Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 13:11:00 (GMT)
From: Oct 10, 2000 To: Oct 15, 2000 Page: 3 Of: 5


Cynthia G. -:- Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:03:42 (GMT)
__ Eric -:- Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:39:00 (GMT)
__ __ Rob -:- Are you capable of original thought, Eric? -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:14:30 (GMT)
__ __ Salam -:- Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:16:36 (GMT)
__ __ janet of venice -:- Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:06:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Way -:- To j of v -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:02:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bjørn -:- Re zodiac signs -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:07:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Moldy-Oldie -:- Re zodiac signs -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:27:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- Re Questions about lies. -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 21:57:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 22:19:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ janet of venice -:- Re zodiac signs -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:03:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Do you think that's easy to read, Janet? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:31:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ j of v -:- no.the wall of words is how they are.impossible. -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 23:16:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- Re zodiac signs -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:16:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re zodiac signs -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:01:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- Re zodiac signs -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:27:53 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:16:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ Eric -:- Communication -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:50:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Eric -:- Communication -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:13:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Moldy-Oldie -:- non-Communication -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:02:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Way -:- To Eric - 'I stand on my own ground' ??? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 14:56:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- The 'non cult of ex-premies' behaviour -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:53:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- The 'non cult of ex-premies' behaviour -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:47:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- Re The 'non cult of ex-premies' behaviour -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:11:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Pardon? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:28:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- Good point Sir Dave -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:58:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Good point Sir Dave -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:33:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bjørn -:- I agree Sir Dave -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:55:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Well smarten up then, asshole -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:37:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Communication -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:12:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You, my friend, are a COMPLETE IDIOT! -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:28:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ If your name is not Eric -:- please change it to something more palatable? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:23:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You gonna let Eric get away with this? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:13:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Communication -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:06:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Eric -:- Communication -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:55:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Communication -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:14:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Hey this guy's a Classic !!! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:31:59 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- ****HERE'S ANOTHER KEEPER, JM***** (NT) -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:11:10 (GMT)
__ __ suchabanana -:- most useful dosage of ambivalence! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:25:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Steve Quint -:- most useful dosage of ambivalence! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:04:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ suchabanana -:- FORUM 1m.expose2bashing3legal4healing5meditators -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:44:53 (GMT)

Joe -:- Question to Michael Dettmers -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:17:27 (GMT)
__ Michael Dettmers -:- Half of my previous response did not post -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:07:00 (GMT)
__ __ dv -:- Half of my previous response did not post -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:07:34 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Re: Cultic holes in one's resume -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:59:58 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Thanks for all that, Mike (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:50:14 (GMT)
__ Michael Dettmers -:- Question to Michael Dettmers -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:02:57 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Career Doldrums -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:06:49 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Additional Questions and Comments -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:54:40 (GMT)
__ __ Postie -:- Thanks -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:18:50 (GMT)
__ __ Jean-Michel -:- Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 14:55:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:45:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Thanks again, and apologies -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 07:33:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 00:49:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- god i like this post for its humour and of course -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:37:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:45:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- OF COURSE he's being sarcastic! (Sheesh?) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:53:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- OK, maybe that was a sarcasm, but hurts me -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:18:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- OK, maybe that was a sarcasm, but hurts me -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:32:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- Gerry, are you channelling Joey? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:29:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- So who was your clever email pal? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:36:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- where is Joey? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:50:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Why are you attacking Joey? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:14:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- You hurt my feelings -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:19:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Well you slammed both Joey and me in one post -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:28:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well you slammed both Joey and me in one post -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:35:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- I will forgive Dettmers et all, but only when -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:04:23 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- About responsibility -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:47:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- About responsibility -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:30:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The S in success -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:50:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- About responsibility -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:55:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I don't have a problem with that -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:46:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Well said, Jer (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:03:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Thanks, Jim -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:09:17 (GMT)
__ __ janet of venice -:- Question to Michael Dettmers -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:58:55 (GMT)
__ dv -:- The 707 was extremely expensive to operate, -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:06:02 (GMT)
__ Steven Quint -:- Question to Michael Dettmers -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:24:53 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Hello? -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:46:02 (GMT)

Roger eDrek -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 18:55:52 (GMT)
__ Rob -:- Nah you missed one - gettin' old Rog. -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:34:01 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Can we talk? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:53:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rob -:- Can we talk? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:35:14 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek -:- Thanks, Rob. Yes, I'm old and having a bad day... -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:46:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rob -:- Well a good whine improves with age -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:00:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh great.... I'm with Bjorn then (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:09:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Are you with Brian too? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:03:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Proof:Jim and Bjorn twins separated at birth -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:25:54 (GMT)
__ Michael Dettmers -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:18:30 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek -:- FUCK YOU! (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:56:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- The above FUCK YOU! was not for Dettmers. (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:02:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- FUCK YOU! - to the Poster below (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:56:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- No, not to Selene, but You Know Who You are. (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:08:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- yikes an unended loop!! -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:10:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- SOMA huh? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:04:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- You got some? I need some. Whatever it is. -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:07:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- yeah they push it in Nogales -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:09:43 (GMT)
__ __ Brian -:- You're talking to the deaf, Michael -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:28:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- No, seriously, you asking to get blocked, Brian? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:15:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- You're talking to the deaf, Michael -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:15:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- You're talking to the deaf, Michael -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 22:46:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- A few points, Katie -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 23:40:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- A few points (mostly ot) -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 00:25:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- I have to say it, I agree with most of this -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:36:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Brian -:- I have to say it, I agree with most of this -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:05:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- more -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 22:26:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks, Susan, ...kind of -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:50:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- I have to say it, I agree with most of this -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:25:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Maybe you two could have lunch or something? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:54:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Ad feminem -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:12:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Well said, Brian! -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:22:50 (GMT)
__ __ X -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:46:01 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:34:45 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:40:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- Paranoia about premie plants -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:08:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Paranoia about premie plants -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:59:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Paranoia about premie plants -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:54:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- talking about premie plants - you wouldn't believe -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:18:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Exclusive - that premie plant revealed!!! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:54:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- that was A JOKE! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:21:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mary M -:- that was A JOKE! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:11:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- well someone told me -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:18:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mary M -:- How about a rock? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:37:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- A rock? -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:08:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Who are those guys... -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:35:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- We are militia... -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:41:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Wouldn't dream of it gerry... -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:06:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Can I join -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:57:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You're in !!! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:16:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Can I be DisInformation Minister? (nt) -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:52:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You are already (nt) -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:54:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- FUCK OFF! This is ALL your fault, Herr Ger! -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:09:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Never give up the good fight, Rog -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:15:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Gerry, I'm confused. I think I'm in my mind. (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:15:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ OK Rog, forget dettmers -:- go get this newbie Eric -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:24:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Nah, maybe I should do the honorable thing here -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:29:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet of venice -:- print both side by side-give the whole story -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:30:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Don't do anything rash, Rog -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:22:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- But, Captain the engines can't take much more -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:35:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- sweet - yup that's me -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:47:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lithium -:- How naughty am I? nt -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:12:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:57:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:03:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Listen to yourself, Gerry -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:07:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- THINK, Gerry! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:49:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- That's a stretch, Jim -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:13:49 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- I thought more of you Roger -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:27:39 (GMT)
__ __ eDrek -:- flattery will get you no where -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:02:14 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Excellent post, Joe ... and Susan? -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:42:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- Excellent post, Joe ... and Susan? -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:56:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh God, don't even MENTION that! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:03:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Back to Nature Rowing Society -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 14:31:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- OK, I bite. How much? (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 15:20:15 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- So now you think less of him for telling the truth -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:41:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- yes, I think less of him -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:04:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- No, I am most certainly a BAD PERSON and -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:07:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- That's right Drek, bad, bad ,bad and worse... -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:11:55 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- It's all fair but the last line -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:06:52 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek -:- Dettmers is far too networked not to be a premie -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:20:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, tell us about your 'bullshit alarm' and Rob -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:46:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ eDrek -:- Fuck YOU! JIM! ;) -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:00:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Excuse me?? My track record's perfect! -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:03:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Oy you two -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:52:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, you read MY post at the top of the thread! -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:58:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Fallen Mary -:- :-) No way Jim -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:41:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- No, you read MY post at the top of the thread! -:- Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:40:11 (GMT)
__ gerry -:- Dettmers - My retraction -:- Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:04:02 (GMT)


Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:03:42 (GMT)
From: Cynthia G.
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy
Message:
To All,

I know I've heard him speak of himself in the first person prior to 1980, but I opened my box and found this:

'...And yet for that devotee, that Creator says that he is really the happy one, because he has trust in me, he has faith in me. And I give him myself.

'And who am I? I am everything. In me you find the holiest of the places. I am the reason why these places are holy. You know...In me you will find the essence of Creation, because I am the Creation. It is through me that everything has been created.

'In me you will find the answer because I am the answer to every question. And in me you will find the perfect peace; in me you will find the perfect contentment.

'Because I am the infinite. Nobody created me, nobody can destroy me. I am now, I was, and I forever shall be. And whosoever has devoted his life to me, I shall make him just like I am. I shall make him also immortal. I'll fill him with that peace within. I'll bring him that satisfaction.'

I know there are more quotes like this, maybe this one is already on the website here, but I for some reason remember him giving a similar powerful, first person satsang, and for some reason I remember it being in Philadelphia around 1978 or 1979. Still looking. Hope this helps.

Best,

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:39:00 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: Cynthia G.
Subject: Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy
Message:
I do feel that when M speaks in this way he is not entirely relating to himself but more to the omnipresent I AM that is within each one of us. That part of us that Knowledge does address. He did not impart Knowledge to anyone for any other reason than that we should go within and know our ownself. He speaks of this over and over again.

I think another point which is pertinent here is that M himself (or perhaps I should say Prem Rawat to make the distinction) will talk of Maharaji but it is in the third person. We all have that teacher within us, Knowledge only gives us a platform from which we can experience within ourselves.

Wisdom, understanding and inner depth is not something he can 'give' to us. We can develop it though through the practice of Knowledge. It isn't called Knowledge of no reason. But we have to develop that ourselves, he often describes it as a tool, that we must dig within our own mines to find the ultimate treasure.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:14:30 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Are you capable of original thought, Eric?
Message:
All you seem to have done here is string together a dozen or so paraphrased quotes from maharaji. Can you even see that is what you did? Read it again, or better still, ask a friend at work to read it back to you and comment on how much of you it characterizes.

You said elsewhere that you have had knowledge for 27 years. How 'developed' is YOUR 'wisdom, understanding and inner depth'? I mean, really? It's gonna happen one day, right? You wouldn't just be taking this opportunity to convince yourself again, would you? Pretty sad, if that's the case. Buy a lottery ticket, Eric, it stands more chance of coming through for you.

I wonder if you have read all the posts here by Micheal Dettmers? You have to admit that he has probably spent more hours with maharaji personally than the rest of us combined, so I think his perspective on maharaji's opinion of himself and premies has to be accurate, wouldn't you say? Anything to share about his comments?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:16:36 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy
Message:
Are not you being subjective here.

Your ideads and feelings, though I do respect them are not what is being looked at.

He did say these words, they came out of his mouth and they were relating to a person. That person is him, maharaji. He could have been taking about alliens living on Mars as far as I am concerned. But from an ojective point of view, there is no escaping it. You, I and everyone reading the quotes from the satsangs know that he is talking about himself. Full stop.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:06:19 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy
Message:
eric i lived by that idea for 27 years. but MJ doesnt follow his own advice. he doesnt meditate. he gets sodden in alcohol for his anxiety, all the while barking at us and guilting at us to use meditation for that. he smokes.he fucks around with women not married to him. he freaked when his wife served him the same dish of infidelity he'd served her,by taking other females to his bed in Miami.
Listening to some rapturous, overblown, self agrandizing Sagittarius sit on a stage alone, the center of attention, and spin a spell of lofty references and rhapsodies he read or heard somewhere and became pontifically enamored of, is not teaching. Its being in love with the sound of your own voice and imagining yourself to be profound.
Read up on the foibles of Sagittarius, sometime. I'll give you some starter cues:They are falsely,nrealistically optimistic.They are blowhards who fancy themselves to be profound and learned professors.They overextend themselves repeatedly, making inflated promises that others believe, and then break them and discard them without a glance. They are impatient, restless and nervous. They are known for their cavalier responses when called to fault.(remember-they are the sign of half horse and half human, and what is a cavalier? a horse-mounted soldier, who tramples the opposition underfoot, roughshod.)They have a built in tendency to trip and make a flaming ass of themselves just when they believe they are at their most impressive.They all think they have silver tongues. In their minds, they think the whole world sees as they see, and they shock and hurt people by speaking their obsevations thoughtlessly, tactlessly, too frankly,and too candidly, and are baffled when people react with hurt or with anger to it. They have a fatal love of overindulgence and rewarding themselves at any excuse, at the expense of their real responsibilites. They are famous for profligate excesses, and want all their 'friends'(immediate company) to join in the runaway 'high times'.( it blunts their sense of insecurity.)They dont want to think about tomorrow.They have a knack for stringing people along on hope but never delivering what they talk about.Like all horses, they feel safest surrounded by their herd, and bolt when nervous. They are inherently untrusting and suspicious of the unfamiliar.Their worst terror is to be deserted and shut out,exposed, or to be confined and unable to escape. If caught, they will talk a blue streak, in vain effort to get out again.They are escape artists.
a friend and i once invented the Anti-zodiac, comprised of all the worst traits of each of the signs. we gave them names that rhymed with the classic zodiac names.
we named Sagittarius 'Imaginattarius: they're a legend in their own minds'.
MJ has two other fatal flaws in his chart that make him like he is--he has Jupiter in Leo, for one--which gives him a runaway delusion that he deserves to be the grandest thing there is at the center of all existence, not to mention an innate sense that he deserves the best of everything, unchallenged, and brings with it a delusion of greatness and world importance. (Leo's ruling planet is the sun, at the center of everything,holds the other bodies in its thrall, but supposedly makes up for that possessiveness by radiating its generous, limitless light and heat upon them.)the last aspect is Libra on the ascendent. this gives a love of luxury and dalliance, a craving for everyone to get along peacefully and for there to be no conflicts whatsoever. It confers an abhorrence of harsh reality, a pronounced tendency to surround oneself with beautiful things, to insulate oneself from dirt, ugliness, disgreement, commonness, hard work, lack, deprivation and anything of less than exquisite taste and design.another flaw of libra is that it cant operate alone. it must have at least one other to keep it company or it cant decide or get motivated or make up its mind. Libra always prefers to have someone with stronger understanding be the one to decide what to do. they crave a friend who knows their own mind and knows whats good for them both.
it has been my observation after doing 32 years of astrology study, that a person will run rampant with their predicted traits as long as they are not confronted. showing them the book and seeing themselve shockingly accurately described to a 't', by someone who has never met them, is usually enough to set them to looking at themselves, and the beginning of realizing how they are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:02:48 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: To j of v
Message:
janet,

I like reading your posts, but I have to request (like Jim has already requested) that you put in paragraphs.

I had the same problem when I first posted here, and Jim made the same request of me. You can let your stream of consciousness proceed full-force and then go back and stick in paragraphs later, perhaps? I now double space at the drop of a hat and find it ever so much better.

p.s. Venice Beach is one of the great places for sunsets, the way the Santa Monica mountains turn blue! Bravisimo!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:07:22 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: Re zodiac signs
Message:
Hi Janet
My wife is the same sign Sagitarius. Your description is way off her personality.

Do you really believe in this stuff?

If so, why did you believe in Maharaji for so many years?

BTW do you really believe in all what is written here about Maharaji. Most are rumours. Most things are second hand stories.
When discussed, no one comes forward with first hand experience.

Some of the rumours are even proven to be lies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:27:03 (GMT)
From: Moldy-Oldie
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re zodiac signs
Message:
'...Some of the rumours are even proven to be lies.' Which ones, Bjorn? Exactly which ones? Be really specific (that means 'exact,' by the way)

But, isn't this a bit like the old pot/kettle argument since ALL of YOUR supposed 'truths' are Fairy-tales.... you know.... LIES! Things like 'M never said he was god' and K really works and stuff like that? LIES, baby, all lies! Since liars love it when they have company that actually 'believes' them, they just MUST spread their lies so others will believe them, too. Quoting words from an old M spiritual: Spread this knowledge to every land...... (so others will believe the lie.... oh, excuse me.... fairy-tale).

Bjorn, if you really believe in M and K, then what are you doing here? Since you are experiencing 'perfection,' it would seem that this place is a tremendous waste of your most valuable time, wouldn't it? I mean, after all, YOU have discovered the ultimate truth, right? So why hang around with us losers? Maybe, because YOUR truth is letting you down? Maybe because you doubt the veracity of your lard and master? Maybe because you are waiting for that 'ultimate' bit of info that will finally convince YOU that he is, in fact, a charlatan? You really ought to think about it, Bjorn.... WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 21:57:37 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Moldy-Oldie
Subject: Re Questions about lies.
Message:
Asked and answered already: in 2 posts below to Jerry;'
'In my opinion the Monica story was proven to be a lie. (although the person admitting it to be an invention took his confession back)
Micheal proved some of the allogations concerning him / Maharaji to be lies.

The way the yacht was presented that Maharaji in year 2000 had bought a yacht for 7.5 mill $ was a lie. (what happened in 1997 we dont know)

There has been proven that some of the allogations re FAQ was a lie. (re 2 discussion I had)

There was proven that an meeting Maharaji had at a conference center, was not a treatment for alcoholism, but a meeting with some advisors.

Some quotes as far as I see it was 'fixed'

And more, but as I stated before, - in the court of Ex-premies there are no benfit of doubt. '

And if you challenged me I would prove more

Why I post here? Asked ad answered. see to Dave: Basically wasting my time. Soon I am out of here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 22:19:44 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED
Message:

And apologies to anyone with a truly retarded person whom they love...

You haven't proved a fucking thing. All you've done is list things you think, hope and wish are lies.

I certainly hope you go for good this time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:03:52 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re zodiac signs
Message:
i used to like sag'es. then i got really deeply involved with three of them, one after another.the first one said hed marry me. i was thrilled. i moved heaven and earth for him. in return, he broke his sworn sobriety, fucked an underage girl, left me hanging twice and didnt show up after i made long trips to meet him, and didnt have the courage to be a man and tell me himself when he lost his interest in making a life with me. that was after i packed up and moved my life of ten years to a dangerous new city for him. he told my friend to give me the news.
the second was a woman who moved in below me. i spent 2 and a half years trying to help her do what she said she wanted. she needed a babysitter. she needed cleaning help.she was in pain.,she was an emotional mess. she needed money but she was gonna get a job tomorrow. she was crippled but she didnt need any goddam help. her little girl was fine but her father had molested her. no he hadnt. so what if he had.? he's gone now. but he might find us.i'm gonna be a famous country singer.my voice is gone.im gonna sell my photographs. i cant get into the angles to take the shots anymore. all my cameras are in storage. i cant afford the darkroom,but you wait and see. i will. im gonna get my girl into modeling. her teeth are all rotted. i'm not an alcoholic! so what if i have a little drink? I need SOMething. those pain pills dont do it for me. i dont trust my doctor. i dont want disability! i ran my own busines! i cant fill out their dman paperwork! will you help me fill these out? i need those checks. i dont need no damn shrink! all's i need is a drink and my guitar! no one's gonna lock ME up!shit, im outta my meds again. will you go buy me a six pack? just as soon as i get my money, i'm gonna pay you all back. what do they mean, it's gonna take a year? i dont need them! i'll get me a little job! i had to spend all day lying down today.will you watch my daughter for me? i dont need nobody pryin into my home life! we're fine in here!so what if i make noise? it's none of your business!the cat had kittens today. i 'm outta cat food, can you spare some? i cant feed any more cats. hell no, i dont wanna get her fixed! nature knows best! when i get my money I'll pay you back for getting them all spayed.i dont have time to litter train them! i just put em outside. it rained last night and now theyre all sick. oh god, three of em died. you gotta help me!...
on and on it went. she kept the landlord strung along for 2 and half years like that. only reason he believed her was because he's a sag himself, and equally blind to it. he finally evicted her after doing his books and realizing she owed him 9000 dollars in back unpaid rent, utilities and repairs.
meanwhile, he was doing the same dance of highfalutin' promises to me. i'm gonna rewire your apt.( the walls got cut open a year ago and left that way ever since. no wiring done yet) i'm gonna put in new plumbing.(the water main was changed.nothing else so far)this is all gonna be redone.(the inspectors gave him a list two pages long a year ago. no action yet) we'll have a full alarm system.(no sign of it) I'm installing a completely automated sprinkler system.(i water the yard by hand)...
so ya see-I've gotten wise to the ways of the sag. they talk a great game--but it's all talk. they believe their own hype and get everybody else to believe it too. the sooner you quit listening and start watching, the sooner you can get back to reality and the less you'll lose, pinning your hopes on them.
capice?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:31:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: Do you think that's easy to read, Janet?
Message:
Why can't you just space your words out a bit more? You do want people to read your posts, don't you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 23:16:24 (GMT)
From: j of v
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no.the wall of words is how they are.impossible.
Message:
plus was exhausted and forgot to use breaks. im getting better.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:16:02 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: janet of venice
Subject: Re zodiac signs
Message:
I have been married for 24 years. I do love my wife more now than I did 24 years ago. She is a sag.

In my experience there are assholes of all signs. And there are beutiful people of all signs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:01:39 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Re zodiac signs
Message:
Some of the rumours are even proven to be lies.

Like what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:27:53 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re zodiac signs
Message:
In my opinion the Monica story was proven to be a lie. (although the person admitting it to be an invention took his confession back)

Micheal proved some of the allogations concerning him / Maharaji to be lies.

The way the yacht was presented that Maharaji in year 2000 had bought a yacht for 7.5 mill $ was a lie. (what happened in 1997 we dont know)

There has been proven that some of the allogations re FAQ was a lie. (re 2 discussion I had)

There was proven that an meeting Maharaji had at a conference center, was not a treatment for alcoholism, but a meeting with some advisors.

Some quotes as far as I see it was 'fixed'

And more, but as I stated before, - in the court of Ex-premies there are no benfit of doubt.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:16:02 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Guru Maharaj Ji - October 19, 1980 - Rome, Italy
Message:
Eric,

Your points are mostly fair and accurate, I think, with the exception of your description of Rawat's motives, which is what you would like to believe, but remains outside of your own direct knowledge.

So setting Rawat's motives aside for the moment, your post brings up very central issues, such as the distinction we must make between Rawat and the Guru Maharaj Ji within, between God's grace and Maharaji's grace, and how much of our own experience do we owe to the master.

As Rawat teaches about the Master and about himself, these issues are extremely, and I do mean extremely, muddled. And premies, struggling, ignorant and thirsty little critters that they are, are likewise prone to rather muddled and conflicting expressions on these issues.

I should like to ask you, therefore, for a little clarification of where on the continuum you yourself stand - if your are an old-timer or a recent recipient of Rawat's gift, (the greatest gift possible, according to him)? And then I would like you to clarify your position about how much credit you give to Mr. Rawat for your own experience within. Do you go to Mr. Rawat's programs and do you find yourself retuned, like an old honky-tonk piano turning into a concert grand piano? Do you consider these retuning sessions absolutely necessary, as Rawat now claims? Do you consider him the Beloved of the Universe, whom you love above all members or your own family?

I'm not trying to get personal, I'm just trying to ascertain how much you mean it when you say that 'inner depth is not something he can give to us.'

Let me put it this way: How dispensible or indispensible do you think Mr. Rawat is to your own experience within?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:50:09 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Communication
Message:
You ask where I stand ... well, I stand on my own ground. I have practiced Knowledge for 27 years. I consider myself most fortunate because I did not receive Knowledge in the West but in the East. I was not subjected to the western hysteria over Maharaji, as I did not personally meet him until I had been meditating for 2 years or more. So my experience has always been based on Knowledge within me.

In fact it was the vision of westerners dressed in Indian whites pranaming to Maharaji that was the one thing that put me off receiving Knowledge. I was not really that interested in Maharaji himself but I was most interested in Knowledge. I did bring this up to Padarthanand who instructed me in the techniques. He asked what did I want Knowledge or Maharaji and I answered Knowledge. His reply was, so receive Knowledge and let the relationship with Maharaji develop from that. Which it did.

I have never been able to get my head around M being the physical manifestation of God, I cannot really relate to that, nor have I ever been able to really understand that. Nor have I actually heard him describe himself in that way. I have heard other people describe him like that, and I have always said I don't view him in that way. Aren't we all manifestations of the creation of life?

I really enjoy Maharaji. And when I do go to events I enjoy his company and he inspires me. And what he inspires in me is to find my own wisdom, to dive deep within myself and to enjoy my life. And I do feel a deep affection, respect and regard for him and what he has to contend with.

I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that comes out from EV and I question those people a lot. I will pick up the phone and question the costs of satellite broadcasts. I have recently questioned the high cost of Amaroo. I know enough about M and the way he teaches and works to know that he does not make all the decisions. That service and EV provide a structure by which people can learn and experience more about themselves but unfortunately a lot of people do work out their unfulfilled 'wordly' ambitions within that arena.

Alot of you on this site are angry because the ashrams closed down. He closed the ashrams down because they weren't working. People were using the ashrams as a crutch rather than to take responsibility for their own lives. I have read alot of stories here about how a lot of you were behaving in the ashrams, fucking each other and generally abusing the shelter you were given. I lived in an ashram once and knew it was not for me, so I moved out.

I didn't want to give all my money away so I didn't. I knew I didn't want a celibate lifestyle, I still liked to party (and still do) so I would only be hypocritical to live in the ashram just because everyone else was doing it.

So, I am not disillusioned by Knowledge or M himself. I have been disillusioned by people with Knowledge and the behaviour they exhibit sometimes. But I am lucky enough that I can make the distinction between them. In fact when I lived in Miami in the '80's the incestuousness and shallowness of the majority of people I encountered there were the driving force that got me away from that city. I wanted to get back to actually experiencing Knowledge within myself and get away from the kind of bickering and complaining I encounter on this website.

I don't count too many people with knowledge on my social list and prefer to keep myself to myself. I started dipping in to this site because I wondered why there seemed to be a lot of fear over it and wanted to know what was on here. There is nothing on here that I have not heard before and I do enjoy some of the conversations and comments. I don't want to seem self-righteous or want to convert anyone, to prove to be right or to prove any of you wrong. I just find it interesting that's all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:13:49 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Communication
Message:
Unfortunately my reply did not take. I shall try to remember what I wrote!

You ask where I stand ... well, I stand on my own ground. I have practiced Knowledge for 27 years and had the good fortune to receive it in the East not the West, so was not a part of the western hysteria that surrounded M during the early 70's. I did not have any personal of experience of M at all until I met him 2 years later. So my relationship with this whole thing has always been based on practicing Knowledge.

In fact it was pictures of westerners dressed in Indian whites pranaming to M that really put me off. I did address this to Padarthanand who instructed me in the techniques. He asked me well, what do you want Knowledge or Maharaji. I answered emphatically, Knowledge, he replied, so receive Knowledge and let the relationship with him develop from that. Which it did.

I have always enjoyed attending events and definitely really enjoy his company. I find him inspiring, funny and wise. The inspiration I come away with is always to go within myself, develop that wisdom within myself, learn about myself, enjoy my life.

I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that comes out of DLM/EV and I will question things. I have no hesitation in picking up the phone and questioning high satellite broadcast costs, high Amaroo costs, high Visions costs. I know enough about M and the way he teaches and works to know that not all the decisions are made by him. I had to whole-heartedly agree with him recently in Harrogate when, after the Connect video magazine (which is abomnibal (sp) by the way) he said, I don't know what that has to do with Knowledge.

Service and EV can definitely provide a structure by which we can learn about ourselves. Unnfortunately, a lot of the people involved seem to be working out their unfulfilled 'wordly' ambitions. I think this is why M will eventually intervene and break things down at times, change course or direction but on the whole people do have a free hand.

One of the reasons why he shut the ashrams down, which seems to have angered many people who post here, was because it wasn't working. People abused the shelter they were given, the ashrams became a crutch for mal-adjusted people who did not want to go out and take responsibility for their own lives. I lived in an ashram once and knew it wasn't for me, so I moved out. I knew I didn't want to be celibate, that I still liked to party (and still do) and that I didn't want to give all my money way. I felt I would only be hyprocritical to stay in the ashram just because that was what the 'mass' were doing.

It takes a lot of courage to be true to oneself. It isn't easy, especially when there is a 'group culture' going on. One has to know oneself to do this. And M has only ever encouraged me in that direction.

I started dipping in to this site because I was curious about it plus there seemed to be a lot of paranoia over it coming from p.r. types connected with EV. So I wanted to find out why. There is nothing on here that I have not heard or knew about before.

I am not disillusioned by M or Knowledge but I have been disillusioned (inn the past) by other people with Knowledge that I have encountered. In fact when I lived in Miami in the '80's I was so disillusioned by the general conciousness emanating from alot of the people around at that time, I moved to a place where I knew no-one and had no people with Knowledge or events because I wanted to get back in touch with what I knew to be within myself.

I can relate to why so many of you are disillusioned but one has to make the distinction between what has gone down from other epople with Knowledge and what you have experienced within your own selves. I don't want to seem self-righteous nor do I want to change onyone's opinion. I don't have to prove myself right or any of you wrong. I just find it interesting that's all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:02:09 (GMT)
From: Moldy-Oldie
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: non-Communication
Message:
You said: 'He asked me well, what do you want Knowledge or Maharaji. I answered emphatically, Knowledge, he replied, so receive Knowledge and let the relationship with him develop from that. Which it did.'

The same question asked in the US and answered in the same manner as you did would have netted you NOTHING! Let's see, how many different Mahatma's asked that question? How many of them accepted your answer? NONE IN THE U.S. Seems to be a disconnect somewhere, no?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 14:56:03 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: To Eric - 'I stand on my own ground' ???
Message:
Eric,

Thanks for your response to my post (or should I say responses?). I am replying to the second version because it is a little more judiciously stated, e.g. you first say 'the reason Maharaji closed the ashram was...' and the second time around you say 'one of the reasons Maharaji closed the ashram...' The second version is an improvement, but unfortunately, neither version is anywhere near accurate. From what I have heard, the main reasons the ashrams were closed is because they had become a financial liability and there are certain laws in the West governing churches and their monastic houses that Divine Light Mission did not want to follow. Of course, neither you nor I were in on the decision making process, so maybe either Mr. Rawat or Mr. Dettmers could post here and provide the definitive answer and spare us our speculations.

Also, as a former ashram member, I really do take a bit of offense at your blanket statement about people abusing the shelter. Poverty, chastity and obedience can be correctly characterized as basically abusive and all of us who attempted to approach the divine through total devotion to the living Perfect Master put ourselves naively in an abusive, anti-human situation. Please try to show a little understanding if some people had sex. As you seem to have noticed, it is perfectly natural for people to 'like to party', and it is basically hypocritical to deny that nature.

Anyway, all that is not the reason why I posted to you in the first place. And again, I have to thank you for responding to my post, because most premies who visit here will not answer even to the extent that you answered.

But...alas, I am still mystified. To be quite honest and as non-condenscending as possible, I just don't get people like you who seem to have successfully made the transition from 'devotee' to 'person with Knowledge,' the transition from living Perfect Master to 'a funny and inspiring guy.' You seem to have experienced disillusionment with the 'general consciousness' of everything around Rawat, but not in him - somehow he has survived in your little world. You do explain a bit when you say that you were never really into the devotion and lord stuff anyway. But surely, you must have noticed the devotion and lord stuff swirling around Rawat, for example you must have noticed the lyrics to arti while you were singing them.

You end by saying that what we have experience directly within our own selves is the only thing that matters. And that is precisely the reason why I became disillusioned with Mr. Rawat himself. I simply give him no credit whatsoever in any conceivable way for my experience of my self. For one thing, my 'self' predates him. I am not disillusioned with my own life, my own self. My self if the greatest gift that I have. And that is the essence of my post to you. Okay, alright, you find Rawat a funny and inspiring person to listen to. But so fucking what?!!! (pardon my French). Why stay in his personality cult? And don't give me the response that you feel free to question Elan Vital and you are brave enough not to have an EV Smart Card. When I say 'cult' I am not talking about those bozos at Elan Vital, I am talking about the Master and his student. Mr. Rawat and you. You say 'I stand on my own ground.' Look around, Eric, do you really? Was Harrogate a month ago your own ground? No, it was Mr. Rawat's ground. And you were standing on it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:53:28 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: The 'non cult of ex-premies' behaviour
Message:
HiEric
I was about to warn you. But then your reply was blank.

If anyone like you post something which is not in line with the opinion of the 'non cult of ex-premies' and they cannot really give a sensible reply, they have a proceedure.
1. Someone will ask you a lot of questions that has nothing to do with the issue. This is just to distract you and is a well known technique to be evasive and to take corntrol.
2. Someone will then ridicule you.
3. Jim will call you an idiot.
4. Next time you will post more pople will call you an idiot.

You see truth is not an issue here. Decency has no place here. For fanatics there are no reason to be honest. There are a special kind of logic. So in fact it is a total waste of time to post here.

So take care
Bjørn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:47:30 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: The 'non cult of ex-premies' behaviour
Message:
Does that mean you're giving up on posting here ? Well good on you . I totally agree that it's a waste of time for you to post here. You are so unwilling to discuss rationally the issues and seem to me to be intent on stubbornly dismissing every valid point you encounter.

Even you tried to deny that Arti was sung twice a day to a picture of Maha on an alter.

You totally discount all evidence about Maha's claim to be the highest manifestation of God when it is clearly documented.

Yes , Bye Bjorn, you have no place here.
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:11:22 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Re The 'non cult of ex-premies' behaviour
Message:
Hi Hal
You prove my point of being evasive.

Re Arti. Obiously a lot of people here stayed in ashrams.
Take a poll and ask how many sung arti twice a day.
Honestly, In none of the ahrams I stayed in, we sung arti twice a day.

Re God there are shades of grey. Not everything isblack or white.
I discussed this with you before, and you did not answer me. So what is the point.

I am leaving, I just had a day off-

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:28:44 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Pardon?
Message:
Mr Bjørn wrote:

'Decency has no place here. For fanatics there are no reason to be honest. There are a special kind of logic. So in fact it is a total waste of time to post here.'

The obvious question then - why do you waste your time posting here? You remind me of those people who phone up talk radio stations and say that the program is the most boring thing they've ever heard and yet they've been listening to it for the last three hours.

That's illogical captain.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:58:46 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Good point Sir Dave
Message:
I dont find this boring.
I suppose I am just trying to overcome some of the mental abuse I experienced posting here.

Thats all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:33:55 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Good point Sir Dave
Message:
While I disagree with your sentiments about Maharaji I also think you've unnecessarily exposed yourself to the wolf-pack here by your mentioning something you experienced as a teenager.

I think that it is wrong for people to hound you in this way although it was bound to happen if you made those previous statements about your personal feelings. It's a bit like putting your head in the lion's mouth and wondering why it got bit off.

I understand that your statements about your past didn't amount to child abuse or anything close to it and therefore you've been wrong footed. How to reverse that? I don't think you will get the understanding you need here about that issue. Not from everyone, anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:55:13 (GMT)
From: Bjørn
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I agree Sir Dave
Message:
I made a terrible mistake.

However, it seems like nobody read what i really wrote. And if I would be anywhere near to be gulilty of the acusations, I suppose I would have never dreamt about even mentioning it.

I know I am totally innocent. But I also know what I wrote was stupid.

But the whole thing tells me about the mentallity of the ex-premies. Not even one person had the guts to say, 'hey leave it. I believe Bjørn is innocent' Instead, every time I was recognized, the allogations were repeated. And it hurt me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:37:07 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Bjørn
Subject: Well smarten up then, asshole
Message:
Instead, every time I was recognized, the allogations were repeated. And it hurt me.

Recognize when you denigrate peoples' experience here, when you defend the Fraud of the Universe here, when you call people like Jim and J-M liars and all the other obnoxious and and hurtful thing YOU have said, YOU too, cause pain.

There's no way to talk to you sensibly. You tossed me a huge stick with which to beat you. Then you come here and perform your own atrocities on people. So I get out the big stick and kick your ass with it.

Simple, animal logic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:12:53 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Communication
Message:
He asked me well, what do you want Knowledge or Maharaji.

This is total bullshit. Nobody, NOBODY, received Knowledge unless they first pledged allegiance to Maharaji. Hey, Eric, remember Oh, My Guru Maharaji, I dedicate my life to you? Think back, Eric. Ahhhh, is it coming back to you?

You have a very selective memory. And a faulty one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:28:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: You, my friend, are a COMPLETE IDIOT!
Message:
What in the world ever happened to your brain, Eric? Do you have any idea? Like, really fella, what happened?

There's no talking with someone like you (but here I am anyway. What's THAT all about? Well, none of your business. You're too fucked up to know anything). To think that you could read all the stuff you can here and still buy the Teflon guru line is appalling.

Go look in a mirror and see what middle-age naivite looks like.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:23:44 (GMT)
From: If your name is not Eric
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: please change it to something more palatable?
Message:
Eric is a WONDERFUL name and I do not like seeing this stuff posted from a name like Eric.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:13:10 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: You buncha slackers
Subject: You gonna let Eric get away with this?
Message:
One of the reasons why he shut the ashrams down, which seems to have angered many people who post here, was because it wasn't working. People abused the shelter they were given, the ashrams became a crutch for mal-adjusted people who did not want to go out and take responsibility for their own lives.

Well I certainly abused the 'shelters.' In fact, I fucked like a mink in one. I'll bet there's at least one shriveled condom under the furnace there in Phoenix...

Shit, he's right though. I STILL don't want to take responsibility for my life. I didn't ax to be borned...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:06:19 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Communication
Message:

Hi , Eric.

I haven't got the technical suss , or the time for that matter , to deconstruct your communication in a coherent way.

One point though ; you say your 'relationship with this whole thing has been based on practising knowledge'.

So why bother with Barribollixshwar ?

You don't need to answer that , I've been there , gratitude, right?

If there's nothing here that you didn't know before , I can only conclude that you're a victim of the psychological syndrome
known as BELIEF IN LILA.

On the other hand you could be preparing a CV for your own pitch at becoming 'Satguru' when the present incumbent sails down the Ganges.

I'd give you my vote , you sound so reasonable.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 08:55:14 (GMT)
From: Eric
Email: None
To: All who replied
Subject: Communication
Message:
I must say I really do enjoy your replies! Thank you, Bjorn, for your warning. You were right Jim did call me an idiot and I think Gerry (who seems like a really angry guy) called me a stupid fuck. So what ... it makes me laugh!

Look ... I make jokes about the 'cult members'. Cult is a mentality, just as I find cult members within Ev abhorrent, I find that type of closed off, narrow-mindedness abhorrent anywhere, including here.

Just because you guys became disillusioned for whatever reasons, doesn't mean you are right. It has probably really helped me a lot during the last 27 years that I was never really that interested in becoming socially entangled with too many people with Knowledge. Knowledge has never been a social thing for me.

And .... that was the conversation I had with Padarthanand. I have no reason to make anything up here. I'm not trying to prove anything remember. But healthy discussion needs to reflect all sides otherwise it becomes boring.

I can accept the views expressed by people who do not practice anymore, why can't you accept the view of someone who does?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:14:50 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Communication
Message:
Maybe you had that conversation with Padarthanand, but you insinuated that, by it, all you had to do was ask for Knowledge, and it was given to you, without first going through a ceremony where you dedicated your life to Maharaji. If only Knowledge was so freely available as you make it out to be. But you know as well as I do that it's not, and before you receive K, you must accept Maharaji, or at least say you do, which you did, and so did everybody else. You're trying to water down the process, and I felt a need to say something about that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:31:59 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Eric
Subject: Hey this guy's a Classic !!!
Message:
He's a cheapskate too!!!

I think we should let some of the new exes cut this arrogant fuck down to size...now don't you old mal-adjusted types get too itchy. Leave this fish for the newbies, please.

(or not, I don't give a fuck)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:11:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia G.
Subject: ****HERE'S ANOTHER KEEPER, JM***** (NT)
Message:
FFFF
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:25:42 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: most useful dosage of ambivalence!
Message:
'Because I am the infinite. Nobody created me, nobody can destroy me. I am now, I was, and I forever shall be. And whosoever has devoted his life to me, I shall make him just like I am. I shall make him also immortal.' - prem

Does this sound like the 'third person'? the first person?

Infinite Implications sprinkled with a dose of Ambivalence become useful Tools for Conceptual Manipulation.

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:04:50 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: sequint@home.com
To: suchabanana and everyone
Subject: most useful dosage of ambivalence!
Message:
Why are we perpetuating the darkness by continuing to place quotes from PP the Hamster on this bulletin board and going over them like Hasidic Jews poring over the Talmud?

Don't intelligent people know that paying attention to something bad only increases the bad in them?

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:44:53 (GMT)
From: suchabanana
Email: None
To: Steve Quint
Subject: FORUM 1m.expose2bashing3legal4healing5meditators
Message:
Yes, but...

Builds corroborative case ie past claims:

Compare EVI posted faq's with the quotes from above, and from many other Lord of the Universe sources that have been compiled. Ok.

It would be ludicrous for EVI to claim that m. never presented himself as the holy annointed singular perfect master and saviour of mankind, god in human form, etc.

The point, for some, has been to refute faqs propaganda, and to establish the truth of events and circumstances that have involved and affected tens of thousands of people.

The cultspeak documentation is also important in establishing how and why people gradually became susceptible to a reinforced belief system, which was promulgated in conjunction with knowledge.

The money documentation is important in publicly presenting questionable financial fundraising, transfers, expenditures, assets held by separate corporations, and exclusive personal use of assets.

The child abuse letters, responses, and files are important in corroborating the attempts of the victims to one day reach a just closure.

The collective questioning and analyzing also helps some folks to work whatever they need to -- out of their systems.

This process also serves to notify others who might browse here -- regarding the events that have transpired, the programming, and the accounts of those who have lived through these experiences.

Yes, I do feel that these subjects merit healthy discussion (if that's possible).

However, I agree with you -- but, what should be discussed, then, on this democratic forum? See, you have your opportunities, too.

Possible Forum evolution? We could have the 1. m. expose facts forum page, the 2. m. bashing and venting forum page, and 3. recovery and personal health-focussed forum page, a 4. legal forum page, and 5. a page for sharing for exes who still like to meditate occasionally -- without any cult trappings.

Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:17:27 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers
Message:
Michael,

As I said down below, I appreciate your comments, and I wanted to point out that your most recent post is quite different than what you posted in April of this year. I think this is to be expected, because I know there has been quite a bit of water under the bridge for you and for all of us in the past 6 months. I realize that we all grow and develop when we discuss our involvement with Maharaji, and the process of extracating ourselves, and putting that very important and intense period of your lives into perspective is an ongoing one.

I think some of the criticism of you, at least to the extent there was criticism from me, was that when you posted last April, some of us asked very legitimate questions about what you wrote, and you simply didn't respond. You seemed, on the one hand, to want to engage in diaglogue, but then when you were challenged or questioned, you disappeared, mentioning your confidentiality agreement. It's great to see you have returned, I hope we can engage in some diaglogue.

First, regarding your confidentiality agreement, it's obvious from your statements that it isn't all encompasing. I assume it includes all Maharaji's business arrangements, but would it extend to Maharaji's decisions and directions on certain things that aren't really business related, but more in the 'spiritual' realm? For example, you mention Maharaji's requests for always newer and better aircraft. Obviously, your confidentiality agreement didn't prevent you from talking about that. You also mention your personal relationship with Maharaji, especially during the time he and Marolyn were having marriage problems, and how Maharaji's attitude towards you changed after that period. So, I assume the agreement doesn't extend to that, either.

So, can you give us an idea of what is and isn't acceptable items of dicussion? As you know, I am interested in shedding light on various decisions in Maharaji's world, those that directly affected me, many of my friends, and lots of other devotees whom I didn't even know. As you say, you were in a privileged position and had more access to information than most of us, and hence can help us understand that better. Very little information was ever disclosed to those of us in the trenches, and, as you know, there is now a concerted effort by Elan Vital to lie about the past.

Second, I'm also interested, not in 'dirt' about Maharaji's bad habits or whatever, but just how he operated with people, how decisions got made. For example, and I know this is a big one for you, how was it decided to close the ashrams in 1983, and what did Maharaji have to say about that? Did he express interest in the welfare of the ashram premies? Also, while we are at it, in your experience, did Maharaji ever express much interest at all in the welfare of his devotees? From my perspective, I never, ever, saw one shread of evidence that Maharaji was the least bit interested in us as individuals, or interested in our problems or concerns. For example, I and others wrote him letters asking for his direction or response, and he never replied. Others mention that his answers to questions about closing the ashrams, etc., were extremely flippant and evasive. Can you shed more light on this?

Third, in your post, you say you 'put aside' the Boeing 707. Since it appears M got the Lear in 1986 and the 707 wasn't even completed until 1981, why did he decide to get rid of the 707, and get the Lear instead? Considering the monumental effort and resources that went into the 707 on the part of his devottees, why did he do that? Also, since you say you were in 'at the heart' of M's 'aviation operations,' were you overseeing the Boeing 707 project and the way it was carried out? Did you have any misgivings about how all that was handled?

Finally, I understand that you no longer mention on your website resume that you were the head of a 'Swiss Foundation' with $100 million in revenues in 1982, which we all know was really running Maharaji's financial organization. Some of us reacted to that misleading entry the same way you and the rest of us are reacting to Elan Vital's FAQs. It bordered on revisionism, or at least was extremely misleading.

I pointed out some time ago that you had removed it, but then I erroneously believed you had put it back, because I went to an old link, showing your old resume. So, yes, you have removed it. But don't you share some responsibility for the deluge of speculation about you on the internet because you included that misleading reference on your resume in the first place? Sure, you have removed it, but that was only after it was pointed out by Roger Drek and others that it was there in the first place. Kudos for doing so, Michael, but you do share some responsbility.

You weren't the only one doing that, by the way. Joan Apter has on her internet resume that she was ' a regional director of education for Elan Vital' for 7 years, which she describes as an 'educational organization.' What she really was, was an initiator for Guru Maharaj Ji.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:07:00 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Half of my previous response did not post
Message:
Joe,

I never realized how much time it takes to actually read all these posts, let alone try to respond to them. Anyway, let me take a stab at answering your questions. I may ramble a bit to cover some similar questions raised in other posts.

First of all, when I became the President of Dettmers Industries, Inc. I no longer considered myself “in the service” of Maharaji as I had been previously for all of those years. I was under contract to oversee certain legal, financial and aviation related activities on behalf of Maharaji. I was also a director on the boards of several premie owned and operated companies in which Maharaji had a financial interest. The fact is that many premies who owned businesses wanted to express their gratitude to Maharaji by gifting him an interest, or granting him options in their businesses (for the record, Maharaji always paid whatever taxes were required). Thus, my contract, including its non-disclosure clause, was a standard business agreement entered into by many individuals who find themselves acting in a fiduciary capacity. Actually, Maharaji had nothing to do with my Agreement. It was his lawyer who insisted on it and it made perfect sense to me. When Maharaji and I mutually agreed to terminate my contract, the severance provision that was already part of the contract was triggered.

Some have asked whether I ever considered not taking the money. The answer is “no.” By that time, my feelings of devotion for Maharaji had died and I’m sure I was angry at having wasted all of those years (the ability to take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences was not a reality for me at that time). I was too focused on re-building my life and, as far as I was concerned, we were simply consummating a business transaction. Sometime later, after I had re-directed my life, I thought of giving back the money but the idea of giving money to Maharaji seemed preposterous so I found more worthy causes to support.

You ask what are acceptable terms of discussion that don’t violate my non-disclosure clause. First, you are correct in your assumption that I cannot disclose any corporate, financial or legal information. As for the rest, I think it is a matter of prudence and common sense. Obviously, I am free to share my personal opinions on any number of matters and I have been doing so.

Maharaji wanted the Boeing 707 so that he could tour with his young but growing family. To do so, he needed a plane that could accommodate him, his family and the support staff that took care of them. He did not want to be away from his family especially the children for extended periods of time while he was touring. At first, this worked because most of his travels in the early 80’s were to major festivals around the world. However, by 1984 I and others strongly argued that it was time to start doing public programs and he agreed. Very rigorous tour schedules were arranged in the USA and Canada, Europe, and South America. By rigorous, I mean that he would do one program per day in a different city over a two to three week period. He did not travel with his family and his support staff was minimal. There was no way to do such tours economically or practically in a 707. For one thing it was too big and heavy for many of the airports that were most suitable for his tour schedule. For that reason, we rented a Lear 35 which was a much smaller and more economical jet. Maharaji’s experience with the Lear 35 made him realize that the 707 was no longer useful and we sold it.

I have already expressed some of my views about why the ashrams should close in an earlier post. If anything drove that point home it was the experience of DECA. I did not run the day-to-day operations of DECA, a company formed to handle the refurbishing of the 707, but I played a major role in arranging the financing and purchase of the aircraft, ensuring that we had sufficient expertise to interface with the FAA so that the refurbished aircraft secured an airworthiness certificate, hiring an experienced flight crew and their training (Maharaji took a personal interest in this area), and setting up an operation that was capable of organizing flights around the world.

Having said that, the truth is, none of us, including me, really knew what it would take to pull off this project. In the past, hundreds of people had come together to organize huge festivals, but they had a very limited life span. The 707 project, on the other hand, lasted well over a year. People from all over the country and the world for that matter converged in Miami to do “service” on this project. For me it was often nothing more than blind faith and trust that Maharaji’s grace would make it happen (that is what I believed at the time) and I’m sure that was how it was for many others as well. Yet, in retrospect, all this focus on Maharaji made us blind to the horrendous conditions that people endured and that have been well documented on this forum. For me, the 707 project confirmed my growing belief that we should disband the structure that allowed the kind of abuse that took place in the name of “service” to continue.

It’s not as though these problems were impossible to rectify in and of themselves. But the culture of devotion in which we were all immersed made it virtually impossible to focus the energy and the resources necessary to create a structure that properly took care of people’s dignity and physical needs. Instead, this culture fostered the belief that only Maharaji’s needs were important because, even though he really doesn’t have any needs, he creates them out of mercy and compassion so that his devotees will have something to do for him since this is the only way to surrender and thereby realize knowledge. I think that Maharaji really believed this to be the truth. Hence, I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of failure on the part of the ashram premies – a failure to recognize the opportunity he was offering or a failure to be grateful for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it.

Finally, you ask about the resume I posted on my website and whether my reference to the educational foundation was misleading. At the time, I thought that a person in his early fifties should reflect a career that has spanned some thirty years. If I eliminated the time I spent with Maharaji, I’m down to fifteen. How do I account for the other fifteen years without disclosing that I was the right-hand man for a guru? Simple, you reinterpret (you called it revisionism) what you did during those years by focusing on the skills, accomplishments, and/or activities that relate to, and are consistent with, your current offers in the marketplace. Is that misleading? Sure. Did I think it mattered? No. Boy was I naïve about the power of the internet. You ask if my revisionism is the same as Maharaji’s revisionism as expressed in Élan Vital’s FAQ’s? Perhaps, but I’ll leave it to each person to draw their own conclusions about that. Regardless, I do take full responsibility for the deluge of speculation that ensued.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:07:34 (GMT)
From: dv
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Half of my previous response did not post
Message:
I had to doctor my resume too, and I feel there is nothing wrong with talking about ones past in the context of what a potential employer/client may be able to relate to. My 2nd job after m brought in 4 million for my boss. My problem? I transferred 25 years of devotional concepts on my new boss- 80 hour weeks for two years, etc. I made him rich- I was perfectly happy to follow some distorted altruistic bullshit that kept me in poverty. Now as a result I've sworn never to work for anyone again ( except on a purely contractual basis), I'm netting 120 k and will double that next year. The rejection of m has given me the courage to reject a lot of bullshit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:59:58 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Re: Cultic holes in one's resume
Message:
Michael:

I know how time-consuming this can be. But one thing I've seen from hanging around here for awhile, is that your typing speed can increase to levels I never dreamed possible. Perhaps that's a 'marketable skill' afterall. :)

I also wanted to say, that I, too, know the problems with trying to plug holes in a resume from my involvement with Maharaji. I spent years being a community coordinator, IHQ middle-manager, and DECA grunt. How do you explain those years on a resume? How do you tell prospective clients that you were an Ivy League honor graduate who then 'did service' for someone you now believe to be a fraud. I couldn't.

In my 30s, I basically had to start over, from the bottom, doing double time to try to pull some kind of a career together, working, going to graduate school, etc., etc, and, especially at first, living in relative isolation because I lost all my 'friends' and support when I became no longer a devotee, and because I dared to say what I thought. And I was luckier than a lot of people in that I somehow got my BA before I moved into the ashram. At least I didn't have to be an undergraduate in my 30s. So, I know what you mean. Talk about wasted years.

I understand why you didn't mention Maharaji on your resume. I surely never did. I guess that's the difference, though. You walked away with a business, with connections, and with a severance package. You were starting a consulting business. If you start over at the bottom, like me, holes in the resume are not so much of a concern. After awhile, enough years go by and you don't need to explain it anymore. It was a nice day when that happened for me, and I'm very happen with where I ended up. But it was completely in spite of being involved with Maharaji, not in any way because of it.

I have a few questions, but I don't want to type tomes, so more later. Thanks, Michael. I'm really enjoying this.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:50:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thanks for all that, Mike (nt)
Message:
gggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:02:57 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers
Message:
Joe,

I never realized how much time it takes to actually read all these posts, let alone try to respond to them. Anyway, let me take a stab at answering your questions. I may ramble a bit to cover some similar questions raised in other posts.

First of all, when I became the President of Dettmers Industries, Inc. I no longer considered myself “in the service” of Maharaji as I had been previously for all of those years. I was under contract to oversee certain legal, financial and aviation related activities on behalf of Maharaji. I was also a director on the boards of several premie owned and operated companies in which Maharaji had a financial interest. The fact is that many premies who owned businesses wanted to express their gratitude to Maharaji by gifting him an interest, or granting him options in their businesses (for the record, Maharaji always paid whatever taxes were required). Thus, my contract, including its non-disclosure clause, was a standard business agreement entered into by many individuals who find themselves acting in a fiduciary capacity. Actually, Maharaji had nothing to do with my Agreement. It was his lawyer who insisted on it and it made perfect sense to me. When Maharaji and I mutually agreed to terminate my contract, the severance provision that was already part of the contract was triggered.

Some have asked whether I ever considered not taking the money. The answer is “no.” By that time, my feelings of devotion for Maharaji had died and I’m sure I was angry at having wasted all of those years (the ability to take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences was not a reality for me at that time). I was too focused on re-building my life and, as far as I was concerned, we were simply consummating a business transaction. Sometime later, after I had re-directed my life, I thought of giving back the money but the idea of giving money to Maharaji seemed preposterous so I found more worthy causes to support.

You ask what are acceptable terms of discussion that don’t violate my non-disclosure clause. First, you are correct in your assumption that I cannot disclose any corporate, financial or legal information. As for the rest, I think it is a matter of prudence and common sense. Obviously, I am free to share my personal opinions on any number of matters and I have been doing so.

Maharaji wanted the Boeing 707 so that he could tour with his young but growing family. To do so, he needed a plane that could accommodate him, his family and the support staff that took care of them. He did not want to be away from his family especially the children for extended periods of time while he was touring. At first, this worked because most of his travels in the early 80’s were to major festivals around the world. However, by 1984 I and others strongly argued that it was time to start doing public programs and he agreed. Very rigorous tour schedules were arranged in the USA and Canada, Europe, and South America. By rigorous, I mean that he would do one program per day in a different city over a two to three week period. He did not travel with his family and his support staff was minimal. There was no way to do such tours economically or practically in a 707. For one thing it was too big and heavy for many of the airports that were most suitable for his tour schedule. For that reason, we rented a Lear 35 which was a much smaller and more economical jet. Maharaji’s experience with the Lear 35 made him realize that the 707 was no longer useful and we sold it.

I have already expressed some of my views about why the ashrams should close in an earlier post. If anything drove that point home it was the experience of DECA. I did not run the day-to-day operations of DECA, a company formed to handle the refurbishing of the 707, but I played a major role in arranging the financing and purchase of the aircraft, ensuring that we had sufficient expertise to interface with the FAA so that the refurbished aircraft secured an airworthiness certificate, hiring an experienced flight crew and their training (Maharaji took a personal interest in this area), and setting up an operation that was capable of organizing flights around the world.

Having said that, the truth is, none of us, including me, really knew what it would take to pull off this project. In the past, hundreds of people had come together to organize huge festivals, but they had a very limited life span. The 707 project, on the other hand, lasted well over a year. People from all over the country and the world for that matter converged in Miami to do “service” on this project. For me it was often nothing more than blind faith and trust that Maharaji’s grace would make it happen (that is what I believed at the time) and I’m sure that was how it was for many others as well. Yet, in retrospect, all this focus on Maharaji made us blind to the horrendous conditions that people endured and that have been well documented on this forum. For me, the 707 project confirmed my growing belief that we should disband the structure that allowed the kind of abuse that took place in the name of “service” to continue.

It’s not as though these problems were impossible to rectify in and of themselves. But the culture of devotion in which we were all immersed made it virtually impossible to focus the energy and the resources necessary to create a structure that properly took care of people’s dignity and physical needs. Instead, this culture fostered the belief that only Maharaji’s needs were important because, even though he really doesn’t have any needs, he creates them out of mercy and compassion so that his devotees will have something to do for him since this is the only way to surrender and thereby realize knowledge. I think that Maharaji really believed this to be the truth. Hence, I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of failure on the part of the ashram premies – a failure to recognize the opportunity he was offering or a failure to be grateful for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it.

Finally, you ask about the resume I posted on my website and whether my reference to the educational foundation was misleading. At the time, I thought that a person in his early fifties should reflect a career that has spanned some thirty years. If I eliminated the time I spent with Maharaji, I’m down to fifteen. How do I account for the other fifteen years without disclosing that I was the right-hand man for a guru? Simple, you reinterpret (you called it revisionism) what you did during those years by focusing on the skills, accomplishments, and/or activities that relate to, and are consistent with, your current offers in the marketplace. Is that misleading? Sure. Did I think it mattered? No. Boy was I naïve about the power of the internet. You ask if my revisionism is the same as Maharaji’s revisionism as expressed in Élan Vital’s FAQ’s? Perhaps, but I’ll leave it to each person to draw their own conclusions about that. Regardless, I do take full responsibility for the deluge of speculation that ensued.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:06:49 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Career Doldrums
Message:
Michael:

Thanks for your openness and honesty in discussing those elements of your past with Maharaji that are not covered by confidentiality. I turn my head on this forum and an avalanche of words has passed. Chattiest group I ever saw. Your frankness in discussing concerns about your resume make me uneasy, since there is very little in my work experience prior to 1980 that amounts to more than odd jobs. Indeed, the whole span of my career was launched by the discovery that knowledge was not even emotionally satisfying for me, by itself. I suspect I'm not alone in finding that there's not even very much I can embellish in order to plug that gap.

I have one friend whose career was launched at Berkeley in the 1960's as though from a rocket, and another who's father's notorious conviction for the murder of his mother sent an extraordinarily promising career into limbo. The best I can do about my own tardiness is to insist that I'm a 'late bloomer,' and point out that the same is true of Dwight David Eisenhower, George Bernard Shaw, and Frank McCourt. In the end, however, I think it's more a matter of convincing myself than anyone else.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:54:40 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Additional Questions and Comments
Message:
Michael:

Thanks for posting the same thing twice; it allows for shorter responses.

Regarding the confidentiality agreement, I get that you didn't have one until you were already at Dettmers Industries, and were then not 'in the service' and hence you entered into a contract with Maharaji for ongoing work, which contained the agreement. I assume this was in the latter 80s. Nevertheless, does the confidentiality agreement extend to things that happened prior to the date of the agreement, back when you were dutifully doing full time service as an ashram premie and had no contract?

Regarding the 707, you say:

There was no way to do such tours economically or practically in a 707. For one thing it was too big and heavy for many of the airports that were most suitable for his tour schedule. For that reason, we rented a Lear 35 which was a much smaller and more economical jet. Maharaji’s experience with the Lear 35 made him realize that the 707 was no longer useful and we sold it.

I recall being in meetings with Virgil Cuillo, Jim Hession and others back in 1979 at DECA when this was discussed -- the fact that the 707 was unlikely to be practical for the kind of traveling that Maharaji wanted to do was openly discussed, but the conclusion was that we should just surrender and convert the plane. So this was actually discussed, although this was after the plane was already acquired. Of course, most people were afraid to even question what Maharaji wanted, and I don't think Maharaji was even in a position where he had to think too hard about the consequences of his decsions. He seems to have been protected from that quite well.

I recall that Virgil Cuillo, the DLM attorney, in particular, was scathing in his criticism about the completely unprofessional way the plane had been acquired, and how reckless the finances were. This wasn't unusual for DLM, we all agreed. Like you said, the idea was Maharaji wanted it, and grace would take care of it, and we should just go for it. That was the predominant value.

And like you said, that mentality extended into the operation of DECA, except now we are talking about an operation that affected the lives of hundreds of people, not just about money and planes. Again, did Maharaji ever talk about the welfare of the devotees who were working on the project, and did he consider how they might feel when he sold the plane they had worked on for years? How much did he get for the plane, by the way?

The 707 project, on the other hand, lasted well over a year. People from all over the country and the world for that matter converged in Miami to do “service” on this project.

Actually, I think it lasted almost two years, if not more. And yes, people 'converged' in Miami to do service, but most of those people, including me, were ordered to be there, we didn't just 'converge' there voluntarily. We were ashram premies and we did what we were told. Personally, if I had a choice, I would have much preferred to stay in Washington DC and be the community coordinator. I desperately did not want to go to DECA, because I had been there and saw what a hell-hole it was. But I was called and so I went.

I know you weren't involved in the day-to-day operation of DECA, that was Jim Hession, who always appeared to me to be a bit of a maniac, with a compulsive obsession with organizational charts, and for making things and big and chaotic as possible. He was quite successful, I think. DECA had nifty organizational charts, a proliferation of titles, and total chaos. It was also tremendously wasteful of resources, both human and financial.

Maharaji, on the other hand, seemed to be quite involved in the operation of DECA. He was sure there a lot, and he seemed to inspect absolutely everything, although I never heard him once comment or ask about the condition of the premie workers, or anything at all about them as individuals or their lives. He used to also come and give 'satsang' quite often at DECA, the most memorable for me was on Christmas Day in 1979, when he said we would go to hell if we didn't have complete devotion to him, and also, that the purpose of our lives was not to practice knowledge or realize anything, but to devote our lives to him and to feel lucky we could. He also said that the only 'tie' we had to our families was the 'tie' they gave us for Christmas and he talked about how 'pleased' he was that we all stayed at DECA working our butts off instead of doing something unconscious like visiting our families. So, I understand the 'culture of devotiom,' but when you say the following, you obscure where that 'culture' came from:

But the culture of devotion in which we were all immersed made it virtually impossible to focus the energy and the resources necessary to create a structure that properly took care of people’s dignity and physical needs. Instead, this culture fostered the belief that only Maharaji’s needs were important because, even though he really doesn’t have any needs, he creates them out of mercy and compassion so that his devotees will have something to do for him since this is the only way to surrender and thereby realize knowledge.

Like I mentioned above, it was Maharaji himself who created the 'culture of devotion' and the idea that everything should be done for his benefit only and we should ignore our own, and each others', human needs. In fact, the basis of the culture was to ignore our humanity entirely. This 'culture' didn't just happened. It was carefully nutured and promoted by Maharaji himself, especially at a place like DECA, and then, of course, the rest of us dutifully expounded on it, and supported it, because that's what Maharaji said he wanted.

I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of failure on the part of the ashram premies – a failure to recognize the opportunity he was offering or a failure to be grateful for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it.

In what ways, in particular, did the ashrams fail, according to Maharaji? How did that manifest, in his opinion? Did he talk about it? How much personal consideration did Maharaji put into closing the ashrams, and did he consider how that might affect the lives of those people? Did he, in any respect, recognize the severe contradiction in pushing people to move into the ashrams, which he said were life-long committments, and then just closing them? Did people around him discuss this? Sounds like it wasn't discussed. As you know, I think this is one of the more damning things about Maharaji, his uncarring, flippant attitude towards other human beings, and this is manifested hugely around this issue.

Finally, one clarification, you say:

You ask if my revisionism is the same as Maharaji’s revisionism as expressed in Élan Vital’s FAQ’s?

I actually didn't ask this and I don't consider it the same, not by a long shot. What I said was that those of us who are former premies would be sensitive to a statement like that and, might view that misrepresentation in the same way we would view the revisionist FAQs on the Elan Vital website. But I didn't say or imply that they are equivalent, because I don't think they are.

Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:18:50 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thanks
Message:
Michael,

Thank you for helping to open up the conversation here in a substantive way and for bringing your unique perspective to bear. Your thoughts mean a lot as these discussions help all of us who once were devotees. And thanks to Joe for asking the questions.

Postie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 14:55:44 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: jmkahn@club-internet.fr
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty
Message:
Nothing new in all this.

I must admit you have the guts to repeat what you said about 20 years ago, and take responsibility for this.

But excuse me, I still have some difficulty reading you writing things like

'So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it'

Maybe I'm still too blind ....

or ........ I was almost going to find some other quotes of yours, what would be the purpose?

It is quite obvious for me that you still attribute some strange powers to whatever Mr Rawat incarnates for you, and I must admit I have trouble believing in whatever anybody having that sort of belief would say. Or maybe I'm wrong. I guess it's up to you to make things clear.

What do you feel regarding the role you've had in the past helping him propagate his bizarre ideology/belief?
Do you feel sorry for the people who've been hurt in the process?
Do you think Mr Rawat is presently running a cult?
Is he responsible for this?
If no, who is?
Do you still practise knowledge?
Do you still consider yourself a disciple of Mr Prempal Rawat?

I have no problems with anybody believing whatever about him.
What I don't like is when people are vague about it, and this is the feeling I got reading your posts and emails.

Jean-Michel Kahn
former ashram resident (1974-1980)
former part-time instructor (don't remember the precise dates, something like 1987-1993)
former disciple of Prempal Rawat

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:45:50 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty
Message:
Jean-Michel

I can appreciate you confusion, especially since I assume your mother tongue is French, not English, but I can assure you as others have already done that I was being sarcastic.

Now for your questions:
What do you feel regarding the role you've had in the past helping him propagate his bizarre ideology/belief? Regret and some sadness that I wasted some of the most productive years of my life.
Do you feel sorry for the people who've been hurt in the process? Very much so.
Do you think Mr Rawat is presently running a cult? Yes.
Is he responsible for this? Absolutely.
If no, who is? N/A
Do you still practise knowledge? I still meditate, but that’s it.
Do you still consider yourself a disciple of Mr Prempal Rawat? No.
As for me lacking heart. Give me a break. Now you want blood as well.
Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 07:33:10 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thanks again, and apologies
Message:
I think I made quite a fool of myself in my interpretation of your post.

I've read all you've been writing, and I guess that awoke lots of memories and triggered quite a lot of reactions, thus my confusion. I couldn't even see the sarcasm in your post, when that became obvious once my reaction was gone.

We do practise sarcasm in France too ....

I appreciate your honesty, and your answers to my questions.

I guess we share the same feelings reg our past involvement.

Jean-Michel
Who once opened for you your rented car in Rome (1979 or 1980) when you had lost your kees! That was a great service, haha... and doesn't like to shed blood.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 00:49:57 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty
Message:

Steady on a minute pal , I'd've thought a guy with your 'ontological' sophistication would appreciate that Jean-Michel has a command of the English language that's way off the scale.

I'll bet you've said to yourself when you've met compatriots of his on business , ' I'd cut my cock off if I could speak French as well as he can speak English'. No ?

So what's with the 'confusion' crack.

I'm leaning towards the , 'you're still in thrall to Barry Bollix Shwar' viewpoint.

Are you sure you're not the key honcho in the early retirement project?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:37:41 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: god i like this post for its humour and of course
Message:
its cockney flavor if that's what it is. And of course I agree with the sentiments expressed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:45:45 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty
Message:
'So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it'

JM, I am quite sure that was sarcasm. Which is hard enough to detect in print but I am sure harder when it is through a second language. I think that the statement is quite damning of Rawat. It is actually one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard about the way he excuses his greed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:53:07 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: OF COURSE he's being sarcastic! (Sheesh?)
Message:
Yeah, this net stuff does take the obvious out of 'obvious' sometimes, doesn't it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:18:01 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: OK, maybe that was a sarcasm, but hurts me
Message:
a lot.

I can't read anything from Michael Dettmers' own heart and feelings.

Thus my questions for him.

I'd be surprised if he answers them. I just see all this as an attempt for him to clean his image.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:32:26 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: OK, maybe that was a sarcasm, but hurts me
Message:
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this dettmers thing, especially the revamping of his image.

I think his biggest concern (and it is natural and understandable) is about the effect on his business that the whole story of Michael Dettmers revealed would have.

He knew as early as 1974, by his own admission, that rawrat was 'a mere mortal' yet continued to promote him as satguru, and divine. For me this is unforgiveable.

I will never trust him, or believe him. That's just the way it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:29:09 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Gerry, are you channelling Joey?
Message:
Oh I wish I could take credit for coming up with the thought, another forum regular sent it in email to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:36:51 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: So who was your clever email pal?
Message:
Well, I personally think it's a low blow to talk about Joey when he's not here to defend himself. After all, he may feel entirely differently about this matter.

But you're Ms. Integrity, so I'll demur to your better judgement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:50:16 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: where is Joey?
Message:
I am sorry, but Joey and 'I will never change my mind' paranoia no one fools me thinking are hand in hand. I recall well the time he laid into Abi certain she was a plant and said the most disgusting and vile of things to her.

Hey, you think Roger can print character assassinations and then spam the search engines in anonymity but I have to disclose the identity of my quick witted friend?

It is a 'she' friend, that is all I am saying.

So if I speak my mind when I think someone is wrong I am 'Ms. Integrity'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:14:24 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Why are you attacking Joey?
Message:
Do you know what Joey thinks about dettmers'statements or not? If you don't, then shut up about Joey.

I am sorry, but Joey and 'I will never change my mind' paranoia no one fools me thinking are hand in hand. I recall well the time he laid into Abi certain she was a plant and said the most disgusting and vile of things to her.

I can barely discern what you are grumbling about here, and what Abi has to do with dettmers.

Where did I say 'I will never change my mind? I did say I will never believe or trust dettmers (after all, Dettmers admitted that he knew M was a 'mere mortal' as early as 1974 and kept promoting him as god for years later.)

But that hardly translates to 'I will never change my mind.' I change my mind on lots of things.

Hey, you think Roger can print character assassinations and then spam the search engines in anonymity but I have to disclose the identity of my quick witted friend?

Where did I say that? Again you are putting words into my mouth. Please stop it now.

And I don't think your friend is especially quick witted. That line is hardly original.

You're right about one thing, you are NOT Ms Integrity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:19:33 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You hurt my feelings
Message:
I have to stop playing with the bullies, I am not cut out for it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:28:18 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Well you slammed both Joey and me in one post
Message:
I know some people consider Joey 'crazy' (I don't-certainly he has had a rough time of leaving the cult, though) so by inference I'm 'crazy' or evil or something because I don't agree with you.

And now you are calling me a 'bully' for defending myself? This is simply away for you to avoid the legitimate questions I asked you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:35:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Well you slammed both Joey and me in one post
Message:
Gerry,

Give it up. Joey is most certainly paranoid. Do you know that when I was in Montreal he discouraged one or two exes from getting together with me because he's now convicned that I, too, am a cult operative? And one of those guys himself was also accused of same by Joey.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:04:23 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I will forgive Dettmers et all, but only when
Message:
they'll answer the questions I've posted!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:47:36 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: About responsibility
Message:
That was interesting what you said about Maharaji's attitude toward the premies who lived in ashrams, and how they 'failed' the opportunity which Maharaji had provided them. Why did you think this was what Maharaji felt at the time? Did he say anything specific along those lines?

By that time, my feelings of devotion for Maharaji had died and I’m sure I was angry at having wasted all of those years (the ability to take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences was not a reality for me at that time).

Cheap shot, Mike. I can't help that was an intentional dig at the ex-premies who post on this forum. The truth is you were just a dumb fucking kid like the rest of us who fell for all this spiritual mumbo jumbo that Maharaji was peddling. Yeah, I guess we are responsible for the decisions we make, but those decisions are not necessarily wise ones. I don't care for the hard line that some people take to empower themselves, by giving themselves the illusion that they're in charge, and know exactly what they're doing. The truth is that we were easily swayed by a megalomaniac who played off of our silly superstitions. That's not exactly what I'd call being in charge. And maybe being held responsible when you can't tell up from down is a bit of a stretch, as well. Seems sort of merciless, somehow, like flogging somebody because he's an idiot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:30:22 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: About responsibility
Message:
Jerry,

Good point about the cheap shot. Although it was certainly not my intention to slight the ex-premies who post on this forum, I can see how it may have appeared that way. Sorry.

You ask why I think Maharaji felt that the ashram premies “failed.” Allow me to try and answer your question this way. It was my experience that Maharaji embodied his role as lord and perfect master (although I’m sure he didn’t think of it as a “role” but rather who he really was). By “embodied” I mean that he lived his life in the full “expectation” that it was his birthright to receive the love, respect and devotion and all of the goodies (i.e. whatever he wants) that are due a perfect master. I use the word “expectation” advisedly. I have since come to learn how much power we unleash in ourselves when we fully “expect” our desires, visions, dreams, etc. to manifest. However, most of us may wish for this or that, but secretly we may not really “expect” it to manifest. Inner feelings of doubt, fear and unworthiness are what we are really emanating and, consequently, we attract to us the exact opposite or less than what we really desire. I realize that some of your may characterize this as New Age bullshit (Jim and Rob, are you reading this?) but it is what I have come to realize in my own life and forms the basis for my opinions that follow.

Looking back at the time I spent with Maharaji, I can see that he never allowed whatever doubts he may have had about his identity, to control him or prevent him from expecting to receive whatever he wanted. And he perpetuated (through his own ignorance of any other explanation) the myth that it was by his “grace” that his wishes became our command. In other words, we bought into a particular “interpretation” of who he was and how his power worked. Unfortunately, that particular interpretation had the insidious consequence of keeping us enslaved in the belief that he was all worthy and powerful and we were nothing by dirt at his divine lotus feet. In that interpretation there is only one big winner and everyone else is a loser.

Now, I suggest that there is another “interpretation” about our ability to manifest what we desire that is far more empowering if we are willing to pay the price, and one that does not necessitate that we surrender to anyone. The price is that we are willing to take the time to examine and overcome the doubts and fears that keep us from realizing our full potential. In this regard, Maharaji had a distinct advantage in that, from the moment he was born, he was indoctrinated into an absolute belief system and an identity, reinforced by his father as a living role model. I personally don’t know anyone else who falls into that category although I can think of some historical figures, such as Mozart, who may.

But, in my opinion, the time is coming when he is going to have to pay a serious price for the unexamined life he has been leading for the past 40 or so years. The big disadvantage to any absolute belief system is that it breeds arrogance and the mistaken assumption that there is nothing to learn because you already know everything worth knowing. When this attitude is embodied in a teacher, you have a formula for disaster. In my opinion, Maharaji’s belief system and his identity in it is leading him blindly down a dead-end road along with everyone else who chooses to follow him. And I would be very surprised if, by now, he isn’t strongly suspecting as much. His recent efforts to put a spin on the past through Élan Vital’s FAQ’s simply won’t work because nothing fundamentally has changed in his belief system. I wouldn’t surprise me if we started to hear rumors that he is retiring. Maybe he will, but that act would be nothing more than him saying once again “fuck you” to all of us ungrateful people.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:50:29 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: The S in success
Message:
Michael:

I have since come to learn how much power we unleash in ourselves when we fully “expect” our desires, visions, dreams, etc. to manifest. However, most of us may wish for this or that, but secretly we may not really “expect” it to manifest. Inner feelings of doubt, fear and unworthiness are what we are really emanating and, consequently, we attract to us the exact opposite or less than what we really desire....

Now, I suggest that there is another “interpretation” about our ability to manifest what we desire that is far more empowering if we are willing to pay the price, and one that does not necessitate that we surrender to anyone. The price is that we are willing to take the time to examine and overcome the doubts and fears that keep us from realizing our full potential.

I just haven't the slightest idea what might be left after examining all my fears and doubts, except more of the same. The presumption is that we are all entitled to a sort of native success, and that all we need do is to kind of peel away the scales and the bright and shiny entity will emerge. Where does this model come from, and what evidence is there for it? I suggest that the behavioral model is really more accurate. You repeat what brought success, with increasing confidence and greater competence, which brings more success, leading to a typical sigmoidal (S) career curve of reinforcement, success, and saturation. There's a bifurcation at the ends of the 'S,' a hypo and hyper critical stage, that solves the same functional equation. Hypocritical: if you don't get sufficient reinforcement at the beginning then instead of building success you generate catastrophic decline. Hypercritical: at saturation you can launch a new success function, and take the same risk of catastrophic failure.

We live in a culture that encourages us to put all our eggs in one basket... to 'go for the gold,' and we recount stories of extraordinary success, and give a big discount for modest success. We don't honor or recount stories of the Renaissance Human who develops many skills, but given the risk of catastrophic failure the one-basket approach is probably somewhat irresponsible. What sort of insurance lies at the bottom of that big ONE SHOT S-CURVE? How about, steroids, political payoffs, corruption, bribery, extortion... the same kinds of 'insurance' that lie at the top. Just thinking out loud about responsibility, pressure, and corruption, and all of our bright shiny potential.

--Scott 'looking for people like myself to inspire me' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:55:31 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: About responsibility
Message:
I have since come to learn how much power we unleash in ourselves when we fully “expect” our desires, visions, dreams, etc. to manifest. However, most of us may wish for this or that, but secretly we may not really “expect” it to manifest. Inner feelings of doubt, fear and unworthiness are what we are really emanating and, consequently, we attract to us the exact opposite or less than what we really desire.

Well, this may or may not be so. I've never expected a hell of a lot in life, materiallistically. But as a premie, I expected Knowledge Of God, which I thought was the highest goal a person could strive for, and I saw pursuit of material gains as an obstacle to that. My lifestyle has always been a humble one, although I am a respected professional in my field as a computer technician. But I've always felt that I could have achieved more if I worked harder, and sometimes I get down on myself for not having done so, but, still, I'm not so sure I agree that we don't excel because we don't expect to. I know I could have gotten much further if I applied myself. I'm sure many 'underachievers' feel this way.

I realize that some of your may characterize this as New Age bullshit

I think there's some truth to your philosophy, but I think it's inaccurate when it tries to 'blanket' everybody. There are different reasons for why people don't achieve high status in life. Some of us just don't want to make the effort (we're lazy, or we've got other priorities), although I'm certain I could have gone much further if I made an attempt to. As it stands, I only got as far as I did by a concerted effort. I know if I wanted to continue my advancement, more hard work and desire would have been the key. But I don't believe low self esteem is what prevented me from making that effort.

Looking back at the time I spent with Maharaji, I can see that he never allowed whatever doubts he may have had about his identity, to control him or prevent him from expecting to receive whatever he wanted.

I think a more appropriate appraisal of Maharaji is that he was a spoiled brat. Yes, they do expect the world on a silver platter.

And he perpetuated (through his own ignorance of any other explanation) the myth that it was by his “grace” that his wishes became our command.

Delusion might be a better word. You're not painting a picture of a very sane man here, Michael. In fact, the picture is clearly one of a man drunk with power. It's his drug, and I disagree with you that he's beginning to see the damage it's done to him and others. I think he's in too much denial for that. There's certainly nothing in his stage presense, his public demeanor, to this day, that would suggest otherwise. But then, who knows what goes on once he's out of the public eye? You once did, and I assure you, Michael, anything you can reveal to us which would reveal Maharaji's humanity, as a result of the confidence you once shared with him, would be a great help to us all.

Thank you for your candor.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:46:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: I don't have a problem with that
Message:
Michael,

God, what's with all this 'new age' this and 'new age' that? Is that all you people can talk about around here?

:)

No, seriously, I don't have a problem with anything you've said here. There's a lot of truth in the notion that we set ourselves up for this or that, intended consequences or otherwise, depending on how honest we are with ourselves. I only take issue with that kind of thinking or talking when it crosses into the metaphysical. The moment you're explaining the train coming on time or being late as a function of your attitude and expectations, well, let me off. Fast.

But that's not what you're saying (I think) so fuck you for calling it new age. Now I've got to argue against fake new age 'new age' stuff and I can't. I've got to go to the office.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:03:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Well said, Jer (nt)
Message:
gggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:09:17 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks, Jim
Message:
You say things pretty well, yourself. And I agree with you that Dettmers is on the level. I see no ulterior motive on his behalf by coming here to share with us on this forum. If he's trying to clear his name in the process, well fucking 'A', man, he's got a right to.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:58:55 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers
Message:
let me quote you,and parse your words, and ask for clarification on this part:
Instead, this culture fostered the belief
that
'†** only Maharaji's needs were important'
because,* 'even though he really doesn't have any needs',
*he creates them, out of
' mercy and compassion'*
so that †'his devotees will have something to do for him'
*'since this is the only way to surrender'
and thereby 'realize knowledge.'*
I think that Maharaji really believed this
to be the truth.
Hence, I believe
he viewed the closing of the ashrams
as a kind of **'failure,
on the part of the ashram premies';
a failure to recognize
the 'opportunity' he was offering
or **'a failure to be grateful'**
for the opportunity.

So even though he agreed
that they should be closed,
I
'†don't think he felt he owed anybody anything.'
'After all,
**he was already
giving us everything'
and 'we were just
too blind and ungrateful
to recognize and appreciate it.'**

we all heard plenty of that, then, Michael.
looking at the quoted parts, don't you see how cruel(†) and crazymaking(*,**) and codependently destructive(**,†) it all is/was to us?
those are the words of the battering husband, the alcoholic Mommy Dearest, the height of the abusive Other.
do we just let him find new prey to suck in and abuse? do we all sit by and do nothing?

Do you believe that he still thinks the same line of pap, to justify his extravagant demands, in his head, still , today??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:06:02 (GMT)
From: dv
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: The 707 was extremely expensive to operate,
Message:
so I was told. All of that gold weight didn't help. The air traffic controllers were veeeery quiet as the plane barely cleared the runway with a first time full load. M was probably terrified of the plane. After all, it was built by his slaves, and how much did he trust us?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:24:53 (GMT)
From: Steven Quint
Email: sequint@hom.com
To: Joe
Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers
Message:
There are lost souls and there are Lost Souls.

If a drowning man pulls you in, you know what to do, right?

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:46:02 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Steven Quint
Subject: Hello?
Message:
Are you suggesting Michael is a drowning man? Tell me Steven, what should I do if he is? Was that post supposed to make any sense, or is it just spam?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 18:55:52 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Everyone
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
Fooled you!

Oh, gawd, I feel awful. I feel hung over from too much soma and my ontology is itching and burning.

I don't buy the Dettmers thing. Something is fishy.

Dettmers is still a premie from what I read.

There are a number of discrepancies that have arisen in the 'discussions' with Dettmers that I cannot resolve. Among them are:

I've seen Dettmers sitting in the PAM seating in at least one program in the period between 1994 and 1997. He claims not to have any contact in years.

Dettmers worked in Dettmers Inc. from 1988 until 1995. And then he formed Glyanix, is that correct. Amongst the clients of Glyanix were several 'premie' operations. However, if you visit the Clients page of Glyanix it has been modified on June 4, 2000 and no premie companies are on the current list. I'd call that damage control. In my permanent files I do have a copy of the original list of clients and I will produce that when I get the time.

The corporate documents show Dettmers to have been involved with the Maharaji shell corporation, Purus, as late as 1996. (See Purus 1. Dettmers resigned in 1997 (Purus 2.

Oh, and there is this minor problem in that Jossi Fresco is the web designer for Gylanix. And, of course, Jossi Fresco is the web designer for all the Maharaji empire.

So, yeah, I'm the guy that did the exposé and not wanting to elevate myself as being a somebody or anything I feel that Dettmers' efforts here have been to do damage control. From the very beginning of Dettmers' communications my gut feel has been that he is using his expertise to manipulate the truth. And, because I sincerely believe that there are existing facts that directly contradict Dettmers statements I have to believe that Dettmers is not telling us the entire truth by a long shot.

Now that I've had a chance to reflect on Dettmers' latest post, my initial feeling of gratitude where Dettmers threw us a couple of small bones by actually dissing Elan Vital and Maharaji's greed has turned into skepticism and Dettmers response and comments feels like very precise spin doctoring in a measured game of give and take.

I know that I'm going to catch some hell for this, but I believe that Dettmers is still a premie. I think that Dettmers is still very much involved with the entire PAM network.

Dettmers is a liar. End of story. Fuck you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:34:01 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Nah you missed one - gettin' old Rog.
Message:
However, if you visit the Clients page of Glyanix it has been modified on June 4, 2000 and no premie companies are on the current list. I'd call that damage control.

You missed Gendra International, owned by well-known Miami premie Claudio Lisman.

Florida Dept of Corporations (http://www.sunbiz.org/index.html) lists his ventures thus:

GENDRA BROADCASTING CORPORATION
ARTS & ANIMATION COMPANY
PRIMESTREAM CORPORATION
VIRTUAL RECORDS, INC.
AMERICAS COMMUNICATION CENTER CORPORATION
VOLARE MAGAZINES, INC.
ARTS AND ANIMATION PUBLISHING, INC
VIRTUAL RECORDS, INC.

Registered agent for Gendra Broadcasting? Why none other than the lovely Linda Smith (Amtext etc etc...).

What does Gendra Broadcasting do, among other things?

Satellite Link-ups!

Get the picture? (that was a pun, Roger, get the picture hahaha)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:53:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Can we talk?
Message:
I'm sitting here doing legal research in one window while checking the page in another.

Rob, you're a reasonable guy. Smart. Fair. Like Roger, I'm sure. Both of you have been subject of lots of suspcion at various times, you because you first started posting as a premie and fucked with us royally over your PAM-menship, etc. (Roger was your main accuser) and Roger, because he mysteriously pissed off another, somewhat mentally-unbalanced ex by, ironically, putting up that stuff about Dettmers which, said somewhat mentally-unbalanced ex was convinced, bizarrely, could only be a red herring off the trail of Maharaji.

So now Dettmers himself is under close scrutiny. Fine. No problem. He himself acknowledges that he essentially deserves it, what with his long tenure at right-hand man to a cult leader and the terms of his departure from said cult. It's a process, as they say somewhere.

But, really, is it all that damning that Dettmers would maintain premie contacts, business or social, after he left? What does it really say about the guy, after all?

I think that one thing's indisputable. IF Dettmers is telling the truth now and IF he was telling the truth back in April, there's been a change in his attitude about Maharaji in just these last six months. That's the only logical explanation. He said stuff then that flies in the face of what he says now. No, he hasn't addressed that evolution specifically but that fact is self-evident -- if one gives him any credit for sincerity, then and now.

So you, Rob, you who definitely knows what it's like to change one's mind over time because of exposure to the forum and the facts and arguments therein, what do you think?

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point myself. He didn't have to come back here. Adn he certainly didn't have to diss Maharaji as he has yesterday and today. Frankly, I can't imagine any premie doing any such thing for some ulterior motive. It's anethmatic to the premie credo. Plus, it would serve no greater cult agenda that I can think of.

What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:35:14 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Can we talk?
Message:
I guess we should always leave the door open to premies who want to leave, so in that respect you have a point. I'm not 'going after' Michael with the same vigor as I did with Fronke. They are entirely different animals.

But then, so are Michael and I, so I'm not sure how relevant your argument is in comparing my own transition to what you see as a potential one by him. I never was a PAM, or even a close approximation of one, never spent ANY time with m. one-on-one and had no financial or contractual ties with the cult as does/did Michael. Like I said, though, it would be very cultic of us not to open our doors to him, once his sincerity has been established (if indeed he even seeks our acceptance, for I see nothing in his post which suggests he does)

Again you are right in saying there is nothing wrong in maintaining business contacts with premies, and possibly the relationship with Claudio Lisman and Gendra Broadcasting is purely that - a business and/or friendship relationship. The fact that it is there does contradict Michael's rebuttal to Roger, in which he said he has no current premie clients, but maybe he forgot about that one, hey? Or maybe he didn't realize Claudio is a premie - some people do hide their light under a bushel, you know. But again, in and of itself it means nothing perhaps.

To come to the crux of your discussion, what is to be gained by a possible subterfuge from the EV camp? Well I feel I touched on one possibility in my questioning the motives behind his trying to subtly dissuade us from pursuing any legal 'attacks' on M., if attack were the right word.

In addition, and drawing here from the many arguments put forth when I was under similar scrutiny, the mere fact that someone of his (former) cult stature appears to have joined our ranks so easily would be tactically quite useful for the Other Side. He is a Master of the written word, I'm sure, and of the nuances of motivation and emotional manipulation, not to mention the amount of misinformation which he could hand out. Quite a useful tool for them to have among us. I'm not saying that is the case, just giving an opinion as to why it would be a good thing for them if it were.

So, Turncoat or Trojan Horse? I really have no idea Jim, but as my dear old mum used to say 'the truth will out'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:46:48 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Rob
Subject: Thanks, Rob. Yes, I'm old and having a bad day...
Message:
here on the old Forum.

Seems that I keep accusing people of being things they aren't and then they end up hating me forever. Please don't hate me because I'm beautiful. Hate me because I'm mean and evil.

But, you, Rob, are a gentleman and a scholar for digging out another Premie owned company. Excellent work. Satellite link-ups. Could this be where the Master synchronizes his babble and beams it up so that it may later come down into the living rooms of premies everywhere.

And, yes, Ms. Linda Smith is lovely.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:00:52 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Well a good whine improves with age
Message:
Actually I'm pretty much with you on this Dettmers issue. Its too slick. I mentioned in my own replies to him that I felt he was trying to disarm any moves against the lard by painting a picture of impeccable legal structuring. Well I may as well rip up the dossier I was preparing for the IRS then, and shred all my research notes for the magazine articles etc. Damn, all that work for nothing......

But yes, poke around with that info and see what you come up with. Why would a successful PWK need to buy into Michaels New Age motivational schtick? Isn't it enough to have THAT Grace, THAT participation?

Now dry your eyes and get back to work:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:09:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Oh great.... I'm with Bjorn then (nt)
Message:
bbbbbb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:03:06 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Are you with Brian too?
Message:
Where he threatens to 'out' Roger to Michael, if he wishes it?

But 'Roger E. Drek' also has a real name. If he continues to use this forum (which is paid for by volunteers who want to support the spreading of truth online) to ANONYMOUSLY carry on a personal campaign against you, or to publicise here any off-site material 'exposing you', feel free to ask me for it.

So far as I see it, Roger is expressing genuine doubts as to Michael's purpose in joining the discussions here, which may or may not prove to be correct. Is this now a new forum rule? I didn't see it listed under the FA's recent proposals.

Considering the amount of anonymous personal campaigning I suffered in the past, may I request that you email me Roger's, runamok's, catweasle's, powerman's, Sir Dave's and barney's real names?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:25:54 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: Proof:Jim and Bjorn twins separated at birth
Message:
Jim, I've seen enough of you to know that you and Bjorn are twins that were separated at birth. I'll have more on that later.(as my good friend used to say.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:18:30 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
Roger,

You are free to believe and post whatever you want to. But your facts are wrong.

You claim that you saw me sitting in the PAM section in at least one program between 1994 and 1997. That is simply not true. Since leaving Maharaji, I have only gone to one program and that was in April or March of 1995 in Brighton, UK. That has been the only time I have seen Maharaji since I left. At that public event, I didn’t sit in the PAM section. I sat very anonymously at the back of the hall. In fact, I had no personal interest in going to the program. But Madeline Ross, who is now my partner in life as well as in business, and who is not and has never been a premie, was curious about Maharaji since I had obviously told her about my past involvement with him. So we both sat at the back of the hall. Not surprisingly, she fell asleep half way through the program and, when it was over, her only comment was that she didn’t get the point, if there was any. I was simply bored.

So technically, yes, I have seen Maharaji in the last five years. But, without the need to rectify your false allegation, I felt no qualms about stating that I had not seen nor spoken with Maharaji since I left. In a way it’s interesting. I’m talking about a person to whom I rendered sincere service and knew on a close personal basis for almost 15 years. Yet, since we parted company, he has not once called or sent me a note to see how I am doing. Oh, I understand that the protocol is for the devotee to first extend to his lord and then, and only then, will the lord condescend to reach out to the devotee. Well fuck that. That game has long been over for me, and I have had and continue to have no interest in returning. Period.

You question my client portfolio and my former web designer Jossi Fresco. Yes, Jossi has been a friend for a long time. When he designed my website in early 1998, however, he was an independent computer consultant and web designer. He began his current work for Maharaji sometime after that. Although I still consider Jossi a friend, I stopped using him as my webmaster when he took up his current position with Maharaji. As for my client portfolio, yes, I did have a number of premie clients at the beginning. Gradually, as my business has grown, that is no longer the case.

Purus, Inc. has never had any connection with Maharaji. I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. Nor, by the way, has Dettmers Industries, Inc. ever had any connection with Maharaji nor was it created by the slave labor of premies. As I have already explained, when DECA was sold, it ultimately evolved into Aircraft Modular Products (AMP). My brother, who was part of the DECA team, ended up working for AMP. He quit AMP in 1984 and started designing and building hi-lo tables for corporate aircraft under the name “Dettmers Precision Crafting” with the help of his wife and another part-time person. When we teamed-up in 1987, we re-named this company Dettmers Industries, Inc. Not only were we not DECA re-named, but we were competitors with AMP.

Roger, think of me what you will but please try to get your facts right.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:56:11 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: FUCK YOU! (nt)
Message:
adsf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:02:43 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: The above FUCK YOU! was not for Dettmers. (nt)
Message:
asdrf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:56:59 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: FUCK YOU! - to the Poster below (nt)
Message:
adsf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:08:38 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: No, not to Selene, but You Know Who You are. (nt)
Message:
blah
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:10:53 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: yikes an unended loop!!
Message:
It's easy to close it goes like this:

}

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:04:29 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: SOMA huh?
Message:
Sorry couldn't resist. BTW soma doesn't cause hangovers. In me anyway.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:07:46 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Selene
Subject: You got some? I need some. Whatever it is.
Message:
Good to see ya hanging around the old Forum again, Selene.

Hope you are ok. My condolences to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:09:43 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: yeah they push it in Nogales
Message:
Course I use it for medicinal purposes. It's a muscle relaxant and they can't figure out if I have carpal tunnel or what.

Thank you Roger.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:28:21 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: You're talking to the deaf, Michael
Message:
I read your long post below, and was interested in your story. All of us who were involved with Maharaji can personally relate to parts of it.

But you don't OWE anyone here an accounting of your life. Those who feel that you do are as mistaken on this point as they have repeatedly been on other points of blame in the past. if you're attempting to convince them of your 'innocence' of whatever criminal look they've chosen to paint you with - it just won't happen.

Most, if not all, of the people who use the forum have found and chosen to use it on their own, and for their own reasons. None of them have been called on the carpet and been subjected to the accountability that you have.

But among to many here, unless you are willing to take some blood-oath of loyalty to what is perceived by an over-vocal minority here to be 'the rational position' indicating ex-premie purity, you'll still find yourself wearing a big red 'P' in their eyes.

Conversations that you have with these people will continue to be posted here by them. You have no 'right' to privacy or confidentiality with them. Whatever confidences they might choose to keep in life, they are incapable of respecting your right and choice to keep confidences.

This forum was never set up to target individual premies. Most people use it as a means of communicating their own feelings with the small group of people wandering the globe who have gone through the same 'experience' as they have. For those undergoing the process of removing themselves from all the garbage beliefs that got them into and keep them involved in the cult, it's very beneficial to be able to read and post anonymously here.

In the time we were involved together in the cult, we called each other brother and sister. But, let's face it - many of the people we shared 'that experience' with were, are, and will continue to be, assholes. Most were 'low-ranking' assholes who wanted to be 'high-ranking' assholes. This forum is probably the only place in their lives where they've achieved that illustrious goal.

Any former members of the cult who ranked higher than these newly-arrived giants are also assholes in their sight.

The common desire here to hold Maharaji accountable for his actions, lies and theft is understsndable. But using this forum to supoena people who ARE NOT Maharaji to an online trial here is diverting this resource to serve petty personal agendas.

And refusing to respect the efforts of other ex-members of the cult (whatever their past access to 'The Lord') to post honestly here without threats of online reprisals if the content falls short of a guilty plea is reprehensible.

You can choose for yourself whether you want to involve yourself with Jim Heller. He posts under his own name and has chosen to be held accountable for his words and anctions online by doing so. I don't doubt that if you or any other ex-PAM's fart on the phone to him, we'll all 'get' to smell it.

But 'Roger E. Drek' also has a real name. If he continues to use this forum (which is paid for by volunteers who want to support the spreading of truth online) to ANONYMOUSLY carry on a personal campaign against you, or to publicise here any off-site material 'exposing you', feel free to ask me for it.

And congratulations on being able to extricate yourself from the trap we all walked onto.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:15:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: No, seriously, you asking to get blocked, Brian?
Message:
OK, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek this time. I couldn't read your post yesterday because it suffered from that glitch you must be well familiar with, where the post shows empty until it's been up for several hours.

Brian, I don't want to get into a mud-slinging contest with you but I do want to point out a few things:


  • You might not know this but Michael had actually invited me, through Susan, to call him and informally 'interview' him for the forum. As has always been the case with him, it's never been any secret that I would report back to the forum after talking with him. In fact, Susan had actually asked me to call Michael the week before when, apparently, he'd told her that he was free and would welcome an opportunity to, through me, clear some things up on the forum, if he could. I wouldn't hang your characterization of me as an 'asshole' on that peg. Trust me.

  • Your view that no one from the cult, even our cult leader's former long-term right-hand man owes any explanation for anything to the rest of us, even when he's cashed out of the cult with an undisclosed severance package and a confidentiality agreement, is one opinion. Yet there might be others. I think it's extremely unfortunate that you can't imagine someone holding an alternative viewpoint without, again, being an 'asshole'. Very unfortunate.

  • Your description of the discussion following Dettmers' post evokes images of the french revolution. A little dramatic, aren't we, Brian? I'd say so. I'd also say you're being a little unfair to boot. There IS a legitimate issue worth exploring about the history of this cult and our money. Michael Dettmers is uniquely positioned to shed some light on that issue yet some, for reasons previously stated, question whether his account is trustworthy. That's all fair and natural stuff, Brian. Michael himself has acknowledged as much. For you, then, to characterize anyone who questions him any which way as a close-minded 'asshole', again, is extremely unfair. Dettmers has important information to share here and his credibility, quite naturally, is / was something of a preliminary issue to resolve. Too bad you don't understand that.

  • Your attempted character-assassination of me, and whoever else you're describing as desparate wannabes, is also unfair. What's your motivation for being here, Brian, except to show off to Katie that you can walk her walk and talk her talk? Your sanctimonious is really tiring, bud.

You're the webmaster for EPO but you treat this forum with disdain. Why? My guess is because you've never been able to recover from the embarrassment you experienced so long ago when you boxed yourself into a corner with your childish outburst about how this was YOUR web site, you the man and all that. Remember?

I think it's time that you finally moved on, Brian. Find someone else ready, willing and able to take over the web site and just do it. You got what you wanted out of this enterprise -- someone to love -- and good for you. But this self-righteousness of yours, even in small doses, is just too much. Surely there's someone, maybe JM?, who'd easily take over the site's administration and you can ride off into the sunset and leave us assholes alone.

That sure beats threatening, as you have, to out Drek for asking confrontational questions of Dettmers. You don't want to be simply blocked on 'your own' web site, do you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:15:18 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: You're talking to the deaf, Michael
Message:
Brian,

But, let's face it - many of the people we shared 'that experience' with were, are, and will continue to be, assholes. Most were 'low-ranking' assholes who wanted to be 'high-ranking' assholes. This forum is probably the only place in their lives where they've achieved that illustrious goal.

So that was your experience? Geez you must have been hanging with the wrong crowd. Personally, the people were the best part for me. I never liked meditating or going to see goober. And the communal living was kinda fun. Of course the ashrams were co-ed when I was in one. Maybe you were a lowly asshole with high aspirations but fortunately, I met few people like you.

Oh and yeah, go ahead and rat out Roger. I'm sure that would give you a lot of personal satisfaction, big guy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 22:46:16 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You're talking to the deaf, Michael
Message:
Dear Gerry -
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an asshole, although I do think you ACT like one on the forum at times. And frankly, I just don't get why. You are a nice person in real life. Are you TOO nice in real life or something?

I liked most of the people that I met in DLM too, and I think I could say the same for Brian , based on what he's told me. However, Brian, having been involved pre-Montrose when everything was shaking out into the formal ashram structure, did in fact run into some real weirdos - I think he's mentioned a couple of mahatmas in particular.

However, the point I wanted to make in responding to this post was that I just do not get why you are so angry at, and suspicious of, Michael Dettmers. I think you have said that you were involved with the cult for a bit more than a year in 1972-73. Did the guy ever do anything to you personally? Were you around when he was 'in power', so to speak? I honestly do not understand how your opinions about him can be so vehement if all you know about him is what you've read on this forum (or on Roger's page).

You have said - and rightly - that Roger was involved with the cult far longer than many people here, and probably suffered more damage than many other people here too. Thus, yes, he may have some personal opinions about Michael Dettmers. However, when Roger, in a thread below, expressed the feelings that he might want to take the infamous Michael Dettmers web page down, you kept egging him on. Do you have any basis for this except 'intutition'?

I think the answers Michael gave to Roger's accusations were quite valid. And, yes, I think Roger should take the page down - or else he should come out under his REAL NAME and justify all the insinuations he's made with proof. Furthermore, I do NOT see the point of going to the extent of making a web page solely for the purpose of criticizing another ex-premie (or even a premie - except maybe the people who wrote the EV FAQ's - yuck!) And I know Roger is your friend, and that he respects your opinion, so I think you might be a little slower to be judge, jury, and executioner in this case.

And by the way, please don't diss this based on my writing style - I am a technical writer and it is very hard for me not to write pedantically (sort of like Al Gore talks). I would ask you to consider that perhaps style is part of your problem with Michael's posts as well?

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 23:40:21 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: A few points, Katie
Message:
Are you TOO nice in real life or something?

I can't figure out what this means. Perhaps it means nothing.

I'm not personally angry at dettmers. But I hate people who take advantage of other people like he apparently did and goober does.

However, when Roger, in a thread below, expressed the feelings that he might want to take the infamous Michael Dettmers web page down, you kept egging him on. Do you have any basis for this except 'intutition'?

All I said is 'don't do anything rash and let's what to see how this shakes out' before taking down the page. That hardly constitutes ' kept egging him on.' One comment, Katie. You seem prone to exxageration. And yes, I caught the personal dig about 'intuition.' Thanks.

I'm hardly 'judge, jury, and executioner' here. I'm just a guy stating his opinion based on the information presented. I'm pretty sure dettmers could care less. After all he was at least a twelve year deliberate accomplice to Rawat.

PS Your writing style is just fine. Quite good actually. It's your opinions with which I disagree. Dettmers' is so good it easy to see how he was (and is as a phony baloney management consultant with a fake university degree) so successful in deceiving people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 00:25:20 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: A few points (mostly ot)
Message:
Hi Gerry -
Thanks for not flaming me. The 'Too Nice' meant that you might be too nice to people in real life and thus get more angry on the forum. Also, I might disagree with you about exaggeration (I am prone to SUPERLATIVES, as many people have pointed out), but I have to go. The Hokies (#2 in the nation, can you believe it?) are playing West Virginia and as you know we all have our own priorities :).

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:36:04 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: I have to say it, I agree with most of this
Message:
Brian, what you are saying, as unpopular as I predict it will be, is true.

I think some people haven't emerged far enough from the cult yet that they can't see that once we are out, the playing field is leveled and we are all just humans again not being measured against some yardstick of how close we got to a short pudgy indian guy.

That is not to say that I do not think there may be a higher moral obligation for a PAM to speak out than a peon about the cult. But as you, I think that coercion has no place in urging them to do so.

I too am really sickened by some of the tactics and treatment Michael has recieved here. I actually feel guilty that it took getting to know him to make me see that silence about the reprehensible actions of our fellow ex's is just as wrong as silense about the reprehensible actions of the cult. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the cult. They at least 'think' they are doing the 'God who never called himself a God' 's work, what excuse do we have.

I know you and Jim have a ong and ugly past. But you are wrong on one point, he can keep a confidence. He has with me, even when he has not liked it. I do not think as you imply that Michael is mistaken in trusting him.

I am sure the most controversial part of your post will be the offer to 'out' Roger to Michael. I too have struggled with that one. I met him and know his name. Michael knows I have, and has never asked me to tell him Roger's true identity. I wrote Drek a long time ago and asked him, not because Michael asked me to, to removed the expose. I had begun to see that what he was doing was really awful. But it didn't work. I think your offer to tell Michael the identity of the man who has done so much to harm his reputation is not immoral. I have struggled with the ethics of it and was just glad Michael never pressed the issue. I feel that Roger trusted me not to out him and as much as I can I want to honor that. I have honored that. But I think what he has done to Michael is much worse than what I would be doing if I told Michael who he is.

Hard stuff. But I am glad you made this post. What you are seeing is real and people need to see that we have no exemption here from common decency because we are on the side of 'truth'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:05:21 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Susan
Subject: I have to say it, I agree with most of this
Message:
Hard stuff. But I am glad you made this post. What you are seeing is real and people need to see that we have no exemption here from common decency because we are on the side of 'truth'.

Thanks, Susan. Just a few more words of clarification:

I don't post here much anymore, but I'm not unaware of the dominating role that ridicule plays on this forum in policing what beliefs can safely be expressed here by the people the forum was meant to support. It's been an issue in the past, and will probably be an issue in the future.

I would love to be able to read the personal accounts of other people who had first-hand access to Rawat's craziness. But the treatment accorded to Michael Dettmers is not likely to encourage anyone else to stick their ex-PAM heads up. I find that to be intolerable, and so I choose to be at least one person to say that the ridicule here comes from the small-minded and big-mouthed idiots who seem incapable of tolerating dissenting viewpoints or find more tangible targets for their own hostility, and is not in any way the 'official' stance of the people who administer this website. So I said it. It's what I believe.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about riding the subway in New York (aside from the mechanics of the means of transportation). It's only the passive response of bystanders to attacks from little men that causes the subways to be avoided. If muggers were beaten bloody and tossed naked onto the next platform, the subways would be safe for everyone to ride.

And there is nothing unsafe about opening up here on this forum except the silence (and all too often the cheering) that follows the attacks on people stupid enough to trust their feeling to this group of total strangers. Especially when the forum is dominated by a loud, pompous group of 'Belief Police' demanding that new posters subject themselves to a cavity search for hidden 'preminess'.

My personal feeling is that those who would block entry to this forum by handing out beatings to those they personally disapprove of, should have the balls to do so under their own names if they are using this resource and counting on me to keep their confidences. This isn't a clubhouse for anonymous hooligans, or a private subway car for only those tough enough to fight their way onboard.

If I'm one of the very few who dare to strike back when I see this happening, that is a choice that the rest of of the forum 'participants' have chosen to make by their silence and/or active support of the attacks.

As for 'outting' anyone, I have no interest in 'outing' anyone here in this forum. I referred to sharing information with another person in private email correspondence. I'm sure that many are appalled that I would treat Roger as he has treated others. They do not do my thinking for me. I am not bound by their standards of defending those who attack, and attacking only those who foolish enough to trust.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 22:26:51 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: more
Message:
I do not want to get in the middle of the anger and hostility between you and Jim or take sides in the long term ugliness between the two of you.

But I realize that by agreeing with your post it may look like I was agreeing with things I actually do not agree with so I thought I would clarify a couple points:

Though of course Michael and any former PAM have a right not to speak out here, in a way I do feel they 'owe' it to us to tell their stories. I do not however think coercion is a proper way to make them pay the debt. I am not one to come on too strong to get people to do what I think is right, but I did tell Michael what I thought he ought to do, just as I have told Drek. Both of whom I would still have liked if they did not do what I wanted, but would have respected less.

What I am concerned about is that you likely meant Jim when you talked about low ranking assholes being high ranking assholes here. I think this because of the ongoing hostility between you two that I am now caught in the crossfire of. I certainly wasn't thinking of Jim when I agreed with this comment. I suppose I wasn't thinking of anyone especially, but the phenomenon that there are assholes on the forum just as there were in the cult, and some of the assholes get undue air time here. But I did not mean to concur that Jim specifically is an asshole, and I want that to be clear. I actually don't think Roger is an asshole either, I think he is a person who was made a sucker by the cult once, and is hurting, confused, and doesn't want to be made a fool of again, and is trying to figure it all out.

I want to make it clear too, that Jim has posted Michael's conversations because Michael wanted him to. What Jim said about Michael asking to have Jim call and interview him is true. He said that he felt Jim had always quoted him accurately. I think I appeared to be agreeing that Jim had somehow betrayed Michael's trust, when I know that he absolutley has not done that.

I really can't say that I think your offer to tell Michael Roger's true identity is any worse than what Roger did to Michael. But, I hate the idea of Roger living in fear. He doesn't trust Michael yet. Maybe he won't ever. I made the leap of giving the cult my first and last name and publically criticisng them re: Jagdeo. It was VERY scary for me, as I have never quite come to the point that I don't sometimes worry about reprisal. If Roger is going to live with that sort of fear because of the idea Michael knows who he is, it is a very serious thing to contemplate. As is, I feel, what Michael has had to deal with because of the expose. The expose may have in the end contributed to some personal growth for Michael, but I do not think that legitimizes this sort of tactic in the least.

I hope that Roger gets to the point he himself calls Michael up and they talk and trust grows between them and whatever amends or apologies that are owed happen. I do hope that Roger does not have to live in fear, and fear can be very real even if it is groundless, so I hope this can be resolved another way.

I very much do agree with the what this forum is all about is us all feeling free to talk honestly about the bizarre history we all share. We have a lot to learn from eachother. The climate here yes, can be so harsh to those who disagree with the 'party line' sometimes that people who could benefit are driven away. I think the coercion and threats that Michael recieved were very ugly, and I very much agree that we all need to take a stand against such tactics.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:50:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Thanks, Susan, ...kind of
Message:
The 'party line' you speak of... what is it other than the common sense takes-about-half-asecond-to-figure-this-one-out fix that any reasonable person in the world would have about Maharaji, that he's an avaricious and stupendously ridiculous cult leader?

If that's the 'party line' sign me up. Twice.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:25:36 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: I have to say it, I agree with most of this
Message:
Hi Susan -
I agree with much of your post too.

You wrote:
I think some people haven't emerged far enough from the cult yet that they can't see that once we are out, the playing field is leveled and we are all just humans again not being measured against some yardstick of how close we got to a short pudgy indian guy.

That is not to say that I do not think there may be a higher moral obligation for a PAM to speak out than a peon about the cult. But as you, I think that coercion has no place in urging them to do so.

I too am really sickened by some of the tactics and treatment Michael has recieved here. I actually feel guilty that it took getting to know him to make me see that silence about the reprehensible actions of our fellow ex's is just as wrong as silense about the reprehensible actions of the cult. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the cult.

I agree with this. I like your idea of the 'level playing field' very much. I think that because Michael has an identifiable and situationally famous name, he has been unduly harassed because of what he 'knows' or should know.

Case in point: There is someone who I know pretty well who posts here who knows A LOT about some thing that have happened with and around Maharaji. He, for whatever reason, has chosen not to post this stuff on the forum. He also uses an assumed name here, so he is not identifiable. I think he's gotten something out of participating on the forum - he just chooses not to write very much about his own experiences in detail.

Some other cases: Brian has a friend who used to be a high-ranking member (I am not sure what you would call this) of the cult in the very early days (pre-Montrose). He's talked to this guy on the phone several times but this guy chooses NOT to post on the forum - and he knows a lot too. I also know that KK sent several e-mails to Brian telling about her experiences months before she ever posted them on the forum (I'm glad she finally did - and frankly, the treatment she received here from premies - false accusations, rumors, and lies - reminds me of the way some of the ex-premies have been treating Michael. I understand why she doesn't want to post anymore)

I wish Michael could be treated like one of the people I've mentioned. In all cases, they have been asked to post what they know on the forum, but two out of three have chosen not to, although one of those two does participate.

I found Michael's last series of posts to be very interesting and informative - there was a lot I did not know. I'd love to see him write a Journey's entry - I think one just containing the material he wrote in the posts would be fine. I also think Michael might be able to benefit from participating in the forum as 'just another ex-premie' IF HE IS ALLOWED TO. Maybe he doesn't want to dish dirt - maybe he wants to talk about his personal experiences. Is that so bad? We have all had the opportunity to do that without being pressured to say more if we didn't want to.

I am sure the most controversial part of your post will be the offer to 'out' Roger to Michael. I too have struggled with that one. I met him and know his name. Michael knows I have, and has never asked me to tell him Roger's true identity. I wrote Drek
a long time ago and asked him, not because Michael asked me to, to removed the expose. I had begun to see that what he was doing was really awful. But it didn't work. I think your offer to tell Michael the identity of the man who has done so much to harm his reputation is not immoral. I have struggled with the ethics of it and was just glad Michael never pressed the issue. I feel that Roger trusted me not to out him and as much as I can I want to honor that. I have honored that. But I think what he has done to Michael is much worse than what I would be doing if I told Michael who he is.

I agree that this is an extremely difficult question. I have never outed Roger even when people have begged me to do it - and even when it would might have even helped him (i.e. when a few people didn't believe he was a real person), and of course I would never out anyone publically on the forum. I'm sure people will accuse me of being 'sanctimonious' for this, but I because of how I would feel about myself if I didn't do what I thought was right.

But I also think that people have a right to face their accusers. There is a law here in Virginia that people cannot post negative ads about people who are running for public office without revealing their real names (I know this because it's recently been abused by some people taking ads at a local newspaper!) this situation seems similar to me. My hope is that Roger will be able to see how this would feel if the situation was reversed - in other words, how he would feel if someone put up a ____ _____ (Roger's real name) page. And if anyone decides to 'out' Roger in this situation, I hope they will give Roger a chance to 'out' himself first (privately, to Michael.)

Susan, you wrote:
What you are seeing is real and people need to see that we have no exemption here from common decency because we are on the side of 'truth'.

I also don't feel that any of us has an exemption from 'ends justify the means'-type thinking. Obviously, this kind of thinking is rampant in EV - just read the FAQ's for a start. It was prevalent in DLM as well - as most of us know - with the sacrifice of individual premies' well-being or reputation usually being the 'means' that justified some sort of 'end'.

Thanks, Susan, for your well-stated and well-thought-out reply. You are truly a person of integrity and I have learned a lot from you since we've been in touch.

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:54:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Maybe you two could have lunch or something?
Message:
At the expense of ruining your little tea party (notice no sexist 'coffee klatch' joke), maybe you'd like to consider exactly what process it was that BROUGHT Michael to this point where he felt it worthwhile to speak out more.

Yes, ladies, it wasn't always pretty.

Sorry to interrupt, please go back to feeling good about yourselves. You are BOTH truly 'persons of integrity'. I think we've all learned a lot from you both here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:12:26 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ad feminem
Message:
Jim - you've been remarkably polite, although not always consistently, to Michael throughout this whole thing (quite surprising to me). I think you and Joe and some other people have been asking legitimate questions, and not condemning the guy out of hand. Also, I have seen by reading your posts that you do not agree (for the most part) with the people who ARE doing this: Roger, Gerry, Yves, et al. I have no problem with legitimate questions - for example see Michael and J-M's exchange below, or Michael's exchanges with Joe. I don't think Susan does either.

BTW, your post was still sexist, or as Monmot neatly put it, an ad feminem attack. And your sarcasm gets REALLY old.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:22:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Well said, Brian!
Message:
Brian,

Really, really beautifully put, brother.

You're very special to a lot of us.

Don't change a thing.

Hey, you up for a little bowling, Saturday? You know, the whole gangs going. Won't be the same without you, Bri'. Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:46:01 (GMT)
From: X
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
>she didn’t get the point, if there was any. I was simply bored.

The 'debate' between you and Roger is a great example of the kinds of interactions and understandings that can result from a preoccupation with mental exercise. Seems to me this was always a pretty common topic in many of the lectures M gave.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:34:45 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
Roger,

Those factual points are all fair comments, from my perspective. Fortunately, Michael has the right to answer or explain all of them.

But I don't reach the same conclusion.

I do not believe Michael is a premie, and I do not believe he is a liar.

And as for not telling us everything, well, clearly he isn't. I posted above asking what the confidentiality agreement prevents him from saying and what it doesn't.

But no, he can't be a premie, because he is saying Maharaji was behind the whole devotion and surrender/perfect master period, that he is into expensive toys that don't have anything to do with his professed mission, and that Elan Vital is shameful, an organization that wouldn't take a piss without Maharaji's express approval, especially when talking about him on the Internet.

No, you couldn't be a premie and do those things.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:40:17 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
If he's not a premie what is he doing at 'programs' in the front rows, no less?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:08:37 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Paranoia about premie plants
Message:
I remember very clearly a few months ago being accused of being a 'premie ringer' by gerry and GeRry. Do you really not believe Michael ? I may be a gullible fool ( certainly have been in the past ) but I get a picture of a sincere if moderate expremie from Michaels communications.

Hal

ps Some exes even go to programs just out of curiosity .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:59:32 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: Hal
Subject: Paranoia about premie plants
Message:
Paranoid? I guess issuing smart cards and having armed guards at programs or events is normal behavior. Who is calling who paranoid?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:54:20 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: DeProGram Anand Ji
Subject: Paranoia about premie plants
Message:
You seem to miss my point here. I'm not talking about rawat's paranoia , but exes paranoia about other exes being part of a conspiracy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:18:20 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: talking about premie plants - you wouldn't believe
Message:
who reckoned I might be one, conspiring with Yves.

So I won't tell you.
:-))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:54:38 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Exclusive - that premie plant revealed!!!
Message:
My spies have been working undercover and have now discovered who the premie plant is here on the forum. You are going to be shocked when you find out who it is.

Click here to see the true identity of the premie plant!

I think you'll agree that this is most damning evidence which will put an end to all the false speculation that's been rife here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:21:53 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: that was A JOKE!
Message:
What I meant is that if I were a premie plant, and wanted to get an ex PAM to shut up, a very clever way to shut up the ex pam might be to attack him so much on the forum that he would say he didn't need this abuse.

I got accused of being a plant too by Mary M and Joey I heard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:11:09 (GMT)
From: Mary M
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: that was A JOKE!
Message:
Hi Susan,

No, no, no, no, no.... you've heard it all wrong.

I am the friggin Amazon Rain Forest when it comes to plants!

Oh, I am also the Queen of Lunacy, and the Queen of Mean even though Selene wants the title.

Finally, there's weird and then there's Mary M! (Sorry Selene)

BTW do you know if Michael Dettmers has ever seen Nellie's watch?

Back to square one!

Love and best wishes,

Mary M aka Psychological Success Story

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:18:59 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mary M
Subject: well someone told me
Message:
I was lousy at mean.
So I abdicate. Anyway I live in the desert so I can't compete with the rain forest :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:37:19 (GMT)
From: Mary M
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: How about a rock?
Message:
I think that someone was right. You could be a premie 'rock'... don't they have rocks in the desert:-)

BTW: My heartfelt condolences to you and yours.

Mary M

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:08:24 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mary M
Subject: A rock?
Message:
Or thick as a brick? I think I went manic yesterday!!
I can't remember EVER staying on forum that long, even at first.
I blame the moon!!

Thank you Mary for the condolences.
And thanks all of you.

ok - gotta get that red hair fixed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:35:38 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Who are those guys...
Message:
In the States who hide out in the hills with nuclear shelters , lots of heavy weapons and tinned food? Are they called survivalists or revivalists or something?

Well sometimes I get that feeling of paranoia from some of these good ol' boy exes around here. Fighting the evil empire and all that... everyones a suspect.. trust noone ! Walls have ears.....

they're coming to take me away ha ha hee hee ha ha ......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:41:41 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: We are militia...
Message:
and we are armed to the teeth.

don't fuck with us !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:06:10 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Wouldn't dream of it gerry...
Message:
FUCKING WITH YOU I mean !
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 22:57:55 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Can I join
Message:
I'm a great shot.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:16:19 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: You're in !!!
Message:
I'll bet you are....

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:52:10 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: gerry
Subject: Can I be DisInformation Minister? (nt)
Message:
I can't stand being right!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 23:54:23 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: You are already (nt)
Message:
heheheheh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:09:16 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: gerry
Subject: FUCK OFF! This is ALL your fault, Herr Ger!
Message:
I refuse to take any more responsibility - EVER!

What are we going to do Gerry?

Should we throw in the towel?

Michael's response here was pretty good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:15:34 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Never give up the good fight, Rog
Message:
I'm not done kicking dettmers around and neither are you, mister! Get digging.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:15:56 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: gerry
Subject: Gerry, I'm confused. I think I'm in my mind. (nt)
Message:
adsf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:24:19 (GMT)
From: OK Rog, forget dettmers
Email: gerry@bazooka.com
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: go get this newbie Eric
Message:
I tried and tried to reason with him but he's still a premie. There's still time to redeem yourself, but now I know why you don't want anybody to know your real name is Seth and that you live in Houston...oops
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:29:34 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: OK Rog, forget dettmers
Subject: Nah, maybe I should do the honorable thing here
Message:
I know I'm going insane if I'm asking you, Gerry, but I'm thinking I might remove the entire Dettmers expose. It could be that I was wrong.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:30:25 (GMT)
From: janet of venice
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: print both side by side-give the whole story
Message:
make sure people seeing it for the first time get both . your words and michael's answers. and let it play.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:22:31 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Don't do anything rash, Rog
Message:
let's see how this shakes out...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:35:53 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: gerry
Subject: But, Captain the engines can't take much more
Message:
Gerry,

I'm just not used to this kind of excitement. Everybody is coming out of the woodwork and jumping on my shit including myself. And I don't mean Selene, bless her sweet heart.

I walked in the door and the kids were cursing me a blue streak for what I've done to this innocent man. Hell, even the dog was growling at me.

The hate email is pouring in.

Goddamn, Gerry is this how it is for you all the time as Chief Muckraker?

I'm so happy because today
I've found my friends ...
They're in my head
I'm so ugly, but that's okay, 'cause so are you...
We've broken our mirrors
Sunday morning is everyday for all I care...
And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze...
'Cause I've found god - yeah, yeah, yeah

I'm not gonna crack. I'm not gonna crack.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:47:52 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: sweet - yup that's me
Message:
You don't want Lithium Rog. it's nasty stuff trust me.
oops I have been OT all day mostly.
the FA's are kind.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:12:17 (GMT)
From: Lithium
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: How naughty am I? nt
Message:
eh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:57:35 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
I don't know, we should ask Michael to explain.

But I think Roger's point is that he claimed to have no contact for years, but then went to a program and that is 'contact.' Is it?

Being at a program doesn't mean you are a premie. I went to two programs after I left and I was not a premie, in fact the second time I walked out in the middle of Maharaji speaking.

Maybe he was a premie in 1994 or whenever that was, or maybe he wasn't sure, but he clearly isn't now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:03:30 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
Joe,

Given Michael's statements of last April and the latest one, I have to say it certainly is NOT clear that he's an ex-premie. That's way this debate is happening.

Look, personally I hope he is sincere, and truly out of the cult. It just doesn't look that way, though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:07:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Listen to yourself, Gerry
Message:
I have to say it certainly is NOT clear that he's an ex-premie.

is not the same thing as saying, as you did below, that:

Dettmers is STILL a premie

Sorry, don't mean to harp on this shit but I think itt's really important that we be fair about all this. You know, carefully weigh the evidence, blah, blah, blah....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:49:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: THINK, Gerry!
Message:
Here's a scenario:

Dettmers decides to go to a program out of the sheer, fucking hell of it. Yeah, no real reason. Hasn't thought much of Maharaji at all recently, doesn't consider himself a follower anymore and -- here's the key to ex-premiehood -- isn't worried too much about going to hell for abandoning Maharaji. Say all of that's true.

But then imagine that some old friend of Dettmers, someone who IS still into the cult, persuades him to go just, well, to go. You know, see people, check out the latest spin from Mt. Olympus, whatever.

Hell, I went to a Raja Ji program in the late eighties. I wasn't a premie then (in fact, that's the time I stood up and started arguing with the guy), but I went just for the hell of it. Actually, I wanted to see people.

So Dettmers goes and, well tell me, where do you think they'll put him? That's right. Right up there where he always was.

Does it mean anything necessarily? No, not necessarily. He could have spent the whole time thinking, even much more crassly than he's ever expressed himself here, 'God, I'm glad I'm not doing THIS anymore!'

Now I'm not saying that that's what happened, just that it's a possibility.

Gotta tell you, Gerry, you'd scare me on a jury.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:13:49 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's a stretch, Jim
Message:
You really think they'd put a monmot in the front row?

You've described two scenarios here: first he's decides on his own to go to a program. Or alternately, someone talks him into it.

How about a third or a fourth or a fifth? Maybe someone put a gun to his head.

So Dettmers goes and, well tell me, where do you think they'll put him? That's right. Right up there where he always was.

How did you come to this conclusion? Where's the evidence that this would happen? I seriously doubt it.

No, Occam's switchblade would suggest he went on his own volition to get a hit of ole goober juice.

He goes because goober is such a great teacher. He said as much himself, remember?

PS I've never been called for jury duty. Patty gets called evry couple of years, in NYC, PA, Olympia and now, this county. Divine plan or what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:27:39 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: I thought more of you Roger
Message:
this cult really did one bang up job on us all I guess.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:02:14 (GMT)
From: eDrek
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: flattery will get you no where
Message:
Ok, I'm a bad person and really fucked up.

I'm not taking any of this personally.

For me this is a discussion where people may or may not agree with me.

No biggie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:42:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Excellent post, Joe ... and Susan?
Message:
Susan,

You can see where I too criticize Roger for jumping to conclusions.

But, let me ask you this, do you have any difficulty in Michael's post? How about the ending, for example?

Let's all try to be fair about this. You know how much I hate all this verbal abuse!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:56:36 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Excellent post, Joe ... and Susan?
Message:
He sent me the post before he posted it to see what I thought actually. I said I thought it was great.

But I do think that the last part is not something that speaks for my feelings about responsibility. Yes, I make choices, but I don't think I am responsible for every consequence of every choice I make. But in the context that he wrote it, specifically that Drek has made an expose about him, well, he has in my mind some real responsibility in that. In that he got sucked into a cult, he climbed the heirarchy, he benefitted financially, he chose to sign the agreement rather than saying screw you I don't want your money ( I am not sure however, in the mind frame I was in when I left, I would have done any better ), he put the 'swiss foundation' in his net resume. So in context, I suppose, I think he is right, that he has responsibility for the consequences of his choices. But I do not think he owns all of it, Rawat owns a lot of it, and in the case of the 'expose' Roger certainly has responsibility for what he has done on the net.

I agree with what Joe said too, I do not think Michael is wording things quite the way he did when you called him up and got all this started months ago. I think he has done a lot of thinking about the cult and what his ethical responsibility is in regard to it.

One thing though, this is doing nothing in terms of curing my forum addiction.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:03:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Oh God, don't even MENTION that!
Message:
One thing though, this is doing nothing in terms of curing my forum addiction.

I just want Maharaji to give back all the moeny and everything fast so I can start exercising again!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 14:31:28 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Back to Nature Rowing Society
Message:
Jim:

If you get a Concept II rowing machine you can hook the damn thing up directly to the internet and torture yourself while reading posts. We could set up a little page on the site where we could all race. BTW, rowing in the nude is the way to go. No laundry to clean up.

Scott 'Back to Nature Rowing Society' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 15:20:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: OK, I bite. How much? (nt)
Message:
ggggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:41:10 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: So now you think less of him for telling the truth
Message:
this cult really did one bang up job on us all I guess.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:04:06 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: yes, I think less of him
Message:
I have met Drek and I have a very high regard for him. Especially because when I had a friend who was going through a terrible time ( she is and was confused about being a premie ) he showed incredible sensitivity toward her in a very un 'ex' like way, it was more of, caring about her despite whatever she might feel about the guru. It was very honorable, and I felt too he helped me to see what was important in the situation. He has a lot of good in him.

I think that same sensitivity and ability to put yourself in another's shoes is what he needs here.


Just my opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:07:24 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Susan
Subject: No, I am most certainly a BAD PERSON and
Message:
nobody should ever doubt that. If I was once nice I must tell you that it was entirely by accident and it will never happen again. And that's a promise.

I'm entitled to make as many mistakes as I damn will please and then I'm gonna make some more.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 00:11:55 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: That's right Drek, bad, bad ,bad and worse...
Message:
You're not even repentant !!!

See how you smeared that nice honest management consultant?You've indeed led us all down the primrose path to HELL !!!

wonder how much he got to shut up...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:06:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: It's all fair but the last line
Message:
Roger,

As you can see in my post below ('Michael, would you please answer something?'), I'm trying to close up a bit of a gap here. Dettmers says some scathing things about EV but leaves the door open, arguably, for Maharaji to wear none, some or all of that criticism.

Yet I do see that he's got a whole lot of positive things -- yes, present tense, Gerry -- to say about someone who just wouldn't deserve that credit if he was the same person responsible for EV's 'shamelessness.'

So I'ver asked him to please clarify that.

Okay, so you've got your suspicion. Fair enough. (Although I think that the Fresco thing is a bit of a stretch. We all know people from where we know them. Don't know how far you can go with that.)

But to conclude, as you do, that:

Dettmers is a liar. End of story.

isn't fair. This is an inquiry. Don't be rash.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:20:55 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers is far too networked not to be a premie
Message:
There's just too many holes in Dettmers' stories for me to swallow.

No, I really think the Jossi Fresco thing is important. Fresco does virtually all of the Maharaji and Company webpages.

And, you know what? I found Dettmers and Gylanix by looking at Fresco and I found Fresco deep in Premieland.

Personally, I do not believe that Fresco was the only person Dettmers could have used for the Gylanix webpages. There's a million zillion webmasters out there. If Dettmers really thought that Elan Vital and Maharaji were so bogus why is he sending them, the Faithful, his business? Sure, sure, sure, some of us can be against Maharaji and still be friends with premies. In fact, Jim, that's you isn't it? You'd have no qualms sending business to the very core of the Maharaji faithful, right? And, the Maharaji Faithful wouldn't have any problem in still being your friends even if you thought that Maharaji was fraudulent. No, certainly not. We are all adults and we can still be friends and business acquaintances. And we can even still be true to our own selves. Sure, I buy that.

I'm sure that many of my premies friends still love me even though I am Roger eDrek. Yeah?

Dettmers claimed earlier that he hadn't had contact for years. Why doesn't he ever quantify any of his statements? Because he wants to leave room for maneuvering.

I saw Dettmers at at least one program in the years of 1994-1997. He did not look like a duck out of water. He was front and center. He was in his realm. He was with his friends, peers, and his Master.

We are so easily swayed by what we want to hear. We all wanted the once mighty Dettmers to denounce Maharaji as a fraud and he kinda did, almost, came pretty close to it. I think that out there in Malibu they are all having a big laugh today about this because they just hit one out of the park. I'm going with my feelings, my instinct on this. You can all call me crazy and all the other good stuff, but my bullshit alarm is ringing. Too much of Dettmers just does not ring true for me. His saying what he said about Elan Vital and Maharaji is not so blasphemous and he and Maharaji know that. In fact, I would say that much of the middle of the road premies feel the same way. They may or may not say that, but they know that. For me as a premie until 1997, Elan Vital and DLM were always fair game for criticism. I always hated that organization. It's no big deal to criticize the organization. And Maharaji, himself, is constantly taking shots at the organization and the people in it. It's an on-going joke.

Dettmers is a premie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 20:46:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Yeah, tell us about your 'bullshit alarm' and Rob
Message:
Roger,

Are you completely sure you saw him in '97? He says he only went to an English program in '95. Are you SURE sure or what? You know what they say in the law, identification evidence is fraught with frailty.

But this Jossie thing, I'm sorry, that's way off, in my opinion. I DO have premie friends and, even if I don't, I know a lot of ex-premies who do. You're pulling at straws with that one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:00:08 (GMT)
From: eDrek
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Fuck YOU! JIM! ;)
Message:
If I said I saw Dettmers in a specific year it was a typo or whatever. I believe that I said that I saw him in the 90's and I'm pegging that time frame to somewhere between 94 or 95 until 97, my exit.

BTW, I was correct about Rob as much as possible. I might have been wrong about something, but if we are going to judge people here on an all or nothing basis I don't think that anyone would do very well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:03:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: eDrek
Subject: Excuse me?? My track record's perfect!
Message:
And why is that, Mr. Drek? Because I know better than to judge anyone! Judgement's for the Lord. No, really, it's in the bible.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:52:51 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oy you two
Message:
Don't throw me in the same pissing pot as Dettmers, 'kay?

Read my post at the top of the thread. That's a much more tangible lead to follow than Fresco, IMHO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:58:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: No, you read MY post at the top of the thread!
Message:
Oy vay is right!

Next thing you know, Mary's going to start defending everyone and Joey, at long last, will disclose that he was a cult operative all along.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:41:38 (GMT)
From: Fallen Mary
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: :-) No way Jim
Message:
My days of defending are long over! That's your forte! Who needs defending anyway?

Besides I'm now a psycological success story ;-) Last summer was simply too much of a brouhaha even for this 100% Irish lady.

I think that girl from Ottowa that snarfles and sneazes is the true premie plant..... JUST KIDDING....

I still like this moniker you gave me.... Fallen Mary!

PS: Are you sure you're not a tad Irish and have what we call the 'fey'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:40:11 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, you read MY post at the top of the thread!
Message:
You didn't know that? Where have you been?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:04:02 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Dettmers - My retraction
Message:
Nice work Roger.

I've been trying to tell these guys the same thing: Dettmers is a premie. And a fucking liar.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index