Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 15:35:21 (GMT)
From: May 30, 2000 To: Jun 08, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


Anarchist -:- Copyright infringement site now with sound! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:31:35 (GMT)
__ jondon -:- Pissed my pants (nt) -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 15:19:26 (GMT)

EV Mail -:- June 2000 Videos Satellite Broadcast -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 08:01:26 (GMT)
__ Sir David -:- June 2000 Videos Satellite Broadcast - sick -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:42:16 (GMT)
__ __ Daneane -:- The sick part -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:03:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- The sick part -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:29:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Daneane -:- The sick part -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:34:22 (GMT)
__ __ Jethro -:- June 2000 Videos Satellite Broadcast - sick -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:48:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- the HOLY FAMILY is what they call them -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 20:03:00 (GMT)

sam -:- keep it quiet -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:16:21 (GMT)
__ Pauline Premie -:- keep it quiet -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:25:04 (GMT)
__ Simon Satsang -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:37:58 (GMT)
__ __ Tami Rainbow -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:49:42 (GMT)
__ __ Only Few -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:33:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Simon Satsang -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:47:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Helen -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:51:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jethro -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:51:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:58:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ SB -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:49:04 (GMT)
__ __ Daneane -:- You're not trying hard enough -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:47:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Helen -:- Feel the lash, you know you love it! -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 02:05:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Daneane -:- pain, baby, pain -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:24:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Go to the head of the class! -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 12:37:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ blood -:- fake it....just like everyone else does...(nt) -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:15:37 (GMT)

jondon -:- A friend of mine.... -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:46:47 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Is your mate daring to suggest that... -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:06:35 (GMT)
__ __ jondon -:- I find it interesting -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 10:04:22 (GMT)
__ michael -:- A friend of mine.... -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:00:32 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- A friend of mine.... -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:52:07 (GMT)

Joe -:- Remember Kurt Andersen? -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 23:25:11 (GMT)
__ Paul -:- Kurt's brother David and wife are still very much -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 13:48:41 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- Remember Kurt Andersen? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:51:10 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Remember Kurt Andersen? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:54:21 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Yeah, he's still got my copy of 'WIGMJ?' -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:10:06 (GMT)
__ __ Don Diego -:- Yeah, he's still got my copy of 'WIGMJ?' -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:33:06 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- Yeah, he's still got my copy of 'WIGMJ?' -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:25:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks, but mine was signed by Ted Patrick (nt) -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:28:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Ted Patrick is (was) a devout Christian -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:20:52 (GMT)

Lotus Eater -:- Religion -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 23:24:00 (GMT)
__ Keith -:- Religion -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:17:35 (GMT)
__ __ Keith -:- Religion -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:08:22 (GMT)
__ __ SB -:- Religion -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:40:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Keith -:- Religion -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:03:01 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- Religion -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:48:29 (GMT)
__ __ Daneane -:- Slight tangent -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:09:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Robyn -:- Slight tangent -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 21:46:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Daneane -:- Slight tangent -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 00:40:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- GAK! nt :) -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 05:22:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- ooohhh THAT was the end for me! THANK YOU -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:48:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Helen -:- ooohhh THAT was the end for me! THANK YOU -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 02:09:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- fuck you EST people you fucking pieces of shit -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:06:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- fuck you EST people you fucking pieces of shit -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:00:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Daneane -:- 'and I didn't smoke then' Too funny (nt) -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:52:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- it's like enjoying jury duty -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:12:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Daneane -:- it's like enjoying jury duty -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 05:55:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- it's like enjoying jury duty -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:08:38 (GMT)

Keith -:- Molds and mould -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:21:10 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- 'Mold': a shabby, impoverished town... -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:10:59 (GMT)
__ __ keith -:- 'Mold': a shabby, impoverished town... -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:57:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ Lieutenant Pigeon -:- All together now: 'mouldy ol' dough ...' (nt) -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:40:06 (GMT)

Zelda -:- Exs! Email or Fax Howie. Media cover likely if.. -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:27:06 (GMT)
__ Helen -:- will do, thanks (nt) -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:41:30 (GMT)

jondon -:- www.jondon.com -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 15:57:31 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- www.jondon.com -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:15:20 (GMT)

To: Jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:41:35 (GMT)
__ Katie -:- Love the chalk on the sidewalk idea! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:35:20 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- remember the business cards? - Just Say Know -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:44:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- We have some around here -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:25:48 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 14:38:36 (GMT)
__ __ jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 15:19:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:07:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ to: Jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 16:42:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:17:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 23:02:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Boston -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:56:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jennifer -:- To Zelda -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:20:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- To Zelda -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:57:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Zorba -:- To Zelda -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:12:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Sorry, above post is to Jennifer (nt) -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:18:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Above post is for Jennifer nt -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:19:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:32:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- To Jennifer -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:11:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jennifer -:- To Jennifer -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:34:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jennifer -:- To Jennifer -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:35:27 (GMT)
__ __ Kramer -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 15:16:44 (GMT)
__ CIA -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:54:25 (GMT)
__ __ jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:58:30 (GMT)
__ jondon -:- Boston -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:53:44 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- Good idea, and I have done it -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:52:40 (GMT)
__ __ CIA -:- Boston or bust -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:57:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ ET -:- I'm in Boston now -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 13:03:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ jondon -:- The forbidden Chant? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 15:06:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Eaine -:- The forbidden Chant? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 15:48:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ jondon -:- grafitti -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 20:33:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Chalk is great -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:31:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Sorry, I broke my HTML (nt) -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:14:13 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- Broadcast fee dropped to dollar 15 -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 07:06:03 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- So, now he is broadcasting VIDEOS??? -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:43:45 (GMT)
__ __ (Sir) David -:- So, now he is broadcasting VIDEOS??? -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:53:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Daneane -:- So, now he is broadcasting VIDEOS??? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:52:13 (GMT)

raina -:- 'cursed words' -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 04:37:00 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- Yeah but occasionally one just has to let off -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:11:10 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- 'cursed words' -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:44:47 (GMT)

jondon -:- howiecarr.com -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 15:14:25 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- Reference for the Copyrights' issue -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 13:21:55 (GMT)
__ (Sir) David -:- Reference for the Copyrights' issue -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 14:23:03 (GMT)
__ __ Jean-Michel -:- and what about the can of worms, Sir? (nt) -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 14:47:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ Arthur -:- and what about the can of worms, Sir? (nt) -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:14:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Bonjour Arthur -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:21:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Daneane -:- I thought his full name was 'thanks-Jean-Michel' -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:58:17 (GMT)

toby4u@01019freenet.de -:- thanks to the bastard -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 06:24:54 (GMT)
__ (Sir) David -:- The Hydra effect -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 10:41:38 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- Good analogy, Sir, -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 16:59:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gregg -:- totally OT to Katie -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:26:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- totally OT to Katie -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:22:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- A Jar of Worms (!) -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:24:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- and me thought -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:56:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sir) David -:- Pandora's box, perhaps? -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 09:34:51 (GMT)

Keith -:- Where do I stand now? -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:41:58 (GMT)
__ Mr Bubblehead -:- Where do I stand now? -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:44:48 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Does this mean... -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:09:14 (GMT)
__ Gregg -:- Where do I stand now? -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:17:40 (GMT)
__ dv -:- Another one bites the dust!nt -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:49:49 (GMT)
__ __ Keith -:- Does reason bite the dust? -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:33:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gregg -:- Keith, Jim: -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:12:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- Kieth Re: Jim- dont get drawn into. -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:17:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Keith -:- Kieth Re: Jim- dont get drawn into. -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:52:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ dv -:- If you won't kiss his feet, you bit dust. Emotiona -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 03:02:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- What a joke -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:45:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Keith -:- What a joke -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:19:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Oh Come on -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 18:24:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- Oh Come on..ok! -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:48:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Oh Come on..ok! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:15:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Intellectual toothwork, if that's what you want -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:23:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- The 'either/or' question..? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:59:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What a joke -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:32:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- What is untrue? -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:37:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, Kieth, it doesn' t work that way -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 16:18:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- Jim's remarkable work ethic. -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:41:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Hey I'm a worm, too !!! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 14:57:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ keith -:- Hey I'm a worm, too !!! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:49:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Hey I'm a worm, too !!! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:32:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why people like Keith are worms -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:27:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Worm -:- Why people like Keith are worms -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:07:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- prescientific garbage! -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:02:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Jim's Theorem on Pre-Scientific Garbage -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:39:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I could but I won't -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 19:30:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Science and scientists, methodological materialism -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:47:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is that all you've got? That's it? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:07:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Do you understand the difference? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:53:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Will you stop saying that? -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 02:02:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- The Creation / Evolution Continuum -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:02:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:39:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You show a misunderstanding of science -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 00:16:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Painted in to your corner, all you can do is pray -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:14:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Adam and Eve, etc. -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 02:43:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Science and scientists -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 21:49:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is there supposed to be some text there? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:03:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Correction -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 19:38:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- prescientific garbage! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:25:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- prescientific garbage! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:06:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sarcasm and ignorance pack a wobbly punch -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:31:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You don't know what you're talking about -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 21:56:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I know enough -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 00:32:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- No, you don't, not anywhere near enough -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 04:25:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- No, you don't, not anywhere near enough -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 06:37:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- pseudo-science -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 16:08:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- RIGHT! G DOES IT AGAIN!!!!!! -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 16:59:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Jim does it again -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:19:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You have no intelligence -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:02:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, let's fight over typos now -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:12:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You don't know what I'm getting at do you? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 04:28:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You don't know what I'm getting at do you? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:02:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Stop being evasive -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:51:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Stop playing games -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:57:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Stop playing dumb -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:27:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, G, that would be illogical -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:47:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I don't believe this -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 21:57:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What's not to believe? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:02:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Huh? -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:52:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, you're right. -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:02:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- So... -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:32:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Whow! -:- You hit the nail dead on the mark G! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 22:24:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Sarcasm and ignorance pack a wobbly punch -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:52:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ keith -:- prescientific garbage! -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:05:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Translation? -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:13:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- My God,you ARE taking poetry classes! nt -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:04:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Larkin -:- This, probably... (from the Upunishags) -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:16:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Keith -:- moral examples -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:53:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ just looking -:- Baby, RUN!!...can't do it, eh? nt -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:47:07 (GMT)


Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:31:35 (GMT)
From: Anarchist
Email: anarchyinthe.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Copyright infringement site now with sound!
Message:
If you wanna hear the real, true sound of a premie worshipping his lord click here to go direct to the she-male god page.

The sound file might take a minute to download.

You can also access this page via Not Maharaji's mixed bag and then click on the Copyright Infringement site link.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 15:19:26 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Anarchist
Subject: Pissed my pants (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 08:01:26 (GMT)
From: EV Mail
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: June 2000 Videos Satellite Broadcast
Message:
Suggested donation (required?) dropped to $ 15

Half of them is re-broacast.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:42:16 (GMT)
From: Sir David
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: EV Mail
Subject: June 2000 Videos Satellite Broadcast - sick
Message:
I find the idea of a 'Father's Day' broadcast a bit sick. Maharaji has done plenty to seperate Fathers from their offspring over the years.

Are people still seeing Maharaji as their Father? The thought is mind numbing. I mean, how many fathers keep their children at such a distance that they only communicate with them through video tapes broadcast via satellite and for a fee?

Does Maharaji still think people are going to buy this father crap? That is weird, if he still thinks people are going to relate to him in this way. Weird, sick, creepy and unnatural. This is wasted emotions and pure perversity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:03:06 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: The sick part
Message:
Sir David,

Your line...

'That is weird, if he still thinks
people are going to relate to him in this way.
Weird, sick, creepy and unnatural. This is wasted
emotions and pure perversity.'

I completely agree with you there. I was not aware of this M as 'father' thing. I wondered why it would be a special thing on Father's day. Duh...I guess my mind wasn't sick enough to go there.

This reminds me of how hard it is for me at times to remember that despite obvious similarities, each premie is a manipulated individual.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:29:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: The sick part
Message:
Even weirder is the fact that the audience M speaks to is made up of people who are totally ignorant of the fact that he once claimed to be the Messiah. And in the SAME audience are the older generation of premies who think he's not just 'a' father, but THE Father - as in Father, Son & Holy Ghost! The latter type prefer to keep pretty quiet about it though. You can imagine why.


Picture the scene -

'Mom, I'm just on my way to see that meditation teacher speak'.

'Meditation teacher, dear? That's nice. Which one?'

'Oh, just some meditation teacher.'

'OK then, as long as he's not one of those cult types.'

'No way, mom ... he's just a regular guy'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:34:22 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: The sick part
Message:
Well, he was pretty young when he wanted to be God. Maybe it was a childhood thing like wanting to be a fireman.

A premie once told me that he realized there was certain scary and negative connotation with cults...especially back in the seventies and all. But he said his following of M had never brought him harm or anything. It wasn't like M was asking him to pack and move away to some ashram in some foreign country or something.

He then added, 'Though, I dunno, I probably would.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:48:37 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: June 2000 Videos Satellite Broadcast - sick
Message:
I'm sure there are still those who call him and his misses 'mom' and 'dad'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 20:03:00 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: the HOLY FAMILY is what they call them
Message:
still. Of couse he never wanted it right?Never wanted to be put in a mold. Just let it all happen. Never wanted any of that money that went with it either. Would give it all up glady. yeah. uh huh. .... anyone want some beach front property? My house got appraised a few weeks ago.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:16:21 (GMT)
From: sam
Email: -
To: Everyone
Subject: keep it quiet
Message:
I've noticed premies are discouraged from discussing their experience and especially meditation- I wonder if that;s, as I found, because the experience is not that great. I didnt and dont have earth shattering blissful experiences- pretty ordinary really- its like everyone thinks everyone else is having a great time but they're not because they're just not trying hard enough
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:25:04 (GMT)
From: Pauline Premie
Email: None
To: sam
Subject: keep it quiet
Message:
Sam, you are experiencing lack of that understanding of that gift. Years ago, premies got up every night and talked about their experiences with that gift, but Maharaji decided that it was too confusing to people, so he had them stop it. Now only Maharaji, and a few, selected, instructors are allowed to talk about what that gift is. And it's so beautiful.

But it is true, that if a premie is not having a blissful, wonderful, experience, it is, of course, not because there is anything even the slightest deficient about Maharaji or knowledge. It is ALWAYS the premie's own damn fault.

It is because he or she lacks that understanding, isn't trying hard enough, has listened to his or her evil mind, it to attached to the outside world, is too into his or her ego, isn't inspired and should go to a video or an event, or, as is most often the case, he or she isn't engaging in enough gratitude. A dozen or so large checks made out to Maharaji, or automatic a couple of years of automatic credit card payments to Maharaji, might get the experience flowing. Sam, you are so confused.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:37:58 (GMT)
From: Simon Satsang
Email: foaming@themouth.con
To: sam
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
They should try harder. How many hours a week have you forced yourself to sit and concentrate on something that isn't there, eh? Why, I bet you're not even getting up a sweat!

How many cold baths have you taken in the last month? How many lashes have you inflicted upon yourself and when was the last time you forced yourself to sit alone for a whole day watching the master's videos.

Go and write one thousand times, 'I must try harder' and then scrub your whole body with a wire brush and pure bleach, sit naked by a cold, open window amd make yourself meditate on the four techniques and if you don't see any light or hear any music or feel any peace - get that whip out and flog yourself until you're bleeding and then rub salt into the weals.

I want to see EFFORT, man. I want to see the pain of exertion on your face the next time I see you. God, some people have no idea of how to get peace.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:49:42 (GMT)
From: Tami Rainbow
Email: None
To: Simon Satsang
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
Oh SImon, you're making me HOT!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:33:06 (GMT)
From: Only Few
Email: None
To: Simon Satsang
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
Si,

Lets don't forget where all 'try harder' came from. Several times The Lord Of The Universe, a.k.a. God incarnated, Satguru, Maharaj Ji, etc., atc....said that only few of the very few that understood something and from those few only few....he went for few minutes to say that only very, very few were ever going to have an experience of knowledge, and for any premie that heard that it was clear that they had to try harder because otherwise, who was going to make it? What a fake ass!

I like how you expressed that nonesense: MEDITATING IN NOTHING! Triple ROFL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:47:43 (GMT)
From: Simon Satsang
Email: None
To: Only Few
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
Nobody will ever get through that one hundred foot wall to the experience of knowledge. Why, the most they'll ever do is scratch the surface. They haven't got a hope in Hell and the master has told us so.

Only he imparts such sacred and divine knowledge that nobody will ever reach. Isn't it just divine!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:51:46 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Simon Satsang
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
I've poked a hole right through my forehead trying! It's like trying too hard to have that other thing that 'is just so natural and beautiful, that bliss that love, OH OH!!!!'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:51:56 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Simon Satsang
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
I remember when he said that ideally he would like people do service all their lives and receive knowledge just before they died.....but he knew that in this age people didn't have patience.

This deeply sicko stuff.....have to go and barf now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:58:41 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
Jeez, Jethro (can I just call you 'Thro' as in 'Throw up')-- you have quite a track record with the barfy statements lately! But hey, the truth isn't always pretty eh? I think M has a big ol' plantation mentality. He would have been happy in the Antebellum South, don't you think? 'Yes, massah, I sure be helpin' you shit in your golden toilet while I go to the outhouse out back, yes massah, I'll make you a five star gourmet meal, while I can barely afford to buy a pound of brown rice for my own supper, yes massah, I'll watch you fuck your beautiful wife and put your kids in private school while my own family is totally busted up cause I am here serving you and my family is 1000 miles away,,,, and I'll never be employable or save any money.....all for the love of my beautiful massah'
So when is the wedding to be?????????? Or is it still A SECRET!! HEY EVERYONE JETHRO IS ENGAGED!!!
(;
Love to ya
Helen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:49:04 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Simon Satsang
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
Shippy, right? Sick? Right? GRrrrrrrr.......Today particularly I would like to give him a smack!! lol

Conviniently gurus created the idea of few, few, few...so when NOBODY has an experience nobody leaves, because IT'S SO HARD TO BE ENLIGHTENED, you know....You have to keep trying, harder,a lifetime if necesary!! Wait a minute: Didn't he said few times that when a person receives K they have that experience instantly? Either I'm confused or he changes his mind about everything, all the time, the ass....OH! I got it now! It's a lila!! .... It's VERY possible that if the person is a true devotee she/he can have the experiencet in the next life, as my boss thinks: Be good now, get 'paid' later....Well, Maha sometimes talks about karma...it depends, if he believes in karma that day....

Where was I all those years?! Brain snatched??? What a bunch of bullshit!
sb

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:47:16 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Simon Satsang
Subject: You're not trying hard enough
Message:
Wow!!! That sounds coooool....I hope its not too late for me to sign up...do you think I could wear hairshirt too???
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 02:05:22 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Daneane/SB
Subject: Feel the lash, you know you love it!
Message:
Yes you too can feel tortured cause you're never good enough! Get on that treadmill, and chase that carrot, Daneane, you can do it!!

'And, oh yeah, it's blissful, it's so beautiful'.......she said teeth clenched and every muscle wound tight as a clock.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:24:11 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: pain, baby, pain
Message:
I'm not even good enough for that Helen...I never made it to the secret meeting of the four techniques of inferiority.

Best I could do at this point is a little rejection if I were to ask some instructor(who, by the way, DOESN'T ANSWER MY LETTERS) for knowledge.

I would do it if I could ever stop laughing long enough.

Who was it that said you can always go back??? You are always welcome?? A Master is about love???

Maybe that is true...I just don't have the means to make a big enough 'gratitude'. They don't answer my letters...would they cash my check??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 12:37:53 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: Go to the head of the class!
Message:
Yes indeedy, 'love' has many faces, no? I swear, girl, it is so great that you saw through this from the start. And that you are writing those letters to the initiator. You go go go!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:15:37 (GMT)
From: blood
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: fake it....just like everyone else does...(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:46:47 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: A friend of mine....
Message:
has a friend who has written a couple of books regarding spirtiulism, and is editor of a sufi paper. When asked if he knew of the Lord of the Universe, he replied:The person you're talking about was caught smuggling about $60,000.00 worth
of jewelry and watches, gifts from devotees here, while returning to India.
Maharaji was then a 16 year old pudgy kid who came here with his Divine Light
Mission about 25 years ago, along with his mother and elder brother. He
apparently manipulated a person's energy field somewhat so that they saw a
light of some sort, which he claimed was God.
Anyway he was very successful for a while because no one here knew enough to
explain or question what he was doing. Pretty basic stuff now.
But this was a family business in India, his father was a local 'guru' before
him, and he inherited the position over his older brother.
After his initial success here, with all that money flowing in, he married a
pretty blonde ski teacher type, his secretary, after the usual episodes with
fast cars and other women.
Then came the famous Houston Astrodome episode, in which he rented the
Astrodome and wanted to fill it with a million followers, but only about
60,000 actually showed up. Major publicity setback, swiftly followed by his
arrest or detention at the airport-I forgot if that was India or here-and
then the abrupt decline in his popular ratings.
At which point, another scandal erupted when his mother and older brother
publicly 'fired him' from his job. They claimed he was not the real guru,
that he was corrupt etc., and his mother promptly 'installed' the older
brother as guru.
It didn't work out though. I met him and he was obnmoxious, fat and
repugnant, arrogant etc. I thought they had all pretty much disappeared.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:06:35 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: jondon
Subject: Is your mate daring to suggest that...
Message:
M isn't the Lord of the Universe or something? Mishler was right..?

Tell him to wash his mouth out with charnamrit.

Verifiable fact: every glass of tapwater you drink or fill the kettle with has at least one molecule of Shri Hans's wee-wee in it. (Ha-ha! - you can never completely escape.) Explanation: there are more H2O molecules in every glass of water than there are glasses of water in all the clouds, rivers and oceans put together. Grace of all religious flavours gets everywhere and infects the brain... Hmm, so your mate's a Sufi heh..?

But neat precis of the 70's trip, Jondon. Some interesting memories, possibly worth pursuing, I reckon. I remember the jewellery smuggling embarrassment from before I was even an aspirant, but, strangely, this has never really been discussed on the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 10:04:22 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I find it interesting
Message:
that this guy, who is somewhat involved in the spiritual culture, believes them (the M clan) to have dissappeared. M is doing a good job of keeping a low profile. Or at least, has been doing a good job of it, until the internet has come along.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:00:32 (GMT)
From: michael
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: A friend of mine....
Message:
latest bulletin on CNN
UNBELIEVABLE
the mahrishi's great uncle..
married the swami satchitananda's mistress
and begat caine and abel's twelth illegitimate child
according to unidentified sources.
Sources close to the pope's dali lama have it
6 to 5 that mary magdellan will be appearing this friday nite
in Belixpy, Wisconsin. with Sri Chimnoy being the guest speaker
Yogi Bhajan was scheduled to make a cameo but he
was hit on the head by boo boo.
BOO BOO was immediately sent to Nicaragua and told to
practice the teachings of Bubba John and to sin no more.
Muktananda had a run in with an hessidic jew and was filmed
by the poolside actually rubing the leg of a 29 yr. old swedish
girl..after wood he remarked candidly...
It's been 2000 years already...where's the beef?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:52:07 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: A friend of mine....
Message:
Dear Jondon,
Ha! We really are just a small group in the scheme of things, eh? This says it about as clear as can be. Thanks.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 23:25:11 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Remember Kurt Andersen?
Message:
Hey, remember Kurt Andersen, the guy who was going to do a story in The New Yorker, about how his sister Erica and brother David were avid Maharaji cult-members in the 70s and 80s, but then Maharaji closed the ashrams and they became sorta normal again. Anyhow, the Monica Lewinsky bruhaha got in the way, and Kurt's story never ran. Then Kurt went to be editor at New York Magazine. Anyhow, The Nation ran the following:

DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME

At 4 pm on Monday, May 22, Inigo Thomas posted an item in Slate wondering whether New York magazine's Michael Wolff's pan of Inside, the new website about the media not yet officially launched by former New York editor Kurt Andersen and former Spin editor Michael Hirschorn, was Wolff's way of repaying Andersen for snubbing Wolff's media conference because he refused to cross a picket line at New York's Museum of Modern Art. But does former George senior editor Thomas, who does not mention the picket line, have his own agenda?

There, I did it. What appears above, however brief, is, I am pretty certain, the first-ever piece of media criticism of media criticism of media criticism of media criticism. Not since A.M. Rosenthal achieved the previously unimagined feat of quoting himself quoting himself on the New York Times Op-Ed page has journalistic solipsism enjoyed such a red-letter day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 13:48:41 (GMT)
From: Paul
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Kurt's brother David and wife are still very much
Message:
into M and have always been PAMs. His wife was the divine kid's
teacher.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:51:10 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Remember Kurt Andersen?
Message:
I don't know Joe - do you really think Erica could ever be 'normal'? You did say 'sorta'.

Have you seen David lately? What a hunk - long ponytail,dress coat with sneakers - Maybe he's not your type - I love the look.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:54:21 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Remember Kurt Andersen?
Message:
I haven't seen either of them in a very long time. David was definitely more 'normal' than Erica. Poor Erica. She was truly ambitious and a real social climber in the Maharaji cult. Unfortunately, she never made the inner circle, which was her aim, and I think she always was kind of freaked out about that. Erica and I fought sometimes, but that was almost 25 years ago.

Kurt told me that Erica was doing some kind of corporate motivational stuff in upstate New York, and David was in the music biz in LA. I notice that David is also producing and/or playing music for the cult, including on some CD that Visions put out, I think.

Just two kids from Omaha, after all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:10:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Yeah, he's still got my copy of 'WIGMJ?'
Message:
Lent the guy my copy of 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?' only with his express committment to return it when done. Called and emailed him a few times after and nothing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:33:06 (GMT)
From: Don Diego
Email: None
To: Santa Diego
Subject: Yeah, he's still got my copy of 'WIGMJ?'
Message:
I just h8 it when the cia follows me from site 2 site.
don't u?
sorry if they cause u problemo's.
It's just these hate sites I keep visiting.
purely as a marketing researce sampling of course.
o well...no worries...
I ain't got no hate site up and running..
sorry fella's...must o been what u said.
big brother/ baseball..has been very very nice to me
adios amighost...jsca
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:25:11 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yeah, he's still got my copy of 'WIGMJ?'
Message:
Did you need a copy,Jim?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:28:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Thanks, but mine was signed by Ted Patrick (nt)
Message:
ddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:20:52 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ted Patrick is (was) a devout Christian
Message:
I guess with Ted it was a matter of whose cult you belonged to. He apparently belonged to the right one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 23:24:00 (GMT)
From: Lotus Eater
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Religion
Message:
Dear keith, I read your thread where do I stand now with interest. One of the things that Maharaji has said over and over again is that he doesn't say anything we don't already know. Have you considered the possibility that all religion is suspect.
Say that you genuinely believe that he is on a par with Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Kabir and god knows who else, doesn't it say something about Messiahs in general to have a good look at this one!?!
Where do I stand now? Certainly, I don't wish to exchange all the love and respect I felt for hate and helpless bitterness and I haven't. Way (a poster here) helped me through that one. It is a great relief, however, not to have a belief that Maharaji has anything to do with me on a profound level.
Try asking a premie this question: Do you believe Maharaji is inside you? You can get a fascinating collection of replies, eg well, yes, in that we share the same breath, when I remember Him as I breathe, I can feel His presence, we have an inner connection, (sub text being it's my fault I don't feel that divine connection all the time) Have some compassion for the poor bloody premies,
that belief alone can cause the most intense confusion and anguish, any solace obtained from it is definitely not worth it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:17:35 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Lotus Eater
Subject: Religion
Message:
What can I say? I agree. I indeed have considered and believe that all religion is suspect.
It has been said before 'religion is the opium of the masses. But true spiritual, mystical or whatever term one might choose to use , experience should not be confused with religiousity. They can over-lap ,but often don't.
I don't really feel sorry for premies anymore than I feel sorry for babies. We are all in the soup of our own choosing. At least that is a major thread in understanding individual circumstances, for me. Soundc like 'karma'? So be it! it means that we need to take a large slice of responsibility for our 'lot'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:08:22 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: whoever
Subject: Religion
Message:
addendum; There is a difference between feeling sorry for someone and caring for them. Although I do feel sorry for people sometimes too. What I am trying to say (above) is that most adults should take some responsibility for their own circumstances.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:40:40 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Religion
Message:
Hi,

I'm having lots of fun reading your posts: You are such a naive person, how I was...well, still on other areas, but on GMJ's, he sucks 100%.

Can you please define to me 'true spiritual'?

1- What does it mean?
2- How would you use it in the everyday life?

Also, mystical as a mental trip, a game to play, a tale?

Thanks,

SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:03:01 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Religion
Message:
When I find the time I'll try to define words like mystical and spiritual if you will define for me words like naive.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:48:29 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Lotus Eater
Subject: Religion
Message:
Dear LE,
I wonder if you saw a conversation I was involved in recently about religion, I just thought it was neat that you bring it up here again.
Also, was just talking to an ex about this connection with m. I never really had one and didn't fret, or even think that I should. How the hell did I ever get through without all that stuff. I didn't live in an ashram but was in a couple premie houses. However it happened, thank god it did! When I saw LOTU I was shocked to remember all the devotional stuff I did but I really think it was just substituting that for the Catholic Church/Mass rituals. I certainly didn't have, or at least not for long, any deep feeling of connection with m.
I first heard about the meditation, not m and I always felt and still do that any experience you can gain from meditation is just part of being a living thing, I'll even guess that cats for instance are in a state of 'bliss' half the time!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:09:56 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Robyn & Lotus Eater
Subject: Slight tangent
Message:
Having failed even as an Aspirant...I was wondering...before and after video presentations there was always mellow music playing. At a semi-recent satellite event there was a ton of that stuff...the music and pikturs of happy peaceful stuff - broadcast at the beginning and end. I walked out at the end 'cause I was sooo bored.

I looked around the room and most people were totally into it...is that premie bliss out time or what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 21:46:35 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: Slight tangent
Message:
Dear Daneane,
Isn't that good news, you failed as an aspirant! :) I couldn't tell you about the video thing at all, was out well before that inovation! GAK!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 00:40:39 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Slight tangent
Message:
Don't feel bad Robyn..you can always go back. And then you can tell me about the DVDs.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 05:22:53 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: GAK! nt :)
Message:
aw4ya
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:48:36 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: ooohhh THAT was the end for me! THANK YOU
Message:
If I could pin point one thing. One single thing that did it for me, that made me leave. IT was that lull that weird thing that would happen when M left the building. and the low lites went on and the muzak started and the endless videos went on and on and one and they all sat happily and never seemed to ever ever want to leave.
And I would wonder what on earth was wrong with me that I wanted so bad to have either a cigarerette (and I didn't smoke then) or a coffee or a drink or anything anything at all but to be tied to that chair I had been sitting in for hours and hours.. and watch yet another...
THAT was what ended it more than anything for me. How do they stand it? What is it about that in particular that is so strange?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 02:09:28 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: ooohhh THAT was the end for me! THANK YOU
Message:
YOU WERE RESISTANT, SELENE, you naughty rebellious one!! That was your mind telling you that this was a big waste of time! If you had only stayed you would have 'got' it--and finally ralized this knowledge-- nirvana, eternal bliss! Now go and propogate!
Signed,
The EST people
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:06:46 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: fuck you EST people you fucking pieces of shit
Message:
not your Helen of course!!
That was just fun to say. Wish I had said it then!
Why on earth do we ever bother trying to be polite to assholes? What weird form of programming has instilled in us this stupid idea that we have to be nice to people that are treating us like shit? - better go have my coffee now
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:00:15 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: fuck you EST people you fucking pieces of shit
Message:
But when those people in in cahoots with your bosses, doing trainings, like what happened to you--that is like harrassment, because they DO have power over you. Sheesh, I have enough trouble with authority figures, but if my boss were forcing something like that on me I would have trouble speaking up also, because it is not easy to find another job (at least for me it isn't). Oy, that was quite an experience you had!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:52:24 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: 'and I didn't smoke then' Too funny (nt)
Message:
Puff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:12:55 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Daneane
Subject: it's like enjoying jury duty
Message:
and having no life. About the only thing I can compare it to.
I hated it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 05:55:37 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: it's like enjoying jury duty
Message:
You are free now - rejoice!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:08:38 (GMT)
From: Lotus Eater
Email: None
To: all
Subject: it's like enjoying jury duty
Message:
I've just been thinking about it, I was always happy to sit there, it suited me, so I'm thinking why, and it dawns on me that if you believe that devotional aspect, gradually it gets to a stage that that is the most comfortable place, rather than the real world. it is so much fun getting out of jury duty!!!LE
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:21:10 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Molds and mould
Message:
So Maharaji claims to have been put in a mold. According to the quote below(B.B's thread). Certainly Maharaji did and does contribute to the mold. And that is his mould. But at the same time others have molded Him with their mould too.

Mould= definition from oxford dictionary=woolly fungous growth formed on moist surfaces.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:10:59 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitz...
To: Keith
Subject: 'Mold': a shabby, impoverished town...
Message:
..in North Wales, surrounded by an unfeasibly gorgeous landscape.
All other similar-sounding English words have a 'u' in them. Try looking up 'mold' in the OED. (Unless you're an American citizen where apparently the neglect of the letter 'u' - along with the carrying of firearms - is a constitutional right). Either way, both spellings have the same root.

What's your point, Keith? Is this worth a new thread?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:57:24 (GMT)
From: keith
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: 'Mold': a shabby, impoverished town...
Message:
No. It's probably not worth a new thread. From you Nigel I'll take that. Ouch! My point? Do we not all contaminate the already partly contaminated?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:40:06 (GMT)
From: Lieutenant Pigeon
Email: None
To: keith
Subject: All together now: 'mouldy ol' dough ...' (nt)
Message:
All together now: 'mouldy ol' dough ...' (nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:27:06 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Exs! Email or Fax Howie. Media cover likely if..
Message:
We keep those cards and letters pouring in to
howiecarr@mindspring.com RE: GURU. Or call him toll free at
1-877-469-4322 or FAX: (617)236-6807.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:41:30 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: will do, thanks (nt)
Message:
hdjahlahla
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 15:57:31 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: www.jondon.com
Message:
Found this on Yahoo:

Jon-Don, Inc. - supplier of carpet cleaning equipment, chemicals, and supplies. Also specializes in flood and fire restoration products.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:15:20 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: www.jondon.com
Message:
It's All About You :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:41:35 (GMT)
From: To: Jondon
Email: None
To: Jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
Hi Jondon,

Are you going to be attending the event at the copley theatre? I am sure there are others here that would like to join you in your quest to expose the big M. Why don't you list your email so people could contact you. Wouldnt you like a little company while you are shooting M (photos of course)
Although, maybe the LOTU will show up in DVD form only.

Perhaps you can organize a little group of exes to go over to copley with you.

Bring some chalk with you and write www.ex-premie.org all over the sidewalk/street where the premies will be entering and exiting. Pass out some ex literature while your there. Something with a big picture of M and on the opposite side, the truth about M. Oh what the hell, sell it to the premies. They would love to by a picture of M. Imagine their surprise when they read the back.
Anyway, just a suggestion, plus there is safety in numbers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 11:35:20 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: To: Jondon
Subject: Love the chalk on the sidewalk idea!
Message:
Low-tech and grass-roots, just like ex-premie.org. Plus it's cheap, and your kids can have fun doing it with you :).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:44:38 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: remember the business cards? - Just Say Know
Message:
What happened to them? that was a good idea. I still have a few somewhere. don't ask me where though.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:25:48 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: Selene
Subject: We have some around here
Message:
If anyone wants me to mail them one or two (or just scan them, and e-mail), let me know.

But they are pretty simple - business cards made at Kinko's or with a business card printer sheet-
The front says:

Where KNOWLEDGE brought us...
[EX-PREMIE.ORG logo here]
www.ex-premie.org

The back says:
Just say KNOW

They esigned by RT, who didn't copyright them :). Thanks, RT!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 14:38:36 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: To: Jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
I haven't been in Boston for years but I'd say rent a room if possible across the street and have a banner directly across from the entrance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 15:19:24 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Boston
Message:
Elaine, is it me or does 'To Jondon' sound like a premie? Wanting my email and not showing his. Come on. You think half of what I put up here is what I want the premies to know?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:07:51 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
funny you should ask that.
When I read 'to Jondon' I thought to myself that it sounds like to jondon wants to see as many exs exposed to the light of day as possible.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 16:42:51 (GMT)
From: to: Jondon
Email: tenus lady@aol.com
To: jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
To Jondon is not a premie but a non premie someone who is sick and tired of hearing M getting away with all this horse shit. I have read your posts and thought that you were the type of person that would actually go down to an event and be heard. I, like you am surrouded by premies and it makes me sick. Unfortunately, M has not come to my town, but if he did, you can be sure that I would not sit around and do nothing. In fact, if I knew that somewhere, someone at one of these north american tour locations, was going to be doing something to get some recognition for the ex-premie web site, I would get on a plane and help do something about it. I am sorry if I came across as a nosey premie. Actually, my name is Jennifer and my e-mail address is above. I posted once before and only 1 person responded to me via e mail not even on the forum.
I am lead to believe 2 things.

1. there are things going on I don't know about
2. the exes are all talk

Just my opinion of course. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance. Thanks for listening.

I've also seen others post great ideas for things to do at events, but I don't hear about anything being done. There are a lot of people involved here, enough to make a difference.
Thank you for all of your funny posts in the past, you have made me laugh many times.
To any other exes reading this, please let me know if you need my help with dragging M down.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:17:02 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: to: Jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
yikes to jondon

apologies if you read my post about your post.
I have the same frustrations with the seeming lack of proactive activity of exs.
But my taste runs more towards the underground style.
Maraji is capable of playing dirty and I would not like to see anyone identify themselves to the premies.

But I must say that when you described the banner across the street from the entrance it sounded very lovely.

Do you think the exs being more 'demonstration style' at programs would cheapen the ex message?

I like the idea of windshield flyers with MacMaraji's smiling face with the black strip across his eyes. Or a big Bozo face.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 23:02:55 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Boston
Message:
I like the windshield poster idea. I also thought that some envelope address-sized stickers with something to the effect:

THE TRUTH ABOUT MAHARAJI
WWW.EX-PREMIE.ORG

Easy to print up a sheet of them and copy many more. Just stick them up here and there around the Copley area. Especially in the local eateries where the Premies will be going for lunch. Or on the cardoor locks, but not stuck on tight. You want them to be able to tear them off without ripping them and keep them so they will remember to visit the site.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:56:49 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
the reference to the forum is very good. simple and clean and non fanatic. It is the applied fanantic connotations that can discourage a fence line premie.
Arent they in their minds? is the first comparison
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:20:07 (GMT)
From: Jennifer
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: To Zelda
Message:
It was not my post about the sign across the street it was from Elaine. But it was an excellent idea.

I agree with you about the underground style, but isn't that Maharaji's gig? Did he not make the first step by sending letters from lawyers and getting some web sites shut down? (or moved) Do the people that are aspiring to receive that knolewdge he gives deserve to be drug into his web? They are clueless like you once were when you aspired (I assume you have received knowledge)
Don't you wish somebody could have shown you what is contained here at Ex Premie?

I don't think anybody should stand up and shout picket or demonstrate and it would absolutely cheapen the message but there is nothing wrong with a little marketing for an excellent and informative web site. I heard of an e-letter and that is a great idea. Like I said, maybe there are things going on that I don't know about, I can only hope so.

There is a problem though, because most of the premies I know just laugh this site off. It's sort of like denial. They may have had doubts, but how could they come to terms with the fact that they have been mindaltered and toyed with? Can't be. Those people that have come out of the cult are very strong willed people, able to see their mistakes and move on. They can deal with guilt in it's many forms and find their way here. Other premies are too involved with the cult to ever find their way here. They need their little cult hands held. They need to see www.ex-premie .org as often as possible. If they build up enough anger, they will find their way here, and MAYBE read what is offered. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
This site has helped me a lot, I have absorbed all the information and it has benefitted me in my work and social life. I have seen a lot of premiedom through the years and the site pretty much explained all I needed to know about state of mind these premies are in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:57:24 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jennifer
Subject: To Zelda
Message:
Jennifer,

I think you're right about the denial that premies have. I can say this because I used to be one myself.

Actually, the value of this website is really for the 'doubting' premies, the 'on-the-fence premies' and people who sort of just drifted away from being active as premies, but never really examined what they were into. For those people this site is really valuable because they realize that a lot of the doubts and concerns they have about what they have been into are shared by other people and it's so refreshing to see it expresssed. See, they already have their doubts, and that's why they are 'on-the-fence' in the first place.

Oh, yeah, and aspirants. It is REALLY valuable for them too, because if they read this site they realize how they are being lied to in the aspirant process in the Maharaji cult. We have seen a number of aspirants come on the forum and say that.

But for the die-hard premies, there is no talking to them. There isn't any information you can give them that even gets through. They are too well protected by the layers of cult programming.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:12:23 (GMT)
From: Zorba
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: To Zelda
Message:
I disagree Joe.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:18:13 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Sorry, above post is to Jennifer (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:19:00 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Jennifer
Subject: Above post is for Jennifer nt
Message:
Nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:32:10 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: to: Jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
Thanx to, I guess I am just gettin paraniod like M. I am working outside of Boston on the 12th, otherwise I would be there distributing pamphlets or majick markering the bathrooms of all surrounding eateries and bars. I don't think I would be standing up inside the Event and shouting to the fat bastard. I will however glean as much info. from friends regarding the event and post it here.

In the meantime I continue to write to howiecarr@mindspring.com to get him interested in doing a segment on his radio show. Your email to him would be greatly appreciated.

I hope that there are some stories to share after the show next week regarding my premie friend's response to any anti-M stuff they might encounter. They are already up in arms regarding the article posted in the Providence Paper (see inactive index), they can't believe someone would say such things about M. Funny how they always stand up for him. I guess when you're brainwashed (or braindead), you don't see what is going on right in front of your face. I mean, the man will be flying in on his GulfStream IV Jet, after spending time in Ft. Laud. on his 100+ foot yacht. Geez, those $1.00 donations at the local video presentation sure add up, don't they.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:11:00 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: to: Jondon
Subject: To Jennifer
Message:
Jennifer,

You said you are surrounded by premies. Do you talk to them about how you feel about Maharaji and his cult? What do they say?

But I also think the existence of this website is a strong indication that ex-premies are more than 'just talk.'

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:34:34 (GMT)
From: Jennifer
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: To Jennifer
Message:
I will start by saying I absolutely love the web site, but if you read my post to Zelda, you will see what I think of the premies and this web site.

I have been in a premie work/social circle for many, many years.
I'm not exactly sure why I did not buy into it all. I've thought about that many times. Believe it or not I was once introduced to a premie by another premie as a Maharaji hater. The guy shook my hand anyway, and later introduced me to others leaving out the Maharaji hater part. So, I guess word spreads.
I have discussed Maharaji and my thoughts about him with a few premies. It's kind of like beating your head against the wall. So I have learned to be very subtle in my approach. I admit I have had a few knock down drag outs. But they don't hate me for my beliefs, and I don't hate them for theirs.
Thanks for answering

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:35:27 (GMT)
From: Jennifer
Email: None
To: Joe- oops (NT)
Subject: To Jennifer
Message:
dffff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 15:16:44 (GMT)
From: Kramer
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Boston
Message:
A banner saying 'Kenny Rogers' - jondon
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:54:25 (GMT)
From: CIA
Email: WEBMASTER@JONDON.COM
To: To: Jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
AAAAAAHHHUUUUMMMMMNNNNN
OM.COM//NET
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:58:30 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: CIA
Subject: Boston
Message:
Don't know who you are or what jondon.com is, but it ain't me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:53:44 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: To: Jondon
Subject: Boston
Message:
I don't think I'll be in Boston that morning. I am going to be in Worcester, outside Boston. I have a catering job there in the AM. I got word that that is where M keeps his plane at the corporate airport, so I'll mosey on over for a photo-op as time permits.

Would love to have the day to hang out at Copley. Like your ideas. I believe that there will be a few subversives distributing anti-M paraphanalia for the masses. I'm gonna keep my focus on getting Howie Carr to do at least a segment of his show next week on the GURU.

Remember to keep those cards and letters pouring in to howiecarr@mindspring.com RE: GURU. Or call him toll free at 1-877-469-4322 or FAX: (617)236-6807.

There is a link at the howiecarr.com site: What do you want Howie to talk about? Click on it and type in GURU Maharaji's visit to Boston. The more he gets the better the chance of him looking into it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:52:40 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: Good idea, and I have done it
Message:
Hi Jondon -
You wrote:
Remember to keep those cards and letters pouring in to howiecarr@mindspring.com RE: GURU. Or call him toll free at 1-877-469-4322 or FAX: (617)236-6807.

There is a link at the howiecarr.com site: What do you want Howie to talk about? Click on it and type in GURU Maharaji's visit to Boston. The more he gets the better the chance of him looking into it.

The link to 'What do you want Howie to talk about it' is really easy to do, and I have done it (hey, I'm tired - snicker!).
Thanks for the suggestion. I looked at Howie's site and it doesn't seem like he would be a big M fan - to put it mildly. I used to work for a 'radio personality' named Howie - not the same guy, but I swear they're twins :).

Please see my business card suggestion above (they would make good stickers too) - it's in a reply to Selene in this thread.

Take care -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:57:17 (GMT)
From: CIA
Email: webmaster@jondon.com
To: jondon
Subject: Boston or bust
Message:
howie? talk 'bout newton's/ einstein's ther;y of gravity/relativity
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 13:03:24 (GMT)
From: ET
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I'm in Boston now
Message:
How about this idea?

All the exes, some with signs (banners) reading 'www.ex-premie.org'. Then all the exes could yell 'Bohle sri satgudev maharaj ki JAI!' - the forbidden chant.

Just like LOTU.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 15:06:56 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: ET
Subject: The forbidden Chant?
Message:
What's it mean? Why forbidden?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 15:48:24 (GMT)
From: Eaine
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: The forbidden Chant?
Message:
Have you seen Lord of the U ? It makes the whole thing look like Hitler worship - some mass, hypnotic, homage ceremony.Thus,M,doesn't want it -too much room for creative criticism from the media. He's no dummy - remember he's a pilot.

Remember he even dropped 'Guru' bec of that (anticipated problems with media).All the Indian words were dropped - supposedly so it didn't appear like a Hindi or Eastern trip - but rather open to all - non denominational.

Bhole shri ... something about Hail to the Sat Guru. Others may be more poetic.

Also two days or so before the program at say 2 am -- people could spray the walks w/www. ex-p.com - the pre-staff would have a time cleaning it up -esp. if the photograghers covered it in the morning.Bec of course someone would tip them off --along with the police of the horrible graffitti that had hit the city overnight.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 20:33:31 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Eaine
Subject: grafitti
Message:
I like the idea of chalking the sidewalk. Kinda like Sidewalk Sam used to do around here. Wish I could do M's face, then caption it with this sites address.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 01:31:14 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: jondon
Subject: Chalk is great
Message:
Impermanent (unlike all those M posters we used to wheat-paste all over town), inexpensive, and has a certain je ne sais quoi. It reminds me of a Yippie thing - if you're old enough to remember that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:14:13 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: FA's
Subject: Sorry, I broke my HTML (nt)
Message:
apologies
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 07:06:03 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Broadcast fee dropped to dollar 15
Message:
according to the last invitation I've received from EV!!! I'm still on their mailing list. Of course I won't reveal my alias ..... haha

Just announced !!!!!!!!

Father's day June 18th !!!!!!
delayed broadcast of event from Alexandria, Virginia, of that same day. Broadcast time: 12pm PDT

The suggested per person amount has been lowered to $ 15.

Broacasts will be televised weekly starting in July ....... Look for a monthly subscription program to be announced soon!!

Get your dish ready ......


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:43:45 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: So, now he is broadcasting VIDEOS???
Message:
How very cool. He doesn't even have to make copies of the videos, just make the premies pay money to watch the very same video over a satellite feed. This will get old, fast. That is my prediction.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:53:48 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: So, now he is broadcasting VIDEOS???
Message:
A far cry from Copenhagen 1974 with the premies singing and dancing to 'If ya wanna go to Heaven, Guroo Maraaji takes you there' and the Lord and his consort doing a twirl on stage. I'm beginning to think he might not be God in human form after all.

Or is that too proposterous a doubt to even entertain?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:52:13 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: So, now he is broadcasting VIDEOS???
Message:
So would this be another case of language mis-interpretation?? Like M wanted to become a fine Guru by being a 'pricelist orator' misunderstanding the phrase, a 'priceless orator'?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 04:37:00 (GMT)
From: raina
Email: None
To: anyone
Subject: 'cursed words'
Message:
I believe they are so-called 'cursed' words, because when you use them, even to express something deeply and sincerely gutteral........those words stand out more than all the other words, and create enough of a disturbance that the communication breaks down. Thereby creating more yuck-even when the original intention was the opposite! Therefore 'cursed'!

But instead of ACCEPTING that pathetic compromised reality....wouldn't it be more progressive to defuse the curse? (of course then you end up with all these repressed idiots developing a form of verbal Terrettes syndrome 'FFFFFucking Free at Last!')

I wonder who first put the 'curse' on?
cq? what would Kuhn say?

you'd think we'd be 'taught' as children never to overreact to such a trap......but people like to use them there words, as an excuse to get up the nerve to admit out loud that they don't much like you.....like phone co. operators! 'THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE IS NOT NECESSARY' then they hhave their BELOVED excuse to hang up on you and have their coffee breaks etc........cursing and smoking in the bathroom......

Personally I don't give them there words any extra attention. (unless they're mispelled of course! i LOVE misspelled curse words! my favorite...so fresh!)

Useful device #34
'You know that 'inner voice' that you use to talk 2 yourselves while someone else is talking to you at the same time (while you PRETEND 2 listen-as opposed to admitting you'd rather just walk away and do so)? Instead of listening fully? The one that thinks it's omnipotent? Didn't you learn 2 turn it off? To put it in check?Control it? For your own sakes?'

it's super fucking sonic!
how can i hate people who talk about such things?
little VITAL reminders etc?

Forum V
(over 25,000,000 served daily)

it's been reel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:11:10 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: Yeah but occasionally one just has to let off
Message:
a large reverb in the echo-box solo chamber one is in and hope some of it travels through the walls, otherwise how would one know one is alive.

Posted from the cell next to the illustrious and realized soul, the Rev Hammond Smythe.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:44:47 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: raina
Subject: 'cursed words'
Message:
Raina,

If you practised with more focus and commitment your satsang would become even more inspiring.

It still sounds a bit muffled down here in hell.

Mnnfff the jrrrnfff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 15:14:25 (GMT)
From: jondon
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: howiecarr.com
Message:
I discovered a site with links to Howie Carr the radio show host/newspaper writer. Gives info. about him and links to him. His assistant expressed some interest in the M story. If we keep writing to him I believe he'll at least mention it. The site also shows links to sites where you can listen to his show. Will keep in touch as things develop. Would love to get M the publicity he deserves. Howie loves a good con man.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 13:21:55 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Reference for the Copyrights' issue
Message:
I've picked up some of the documents and links posted here, and got something together (over the copyrights' issue) on my new page:

Some references to meditate upon for the rat and his goons .....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 14:23:03 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Reference for the Copyrights' issue
Message:
Another brilliant example of the 'Hydra effect' as I mentioned below. And another brilliant and informative page by you, the illustrious Jean-Michel, ex-premie leader, man of steel and Special Agent extrordinaire.

If we are the Hydra, who is Medusa whose one look can turn a man to stone? I'd nominate Red Heels for that position although she's not been here for a while.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 14:47:25 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: and what about the can of worms, Sir? (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:14:27 (GMT)
From: Arthur
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: and what about the can of worms, Sir? (nt)
Message:
My budy Jean-Michel is squeezin' the Rawat rat in his rat hole.( asshole)
I called him once Guru JM. Ha! Ha!

Bole sri satguru dev Kahn ki jai!!!!!!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:21:21 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Arthur
Subject: Bonjour Arthur
Message:
I received your e-mail, but have not had time to answer, because I have been helping with the ex-premie's answers to Maharaji's attacks on our web sites. But, yes, I am that Katie - my cats are still feeling good about what they did to M. (Don't ask Jean-Michel what they did to HIM, though!)

I hope that you at least like the U.S. ex-premies now. You don't have to like everyone else in the U.S :).

As you said Bole sri satguru dev Kahn ki jai!, or as we say in the U.S. 'Jean-Michel RULES!' I think Jean-Michel will like the U.S. version better - what do you think?

Take care -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:58:17 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I thought his full name was 'thanks-Jean-Michel'
Message:
I always seem to be saying it that way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 06:24:54 (GMT)
From: toby4u@01019freenet.de
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: thanks to the bastard
Message:
shouldn 't we be thankful to m that he is sueing us a little bit?
This reminds us to get the copyright stuff right before the big
BOOK about him and his nastyness gets published.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 10:41:38 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: toby4u@01019freenet.de
Subject: The Hydra effect
Message:
Maharaji should really brush up on his Greek Mythology and read about Hydra, the multi headed monster who had a very interesting characteristic. For every head that was cut off, another two grew in their place.

Since my web site was demolished and then put back onto the web, the daily visitors have more than doubled in number. This not withstanding the mirror sites which are being put online too.

The old pictures of Maharaji are not copyrighted by him or Elan Vital. They are the property of Divine Light Mission, which as Glen Whittaker has told us, was a completely different organisation which no longer exists. Since DLM is long defunct, they would have a hard job claiming copyright.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 16:59:07 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: (Sir) David
Subject: Good analogy, Sir,
Message:
although I don't know if M has ever read any Greek Mythology. Surely he must have seen the Star Trek 'Trouble with Tribbles' episode (nominated as analogy by cq), and he possibly might know the meaning of the phrase 'can of worms'. (Do y'all use this phrase in the UK?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:26:08 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: totally OT to Katie
Message:
You reminded me of a professor from whom I took two semesters of Hinduism at the University of Indiana.

He was from India. He spoke flawless English. I mean, beautifully inflected carefully phrased million-buck paragraphs would pour out of the guy. And then one day, in his always polite respectful way of responding to student enquiries, he said, 'Well, that opens up a jar of worms.'

For some reason, that struck me as hilarious. Oh well, I guess you had to be there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:22:43 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: totally OT to Katie
Message:
It's an well known joke over here that the Indians, who always want to copy our British colloquialisms, always get them slightly wrong, just enough to make them sound funny.

'Opening up a can of worms' is well used over here, Katie and fits this situation nicely. Meaning that once Maharaji's package is opened up, it turns out to be rotten to the core, or as an Indian might say it, 'Rotting to the middle.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:24:35 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: (Sir) David and regg
Subject: A Jar of Worms (!)
Message:
Hi Gregg and Sir D. -
I really like it when people get colloquialisms slightly wrong. 'A jar of worms' - what an image!

Re: opening a can of worms - I always thought part of the problem was that you couldn't get the worms back in the can!

Take care, both of you -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:56:27 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: and me thought
Message:
that they're so many you can't count them !!!!!

hahaha

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 09:34:51 (GMT)
From: (Sir) David
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Pandora's box, perhaps?
Message:
Maharaji should have let sleeping dogs lie instead of attacking the exes' web sites which opened up Pandora's box and awoke the sleeping giant from its slumber.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:41:58 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Nigel and Everyone
Subject: Where do I stand now?
Message:
Hi there Nigel,
I have just read your message to me in the inactive index.
I don't mind sharing with you and anyone else who might be interested where I stand in relation to M and premies now. As you rightly indicated, I didn't win any awards for popularity here(my words).
I perceive M in different ways according to the context.
As a 'leader of the pack' ,a Master and 'avatar' of thousands of devotees and followers,I perceive him as another Eastern archetype among many. Many who have been, are and will play this
role. As such, my reaction to him is not essentially different from others of the same ilk. Which is, that as long as many people need to project such Godlike images onto someone (look at the long history of people waiting and longing for the Messiah to arrive) then there will be individuals like M who fill the need. Is this ethical? For me, it is a very complex issue.
Personally I no longer feel the need to be aligned to any such
'avatars'. But when I was in kinder I needed kinder teachers. Isn't it so? The influence these Godlike persons(and do we not all have a tendency to project power and right onto someone ) have on the minds of those who come under their spell differs,
but the influence is real enough. M's influence on me was not anywhere near the same degree as on others, as this forum revealed to me a year ago. So I cannot pretend to have the same degree of subjective emotion, ideas or perspective as those who experienced vastly greater degrees of interference.
For me , after an initial phase of struggle , it was relatively easy for me to just walk away and get on with living my life. Perhaps that's a little exaggerated but I hope you get the gist. Anyway I am glad to continue this theme if you want to. Perhaps there are more specific questions you want to ask me. It is true that even now I do not perceive M as a Devil, nor as an out and out charlatan . And I am still the enemy of what I consider to be gross emotively induced over-simplifications. Even if dressed up in apparent logic.
See ya.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:44:48 (GMT)
From: Mr Bubblehead
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Where do I stand now?
Message:
Yo Dude. Finally someone who makes sense. There sure are some strange fish around here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:09:14 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Does this mean...
Message:
...Hi Keith,

does this mean you are now officially a hate filled, rotting vegetable, totally confused, in your mind, servant of the Dark Lord, leapt off the slab back into the sea, EX?

Anth the hate filled, rotting vegetable, totally confused, in your mind, servant of the Dark Lord, leapt off the slab back into the sea, EX

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:17:40 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Where do I stand now?
Message:
Hi Keith. What do your last two sentences refer to?

I happen to agree that some people feel the need to project Godlike qualities on 'avatars' and it may not even be a bad thing for some people in spiritual kindergarten, as it were.

However, I'm not sure I agree with you about Rawat's not being a charlatan. A spiritual leader should have some qualifications, don't you think? (Other than being appointed God as a child.) I don't see any evidence, looking at Guru Maha's ramblings all these years later, that he knows jackshit about anything in the spiritual department. No evidence that he knows anything about theology, other than a few Hindu stories; and no evidence that he's spent any time on the meditation cushion. Being a master is like any other job: you gotta go to school. It's against the law to practice medicine without a license. Dr. Maharaj Ji is a quack, is what I'm saying.

Of course, some qualified teachers such as Muktananda turned out to have flunked ethics and morality. But to preach enlightenment and pretend to be a beacon of truth to the world when one is actually a run-of-the-mill Indian playboy type...that's pretty charlatanesque, no? Unless you believe a) M is actually enlightened and masterful or b) he BELIEVES he is enlightened and masterful. Choice b) is possible, but that takes a pretty big leap of faith. And, after those long-gone cultic years, I'm not too keen on leaps of faith.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 04:49:49 (GMT)
From: dv
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Another one bites the dust!nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:33:03 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: whoever
Subject: Does reason bite the dust?
Message:
To describe Maharaji as a charalatan. To describe him as a spiritually unqualified playboy, etc, is just going too far.
To have listened to his words and conclude that it is all a lot of idiotic ramblings is so naive.
Maharaji has influenced his followers in ways that I consider rigid and unhealthy. Although, it is through the medium of elan vital, videos, structures,(his attempt to create an organisation that runs like a swiss watch) that is more where the decay
exists and prospers. Many of Maharaji's words, for me, are as philosophically sound and in accord with most of the tenets of Eastern spiritual literature. For instance, the Upanashads.
To simply lump Maharaji into a box and claim some kind of authenticity for this is so ignorent. So lacking in any kind of intellectual effort. So emotionally immature.
Maharaji is neither a saint nor a demon. His role as some type of saint is perverse but that is only one thread in a complex tapestry. Again I find myself walking a middle path rather than taking what i consider as an extreme position. Both premies and ex-premies(at least some here)seem to me as being extreme.
Emotionally and mentally extreme. Perhaps the reaction to a cult leans towards cult-like extremes itself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 17:12:37 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Keith, Jim:
Message:
So I'm 'ignorent' (sic), 'emotionally immature', 'naive' and 'lumping Maharaji in a box' (what an image!) for dissing your guru, huh?

I'm not dissing you...there's room for every opinion in this world...but I am challenging you to prove that Maharaji is on the ball spiritually and/or intellectually. There is a reason that, unlike most twentieth century masters, he has never written a book.

Jim and you and I are of three different minds about all this, of course. I am inspired by the selections from the Upanishads Jim reprinted in a post below. Jim is disgusted that I am inspired. I might as well believe in angels and fairies, thinks Jim. (And Jim, you know of course that no one can PROVE this spiritual shit!)

Anyway, Keith, my view is that Maharaj Ji's satsangs harldly hold a candle to the Upanishads. Maharaj Ji tells us that there's this inner Knowledge that brings us peace and...well? What else? Do you really think Maharaj Ji brings anything new to the table? Or says anything at all eloquently?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:17:59 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Kieth Re: Jim- dont get drawn into.
Message:
a debate about Eastern religion with Jim.
Also be aware that Jim represents his own slant on being an ex.

Somewhere in the forum is a check list for testing to see if the elements of co-dependance are present in a relationship.
If that list is scrutinzed in light of Maraji and the way in which he presents himself as an intregal part of the 'premie -relaizing knowledge loop', it is very evident that he has and now continually refines the mechanism for establishing a co dependant circuit between himself and the premies.

This is apart from his business dealings or EV or wealth ec ect.

So as a teacher that 'teaches' stuff that is in line with Eastern religions, he is of a low grade because of the cp dependant tactics.
However it is true that Eastern relilgious premise are ofter based on a gure deciple relationship.

The judgement has to be made on his actions that are seemingly outside of his teachings. There have been countless premies who justify their alliance with Maraji on the fact that knowledge has done them good and made them happy.

This is thinking with blinders and the equivalant to the logic which says world hunger has nothing to do with me.

The end result is the total erosion of compassion for the sake of guru adulation.

Zelda

PS the only way to know where you stand is to break away from Jabba the Hut.
Trust your instinct and break loose. You have the ability to walk with consciousness without the prop. It is your birthright.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:52:35 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Kieth Re: Jim- dont get drawn into.
Message:
Thanks for the advice Zelda. Well I must be a sucker. I do get drawn in ,as Jim does with me. But as long as there is a respectful 'tone' I don't mind Jim's unique slant on things. Afterall, we all want to express ourselves freely regardless of what others may think of our views.
I believe that it is healthy to distinguish between generalisations(universals) and particulars. Maharaji expounds ancient truths in his own fashion and also within a particular context. Truths can be contaminated by the particular context they dwell within. Maharaji does utter undeniable universal truths. But within the entire context of his 'empire' these truths are contaminated. So I choose to extract the universal truths ,as I would and do no matter where they derive, and discard the rest. Which means Maharaji is HELPFUL in as far as he has touched my innate capacity to recognise and respond to universal truths. And the general orientation of 'knowledge'; of seeking a space ,a place, a dimension, an experience,within, that is helpful too, but not his religious zeal and insistance on following his specific dictates as if he were a schoolteacher and I an ignorant pupil. Do you get the idea? Universals and particulars are not in sych. And that is bad. Authoritarianism in spiritual matters is ultimately enslaving. Maharaji is not what his premies choose to believe he is. but he is also not what a lot of ex's choose to believe he is either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 03:02:13 (GMT)
From: dv
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: If you won't kiss his feet, you bit dust. Emotiona
Message:
lly immature? I don't think so!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:45:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: What a joke
Message:
Many of Maharaji's words, for me, are as philosophically sound and in accord with most of the tenets of Eastern spiritual literature. For instance, the Upanashads.

I agree, Kieth. But I also think all that Upanishad stuff is complete foolishness. The 'joke' here, Kieth, is that you act as if that possibility never even occurred to you. Like, wow, eh dude! Maybe all that prehistoric Hindu mumbo jumbo might actually be false or something, eh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:19:19 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What a joke
Message:
It might not come as a great surprise that we disagree Jim. The upanashads and much eastern spiritual literature is profound and true, for me. But I can respect your differing view even if you don't accord me the same respect. I guess a joke is in the mind of the beholder.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 18:24:31 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Oh Come on
Message:
Keith,

You might find the Upanashads inspiring, even full of truths, but why don't you answer what Gregg raised above? What does Maharaji add to the discussion? I mean, even if you were to admit that he actually says something meaningful, which I don't, but even if he repeated some useful stuff from the Upanashads, what good is that?

According to your very complicated and confusing attempt to say something positive about Maharaji, you damn him by faint praise. You say he says some things that mean something to you, but everything else he does, identity-wise, organization-wise, etc., etc., is a big negative and you have to work really hard to pick the few good morsels he drops out of all the destructive crap. How is that saying anything good about M? I think it's more an attempt for you, Keith, to protect your desire to believe that M is basically doing something good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:48:40 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Oh Come on..ok!
Message:
Dear Joe,
Let me set the record straight. Yes, I do have some positive things to say about Maharaji. And about premies and Elan Vital.
I do have some negative things to say too. So what does that prove? Doesn't it suggest that seeing things as absolutely positive or absolutely negative is a form of extremism? Really?
I do think so. Now, there is a subject I could get my intellectual teeth into.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:15:49 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Oh Come on..ok!
Message:
Well, I have to admit that it is unusual for a premie to state anything negative about Maharaji, although I haven't heard you actually do that. Rather, I have heard you complain about the organization.

No, nothing is all good or bad, but the problem is that Maharaji set himself up as doing something entirely and completely good, in an entirely selfless manner. Many people followed him based on those representations. So, to the extent they aren't true, and I think you are admitting they aren't, the basis of Maharaji's whole trip comes crashing down. He can't have it both ways. He can't say, on the one hand, that the is the superior power in person, who is giving happiness and joy to people, and then allow for all kinds of screw ups, damage to individuals who follow him with no apparent interest or concern, and engage in rampant and blatant material greed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:23:48 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Keith
Subject: Intellectual toothwork, if that's what you want
Message:
Keith, me ol' chinwag:

What has 'Maharaji' ever said or done that qualifies him to teach, instruct or guide other human beings - many of them vulnerable or desperate - about what they most needed to do, or whom they ought to respect, obey, or open cheque accounts to in their lives?'

Avatars are probably very nice in their own homes, and I'm sure their mums are rooting for them, but do they have any sense of social responsibility?

Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:59:10 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitz...
To: Nigel
Subject: The 'either/or' question..?
Message:
Further to last posts (yours and mine)'

Until 'Maharaji' shows some grasp of social accountability, the question is begging, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 02:32:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: What a joke
Message:
Yeah, what's so true in the Upanishads? And don't give me any of this 'true for me' bullshit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 06:37:25 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What is untrue?
Message:
Jim, quote a passage from the Upanashads; any quote, and then prove to me that it is 'bull'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 16:18:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: No, Kieth, it doesn' t work that way
Message:
Larkin's cleverness notwithstanding, the onus is one you to prove their validity. 'Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof' is a long-accepted dictum of someone-or-other (Popper?) and it sure makes sense to me. If you're claiming that any of this stuff is true:

Brahman is the whole world.

Thou art the dark-blue bird and the green parrot with red eyes,
Thou hast the lightning as thy child. Thou art the seasons and the seas.
Having no beginning, thou dost abide with all-pervadingness,
Wherefrom all beings are born. [Svetasvatara 4.2.4]

Verily, this whole world in Brahman. Tranquil, let one worship it as that from which he came forth, as that into which he will be dissolved, as that in which he breathes. [Chandogya 3.14.1]

Brahman, indeed, is this immortal. Brahman before, Brahman behind, to right and left. Stretched forth below and above, Brahman, indeed, is this whole world. [Mundaka 2.2.11]

Atman, the world-soul, is the whole world.

Fire is His head; His eyes, the moon and sun; the regions of space, His ears; His voice, the revealed Vedas; Wind, His breath; His heart, the whole world. Out of His feet, the earth. Truly He is the Inner Soul of all. [Mundaka 2.2.4]

As all the spokes are held together in the hub of a wheel, just so in this Soul all things, all gods, all worlds, all breathing things, all selves are held together. [Brihadaranyaka 2.5.15]

Atman and Brahman are identical.

The Soul (Atman) which pervades all things . . this is Brahman. [Svetasvatara 1.16]

This Soul (Atman) is Brahman, made of knowledge, of mind, of breath, of seeing, of hearing, of earth, of water, of wind, of space, of energy and of non-energy, of desire and of non-desire, of anger and of non-anger, of virtue and of non-virtue. It is made of everything. [Brihadaranyaka 4.4.5]

The individual soul is indentical with Brahman/Atman.

The light which shines higher than this heaven . . verily, that is the same as the light which is here within a person. [Chandogya 3.13.7]

He who is in the fire, and he who is here in the heart, and he who is yonder in the sun - he is one. [Maitri 6.17]

He who breathes in with your breathing is the Soul of yours which is in all things. [Brihadaranyaka 3.4.1]

He who consists of mind, whose body is life-breath, whose form is light, whose conception is truth, whose soul is space, containing all works, containing all desires, containing all odors, containing all tastes, encompassing this whole world . . . this Soul of mine within the heart is smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a mustard-seed, or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a grain of millet. This Soul of mine is greater than the earth, greater than the atmosphere, greater than the sky, greater than these worlds. [Chandogya 3.14.2-3]

As far, verily, as this world-space extends, so far extends the space within the heart. Within it are contained both heaven and earth, both fire and wind, both sun and moon, lightning and the stars, both what one possesses here and what one does not possess; everything here is contained within it. . . That is the Soul, free from evil, free from age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst, whose desire is the Real, whose conception is the Real. [Chandogya 8.1.3-4]

The diversity of appearances is an illusion.

There is on earth no diversity.
He gets death after death
Who perceives here seeming diversity.
As a unity only is It to be looked upon -
this indemonstrable, enduring Being.
[Brihadaranyaka 4.4.19-20]

This whole world the illusion maker projects out of this [Brahman].
And in it by illusion the other is confined.
Now, one should know that Nature is illusion,
And that the Mighty Lord is the illusion maker.
[Svetasvatara 4.9-10]

There are no chariots there, no bridges, no roads. But he projects from himself chariots, bridges, roads. There are no blisses there, no pleasures, no delights. But he projects from himself blisses, pleasures, delights. There are no tanks there, no lotus-pools, no streams. But he projects from himself tanks, lotus-pools, streams. For he is a creator. . . In the state of sleep, going high and low, a god, he makes many forms for himself. [Brihadaranyaka 4.3.10-12]

The true Brahman is beyond understanding by words or concepts.

Neti, neti - not this, not this. [Brihadaranyaka 2.3.6]

It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long, . . without shadow, without darkness, without air and without space, intangible, odorless, tasteless, without eye, without ear, without voice, without mind, without energy, without breath, without mouth . . unaging, undying, without fear, immortal, without stain, without measure, without inside and without inside. [Brihadaranyaka 3.8.8]

It is to be known through thought - not senses.

Not by sight is It grasped, not even by speech,
Not by any other sense-organs, austerity, or work . .
That subtile Soul is to be known by thought.
[Mundaka 3.1.8-9]

Knowledge and inaction are better than action.

Having scrutinized the worlds that are built up by work, a Brahman should arrive at indifference. The world that was not made is not won by what is done. [Mundaka 1.12].

Knowledge of self brings knowledge of cosmos.

One should reverence the thought `I am the world-all.' [Chandogya 7.25.1]

Verily, with the seeing of, with the hearing of, with the thinking of, and with the understanding of the soul, this world-all is known [Brihadaranyaka 2.4.5]

That art thou. [Chandogya 6.8-16]

Knowing the unity of self and world is liberation

Whoever thus knows `I am Brahman!' becomes this all; even the gods have no power to prevent him becoming thus, for he becomes their self. [Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10]

`He, knowing all, becomes the All. [Prasna 4.10]

This unity is beyond dualism and beyond normal cognition.

Where there is a duality, as it were, there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes another; there one speaks to another. . . But where everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? Then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one speak? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and whom would one think? then whereby and whom would one touch? then whereby and whom would one understand? [Brihadaranyaka 2.4.14]

As a man, when in the embrace of his beloved wife, knows nothing within or without, so this person when in the embrace of the intelligent Soul knows nothing within or without. [Brihadaranyaka 4.3.21]

Death is the ultimate union of self and All.

When a person is dying, his voice goes into his mind; his mind into his breath; his breath into heat; the heat into the highest divinity. that which is the finest essence - the whole world has that as its soul. That is Reality. That is Atman. That art thou, Svetaketu. [Chanodgya 6.8.6]

As these flowing rivers that tend towards the ocean, on reaching the ocean disappear, their name and form are destroyed and it is called simply 'the ocean' - even so of this spectator these sixteen parts that tend towards the Person [Purusha, the cosmic unity], on reaching the Person disappear, their name and form are destroyed, and it is called simply 'the Person.' [Prasna 6.5]

Death is better than life.

When one has come into the presence of undecaying immortals,
What decaying mortal here below, who understands,
who meditates on the pleasures of beauty and delight,
Would delight in a life over-long? [Katha 1.28]

When are cut all the knots of the heart here on earth, then a mortal becomes immortal! [Katha 6.15]

and not just some prescientific unsubstantiated nonsense, then you better have some reason beyond just that it 'appeals' to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:41:31 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim's remarkable work ethic.
Message:
Seriously,I do acknowledge and admire Your work ethic Jim. I only wish I had the time to dedicate to these 'debates' that you seemingly do. But ,by jove, you did take my challenge to heart.
Thankyou for that. The problem is. Firstly,in regards to the Upanashads, we are dealing with symbolic expressions. Secondly ,we shall reach a cul de sac anyway because our core beliefs differ. Indeed our differences are far more profound than mere beliefs. It would be easy to say that it is our interpretations of experience that differ. But I suspect that our very experiences differ too. In short, my interpretation of all of your quotes are for me further proof of the validity of the Upanashads. I am willing to look at one quote(of your choosing) and discuss it. But surely we both know that this will lead nowhere. For you all this prooves is that eastern litarature is absolute codswallop. Where to from here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 14:57:46 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Hey I'm a worm, too !!!
Message:
Howdy Keith,

It is really good to hear from you again. But... (you knew it was coming, didn't you?) I have to take exception to this statement of yours concerning the Upanishads:

Firstly,in regards to the Upanashads, we are dealing with symbolic expressions.

I'm not so sure about that. I just read Jim's post of the Upanishads and I have to say it is not symbolic at all but states reality quite clearly. I think it is meant to be taken literally. Yes, it is appealing and my experience tells me this is literally true.

'Codswallop.' Nice word, think I'll add it to the vocab...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 17:49:20 (GMT)
From: keith
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: Hey I'm a worm, too !!!
Message:
Howdy back old buddy. That which is symbolic in this case is also literal. It is expressed in symbolic ways.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 18:32:18 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: keith
Subject: Hey I'm a worm, too !!!
Message:
Honest to god, Keith (thats' K-E-I-T-H, btw, Jim) I reread those passages and I have to say I take it literally. Where is the symbolism? I can't see any, and I think it stands on its own as the Truth.

Heard you were going through some changes. Hope all is well with you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 00:27:28 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Why people like Keith are worms
Message:
Oh, it doesn't take much to bring back to mind all the reasons you used to piss me and everyone else off when you posted here, before you finally got chased off the page with your tale between your legs (after, of course, you threw up tons of spam under a numnber of false names like a baby throwing a tantrum.) You're a worm, Keith. A typical, new-age worm. Your word counts for nothing. Why? Because you're new-age. That's why. New-age people fuck with language, they fuck with committments, they fuck with morality. Like you, I'm afraid.

You dared me to point to anything in the 'Upanashads' that wasn't true. I then pointed out a number of Upanishad claims that were just that, i.e. false. You then respond with this drivel:

Firstly,in regards to the Upanashads, we are dealing with symbolic expressions.

Fuck you, asshole! We're dealing with claims about the world and you know it. Worse, you yourself claimed just that when you vouched for their truth value. Worm!

Secondly ,we shall reach a cul de sac anyway because our core beliefs differ. Indeed our differences are far more profound than mere beliefs. It would be easy to say that it is our interpretations of experience that differ. But I suspect that our very experiences differ too. In short, my interpretation of all of your quotes are for me further proof of the validity of the Upanashads.

Fuck you again fro implying that language is trickier than it is. Language isn't that hard to deal with if you've got good faith in the discussion. Good faith means that you'll talk honestly. But you, Kieth, are like rubber. Your word games are like rubber. Everything about you is rubbery. You are the last person in the world I'd ever trust to honor his word. Too many new-age excuses to do otherwise.

I am willing to look at one quote(of your choosing) and discuss it. But surely we both know that this will lead nowhere.

Yes, we both know that. But why? Because you're a dishonorable little prick who can't ever admit he's wrong about anything. Too many new-age clouds to hide in.

For you all this prooves is that eastern litarature is absolute codswallop. Where to from here?

GET LOST!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:07:23 (GMT)
From: Worm
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Why people like Keith are worms
Message:
Listen hun, just soften a little and receive a warm worm like hug from yours truly. K.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 22:02:37 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: to everyone
Subject: prescientific garbage!
Message:
An additional point. Jim's idea of pre-scientific garbage which includes everything that cannot be proven by the scientific measurements of today (so arbitary in itself) prevents any serious in-depth discussion of whatever falls outside of his limited area of respected subject material. I feel that either I agree with Jim or shut up. So what type of sucker am I? Perhaps,hope lives eternal!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:39:44 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Jim's Theorem on Pre-Scientific Garbage
Message:
Jim's Theorem on Pre-Scientific Garbage:

All religious and spiritual concepts and experiences predate all scientific knowledge and pseudo-scientific materialistic concepts. (aka Jim's Assumption).

Therefore, all religious and spiritual concepts are totally false.

This astounding theorem will surely mark him as one of the great thinkers of all time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 19:30:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I could but I won't
Message:
Here's what you would have me do. Become an expert in science so that I could then answer your every question. 'Where did the first cell come from?' 'What's the strongest theory today that explains the origins of the universe?' and then some. But listen, G, I don't have to play your game. See, your game is the one where you call the scientific establishment stupid -- and don't deny it again. You keep doing this. You allege that all these 'materialistic' scientists (unlike your other imaginary, or historical, friends) just can't or won't think straight -- and then set out to wade into the details. Well, guess what? I'm not going to follow you there.

You try, very foolishly, to pigeon-hole me as a blind-faith zealot of sorts. Well, that's stupid but I'll tell you where there's a bit of truth in that general direction. I do respect the process of science. You don't. See, unlike you I actually believe that scientists' natural curiosity, integrity and ambition, if nothing else, make them all excellent watchdogs over each other. Unlike you, I do trust that they don't get all stupid and illogical and just waiting for some brilliant Genius liek you to wake them up. So I can relax and think that, yeah, they're all sharpening their knives on each other and I can assume, therefore, that their knives are fairly sharp. You, on the other hand, seem to think they're all dull as hell and they need you to wake them all up.

That's a joke, G. And it's costing you dearly in terms of basic humility. You've denied doing so before but, really, the point's so obvious I urge you to look at it again. Look at how you've placed yourself morally and intellectually above all those thousands and thousands of 'materialistic scientists' you think can't see as clearly as you. Do you really think you're that smart? Honestly, do you? Because I don't. I don't think that about myself and I sure don't think that about you.

You know, perhaps law school was a taste of what I'm talking about. When you're in an institution with a lot of smart people, all of whom are striving to be tops in their class or at least do well, the competition is necessarily fierce. Accordingly, you can safely assume that there will be a certain minimal intellectual standard. Like an intellectual marketplace. That was my experience anyway.

Thus, I think it would be abundantly arrogant and just downright dumb for someone to start beaking off about jurisprudence as being 'illogical' on the assumption that the hordes of people doing it, the people who indeed specialize in it, don't see the 'obvious' truths that you do. Sure, it's always possible that some lay person picks up that one silver thread no one noticed. But, guess what? Given long enough, even that contribution gets incorporated into the body of knowledge, knowledge that's shared by these very experts.

So you think that you can see the silver thread that all the scientists can't? I say you're full of shit. Nothing you've said here indicates that you've got insights into any scientific field that are mind-blowing, stop-the-press, G's finally-figure-it-out quality. To the contrary, you just seem like someone who prides himself very, very much on having a few brains and a bit of knowledge, who thinks -- stupidly -- you're a lot smarter than you are.

You know, people accuse me of thinking I'm smart all the time but that's a bit of a joke to me. Again, I return to this law school thing. I always thought I was smart, did well in school and all that. But when I hit law school I was surrounded with people every bit as smart as me and some of them, dare I say it, even smarter. And it's been that way ever since. I argue a point in court, I know that my opponent is likely every bit as sharp and knowledgeable as me. Yes, I assume a certain level of brains. It'd be foolhardy not to.

So, yes, I attribute a lot of smarts to science. My experience in law iforms that opinion, not to mention the fact that everything I ever seen of science impresses me that, hey, that's complex shit those guys are doing! I'm not going to come here like you and pose as some sort of expert on anything. That would be ridiculous. No, I respect their field, I respect their brains and I respect their ambition. You might too if you were a player in their game instead of whatever you are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:47:15 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Science and scientists, methodological materialism
Message:
See the following web page, which describes the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. It also describes why methodological materialism is used in science.

Are Terms like 'Impersonal' and 'Unsupervised' Scientific? A Personal Commentary on Methodological Materialism

Consider the following quotes from this page:

... a 1997 poll by Witham and Larson reported in Nature (386:435-436, 1997), claimed that about 40% of American scientists have a belief in a personal God -- and up to another 45% (possibly -- it is unclear because of the way questions were worded) appear to believe in a God, but not a personal one.

So up to 85% of scientists believe in a personal or impersonal God. Would you care to repeat your claim that all scientists are materialistic atheists?

I believe from a philosophy of science standpoint that 'impersonal' and 'undirected' are terms that we cannot use in science.

I would add 'blind' as in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.

Science attempts to understand and explain the natural world using natural processes/mechanisms, a 'rule' called 'methodological materialism'. Matter, energy and their interactions are all we use to explain the natural world.

If science is limited to explaining the natural world through natural processes, we are then constrained from making pronouncements about the supernatural world. We can neither say there is, nor say that there is not, a God or any other omnipotent power. ... Statements about whether God exists, or interferes in the world, are just plain outside of our job description as scientists, regardless of our personal theistic or
nontheistic views.

If on the other hand, religion makes a fact claim about the natural world, science often can say something about it. But we need to recognize when a statement is something science can comment upon and when it is outside of science.

Are these the rantings of a theistic 'imaginary' scientist? Hardly, consider these quotes:

Philosophical materialism is another type of materialism that is regularly confused with it. Philosophical materialism goes beyond the materialist supposition that we can understand the natural world using matter, energy, and their interactions to make the philosophical claim that in fact, matter and energy are all there are; there is no supernatural. I have made no secret of the fact that this is my personal belief, but I have strongly advocated to my fellow scientists who share this persuasion that they distinguish when they are wearing their scientist hats and
when they are wearing their philosopher hats.

I especially encourage scientists who like myself are not believers, to exercise care when they talk about and teach evolution so that this important tenet of science is not erroneously over-extended to conclusions about material reality.

Amen

Even many philosophically materialistic scientists don't share you notion that science has disproved all (or even many) religious concepts. The only religious concepts it can even address are those that make a fact claim about the natural world, e.g. our universe is a few thousand years old.

And where is this web page from? A web site that defends the teaching of evolution.

End of today's science lesson.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:07:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Is that all you've got? That's it?
Message:
Why won't you respond to my post directly?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:53:33 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Do you understand the difference?
Message:
What an evasive response.

Do you understand the difference between methodological and philosophical materialism, or the limitations of science? Apparently not.

That addressed your post directly, I used this reference because I couldn't have said it better myself. I showed that your claims are totally unjustified. Most scientists believe in a God, they simply employ methodological materialism in their jobs as scientists for practical reasons. Science can only address religious concepts that make fact claims about the natural world. I also showed that I in fact do have respect for scientists and the scientific method. I have respect for the author of that web page, regardless of her philosophical beliefs, I respect the scientific method more than you do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 02:02:32 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Will you stop saying that?
Message:
Most scientists believe in a God, they simply employ methodological materialism in their jobs as scientists for practical reasons.

Here, G. Munch on these stats.

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: 'Leading Scientists Still Reject God.' Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in 'a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind' and in 'personal immortality'. Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.
The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise.'

Let us speak truly, here, shall we?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:02:57 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Creation / Evolution Continuum
Message:
From the same site that promotes the teaching of evolution, a fairly good description of the various types of creationism and evolutionism:

The Creation / Evolution Continuum

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:39:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: So?
Message:
What is your point on this? That people cling to religion with varying grips of varying strengths? Big deal. The fact is that knowledge of evolution destroys religion to the extent that one let's the two really compete with one another. So-called 'theistic evolutionists' are stuck in a confused muddle. Look:

Theistic Evolution (TE) -- Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution. Astronomical, geological and biological evolution are acceptable to TEs They vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to PCs [Progressive Creationists]. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive forms, but the hand of God was needed for the creation of the human soul. (John Paul II, 1996).

This is classic wishful thinking, isn't it? Not only is there no solid evidentiary basis for it, there isn't even a coherent theory. Like I say, it's a muddle. You can almost see its adherents, including you and the pope, backing further and further into a corner. Every step giving up something more to evolution but still waving your now-tattered theistic flag, proudly, defiantly but, unfortunately, at a bit of an angle.

Face it, G -- and this goes back to what I was saying earlier -- the only reason we're even haveing this discussion is because we inherited religious superstition a long time ago. So now you get guys like you and the pope trying to 'grandfather' in God. Well it won't work.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 00:16:43 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You show a misunderstanding of science
Message:
knowledge of evolution destroys religion

No, clearly it doesn't, the story of Adam and Eve, yes [as a factual claim], religion, no. Here you're using the word 'evolution' in a slimy way again. Btw, what the pope said was a little distorted. I don't believe he said that 'God created, evolution happened', i.e. that God did not have any influence on evolution. Not that I care much, I'm not Catholic.

The purpose of science, which uses methodological materialism, is to gain knowledge about the natural world. Its purpose is not to destroy religion, nor can it. It can only address factual claims about the natural world. What Dawkins is mainly doing in his books is not science.

Also, people are theistic, deistic, etc. for many reasons, not just because inherited superstitions. There's plenty of evidence. What do you think of the superstition that the universe had a beginning? Huh? What do you think of the Big Bang theory?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:14:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Painted in to your corner, all you can do is pray
Message:
You're so quick to give up Adam and Eve but how can you separate that myth from the rest of the superstition it rode in on? You can't and you know it. You say there's 'plenty of evidence' but if your'e talking about evidence for the existence of God you know as I know as we all know that that's wrong. There's no evidence for any such thing. Just a lot of still-unsolved mysteries in life and tons of wishful thinking from people who really, really, really want there to be a God. People like you.

Whether the universe did or did not have a beginning is a very interesting question. So what? All you've got is an appeal to ignorance. If we haven't solved that mystery yet, maybe we'll find God when we do. Yeah, and maybe he'll be in the form of baby Jesus. Whatever. The fact is, there is no evidence for the existence of God. None.

And you must be playing dumb when you say:

Also, people are theistic, deistic, etc. for many reasons, not just because inherited superstitions.

This whole notion of God is what I'm talking about. Where do you think it came from if not ancient superstition? Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine a child raised to adulthood without religion but with a strong training in science. Tell me how you're going to get the God idea into this guy's head. I can't see it myself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 02:43:08 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Adam and Eve, etc.
Message:
Do you think our universe had a beginning? My guess is that you don't think so. If so, the evidence is against your belief.

I never believed in Adam and Eve, so it takes no effort for me to separate that from other beliefs. You tend to lump ideas together way too much. We're not talking about a bill in the US congress or a party platform, where it all passes or it doesn't. It's important to distinguish between groupings of beliefs due to culture and the real relationships between beliefs. Of course, since you're engaged in what you perceive as ideological warfare, I guess you see beliefs belonging to different 'camps', your 'camp' and everything else.

There is evidence of intelligent design, that our universe was created, and that awareness is not physical. God in the form of baby Jesus? Did I say that I believe that God is a person?

If someone wants something to be true, that does not imply that it is true or false. So I don't understand why you mention 'wishful thinking'; that's not an argument.

As to 'a lot of still-unsolved mysteries in life', you got that right.

The last part of your post, let me guess, you're thinking in memetic terms. Oh, you're such a good memetic engineer, you get a gold star for that one. A little sarcasm, I'm sure you can relate.

The notion of God as a person is old-fashioned, sure, so what? It may not even be necessary to 'get the God idea' across to a person without a religious upbringing and possessing some scientific knowledge. They could very well wonder how it is that we are here, how the universe was created, why is there so much ingenious design in nature, and what is the source of their awareness. They could also have a spiritual experience. They then would form a concept that something is the source of all this. They wouldn't call it God and probably wouldn't conceive of it as a person. I think all this had a lot to do with religions getting started in the first place, and the general idea is still valid.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 21:49:06 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Science and scientists
Message:
You allege that all these 'materialistic' scientists (unlike your other imaginary, or historical, friends)...

You again state that all of today's scientists are materialistic atheists. You know that is far from true, so stop lying.

There is a discussion about the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism on the following web page. It contains a very good explanation of why methodological materialism is used in science.

Are Terms like 'Impersonal' and 'Unsupervised' Scientific? A Personal Commentary on Methodological Materialism

Here is a quote from the page:

One, a 1997 poll by Witham and Larson reported in Nature (386:435-436, 1997), claimed that about 40% of American scientists have a belief in a personal God -- and up to another 45% (possibly -- it is unclear because of the way questions were worded) appear to believe in a God, but not a personal one.

So as many as 85% of scientists believe in a personal or impersonal God. So much for your claim. You confuse methodology and philosophy.

The author, Eugenie C. Scott, also states:

... I believe from a philosophy of science standpoint that 'impersonal' and 'undirected' [I would add 'blind'] are terms that we cannot use in science.

Science cannot say if there is or is not an omnipotent force in the universe because of the nature of how we do science itself.

If science is limited to explaining the natural world through natural processes, we are then constrained from making pronouncements about the supernatural world. We can neither say there is, nor say that there is not, a God or any other omnipotent power. ... Statements about whether God exists, or interferes in the world, are just plain outside of our job description as scientists, regardless of our personal theistic or
nontheistic views.

If on the other hand, religion makes a fact claim about the natural world, science often can say something about it. But we need to recognize when a statement is something science can comment upon and when it is outside of science.

And before you dismiss these statements as the rantings of a theistic 'imaginary' scientist, consider the following quotes from the page:


I’ve been talking about methodological materialism. Philosophical materialism is another type of materialism that is regularly confused with it. Philosophical materialism goes beyond the materialist supposition that we can understand the natural world using matter, energy, and their interactions to make the philosophical claim that in fact, matter and energy are all there are; there is no supernatural. I have made no secret of the fact that this is my personal belief, but I have strongly advocated to my fellow scientists who share this persuasion that they distinguish when they are wearing their scientist hats and when they are wearing their philosopher hats.

I especially encourage scientists who like myself are not believers, to exercise care when they talk about and teach evolution so that this important tenet of science is not erroneously over-extended to conclusions about material reality.

Amen

So almost all scientists, including many philosophically materialistic scientists, do not share your deluded viewpoint that science has disproven all religious concepts. The only concepts it can disprove are fact claims about the natural world, like the age of the universe.

End of today's science lesson, I hope you have learned something.

.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:03:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: g
Subject: Is there supposed to be some text there?
Message:
Nothing on my screen.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 19:38:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Correction
Message:
Yes, I assume a certain level of braiwhatever you are.

That was too gummed up even for my standards. In fact, I can't even remember what I was trying to say. Probably soemthing like:

Yes, I assume a certain level of brain-power in science ....

no, I give up. No sure what the last part was but who cares? I made my point before then.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:25:40 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: prescientific garbage!
Message:
Keith, the way I see it, the Upanishads were written in a time when less was known about the biochemical makeup of the human brain, and certain experiences, like mystical ones, were given a mystique (which they actually still are, to be honest), that now, in our age, have to be questioned in the light of deeper understanding of the human mind and what the biological roots of those mystical experiences are.

It was once believed (and still is, to be honest), that the mystical experience was the experience of the spirit, that part of us separate from our mortal bodies, but now evidence is compiling that mysticism is very much dependent on our bodies, and is an experience induced by biochemical changes in our brains. Questions have to be raised about the nature of Brahman as a result.

If the experience of Brahman is dependent upon biochemical changes in the brain, what does that say about Brahman? Can it exist separate from those changes? What came first, the chicken or the egg, Brahman or the brain? Right now, people can believe what they want to.

People who still choose to believe that Brahman is self-sustaining will say that it was by Brahman's design that it is through our mortal frame that Brahman is realized. But a physicist will tell you that this is impossible. The non-physical (Brahman) cannot influence or move the physical (the brain) in any way. In other words for Brahman to exist, the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, are wrong. Are they? I don't know. New discoveries are always being made.

But I think only the uneducated don't re-evaluate their experiences of mysticism, and think of the Upanishads as being as wise now as they were when they were first written. The truth is, they were written in ignorance of what science has proven to be true, which is, without a brain, the realization of Brahman is unlikely.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:06:56 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: prescientific garbage!
Message:
Still putting 'God' in the straight-jacket, I see.

Oh,I forgot,you think that bec a mystical exp is accompanied by bio-chems in the brain - that's all it is. Right?
Couldn't be 'God' at work? Of course.
He didn't create the bio-chemicals - he doesn't use any chemistry when your food digests or it can't be 'Love' when you feel it---bec,the endorphins are too high - it's just some bio-chem reaction.

Let's see what else could you debunk by saying it's all bio-chem and has nothing to do with spirit...oh, there's the bio-chemistry of your sperm - well,there's certainly nothing spiritual about a baby being born....you know I'm starting to see things your way.

I'm sorry,Jerry, I don't usually revert to sarcasm. Sometimes I just role my eyes and my fingers start typing - I'll regret it later and beg the powers that be for forgiveness,I'm sure.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:31:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Sarcasm and ignorance pack a wobbly punch
Message:
Elaine,

Wipe that smirk off your face. You're damned right there's no need, or even room, for God in the details. Sorry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 21:56:33 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You don't know what you're talking about
Message:
You still haven't answered my questions.

You never leave room for doubt in your mind
about your materialistic beliefs. That's all
they are, beliefs. There is a great deal of
evidence against them that you ignore, yet
you claim to be so rational. What a hypocrite.
You do not have a good understanding of
science. There is no absolute knowledge in
science. Yet you pompously proclaim your
unfounded beliefs as if they were fact. You
were a fanatical premie and you're still a
fanatic, you just picked something else to be
fanatically self-righteous about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 00:32:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I know enough
Message:
Fuck you, G. You're only throwing this 'pompous' allegation at me because I've rightfully tagged you as just that seveal times now. Look, bud, you don't know what I do or don't know about science. I know more than enough to see that religion doesn't have a leg to stand on. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert. Mind you, I guess you have to be your own little expert when the real ones don't support your religious beliefs in the slightest.

Why don't you deal with the real questions about religion? Where did it come from? What was the state of scientific knowlege of the world at the time and place any of these 'God' ideas sprang up? That's right -- nil. We were still living in scientific ignorance when all these concepts gelled. Science now gives us the wherewithall to revisit the issues. Unfortunately, many people -- indeed, probably a majority -- are afraid to let go of what we were raised with. God's a big security blanket and that's about it. You know it and I know it. Ha ha ha.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 04:25:31 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, you don't, not anywhere near enough
Message:
I'm not the one claiming to know what it's all about. You are the one making such stupid claims. It is quite clear from your posts that you in fact don't know much about science. Most of what you blab about is pseudo-scientific garbage that you 'learned' from your materialistic gurus.

Many, probably the majority of scientists are not materialistic. A significant percentage are theistic. When you say the 'real ones' you are falsely implying that all scientists are materialistic. Also, scientists are experts in their specific field. That does not make them experts on the big picture, not at all. If someone studies the mechanics of the brain, that's what they are an expert at. That does not mean they know what awareness or qualia are. In fact Dennett claims that they don't have to be accounted for. How convenient. Why does he make this claim? Because he doesn't have a clue what they are.

Do you really think cosmologists claim to know how our universe began, that they truly understand it, why it exists? Anyone that claims that is a fool. Having a simplified mathematical model of an aspect of our universe is not the same as knowing/understanding our universe. Hawking wrote, 'Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.'
Also, at this point these theories are still quite speculative.

When you say 'religion doesn't have a leg to stand on' you are expressing an all-or-nothing extremist viewpoint. Simply showing that there are untrue statements made by religions does not invalidate everything about all religions. It also oversimplifies the issue by viewing 'religion' as a singular thing. You seem to view anything other than your rigid hard-core materialism as 'religion', 'new age', or 'spiritual' and view it as evil. I also wonder if you even know what you believe in. You have this vague belief that everything is physical, but you don't even know what physical means. When asked what consciousness is, you reply with some mumbo-jumbo about some sort of thingy having to do with neurons in the brain. You have no idea what you're talking about.
When asked how the first cell was created, you reply 'How the fuck do I know?' or something like that. Yet you think you're sure that it MUST have evolved 'by chance' because your guru Dawkins said so. Like somehow he KNOWS this (based on his materialistic assumptions) because he's an 'expert'. That's a very weak argument.

Where religion came from is not the issue here, I don't follow a religion. I'm questioning the validity of materialism. From what I can see, it doesn't make sense. You much prefer to be in attack mode rather than to attempt to defend your beliefs. Everytime I confront you about your beliefs you run away. You won't elaborate on them or try to rationally discuss them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 06:37:21 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: No, you don't, not anywhere near enough
Message:
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.'
Also, at this point these theories are still quite speculative.

Alright, let's stick with what we know. We know we're here. We're not really sure how we got here, but I think scientists, along with their scientific method, do a more reasonable job of putting together the pieces of the puzzle than religious or new age philosophers do. I also think you agree with this. I think the only reason you stand against science in an argument is because you feel that pro-science debaters are anti-spiritual. You're mistaken.

I believe very much in the spirit. I feel it in me every breathing moment, and I do what I can to nourish it, in the music I listen to, the relationships I establish, the goals I set for myself, and so forth. But I am not going to attribute the existence of my spirit to the existence of God, when it has not been PROVEN that this is the case, and it looks more likely that my spirit is a child of my body, and not the other way around.

I'm just following the evidence, G, and wherever it may lead me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 16:08:21 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: pseudo-science
Message:
We're not really sure how we got here

Not really sure? That's an understatement. How about we don't know.

By 'scientists' you mean materialistic scientists, by 'pro-science' you mean pro-materialism. You are distorting the meaning of the word science. I do not stand against 'science' as an argument, I'm pointing out that some pseudo-science is passed off as science. It's pseudo-science because it is unproven speculation.

I believe very much in the spirit.

You are just as spiritual as I am, I'm not saying you aren't. We disagree on the nature and cause of it. So you don't agree with B.F. Skinner, who believed that consciousness is an illusion?

looks more likely that my spirit is a child of my body

Ok, that's the way it seems to you, but this is not science. To many people, including me, it does not seem that way. The conjecture that awareness is simply a physical phenomenon has not been PROVEN. It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, there is no default assumption that needs no proof. I don't buy this perverse misuse of Occam's Razor. What do they do to try to 'prove' this? They listen to the testimony of brain-damaged people and interpret their testimony in a materialistic manner starting with materialistic assumptions. What about the testimony of people who have experienced esp, etc.? That entire body of evidence is totally dismissed as the rantings of madmen. But the testimony of brain-damaged people, oh, that's good stuff. Selective use of anecdotal evidence. 'Following the evidence' translates to interpreting only the evidence you want to look at in the way you want to see it. People see what they want to see.

Regarding the 'party game' that Nigel mentioned. The subject was asked to construct a dream, so she did. So what? They describe the subject as being 'emotional' and then - without any grounds - leap to the generalization that ALL our thoughts are meaningless, that we are meaningless robots. That is psuedo-science. It's also totally illogical.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 16:59:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: RIGHT! G DOES IT AGAIN!!!!!!
Message:
Once again, G takes on the whole 'materialist' scientific establishment and decries their 'illogical' ways. Once again, G tries to piss up a rope.

.....and you call me pompous?

I think I'll ignore your arrogant bleatings and just redirect your attention to my favorite part of this argument. Why is it my favorite? Because I'm not as msrt as you, G(enius), and this is so damned simple. Where did religion -- any of it, all of it -- come from? What was the state of scientific knowledge wherever and whenever any religion started? Answer that question and you've knocked your pedestal out from under your feet. Game over.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:19:13 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim does it again
Message:
Once again, you don't know how to respond to what I wrote, so instead you resort to sarcasm and insult.

You wonder 'Who the hell is G to dare disagree with the opinion of materialists. Doesn't he know that he should ignore his own experiences and intuition, ignore his own reasoning, and submit to the authority of my materialist gurus? The nerve of him. That stupid G doesn't recognise the infallibility of these god-like all-knowing geniuses that I venerate, geniuses like Darwin, Dawkins, and Dennett who are so much smarter than idiots like Newton and all those other fake scientists. They are the only real scientists.'

Your so-called reasoning about 'religion' goes like this:

Every 'religious' concept supposedly predates all scientific knowledge and pseudo-scientific concepts. A big assumption in itself.

Therefore ALL 'religious' concepts are totally false.

Care to prove this 'theorem' of yours? What is the logical reasoning behind it?

There seems to be a hidden claim here that all 'religious' concepts are totally at odds with and contradict both scientific knowledge and your beloved pseudo-science. That is not a true claim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:02:57 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You have no intelligence
Message:
You wrote:

...just that seveal times now...

.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:12:45 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Yes, let's fight over typos now
Message:
I take it that's your best shot? Very, very funny.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 04:28:08 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You don't know what I'm getting at do you?
Message:
I said that you have no intelligence because you made a typo. What do you think of this?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:02:16 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: You don't know what I'm getting at do you?
Message:
Nothing much, Genius. What am I supposed to think of it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:51:48 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Stop being evasive
Message:
G wrote:
I said that you have no intelligence because you made a typo. What do you think of this?

Jim responded:
Nothing much, Genius. What am I supposed to think of it?

G:
Nothing much? Don't you think that what I said makes sense? If not, why?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:57:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Stop playing games
Message:
You got a point to make? Make it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:27:26 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Stop playing dumb
Message:
G wrote:
I said that you have no intelligence because you made a typo. What do you think of this?

Jim responded:
Nothing much, Genius. What am I supposed to think of it?

G:
Nothing much? Don't you think that what I said makes sense? If not, why?

Jim responded:
You got a point to make? Make it.

G:
I'll take your non-response to mean that you agree that this type of reasoning is illogical.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 18:47:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: No, G, that would be illogical
Message:
Talk about using your imagination! You're entitled to draw whatever inference you want from anything but you've got logical reason for drawing THAT inference from what I said. What I said, essentially, was 'what the hell are you talking about?'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 21:57:44 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I don't believe this
Message:
Do you or do you not think the following is illogical?

You made a typo. Therefore you have no intelligence.

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:02:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: What's not to believe?
Message:
Of course it's not. Don't be stupid. Now, back to my question which is do you have a point? If so, waht is it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 22:52:45 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Huh?
Message:
G wrote:
Do you or do you not think the following is illogical?

You made a typo. Therefore you have no intelligence.

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Jim responded:
Of course it's not. Don't be stupid. Now, back to my question which is do you have a point? If so, waht is it?

G:
Hold on, you are saying that you think it's not illogical, i.e. that it is logical? That can't be what you mean.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:02:20 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: No, you're right.
Message:
Take out the 'not'. But so what?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 23:32:18 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So...
Message:
It is logical to say that if one can demonstrate a non-ideal design in a living creature, that shows that there is no intelligence involved in all of evolution and indeed in all of our universe, that there is no intelligent design in the universe, and in fact there is no Intelligent Creator or even a Creator at all?

I would so no, it is not logical.

Would it be strong evidence that there is a creature that was not perfectly designed due to historical/evolutionary constraints? Yes. That doesn't mean that I believe that the inverted retina is a non-ideal design, I think it is properly designed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 22:24:16 (GMT)
From: Whow!
Email: None
To: G
Subject: You hit the nail dead on the mark G!
Message:
Great shot!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 16:52:45 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sarcasm and ignorance pack a wobbly punch
Message:
Jim,
Why, that's one of the nicest things you've ever said to me.

'Sorry' - that is.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:05:23 (GMT)
From: keith
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: prescientific garbage!
Message:
Dear Jerry, I appeciate your reasoned objections to my earlier post. I agree with a lot of what you say and find no major inconsistency with my own views. But I also don't interpret the wisdoms of the Upanashads as being inconsistent with much of the current scientific view. For instance, I do not believe that anything upanashadic suggests that the brain in not required as a medium in order to interpret human experience. Language becomes a little tricky here. It is obvious to me at least that language is always symbolic to one degree or another. Language is an arbitary method of making sense of phenomona. It attempts to create simple mutual understandings out of often very complex multi-faceted and multi-dimensional phenomona. This compartmental way of dealing with phenomona is neccessary for the more mundane and everyday details of life. But when applied to complex experiential dimensions such over-simplistic approaches fail miserably. The Wholistic approach to human experience attempts to integrate many facets. Brain and consciousness , for instance. A purely materialistic approach would deny consciousness any other significance other than as a by-product of the brain itself. Or more or less on those lines. The Upanashads gave various (often highly symbolic) expression to the fact that consciousness has an altogether freer and greater dimension or aspect of consciousness. And that is partly what is meant by the term spiritual (at least in its more pure and original meaning).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:13:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: keith
Subject: Translation?
Message:
Sorry, Kieth, you're obviously trying on your Poindexter suit and I don't want to spoil things for you but, could you tell me please, what the fuck do you think you're possibly trying to say?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:04:02 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My God,you ARE taking poetry classes! nt
Message:
om
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:16:16 (GMT)
From: Larkin
Email: larkin@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Keith
Subject: This, probably... (from the Upunishags)
Message:
(Book 3, Canto 12)

A notable habit of Krishna's
Was shagging his lady parishioners
Each sordid seduction
A blessed induction
To make them more holy practitioners...

(Book 7, Canto 17a)

There once was a Godhead named Brahma
To test out the theory of Karma
Incarnated below
In the form of a crow
And got shot in the balls by a farmer...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:53:39 (GMT)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Larkin
Subject: moral examples
Message:
Thanks so much Larkin. You are the great white moral crusader that can reveal(and with such wit) the obvious shortcomings of the randy exploits of the spiritually deranged. Now I know. I see the light. All this spiritual hokus pocus is a cover up for a good shag.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 03:47:07 (GMT)
From: just looking
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Baby, RUN!!...can't do it, eh? nt
Message:
by
Return to Index -:- Top of Index