of the ashrams. I was convinced that Maharaji needed to re-define his role to better present knowledge to much greater numbers of people. In my view, it was unnecessary and unwise to suggest that devotion to Maharaji was an integral condition for experiencing knowledge. Let the experience itself be the focus of a person’s life. That people would naturally want express their gratitude, appreciation and even love to him for making knowledge available to them would, of course, be understandable. But leave it at that.

Some people have asked what I have learned from my experience. This is a valid question and I will do my best to answer it from my current perspective. Please forgive me if I sound too pedantic. I am not seeking anyone’s agreement with what I have to say. I certainly don’t claim that what I have to say is the “truth” of the matter. What I have to say is simply my opinion. You can take it or leave it for whatever its worth.

First, let me create a context for my answer. In my current consulting practice, I have learned the importance and benefit of distinguishing between a phenomenon and its explanation. For example, the phenomenon of “gravity” has had many explanations over the years. Newton had one explanation or interpretation, Einstein developed another. The phenomenon of gravity itself did not change, but different explanations of it evolved over time. It is important, therefore, that we do not see our interpretations as the “truth.” They are simply our interpretations. This is not to suggest that interpretations are trivial or insignificant. Clearly, some interpretations create greater possibilities for action than others. Einstein’s interpretation is more powerful than Newton’s because it allows for greater possibilities in space exploration than did Newton’s. Thus, one may conclude that innovation is about developing new and more relevant interpretations about a phenomenon. Innovation, on the other hand, is greatly inhibited when we do not distinguish between a phenomenon and its interpretation. The ability to make this distinction consistently is one of the important divides between our former “modern” and our current “post-modern” understanding about reality and truth.

Now how does this relate to Maharaji and knowledge? Let us suppose that knowledge is the phenomenon in question. Metaphorically speaking, knowledge is “gravity.” Just as Einstein inherited the historical traditions and interpretations of gravity when he began his studies in physics, Maharaji inherited an interpretation about knowledge and his role in the process from his early childhood. This interpretation included a particular structure and certain practices that were designed to introduce a person to knowledge and to develop and sustain their experience of it. One of Maharaji’s great gifts was his charismatic ability and foresight to attract people to him in India from all over the world, and to subsequently have them prepare the way for his arrival in the West. It makes perfect sense, to me at least, especially when you consider that he was only 12 years old, that he would export that structure and its related practices with him. It is my suggestion, however, that we view the structure, practices and his role as a particular interpretation, not as the “truth.” Since there is nothing sacred about our interpretations, they are subject to being re-invented. That is what Einstein did with respect to the phenomenon of gravity, and that is what I suggested Maharaji do regarding his role and the related practices with respect to the phenomenon of knowledge.

However, when we fail to distinguish between the two domains, claims about the “truth” inevitably result. And there can only be one logical action if we accept that we are being presented with the “truth” (any “truth” by anybody about anything) and that is obedience. It is not surprising then, that many premies may believe that it is necessary to be devoted to Maharaji in order to experience knowledge. What’s more, when these two distinct domains are collapsed into one, it is not unusual to find that we end up speaking as though our interpretations are the cause of the phenomenon. By not distinguishing between the phenomenon (knowledge) and the interpretation (his role, the structure and the practices), many premies came to the conclusion that Maharaji is the cause or the source of knowledge. Now there is an obvious flaw to this way of thinking. It’s the same as saying that Einstein is the cause of gravity just because he developed the most relevant and powerful interpretation of it to date. Clearly the world admires and appreciates Einstein for the impact his interpretation has had on all of our lives. Time magazine even honored him as “Man of the Century.” Likewise, Maharaji can receive the love, admiration and respect from those people who are benefiting from the knowledge he taught them without any need for the trappings of devotion and all that that implies.

Having said that, do I blame or am I upset with Maharaji because things did not proceed as I would have preferred? Absolutely not. As I said in my previous memo, I respect his right to make whatever interpretation he chooses. It is his mission, not mine. I take full responsibility for the choice I made to receive knowledge in the first place and to make myself available to help him further his mission. Life is full of risks and there are no guarantees. There were risks involved in running the “safe houses” in Toronto, yet I choose to take those risks because I believed in the cause. I feel the same way about the time I spent with Maharaji or any of the projects I am currently involved in. I take responsibility for my choices and I refuse, as a matter of principle, to blame anyone else for the consequences that ensue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:42:54 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Did the phenomena known as gm's dick, regularly
Message:
find itself swimming in the sea of Monica or not, no interpretions needed?

Has he smoked so much weed he could be an honorary member of the Wu Tang Clan?

Does he need at least $500,000 per month just to live?

Has he ever shown any inkling that he gives a fuck about anyone apart from his family?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:38:17 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: when you are on you are on ham!! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:08:30 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: hey ham, why don't you take your gloves off?
Message:
ham: GOOD POST and straight to the point..... 'Has he ever shown any inkling that he gives a fuck about anyone apart from his family?'

I would venture to say that, if the stuff about monica is true, then you would have to modify that question, too. Something a little more like this, 'Has he ever shown any inkling the he gives a fuck about ANYONE apart from himself?'

Waddaya think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:41:18 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: hey ham, why don't you take your gloves off?
Message:
Well I'm sure your right, but I'm trying to give the guy some slack, god even Carter THOUGHT about it!

Amazing reading Dettmers, you can just see the new-age corporate speak suit & matching body language to go with it.

Nothing, but nothing is going to allow these guys to lose their 'appreciation' of the moment.
I just find it unbelevievably ironic, especially from someone who started out so practical in the 60's and ended up not even contemplating the effects on real PEOPLE of gm's wonderful organizational acumen when it involved insiders (ie shutting ashrams), to the point of organizational adviser to businesses on team-building etc which I bet leaves the notion of POWER out of the equation. Apologies on that last one Michael, if I'm wrong.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:05:29 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Right on Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
Michael Dettmers said,

'In my view, it was unnecessary and unwise to suggest that devotion to Maharaji was an integral condition for experiencing knowledge. Let the experience itself be the focus of a person’s life.

That people would naturally want express their gratitude, appreciation and even love to him for making knowledge available to them would, of course, be understandable. But leave it at that.'

That's the key right there!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:20:48 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Right on Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:

But Dog, these were extracts from Dettmers' recommendations that Maharaji disagreed with and ignored for many years!!!!!!

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:47:51 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: JHB
Message:
John,

The quote from Dettmers is the key to my understanding of Knowledge and it's nice to know I'm not alone. This is why I can't relate to all the personal attacks on M on this site.

Knowledge is a personal experience, a moment ot moment individual feeling! The important thing is not what is going on in Malibu but what's going on in us. Are you and I living in the Spirit or not? IMO that's the issue!

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:30:40 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: your Knowledge
Message:
Dogg,

Your 'Knowledge' is not the 'Knowledge' that Maharaji talks about, that's for sure. If you were allowed (and you're not) to tell him your version, do you think he would agree? Do you think he would say fine, whatever suits your fancy, sure, just include the techniques and some pseudo-devotion to me as a couple of lumps of meat in your seminar or whatever stew?

Of course, it's true, he doesn't own the word Knowledge or knowledge. But the 'Knowledge' that's mostly talked about here is the one he talks about, get it? The whole kit-and-kabooble devotional trip, not the Deputy Dog dance you do.

This is a Forum mainly about Maharaji and his so-called 'Knowledge', not yours. So both get discussed. You see, many of us here had devoted our lives to the character 'Maharaji' that Prem Rawt portrayed. You never did. Negative aspects of his life are discussed partially to counter the brainwashing we went through, it runs deep even after many years. Do you understand this at all?

By the way, did you post as Q?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:41:32 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: The important thing ...
Message:
Dep Dog, you say 'The important thing is not what is going on in Malibu but what's going on in us'

Malibu=Maharaji?

So why the attachment to the guru/teacher?

Enjoy the meditation, even if it was 'revealed' by someone who'd like to keep you enslaved to being in 'gratitude' to its 'revealer' for evermore.

But why not question the motives of that 'revealer'?

What does HE get out of it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:27:36 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: If you weren't so far up your own arse, and looked
Message:
at the title of this site, you'd have realized ages ago this place is about gm and all guff surrounding him, including knowledge.

If your after spiritual pampering I'd suggest one of those cosy sites where everyone's having a 'nice' time discussing their 'nice' experiences.

GM, all the hot air and the heated seats made of gold DO have relevance for very obvious reasons, but to see that you'd have to take off yuour rose-tinted virtual reality goggles and listen a little. Knowledge, the meditation techniques, are not on trial here. GM is.

By the way you've still not responded to 12 of my last fourteen points to you, and that's being generous. I make this comment after reading your other posts, in which you covered one point.

Lets keep it simple, just one question at a time eh.

Why your deep interest in Buddhism if gm & k supplied the whole package for you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:50:14 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: hamzen
Message:
Why your deep interest in Buddhism if gm & k supplied the whole package for you?

Buddhism satisfies an intellectual part of me. IMO Buddhism is the sanest of all religions. You practice Knowledge and be a member of any religion if you like. That's why it's not a cult. Buddhism and agnosticism are also compatible.

I like listening to M because he just talks about the experience of Knowledge. He doesn't talk about chakras, tantras, engrams, extraterrestrials, astral bodies, three thousand year old civilizations, ghosts, ect. He talks about the experience of Knowledge, which is a personal experience, and he encourages us to keep on keeping on.

Hope that satisfies you hamzen.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:49:35 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Deputy Dog
Message:
Dog,

Are you seriously saying that you don't think or care that Maharaji is, as Dettmers described him, the 'embodiment' of Knowledge? Tell me that the 'inspiration' you get from M isn't due to the fact that you regard Maharaji in this light, and wouldn't hear a word he says unless you did. You think that Maharaji has reached some kind of plateau of bliss and enlightenment that you yourself are striving for. Well, DD, what if he hasn't? That would put a damper on your enthusiam for both M and K, I'd bet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:56:03 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Jerry r.e. Deputy Dog
Message:
Jerry,

There is something about not being 'the man' that keeps me with M. I'm glad he's the man and not me. I'd prefer to be a follower when it comes to the practice of K. I am also inspired by what he says.

IMO M is the Tiger Woods of satsang. He hits them long and right on the money, every time.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:13:16 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Criticism of Maharaji
Message:
So Dog, is that a criticism of Maharaji? That he didn't take Dettmers advice?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:18:11 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: To Deputy Dog
Message:
DD,

Judging from the number of your exclamations points, I gather that you WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree with Mr. Dettmer's assessments. Perhaps your enthusiasm is not just for the quotation that you cite in capital letters but for the rest of what he has had to say, so far. If that is the case, then I strongly suggest that you follow in Mr. Dettmer's footsteps and never again go to any video, satellite feed, or event that Rawat offers, for the rest of your life!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:28:07 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: DD
Subject: To DD again,
Message:
DD,

I've read your response to JHB. But you seem to be missing (or just ignoring) the point that he makes, namely that the key to your understanding of Knowledge is something that Maharaji himself refused to accept back in the seventies. Just how Rawat would react to this statement today is not perfectly clear, mainly because Rawat makes contradictory statements about it. So, as you know, this is one of the basic questions around here -is the Master the indispensable source or not?

I think it is also important for you to note that Dettmers is obviously not telling his whole story. There has to be reasons why he has had no contact of any sort with Rawat or his teachings for about 20 years.

I do not believe that you yourself have ever before today explained to the exes here just where you stand with Rawat. If you go to every event that you possibly can, if you consider him indispensable to your experience, etc. From what you say above, you are very similar to many exes here who still value the experience of Knowledge but who do not credit Rawat with any divine responsibility, and only give Mr. Rawat a simple, human thank-you for teaching me some techniques.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:01:15 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Way - read my posts to hamzen and Jerry (nt)
Message:
Way,

Read my posts to hamzen and Jerry, but there may be some truth to what you say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:42:28 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
I followed that okay until he got into all the relativity shit. COuld anyone give me the Cliff notes version, or was he just building up a smokescreen to keep from saying anything that made any sense?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:59:14 (GMT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Helen
Message:
The short answer is that he is lying.
I have a satsang of his that I will post as soon as I can.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:32:52 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: He's Einstein, Helen
Message:
Helen,

Dettmers is referring to how Einstein's theory of relativity has superseded Newton's theory of gravity in explaining bodily motions. It's kind of funny in a way. Dettmers thinks of M as Newton and himself as Einstein. Cracks me up. I bet you didn't know you were a devotee of Sir Isaac Newton, did you, while Einstein was in the wings trying to point out the error of his ways.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 22:22:03 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: He's Einstein, Helen
Message:
Wel, jeez, it sounds to me like he's just plain ol' in denial about Maharaji since he went off into that abstract diatribe. I mean jeez, what about addressing all of the concrete stuff that happened, I don't give a shit about his version of what M was to him. How bout all the premies who suffered and M's responsibility for it? This is crap.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:05:19 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: He's Einstein, Helen
Message:
Helen,

It's hopeful that Dettmers will see that a lot of people were disturbed by the closing of the ashrams, maybe not so much by the fact they were closed as by the way in which they were, with no forewarning, no counseling or support, and no explanation outside of 'this is what the master wants'. I think Michael should ask himself if Maharaji had a right to expect these people to carry on, content to be his servants. How much of Maharaji's shit is a person supposed to eat, happily chowing down on it? Where does he draw the line? Is that what a master/devotee relationship is supposed to be about, the master says, 'here, eat my shit', and the devotee says 'thank you, master' (yum yum). Fuck that!

These people want an explanation and they've waited a long fucking time for one, and all Dettmers can do is spout some new age rhetoric. If he's got more to say, which I'm sure he does, he is morally obliged to. He was there in the castle when all the shit was going down, advising the king on the progress of his commands. Just what was he telling Maharaji during that time, and what was Maharaji's replies? People want to know. Why won't Michael tell them? He's the one who can. He should.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 02:24:01 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: He's Einstein, Helen
Message:
Exactly. He's hiding behind new age bullshit.Michael, you are probably reading this--your post was ridiculous. Are you so far removed from human feeling that you have to cloak yourself in new age bullshit?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 20:51:35 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: But Helen
Message:
He are one, duh.

Dettmers makes his dough promoting this gobbledygook bullshit. Small wonder he falls back on such gibberish to 'explain' to inexplicable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:33:55 (GMT)
From: bill burke
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I will post a dettmers satsang that shows what he
Message:
really thought at the time. He is obviously still a premie and has all the cult revisionism that is being pushed at present. I for one do not believe him when he talks about his present involvement and find his reasonings lacking honesty and he obviously has bought into the 'oneness' concept. A sign of weak thinking if there ever was one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:26:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: bill burke
Subject: When, Bill?
Message:
Bill,

You've been promising to send me some materials for three years now. Not that it matters but I wonder, should I stay home waiting or is ot okay for me to go to go out to the jail to see a client first? Don't wnt to miss anything. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:05:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My discussion with Mike last night
Message:
I had a chance to talk with Mike a bit more last night after I'd posted his second 'memo'. He asked what I thought about this second set of comments and I began to tell him. I say 'began' because we didn't get all that far before the discussion turned to one about language and terminology. Mike prides himself on being a clear thinker and communicator. He also appears to have read, studied or otherwise familiarized himself with some form of post-modernism theory from which he's learned a bit of new vocabulary. He's more than willing (with me at least) to bring me up to speed on special meanings of terms such as 'assertion', which he defines as a factual claim and which should always be distinguished from 'assessment' which, if I understand him properly, is really an expression of opinion. I can say that my shirt is white, I can make that 'assertion', because it's a noncontentious claim about something specific and factual I might simply know. When I say that 'Maharaji is the Lord', however, I'm making an 'assessment'. There's no way in the world I could really know whatever factual reality (redundant?) there is to the matter. Maybe neither I nor anyone will ever know. All I'm really doing is expressing my opinion in the matter. It's only an 'assessment'.

Now, Michael, if you're reading this, forgive me if I mischaracterized anything. I'm trying to understand but, as I told you, I'a laready confused. See, I think that there are a lot of things we might know the truth of but which still have truth value. In other words, and to use my example above, maybe Maharaji really is the Lord. Maybe he really is the creator of this entire universe incarnated in human form.

Hey, here's a little context. This is part of a Question and Answer session Maharaji gave on August 15, 1971 at Alta Loma Terrace, Hollywood, California. It was printed in the Spring, 1978 issue of Elan Vital under the title 'Who is Satguru?. The table of contents says:

One of the most powerful discourses ever given by Guru Maharaj Ji, this 1971 satsang has never been published before. After an hour and a half of questions, Maharaj Ji finally agreed to tell his audience about the Satguru

In the interview, Maharaji says a lot of stuff along this line:

We have to give our whole devotion to Satguru, because He Himself is full. Take one glance, one glance at this whole world: peopel mad, they want to cry, but their tears again go back in their heads. So God had to take such a form, because He is so kind, so merciful. And whatever mercy He had, He put that mercy into one form, and placed Himself in that form, and came into this world. Can't you say that Jesus was the kindest man on Earth? So many things people did -- 'Okay, don't bother. God forgive them.' Error for human; forgive for divine.

Satguru is divine. Guru is divine. The most divine. That's why Shankaracharya says, [much Hindi that I'm not inclined to try to type in]'Guru is whatever is; nothing else but Guru. Whtever is, is Guru. God first puts whatever mercy is left in a body, and then places Himself. It is said that one nail of Guru is filled with mercy. If he scratches this world, it is for mercy, to dig a whole for mercy.'

So, to my way of thinking, that kind of claim, indeed that very claim could, possibly, in fact, be true. Sure, maybe we'll never know if it is, but that's a different story. I guess another way of putting it is that for some, maybe for Maharaji himself, claiming that he's the 'Lord of the Universe' might be a simple declaration of fact. He might know that the matter's true in the same way I know my shirt's white or even that I'm a human being. The question of 'proof' is a whole different issue but this kind of claim is not at all like saying 'Titanic is the greatest film of all time' (yech!). That I could accept as being an 'assessment', if you will. Clearly a matter of opinion now and forever.

Michael and I only got into this discussion. We didn't complete it and indeed agreed to leave it for now. He wants to read the feedback he'll get to this second statement and consider then how best to carry the dialogue further.

He is, as I said before, very concerned that his name be cleared with respect to the financial questions and all the unsavory things he believes they imply about him over on Drek's site. To that end, he asked me where I think things stand now that he's spoken up a bit. I told him that, frankly, if he's hoping to persuade anyone of anything in that regard, without any supporting evidence(at one point, as I told him, I thought he had mentioned some evidence he could offer to back up some of what he said. He can't remember saying that and --who knows? -- maybe I was mistaken), he's going to have to enter into an actual dialogue with people here. You know, I said, think about it. Here you are telling us about how you started as a 'commoner' and are a 'commoner' again. Why not act like one and simply talk with us like all us other 'common folk'? I don't think Michael knows himself whether or not he might be so inclined. I think he's thinking about it.

Before we said goodnight I revisited all the language stuff. I told him that while I, personally, thought I might be able to follow him and indeed found this analysis somewhat interesting, that was me. What about the hypothetical woman who joined the ashram at 20 years old in the early seventies. Not an intellectual, not well-educated, what about her? She entered into a faith premised on certain representations. What if she were now to confront Maharaji and ask him, simply, why he said shit like the stuff above from '71? She doesn't know from 'declarations' and 'word acts'. She's not interested in 'assertions' and 'assessments'. Never was, never will be. She just thought that Maharaji knew what he was talking about when he told her to surrender the reigns of her life to him because he was her creator come to tak her home. What about her?

Well, for one thing, Michael told me that he believes that she's perfectly entitled to ask that question. But more importantly, I asked, is Maharaji obliged to answer? Rather than answer and get dragged into the whole big discussion with me alone, Michael suggested that we just let things progress on their own a bit here. He wants to see how others respond to his latest and take it from there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:21:59 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Simple question to Mr Dettmers
Message:
Michael Dettmers says that his: ' biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult. For these reasons, I was a strong advocate for closing the ashrams'

Seeing how much disaffection that has led to, Mr Dettmers, do you think that was a wise decision for Mr Rawat to take? (and to avoid speaking publicly about ever since?)

Is his silence on the issue to be taken as a tacit admission of error?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:13:14 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Closing of the ashrams, 'earmarks of a cult'
Message:
During a Q&A meeting, a former ashram premie asked Maharaji regarding the ashrams 'What was that about?', the only thing that Maharaji said was 'Mistakes were made.'

The closing of the ashrams in my area was handled very poorly, and I'm speaking as a former ashram premie. First, there was a 'purge' of the ashrams, leaving only the 'elite' ashram premies. This made some people feel like rejects (from a CULT I might add). It was a great insult. Also, there was an uneven distribution of the few assets and the more significant debts. This was not based at all on what people had earned, but by who was favored. No help was given in reorienting us to OUR lives outside the ashram. No counseling was provided. The barest of explanations as to why the ashrams were being closed was given. More importantly, no explanation was given as to why the ashrams had been started again.

Mr. Dettmers, do you have any comments about this? Based on what you wrote, it seems that Maharaji, you, and others viewed the ashram premies simply as pawns in a game, as objects to be used, rather than the human beings that we were and are. How about treating us like human beings for a change and give some straighter answers? I appreciate your response, but what you wrote (which really wasn't much) was veiled in vague philosophical terminology.

I'm glad the ashrams were closed, but back then I was devastated, in large part due to the way they were closed and the continuance of the cult.

'my biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult. For these reasons, I was a strong advocate for closing the ashrams'

Mr. Dettmers, I'm sure you know what they say about ducks.

It wasn't simply the structure, it was also the words, the philosophy, the actions, and the mentality. It still is. So simply by closing the ashrams did not take away the cultness of Elan Vital. Just a couple of years ago, people travelled half way around the world to Amaroo in order to listen to Prem Rawat and kiss his feet, believing he is God incarnate. You know he is a mere mortal. How do you feel about this? Should this continue? How about your concern for fellow human beings?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:13:47 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Closing of the ashrams, 'earmarks of a cult'
Message:
During a Q&A meeting, a former ashram premie asked Maharaji regarding the ashrams 'What was that about?', the only thing that Maharaji said was 'Mistakes were made.'

Thanks, G. I left the cult and the ashram in the late Spring of 1983. At that time, the ashrams were still up and running, but I think they were closed later that year. So, I never heard any of the explanations as to why that happened. Two things about the Q&A, though. First, Maharaji's passive voice avoidance of responsibility would have made Richard Nixon proud.

Second, that's the first time I ever heard of Maharaji ever saying there was a mistake about anything happening in his cult, even though even in this instance he wouldn't take any responsibility for it whatsoever, which I think has been his pattern to this day.

Although I wasn't around for the closings, I was around for the 'purge,' in my case the inquisition was performed by David Smith, with permission, he said, given to him personally by Maharaji. David's purge consisted primarily of performing sadistic mental torture on innocent ashram premies and either getting them to leave (despite Maharaji's personal statements that one should never do that), or terrify them into becoming ashram robots. It was hell. Frankly, it was David's sheer inhumanity and Maharaji's support of it, that shocked me enough to question the whole cult and get me out.

In retrospect, it may be the ashrams and how awful those people were treated by the Perfect Master, that might dog Maharaji for the rest of his 'master' career. There are plenty of disaffected people out there whom he treated with at best uncarring abandon, and at worst with open disdain. These people aren't likely to forget that anytime soon, and now with the internet, they are getting connected up.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:43:02 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Simplicity Principle
Message:
The essence of the claims Maharaji made both about himself and about knowledge was the utter simplicity of it all. It was this simple:

You receive knowledge, you surrender the reigns of your life to Maharaji, you experience the pure love that is the purpose of life, and you spend your life serving the living Lord. That was the essence of the trip Maharaji sold us, which manifested for many people as breaking all the strings and attachements they had in their lives and giving everything they had to Maharaji.

In this scenario, whether anyone understands the full meaning of what 'lord' means, whether it's an 'assertion' or an 'assessment', while providing some interesting discussion topics over wine and cheese, is completely beside the point. That's a complicated discussion about something that was presented as uniquely simple. Most of us youngsters who got involved with Maharaji came from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and there is a pretty good consensus there as to what 'lord' means. It means someone who is 'all knowing, all powerful, the source of the experience of love, one who has the power to guide your life into something transcendant and wonderful, who dispenses 'grace' that makes it possible to even be alives, and he is the worthy object of devotion of your mind, body and soul.'

There may be some variation on that theme, but taken in context of everything else Maharaji preached, it isn't complicated. It's very basic.

In that context, these mental exercises, no matter how sincerely believed and discussed, have the disturbing look of complications that confuse the issue.

Jim, do you think I'm missing the point here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:47:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Nope (nt)
Message:
nn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:33:48 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, JM -- there's a quote in there u might want
Message:
See if you can find it? (Hint: it's not something either Dettmers or I said)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:09:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: small (but important) correction
Message:
See, I think that there are a lot of things we might know the truth of but which still have truth value.

should read:

See, I think that there are a lot of things we might never know the truth of but which still have truth value.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:23:42 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: sorry Jim, your humor doesn't translate!
Message:
hahahaha

Really, I don't get it ........

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:58:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: That's because it wasn't a joke
Message:
JM,

I was simply pointing out the nifty quotes you might want to use on your web site.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:16:08 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Then I don't know
Message:
what you're referring to!

Shall you tell me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:16:00 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Why do I always have to spoonfeed the French?
Message:
What is it about you guys? Look, I'm not saying that no one's that smart over there. Hell, it's a big country and it's not like I've met all of you anyway. Besides, waht's the point of complaining? What good's it going to do? But, really, JM ...

Okay, here's what I was referring to:

Hey, here's a little context. This is part of a Question and Answer session Maharaji gave on August 15, 1971 at Alta Loma Terrace, Hollywood, California.
It was printed in the Spring, 1978 issue of Elan Vital under the title 'Who is Satguru?. The table of contents says:

One of the most powerful discourses ever given by Guru Maharaj Ji, this 1971 satsang has never been published before. After an hour and a half of questions, Maharaj Ji finally agreed to tell his audience about the Satguru

In the interview, Maharaji says a lot of stuff along this line:

We have to give our whole devotion to Satguru, because He Himself is full. Take one glance, one glance at this whole world: peopel mad, they want to cry, but their tears again go back in their heads. So God had to take such a form, because He is so kind, so merciful. And whatever mercy He had, He put that mercy into one form, and placed Himself in that form, and came into this world. Can't you say that Jesus was the kindest man on Earth? So many things people did -- 'Okay, don't bother. God forgive them.' Error for human; forgive for divine.

Satguru is divine. Guru is divine. The most divine. That's why Shankaracharya says, [much Hindi that I'm not inclined to try to type in]'Guru is whatever is; nothing else but Guru. Whtever is, is Guru. God first puts whatever mercy is left in a body, and then places Himself. It is said that one nail of Guru is filled with mercy. If he scratches this world, it is for mercy, to dig a whole for mercy.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:22:14 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Didn't you KNOW that ALREADY ?
Message:
Great quote ..... I'll include it somewhere on my website!

To be honest, I'm starting to be fed up with this BS.

Don't you think there is alreay enough of it?...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 16:58:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Didn't you KNOW that ALREADY ?
Message:
JM,

You mean 'I'm the King of the World!' quotes? Yes, possibly. But that one satsang is too much. Perhaps I should send you the whole thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:23:03 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, send it !! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:46:41 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Post-modernism
Message:
While I appreciate post-modernism's attempt to open up fields of intellectual inquiry and to demand a higher degree of cultural inclusivity; Dettmer's stance points to one of the pitfalls of post-modernism (which, ironically, is a term long gone from contemporary academic discourse).

Phenomenon vs. interpretation. Different, yes. But the implication here is that something happened (knowledge etc.) and all interpretations of the phenomenon are potentially valid. Including Dettmer's. So what we talk about in this forum, by implication, do not concern the reality of what happened (and what is happening); they are just our (dark and disaffected) opinions.

As others have pointed out, on this thread and others, devotion to a Living Lord was at the core of the Divine Light Mission experience. You cannot finesse this as 'interpretation.' Devotion was part of the phenomenon. Our 'experience', as we used to put it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:56:01 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Post-modernism
Message:
Gregg:

I see the term 'post-industrialism' used quite frequently, but as you say 'post-modernism' is out of favor. At best a term of the form 'post-anything' is ambiguous about what's really going on, and contingent on a more insightful understanding.

But the point I wanted to make below, that Dettmer and other 'post-modernists' have consistently missed, is that the enlightenment project is worth saving and that there have been some rather successful attempts at pointing out the fatal flaws in the radical interpretive philosophies that underly the more popularized versions of post-modernism (like Derrida and Gadamer). The most notable of those contributions comes from Jurgen Habermas, who is probably the most influencial social scientist and philosopher on the planet. He fulfills at least some of the criteria for Mannheim's 'wandering intellectual.' He was, at one time, a 'western Marxist' but it's not clear what he is now, since he seems to have reinvented himself again in his wanderings. He has close ties with the American Pragmatists, however, as well as Max Weber.

I also agree that you don't need a degree in philosophy to sort out what's missing in Dettmer's statement. However, it might be important to some that the appeal to post-modernism does not command the respect that Dettmer seems to imply.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Post-modernism
Message:
Scott,

I'll be perfectly frank and tell you I never thought your 'egg-headedness' would ever come in so handy here. Shows what I know, huh? :)

Okay, if you're still reading, maybe this might help fill in the picture of where Mike's coming form a bit. I asked him where he got his terminology and he mentioned, ever briefly, two guys: Austin and Heidegger (sp?). He didn't say that either of them particularly coined any certain term. He simply said that they were two of the guys he learned some of this from?

Am I right, Mike?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:50:43 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: freewheeling@bigfoot.com
To: Jim
Subject: Post post-modernism
Message:
Jim:

Martin Heidegger was Husserl's student and usurped his mentors' academic chair only to subsequently repudiate the work of Husserl and disown him to the Nazis (Husserl was Jewish). Many people saw that as a stab in the back, including Husserl. (For some reason most of these 20th century German philosophers have names that begin with 'H.') Heidegger was also a rather controversial figure in Nazi Germany, and according to my mentor, Thelma Lavine, had aspirations to become the Philosopher Laureate of Hitler. The Nazis, according to Thelma, were too clever. Heidegger was also Hannah Arendt's mentor and lover, or some might say 'perpetrator' since she was his student at the time. Arendt eventually became the Dean of Chicago University during the period when Lipset was there (my other mentor) and got into frequent arguments with Marty. I think Marty won most of them, but I have enormous respect for Arendt, who is an exceptional political philosopher with deep insight. She outclassed her mentor in my estimation, on just about every level.

I'll have to do a bit of reading to make any more comments on the philosophy of Austin and Heidegger, but I'm a Pragmatist and think Habermas wiped the floor with all of them, especially in the famous 'Gadamer/Habermas Debates.' I own both volumes of *The Theory of Communicative Action* and can also scrounge up some material that Thelma wrote on Heidegger's version of 'dasein.'

I know little about J.L. Austin except that he followed Wittgenstein in developing the theory of 'speech acts.' Both the philosophy of science (Carnap to Popper) and the theory of speech acts (Wittgenstein and Austin) are reconstructions of an original problematic developed by the American Pragmatist philosopher and n'er-do-well Charles Sanders Peirce. See if this quotation evinces any shock of recognition:

'From the sincere expressions of a speaker we can infer nonexpressive speech acts that the speaker would utter under suitable conditions. If he believes 'p', he is disposed to assert that 'p'; if he regrets 'r', he is disposed to apologize for 'r'. But we cannot infer inversely from these constative or regulative speech acts that the speaker also really believes or feels what he expresses. In this respect speakers are not forced to say what they mean. This asymmetry presupposes the assimilation of convictions and obligations to subjective experiences of noncognitive and nonobligatory origin; this in turn makes it possible to distance a domain of experiences with privileged access from [emphasis added] facts, on the one hand, and norms, on the other.' (Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. II, pg. 67.)

Anyway, the missing link here is the psychological theory of behavior which has only recently begun to take notice of the analysis of language through inroads in the science of human cognition. All of this has begun to converge in a rather remarkable way, that holds the promise of rebuilding rationality on a more 'humane' basis. Think about a scientific method that is geared to human capacities and gifts rather than abstract 'ideals,' and without surrendering the ideals themselves.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:36:35 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Heidegger
Message:
I'll leave it to Scott and others to discuss Heidegger's philosophy, but I can comment on it from the political perspective a little bit, which is how I approached him, except maybe in 'Philosophy 101.'

My understanding is that Heidegger was a proponent of the 'antihumanist' school, which was, as exhibited by Mr.Dettmers, a belief that there really aren't any 'truths' only interpretations. Indeed, there isn't even a 'self' only a perspective or viewpoint. This is right in line, I think, with what Michael was saying to Jim about 'assertions' and 'assessments.'

Heidegger had started out as a devout Catholic and even studied to become a Jesuit. He married a protestant woman, and gradually became anticlerical, to the point of being especially 'anti' the absolutist teachings of the Church. Some say he was heavily influenced by his reaction to religious teachings, although he ended up supporting Nazi Socialism more as a kind of national religion, than any kind of political movement, if you ask me. He even authored, I believe, some kind of a treatise in which he said that the NAZIs weren't a 'party' they were a means of transforming Germany on an almost religious level.

Indeed, there are those who have written that such a relativistic philosophy in which there aren't any rights or wrongs, nor any ultimate values, especially humanistic ones, made it easy for Heidegger to be an enthuasitic Nazi, and although I've never heard that his writings are blatantly anti-semetic, he did, as Scott mentions, denounce a Jewish 'friend' and his treatment of Husserl (who, for some reason I thought wasn't even Jewish, just 'non-Aryan') was pretty bad.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:45:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: How do I expect anyone to believe you, Joe?
Message:
when you misspell 'antisemitic'?

Really, thanks for assisting me and others in understanding what the fuck this shit's all about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:47:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That small joke had two big errors
Message:
1) I forgot to close my HTMl.

2) I should have said 'How do you expext anyone to believe you, Joe?'

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Think I better to to the office now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:33:51 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's just your ASSERTION, Jim
Message:
It's all in how you interpret antisemitic, right? I mean, can you really ever know the truth about how antisemitic is spelled? Isn't it just as valid that it's antisemetic? I mean it sounds the same, and if you were speaking and not writing, it would BE the same. It's all relative, Jim. Isn't it really just an assertion?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:00:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Well I DID ask, didn't I?
Message:
No, seriously, thanks, Scott. I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying but am I right to conclude from this and your other posts on this subject that, in your opinion, Dettmers is misconstruing postmorbidism and specifically how it relates to factual claims?

Mike, you reading this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:30:20 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Just a little more, and then freedom.
Message:
Jim:

Re: am I right to conclude from this and your other posts on this subject that, in your opinion, Dettmers is misconstruing postmorbidism and specifically how it relates to factual claims?

After a bit more reading I am a little less sure of myself regarding the nuts and bolts, so perhaps 'misconstrue' is the wrong word. Certainly in the sense that he limits postmodernism to the insights offered by a few of these language analysts. I think the theory of speech acts amounts to a *fragment* of a philosophy. Habermas establishes certain domains of truth claims that each require different sorts of evidence. All of this relates to conceptions of subjective, social, and objective worlds and how claims or statements originating in one can be criticized or questioned.

This deals with three models of action: dramaturgical ('self presentations'), teleological (goal directed), and normative (transmission of cultural values). Each is mediated through 'speech acts,' but conceives of language one sidedly, as 'expressive,' 'intentionalist,' or 'reproductive' respectively. In other words, each conceives of language as having to do exclusively with a subset of the objective, social, and subjective worlds: the release of perlocutionary effects, the establishment of interpersonal relations, and the expression of subjective experiences.

Each of the first three theories of action are limit cases of the other two. For instance, dramaturgical action, developed by Irving Goffman, gives rise to a scale of self presentations that ranges from sincere communications of one's own intentions, desires, and moods to the cynical management of the impressions the actor arouses in others. Dramaturgical action is bounded on one side by normative action, and on the other by teleological action.

Now, the communicative model of action conceives of language as 'a medium of uncurtailed communication whereby speakers and hearers, out of the context of their pre-interpreted lifeworld, refer simultaneously to things in the objective, social and subjective worlds in order to negotiate common definitions of the situation.' This is not inconsistent with Austin's theory of speech acts except that, as I understand Habermas' conception, Austin sets the illocutionary role of language against the propositional content of an utterance as an irrational force. This, in turn, arises because both he and Wittgenstein, as well as Gadamer, parse the world into 'internal' and 'external.'

Consider the lower status given an 'assessment' as opposed to an 'assertion.' This gets complicated from a purely theoretic point of view, but Habermas proposes that we, instead, use the illocutionary role as a component that specifies which validity claim is being raised, how it is being raised, and for what purpose. In that way we don't get boxed in by the aforementioned asymmetry and can make judgments about whether a speaker means what he says.

Incidentally, the point of doing all this is 'linguistification of the sacred.' As an example, in order for someone to be able to question and correct an inherited belief he must first be able and willing to communicate it sincerely and accurately, and then have the sincerity judged accurately by others. In the negotiation process these others may have to reveal their own inherited 'belief viruses.' Touchy process.

I think I've earned a bike ride at this point, if I can drag my butt out the door before the sun goes down.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:48:50 (GMT)
From: Scanner
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: DON'T MISS ABOVE THREAD .... SUPERB (nt)
Message:
123
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:42:57 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jim
Subject: To Mike Dettmers
Message:
To Michael:

Thanks for making contact and taking the time to explain a few things. You appear to speak with sincerity; you also clearly believe you acted with honesty and integrity throughout your involvement with Maharaji - and since. So why do I find it quite so extraordinary, unbelievable (and infuriating) to read today that you knew back in 1974 that 'he was a mere mortal like the rest of us'. 1974!!?? For God's sake - this was a good few years before the start of my own journey in and out of the (non?)cult for which you were still such high-profile speaker and representative. If what you are now saying is the truth then I put it to you that you did not go about your duties within DLM with the honesty or integrity you now plead.

You claim not to have believed in Maharaji's exclusive necessity for spreading Knowledge, even when every initiator was hammering home that very message to would-be aspirants: that 'only by the Grace of the Living Perfect Master…', 'only by surrendering the reins of our lives…', placing our destinies at the Master's mercy… how 'not a leaf stirs without his consent..' Jeez… the grains of sand unworthy for him to walk upon..??

What were you telling the aspirants at this time, Michael? Seriously, now…

Perhaps you remember delivering the following satsang, back in 1978… (You don't? That's funny - neither do I.)

>>>

MD (arriving in satsang chair and pranaming to the picture of Prem Rawat on the altar) 'Jai satchitanand…'

Assembled premies in satsang room: ' Jai satchitanand…'

MD: 'Ok, ok, that's enough of the primitive ritual. Let's get real here. Maharaji is not the Lord and there's no point in any more of this superstitious posturing and carrying on as if he were the Lord. He is a mere mortal like you or I. He just happens to like and believe in Knowledge - same as you, same as me. Basically he's just a fan. Likes meditation and does a bit now and then. I find he has an inspiring way of talking about life and everything, which is why I keep coming back for more. But if you don't care for his incoherent style of expressing himself or don't find it quite so inspiring as me then - hey, fine - stop listening! The guy is irrelevant to the process of self discovery. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Smart guy. Charming guy. But not the Lord...

OK, so maybe we've all just come back from Holi, had darshan even. Sang along with all of Rich Neale's ultra-drippy devotional goo-fest..? Yes? Maybe some of the other initiators there have given you the impression you simply had to go there and bow down - that you had no choice.. even if it meant selling furniture, denying the kids holidays, throwing in your careers or whatever? Yup? Well, let me tell you folks, that simply ain't the case. If you've got Knowledge that's all you need. The guru is surplus to requirements. Follow him, follow Yoganand, Rajneesh, Big brother Bugglegum ji..whoever… follow no-one. It matters not.

Darshan…hmm… now just what was that all about? An experience of 'connectedness' with the Lord of Creation? No way. It is just an ancient, charming and revered radhosoami tradition. A bit of symbolism, if you like. Wouldn't even matter who you put up on the throne. There's no more reason for any of us to kiss his toes than for you lot to kiss mine or - for that matter - Prem to kiss yours. It is just the Hindu packaging all of which is totally unnecessary - the Master included! I am gonna try and get him to change his corporate style soon. I think the devotional stuff may be a bit misleading, and passe. Come the eighties simply nobody's gonna want to have a little fat guru guy dancing with a flute and blowing in their ears, are they..?

Anyway, we're no doubt all going to sing Arti before we leave tonight. Just try and sing it with a pinch of salt, Ok? Or go home early and meditate if you prefer. Or see what's on telly. Nobody will think any the less of you. If there's any aspirants present, just stick around until afterwards and I'll show you all the techniques for you to pass on to your friends…'

>>>

I repeat, Michael: what were you telling the aspirants at this time? Seriously…

(I'll crawl back into the woodwork now)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:29:32 (GMT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I have that for you Nigel, just need a night to
Message:
type it up.
Been working out of town but maybe sat night or sunday.
It is perfectly revealing of dettmers real cult programming of the time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:46:40 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Well said, Nigel...nothing need be added(nt)
Message:
HEY!!!!! I said I wasn't going to add anything and I'm NOT!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:09:22 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: For your info
Message:
I remember Detmers stayed in one of the ashrams I lived in (Stockwell, London) in late 1976 and he gave the whole devotional satsang spiel.
I wonder how he feels about the fact that he was supported by ashram premies who were later thrown out with nothing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:30:51 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: To Mike Dettmers
Message:
God Nigel, what's the matter with you, you poor sot? Clearly you are incapable of separating the phenomenon from the interpretation in such a way as to allow yourself creative lattitude. Are you saying that Michael had some obligation to reveal his own thoughts and insights on the matter? Where did you dig that one up, for chrissakes? Where does the phenomenon lead to anything like that conclusion? (If it did, I'd still be meditating twice a day.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:06:39 (GMT)
From: The Feline Globetrotter
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers ....A Gem
Message:
Dont even bother to answer it . Are you tuning in? Do you get it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:05:22 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers is also denying a very simple fact!
Message:
Beside all that's already been said in this thread, and the fact that M. Dettmers believes in something called 'knowledge' (I'm still waiting for a definition for this phenomenon), he says:

many premies came to the conclusion that Maharaji is the cause or the source of knowledge.

The problem with this is that the premies believed in this BECAUSE m repeatedly said so! And even these days during the aspirant (indoctrination) process, this is one most important notion that's progressively introduced and has to be accepted in order to receive k !!!!!!

And this is where the whole deceit starts.

Not mentioning the many occasions where Mr Rawat keeps saying he's god, in one way or another !

There are not that many people believing in what you're trying to say Michael!

Nice talk that will only satisfy the believers/premies and m's PRs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:52:27 (GMT)
From: Angry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: This is how most premies exit.
Message:
Thanks Jim. This, in particular and the Apter interview to a lesser degree have been very helpful to me.

While the number of ex-premies is relatively small, the number of former followers of Maha is huge. These 'walk-aways', as they are referred to in cult studies, need to intellectualize reasons for their non-participation in the Maha cult. This allows them to avoid facing the huge mistake in judgment they have made. It is very difficult for many to face the fact that they once looked upon Maha as God-like and kissed his feet. It still gives me the shivers and the heebie-jeebies every time I remember that I allowed myself to be conned by the charismatic huckster.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:47:17 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: Well said, Angry
Message:
I think you said that very well, and I think it's very true. I think many of us have seen it too many times for it not to be a real phenomenon/defense mechanism.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:55:04 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Yes, JW and....
Message:
JW & Angry: The very fact that they can't really admit their own error makes it much more likely that they will make the same mistake again!

If you cannot thoroughly 'think' your way through your involvement and acknowledge the mistakes that you made to get there, then you are connon-fodder for the next schuck-and-jive artist.

One thing I can say about self-acknowledged ex's is that they, in general, have the gas turned way up on the skeptical-oven..... If it ain't real, it will just burn! At the very least, if they decide to 'do' another belief system, they actually DECIDE to DO it! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:37:43 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Angry
Subject: This is how most premies exit.
Message:
'These 'walk-aways', as they are referred to in cult studies...'

Yes , these people say things like 'I have moved on'. IMO they are bigger wankers than the ones who stay.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 06:03:56 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, what could be expect?
Message:
It is disappointing that Michael responds to sincere questions about issues that affected real peoples' lives, questions that he is in a position to provide helpful insight about, with condescending new age moral relativism (which philosophy I find partly frightening because of it's lack of values but more by how Michael uses it to avoid responding honestly to honest questions). I personally think it's fine if Michael wants to believe whatever he believes about his very advanced 'post-modern understanding of reality and truth.' But I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this latest 'response' bordering on the bizarre. But let me boil this down to a couple of points that I think Michael as so far avoided like the plague:

1. Michael doesn't want to talk about Maharaji's 'lifestyle' because he isn't interested. You know, I'm not interested either. That wasn't the question. My question was, did Michael believe Maharaji presented himself in a fashion different than he really was. Had the 99.9% of the premies, who never even met the guy, and only saw him on thrones and having his feet kissed, that he had a drinking problem, who cheated on his wife, and smoked dope with Michael Donner in the Kittridge building, it might have done a lot to get rid of that 'devotion' and 'god' thing that Michael says he wasn't in favor of. This is important information, not so people can gossip about it, but so they can understand better, who the hell they devoted their lives to, or are considering devoting their lives to. Michael, maybe it didn't matter to YOU that Maharaji was a 'mere mortal' but I think most other premies didn't would have thought differently, those who didn't have your vantage point to know that he is, and was, a mere mortal. You see, all the while we sang arti which said he was the 'superior power in person' and 'all knowing' and he wore crowns and had us bow down to him. Doesn't it bother you at all to be that selfish that you only think about how YOU related to him and you don't care that many others were deluded into thinking Maharaji was god? Don't you feel some twinge of responsibility towards other people, when you have information that has been intentionally withheld from them and in fact they have been the dupes of an elaborate lie?

2. Michael talks about he ashram like he's talking about the best way to make widgets or do a marketing plan. Michael, do you recall there were thousands of REAL PEOPLE living in those ashrams, who drastically altered their lives being in an institution that Maharaji promoted, to the point where, as late as one year prior to them being shut down, he was scaring the shit out of us at ashram meetings that we didn't dare move out? And how did you plan to help the ashram premies reorient into the real world? Sure the ashrams may have started to become a liability, or not be the cash cows they once were, but what about the people, Michael, what about the people? This wasn't just some balance sheet decision....or was it? Yeah, these people probably didn't have health insurance because they did menial jobs because Maharaji extolled them to surrender their lives to him. Maybe you didn't believe that they should have been doing that, because you KNEW he wasn't divine, but was a mere mortal, but what about everybody else? Do you care? Did Maharaji? I haven't seen any evidence of either.

3. Maybe it was your perspective that devotion wasn't required to experience knowledge, but the fact was that for years, Maharaji himself said the direct opposite, over, and over, and over......So, devotion was the end all the be all of what being a premie was about. Don't you think Maharaji has some responsbility towards those people, who bought what you say was an unnecessary element of the whole trip, because Maharaji said it was central? Maybe Maharaji was your personal friend, if so you must be very disappointed in his failure to ever do that. I'm sure you would think any other human being with an ounce of integrity would.

Michael, I have one suggestion. Take a step forward. Come down from your lofty heights and talk like a human being to us, not like some detached, groovy, newage corporate type. Otherwise, what you have to say sounds more like the stuff of musical comedy than a real discussion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:04:18 (GMT)
From: CHR
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Well, what could be expect?
Message:
I'm also interested in the ashram question, Joe. Like you I spent about 9 years in M's ashram. This was probably the most damaging aspect of my premie life. It eroded my talents and abilities, my individuality and my potential for growth. I suppose that one could say I made that choice-but I was a sincere young 20 year old who in 1972 believed he had found the living Lord and M made it very clear that it was in the ashram that one truly experienced K. Chris.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:45:01 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: Exactly, CHR
Message:
I agree. My involvement with Maharaji might not have been the biggest regret of my life, but for the ashram, and what that did to my personal development, relationship with my family and friends, and also the simple fact that it was an awful waste of time. I know many people stayed, despite hating the environment, because they believed what Maharaji said. They took it literally. So, when someone like Dettmers turns all that into some kind of intellectual discussion, devoid of the effects it had on people, it's outrageous to many of us, because it was something that affected us personally.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:17:26 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: freewheeling@bigfoot.com
To: Jim
Subject: Oh, I think not... but who am I?
Message:
Many of the questions and concerns that have been expressed and debated about Maharaji’s lifestyle are of no concern to me. I have better things to do in my life than to get caught up in such discussions, whether it’s about Bill Clinton, Princess Diana or Maharaji.

Scares me a lot. None of those people claimed to be a deity or to have a divine mission, for which personal morality might be an all-important piece of evidence.

It didn’t matter to me that he was but a mere mortal like the rest of us. I was convinced that he had the vision, the commitment, and the ability to spread knowledge to people all over the world, and I was glad to play a role in that endeavor.

And it apparently didn't matter to him that it did matter to a lot of us, who might have missed opportunities for career, to know our parents and siblings, or to become socially engaged and mentally healthy. Has this guy exercised any moral or ethical judgment at all? Would this be a person I would want to work for, or with?

Notwithstanding these arguments for their closure in the West, my biggest concern was that the structure, taken as a whole, had all the earmarks of a cult, and I had no intention of participating in the propagation of a cult.

This is an entirely superficial aspect of a cult. He was clearly concerned that it looked like a cult, not that it was one.

Innovation, on the other hand, is greatly inhibited when we do not distinguish between a phenomenon and its interpretation. The ability to make this distinction consistently is one of the important divides between our former “modern” and our current “post-modern” understanding about reality and truth.

Thanks for the lesson in phenomenology, though I've already read Berger and Luckmann and the paraphrase doesn't really do the philosophy justice. A model of a principle, like gravity, is more than an 'interpretation.' The key is whether the emphasis is on the principle or the model, and the phenomenological perspective places far too much emphasis on the model. The title of Berger and Luckmann's book was, after all, The Social Construction of Reality. I am tempted to say that this fellow has the wrong idea of what post-modernism entails. The truth is that phenomenology has had almost no impact on research or methodology in either the social or the natural sciences, and the reason is that it's not capable of producing useful, reliable, or testable models of anything. It's a nifty sounding point of view, with a fatal flaw.

It is my suggestion, however, that we view the structure, practices and his role as a particular interpretation, not as the “truth.” Since there is nothing sacred about our interpretations, they are subject to being re-invented.

Well, let me propose this: If a 'phenomenon' that has some substantial value for humanity from a spiritual perspective can be propagated in a way that has long term positive consequences by an individual with Clintonesque moral proclivities (or worse) then it is reasonable to argue that Jon Benet Ramsey was killed in self defense. The moral implications are that stark! There is a disconnect here, that mirrors the disconnect in the phenomenological and hermeneutic account of the universe. The emphasis is on the wrong end of the scales, for even interpretations are 'realities' that must conform to an overall set of general principles. Otherwise we have a perfectly good term for such phenomena. We call them 'lies.'

However, when we fail to distinguish between the two domains, claims about the “truth” inevitably result. And there can only be one logical action if we accept that we are being presented with the “truth” (any “truth” by anybody about anything) and that is obedience.

Oh I beg to differ my good man. Jurgen Habermas, who in a now legendary series that destroyed the 'interpretive' arguments on 'truth and method' made by Ernst Gadamer, refers specifically to 'truth claims' about which humans can have valid judgments and can make valid determinations. Among the set of principles that govern claims to truth, and that rehabilitates the enlightenment project, are 'transparency' which is to say in a larger sense 'honesty' and 'sincerity.' The only obligation one has with regard to a truth claim made in the absence of these criteria is disobedience and exposure of the miscreant so that we can continue to rely on a process that distinguishes between truth and non-truth (a lie, in this domain).

By not distinguishing between the phenomenon (knowledge) and the interpretation (his role, the structure and the practices), many premies came to the conclusion that Maharaji is the cause or the source of knowledge.

This was hardly the dynamic, though I agree that the important thing is discrimination. The discrimination that is required, however, allows us to distinguish between a miscreant or liar (who made a consistent claim to godhood or divinity) and a sincere and genuine leader. We have precious little to go on in making such a judgment, and Dettmer would have us foreswear even that small edge. As I said before, this handicap leaves us in a state that's equivalent to being unable to distinguish between self defense and rape/murder.

Suggest Dettmer review the history of the 'interpretive turn' in philosophy since Kant. He is not well informed, and his instincts are clearly out of whack as well. I wouldn't say he's philosophically ignorant. Confused is more like it. What a surprise, huh?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 04:48:08 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
Jesus, what a carton of crap. What a house of cards, what a counterfeit watch, what a two-dollar bill.

This guy is so full of gobbledygook, it isn't surprising the Hamster chose him as point-man.

But the true offense in this big pile of ka-ka is Dettmers' cavalier attitude about shutting down the ashrams. What about all the people in those ashrams who contributed their blood, sweat and tears for up to ten years?

Sorry, but someone should have thought about the viability of those ashrams before they fucking opened them up. Especially since they were the fucking, goddamn Lord.

What the fuck, Dettmers? Get a fucking clue. People were misled and you helped to mislead them. All the sophisticated web-weaving in the world doesn't change that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:06:01 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
What the fuck, Dettmers? Get a fucking clue. People were misled and you helped to mislead them. All the sophisticated web-weaving in the world doesn't change that.

Not only DID he help mislead them, but it sounds like he's doing it all over again on this forum.
I mean, Dettmers latest letter almost sounds like 'satsang for the new millenium'.

Its creepy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:32:21 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
Joey:

Not only DID he help mislead them, but it sounds like he's doing it all over again on this forum.
I mean, Dettmers latest letter almost sounds like 'satsang for the new millenium'

Nah, he'll have no lasting influence on anyone here. More importantly, however, he'll probably mislead his employees in a way that's consistent with his former 'misjudgments.' Lots of people in business believe this crap, but most are in real estate or finance rather than manufacturing. Post modernism, or post-industrialism, is a valid conception, but not as our friend here puts it. Daniel Bell knows where it's at, as does Ron Inglehart to a lesser degree.

--Scott, MBA, Ph.D.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:16:04 (GMT)
From: gerry, et al.com
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Congrats on the degree, Dr T
Message:
Well done, very well done indeed. Lots of hard work and dedication.

Now if I could only get my GED... :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:20:27 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: gerry, et al.com
Subject: Congrats on the degree, Dr T
Message:
I agree gerry. Absolutely.

And Scott, I'm so sorry I didn't pick up on that.

Well, it's sheesh! time for me again.

All the best to you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:51:32 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
Scott,

Nah, he'll have no lasting influence on anyone here.

Maybe not on exes but how about your average premie?

They haven't all read Daniel Bell, ya know.

BTW, great post!

Joey, Diploma of Collegial Studies

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:36:26 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Dettmers speaks out a little more
Message:
What IS his consulting business? He sounds like the 'corporate consultant' they brought in to teach us all how to work and play together. He came, he went, made a fortune, talked a bunch of shit exactly like the above.
and...... didn't make a bit of difference.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:15:58 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Right on, Selene!
Message:
You nailed it! I've dealt with so many of these 'efficiency experts' on my job, and all they were ever good for was taking me away from my work, making a fortune by doing it, leaving with a bundle of money in their pockets, AND CHANGING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

It was business as usual everytime they left. And if changes that they implemented were put into effect, they were soon discarded, or worked around because of their lack of value in an actual work situation. These guys are nothing but a bunch of bright ideas that serve no practical purpose, whatsoever, in the real world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:52:32 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Jerry and Selene, are you surprised?
Message:
J & S: Think about it..... Look at the clap-trap that is presented as 'news' by our revered media? When I was a younger fellow, news was news.... you know.... the factual stuff as gathered by a reporter. NOW.... it's an interview with astrologers and yoga teachers.

In the last three years here in Phoenix, I've seen more new-age crap presented as 'news' than I ever did during the many years before. In fact, they (the media) wouldn't have even given an acknowledgement to its very existence before. That leads me to believe that the average news person is right smack in the middle of believing in it! Objectivity????? What's that???? Oh, I know, it's 'subjectivity' turned inside out so that all can see it! Therefore, subjectivity really is objectivity! See????

Don't try to understand that last thought..... it was bull.... he he he :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:18:16 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Mike are YOU surprised?
Message:
We live near Sedona, new age heaven, capital of the universe.
I'm told by them they live on the most powerful meridians.
Last visit to Flagstaff we visited there. I swore never again.
What a shame.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:49:25 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Not surprised a bit.... :-)
Message:
Selene: Other than how silly those sedona-ites look and they don't even know it!

You are right, they have ruined a really beautiful place. The 'real' residents are pretty pissed about the whole new-age thing there, too. I have a couple of close friends that live up there and, fortunately, they have a terrific sense of humor about it all!

Get this..... one of them is a painter during his off-time. He like to do all kinds of stuff.... landscapes, people.... you name it. Here's his new angle (he just told me about it)..... He's going to mix up some natural pigments using red earth from various so-called vortex sites and then sell his paintings to the new-age german tourists. I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! Watch for the web-site..... coming soon to a computer near you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:24:26 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: the funniest part...
Message:
The guy was a former EST trainer. I know this because my co-worker into EST at that time and still knows the guy socially.

Michael if you are reading this I want to add, your contributions are apprciated. I just can't buy it is all. If you were in from the start you must know that the majority of maharaji's followers never made the transition from premie devoted to the Lord. I left a few years ago and not much had changed beneath the surface.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 04:20:00 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sounds like an ex-premie to me
Message:
Terrific. Knowledge is the 'phenomena', Maharaji is 'Newton', and I guess Dettmers must think of himself as 'Einstein'. So that's what the breakup was all about. 'Newton' was happy being Newton, and didn't want to hear what 'Einstein' had to say about things.

I don't think any mystery has been revealed here, other than Dettmers revealing his own personal views of what Knowledge is and how it should be propagated. One thing I'm curious about, is that the way all the PAMs felt, or just some? Was there some kind of unanimous 'mutiny' taking place or was it just a handful of renegades that wanted these changes?

Another thing I find curious is how Dettmers was able to just turn off his light of devotion to Maharaji, and re-channel it, soley, toward the Knowledge, itself. Is this the standard 'evolution' that a PAM goes through, I wonder?

And Michael, there's no way that Knowledge will ever stop being a personality cult, whether Maharaji presents himself as LOTU or not. The man is an egomaniac, and will, somehow, secure himself as being an indispensable part of a person's experience. He may not call himself guru who is 'greater than God' anymore, but he still makes absolutely certain that you regard him as your guiding light, not any inner experience, in and of itself, that you may have as a result of practicing K.

You were right to leave him, and hopefully, some of what you've said will make an impression on some premies who still insist that their 'experience' is unavailable without the M factor. At least, hopefully, it will make them think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 03:55:41 (GMT)
From: alpha_o
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: the razor's edge
Message:
Thank you Michael for speaking out. I appreciate your impulse to refrain from gossip and yet you have taken the time to express yourself in this forum which can quickly become a whirlpool of gossip. I appreciate the fact that you are aware that the organization which Maharai built bears all of the dynamics commonly known as 'cult' and that you wanted no part in the propogation of a cult. I am wondering at what point in your tenure with Maharaji you became aware that the organization had all of the characteristics of a cult.

Perhaps from a financial perspective the organization was a great success but in my opinion enlightened management techniques were severely lacking in the trenchs. The rank and file of the organization were and are always in the 'Dark,' waiting for tidbits and rumors to leak out.

From and organizational and management perspective any ivolvement with the organization would be extremely detrimental on a resume unless the bottom line is addressed. There seems to be no apparent lack in Maharaji's bottom line.

It seems to me that it was run by a Czar who was answerable to no one. Pretty difficult to be a team player in that kind of scenario, isn't it.

I appreciate your efforts in the safe house period. It would have been wonderful if you could have leveraged that into helping bring peace to the world. Unfortunately, Maharaji is never going to do that. He is creating one more problem by by attracting and waylaying the energies of many innocent people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:01:17 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers
Message:
My 2 cents:

(1)Obviously, Dettmers does not want to dish any dirt. I'm quite sure he could if he wanted to. His reasons for not doing so are disingenuous. Nobody here is asking him to gossip about Rawat's lifestyle so we can be titillated. We want Rawat to be exposed for what he truly is, with hard facts from first-hand accounts.

(2)If you take what Dettmers has to say on face value, he doesn't seem to have any perspective about how to run a cult. You must have a superior leader who makes his own decisions or it will fall completely apart. What would have happened if Rawat had taken Dettmers advice? Obviously a precedent would have been established and Rawat would be indebted to Dettmers for any success that his advice generated. Can't have that! Ruins the dynamics completely. But there would have been no success from Dettmer's advice. Without the structure of Master - premie - communities and ashrams, you are left with a totally amorphous mass of what? People meditating. Fine and dandy. But that is not what Rawat is all about, never has been, is not now, and never will be. What Rawat is all about is called a cult. Dettmers should read the basic books about cults, of which there are several good ones, including our favorite: 'The Guru Papers.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:07:38 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Dettmers
Message:
Way,

Would a cult say the following:
- if you like Knowledge fine, if you don't like Knowledge fine.
- if you choose to meditate fine, if you choose not to meditate fine.

A person who practises K can:
- vote however they want
- read whatever they want
- eat whatever they want
- go wherever they want
- be single, married, gay, or lesbian

All M asks is that we meditate an hour a day. That's a cult? Ha! I don't think so!

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:14:31 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: To DD
Message:
DD,

You've posed some questions for me, so I guess I will go ahead and answer them. (Although I think our discussion above is more interesting.)

Of course a cult would say 'if you don't like it, fine.' But if you do like it, then you must commit. Read #$%&*'s latest posts and read all about the absolute necessity for devotion. I think there is another reason that Rawat has said, 'if you don't like it, walk.' He wants people who do not like his trip to 'walk,' in other words, go away and be quiet and let the others enjoy it.

You say that all Maharaji asks is that we meditate one hour a day. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was there in 1996 and heard him say that all he asks is three things: (1) that we give meditation a fair chance (by meditating one hour a day), that (2) we don't reveal the techniques to anyone else, and (3) that we keep in touch. Funny that you didn't mention numbers 2 and 3, which are the ones that are extremely cultlike.

Now I see that Jim is challenging you to reveal your indentity. I think it is often very frustrating here to discuss the issues with premies because they never tell their own stories, and it is very hard to tell where they are coming from. Many exes have told their stories at length in the journeys section. But every time I ask a premie even a simple question like when did you receive Knowledge, I am always ignored.

Anyway, I use a pen-name myself because I don't want my own personality to become too involved here. But that doesn't mean I am afraid at all of people knowing my name or who I am. In fact, Rob once outed me by directing people to the Amazon cite where my book 'Unbounded Light' has been sold. So, why are you so anonymous?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:59:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog
Message:
Dog,

Again, why is it you don't want anyone to know who you are? I need to know because I'm really wondering to myself why I should support you in your anonymous charade here. You avoid the obvious on every issue. I consider that irresponsible and can't help but wonder if your intellectual irresponsibility's bolstered by the fact that here, you're just 'Deputy Dog' a cartoon character, instead of '-------' a real person.

So if you want to keep your anonymity any further you better explain why I shouldn't blow your cover. Sorry, the fact that I gratuitously told you I wouldn't isn't working for me anymore. I guessed your identity on my own after you contacted me. What were you going to do when I aksed if you weren't 'Deputy Dog'? Lie about it? No, you wre busted fair and square.

So now I've had enough of your game which seems to be to avoid the obvious pith of so many honest, sincere questions and statements to you here. I'm not impressed and, like I say, unless you can persuade me that your anonymity's justified here, I'm going to out you. I'm not afraid to talk openly as Jim Heller about Maharaji. If you are that's your problem.

I'm sure that if you combed the speeches and sermons of many a cult leader you'll find similar 'disclaimers'. Jim Jones himself was emphatic about how no one had to stay who didn't want to. Okay, so he obviously took some extreme measures to enforce his real direction, but the point's the same. Maharaji said all sorts of things to pressure people into staying, moving into the ashram, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:08:52 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog
Message:
Jim,

I prefer it that way. I can say things here as Deputy Dog that I would never say as -------------, admitting that I was in ACOA for example.

I have family who has Knowledge and maybe they don't want to be subjected to stares at video events.

If you out me I will just stop posting. Is that what you want? If you want me to stop posting I stop right now.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:13:56 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog
Message:
Jim,
You're an asshole.

--Powerman

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:35:25 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Thanks for the power, Powerman
Message:
Powerman,

Thanks for your support. This should be a site where people can express themselves without having their personal lives involved. See Way's earlier post. I don't use my real name for the same reason.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:23:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog
Message:
Care to elaborate?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:50:24 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Justify your anonymity, Dog
Message:
Exposing Dog's identity would be an aggressive, ratty act. It would say more about you than it would about him: That you're a little person; perhaps vindictive or punishing, perhaps malicious, or maybe untrustworthy. Whatever foibles and tresspasses maharaji and premies have, you wouldn't be worth much more. Any slick reasoning to make it appear different would make you just another Dettmers.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 23:25:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right
Message:
Maybe you're right, Powerman. Maybe we should all wear masks. Could I borrow yours for a while?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:15:01 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right
Message:
Well, Jim, if you're going to be a schmucko, it might serve you well to wear a mask. When you're a nice, reasonable guy you can be Jim and when you're a schmucko, you can go by the handle, 'Frenchy'. Sorry, 'Powerman's' already taken.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:33:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right
Message:
Would you please honestly consider this not-so-far-fetched hypothetical situation:

The forum goes on for years. Throughout that time, Dog continues to dissemble and bullshit. No, let's make it worse. Say Dog spends that time calling me, you and everyone here the worst things imaginable. All along I know his identity and know that he's got no reason other than the arbitrary maintenance of his own comfort level for posting anonymously.

Would I be obliged to honour his wish and protect his anonymity?

Please answer with something more than a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Give some reasons. This anonymous cult apologist shtick is a fairly new one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:16:45 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right
Message:
Say Dog spends that time calling me, you and everyone here the worst things imaginable. All along I know his identity and know that he's got no reason other than the arbitrary maintenance of his own comfort level for posting anonymously.

Would I be obliged to honour his wish and protect his anonymity?

Yeah but I don't do that. Sure I act like an asshole sometimes but that's the nature of the Internet. In fact, I pride myself on discussing issues and being reasonable. Sure you might not agree with me but . . . .

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:48:20 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right
Message:
Considering his anonymity isn't integral to his annoying and persistent stupidity, and that exposing him may very well have no impact, it's a bad idea.

It really isn't a question of 'being obliged'. You're not obliged to do a lot of things but there's tons of other reasons to refrain from them.

Sure, the Dog acts like a moron but you look like more of a moron reaching for heavy artillery. If you can't be effective by addressing what he's posting then just give it up; tattle-taling will just backfire and evoke sympathy for him. Trying to have him banned from posting would even be better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 02:07:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Okay, bear with me here
Message:
Considering his anonymity isn't integral to his annoying and persistent stupidity, and that exposing him may very well have no impact, it's a bad idea.

Two assumptions I'm not prepared to make. First, I'm not at all sure that Dogg doesn't say just that much stupider stuff knowing that no one in his local town is going to bump into him someday and say '----, I saw your posts citing the Forum (i.e. EST)and Tony Robbins and I also noticed that, at one point, you stuck up for Scientology too. Worse, I've seen what you have to say about Maharaji. Have you gone mad?' Or people might ake him to task for his description of how he's lived his life as a premie these past twenty-five years. For example, the other day Dog said that he's not known as a 'cold-hearted' kind of guy. I posted that, to the contrary, he was always considered a very cold fish back in the day (I also said that I personally liked him then but that wasn't the question).

Also, who's to say that ripping his mask off won't have a salutory effect? Don't we know that one of the main reasons people communicate anonymously is that it enables them to say dumb shit, whether it be a kid making prank phone calls or an anonymous cult apologist? No guarantees but I woudln't be surprised if having to post as a person, not a cartoon figure, might have a very positive effect on Dog. What it would probably do is force him to stop posting all his bullshit. Silence would be better than that. That would be a good thing.

It really isn't a question of 'being obliged'. You're not obliged to do a lot of things but there's tons of other reasons to refrain from them.

Well, if outing him would make me an 'asshole' as you said there must be some moral obligation in there somewhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:30:36 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Okay, bear with me here
Message:
For example, the other day Dog said that he's not known as a 'cold-hearted' kind of guy. I posted that, to the contrary, he was always considered a very cold fish back in the day (I also said that I personally liked him then but that wasn't the question).

Jim,

I was always considered a very cold fish, eh. WELL I HAD MORE WOMEN IN THE 70's THAN YOU'LL EVER HAVE. You know that for a fact! Cold fish indeed!

Now if you expose me, suppose one of my daughters reads this post and later finds out who Deputy Dog is. How is that going to affect my relationship with her. Ya gotta think long term Jim.

If you don't like what I'm saying here then respond. No I prefer to stay Deputy Dog. If you expose me I'll just deny it and start posting as Sheriff Cat.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 03:57:15 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Okay, bear with me here
Message:
Jim,
I'm willing to consider that outing Dog could result in some really great things but it's still a snotty, petty thing to do. I'd rather have a good Jim than a good Dog.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:03:37 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Outing Dog could result in some really great thing
Message:
Powerman,

Outing Dog could result in some really great things?

Like what? An embarrassed guy walking around at programs? Providing of course that they'd even let me in. Embarrassed family members at programs? And for what? I don't want the notoriety.

If you want me to stop posting here just tell me, or do to me what you did to Catweasel, just cut me off electronically.

If you out me,
1. I'll be pissed off and
2. I'll probably just start posting under different aliases, making things more confusing. At least with Deputy Dog you have some sort of continuity.

No, outing Dogg could result in some really bad things.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:26:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Why are you so embarrassed?
Message:
Dog,

I don't buy the ACOA bullshit. Who gives a fuck or even remembers for that matter if one or both of your parents were Alcoholics?

No, your real reason for wanting anonymity is that you would indeed be embarrassed if you had to defend some of your ideas to some of the people who really know you. As it is, none of you premies have to assert any philosophy any more. It's just assumed that you're all premies. The encounters are simple and essentially social. You've got premie friends who think Maharaji's the Lord and others who never go near there. It's all about as confused as your own posts have been over time. Is Maharaji Jesus Christ all over again (whoever the fuck he was!) or what? You don't know what to think, do you? Are there cults in the world and how to think about them? You're clueless. Remember when you were defending Scientology last month?

So you post some real drivel here and have been ridiculed very appropriately all along. No wonder you want to hide your identity. You're shameless and your attitude about this -- even down to hiding behind your parents alcoholism -- is cowardly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 17:49:32 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why are you so embarrassed?
Message:
Jim,

I have posted some pretty good stuff here IMO. And some drivel.

Like Way, I'd prefer to leave my personality out of this. If my posts really bother you and you don't want me to post any more, then just say so. Or you could cut me off electronically.

And obviously I give a fuck if people know that one or both of my parents were alcoholics. They were my parents.

FYI after taking est I dabbled in Scientology and found it to be of value. It's not my cup of tea though, as Knowledge is obviously not yours. So you know what? I STOPPED DOING IT!

Shameless? What the fuck are you talking about. I've had fun posting here and people love my posts. Just ask anyone what they think of that fun loving Deputy Dog. I'm one of the few non-whiners posting here.

If you want me to go away just say so now, and I will.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:51:08 (GMT)
From: CHR
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: ex-premie myths
Message:
Years ago there were all sorts of stories about M manifesting himself, healing premies etc. It concerns me that there seem to be just as many far fetched myths created here as there were in our premie days. For example, why would two Harvard professors bother to spend their time convincing someone who they don't know, that he has an alcohol problem? It doesn't add up. Three years ago I discovered this site and it helped me sort out and express aspects of my personal involvement with M that were still unresolved. I stopped visiting here because the innuendo and speculation that crept in was stifling sincere discussion. One of the reasons that my association with M was difficult to resolve was that it was not all black and white. Good times did happen-good experiences as well as confusing ones. I spent some time over a period of about four years involved in residence security, plane and backstage security. M did have a certain charisma and presence and there were tmes of wonder and excitement. There were also times when he seemed almost 'dark', heavy and totally self indulgent. The problem wasn't so much proving that he was a fraud, as realising that in 20 years of following M, I had lost touch with myself-that I had taken on a false persona, and denied whole aspects of my emotional, spiritual and intellectual make up. There seems to be a need to demonise M, to make everything concerned with him false, negative and driven by unsavoury motives. There was some discussion about his children asking why they didn't 'come out' and denounce him. The speculation was that it must be to do with money. Similar things have been said to do with Marolyn. My limited observation was that M's children loved him very much. He was a caring father who, if anything, spoiled his children too much. One thing he did seem sincere about was his family. I did see some drinking from time to time. I saw no indication of affairs- I was just hanging out at resdence gates, so others would know more. He made a lot of money, but he could have made even more if he had charged for the meditation, as many gurus do. What I'm getting at is that there is probably fairly limited sensational lifestyle type stuff that can be realistically pinned on M. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Dettmers posts.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:14:00 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: Speculation in the face of no information
Message:
CHR,

I agree that anyone who hears or reads anything should do so crtically and not just accept it because somebody says it. That's true here as well as anywhere else. Obviously, all of us who were once in the Maharaji cult and swallowed a lot of nonsense 'on faith,' including the commandment never to doubt anything Maharaji told us, should be especially sensitive to that.

But I have to say, given how ripped off former premies have every right to feel, I've been continually surprised at how little 'demonizing' of Maharaji there has been on this forum, and that a certain hope exists that he might actually vindicate himself by addressing the concerns of many of his former follwers. This is often followed by a negative comments about Maharaji, over frustration that he shows no sign whatsoever of doing anything other than ignoring his critics.

But a lot of the speculation comes about, regarding motives and behavior, because Maharaji, and people like Dettmers, allow and have allowed a false image of Maharaji to be presented to the devotees with no countering information that Maharaji is a 'mere mortal' with the foibles of any other human being, but perhaps on a bigger scale because he has so much money.

I also disagree that he would have made more money by charging for the techniques. Maybe in the short term, but in the long term, it was his harping on devotion and service, and presentation of himself as the incarnation of god, that got the big bucks for him. And I speculate that much of that money was, in fact, given out of fear and guilt, not out of 'love'. Maharaji said, and still does, that 'devotion' (now 'gratitude') is necessary for the experience. So, when people invariably don't have the great experience he promised, they 'devote' or are 'grateful' by giving money or giving free services to try to turn on the juice.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 03:42:30 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Repeat customers = more money
Message:
I also disagree that he would have made more money by charging for the techniques. Maybe in the short term, but in the long term, it was his harping on devotion and service, and presentation of himself as the incarnation of god, that got the big bucks for him.

I spent a one-time fee of $250 for a TM mantra. That was chicken feed compared to how much Maharaji got from me. One thing about paying for the mantra is that I felt I owed nothing after paying for it, after all, I bought it. By 'giving' it away, Maharaji only strengthens the notion that 'gratitude' is in order, and no limit is set on what is enough 'gratitude' (except maybe your all). Coupled with the idea that it is only by his 'grace' that the techniques work, you might think of it as him renting the techniques to you, first month free.

The claim that Knowledge is free is a lie. Knowledge, as defined by Maharaji, requires that the student (really devotee) 'keep in touch', 'participate', and show 'gratitude'. These activities involve giving money, a significant amount of which ends up benefiting him.

Sometimes cigarette companies have given out 'free' cigarettes to get people hooked. Were those cigarettes free?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 05:28:15 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Charging - M vs EST, TM, etc
Message:
I do feel a limited amount of respect for groups who have a set fee for their 'experience'. As much as I don't respect Werner Erhard, it's a solid notch above M in simply hitting you up for x amount of dollars. It's a long conversation to get into (what's wrong with EST and other groups), but M's claims that his knowledge was free were a bunch of shit. From the time the Mahatma at my knowledge session said to 'empty your pockets' (and I carefully hid the money for my transportation home) there was constant pressure to give, whether money, free labor, or posessions which could somehow be used by DLM or M.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:28:04 (GMT)
From: blood boils
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: meditation and devotion are black holes
Message:
Whenever so called 'experience' was lacking in this cult it was because their wasn't enough medidation or devotion or donation or service or satsang or faith or surrender or service or understanding....or whatever.

there was supposedly always ample 'grace' and the ultimate condemnation that one just wasn't even worthy of having the so called 'knowledge' in the first place.

Talk about self degradation....jeesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:02:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: Sorry, CHR, but you REALLY miss the point
Message:
CHR,

Wondered what happend to you. No, I didn't start spreading a rumour that you were killed by WPC goon sqauds but I almost did. That's the nature of this site, CHR: shoot first and shoot second.

Okay, seriously, I think you're being a bit unfair here. For instance, you say:

It concerns me that there seem to be just as many far fetched myths created here as there were in our premie days. For example, why would two Harvard professors bother to spend their time convincing someone who they don't know, that he has an alcohol problem? It doesn't add up.

To begin with, this report is not properly a myth. It's an allegation. To be a myth it would have to be 'widely held but false notion' (Oxford). I don't know anyone who's simply accepted this story as true, other than 'Bill W.', that is. Bill W. got his information in a context that we're not (yet?) privy to. Bill W. is convinced that it's true but, without knowing how he formed his opinion we're missing a step. Plus, of course, Dettmers denies that the event took place at all or that, if it did,he was there as claimed. Who's to say what the truth of the matter is without more? Not me.

But not you either, I'm afraid. CHR, you say that the 'two Harvard professors' part doesn't make sense and that thus the whole story's suspect. Come on, CHR! If such an intervention took place (and again, I'm not saying it did), the two guys could have been hired. Don't mean to be rude but didn't that occur to you? It seems so obvious a possibility. To me at least.

I stopped visiting here because the innuendo and speculation that crept in was stifling sincere discussion. One of the reasons that my association with M was difficult to resolve was that it was not all black and white. Good times did happen-good experiences as well as confusing ones.

What doe you mean by this? I, myself, have very 'sincerely' speculated about all sorts of things that, in some other context, would be trivial and unseemly. Maharaji's sex life? His drug and alcohol habits? Really! These matters are only important, as many have said time and again, because this asshole actually talked us into worshipping his form. Remember? Maybe you don't. Not really.

Put yourself back there, CHR. Go ahead and try to really remember the mind set of CHR as a faithful premie back in the day. I don't know for sure about you but when I do that I remember, first and foremost, a funny mentality wherein I both tried to actually climb into some secret inner world beyond my mind and, at the same time, enjoyed all sorts of devotional mind games. In other words, I prayed to Maharaji, talked to him, imagined him, wondered about the mystery of him, apologized to him when I thought I was bad, silently expressed my love to him when I thought I had a right to.

Now, to come to terms with the possibility that this man was not my very creator in human form? The gloves come off at some point, CHR. They just have to.

But I take it you don't want to 'speculate', huh? So what's that mean? CHR doesn't really want to know the real story of Maharaji? Or does it mean that CHR thinks he'll never get it anyway so what's the point getting your hopes built up? I have never seen such an unpersuasive disavowal of curiosity as I hear from premies. I have a premie friend in town who I jam with once in a while. He's an old friend, I love him dearly but I do get into some nasty arguments with him about the guru. Why? I don't believe him! I think he's a liar.

For example, I told him that I'd contacted Dettmers who'd posted something about Maharaji and why he left on the forum. Invited him to read it. He declined on the basis that -- get this -- he has no curiosity at all about Maharaji. Doesn't want, let alone need, to know anything about him. Sure, he'll go see him, will watch his videos, the whole diulted current premie package. But he has absolutely no interest in the man himself. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I think I know something about human nature and, to me, there is no way in the world that any premie, any premie at all, wouldn't want to know something, anything they don't already, about the man who once called himself Lord of the Universe.

But that natural curiosity is a very problematic force in the life of a premie, isn't it? In ex-premiedom, as in science, the search for truth requires all sorts of speculation. Some of it turns out to be true, some not. Obviously, the game in a cult situation like this is a contest for information. Speculation's aprt of that. If you don't like it, don't blame us. Blame Maharaji for stonewalling us at every turn. Or do you think he's beyond accountability?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:17:30 (GMT)
From: CHR
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, CHR, but you REALLY miss the point
Message:
Hi Jim,
I like a lot of your posts, but you really are one of the most patronising human beings I have come across. Of course I have considered the points you raised and of course I remember what it was like being a devotee. It took me nearly six fucking years to sort it all out and feel like I was some sort of sane human being again! I am certainly not making any apologies for M- I believe that what he is doing and has done is wrong. Whether he is simply deluded or a blatant fraud, I don't know. I do know that what he is offerring is not what it purports to be, and that all the various personas and images he has taken on over the years, from Lord to benevolent master, are also false. What I am saying is that the sensationalising of his lifestyle actually detracts from the true damage that M has done, and that much of the stuff posted on this forum is second hand rumour-just as were many of the stories glorifying him that were around in the 70s and 80s.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:44 (GMT)
From: to
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: But one point you REALLY hit:
Message:
But one point you REALLY hit, when you speak of:

'...realising that in 20 years of following M, I had lost touch with myself-that I had taken on a false persona, and denied whole aspects of my emotional, spiritual and intellectual make up.'

I went to a video programme for the first (and last) time about a year back. One thing that struck me was how the premies there were, by and large, still exhibiting similar traits to the ones I remember from over 20 years ago in the ashram. There really was a very evident 'false persona' to be seen in them. A weird mixture of sycophancy and smugness.

But I guess some people get off on that.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:19:48 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: Sorry. Above post from cq, not 'to'. (nt)
Message:
Sorry. Above post from cq, not 'to'. (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:53:05 (GMT)
From: disappointed too
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: ex-premie myths
Message:
I have come to this forum off and on for the past few years to read and occassionally post. I enjoy the free-for-all nature of the medium to the degree that it is entertaining. As far as, finding lots of factual information or sincerity here, it is a crap shoot. I am a 50 year old man who had a little detour with a kid guru many years ago. It taught me a lot of very valuable lessons. It has given me a keen degree of discernment about what is real, what could be real, and what could not be real.

I did believe in Santa Claus when I was a kid for four or five years, so believeing that Maharaji was going to establish peace wasn't that far fetched. He was a product of his fathers mahatmas. He has probably wondered from time to time how the hell he got into this mess, himself. I don't cut him any slack, however. He is a first class charlatan who has cut out some extremely heavy karma for himself, if there is any such thing as karma.

When I first found the board I tried to discuss some expereinces which I had in my post premie days regarding continued practice of one of the techniques. I was hoping for some enlightened feedback but instead I got bombarded by self absorbed latter day gurus who were desperately trying to express their myopic opinions and limited wisdom.

It would be amazing if there were a registered board where everyone who posted had passed a sincerity test. I think that getting all of the premie apologists and trouble makers out of the discussion could be enlightening.

In the mean time it is fun to sift through the 'he said' 'she said' and the defenders of premiedom to find the gems of wisdom that very definitely do exist here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 05:24:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: disappointed too
Subject: 'Sincerity'?
Message:
What's that word mean to you? We all know that in the cult, as in the new age spiritual marketplace in general, 'sincerity' was code for some vague amalgam of faith, 'spiritual thirst' and a certain je ne sais quoi which only enlightened types could recognize. In the real world, however, dictionaries such as Oxford define it as such:

1) free from pretence or deceit;

2) genuine, honest, frank

Now it sounds like you've got some ideas about some aspect of the 'knowledge' that weren't widely accepted here. Maybe, God forbid, they were even met with ridicule and sarcasm. Does that mean that people weren't sincere with you? No. Come on, disappointed, talk with me.....

So what's your ideal 'sincerity test' anyway?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:05:17 (GMT)
From: disappointed too
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'Sincerity'? okay I'll talk
Message:
You are right about sincerity. The word can be a can of worms with multiple potential meanings and concepts.

I use the word in its simplest form. I will
accept your Oxford definition

1) free from pretence or deceit;
2) genuine, honest, frank

but what I have problems with is when belligerence is included in the genuine, honest and frank part.

The previous posts which I was referring to included a brief description of some 'experiences' I had. I hate to even use the word experiences. Basically I was farming the group to see if anyone else ever had 'paranormal types of experiences' (hate to use those words also) which anyone felt were brought on by the techniques. (But rather than spend all morning in the dictionary and thesarus these words will have to do.)

I was curious to compare notes with others who are here for infomation rather than for grammar lessons. I do not attribute any special powers to M but I do believe that he is passing on some techniques, albeit, second hand which possibly opened the threshold of consciousness for yogis.

That is what I came looking for when I came to my K session.
I wanted to see if there was a tool for expanding consciousness.

I came to this forum to see if anything that I was interested in was being discussed here. The main impression that I got from reading the forum for a while was that there are a lot of really angry people here. That anger can be directed powerfully at anyone and anything. I didn't come here to have to defend what happened to me nor to debate issues of grammatical correctness.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:15:46 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: disappointed too
Subject: To Dis 2
Message:
Dear Dis 2,

Glad you're back.

There's a certain inherent problem with comparing 'experiences', wouldn't you say? Especially the paranormal ones. I've had my share but would be embarrassed to describe them here for other's scrutiny. For instance I once felt an ineffable joy which made me feel that I was experiencing my true nature over and above the body and ego. This was while sitting in meditation in Maharaji's ashram. If consciousness is eternal I sure hope this joy is a part of it.

I think such experieces are very personal and hard to evaluate. I also think most people have them regardless of whether they meditate or not. My opinion is they have nothing whatsoever to do with the four techniques.

We're not all angry. Nor are we all hateful, as some premies characterize us. Anger certainly gets expressed. But all the more reason to express other feelings as well. So, to repeat myself, I'm glad you're back.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 00:10:14 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: disappointed too
Subject: ex-premie myths
Message:
In the mean time it is fun to sift through the 'he said' 'she said' and the defenders of premiedom to find the gems of wisdom that very definitely do exist here.

Welcome Disappointed Too. I think our erstwhile guru said the same thing regarding swans and loti. I think it is unreasonable to expect this forum to be perfect, don't you?:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 06:02:58 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Maybe, just maybe...
Message:
With such a volatile and active cyber-environment as this is, wouldn't it make sense to let people's criticisms of the forum be? These people might have a contribution to make.

Why is criticism of the forum taken so personally? In as much as there are no leaders, it's not aimed at anyone per se, unless there are leaders. Are there?

There is a steady trickle of people who post and leave saying that the atmosphere is too agressive. There are two posting in this thread (I hope they can accept my simplistic summation) and more on this page as I post (but not in this thread).

I hope these people are not chased off. Meditating without M does require some peer support even tho, yes, some of us don't do it and shouldn't. Some rumors are overstated and documentable evidence is underrated (like corporate ownerships, for example).

I feel no sympathy for M's family and whatever 'invasion of privacy' he may feel by our frank discussions of his possible personal misconduct. He coaxed us to worship him for his own
benefit. It's really his fault for gluing us to his person in the first place.

But I do wish ex-premies, whatever their feelings, were more comfortable about networking with other exes whether on this forum or on other boards or via email.

There is no longer a link to Anything Goes at the header of this forum, but the url is:
http://www.paradise-web.com/plus_le/plus.mirage?who=forumlite&showonly=200
which is a light-hearted, risque, friendly atmosphere which occasionally hosts serious conversation (and is generally friendlier to the premies who hang around).

Recent exes is open to old timers and is flame free with password protection. Write to:
recentexes@yahoo.com

There are some other forums. I noticed Dave shut down exes only from underuse (?).

I really hope that people who want to be in communication with other exes find a way to do so whether by posting and asking for email addresses or whatever.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:49:40 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Thanks for the bi-weekly rag, Run (nt)
Message:
rr
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:49:05 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: thank you resident authority figure Jim
Message:
When I want to receive your knowledge I'll let you know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:34:38 (GMT)
From: x#%*!
Email: None
To: CHR
Subject: Kudos CHR. Good post! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:42:03 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: x#%*!
Subject: Kudos CHR. Good post! nt
Message:
I did see him drinking from time to time.

x#%*!, Care to comment on this? Also, the rest of CHR's post does not particularly support your position does it?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:46:32 (GMT)
From: x#%*!
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Kudos CHR. Good post! nt
Message:
I've seen him drinking from time to time too. I saw pictures of you drinking and acting stupid too. What of it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:55:31 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: x#%*!
Subject: Kudos CHR. Good post! nt
Message:
Tell us about those times you've seen him drinking. We'd all be interested to hear.

Regarding your absurd comparison of me with Maharaji, I never claimed to be the Perfect Master, or ordered others not to drink alcohol.

I also said that CHR's post didn't support your position. Was I wrong?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:59:02 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Hey You Brits, You Still Rule The Colonies!!!! OT
Message:
Hey, I guess we need to bow down to the Queen, even though I thought some 225 years ago we were freed from the tyranny of The laws of England.

I recently received an announcement from West's, stating that all U.K. law is now available on line, free for a limited period. In this connection, someone drew my attention to a little known provision of the California Civil Code, section 22.2, which is the favorite of one of my British co-workers, which provides that:

'the common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the consitution of the United States, or the consitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.'

What this means is that while all those New York and Massachusetts cases we might throw in our legal briefs in a California court may be persuasive, the court is free to disregard them, but find an English case on point, and it's the only thing out there, we win. That, of course, is as it should be, according to my British expatriate co-worker.

I am not aware of anyone actually using this provision, however,(which, astonishingly, was enacted not in 1872, but in 1951).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:34:18 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: But you Yanks bought the UK years ago.
Message:
We're just a puppet satellite to the military industrial complex, like Romania was to the USSR, or like one of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany in World War 2.

Anth the Crushed Under the Wheel of Capitalism, (and can someone do something about this champagne, it's too warm).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:59:49 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hey You Brits, You Still Rule The Colonies!!!! OT
Message:
Dear Joe,
Wow, isn't that something, why 1951? Do you know? How the heck are you and your trusty dog? :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:17:33 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Hi Robyn
Message:
I don't know why it was 1951. But it did seem strange.

I'm doing fine. Nigel (my dog, not the British ex-premie) is also fine. I'm doing lots of home improvements at the moment, so my house is a little unsettled this month.

How is Spring back East?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:52:30 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hi Robyn
Message:
Dear Joe,
I guess I'll have to come back out to see your latest home improvments! Jess got into grad school and will start in the fall.
We have had some really nice days, very warm for this time of year but have recently gone back to a more normal spring thing that that is good, the warmth is coming. :)
I hear it is unusually hot out there, some people have all the luck. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:10:48 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: No, It's cold again....
Message:
We did have about 3 or 4 warm days, then back to the usual sunny but chilly weather. It was nice while it lasted, though. Congratulations to Jess! Where is she going to school?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:10:14 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: No, It's cold again....
Message:
Dear Joe,
She is definitely in at San Fransisco State but is still waiting to hear from other places but this way she knows it will be happening no matter what.
I have got to find a new place myself, I have 4 neighbors now and it is TOO MUCH! Wish I wasn't afraid to camp out at the creek all summer with the dogs! Right near where I work, beautiful.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:58:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Simple question for @#^
Message:
#$%& (or whatever you call yourself),

Have you posted here before? If so, under what name(s)?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:35:38 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: X#%*!, Why won't you answer this?
Message:
Yes, yes, I know. I misspelled your name above. But you know who I'm talking to. What's the answer?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:55:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Is it just me?
Message:
Why do I get the impression that this Dettmers stuff is making the premies who come here a little wonky? Could they possibly be trying to make this forum as unseemly as possible and thus discourage Dettmers from joining in? Naw, that's impossible. Forget I even mentioned it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:29:46 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's just you Jim.
Message:
It's just you Jim.

Premies don't know God from snot, multiply everytbing by infinity before they answer, and could't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Anth the Infinite Snot-gobbling Drunk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:03:29 (GMT)
From: EV-ex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is it just me?
Message:
Jim, Jim, Jim,
Premies are full of love and light; they wouldn't dream of doing anything like that!
(Personally, I think x#%*! is posting from the Divine Residence;
with superior clarity like that, he/she MUST be a PAM!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:23:57 (GMT)
From: curious
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: anyone have M's birth data or birth chart ?
Message:
a curious astrologer
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:41:52 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: curious
Subject: an astrological chart question for curious
Message:
Hello curious,

Everytime I 'meet' an astrologer, I ask the same question: how do you interpret a grand square? Apparently I have 2, almost three in my chart, which looks like a vibrating crystal. If you have a minute, I'd really appreciate an answer - if not, that's fine too. Hmmmmm, maybe I'll try a web search.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 23:53:47 (GMT)
From: curious
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: an astrological chart question for curious
Message:
Cosmic Cross

Two planets in opposition, each squared by a third planet, resulting in what is termed a T-square or T-cross. A fourth planet, opposing the third and squaring the first two, forms a Grand Cross. The T-square is a dynamic influence; the Grand Cross tends to diffusion.
(-Nicholas de Vore's Encyclopedia of Astrology)

There is a tendency to become cyclically focused on the issues related to the houses which are occuppied by the planets forming the cross or square.

It can mean that you have attended the school of hard knocks.
Whatever you have achieved in your life has been more the result of discipline and hard work and less the result of good fortune.

The challenges of the grand square or grand cross can apply a degree of high stress to an individual who has this configuration. Challenges can appear in fours, insead of one at a time. Once you have become focused into one area of you life three others demand attention.

Knowing how to get detached and stay centered is an asset.

People with grand squares are generally older in wisdom than their years in early life and are able to remain younger in their mind in their latter years, due to the constant adaptations to stressors which life has evoked.

It goes on and on with more specifics when you consider the planets and the houses involved.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 01:56:39 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: stonor770@netscape.net
To: curious
Subject: an astrological chart question for curious
Message:
Thanks curious!!!

I did do a search and came up with the standard stuff. Yours is one of the best interpretations I have heard and it's pretty bang on - and I've never heard it called a cosmic cross either. I have had my chart done and read by a number of friends over the years, and most shy away from the topic of grand squares. Although I've never had time to count the challenges I'm facing at any given time, yes, they are always multiple, and most people find what I'm juggling to be too complex to follow, so I've ended up spending a lot of time alone centering myself.

Would you be willing to recommend some good books on astrology? Is de Vores' a good place to start? I respect your opinion. There are so many books out there, and not one has ever said 'read me' - despite my eclectic library, I have not one on the subject of astrology. I've included my e-mail address in case you don't feel like going into this here.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 02:50:03 (GMT)
From: More curious
Email: None
To: curious
Subject: anyone have M's birth data or birth chart ?
Message:
Why are you asking? I have one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 03:58:26 (GMT)
From: curious
Email: None
To: More curious
Subject: anyone have M's birth data or birth chart ?
Message:
I would like to study his chart. Do some synastry with my own
chart and see what I can learn.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:41:40 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Here's what a Latvian night should look like!
Message:
By the grace of all it's participants, here is

One Latvian Night in London

Still ROFDL ......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:54:27 (GMT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Here's what a Latvian night should look like!
Message:
I love that. Wish I had been there!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:03:55 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Here's what a Latvian night should look like!
Message:
Dear Jean-Michel,
These are great! I love all of them but my favorite is the list of events! :) Great to see you all!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:28:13 (GMT)
From: Paul
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Here's what a Latvian night should look like!
Message:
JM: Looking forward to knowledge review in June!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:57:17 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Hey, you wonderful looking people...!....
Message:
...Geez, give me some of that Latvian beer!! :)

PS Jean-Michel: I really liked your shirt with the Canadian maple leaf on it. Exquisite taste!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:27:51 (GMT)
From: Robbie
Email: None
To: Latvian Party
Subject: Funny, you looked just like I imagined
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:42:49 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Robbie
Subject: Funny, you looked just like I imagined
Message:
So, hallucination imitates reality? Is that it?

By God, this guy's gonna tell us what our future holds in store ...

oh - oh, I guess Moses' prophesy about the plagues of Egypt was post-hoc.

I guess. And why not?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:58:07 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Thanks, JM!
Message:
Those pictures are great, J-M! Now I'm really looking forward to meeting you :)! I can't promise, though, that the East Coast exes will be as much fun (except for Robyn, that is).

By the way, happy birthday! We'll be in touch.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:25:42 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Thanks, JM!
Message:
I can't promise, though, that the East Coast exes will be as much fun (except for Robyn, that is).

I take exception to that, Katie. I've been known to liven up a party on several occassions. That was during my drinking days, though, which are long behind me, so I doubt I'll be attending any Latvian parties, anytime soon. It's just no fun, anymore, watching other people getting sloshed. The only reason I'd go is for the healing properties these gatherings seem to have.

But those pictures ARE hysterical. Thanks, JM, and happy belated birthday.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:43:32 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Thanks, JM!
Message:
Dear Jerry,
I don't drink either and I can still have FUN! I bet you like to laugh, eh? I went to a family thing and I only knew 2 people, wasn't my family, well they asked if they could notify me of every family event, only because I am amusing. :) I'd love to meet you.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:38:41 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Thanks, JM!
Message:
Hi Jerry -
Sorry, I am sure you're a fun guy :)! But you did write:

I've been known to liven up a party on several occassions. That was during my drinking days, though, which are long behind me.

Exactly what I meant about most of the East Coast exes - half of us don't drink any more (although many of us have 'livened up' parties in the past, often to our regret). We still have fun, but the pictures might not be as good.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:30:32 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Robyn and Katie
Message:
Okay, ladies, I guess I'll see you when the Latvians come to town, maybe. I feel like a nervous schoolboy already. And if Helen's there too. Oy! Who else have we got? Scott, I think, and Bobby, right? How's he doing, btw? Well, I hope. I think there's a pretty healthy representation from the east coast. See you then.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:00:30 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Robyn and Katie
Message:
Dear Jerry,
Yeah! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:25:23 (GMT)
From: Pauline Premie
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: God, you ex-premies look so MISERABLE
Message:
I can tell from those pictures that you ex-premies are living miserable, vacant lives, now that you have rejected that love, that truth, that peach, that experience which is that gift. It is very obvious how angry, negative and miserable you all are, just like Nil/URL/%x&! says you are. You have nothing better to do that fixate on negativity and can't move on. Sure, you but on a good show for the camera, but we premies can tell, since we are living in THAT love, that your lives have been reduced to the value of chicken droppings.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:51:14 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Pauline Premie
Subject: God, you ex-premies look so MISERABLE
Message:
Pauline, dear heart,

Just 'cos my crown jewells are smaller than you'd like, (and don't mention chicken droppings again, thank you)

Just 'cos I own up to being angry, negative and miserable (I said DON'T mention my crown jewells again)

Just 'cos we put on a good show for the camera ....

...

... fancy a nite out sometime?

(in Latvia if needs be)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:27:20 (GMT)
From: Pauline Premie
Email: None
To: Pauline Premie
Subject: Excuse my typos. It's that PEACE, not that PEACH
Message:
I am so embarrassed, but since I am in THAT PLACE, I don't feel that way for long.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:55:31 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Pauline Premie
Subject: Excuse my typos. It's that PEACE, not that PEACH
Message:
'Excuse my typos. It's that PEACE, not that PEACH'

Pauline, please, repeat after me:

'I'm not a pheasant plucker -
I'm a pheasant plucker's son;
And I'm only plucking pheasants ....'
'til a ...

You got it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:52:07 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Pauline Premie
Subject: Pauline...you're driving me crazy!!
Message:
You're too much Pauline!!

I mean if you were real, (and not just someone's creation, ya know what I mean)... I think I could go back to the cult JUST to make love to you.

Of course you might have me laughing at the point of orgasm, but that's another story :)

Jai satch, baby!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:14:26 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Brilliant
Message:
Thanks Jean-Michel. It made me laugh and the pictures are great, but I know you were all depressed because the place was out of melon-flavored (or should I say 'flavoured' vodka).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:16:22 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: By the way JM, Happy (belated) Birthday (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:54:51 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Formidable Jean-Michel
Message:
That's the third time I've seen this Jean-Michel, and I laughed even louder than ever this time.

Brilliant.

Anth the No This Is My Best Side.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:03:08 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Formidable Jean-Michel
Message:
But where's that pic of the tattooed Buddha ... I mean the Buddha tattooed on your arse, Anth?

(& why didn't Marianne like the taste of that Evian water?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:00:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Too, too funny!
Message:
You know, this was really, relly funny. Did you know that? Because, let me tell you, it is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:13:40 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Too, too funny!
Message:
The evening itself was much funnier. There is a healing effect about laughing at our collective stupidity in following the fatboy all those years. One of the party was even heard laughing out alone in his room afterwards:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:44:00 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Too, too funny!
Message:
'One of the party was even heard laughing out alone in his room afterwards:-)'


John, how come you know this?

Paranoid self : 'omigod, he means me ... what? me, laughing ? Laughing? oh, I remember ... Laughter? aah, I remembeur eet well... Mais non, (denial that one could ever be allowed to laugh in a Latvian outpost - ooops, bit heavy, that - 'pologies to all Latvians)

NO! it was Sasha, the cat, tickling, and don't ask why - I didn't (ask, that is)

Oh feurk it, and now me wiv me pic on the internet.

JHB, do me a favour, just send us that LOTU video, (I'll settle up later).





P.S.
The above may mean very little to anyone other than those who partook, ah say partook, of that unforgettable Latvian night in old London town (cue for a song?)

Song? Later. Pass the honey-flavoured vodka.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:00:06 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: brauns@dircon.co.uk
To: cq
Subject: Too, too funny!
Message:
JHB, do me a favour, just send us that LOTU video, (I'll settle up later).

Certainly, just send me your address (my email address is above). The person laughing was overheard by the person in the next room who is not me but shall remain nameless on this forum.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:10:13 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Latvians
Subject: Question
Message:
Is 'JB' in the photos the same as 'JHB'?

p.s. I don't remember the techniques being that fun!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:58:51 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Techniques ARE fun! What you need is a k review!
Message:
I'm getting calls from all over the place ! I'll have to borrow my Prempal buddy's G4 to cover all these events!

I guess we'll be able to make some arrangements. Maybe all I need is some Swiss foundation to cover the expenses .......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:16:01 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Answer
Message:
Yes it's me - Barman, MC, Drunkard and Recipient of the new J-M techniques.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:30:15 (GMT)
From: Bjørn Edwardsen
Email: None
To: Forum Administration
Subject: FA, pedophily, are you guilty?
Message:
The mail below I sent to you and I received an answer from you
From: 'Bjørn Edwardsen'
>To:
>Subject: Information
>Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:03:22 +0100
>
>Who is the owner / administrator / operator for this forum?
>
>Bjørn Edwardsen

Ultimately, the Lord of the Universe. I'm sure you know his address.

FA

My email adress was not the bim_doubtfire I used to mail to you to where I a couple of months ago received a post with virus. The Bim_doubtfire address was only used in connection with the Forum

Since I sent this last mail to you, I have received to my mailbox several links to pedophilic pornographic pictures. I can assure you that I never had anything to do with such rubbish. I talked to my computer friend, and he said there is probably some person who has fun with you.

Are you behind this??????????????????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 02:40:18 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Bjørn Edwardsen
Subject: forumfour@hotmail.com is not the current forum nt
Message:
It's an old address if that's who sent it. Prob the old webmaster.

(Runamok is mistaken - this is the current FA address and one of the current Forum Administrators sent the message to Bjorn - Forum Admin)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:12:26 (GMT)
From: GERRY
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: forumfour@hotmail.com is not the current forum nt
Message:
(Edited by the FA) Listen you are mistaken. FORUMFOUR@HOTMAIL.COM IS INDEED THE CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS FOR THIS SIGHT.

PS BJORN, I DID NOT CONTACT YOU OR SEND YOU ANYTHING. I BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT A PERVERT.

(Threat removed - FA)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:47:02 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: GERRY
Subject: I think it's posted up top
Message:
Yes Ger, thanks for the kind words of encouragement. When I received a request from that email address for someone(else)'s email address, I was concerned that it was you trying to fuck with the person in question. I wrote back 'Cut the crap Ger. If this is not Ger please write me back with the appropriate mailbox' and never received an answer. You had written to the RE mailbox fucking with me there since I was the FA, so it seemed quite possible it was you (and you have also posted about other instances occasions like this where you were up to similar).

Good for you that it wasn't you!

Gee, isn't that threat cute at the end of your post? Just think, it could have been a civil exchange. I have been known to acknowledge factual error. You've been known to be wrong, but I don't know if you have ever acknowledged it.

Yeah, gotta try heartmath sometime, for sure.

BTW, it's pretty serious if an ex is doing that, and I'm at least a little concerned for the guys feelings.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:19:49 (GMT)
From: Forum Administrator
Email: forumfour@hotmail.com
To: Bjørn Edwardsen
Subject: Forum Admin and Offensive Emails.
Message:
Bjorn,

We have a strict policy of maintaining privacy of all posters to the Forum.

We do not encourage anybody to pester anyone else with any type of literature, particularly the type you describe.

We are not into creating mischief, or causing problems for anyone who posts here, and we are sorry that you've been pestered in this way.

The only communication we have, outside the forum, is when we reply to private emails, sent to the Administrator- and sometimes even these get neglected for long periods.

I'm sorry for your trouble, and I can assure you that whovever is, 'having fun' with you, is not one of the Forum Administrators.

Forum Administrator.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 15:12:54 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Forum Administrator
Subject: Forum Admin and Offensive Emails.
Message:
Forum Administrator
I accept you explanation and hope you are telling the truth.

However I would suggest a more sincerety, when you email replies like the one above. A previous email I received reply more than one month later than I posted it. At that time I asked you to forward a reply to Katie. The reply I got, was that there was no Katie in the Forum. As far as I have read, she is the partner of Brian in the Forum.

yours sincerely
Bjørn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:00:04 (GMT)
From: Forum Administrator
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Forum Admin and Offensive Emails.
Message:
Brian and Katie have nothing to do with administering this Forum.

If you don't think I'm sincere, and if you think I've got nothing better to do with my time than send you pornography too bad.

If you want to continue this conversation, send me an email and I'll answer it if and when I feel like it.

Forum Administrator

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:13:24 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Bjorn et al.
Subject: Forum Admin and Offensive Emails.
Message:
The Forum Administrator wrote:
Brian and Katie have nothing to do with administering this Forum.

That is absolutely correct, and let me try to clarify this one more time:

Brian is the webmaster of ex-premie.org, which is the SITE that hosts this forum. However, neither Brian or me have anything to do with administering the forum - it's administered independently of the site. In other words, we are NOT Forum Adminstrators. Brian does PROGRAMMING work on the forum software, but that is it. The forum administrators are solely responsible for editing, deleting, blocking, etc.

Also, Bjorn, I'm sorry you're getting those offensive e-mails. This is a big problem for many people who use the Internet. As Trixie said below, a lot of people I know who have nothing to do with the forum get that kind of sexual e-mail. For example, my mother gets those offensive e-mails - I think it is because she uses America On-Line. And as Trixie said, it's also a problem with Hotmail. (I have not had a problem with Yahoo mail, by the way.) I suggest that you complain to your internet service provider if you have time.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:52:32 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: But Katie, that is not true
Message:
This is what happened
Forums reply to my email to you.

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:33:16 EST

Bim,

My name is not Kathie, or Katie, so your letter must be for someone else.

Forum Administrator.

From: 'Bim Doubtfire'
To: forumfour@hotmail.com
Subject: kathe - forum
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 20:49:22 GMT

Dear Kathie

I am sorry I did not read your first mail. I have tried to answer all I have seen that were directed to me, but I must have missed some.

I don't understand this fuss about who I am. I am just an ordinary guy. And if I suddenly manage to use my spelling control, that is a problem too?

I mail this to you outside the forum (I hope you get it), because I decided this weekend would be my last post here.

Just as a human being, I think I understand you. I had my problems in meditation too, but just trying to take it as it is, I truly enjoy it.

The first time I came into these pages, I think it is a couple of years ago, I remembered that there were so much hate. When I surfed in recently, the hate and anger seemed to have grown. And if I remember correctly, it was the same people. So I just felt it was not very healthy at all.

If I remember wrongly about the figures, I regret it.

Take care

Bim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:05:49 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: What is not true?
Message:
Hi Bjorn - Thanks for the thoughts in your e-mail, but if you wanted to communicate with me, you probably should have posted it when it was returned to you, or asked for my e-mail address on the forum. I hope you understand that:

(1) I am NOT a Forum Administrator and neither is Brian, and neither of us gets any e-mail that is sent to the Forum Administrators!
And that:
(2) The Forum Administrators really cannot forward mail or give out e-mail addresses, especially if you don't ask them to!

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:33:52 (GMT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Forum Administrator
Subject: Forum Admin and Deleted messages
Message:
I sent an email awhile back. Not related to this subject but my posts are being removed on a regular basis. May I know why?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:05:54 (GMT)
From: Forum Administrator
Email: None
To: Ben Lurking
Subject: Forum Admin and Deleted messages
Message:
Ben,

We don't remove many posts, and only when they're particularly offensive, or publish personal details. More often than not we simply remove the offensive text from a post, and write that we've done it.

Also, two or three people take turns to administer the forum, but we all pretty much agree on what things should be deleted.

One explanation may be that you responded to a post which we later deleted. You can't delete a post without deleting everything under it.

Sorry if we've caused you any hassle Ben, but we haven't been censoring you.

Forum Administrator

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:40:19 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Bjørn Edwardsen
Subject: FA, pedophily, are you guilty?
Message:
Since I sent this last mail to you, I have received to my mailbox several links to pedophilic pornographic pictures. I can assure you that I never had anything to do with such rubbish. I talked to my computer friend, and he said there is probably some person who has fun with you.

Well porny Bjorny, if your story is true (and your stories are always doubtable), I'm glad that person finally found you, and is now having fun with you as well.
I mean, why should we have all the funsters to ourselves? It just wouldn't be right, ya know what I mean?

Are you behind this??????????????????

Hey...I almost wish I was.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:45:35 (GMT)
From: Louis Cipher
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Join me Joey- you'll do nicely.. nt
Message:
Faaaaart
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:55:58 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Louis Cipher
Subject: Join me Joey- you'll do nicely.. nt
Message:
Hey you've been farting ever since you've got here, regardless of whatever aliases you've been using.

You're the master...I'm really not worthy in joining you.

Fart by yourself, you fat fuck!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:55:13 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Forum Administrator
Subject: To Forum Administrator
Message:
If any ex-premie is indeed harassing Bjorn in the way he claims, steps should be taken immediately to determine who that person is (if that is at all possible) and to ban him/her permanently from this site.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:04:00 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: To Way
Message:
Oh ya...I should have mentioned the same thing.

I just forgot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:40:14 (GMT)
From: Trixie
Email: None
To: Bjorn
Subject: Porn Hotmail 2-3 times a day for months/ Deletes
Message:
Bjorn, ever since I have had my hotmail there is a regular deposit of teen and child porn in my inbox. Other people not related to the forum have the same. I wish I know what to do to stop it. It is time consuming delelting them. The usual deposit of porn is 7 or 8 porn site emails 2 or 3 times a day.

Do you mean to tell me that not everyone get these??

I would be very surprsed if it came from the forum.

As for the deleted posts, since I answered Rob and they were delelted, I guess that means Robs were offensive.

If the FA has not deleted Robs posts, then he is not in full control of what happens on this forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:14:59 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Trixie
Subject: Porn Hotmail 2-3 times a day for months/ Deletes
Message:
Trixie,
Don't you have that new feature for bulk mail in your hotmail? It is easy to set up and then you don't have to mess with it. You do have to look in on it a bit to start as some emails were sent to it that shouldn't have been, a joke list server and a friend's announcement about long distance phone comanies but you select it and press, this is not bulk mail and then those are once again delivered to your inbox. Handy! :)
I never got junk mail and don't know if it wasn't around 2 years ago or if it is because I've had the same email account for so long.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:21:23 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: A request
Message:
I was wondering...if you were to write a 'mission statement' about this Forum, what would it look like?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 15:05:45 (GMT)
From: Paul
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: How's this?
Message:
This Forum is dedicated to providing accurate historical and current information and analysis about Guru Maharaji and his related organizations for the following purposes:
1. To provide support for ex-premies who have reclaimed
their lives.
2. To provide aspirants and others with otherwise
unavailable information needed to avoid becoming
involved in a life-sucking cult.
3. To provide premies with a dialog about 'knowledge' and
maharaji that they would not have otherwise have, in
the hope that they may be able to reclaim their minds
and lives.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:17:56 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Paul
Subject: Excellent, Paul, I Would Sign On to That! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:26:04 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Sign On to That?
Message:
But what would the Maha's mission statement be?

BTW, there is, as yet, no 'Mission Statement' for ex-premie.org, which IMHO, makes this place a far more powerful (=free) stage on which the general public can post.

What I'm saying is this: Mission statements, as such, owe their origin to spin-doctors and their ilk, who, in the hope of making their message more palatable to the masses, end up by making their cause a laughing stock of those of us who still have the power to think freely.

P.S. A good test of any Mission Statement is to turn it around and state what its opposite means.

If it, (by which I mean the opposite of that Mission Statement) is not worth the ink it's printed with, then it's time to re-think the original Mission Statement.

If only the spin-doctors would.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:43:00 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: You related to T. Jefferson? (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 15:29:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: Just an ordinary man ...
Message:
Not related, though I can relate to what has been described as his:

“laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom”, even though I haven’t yet sworn “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (he was speaking of the Church, BTW)


To be honest, 15 minutes ago I knew next to nothing about the man, so thanks for inspiring me to do a little research. He’s very quotable, so forgive me if I do:


'Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.'
(Notes on Virginia, 1782)


'Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it'


'I never submitted the whole system of my opinion to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.'
(letter to Francis Hopkinson, 1789)



And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

(Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823)



“...the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety;”

(2nd Inaugural address)



And finally, a little gem I came across from an unknown, but living, philosopher:

'Ordinary men quote the ideas of great men. Great men have ideas of their own.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 01:26:55 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Just an ordinary man ...yet mighty clever(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:51:18 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: I must see my tailor - new hat fitting now due(nt)
Message:
I must see my tailor - new hat fitting now due(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:14:33 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: for cq
Message:
In case you missed it, there's a last post to you on the Divine Intervention thread in inactive.

Have a great weekend!

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:51:45 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: bang! bang ... pop! pop!-reply to yr inactive post
Message:
Fireworks?
bang! bang ... pop! pop! - (reply to your now inactive post)

Hi Stonor,

time is a tad short at present, so forgive the abbreviated nature of the following:

'everyday respect and consideration for others'
interesting - I used the word 'cultured'. Is it related to the word 'cult'? Will investigate.


You 'doubt the Royal Family is into placebos after all these years'

well, I'm not a royalist, and since the various royal families that have ruled this island have been into just about everything else ... 'nuff said.

Bach remedies? Check this site: http://www.bachcentre.com/centre/remedies.htm

Lastly, you say that you're 'still Stonor at this forum at least.' And I'm still Chris (or cqg, or cq, or Christopher, or Octopus, or Dr. Octopus).
There you have it, if you're into checking the archives.

Iconoclasts - us? We'll see.

(PS, feel free to visit my own homepage at: >http://freedom.wigloo.com/giles

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 01:33:50 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Attention Parisians
Message:
Dear JM, Anth and whomever,
I don't think my eyes will stay open another moment but I am watching a very good French movie. In English, The Lovers on the Bridge. I, once again, in error, rented a forgien language film with sub titles. You see I never remember to wear my glasses into the movie store so I am only guessing at what is written about the movie! Well this one is so good. There is a great dance, more like extended movement piece that is amazing.
Also it is fun to watch and think about you both living there.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:10:25 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Attention Parisians
Message:
Hi Robyn,

Watching the movie without your glasses, ie, listening to lots of fast talk that you don't understand a word of, trying to figure out what the hell's going on all the time- why, that's just the same as being here.

You can save the airfare, remove your specs and have the 'Paris experience' in the comfort of your own home. You could even munch smelly cheese and drink Perrier water to make it more authentic.

Anth the don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:50:56 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Attention Parisians
Message:
Silly Anth,
I don't need glasses for distance...to SEE the movie just in the store when I want to read the back of the cover to see what it is about!
I stayed up and watched the rest of it, I couldn't not finish it and it is due back today. Even the French song at the end was good and I kept it on to dance and listen to.
When I see you writing in French here, I think, oh those Europeans...
Now you tell me you don't know what they say! So then I will assume that when you write French here you are just making it up. Just funny words you randomly type, eh? :)
When I was a kid at camp, 9 or 10 yrs old, I pretended to know Italian. I fooled all the kids and even the counselors. Over the week I started using the 'same' sounds for certain words. I fooled them for almost the whole week until my wretched older sister told them the truth.
Anyway, I guess I'll watch the movie again WITH my glasses on to get the effect you mentioned. :)
You all, foreigners I mean, have such sexy voices I don't know how you get ANYTHING done!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:25:11 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Attention Robyn
Message:
Bon soir Robyn,

I might fool you, but I certainly don't fool jean-michel, who can't understand my french at all.

Adieu Anth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:07:11 (GMT)
From: David
Email: vpost3@hotmail.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Attention Parisians
Message:
When I was last in France, for about two weeks, I picked up and started repeating certain words and phrases, even though I didn't know what the hell they meant in English. For instance, I still don't know what 'Daccord' means but I heard so many people use it that I started saying it myself, even though I wasn't sure what it meant.

The same goes with, com ci com ca, ca ne fait rien, ces vrait and of course, Voila! which although everyone uses, who knows what it means???

Perhaps that's the best way to learn a language though, without translating it into your own tongue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 15:18:39 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: David
Subject: Attention Parisians
Message:
Hi David!
'Perhaps that's the best way to learn a language though, without
translating it into your own tongue. '
Maybe the best way to make up a language too! :) Sure sounds nice no matter what they are saying! :)
I was with my daughter waiting for a perscription the other day and there was something with oriental writting on it. She said she wondered what it said. I told her I always think it says something nasty, American Imperialist Pigs, or something equally glowing. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index