Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 12:48:05 (GMT)
From: Aug 13, 2000 To: Aug 22, 2000 Page: 3 Of: 5


SB -:- Did anybody who knows my first name told Elaine -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:17:58 (GMT)
__ Sylvia B -:- Sylvia, maybe Maharaji told Elaine! Oh, Sylvia, -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:46:18 (GMT)
__ __ Nick Danger, Third Eye -:- You're A Nasty Piece of Work, Aren't You, Sylvia? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:04:54 (GMT)
__ Nick Danger, Third Eye -:- Your Name -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:20:39 (GMT)
__ Selene the B -:- It wsn't me -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:41:02 (GMT)
__ __ SB -:- It wsn't me -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:53:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- good to see you laughing SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:04:02 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- To SB -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:54:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ SB -:- FUK YU elaine, little person -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 05:19:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Oliver -:- FUK YU elaine, little person -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:13:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- FUK YU elaine, little person -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 14:23:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- SB, you're tops in my book ! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:38:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- bastards -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:33:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- bastards, and let's not forget - bitches too ::)) -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:15:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Try to remember that when M sees you are angry,... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:40:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Oliver, if I may interject... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:56:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Lighten up! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:15:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Lighten up! -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 06:51:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Lighten up! -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 14:22:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- Lighten up! -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:15:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- You're full of shit, Stonerd !! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:20:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- PS: Joey, whoever you are.... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:54:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- PS: Elaine, whoever YOU are.... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:31:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- PS: Elaine, whoever YOU are.... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 15:15:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Poor little innocent Elaine, always the victim... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:05:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- I'm not the victim -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 23:48:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- I'm not the victim -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:23:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but ... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:44:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but ... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:39:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but ... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:26:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Joey -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:18:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Oliver -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:55:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- to Joey -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:28:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Now Katie, look what you've done.... :) -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:53:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Princess Leia -:- Hey Joey! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:05:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- You and Stonor lap dancing? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:51:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Let's stop this rumor right here! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 12:46:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Let's stop this rumor right here! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 14:48:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Whatever you say, Joey! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:06:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Hey, big deal .... :::))) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:35:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Hey Katie! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:07:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Hey Joey guess what....... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:24:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Hey Hal, guess what....... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:58:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Remember I became upset Joey -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:12:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Now that you remind me Hal... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:34:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- But Oliver ... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:20:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- But Oliver ... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:45:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hi Oliver ... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 15:58:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- No Stonerd, you haven't been told like THIS -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:17:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Forum Admin, who is Joey?...... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:03:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ X -:- who is Joey?...... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:09:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- this coming from X -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 07:04:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ X -:- this -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 04:09:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- this up your ass ! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:01:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Forum Admin, who is Oliver?...... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:22:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- PS -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:56:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Hi SB -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:01:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Hi SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:47:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Hi SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:31:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Bert BrYant -:- FUcK YUo Elaine, little big Girl!! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:17:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- I'm not so sure Oliver -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:17:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- SB please explain -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:11:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ sb -:- explains -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 07:09:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I understand--thanks (nt) -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 14:06:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- You all are so funny... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 15:25:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- You all are so funny... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:01:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- SB - what on Earth are you talking about? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:33:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine's mother -:- This is good -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:09:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- This is perfectionistic hooey -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:45:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ IT -:- was a joke. (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 22:05:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- It IS hard to view that as a mistake Elaine -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:15:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- WAS it a mistake Elaine ? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 06:48:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- WAS it a mistake Elaine ? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:46:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- a mistake is whatever ... -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 23:28:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- a mistake is whatever ... -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:47:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Why ,how astute,John -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 00:31:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Excuses -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:48:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- WAS it a mistake Elaine ? NO -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:42:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- It IS hard to view that as a mistake Elaine -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:02:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- It IS hard to view that as a mistake Elaine -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:57:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Agree with Selene -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:21:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Agree with Selene -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:17:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Agree with Selene -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:58:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Katie -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:11:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- what you are calling a BIG SECRET -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:30:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Well,like I said -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:58:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- Shut up, victim of denial -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 21:15:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Gerry -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:48:13 (GMT)

Cassandra -:- Reporting from the not-too-distant future -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:08:33 (GMT)
__ Selene the BiTcH -:- that is a good one (nt) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:18:08 (GMT)

Coach -:- Burnt Offerings(ot) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:26:18 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- another example of the software glitch -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:34:50 (GMT)
__ __ Coach -:- Pigeon on it's way -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 18:22:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Swifty -:- Phew!!! (ot) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 18:32:56 (GMT)

buzz -:- swarupananda ji -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:54:05 (GMT)
__ sam -:- buzz -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:51:12 (GMT)

Jim -:- Is she saying she reads the New York Times? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:42:44 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- No, I think it's a technical problem -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:58:50 (GMT)
__ Ben Lurking -:- Is she saying she reads the New York Times? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 23:30:02 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- No, but... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:30:18 (GMT)
__ __ AJW -:- Wedding Night (ot) -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 13:07:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ bud dolan -:- Took me woman late last night... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:51:09 (GMT)

Jim -:- They should put warning labels on the video's -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:37:23 (GMT)

Jim -:- O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:26:51 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- For God's sake read some evolution, O... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:02:18 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- Jim, I am sorry - Way OT -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:03:13 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- All I can say is ... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:19:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, forgot the address -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:23:13 (GMT)
__ __ gErRy -:- Jim ain't got no wifey, babe. -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:19:07 (GMT)
__ O -:- O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:50:18 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Okay, let's go through the looking glass with O -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:28:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ O -:- Same old tired set of expletives -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:03:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Whatever. That sure isn't you, that's for sure -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:37:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ O -:- Cop out -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:06:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I AM above that -- and I'm above you too -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:56:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ O -:- Dellusional thinking Jim -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:06:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- That O's still stinkin' thinking, Jim -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:22:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So only a fellow cult member can judge you? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:38:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ O -:- No only I can judge me but that's another topic -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:33:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- O is weighed and found wanting -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:57:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- I AM above that -- and I'm above you too -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:41:11 (GMT)
__ TDo -:- A post reposted from below (to Joe) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:50:53 (GMT)
__ __ Forum Admin -:- to 'TDo' -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 20:09:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ TD -:- Thanks FA. I thought I was seeing 2 TDs 2! (nt) -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:07:13 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Get the fuck out of my thread, moron! (nt) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:03:28 (GMT)
__ Elaine -:- O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:48:39 (GMT)
__ __ Katie -:- to Elaine - your friend, and questions -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 13:15:12 (GMT)
__ __ la-ex -:- O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below) -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 00:54:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Elaine -:- la-ex, name -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:56:25 (GMT)
__ __ O -:- O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:55:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Elaine -:- To O -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:44:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Getting High on something false..... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:40:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ O -:- To Elaine -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:18:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- To O -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:12:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- To G -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:18:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- To SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:40:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- To G -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:05:09 (GMT)
__ __ Elaine -:- Thanks from inactive ....for Stonor -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:11:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Thank YOU Elaine! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:28:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gErRy -:- You SHOULD be nervous... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:44:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Everyone: Am I picking on Stonor for this? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:37:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- Everyone: Am I picking on Stonor for this? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:55:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Everyone: Am I picking on Stonor for this? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 13:05:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I would say so -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:52:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I would say so -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:11:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I would say so -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:39:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Gurdjeiff, Nietsche, and Goethe -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:05:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Nietsche -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:34:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I'm wrong about the Waldorf school stuff -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:15:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Steiner -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:40:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I would say so -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:04:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- I would say less of what I clearly know little -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:30:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Gurdjieff--Skeptics Dictionary -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:21:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Do YOU believe everything you read? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:06:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- There is a Gurdjieff Cult -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:58:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Thanks Joe, but I've already posted about it here -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:12:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Do YOU believe everything you read? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:04:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Back to work, eh Shroom? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:40:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Still preaching, Preacher? I could care less -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:22:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Still preaching, Preacher? I could care less -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 12:39:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I thought it was a 'calling', Preacher. What -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:38:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- I thought it was a 'calling', Preacher. What -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:43:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- You're the one who's keeping this dialogue alive. -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:43:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Don't believe in Shroom' -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:51:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Having knowledge is NOT a prerequisite... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:53:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You are singularly repugnant -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:31:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You are singularly repugnant -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:54:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I wonder if you would say the same thing if Stonor -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:45:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- Do YOU believe everything you read? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:23:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Do YOU believe everything you read? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:48:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Do YOU believe everything you read? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:51:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- No, Gerry- never said I was a former aspirant.(nt) -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:48:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I would say so -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:22:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- Why is that the burning question? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:42:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- what does this actually mean? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:18:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- to cq and gerry -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 00:05:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- you'll love these, Stonor -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:47:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- These quotes and some comments -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:52:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hi cq! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:59:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Hi 2U2! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 20:01:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hi #2 2U2! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:03:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- to cq and gerry -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:17:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- whos said this nonsense.... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:35:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Excuse me, it's my niece's 5th birthday today. -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:51:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Now I'm totally confused -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:12:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hi gErRy, was wondering where you've been ... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:49:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Oh, for God's sake Stonor... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:17:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:46:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:51:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:54:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:00:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Elaine, you are lying. -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:26:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- I too, Elaine, fart in your general direction -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 20:08:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Grow up, dude... -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:22:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- critical vs critical -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:29:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I admit I have a ways to go -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:11:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- ways to go -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 05:59:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- A BIG fart is flying through the internet directly -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:27:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Why Gerry, why so upset -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:50:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Look who is talking about sensitivity. ROFL (nt) -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:16:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Lick my balls, Elaine -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:12:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- gErRy, Catcher in the Rye, whoever you are -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:21:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- gErRy you're lyng. -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:40:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Yes I am lyng. -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:53:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- So... ya caught the pun -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:11:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gErRy -:- Hiding, after your last thrashing of me... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:57:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Stonor -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:51:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Stonor,allitle more -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:02:12 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- To be fair to you ...... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:10:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ Elaine -:- To be fair to you ...... -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:16:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Easy now! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:19:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Easy now! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:48:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here's what you actually said -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:10:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ P-man -:- Here's what you actually said -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 14:45:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- My big meditation experience...for what it's worth -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:10:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- I saw Marilyn Munroe once...for what it's worth/nt -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 12:39:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hal -:- I'd rather see her than you know who ! nt -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:03:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Big head meditation- what is it worth? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:11:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Nice post Hal ;) (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:04:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonora -:- Big head meditation- what is it worth? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:03:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Big head meditation- what is it worth? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:33:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonora -:- Big head meditation- what is it worth? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 13:17:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- You're quoting a Ramakrishna story? I have to -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:40:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- You're quoting Christopher Isherwood? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:15:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- A vision of someone you'd been thinking about? -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 20:31:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- A vision of someone you'd been thinking about? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:27:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Are your dreams of your own creation? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:55:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Big Fucking Deal Elaine -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:34:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- My big meditation experience...for what it's worth -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:24:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- This is the post you meant...... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:37:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Well, I never brought up -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:58:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- LOL Elaine!!! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:15:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Easy now! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:27:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Easy now! -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:59:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Even if he was god, no respect deserved -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 18:20:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Even if he was god, no respect deserved -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 23:50:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jethro -:- Easy now! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:10:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Thanks, Jethro -:- Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:03:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ John Lilly -:- Chillin' nicely -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:10:01 (GMT)


Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:17:58 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Did anybody who knows my first name told Elaine
Message:
Elaine just called me in a message to me by my first name.

I wrote FA asking to delete the message.

She is a total dirty bitch.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:46:18 (GMT)
From: Sylvia B
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Sylvia, maybe Maharaji told Elaine! Oh, Sylvia,
Message:
how could he do it to you? Again? Or maybe you did it to yourself. Again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:04:54 (GMT)
From: Nick Danger, Third Eye
Email: None
To: Sylvia B
Subject: You're A Nasty Piece of Work, Aren't You, Sylvia?
Message:
Guess you've left THAT experience.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:20:39 (GMT)
From: Nick Danger, Third Eye
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Your Name
Message:
SB:

I think the guy from the Spanish forum who was bugging you (can't remember his name) let it slip what your name was. I remember him doing it, and I think you said something to him about it. That's probably how it got out.

ND, 3rd Eye

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:41:02 (GMT)
From: Selene the B
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: It wsn't me
Message:
I am always feeling defensive on here lately even since I acquired my new name. Anyway, I wasn't the one.
Don't even have her email. Don't wan t it.

No offense Elaine, I don't hate you but I have made a decision to only talk to people in private email who I know from now on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:53:00 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Selene the B
Subject: It wsn't me
Message:
No problem Selene. I have joined your 'club'. Elaine became a 'member' by default. hahahaha....

S.Bitch ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:04:02 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: good to see you laughing SB
Message:
No that someone can see someone laughing here but you sound good.

So what is our club name? no I guess I already know that, never mind :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:54:33 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: To SB
Message:
SB,
Sorry, you were so upset,you signed your name in a post to Katie a long time ago.

If I had the time I could even find it for you - bec it's in the archives somewhere now.

(If you hadn't made such a big deal as usual it would have gone unnoticed. I'll return the 'dah' you gave me before.)

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 05:19:13 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: FUK YU elaine, little person
Message:
fly
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:13:14 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: FUK YU elaine, little person
Message:
Hi SB,

Premies who lurk here for any period of time are only here too stir up trouble. This time one of them has done it big time, in the nicest possible way of course. That is how they operate.

Right now the premie lurkers are grinning at their screens and waving their arms in the air at the signs of another screaming match on F5. IMHO, the only way to deal with these operatives is to ignore them. That way they lose.

Try to remember, if you are angry, M is happy.

Love, Oliver.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 14:23:40 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: FUK YU elaine, little person
Message:
Is true in a way, but I like Hamsen repply to your post. There is nothing wrong with expessing anger. People that do often get sick in many ways. I stopped caring about what others are going to think about me if I'm myself. I'm myself and my circumstances. I don't always live like I want but how I can. I stopped being scared about expressing myself long, long a go: I express my anger/feelings not just because I became an ex-premie, o however you want to call me, ex-cult member, whatever, but because is part of my personality. Life is too short to consider pleasing others before yourself.

Elaine is a total bitch who loves to throw 'stones' to later appologize with silly words implying she wasn't aware she was causing it, when in reality, she is a bad, bad, sad confused person in disguise. I don't care much what she writes, but I do would like to find out how the bitch got to know my name. I don't care much about my name being know at this time, I really don't. I would prefer that is deleted. I asked the FA and havent herd from she/he yet. That would be fair.

I agree, premies are very low. Premies have no morals when it comes to protecting their Lard. This is just one more oportunity to celebrate being off the cult. I never belong there anyway. Bunch of weirdos!

Thanks for your advice.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:38:50 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: SB, you're tops in my book !
Message:
SB,

I just wasnted to let you know that the genuineness and passion that you bring to these pages is very much apprecaited.

And as Oliver said, 'don't let the assholes get you down !' ( or however he put it...that part of his post I agreed with :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:33:55 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: bastards
Message:
Thanks Jerry.

The bastards do not get me down. I was curious to know who made the 'mistake' of informing elaine of my name. I don't give a plum, really. Bastards are bastards, don't matter how they chose to disguise their true nature. I spotted Elaine from the begining and time once more proved my instincts to be working just fine.

;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:15:55 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: bastards, and let's not forget - bitches too ::))
Message:
Thanks Jerry.

You're more than welcome SB.
Only one problem. I'm NOT Jerry. I'M JOEY !! ::))

Bastards are bastards, don't matter how they chose to disguise their true nature. I spotted Elaine from the begining and time once more proved my instincts to be working just fine.

Those are my sentiments as well, SB. Exactly.
Whats important IMO, is the part that I emphasized. The cult did everything to repress those gut instincts, instincts that were telling us all along that m was full of shit. As it succeeded, with our cooperation of course, much of our real identity was overturned and replaced with a cultic, premie identity

I think that's why its so important for both of us (and really all recent exes ) to be able to trust those gut feelings or 'instincts' as you called them. In so doing we're able to reclaim that real part of ourselves that was lost in the cult, and it's really hard to explain to premies who still have that cult funk still spinning in their heads, how GOOD that feels.

Perhaps we have to deal with alot of emotions that were suppressed by our cultic involvement, but the genuineness and realness of it all today, is just so much better than the fakery and deception of yesterday. At least that's how I see it.

Love to you SB

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:40:56 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Try to remember that when M sees you are angry,...
Message:
.....he is happy.

Maybe that should have been my last paragraph.

I certainly didn't mean to say that we shouldn't get angry at scurrilous attacks from either ex's or premie lurkers. When I first found this place I had a lot of anger too and it came out in my posts. However, it did me no good at all, and now I prefer to find somewhere else to deal with that anger, like kicking the cat. Unfortunately we had to get rid of the cat because she started kicking back.

You seem to have a good grasp on Elaine and the tactics s/he uses. So just don't let the bastards get you down. For after all, how many people could be writing the posts attributed to *Elaine?* Have you noticed how her syntax has changed since s/he posted as *a Premie?*

Bye for now, Oliver;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:56:57 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: Oliver, if I may interject...
Message:
Oliver,

How do you know that m is happy when he sees SB angry? Do you have videotape of him reading her posts ?? Seriously, for all we know these cultiic little dweebs may be totally spooked by SB's anger.

When I first found this place I had a lot of anger too and it came out in my posts. However, it did me no good at all...

Ok. I'll take your word for it. But how do you know that your experience applies to SB ?

You seem to have a good grasp on Elaine and the tactics s/he uses. So just don't let the bastards get you down. For after all, how many people could be writing the posts attributed to *Elaine?* Have you noticed how her syntax has changed since s/he posted as *a Premie?*

YES! YES! YES! Now, IMO, you're on the right track!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:15:15 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Lighten up!
Message:
Hi SB,

How's your garden growing? I hope your weather has been better than ours! Yesterday it was 80, today it's 57!! And the rain!!!

I know we don't agree on this, but I do wish that you would stop with this senseless release of anger upon your pet premie target: Elaine.

You might remember that I too felt upset and hurt by her at one point, but believe it or not, we've straightened that out. You can't get to know anyone when you've already decided what they 'absolutely' are.

It has always seemed to me that part of the attraction to cults is the supportive community they provide. It must be particularly difficult for some premies that come here because they do have doubts and are becoming disillusioned, to read over-generalized attacks on all premies over and over again at FV. I believe that perhaps somewhat mis-directed anger can be extremely destructive at both ends sometimes. Among other things, I think it often makes the exes look bad, and I have posted about this in the past.

Apart from the emotional aspect of her post to you (and I think she showed pretty good restraint under the circumstances), this part describes another extremely 'exes'-defeating aspect of anger quite well, and this is definitely NOT the first time I've heard this in one form or another.

Well, you know something, (SB), don't ever for even a second think that if I may 'come around' in ex-premie terms it ever had even one thing to do with anything you ever said.

You are more of a deterent in my change of thinking than anyone here.

Please just lighten up a bit SB. She is not the 'enemy' - the m-machine is.

Love to you,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 06:51:20 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Lighten up!
Message:
Hi Stonorr,

I honestly don't care what elaine thinks about me or how what I write affects her or not. The conflict got created because she didn't like what I wrote. A couple of bad words were more important than coming to an understanding. I guess it was too blunt for her taste so she 'crossed' me out. She wasn't interested in answering my provocative questions and she began to act silly and played mind games with words and twisted them to fit the ocassion to later say that 'she didn't mean this or that'. You don't see that? If Elaine is going to come and write in our forum shit like what she has wrote, then she have to be ready to encounter different reactions, mine? Well, you know it. She has made an effort to magnify the problem, writting all over how mean I'm, even correcting my mispellings. How much of an idiot can she be? I have explained many times before that inglish is my second language and she corrects ONE wrong word I wrote. Childish? Stupid? I can't stand her. Should I appologize for speaking up my feelings? I know that her mind is set with respect to me so I play her game calling her name aloud, but to say that I target her, you're wrong. If what she writes touches home and sounds deceptive I can write, I can react, can I? And face it, the woman loves the attention because if not, how is it that she posts the most stupid subjects? To attract attention, to create problems.

About premies visitors. When I began to read the forum I didn't like everybody's post but as Joey said bellow, if premies with doubts come here they will find a way to sort all out and benefit from reading. As with all, you take the good and put the bad aside. Some people in this forum have not being very understanding or nice with me and that doesn't stop me from coming back.

m is the enemy but Elaine has to be responsible for the words she choses to post here for us to read. Respect can be shown in many ways and often she has none. I can hear her laugh...

The feeling of expressing anger is bad because it creates a bad feeling on the person expressing it and the one receiving it, but also, to deny what you feel can be very unhealthy. In my case, Elaine was not interested in anything but in putting me down and make look like a mean person and I got tired of writting and reasoning with her and I got shit back, also I got very angry because she would name me in posts, she would use me as an example of mean ex-premies. She is an ass and I do not respect her. I hope this clarifies what anger is to me and why I think bad of Elaine.

And yes, solidarity begins at home. As Joey said, we come here because is beneficial to us, personally, if then we can help somebody, good, but I come first for me, to heal my mind reading the truth about m and about being an ex-premie.

Love to u 2

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 14:22:11 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Lighten up!
Message:
Hi SB,

Thanks for taking the time to explain what's going on with you re: Elaine. I understand your position, and I have mentioned to her that she didn't seem to have understood how much r was upsetting us and others. I know how terrible that time was for me, and realized that, if anything, it was worse for you. This place can be very confusing when someone first arrives. I know that I was quite clear about the how and why I came here as a non-anything. And yes, I got attacked a lot too, and it took a lot of time, and reading to get any idea of what was going on here. I became truly terrified almost every time I posted, and I am still shocked at times by the way some people respond, especially when they haven't read all the posts in a given thread ;-) I can only imagine how much worse it can be for premies at times, especially because they are at an in between stage (no, I'm not talking about the kind of lurkers Oliver referred to like Shroom, Mirror, Mili ...).

Back to that ugly rain of terror ... I think a lot of people were getting upset and confused around that time, and it does seem that Elaine hadn't read, or realized, as much as I had thought. It's very hard to clear these things up, though, especially when we have been hurt and are feeling defensive. I know it was really difficult for me to bring up the topic with Elaine again, and I'm sure it wasn't at all easy for her to talk about it with me (!), but we both managed somehow, though I'm quite sure we couldn't have in the atmosphere at FV.

Despite everything, Elaine has also continued to come back, posting her questions, as I did, hoping to get some helpful answers. Her questions seem to push even more peoples buttons than mine, and I have to respect her courage in trying to work through her issues around m.

I know this is a trite comparison, but I can't help think of the similarities between this and the 'bad' boyfriend that we keep trying to believe can't be as bad as others say; we rationalize his behaviour and give him another chance. Have any of your friends ever 'given up' on you at times like that? Mine have sometimes, at least temporarily. When I'm backed into a corner and hurting, I get defensive too, don't you? So if my analogy has been at all clear, know that I hope your 'giving up' on Elaine is only temporary, and that one day, even if you never become friends, you at least become no longer 'enemies'.

And I know if you think about it a little more, that I don't always take the good and put the bad aside. That WAS me at AG last night, and I certainly wasn't putting the bad aside in that thread!!! ;-) Thank 'whatever-it-is' for that funny thing that happened when I posted that reply to Selene and it went up as coming from Jim - I really needed a laugh because I was getting quite angry and upset with him, as is too often the case. I STILL can't figure out how it happened, but I least I went to sleep with a smile on my face! :-)

This post is getting long, and I've been spending far too much time posting lately. It's sunny outside so I'm going to go and see how my garden is doing!

It's been good talking with you, SB.

Big hugs,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:15:30 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Lighten up!
Message:
Just to let you know I read you post. I did read each and every of her posts and my dislike I well founded. Maybe I look like a moron 'hating' her attitud but this where I am today. I'm sure it will pass like all.

Thanks for caring and for trying to clarify all. I know for sure Elaine said my name intentionally and in badness; don't let her make you believe the opposite.

You asked for my garden. Is doing okay, but the exessive rains we got around here has ruined the roots of three of my favorite perennials. Tomorrow I'm transfering them to other area to see if they get better. Thanks for asking. Enjoy your garden!

Hugs,

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:20:39 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: You're full of shit, Stonerd !!
Message:
It has always seemed to me that part of the attraction to cults is the supportive community they provide. It must be particularly difficult for some premies that come here because they do have doubts and are becoming disillusioned, to read over-generalized attacks on all premies over and over again at FV.

Thesre was nothing 'generalized' about SB's attack. It was very specifically directed against Elaine, and if she used Elaine as an example of the demented, deceptive mentality of so many of the die-hard premies who come here- more power to her.

I believe that perhaps somewhat mis-directed anger can be extremely destructive at both ends sometimes.

Again, there was nothing mis-directed about SB's anger. This just your judgement of the situation and YOU'RE fundamentally misguided.

Among other things, I think it often makes the exes look bad, and I have posted about this in the past.

Ya, I've read your posts in the past and I've found them nauseating.
Look Stonerd, I don't give a flying fuck how exes look in your eyes.
We're here to be ourselves and to speak the truth - both of which were denied to us in the cult. And if premies don't like it, they can take their smart cards and shove em up their sleazy- slimy yin yangs and rot in the cult for the rest of their natural lifetimes. I really don't care !
Those who are truly beginning to question their cultic involvement will find the genuineness on these pages quite refreshing, and we really don't have to take lessons in 'phoniness' from you.

And if YOU don't like it, you can get the fuck outta here. And the sooner the better for all I care.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:54:33 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: PS: Joey, whoever you are....
Message:
Joey,
Maybe you've been somewhere else. But, anyone can tell you I am very far away from being a die-hard premie.
Just FYI.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:31:37 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: PS: Elaine, whoever YOU are....
Message:
Of course Elaine, after the little stunt you've pulled on SB, why shouldn't I accept anything you say at face value??

Ya right. Elaine...fuck off and die!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 15:15:31 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: PS: Elaine, whoever YOU are....
Message:
Joey,
Excuse me? What stunt.

You can't mean - me addressing SB in a post that was soon going inactive by her name that she herself signed to Katie awhile back?

I guess that would make it a stunt to address Jim or Joe by their names.

So since I don't think that is it -what stunt?

I don't know you - sorry - don't know why you're so antagonistic.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:05:15 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Poor little innocent Elaine, always the victim...
Message:

NOT !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 23:48:14 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I'm not the victim
Message:
Joey's a victim of misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions.
SB's the victim of her own mistake.

As usual - you take a left field, strange spin on things.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:23:57 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: I'm not the victim
Message:
Fuku again, dirty person. Her own mistake what, bitchy ass ? What are YOU implying? Why is my mistake? You know what you did and I know it too, and to deny it now that you did it in purposse, stupid bitch, is silly. Why say now that it's was fault? I hate your dirty ways darling ass, I really do: You are SO dishonest! Very weird.

I hope you get your way out.

'I enjoy posting with you.' How moronic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:44:44 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but ...
Message:
Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but why don't you let SB tell me that herself?
BTW, did you catch Mango Eater's post about how to prepare mangoes so that you DON'T get fibres struck between your teeth? And I DID sign Stonor to it. C'mon Joey, that one wasn't ALL full of shit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:39:26 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but ...
Message:
Hi Stonor,

Premies who lurk here for any period of time are only here to stir up trouble. This time one of them is doing it too you, in a most abusive way. That is just one of the ways they operate.

Right now the premie lurkers are grinning at their screens and waving their arms in the air at the signs of more disruption on F5. IMHO, the only way to deal with these operatives is to ignore them. That way they lose.

Try to remember, if you do ignore these arseholes, you won't smell their stench.

Cheers, Oliver.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:26:52 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but ...
Message:
Premies who lurk here for any period of time are only here to stir up trouble. This time one of them is doing it too you, in a most abusive way.

Oliver,

If you really believe that...that is, that I'm a premie-it speaks volumes about yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:18:36 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Joey
Message:
Hi Joey,
I'm afraid that in my paranoid addled brain, I put you under suspicion of being just a shit stirring premie because of your aggressive posts. Subsequent enquiries have disclosed that you are in fact an ex-premie, and I apologise for the slur on your alias.
Could you explain to me why it is necessary to be so abusive in your posts? That is what started my alarm bells ringing.
Thank you for your polite reply to me.
Oliver:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:55:03 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: Oliver
Message:
First off, I doubt your brain is as 'paranoid and addled,' as you've just suggested. I've read some of your posts and I've never come across anything that would give that impression.

I really believe that this forum is a place for exes to be themselves and to be able to speak the truth, first and foremost.
Like yourself, I see many instances when premies come along and take almost sadistic pleasure in their picky-uny little headfucking games.

IMO, such was the case with Elaine's little stunt with SB.
When something like that happens, we have a right to be angry and to express that anger. Now you may feel differently about it, but IMO, NOT expressing that anger and repressing it is actually unhealthy.

So when it happens that someone like SB has a legitimate cause for anger, wants to expess it, but is told that that is actually inappropriate... then I see the original headfuck in the situation being compounded. THAT, IMO, is abusive.

IMO, for SB to be told, that by raising the issue she was aggravating the problem, smacked of the cult's blame the victim mentality. THAT IMO, is also abusive.

For someone who's just been the target of some premie's stupid little headgame,to be told that she should hold back her anger in an effort to make this place more likeable for premies as Stonor suggested, was contemptible. I don't care what our Q rating is for premies. We're not here to sell them toothpaste or automobiles. As I said, I see the forum as a place where exes can be ourselves and speak the truth.

And I believe that we really don't need to be told how to be ourselves. I feel that Stonor has been full of plenty judgemental, suffocating comments in an effort to stifle the expression of exes on this forum and the way we interact with each other. I really don't appreciate it.

I'm sorry that you only saw the abusiveness in my response and not in the circumstances to which I was responding to.
And while it may be true that two wrongs don't make a right and that I have some lessons to learn of my own, I hope this post will at least somewhat explain the higly aggressive nature of my intervention here last evening.

Take care Oliver,

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:28:31 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: to Joey
Message:
Hi Joey -
I LIKE Stonor. I value her friendship and we have exchanged a lot of good (albeit off-topic - we are both very into gardening) e-mails. I value her opinions regarding the forum, too - aren't we always asking for someone who has NOT received knowledge and never been a devotee of M to comment here? I appreciate it that she has taken the time to do that.

While you may not agree with some things she says, I think her comments are interesting, and she generally always provokes a good discussion. I don't agree with everything she says either, but I consider her a friend - someone who I can agree to disagree with when we have opposing opinions. And she has admitted that she has been wrong about some of her posts about ex-premies - I respect her very much for that.

I wish you and Stonor could just go out for coffee some time! Maybe at that place where the croissants are so good?

Love to you -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:53:04 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: nimjf@netc.net
To: Katie
Subject: Now Katie, look what you've done.... :)
Message:
If only for YOU, Katie, because I really like YOU, I'm beginning to feel bad about my harshness with Stonor last nite. Sheesh!

None the less, and not to belabor the point, but I'll still stand by what I had to say in my above post to Oliver.

Now what's this?

I wish you and Stonor could just go out for coffee some time! Maybe at that place where the croissants are so good?

D'you mean tell me I have a forum neighbor in Montreal ??

(I recently changed my email. The new one is above.)

Love ya Princess Leah,

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:05:32 (GMT)
From: Princess Leia
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Hey Joey!
Message:
Hey Joey -
Yes, you do have a forum neighbor in Montreal - see her post below (I cannot remember exactly where it is, but it is in this thread). At this point, I do not know if she would want to go out for croissants and coffee with you, so you better make nice, kidelah :).

Stonor is DEFINITELY OK with me - if that means anything to you. (Just don't take her - or me - to a lapdancing bar!) You're OK with me, too.

I just wish everyone I like could get along!

Love from Princess L.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:51:31 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Princess Leia
Subject: You and Stonor lap dancing?
Message:
Were you so drunk you both went for it?

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 12:46:56 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: Let's stop this rumor right here!
Message:
No, Stonor and I have never lap-danced, or been lap-dancees!

I was just teasing Joey (and by the way, the rumor that Joey supplements his income by working as a lap dancer in women-only bars is completely untrue!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 14:48:23 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Let's stop this rumor right here!
Message:
I was just teasing Joey (and by the way, the rumor that Joey supplements his income by working as a lap dancer in women-only bars is completely untrue!)

Katie, will you stop that?!?

I'm very proud of my part time job !! :::)))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:06:30 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Whatever you say, Joey!
Message:
But honest to god, there are people here who will believe it! And it will probably be part of the next Elan Vital FAQ :).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:35:23 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hey, big deal .... :::)))
Message:
And it will probably be part of the next Elan Vital FAQ :).

Dontcha think that would be an improvement over what they've got now ? :::))

You know Katie, you just may have something there. There's actually a Talmudic saying:

'today's joke may be tomorrow's sorrow.'

Let's hope the joke's on them and not us.

Have a nice weekend !!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:07:29 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Princess Leia
Subject: Hey Katie!
Message:
Alright, we'll see what happens. But no lap dancing? Oy vey!

Too bad we just can't hop on over to your place for milk and cookies (joking, joking, joking! :)

PS: you'd think I'd know how to spell 'Leia' by now, especially since I dubbed you with that name :)

Love to you Princess L,

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:24:38 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Hey Joey guess what.......
Message:
I agree with and relate to all that you said there. The times they are a changin'. Thanks ,well said,

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:58:02 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Hey Hal, guess what.......
Message:
The times they are a changin for both of us Hal, and I think that's just kewl:)
Thanks for your support
and all the best to you,

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:12:05 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Remember I became upset Joey
Message:
when you and Jim were intense with the issues and I even criticised you for being bitter and nasty. Well I've now understood a little the validity of being able to freely express all those feelings on the forum . I felt pretty angry towards premies a while back too and it was a good therapy to be able to let off some steam in public. I also rather enjoy insulting ol' fatso in public too . I'm in a mellow civilised phase at present but that could change next full moon !

All the best you premie bullshit buster,

hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:34:51 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Now that you remind me Hal...
Message:
...I'm almost ashamed for coming down so hard on you. You had a right to your anger and a right to express it, as you were really being challenged on so much of that Maharaji funk you brought with you. In retrospect, I think I should have been more understanding of what you were going through.

I'm in a mellow civilised phase at present but that could change next full moon !

Whatever! :) I really believe that this is a place where we should feel comfortable in being ourselves, even if it means making the occasional mistake. How else can we learn?
We didn't have that support in the cult, but we should have it here.

Thanks for touching base, Hal.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:20:18 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: But Oliver ...
Message:
Hi Oliver,

I do agree with you about how many of the premies seem more or less the same - Mirror, Mili, Deputy Dog, Kjarne, Shroom, ....

But if all premies are the same, why do some leave while others keep going, and going, and going, ... ? And if all premies are the same, then why have some become exes because of this site?

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:45:54 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: But Oliver ...
Message:
G'day Stonor,

I was wrong about Joey. He is an ex-premie.

As for the motives of all those premies you mentioned, and the others who come through here, who knows? The Lard works in mysterious ways.

I don't think that I said all premies are the same. Each individual premie visiting the sight may have any number of reasons for being here. But it seems as plain as the nose on my face, that there are some here for the sole purpose of making ex-premies look like idiots, and they do a very good job at that.

So far as the ones who leave are concerned, haven't you thought of them just coming back under another name? Of course not all of them would, but I have just a sneaky suspicion that this may have happened once or twice.

Premies become ex's after visiting this site because this is a place where they, for the first time, find any kind of truth about M. If you had ever been a premie could you continue on if you made a study of this site? BTW, I have often pondered at your extended stay having regard to your non-ness, hmmm. Not that your not most welcome.

Anyway, that's all I've got too say on this thread. Might go over to AG and see how the punches are flying over there.

Hooroo, Oliver.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 15:58:40 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: Hi Oliver ...
Message:
Hi Oliver,

I didn't even understand who you were referring to because I 'know' Joey, and know he's not a premie. We both live in Montreal, BTW, although we've never met. I do hope he checks out those instructions for how to prepare mangoes so he doesn't get fibre between his teeth anymore. They are one of my favourite fruits, and I had to travel to Peru before I found out that 'secret technique' ;-).

I'm glad we agree about the non-generalizability of premies, and yes, I know that my former email friend, who had pretended not to be much involved with m, has probably been the worst premie lurker here, and certainly one of the most verbally abusive and Machiavellian people I have ever known. He was 'getting it on' with raina a while back in the most horrific attack I have ever experienced at FV.

My only other previous contact with premies was 17 years ago. It's a very long story, but I will say that they did NOT make a good impression on me in ANY way. Because of both these 'incidents' as well as some with other 'cults', I have been quite curious about the m/cult-effect. I have taken many different yoga and meditation classes, and continue to do so despite the fact that my non-anythingness alienates me at times. I've also attended a few 'events' of various 'gurus', and although I've never been tempted to be 'initiated' by one of them, I've often wondered if I've just been unwilling to commit myself. This site has helped me to work these, and other questions, through. I've also been quite shocked to learn how lucky I've been that I have never joined a cult, and I've cried a lot as I've gradually learned how it has affected those who have.

So, now you know how I ended up here late last February, but as to my extended stay? Well, there are a lot of factors, and I've written about it all a few times before, but it's strange how you do get to know people, and some have become good friends at this point. And I might be a non-anything, but I've been interested in 'spiritual' questions since I was a child. I have found a few people here who share this and other interests with me, and I enjoy talking with them, as well as reading some of the 'debates' related to this topic. I have even made quite a few email friends here, and hope I can meet them one day to have a few real time conversations with them!

It's nice to have finally 'met' you, Oliver. I've appreciated reading your posts lately, as they've helped me to better understand another kind of hell that even more people have been living, whether they are a 'cult' or not.

Cheers for survivors! - may their numbers increase exponentially!!!

All the best to you Oliver,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:17:14 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: No Stonerd, you haven't been told like THIS
Message:
Yeah, yeah, so I've been told, Joey, but why don't you let SB tell me that herself?

Maybe SB hasn't figured out that you're really just a cyber head-fuck artist trying to fuck with her. In the meantime you got me to deal with.

BTW, did you catch Mango Eater's post about how to prepare mangoes so that you DON'T get fibres struck between your teeth? And I DID sign Stonor to it. C'mon Joey, that one wasn't ALL full of shit.

BTW to YOU, Stonerd...I think you know where you can shove your mangoes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:03:51 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Forum Admin, who is Joey?......
Message:
....I know Joe is a regular contributor but this poster seems too be new. Confusing alias as in the recent TD one, wouldn't you think?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:09:38 (GMT)
From: X
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: who is Joey?......
Message:
>....I know Joe is a regular contributor but this poster seems too be new. Confusing alias as in the recent TD one, wouldn't you think?

Same disgruntled bookeseller thats been ranting for a while.
He can be entertaining.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 07:04:30 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: X
Subject: this coming from X
Message:
Tell us a little about you since you seem to like to take pot shots at ex's who are outfront about their lives.

cheap shot X.
You have come on here over and over with these snide remarks hiding behid your myserious X label. So hip and all.
How easy to attack Joey. who are you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 04:09:57 (GMT)
From: X
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: this
Message:
>Tell us a little about you

I'm alright.

Yeah, innocent Joey.
Anyway, just stuff I picked off the forum.
no mystery.

Your battle isn't with me

X

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:01:21 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: X
Subject: this up your ass !
Message:
Typical little mind-fuck artist.

No more courage than being able to post under the alias 'X'.

When Selene asks you to tell us about yourself, all you can answer is 'I'm alright.' Then you come up with some cheap, snide sarcastic remark about myself and you close by telling Selene -
'Your battle isn't with me'

Ya right, we'll believe everything you say. why shouldn't we??
You've already displayed so much integrity !! :::)))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:22:33 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: Forum Admin, who is Oliver?......
Message:
Oliver,

It'll be two years this November that I've been posting on this forum. For 6 months, I posted under the pseudonyms of Nimrod then that became shortened to Nim, but it's been well over a year that I've been posting as Joey. In fact I was posting here as 'Joey' well before JW switched to Joe. I've given much personal information about myself, some might even say too much.

Sorry if you're confused, but those are the facts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:56:27 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: PS
Message:
When I read that post, I thought she had just picked any name that began with S, because you had called her 'Dizzy'. I really would never have thought about it again if you hadn't started this thread.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:01:51 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Hi SB
Message:
Hi SB -
First, I did NOT give your name to Elaine - I hope you didn't think I did. As far as I know, Elaine doesn't even have an e-mail address.

Second, Elaine said you put your real name at the end of a post to me somewhere in the archives.

I hope you are OK!
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:47:03 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Hi SB
Message:
I'm ok Katie and I didn't think that you would do something like that. Maybe I did sign my name which it doesn't spell like elaine spelled it. I don't care Katie. I have been very, very busy working long hours the last days and also I'm redecorating my place and is consuming lots of my free time, that is why I do not come here often, lately.

I have a bad actitud toward Elaine because I do not like her. Plain and simple. Who can like everybody? I don't like Charles Manson either. Respect? I don't respect everybody either. Character flaw? Call it that. That would be fine to define who I'm today; I'm full of emotions since I left the cult but I'm accepting it as part of having thrown away the fake crutch. I'll be ok. The bastards will continue to be bastards.

I love you Katie,

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:31:25 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Hi SB
Message:
Hi SB -
Glad you are OK, and that you have something enjoyable to do (at least I HOPE redecorating is enjoyable...)

You know what I think about the hassle between you and Elaine, and I am not going to write any more about it - I already said it, so why say more, right?

I understand about the emotional storm - it has happened to me too. And I understand why you write a lot of the things that you write here. It is really OK - even if I don't agree with you all the time.

Watching you and other people go through this really makes me angry at Maharaji!

Love to you - and take care of YOURSELF. (Living well is the best revenge, eh?)

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:17:54 (GMT)
From: Bert BrYant
Email: By a Bee's Dick
To: SB
Subject: FUcK YUo Elaine, little big Girl!!
Message:
You have got to be kidding. This Oliver is a non-runner. Caste.Couldn't run out of sight on a moonless night. P's simply dont care that much.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:17:05 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: I'm not so sure Oliver
Message:
(1) Reclaiming your anger, I found, was one of the most liberating experiences of my life, at long last I could scream at him, let out all those obscenities he deserves, and allow all those supposedly destructive darkside feelings to surface and see the light of day, and, what a surprize, see they are just as valid as love & light.

(2) With that anger I got a hint at the best way, for me, to feel I was needling him. I think our very existence here is the greatest irritant to him, and bearing in mind what an intelligent bunch we are (cult followers are, by definition, of above average intelligence), factual info that damages him would be bound to follow.

(3) Great to at last drop this insane programme of always trying to be 'nice', which always meant something exploded anyway, and usually way more destructively to myself & others around me than if I'd been mates with my shadow side.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:11:55 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: SB AND ALL
Subject: SB please explain
Message:
So my big offense, my 'outing' of you was saying your name was S____ (another name beginning with S which is not the same name Elaine mentioned)

Now I find out I didn't even have the name correct !!! How could I have caused you any difficulties if I didn't even have your name correct? I really don't understand.

All I can say is the people blasting me for 'outing' you, Jim, who went whining to the FA's like some tattle tale kid and the ever indignant Katie are HUGE FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!!

WATCH OUT BECAUSE I AM THE CATCHER IN THE RYE !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 07:09:22 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: explains
Message:
My name is very close to that gerry, very close. :0

Nobody is an hipocrat! My situation those days was completly diferent than what it's today; I was having problemas with my ex-husband then. I've confronted some problems that were causing me to fear some people. That was long a go, no?

The point is that if I wanted to post with my real name I would do it myself. What Elaine did carried bad intention because any little brain can understand that. I would put my whole name IF I WANTED to do it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 14:06:49 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: sb
Subject: I understand--thanks (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 15:25:06 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Anybody
Subject: You all are so funny...
Message:
SB posts (signs) her name in a post on Forum 5 (to Katie) and later I address her to make something perfectly clear ---that if I 'come around' on this Maharaji issue - I didn't want her to think for even a second she had anything to do with it - and actually has been the biggest deterent here in me sorting things out.

Now Joey calls it a 'stunt' ,
SB called it 'something' just above here - something with a bad intention or something.

All I did was call her by the name she herself posted.

It's like you all LIKE getting all upset and WANT to be all reactionary about anything!!

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:01:50 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: You all are so funny...
Message:
Because I made a mistake, idiot! That is why I signed my name, two hundred years a go. But you are stupid, right? One more time 'you were not aware' of why I don't post with my real name!! You are an ass person. Kiss Lard's ass Elaine. Thank him for having made of you an stupid evil, troblemaker person, and enjoy it.

BTW, I don't give a fuck about people knowing my name, but the point is you should have known better, but you couldn't: You found one more time the opportunity to fuck around with an ex-premie. Scram, bitch!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:33:02 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: SB - what on Earth are you talking about?
Message:
That doesn't even make any sense,SB.

I 'should have known better'...I should have been a mind reader? - You made a mistake posting your real first name?

How does someone make that 'mistake' and then jump all over someone when they use that name?
And what could be the big deal anyway?

And that is 'stupid,evil and troublemaking'? To call someone by their name that they sign with???

Can you see this distorted thinking, at all,SB?

I can't possibly be alone here? Can any one help SB see this?

Sorry for your troubles regarding Maharaji. I don't know what they are - but, I think there are some deeper ones you could be taking care of.
Print this whole theme out - each post to each other - starting from when you posted 'Brainwashed nt' and my post before it--- that's what started this whole issue. Take it to the therapist you say your seeing --get an opinion from an objective person. For your sake.
If you are truly into healing ---do that.

Regardless, of whether you like me or not ---separate the issues here,SB.

Good luck,
Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:09:30 (GMT)
From: Elaine's mother
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: This is good
Message:
'Do not be affected by externals. In themselves they are harmless; it is we who allow ourselves to be hurt by them.'

'If you are not critical by nature, it is useless for you to remain here.'

'For some people religion is useful but for others it is only a policeman. '

'Men have their minds and women their feelings more highly developed. Either alone can give nothing. Think what you feel and feel what you think. Fusion of the two produces another force.'

'Sincerity is the key to self-knowledge and to be sincere with oneself brings great suffering.'

'You should understand, and establish it as a firm rule, not to pay attention to other people’s opinions. You must be free of people surrounding you, and when you are free inside you will be free of them.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:45:47 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Elaine's mother
Subject: This is perfectionistic hooey
Message:
How can you be 'free inside' or 'free of others' opinions' unless you live in a cave? Whoever posted this, this is an absolutist platitude that is not realistic, more of that perfectionist hooey that I personally came to realize I could never attain. None of us is 100% 'free inside' of other people's opinions. We are by nature, social creatures and are always living within that dynamic context of getting and giving feedback to one another. How can one have a 'firm rule' of not listening to others' opinions and still be in any kind of human relationship? Explain this, please.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 22:05:15 (GMT)
From: IT
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: was a joke. (nt)
Message:
sorry
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:15:24 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: It IS hard to view that as a mistake Elaine
Message:
You have been here for quite some time and know that SB prefers and even has some real NEEDS for anonymity.
Just because her name slipped once doesn't mean she has not mentioned this need for anonymity since.
Even I mentioned it on here a few weeks ago in a thread with Jim over anonymity, I said SB was one of the people who has a valid reason to want to stay anonymous.
That and the simple reason that she consistantly goes by the SB handle is enough. Why would you suddenly use her name?
And then act baffled that she got angry?
I can see why she would be angry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 06:48:14 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: WAS it a mistake Elaine ?
Message:
SB's brief note to Katie reads like it is to an understanding friend. Perhaps she was, as it were, thinking only of writing to Katie (not to the dozens or hundreds of others who might also read it). In that context, her slip in revealing a personal detail is unexceptional. These things happen - nothing suprising about that.

In a low key way, I've deliberately revealed a little information about myself. In a previous discussion also sparked by a post of yours, I wrote to Kate 'We are both guests here' (about you and me both). That too was in the context of manners and etiquette on this ex-premie site. 'Quite the worst Guru I've never had' is a line in my poem 'Useless' about Rawat. And so on.

The point of all this is that it is my choice, not your right to do this - to choose the manner and the time of allowing myself to be more exposed to the wrath and scorn of the deluded and angry fools who come here. I don't need to be bothered with brain-dead clap-trap from the likes of whoever it was that was berating Stonor and implying she has nothing useful to say about m (just because she never bought into him!).

Moreover it amuses me that people simply cannot tell if a person actually has or has practiced 'this wonderful gift of knowledge'. That's because 'K' is a lie (not the experience - but the interpretation; the theories around that experience as promulgated by m and his depraved or deluded sidekicks).

If you were to choose to publicise that fact about me at a time calculated to embarrass me, it would feel like a dig. There is nothing strange or unreasonable about that.

So why did you choose this time repeatedly to publicise a detail accidently and inconspicuously revealed by sb many months before?

You are involved, Elaine. But you play the little Ms Innocent while causing offence. I think you, for whatever reason, do have digs at sb and deliberately try to get under her skin. She pushes your buttons (imho) and you like to get back at her.

You could say: 'Sorry SB, that was presumptuous of me. I do feel hostile towards you, and I guess I was trying to be clever.'

If you can't say that, even to yourself, it's probably time to chill.

Just trying to be helpful.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:46:49 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: WAS it a mistake Elaine ?
Message:
'Clever'??

Now I was trying to be 'clever'??

Did you even read the post to SB in question?

What is clever about it or saying - 'I want to make myself perfectly clear,S____,in no way ....'whatever I said...

I can't stand SB - I'm not shy about saying that - saying her name while addressing her was no big deal other than as an emphasis,John, as that was.

Some trouble she's in about her name I am not privvy to - sorry. I can say I am sorry about many things. I can say I am sorry I can't stand her - I wish my heart was bigger and more understanding so I could just forgive her all her attacks on me. (Actually, sometimes it's no big deal - I'm really working on it.)

I would be willing to 'go into counselling ' with her if this were the 'real' world.

She could bring the whole dialoque - from when it started and we could sit with a therapist - I am willing to admit alot ---but this 'clever,aggression, troublemaking' stuff - it wasn't in my intentions.

Intentions count for alot to me. I know what was in my heart/mind...and it wasn't to get her in some sort of 'trouble'.

And again, I am sorry - I will try to believe a person could -'by mistake' sign their real name in front of all the people here on a public Forum ---it's a tough one for me....but, if it was such a perilous thing to do --it makes no sense to me that that same person that is all upset ----would then start a new thread a draw everyone's attention to it. Nope,that's a hard one to convince me of. Anyone want to try? -I'm willing.

And you know,John, really - if you've read any threads SB and I are in ---I think if I wanted to truly 'get back' at her as you say ---there were plenty of opportunities. I have shown SUCH restraint not to say what most people here would. I thought anyone could see that.

Regards,
Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 23:28:05 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: a mistake is whatever ...
Message:
... they can get you for.

And you know,John, really - if you've read any threads SB and I are in --- I think if I wanted to truly 'get back' at her as you say --- there were plenty of opportunities. I have shown SUCH restraint not to say what most people here would. I thought anyone could see that.

Absolutely true; and I'd like it if Super Bee got another interest and lightened up on you.

The truth is, I'd really like that. What can I say? My biggest fear, I suppose, is that if she doesn't leave you alone (after this (sigh)), then, I'm very much afraid, that you will fall out of quasi-premiedom into far out Xianity.

SB, my love, can you imagine Elaine as a kind of clumsy Christian type? Bit groggy, but slowly coming out of it?

You do see the danger, don't you? Please?

Anyways, I've gotta chill.

Later

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:47:40 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: a mistake is whatever ...
Message:
Absolutely true; and I'd like it if Super Bee got another interest and lightened up on you.

I don't accept what you said. It seems you haven't read my posts to Elaine. I did not jump on her for no reason, but when what Elaine would say prompt me to do it. How? Elaine has used me many times, naming me as an example of meanness on the forum; I have the right to complain about it and I did. Elaine has said many stupid things that incited many questions to her which she never bother to answer, furthermore, she decided that she was never going to read my posts anymore and announced it, openly. She has commented on me many times and again, I have the right to respond her posts, especially when she is talking about me, like she did, disclosing my name that ONE time I signed a post with. How convinient was it for her to play dumb, the bitch??

Lighten up with Elaine in what way? Applauding her stupidity and bad nature? You can see Elaine as you like. Let me do the same. What I see about her is that she has for some reason a problem with me and it shows that every so often she is 'doing' something directly to me, she names me or say something horrible about me. Have you read any of those posts? Other people have.

Elaine is NOT my interest on this forum, Lard is. If Elaine doesn't mind posting what she posts, then, it must be that she doesn't care the emotions they are going to incite either.

Do chill, please.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 00:31:33 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Why ,how astute,John
Message:
You're probably right....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:48:20 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Excuses
Message:
What you explained means nothing. One more time you try to get away with your little mind games and your innocent explanations! How pathetic are you, eh?

With respect to my name, that was long a go and I like a lot Katie's opinion and explanation to you about it; I won't repeated, you read it. Many find it hard to believe you. To me, impossible. Or like I said, maybe you are just sillier than what I ever imagined. Note I said silly. (Lets get the tone down. It wont change my feelings for you.) I can smell phonies miles away and you baby? I catched you from the very first post.

Elaine, when I have some free time I'll dig for some of them; they were so 'cute'!

You don't have to say fuck or go away to insult somebody. And you? You trashed many here. It is your own fault that you get what you get. You must be responsible for what you post if you care and feel worry about people are going to comment. Quit pushing buttons. Apparently, you like it because you have done it plenty of times and still continue same tactic. Foxy. Thanks for not liking me. Now I feel even. ROFL!! :))))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:42:35 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: WAS it a mistake Elaine ? NO
Message:
Thanks John for your post and for the way you explained it. You got all points.

Love,

SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:02:23 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: It IS hard to view that as a mistake Elaine
Message:
I acted baffeled because she posted her name herself. I'm baffled why you would be baffled.I'm not a mind reader.

I don't follow many posts - as far as some great need for SB to be anonymous - I don't know anything about that.I can respect that. As I would anyone.
'Why would you suddenly use her name?'

Since I knew her name I've always mentally called her that - I used it,Selene,as I do now.

If she has some tax-man after her I am sorry - I will say again - I can respect the need for anonymity. Though I don't like SB - I wish her no harm.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:57:30 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: It IS hard to view that as a mistake Elaine
Message:
You, nice person!!

Shut the fuck up, lier!

That is what happens when you come to a forum and you disrespect the rules. It is an open forum and to be fair is a good idea to get to know what people are saying and who they are. You never gave a plum about me because according to you, you never read my posts. If you were such a caring person as you think of yourself you wouldn't have acted like you did, annoying people too many times, in a forum where you are merely a guest. You out me long a go without making one single attempt to answer my posts or to get to know who I was, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T CARE. Because you discriminated me. Because it was easier for your lazy mind to see me as a bad person, instead of having to look at your self and discover you did wrong.

You acusse me of what you are. You do have bad intentions and is funny to see you trying to hide that fact. I'm not the only one who thinks this way: Who is wrong Elaine? You had no right to write my name, none. But again, if you are stupid you could do that and more too.

'Victim of my own mistake' my ass. Victim I'm not, but sure you though you were making a number on me. Funny. It didn't work. And my name IS going to be deleted, anytime. triple LOL. But you? You cannot delete the fame you have acquired around here, silly woman. I rather we rude than dishonest!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:21:32 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Agree with Selene
Message:
Hi Elaine and Selene -
Several people on this forum have 'outed' themselves by accident in the past. Usually they don't care, but sometimes they do. Elaine, I know you and SB do not get along, and perhaps that was the reason why you used the name she signed in a post to me. But I think (my opinion was) that it was an act of aggression. I don't say you did WRONG, I just think you oughta admit it (if true). I think that would put you and SB on a more level playing field, if you understand my analogy - and I think this would benefit any future communication you might have.

Sometimes I really just HATE this method of communication! Especially when two people I like and have corresponded with via e-mail are fighting with each other(I am not talking about you here, Elaine. Although I do like you, we have not corresponded!) And it's especially frustrating when I KNOW that those two people have stuff in common, and would probably get along real well in the 'Real World'. But misinterpretation, misplaced anger, misunderstanding, and getting 'set off' by someone's writing style are SO common here!

Well, end of rant :).
Take care, y'all -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:17:17 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Agree with Selene
Message:
Wow, Now I used SB's name out of 'aggression'!!??

This must be some big boogey-man after SB that you guys are privvy to.

Sorry, Katie, I am really big on saying I'm sorry - I don't have Jim's ego - I'll admit to almost anything - I learned along time ago humility was a good way to go.

But, this weird thing going on here, because I said a name that she posted -( which I find hard to believe -' by accident' - but, ok I'll believe it...) is a bit out there for me.

Why didn't she just let it go by - why this big deal now. None of this makes any sense to me.
It's a big secret -so let's start a new thread all about it and draw alot of attention to something no one would have blinked an eye at. The whole thing smacks of an innate pathology.

You can't tell me this isn't very sick.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:58:30 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Agree with Selene
Message:
Hi Elaine -
There is no big boogey-man after SB that I am aware of. Please read her post to Gerry, where she says that it should be HER choice to post under her own name. I agree - and yes, I believe, especially having met SB, that it was 'by accident'. What if you were really tired or upset one night and signed some post with your real name? Would you want - say me? - to put it all over the forum - to reply to you under that name?

Yes, I agree that if nothing had been said, it would have slipped by. At the same time, you have to understand the innate paranoia of those who have recently exited Maharaji's organization. I imagine that you are thought of as a 'fringe' premie, and no one would be that suprised to find you were posting on the forum. People like SB, and Joey, were deeply involved and NOT 'fringe' premies, and they need time and space to reveal who they are in public. It was EASY for me to post under my real name, but I do understand that it's very scary for some people.

Elaine, I have to say what I think, even though I do not want to offend you! You are free to disagree with me, and maybe I'll change my mind. As you said, it may be very 'sick' - but what does that say about Maharaji's organization? IMHO people like SB - people who have been involved with Maharaji for 20-25 years - have been deeply damaged by that organization, AND BY MAHARAJI himself, and that makes me angry. I know all the arguments about personal responsibility, but I still think that the trust and general loving-kindness of many of these people were abused.

I have no problem with you being on the forum - I think your 'questioning' is really great, and I encourage it. I like how you think out loud on the forum - I know you get a lot of crap for it, but I think it is good - and probably helpful to others as well. I just question this one thing about SB - that is all. And it is really not that big of a deal - I was just telling you how I felt.

Take care -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:11:22 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie
Message:
Katie,
Your post was fine, as usual.
It's ok if we have a different opinion.

No one knows what is in a person's heart when they do something- especially in writing form.

Again - I am not a mind reader. Now you are saying SB *was tired and upset one night and signed some post with her real name* - alittle out of context,sorry.

Now - how was I supposed to know, that now it was some big SECRET. You all here have tried and condemed me - like it was an intentional thing to put SB in danger.It is amzing to me that noone sees what I am saying.

Jesus, this IS some paranoid place.When there is this level of paranoia - rational thinking seems to take a hike.

It is clear it will make no difference what I say...I know I wouldn't want to get someone in trouble - no matter who they are -I don't like SB and her words - but, even though there has been this lack of communication on our parts - I am still willing to try to understand what I can. I haven't shut down and formed a concrete,unmovable opinion about SB as it seems she has about me. I don't have the anger or passion about her as she does about me. It's not that I'm so great - she just doesn't get under my skin -as much I do her.
I also know that if we met in person - alot would be cleared up.

(I just read somewhere -* I know Elaine is laughing.* or something...I was like 'HUH?' - people have some nutty notion about who I am - this posting is weird. People here have no idea what I'm feeling or my intentions.)

When you can look into a person's eyes you just understand more - there are too many misunderstandings in this form of communication. And it's a shame.
Enjoy posting with you as usual. (SB, mocked that sentence earlier - but, I know you know I mean it.)

Sincerely,
Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:30:12 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: what you are calling a BIG SECRET
Message:
Isn't. Who is getting paranoid here?
but,
I've seen this reply used by others.
I've read others insisting on ignorance of what the context of posts on forum are. Or deny they read something obvious about one poster, such as in this case that SB needs anonymity;
When this is written by someone who has obviously been on here reading a lot and often on diferent threads it's hard for me to believe them.

In your case the doubt is magnified because you are always always posting with SB. It seems natural that you would know this about her.

If there is paranoia here it is because there are secrets and mindfucking going on.

But SB's needs and our reading them here ourselves are NOT one of the 'BIG SECRET's.
How do you think I knew? Psychic ability? I read it here.
And like you I do not read all the posts. A few from each thread each day usually. Or I may skip whole threads.
But some things come to my attention when mentioned often enough.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:58:05 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Well,like I said
Message:
Selene,
It doesn't matter what I say -I'm condemned here no matter what.

Well, since 'it seems natural I would know this about her' then it must be true.
End of story - that's got to be the way it is. No chance of it being anyway else.
Makes perfect sense to me.
See,I'm getting the way it goes around here.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 21:15:05 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Shut up, victim of denial
Message:
I will not let you say shit and get away with it.

See,I'm getting the way it goes around here.

Now you are saying one more time 'how weird' this place is and it becomes weird in this instance because OF YOUR ACTIONS. Don't try to blame others for the shit you generate!!

It makes sense to you. How convinient! Denial queen Elaine, get it together. Be honest with yourself. Or are you really so screwed up that you cannot understand SIMPLE CONCEPTS? Why you have such a need to twist your words to make them fit to your lies? Many see that. We must all be crazy then.

NOT!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:48:13 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: gerry
Subject: Gerry
Message:
I don't know where you get 'hypocrite' out of that equation - sheesh! Anyway, could you either post your e-mail address, or e-mail me, please?

What is it with the Catcher in the Rye reference? You make it sound ominous when, as I recall, it was not. (But I do not like that book.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:08:33 (GMT)
From: Cassandra
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Reporting from the not-too-distant future
Message:
Lawyers for Maharaji think they have discovered solid grounds for an appeal against his forthcoming tax-evasion conviction.

They have discovered he has a lot of money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:18:08 (GMT)
From: Selene the BiTcH
Email: None
To: Cassandra
Subject: that is a good one (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:26:18 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Burnt Offerings(ot)
Message:
Received today.
=============================================================
For those of you that are not following the recent controversy that hasto do with Laura Schlessinger: she is a radio ersonality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Paramount Television Group is currently producing a 'Dr. Laura' television show. Recently she has become a convert to Judaism, and now she is Ba'al T'shuvah. Recently, she has made some statements about homosexuals that has caused the Canadian anti-hate laws to censure her....The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the internet.....

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread.(cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
============================================================

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:34:50 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: FA's
Subject: another example of the software glitch
Message:
But by the time you read this Coach's post may have shown up.

That or his burnt offerings really were such :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 18:22:26 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Pigeon on it's way
Message:
S,

Me 'offerings' have gone sadly adrift. A homing pigeon has been dispatched as backup. Answers to the name of 'Swifty.'

Coach

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 18:32:56 (GMT)
From: Swifty
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: Phew!!! (ot)
Message:
The Atlantic don't get any smaller!! Message from Coach.
========================================================
begin

For those of you that are not following the recent controversy that has to do with Laura Schlessinger: she is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Paramount Television Group is currently producing a 'Dr. Laura' television show. Recently she has become a convert to Judaism, and now she is Ba'al T'shuvah. Recently, she has made some statements about homosexuals that has caused the Canadian anti-hate laws to censure her....The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the internet.....

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

end
==========================================================

Swifty


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:54:05 (GMT)
From: buzz
Email: None
To: happy
Subject: swarupananda ji
Message:
sorry to bring this up again but i missed the original postings.
it just seems strange if this line is from the radhasohamis that holy name is one of the tecniques because the rs.completly give no credence to the prana or breath.can you tell me roughly when the original postings on this subject were,so i can check the archives
thanks
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:51:12 (GMT)
From: sam
Email: -
To: buzz
Subject: buzz
Message:
Hi buzz,
I live near Sydney. What about you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:42:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Is she saying she reads the New York Times?
Message:
From ELK:

Ivete Belfort Mattos:

Sunday

From Sao Paolo, Brazil


In the middle of Sunday,
when my dreams go to sleep and
my mouth speaks real words,
my heart, where I reveal
what I am, starts to smile.
I am in my homeland - with Knowledge,
It is my time to be alive, to be deeply happy.

But now, I notice that
every day is Sunday.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:58:50 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, I think it's a technical problem
Message:
The battery on her calendar/alarm clock stopped on a Sunday.

Anth the Anorak

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 23:30:02 (GMT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is she saying she reads the New York Times?
Message:
What are fake words? how does a mouth speak? How do you know when your dreams go to sleep? I need some time off, where can I get an every day is sunday life calendar? The symbolism gets a little heavy for a dork like me, who lives in neighbor land
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:30:18 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, but...
Message:
It appears that various parts of her body are doing their own thing. Her mouth starts to speak and her heart is smiling. I heard her liver is dancing and her pancreas went all by itself out to see a movie, but it's okay because it's Sunday. Ivette is quite a girl.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 13:07:53 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Wedding Night (ot)
Message:
Hi Joe,

Your post reminded me of an old folk song, about a couple on their wedding night.

The bride takes off her wig, padded bra, false teeth, glass eye, wooden leg, false eyelashes and fingernails and hops between the sheets.

The last line of the song belongs to the groom and goes something like, 'So I slept on the chair, there was more of her there, than there was in the bed'.

Anth the Falsie Prophet

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:51:09 (GMT)
From: bud dolan
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: Took me woman late last night...
Message:
I was three fourths drunk and she looked alright
Til she started peelin' off her onion gook
Took off her wig, said 'how do I look?'

I was high flyin'

Bare naked

Out the window.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:37:23 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: They should put warning labels on the video's
Message:

Psychologists pessimistic about effects of optimism
Attack 'tyranny of the positive attitude'

Philip Delves Broughton

The Daily Telegraph

NEW YORK - Always looking on the bright side can damage your health, some American psychologists now believe.

Meeting at their annual conference in Washington, they urged their fellow citizens to embrace pessimism and attacked what they termed the 'tyranny of the positive attitude': the kind of relentless optimism preached by self-help gurus, business managers and religious leaders. Countless jaunty songs -- such as Bobby McFerrin's Don't Worry Be Happy -- T-shirts, bumper stickers and books also peddle that view.

A symposium at the American Psychological Association conference decided to recommend 'the overlooked virtues of negativity.'

'I am worried that we are not making space for people to feel bad,' Dr. Barbara Held, a clinical psychologist from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Me., told The New York Times.

'If you are having a hard time, it can make it harder to cope if you feel pressure to act OK when you are not.'

A growing band of psychologists believes the pressure to be cheerful glosses over a person's need for a good moan every so often and may make some people very depressed.

Dr. Julie Norem, a social psychologist at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, has produced a study on 'defensive pessimism.'

This involves people setting absurdly low expectations for themselves to help master difficult situations. Preparing for an interview, for example, the optimist imagines only the best outcome, whereas the defensive pessimist thinks of tripping over the carpet, spilling coffee, garbling answers.

Fearing the worst helps the pessimist to devise means to avoid it: by wearing low shoes rather than heels, refusing coffee when offered and being thoroughly prepared with answers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:26:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below)
Message:
(This is a repost of something I said to Elaine regarding the whacky, whacky 'logic' of O which she'd commented on with some respect. Elaine deserves full credit for calling O's ultimate conclusion -- that Maharaji never said he was God -- ridiculous. What I took issue with was her giving O any credit whatsoever for having presented anything even close to a logical argument. The post disappeared for a while and only showed up soon before the thread went under so I reposted it. The bold-face (or rather, bald-face) print is O's)

Elaine said:

...I see the logic of what you are saying...

That's insane. What O's saying isn't just splitting hairs, it's complete poppycock. Must I? --

God by definition cannot be created or destroyed so by definition,God in its entirety cannot be encapsulated within a 3dimensional entity. So whatever Guru is he cannot be God: ie,because Guru is indeed a three dimensional entity.

The first dumbass thing. What O is saying, essentially, is that because it doesn't make sense that Maharaji could be God he couldn't have claimed that he was. Well, whether it makes sense or not is far from the question. The question is whether or not he made the claim. The answer, of course, is that he did. It's as plain as day.

So when it's said he's the highest manifestation of God it is to say at best he is the most reasonable facsimile of God that can be created.And you know what a facsimile is Elaine :a copy ,a replica,not the original.

Just as I said. What O is saying equates to this: being that Maharaji would be wrong if he claimed to be God, let's find the closest thing he might say that could possibly be right, assuming, quite stupidly, I must say, that the Hamster coudln't be wrong. That's not just dumb it's bizarre. It's just like Maharaji saying that you, Elaine, are eight years old. Maharaji would be wrong to say that, right? Of course he would. Well, O here would try to sell you some hare-brained explanation that might avoid that simple fact. And look at you, buying it!

All of creation has been described as a manifestation of God.A slug for example is a manifestation of God.But to say a slug is God just because yuo recognize it as a manifestation of God would be ridiculous.No,a slug is just one of the many manifestations of God.But I think it can be safely said that human beings are a higher manifestation of God than slugs .Take another step and ask then what is the very highest manifestation of God possible?Answer according to the quote:Guru.But again,by definition a manifestation can only ever be a facsimile and could never be considered God him/herself.

Well this is just more of that same stupidity. And talk about fucking with language! 'Manifestation' means exactly the opposite of what O says. It means a form of the thing itself. Here's one internet dictionary's definition (as if we needed to play these stupid games!):

man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn)
n.
1) The act of manifesting.
2) The state of being manifested.
3) An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease.

4) One of the forms in which someone or something, such as a person, a divine being, or an idea, is revealed.
The materialized form of a spirit.

5) A public demonstration, usually of a political nature.

I've underlined the salient parts. But I mean really! As if any of this is necessary. We all know what the word means. Frankly, I find this whole exercise disgusting.

So based on logic alone the quote Jim posted does not represent Maharaji saying he is God.By saying he is a manifestation it is more an admission that he is NOT God..It's actually very clear when you think about it.

Are we laughing yet, Elaine? We should be. And, yes, we (i.e. you) should be taking a good, hard look at yourself and laughing at same. To think that you commended O on his 'logic'. Too fucking much.

Now comes the question:is he in fact the highest manifestation of God or is it say Jim,or Joey.That's where it becomes a matter of opinion.But based on what he said in the quote he certainly cannot be called a liar.

This is the stuff that makes cults so funny, Elaine. Isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:02:18 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jim
Subject: For God's sake read some evolution, O...
Message:
But I think it can be safely said that human beings are a higher manifestation of God than slugs

So how safe do you feel about this, O?

(a) Confident
(b) Very confident
(c) Not confident at all, but it's in the original Sanskrit, so I can go with that..?

In evolutionary terms, every life-form still in existence is as 'high' or 'successful' as any other. That the slug is still extant suggests they are better adapted than Neanderthal man (who are extinct).

(In one sense, you could say slugs were far more highly developed than humans because they haven't needed further evolutionary refinement to succeed in the world for hundreds of millions of years before we even got going.)

But even if you wanted to dump Darwin and take the Vedic path to happiness and understanding, you'd still have to say slugs are pretty highly favoured in comparison to most life-forms that ever existed, and that God prefers manifesting as a slug than a Neanderthal... no?

Or does 'height' in your use of the word refer to neural complexity, perhaps, and the ability to start a cult?

Please explain your 'safe' assumption, O. It sounds absurd to me. Thanks
Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:03:13 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, I am sorry - Way OT
Message:
Jim.
At 4 am I'm taking a friend to the airport going to Seattle then,on to Victoria ---- I know, hard to believe. She said she read that the temp is 50 degrees.
It's 95 here in the day, maybe 60 at night.
She will be camping in a tent ocassionally - what is it at night? Is it constantly cold and rainy?

Any suggestions as to what to pack - put your wife on.

Thanks alot.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:19:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: All I can say is ...
Message:
Send her down to see the X-Flies!

Here's a link to Victoria's little entertaiment thing, Monday Magazine. We're mentioned in the Calendar section for Saturday.

Seriously, it's a great bar and the other band's excellent. Party at my place afterwards.

What's her name? Give her mine.

The temperature's dropping just a bit here. Still lake weather in the daytime but sweater or light jacket later. Well, for me anyway. Weather's nice right now. Sunny. Hot in here. Still summer and everything but there's just a touch of that late summer chill in the air here. 'Cause we're on an island. It's a bit warmer in Vancouver or Seattle (but much rainier in the winter!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:23:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, forgot the address
Message:
http://www.monday.com/monday/calendar.htm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:19:07 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Jim ain't got no wifey, babe.
Message:
Tell her to take some warm clothes for tent sleeping--sweat pants and shirt, also a windbreaker (stuff sack size with hood is ideal) and warms socks. Daywise she'll be able to wear shorts and a long sleeve shirt. If she's adventurous, some tee shirts. Tell her to be sure and pack long pants also.

I know, it's August but this place is chilly, even if it is sunny. Mornings have been overcast with clouds breaking up early afternoon. There's not much temperature differential between night and day, maybe 20 degrees at most.

Hope she has fun...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:50:18 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below)
Message:
Jim you preach your stilted philosophy like a broken record and limit your responses to a pejoratively predictable pint-sized point of view.It's actually quite ironic.You are the definitive example of the commandment,'Leave no room for doubt in your mind'.And you fit the classic nay-sayer to tee.If we were to cast you in a movie about Columbus you would be perfect as the slimey grey eminence whispering in the ear of the good queen Isabella that all this round earth stuff was crap.When the movie gets cast about Maharaji's exploits I wonder who we'll get to play the part of Jim Heller, the irrelevant slimey lawyer from Hoboken Canada who poo-poos every possibility of someone like Maharaji even existing.Maybe Mickey Rourke.
Now to your arguments.
Your attempt at counter-defining the word manifestation actually corroborates mine. Your definition said it is 'The materialized form of a spirit.'
But we all know spirit by definition is NOT physical.You can never say something that is material is a sprit, ie:you can't pass your hand through it for example.So the best a manifestaion can ever be,to continue on with your definition,is a 'demonstration' or 'an indication of the existence, reality, or presence of' the spirit.
The bottom line is Maharaji saying he is a manifestation of God is not the same as saying he is God. Why?Because a manifestation is something physical and God is not.The fact that you ASSUME an equal sign instead of a less than sign is a demonstration of your own lapse in logic.Are you able to keep up with me on this Jim?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:28:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: O
Subject: Okay, let's go through the looking glass with O
Message:
Oh, O, you're a constant source of entertainment. As you yourself tell Elaine in this same thread, all this talk about what the Hamster said is 'stupid speculation', that all you've got to is 'listen to him out of your thirst'. As for the rest, 'who gives a fuck?'. Right?

So now you're putting on your Daffy Duck hat and want to bedazzle us all with your idiocy? Forget it, O. What you say makes no sense. Of course you'll never admit that but that's because you're a spineless cult member who lost your moral compass years ago. You're a simple liar just like your Master.

Fuck off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:03:20 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Same old tired set of expletives
Message:
Hey Jim,talk about stupid.What would you say about somebody who made a practise not to discuss ideas that were too widely diverse from their own,and told everyone they disagreed with to 'Fuck off'?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:37:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: O
Subject: Whatever. That sure isn't you, that's for sure
Message:
I'll discuss ideas. What I won't do is this crazy, illogical dance around the language that you're trying to find a partner for. Forget it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:06:06 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Cop out
Message:
Language is the way we communicate.I am using it to articulate a distinct difference between two concepts:God,and physical manifestation of God.The fact that neither of us know what either of those two concepts really mean,we are left with our own interpreatations.For you to call my interpretation dancing with the language is laziness on your part.
Besides,don't give me this dancing with language indignation JIm.you'd be the first to dance with language here or in the courtroom if you felt it would serve your own interests and you know it.Or are you going to brag about your superior intillectual integrity and how you're above all that.Bullshit!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:56:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: O
Subject: I AM above that -- and I'm above you too
Message:
I have a conscience, O. You apparently don't. Not when it comes to this guru shit anyway.

Ask yourself this. Ask yourself if you really think that your arguments hve any appeal whatsoever to someone outside of your cult. Ask yourself, in particular, if anyone BUT one of your fellow cult members could read the many relevant quotes on the DLM/EV Papers page (address is http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm ) and conclude anything but that he claimed to be God.

The answer's clearly no. Only a premie afraid to look at the truth would say otherwise.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:06:59 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dellusional thinking Jim
Message:
Jim, what the heck does having a non-premie read anything about this have to do with anything?That's like having a garage mechanic read about quantum mechanics and see if it helps him fix a car.You stooping to such a ridiculously transperent deprogramming tactics shows how little you care about honest debate,not to mention it highlights an arrogance rooted in delusions of intellectual superiority.
My arguments Jim are to counter the confusion you and others have about Maharaji not saying he is God.I have offered grounds which support his statements which you obviously don't want to entertain.Your aversion to discussing my points is because you would have no choice but to agree with me because my argument is hard to refute in an honest debate and you know it.
I will say that the quotes you posted definitely equate the role of Guru Maharaji with some kind of Godly authority:but it doesn't say in the EV FAQ he never said he had divine authority.Like I said ,you wouldn't know God from a Godly authority anyway so what authority do YOU have to judge him.Except of course that given to you by your bosom forum buddies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:22:23 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: O
Subject: That O's still stinkin' thinking, Jim
Message:
Jim: Ask yourself, in particular, if anyone BUT one of your fellow cult members could read the many relevant quotes on the DLM/EV Papers page (address is http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm) and conclude anything but that he claimed to be God.

The big zero: Jim, what the heck does having a non-premie read anything about this have to do with anything?That's like having a garage mechanic read about quantum mechanics and see if it helps him fix a car.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:38:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: O
Subject: So only a fellow cult member can judge you?
Message:
Jim, what the heck does having a non-premie read anything about this have to do with anything?That's like having a garage mechanic read about quantum mechanics and see if it helps him fix a car.You stooping to such a ridiculously transperent deprogramming tactics shows how little you care about honest debate,not to mention it highlights an arrogance rooted in delusions of intellectual superiority.

This is most revealing, O. Revealing, disturbing and outrageously entertaining. You're actually saying that only people who've been taught to squeeze their eyes by Maharaji and who've wasted hours of their lives watching him speak can judge the reasonableness of your arguments. Otherwise, your words, Maharaji's words, are so far beyond the understanding of mere mortals, they're like a textbook on quantum mechanics in the hands of a mere car mechanic (by the way, you bungled up that whole analogy but I know what you meant. I've got Knowledge, remember).

That's bizarre and unfathomable, O. I don't buy it, no one here buys it, you might find a few other crazy, uneducated premies to buy it. Then again, you might not. And how would you know anyway? You guys just smile at each other on the way in and out of the 'video events' anyway, right?

But, I must confess, even though I have knowledge, I'm having a bit of difficulty myself understanding what, if anything, you're saying. Are you actually saying that the normal rules of logic don't apply to your words? Because that's the stuff that I'm saying any reasonable person outside fo your cult would take issue with: the fair meaning of words and how one uses them. I repeat what I've said all along. Maharaji claimed to be God and only a fool or a cult member would be able to say that words like:

Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith.

meant otherwise.

If the 'transparent deprogramming techniques' you're talking about are using the guru's own words to build a case against him, I'm in. The world at large calls that holding someone accountable. You can call it what you want. Who cares?

My arguments Jim are to counter the confusion you and others have about Maharaji not saying he is God.I have offered grounds which support his statements which you obviously don't want to entertain.Your aversion to discussing my points is because you would have no choice but to agree with me because my argument is hard to refute in an honest debate and you know it.

Look, I realize that, as a premie, you probably haven't had much formal education but could I ask you to please put at least one space between your sentences? Two is actually standard but one'll do. Could you do that? I think it might help even people with Knowledge, people like you and me, understand what you're saying.

Anyway, you're dreaming about having asserted a single, reasonable point worth discussing. I have discussed your points (read my post to Elaine about you). You don't make any sense. You twist words beyond comprehension. For example, what do you say to the simple sentence in the quote above where Maharaji says:

Guru Maharaj Ji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.

Well, frankly, I'm not interested in any games, O. I know what he said. I can read it myself. You're just playing a desparate game trying to maintain your illusion against all odds and common sense.

I will say that the quotes you posted definitely equate the role of Guru Maharaji with some kind of Godly authority:but it doesn't say in the EV FAQ he never said he had divine authority.Like I said ,you wouldn't know God from a Godly authority anyway so what authority do YOU have to judge him.Except of course that given to you by your bosom forum buddies.

No one's interested in what you say. We don't need a cult member like you to interpret for us. When Maharaji says he's the 'Supreme Lord in person' it matters not that you're now willing to concede that he at least said he was some sort of 'divine authority'. What joke! Can't you read, idiot? He's the Supreme Lord himself!

By the way, what IS your education level?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:33:08 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No only I can judge me but that's another topic
Message:
You said>>>'This is most revealing, O. Revealing, disturbing and outrageously entertaining. You're actually saying that only people who've been taught to squeeze their eyes by Maharaji and who've wasted hours of their lives watching him speak can judge the reasonableness of your arguments. Otherwise, your words, Maharaji's words, are so far beyond the understanding of mere mortals, they're like a textbook on quantum mechanics in the hands of a mere car mechanic (by the way, you bungled up that whole analogy but I know what you meant. I've got Knowledge, remember).
That's bizarre and unfathomable, O. I don't buy it, no one here buys it…'
Me>>>The thing that is unfathonable to most people in the world and on this forum is the possibility that a supreme manifestation of God could exist and he could be alive today.The world has more cynics today than they did when you and I received Knowledge,and the cynicism isn't confined to spritual leadership.So given this prevailing cynicism,you would no doubt find a lot of support for your negative point of view.But so what?Truth in a court of law is a matter of a vote.On the other hand what WAS, IS,and ALWAYS WILL BE,ie: THE truth,is not subject to our opinions,even though we both have them.

You said>>>'But, I must confess, even though I have knowledge, I'm having a bit of difficulty myself understanding what, if anything, you're saying. Are you actually saying that the normal rules of logic don't apply to your words? '
Me>>>Of course I'm not saying that.The normal rules of logic allow for a differentiation between the two subtly different concepts:God, and manifestation of God.I don't think even an outside onlooker could dispute that conclusion based on dictionary and commonly held definitions.If God as Maharaji said is 'self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light',then how could Prem Pal Singh Rawat who had a beginning and will have an end be that?There are subtle nuances in the quotes.For example he never says he IS God.He speaks about Guru Maharaji in the third person always.He said 'God is here.' Was he really refering to himself?He said 'Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.'Is the Supremest Lord in person (ie:the highest manifestation) the 'self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light',or a man like you and I who walks the earth?
But really Jim only someone who knows God,who experiences God beyond belief or concept could really talk about the meaning of these concepts.And wasn't that what Maharaji's job is: To teach people the true meaning of those ideas.Did you learn them?When Maharaji says he never said he was God,I think he knew what he was talking about.

You said>>>'If the 'transparent deprogramming techniques' you're talking about are using the guru's own words to build a case against him, I'm in.'
Me>>>No, the practice of asking if the world at large would ever agree with your position is a standard tactic in a deprogrammers bag of tricks.It's meant to appeal to our heard instinct and nulify ideas outside of the norm.

You asked>>>'By the way, what IS your education level?'
Me>>>Why do you ask,are you an educated elitist?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:57:30 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: O
Subject: O is weighed and found wanting
Message:
No-one: ... only I can judge me but that's another topic

Salam can form the judgement that you misuse English, even though English is not Salam's first language.

To lie is to intentionally deceive. Let me give you an example. At a party once, I met a guy I knew a little. We were chatting away and another acquaintance joined in. I said, 'Susan, meet Pete, we've been working together on the XYZ project.' And Susan replied, 'We're married.'

After that I would jest, 'Oh yeah, I know Sue and Pete, they're married now. Did you know I introduced them?'

A lie? YES, certainly, if my intent had been to deceive people and if I let them carry away a wrong impression.

A statement which is semantically accurate can be a lie. Your arguments not only fail on their own merit (any user of English can form a judgement on that - although you would deny them the 'right') they are without merit as an approach to the question of Rawat's integrity.

Prem Pal Singh Rawat is a liar and a fraud. He intentionally deceives, for gain.

What's your reason, O?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:41:11 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I AM above that -- and I'm above you too
Message:
Using logic to determine wether there is a god
or not is illogical by itself. God does
not require logic for that, because he is
illogical. Jim is not arguing about the
logicability of god. He is questioning
a mere humans' claim that he is god.
Knowing this can be a logical thing. However
mixing things up as OOOOOOOOOOh is doing is not.
Which mean that he is delirious, because he is
going in an infinite loop trying to logicalise
god by confusing the argument that Jim is putting
'has guru maharaji ever claimed that he is god'.
Pearsonally I will not open my mouth, before
I know all my facts and except them, the
same applied to OOOOOOOoh deduction which fails
in the light that he coming short in understanding
what the issue is. This lead me to thing
that OOOOOOh has a defecincy in his logic
due to his one sided view that is caused
by lack of real interest in being objective(or the other).

Signed and delivered.
Subject shows bainwashing has occured
result fail
recommendation redo

professor Salamji

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:50:53 (GMT)
From: TDo
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A post reposted from below (to Joe)
Message:
Joe
Everybody is free to believe whatever they want. When I came to knowledge I heard a lot of 'satsang'. It became obious to me that some people seemed to talk from their experience, some talked from what they heard or thought they heard and indians talked from their cultural background.
An interesting thing is that those very few people in my community who tended to express something like Maharaji is god, are not following Maharaji anymore.

In your quotes Joe, I do not find any quote where Maharaji actually says he is god. He describes the role model of the lord, a person who is one with the creator. In my understanding there is a big difference between 'god' and 'lord'.

During the history of mankind, there have been a few persons whose followers claimed their teacher was the son of god. the master, the guru, the messiah, the budda, or whatever; i.e. the lord of their time. Obviously their 'lords' should be all powerful. The problem is that none of them seemed to be powerful at all.

Maybe there is an irony in this story? For most human beings the lord is a nobody; just a normal person, commonly believed to be a person who deceives his followers. Still the followers believed that their teacher was the savior. For anybody else, the lords had no value or significance. Just a con man.

In Europe there was a sect in the seventies, who partly based their belief of Jean Paul Satres philosophy. They claimed that the only thing that exists is God. Thus they said 'I exist'. Their conclusion was, 'I am, therefore I am god'. How ridiculous they were, did they lie?

What do I believe?
Basically my belief is rooted in the experiences I have.
I know I had the experiences of nothing more or less than what is the infinite. I believe that god is infinite.
I know I have experienced the power that keeps me alive. I believe god is that power.
To me it is obious that the source of my experiences is through the knowledge of Maharaji. How and why, I have no idea.

Do I believe Maharaji is a liar? The definition of a liar is a person who knowingly utters falsehood. As I believe, he believed in what he said, I don't think he is a liar. Is the FAQ filled with lies. I don't think so.

Do I believe Maharaji is the lord? I really don't care.

I care about the fact that the promises he gave me, were fulfilled.

This is my statement.
And my belief.
I don't bother to discuss this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 20:09:58 (GMT)
From: Forum Admin
Email: None
To: TDo
Subject: to 'TDo'
Message:
May I suggest you use a different alias? (And if you are a regular poster, stick to the same one, please.)

There is already a 'TD' on the forum (with a perspective that contrasts with your own) and 'TDo' looks like the same name mistyped.

Thanks
FA

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:07:13 (GMT)
From: TD
Email: None
To: Forum Admin
Subject: Thanks FA. I thought I was seeing 2 TDs 2! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:03:28 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: TDo
Subject: Get the fuck out of my thread, moron! (nt)
Message:
ddddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:48:39 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below)
Message:
Well, all I was saying is I understand how O's thinking and how his mind works and all but, he's splitting hairs and missing the point. ----but,please - give me credit for other things I said - in case others missed it -it IS 'ridiculous' what he was saying ---and I also said something like - 'Come on,Maharaji saying all that to us in the audience had it's desired effect - to hook us big time.'

This 'manifestation and slug' talk is ridiculous.

Maharaji sat there and said he was God - give me a break.
Pure and simple,cut and dry - period.

Elaine

And let me take this opportunity to say ----my Gopi friend in Hawaii ----after only two months of me mentioning a few times what is said here about EV/Maharaji is freaked out and filled with questions and doubt about Maharaji.Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think she would have doubt.

I liked that she was questioning. She was a die-hard person who thought he was the Lord of the Universe still. (No money,but went into debt to go to Amaroo ----that kind.)
I had to talk her into not feeling fear about her 25 years of beliefs - and convince her that peace and love were still inside her and she didn't need Maharaji to feel them.Etc,etc...it will be a continuing saga.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 13:15:12 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: to Elaine - your friend, and questions
Message:
Hi Elaine -
I think it's great that your friend is asking questions - it seems like so many people (not just premies) are afraid to question their belief systems. The world would be a very different place if everyone could do that. Yes, it is very scary - especially when you've been involved for 25 years. I don't know if she's willing to read ex-premie.org, but there are some great Journeys entries dealing with this particular topic (AJW's and Charlie's come to mind, but I know there are more.)

More power to both of you -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 00:54:26 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below)
Message:
Elaine-is your gopi friend in Hawaii a woman with the initials SJ?
Just curious, as it sounds like someone I know...

La-ex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:56:25 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: la-ex, name
Message:
I know it's a small world, but nope. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:55:42 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: O's 'logic' (to Elaine -- reposted from below)
Message:
Dearest Elaine.So he dropped the standard Indian phraseology around what the concept of a Guru to better suit the approach he wanted to take to bring Knowledge to the world today.Instead of wanting people to listen to him out of fear he wants them to listen out of thirst.A modern message for a modern people.Why get caught up in all this stupid speculation about what he said and what he really meant.Just listen to him out of your thirst and you will hear somebody who offers real guidance to help you find your own wealth within.The rest:Who gives a f--k?What he has done,and is doing looks like nothing but kindness to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:44:03 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: O
Subject: To O
Message:
Why get caught up in this stupid speculation about what he said and what he really meant.

Well, really,O, when a person sits in front of one person or 5,000 and pretty much says he is the Lord. Or the Supremest Lord.
And then changes,effects,alters that one person or those 5,000 person's lifes it actually is something to be 'caught up' in for alittle bit.

My Gopi friend in Hawaii has deprived her many, many children alot with all the money she owes fr going to programs and charging them to credit cards. She is only one of many that have used alot of money going to programs and who knows at what cost.
But, you know what? That's neither here nor there.
This is a much deeper issue than a few bucks spent.

I know her to be an innocent,beautiful,angelic type of person that only wants to do the right thing.

She truly believes ( or did) that Maharaji is the Supremest Lord. Now if he is not that is something to get 'caught up'in, I feel.

I understand thirst,O. Most exes here do.( Tho, some have forgotten, it seems. Some are so out of touch with there hearts- it is so apparent.)

I have listened with my thirst and my heart and with so much desire in me I don't remember leaving the programs on my two feet - I was so 'transported' or in Alpha so much.

I love most of Maharaji's words. And because I thought he was the Supremest Lord - I took his words' at their word' ---and got SO high - I sometimes don't now if many have been there ----not from reading here anyway.

But, could I have gotten that 'high' at Lourdes if my faith was deep enough??
That is something I'm wrestling with at the moment.

Instead of wanting people to listen to him out of fear...

Huh?

Sincerely,
Elaine

PS - I'm enjoying posting with you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:40:24 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Getting High on something false.....
Message:
I love most of Maharaji's words. And because I thought he was the Supremest Lord - I took his words' at their word' ---and got SO high - I sometimes don't now if many have been there ----not from reading here anyway.

Elaine, I never really cared for Maharaji's words. The fact is, I and most premies really stopped listening because he just said the same stuff over and over, and much of it made no sense.

But I also got very high, because I also sincerely believed he was 'the Supremest Lord.' What I discovered though, it that when you really believe in something, and if you are with thousands of others who also believe it, you can kind of get out of yourself and it felt 'high.' But tell me, Elaine, how long did that last? How real was it? What I found was that getting high and believing and all that had almost no relevence to what my life was really about. It wasn't real. It was nice, for awhile, but it was fake, not the feeling, but the belief.

And do you honestly think that the kind of 'high' you got at programs, was any different from people who go to Christian Revivals, and believe that Jesus Christ is right there with them, in their hearts? Those people also get really high, but I would ask them the same question I asked you.

The thing is, if you hold on to a belief in Maharaji as being some kind of source for your 'high', you miss a lot of other really good stuff in your life, or at least I did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:18:04 (GMT)
From: O
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: To Elaine
Message:
You said>>>Huh? >>>to my query of, 'Instead of wanting people to listen to him out of fear... '
Me>>>I guess I could have said 'out of fear or desire to be close to celebrity'.In other words,to listen to him from the purest place,ie:one's thirst,and not out of fear of going to hell or just cuz you want to be with the in crowd.I think the dawning of a new age of enlightenment should start with people seeking it for the right reasons,don't you?I don't think honest and sincere people in today's climate will accept anything less.

By the way I've always enjoyed my interaction with you too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:12:12 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: O
Subject: To O
Message:
When Maharaji said that he never said he was God, he didn't qualify God with the word 'unmanifested'. He did say that he was the highest manifestation of God and that when 'Guru is here, God is here'. In other words, Guru was God. He spoke of himself as Guru. So he was saying that he was Guru and Guru was God, therefore he was saying that he was God. But not anymore, so I guess God is not God anymore.

He also 'says he's just an ordinary human being, like you and me' (EV web site). So are we all the highest manifestation of God? Should I worship you, O, my God? Maybe I should accept an invitation to speak and you should travel to see me and kiss my feet. After all, I'm an ordinary human being.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:18:07 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: G
Subject: To G
Message:
I'll kiss your feet if you kiss mine. LOL
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:40:55 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: To SB
Message:
mmmmmm sounds like a foot fetish.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:05:09 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: G
Subject: To G
Message:
Not proper to answer here. mmmm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:11:12 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Thanks from inactive ....for Stonor
Message:
Wow,
I printed your post out so I could read it more carefully later.

Thank you for your thoughtful words. I'm so sorry at the moment I don't have time to comment really. I will read it with the respect in which it was written.

:) Elaine

Didn't want to start a whole new thread.Thank you again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:28:14 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Thank YOU Elaine!
Message:
You've really made my day! I was a little more nervous about that post than usual ;-)

Good talking with you :-)

Stonor

And when IS Jim going to see that ego-shrink?!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:44:32 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: You SHOULD be nervous...
Message:
talking trash like this:

It is not a question of to whom a man prays, but it is a question of his faith. Owing to faith alone there appears in a being the self-consciousness necessary for him and also the valuation of personal Being as a particle of everything existing in the universe.

So it 'faith' that does it, eh? What kind of faith, may I ask? '...Appears in a being the blah, blah blah.' What kind of talk is that? Is this smart talk for 'one with the universe?' Why doesn't Gurdi just say that then? It the old hindu philosphy wrapped up in puffy words. Gurdi was a big fan of that stuff.

Faith is conscience, the foundation of which is laid in childhood.

No, consciense is conscience and 'faith' is faith. You actually admire this bullshit? Word/mind fucking.


If a man changes his religion he loses his conscience,

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say or write! What nonsense! Where in the world is there even a shred of evidence for this?


and since conscience is sustained by his faith and his faith by his religion,

Now there's some real logic (snicker)

therefore I respect his religion and for me it would be a great sin if I should judge his religion or disillusion him in it and thereby destroy his conscience which can only be acquired in childhood.'

You actually believe this happy crappy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:37:06 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Everyone: Am I picking on Stonor for this?
Message:
If a man changes his religion he loses his conscience, and since conscience is sustained by his faith and his faith by his religion,therefore I respect his religion and for me it would be a great sin if I should judge his religion or disillusion him in it and thereby destroy his conscience which can only be acquired in childhood.

This is the Gurdjieff quote Stonor chose to explain something (I'm not sure what) to Elaine.

Anyone care to give their understanding of what this means? Do you agree with this quote? Do you agree with any part of this quote? Should I have NOT challenged this? Maybe this is another 'eternal truth' I don't understand.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:55:36 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: Everyone: Am I picking on Stonor for this?
Message:
I didn't get that. It sounds like we exes are killing premies consciense. You can challenge that. People have the right to believe whatever, and we also have the right to react to it if we want to. Stonor doesn't understand that being ex-premies our discussions may sound like we want to deny people their right to believe in what they want, which is not our case, is not true. Because we dislike LARD's organization and cults alike and since words have power, we have the right to challenge what anybody writes here. Is an open forum, no? If people do not want to respond, if they don't want to be responsible for their own words, why are they here?

I bet you Elaine loved it: The more confussive and ethereal the better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 13:05:08 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: Everyone: Am I picking on Stonor for this?
Message:
Dunno Gerry,

but that quote sounds like rubbish to me as well. Plenty of bad lads settle down later in life and regret the things they did in their youth.

If conscience is only developed early in life, I guess it is, uh 'inoperative' in adolescence and young adulthood for quite a few thugs, thieves and hooligans who go on to raise families and keep quiet about their mis-spent youth (when not actively regretting it).

As for conscience being based on religion, that's tosh too. Plenty of people with no religion have a sound sense of ethics and morality. And plenty of people with religion seem foul, at least to me.

I think Gurdjieff must have led a sheltered life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:52:38 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: I would say so
Message:
It's hard to know what Gurdjieff meant by that, so it can be interpreted in different ways. You interpreted it in about the most negative manner you could. It can also be interpreted in a more positive manner. Whereas I don't fully agree with it, I don't think it's as confused as you think it is. My positive spin on it, which is mainly to tone it down:

People often bundle beliefs together into belief systems. There might be a danger when someone gets disillusioned with their religion of them letting go of their ethics. Now maybe some of these ethics should be let go of, but let's not get into debate about that. There is a woman where I work who is really into Christianity. I have major disagreements with her beliefs, but I try to be sensitive and not just attack her about them. She can tell I don't agree with her. However, I also try to see what is good about it. She was pretty bad off before she got into it, and I think an abrupt change may be harmful to her. Sometimes slower change is better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:11:51 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I would say so
Message:
Hi G,

I've followed your other debates with Jim and Jerry and I do admire your obvious intelligence, education and thinking ability.

If a man changes his religion he loses his conscience, and since conscience is sustained by his faith and his faith by his religion,therefore I respect his religion and for me it would be a great sin if I should judge his religion or disillusion him in it and thereby destroy his conscience which can only be acquired in childhood.

People often bundle beliefs together into belief systems. There might be a danger when someone gets disillusioned with their religion of them letting go of their ethics

I REALLY don't see how you derive your interpretation of Gurdjieff's quote as you do. Words DO mean things and you really have to pretzel these words to make the quote mean what you say it does. Whatever.

I guess my main point is too often people banty about these quotes, which upon first reading, sound pretty good, but when you begin to examine what is being said, they sound like nonsense (unless, of course, you shoe horn them into something different.)

And I always consider the source. Now, I'm no expert on Gurdjieff but I know enough to shy away from this self proclaimed visionary. Very mystical and an inspiration for Hitler and his brown shirts as well as the Waldorf schools. Really. The guy's a jerk and bad news.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 15:39:56 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I would say so
Message:
I'm no expert on Gurdjieff either, so I don't know what he meant. Why do you say he was 'an inspiration for Hitler and his brown shirts as well as the Waldorf schools'? I would think that 'I respect his religion' would imply that he respected Judaism, so why would Hitler have found him an inspiration? Of course, that assumes that people are rational, so my reasoning may not apply.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:05:05 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: G and Gerry
Subject: Gurdjeiff, Nietsche, and Goethe
Message:
Aren't you getting Gurdjieff (sp?) mixed up with Nietsche (forget even trying to spell that), and possibly Goethe? Goethe was the inspiration for a lot of Steiner's work, and I know that some of Hitler's philosophy was based on Nietsche (albeit grossly distorted.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:34:19 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Nietsche
Message:
I don't know much about Nietsche, but I'm finding out that Hitler's gross distortion of his philosophy casts him in an overly-negative light. I guess that's one reason I don't know much about him. Hitler was also into Wagner, who, from what I know, was quite anti-semetic. He was a good composer, except that his music goes on way to long, and I wouldn't have wanted to have a chat with him.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:15:09 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I'm wrong about the Waldorf school stuff
Message:
It's Steiner, NOT Gurdjieff who started the Waldorf junk.
Now I'll have to go reinvestigate. I believe you are right about the others. Gurdjieff was an occult mystic, as was Ouspensky, his 'heir.'

Thanks for the correction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:40:04 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Steiner
Message:
I tried reading some of (Rudolph) Steiner once and found it relatively impenetrable. He called himself something like an Anthroposist (again, I don't know the spelling) and I *think* some of his followers were also somehow connected to the Theosophists (Madame Blavatsky et al.) Steiner also helped start the whole biodynamic gardening thing. I think he was somewhat anti-semitic as well - much of that generation seems to have been.

Don't know much about Gurdjieff, except that he was very popular in the early part of this century.

Susan has posted some good anti-Waldorf links on here before. A LOT of the premies I knew sent their kids to Waldorf schools. I have to say that it really helped some of the children, especially those who were having a hard time in public school. But I think it probably depends on the individual Waldorf school and the particular teacher the kids had. I don't think any system of education (particularly in the primary grades) is right for all children.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:04:12 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I would say so
Message:
Hitler was very into things occult and found in Gurdjieff a rationalization for some of his beliefs. I've forgotten where I read that, but it stuck in my mind.

Now I'm not saying Gurdjieff was a nazi (although some other people my very well say he was like minded) but it seems strange that Hitler would latch onto his philosophy.

The Waldorf school is really something else, though. It is VERY controversial. Check the 'net. My personal experience was well, second hand, through a very close friend who sent his eldest son to a Waldorf school. His conclusion: He wanted to create a bumbersticker to counter the 'pro-Waldorf' one. His would read: 'Waldorf-Yes it is a cult.'

So my opinion is Gurdjieff was a cult leader. I don't think I'd have to dig very hard to bolster that belief.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:30:01 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I would say less of what I clearly know little
Message:
I would say less of what I clearly know little but hearsay about, Gerry. If he were alive, what you are writing could be called slander, but he seemed to handle that kind of thing much better than I. Stick to m-bashing - there you have some clear expertise. And no, I don't have the time or interest in trying to show you, or anyone else, how 'off' you are in many ways here. Do you remember the story of his I posted about 'The Eastern Magician'? He's not a 'mystic', nor was Ouspensky. What has gotten you so upset, Gerry? I don't get it at all. What are you fighting for?

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:21:33 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Gurdjieff--Skeptics Dictionary
Message:
G. I. Gurdjieff (1872?-1949)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'If all men were to become too intelligent they would not want to be eaten by the moon.'
(--Gurdjieff)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George S. Georgiades was a Greco-Armenian charismatic con man who was born in Russia but made a name for himself in Paris as the mystic George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff. In Russia he established what he called 'The Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man' (1919), which he re-established in France in 1922. It was at his Institute that Gurdjieff promoted a litany of preposterous occult and mystical notions about the universe, which he claimed he was taught by wise men while traveling and studying in Central Asia. He put down his 'insights' in books with titles like Meetings with Remarkable men, All and Everything, and Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson: an objectively impartial criticism of the life of man. Gurdjieff's mostly uninteresting or unintelligible musings were presented in more accessible language by his disciple Petyr Demianovich Ouspensky.

To some devotees of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky was an incomplete mystic. Other disciples find Gurdjieff and Ouspensky to be co-gurus.

Their current disciples presumably ignore Gurdjieff's more ridiculous claims, such as the following comment on the moon:

All evil deeds, all crimes, all self-sacrificing actions, all heroic exploits, as well as all the actions of ordinary life, are controlled by the moon.

What makes a guru such as Gurdjieff attractive as a spiritual conquistador is rather his more cynical beliefs, such as the notion that most human beings who are awake act as if they are asleep. Gurdjieff also observed that most people are dead on the inside. I think he meant by these claims that most people are trusting, gullible, easily led, very suggestible, not very reflective or suspicious of their fellow creatures, and need a guru to give their lives vitality and meaning. That is to say, I believe Gurdjieff correctly noted that most people are neither skeptics nor self-motivated, and that many are easily duped by gurus because they want someone to show them the way to live a meaningful life. He offered to show his followers the way to true wakefulness, a state of awareness and vitality which transcends ordinary consciousness. He was able to attract a coterie of writers, artists, wealthy widows and other questing souls to work his farm for him in exchange for sharing his wisdom. He offered numerous claims and explanations for everything under the moon, rooted in little more than his own imagination and never tempered with concern for what science might have to say about his musings.

Gurdjieff obviously had a powerful personality, but his disdain for the mundane and for natural science must have added to his attractiveness. He allegedly exuded extreme self-confidence and exhibited no self-doubt, traits which must have been comforting to many people. His teachings, however, often seem like the delusions of a Gnostic madman, such as Dr. Daniel Paul Schreber, whose Memoirs of a Neuropath were analyzed by Freud. (Available in Three Case Histories)

My favorite Gurdjieff story is told by Fritz Peters. To explain 'the secret of life' to a wealthy English woman who had offered him £1,000 for such wisdom, Gurdjieff brought a prostitute to their table and told her he was from another planet. The food he was eating, he told her, was sent to him from his home planet at no small expense. He gave the prostitute some of the food and asked her what it tasted like. She told him it tasted like cherries. 'That's the secret of life,' Gurdjieff told the English lady. She called him a charlatan and left. Later that day, however, she gave him the money and became a devoted follower.

To those on a quest for spiritual evolution or transformation, guides like Gurdjieff and Ouspesky promise entry into an esoteric world of ancient mystical wisdom. Such a world must seem attractive to those who are out to sea and rudderless. There are Gurdjieff Ouspensky Centers in over 30 countries around the world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:06:05 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Do YOU believe everything you read?
Message:
Do YOU believe everything you read? I sure don't. One thing I do know is that Gurdjieff insisted that no one accept anything he said on 'faith', but only when they themselves had experienced it to be true. In fact, one of the things that most intrigues me about him is the fact that, from what I've read from first-hand sources, I have found no evidence of megalomania or 'cult'-like tendencies in his teachings whatsoever, but rather the reverse.

Mentioned in a number of accounts is this: 'I cannot develop you', Gurdjieff told us, 'I can create conditions in which you develop yourselves'

In the de Hartmann's account of their work with Gurdjieff, Thomas de Hartman recounted how he had felt growing trust in Gurdjieff's guidance as a teacher, and asked,
‘Have I now to place complete trust in you, and fulfill unquestioningly all that you advise me to do?’
'Certainly, on the whole it is so. But if I begin to to teach you masturbation will you listen to me?’

And, especially for the evolutionists, 'Nature wanted to produce a self-evolving form. Man is the highest possible development of a self-evolving form. Nature can do no more; we must do it. All further development requires conscious effort. This requires labour comparable to that which nature has expended on our development so far, millenniums of it.'

Be careful not to read something out of context, especially if it's an analogy or metaphor - you seem to share the same taste in sources for info on this topic as Runamok. We have been through this before a few times, remember? And not only about Gurdjieff.

As I may have mentioned, I don't care if you are interested in Gurdjieff's work or not, but personally, I try to do more thorough research before I start repeating what others say as if it's 'God's' truth, if ever.

Don't worry, Gerry, I haven't joined a 'cult' yet, and I don't intend to.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:58:42 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: There is a Gurdjieff Cult
Message:
At least in California, there is a cult of people who follow the 'teachings' of Gurdjieff and Ospensky. They even have their own 'Amaroo' up in the Sierra, called 'Renaissance.'

I don't know a lot about it, except part of the concept is that you have to create an environment for growth and so they surround themselves with supposedly helpful things.

I was in an ex-cult group back in the 80s and to ex-members of that group came to some meetings and had a lot of negative things to say about the group. They thought it involved thought control, leadership that was almost worshipped, to tolerance for disagreement, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:12:04 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks Joe, but I've already posted about it here
Message:
I mention it in one of these posts. And from my understanding, it's bigger than what you describe, unfortunately. They have their own small forum for exes and are doing the about the same as you are here. The Burke (?) guy who started it sounds very creepy. Also very into personal power and luxury. I don't think I have the links bookmarked anymore, or I'd post them for you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:04:44 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Do YOU believe everything you read?
Message:
Stonor wrote--

One thing I do know is that Gurdjieff insisted that no one accept anything he said on 'faith', but only when they themselves had experienced it to be true.

and Stonor also wrote--

I try to do more thorough research before I start repeating what others say as if it's 'God's' truth, if ever.

Shroomananda asks--

Sorry for 'butting' in here, Ms. Stonor, but I would like to know that if you subscribe to these sentiments, why are you urging Elaine to 'get off the fence' regarding Maharaji? After all, you have not received his Knowledge, have you? Yet you come here quoting so-called experts like Gurdieff and talk about Maharaji and Knowledge like you are an expert. Do you have 'faith' in what Gurdieff said? You are not an 'ex' premie. You are a non-anything, correct? What brings you here? Why do you call it a 'cult' when you have no experience of the Knowledge? Maharaji doesn't ask anyone to believe in him through 'faith'. He offers them Knowledge so they can decide for themselves through their own experience. Could your 'expertise' be based on something you read? Just asking...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 19:40:16 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Back to work, eh Shroom?
Message:
Keeping an eye on the wandering sheep for the master? Leave Stoner alone, let Elaine work it out for herself, and you just keep saying: 'I enjoy Mahraji's free gift of knowledge, listening to his thought-provoking satsangs, and, dang, he's a pilot! I enjoy Mahraji's free gift of knowledge, listening to his thought-provoking satsangs, and, dang, he's a pilot! I enjoy Mahraji's free gift of knowledge, listening to his thought-provoking satsangs, and, dang, he's a pilot! I enjoy Mahraji's free gift of knowledge, listening to his thought-provoking satsangs, and, dang, he's a pilot! I enjoy Mahraji's free gift of knowledge, listening to his thought-provoking satsangs, and, dang, he's a pilot!'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:22:49 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Still preaching, Preacher? I could care less
Message:
about any 'wandering' sheep, Preacher. Elaine can work it out for herself. I am interested in why a non-anything would be interested in this topic. I mean she is talking about Maharaji and Knowledge like she knows what this is all about. She hasn't earned her stripes and has no idea what makes this a 'cult' other than her own concepts and what she's read here. So I'm interested in knowing why. It's as simple as that. What's your problem, Preacher?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 12:39:49 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Still preaching, Preacher? I could care less
Message:
Sheesh! Well, let's do this your way. My problem with you, Nightwatchman, is that you keep harping on Stoner. Also, Nightwatchman, you tell her she has no credibility on this site when it is you who have absolutley no credibility here; you are a laughingstock and an embarrassment to you Master. And when Elaine and Stoner are discussing Elaine's doubts, you are right there to remind Elaine that Stoner doesn't practice (I am not going to use the word Knowledge here because these techniques have nothing to do with any real knowledge). So, Nightwatchman, I will continue to dog you and point out your ridiculous arguments and inane discourses until you finally become enlightenend and leave this place. Keep watching, Nightwatchman!!
(Yuck! I hate using someone's job description over and over. How DO you do it?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:38:29 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: I thought it was a 'calling', Preacher. What
Message:
happened? Did your latest sermon convince you that it is a job instead?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:43:40 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I thought it was a 'calling', Preacher. What
Message:
Sheesh, you are a nasty person for one so full of love and peace! Now, you have extreme problems with the fact that I preach, and that I have an education, and that I am honest about the fact that the meditation you practice is not the great door to supreme knowledge of the soul. You enjoy squealing 'preacher' and think that it is pretty clever. I attempted to show you how annoying it is by calling you 'Nightwatchman,' and instead of showing just the slightest bit of wit or even intelligence (such as realizing that it is time for you to be quiet) you just continue.
If I was to say I won't respond to your taunts, you would simply post some incredibly inane comment about the great historical facts garnered from the akashic records or some other twaddle and I would end up commenting. So, instead, I will encourage all thoughtful, reasonable people to ignore you and your posts. Perhaps you might have Totapuri put a piece of broken glass in your forehead so that you might focus on something useful.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:43:24 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: You're the one who's keeping this dialogue alive.
Message:
You are the one who is making stupid statements like:

I am honest about the fact that the meditation you practice is not the great door to supreme knowledge of the soul.

You're an 'educated' preacher yet you make statements like that? It makes me think that you got a correspondence course in Preacher school! What makes that statement a 'fact', Preacher? Because you believe it does not make it a fact. Because it's written somewhere? You're the one who's ridiculous, Preacher! Several times you've told me you are not going to debate anymore yet you keep reading my posts and responding to me. As I recall, this all started with your statement of 'fact' to Elaine that Maharaji's Knowledge is not the same as the Knowledge that Christ gave. If you want to say I believe or it seems to me or qualify your statements in some way, then I wouldn't challenge you. But you don't know! Yet you make statements of 'fact' like they are true. That's ignorance. Actually it's worse than ignorance because you don't know yet you claim that you do. Preach to your flock. Maybe they believe without proof but not me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:51:25 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Don't believe in Shroom'
Message:
Shroom: Maybe they believe without proof but not me.

From Collins Concise Dictionary:-
Belief n. 1. a principle accepted as true, esp. without proof. 2. opinion; conviction 3. religious faith 4. trust or confidence, as in a person's abilities, etc.

It's OK to believe without proof, shroom. That's exactly how the word is used. You are hampered here by your lack of education - but you can change that, if you try to learn from the kind people here who have freely given you so much time and attention.

They have been where you are and have gone beyond it. They achieved this by letting go of deluded thought patterns and the beliefs these had inculcated.

Until you are prepared sincerely to understand this and also make that attempt, however difficult or painful, you have no more business here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:53:58 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Having knowledge is NOT a prerequisite...
Message:
...for posting on this forum, or voicing one's opinions about M and K.

You wrote, re Stonor:
I mean she is talking about Maharaji and Knowledge like she knows what this is all about. She hasn't earned her stripes and has no idea what makes this a 'cult' other than her own concepts
and what she's read here.

Not true. Friends and relatives of premies and ex-premies have always been welcome to post here, regardless of whether they have 'received knowledge' or not. I personally feel that these people, and also aspirants (who you have similarly maligned) have earned their stripes.

If you don't like this, you don't have to post here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:31:36 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: You are singularly repugnant
Message:
You were blocked and now you are back against the wishes of the adminstrators and I would imagine, most of the participants. But you don't care because: you could care less. Spoken in true premie fashion.

Stonor has every right to be here. She has every right to pronounce judgement on this hideous cult. To say otherwise would be analagous to saying one must be a murderer before you can judge one.

You are stupid. Cultism and meditation must have rotted any nature feelings you have towards life and other people.

In the name of Jesus, I command you to leave this website forever!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:54:49 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: idiotananda
Subject: You are singularly repugnant
Message:
You were blocked and now you are back against the wishes of the adminstrators and I would imagine, most of the participants. But you don't care because: you could care less. Spoken in true premie fashion.

In the name of Jesus, I command you to leave this website forever!

I mean it. Don't risk the consequences.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:45:28 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I wonder if you would say the same thing if Stonor
Message:
was on the other side of the 'fence'. Would you defend her right to come here and encourage you to go back to the Master? When she didn't have Knowledge? Would she still have credibility then, Jerry? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:23:35 (GMT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Do YOU believe everything you read?
Message:
No, of course I don't believe everything I read. Sorry to have you on the ropes with this guy, Stonor, but clearly Gurdjieff is a mystic and a con man.

I DO recall now: I tried to read Gurdjieff and found him incomprehensible. It's his fault, not mine.

Let's just take a look at one of your Gurdi quotes:

'Nature wanted to produce a self-evolving form.

Here he purports to know 'nature's mind.' How does he know this is true? Just what is a 'self-evolving form?'

Man is the highest possible development of a self-evolving form. Nature can do no more; we must do it. All further development requires conscious effort. This requires labour comparable to that which nature has expended on our development so far, millenniums of it.'

On face, a seemingly reasonable remark. Scratch the surface and take a look at the arrogance of a man who once claimed the moon is resposible for all human activity. 'Nature can do no more?' How does he know that? Is it true? What does he get by making such grandiose statements other than the undying admiration of his groupies?

So we need to spend milleniums of labour on... what? Further development? Huh? This is just jibberish.

Why waste your time on this guy? And yeah, you do seem vulnerable to falling for the influence of a guru. I mean, you almost did, didn't you?

I DID. I believe my 'Bullshit detector' my be a tad sharper than yours. Maybe not by much, but enought to see through Gurdjieff.

And please stop insisting I'm upset, on a crusade or whatever. I'm not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:48:02 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Do YOU believe everything you read?
Message:
Okay, Gerry, I'll admit I don't know what you're on, and I'll stop making those suggestions if you stop judging people you've never met. What is your basis for this: 'Gurdjieff is a mystic and a con man'.? Gerry . . . he IS dead. Did you read my posts, or just jump to the first part you felt you could attack. I have to tell you, Gerry, that the only person I've ever known to do this to the extent that you do, was that premie I used to communicate with via email, but to different texts.

I also found Gurdjieff pretty inaccessible at first (apart from Meetings with Remarkable Men), but was able to get some sense from Ouspensky, and other sources which seem to present similar ideas. I am looking for common threads running through many different writings and practices, and have been doing so almost all my life.

And no, I've never almost fallen under the influence of a guru. The only potentially 'close-shave' I've mentioned was the now defunct 'Women's Group' whose weekend workshop I almost attended at the recommendation of a friend, whom I was planning to visit at the same time.

And don't bother to bring up Burke, or whatever his name was, who has turned his distortion of Gurdjieff's work into a contemporary 'cult', I'm way ahead of you in this area of research, IMHO, but I appreciate your concern.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:51:43 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Do YOU believe everything you read?
Message:
Tell me again Stonor, 'what am I on.' Are you insinuating something here?

I prefer to take one point of an obvioulsy foolish, ignorant and superstitious belief system reflected in your post(s) and examine that. And yes I do read your posts in their entirety and even went back to the inactive to read one of them as you remarked upon earlier. So don't try that tact.

Oh and yeah, Gurdjieff was a mystic and a con man. Thanks for your petty and meaningless correction, but I guess grasping at straws is the attempt before throwing in the towel on Gurdjieff, huh.

I though you were a former 'aspirant.' Not true? Did I misunderstand something here? Oh I get it, Maha isn't a guru anymore, he's a teacher. I forgot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:48:46 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: No, Gerry- never said I was a former aspirant.(nt)
Message:
nnnnnnnnnn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 16:22:21 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I would say so
Message:
Hitler was nuts and grossly misinterpreted different philosophies. So if he found in Gurdjieff a rationalization for some of his beliefs, that doesn't make Gurdjieff a nazi. You're not saying that Gurdjieff was a nazi but you're not saying he wasn't. So the question is was Gurdjieff anti-semetic (or whatever)or not? What evidence do you have for what you are saying?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 17:42:00 (GMT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Why is that the burning question?
Message:
Hitler was nuts and grossly misinterpreted different philosophies. So if he found in Gurdjieff a rationalization for some of his beliefs, that doesn't make Gurdjieff a nazi. You're not saying that Gurdjieff was a nazi but you're not saying he wasn't. So the question is was Gurdjieff anti-semetic (or whatever)or not? What evidence do you have for what you are saying?

I don't know if Gurdjieff is anti-semetic or not. I have no opinion on this and didn't state one. What I am saying is that Gurdjieff was another cult con man whose ideas could never stand the light of scientific or other, scrutiny. I tried reading him; he is a terrible writer and his 'philosophy' as it were, is a hodge-podge of warmed over Eastern and middle eastern mysticism. Now if you'd like to defend that stuff, go ahead. This will be fun.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:18:26 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: what does this actually mean?
Message:
'it would be a great sin if I should judge his religion or disillusion him in it and thereby destroy his conscience which can only be acquired in childhood.'

The implications are:

1. Religious belief systems are substitutes for conscience.

2. Developing a conscience is beyond the reach of adults.

3. Disillusioning others is a great sin.


Who the fuck said this, Gerry?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 00:05:05 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: stonor21@hotmail.com
To: gerry and cq
Subject: to cq and gerry
Message:
'Who the fuck said this Gerry?'

You guys sure know how to cast an ugly shadow on an otherwise really pleasant day in my life. I don't know what you're implying here, cq, but maybe you're just trying to communicate with Gerry in the language and tone of his post.

If you both want to assume that you have now correctly 'interpreted' this decontextualized fragment, frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn at this point. It's all in the interpretation, isn't it; take it as you will, want, or are able.

That quote was taken from a longer quote from a book, and I re-contextualized it in a post to a specific person with whom I was having a relatively personal conversation (and yes, we CAN all recognize that, as well as recognize when it's basically OK, or not, to jump in).

I don't know what pushed your buttons, Gerry, but I apologize if you found my post to Elaine upsetting in some way - that was not my intention. I hope that you will understand that I no longer wish to waste my time and energy responding to needlessly aggressive posts. If you want to discuss this further, please email me. You have my address; in case you've 'lost' it, I've posted one above.

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:47:30 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: you'll love these, Stonor
Message:
Stonor,

Gerry tells me it was a quote from Gurdjieff. That surprises me. I've often found him to be quite insightful. Ouspensky too.

It's true I don't rate what he said in that quote (admittedly out of context though it is), but don't let that cast an 'ugly shadow' on your day. There are some things worth disagreeing passionately about, without taking an opposing opinion as a personal slight on our worth.


Now here's a little more of the Gurdjieff that I can relate to!


'Do not be affected by externals. In themselves they are harmless; it is we who allow ourselves to be hurt by them.'

'If you are not critical by nature, it is useless for you to remain here.'

'For some people religion is useful but for others it is only a policeman. '

'Men have their minds and women their feelings more highly developed. Either alone can give nothing. Think what you feel and feel what you think. Fusion of the two produces another force.'

'Sincerity is the key to self-knowledge and to be sincere with oneself brings great suffering.'

'You should understand, and establish it as a firm rule, not to pay attention to other people’s opinions. You must be free of people surrounding you, and when you are free inside you will be free of them.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:52:28 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: These quotes and some comments
Message:
'Do not be affected by externals. In themselves they are harmless; it is we who allow ourselves to be hurt by them.'

Total Bullshit. Step in front of a moving bus and see if 'externals' don't affect you.

'If you are not critical by nature, it is useless for you to remain here.'

So a person without training in critical thinking should kill himself? This is a skill which can be learned, like any other skill. Unfortunately it is rarely taught these days.

'For some people religion is useful but for others it is only a policeman. '

Useful in what manner? This is a banality.

'Men have their minds and women their feelings more highly developed. Either alone can give nothing. Think what you feel and feel what you think. Fusion of the two produces another force.'

More nonsense. More contived duality where non exists. Try to separate the two. It also smacks of sexism, if you ask me.

'Sincerity is the key to self-knowledge and to be sincere with oneself brings great suffering.'

Why in the world would 'sincerity' produce great suffering, unless of course, one realizes that he (in this case Gurdjieff himself) is a fraud?

'You should understand, and establish it as a firm rule, not to pay attention to other people’s opinions. You must be free of people surrounding you, and when you are free inside you will be free of them.'

Beautiful. Dissociate yourself completely from the rest of humanity and you'll be free. No one can teach you anything. Except of course, the great Gurdjieff and then for a price.

I rest my case.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:59:56 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Hi cq!
Message:
It was the 'running away from the challenge' stuff that really got to me, along with the other things I've already mentioned to Gerry.

Yeah, some of Gurdjieff's aphorisms are good. I found a page of them somewhere. But some of them won't make sense if you don't know a bit more about the context they were taken from. Don't give Gerry more fuel! ;-) The interpretation of metaphor and analogy is very tricky at best, and I know you'll agree with that!

Take care,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 20:01:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Hi 2U2!
Message:
I have to admit, Stonor, I haven't read all posts in this thread yet, so I don't know who said that.

You know, over twenty years ago when I read Ouspensky's 'The Fourth Way', I was totally bamboozled by all the stuff he quotes Gurdjieff saying about hydrogen gasses and the planetary system. But in between all the apparent crap, there were more than a few pearls of apparent wisdom (and didn't G talk about how he had to 'bury the dog deeper', - the dog that is, and not the bone apparently). Crazy wisdom eh?

Gurdjieff's teachings could be infuriatingly obscure when he wanted them to be. No doubt another of his 'devices'.

But should these so-called 'Masters' fuck with people's brains like that? I wonder.

And as for 'disillusioning people' and getting them to 'wake up' - I thought that was what Gurdjieff was all about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:03:54 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Hi #2 2U2!
Message:
And as for 'disillusioning people' and getting them to 'wake up' - I thought that was what Gurdjieff was all about?

Well, I don't know about the 'all about', but yes, from my understanding that is an essential part of the 'individual/internal evolution' he was talking about.

'Apparent crap' or not, metaphysics was a major part of what first interested me in Ouspensky, and then Gurdjieff. Did you know that Ouspensky wrote a few books on 'metaphysics BEFORE he met Gurdjieff - his Tertium Organum, which I've read(!) was his great mathematics/physics treatise. What amazed him when he met Gurdjieff, were the similarities between the theories and concepts he had developed and the 'system' which Gurdjieff and his group of fellow 'explorers' found through various and far flung sources. Gurdjieff's went further and, I believe, answered many other questions besides. Let me re-iterate that Gurdjieff never claimed to the the source of this knowledge and 'Meetings with Remarkable Men' is the book that explains to some extent how and where it was found. It might interest you to know that he says it is ancient knowledge.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:17:42 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: to cq and gerry
Message:
You guys sure know how to cast an ugly shadow on an otherwise really pleasant day in my life. I don't know what you're implying here, cq, but maybe you're just trying to communicate with Gerry in the language and tone of his post.

Strange thing to say Stonor. 'ugly shadow' I certainly don't feel it. Of course my tone is skeptical and negative towards this quote. LOOK at what he is saying.

If you both want to assume that you have now correctly 'interpreted' this decontextualized fragment, frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn at this point. It's all in the interpretation, isn't it; take it as you will, want, or are able.

Are you saying you don't care what the author means or you don't understand what the author means. There is a big difference. I think I'm reading it clearly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That quote was taken from a longer quote from a book, and I re-contextualized it in a post to a specific person with whom I was having a relatively personal conversation (and yes, we CAN all recognize that, as well as recognize when it's basically OK, or not, to jump in).

Oh BS You really aren't gonna pull that 'butt out, I'm talking to her' routine are you Stonor? It just doesn't fly. If you wanted a private conversation you'd be having one through email.

I don't know what pushed your buttons, Gerry, but I apologize if you found my post to Elaine upsetting in some way - that was not my intention. I hope that you will understand that I no longer wish to waste my time and energy responding to needlessly aggressive posts. If you want to discuss this further, please email me. You have my address; in case you've 'lost' it, I've posted one above.

Like I said below, you didn't push any buttons, though I admit to seeing a red flag with the name 'Gurdjieff.' And no your post was not in the least upsetting. And I didn't think my respose was 'aggressive.' Besides, what wrong with aggressive?' It's a necessary trait for existing in the world, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:35:52 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: whos said this nonsense....
Message:
Gurdjieff, that all knowing seer and inspiration for the Waldorf system of schooling children. Sucks, doesn't it?

And you noticed Stonor ran away from my challenge for her to comment on my post. Oh well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:51:35 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Excuse me, it's my niece's 5th birthday today.
Message:
I did not run away from anything gErRy!!! But I don't know why you have to get so aggressive about something I posted to ELAINE. I don't feel like re-reading what you wrote before after reading this last post, let alone respond to your 'challenge' (what are we doing, fighting a duel?!!!!!) but I will tell you that if that quote was 'aimed' at anything or anyone, it was 'aimed' at m etc.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:12:29 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Now I'm totally confused
Message:
I'm not trying to be aggressive, I'm not angry, no buttons have been pushed I was merely responding to post. Like everyone else. Writing a response to something you wrote.

If you quote something from Gurdjieff it must have some significance to you. I scrutinized the quote and found it wanting for many reasons, which I've pointed out.

If you don't understand what the quote means then why post it? Does my analysis change your perceptive of its meaning? What does it mean to you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:49:47 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: Hi gErRy, was wondering where you've been ...
Message:
Maybe I'll get back to you later if I have time! You actually BOTHERED to go back and read my post to Elaine? I am touched, really! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:17:03 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Oh, for God's sake Stonor...
Message:
Gerry is sooo not worth talking to.
I mean he admits to how out of touch, insensitive, unaware he is about his typed words and how they effect others.

Like he grinds your toe with his foot as you're screaming and says -'Oh, does that hurt? It doesn't bother ME.'

All bewildered.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:46:11 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now
Message:
Affect not Effect. Other than that, I can't find anything to challenge you on in this post. I hope you don't mind my political incorrectness in the context of this forum. I'm so useless at effective communication.

All bewildered 2 :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:51:57 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now
Message:
Affect/effect.

I think I was day-dreaming when the teacher explained those two.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:54:31 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now
Message:
(I have to think about it almost everytime I write one of those words - contrasting 'affection' and 'effective' help me to remember, but I'm sure you'll catch me too! ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:00:14 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Not you too? First 50 million, then G, and now
Message:
Hey, cool - good idea.Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:26:44 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Elaine, you are lying.
Message:
Gerry is sooo not worth talking to.
I mean he admits to how out of touch, insensitive, unaware he is about his typed words and how they effect others.
Like he grinds your toe with his foot as you're screaming and says -'Oh, does that hurt? It doesn't bother ME.'

All bewildered.

Well, I NEVER admitted to anything of the sort. And your little analogy sucks. But you are not only a deluded cult member who thinks she's superior to the rest of the world, you're an arrogant little pissant with the intellectual capacity of a worm.

No wonder you're bewildered, you twit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 20:08:40 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I too, Elaine, fart in your general direction
Message:
Now wasn't that mature?

BTW, you're sounding more like Jim every day. That worries me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:22:12 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Grow up, dude...
Message:
Chris,

It must be the book I'm studying: Critical Thinking: A Functional Approach. And yeah, maybe a little Heller mixed in there after all. Oh wait that goes against the great Gurdjieff's aphorism about ignoring other peoples' opinions. Oh my!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:29:40 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: critical vs critical
Message:
critical
1.Inclined to judge severely and find fault.
2.Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment: a critical reading.
3.Of, relating to, or characteristic of critics or criticism: critical acclaim; a critical analysis of Melville's writings.

Words and phrases like 'sucks', 'pissant', 'intellectual capacity of a worm', and 'twit' do not fall under the category of critical thinking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:11:15 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I admit I have a ways to go
Message:
or is that 'way to go?'

No, those were insults, granted. But I think they describe Elaine's thought processes accurately. After all, I didn't say those things in a vacuum:

Elaine:Gerry is sooo not worth talking to.
I mean he admits to how out of touch, insensitive, unaware he is about his typed words and how they effect others.
Like he grinds your toe with his foot as you're screaming and says -'Oh, does that hurt? It doesn't bother ME.'
All bewildered.

There's something sneaky and deceptive about Elaine I can't quite put my finger on, yet.

You're a pretty level headed and intelligent guy G, so tell me what's your take on Elaine?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 05:59:13 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: ways to go
Message:
'ways to go' is informally used in American English, it is not incorrect.

I don't think that 'pissant', 'intellectual capacity of a worm', and 'twit' accurately describe her, especially the 'worm' bit. I understand that you said this in retaliation to what she said, but that doesn't make it accurate.

A pissant is a 'stickler for petty details'.

A twit is a person regarded as 'foolishly annoying' or 'contemptible'. I can understand that you were annoyed and that you think she's thinking foolishly. But telling someone they are a fool is not necessarily constructive. It's better to address specific thoughts and say why you think they are foolish.

I think there is a grain of truth to what she wrote considering what you wrote in your other post. However, I would not have written it the offensive way she did. Keep in mind though that what she wrote was also a retaliation. Tit for tat, how long will it go on?

Elaine seems to be still somewhat on the fence, she doesn't seem like a fundamentalist premie. I don't have her figured out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 21:27:43 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: A BIG fart is flying through the internet directly
Message:
A BIG fart is flying through the internet directly to your server, where it will patiently restrain itself until you click the Get Msg button, at which point, it will loudly explode in your face, completing the cycle, and ending up almost exactly where it began, figuratively speaking, of course.

Cheers!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:50:30 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Why Gerry, why so upset
Message:
My, you are a sensitive guy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:16:35 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Look who is talking about sensitivity. ROFL (nt)
Message:
illogical?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:12:59 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Lick my balls, Elaine
Message:
I'm not upset, but you sure have a knack for getting people to insult you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:21:01 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: gErRy, Catcher in the Rye, whoever you are
Message:
You are giving all the credit to the wrong person. That's clear even to me, Bewildered 2. You are the one with an obvious expertise and flare for insults. 'Lick my balls' has such an original tang to it!

Uh uh, by intuition was wrong, Patty's not in the bedroom, she's in the bathroom running your bath.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:40:59 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: gErRy you're lyng.
Message:
My intuition is screaming at me to tell you that Patty is waiting for you in the bedroom. I'm sure she wouldn't like you to be wasting your time with us ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:53:50 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Yes I am lyng.
Message:
I don't consider it a waste of time talking to you Stonor, I rather enjoy it. You are a bit touchy though and some what of a bitch. But I like that in a a woman.

Elaine's a different story. She's so filled with new age belief systems that she really doesn't know anything. It's sad. I'm reading Malachi Martin's Hostages to the Devil. My new theory is she's possessed (snicker.) Actually I was hoping the late Father Martin, formerly of the Society of Jesus would be a bit of an iconoclast, but alas, he is merely an apologist. Good writer, though.

Enough of this chit chat, now. What did you think of my analysis of your Gurdjieff quote?

Send all donations to:

Gerry Lyng
220 Beck St
McCleary, Washington 98557

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:11:15 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: So... ya caught the pun
Message:
Don't agree with either your analysis or your theory but, sorry, I don't do challenges either way. Wait a minute, there was no analysis of Gurdjieff's quote . . . did you email it to me? Or ... you call that an analysis!!! Guess you'll be repeating this course AGAIN, Gerry.

I do agree with Elaine about how you're an interesting case of sensitive-insensitivity or something. The contradictions at this forum can be so overwhelming at times for a touchy bitch of a dumb-blond PC schoolmarm battle-axe mushpot like me.

Patty IS waiting I'm SURE.

And are you looking for donations of food, clothes . . . Gerry, what's happened?!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:57:26 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Hiding, after your last thrashing of me...
Message:
So what do think of my post? Can you see my point? Hope you get a chance to comment.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:51:14 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: Stonor
Message:
You thrashed Gerry a ways back?? Missed it - congrats.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:02:12 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Stonor,allitle more
Message:
And you don't have to be nervous posting to me - I really don't get upset ever with opposite views (not that yours was at all) or interesting posts or helpful insights or quotes.

Those unnessasarily mean ones are another matter.
_______

And Jim's ego is one thing ---it's the 'checking' of that ego that's another - the unnessasary comments - IMO.Everyday courtesy would be nice - and IMO, keep the ego, just 'check' it a bit.
My opinion only.

Still going over your long post.:)

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:10:20 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: To be fair to you ......
Message:
Elaine, you DID say all that you did above. To your credit, you did avoid taking the unseemly low road that your premie brethren have walked regarding all this shit. Indeed, I guess I was using you as a bit of a foil. I'm so disgusted with twisted premie thinking that I found it easier to talk about O instead of to him.

But you gave me opportunity by saying that you saw O's logic. I take it you now agree that his post was anything but?

And good for your friend. Maybe she can help you take the next step yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:16:34 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: To be fair to you ......
Message:
It's so funny how you just can't get away from being pompous.

It ruins the whole feel of your post - and why?

You don't know what steps I've taken? She and I are helping each other with alot of issues.

You just can't be a nice guy,can you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 15:19:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Easy now!
Message:
Sorry, Elaine, but aren't you the woman who reiterated just the other day that you've experienced internally that Maharaji is the Lord of the Universe?

You're right. I have no idea what 'steps' you've taken.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 16:48:52 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Easy now!
Message:
I believe I said I'd had experiences that would indicate he was Lord of the Uiniverse.( And not some astral image - any Joe-shmoe can do that.) But, something that to me 'indicated' that. I also said and after all that 'I don't know who he is.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:10:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Here's what you actually said
Message:
Here's what you actually said:

And with all that - I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. I know I've had experiences inside that would indicate he was the Lord of the Universe. I just can't erase those. That's why I still call myself a premie.

Christ or the Virgin Mary or Buddha didn't manifest inside me when the Universe was expanding and imploding in my consciousness - it was Maharaji himself.

So, yeah, big ex points for you: you don't know who he is.

But what's with this 'mainfest' shit? Or is that just excited premie talk? You know, 'manifest, manifest, manifest...' Too bad you weren't around for 'primordial vibration'. That was a good one. And don't forget 'self-effulgent', another great cult word.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 14:45:28 (GMT)
From: P-man
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here's what you actually said
Message:
And with all that - I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. I know I've had experiences inside that would indicate he was the Lord of the Universe. I just can't erase those. That's why I still call myself a premie.

Christ or the Virgin Mary or Buddha didn't manifest inside me when the Universe was expanding and imploding in my consciousness - it was Maharaji himself.

This is really a crack up. Jim's emphasis on that trigger word 'manifest' shows the little bird droppings of a cult.

But the one that really got me was the one in all caps... 'I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS'. This one's really revealing. It's like a rhetorical backwards-doubt; like who the hell COULD HE BE? Instead of doubting that a person could be a GOD, Elaine is doubting that he's not. Very tricky. But what would a cult be without a trick.

The 'I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS' statement is also phony and misleading. An honest representation of not knowing who maharaji is would read more like, 'I don't know that he's anything but a person like you and me'.

Elaine goes on to say, 'I know I've had experiences inside that would indicate he was the Lord of the Universe. I just can't erase those.'

So now, just what experiences indicate that someone is the 'Lord of the Universe'? I mean, exactly which magic trick tells you he's the Lord of the Universe? Is it the bliss? The incredibleness? At what point do you say, 'He's not just a super-commander; in fact he's more than even a bitchen, awesome mega-commander... he's the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE!'

See, this stuff is all from comic books and fairy tales.

Elaine caps it all off with 'Christ or the Virgin Mary or Buddha didn't manifest inside me when the Universe was expanding and imploding in my consciousness - it was Maharaji himself.'

This is how you know Elaine is completely in her imagination. How does someone or something manifest inside you? Was the little guru there winking at you?

And what's with '...the Universe was expanding and imploding in my consciousness...'? Are we just a tad prone to exaggeration, Elaine? Give me a break, girl. We've all told war stories from the LSD days, and then from the guru days, and anyone who was there can recognize the sound of bullshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:10:58 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Anyone
Subject: My big meditation experience...for what it's worth
Message:
Well, I'm not really writing this to you personally Powerman -as much as I am to any one else that would be interested in reading what I would have to say to your post.

I am sorry you think it is bullshit.

My neighbor/acquaintance thinks the same thing of NDE's and past life recollections. Everyone can have there own opinion. (Of course, he's more polite about it.) Nothing less than an NDE of his own would probably alter his thinking even a little.

I don't think anyone can fully express what they experienced in an NDE fully. (For those that aren't following -Near Death Experience,sorry.)

Picture it: Beautiful island sunny day - I'm alone meditating in my first two months of receiving Kn - I believe I fasted for a couple days - I was very determined to 'go deep' -experience 'something' of what all the talk was about.Because -so far my mind had been active in sitting in silence and I didn't exp. much. I felt 'left out' when premies would talk about all this bliss and light and stuff.Tho, I felt really wonderful after sat sang meetings. I wanted lots more. I think we all did. Afterall, it was pretty much promised.

Got the sheet over my head - doing light technique w/ my barragon -not 'squeezing' my eyes - just holding them still.

I sat for well over an hour - lots of things happened - music came wafting in my head like a breeze - I later worked out the melody on my guitar at the time and even now when I play it - people love it - so simply and compelling. No crickets or waves on the beach or babbling brooks or distant bells and harmonies this time,but an actual tangible melody it was very neat.

No 'bliss' - just sweet. Alot of other stuff - that is not the point here. Eventually, my attention was really acute - doing the light tech. now - in front of my eyes ( inner eye?) - well, in my inner vision I started to see something 'different'.

My mind (consciousness) felt like it was expanding...how do you explain something like this to someone that maybe hasn't experienced it, I don't know? I see it could sound like BS.

Anyway...my attention was really perked...I felt I was expanding to the far reaches of the universe,travelling actually...and no fear or anything, just alert.
After a short while things changed - I was watching and there were scintillating 'sparkles' happening like trillions of stars in a black cosmos...(sounds like Auto. of a Yogi,I know - but, this is what it was like....)

Well, something started to change again - it was neat - but,I was a spectator just watching - I had never had anything like this happen - - as I write I'm surprised I had no fear or my mind didn't come in and stop the meditation w/ some distraction...

Well, the 'sparkles/stars' started to move in some 'deliberate' pattern - - as before they seemed to be expanding (like now in Star Trek movies with special effects that they didn't have then...) they started to 'implode' - as fast as they were expanding - these sparkles started to come in on themselves - it was amazing...When all of a sudden these 'millions of sparkles'
imploded faster and faster and right smack dab in front of my face they contracted and became Maharaji's smiling face.

Well, needless to say you never saw anyone in more shock and stunned in your life,for a very long time.

We weren't supposed to talk about our meditations,remember? I never told anyone. But, I was hooked. I've got to say.
And this was just one experience.
______________

Now, I come here - I read all this 'stuff' - how can anyone after reading this stuff not think that Maharaji is a deluded person that is wrongly claiming this 'K' as his own.
I've talked to my Gopi Hawaii friend about it ---it is clearly not exclusive to Maharaji.
She has asked me - then why do I get my socks blown off when I'm in his presence - I said - 'The same experience could have happened to you at Lourdes if you were a Catholic with enough faith and hope.'
She was positively silent.

Then she says her Reiki teacher told her all these gurus do is stick a 'hook' in your crown chakra --she asked 'Do you think that is what M does when we pranam?'
The Reiki teacher said it was a terrible thing that these gurus do that.

So, holy shit, I've got alot of thinking to do.

Of course, from most here at this site- I just get ridiculed for having my own process, and now, confusions.
I don't understand the meanness. If someone doesn't like me - fine - but why all the sarcasm and meanness.
And thank you for those that have been patient and level-headed, BTW - you know who you are.

I've never tried to change anyone to think like me - I clearly never cared if anyone followed M or not - haven't even cared if you all try to take him to court. I've shown my interest in hearing what indeed M would have to say to questions that he has avoided. I'm not whining - I just don't get the attitude directed at me.

I even told my other friend that's going to Victoria - to look up Jim and tell him how I've never cared whether she 'followed' M or not ----and now that she has the techniques from the Website here --- cool.(She won't be looking up anyone - she's on vacation - )

Anyway - this is too long of a post - sorry I'll end here.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 12:39:12 (GMT)
From: Oliver
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: I saw Marilyn Munroe once...for what it's worth/nt
Message:
nt:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:03:54 (GMT)
From: hal
Email: None
To: Oliver
Subject: I'd rather see her than you know who ! nt
Message:
gh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:11:10 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Big head meditation- what is it worth?
Message:
Hi Elaine,
What are those experiences worth? I've had plenty of them too but I have yet to acertain any practical value to them in my life. They actually have tended to make me rather impatient with the banal and mundain I think. I've had my head in the clouds for my whole adult life and it has rather hindered me in my earthly operations.

Anyway just to tell you that my most far out and mystical trips happened at the times when I had rejected Maharaji as being too limited and restrictive. This story may help::

Ramaksishna , a famous Indian holy man and keeper of a small temple, was renowned for his mystical experiences of Lord Krishna. He would daily see not just visions but actual manifestations of Krishna. He spent his life in ecstasy and blissful adoration for Krishna. Of course the people loved to hear him tell of his wondrously inspiring visions.

Then one day a very serious looking man entered his small temple. There was something powerful about this man and he started to enquire about these legendary visions that Ramakrishna had. He listened patiently to some tales and then made a rather controversial suggestion to Ramakrishna. He suggested that the next time Krishna manifested , Ramakrishna should take up a sharp sword and cut off lord Krishna's head ! Ramakrishna was of course shocked. He said to the man , ' I couldn't possibly cut off the head of the one I adore and anyway where would I get a sword?' ' Why you'd get the sword from the same place that you got Lord Krishna of course!'said the wise man.

Apparently Ramakrishna awakened to the highest truth when he realised that all visions are of the mind.

I quite like the Zen Buddhist systems which don't depend or rely on mystical vision but rather a state of awakeness to the here and now. They consider gods , heavens and mystic stuff as a barrier to true awareness.

Thanks for your courage in sharing those very personal experiences Elaine, or are you a little masochistic? Some kind of desire to be crucified on the forum perhaps?

I sincerely wish you a big awakening !

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 00:04:52 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Nice post Hal ;) (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:03:28 (GMT)
From: Stonora
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Big head meditation- what is it worth?
Message:
Hi Hal,

Great story! I've never meditated to feel good or to get visions. When I had the same experience as Elaine did last fall (minus the m vision), I stopped meditating for a while! Another one 'spooked' me more. I've also read in at least one source these 'visions' are to be ignored - just 'glamour' or something like that. I'll have to try better to remember that if it happens again, but I couldn't ignore it those times! ;-)

Any ideas why no one has bothered to comment on my posts about that experience? I know I've talked about here it at least one time before.

Stonora

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:33:39 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Stonora
Subject: Big head meditation- what is it worth?
Message:
Hi and thanks Stonora,

I guess that story is just a story and maybe not historically accurate or anything but I like it just for its message.

About the lack of response to your post. Well I don't remember exactly which one it was but I suspect that there is a reluctance amongst many here to discuss any experiences of those kinds because of being dissed too intensely by the material atheists. This type of thing is maybe not appreciated by some and I can understand that, although I still find it interesting to talk about. I think there may be a better place to discuss certain things than here, where the focus is more on dissing spiritual stuff.

Look forward to talking with you in Pleasantville some time,

Love Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 13:17:26 (GMT)
From: Stonora
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Big head meditation- what is it worth?
Message:
I had a feeling that my post to you wasn't entirely clear, but I'm talking in particular about the one I wrote just below about that experience, which was apparently basically the same as Elaine's, minus m in the middle of it. I'm surprised by the similarities, but no one seems to have paid any attention to it, and simply responded to Elaine's. Just in case that wasn't clear in the post you responded to.

See ya!

Stonora

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 22:40:22 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: You're quoting a Ramakrishna story? I have to
Message:
comment here, Hal. The story about Ramakrishna using the 'sword of discrimination' is told in detail in 'Ramakrishna and His Disciples' by Christopher Isherwood in the chapter called 'Totopuri'.

If you look at Maharaji's website section called Masters, you'll see Totopuri's name as the first one in the line. In the story recounted in Isherwood's book, Totopuri was a wandering monk who met Ramakrishna at the Dakshineshwar temple and offered him Knowledge. When they had their Knowledge session, Ramakrishna said that he could discriminate between the real and the unreal for everything but the Divine Mother. He said that he couldn't get that vision out of his mind and go within. Totopuri said 'You must!', grabbed a piece of glass and poked him in the forehead saying, 'Focus here!'

Ramakrishna said that he used the 'sword of discrimination' to cut off the Mother's head and go within. Totopuri waited outside the hut for him to come out. Three days later, he was still waiting and had to go in and disturb Ramakrishna's 'nirvikalpa samadhi' to get him to come out again.

So Totopuri gave Ramakrishna the same Knowledge that was eventually passed down to Maharaji! I know that you'll poo-poo the source of the succession of Masters as portrayed on Maharaji's website but I thought you might be interested.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:15:04 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: You're quoting Christopher Isherwood?
Message:
on Ramakrishna? ... who said this:

'One should not think, 'My religion alone is the right path and other religions are false.' God can be realized by means of all paths.'


A brief bit of background:

With his guru Swami Prabhavananda, Isherwood translated from the Sanskrit The Bhagavad-Gita and The Yoga Aphorism of Patanjali. Later he wrote a
biography of Ramakrishna and his disciples (1965). In MY GURU AND HIS DISCIPLES (1980) Isherwood broke from the strictly chronological format to create
a spiritual autobiography wherein the values of Vedanta Hinduism counter his life as a Hollywood scriptwriter.

From 1959 to 1962 Isherwood taught as a guest professor at Los Angeles State College and the University of California at Santa Barbara. In 1965-66 he taught at
the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1975 he won the Brandeis Medal for Fiction. With his explicitly autobiogaphical works Isherwood become in the
1970s a leading spokesman for gay rights. He was one of the first internationally known figures to admit that he was homosexual. Isherwood died in Santa Monica,
on January 4, 1986.

BTW, the vision of the 'Divine Mother' that Ramakrishna referred to - he was referring to Kali, consort of Shiva.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 20:31:01 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: A vision of someone you'd been thinking about?
Message:
Let's face it, Elaine, NOBODY gets the special K without being encouraged to focus on the Maha.

What happened to you was only natural, given your two-day fast and with it being just a couple of months after receiving 'knowledge'. Guess who's image pops into your field of inner vision? Not Jesus? Not the Buddha? Not the virgin Mary? Really?

Surprise surprise.


I think a lot of us allowed ourselves to project onto Rawat our own hopes,desires and longings about being disciples of the would-be messiah.

Let's face it, we were (some might say still are) obsessed with him.

The experience could well have been of your OWN creation, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 00:27:58 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: A vision of someone you'd been thinking about?
Message:
cq,
Well, that's just it - it was SO not my own creation.

Guess you had to be there.
___________

And Hal, not alot of time sorry - as far as masochistic - if even one sentence from one person here out of ten posts helps with sorting some things out, it's worth it.
And it's good for me to toughen up a bit - and take some crap - I've improved alot on the sick feeling in my stomach when someone is unexpectedly sarcastic.

Sorry no time now. Figured you'd read this.

Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:55:10 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Are your dreams of your own creation?
Message:
If you're not yet ready to take on even the possibility of the experience being engendered by your own subconscious, then ... well, you're not yet ready.

No praise, no blame.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:34:59 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Big Fucking Deal Elaine
Message:
You saw goober's face because of your EXPECTATIONS and the brainwashing of satsang. Nothing too mystical or spiritual about that.

And I think you should ponder long and hard on WHY people react to you like they do. Maybe you'll get a little insight into yourself instead of the swirly sparkles.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 18:24:26 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: My big meditation experience...for what it's worth
Message:
I saw those beautiful geometrically perfectly patterns of diamond shape sparkles coming towards me with some kind of sound/music once last fall - but no m in the middle, and no 'k' ever - just what I've described! ;-) At least one other notable experience, but that was never my goal, and my 'practice' has been sadly inconsistent too.

(I've got to turn off my computer, or thrash Gerry to within a inch or his life - maybe just a good hard rap on his knuckles with Schoolmarm Stonor's yardstick would put his fingers out of action for a few days at least!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:37:05 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: This is the post you meant......
Message:
Hi Stonora,

Something I know for sure is that most premies have been so brainwashed by Maha's claims that they really can't believe that anyone who isn't in the cult can have the same sort of meditational experiences as they do. Conceited or what? I must admit though that I once thought that too! I know many people around my area here who have been through all those divine wonders using many different means. That's why M is so sickening. He is unable to acknowledge that the experience of love and peace is not his to give. When he was asked whether this 'knowledge' was a meditation the same as other meditations he just said 'NOPE' , chuckled condescendingly and the sycophants laughed along with him!

You fortunate not to have been hooked into any cults my dear,

LOL Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:58:21 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, I never brought up
Message:
the word 'manifest'.

And I was around for 'primordial vibration' - I was asking Bobby about all that just last week.

I love the word 'self-effulgent'.
It has been said by NDE'ers- when you die and you go thru the 'right' door ----there is a possibility you may see a 'light being' ----they have been described as self-effulgent.
Like the 'Pearly Gates' - people thought they looked 'pearly' - they were 'self-effulgent'.

But, I don't think you would need to concern yourself with any of this,Jim. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:15:03 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: LOL Elaine!!!
Message:
Thanks for all the laughs tonight. There are a few good ones over at AG too.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:27:47 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Easy now!
Message:
Hello again Elaine,

Don't know if this is the right place or time to share this with you (and I have known how it feels to think that too many people are 'ganging up on you') - but here goes:

When I read your recent post describing one of your experiences and how that led you to believe that M is the Lord on High in human form, a distinct picture/memory arose in my mind's eye.

The picture was of Faustus in Marlowe's play, when he is introduced to the shade of Helen of Troy. For him it was the most wonderful experience.

For the audience however, it was ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:59:01 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Easy now!
Message:
Darnnit, I missed the meaning of that one,cq.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 18:20:01 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Even if he was god, no respect deserved
Message:
If he was, then he obviously either hasn't come for anybody but a tiny elite, or he's completely incompetent and in need of a divine shrink, or (judging from his pecker size & activities) incompetent AND bored with heaven.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 23:50:45 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Even if he was god, no respect deserved
Message:
This title of your post says it all, dear hammy. That's the bottom line for me. I don't care if the guy brought people to their knees in orgiastic pleasure, his character sucks the big one and he's a jerk.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 17:10:31 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Elaine
Subject: Easy now!
Message:
I know many premies who had the experience you describe()or similar). I also know many devotees of other so-called gurus/teachers/gods_incarnate who have seen their lord.

I would advise you to read Professor David Lane's research on this subject.

Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:03:25 (GMT)
From: Elaine
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Thanks, Jethro
Message:
om
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 21:10:01 (GMT)
From: John Lilly
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Chillin' nicely
Message:
'In the province of the mind what is believed to be true is true, or becomes true, within limits to be determined experientially and experimentally'

Something like that anyway. It's from a book called The Centre of the Cyclone.

JohnT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index